|
Post by doctorisscientia on May 9, 2010 21:32:07 GMT -5
After reading the rest of the study, I now realize that the authors are discretely lending credence to the multi-regional hypothesis, which is not the general consensus of the scientific community. And further since, his Null hypothesis is between 1-4%, it fall below the 5% threshold which would render it false. This looks suspicious to me "...this results in a point estimate for the average divergence of Neandertal and modern human autosomal DNA sequences of 825,000 years. We caution that this is only a rough estimate because of the uncertainty about the time of divergence of humans and chimpanzees."First, because the date is longer than previous studies, that pointed to around 300,000~400,000 years ago, secondly because these dates are calculated using random mutations. I still believe modern humans "replaced" Neanderthals and did not breed with them, all of the current evidence point to a single common ancestor out of Africa. They didn't present any evidence at all to prove that MtDNA from Neanderthals is present in Modern Europeans. They have been up to this for a long time using haplogroup D, so we should not be surprised. The frequency of D is lower in Africans than non-Africans, and even LOWER in West African than East Africans, and I noticed that they didn't use East Africans in the sample. At one point they were suggesting that some Neanderthals had red hair and freckles, and that Europeans probably "inherited" this from them. But studies on the MC1R gene of Neanderthals was NOT present in modern humans. The controversy is likely to continue for decades to come. Actually no, the authors have clearly disproved the multiregional theory, they're results as stated by them support the Out of Africa theory, but disproves the more conservative model in that Neanderthal/modern human mating was impossible. "The evidence doesnt indicate that Africa is not the ultimate home to mankind, it's rather implicating that after the ancestors of non Africans left Africa they might've intermingled with Neanderthal. The scientists also clearly state that it appears randomly and there was no exchange of any advantageous evolutionary beneficial traits from Neanderthal pretty much nothing more than a genetic relic." "The genetic information turned up some intriguing findings, indicating, for instance, that at some point after early modern humans migrated out of Africa, they mingled and mated with Neanderthals, possibly in the Middle East or North Africa as much as 80,000 years ago. If that is the case, it occurred significantly earlier than scientists who support the interbreeding hypothesis would have expected...[..]..The Neanderthal DNA appears in the modern human genomes randomly, suggesting it offers no evolutionary benefit and is merely a genetic relic." This study is only based on genomes, it says nothing about uniparental markers, which donate ancestry. Therefore only 2% of the non-African genome sequence is of archaic origin, and the fact that it's random and scattered donates it useless, i.e. not negative nor positive, it did nothing to the evolutionary advancement of non-Africans.
|
|
|
Post by doctorisscientia on May 9, 2010 21:40:21 GMT -5
Two other things stand out. 1. they sampled only ONE from each group. Yet they say only 2 in 50 Europeans carry the Neanderthal gene set. Is it a coincidence that the ONE Frenchman has the Neanderthal gene set. LOL!!!! How can they make such a conclusion with out sampling more Europeans or other groups in the world. What about Native Americans? 2. Don't they do these studies in duplicate. At least with King Tut. Hawass/JAMA mentioned that TWO labs did testing. many but not all the results could of been replicated. Conclusion: as I said above, all hype to "prove" they are different ie better. This is for the NONE thinking populace ie trailer park high school drop out nordicist stormfront type. The study was "crafted' for these people to post on their website. They don't hear 2in50 Europeans carry the gene set. They hear ALL Europeans carry the gene set. Don't believe me?. . . . Check out the title of the repoert. . . . . . You are reading the article wrong, 2% of the genomes found among non-Africans are of archaic origin... not " out of the entire non-African population, 2% carry Neanderthal genomes". Also, I can't see how it would make them better, since any significant admixture with Neanderthals or any other arachic human would have had been negative in regard to the non-Africans, in due part because of the fact that anatomically modern human are last present step in the evolution of the genus homo, and any admixture with archaic humans would be genetically backward. Anyways the scientists have already made it clear that it did nothing in the evolution of non-Africans, neither positive nor negative, because of the scatterment and randomness of the genomes... simply a genetic relic. It does not equate to the "racial" differences seen among Humans. "Stocky, thick-browed and heavy-boned, the Neanderthals last shared a common ancestor with the African precursors to modern humans some 500,000 years ago. The Neanderthals populated the Near East and Europe until they vanished from the fossil record about 30,000 years ago. Thegene maps produced by the DNA analysis of the bones found Neanderthal genes scattered randomly among non-Africans, Paabo says, indicating they don't account for any racial differences between modern-day Africans and anyone else. " Neanderthal admixture, 2%, didn't positively or negatively affect modern non-Africans. In regard to civilization being influenced, as in to the fact that some retarded Eurocentrics have posted, one would have to explain why both indigenous Australians, who don't have the most material civilied culture, and the Chinese, who were some of the most earliest in regard to civilization, both share the same amount, 2%. The Scientist have already stated that the admixture had no effect on evolution. Basically non-Africans commited bestiality with primitive non-human Neanderthals and didn't get nothing in return. "The evidence doesnt indicate that Africa is not the ultimate home to mankind, it's rather implicating that after the ancestors of non Africans left Africa they might've intermingled with Neanderthal. The scientists also clearly state that it appears randomly and there was no exchange of any advantageous evolutionary beneficial traits from Neanderthal pretty much nothing more than a genetic relic." "The genetic information turned up some intriguing findings, indicating, for instance, that at some point after early modern humans migrated out of Africa, they mingled and mated with Neanderthals, possibly in the Middle East or North Africa as much as 80,000 years ago. If that is the case, it occurred significantly earlier than scientists who support the interbreeding hypothesis would have expected...[..]..The Neanderthal DNA appears in the modern human genomes randomly, suggesting it offers no evolutionary benefit and is merely a genetic relic." Also to defute any theories that some humans are more then 4% Neanderthal... "It's easy for me to accept the idea that there was a very small amount of gene flow from Neanderthals to modern humans. We're talking about one to four percent, four percent maximum. I don't see any problem with that." - Dr.Klien, one of the authors. Meaning the gene-flow may have happened only once to twice in early modern life outside of Africa, but due to the small population at that time it was able to continue to linger on. The genes don't increase beyond 4%, therefore the reason why all non-Africans share the same amount, 2%. If that wasn't true they would have had detected that mush earlier and again in the new study, most likely in the French sample.
|
|
|
Post by homeylu on May 10, 2010 1:11:59 GMT -5
After reading the rest of the study, I now realize that the authors are discretely lending credence to the multi-regional hypothesis, which is not the general consensus of the scientific community. And further since, his Null hypothesis is between 1-4%, it fall below the 5% threshold which would render it false. This looks suspicious to me "...this results in a point estimate for the average divergence of Neandertal and modern human autosomal DNA sequences of 825,000 years. We caution that this is only a rough estimate because of the uncertainty about the time of divergence of humans and chimpanzees."First, because the date is longer than previous studies, that pointed to around 300,000~400,000 years ago, secondly because these dates are calculated using random mutations. I still believe modern humans "replaced" Neanderthals and did not breed with them, all of the current evidence point to a single common ancestor out of Africa. They didn't present any evidence at all to prove that MtDNA from Neanderthals is present in Modern Europeans. They have been up to this for a long time using haplogroup D, so we should not be surprised. The frequency of D is lower in Africans than non-Africans, and even LOWER in West African than East Africans, and I noticed that they didn't use East Africans in the sample. At one point they were suggesting that some Neanderthals had red hair and freckles, and that Europeans probably "inherited" this from them. But studies on the MC1R gene of Neanderthals was NOT present in modern humans. The controversy is likely to continue for decades to come. Actually no, the authors have clearly disproved the multiregional theory, they're results as stated by them support the Out of Africa theory, but disproves the more conservative model in that Neanderthal/modern human mating was impossible. "The evidence doesnt indicate that Africa is not the ultimate home to mankind, it's rather implicating that after the ancestors of non Africans left Africa they might've intermingled with Neanderthal. The scientists also clearly state that it appears randomly and there was no exchange of any advantageous evolutionary beneficial traits from Neanderthal pretty much nothing more than a genetic relic." "The genetic information turned up some intriguing findings, indicating, for instance, that at some point after early modern humans migrated out of Africa, they mingled and mated with Neanderthals, possibly in the Middle East or North Africa as much as 80,000 years ago. If that is the case, it occurred significantly earlier than scientists who support the interbreeding hypothesis would have expected...[..]..The Neanderthal DNA appears in the modern human genomes randomly, suggesting it offers no evolutionary benefit and is merely a genetic relic." This study is only based on genomes, it says nothing about uniparental markers, which donate ancestry. Therefore only 2% of the non-African genome sequence is of archaic origin, and the fact that it's random and scattered donates it useless, i.e. not negative nor positive, it did nothing to the evolutionary advancement of non-Africans. This is why I stated that he is doing it "discretely", he is trying to maintain the OOA theory, and hint at a "small" possibility of interbreeding between Neanderthals and humans. The OOA theory does not support ANY interbreeding taking place at all. You must understand it in it's entirety. This is not the first time they have thrown in a hypothesis about a "hybrid" human being, which is nothing but code word for human and Neanderthal "admixture" or "interbreeding", all of this is based around the Muti-regional hypothesis. This is a study from 10 years ago (before DNA was popularized, just that now they are trying to use DNA to prove their theories) The discovery of an early Upper Paleolithic human burial at the Abrigo do Lagar Velho, Portugal, has provided evidence of early modern humans from southern Iberia. The remains, the largely complete skeleton of a ≈4-year-old child buried with pierced shell and red ochre, is dated to ca. 24,500 years B.P. The cranium, mandible, dentition, and postcrania present a mosaic of European early modern human and Neandertal features.
www.pnas.org/content/96/13/7604.abstract?ijkey=9335ab52731624a02b5f7f426c4a8c2147934993&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
Further if it was clearly that obvious, there should by Neanderthal DNA found in modern human, you can read the study several times, and you find it evident. There is a huge difference in finding "similarities" using a computer program model, and finding actual evidence using human genetic haplotypes, he clearly didn't provide this evidence.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on May 10, 2010 7:40:00 GMT -5
Doc.
Don’t be naïve.
But it seems like the jury is out on whether they meant 2-4% of Europeans have this Neanderthal DNA . . .or 2-4% of Europeans DNA is Neanderthal. I interpret as the former.
my bad. Just read through the entire study. . phew. But the below still stand.
Why? – They said “some “ of the OOA humans mated with Neanderthal. They did not say ALL.
Plus. What about back-migration. There was back migration so if ALL non-Africans picked up this gene set when they left Africa then during any back migration the Neanderthal DNA would of benn introduce into Africa. Especially East and North Africa. . . .even North WEST Africa/Iberia. France is technically still part of Iberia. Hence my question, did they sample north Africa. Someone also asked about East Africa. If they meant ALL non-Africa carried 2-4% Neanderthal then ALL non-Africans would have these genes including Native Americans.
This study is a ploy. Don’t believe me. Visit some of the SF and Dienkes type website. See how this is playing out. I don’t have too. I can read them like a book.
@ Dr Sc - This forum is for the thinking man/woman.. Let’s do that. Don’t get caught up in emotions. What you wish for you may not get it.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on May 10, 2010 7:49:16 GMT -5
The really good thing there are some white people who care about the truth and are sincerely interested in Science and discovery.
Otherwise the Eurocetrist can make up any bull and we will have no ether choice but to believe their "studies".
let's see how this plays out.
|
|
|
Post by homeylu on May 10, 2010 8:30:08 GMT -5
Xyman, this is an ongoing debate and there is a lot of controversy surrounding this subject. You have those trying to prove a hybrid race of Neanderthal (Non-Africans) and others proving one race who migrated out of Africa and did not interbreed with Neands...and it's been going on for sometime.
We have to carefully dissect all of the data presented to us and decide which is more reliable. This is how some of the racist non-sense such as Africans descending from "monkeys" get out. Some are more content to believe they actually descended from Neanderthals to try to convince themselves that they are a separate species. But all of the DNA evidence suggest that humans are of a completely separate species, that did not interbreed with sub-species.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on May 10, 2010 9:35:38 GMT -5
This is interesting. . . African Agriculturist diluted the amt of Neanderthal DNA in Europe?
Quote: It may seem surprising that we see no evidence for*** greater gene flow from Neandertals to present-day Europeans***** than to present-day people in eastern Asia given that the morphology of some hominin fossils in Europe has been interpreted as evidence for gene flow from Neandertals into early modern humans late in Neandertal history [e.g., (84)] (Fig. 6). It is possible that later migrations into Europe, for example in connection with ****the spread of agriculture, have obscured *****the traces of such gene flow.
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on May 10, 2010 11:59:40 GMT -5
There were also tests conducted that didn't use the entire genome but focused on specific sites within the genome. For those tests 4 Yorubas 2 Europeans 1 Japanese 1 Chinese were used to uncover ABI3730 sequence differences. This is reported in table 4 on page 719 in Science. Now I don't know if you're relying on some media account or the Science report but commenting on the press release is far from the heart of the matter. I must admit I have not read any of the press releases but have only examined the actual report and its supplemental materials. We know press releases are for the masses who unquestionably gobble up whatever they're fed. Two other things stand out. 1. they sampled only ONE from each group. Yet they say only 2 in 50 Europeans carry the Neanderthal gene set. Is it a coincidence that the ONE Frenchman has the Neanderthal gene set. LOL!!!! How can they make such a conclusion with out sampling more Europeans or other groups in the world. What about Native Americans? 2. Don't they do these studies in duplicate. At least with King Tut. Hawass/JAMA mentioned that TWO labs did testing. many but not all the results could of been replicated. Conclusion: as I said above, all hype to "prove" they are different ie better. This is for the NONE thinking populace ie trailer park high school drop out nordicist stormfront type. The study was "crafted' for these people to post on their website. They don't hear 2in50 Europeans carry the gene set. They hear ALL Europeans carry the gene set. Don't believe me?. . . . Check out the title of the repoert. . . . . .
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on May 10, 2010 12:05:18 GMT -5
Beastiality? Both Sapiens and Neanderthalensis are Homo, neither are 'animals.' Not only that, but at the time intercourse occured the Sapiens involved were still essentially African in that the few Neanderthal traits in non-Africans includes populations where there were no Neanderthal present (i.e., New Guinea). Basically non-Africans commited bestiality with primitive non-human Neanderthals and didn't get nothing in return.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on May 10, 2010 12:19:03 GMT -5
@ Altk.
Yes. my initial posts were based upon news report. Now that I have read the actual paper I agree with Doc. [glow=red,2,300]~4% of non African genome is Neanderthal (corrected)[/glow] But 4% is a huge amount according to some detractors of this study. Isn't the differrence between humans and apes about. . . .4%. (hmmm)
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on May 10, 2010 12:36:39 GMT -5
Now may be a good time to review some earlier studies like
David Caramelli et al Evidence for a genetic discontinuity between Neandertals and 24,000-year-old anatomically modern Europeans PNAS May 27, 2003 vol. 100 no. 11 pp. 6593–6597
and
Fred H. Smith et al The assimilation model, modern human origins in Europe, and the extinction of Neandertals Quaternary International 137 (2005) 7–19
to see what the proposed models of sapiens origin actually say.
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on May 10, 2010 12:46:14 GMT -5
No. The report says nothing about 4% of non-Africans carrying a (full) Neanderthal gene set. The report says that up to 4% of the non-African genome is derived from Neanderthals. In other words pick any random non-African and up to 4% of that person's genome -- their entire DNA composition -- will derive from the Neanderthal genome. @ Altk. Yes. my initial posts were based upon news report. Now that I have read the actual paper I agree with Doc. ~4% of non African carry the gene set. But 4% is a huge amount according to some detractors of this study. Isn't the differrence between humans and apes about. . . .4%. (hmmm)
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on May 10, 2010 13:01:23 GMT -5
I belive the cuurent studies agrees with Caramelli(see below). The MtDNA has NO correlation.
David Caramelli et al Evidence for a genetic discontinuity between Neandertals and 24,000-year-old anatomically modern Europeans
Abstract: During the late Pleistocene, early anatomically modern humans coexisted in Europe with the anatomically archaic Neandertals for some thousand years. Under the recent variants of the multiregional model of human evolution, modern and archaic forms were different but related populations within a single evolving species, and both have contributed to the gene pool of current humans. Conversely, the Out-of-Africa model considers the transition between Neandertals and anatomically modern humans as the result of a demographic replacement, and hence it predicts a genetic discontinuity between them. Following the most stringent current standards for validation of ancient DNA sequences, we typed the mtDNA hypervariable region I of two anatomically modern Homo sapiens sapiens individuals of the Cro-Magnon type dated at about 23 and 25 thousand years ago. Here we show that the mtDNAs of these individuals fall well within the range of variation of today's humans, but differ sharply from the available sequences of the chronologically closer Neandertals. This discontinuity is difficult to reconcile with the hypothesis that both Neandertals and early anatomically modern humans contributed to the current European gene pool
|
|
|
Post by doctorisscientia on May 10, 2010 20:54:49 GMT -5
Actually no, the authors have clearly disproved the multiregional theory, they're results as stated by them support the Out of Africa theory, but disproves the more conservative model in that Neanderthal/modern human mating was impossible. "The evidence doesnt indicate that Africa is not the ultimate home to mankind, it's rather implicating that after the ancestors of non Africans left Africa they might've intermingled with Neanderthal. The scientists also clearly state that it appears randomly and there was no exchange of any advantageous evolutionary beneficial traits from Neanderthal pretty much nothing more than a genetic relic." "The genetic information turned up some intriguing findings, indicating, for instance, that at some point after early modern humans migrated out of Africa, they mingled and mated with Neanderthals, possibly in the Middle East or North Africa as much as 80,000 years ago. If that is the case, it occurred significantly earlier than scientists who support the interbreeding hypothesis would have expected...[..]..The Neanderthal DNA appears in the modern human genomes randomly, suggesting it offers no evolutionary benefit and is merely a genetic relic." This study is only based on genomes, it says nothing about uniparental markers, which donate ancestry. Therefore only 2% of the non-African genome sequence is of archaic origin, and the fact that it's random and scattered donates it useless, i.e. not negative nor positive, it did nothing to the evolutionary advancement of non-Africans. This is why I stated that he is doing it "discretely", he is trying to maintain the OOA theory, and hint at a "small" possibility of interbreeding between Neanderthals and humans. The OOA theory does not support ANY interbreeding taking place at all. You must understand it in it's entirety. This is not the first time they have thrown in a hypothesis about a "hybrid" human being, which is nothing but code word for human and Neanderthal "admixture" or "interbreeding", all of this is based around the Muti-regional hypothesis. This is a study from 10 years ago (before DNA was popularized, just that now they are trying to use DNA to prove their theories) The discovery of an early Upper Paleolithic human burial at the Abrigo do Lagar Velho, Portugal, has provided evidence of early modern humans from southern Iberia. The remains, the largely complete skeleton of a ≈4-year-old child buried with pierced shell and red ochre, is dated to ca. 24,500 years B.P. The cranium, mandible, dentition, and postcrania present a mosaic of European early modern human and Neandertal features.
www.pnas.org/content/96/13/7604.abstract?ijkey=9335ab52731624a02b5f7f426c4a8c2147934993&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
Further if it was clearly that obvious, there should by Neanderthal DNA found in modern human, you can read the study several times, and you find it evident. There is a huge difference in finding "similarities" using a computer program model, and finding actual evidence using human genetic haplotypes, he clearly didn't provide this evidence.
Ok, thanks for clearing that up for me. I do have to agree it does seem somewhat off, and your right this isn't the first time they tried to promote such a theory in that sort of fashion. Also from what here there already seems to be critique in regard to the study, from what I understand from the limited quotes offered of present, archeology and genetics don't support the conclusion made by the scientists in regard to admixture. But I most definently disagree with the proposed theory made by Dienekes, in which the authors of the DRAFT study cast amjor doubt on, in which prier to the Out of Africa migration there would have been a ancient sub-structure in Africa and that the ancestors of all non-Africans would have been mor realted to Neanderthals then those who would become the ancestors of present day Africans.
|
|
|
Post by doctorisscientia on May 10, 2010 21:06:39 GMT -5
Doc. Don’t be naïve. But it seems like the jury is out on whether they meant 2-4% of Europeans have this Neanderthal DNA . . .or 2-4% of Europeans DNA is Neanderthal. I interpret as the former.my bad. Just read through the entire study. . phew. But the below still stand. Why? – They said “some “ of the OOA humans mated with Neanderthal. They did not say ALL. Plus. What about back-migration. There was back migration so if ALL non-Africans picked up this gene set when they left Africa then during any back migration the Neanderthal DNA would of benn introduce into Africa. Especially East and North Africa. . . .even North WEST Africa/Iberia. France is technically still part of Iberia. Hence my question, did they sample north Africa. Someone also asked about East Africa. If they meant ALL non-Africa carried 2-4% Neanderthal then ALL non-Africans would have these genes including Native Americans. This study is a ploy. Don’t believe me. Visit some of the SF and Dienkes type website. See how this is playing out. I don’t have too. I can read them like a book. @ Dr Sc - This forum is for the thinking man/woman.. Let’s do that. Don’t get caught up in emotions. What you wish for you may not get it. You basically answered your own question in your following post, from what I can understand any recent African admixture more likely then not dilute the Neanderthal genome contribution to nill or none in fact, as suggested by the Neolithic revolution impacting the European population. If we find any Neanderthal or archaic genomes in Africa it would be mush less then those found in Eurasia, in due fact since all Africans are predomiantely African. Also the back-migration would have been indirectly entering archaic genomes into Africa, and because of the randomness and scattered nature of these genomes they would most likely face a negative absorbtion since the detected Neanderthal genomes have been proposed to have/are useless witout any impact on evolution. I also agree, I don't see this study holding up for long, I have a sense that they will back track in the nest release, this is a draft afterall.
|
|