Neanderthal... New studies suggests they were more like us then we thought/think.

The only reason why I don't like approaching this subject (at least not on the internet where your view can be construed as something offensive) is because there is, as you say, differences between races.

Its not racist to say that generally speaking, Africans are better at athletics, or that Far-East Asians generally have higher intelligence than the rest of us. Those are stereotypes but stereotypes have to come from somewhere.

But as I say, I don't mean this in a 'my race is better than yours' kind of way, but look at the facial reconstruction.



Neanderthal

I would say that it is quite freakishly similar to a European. Whether this is purely coincidental, and its just that the geography happened to play evolution to react in the same way a second time, doesn't negate the fact that there is at least a 4% proven genetic influence in Europeans.

My suspicion is that there is a much larger Neanderthal blood in European and in Asians, and that through fear of creating a divisive society they play it down. But like I said, the DNA must have been extremely close to enable fertile young anyway.

reply to post by BinxieTrollestia


Yes I agree, please look at my previous post. I added some arguments for our different looks.

It's so we can discus the topic, because it proves it wrong imo.

I guess the Picture and how much different things can happen if you did not only get isolated for some time, but are also evolving in a different climate that created living conditions that make survive mutations who provide a better chance to survive.
They are the only humans that lived in the cold climate of an ice age, when other humans lived in warmer areas.
The changes must have made look hot and sexy too. As blonds are preferred in countries where that hardly see them and brown will often be a the preferred hair and eye color of people that don't see these looks that much.
They didn't make love by a cave and a bat like a caveman. That's not how you attract attention for erotic intentions.

That we see so little change from the other sub species in genetic variety, will be a logical result, for explaining the evidence that shows human migration routes and isolated years of life and the differences we show. I a result of the same genetic material changed separate causing changes that get reunited after some time and that's why it looks like we killed all the other species, We didn't we are all the same.

It makes me hope about the unity it could mean for all human problems caused by our differences.
It won't end prejudice, but understanding and educated people will be more willing to accept it.

Just adding a little info
Native north Americans have the highest percentage of Neanderthal DNA, folloyearsy east Asians,
and native south Americans have the highest percentage of denisovan DNA, followed by melanesians and south east Asians.
And the denisovan/Neanderthal/as yet unidentified ancestor/modern human split was more thans million
years ago and the native American separation from other human populations is on the order of 300k years ago.

Originally posted by punkinworks10
Just adding a little info
Native north Americans have the highest percentage of Neanderthal DNA, folloyearsy east Asians,
and native south Americans have the highest percentage of denisovan DNA, followed by melanesians and south east Asians.
And the denisovan/Neanderthal/as yet unidentified ancestor/modern human split was more thans million
years ago and the native American separation from other human populations is on the order of 300k years ago.

Very interesting but how would denisovan get in South America ? and have Native American more of what should be european looking people.

Also the time they split at some period they should still be in africa. And a million years ago could be why 800K Britain found the oldest stone tools..

So if you can please link a source about these different statements what I can not compare.

I think they were nordic human/ets that survived from a past cycle and looked very european. I believe we've been space age many times here on earth.

Yes I found some exactly like the info I found.

The Neandertal genome from 2010 showed that 1-4% of the DNA of living non-Africans had its origins through interbreeding with this archaic population.

In December 2010, the same geneticists published the genome of the Denisovans and argued that there was evidence for up to 6% of the DNA of living Papua New Guineans having originated from interbreeding.

Moreover, the earliest immigrants into East Asia/Oceania, the ancestors of indigenous people living today in the southern Philippines, eastern Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Australia, apparently also interbred with the Denisovans in Southeast Asia before settling distant parts of our region. That’s two interbreeding events!

This new work builds dramatically on the earlier Denisova work. It suggests modern humans colonised East Asia/Oceania in two waves: one from Africa, following a southern route into Southeast Asia, and a much later one, perhaps from the north.

All of these people carried Neandertal DNA.

You can read this half way a list with topics about our origins. Just scroll down to the following title.

Sex with our evolutionary cousins? What's not to love?

I won't forget her is a link to the site. Darren Curnoe. Uversity of New South Wales


What this guy is telling us is that was even, more complex and unimaginable for us to have a clue.

Only when they identified the genome of the different humans, the unexpected happened.
There has only been found a finger from a human species that already traveled the globe. How unbelievable is that and there is still another species, but it's unidentified yet.

You know what I like best. This shows the way evolution actually works... We all figured that slowly and one species would change over time... bla bla
Somehow there were at least 3 different homo and a few that entered the scene a bit later on... And bam they all create hybrids and we can see ourselves now what has changed how and when.

Freaking awesome !

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


Hello singer claus,
Here's some for you,

ANTHROPOGENESIS
A Uniquely Anthropological Approach to Human Origins and Dispersals
Home » 2013 » April » An Out-of-America Signal as Seen Through Human Regulatory Genes

AN OUT-OF-AMERICA SIGNAL AS SEEN THROUGH HUMAN REGULATORY GENES

April 17, 2013 · by German Dziebel · in Admixture, African substructure, Amerindians, Denisovans, Neandertals, OAS1 gene, out-of-America, Pygmies, Regulatory genes
PLoS Genet 9(4): e1003404. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1003404

Balancing Selection on a Regulatory Region Exhibiting Ancient Variation That Predates Human–Neandertal Divergence

Omer Gokcumen, Qihui Zhu, Lubbertus C. F. Mulder, Rebecca C. Iskow, Christian Austermann, Christopher D. Scharer, Towfique Raj, Jeremy M. Boss, Shamil Sunyaev, Alkes Price, Barbara Stranger,Viviana Simon, and Charles Lee.

Ancient population structure shaping contemporary genetic variation has been recently appreciated and has important implications regarding our understanding of the structure of modern human genomes. We identified a ~36-kb DNA segment in the human genome that displays an ancient substructure. The variation at this locus exists primarily as two highly divergent haplogroups. One of these haplogroups (the NE1 haplogroup) aligns with the Neandertal haplotype and contains a 4.6-kb deletion polymorphism in perfect linkage disequilibrium with 12 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) across diverse populations. The other haplogroup, which does not contain the 4.6-kb deletion, aligns with the chimpanzee haplotype and is likely ancestral. Africans have higher overall pairwise differences with the Neandertal haplotype than Eurasians do for this NE1 locus (p less than 10-15). Moreover, the nucleotide diversity at this locus is higher in Eurasians than in Africans. These results mimic signatures of recent Neandertal admixture contributing to this locus. However, an in-depth assessment of the variation in this region across multiple populations reveals that African NE1 haplotypes, albeit rare, harbor more sequence variation than NE1 haplotypes found in Europeans, indicating an ancient African origin of this haplogroup and refuting recent Neandertal admixture. Population genetic analyses of the SNPs within each of these haplogroups, along with genome-wide comparisons revealed significant FST (p = 0.00003) and positive Tajima’s D (p = 0.00285) statistics, pointing to non-neutral evolution of this locus. The NE1 locus harbors no protein-coding genes, but contains transcribed sequences as well as sequences with putative regulatory function based on bioinformatic predictions and in vitro experiments. We postulate that the variation observed at this locus predates Human–Neandertal divergence and is evolving under balancing selection, especially among European populations.

Link

As the abstract indicates, Gokcumen et al. (2013) think they have advanced evidence for ancient African substructure that predates Human-Neandertal-Denisovan divergence and persists in Eurasian populations. The actual data is indeed interesting and deserves a broad discussion but the presentation of the data by Gokcumen et al. (2013) is biased against one continental population, namely American Indians. At the beginning, they do map out the worldwide distribution of the haplotypes in question (see below) and I will return to this data later.



But then American Indians are not featured in any of the subsequent calculations and interpretations and the worldwide conclusions are made on the basis of just YRI (Yoruba), CEU (European), CHB (Chinese) and JPT (Japanese) samples. For instance,

“For the majority of genomic loci, π is higher among YRI than among CEU (European ancestry) and CHB/JPT (Chinese/Japanese ancestry) populations. However, there is a marked increase in π among Eurasians, but not in YRI, for the NE1 locus especially around the regions flanking CNVR8163.1.”

“To identify potential gene targets of the putative regulatory sites within the NE1 locus, we performed a genome-wide cis- and trans- expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL) analysis in the three populations (CEU, CHB/JPT, YRI)…”

“We included in our analyses each probe that mapped to an Ensembl gene, but not to more than one Ensembl gene (Ensembl 49 NCBI Build 36) for probes in autosomal chromosomes. We excluded probes mapping to the X or Y chromosome as splitting the sample set to male and female cohorts would significantly reduce the power of our analysis. The resulting set of 21,800 probes was subjected to association analyses, corresponding to 18,226 unique autosomal Ensembl genes. We tested these associations with all of the SNP genotypes regardless of the haplogroup in 109 CEU, 162 CHB/JPT and 108 YRI samples located within the 36 kb region.”

“This LD block is evident in Eurasian (CEU and CHB/JPT) populations but is absent in the Yoruban (YRI) population…”

We already know that American Indian populations are regularly subjected to a sampling bias. One of these cases involves the innate immunity gene (OAS1), which, incidentally, Gokcumen et al. (2013) list among the regions showing the same pattern (as measured by π, LD, Tajima’s D and FST) suggestive of “archaic” admixture or substructure as the NE1 locus.

There seems to be a good reason for Gokcumen et al. (2013) to leave American Indian populations outside of their analysis – they would undermine their interpretation. As the above map of the distribution of the two haplotypes, NE1 and non-NE-1, demonstrates, American Indians show the world highest frequencies of homozygous NE1 haplotypes and the world highest frequencies of heterozygous (NE1/non-NE1) haplotypes. The NE1 haplotypes are precisely the ones that were detected in Neandertals and Denisovans.

“Of the 12 SNPs that can be used to distinguish the NE1 and nonNE1 haplogroups, the SNPs that define the NE1 haplogroup aligned well with both the Neandertal and Denisovan orthologous sequences, whereas the chimpanzee consensus haplotype contain SNPs that are more similar to the nonNE1 haplogroup sequence (Figure 2C).”

“[R]ead-depth analyses of the Neandertal and Denisovan sequences across the CNVR8163.1 deletion interval supports the notion that this sequence is homozygously deleted in sequenced ancient hominins, but not in the chimpanzee reference sequence (Figure 2D).”



This is not an aberrant finding. The two Neandertals tested for blood group alleles showed blood group O (Lalueza-Fox et al. 2008. “Genetic Characterization of the ABO Blood Group in Neandertals,” BMC Evolutionary Biology 8: 342), which is most frequent among American Indians. The least derived B006 haplotype in the X chromosome’s dystrophin gene (ds44) was observed in modern humans and in Neandertals. In modern humans the frequency of B006 was the highest among North American Indians followed by Europeans. Other examples of Neandertal-Denisovan-Amerindian genetic similarities are discussed here.

Interestingly, just like in the case of B006, NE1 is most frequent in Amerindians followed by Europeans and South Asians. From the point of view of the conventional theory of the origin of Amerindians from East Asia, this fact is unexpected. But it’s fully consistent with the autosomal and mtDNA studies that identified “Amerindian admixture” in European populations. The NE1 case study suggests that “Amerindian admixture” and “Neandertal admixture” are different labels for the same phenomenon.

Now, neither Neandertals nor Denisovans have ever been found in the New World. This undermines the theory that modern humans admixed with these hominin species because one would expect to find the highest frequencies of an introgressed haplotype in the geographical area in which admixture took place. But the world highest frequencies of Neandertal-Denisovan haplotypes among Amerindians are equally inconsistent with the African substructure hypothesis presented by Gokcumen et al. (2013). While they conclude that

“the most parsimonious explanation for the observed variation at the NE1 locus is that the NE1/nonNE1 haplogroups arose after the human-chimpanzee common ancestor, but before the Human-Neandertal split in Africa. As such, the variation at the NE1 locus has persisted within ancient African substructure and later spread to non-African populations”

they are missing a key piece of the evidence – fossil DNA from Africa. NE1 haplotypes are ascertained in Eurasian hominins whose geographic range was likely adjacent to the New World, so if ancient substructure is at play here, it’s American and not African. The chimp-ascertained non-NE1 haplotype (the one without the deletion) is found in the New World, which suggests that this truly archaic genetic signature that predates the Neandertal-Denisovan-modern human split has survived there as well. It’s the more modern NE1 haplotype that shows a cline from the New World to Africa suggestive of a migration out-of-America leaving a clear trace on top of the undifferentiated chimp heritage.

Gokcumen et al. (2013) have identified a few interesting facts. First, contrary to the earlier accounts of “Neandertal admixture” in the human genome that failed to detect traces of it among African foragers, they found NE1 in 13% of their Mbuti Pygmy sample. This is precisely what out-of-America II predicts: modern humans with roots in a Eurasian hominin such as Neandertals or Denisovans colonized every remote corner of the world, including the African tropics. Second, they

“found that variation within African NE1 haplotypes is significantly higher than variation within Asian and European NE1 haplotypes (p

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


And a little more

Higher Levels of Neanderthal Ancestry in East Asians Than in Europeans


Wall, Jeffrey D., Melinda A. Yang, Flora Jay, Sung K. Kim, Eric Y. Durand, Laurie S. Stevison, Christopher Gignoux, August Woerner, Michael F. Hammer and Montgomery Slatkin.


Neanderthals were a group of archaic hominins that occupied most of Europe and parts of Western Asia from roughly 30-300 thousand years ago (Kya). They coexisted with modern humans during part of this time. Previous genetic analyses that compared a draft sequence of the Neanderthal genome with genomes of several modern humans concluded that Neanderthals made a small (1-4%) contribution to the gene pools of all non-African populations. This observation was consistent with a single episode of admixture from Neanderthals into the ancestors of all non-Africans when the two groups coexisted in the Middle East 50-80 Kya. We examined the relationship between Neanderthals and modern humans in greater detail by applying two complementary methods to the published draft Neanderthal genome and an expanded set of high-coverage modern human genome sequences. We find that, consistent with the recent finding of Meyer et al. (2012), Neanderthals contributed more DNA to modern East Asians than to modern Europeans. Furthermore we find that the Maasai of East Africa have a small but significant fraction of Neanderthal DNA. Because our analysis is of several genomic samples from each modern human population considered, we are able to document the extent of variation in Neanderthal ancestry within and among populations. Our results combined with those previously published show that a more complex model of admixture between Neanderthals and modern humans is necessary to account for the different levels of Neanderthal ancestry among human populations. In particular, at least some Neanderthal-modern human admixture must postdate the separation of the ancestors of modern European and modern East Asian populations.


Link


This paper supports Meyer et al.’s (2012) conclusion that East Asians are closer to Neandertals than Europeans. The difference is estimated on the order of 40%. This makes it unlikely that the 1-4% similarity between non-African human and Neandertal genomes, to the exclusion of African human genomes, is product of admixture between Neandertals and expanding modern humans. If this was the case, Europeans would have been more heavily admixed than East Asians. The asymmetrical connection between an archaic hominin species and a modern human population is further found in the case of Denisovans, whose remains are geographically located in East Asia but who show greater similarity to modern Melanesians than to East Asians. Wall et al. (2013) report that they failed to find any traces of admixture between Denisovans and East Asians (contra Skoglund & Jacobsson 2011) but they sampled only Japanese and Han Chinese, while Skoglund & Jacobsson reported the highest frequencies of Denisova alleles outside of Melanesia, in Southeast Asia and America (see more here). For the archaic admixture hypothesis to hold, one would need to postulate the dilution of Neandertal alleles in Europe and Denisovan alleles in East Asia by the subsequent (e.g., Neolithic) gene flow of populations unadmixed with Neandertals and Denisovans into these regions. The only place where these populations could have originated is Africa, but there’s no evidence for an excess of African alleles in East Asians and Europeans compared with Melanesians. Hence, the genomic pattern of association between Neandertals, Denisovans and non-African humans may be better explained as common descent, with African humans derived from non-African humans. Wall et al. (2013, 21) found evidence that can be interpreted precisely to such an effect:


“Also, we find evidence for a small but significant amount of Neanderthal admixture into the Maasai genomes (p ~ 0.03, Table S4). When compared to the Yoruba, the Maasai have a higher average D than the Luhya (Figure 3b, Table S4). When the Maasai are

compared to all other African samples the average D is positive (Figure 3d). In addition, when East Asians and Europeans are compared to the Maasai, the average D’s are somewhat lower than when they are compared to either the Yoruba or Luhya.”




Table S4 shows that all of Wall et al.’s African samples have a Neandertal component, with Yoruba and Luhya training slightly behind Maasai. The paucity of Neandertal and Denisovan alleles in such “Paleoafricans” as Khoisans is better explained as product of admixture with African archaics that diluted the original Eurasia-derived gene pool of Africans.


American Journal of Human Genetics 10.1016/j.ajhg.2013.02.002


An African American Paternal Lineage Adds an Extremely Ancient Root to the Human Y Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree 


Fernando L. Mendez, Thomas Krahn, Bonnie Schrack, Astrid-Maria Krahn, Krishna R. Veeramah, August E. Woerner, Forka Leypey, Mathew Fomine, Neil Bradman, Mark G. Thomas, Tatiana M. Karafet, Michael F. Hammer.

We report the discovery of an African American Y chromosome that carries the ancestral state of all SNPs that defined the basal portion of the Y chromosome phylogenetic tree. We sequenced ∼240 kb of this chromosome to identify private, derived mutations on this lineage, which we named A00. We then estimated the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) for the Y tree as 338 thousand years ago (kya) (95% confidence interval = 237–581 kya). Remarkably, this exceeds current estimates of the mtDNA TMRCA, as well as those of the age of the oldest anatomically modern human fossils. The extremely ancient age combined with the rarity of the A00 lineage, which we also find at very low frequency in central Africa, point to the importance of considering more complex models for the origin of Y chromosome diversity. These models include ancient population structure and the possibility of archaic introgression of Y chromosomes into anatomically modern humans. The A00 lineage was discovered in a large database of consumer samples of African Americans and has not been identified in traditional hunter-gatherer populations from sub-Saharan Africa. This underscores how the stochastic nature of the genealogical process can affect inference from a single locus and warrants caution during the interpretation of the geographic location of divergent branches of the Y chromosome phylogenetic tree for the elucidation of human origins.


The hypothesis of archaic admixture in Africa (and, importantly, the lack thereof outside of Africa) is further confirmed by Mendez et al. (2013). Up until now it was assumed that mtDNA and Y-DNA do not show traces of archaic admixture in modern humans. Mendez et al (2013) refute this assumption by detecting a very divergent Y-DNA lineage (A00) among West Africans and West Africa-derived African Americans. The dates obtained for the coalescence of A00 are some 130,000 years older than the earliest paleobiological evidence for anatomically modern humans in Africa. This is another inconvenient fact for the proponents of out-of-Africa. The data at hand increasingly suggests that the out-of-Africa theory mistook signs of archaic admixture in Africa for the antiquity of modern humans in Africa. Y-DNA hgs A and B, which are not found outside of Africa, are the other possible candidates for archaic introgression in Africa. The massive migration of modern humans into Africa manifests itself in African-specific and pan-African hg E, which is nested within the Eurasian CT clade.




anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org... e-oldest-dog-news-from-around-the-web/

reply to post by punkinworks10

I can't wrap my mind around it, way to complex.

Thank you :p


Way over my head...

A little more

The above-quoted passage from Meyer et al. (2012) suggests that Neandertals and Denisovans being closer relatives than either of them and modern humans, some of the similarity between Denisovans, on the one hand, and Asians and American Indians, on the other, detected in this high-coverage study represents retentions from a common ancestor of Neandertals and Denisovans that made it into modern humans via Neandertals. This, however, creates a rather strained historical scenario. Neandertals that were most densely represented in Western Eurasia first contributed genes equally to all of modern humans, without any bias in favor of Europeans. On a second occasion, they contributed genes exclusively to modern East Eurasians and American Indians. Denisovans, on the other hand, lived in Northeast Asia but contributed genes to modern Papuans to the exclusion of modern Asians and American Indians. The alternative suggested but not favored by Meyer et al. (2012) is that there were two migrations out of Africa – one to Western and Eastern Eurasia, which led to admixture with Neandertals, and the other one to Western Eurasia only after Neandertals had gone extinct. This second African migration diluted Neandertal ancestry in Europeans. But this alternative does not explain why both Neandertal admixture events affected American Indians who supposedly went through a bottleneck that reduced their population size half-way in the direction of the Denisovan bottomline (see above). It also introduces a logic that, if applied consistently, would take us away from talking about the “First Neandertal admixture” in the direction of thinking that the so-called “founding” modern human migration out of Africa to Western and Eastern Eurasia was just gene flow from Africa into an archaic Eurasian population that diluted the concentration of Neandertal and Denisovan genes in all of the present-day human populations outside of Africa.

There is a symmetry between the excess of “Denisovan” alleles in Papuans and the shortage of “Neandertal” alleles in Europeans (both archaic species being closely related to each other), with Northeast Asia, East Asia, Southeast Asia and the New World forming a “hub” with both paleobiological and genetic attestations of an “archaic” hominin source.  There is also clear parallelism between the east-to-west decrease in the fraction of autosomal “Neandertal” ancestry and the presence of the “Amerindian” component (mislabeled as “East Eurasian” component by Dienekes) in Western Eurasia. It seems possible that Denisova Cave tells us a story of modern human origins from an East Eurasian hominin, a relative of Neandertals and Denisovans, who speciated into “us” in an isolated refugium such as America and then migrated back into the Old World (see out-of-America II). As early humans were migrating west to Europe and Africa, they lost some of that hominin ancestry and, in Africa, mixed with local archaics who contributed ancestral chimp alleles into a gene pool that had previously been largely composed of derived, or “modern,” as it were, alleles.

anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org...

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by punkinworks10

 

I can't wrap my mind around it, way to complex.

Thank you :p

Yes the study of human dispersal is very complex, and Dr. Dzeibel's blog is very technical, but it represents the state of the art in genetics with only peer reviews papers from recognized journals.

Give it a chance you will be able to wrap your head around it eventually. I admit I can barely follow along some timed but after you read it a couple times you can get a sense of what going on , if not able to fully understand the technical nuance.
For a more mainstream assessment of current genetics and anthropology, try Dr. John Hawks'
blog,

johnhawks.net...

Here's a thread I did I little bit back on the yet to be identified ancestor.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

hey sinter, good topic (..stars)
i'm still reading a lot of the associated material, thanks for the links. ttys.

If these theories and studies are correct.... We are in fact witnessing history being rewritten.

this is what i'm actually concerned about. in the same way we had a group of people establish a doctrine and wield it effectively for many hundreds of years, i think we're going to be 'updated' with a new doctrine that encompasses all this (..something along the lines of the ancient astronauts theory, the new-age luciferian agenda)

reply to post by UNIT76


Dude ?

Come on. that would be a disappointment. But we are warned we will be mislead. So...

Plausible.

Just enjoy the ride .

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


well said.. and i agree oft have i typed "enjoy the journey"
(it never bothered me because whoever it was, they couldn't have my soul, know what i mean?)

but.. we are (kind of) digging into who made humans now..
and as you said, 'we were warned' on this

plausible... yeah..

pretty satisfied w/ my window seat about now..
/and STILL digesting the material in this topic