Neanderthal Genome News

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 5:48 pm

I don't think there is an intelligence gene, but if there is I believe all humans have it.

The Inuit are just Asians I think, not a physically distinct group.

Nice Scandinavians Min.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 5:49 pm

I'll drink to that.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 5:58 pm

The Inuit are just Asians

Precisely! Now what other species shows the variation in form that we do?
By insisting that we are all HSS, which may be true of course, we have established such a great genetic variation as a base line that we now have not only to kill off HSN as a separate species but may well in the future have to do the same with Flores and Erectus.
The future looks interesting IMO.

Roy.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:12 pm

The future looks interesting IMO.

Indeed. We have a bit of a wait on the rest of the Neanderthal Genome to be released. I have no idea why they've chosen to do that, but they have been pretty secretive lately. Late in 2007 they announced that the samples in all 3 labs were contaminated. They were asked by people, including John Hawks, to look again and be sure.

Then, almost a year later, and under the radar, they said the samples were not contaminated. (smile) Then recently, they've released 60% of the study. It comes close to saying that Neanderthal is an ancient European, but not quite.

All we can do is wait.

dannan14 · Post by **dannan14** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:19 pm

Beagle wrote:Sorry - supper called. There is a very small per cent difference between any two human beings, unless they are identical twins. It's slightly larger between people of different races. The last I heard about Neanderthal was that we are 99.5 % identical, which is really close. And that actually falls within the modern range. I may have to double check that, or perhaps Cogs has it handy.

The differences were in his skeletal morphology (cold-adapted).

A .5% difference would be roughly 150 genes. Any two random humans living today supposedly, on average, have a difference of 30 genes. i'd say 150 is still pretty damn close.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:35 pm

Organisms with different numbers of chromosomes can't interbreed, right? (Bio was a long time ago.)

dannan14 · Post by **dannan14** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:58 pm

Minimalist wrote:Organisms with different numbers of chromosomes can't interbreed, right? (Bio was a long time ago.)

According to Wikipedia, donkeys have 62 chromosomes, horses 64, and mules 63, but maybe that is a bad example since mules are sterile.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:01 am

mules are sterile.

Mules are not sterile! They have a very low reproductive rate, about one off spring every six years.
Agreed Min, but Wolves will breed with Coyotes for example, so are we mistaken in classing them as separate species. Either our classification is wrong or the definition of a species is wrong.
The NA Bison will cross with domestic cattle, so same question.

Roy.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 8:42 am

Wolves and coyotes are all dogs, though.

At first glance I'd say our definition of "species" needs a bit of re-tooling.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 9:45 am

It usually depends on when their last common ancestor lived. A Bison and a Cow were recently separated from an animal like an Auroch, which lived 50,000 yrs ago. Compare that with the millions of years separating a bear and a seal. They've gone their separate ways and would never breed. It would be fun to see what could happen in a laboratory though.

Humans have never been isolated from each other more than a few hundred thousand years. That's not nearly enough to preclude mating and reproduction.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 11:51 am

I agree that our definition of species, especially as it applies to humans, needs to be re-examined. Our typical human arrogance has warped our objectivity. We tend to think that we're not just another animal so the rules don't apply to us. We are just another critter which infests this planet.

dannan14 · Post by **dannan14** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:01 pm

Digit wrote:
mules are sterile.
Mules are not sterile! They have a very low reproductive rate, about one off spring every six years.

i did not know that.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:29 pm

Sort of changing the subject a little to human reproduction and the periods of separation, apparently half of all foetuses are miscarried.
Now this seems to be an extraordinarily high figure, far higher than in my experience of domestic animals.
Is this a sign perhaps of our beginning to separate into different species?
It has been stated that in western Europe fertility is falling, some have blamed it on environmental factors, but is it?

Roy.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:35 pm

Digit wrote:Sort of changing the subject a little to human reproduction and the periods of separation, apparently half of all foetuses are miscarried.
Now this seems to be an extraordinarily high figure, far higher than in my experience of domestic animals.
Is this a sign perhaps of our beginning to separate into different species?
It has been stated that in western Europe fertility is falling, some have blamed it on environmental factors, but is it?

Roy.

Perhaps it's evolution. Maybe it's nature's way of saying there are too damn many of us. (Especially in Europe

) The Chinese should have this problem too!

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 1:00 pm

Isn't it more of a factor of Europe having a fairly high education/economic base? Women have other choices and the tools to make those choices.

Here....in Just Say No Land....teens are getting pregnant at an alarming rate. And our prior president was fine with druggists giving a lecture on "not fucking" rather than dispensing birth control methods if the whim struck them.