I know you're being sarcastic, but for the sake of the thread, possibilities are disease and climate change.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
How did we get 4% Neanderthal DNA?
- Thread starter The Artisan
- Start date
- Status
I know you're being sarcastic, but for the sake of the thread, possibilities are disease and climate change.
andythinkpad
Member
You don't have to use writing as the only mile stone advance in humanity. You can count the use of fire; domestication of wild plants and farming; domestication of farming animals; use of ceramic; advance in stone tools; use of iron tools; writing; religion etc etc
Now going back to the importance of writing. It's said that human brain can only recognize limit number of faces and names. I think the number is between 100-200. Once your organization exceed that number, you need the help of writing for organization. Writing is also vitally important for tax and palace inventory recording. That was the original purpose of the oldest writing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nsibidi
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ge'ez_script
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tifinagh
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbuktu
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djenné
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walls_of_Benin
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Zimbabwe
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogadishu
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merca
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lalibela
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M'banza-Kongo
Monocle
Member
Lol? Messed up mindset.
Woo-Fu
Banned
Generational thing, I heard George Carlin.
Brain is pretty good at filtering out background stuff. First day on a pig farm is basically dry heaves. Day after that, disgusting, week later you don't even notice it after the first minute.
Aaronology
Member
I am always amused when racists reveal how startling ignorant they are while simultaneously calling into question the innate intelligence of others.
What a hilarious post.
Neanderthals had evolved over hundreds of thousands of years many genes beneficial for their environment. When Homo Sapiens first arrived in Neanderthal environments they didn't possess these genes. Interbreeding meant that these genes were quickly passed into the Homo Sapiens gene pool, whilst any that were less beneficial were quickly extinguished (basic Darwinian survival of the fittest in a time when the infant mortality rate was incredibly high). This explains why that percentage of Neanderthal DNA survived (it was beneficial, or at least not a negative).
Denisovans are considered to be offshoots of Neanderthals who colonised Asia and diverged from Neanderthals. As mentioned, Australasian Homo Sapiens have DNA from these due to interbreeding, again, the beneficial genes survived. Maybe the most famous one of these genes is the one for low oxygen, or high altitude, which is still present in Tibetans. It clearly had a massively beneficial factor to surviving there and spread quickly.
As mentioned, some Africans have DNA from an unknown hominin species, it's unknown if this is more closely related to Neanderthal's predecessor Homo Heidelbergensis, the more ancient Homo Erectus, or an unknown lineage. Similarly an unknown homo lineage has recently been discovered in Australasian DNA, which are only known to have inhabited the same location as Homo Erectus (and maybe Homo Floresiensis "The Hobbit", but there's no evidence for Homo Floresiensis beyond Flores yet), so maybe that was possible.
Despite the widespread belief that Neanderthals weren't as intelligent as Homo Sapiens, we don't really know their level of intelligence. What we do know is that intelligence is massively beneficial to survival, so it's likely that genes for intelligence would be more likely to survive than genes which led to less intelligence. The same would be true for all interbreeding of homo species.
Denisovans are considered to be offshoots of Neanderthals who colonised Asia and diverged from Neanderthals. As mentioned, Australasian Homo Sapiens have DNA from these due to interbreeding, again, the beneficial genes survived. Maybe the most famous one of these genes is the one for low oxygen, or high altitude, which is still present in Tibetans. It clearly had a massively beneficial factor to surviving there and spread quickly.
As mentioned, some Africans have DNA from an unknown hominin species, it's unknown if this is more closely related to Neanderthal's predecessor Homo Heidelbergensis, the more ancient Homo Erectus, or an unknown lineage. Similarly an unknown homo lineage has recently been discovered in Australasian DNA, which are only known to have inhabited the same location as Homo Erectus (and maybe Homo Floresiensis "The Hobbit", but there's no evidence for Homo Floresiensis beyond Flores yet), so maybe that was possible.
Despite the widespread belief that Neanderthals weren't as intelligent as Homo Sapiens, we don't really know their level of intelligence. What we do know is that intelligence is massively beneficial to survival, so it's likely that genes for intelligence would be more likely to survive than genes which led to less intelligence. The same would be true for all interbreeding of homo species.
Aaronology
Member
The problem here is that Andy has no sincere interest in any of that. He obviously formed his cute pet theory without ever actually delving into the history of Africa, its peoples and various cultures.
If there was an "intelligence gene" that was so beneficial that it quickly spread from Neanderthals to Homo Sapiens, then it would have also quickly spread from Middle Eastern Homo Sapiens to the African Homo Sapiens that they were in contact with.
Your theory only works with a population that was in total isolation.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
Is that a fact? I would do some research to determine if that's actually the case. Even assuming it's true (and I am pretty sure it's not), it doesn't mean much because in the evolutionary time scale, one population of humans developing a new technology a few thousand years before another is a blink of the eye.
Poetic~~~
JordanN
Banned
I'm not even sure what his idea of large scale cities mean. Was there a Neanderthal New York City hidden in some cave I'm unaware of?
As well as Africa had plenty of their own city states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_empires
Hmm... is this 4% based on similarities in our genome? If that's the case that means we share those similarities, not that we were making babies with neanderthals. We would have a common ancestor that we branched off of, causing the similarities in our genome. Just like how we have similarities in our genome that can compare to chimpanzee, orangutan, and gorilla. Shit, I believe some of our genome is comparable to plants.
Or the fact that historically the vast majority of vast empires have been from the Middle East (including North African), Mediterranean, or East Asian. Europe was underdeveloped for thousands of years before the renaissance.
And that's ignoring the fact that those from Africa have Neanderthal DNA anyhow, sooo...
I'm not a geneticist, but I'm fairly certain there's ways to tell the difference between similarity from being closely related, and that from interbreeding. Probably the way DNA is copied or some such.
WhiteRabbitEXE
Member
That Rings a bell
After humanity wiped out the Children of the Night in a single day and then erased all evidence and knowledge of them from our the world and our minds respectively, we probably weren't as concerned about banging the last remaining hominids.
In an alternate universe this is the erotic alien porn of my dreams. All the fukken with no fear of baby bumps
Chuck Norris
Banned
Couldn't homosapiens thriving over Neanderthals simply come down to the better climate, food sources and larger geography allowing for superior population growth? Neanderthals probably died en masses every harsh winter
By the time homosapiens extended up to Europe, they had huge populations while Neanderthals never experienced that
By the time homosapiens extended up to Europe, they had huge populations while Neanderthals never experienced that
I'd like to nominate this post for a tag.
so i can remember andy thinks these things.
GAF!
Was interesting till the racism stepped in. I /liked/ your avatar btw, Andy. Sheesh
Chiaroscuro
Member
Not saying that did not happen, but that cannot be the cause of the Neanderthal DNA in the Sapiens genoma, since no Neanderthal mitocondrial DNA is found in modern humans it means that we got our Neanderthal genes from male neanderthals mating with Sapiens females.
Maybe it is viewed as racist because it is. You have no evidence to make such a claim.
I highly recommend the book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari. In the first section of the book, he details the cognitive revolution that Sapiens went through to become the dominant species on the planet and out-compete other rivals such as Neanderthals.
Apparently, Homo sapiens appeared about 200,000 years ago and were no more dominant than other Homo species at the time. The first time we left Africa we were driven back by Neanderthals. Those Sapiens seemed physically identical to us now, but they had different cognitive functions. About 70,000 years ago something changed in our cognitive function, and we likely developed imagination. This was important because it allowed for shared beliefs - myths, religions, and much later, the idea of justice and corporations. Because of the change in the way we thought about the world, we could work together as thousands or millions towards a common goal. Until this revolution occurred, the most a group that can coordinate with each other is something around 150 or so individuals. Harari highlights chimps as modern examples of this limitation. They can co-exist in small groups, but they're unable to form societies in any higher numbers. Their cognitive function is limited - at most they can share only basic information with each other, and they can only keep track of 150 or so individuals on a personal level to trust. With the spark of imagination, Sapiens can work with perfect strangers towards common goals. They don't need to know everyone at a deeply personal level to co-exist. So Sapiens were able to coordinate and join tribes to out-compete our rivals. Neanderthals apparently never got this mutation, so they were outnumbered and out-coordinated in every encounter.
Apparently, Homo sapiens appeared about 200,000 years ago and were no more dominant than other Homo species at the time. The first time we left Africa we were driven back by Neanderthals. Those Sapiens seemed physically identical to us now, but they had different cognitive functions. About 70,000 years ago something changed in our cognitive function, and we likely developed imagination. This was important because it allowed for shared beliefs - myths, religions, and much later, the idea of justice and corporations. Because of the change in the way we thought about the world, we could work together as thousands or millions towards a common goal. Until this revolution occurred, the most a group that can coordinate with each other is something around 150 or so individuals. Harari highlights chimps as modern examples of this limitation. They can co-exist in small groups, but they're unable to form societies in any higher numbers. Their cognitive function is limited - at most they can share only basic information with each other, and they can only keep track of 150 or so individuals on a personal level to trust. With the spark of imagination, Sapiens can work with perfect strangers towards common goals. They don't need to know everyone at a deeply personal level to co-exist. So Sapiens were able to coordinate and join tribes to out-compete our rivals. Neanderthals apparently never got this mutation, so they were outnumbered and out-coordinated in every encounter.
ginger ninja
Banned
Whole lot of rape. Almost two bill cosby stand-ups worth.
So your admitting your pet theory is a tale from your ass and has absolutely no evidence to support it? Africa did have all the other things your described.
Also, it is worth pointing out, that Neanderthal genes are turned off in the brain anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX2iv4SyNHg
I think I read somewhere that there was a relative of humans that had larger skulls and potentially larger brains than us. They died out for some reason, though.
LookAtMeGo
Member
In this moment I am euphoric, not because of any phony gods blessing, but because I am enlightened by my neanderthal DNA.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
There's no reason to assume the answer is "rape" as opposed to voluntary reproduction. The evidence suggests they were similar enough in intelligence and appearance.
Roufianos
Member
The hieroglyphs aren't a system of writing?
Chuckie
Member
Big Chungus
Member
Watch The Croods and you'll find out.
Well, some people aren't that shallow and there are homosapiens who look much worse who have no problem forming relationships.
Also, as I said, they were probably hung. That's good enough an incentive for me.
As mentioned earlier in the thread, recent epigenetics studies of Neanderthal DNA in humans seem to indicate that Neanderthal genes are turned off in our reproductive organs and brains - which seems to indicate that their intelligence was less advantageous than ours.
Being turned off in the reproductive organs makes sense as well, as reproductive organs are the parts of species that need to be the most specific to a species in order to successfully work.
Right, absolutely ... you would expect if homo sapiens were more intelligent then their genes would survive. But if Neanderthals also had those genes, then why didn't they survive? Maybe their brains weren't designed to comprehend as well as homo sapiens? I think that's the most logical explanation. What I don't get is how 50k+ years ago modern day humans switched from being dumb for over 100k+ years, to suddenly being intelligent... where did that come from? Arthur C Clarke?
Prinz Eugn
Member
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
So Egyptians aren't Africans now?
Cindi Mayweather
Member
African's don't have Neanderthal DNA.
But not all black people are 100% African.
And not all African's are black.
But not all black people are 100% African.
And not all African's are black.
wumster3000
Member
LMAO...I guess one and done? All other posts are irrelevant.
Your "pet theory" is based on
- Your personal ignorance about African history and archaeology
- No actual genetic or neurological evidence, so assuming causation based on a supposed correlation
- The assumption that adoption of a writing system or construction of large cities is based on intelligence
- Ignoring the populations with Neanderthal ancestry that didn't do those things
- Ignoring the evidence that Neanderthal genes are generally less expressed in the brain
In conclusion, yes, it's fucking racist. I never expected to see this 19th century garbage on NeoGAF.
Vital Tundra
Member
Wait I thought Neanderthals were intelligent just like us? In fact having better tools and such. I would assume integration with more sapien to sapien/sapien to Neanderthal happened more than Neanderthal to Neanderthal sex.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
All Africans? Or just a particular tribe or region of Africa?
The Artisan
Member
I'd definitely hook up with a Neanderthal chick if I could go back in time unfortunately though it sounds like our babies would not be that healthy.
Are you joking?
not only having sex, but conceiving fertile children, that's the awesome part.
it's very interesting to think about ain't it?
even if we copied their early tools, we probably mastered and did better than them at their own sport. I think their biggest problem is that instead of integrating with sapiens and maybe even other tribes of their own, they did things more isolated and that's what may have led to their downfall.
but i agree, it is among the most interesting things to think about about our planet, evolution, mankind.
same! i take it that setting of reconstruction is probably in a museum of natural history. visit any one, you're bound to probably see more of the same awesome stuff.
yep. genetically, sub-Saharan Africans are the purest homo sapiens alive today.
if your ancestry is 100% African, then you have the most homo sapien DNA of all living people these days. Other human species lived in Africa I think, but not Neanderthals.
What would this threshold be? If the human population continues to rise, then logically the neanderthal percentage in everyone's DNA would become lower, yeah?
I have a theory that Adam and Eve could've been Homo erectus. Growing up in a Muslim background I don't think many would appreciate this scientific, evolutionist approach, but I've never talked to another Muslim about it but I can imagine they wouldn't appreciate it.
we don't know that interbreeding was really rare - it could be that a looooot of the hybrid people died very young, before they could have children themselves.
Thank you. Yes, this was the discussion I originally wanted to have in this thread.
Yes, mankind can be despicable but I think the best of humanity far outweighs the worst. One thing also have to remember if you really think rape was the cause of this, is that the hybrid children born of rape or not, would have to have been taken care of all the way into adulthood. This would mean the neanderthal parent would be integrated into sapien culture - definitely not a likely scenario if this was rape.
The current evidence is that the children born from male sapiens and female Neanderthals were unhealthy and sterile, and probably died.
The only viable children were those that had a Neanderthal father, and a sapien mother. And of those children, only the females seemed to be fertile. Considering how harsh the climate was back then, for all we know there could have been tons of more fertile hybrids that lived, but died before they could have children of their own.
What?
Thank you.
Can you explain this? I have read about this before but it often confuses me with the 4% number. Like, 20% of Neanderthals technically live today through humans? Where does the 4% fit in in this context?
Your half right - I'm not saying kidnapping didn't happen, but most people who have Neanderthal DNA these days have an ancestor that was a Neanderthal man. So if it were by force...then the Neanderthal who kidnapped raped the human sapien would had to have taken care of her in the Neanderthal clan, since she would be the mother of his child. And that child would grow up to have either hooked up with another Neanderthal, or came across a sapien clan that integrated with her own.
You're wrong on both counts. There is such thing as a "pure" African in the context of genetics. Neanderthals did not live in Africa, so Africans never met them.
As for the picture, their skin tone may have been light, but they weren't hairier than what we would consider the hairiest today.
http://listverse.com/2009/06/16/top-10-misconceptions-about-neanderthals/
come on, don't let one unsettling post stop you from discussion in this thread...
let's turn it back!
Please don't go...
fuck the racism, that's not why I made the OP. there's still a potential interesting discussion to have here.
Probably those descended from the Middle East, too.
There are pictures of what they used to look like in this thread. Whatever your picturing is probably an earlier and more inaccurate misconception.
All sub-Saharan Africans, I should have pointed that out in the OP. Africans that lived in the Saharan desert probably came into close contact with those living in the Middle East, who did come across Neanderthals.
How did you find that out?! I REALLY would like to know if I have Neanderthal ancestry. My dad looks just like a Neanderthal with dark brown skin
- Status