Support NeoGAF

[Binabik15]

Look at this filth!
Are they even human anymore?

No. MORE than human *evil laughter*

 

[SolarPowered]

what about the Aboriginals?

The article mentions Australian peoples in the same sentence as Sub-Saharans.

I think it's safe to say that they were talking about the Aboriginals.

The Neanderthals had to make it down to Africa too, right? How else would pure Africans still look so similar to everybody else?

The article makes it sound like Homo sapiens grew in seclusion within Africa, then another group of Homo sapiens merged with the Neanderthals. This would have resulted in fairly different-looking species.

There was an earlier migration out of Africa before Homo Sapiens. That is why Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals were similar enough to breed in the first place. No need for them to go gene shopping down in Africa when they already came from Africa as well.

 

[RoH]

The Neanderthals had to make it down to Africa too, right? How else would pure Africans still look so similar to everybody else?

The article makes it sound like Homo sapiens grew in seclusion within Africa, then another group of Homo sapiens merged with the Neanderthals. This would have resulted in fairly different-looking species.

What if everyone else simply still looks a lot like them?

 

[Zzoram]

The Neanderthals had to make it down to Africa too, right? How else would pure Africans still look so similar to everybody else?

The article makes it sound like Homo sapiens grew in seclusion within Africa, then another group of Homo sapiens merged with the Neanderthals. This would have resulted in fairly different-looking species.

I don't think you understand.

All sub species of humans originated in Africa. Neanderthals are just descendents of a group that left Africa. Humans are descendents of another group to leave Africa thousands of years later. The Neanderthals and Humans then interbred in the Middle East before spreading across the world.

 

[MrHicks]

what about the Aboriginals?

they are one of the most ancient "subspecies"
on some BBC nature show they even speculated they didn't come from africa at all or some shit

 

[leadbelly]

when I read something like this I always remember

lol

Yeah he reminds me of that creature in sinbad. lol

Neanderthals were shorter than humans though. He on the other hand is just a monster. It also depends on the particular skull and the facial reconstruction from that skull.

A facial reconstruction:

 

[Zzoram]

they are one of the most ancient "subspecies"
on some BBC nature show they even speculated they didn't come from africa at all or some shit

Australian Aboriginals were likely a group that left Africa that didn't interbreed much with the other groups.

All Humans and the other sub species like Neanderthals trace back to Africa, Aboriginal or not. It's just a matter of how long ago.

 

[iamblades]

The Neanderthals had to make it down to Africa too, right? How else would pure Africans still look so similar to everybody else?

The article makes it sound like Homo sapiens grew in seclusion within Africa, then another group of Homo sapiens merged with the Neanderthals. This would have resulted in fairly different-looking species.

There is no evidence of neanderthals anywhere south of israel, and none in africa.

As for why there isn't much of a noticeable difference, only 1-4% of non african dna is possibly neanderthal. not a huge amount.

Also as mentioned, neanderthals evolved from africa just as modern humans did, only they were separated for a few hundred thousand years which is how the differences developed. So even pure neanderthals weren't all that far removed from modern humans.

 

[oxrock]

I have a few thoughts that I was hoping someone wouldn't mind clearing up for me.

Neanderthals were originally dark skinned but evolved to having lighter skin in reaction to their new environment. "Modern man" in it's original form at least also had black skin. Does is not make sense that due to repeated interbreeding that Neanderthal's light skin trait was passed onto white people of today? Would that not also mean that the interbreeding was quite substantial and that perhaps Neanderthals didn't really go extinct but more just assimilated into our gene pool?

Is it just more likely that through the same processes that humans just evolved similarly after living in similar climates?

 

[evilwart]

what about the Aboriginals?

From the article - "The scientists found that the sequence was present in people across all continents, except for sub-Saharan Africa, and including Australia."

The sequence is found in native australians/aboriginals.

 

[Treo360]

Asian related. Which probably means they are also part Neanderthal.

For those in the pacific yes. Some however, think that N. America was colonized by the Solutrians, or you know, the French.

 

[Sickboy007]

I always suspected it

 

[MrHicks]

bigfoot sightings = last remnants of surviving neatherthals

believe

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

The Neanderthals had to make it down to Africa too, right? How else would pure Africans still look so similar to everybody else?

The article makes it sound like Homo sapiens grew in seclusion within Africa, then another group of Homo sapiens merged with the Neanderthals. This would have resulted in fairly different-looking species.

. It could be that whatever genetic material they passed onto non-human populations was only nominally useful (SNPs, even if they are found in coding regions, may have no effect on protein sequence despite being highly conserved) or useful towards general survival (immune system, for example) than appearance.

This is assuming that the average neanderthal even looked all that different from the average human at the time, or that the distinct human populations didn't co-evolve to look similar after each migration event due to similar survival imperatives.

 

[oxrock]

bigfoot sightings = last remnants of surviving neatherthals

believe

Bigfoot is generally described as being an abnormally large humanoid, however Neanderthals were short despite their stocky build. If bigfoot was a human offshoot, it'd be something else entirely.

 

[iamblades]

I have a few thoughts that I was hoping someone wouldn't mind clearing up for me.

Neanderthals were originally dark skinned but evolved to having lighter skin in reaction to their new environment. "Modern man" in it's original form at least also had black skin. Does is not make sense that due to repeated interbreeding that Neanderthal's light skin trait was passed onto white people of today? Would that not also mean that the interbreeding was quite substantial and that perhaps Neanderthals didn't really go extinct but more just assimilated into our gene pool?

Is it just more likely that through the same processes that humans just evolved similarly after living in similar climates?

It's not completely one or the other, white people could have gotten a skin coloration gene from the neanderthal and then evolved more skin color adaptations as they continued to move north, even further north than neanderthal had reached. Genetics is pretty complex, not like there's one gene that is the white/black switch, its more of a continual gradient.

As far as neanderthals not being extinct, just because some of their genes survived, that isn't really accurate. You wouldn't say australopithicus is not extinct because some of their dna survives in us, would you?

Neanderthal is extinct, whether through interbreeding or other means. Probably mostly other means, otherwise there would be a higher percentage of neanderthal dna left.

 

[Mael]

So why we still got....oh

 

[I_D]

Thanks for the answers, but that's not quite what I meant.


So you have humans brewing in Africa. Some of them wander off and turn into Neanderthals (meaning different enough to be their own category). A few thousand years later another group wanders off into the same territory and starts breeding with the Neanderthals.


This means you have a group of sapiens independent of the neanderthals/hybrids, left over in Africa.
Over the course of thousands of years, this should make up for some broad differences.
Skin color and facial structure are the only real differences we have nowadays. You could say average races are more athletic or big than other races, but that's generally pretty even when nutrition and exercise are equal.


I'm just thinking about animals that we breed today. We can get wildly different results over the course of just a few dozen generations. Thousands of years isolated in Southern Africa should have made for some bigger differences, I feel like. They should have floppy ears or something, lol.


I guess humans were already evolved enough to not really need any major changes. It's kinda disappointing, really. Two different races on the same planet would be awesome.

 

[Joel Was Right]

bigfoot sightings = last remnants of surviving neatherthals

believe

Reminds me of the myths in the late 19th century about half-human ("hairy person") half-animal that roamed the Jungles in Africa

Spoiler

It would later be discovered and called the gorilla

Believe

 

[MickeyKnox]

Seems like as good a place as any to plug this little gem.

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/journey.html

Fascinating look into your ancestors journey.

 

[MrHicks]

Reminds me of the myths in the late 19th century about half-human ("hairy person") half-animal that roamed the Jungles in Africa

Spoiler

It would later be discovered and called the gorilla

Believe

amazing that the gorilla was unknown untill then to the scientific community
except for the locals who knew about it

 

[oxrock]

What you said is true and I think I misrepresented my thoughts in regards to Neanderthals being extinct. I more meant to say that perhaps it wasn't a war between us and them that brought about their demise but simply interbreeding to the point where there were few if not no Neanderthals left to breed amongst themselves to keep up the population. Just a thought anyhow.

 

[Byakuya769]

The diversity in cultures today is fascinating of course, but how amazing would it be if some of our relatives were still thriving?

 

[Socreges]

Younger populations have had less generational time to diverge from one another by random mutation and other kinds of gene transfer.

Think of it like a centuries-long game of telephone. Each person in the game is dependent on the response of the person just before them in the line. Get any two people near the end of the line, and their responses will likely be very similar. Get the person at the beginning and the person 75% of the way through, their responses are more likely to be different.



Since it is theorized that all non-African modern human populations are derived from one branch of African humans who migrated out of East Africa relatively recently, they are more likely to have SNPs in common with one another than any two distinct African populations.

So while on the surface, we see people as black, brown, white, etc, the greatest differences in genetic terms exist between Sub-Saharan Africans. In fact, they have the greatest diversity of skin colors of any population on earth as well.

Yeah, already knew this. Just wasn't sure what your initial post was trying to say. Thanks for the detailed explanation, though. I didn't actually know that last bit.

 

[YoungHav]

Depends about which god you're talking here.
There's an explanation for black skinned people in the tora.

what is their explanation?

 

[Orayn]

The Neanderthals had to make it down to Africa too, right? How else would pure Africans still look so similar to everybody else?

The article makes it sound like Homo sapiens grew in seclusion within Africa, then another group of Homo sapiens merged with the Neanderthals. This would have resulted in fairly different-looking species.

Neanderthals didn't look that different to begin with, actually. What the article talks about is something like two surges of migration out of Africa - One settling in Europe and diverging into Neanderthals, and the other of "mainline" homo sapiens leaving along many of the same routes, and absorbing the declining neanderthal population as they go.

 

[shadyspace]

So now there's a n-word everyone's allowed to call each other EXCEPT black people?

 

[I_D]

So now there's a n-word everyone's allowed to call each other EXCEPT black people?

Only if you don't include the l at the end.

My neandatha!

 

[Gaborn]

Thanks for the answers, but that's not quite what I meant.


So you have humans brewing in Africa. Some of them wander off and turn into Neanderthals (meaning different enough to be their own category). A few thousand years later another group wanders off into the same territory and starts breeding with the Neanderthals.


This means you have a group of sapiens independent of the neanderthals/hybrids, left over in Africa.
Over the course of thousands of years, this should make up for some broad differences.
Skin color and facial structure are the only real differences we have nowadays. You could say average races are more athletic or big than other races, but that's generally pretty even when nutrition and exercise are equal.


I'm just thinking about animals that we breed today. We can get wildly different results over the course of just a few dozen generations. Thousands of years isolated in Southern Africa should have made for some bigger differences, I feel like. They should have floppy ears or something, lol.


I guess humans were already evolved enough to not really need any major changes. It's kinda disappointing, really. Two different races on the same planet would be awesome.

Keep in mind that with animals dog breeders, horse breeders etc are breeding for specific traits. A horse breeder may take their horse that won races and was very fast and breed it with another fast responsive horse in the hope of combining to make an even BETTER horse. Or a dog breeder may breed dogs specifically for docility (basically how humans domesticated wolves, breeding specifically for least aggression towards humans). In the wild there would be no obvious advantage to these pairings but humans self selected for them, making changes easier to see on average. Humans might self select for traits that appeal to them sexually but generally there is a lot less self selection. We do even LESS selection in cultures that have arranged marriages where the alliance is political, or monetary.

 

[MrHicks]

So now there's a n-word everyone's allowed to call each other EXCEPT black people?

"neander" the N word for white people/non blacks
im all for it

 

[jorma]

Look at this filth!
Are they even human anymore?

we are on our knees, looking for the answer

 

[QuiteWhittle]

So now there's a n-word everyone's allowed to call each other EXCEPT black people?

Except that most African-Americans have neanderthal DNA, too.

 

[Deified Data]

So non-Africans are like the ligers of the human race?

Badass.

 

[Joel Was Right]

amazing that the gorilla was unknown untill then to the scientific community
except for the locals who knew about it

I've read that its not easy to come across fossils/skeletons - that type of evidence even in regions where we know they populate. Elusive chaps

 

[iamblades]

Thanks for the answers, but that's not quite what I meant.


So you have humans brewing in Africa. Some of them wander off and turn into Neanderthals (meaning different enough to be their own category). A few thousand years later another group wanders off into the same territory and starts breeding with the Neanderthals.


This means you have a group of sapiens independent of the neanderthals/hybrids, left over in Africa.
Over the course of thousands of years, this should make up for some broad differences.
Skin color and facial structure are the only real differences we have nowadays. You could say average races are more athletic or big than other races, but that's generally pretty even when nutrition and exercise are equal.


I'm just thinking about animals that we breed today. We can get wildly different results over the course of just a few dozen generations. Thousands of years isolated in Southern Africa should have made for some bigger differences, I feel like. They should have floppy ears or something, lol.


I guess humans were already evolved enough to not really need any major changes. It's kinda disappointing, really. Two different races on the same planet would be awesome.

Well if we bred humans to intentionally create differences we could probably see more variety in appearance.

There is also the idea that once you evolve the ability to create tools to ensure your survival, natural selection kind of stops, there have been very few noticeable major evolutionary changes in the past couple ten thousand years of human evolution or so. Maybe some coloration changes, lactase enzyme production, and probably the HbS mutation that leads to sickle cell anemia, that's about it though.

There is no major natural selective pressure for humans to change their appearance radically. We can basically all survive to breeding age, and we can pretty much all find suitable mates.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Thanks for the answers, but that's not quite what I meant.


So you have humans brewing in Africa. Some of them wander off and turn into Neanderthals (meaning different enough to be their own category). A few thousand years later another group wanders off into the same territory and starts breeding with the Neanderthals.


This means you have a group of sapiens independent of the neanderthals/hybrids, left over in Africa.
Over the course of thousands of years, this should make up for some broad differences.
Skin color and facial structure are the only real differences we have nowadays. You could say average races are more athletic or big than other races, but that's generally pretty even when nutrition and exercise are equal.


I'm just thinking about animals that we breed today. We can get wildly different results over the course of just a few dozen generations. Thousands of years isolated in Southern Africa should have made for some bigger differences, I feel like. They should have floppy ears or something, lol.


I guess humans were already evolved enough to not really need any major changes. It's kinda disappointing, really. Two different races on the same planet would be awesome.

A dozen generations in humans can take anywhere from 200 to 300 years. We're actually fairly lousy for studying gross changes in anatomy due to our long gestation time, small litter sizes, and our relatively short time on the planet. Even then, as far as 50,000 yo hunter/gatherer survival traits go, our desirable genes were probably relatively similar aside from melanin.

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

Doesn't this just isolate Africans?

Like they haven't had enough problems... now they're not like everybody else!

 

[LProtag]

I thought it was a commonly accepted assumption that at least some portion of the population was descended from interbreeding between different human species.

 

[Londa]

where is the proof in any of these statements?

Oh I forgot, on gaf, everyone believes anything said by a so-called scientist.

 

[DiipuSurotu]

The diversity in cultures today is fascinating of course, but how amazing would it be if some of our relatives were still thriving?

Homo floresiensis (aka "Hobbit") survived until 12,000 years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis

 

[GrotesqueBeauty]

That would explain my inexplicable urges to sell car insurance.

 

[MThanded]

where is the proof in any of these statements?

Oh I forgot, on gaf, everyone believes anything said by a so-called scientist.

 

[-PXG-]

Black folks confirmed for superior tier. Bow down to your masters.

Brothers and sisters, it's time to celebrate.

 

[Gaborn]

where is the proof in any of these statements?

Oh I forgot, on gaf, everyone believes anything said by a so-called scientist.

Do you have a reason to call their study into question?

 

[Londa]

Do you have a reason to call their study into question?

The fact that is a bunch of statements with no back up proof will always raise a question in my mind.

and?

 

[DonasaurusRex]

so back in the day there was a vag tax to get out of africa huh?

 

[Dude Abides]

where is the proof in any of these statements?

Oh I forgot, on gaf, everyone believes anything said by a so-called scientist.

Motherfuckers lyin', and gettin' me pissed.

 

[Londa]

Motherfuckers lyin', and gettin' me pissed.

naw I'm not mad. My bad for taking statements with no proof for face value.

 

[kswiston]

The fact that is a bunch of statements with no back up proof will always raise a question in my mind.

There is journal article with their proof. Read it and stop trolling.

If you are reading a popular news article about a scientific discovery without reading the primary literature related to said article, you are not in a position to question what is being stated.

 

[MThanded]

The fact that is a bunch of statements with no back up proof will always raise a question in my mind.

Did you even read the article? If you really are skeptical when the real paper gets put in the journal you can grab it and decide for yourself.

This work goes back to nearly a decade ago, when Labuda and his colleagues identified a piece of DNA, called a haplotype, in the human X chromosome that seemed different. They questioned its origins.

Fast forward to 2010, when the Neanderthal genome was sequenced. The researchers could then compare the haplotype to the Neanderthal genome as well as to the DNA of existing humans. The scientists found that the sequence was present in people across all continents, except for sub-Saharan Africa, and including Australia.

Is that not proof?