You are viewing anthropologist

Anthropologist Community
All non-African people are part Neanderthal?  
18th-Jul-2011 11:01 pm
Pensive
What do you think of this finding that ALL non-Africans are part Neanderthal? Read article here. 
 

Honestly, it sounds like a bunch of racist BS to me. I find it highly unlikely that every H. sapien on this planet is part Neanderthal minus Sub-Saharan Africans. Why? Because of the pure fact that there is no "pure" socially constructed race on this planet. I find it extremely hard to grasp that the most hated and discriminated group on this planet is excluded because apparently, Neanderthals migrated out of Africa--when it has always been my knowledge that they were European and Asian based. This article might as well say all Eastern Asian people are part H. Floresiensis.

I am quite supportive of the scientific community, but this article smells like fish and I'm not very accepting of new information until I know the full details--including the thoughts of the opposing enthusiastic. The idea that Neanderthals and H. sapiens probably mated together is plausible, but to exclude a group is rather offensive and illogical knowing the characteristics and human psychology that transforms us into mankind. Especially because of the wounds that still bleed in present day Africa from colonialism among other things; to suggest a race is "pure" reminds me of "Aryan" Germany. 
 
Adding on, I cannot find this article on a website that I trust. Thoughts?
Comments 
19th-Jul-2011 08:13 am (UTC)
This story is not new, it's been kicking around for a while. It also doesn't have to do with scientific racism, though why having a handful of Neanderthal genetic markers would be considered superior is beyond me. It has to do with species origin and migration patterns. H. sapiens originated in Africa and then migrated out to Europe and Asia, while H. neanderthalensis (apparently) originated in Europe. (There's not enough samples to state this conclusively, but there have been no Neanderthal remains found in Africa, and they appear to be physically adapted to the northern cold.) That means that H. sapiens that stayed in Africa did not interbreed with European H. neanderthalensis, because there weren't any - thus, no genetic markers of H. neanderthalensis in modern native African populations. This is based on the following paper:

Green RE, Krause J, Briggs AW, et al. (May 2010). "A draft sequence of the Neandertal genome". Science 328 (5979): 710–22.
19th-Jul-2011 09:17 am (UTC)
Echoed. The only possible advantage might be a lesser susceptibility to rickets in cloudy North West Europe; and that's only guesswork. They didn't use projectile weapons or trade networks, which were the biggest areas where H. sapiens were superior to them.
19th-Jul-2011 09:22 am (UTC)
There might be some advantages for far-northerners - the Saami could probably use the modified nasal structure that allowed them to breathe better in the cold, for example. But that's not really what happened. Instead, things like my ex having a Neanderthal-phenotypic supraorbital ridge happened :)
19th-Jul-2011 09:32 am (UTC)
I sometimes wonder about the classic Caledonian redhead (NB in my own ancestry)
19th-Jul-2011 11:07 pm (UTC)
Comments like this are why I love my fellow anthropologists.
19th-Jul-2011 09:23 am (UTC)
i remember similar things from my human genetics class that i took last semester...the professor was diligent about keeping up to date with the latest research (even going so far as to be disappointed that he could no longer include certain things because they had been discredited even though they illustrated the point beautifully ^_~)

thank you for the article...hopefully i will find the time to read it whilst juggling a full course load...genetics is something that i find absolutely fascinating
19th-Jul-2011 09:25 am (UTC)
I did my project for my anthro of growth and development class last semester on Neanderthal pre-adult development, and this paper was part of it. It's a really fascinating read.
(Deleted comment)
27th-Jul-2011 12:20 am (UTC)
The research was a survey, not a census. Gene loadings of 1.5% to 3%, combined with a primarily trade relationship (not a genetic exchange relationship) in most populations, does not translate to a high rate of gene transfer. Also, "especially in the past 400 years?" Learn some history, please. It's been quite a lot longer than that.
19th-Jul-2011 11:50 am (UTC)
i'd be suspicious of any article about science that's title starts off with the word "confirmed"
19th-Jul-2011 04:05 pm (UTC)
i have not read your link but i do look forward to it

i believe this can not be considered "confirmed" because it cannot be absolutely true

for one thing, it only takes a few thousand years at most for skin clour to change one way or the other - and so some blacks (some berbers or ethiopians, eg), might be more closely related to europeans, whereas the opposite would be true of some whites

in appearance, and not colour, some iron-age dutch or celts may more resemble africans, and some australian aboriginees may more resemble neandertals

i feel virtually all humans share neandertal traits - it may have eneabled species survival - and that there may have been back-migration into africa into africa

some europeans may share GENERALLY MORE TRAITS, and other regions may share GENERALLY LESS - that is bound to happen

many believe any neandertal-sapiens intermingling occurred many tens of thousands of years ago - i do believe, rather, that it was occurring as recently as 35,000-20,000 years ago, and, indeed, it continues to this day - so the whole africa/europe, black-vs-white idea is rather fundamentalist

and i'm sure some intermingling must have occurred prior to the MAIN migrations out of africa

i am one who believes that neandertal traits may have been of benefit to survival or to society, just as some sapiens traits. neandertal has been greatly maligned in the past, but in fact had many good traits to offer. however, that does not mean that europeans are any more superior than anyone with LESS neandertal traits - as we all tend to share fundamentally similar ancestry

finally, what traits may have been "superior" at one time may not be superior in today's world
19th-Jul-2011 07:00 pm (UTC)
Um... I hesitate to ask this, but how, exactly, could H. sapiens x H neanderthalensis crossbreeding be continuing today? Neanderthals are extinct, and they have been for 30,000 years or so.
19th-Jul-2011 10:32 pm (UTC)
duh! - the traits are continuing to expand through populations

"extinct" = black/white
19th-Jul-2011 10:33 pm (UTC)
Right. I have no idea what you meant to say.
19th-Jul-2011 10:35 pm (UTC)
my genes have predisposed me to CFS, which makes my mind need to cut lots of corners ha ha
20th-Jul-2011 01:34 am (UTC)
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/7/1957

The actual article is there, regretfully, I can no longer access it since I graduated...

The problem with assuming something's racist is that it appears to increase the likelihood of "Type II" error for actual differences when you consider "race" a factor.

Perhaps a better way to consider things is to redefine "race"...

Think of people like a paleoanthropologist does. Think of people in lineages. Many human traits have heritability--including many of the factors we use to identify "race" like skin color and skeletal morphology. This means, the more a particular lineage of people interbreed, the more similar (i.e. regression to the mean) they become in those heritable traits.

So, the more a population preferentially mates with itself, the more they become similar, etc. If you then select a list of characteristics other people define as racially defining (and take action based upon, like mate selection), you can look at a "race" as simply those people who have a particular set of shared, heritable characteristics due to common lineage and descent.

For example, black people tend to be black because they inherit the genetic propensity toward darker skin from their parents. As long as their parents/they continue to select darker skinned mates, you get black people. If they start mating out, you get different skin color, typically lighter.

However, if you look at Andamanese and Africans, you may have the same characters--dark skin and hairlessness--but due to different lineages. These two would be considered two separate "races".

So, back to your statement...

"I find it extremely hard to grasp that the most hated and discriminated group on this planet is excluded because apparently, Neanderthals migrated out of Africa--when it has always been my knowledge that they were European and Asian based. This article might as well say all Eastern Asian people are part H. Floresiensis."

The problem is that Neanderthals descended from Homo heidelbergensis in North Africa and became relatively isolated from the other child of heidelbergensis, Homo sapiens. Because of their adaptations to cold and slower cultural evolution, they never went south again. This means any modern humans who never left Sub-Saharan Africa would never be in the same place at the same time to have sex with a Neanderthal--the most common means of exchanging genetic material--and therefore shouldn't have Neanderthal DNA.

Unless you go for divine impregnation, of course.

If Neanderthals had gone back into Africa, your point would make sense, but as far as we can tell, it was a one-way trip north...

More interesting, to me, is the fact ALL of the populations coming out of Africa have this gene sequence. What this implies--the fixation--is either there was a tiny, tiny group who mixed with the Neanderthals and then filled the rest of the world or there was some sort of driver that made those genes go to virtual fixation.

What change was brought along with that sequence or what did that sequence carry with it that essentially made other Homo sapien women less able to survive/succeed?
20th-Jul-2011 06:38 am (UTC) - in a white man's world..
confirmed that all african people are not apartheid, and maybe aryan was a race to the death, and sapien was a vaccine..
25th-Jul-2011 02:02 am (UTC)
I've been hearing about this for a while. It's widely thought that some interbreeding went on, but there's no way to confirm anything like this, so, while I have not read your link, I am already unsure of this particular source.

However, one thing in your post stuck out to me. I agree with everything but the comment about Africans being "the most hated and discriminated group on this planet." Africa is a big place and is inhabited by more than one group of people. Saying that all Africans can be grouped together is like saying that ALL non-africans are part neanderthal. Just sayin'.
30th-Jul-2013 10:37 am (UTC)
Nindretal is vanished because of its inferior gene quality ,but humans are not.Those who claim to have niandertal gene should also claim for those inferior genes
This page was loaded Jul 13th 2014, 6:38 pm GMT.