Human DNA Almost Identical To Neanderthal

Humans almost identical to Neanderthals
By FIONA MACRAE

Last updated at 22:00pm on 15th November 2006

We may like to think we're far superior to the Neanderthals species that us humans beat in the evolutionary battle.

But analysis of DNA from a 38,000-year-old bone has revealed Neanderthal and human DNA is actually up to 99.9 per cent identical.

In contrast, humans and chimps only share 95 per cent of their genetic material.

The discovery came as scientists work on decoding the entire Neanderthal genome from a perfectly-preserved artefect.

Found in a cave in Croatia, the bone could hold the key to many of the secrets of evolution.

Humans DNA

Ok... So what exactly does this prove? I mean, other than what most of us already assumed. I have never been a big denier of evolution because I don't think it really conflicts with creationism at all. Some argue otherwise,but those are the people who want to assume that when the bible says "In God's image" it is meant that man was made in the physical image of God.

Firstly, God does not have a physical image. He is spirit,or, as the bible itself states, "God is light." So naturally, we are not physically in God's image. However, spiritually we are very much in God's image. This "discovery" does nothing to disuade me from what I already believe.

I guess the only question I have and the answer wont change anything for me, is how did the other 1/10th of a percent come about in modern humans? Was it evolution or somthing else?

Here's another perspective on the story.

Apart from that, what has god got to do with science and technology? A short answer: absolutely nothing.

What scientific evidence is your 'belief' based on speaker_of_truth?

what has god got to do with science and technology? A short answer: absolutely nothing.

What does science have to do with spirituality? Absolutely nothing..

[edit on 16-11-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

If I recall correctly, there's not much information here....

They've managed to sequence about a million bases... given that the human genome is estimated to be about 3 billion bases long, this data represents an extraordinarily small comparison.

While intriguing, it is certainly not enough of a comparison to draw a strong inference from.

Kallikak,even if what they are saying is a fact, what are the implications of it? I see no big "revelation" coming out of this. Really. They are touting it around like it's some groundbreaking discovery or something.

I can see it's importance; it's ancient DNA of a creature never before sequenced who could have had an important part in our evoloution. It's not necessarily ground-breaking but it supplies evidence to theories concerning the relationship of homo spaiens and neanderthals, and may shed light on why we are here and they aren't. Other implications were contained in the article you provided us:

Professor Chris Stringer, head of human origins at the Natural History Museum in London, said: 'Research can now extend to complete the whole genome of a Neanderthal and to examine Neanderthal variation through time and space to compare with ours.

'Having such rich data holds the promise of looking for the equivalent genes in Neanderthals that code for specific features in modern humans, for example eye colour, skin and hair type, cognitive and language skills.'

He added: 'Having a Neanderthal genome will also throw light on our own evolution, by allowing a three-way comparison of the genetic blueprints that produced Neanderthals, and that today produce us and our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees.

'We should then be able to pin down unique changes in each genome to show how we came to be different from each other.'

Who's touting this around like it's a groundbreaking discovery? It is a step in sequencing their DNA, merely a taster of what is happening.

by SpeakerofTruth
What does science have to do with spirituality? Absolutely nothing..

Then why bring up some superflous concept, a.k.a god, in relation to the sequencing of some ancient DNA? I don't think any serious scientist would suggest creationism is a viable theory, so it doesn't even need to be mentioned unless you wanted to post this in BTS.

If the 99.9 percent holds up with futher analysis..
I think it's an important finding.

I'm no geneticist. But isn't it not only about the sequences of genes, but also which ones
are actually expressed?

We probably share 25% dna with a fig tree..But we aren't 25% externally identical.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Kallikak,even if what they are saying is a fact, what are the implications of it? I see no big "revelation" coming out of this. Really. They are touting it around like it's some groundbreaking discovery or something.

Who knows? I mean how is it going to change my life... probably not at all. And in terms of what it means scientifically... I can only speculate, but that the DNA between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens isn't really unexpected, I mean they are extremely similar organisms. I would speculate that this would be viewed as further molecular support for the theory of common descent, but I can't say what it means for human evolution in general. Too specialized of an issue to affect anything in my life.

I think the coolest thing is that they were able to PCR and sequence such 'ancient' DNA.

Originally posted by spacedoubt
If the 99.9 percent holds up with futher analysis..
I think it's an important finding.

I'm no geneticist. But isn't it not only about the sequences of genes, but also which ones
are actually expressed?

We probably share 25% dna with a fig tree..But we aren't 25% externally identical.

Certainly which genes are expressed is important. But more and more science is finding that it's the non-coding DNA that actually is important for an organism.

Indeed some researchers have gone as far as to describe the DNA in terms of "Genome System Architecture," claiming that the non-coding DNA 'formats' or functions as an OS.

Much the same way that computers have an OS and software. What makes my Mac a Mac is the OS. My PC is a PC because of the OS. The OS determines the properties of the machine. Similarly the non-coding DNA may play a significant role in organismal identity...

Coding genes can be thought of as the software that functions in the environment provided by the OS.

Because my Mac's and my PC's both run Adobe Photoshop and Microsoft Office, doesn't speak to their identity as machines, but the OS does.

In any case.... whether the DNA was coding or not is not especially relevant in that it still represents a comparison of less than 1% of any portion of the genome. This is simply not enough of a comparison to make any reasonable inferences from.

It's not so clear that modern day humans and Neanderthal man are really that close as far as mitochodrial dna is concerned...

Mitochondrial DNA extracted from ancient Neanderthal remains have been typed and found to differ significantly from human mitochondrial DNA. (Source) While the results do not indicate a common ancestry, a team of scientists in Germany have recovered and sequenced Y-chromosome DNA from a 49,000 year-old Neanderthal. The team estimates that H. sapiens sapiens and H. neanderthalensis may have shared a common ancestor in the Homo genus several hundred thousand years ago. (Source) Update: 16 May 2006

Really?

In other words, all of this may be amoot point..

[edit on 20-11-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 20-11-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth


It's not so clear that modern day humans and Neanderthal man are really that close as far as mitochodrial dna is concerned...

Well, yes... as I said, thus far the comparisons performed are inadequate to make a strong inference re: common ancestry. In any case, the mitochondrial genome also represents a relatively insignificant portion of the total DNA and genes present in any organism. Mitochondrial genomes are further known to swap genetic information with the nucleus in many instances. Finally, the method of mitochondrial inheritance make it more likely that a few unique mitochondrial genomes were fixed in the population and haven't diverged much since the LCA. The degree of divergence between related mitochondrial genomes is a function not only of the LCA, but also the genetic diversity present in the mitochondrial genome.

I've been looking this up. At present, the scientific consensus appears to be that humans aren't descended from Neanderthals. Their last common ancestor lived something like half a million years ago, long before either humans or Neanderthals had evolved. It was probably some chimplike beast or other.

Here's a BBC news story on the latest discovery.

Here are some earlier links. Note that the pages were posted several years ago, when the first Neanderthal DNA was isolated and sequencing began. The report we are discussing is about a new discovery, but so far there seems to be little evidence of interbreeding.

Article on Neanderthal DNA sequencing

Report on a paper published in Nature: 'Humans Not Descended from Neanderthals'

2003 BBC report

Nervous scripturalists can rest easy: the pure Godliness of man's image has not yet been sullied by the taint of the low-browed, lantern-jawed Beast.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Nervous scripturalists can rest easy: the pure Godliness of man's image has not yet been sullied by the taint of the low-browed, lantern-jawed Beast.

I don't think I'd exactly be described as a "nervous scripturalists" but you addressed a very important issue in all of this. If this indeed is true,at least to me, it doesn't confirm anything that I didn't already know.

Evolution,unlike many creationists,does not threaten me at all. I can see where evolution may be true and yet creationism still be viable. I guess my main reason of posting the information was just to show that it doen't really confirm or "disprove" anything....

However, considering that there is such a disparity between human and neanderthalic mitochondrial dna, I think the whole ssue is to be called into question. Of course,if science were to actually research what they have conveniently labeled "junk" dna, science may be surprised at some of the findings it would make there.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Of course,if science were to actually research what they have conveniently labeled "junk" dna, science may be surprised at some of the findings it would make there.

Junk DNA is no longer fashionable in scientific circles. The preferred term, as I've used above, is non-coding DNA, which is a misnomer also. Because DNA doesn't encode protein, doesn't make it non-coding.

In any case, there is significant research being carried out in the area of non-coding DNA. Scientific opinion re: non-coding DNA is changing.

Kallikak,I want to thank you for your contributions to the thread... You have done well... You have not been condescending in any way, and have been equal and fair in all of your posts.

The extra .1% is still quite a difference...we are not directly descended from neanderthals, but they probably did interbreed with modern humans. All of you descended from europe and southwest asia probably have some neanderthal blood, although that doesn't really mean anything...neanderthals actually had larger average brains than modern humans, although their bodies were larger on average as well. Really though, most scientists still don't even agree upon a lot of the neanderthal theories, and where exactly they fell into place during evolution.

neanderthals actually had larger average brains than modern humans, although their bodies were larger on average as well.

That fact has always been rather interesting to me. Common sense would dictate that a larger brain would be indicative of a larger storage capacity. However, there have been experiments that would indicate just the opposite. For example, it has been said that Einstein's brain was significantly smaller than the average individuals, yet, his mental capacity far exceeded those who "common sense" would dictate to have a higher capacity.

In relation to the neanderthal, they had much larger brains, but by no means had the capacity that human's of today did. Most argue that intelligence is based on the firing of neurons in the brain rather than brain size,but it would seem that a larger brain would have more neuronal connections and such. However, that doesn't seem to be necessarily the case.

Who says they were dumb? Secondly from a Biblical point of view human Demonic cross breeds existed and one can not rule out that they were some off shoot from us but failed or were executed by God's command at some point. They could have been the off shoot of humans that evolved backwards rather than forwards when God protected the Adamite blood line for the prophetic saviour as in Christ.

Urologists could argue that we are the cross bread types from Aliens and we killed off the real Humans in the process and Aliens cover up the fact part of us were cave man type beings and they are afraid to tell us because of understanding of criticism towards animal rights. One racist theory suggests white people including the royal elite the Alien superior intellect right to rule on earth.
Its racist because its saying non whites are inferior and it’s Racist to say white people are not humans. But I do not believe this view its just something I read.


[edit on 22-11-2006 by The time lord]

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

neanderthals actually had larger average brains than modern humans, although their bodies were larger on average as well.

That fact has always been rather interesting to me. Common sense would dictate that a larger brain would be indicative of a larger storage capacity. However, there have been experiments that would indicate just the opposite. For example, it has been said that Einstein's brain was significantly smaller than the average individuals, yet, his mental capacity far exceeded those who "common sense" would dictate to have a higher capacity.

In relation to the neanderthal, they had much larger brains, but by no means had the capacity that human's of today did. Most argue that intelligence is based on the firing of neurons in the brain rather than brain size,but it would seem that a larger brain would have more neuronal connections and such. However, that doesn't seem to be necessarily the case.

I also read that a math degree student has a brain the size of a computer mouse or less when he was scanned they saw it was very abnormaly small. Maybe we do not need big brains as the way computers get smaller but quicker as the trend shows. But can not find the the webpage it was a few years back now.