Human DNA Almost Identical To Neanderthal

Actual brain size really has nothing to do with intelligence...whales have huge brains, but are not as intelligent as we are of course. What is more important is brain size relative to body size, and using this ratio (EQ), humans have the largest brains compared to their bodies, of any animal. After humans, it is dolphins...although some people disagree with this, and also suggest that it has more to do with the "left over" brain from running normal bodily functions, etc.

One thing I kind of read but not sure where this is from and it needs a link to explain it better is that the Heart has neurons in it that the heart has a seperate feelings that influence the mind too. It may sound way out but it could be useful element to all this. Guess I love you will all my Heart comes from. Look it up as I have to go and maybe find out for you later.

Originally posted by Shoktek
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.

I believe 'having some Neanderthal blood' has the same meaning as 'being descended from Neanderthals'. If you have some Chinese blood in you, you're of Chinese descent, even though all your other ancestors may be Apache.

Modern human beings probably don't have any Neanderthal ancestors. However (according to this article, linked to earlier by bihinyur), it looks as if late Neanderthals might have had some human blood. This suggests that the offspring of human-Neanderthal matings were accepted within Neanderthal communities, but not in human ones.

This fits in with an idea I have about the human-Neanderthal relationship. I think it likely that there was competition for resources between Neanderthals and early humans. It would be logical to expect some, because such similar organisms must have similar resource needs. This competition became an all-out interspecies war, which the Neanderthals lost.

Afterwards, when the outcome was clear for all to see, the Neanderthals might have come to be regarded by humans as a debased, inferior race. Perhaps we enslaved them, or engaged in pogroms against them. As usual in such situations, a number of offspring would probably have been fathered upon the oppressed by the oppressors. These children would have been outcasts in human society, but perhaps they were tolerated among Neanderthals, just as mixed-race children were outcasts in the white society of the American South in former times. When the Neanderthals died out, the hybrids died out along with them.

Perhaps the concept of Original Sin is a distorted race-memory of the genocide of the Neanderthals.

[edit on 23-11-2006 by Astyanax]

Sorry, thought better of it.

[edit on 23-11-2006 by Astyanax]

I figured as much.

there is nothing subhuman about a neanderthal, and we are not the product of monkeys.

Still as a muslim i belive in both creation and evolution.

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
I figured as much.

What did you figure?

there is nothing subhuman about a neanderthal

I don't think anyone was suggesting that there was.

we are not the product of monkeys.

I couldn't agree with you more. Monkeys are our brothers and sisters, not our fathers and mothers.

Still as a muslim i belive in both creation and evolution.

Well, well, we learn something new every day, don't we?

Was there something else you wanted to say? Something on-topic?

[edit on 23-11-2006 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by The time lord
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.

Well,it is pretty easy to figure out the size of your brain. All one has to do is ball up one fist and then take an unclasped hand and cover the balled up fist. Voila,your brain size.. Your heart is the size of a single balled up fist..

[edit on 23-11-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

To ordinary folks, the discovery of Neanderthals with close genetic bases to homo sapiens is nothing startling, since its only 0.1% difference.

However, to scientists and ordinary laymen who understands and ponders seriously on our origins, this news is nothing short of awesome, startling and paradigm shifting of our century!!!

Although the difference in genetic makeup is only 0.1%, and may seem insignificant, however, we are looking at at least millions of genes that are NOT identical to homo sapiens, for each SINGLE gene carries instructions on our developement thru life. Less than 100% match to homo sapiens and you get...er..monkeys. And Neanderthals have a few million genes that are different from homo sapiens - us.

This discovery is paradigm shifting because:-

1. It proves conclusively that Darwin's theory of evolution is not applicable for the case of modern man(homo sapiens) for planet Earth, for how is that theory able to explain a less than 100% match between us and the Neanderthals?

2.Where does homo sapiens originate from then?

3.Mitochondrial DNA remains the same and is common only in females genes, which is why we can trance the ancestry to a single female of our past, a female named 'Eve' in Africa. We do not share the same Mitochondrial DNA with Neanderthals - we did not evolve from Neanderthals, so what catalyctic event cause them and our Homo sapiens ancestors to exist together at the same time?

In time, we may have to gradually accept this paradigm shifting report that our origins may have come from a combination of Creation and Evolution theories....

In order to find out our origins, we need not go further than to study ancient texts, accepted by billions in the world.

Foremost will be the Bible's old testament books, accepted by Jews, Christians and muslim. A reference to check the veracity of the Neanderthals vs Homo sapiens report would be to refer to the book Genesis (how appropriate the word GENES is ).

The Almighty created Adam ( a worker ) in his image, however, it is only the image and certainly not inbued with godly power - genetic manipulation.

The sons of God were attracted to the sons of Man and copulation became common amongst them. Homo sapiens the byproduct of heavenly beings and Neanderthals?

As archeology gathered paced during the last century,more detailed ancient texts were recovered and deciphered. Such texts verified something happened in our past that accounted for our origins,although each society's narration were different, the fact remains something happened - man created, floods, etc, a common thread running thru ancient texts - vedic, summerian, semantic, etc.

The summerian civilisation are regarded as the oldest civilisation by our modern world and their texts give a more detailed account on creation:-

A group of 'gods' lead by leaders arrived on Earth to seek mineral resources of Earth. Administration and Operations were performed by the 'gods'. However, digging for resources was hardwork and menial. Thus, 'the adam',test tube babies were created by mixing the genes of evolving Earth creatures - apes/(Neanderthals?) with the 'gods'.

Such creation were then tasked to dig for resources as well as tending to the needs of 'the gods'. And in time, 'the gods' intermingled with the female created beings.

NOthing strange, we just need to look at our colonial past of 15th century Spainard soldiers, deprived of their european women in South America, started mating with the short, stocky dark skinned american aborigines, creating hybrids. Same thing with the British in India, Africa, Java. Sexual needs are common in our genes and in all lifeform, past, present and future.

Thus, are homo sapiens the hybrids of 'gods' and Neanderthals, which accounts for differences in genes of apes (95%), Neanderthals (99.9%) with modern mankind?

Secrets of past are being unlocked gradually. Best have an open mind.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

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

Interesting about the mitochondrial dna. Since that part is passed on from the mother, then could this mean that some other source of mitochondrial dna was introduced to homo sapiens, what, several hundred thousand years ago? Could this be the gene of Isis, or genesis of the human race?

Maybe it's not all bunk that homo sapiens were genetically created from Neanderthal dna and dna from an Annunaki mother, Isis.

Well I agree with SeeKerfothetruth. . . . in his comparison of the likeness to god more of a none physical likeness than a image per say.

The image came in order to distance human beings from other animals in the animal kindom.

Occurs I am not religious so my likeness to a creator may rest on the soul once without human body.

The findings are very good indeed, actually it does show that Darwin may have been right to a point.

He never said that humans came from apes, but rather that humans and apes shared a commun ancestor.

So Perhaps the missing link is not so far away anymore after all.

And for religious fundamentalist creationist believers we most understand that for them many see God as a human being of perfection, something that humans are not after all, and only without a corporal body we may be that close to perfection because we will be all of the same essence.

Because I see the bible creation of man as nothing than a myth I can relate more to the non corporal aproach to a creators image better for my taste.

Nice article Seeker.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth102
However, to scientists and ordinary laymen who understands and ponders seriously on our origins, this news is nothing short of awesome, startling and paradigm shifting of our century!!!

Actually, it's quite unsurprising and is predicted by the theory of common descent.

Although the difference in genetic makeup is only 0.1%, and may seem insignificant, however, we are looking at at least millions of genes that are NOT identical to homo sapiens,

Well no not exactly. Firstly homo sapiens do not possess 'millions of genes.' Current estimates stand at around 25000 genes in homo sapiens. You might mean it amounts to millions of changes in individual nucleotides, and this is true. It would be a difference of about 3 million bases. Of course, this doesn't specify how much of the change occurs in coding DNA vs. non-coding DNA. Additionally, the chances of any given mutation inducing a change at the amino acid level is only about 26% collectively. So a difference of 0.1% is truly meaningless, unless you can define where the changes are.

for each SINGLE gene carries instructions on our developement thru life. Less than 100% match to homo sapiens and you get...er..monkeys.

Not true. There is significant genomic variation even within species. In fact there is a recent thread related to this article wherein the following was quoted from

The findings mean that instead of humanity being 99.9 per cent identical, as previously believed, we are at least 10 times more different between one another than once thought -

So the variation within and between humans may in fact be comparable to the differences between homo sapiens and other species.

And Neanderthals have a few million genes that are different from homo sapiens - us.

Please see above re: the difference between genes and bases.

This discovery is paradigm shifting because:-

It represents nothing of the sort. As I mentioned, the theory of common descent predicts such a finding... not necessarily the 99.9% but closely similar nonetheless.

1. It proves conclusively that Darwin's theory of evolution is not applicable for the case of modern man(homo sapiens) for planet Earth, for how is that theory able to explain a less than 100% match between us and the Neanderthals?

It's explained via divergence from a common ancestor x number of years ago.

2.Where does homo sapiens originate from then?

From the same ancestor as Neanderthals.

3.Mitochondrial DNA remains the same and is common only in females genes, which is why we can trance the ancestry to a single female of our past, a female named 'Eve' in Africa. We do not share the same Mitochondrial DNA with Neanderthals - we did not evolve from Neanderthals, so what catalyctic event cause them and our Homo sapiens ancestors to exist together at the same time?

Mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively through the female line, though it has nothing to do with female genes. It simply means all of your mitochondria are from your mother, and none from your father.

There was no 'catalytic event' that caused humans and neanderthals to co-exist. It's simply that they diverged from a common ancestor, and persisted together for some amount of time, before Neanderthals, presumably became extinct. And the observations are explained quite nicely by the theory of common descent.

In time, we may have to gradually accept this paradigm shifting report that our origins may have come from a combination of Creation and Evolution theories....

Perhaps, but certainly not as a result of this evidence.

We are genetically 99% that of a chimp and 98% that of an ape.

The difference between us and them is contained in RNAi or gene silencing which is the other half of the question of Genetics

www.ambion.com...

www.ambion.com...

www.medterms.com...

This is why identical twins are not identical.

And beyond that is Proteomics

en.wikipedia.org...

The three equals the whole story: Genomics, RNAi, Proteomics.

Originally posted by bodebliss
We are genetically 99% that of a chimp and 98% that of an ape.

The difference between us and them is contained in RNAi or gene silencing which is the other half of the question of Genetics

www.ambion.com...

www.ambion.com...

www.medterms.com...

This is why identical twins are not identical.

RNAi is indeed a valuable tool in the biotechnology industry, and is currently all the rage in molecular biology. However, the degree to which chimps, or other primates differ in their mechanisms of RNAi isn't known... IOW, we don't currently understand enough about RNAi in organisms in general, nor do we understand the basic patterns that affect RNAi.

While I don't wish to quibble about the inherent genetic similarity between humans and other primates, I must state that RNAi may be a factor the differences between chimps and humans, but I've not seen any evidence of this. The refs. you've posted dealt with RNAi mechanism, and not differences between RNAi in 'lower' primates and humans.

I do know that most of the difference between human and other primates is in the non-coding DNA. While RNAi may utilize sections of DNA traditionally thought of as non-coding, that is not synonymous with what you've implied above.

Identical twins are not identical due in large part to epigenetic factors, DNA methylation, chromatin remodeling, etc. RNAi may play a role in that... but I don't believe there've been any studies on it; none that I've seen anyway.

The three equals the whole story: Genomics, RNAi, Proteomics.

Actually there is quite a lot more to the story than this. There is the above mentioned epigenetic component, there are also additional structural and protein based regulatory mechanisms. There is structural information in the form of heterochromatin. Additionally the genes have active genetic remodeling systems that facilitate variation... there is likely much more than this waiting to be discovered in the multidimensional information contained in DNA.

The truth is that genomics as a science is too immature to be able to make these broad sweeping statements about the nature of inter-genera genetic variation.

454 Sequencing and other high throughput sequencing methods are likely to obviate this in the near future though...

And here I thought Epigenetics was synonymous with RNAi. It in actuality, contains a number of related categories which will someday be major sciences in their own right.

Thank you!




en.wikipedia.org...

Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens co-existed together in the same time for thousands of years in our past.

Cures for diseases are but an excuse for genetic research in order to obtain funds from govts and charities, as there is no immorality or ethical questions connected to health research.

Unfortunately, the ULTIMATE aim of genetic research is...to become like God or become God ourselves one day. A chance to correct our genetic heritage to create superbeings capable of defeating our emotional and physical limitations, deleting pain, sorrow, loss, etc....a chance to be HAPPY EVERYDAY, lifting us beyond the deary drudgery of daily life. It's one perspective, the unvarnished truth, hidden deeply within our hearts, this quest for knowledge...

In the Bible, when the Almighty created Adam and Eve, they were in the image of Almighty and nothing more. Thus, they led carefree lives, only to tend the gardens and serve.....

But when they ate the fruits of knowledge, life changed for them, for they could understand and be more aware of their surroundings.

Fortunately, we are able to decipher Sumerian text for a more descriptive account of the Bible's narration. Mankind were only created in likeness and denied knowledge. They could do many things that animals can't and their lives were not complicated for their needs were taken care of by the gods, only to serve.

But, whether due to ethical guilt over their creation, some gods decided to give mankind knowledge. And with knowledge came improvements in the created beings life. Along with it came ambition, suffering, sorrow, pain, loss. They were like the gods and strife become common, for they could rationalize, anaylize, and come to logical conclusions to perform tasks - good or evil.

Knowledge is the ULTIMATE curse of mankind. With it comes our challenge to our creators and the emotional conflict within our minds.

The question is, would we as earthlings, created beings be happier if we do not have the 'knowledge' genes in us? The term 'slavery' is only foul when we know what is freedom. But what has freedom given us but pain and sorrow? Are we free from anger, pain, despair, hunger, loss, sorrow, more downs than ups, etc?

Will the end result of genetic research come full circle to eradicate the 'knowledge' genes within us? Better one leader than a million indian chiefs.

neanderthals were anti-social big game hunters.

When the big game died out so did they. It is fitting!

Mankind rules it's world! No more going back to the cave! No more the object of our environment!

We will spread out across this sector of the galaxy, now. We will control our DNA, now. Not because we can, but because we must if we are to ever conquer the perils of space and in the doing we will conquer death.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth102
The ULTIMATE aim of genetic research is...to become like God or become God ourselves one day.

What, like the scriptural God, with all His hang-ups and limitations? Surely science can come up something a bit more omnipotent than that?

Knowledge is the ULTIMATE curse of mankind.

Better stop denying ignorance then, eh? Any other members in favour of scrapping ATS in the cause of Blessed Cluelessness?

The term 'slavery' is only foul when we know what is freedom. But what has freedom given us but pain and sorrow? Are we free from anger, pain, despair, hunger, loss, sorrow, more downs than ups, etc?

Nietzsche called this kind of thinking 'slave morality'. The Bible is full of it.

[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God... It is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation... It has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.

Jefferson Davis

He was right, you know. And profoundly, dolefully, nauseatingly wrong.

[edit on 27-11-2006 by Astyanax]

Affirm Ignorance!

.....How apt.

Nietzsche called this kind of thinking 'slave morality'. The Bible is full of it.

For children who have everything provided for by their parents, they live a 'free' life. No worries to pay for anything save things and accessories of youth, usually provided for by doting parents.

For those unfortunate children who have to work to survive, or work part-time for school fees or for items of desire, they know the true meaning of 'slave morality'.

As for adults, they too know what is 'slave morality'. In this globalised economic world we live in, where jobs are no longer secure, unlike the past where a job lasts a lifetime with pension plans, competition is keen amongst the working class. Too high a salary and the jobs goes offshore. Too high medical benefits and the jobs too goes offshore...

Workers who worry about their jobs being lost knows what is 'slave morality'.

Workers who worry about their next paycheck to pay off their bank Masters for the mortgage on the house, car, cards, furniture, etc, knows what is 'slave morality'. And they know what is slavery of the past.

Are we, who need to compete and survive in these present times, truly 'free'? Do we have the ability to do ANYTHING we want, at ANYTIME we desire? Or is our present form of civilisation - government and business - world all over, another form of master and slave guise as a so called 'democratic society', only more worse as govts and business leaders take no responsibility when you lose your job or you ability to survive, left in the cold?

The term 'slavery' is only foul when we know what is freedom. But what has freedom given us but pain and sorrow? Are we free from anger, pain, despair, hunger, loss, sorrow, more downs than ups, etc?

This qoute must be too deep for simple minds to understand..sigh......

...anyway, Neanderthals must have been the ones who were 'free', to survive on their own and became extinct as a species.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth102
Children who have to work to survive... know the true meaning of 'slave morality'.

As for adults, they too know what is 'slave morality'. In this globalised economic world we live in, where jobs are no longer secure...

Workers who worry about their jobs... 'slave morality'.

Workers who worry about their next paycheck to pay off their bank... 'slave morality'.

That isn't slave morality. Read a little Nietzsche, in particular On the Geneaology of Morals and Beyond Good & Evil. Or get the executive summary from Wikipedia. What you are describing is 'slave mentality', something very different.

Are we, who need to compete and survive in these present times, truly 'free'?

There's an old proverb that says 'no man is free who needs air to breathe'.

It is not a question of present times; ever since Adam delved and Eve span, mankind has had to work for its dinner. Even the gentleman referred to in the second line of that famous couplet was obliged to exert himself from time to time in defence of his privileges. Competition and survival are eternal realities. If you define freedom as not having to compete and struggle to survive, then I'm afraid no-one has ever been free.

And if you think things have got worse recently, remember what people were forced to go through in past times. Pregnant women used as beasts of burden to haul colliery wagons. Small children making lace by candlelight, putting in eighteen-hour days without weekends or holidays until they went blind from sheer eyestrain. Teenage boys, sleepless for three or four days, clinging for dear life to ice-slick spars in a howling gale far above the deck of a storm-tossed ship... Or if that's all a bit too long-ago and dramatic for you, how about my uncle the miner, who used to load fifteen tons by shovel while back at home my aunt scrubbed his coaldust-stained clothes by hand in a washtub, using only laundry soap? I could go on and on. What have people like you and me to whine about, compared with all that? If our forebears could see us, how they would envy the lightness of our labours!

Even animals aren't free. In fact, they're bound to the wheel of existence far more tightly than we are; our intelligence has enabled a considerable loosening of the bonds. Have you watched a crab or sandpiper dancing along the tideline? Pretty, isn't it? But consider -- that crab or sandpiper isn't having fun, he's looking for his dinner. And it takes him the livelong day to find enough to keep him alive, plus a little surplus to provide energy for reproduction and territorial defence. The only animals that don't have to work hard for a living are domesticated ones, whose life of leisure leads inexorably to the slaughterhouse. Would you prefer to change places with them?

Do we have the ability to do ANYTHING we want, at ANYTIME we desire?

Why should we? It's not a right or anything. We do what we must and we earn the fruit of our labours, as is right and proper. Only spoilt children go boo hoo and throw tantrums when they can't have ANYTHING they want at ANY TIME they desire.