It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Neanderthals 'bred with early humans'

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on May, 10 2010 @ 10:26 PM

Neanderthal man interbred with the first anatomically modern humans to migrate out of Africa, according to a pioneering study showing that there was a flow of genetic material between early Homo sapiens and our extinct cousins. Scientists had dismissed the idea that Neanderthalers could have had children with our early ancestors, but a study of the Neanderthal genome, derived from analysing 40,000-year-old fossilised bones, has produced the most convincing evidence to date of limited interbreeding. The findings suggest that although there was "gene flow" from Neanderthalers to H. sapiens, there was no evidence of any genetic exchange in the opposite direction – suggesting that the resulting children were raised by modern humans. Interbreeding was more likely between Neanderthalers and H. sapiens women.

awesome, is this enough proof?
does this put a twist on anyones religious beliefs?

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 10:54 PM
You mean as in the neanderthals were the sons of Cain?
second line

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:12 PM
reply to post by rubbertramp
I've been reading this for a while and it's very cool. In early 2009, we'd argue there wasn't any evidence that us and Neanderthals successfully mated. The almost completed Neanderthal genome 'proved' we didn't. Here we are in 2010 and it's not only a fact, but it's rather common...

Between 1% and 4% of the Eurasian human genome seems to come from Neanderthals.
Source for quote and image below

It has seemed obvious (to me) that mating would happen, but without pregnancy or perhaps total infant we know it happened successfully a lot. There's hardly a mammal on Earth that some bloke hasn't tried to rut with at some point. It still happens today lol. One man's sheep is another man's hot fantasy...baaaaa

To many it's just another example of science's ability to throw away previous assumptions and grow.

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:33 PM
Excellent find, Op. That's just so gross , though

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:00 AM
Romantic Rebel's Thread:
You're a Neanderthal: Genes say yes — a little bit

berenike's Thread:
DNA reveals our ancestors interbred with Neanderthals

ModernAcademia's Thread:
New Genome Shows Neanderthal Trace In Humans

JacKatMtn (Forum Moderator's) Closed Thread:
Neanderthals and humans interbred, fossils indicate

OrphenFire's Thread:
Neanderthal genes found in some modern humans

There's been a lot of news in the last few days on this subject. But again, I'll mention, my thread from May 4 of last year, which discusses, among other topics:

-the targeting of the androgen sensitive (possibly Neanderthal) phenotype, which confers increased risk of migraine headache and epilepsy, for pharmaceutical epigenetic damage

-the phenotype's naturally increased mercury sensitivity and some of the implications of that in the actual causes of autism, Asperger's, and ADHD.

-one pharmaceutical cause of AIDS, long term high dose valproic acid, presented sometimes as a panacea to those of the Neanderthal phenotype.

Mass sterilization campaign Exposed! This Includes You! Epigenotoxins! Legal Loophole!

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:02 AM
lol, i consider them human, so i dont see how this would affect my religious beliefs, after all current genome projects on neanderthalls dna shows that their dna is 99.5% to 99.9 % the same to ours, lol.

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:07 AM
reply to post by rubbertramp

Could white skin and blue eyes have been strengthed by interbreeding with them? Just a possible theory.. I do not know if neanderthal dna dates at the same time as the "blue eyed gene". They evolved in colder climates and this could explain why there is so much tension between races. We might have left africa bred them out as well as killed them off. Skin colour is such a trivial thing yet there seems to be have been "racial grudges" that have lasted for several thousand years and it seems to be based on more than just tribal in-fighting.

Or they might have just been bred out peacefully.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by riley]

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:22 AM
I thought about that also riley, as i saw what was suppose to be a accurate statue of a neanderthal "family" in Germany (in a museum) and the statues were brownish blond hair and blue eyes.

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:23 AM
reply to post by riley

You know that was what I've been thinking. Blond hair and blue eyes may be a neanderthal trait. In almost every example of what Neanderthal supposedly looked like they show him with brown eyes and brow/black hair. How does anybody know what his skin, hair and eye pigments they had. They left Africa much earlier in time and have lived in the colder climates much longer than "Modern man"

Hmmmm Europe they say aye?

ETA to the above poster. That would be the first example showing him with blue eye that I've heard of. Good find.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by SLAYER69]

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:37 AM
reply to post by rubbertramp

This is such a confusing issue, because every study seems to come to a different conclusion.
Just before reading this thread I heard the opposite in some documentary, which claimed the Neanderthals became fewer after every environmetal climate change, and that the last survivors in Spain never met modern humans.
I'd love to know for sure, because my ancestry would definately have those genes (even if they became extinct 50 000 years ago, or did they?).

Would it influence religion? It depends which sect or variety. The Christian fundamentalists that I once joined had set dates for creation at literally 6000 years. Apart from that, everyone but Noah and his clan were wiped out in the flood, which killed all the pre-Adamic races. They believe the Lucy fossil was an incomplete Chimpanzee skeleton, and that Neanderthal man were diseased or athritic humans. So yeah, to them it would make a difference.
But there are also political aspects to paleantology: the Chinese tend to believe that they are not descended from modern humans out of Africa, but that they evolved seperately and distincly in Asia from Homo Erectus. Since this was out of Neanderthal's apparent range, his DNA should then also not be found there.

I'm quite hairy, and imagine that since Neanderthal man had several physical adaptions to the cold, they were probably also covered with fur.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by halfoldman]

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:37 AM
i see alot of nean's everywhere all shapes sizes and colors but...

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:42 AM
reply to post by halfoldman

That documentary could probably of been a year or more old. There have been a rash of new evidence/theories coming to light of late.

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:57 AM
What's amazing is how much Neanderthal we Eurasians have in us, it's far more than was expected. Most thought any Neanderthal traits would have been long lost - or such a drop in the bucket as to be inconsequential. The assumption was that there were probably the occasional instances of interbreeding, but now it seems it must have been much more common.

Originally posted by riley
Could white skin and blue eyes have been strengthed by interbreeding with them? Just a possible theory..

Well, at least some Neanderthals were Gingers (as if gingers didn't have it hard enough, lately). The fact is, being light skinned is very useful if you live in a place that gets a lot less light than the equatorial areas, where humans first evolved. White skin doesn't block out as much of the sun's rays which are needed to produce vitamin E in the body. The farther north you go, the less light you get, and you are likely wearing more clothes due to the cold.

Humans living in equatorial areas, or areas with little chance at shade like the Australian Outback, have dark skin because it protects against the harsh sun - you don't get cancer as easily, and you can survive with producing vitamin E at a much slower rate because you receive more sun.

So, it's likely it would have evolved with or without any Neanderthal influence, just like Pacific Islanders who came to Australia apparently evolved back to being darker skinned in an environment very similar to the African Savanna. But then again, maybe it helped this process along - made it happen much faster than it otherwise would have?

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 01:07 AM
reply to post by halfoldman

True, just checked some links on documentaries and the climate change research on Neanderthals (involving 30 scientists) is from 2004. Nevertheless I'm sure there will be schools of counter-arguments. Both "species" did share a common ancestor at some stage and exact DNA differentiation will be difficult, I imagine.
In any case, some Must See pics on Neanderthal recreations (rather pc compared to the brutish image I grew up with) and even musical instruments:

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 08:46 AM
reply to post by LifeInDeath

how would this concept pertain to the inuit?
assuming they are basically the same as native americans, has their skin lightened over time?

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 09:35 AM
reply to post by rubbertramp

The Inuit (and I believe that anthropologists did not class them with the Native Americans physically, and perhaps also because they partly live in Russia) are actually quite pale when not exposed to the elements, and apparently the snow reflection causes quite a tan (Europeans also become quite ruddy in that environment).

The Inuit have some adaptions to the cold and their environment, such as being short and stocky.
However the theory goes that Neanderthals relied on their bodies for survival, and became highly adapted and evolved for that purpose. They may have had 100 000 years to develop those adaptions - more than any non-African human population ever had!
Modern humans used their brains and culture for survival, so a better technology in clothing, housing and hunting meant that they didn't require all those extreme physical adaptions.
Neanderthal culture changed very little from its first sign to its nadir. Homo Sapiens culture changed very rapidly and constantly.

However, one group of people did survive virtually naked in Arctic conditions until the early 20th century. The Indians of Tierra del Fuego (The Ona and Jahgan) swam the freezing Bering Sea naked, and they challange many of our ideas about prehistory.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by halfoldman]

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 09:56 AM
reply to post by halfoldman

thanx for that. appreciate it.
it's almost embarrassing to admit how clueless i am considering some of these topics.
at 46 it's amazing how wrong they were back in my school days.
very little has most likely changed since.
one other thought, does all this throw a wrench in the land bridge over the bearing sea, and migration we were taught?

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:26 AM
reply to post by rubbertramp

No not at all, this is the official stuff I've read. The Inuit moved between the Russian and American sides of the Bering Strait by boats into historical times (and probably still do). Why anthropologists divided certain races up the way they did is unsure. I suppose they are all First Nations/Indigenous people who are related across the Americas and also to the Mongoloid peoples of Asia, especially the Siberian tribes. The Inuit were of a later migration and therefore not significantly differentiated physically from the Russian tribes.
The people of Tierra del Fuego lived on the southern tip close to Antarctica, so they were probably descendants of the earliest migration from Russia into the Americas.
There is growing evidence that some peoples came from the Pacific to the Americas or vice-versa, but that still needs more clarification.

I've seen it argued that all Caucasians and Asians descend from one group out of Africa. Only those who moved West to become the modern Europeans moved into the range of the Neanderthals.

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:56 AM
reply to post by Kandinsky

The mtDNA study of Neanderthals concluding no interaction based on little obvious evidence of mtDNA contribution from the few Neanderthal lines we know of was highly illogical.

The study was good. It was the conclusions that where illogical.

There are several other studies about other humans being found that have the same logic errors.

Lack of a mtDNA or YDNA presense in modern humans is NOT an indication of lack of contribution to nDNA (autosomal DNA or even a lack of pseudoautosomal).

Even if one chooses to look at the mtDNA neanderthal lines on the Genbank, and if you compare them to modern humans - it is quite clear that they are not as far away from us as is being made out. Numerous mutations are in common with several modern human mtDNA lines.

It is the logic being applied to the conclusions being drawn that are highly suspect. The studies can be good. The scientists writing the conclusions need to take some courses on logic.

There is an arrogance in mathematics and science that methodological process means one is "logical." One is quite capable of being both methodical and illogical. They may be often tied together, but they are not the same thing.

[edit on 2010/5/11 by Aeons]

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:18 AM
reply to post by riley

They often had red hair that turned brown as they got older. (me and my family). They had light skin. They probably had freckles.

European Caucasians show a diversity which is inconsistent with a singular OOA theory. The Middle East, the Balkans, and further are all caucasian. But most do not show the high degree of diversity found in the European populace.

Europeans have a multitude of hair colours. Not one with some variation. Europeans have a multitude of eye colours. Not one with some variation.
Europeans have a high degree of skin variation in a very small area.

Europeans are supposed to have come out of the Caucaus.

So why don't Europeans look like Iranians? Why don't Europeans look like the Afghanis? Some do. Some don't.

There must be a reason for an extra 250,000 years of variation found in this populace. There must be a reason why every previous incursion of homo sapiens into Europe failed, but the last one took. They somehow acquired some traits that made them better suited to the much harsher ice age environment that all the other homo sapiens from the same tribes did not have.

Interbreeding with a group that already had those traits would be the fastest way of getting them.

My guess is that what killed of the Neanderthal wasn't hunting. It was obstetrics. It was the fact that they could just barely inbreed with homo sapiens.

That lots of the babies died. Lots of the babies killed their mothers. Human male with Neanderthal Female - our babies are voracious and the placentas I bet triggered immunity reactions. Neanderthal male with Human Female would also trigger some immunity factors, and more problems with the already problematic "obstetrical dilemma" in human females - and the larger size fetuses and their heads were harder for human women to have. The placentas on both sides tended to lead to killer thrombic reactions more often.

Some survived. Enough to leave a genetic legacy in Europeans of faster developing, lighter skinned, more genetic variation. But not enough to leave a modern Neanderthals around.

The population increase in Europe was slow. Way slower than other areas on the planet for a long time. Why? Some of it was intentional infanticide - particularly of females. Could some of it be that the mix of two almost differentiated species left Europeans with a legacy of difficult pregnancies that only started to even out in the last three thousand years?

[edit on 2010/5/11 by Aeons]

new topics

<<   2 >>

log in