It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Similarities between the DNA of modern people and Neanderthals are more likely to have arisen from shared ancestry than interbreeding, a study reports.
That is according to research carried out at the University of Cambridge and published this week in PNAS journal.
Previously, it had been suggested that shared parts of the genomes of these two populations were the result of interbreeding.
However, the newly published research proposes a different explanation.
They argue that the amount of DNA shared between modern Eurasian humans and Neanderthals - estimated at between 1-4% - can be explained if both arose from a geographically isolated population, most likely in North Africa, which shared a common ancestor around 300-350 thousand years ago.
When modern humans expanded out of Africa, around 60-70,000 years ago, they took that genetic similarity with them.
reconstructed birth canal indicates that childbirth was about as difficult in Neandertals as in present-day humans, but the canal's shape indicates that Neandertals had a more primitive birth mechanism. A significant shift in childbirth apparently occurred quite late in human evolution, during the last few hundred thousand years. Such a late shift underscores the uniqueness of human childbirth and the divergent evolutionary trajectories of Neandertals and the lineage leading to present-day humans.
Originally posted by zazzafrazz
reply to post by 1littlewolf
I rarely assume anything
They are different birth canals. One species can't just pop out of another. Neandertals and humans have different patterns of pelvic sexual dimorphism.
reconstructed birth canal indicates that childbirth was about as difficult in Neandertals as in present-day humans, but the canal's shape indicates that Neandertals had a more primitive birth mechanism. A significant shift in childbirth apparently occurred quite late in human evolution, during the last few hundred thousand years. Such a late shift underscores the uniqueness of human childbirth and the divergent evolutionary trajectories of Neandertals and the lineage leading to present-day humans.
For more info read here :
www.pnas.org...
Originally posted by zazzafrazz
I think it should perhaps be reread, It clearly states what I said. That it is not physically viable for one species to birth the other. It is a good article Its not the just cranium size so much as how a turn/birthing is different through each birth canal.
Originally posted by demongoat
the thing is, they haven't found any evidence of any mitochondrial dna from neanderthals, which is passed maternally, in homo sapiens so that claim you are making is dead in the water.
this means that humans would have to only be male, and if we never mated with neanderthals(a huge possibility) it hardly matters if a hybrid was viable or not.
we may have been split off so long that we wouldn't mate with neanderthals anyway, or so rarely that even if we could we didn't and didn't produce a hybrid.
here is a report on it from 2007.
Scientists at Cambridge University currently are saying that humans from Europe, Asia and Oceana may not have mixed with Neanderthals…..
……………….
Studies in the past reported that only non-Africans had Neanderthal genes, namely Europeans and Asians. Then came studies showing Denisovans in Asia, a cousin to Neanderthals, but different from Neanderthals showed up in some Asian peoples today, including those in Oceana, such as in Papua and New Guinea in one to six percentage of their genomes. So research must continue.
……………….
The question remains whether they interbred or not.
………………….
But now the new study conflicts and says there's no proof they mated. Instead, they may have simply had the same common ancestor from further back in time, about 300,000 years ago.
…………………..
Science can't prove conclusively that humans and Neanderthals didn't breed. But researchers say it would have been much less than what last year's research reports claimed, that one to four percentage of Neanderthal genes in non-Africans..
i hope you do realize that while we can combine animals to make hybrids, such as mules, and ligers, they don't happen naturally. i figure it is the same with humans and neanderthals,
the thought is that neanderthal were highly adapted to colder climates and as the climate got warmer the neanderthal migrated north to keep to that climate. that is why there is no DNA found in south african people, because when humans evolved the neanderthal lived in the colder regions farther north.
also neanderthal hunting tactics didn't work in grasslands and many of the animals they hunted didn't live there either.
Secondly I do not see how a population would become ‘geographically isolated’ in the north of Africa and not have any genetic drift into the south at all.
But Congo only stretches from the middle of Africa to the West. The landbridge into Eurasia, as well as the major route humans travelled from North Africa down to the south exists on the east.
If they made it to the landbridge then there’s no reason they couldn’t have gone the whole way down, and this in no way suggests a ‘geographically isolated’ population…
Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
But Congo only stretches from the middle of Africa to the West. The landbridge into Eurasia, as well as the major route humans travelled from North Africa down to the south exists on the east.
If they made it to the landbridge then there’s no reason they couldn’t have gone the whole way down, and this in no way suggests a ‘geographically isolated’ population…
Well, I'm pretty sure that we are talking about a prehistoric human population, before the existence of the boat.
and I'm also pretty sure that I did mention the virunga mountain region, lake victoria, lake edward, and the nile.
The earliest pre-human remains are pretty much all found on the eastern side of Africa. To become geographically isolated an early human population would have to walk form the east into the west.