Neanderthals and Denisovans our Genetic cousins

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8d0fd569b25f.jpg[/atsimg]
Breeding with Neanderthals appears to have helped early humans fight disease

(PhysOrg.com) -- Following up on evidence that Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals mated and produced offspring, following the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome last year, Peter Parham, professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford, set forth evidence in a presentation to the Royal Society in London last week that shows that humans benefited from such encounters by having human leukocyte antigens (HLAs), added to their genomes, which in turn helped them to fight off diseases native to northern climates.

Well here is an interesting find.

Back in February of this year I wrote a speculative thread on early mans possible genetic connection with our ancestral cousins the Neanderthal and the then fairly recent discovery of the Denisovian line here...

Man's Genetic voyage. Fact, Speculation and Theories

In it I outlined how I thought this wonderful genetic journey took place. Well, there has been some development which seems to support the idea that early man after leaving Africa had indeed interbred with Neanderthal, Denisovan and possibly a few other lines [Yet to be Identified] as he migrated out into the world. Which while doing so taking on their genetic material which was better suited for the widely dispersed isolated local environments [Caucasians-Asiatics] etc and possibly their various physical characteristics. [Which could also help explain why modern man has such a wide variety in appearance and physical characteristics between the main racial lines] Outlined and discussed further here...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5d26e860ee3f.gif[/atsimg] Early humans 'picked up genes' which protected them

One such allele, known as HLA-C*0702, for example, is common among modern Europeans and Asians but is never seen in African nations - suggesting that it found its way into humans through breeding with other races.

Another, the HLA-A*11 - seen among Asians but not those of African descent was discovered by Parham in the Denisovan genome, indicating that its source was interbreeding outside of Africa.

Denisovans

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f85e3eba4914.jpg[/atsimg]

And while the more recently discovered race of hominins in Siberia, called Denisovans, hasn’t had its genome sequenced yet, evidence thus far suggest that early humans mated with them as well, which also led to new alleles appearing in their genes; one such, the HLA-A*11 shows up in Asians, but not Africans.

Denisova hominin
The mtDNA of the Denisova hominin is distinct from the mtDNAs of Neanderthals and modern humans.[3] In December 2010, an international team of scientists determined the sequence from the nuclear genome of this group (known as the Denisovans) from this finger bone. According to their analysis, this group shares a common origin with the Neanderthals and interbred with the ancestors of modern Melanesians

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ef07843104e4.jpg[/atsimg]

Melanesia

Melanesia is a subregion of Oceania extending from the western end of the Pacific Ocean to the Arafura Sea, and eastward to Fiji. The region comprises most of the islands immediately north and northeast of Australia. The name Melanesia was first used by Jules Dumont d'Urville in 1832 to denote an ethnic and geographical grouping of islands distinct from Polynesia and Micronesia.....

There was probably a long period of interaction that resulted in many complex changes in genetics, languages, and culture. It is possible that from this area a very small group of people (speaking an Austronesian language) departed to the east to become the forebears of the Polynesian people. This finding is, however, contradicted by a study published by Temple University finding that Polynesians and Micronesians have little genetic relation to Melanesians; instead, they found significant distinctions between groups living within the Melanesian islands. Genome scans show Polynesians have little genetic relationship to Melanesians.

So here we are with a few more pieces of our Genetic puzzle put in place on How Modern man not only survived but flourished and spread across the globe and also [possibly help explain why we all look so different]

If some of you have some questions about certain aspects not covered in this thread please feel free to read and or join the discussion HERE.

Thanks in advance

A few other links for your reading pleasure...
Should we clone Neanderthals?
Mating with Neanderthals Good for Human Health.
Sex with Neanderthals gave humans the strength we needed to conquer the planet.
First modern humans protected themselves against disease after leaving Africa by 'interbreeding with Neanderthals'


Your thoughts?

Here are a couple of great videos which helps explain our Journey..

Enjoy..

reply to post by SLAYER69


Interesting thread Slayer. I always wondered how we came into being and how our ancestors must of struggled back then for survival. In the end though we continue to evolve and learn new skills to help us along our path in life. Well done.

reply to post by SLAYER69


I was always in the camp that said we warred with our neanderthal cousins and killed them off.
This postulates a more acceptable alternative.

Neanderthal Man still lives!

Cool thread.

Cool thread.

And first I heard of "Denisovans". Researching them now ...

Very very fascinating. Especially all the interesting DNA research.

Only thing is that the theory doesn't allow for the climate of Africa when modern humans appear, nor land bridges to islands as sea levels had dropped at the Last Glacial Maximum.

Technically all around the world, every 120,000-125,000 years there is an ice age cycle - a long freeze where sea levels drop and humans go from the mainland to islands. Then sea levels rise during each melt and humans get stuck on islands evolving separately, evolving differently genetically on the islands than the groups they had originated from on the mainland. When sea levels drop again each glacial maximum cycle, then the humans stuck on the islands come off them onto the mainland and mix genetically again with the mainland groups creating new traits.

The idea that modern humans with the larger brains (homo sapiens sapiens) allegedly come out of Africa doesn't quite fit with the soil samples of North Africa during the long freeze. At that point, the Sahara desert is double in size and more severe with lack of water than during the present melt phase. The Nile tail end becomes more like a seasonal tributary and doesn't flow year round. And all kinds of researchers (Americans, Brits, Germans, Italians, Egyptians, Japanese) have taken soil samples of the Nile delta only to find that the Nile delta dies off at each glacial maximum and doesn't become fertile again until approximately 4000 B.C.E. which is during the melt phase.

Africa's Climate for the Last 150,000 years

Africa Climate Map at the Last Glacial
(note: the Sahara desert is double in size compared to present)

When Neanderthals "phase out" is when modern humans appear during the Last Glacial Maximum. Sea levels are roughly minus -75 to -80 meters below present when modern humans appear. That means the influx of new genetic traits in humans is coming from those humans that had been stuck on islands for tens of thousands of years who exit islands onto the mainland to mix with Neanderthals.

Here's a 800,000 year chart of Human Species, Ice Age Temperatures, Sea Levels and Land Bridges Chart that I did in 2007. If it's too small to see (because I downsized it to be 600 pixels across):
Neanderthals are the yellow-orange line at the bottom of the chart.
Homo Sapiens are the purple line at the bottom of the chart.
Homo Sapiens Sapiens are the bright fuschia pink line at the bottom of the chart.
Homo Erectus is the green line.
Cro Magnon is the regular blue line.
Homo Heidelbergensis is the pale cyan blue line.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/95ec0695f78b.gif[/atsimg]

The only adjustments needed is to drop the sea levels to -112 meters at the LGM. But for the 2007 data, the chart is on the -100 meter range. It's much easier to see the relationship between Neanderthals, Homo Sapiens and Homo Sapiens Sapiens (modern humans) on the more detailed 300,000 year chart.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/936dc6c47c88.gif[/atsimg]

Anything around the -80 meter line on the chart or the temperature average of -4.0 degrees is the timeframe in which the Sahara is doubled in size--drier then now and virtually impossible to cross on foot. The Nile becomes a seasonal tributary and is not flowing year round. The idea of any species of human going into Africa or exiting Africa is very very difficult, if not almost impossible.

So the flux in new human genes would have to be coming from any human species that got stuck on islands for tens of thousands of years evolving differently on the islands. And when the sea levels drop, those humans exit the islands and mix new genes into the mainland groups.

How come there isn't more research of human remains (DNA sequencing) on any island that connects when sea levels drop below -70 meters? I realize that on many islands, the modern day inhabitants aren't always the original inhabitants. But there's still human remains on each island going back to the LGM, the previous melt called the Eemian melt and some humans remains on islands of the freeze before the Eemian melt.

Originally posted by MapMistress
Very very fascinating. Especially all the interesting DNA research.

Only thing is that the theory doesn't allow for the climate of Africa when modern humans appear, nor land bridges to islands as sea levels had dropped at the Last Glacial Maximum.

STAR!

Great points.
The following animation I made for another thread of mine [The third in a series still to be posted]

Origins of Atlantis/Lemuria Myths Part-1
and
Origins of Atlantis/Lemuria Myths Part-2

Try not to let those thread titles fool you, They are related. It shows how the ocean levels and distances between the areas in question were drastically different during those periods. Which could answer some of the questions of our Journey.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/46dbdd5dafd9.gif[/atsimg]

The only question I've ever had.... How do we know these traits are necessarily from hybridization. This implies the trait was not present in homo erectus.

My problem with that is humans were the most unique thing to evolve from Homo erectus, with Neandathal and Denisovans basically being homo erectus with some minor adjustments to local situations.

Ergo, did these traits exist in homo erectus? And if so, how are we sure it's from hybridization?

reply to post by SLAYER69


... Slayer, let me ask. Why do you think mankind took 40,000 years from his evolution to actually get anywhere, but a brief 2000 years to get to the modern world?

reply to post by beezzer


We most likely still did the whole war part, pure Neandertals were still wiped out but instead of pure genocide it appears to have been assimilation. We have fought similar wars of conquests and assimilation among our own kind, compare Spain and Portugal in the New World and the Arab conquest of the Middle East and North Africa, so its not far fetched.

reply to post by Gorman91



Interesting question.

The second video I posted in my second reply goes into some of that. Also I feel. [And I'll take some heat for this] That mankind has been knocked back several times from various levels of development. [None of which ever reached our level but still somewhat advanced level in megalithic construction etc]

Which I suspect the evidence is along those now submerged ice-age coastlines.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Climate change has been a major factor in holding back or destroying human civilization and that chart shows some of the major changes. The last big change was around 2200 BCE which resulted in the collapse of the Akkadian Empire and the Egyptian Old Kingdom.

The journey has been difficult. The somewhat stable, at least compared to the past, climate of the planet since 2200 BCE has probably been one of the greatest factors to why we, as a species and civilization, have been able to get where we are now.

I'm sure the brain capacity of the Neandertals and maybe a monolith or two, didn't hurt either.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Yea, I think that too. Cause I mean, just for example, the description of Noah's ark is, essentially, plywood. Even though plywood wasn't invented until the 60s.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Yea, I think that too. Cause I mean, just for example, the description of Noah's ark is, essentially, plywood. Even though plywood wasn't invented until the 60s.

Interesting info about the "FLOOD STORY" maybe we need to connect the dots a bit here...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cf18662d3e14.jpg[/atsimg]
Lost civilization may have been beneath Persian Gulf

At its peak, the floodplain now below the Gulf would have been about the size of Great Britain, and then shrank as water began to flood the area. Then, about 8,000 years ago, the land would have been swallowed up by the Indian Ocean

Watery refuge
The Gulf Oasis would have been a shallow inland basin exposed from about 75,000 years ago until 8,000 years ago, forming the southern tip of the Fertile Crescent, according to historical sea-level records.

"Perhaps it is no coincidence that the founding of such remarkably well developed communities along the shoreline corresponds with the flooding of the Persian Gulf basin around 8,000 years ago," Rose said. "These new colonists may have come from the heart of the Gulf, displaced by rising water levels that plunged the once fertile landscape beneath the waters of the Indian Ocean."

I don't believe in a "World Wide flood" I've always maintained a stance that there were large regional floods where the people had to pack up and either head inland or up to higher ground during the last of the ice age melt off.

In this animation watch what happens to the Persian Gulf region in the last 10,000 years. If the article is correct something major happened around 8,000 years ago or 6,000 BC so now we are getting close to the birth of their civilization. It wouldn't surprise me if the "Biblical Flood Story" which was later borrowed from may have gotten some of the FACTS wrong etc.

reply to post by Gorman91


The Romans constructed buildings of pre fabricated concrete, a technique not seen again until the 17th century.

We lose technology, reinvent it. We still havn't figured out the exact formulas for Roman cement and concrete, which still seems to be superior to modern versions. Damascus Steel is another wonder we still havn't been able to fully replicate in modern times.

dont you know aliens mated with early humans!!!! dont rain on my parade!!!

good thread its not 2000 years mankind has pulled himself up time and time agian only to have disease and natural disaster to knock him back down.

in recorded history 10,000 years or so we like to think we are more modern than early ages but when you get down to the bones of it thats a yes and no answer.

our early ancenstors were not so dependent upon our technological prowess compared to todays modern civilization you take that element of the equation and we would devolve rather quickly.

ive heard about interbreeding and it does make the most sense neanderthals and denisovans never completely dissapeared from the earth still among us in many peoples.

we all share a common ancestroy which gives the theory validity.

altho it was cooler to think we came from aliens.

reply to post by neo96


Well you could go with the idea that aliens bred the Humans and Neandertals, like we breed dogs, cattle, and horses.

One of the biggest mysteries of humanity is our domestication, supposedly we self domesticated. So who knows?

reply to post by SLAYER69


A fine follow-up, indeed, and some pretty intriguing info on the intermingling of DNA providing some serious benefits. I like that...

I'm no geneticist, certainly, but I think it is very cool to know that somehow, in some way, our bodies seem to "know" what bits of the new "supplies" can best be exploited when said body finds itself in an environment sufficiently different from "home" as to cause some uncomfortable stress. How does that happen? I get the impression that that is what happened, anyway, although it could have been simply the mixing itself and not a concerted effort, as it were.

Kudos also to MapMistress for providing some fascinating stuff about what was going on back then earth-wise and when various folks came and went within.

I will be reading up and checking in as time allows on all the new goodies listed herein as my increasingly wacko and disturbingly intermittent "schedule" allows...

Keepin' an eye peeled...

Peace,
Pixel

reply to post by SLAYER69


I won't deny my own bias as a Christian. I've always imagined the planet just rotated faster so that water rose, along with the melting Ice. But that's for another thread.

In terms of what is scientifically provable, the first civilizations would have to be located in the Fertile crescent and North East Africa. Before it was a desert, Egypt was grass lands. And the fertile crescent, as you know, was a lot more fertile.

But we must remember that civilizations are not born in times of plenty. They are born in times of little becoming plenty. Those in between spaces. This is how Egypt and the Sumer were founded.

Little clues in ancient texts reveal that the times back then were, indeed, quite advanced. In face, this period of great distress you identified as 6000BC did not end then. It continued on and off until around the time Greece was becoming something powerful. The world was still healing from the scars of the ice age.

Going back to Neanderthals, I've got to ask how much proof of hybridization there is. I've got a lot more of a them vs us mentality in terms of first contact. This would make it a lot more understandable as to why there wasn't as much advancement.They were too busy fighting an enemy.

In addition, it's kind of interesting. Humans, as a form, evolved 200,000 years ago. But humans, as we are today, evolved 50,000 years ago. We are younger than our form.More so genetic drift than actual evolution. Some people call it "behavior modernity"

reply to post by MikeboydUS


Indeed. I've always had a thing for Roman Concrete. It's just amazing. They say they cannot replicate it because the specific source was a volcano that no longer exists. Who knows. Either way, today's materials are not as well as the old ones. At least low tech ones. We certainly have cool high tech ones.