Neanderthal-Homo Sapien Cross-breeding Idea Doubted

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
...and since this is the case, mobilizing your entire tribe to trek across vast regions of jungle, mountains, and desert would probably not be desirable, or even necessary.

This is kinda my point. Migration into Eurasia would have not just been one massive tribe all arriving at once. It would have been in slow trickles over many thousands of years.

Assuming this geographically isolated population even existed, why would every single one of them over many millenia slowly leave Africa without once leaving any trace of their DNA behind. Why would none of them ever travel south? Why would every single one of them leave? I realise populations back then were pretty sparse, but to cross into Eurasia they would have had to travel through areas where other human populations were as dense as you'd get back then. Over time this would have meant crossbreeding and therefore there should be at least some trace of Neanderthal DNA left within the remaining populations...

But there isn't.

reply to post by 1littlewolf

This is kinda my point. Migration into Eurasia would have not just been one massive tribe all arriving at once. It would have been in slow trickles over many thousands of years.

Assuming this geographically isolated population even existed, why would every single one of them over many millenia slowly leave Africa without once leaving any trace of their DNA behind.

Because at the TIME they left, their DNA, and the DNA of the population in Africa that they LEFT were basically identical.

The changes in DNA occurred AFTER they left... and since they probably didn't make the trek BACK to Africa, there would be no mechanism for their newly acquired genetic traits to pass back into the African Gene Pool.

Why would none of them ever travel south?

I would assume that it had something to do with why they left in the first place.

but to cross into Eurasia they would have had to travel through areas where other human populations were as dense as you'd get back then.

Are you speaking of Egypt, and the pre historic nile river populations?

Over time this would have meant crossbreeding and therefore there should be at least some trace of Neanderthal DNA left within the remaining populations...

Ok.... wait.... Which "Remaining Populations" are you referring to....? in the interests of posterity, it may be prudent to clearly define our terms here.

The remaining populations in Africa?

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

This is kinda my point. Migration into Eurasia would have not just been one massive tribe all arriving at once. It would have been in slow trickles over many thousands of years.

Assuming this geographically isolated population even existed, why would every single one of them over many millenia slowly leave Africa without once leaving any trace of their DNA behind.

Because at the TIME they left, their DNA, and the DNA of the population in Africa that they LEFT were basically identical.

The changes in DNA occurred AFTER they left... and since they probably didn't make the trek BACK to Africa, there would be no mechanism for their newly acquired genetic traits to pass back into the African Gene Pool.

The Human/Neanderthal split was 350 – 800,000 years ago. These guys crossed into Eurasia 35,000 years ago. The DNA of this supposed population would and could not have been the same as everyone else’s in Africa 35,000 years ago. This also suggests a very long (and therefore unlikely) period of geographical isolation and still does not account for why there was no interbreeding on the way out.

Why would none of them ever travel south?

I would assume that it had something to do with why they left in the first place.

Assuming we knew where they existed. Assuming they even existed…. That’s a lot of assumptions

but to cross into Eurasia they would have had to travel through areas where other human populations were as dense as you'd get back then.

Are you speaking of Egypt, and the pre historic nile river populations?

There is no information as to where this population even became isolated so I’m talking about prehistoric human populations from Egypt all the way down to possibly Kenya.

Over time this would have meant crossbreeding and therefore there should be at least some trace of Neanderthal DNA left within the remaining populations...

Ok.... wait.... Which "Remaining Populations" are you referring to....? in the interests of posterity, it may be prudent to clearly define our terms here.

The remaining populations in Africa?

Yes. The remaining population in Africa.

Unless this population somehow isolated itself right at the start of the Eurasian landbridge it would have to have crossed paths with other humans who did not leave Africa.

The article in th OP doesnt make any sense, first they say,

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.

But then completely contradicts itself at the end with ,

Prof Reich went on to say that their data shows that Neanderthals and non-Africans last exchanged genetic material 47-65,000 years ago

Am at dmv number came up I will continue later

reply to post by punkinworks10


Dr Anders Eriksson and Dr Andrea Manica are the one's who are trying to prove humans and Neanderthals didn't breed. Professor Reich is some other guy who reckons they did...

There's no contradiction.

reply to post by 1littlewolf


I stand corrected. My bad

The counter to thier argument, is,

An examination of the DNA of 1,983 people from around the globe suggests that extinct human species such as Homo neanderthalensis or Homo heidelbergensis interbred with our own ancestors during two separate periods, and their genes remain in our DNA today. The research was carried out by a group of genetic anthropologists from the University of New Mexico, and leader of the team, Jeffrey Long, said the findings mean Neanderthals did not completely disappear, but “there is a little bit of Neanderthal left over in almost all humans.”

The subjects of the study were drawn from 99 population groups in the Americas, Oceania, Europe, Asia, and Africa, and the researchers analyzed over 600 microsatellite positions on the genome, which are sections that can be used rather like fingerprints. Doctoral student Sarah Joyce then developed an evolutionary tree to explain the genetic variations found in the microsatellite positions.

The source,
phys.org...
And the study n the OP doesn't address the issue of the denisovans, who's last common ancestor with us was more than a million years ago, yet denisovan DNA shows up in very specific populations around the western pacific basin but only east of the Andaman islands, clearly indicating that there was interbreeding.
I personally am a little suspicious of statistically extrapolated models , because you have to make assumptions construct the frame work of your model. These assumptions will color all of the subsequent data

reply to post by punkinworks10

Originally posted by punkinworks10
And the study n the OP doesn't address the issue of the denisovans, who's last common ancestor with us was more than a million years ago, yet denisovan DNA shows up in very specific populations around the western pacific basin but only east of the Andaman islands, clearly indicating that there was interbreeding.

Nice. The article I referenced in this post also mentions the Denisovans and suggests that these populations carry Denisovan DNA in 1 to six percent of their total genome.

I personally am a little suspicious of statistically extrapolated models , because you have to make assumptions construct the frame work of your model. These assumptions will color all of the subsequent data

Likewise man.

Also in the evolutionary anthropological world there is always a bit of ‘status’ associated with downing a popular theory and replacing it with your own. But in order to do this you have to ignore a lot of accumulated lines of reasoning.

And honestly, if a group of Neanderthals and a group of humans actually did live in close proximity, (and assuming they didn’t immediately kill each other) does anyone really think there would not be at least a little ‘gene swapping’ action going on? People forget how similar humans and Neanderthals would actually been…

Neanderthals were not the bigfoot/gorilla type beings which they are often portrayed in the past as being. If one were to walk past you in the street fully clothed there’s a good chance you probably wouldn’t even look twice….

reply to post by zazzafrazz


perhaps not in humans but other animals have been cross bred with other species and even in a few speices cases produced viable offspring i give you the camas

en.wikipedia.org...

A cama is a hybrid between a male dromedary camel and a female llama, produced via artificial insemination at the Camel Reproduction Centre in Dubai.[1] The first cama was born on January 14, 1998. The aim was to create an animal with the size and strength of the camel, but the more cooperative temperament and the higher wool production of the llama

An adult camel weighs six times as much as a llama. So, artificial insemination is the only way to produce a live and thriving cama. Only the artificial insemination of a female llama with sperm from a male dromedary camel has been successful in producing a cama. Other combinations, such as artificial insemination of a female camel with male llama sperm, have not produced viable offspring. The cama is not sterile because, unlike other well known hybrids, the camel and the llama have the same number of chromosomes.[3] This is not generally true for other successful livestock hybrids, such as the mule. For example, the horse has 64 chromosomes and the donkey has 62, so when they breed it produces either a mule or a hinny, which each have 63 chromosomes.

so it seems that it comes down to chromosomes (to produce viable offspring) and in this case artifical insemination due to size differences(where as i tend to think most neanderthal pairings with homo sapiens were not exactly by choice)so id have to say its possible at least in theory for it to have occured. perhaps some day we will get a conclusive answer to the question but for now we can only guess and theorize

reply to post by 1littlewolf

The Human/Neanderthal split was 350 – 800,000 years ago. These guys crossed into Eurasia 35,000 years ago.

It's still possible that they were merely geographically isolated within Africa, actually....

Heck, there are still plenty of undiscovered tribes in the Congo as we speak... so it's not all that unlikley.

Africa is a pretty big place, after all.

The DNA of this supposed population would and could not have been the same as everyone else’s in Africa 35,000 years ago.

and... it was?

This also suggests a very long (and therefore unlikely) period of geographical isolation and still does not account for why there was no interbreeding on the way out.

Well, if they were geographically isolated, it would stand to reason that there would be no interbreeding... by definition.

Assuming we knew where they existed. Assuming they even existed…. That’s a lot of assumptions

Well, considering that the topic of discussion is based upon assumptions, it's not too far off, eh?

lol

There is no information as to where this population even became isolated so I’m talking about prehistoric human populations from Egypt all the way down to possibly Kenya.

Well, yeah, that is certainly going to prevent us from learning about it.

Yes. The remaining population in Africa.

Unless this population somehow isolated itself right at the start of the Eurasian landbridge it would have to have crossed paths with other humans who did not leave Africa.

I really don't think that encountering other human populations was something that was guaranteed.... Africa is a really big place, after all.....

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


ErtaiNaGia, we can debate semantics and tiny little details til the cows come home but to answer everything in this last post of yours I will simply be reiterating everything I’ve already said. There’s no point trying to dissect every sentence because I’ve made a few pretty good points which are quite capable of standing on their own merits.

As a guy who actually holds a degree in Anthropology and another in Geology I am all too aware of the intricacies involved in early human migration, how geographic isolation works and also how similar humans and Neanderthals would have been.

I also know how other anthropologists/evolutionary biologists operate and the increased status involved in ‘one upping’ an established theory with one of your own; which is clearly what the scientists in the OP’s article are trying to do.

I do not doubt that humans probably slaughtered most of the Neanderthals, but it is ridiculous to suggest there was no crossbreeding at all. As stated in my original post in this thread - the truth most likely lies somewhere in the middle.

But look, if you really want to keep going by all means carry on. This stuff is my bread and butter…

reply to post by 1littlewolf

Neanderthals were not the bigfoot/gorilla type beings which they are often portrayed in the past as being. If one were to walk past you in the street fully clothed there’s a good chance you probably wouldn’t even look twice….

Exactly, I read a paper some 20 years ago , by a Spanish anthropologist, who maintained that traces of neanderthal could still be seen in the people's of certain remote areas of Europe, isolated areas of the mountains of Spain and the balkans to be exact. At the time his work was derided as rascist, buy we know know that the iberian pennisula and the balkans were some of the last refuges of the dwindling neanderthal population, and the pellet with the highest percentage of neanderthal DNA are from those areas.
And I have met someone recently, whom if you were to see him you would say " that guy is a neanderthal"
In conversation I learned his family is originally from where?, why the balkans of course, his family was from the mountains of Yugoslavia.

reply to post by 1littlewolf


That's awsome that we have another professional in this forum,
Whenever I see contradictory theories coming from the same institution, I can't help but think of a case of
" sibling rivalry" , as the teams would be in direct competition for resources.

Originally posted by punkinworks10
At the time his work was derided as rascist…

I actually got accused of being a black extremist in this thread when I mentioned that all non-Africans have some Neanderthal DNA in their genome…

…And I’m white it was pretty funny

Originally posted by punkinworks10
That's awsome that we have another professional in this forum,
Whenever I see contradictory theories coming from the same institution, I can't help but think of a case of
" sibling rivalry" , as the teams would be in direct competition for resources.

I gotta say on the career front I followed the geology path much more than the anthropology path but early human history was one of the main topics which interested me while studying and was also the reason I finished the entire degree prior to shifting over to geology…. (well that and the ‘student’ lifestyle )

Oops dbl post

reply to post by punkinworks10


My first husband had a very distinct look. Very dark haired with a large brow line. Only 1 of our 4 children resemble me, for being very fair haired.

My father always referred to my husband as a black German, because of his extremely dark hair, and brilliant green eyes. I traced my husbands lineage to Turkmenistan, which is far from Germany.

My daughter most especially displays middle eastern looks. Very olive skin toned, with almost black hair, and very golden / green eyes.

She resembles me in size and shape, but is very dark, and resembles the coloring and eye color of "Afghan Girl."ngm.nationalgeographic.com...

It's odd though, as for the birth of all my children. They were born with what the doctor called, "sunny side up," births, and all had odd shaped placentas.

I am German and Swedish heritage, so could this line be continuing from a mixture in the past?

I think it is a possibility that we intermingled and it still goes on to this day.

I read their conclusion and it is possible but to say that mating between neanderthals and man is doubtful is wrong. The neanderthal mating theory is much more possible than the evolution they suggest. Their theory is possible and should be considered but what we really need is some better evidence which will show up in the future before these people start saying the other theory is doubtful. I tend to believe the neanderthals and humans mated. I believe the cromagnum and humans mated also. Maybe the cromagnom and neanderthals also successfully mated and produced offspring but to me that doesn't seem probable because there doesn't seem to be any evidence to substantiate this yet. In ten years, with the help of genetic testing research, there may be more definite results. I just think the agency who released this information should have bitten their tongue a little and just put the possibility out there that the neanderthal mating theory could be flawed instead of saying it was doubtful. Neanderthals were people also, just a different kind of people.

reply to post by 1littlewolf

ErtaiNaGia, we can debate semantics and tiny little details til the cows come home but to answer everything in this last post of yours I will simply be reiterating everything I’ve already said. There’s no point trying to dissect every sentence because I’ve made a few pretty good points which are quite capable of standing on their own merits.

Well, I wasn't really arguing semantics, I was just adding my two cents on the methods of geographical isolation...

Honestly, I wasn't all that invested in the conversation.

I do not doubt that humans probably slaughtered most of the Neanderthals, but it is ridiculous to suggest there was no crossbreeding at all. As stated in my original post in this thread - the truth most likely lies somewhere in the middle.

Well, my only point of contention, was that it was possible.

But look, if you really want to keep going by all means carry on. This stuff is my bread and butter…

Nah... that's alright... I put my two cents in, and that was all I really wanted to do... the thread is yours, lol.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Because at the TIME they left, their DNA, and the DNA of the population in Africa that they LEFT were basically identical.

The changes in DNA occurred AFTER they left... and since they probably didn't make the trek BACK to Africa, there would be no mechanism for their newly acquired genetic traits to pass back into the African Gene Pool.

This completely contradicts the theory. The theory states that Neandethals and the North Africans shared a common ancestor and that is the source of this DNA. If you subscribe to this theory the DNA was in the North Africans for a very long time before they left, they had it from before Neanderthals even existed. Which would mean roughly 500,000 years with no intermingling with their African neighbors before 100% of them vanish from Africa. Possible, but not plausible.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer

...the idea of humans and Neanderthals cross-breeding may be premature...

Apparently these scientists have never met my in-laws That may change their tune.

reply to post by 1littlewolf

You seem to assume that only male Neanderthals bred with female humans. I'm sure many Homo Sapien men probably got lucky with the Neanderthal ladies in which case the baby's resulting smaller cranium size would make no difference.

While not disagreeing with you, such an offspring would no longer be a member of our (modern human's) gene pool. Such an offspring would have remained part of the Neanderthal gene pool and gone extinct with them.

The basis of the article wasn't to refute the idea that the genetic similarities between humans and Neanderthals came as a result of interbreeding, but to point out that it was more likely due to both species having originated from an earlier common ancestor.

You always have to keep in mind with these studies is they have an extremely limited amount of Neanderthal genetic material to work with, it can hardly be described as a large sampling of all Neanderthals, across their 300,000 year history (give or take).