First Love Child of Human, Neanderthal Found

Originally posted by boymonkey74
All of us have around 2-4% Neanderthal DNA in us they never died off they just bred with us

as you said.
Funny though my best mates Dad who is Irish went mad when he read that the Redheaded gene is from our Neanderthal DNA, he and his clan all have red hair and he said "They are always trying to put us Irish down by saying we are cavemen"

Heck I bet that 2-4% is the best bit of our DNA

Nice find smylee

edit on 28-3-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)

Wasn't that basically disproven?

Originally posted by Caterminator
reply to post by punkinworks10

 

This is all fairly recent info. I did not know that some in country Africans carried any Neanderthal or Denisovan genes! Where can I find more info on this? Thanks!

Hi , the world of anthropology is changing fast.

Here is a snippet of discussion about archaic admixture in sub saharan Africans.

Text . For the archaic admixture hypothesis to hold, one would need to postulate the dilution of Neandertal alleles in Europe and Denisovan alleles in East Asia by the subsequent (e.g., Neolithic) gene flow of populations unadmixed with Neandertals and Denisovans into these regions. The only place where these populations could have originated is Africa, but there’s no evidence for an excess of African alleles in East Asians and Europeans compared with Melanesians. Hence, the genomic pattern of association between Neandertals, Denisovans and non-African humans may be better explained as common descent, with African humans derived from non-African humans. Wall et al. (2013, 21) found evidence that can be interpreted precisely to such an effect:

anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org... he-oldest-dog-news-from-around-the-web/

And from the article being discussed,

Our results combined with those previously published show that a more complex model of admixture between Neanderthals and modern humans is necessary to account for the different levels of Neanderthal ancestry among human populations. In particular, at least some Neanderthal-modern human admixture must postdate the separation of the ancestors of modern European and modern East Asian populations.

www.genetics.org...


Also new work pushes back the oldest common male ancestor by almost 130k years to 338k years ago.

We report the discovery of an African American Y chromosome that carries the ancestral state of all SNPs that defined the basal portion of the Y chromosome phylogenetic tree. We sequenced ∼240 kb of this chromosome to identify private, derived mutations on this lineage, which we named A00. We then estimated the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) for the Y tree as 338 thousand years ago (kya) (95% confidence interval = 237–581 kya). Remarkably, this exceeds current estimates of the mtDNA TMRCA, as well as those of the age of the oldest anatomically modern human fossils. The extremely ancient age combined with the rarity of the A00 lineage, which we also find at very low frequency in central Africa, point to the importance of considering more complex models for the origin of Y chromosome diversity. These models include ancient population structure and the possibility of archaic introgression of Y chromosomes into anatomically modern humans. The A00 lineage was discovered in a large database of consumer samples of African Americans and has not been identified in traditional hunter-gatherer populations from sub-Saharan Africa. This underscores how the stochastic nature of the genealogical process can affect inference from a single locus and warrants caution during the interpretation of the geographic location of divergent branches of the Y chromosome phylogenetic tree for the elucidation of human origins.

www.cell.com...(13)00073-6

Again from Dr Dziebels discussion on the subject

The hypothesis of archaic admixture in Africa (and, importantly, the lack thereof outside of Africa) is further confirmed by Mendez et al. (2013). Up until now it was assumed that mtDNA and Y-DNA do not show traces of archaic admixture in modern humans. Mendez et al (2013) refute this assumption by detecting a very divergent Y-DNA lineage (A00) among West Africans and West Africa-derived African Americans. The dates obtained for the coalescence of A00 are some 130,000 years older than the earliest paleobiological evidence for anatomically modern humans in Africa. This is another inconvenient fact for the proponents of out-of-Africa. The data at hand increasingly suggests that the out-of-Africa theory mistook signs of archaic admixture in Africa for the antiquity of modern humans in Africa. Y-DNA hgs A and B, which are not found outside of Africa, are the other possible candidates for archaic introgression in Africa. The massive migration of modern humans into Africa manifests itself in African-specific and pan-African hg E, which is nested within the Eurasian CT clade.

I highly recommend Dr Dziebel's blog

anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org...

He has collected an amazing group of papers together along with discussions on them.

And just thud morning Dr. John Hawks blogged on the subject.

A paper by Silvana Condemi and colleagues examines the anatomy of a partial mandible from Riparo Mezzena, Italy [1]. The mandible is a relatively late Neandertal specimen by its archaeological association and mtDNA sequence. As the introduction to the paper notes, the identities of skeletal specimens in the timespan from 45,000 to 30,000 years ago across Europe have been shifting along with radiocarbon ages and further analyses of fragmentary specimens. In this case, like other late Neandertals, the specimen bears a chin:

This study of the Mezzena mandible shows that the chin region is similar to that of other late Neanderthals which display a much more modern morphology with an incipient mental trigone (e.g. Spy 1, Saint Césaire). In our view, this change in morphology among late Neanderthals reopens the debate on the "more modern like" morphology of late Neanderthals and can lend support to the hypothesis of a certain degree of continuity with AMHsor a possible interbreeding with them.

The paper concludes that the Mezzena mandible lies morphologically amid the sample of modern humans from Upper Paleolithic and Levantine Middle Paleolithic contexts, even when compared to Neandertals like Saint Césaire or La Ferrassie 1 that have relatively vertical mandibular symphyses.

I find this paragraph very interesting

In my view, we shouldn't assume more than we know, which is that both the frequencies and combination of traits of earlier Neandertals are much more strongly present in Mousterian-associated specimens than in other, mostly later, industries. I don't yet see a reason to exclude the hypothesis that this pattern reflects both evolution and migration into Europe. And as I wrote last year, the late Neandertals may represent both evolution and migration into Europe from a central Asian or West Asian source population [2].

Ah ha, the later European Neanderthals could be migrants from the east.

And on the significance of the DNA work,

One effect of genetic sequences has been to demonstrate that anthropologists' morphological distinctions among Neandertals don't match the groupings we would make along purely genetic lines. I considered this problem in my paper last year, "Dynamics of genetic and morphological variability within Neandertals" (open access) [2]. Jim Ahern and colleagues (including me) have showed that the Vindija G3 Neandertals have morphological features that are not typical of classic Neandertals, and that are significantly different in the modern human direction [3], [4]. Here's what I wrote last year:

The discussion of genetic diversity among these Neandertals has not yet attempted to reconcile their genealogical arrangement with morphological classification schemes. The later Western European Neandertals that share a close mtDNA genealogical connection (Vindija-Feldhofer-El Sidrón) are not synonymous with "classic Neandertals". The well-known classic Neandertals include specimens such as La Chapelle-aux-Saints (France), La Ferrassie 1, Monte Circeo 1 (Guattari) as well as Feldhofer 1. This classic Neandertal sample includes specimens earlier than 70,000 years old and some as recent as 45,000 years ago. The classic Neandertals flank both the earlier and later sides of the 50,000-year-ago dispersal of Neandertals proposed by Dalen and colleagues (Dalen et al., 2012).

Meanwhile, the clade that connectslate European Neandertal mtDNA into a tight cluster includes great morphological diversity. The two Vindija mtDNA sequences included by Dalén and colleagues (Dalen et al., 2012) are both from layer G3 of the site, perhaps 40,000 years old. Both are derived from postcranial fragments without diagnostic morphological traits. The other material from G3 includes cranial, mandibular and dental remains that are not synonymous with classic Neandertal morphology (Ahern, 2004). These late Neandertals from Vindija display less pronounced morphology than classic Neandertals and lack traits that are common in the earlier classic Neandertals (Smith, 1992). These specimens are connected to Feldhofer and El Sidrón not only by mtDNA relationships but also their very low nuclear DNA diversification. If the Vindija specimens can be lumped together in mtDNA and nuclear DNA diversity with the remains from El Sidrón and Feldhofer, it seems possible that traditional morphological groupings will fail to capture real biological differences among Neandertal populations.

So the late period Neanderthals in Europe were decidedly more like modern humans than Neanderthals.

And The rest of Dr. Hawks' comment cam be found here,
johnhawks.net...

reply to post by boymonkey74
It is funny that you would say that,now being born of mexican and american parents; i have always had a preference for women that had red hair and were I would like to say of northern descent. I never really understood why I did, other than that it was something genetic and in fact I am not the only one who feels like that. My younger sister has a red haired boy friend and their son is also red haired. So if it is true then even today the process is still contining ; and will continue to continue while we are still here. It does give some credence to the theory: but it does open more questions as to why they did not travel across the oceans to other parts of the world or was it their offspring that did this.

I wonder what age the child died and of what??
Maybe the 2 DNA's wouldn't match up together and the child died because of this, its been a long time since I've been in school (30 yrs) so I'm a bit green on this subject these days.
I wouldn't mind a big caveman to-day though lol

Originally posted by ballymoney50
I wonder what age the child died and of what??
Maybe the 2 DNA's wouldn't match up together and the child died because of this, its been a long time since I've been in school (30 yrs) so I'm a bit green on this subject these days.
I wouldn't mind a big caveman to-day though lol

It is not implied that this child's mother was a neanderthal and its father a modern human, but it was part of a population of Neanderthals that have skeletal characteristics that are in between those of classic neanderthal and those of modern humans

reply to post by punkinworks10


Thank you for that info i should read into things more before my fingers start typing lol to much chocolate to-day opps!!

reply to post by ballymoney50


It's not really clear from the original article that this was the situation, but Dr Hawks' blog covers the find very well. His blog is a good place for the current state of anthropology.

Originally posted by kimish
So does this essentially mean that HSS mated with Neanderthal? If so that does give credence to the rumour of how AIDS started. If in fact HSS x NS mated and had viable offspring this could... this could give some credence to the Race Realists out there.

edit on 28-3-2013 by kimish because: (no reason given)

There are 2 forms of human beings on earth, RH+ and RH-
RH+ is the Rhesus factor that traces back millions of years combining humans to primates and evolution. Also HIV and AIDs do effect rh+ humans and primates.


Rh- , cannot mix blood with RH+ or antibodies will develop that will destroy rh+, look at certain parents and inability to make offspring or only having 1 offspring and multiple complications.

Certain animals are created by this method....they are all sterile. (Ligons, Tigons, Mules, Ligers)


Rh- is the reason why biblical theorists believe mankind only existed thousands of years ago, rh- has 8% of it's dna untraceable or unsourceable.


This is the only real conspiracy in the world, every conspiracy branches off of this from population control, to religious propaganda, even " transcendence". It's almost set up so people think they find an answer with math, science or even spirituality, when in reality the truth of our differences is in our blood.


You've heard of miracle cures for aids? Well the treatment is actually derived from negative blood, you'll notice a form of transfusion and immediate lack of information regarding the bloodtype transfused or marrow sample used.

Interesting thread, thanks for posting.