Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Humans carry Neanderthal DNA
#21
John, I don't think that gills on the embryos exist. That was part of the "Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny" scam. Human embryos look quite human at an early age, judging from the sonograms of my daughter's baby to be.

I would be curious also about the percentage of DNA that most life has in common.

But, now we know the genesis of the saying "like a fish out of water". Those of us who have not really adapted are that way.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#22
What is most interesting is that this thing(gills) is central to the Creationists argument against natural selection. And like most arguments, the line between fact and fiction, are ambiguous, and open to exploitation. Simple wording makes a huge difference here, and politicians are perhaps the most adept at this game.

For instance, the majority of the 'natural selection' side, will state that embryos tend to share many of the same characteristics, of others, but almost immediately start changing, depending on the genetic coding at conception. Earliest embryos may tend to have more primitive phenotypic similarities, but this does not last.

Creationists structure the wording to mean that evolutionists claim embryos have gills, which are easily disproven. However, they don't word the statement to say that this early trait for gills is there at conception. It's all in the wording, and while Creationists are true in their statements, the general statement is not accurate. That is how they get out of admitting that our physical bodies share common origins, from a common ancestor.

And that too is a play on words. Note that Creationists always use the phrase "evolved from apes" or some other creature. Of course we never did evolve from monkeys, or apes. But Monkeys, apes, and hominids, all share a common ancestor. It's all in the parsing of words.

But back to the subject of "gills", here is a study from 2004, which discusses gills, and the likely origin of the parathyroid gland, published in the National Academy of Sciences. From this, it is easy to extrapolate how "tetrapods"(four limbed land animals) lost their gills and gained the parathyroid gland. All land animals have it, but fish do not. But they both serve a common purpose: regulating extracellular calcium homeostasis.

Here is a later article about this in the press: Human parathyroid gland probably evolved from gills. This theory is not set in stone, but if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck,........................

There are even some, who say that it will be possible for humans to genetically have gills grown into their bodies. That may be quite possible, but there is one problem here, which will be harder to solve than the actual development of gills. And that is the size to environmenal conditions. In other words, a human is quite large, and would require huge gills, working at very high efficiency, just to survive under water, even under the best conditions. My guess it that humans would require some assist from some type of mechanism, which would squeeze out oxygen and let us use that too. There is just not enough desolved oxygen in water to accommodate large bodied humans having gills alone.

That is why organisms adapt to their environment, by changing size. Skinny three foot humans might do the trick though. Wink1
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#23
Fredledingue Wrote:I always thought that europeans and perhaps middle east poeple too had neanderthal traits.
Europeans probably inherited blond hairs and blue eyes from the neanderthalians. These are traits adapted to ice age conditions, now being nordic countries.

G4U, a new specie is by definition when interbreeding became impossible.
Last time I checked, I could still breed with an african. LOL
blond hair and eye colours other than brown are recent mutations, less than 10,000 years ago. the neanderthals had them perhaps, but we'll never know. you should watch this one,
keeps you busy all evening. take the time to watch it in 720p.

it's not so that the neanderthals only had to cope with harsh conditions during the ice ages, draught and heat all year round are worse than distinctive seasons with a long winter in the north. homo sapiens was down to a few thousands, maybe hundreds of people as our gene pool suggests.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#24
Excellent series Quad, I caught it when it first came out on the Discovery Channel some years ago in the US.

I still want to know just what exactly was passed to us from Neanderthals. I bet we'll never know as it might lead to some severely politically incorrect implications.
Reply
#25
Tait, my best guess is that there is really very little to pass on, since all of we humans have almost our entire genome present in everyone. What differences that are, are just icing on the otherwise rich German Chocolate Cake anyway.

But obviously there have to be some differences. The presence of wide nasal preheaters, used to warm the frigid ice age cold, and stocky build, which cuts down on overall body surface, preventing heat loss, are two unique differences. And larger development of the Occipital region of the brain, which enhances visual perception, made them consummate hunters.

Here is a look at Neanderthal Occipital Bunning. And here is an explanation, of what the occipital portion of the brain does.

Here is another interesting article.

This article, Occipital bunning among later pleistocene hominids, from the AJPA(American Journal of Physical Anthropology) is very interesting. Since I no longer subscribe to this publication, I can't bring it up. However, it can be broken down, on another forum site, by another anthropology student, right here.

And if this isn't enough for you to digest, there is this abstract in PDF: Evidencesuggestingthat Homoneanderthalensis contributedtheH2 MAPT haplotypeto Homosapiens.

And, Are you part-Neanderthal?

And Human Brain Carries at Least One Neanderthal Gene

And Red Hair a Legacy of Neanderthal Man

And Evidence that the adaptive allele of the brain size gene microcephalin introgressed into Homo sapiens from an archaic Homo lineage

And Modern Man, Neanderthals Seen as Kindred Spirits. Trinkaus and Wolpoff are having a field day, just laughing at the Genetics branch of the scientific community, who had been ushing that "Out Of Africa" theory. As time goes on, it is becoming more and more evident that they were right all along. Neanderthal is not really dead after all. Europeans have a good bit of the Neanderthal in them, like it or not. Wink1
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#26
Also, there is this book, The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, by Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending. It just so happens that if you are interested in obtaining the book, you can download it, in pdf format, from right here. Just hit the "Free Download" button, and after a minute's delay, or so, you can then download it, saving it to your hard drive. Go to Chapter two, "The Neanderthal Within", and you can also get a good read on,.......well, the Neanderthal within us.

[Image: 514jDVTdVWL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-stic..._OU01_.jpg]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#27
Oh, I keep running across more to add to the rich supply of Neanderthal information, which is just pouring in. There is this, from last year: Three Neanderthal Sub-Groups Confirmed When I was in grad school, we pretty much broke the Neanderthal population into two groups. The European population was the Classic Neanderthal, and the near eastern population was the Gracile Neanderthals. Now there are three. Interesting.

Quote: The Neanderthals inhabited a vast geographical area extending from Europe to western Asia and the Middle East 30,000 to 100,000 years ago. Now, a group of researchers are questioning whether or not the Neanderthals constituted a homogenous group or separate sub-groups (between which slight differences could be observed).

Paleoanthropological studies based on morphological skeletal evidence have offered some support for the existence of three different sub-groups: one in Western Europe, one in southern Europe and another in the Levant.

Researchers Virginie Fabre, Silvana Condemi and Anna Degioanni from the CNRS Laboratory of Anthropology (UMR 6578) at the University of Marseille, France, have given further consideration to the question of diversity of Neanderthals by studying the genetic structure of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and by analyzing the genetic variability, modeling different scenarios. The study was possible thanks to the publication, since 1997, of 15 mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences (the mtDNa is maternally transmitted) that originated from 12 Neanderthals.

The new study confirms the presence of three separate sub-groups and suggests the existence of a fourth group in western Asia. According to the authors, the size of the Neanderthal population was not constant over time and a certain amount of migration occurred among the sub-groups. The variability among the Neanderthal population is interpreted to be an indirect consequence of the particular climatic conditions on their territorial extension during the entire middle Pleistocene time period.

Degioanni and colleagues obtained this result by using a new methodology derived from different biocomputational models based on data from genetics, demography and paleoanthropology. The adequacy of each model was measured by comparing the simulated results obtained using BayesianSSC software with those predicted based on nucleotide sequences.

The researchers hope that one day this methodology might be applied to questions concerning Neanderthal cultural diversity (for example the lithic industry) and to the availability of natural resources in the territory. This could provide new insights into the history and extinction of the Neanderthals.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#28
I am talking genes that influence behavior and thought.
Reply
#29
Gunnen4u Wrote:I am talking genes that influence behavior and thought.

I'm not sure if genes specifically influence a particular behaviour or thought Tait. More accurately, they tend to heighten a "propensity", but not a specific.

And example is that of addictions. Usually an addiction is the result of a need for stimulating the outflow of Dopamine. We know that people having addictive behaviour have a brain that produced less dopamine than normal. I'm a good example. I have always been addicted to adrenaline , because it gave me an intense, and instant, high. Anything that did this was something I loved to do. That is why many of us think combat is fun, along with jumping out of airplanes, or riding motorcycles over 100 mph. I did all that, and loved the instant high, but had to keep it up, because my drug of choice only lasted a very short time.

Now, I am not addicted to alcohol, nicotine, or other drugs: just adrenaline. But I will bet you that I have the same genetic anomaly that alcoholics, and drug addicts, possess. I just have a different outlet.

In other words, genes do not cause a specific item, but more a general direction.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#30
Still, I have these gene too, John.

But you mentioned general directions, and general directions is what dictated where and how civilizations began, levels of sophistication, etc.

It could explain alot about things these days, especially in Africa and the Middle East, or the Far East, etc.

But no one wants to get specific and touch it, because we're all the same inside....when it comes to thought and behavior....

I am cynical about all of that, despite the fact I interact with alot of damn fine people of all stripes and count them as my most trusted friends. Then again, I love the politically incorrect and the untouchable for the sake of it.
Reply
#31
here is some more on just how sophisticated Neanderthal was: Neanderthals were enjoying the finer things in life 250,000 years ago. And this is important:

Quote:However, the presence of small game is indicative of subtler, more sophisticated hunting strategies and, by extension, more advanced cognitive abilities. This is the first clear evidence that Neanderthals were eating these more delicate treats before the arrival of modern humans in Europe 50,000 years ago.

[Image: neandertreat.jpg]

Remember, it has been generally thought that Neanderthal was the dedicated big game hunter, due to the types of injuries sustained, rather than the small game hunter. Accepted theory was that modern humans were more sophisticated and specialized in smaller game, and consequently lived in the low lands. Neanderthal supposedly lived in the hill's caves, hunted big game, and the two did not share the same habitat.

Based on this, Neanderthal occupied both highlands and lowlands. This also lends itself well to the theory that both humans tended to interbreed and merge over time.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#32
Not only were Neanderthal enjoying a much greater variety of culinary delights, but one of those foods was shell fish: Neanderthals were eating brain-expanding shellfish 150,000 years ago

Quote:Shellfish has a surprisingly important place in our evolutionary story. One theory says shellfish fueled the expansion of our brains, while another gives it credit for saving our species. Turns out Neanderthals liked shellfish just as much as we did.

Shellfish are a plentiful source of omega-3 fatty acids, which are essential for higher brain function. To that end, it's been suggested that, without shellfish, we might never have developed the big brains that so fundamentally define our species. A rival theory argues that you can't find shellfish without big brains, because gathering them effectively requires complex knowledge of time, tides, and phases of the Moon.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#33
Here's more on the intermixing of Neanderthals and later humans: All Non-Africans Part Neanderthal, Genetics Confirm. Its an interesting read.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#34
Why not just conclude that this controversy is simply the result of 19th century taxonomic peculiarities? OK, I am violating my own perceptions here but recall that not too long ago Cro-Magnon Man was thought a "different species" from Homo Sapiens. After all, the "switching on-and-off" of genes to create peculiarities is long known (e.g. hypertrichosis).
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein
Reply
#35
(03-05-2012, 12:13 PM)drgonzaga Wrote: Why not just conclude that this controversy is simply the result of 19th century taxonomic peculiarities? OK, I am violating my own perceptions here but recall that not too long ago Cro-Magnon Man was thought a "different species" from Homo Sapiens. After all, the "switching on-and-off" of genes to create peculiarities is long known (e.g. hypertrichosis).

No, this 'controversy' is the result of late 20th and early 21st century geneticists trying to horn in on the field of Anthropology/Paleontology, and to force their agenda upon it. All of this "Out of Africa" agenda, had more than just an out of Africa one, in that geneticists attempted to impose the concept that modern man came from only one place, at one general time, and in a uniform manner.

And opposing this thinking were a few anthropologists, led by Dr. Milfred Wolpoff, who stated that early man spread out in stages, beginning with Homo Erectus. Further evolution was accomplished regionally, and later by the influx of more recent arrivals, who interbred with the local hominids.

And this was mainly over the Neanderthal issue. According to the geneticists, there was no Neanderthal genetic material present within modern man. Consequently Homo Sapiens must have not only displaced Neanderthal, but destroyed them as well. It was this absurdity that led to the reinstatement of Wolpoff's thesis that both groups lived in the same area, probably didn't compete all that much, and managed to mix their sweat and genes, resulting a melding of the local populations.

And now there is all sorts of genetic material being shown to be Neanderthal, and appearing within modern humans, especially modern European genes.

Wolpoff and crew - 1, Geneticists - 0 S13

And this is another reason why many, including myself, contend that Australian aborigines are mostly evolved Homo Erectus humans, which later melded with a minority of modern humans, if any. That is why their cranial formation looks so similar to early Homo Erectus specimens.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#36
Oh no...not the prominent brow ridges schtick! Frankly, the entire brouhaha smacks too much of the 19th centuriy's yammer over "races" as to render much suspect. The rush of Homos in taxonomy (please do not mention this fact to Rush L.) after the 1960s is a bit of a conceit and I am just awaiting the chemical dating of the remains of Nerja in Malaga to put the nail into the coffin of supposed Neandethal "brutes". Now as to why you have it "in" for geneticists escapes me since it was they who who began to challenge their "extinction" at the hands of those rapacious sapiens. Besides, you have the villains all wrong, most of the malarkey begins in the realm of Physioanthropology!
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein
Reply
#37
(03-05-2012, 03:44 PM)drgonzaga Wrote: Oh no...not the prominent brow ridges schtick! Frankly, the entire brouhaha smacks too much of the 19th centuriy's yammer over "races" as to render much suspect. The rush of Homos in taxonomy (please do not mention this fact to Rush L.) after the 1960s is a bit of a conceit and I am just awaiting the chemical dating of the remains of Nerja in Malaga to put the nail into the coffin of supposed Neandethal "brutes". Now as to why you have it "in" for geneticists escapes me since it was they who who began to challenge their "extinction" at the hands of those rapacious sapiens. Besides, you have the villains all wrong, most of the malarkey begins in the realm of Physioanthropology!

Thank you so much for pointing out that I know so little about my field of study, and that you do. Its nice to know that I am not the only person here, who specialized in Paleolithic man and how we humans came to be.



___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#38
Where does anthropology think the first men started from if not Africa?
Reply
#39
(03-05-2012, 05:58 PM)Palladin Wrote: Where does anthropology think the first men started from if not Africa?

Patrick, that is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not modern homo sapien actually radiated outward, from Africa, and totally displaced those hominids who had already taken up residence throughout the Old World. I'm talking about Neanderthal, and homo erectus, who are known to have successfully lived in Europe, the Near East, and the Far East, for well several hundred thousand years or more.

And all on the word of a new specialty such as genetics, relying on DNA? And remember, this field is new, yet they were proclaiming their results to be the Gospel according to................them. Come on.

Wolpoff, and others, have been saying rightfully that early man radiated out from Africa in more than one wave and gradually evolved over time. And as each new group moved into the domain of those already there, they would have tended to mix their genes with the residents, rather than destroy them.

And like Wolpoff, et al, contended all along, the evidence would prove them right, as new data is coming out and showing that there really is genetic information confirming this intermingling between the groups.

So naturally, each major area would offer a richer and more varied gene pool, for the same reason why there are more than one different racial grouping.

And here is the case in point: Neanderthal, with which I took particular interest. Neanderthal and modern homo sapiens had a different strategy for survival, based on their physical charactistics. Neanderthal tended to inhabit hilly country, where caves were more prevalent. Modern homo sapiens tended to live in lowlands, choosing to successfully hunt more plentiful smaller game, and also fishing. Neanderthals tended to hunt big game animals, which required more close encounters. That is why Neanderthal's skeletons tended to look more like rodeo riders.

The point is that each group had its own ecological niche and would not have had to resort to warfare in order to be successful. They could coexist fairly well, and would have naturally interbred. Its just the way humans behave sexually.

Anyway, early man did originate from Africa, but the last wave didn't just come out bowling over everyone they met. They may well have moved in and set up shop, but they also would have tended to mix their genes with the present residents. In other words, this entire process was several movements, in which each group moved in, took up residence, and blended in with those already there. And this is something the geneticists claimed not to have happened. And they have been proven wrong as I knew they would be.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#40
Jean Auel has a new novel out. The Land of the painted Caves - the latest in her Earth's Children series.

Maybe Ayla and Jondalar will cross the frozen Atlantic and discover America.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  150 years ago, Neanderthal man discovered quadrat 132 48,671 07-02-2016, 08:26 PM
Last Post: John L

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)