Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    22 Apr '10 16:23
    http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/04/early-humans-may-have-bred-wit.html#comment-2275986

    Our purity as modern humans is now blown wide open. For decades, scientists have been saying modern humans never mixed dna with Neanterthals but this evidence shows otherwise and the full dna of Neanterthals will soon be finished and they will be looking even deeper.
  2. 22 Apr '10 17:34
    "scientists have been saying", but their background was light science. now hardened by this event.
  3. Standard member avalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    22 Apr '10 19:04
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    "scientists have been saying", but their background was light science. now hardened by this event.
    I'm not sure you could fairly classify analysis of mitochondrial DNA as 'light science', but I have long suspected that the 'no interbreeding' position was incorrect. Consider taurodontism in modern populations, chignon-like occipital development in Upper Palaeolithic Europeans, small size of Neanderthal samples and physiological variation across modern human populations. Nice to see the tide turning at last!
  4. Standard member PBE6
    Bananarama
    22 Apr '10 19:34 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/04/early-humans-may-have-bred-wit.html#comment-2275986

    Our purity as modern humans is now blown wide open. For decades, scientists have been saying modern humans never mixed dna with Neanterthals but this evidence shows otherwise and the full dna of Neanterthals will soon be finished and they will be looking even deeper.
    One doesn't kiss and tell! Chivarly is not dead...oh wait, I guess it is.
  5. 23 Apr '10 16:31
    Originally posted by avalanchethecat
    I'm not sure you could fairly classify analysis of mitochondrial DNA as 'light science', but I have long suspected that the 'no interbreeding' position was incorrect. Consider taurodontism in modern populations, chignon-like occipital development in Upper Palaeolithic Europeans, small size of Neanderthal samples and physiological variation across modern human populations. Nice to see the tide turning at last!
    they had mitochondrial DNA from Neanderthals and found no crossover in it?

    how would that work? it's maternal line only, right?

    would you have to have two mothers mating together (unlikely with Neanderthal technology)?

    (i could probably sit down and figure it out but only on first half cup of coffee this morning.)
  6. Standard member avalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    23 Apr '10 18:41
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    they had mitochondrial DNA from Neanderthals and found no crossover in it?

    how would that work? it's maternal line only, right?

    would you have to have two mothers mating together (unlikely with Neanderthal technology)?

    (i could probably sit down and figure it out but only on first half cup of coffee this morning.)
    You're guess is as good as mine, I wasn't there either! Maybe the Neanderthals were less tolerant of hybrid offspring? Or maybe hybrids weren't tough enough to survive Neanderthal lifestyle and diet? It's usually reckoned they ate an awful lot of meat (but also see http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2008/september/neanderthal-diet-like-early-modern-humans21201.html), perhaps they all died young from super-constipation!
  7. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    23 Apr '10 19:41
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/04/early-humans-may-have-bred-wit.html#comment-2275986

    Our purity as modern humans is now blown wide open. For decades, scientists have been saying modern humans never mixed dna with Neanterthals but this evidence shows otherwise and the full dna of Neanterthals will soon be finished and they will be looking even deeper.
    The BNP and Aryan Brotherhood are going to love this.

    "The researchers suggest the interbreeding happened about 60,000 years ago in the eastern Mediterranean and, more recently, about 45,000 years ago in eastern Asia," Nature News reports from the annual meeting of the American Society of Physical Anthropologists in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
  8. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    23 Apr '10 23:11
    Originally posted by avalanchethecat
    You're guess is as good as mine, I wasn't there either! Maybe the Neanderthals were less tolerant of hybrid offspring? Or maybe hybrids weren't tough enough to survive Neanderthal lifestyle and diet? It's usually reckoned they ate an awful lot of meat (but also see http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2008/september/neanderthal-diet-like-early-modern-humans21201.html), perhaps they all died young from super-constipation!
    If we have Neanderthal dna, the hybrids HAD to survive if they are here to the present day. It didn't have to be more than a few individuals involved, just the leftover dna presence that made it to modern times.
  9. 24 Apr '10 00:33
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    The BNP and Aryan Brotherhood are going to love this.

    "The researchers suggest the interbreeding happened about 60,000 years ago in the eastern Mediterranean and, more recently, about 45,000 years ago in eastern Asia," Nature News reports from the annual meeting of the American Society of Physical Anthropologists in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
    well, doesn't that likely mean the great majority of white ango-saxons have neanderthal blood?
  10. 24 Apr '10 00:36
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Prehistoric_Britain

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Anglo-Saxon_settlement_in_Britain
  11. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    24 Apr '10 03:05
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    well, doesn't that likely mean the great majority of white ango-saxons have neanderthal blood?
    People have been in Britain for 250,000 years.
  12. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    24 Apr '10 09:52
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    People have been in Britain for 250,000 years.
    Not continously. It is highly unlikely any folk were living here through the total glaciation of Northern Europe. (25,000 - 30,000 years ago). britain had to be re-populated as the glaciers retreated.
  13. Standard member avalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    24 Apr '10 15:54 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    People have been in Britain for 250,000 years.
    Depends on where you draw the line marked 'people'. Check out Boxgrove - Homo Heidlebergensis, dating to about 500,000 years ago. Or if you mean people like us, as far as I'm aware the earliest in Britain is Kent's Cavern - reckoned at about 36,000 years ago.

    As Wolfgang says though, unlikely to be any hominids around during peak glaciation.
  14. 25 Apr '10 00:36
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Not continously. It is highly unlikely any folk were living here through the total glaciation of Northern Europe. (25,000 - 30,000 years ago). britain had to be re-populated as the glaciers retreated.
    nothing like Inuit?
  15. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    25 Apr '10 00:57
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    nothing like Inuit?
    I lived a long time in Alaska, Inuit lives by the water mostly, getting seals, the occasional whale and such. They would not have had that resource in a total glaciated period.