3 ms·

What ancient DNA tells us about humans and Neanderthals

48 points by Vigier 9y ago

throwaway25070 9y ago
In case you're wondering why so much research (and articles summarizing said research) emphasize the negatives of Neanderthal DNA, consider the case of Bruce Lahn, a Chinese-born American geneticist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Lahn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Lahn > His research on the microcephaly-associated gene, MCPH1, led to the hypothesis that an archaic Homo sapiens lineage such as the Neanderthals might have contributed to the recent development of the human brain.[2] His research also suggested that newly arisen variants of two brain size genes, ASPM and MCPH1, might have been favored by positive natural selection in the recent human history.[3] This research provoked controversy due to the finding that the positively selected variants of these genes had spread to higher frequencies in some parts of the world than in others (for ASPM, it is higher in Europe and surrounding regions than other parts of the world; for MCPH1, it is higher outside sub-Saharan Africa than inside).[4] He has advocated the moral position that human genetic diversity should be embraced and celebrated as among humanity's great assets.[5] Since Sub-Saharan Africans have no Neanderthal DNA, researching the potential cognitive or other benefits non-Sub-Saharan Africans enjoy from that 1-5% of their genome would be racist. Because we all know race is just a social construct, and human evolution--at least with respect to intelligence--stopped sixty thousand years ago, or else it continued identically everywhere--unlike the population-specific adaptations for lactose tolerance or rarefied air: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/07/tibetans-inherited-high-altitude-gene-ancient-human https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/07/tibetans-inherited-h...
- danieltillett 9y ago
  I love how even commenting on this topic requires the use of a throwaway account. I will be brave and post in my own name. Yes different populations of humans around the world are genetically different, but we don’t know if any are better or worse in any significant way. Tigers and lions are different species, can interbreed (Liger), but we would not say one was a better or worse - just different. Of course on the flip side we don’t know that the different human populations are not significantly different in some important feature. The bottom line is we have no good data one way or the other on this topic.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- dang 9y ago
  This comment unfortunately displays the well-oiled talking points that are the signature of someone using a forum for well-rehearsed flamewar (in this case race war), not good conversation. We all know what this leads to, and it's not in keeping with https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html so please keep it elsewhere.
  - trashaccount 9y ago
    I don't know dang? I am not sure the commenter could have got his point across in a more reserved and less flame inducing way? Are you simply saying that the topic is so dangerous that we are simply not allowed to even talk about this?
    - dang 9y ago
      Is that the strongest plausible interpretation of what I said (per https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)? You've passed over the primary point. The GP sort of comment can't be evaluated context-free. I wish it could! but the problem is harder than that. When people create accounts to practice race war or gender war or whatever, they're violating HN's rules even if they appear to be technically complying with (some of) them. The spirit of the site is good, collegial conversation, not political battle. Ideological talking points poison that. So yup, surface civility is a necessary thing, but not a sufficient one to avoid getting moderated here.

48 points by Vigier 9y ago

In case you're wondering why so much research (and articles summarizing said research) emphasize the negatives of Neanderthal DNA, consider the case of Bruce Lahn, a Chinese-born American geneticist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Lahn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Lahn > His research on the microcephaly-associated gene, MCPH1, led to the hypothesis that an archaic Homo sapiens lineage such as the Neanderthals might have contributed to the recent development of the human brain.[2] His research also suggested that newly arisen variants of two brain size genes, ASPM and MCPH1, might have been favored by positive natural selection in the recent human history.[3] This research provoked controversy due to the finding that the positively selected variants of these genes had spread to higher frequencies in some parts of the world than in others (for ASPM, it is higher in Europe and surrounding regions than other parts of the world; for MCPH1, it is higher outside sub-Saharan Africa than inside).[4] He has advocated the moral position that human genetic diversity should be embraced and celebrated as among humanity's great assets.[5] Since Sub-Saharan Africans have no Neanderthal DNA, researching the potential cognitive or other benefits non-Sub-Saharan Africans enjoy from that 1-5% of their genome would be racist. Because we all know race is just a social construct, and human evolution--at least with respect to intelligence--stopped sixty thousand years ago, or else it continued identically everywhere--unlike the population-specific adaptations for lactose tolerance or rarefied air: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/07/tibetans-inherited-high-altitude-gene-ancient-human https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/07/tibetans-inherited-h...

danieltillett 9y ago
I love how even commenting on this topic requires the use of a throwaway account. I will be brave and post in my own name. Yes different populations of humans around the world are genetically different, but we don’t know if any are better or worse in any significant way. Tigers and lions are different species, can interbreed (Liger), but we would not say one was a better or worse - just different. Of course on the flip side we don’t know that the different human populations are not significantly different in some important feature. The bottom line is we have no good data one way or the other on this topic.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
dang 9y ago
This comment unfortunately displays the well-oiled talking points that are the signature of someone using a forum for well-rehearsed flamewar (in this case race war), not good conversation. We all know what this leads to, and it's not in keeping with https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html so please keep it elsewhere.
- trashaccount 9y ago
  I don't know dang? I am not sure the commenter could have got his point across in a more reserved and less flame inducing way? Are you simply saying that the topic is so dangerous that we are simply not allowed to even talk about this?
  - dang 9y ago
    Is that the strongest plausible interpretation of what I said (per https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)? You've passed over the primary point. The GP sort of comment can't be evaluated context-free. I wish it could! but the problem is harder than that. When people create accounts to practice race war or gender war or whatever, they're violating HN's rules even if they appear to be technically complying with (some of) them. The spirit of the site is good, collegial conversation, not political battle. Ideological talking points poison that. So yup, surface civility is a necessary thing, but not a sufficient one to avoid getting moderated here.