5 ms·

> It's 65,000 years old which means it was painted by a Neanderthal. I'm not saying it wasn't made by a Neanderthal, and I don't think it's unlikely that Neand

> It's 65,000 years old which means it was painted by a Neanderthal. I'm not saying it wasn't made by a Neanderthal, and I don't think it's unlikely that Neanderthals made cave paintings, but there were human expeditions out of Africa during that time[0]. > To me, that's as profound as the discovery, if ever, of another intelligent species in the universe. For me, the fact that Neanderthals are so closely related to us removes some of the amazement. If octopuses were making paintings on the ocean floor, that would seem more comparable to finding aliens doing the same thing. [0]: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/01/oldest-human-outside-africa-discovered-fossil-jaw-israel-science/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/01/oldest-human...

danieltillett 7y ago
What makes Neanderthals so interesting is they split from sub-Saharan humans long before what we now call modern humans evolved. That and the fact they still walk amongst us - everyone who is not of sub-Saharan decent is part Neanderthal.
- Taniwha 7y ago
  To me the funniest thing is that "neanderthal" became a word to describe stupid people, now it turns out that the white european genetic heritage that the stupid white supremacists are so proud of is essentially "neanderthal", which seems somewhat fitting to me
  - jtx22 7y ago
    White supremacists are much smarter than you.
- tamizhar 7y ago
  > everyone who is not of sub-Saharan decent is part Neanderthal. Has this been proven? I mean both conditions, ie: that everyone of sub-Saharan descent having no Neanderthal DNA? Also, the percentages are really low, eg: my friend from China did 23andme and his Neanderthal percentage was 0.1%.
  - danieltillett 7y ago
    I suppose in theory that there might be some non-sub-Saharan people that don’t have Neanderthal DNA just by chance, but it is unlikely. There are also people that have far more than the average (2-3%) - for every person like your friend there are other with way more.
    - thrax 7y ago
      4% here!
- ACow_Adonis 7y ago
  As a non-biologist, am I the only one who had a claim like this raise my eyebrow in skepticism? What does it mean to be a separate species if you're interbreeding in a significant way? What does it mean to have n٪ Neanderthal DNA if that DNA is found in a significant proportion of "modern humans"?
  - i386 7y ago
    There are many species that are separated by 100K/1M years that are still able to interbreed. Horses, Donkeys, Zebras are a good example. These animals can produce viable offspring but still have significant anatomical differences (those differences tend to define what we call species)
    - ACow_Adonis 7y ago
      Yes, but they are notable because of their exceptional nature, and where many of them do interbreed, the understanding is they often/ predominantly produce sterile offspring, and thus do not/ have not spread in any meaningful way through the resulting population. If 'Neanderthal DNA' is found in a huge percentage of 'modern humans', on the face of if, it seems to me the notion that Neanderthals should be considered a separate species is the preposition that seems somewhat/increasingly spurious...
      - danieltillett 7y ago
        Could you explain why you think the number of hybrid offspring of Neanderthals currently living prevents Neanderthals being a different species? This is like saying that if there are a large number of mules alive that donkey’s can’t be considered a different species to horses. There is evidence that the offspring of the Neanderthal hybrids follow Haldane's Rule [1]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_rule
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    > What does it mean to be a separate species if you're interbreeding in a significant way? Species is a squishy concept. You might be amazed at how much intense arguing that continues to be about what delineates two closely related species. I think it's hard to consider Neanderthals a separate species, given what we now know thanks to ancient DNA. I think the term sub-species makes more sense. > What does it mean to have n٪ Neanderthal DNA if that DNA is found in a significant proportion of "modern humans"? It means that before the point at which the lineage that we call "humans" interbreed with the lineage that we call "neanderthal", these particular pieces of DNA were found only in the neanderthal lineage.
- thrower123 7y ago
  What I think is more interesting is that there appear to be distinct differences between Neanderthal-influenced European gene lines and Asian Denisovian-influenced gene lines, vs pure Cro-magnon gene lines. The whole thing is more complicated than the neat stories that we have been told.
  - tasogare 7y ago
    Given how races within the human specie are a controversial topics in Western societies, it's not hard to imagine why the topic of having DNA from different human species is totally untold by the various national education systems.
    - barberousse 7y ago
      Probably because the fact of external genetic influences has little to do with the wholly political concept of "race"
mouzogu 7y ago
I agree. I've updated the first point. A lot of this is based on our ever changing knowledge of our history with new discoveries current understanding seems to change almost every day. It's not so much about them being closely related. Rather it's the idea that a mind so distant from my own, that lived a life so alien from my own drew that. I find that deeply fascinating. The fact that they are lost to us just makes them seem even more interesting, the fact that we can never really know, we can never really understand why they drew that, why they took the time out of their harsh and unforgiving lives to draw some lines on a wall that one day, a different species would ponder over.
- blotter_paper 7y ago
  > It's not so much about them being closely related. Rather it's the idea that a mind so distant from my own, that lived a life so alien from my own drew that. I think I'm using the former as a proxy for the latter. If Neanderthals were more distantly related then I would imagine their minds to be more distant from my own. If less, then less. I imagine that my mind is much closer to that of a chimpanzee than that of an octopus, so I would be less amazed by similar behavior in the former than the latter. This isn't to say that I find no amazement in what little we know of Neanderthal culture, just that it's nowhere near the amazement I would find in seeing a truly alien culture. They're on the same continuum, but not at the same point on that continuum.
- hutzlibu 7y ago
  "It's not so much about them being closely related. Rather it's the idea that a mind so distant from my own, that lived a life so alien from my own drew that. I find that deeply fascinating." Well, genetically they were not much different, close enough for interbreeding. But their mind ... and culture was probably very alien to us.
  - danieltillett 7y ago
    There is enough Neanderthal DNA in the modern non-sub-Saharan human population (we all have a few percent Neanderthal DNA, but that few percent is different in each of us) that some people probably think like Neanderthals.

danieltillett 7y ago

What makes Neanderthals so interesting is they split from sub-Saharan humans long before what we now call modern humans evolved. That and the fact they still walk amongst us - everyone who is not of sub-Saharan decent is part Neanderthal.

Taniwha 7y ago
To me the funniest thing is that "neanderthal" became a word to describe stupid people, now it turns out that the white european genetic heritage that the stupid white supremacists are so proud of is essentially "neanderthal", which seems somewhat fitting to me
- jtx22 7y ago
  White supremacists are much smarter than you.
tamizhar 7y ago
> everyone who is not of sub-Saharan decent is part Neanderthal. Has this been proven? I mean both conditions, ie: that everyone of sub-Saharan descent having no Neanderthal DNA? Also, the percentages are really low, eg: my friend from China did 23andme and his Neanderthal percentage was 0.1%.
- danieltillett 7y ago
  I suppose in theory that there might be some non-sub-Saharan people that don’t have Neanderthal DNA just by chance, but it is unlikely. There are also people that have far more than the average (2-3%) - for every person like your friend there are other with way more.
  - thrax 7y ago
    4% here!
ACow_Adonis 7y ago
As a non-biologist, am I the only one who had a claim like this raise my eyebrow in skepticism? What does it mean to be a separate species if you're interbreeding in a significant way? What does it mean to have n٪ Neanderthal DNA if that DNA is found in a significant proportion of "modern humans"?
- i386 7y ago
  There are many species that are separated by 100K/1M years that are still able to interbreed. Horses, Donkeys, Zebras are a good example. These animals can produce viable offspring but still have significant anatomical differences (those differences tend to define what we call species)
  - ACow_Adonis 7y ago
    Yes, but they are notable because of their exceptional nature, and where many of them do interbreed, the understanding is they often/ predominantly produce sterile offspring, and thus do not/ have not spread in any meaningful way through the resulting population. If 'Neanderthal DNA' is found in a huge percentage of 'modern humans', on the face of if, it seems to me the notion that Neanderthals should be considered a separate species is the preposition that seems somewhat/increasingly spurious...
    - danieltillett 7y ago
      Could you explain why you think the number of hybrid offspring of Neanderthals currently living prevents Neanderthals being a different species? This is like saying that if there are a large number of mules alive that donkey’s can’t be considered a different species to horses. There is evidence that the offspring of the Neanderthal hybrids follow Haldane's Rule [1]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_rule
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  > What does it mean to be a separate species if you're interbreeding in a significant way? Species is a squishy concept. You might be amazed at how much intense arguing that continues to be about what delineates two closely related species. I think it's hard to consider Neanderthals a separate species, given what we now know thanks to ancient DNA. I think the term sub-species makes more sense. > What does it mean to have n٪ Neanderthal DNA if that DNA is found in a significant proportion of "modern humans"? It means that before the point at which the lineage that we call "humans" interbreed with the lineage that we call "neanderthal", these particular pieces of DNA were found only in the neanderthal lineage.
thrower123 7y ago
What I think is more interesting is that there appear to be distinct differences between Neanderthal-influenced European gene lines and Asian Denisovian-influenced gene lines, vs pure Cro-magnon gene lines. The whole thing is more complicated than the neat stories that we have been told.
- tasogare 7y ago
  Given how races within the human specie are a controversial topics in Western societies, it's not hard to imagine why the topic of having DNA from different human species is totally untold by the various national education systems.
  - barberousse 7y ago
    Probably because the fact of external genetic influences has little to do with the wholly political concept of "race"

mouzogu 7y ago

I agree. I've updated the first point. A lot of this is based on our ever changing knowledge of our history with new discoveries current understanding seems to change almost every day. It's not so much about them being closely related. Rather it's the idea that a mind so distant from my own, that lived a life so alien from my own drew that. I find that deeply fascinating. The fact that they are lost to us just makes them seem even more interesting, the fact that we can never really know, we can never really understand why they drew that, why they took the time out of their harsh and unforgiving lives to draw some lines on a wall that one day, a different species would ponder over.

blotter_paper 7y ago
> It's not so much about them being closely related. Rather it's the idea that a mind so distant from my own, that lived a life so alien from my own drew that. I think I'm using the former as a proxy for the latter. If Neanderthals were more distantly related then I would imagine their minds to be more distant from my own. If less, then less. I imagine that my mind is much closer to that of a chimpanzee than that of an octopus, so I would be less amazed by similar behavior in the former than the latter. This isn't to say that I find no amazement in what little we know of Neanderthal culture, just that it's nowhere near the amazement I would find in seeing a truly alien culture. They're on the same continuum, but not at the same point on that continuum.
hutzlibu 7y ago
"It's not so much about them being closely related. Rather it's the idea that a mind so distant from my own, that lived a life so alien from my own drew that. I find that deeply fascinating." Well, genetically they were not much different, close enough for interbreeding. But their mind ... and culture was probably very alien to us.
- danieltillett 7y ago
  There is enough Neanderthal DNA in the modern non-sub-Saharan human population (we all have a few percent Neanderthal DNA, but that few percent is different in each of us) that some people probably think like Neanderthals.