6 ms·
A high-coverage Neandertal genome from Chagyrskaya Cave
- londons_explore 6y agoImagine the furore if someone manages to make this genome into a living creature... Will they get a passport? Will they get the vote? Will any children be allowed to be called humans?
- progre 6y agoFrom the abstract: > Neandertals and Denisovans are the closest evolutionary relatives of present-day humans. Analyses of their genomes showed that they contributed genetically to present-day people outside sub-Saharan Africa So there is already Neandertal hybrids walking around (I'm one of them). I think they should get full human status.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- type0 6y agoNeandertals were a type of humans, well hominids to be exact. A bunch of neadertal DNA is present in populations outside Africa because we interbreed. > Imagine the furore if someone manages to make this genome into a living creature... if some mad scientist indeed makes a cross between a Neandertal and a Pig will they be allowed to be called humans?
- file_transfer 6y agoBlue Lives Matter
- throwaway4666 6y agoThe distinction between Neanderthals, Denisovans and Homo sapiens sapiens is more or less a legacy from a time where we didn't know how fuzzy the definition of 'species' was. For all intents and purposes all three are the same species of full-fledged humans and there's scant evidence humans from either denomination would even treat each other differently.
- rossdavidh 6y agoWell there are plenty of other cases where we are completely comfortable calling them distinct species, even though we know they can interbreed. The term "species" is certainly fuzzier than we were taught in school in the 70's, but it's not as if biologists have stopped using the concept.
- catalogia 6y agoRing species are an interesting case to consider, in which A and B can interbreed, and B and C can interbreed, but A and C cannot. Gene transfer between A and C remains possible, but indirect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
- Acrobatic_Road 6y agoThey were different species and any argument to the contrary rests on adherence to a rigid definition of species not even accepted by all biologists, let alone anthropologists. >there's scant evidence humans from either denomination would even treat each other differently. Are we supposed to believe it was a big egalitarian paradise?
- throwaway4666 6y ago>They were different species and any argument to the contrary rests on adherence to a rigid definition of species not even accepted by all biologists, let alone anthropologists. There is no single definition of species. People who study bacteria have their own, so do people who study plants, birds, insects, and so on. Sure, Neanderthals and Homo sapiens sapiens, who coexisted and interbred in the same ecosystems, are different species. Whatever that means. >Are we supposed to believe it was a big egalitarian paradise? Lol what does that have to do with what I said?
- thaumasiotes 6y ago> The distinction between Neanderthals, Denisovans and Homo sapiens sapiens is more or less a legacy from a time where we didn't know how fuzzy the definition of 'species' was. Not at all; that time ended long before the distinction was drawn. In the case of Denisovans, hundreds of years before.
- monkeycantype 6y agoI really would love to know more about them, what if they were smarter than we are, in all or some of the ways we recognise, and were they simply overwhelmed by us swarming like locusts from the south?
- mc32 6y agoWhy would terminology suddenly change? They are currently called Neanderthal and Denisovan. Why would a living specimen change the terminology? Horses and jackasses aren’t merged into one species because they can breed.
- Mikeb85 6y agoConsidering most/all of us have some Neanderthal DNA I'm sure they'll be considered human.
- thaumasiotes 6y agoAll of us also have some cabbage DNA.
- oh_sigh 6y agoNo - we share DNA with cabbage, because we had a common ancestor a really really really long time ago. We don't have cabbage DNA.
- econcon 6y agoI remember having read that south East Asians have more neanderthal DNA than Europeans.
- throwaway4666 6y ago>Analyses of their genomes showed that they contributed genetically to present-day people outside sub-Saharan Africa This is wrong. Recent analyses (https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30059-3 https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30059-3) have shown Neanderthals have also contributed to Sub-Saharan DNA. Maybe the authors weren't aware of the latest findings at the time of writing and no one ever thought of correcting that part.
- user982 6y ago> Recent analyses have shown Neanderthals have also contributed to Sub-Saharan DNA. To what extent?
- throwaway4666 6y agoAt least 17Mbp (vs. ~50Mbp in Eurasians)
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- rossdavidh 6y agoOr, because that is a new finding, using (by the authors' own description) a "novel" method of deducing it, they just aren't convinced yet. It is a tricky business to do, and especially without any human-but-0%-Neanderthal sample to compare against. Maybe the authors of the Cell paper have done it, but it wouldn't totally shock me if the rest of their field is not convinced.
- throwaway4666 6y agoWell if the paper made it to Cell at least two other people in the field are convinced.
- rossdavidh 6y ago