3 ms·

How do you determine that a gene variant is "Neanderthal", when most of the DNA is shared? Sapiens are Neanderthals.

AlotOfReading 3y ago
The answer to that question is the entire field of phylogenetics, especially computational phylogenetics [0]. Essentially, we sequenced a bunch of humans and neanderthals and the simplest explanation has certain genes evolving in the latter. One thing we're very confident in is that anatomically modern humans (i.e. us) are not neanderthals. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_phylogenetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_phylogenetics
- Anotheroneagain 3y ago
  It was based on the differences in mtDNA, but it's actually not true that such differences are unusual. The most striking example is from the Taï forest, where the 19 haplotypes show greater diversity than the entire human clade, even though they occur in a single breeding group. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC21819/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC21819/
- throwup238 3y ago
  > One thing we're very confident in is that anatomically modern humans (i.e. us) are not neanderthals. We’re not neanderthals, but they are largely no longer considered a separate species. Neanderthals are now commonly known as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis in the literature. Their genetics are not that different from sapiens and the difference is only about twice as much as the variation in the global gene pool so they’re more an extinct branch of a much more diverse species which suffered a genetic bottleneck leaving only us.
  - AlotOfReading 3y ago
    The word "largely" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. It's nowhere close to consensus in any literature I'm familiar with. I do find it interesting that even among the people who are vocally supportive of the subspecies classification almost never use the terminology for it. In any case what I said is true regardless of the taxonomy.

The answer to that question is the entire field of phylogenetics, especially computational phylogenetics [0]. Essentially, we sequenced a bunch of humans and neanderthals and the simplest explanation has certain genes evolving in the latter. One thing we're very confident in is that anatomically modern humans (i.e. us) are not neanderthals. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_phylogenetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_phylogenetics

Anotheroneagain 3y ago
It was based on the differences in mtDNA, but it's actually not true that such differences are unusual. The most striking example is from the Taï forest, where the 19 haplotypes show greater diversity than the entire human clade, even though they occur in a single breeding group. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC21819/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC21819/
throwup238 3y ago
> One thing we're very confident in is that anatomically modern humans (i.e. us) are not neanderthals. We’re not neanderthals, but they are largely no longer considered a separate species. Neanderthals are now commonly known as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis in the literature. Their genetics are not that different from sapiens and the difference is only about twice as much as the variation in the global gene pool so they’re more an extinct branch of a much more diverse species which suffered a genetic bottleneck leaving only us.
- AlotOfReading 3y ago
  The word "largely" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. It's nowhere close to consensus in any literature I'm familiar with. I do find it interesting that even among the people who are vocally supportive of the subspecies classification almost never use the terminology for it. In any case what I said is true regardless of the taxonomy.