7 ms·

A new timeline for Neanderthal interbreeding with modern humans

70 points by diodorus 2y ago

paulpauper 2y ago
So where there humans walking around that had obvious neanderthal-like characteristics but not neanderthal?
- defrost 2y ago
  What does "neanderthal" mean in this context? eg: at some point there were humans who, genetically were 100% neanderthal and other humans who were genetically 100% not. The first pair that mated had offspring with a 50-50 mixture of more or less random neanderthal and "not-neanderthal " genes (although even that is a simplification as the two parents would have had many common human genetic features). Over the course of seven thousand years of side by side interbreeding and co-habitation there would have been individuals with ranging from 0% neanderthal to 0% "not neanderthal". A further complication is the relationship between "features" (visible physical characteristics) and "percentage neanderthal" .. an individual may have almost no neanderthal genetics whatsoever save for that one gene that strongly codes for a "neanderthal forehead". If there was some unique "neanderthal feature" that was clearly recognisable as neanderthal and only expressed itself within people that had some specific "neanderthal gene" .. Then no, there wouldn't be people walking about with that specifically "neanderthal feature" unless they also had that specific "neanderthal gene". The problem is that genetic expression really isn't this cut and dried, nor is the boxing up of humans as "this" or "that".
  - bonzini 2y ago
    Would it be like a Savannah cat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savannah_cat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savannah_cat)?
    - defrost 2y ago
      While that's a good looking cat, perhaps more like a Red Dwarf Cat (Felis Sapiens).
- eddiewithzato 2y ago
  Oh there is more to humanity than that. For example the history of europe with even yamnaya, corded-ware, EHG, ANF all looked different with different heights, skin tones, skull shapes, cultures, etc as well. And this is from around 3000 BC. Modern european as you know it (admixture wise) would likely be fully formed at around 400 BC
- r0ze-at-hn 2y ago
  The ~2% that is kept in some humans and I have them and am walking among you. The majority of dna has to do with non-visible changes.
bee_rider 2y ago
Timescales are always interesting. I always thought of the interbreeding of Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals as being a sort of “one off event” or something. I mean, obviously not literally just once, but maybe some little era, part of the process of us wiping them out. But, 7000 years is a while. I mean, how long has our current civilization lasted? I guess it depends on how you define it. But certainly that coexistence, whatever it was, lasted longer than any countries or other institutions have…
- secstate 2y ago
  There's something endlessly humbling about looking beyond a human lifespan. It's at least one of the reasons I find the Long Now Foundation so intriguing.
  - pkkkzip 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - nine_k 2y ago
      If written records are to be believed, Earth has seen tons of supernatural beings, dragons, giant fish, entire Middle East being flooded, etc. This is not counting humans being produced from clay, etc. What passes for scientific evidence in history is something that cross-checks with a bunch of other things that are dated reliably, through multiple sources, astronomy, and methods from other hard sciences.
    - taneq 2y ago
      Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus was NOT a velociraptor.
      - endofreach 2y ago
        I imagine someone sitting with a "jesus was a velociraptor– change my mind" sign somewhere on a college campus.
kopirgan 2y ago
Considering we only differ from chimps by about 4% in genome or less, this is really fine grained analysis. Guess maths stats & modelling play a big role. Which means some other experts will conclude differently from same data.
- pkkkzip 2y ago
  what is the best explanation for this closeness? the only two species capable of engaging in organized warfare? humans and chimps. how likely is it that an intelligent entity that precedes humanity came along and decided to chose chimpanzees to breed with? anybody telling you they know what happened before the time we had written records are selling you something.
  - kopirgan 2y ago
    Actually there's very little material to go by as experts say. Fossils of apes are rare and those with DNA are rarer. Point is media and charlatans will use these research, add their own bs & start unscientific fads, racial theories or paleo diet sort of scams. That's the concerning part - research can go on, present new info etc that's welcome.
  - BurningFrog 2y ago
    Humans and Chimps became separate species around 6 million years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_common_ancestor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_...
  - Tor3 2y ago
    > anybody telling you they know what happened before the time we had written records are selling you something. Right, so plate tectonics didn't happen because nobody wrote it down when America and Africa gradually separated? Supernovas didn't happen in the past because even though we can see the remains, nobody wrote it down thousands of years ago? (except for when they did, as for SN 1054)
    - 2y ago
revskill 2y ago
So did homo sapiens invent writings ?
- mkl 2y ago
  Yes. A very long time after Neanderthals were extinct though, so I don't see the relevance.
  - revskill 2y ago
    Ah i think writings is nessessary for not being extinct.
    - nobody9999 2y ago
      >Ah i think writings is nessessary for not being extinct. Tell that to the sharks[0]. [0] https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/shark-evolution-a-450-million-year-timeline.html https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/shark-evolution-a-450-million...
      - revskill 2y ago
        How can u know sharks don't know how to write ?
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - nobody9999 2y ago
      >Ah i think writings is nessessary for not being extinct. Give the poor quality of your writing, are you sure you're not extinct?
      - 2y ago
willvarfar 2y ago
The wikipedia article opens with "Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis or H. sapiens neanderthalensis) are an extinct group of archaic humans (generally regarded as a distinct species, though some regard it as a subspecies of Homo sapiens) who lived in Eurasia until about 40,000 years ago" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal If Neanderthals and Homo sapiens could interbreed and produce offspring that could reproduce, doesn't that clear up any confusion about them possibly being a distinct species?
- Tor3 2y ago
  A species isn't defined by if it can interbreed with other species or not. Horses and donkeys can produce offspring (although they are mule - and there's some discussion about how certain Neanderthal/Sapiens combinations could possibly also be mule, but that's not important). And Darwin's finches (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_finches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_finches) are defined as different species, but can technically interbreed.
- beloch 2y ago
  By calling them "H. sapiens neanderthalensis", the authors are tipping their hand. They view Neanderthal's as a subspecies. There are those who disagree. The definition of what a species is seems to depend on who you talk to. There are examples of animals, currently classified as different species, being able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. e.g. Polar bears (Ursus Maritimus) and Grizzlies (Ursus arctos horribilis) can breed to produce fertile Grolar bears[1]. TL;DR: Although Polar bears and Grizzlies appear to be very different, they diverged relatively recently and have remained distinct mainly through geographic separation. They don't interbreed much because they generally aren't in the same places during mating season. Although their physical traits have changed considerably, genetic differences haven't yet built up to the point where their offspring are infertile. It's conceivable that the different subspecies of humans were isolated from each other in very different environments and evolved along very different lines. However, they weren't isolated from each other so long that genetic changes made it impossible for them to produce fertile offspring. [1]https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2010/05/when-polar-bears-and-grizzlies-breed-they-can-produce-fertile-offspring-why-can-t-other-species.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2010/05/when-polar-bears...

70 points by diodorus 2y ago

paulpauper 2y ago

So where there humans walking around that had obvious neanderthal-like characteristics but not neanderthal?

defrost 2y ago
What does "neanderthal" mean in this context? eg: at some point there were humans who, genetically were 100% neanderthal and other humans who were genetically 100% not. The first pair that mated had offspring with a 50-50 mixture of more or less random neanderthal and "not-neanderthal " genes (although even that is a simplification as the two parents would have had many common human genetic features). Over the course of seven thousand years of side by side interbreeding and co-habitation there would have been individuals with ranging from 0% neanderthal to 0% "not neanderthal". A further complication is the relationship between "features" (visible physical characteristics) and "percentage neanderthal" .. an individual may have almost no neanderthal genetics whatsoever save for that one gene that strongly codes for a "neanderthal forehead". If there was some unique "neanderthal feature" that was clearly recognisable as neanderthal and only expressed itself within people that had some specific "neanderthal gene" .. Then no, there wouldn't be people walking about with that specifically "neanderthal feature" unless they also had that specific "neanderthal gene". The problem is that genetic expression really isn't this cut and dried, nor is the boxing up of humans as "this" or "that".
- bonzini 2y ago
  Would it be like a Savannah cat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savannah_cat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savannah_cat)?
  - defrost 2y ago
    While that's a good looking cat, perhaps more like a Red Dwarf Cat (Felis Sapiens).
eddiewithzato 2y ago
Oh there is more to humanity than that. For example the history of europe with even yamnaya, corded-ware, EHG, ANF all looked different with different heights, skin tones, skull shapes, cultures, etc as well. And this is from around 3000 BC. Modern european as you know it (admixture wise) would likely be fully formed at around 400 BC
r0ze-at-hn 2y ago
The ~2% that is kept in some humans and I have them and am walking among you. The majority of dna has to do with non-visible changes.

bee_rider 2y ago

Timescales are always interesting. I always thought of the interbreeding of Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals as being a sort of “one off event” or something. I mean, obviously not literally just once, but maybe some little era, part of the process of us wiping them out. But, 7000 years is a while. I mean, how long has our current civilization lasted? I guess it depends on how you define it. But certainly that coexistence, whatever it was, lasted longer than any countries or other institutions have…

secstate 2y ago
There's something endlessly humbling about looking beyond a human lifespan. It's at least one of the reasons I find the Long Now Foundation so intriguing.
- pkkkzip 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - nine_k 2y ago
    If written records are to be believed, Earth has seen tons of supernatural beings, dragons, giant fish, entire Middle East being flooded, etc. This is not counting humans being produced from clay, etc. What passes for scientific evidence in history is something that cross-checks with a bunch of other things that are dated reliably, through multiple sources, astronomy, and methods from other hard sciences.
  - taneq 2y ago
    Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus was NOT a velociraptor.
    - endofreach 2y ago
      I imagine someone sitting with a "jesus was a velociraptor– change my mind" sign somewhere on a college campus.

kopirgan 2y ago

Considering we only differ from chimps by about 4% in genome or less, this is really fine grained analysis. Guess maths stats & modelling play a big role. Which means some other experts will conclude differently from same data.

pkkkzip 2y ago
what is the best explanation for this closeness? the only two species capable of engaging in organized warfare? humans and chimps. how likely is it that an intelligent entity that precedes humanity came along and decided to chose chimpanzees to breed with? anybody telling you they know what happened before the time we had written records are selling you something.
- kopirgan 2y ago
  Actually there's very little material to go by as experts say. Fossils of apes are rare and those with DNA are rarer. Point is media and charlatans will use these research, add their own bs & start unscientific fads, racial theories or paleo diet sort of scams. That's the concerning part - research can go on, present new info etc that's welcome.
- BurningFrog 2y ago
  Humans and Chimps became separate species around 6 million years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_common_ancestor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_...
- Tor3 2y ago
  > anybody telling you they know what happened before the time we had written records are selling you something. Right, so plate tectonics didn't happen because nobody wrote it down when America and Africa gradually separated? Supernovas didn't happen in the past because even though we can see the remains, nobody wrote it down thousands of years ago? (except for when they did, as for SN 1054)
  - 2y ago

revskill 2y ago

So did homo sapiens invent writings ?

mkl 2y ago
Yes. A very long time after Neanderthals were extinct though, so I don't see the relevance.
- revskill 2y ago
  Ah i think writings is nessessary for not being extinct.
  - nobody9999 2y ago
    >Ah i think writings is nessessary for not being extinct. Tell that to the sharks[0]. [0] https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/shark-evolution-a-450-million-year-timeline.html https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/shark-evolution-a-450-million...
    - revskill 2y ago
      How can u know sharks don't know how to write ?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - nobody9999 2y ago
    >Ah i think writings is nessessary for not being extinct. Give the poor quality of your writing, are you sure you're not extinct?
    - 2y ago

willvarfar 2y ago

The wikipedia article opens with "Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis or H. sapiens neanderthalensis) are an extinct group of archaic humans (generally regarded as a distinct species, though some regard it as a subspecies of Homo sapiens) who lived in Eurasia until about 40,000 years ago" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal If Neanderthals and Homo sapiens could interbreed and produce offspring that could reproduce, doesn't that clear up any confusion about them possibly being a distinct species?

Tor3 2y ago
A species isn't defined by if it can interbreed with other species or not. Horses and donkeys can produce offspring (although they are mule - and there's some discussion about how certain Neanderthal/Sapiens combinations could possibly also be mule, but that's not important). And Darwin's finches (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_finches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_finches) are defined as different species, but can technically interbreed.
beloch 2y ago
By calling them "H. sapiens neanderthalensis", the authors are tipping their hand. They view Neanderthal's as a subspecies. There are those who disagree. The definition of what a species is seems to depend on who you talk to. There are examples of animals, currently classified as different species, being able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. e.g. Polar bears (Ursus Maritimus) and Grizzlies (Ursus arctos horribilis) can breed to produce fertile Grolar bears[1]. TL;DR: Although Polar bears and Grizzlies appear to be very different, they diverged relatively recently and have remained distinct mainly through geographic separation. They don't interbreed much because they generally aren't in the same places during mating season. Although their physical traits have changed considerably, genetic differences haven't yet built up to the point where their offspring are infertile. It's conceivable that the different subspecies of humans were isolated from each other in very different environments and evolved along very different lines. However, they weren't isolated from each other so long that genetic changes made it impossible for them to produce fertile offspring. [1]https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2010/05/when-polar-bears-and-grizzlies-breed-they-can-produce-fertile-offspring-why-can-t-other-species.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2010/05/when-polar-bears...