6 ms·

And there is so much still to uncover. Just the other day I was going through Neanderthal DNA during lunch and noticed that three of the four existing DNA sam

And there is so much still to uncover. Just the other day I was going through Neanderthal DNA during lunch and noticed that three of the four existing DNA samples show that they were carriers for the rs6467 form of Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) due to 21-Hydroxylase Deficiency. Neanderthals were highly inbred and had low population numbers. Being a carrier of this form of CAH would have absolutely kept the population numbers low all by itself as getting two copies would have been nonviable. Further Neanderthals are most known for contributing to human specific DNA sets such as improved immune system. Here we have something that even in the non classic form is havoc with the HPA-Axis and give incredible evolutionary pressure to resolve, one way is to simply dramatically improve the immune system. As far as I can tell this hasn't been written about before. Lots of stuff like this will be noticed and or figured out in the decades ahead.

throwup238 2y ago
IMO the next big thing - if anyone ever has the stones to propose it - is going to be the reclassification of many archaic human species as subspecies of Homo sapiens. The difference between humans and known neanderthal samples is barely more than the genetic diversity within extant humans. The more data we get, the more archaic humans in general look like small morphological variations of the hairless monkeys we see now. I think the taxonomy we have is the result of prestige-seeking behavior more so than actual science.
- transcriptase 2y ago
  Human geneticists are cult-like in their commitment to never explicitly interpreting findings, however unambiguous the evidence is, in a way that could potentially have a remote chance of being used as fuel for discrimination. For example you can spend your career mapping hundreds of small-effect variants linked to intelligence or phenotypes that lead to increased likelihood of certain behaviours. You can even publish a study showing that people who carry a certain gene variant and experienced childhood neglect have “increased risk of committing severe, impulsive, violent recidivist crimes”, and that the variant is more prevalent in prison populations than the general public in a certain region. You can also publish a population genetics study showing that humans have relatively easily computed genetic structure (see: 23andMe ancestry) because countless alleles are practically fixed in certain populations relative to others due to selection or founder effects, or are prevalent enough that if you have a segment of your genome with enough of them them you must have had an ancestor from a certain region. What you can’t do is combine these concepts into any uncomfortable findings when it comes to humans.
  - Cornbilly 2y ago
    Which uncomfortable findings are you referring to? Apparently, they’re also hard to plainly state on an anonymous forum as well. Weird.
    - ahoka 2y ago
      That confusing cause and effect would not be proper science? Just guessing.
      - bilbo0s 2y ago
        I'm not sure? I think it's even deeper than confusing cause and effect. I mean, maybe I'm missing some information, but the comment says: a study showing that people who carry a certain gene variant and experienced childhood neglect have “increased risk of committing severe, impulsive, violent recidivist crimes” The potential fundamental error there is the whole multiple independent variable thing. The study was likely designed from the outset without regard to the fundamentals of the scientific method. Which is a bigger issue than just confusing cause and effect. It gives other scientists a suspicion that the people doing the study aren't even aware of the potential confounding nature of the design? The people doing the study will of course call the "snobbish" scientists "anti-racists" for pointing these things out. But scientists are neither "racist" nor "anti-racist". The conclusions follow from the data via the scientific method, or the conclusions don't follow. A good scientist will not presume, a priori, what the conclusions are. In this instance, scientists can be forgiven for concluding that the findings don't follow. Scientists are better described as Scientific Method Fundamentalists. If they believe in anything, it is the scientific method. Everything else? Well, yeah, you will need to convince them. The good news is you can do that, but you have to use the scientific method to do so. If you don't, they rightfully dismiss you out of hand. I think the people who push these studies are misunderstanding the dismissal of their "findings" as antagonism to their conclusions. And on the other side, there are probably scientists who are not even bothering to explain the nature of their problem to them. There's probably a sense of, "It's a waste of time to talk to them", on both sides.
- RobotToaster 2y ago
  There's been a dispute over that for a long time, they're often called Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. (Modern humans then being Homo Sapiens Sapiens, which seems somewhat vain, calling ourselves "wise wise man")
  - BurningFrog 2y ago
    "History is written by the victors"
- stefantalpalaru 2y ago
  [dead]
- Symmetry 2y ago
  I'm not sure that matters but one hill I will die on is that all members of homo are humans too. If we're renaming things I'd rather we call ourselves homo gregarius. There's no evidence we were individually smarter than our Neanderthals cousins, rather we were a variety of humans which lived in larger groups and thus could sustain a more sophisticated technological toolkit.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
r0ze-at-hn 2y ago
And for the curious as I can't go back and edit the comment it was the Altai, Vi3315, and Vi3319 that have the CYP21A2 rs6467 (C;T) variant

throwup238 2y ago

IMO the next big thing - if anyone ever has the stones to propose it - is going to be the reclassification of many archaic human species as subspecies of Homo sapiens. The difference between humans and known neanderthal samples is barely more than the genetic diversity within extant humans. The more data we get, the more archaic humans in general look like small morphological variations of the hairless monkeys we see now. I think the taxonomy we have is the result of prestige-seeking behavior more so than actual science.

transcriptase 2y ago
Human geneticists are cult-like in their commitment to never explicitly interpreting findings, however unambiguous the evidence is, in a way that could potentially have a remote chance of being used as fuel for discrimination. For example you can spend your career mapping hundreds of small-effect variants linked to intelligence or phenotypes that lead to increased likelihood of certain behaviours. You can even publish a study showing that people who carry a certain gene variant and experienced childhood neglect have “increased risk of committing severe, impulsive, violent recidivist crimes”, and that the variant is more prevalent in prison populations than the general public in a certain region. You can also publish a population genetics study showing that humans have relatively easily computed genetic structure (see: 23andMe ancestry) because countless alleles are practically fixed in certain populations relative to others due to selection or founder effects, or are prevalent enough that if you have a segment of your genome with enough of them them you must have had an ancestor from a certain region. What you can’t do is combine these concepts into any uncomfortable findings when it comes to humans.
- Cornbilly 2y ago
  Which uncomfortable findings are you referring to? Apparently, they’re also hard to plainly state on an anonymous forum as well. Weird.
  - ahoka 2y ago
    That confusing cause and effect would not be proper science? Just guessing.
    - bilbo0s 2y ago
      I'm not sure? I think it's even deeper than confusing cause and effect. I mean, maybe I'm missing some information, but the comment says: a study showing that people who carry a certain gene variant and experienced childhood neglect have “increased risk of committing severe, impulsive, violent recidivist crimes” The potential fundamental error there is the whole multiple independent variable thing. The study was likely designed from the outset without regard to the fundamentals of the scientific method. Which is a bigger issue than just confusing cause and effect. It gives other scientists a suspicion that the people doing the study aren't even aware of the potential confounding nature of the design? The people doing the study will of course call the "snobbish" scientists "anti-racists" for pointing these things out. But scientists are neither "racist" nor "anti-racist". The conclusions follow from the data via the scientific method, or the conclusions don't follow. A good scientist will not presume, a priori, what the conclusions are. In this instance, scientists can be forgiven for concluding that the findings don't follow. Scientists are better described as Scientific Method Fundamentalists. If they believe in anything, it is the scientific method. Everything else? Well, yeah, you will need to convince them. The good news is you can do that, but you have to use the scientific method to do so. If you don't, they rightfully dismiss you out of hand. I think the people who push these studies are misunderstanding the dismissal of their "findings" as antagonism to their conclusions. And on the other side, there are probably scientists who are not even bothering to explain the nature of their problem to them. There's probably a sense of, "It's a waste of time to talk to them", on both sides.
RobotToaster 2y ago
There's been a dispute over that for a long time, they're often called Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. (Modern humans then being Homo Sapiens Sapiens, which seems somewhat vain, calling ourselves "wise wise man")
- BurningFrog 2y ago
  "History is written by the victors"
stefantalpalaru 2y ago
[dead]
Symmetry 2y ago
I'm not sure that matters but one hill I will die on is that all members of homo are humans too. If we're renaming things I'd rather we call ourselves homo gregarius. There's no evidence we were individually smarter than our Neanderthals cousins, rather we were a variety of humans which lived in larger groups and thus could sustain a more sophisticated technological toolkit.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

r0ze-at-hn 2y ago

And for the curious as I can't go back and edit the comment it was the Altai, Vi3315, and Vi3319 that have the CYP21A2 rs6467 (C;T) variant