4 ms·

60% of Neanderthal DNA sequenced

20 points by pg 18y ago

theblackbox 18y ago
I heard this on the bbc this morning too, pg. Heard it a few times around recently, but I fail to really interpret what it's saying. From my A level Biology I'm aware of some of the more simple methods of DNA sequencing, but I'm assuming this process is something vastly different if not vastly more accurate? As far as I was aware what little snippets of DNA can be retrieved from a sample are mass reproduced and effectively labelled. These labels are then matched against records and I assume a metric is generated to analyse the coordination of the sample and the stock. Now my problem is that I also know that a large proportion of DNA is "junk" code, giving no advantageous phenotypes but still somehow being integral to the DNA super-structure - think the folding of the chromosomes (which would be more common across related species than hair colour). So isn't it possible that "sequencing 60% of Neanderthal DNA" is not really saying anything of meaning beyond the fact that a very close evolutionary relative shows correlations with human DNA in up to 60% of what we have retrieved (which is most likely to be "junk")?..... .... hmm, getting a little muddled here.... but imagine it's like a torrent for a book - saying you've got 60% of the torrent does not mean that you are six tenths into deciphering the book, even if you can match all of that 60% to words in your dictionary. As the words cannot be guaranteed to be in order. Say it were a Holy Book and this becomes of ultimate import, one needs the complete unabridged word of God before one can infer meaning and knowledge from it's content.
biohacker42 18y ago
What's so scary about the Neanderthals is not that they were bigger or stronger, but that their brain volume was bigger then ours and from the skull shape we can tell the brain was shaped just like our brains. So they might have been smarter. But here's where it gets interesting they lived in small isolated groups and didn't invent the fancy tools and jewels humans did. However once they saw them, they could reproduce them exactly. That's what we know form archeology. Now the question is, were they dumber then us, or was it just our greater population densities that make us seem more creative in the archeological context? And if they were not less intelligent then us, why did they go extinct? If human cloning becomes routine we could perhaps resurrect the neanderthal, what if they turn out to be just as smart as us?
- electromagnetic 18y ago
  There's numerous potential reasons why they went extinct. The main one is that they merely couldn't adapt fast enough after the ice ages passed and were out-competed for food, however it might have been that humans basically killed the Neanderthals through the spread of farming. Homo Sapiens Sapiens (us) are keen users of fire throughout history, in fact we made the world we chose to live in. Through purposeful setting of forest fires we converted forest to savanna, which we could then use for farming and pasture. The interesting thing though is that the first (fossil recorded) domestication of dogs happened in 30,000 BC in Belgium, and likely this behavior had been going on for some time before a dog conveniently died in a way to be fossilized and not used for food. Carbon dating suggests Neanderthals went extinct 30,000 years ago (from the latest remains, however again some will have lived longer without being fossilized), which is in fact 28,000 BC. So the question is, did Neanderthals begin the domestication of dogs? Because the next known domestication occurred around 7,000 BC again in Belgium. So I wonder, did Neanderthals show humans how to domesticate dogs? Because throughout human history, invention spreads quickly, so why did it take almost 25,000 years for it to provably occur again in the same place? The question of intelligence though depends on a number of factors. The human brain is about as large as you can get before signal delay gets too long (possibly a reason for Neanderthal extinction, they literally couldn't react fast enough), however the human brain has a high nerve density, which would just compound the problem if our brains were bigger. It's certainly possible that the Neanderthals were as intelligent as us, but that they simply reacted slower and when the environment started warming up and more dangerous animals started spreading back they might not have coped as readily. An extreme example of the neurone delay is the Elephant. It's brain is massive, but they have relatively slow reactions. However their intelligence is immense for an animal, I mean it appears that they actually have the concept of revenge, which suggests an understanding of right and wrong.
  - biohacker42 18y ago
    I've heard theories that dogs started the domestication process because they were attracted to our garbage. And since neanderthals were almost exclusively meat eaters, it might be the case that they attracted a lot more wild animals with their leftovers. Another theory I've heard is that neanderthals are unique in having an inferior sense of balance. Inferior not just when compared to us, but to almost every known hominid or great ape. Apparently the inner ear organs responsible for balance and thus also for agility do fossilize and that's how we know. So part of their extinction might have been our ability to outrun and out jump them. Then again it could have just been our pernicious desire and ability to exterminate competition.

20 points by pg 18y ago

I heard this on the bbc this morning too, pg. Heard it a few times around recently, but I fail to really interpret what it's saying. From my A level Biology I'm aware of some of the more simple methods of DNA sequencing, but I'm assuming this process is something vastly different if not vastly more accurate? As far as I was aware what little snippets of DNA can be retrieved from a sample are mass reproduced and effectively labelled. These labels are then matched against records and I assume a metric is generated to analyse the coordination of the sample and the stock. Now my problem is that I also know that a large proportion of DNA is "junk" code, giving no advantageous phenotypes but still somehow being integral to the DNA super-structure - think the folding of the chromosomes (which would be more common across related species than hair colour). So isn't it possible that "sequencing 60% of Neanderthal DNA" is not really saying anything of meaning beyond the fact that a very close evolutionary relative shows correlations with human DNA in up to 60% of what we have retrieved (which is most likely to be "junk")?..... .... hmm, getting a little muddled here.... but imagine it's like a torrent for a book - saying you've got 60% of the torrent does not mean that you are six tenths into deciphering the book, even if you can match all of that 60% to words in your dictionary. As the words cannot be guaranteed to be in order. Say it were a Holy Book and this becomes of ultimate import, one needs the complete unabridged word of God before one can infer meaning and knowledge from it's content.

biohacker42 18y ago

What's so scary about the Neanderthals is not that they were bigger or stronger, but that their brain volume was bigger then ours and from the skull shape we can tell the brain was shaped just like our brains. So they might have been smarter. But here's where it gets interesting they lived in small isolated groups and didn't invent the fancy tools and jewels humans did. However once they saw them, they could reproduce them exactly. That's what we know form archeology. Now the question is, were they dumber then us, or was it just our greater population densities that make us seem more creative in the archeological context? And if they were not less intelligent then us, why did they go extinct? If human cloning becomes routine we could perhaps resurrect the neanderthal, what if they turn out to be just as smart as us?

electromagnetic 18y ago
There's numerous potential reasons why they went extinct. The main one is that they merely couldn't adapt fast enough after the ice ages passed and were out-competed for food, however it might have been that humans basically killed the Neanderthals through the spread of farming. Homo Sapiens Sapiens (us) are keen users of fire throughout history, in fact we made the world we chose to live in. Through purposeful setting of forest fires we converted forest to savanna, which we could then use for farming and pasture. The interesting thing though is that the first (fossil recorded) domestication of dogs happened in 30,000 BC in Belgium, and likely this behavior had been going on for some time before a dog conveniently died in a way to be fossilized and not used for food. Carbon dating suggests Neanderthals went extinct 30,000 years ago (from the latest remains, however again some will have lived longer without being fossilized), which is in fact 28,000 BC. So the question is, did Neanderthals begin the domestication of dogs? Because the next known domestication occurred around 7,000 BC again in Belgium. So I wonder, did Neanderthals show humans how to domesticate dogs? Because throughout human history, invention spreads quickly, so why did it take almost 25,000 years for it to provably occur again in the same place? The question of intelligence though depends on a number of factors. The human brain is about as large as you can get before signal delay gets too long (possibly a reason for Neanderthal extinction, they literally couldn't react fast enough), however the human brain has a high nerve density, which would just compound the problem if our brains were bigger. It's certainly possible that the Neanderthals were as intelligent as us, but that they simply reacted slower and when the environment started warming up and more dangerous animals started spreading back they might not have coped as readily. An extreme example of the neurone delay is the Elephant. It's brain is massive, but they have relatively slow reactions. However their intelligence is immense for an animal, I mean it appears that they actually have the concept of revenge, which suggests an understanding of right and wrong.
- biohacker42 18y ago
  I've heard theories that dogs started the domestication process because they were attracted to our garbage. And since neanderthals were almost exclusively meat eaters, it might be the case that they attracted a lot more wild animals with their leftovers. Another theory I've heard is that neanderthals are unique in having an inferior sense of balance. Inferior not just when compared to us, but to almost every known hominid or great ape. Apparently the inner ear organs responsible for balance and thus also for agility do fossilize and that's how we know. So part of their extinction might have been our ability to outrun and out jump them. Then again it could have just been our pernicious desire and ability to exterminate competition.