Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ancient DNA Is Rewriting Human and Neanderthal History

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 79 posts

Re: Ancient DNA Is Rewriting Human and Neanderthal History

#61

Post by skadamou »

jbeales wrote: post #8
fosco wrote: post #2

>Today, surprisingly, the people carrying the most Neanderthal DNA are not in Europe but in East Asia Interesting, I would love to see more information on this -- I had not heard this previously.

It makes fairly logical sense. Neanderthals were fairly well-installed in Europe when modern humans appeared in Africa. As modern humans would have expanded northward into Europe, done their thing with the Neanderthals, (some breeding, lots of killing), and continued eastward, so the human population still in Africa would probably have no Neanderthal DNA, but the population in Asia would carry the results of some int…

There are actually three ways to define a species. The morphological species concept, the biological species concept, and the phylogenetic species concept. Species that can interbreed satisfy the biological species concept but there seems to be more consensus among biologists that constructing a phylogeny is the better way to define species.

This somewhat problematic however because there is rarely enough data about a species to create a complete phylogeny of a species and its common ancestors. Additionally, it is thought that this concept would lead to the naming of many more species than we presently recognize. If you’re interested in this kind of thing I would encourage you to check out the link below!

http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/from_the_lab/species-concept...

Re: Ancient DNA Is Rewriting Human and Neanderthal History

#62

Post by patall »

cimmanom wrote: post #37
jbeales wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes fairly logical sense. Neanderthals were fairly well-installed in Europe when modern humans appeared in Africa. As modern humans would have expanded northward into Europe, done their thing with the Neanderthals, (some breeding, lots of killing), and continued eastward, so the human population still in Africa would probably have no Neanderthal DNA, but the population in Asia would carry the results of some int…

My understanding is that Neanderthals are now classified as a sub-species rather than a distinct species. So instead of Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis (sp?) we have Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis. It's not entirely unlike dogs and wolves, which can interbreed fluently. There are dozens of subspecies of Canis Lupus (red wolves, gray wolves, etc, etc), and one of them is Canis Lupus Fami…

The current de facto status is that the concept of species does not exist anymore, or more precisely, it mostly only still exists for historical reasons and coherence with it. When talking about genetic identity nowadays there is only the (type) specimen and genetic distance to other individuals. For example, Svante Pääbo and his team set precedence on purpose in not declaring the Denisovans anything but only describing a group of humans that genetically differ to an unexpected degree from modern humans.

Re: Ancient DNA Is Rewriting Human and Neanderthal History

#63

Post by JohnJamesRambo »

KittiHawk wrote: post #59
ryandvm wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have not heard that either. According to 23andMe, I'm in the 99th percentile for Neanderthal DNA variants and my ancestry report claims I'm a disappointingly un-diverse 99.9% European.

My parents had always told me their grandparents were part Seminole. I liked that because it made me feel more connected to my home. To find out (through a 23andMe report showing 99.9% Euro genes) it wasn't true was unsettling, like I'm not really who I thought I was and also have much less of a connection to the area. Also disappointed because it means someone in my family lied to all of us about where they came fro…

I'm not sure of the exact math but it seems like both things could still be true. We don't get equal portions of genes from each ancestor.

Re: Ancient DNA Is Rewriting Human and Neanderthal History

#64

Post by tabtab »

sampo wrote: post #52
mhluongo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're thinking donkeys and horses. I believe a mule is the sterile result of that interbreeding.

Mules are mostly sterile, but not 100%. Wikipedia reports some cases where female mules have produced offspring.

Interbreeding can be ranked on a scale. The less related the groups are, the more problems there are with reproducing. Perhaps a hard boundary of "species" can be drawn where the probability of successful offspring approaches zero. However, that's difficult to measure in practice.

Re: Ancient DNA Is Rewriting Human and Neanderthal History

#65

Post by tabtab »

Real_S wrote: post #25
fosco wrote: post #2

>Today, surprisingly, the people carrying the most Neanderthal DNA are not in Europe but in East Asia Interesting, I would love to see more information on this -- I had not heard this previously.

The intermixing was complex. Many groups migrating and interbreeding at various times. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/science/a-new-theory-on-h...

Perhaps we really should be called Homohumpian or Homomuttus.

Re: Ancient DNA Is Rewriting Human and Neanderthal History

#66

Post by ChemicalWarfare »

patall wrote: post #62
cimmanom wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that Neanderthals are now classified as a sub-species rather than a distinct species. So instead of Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis (sp?) we have Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis. It's not entirely unlike dogs and wolves, which can interbreed fluently. There are dozens of subspecies of Canis Lupus (red wolves, gray wolves, etc, etc), and one of them is Canis Lupus Fami…

The current de facto status is that the concept of species does not exist anymore, or more precisely, it mostly only still exists for historical reasons and coherence with it. When talking about genetic identity nowadays there is only the (type) specimen and genetic distance to other individuals. For example, Svante Pääbo and his team set precedence on purpose in not declaring the Denisovans anything but only describ…

how far of a distance before the line is drawn? by that logic chimps are also " a group of humans that genetically differ to an unexpected degree from modern humans."

Re: Ancient DNA Is Rewriting Human and Neanderthal History

#67

Post by ChemicalWarfare »

mc32 wrote: post #17
ryandvm wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have not heard that either. According to 23andMe, I'm in the 99th percentile for Neanderthal DNA variants and my ancestry report claims I'm a disappointingly un-diverse 99.9% European.

I don't think I'd ever hear a non white say they are disappointed with being 100% what they are, be they Asian, Black, etc. Maybe there are, I've never home across them, but a few whites have this tendency to wish for having "interesting" ancestry like sen. Warren. It's something odd. As if they are somewhat uncomfortable on their own skin. Shame is the wrong word, but i can't find the right descriptor. On the other…

in some circles it is considered "cool" to be admixed or foreign. there's also a fair amount of virtue signaling attached to that as well.

Re: Ancient DNA Is Rewriting Human and Neanderthal History

#68

Post by haihaibye »

staplers wrote: post #26
haihaibye wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm interested in comparing your perspective with the people in favor of ethnicity-based political states. I imagine they want a future where their genes carry on while you are interested in "knowledge that lasts" You could say they are gene-centric and you are meme-centric? Of two futures, which would you prefer? 1. Where your descendants/relatives are alive but have little in common with your values (eg compare bro…

Are you suggesting that by mating with similar 'ethnicity' that someones genes are more likely to carry on? I thought it was common knowledge that more diverse DNA has a better chance at survival. Seems like you're suggesting inbreeding is favorable for procreation.

It's complicated. There's the paper linked in the other comment, there's hybrid vigor, and also people with rare phenotypes eg have trouble getting organ donations.

There's a diversity of phenotypes around the world because groups of humans have been in reproductive isolation. I'm sure that will continue for various reasons (assortive mating, religion or immigration restriction like many East Asian countries). From memory you need Some people want to preserve reproductively isolated groups, rather than form a larger gene pool (though this is betting against human lust and cheap air travel)

If you are more related to your country than to the average human on earth (true historically), and your country adopt pro-natal policies rather than immigration of people who are genetically distant from you, you would increase the number of genes similar to you in the global population.

Re: Ancient DNA Is Rewriting Human and Neanderthal History

#69

Post by haihaibye »

nfg wrote: post #45
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty much frowned upon to be in any way proud to be a pale skinned European; mainstream media demands we feel shame for all the oppression we did in the centuries before our birth. That said, I don't understand how I've can be "proud" of which country you were born in, makes no sense to me.

>It's pretty much frowned upon to be in any way proud to be a pale skinned European; mainstream media demands we feel shame for all the oppression we did in the centuries before our birth. It's Paddy's day on Saturday - how does that celebration square with your claim?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XnRF5zyIKE

Re: Ancient DNA Is Rewriting Human and Neanderthal History

#70

Post by [deleted] »

patall wrote: post #62
cimmanom wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that Neanderthals are now classified as a sub-species rather than a distinct species. So instead of Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis (sp?) we have Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis. It's not entirely unlike dogs and wolves, which can interbreed fluently. There are dozens of subspecies of Canis Lupus (red wolves, gray wolves, etc, etc), and one of them is Canis Lupus Fami…

The current de facto status is that the concept of species does not exist anymore, or more precisely, it mostly only still exists for historical reasons and coherence with it. When talking about genetic identity nowadays there is only the (type) specimen and genetic distance to other individuals. For example, Svante Pääbo and his team set precedence on purpose in not declaring the Denisovans anything but only describ…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN