Richard E. Green et al A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome Science 7 May 2010: Vol. 328. no. 5979, pp. 710 - 722 DOI: 10.1126/science.1188021
quote:Neandertals, the closest evolutionary relatives of present-day humans, lived in large parts of Europe and western Asia before disappearing 30,000 years ago. We present a draft sequence of the Neandertal genome composed of more than 4 billion nucleotides from three individuals. Comparisons of the Neandertal genome to the genomes of five present-day humans from different parts of the world identify a number of genomic regions that may have been affected by positive selection in ancestral modern humans, including genes involved in metabolism and in cognitive and skeletal development. We show that Neandertals shared more genetic variants with present-day humans in Eurasia than with present-day humans in sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting that gene flow from Neandertals into the ancestors of non-Africans occurred before the divergence of Eurasian groups from each other.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: Afrocentrists scramble for cover! (LOL)
The paper clearly supports OOA, only stating that the early out of Africa migrants apparently mated with archaic humans some 50,000 years ago before the divergence of modern non-African populations. This left an indelible imprint in 1-4% of the non-African genome. Not sure how such can be used for political purposes in the blind crusade against "Afrocentrism".
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^This is what is going to set them apart from you...
"Our results also point to a number of genomic regions and genes as candidates for positive selection early in modern human history, for example, those involved in cognitive ablities..."
Posts: 1340 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: The genetic information turned up some intriguing findings, indicating, for instance, that at some point after early modern humans migrated out of Africa, they mingled and mated with Neanderthals, possibly in the Middle East or North Africa as much as 80,000 years ago. If that is the case, it occurred significantly earlier than scientists who support the interbreeding hypothesis would have expected...[..]..The Neanderthal DNA appears in the modern human genomes randomly, suggesting it offers no evolutionary benefit and is merely a genetic relic.
quote: "The scenario is not what most people had envisioned," Green said. "We found the genetic signal of Neanderthals in all the non-African genomes, meaning that the admixture occurred early on, probably in the Middle East, and is shared with all descendants of the early humans who migrated out of Africa."
The study did not address the functional significance of the finding that between 1 and 4 percent of the genomes of non-Africans is derived from Neanderthals. But Green said there is no evidence that anything genetically important came over from Neanderthals. "The signal is sparsely distributed across the genome, just a 'bread crumbs' clue of what happened in the past," he said. "If there was something that conferred a fitness advantage, we probably would have found it already by comparing human genomes."
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
MM718, lets me intellectually honest and not cherry pick what works for us in an article. Please consider the following from the article:
"Some of the changes may have arisen as a result of genetic drift, but others seem to have been positively selected for — meaning they swept through populations rapidly, possibly because they gave us some advantage."; hence, cognitive abilities as I explained in a previous post.
"The new finding may prompt a tweaking of the well-known Out of Africa theory, which in its strictest interpretation says a small group of early modern humans left Africa and outcompeted and replaced all other hominids without any interbreeding. The alternate theory, known as multiregionalism, argues that distinct populations of modern humans developed simultaneously around the world and along the same evolutionary lines by swapping genes."
"What we falsify here is the very hard Out of Africa theory," said Pääbo. "We show that outside Africa there is this 1% to 4% that came from archaic humans. Of course, it's totally possible that archaic forms that we don't know contributed to Africans today."
"According to Trinkaus, many paleoanthropologists have long believed that early modern humans and Neanderthals interbred. "People have been saying this for decades," he argues. "The minority position was the position that there was no gene flow. Most people who work with the fossil record support some level of admixture."
Posts: 1340 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey genius the main author of the paper is Richard Green, I'll take what he says as law in his own paper, and this is exactly what he said....
quote: "The scenario is not what most people had envisioned," Green said. "We found the genetic signal of Neanderthals in all the non-African genomes, meaning that the admixture occurred early on, probably in the Middle East, and is shared with all descendants of the early humans who migrated out of Africa."
The study did not address the functional significance of the finding that between 1 and 4 percent of the genomes of non-Africans is derived from Neanderthals. But Green said there is no evidence that anything genetically important came over from Neanderthals. "The signal is sparsely distributed across the genome, just a 'bread crumbs' clue of what happened in the past," he said. "If there was something that conferred a fitness advantage, we probably would have found it already by comparing human genomes."
You're dismissed.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Nice. Funny how these Euro-quacks will spin any results to fit their agenda. I'm surprised they wouldn't scramble to defend against such implications as this, which was touched upon by Erik Trinkaus:
quote:Of course, it's totally possible that archaic forms that we don't know contributed to Africans today. I don't think we should take this as evidence that only people outside Africa have some 'caveman' biology within them."
Yet some are so racist they'd rather be associated with Neanderthals than modern humans. Whatever "cognitive" advantage Neaderthals would have had over Sapiens isn't apparent since they are no longer here.
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: [QB] MM718, lets me intellectually honest and not cherry pick what works for us in an article. Please consider the following from the article:
"Some of the changes may have arisen as a result of genetic drift, but others seem to have been positively selected
No context. Check out what this goof ball left out!
quote:Whatever our mixing, it is human uniqueness that has also been revealed by the sequencing. By comparing the Neanderthal genome with those of modern humans, the team identified a small number of genetic changes that were newly evolved in modern humans. Some of the changes may have arisen as a result of genetic drift, but others seem to have been positively selected for — meaning they swept through populations rapidly, possibly because they gave us some advantage.
The genes in which some of the changes occurred play a role in cognitive and physical development — such as cranial features, skin pigmentation and how we metabolize energy. The study's authors don't yet know what the specific changes signify, but in living people, mutations in some of the genes related to cognitive development contribute to conditions such as Down syndrome, schizophrenia and autism.
^btw, this isn't from the study I posted, it's from a press release.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^Nice. Funny how these Euro-quacks will spin any results to fit their agenda. I'm surprised they wouldn't scramble to defend against such implications as this, which was touched upon by Erik Trinkaus:
quote:Of course, it's totally possible that archaic forms that we don't know contributed to Africans today. I don't think we should take this as evidence that only people outside Africa have some 'caveman' biology within them."
Yet some are so racist they'd rather be associated with Neanderthals than modern humans. Whatever "cognitive" advantage Neaderthals would have had over Sapiens isn't apparent since they are no longer here.
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: [QB] MM718, lets me intellectually honest and not cherry pick what works for us in an article. Please consider the following from the article:
"Some of the changes may have arisen as a result of genetic drift, but others seem to have been positively selected
No context. Check out what this goof ball left out!
quote:Whatever our mixing, it is human uniqueness that has also been revealed by the sequencing. By comparing the Neanderthal genome with those of modern humans, the team identified a small number of genetic changes that were newly evolved in modern humans. Some of the changes may have arisen as a result of genetic drift, but others seem to have been positively selected for — meaning they swept through populations rapidly, possibly because they gave us some advantage.
The genes in which some of the changes occurred play a role in cognitive and physical development — such as cranial features, skin pigmentation and how we metabolize energy. The study's authors don't yet know what the specific changes signify, but in living people, mutations in some of the genes related to cognitive development contribute to conditions such as Down syndrome, schizophrenia and autism.
^btw, this isn't from the study I posted, it's from a press release.
I mean they obviously have no idea about neaderthal to be so supportive and enthusiastic of such notions if lets say it is true that Europeans happen to be mixed breed offspring of Neaderthal not only are they not Human they descend from cave dwellers a black supremist's wet dream come true..Its worse than the reject Albino colony theory, at least in that theory they are humans..lol.
Humor the lengths Euroclowns will go to in support of their non existant superiority.
I mean can you imagine it, with the Euroclowns touting Neaderthal ancestry, Imagine a Brown, black or Yellow extreemist using such notions to justify targeting Neaderthal as they were a rival to Humans and given the Europeans history of violence toward other races...Imagine if people all over the world not just blacks who have been opressed by Europeans were to come to the conclusion they are not humans but remnants of a seperate Ape like race...a race ancient homosapiens wiped out...
WOW-These Euronits MUST be desperate!!! LOL.
I mean I don't get it, they brag about all the Great advanced civilization of Europe, yet they spend no time on any other than Greece, GOD FORBID any Pre Roman culture..Yet they dedicate time on Egypt, which had nothing to do With Europe especially Western and Norhtern Europe.
They Brag about High I.Q and White inventions yet they scamble like dogs to claim "NEADERTHAL" ancestry..
They complain about Immigration to their countries yet produce low numbers of children, more concerned with money than survival of their people.
Its amazing the mindset of the Euronut when you think about it..LOL
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
The paper clearly supports OOA, only stating that the early out of Africa migrants apparently mated with archaic humans some 50,000 years ago before the divergence of modern non-African populations. This left an indelible imprint in 1-4% of the non-African genome. Not sure how such can be used for political purposes in the blind crusade against "Afrocentrism".
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic