posted
Neanderthals in Gene Pool, Study Suggests E-MailPrint Reprints Save
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD Published: November 9, 2006
Scientists have found new genetic evidence that they say may answer the longstanding question of whether modern humans and Neanderthals interbred when they co-existed thousands of years ago. The answer is: probably yes, though not often.
In research being published online this week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the scientists reported that matings between Neanderthals and modern humans presumably accounted for the presence of a variant of the gene that regulates brain size.
Bruce T. Lahn of the University of Chicago, the report’s senior author, said the findings demonstrated that such interbreeding with relative species, those on the brink of extinction, contributed to the evolutionary success of modern humans.
Other researchers in evolutionary biology said the new study offered strong support for the long-disputed idea that archaic species like Neanderthals contributed to the modern human gene pool.
Two other reports of DNA studies of possible mixing of human and related genes are expected to be published in the next few weeks.
Both genetic and fossil studies show that anatomically modern humans emerged 200,000 years ago in Africa and migrated into Europe 40,000 years ago. In about 10,000 years, Europe’s longtime inhabitants, Neanderthals, became extinct. The mainstream interpretation is that modern humans somehow replaced them without interbreeding.
In previous research, Dr. Lahn and associates discovered that a gene for brain size called microcephalin underwent a significant change 37,000 years ago. Its modified variant, or allele, appeared to confer a fitness advantage on those who possessed it. It is now present in about 70 percent of the world’s population.
The new research focused on the two classes of alleles of the brain gene. One appeared to have emerged 1.1 million years ago in an archaic Homo lineage that led to Neanderthals and was separate from the immediate predecessors of modern humans. The 37,000-year date for the other variant immediately suggested a connection with Neanderthals.
Dr. Lahn said it did not necessarily show that interbreeding was widespread. It could have been a rare, perhaps even single, event.Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bruce T. Lahn of the University of Chicago, the report’s senior author, said the findings demonstrated that such interbreeding with relative species, those on the brink of extinction, contributed to the evolutionary success of modern humans.
Odd that such supposed interbreeding would somehow contribute to the 'success' of modern humans [really of Europeans is what is being implied]....while doing nothing to prevent the complete extinction of those that were presumably interbred with. Apparently and obversely - 'European' genes were of no use to Neanderthal at all.
This is particularly strange if we are to imagine Neanderthal genes spreading thruough out the European populice, yet leaving no lineages, male or female, and no trace of survival of the presumably originating population.
And too, leaving a genetic distance between Europeans and Neanderthal on the order of several 100 thousand years....and exactly the same as any other population relative to Neanderthal.
It's almost as if we are being asked to believe that Europeans 'selectively' 'stole' Neanderthal genes...spread said genes thru their population, and then killed them off completely.
'need to read the actual study though, and not prejudge it.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
hmm i kind of figured that they mated...its hard to find 2 ethnicities existing in the same area that hasn't interbreded...yet it just seems false to me. I don't know but it just does.
i'm not sure what to say about this.
I think the question is whether or not this neanderthal allele is dominate over the euro alleles for brain size..
you know, now that i think of it, i thinks its true. there was this college student at WIU's lecture for "stoping light". His head structure was very similar to Neanderthals. He had the eye ridge ( more defined than homo sapien sapiens)
i hope some racist dont take this knowledge incorrectly...
Posts: 40 | From: Chicago | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tk101: I think the question is whether or not this neanderthal allele is dominate over the euro alleles for brain size..
Evergreen Writes:
I have read this study. The big-brain stuff is really the crux of their position. Strange that these big brained Europeans did not leave evidence of civilization that Himmler could dig up. Seems that the civilization flowed down the Nile and up the Rhine from the smaller brained Africans.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Intuitively brain size would equate to intelligence.
In practice - given that it is sometimes stated that Neanderthal had a larger brain than Homo Sapiens, it may simply be that Neanderthal's larger brain mass was and adaptation to colder climate - a larger mass would better retain heat.
For example some studies in East Asia have shown a similar correlation - wherein NorthEast Asian have the largest brain sizes - which then decreases as one moves south. [this pattern would be impossible to attribute to neanderthal of course]-+
Brain size variation *within humans* has never been successfully corrolated to behavior or intelligence.
In fact some forms of mental illness and retardation are associated with hypertrophy [enlargement] of the brain.
So...it seems to me that there are several distinct issues involved, and they are being mixed together along with a lot of assumptions which may not hold water. Peoples living in Northern climates could gain larger brain mass without it being imparted by archiac hominids. And changes in brain mass might not have 'any' effect on behavior. One thing is clear - Neanderthals 'big brain gene' if such exists - didn't help it very much, nor did breeding with Europeans, again if said exists.
Something isn't clicking with this hypothesis.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Evergreen Writes:
I have read this study. The big-brain stuff is really the crux of their position. Strange that these big brained Europeans did not leave evidence of civilization that Himmler could dig up. Seems that the civilization flowed down the Nile and up the Rhine from the smaller brained Africans.
Which is why the "smaller brained" Africans...
[*]...cannot be perceived as being "real" Africans, but lest they should be perceived as such, then they ought to be perceived as "burrowing" the behavior from outsiders, or 'genetically' helped by "superior" outsiders [e.g. hamitic or "mixed" people]
[*]...cannot be associated with their neighbours to the east, who should also be called Africans by logic of geology. Should this not be the case, then they wouldn't be "burrowing" from "outsiders" anymore. Hence, "Natufians" who were immediately described as "Negriod" earlier on upon discovery, should be now physiologically "mystified" upon realization that they are the culprits ultimately behind the agricultural revolution in western Eurasia.
[*]...in Egypt, cannot be perceived as "really" being in that part of the lower Nile Valley. They have to be perceived as part of an artificial state within a state. Hence, the bastardized "Nubia" as a geographical construct which only "really" exists in the "modern" Eurocentric mind, while cannot be overlooked as being in Egypt, could well be looked as being not of Egypt. It then strangely follows that, discoveries of "Nubian" in Egypt are really "Egyptian", since apparently "Nubia" is in Egypt, but not of "Nubian". All in all, it then makes sense to the Eurocentric mind, to develop disciplines called "Egyptology" and "Nubiology", based on the Eurocentric "Nubia" construct, that has neither a historical or geopolitical [should read "Egyptian" historical and geopolitical] basis.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bruce T. Lahn of the University of Chicago, the report’s senior author, said the findings demonstrated that such interbreeding with relative species, those on the brink of extinction, contributed to the evolutionary success of modern humans.
Odd that such supposed interbreeding would somehow contribute to the 'success' of modern humans [really of Europeans is what is being implied]....while doing nothing to prevent the complete extinction of those that were presumably interbred with. Apparently and obversely - 'European' genes were of no use to Neanderthal at all.
This is particularly strange if we are to imagine Neanderthal genes spreading thruough out the European populice, yet leaving no lineages, male or female, and no trace of survival of the presumably originating population.
And too, leaving a genetic distance between Europeans and Neanderthal on the order of several 100 thousand years....and exactly the same as any other population relative to Neanderthal.
It's almost as if we are being asked to believe that Europeans 'selectively' 'stole' Neanderthal genes...spread said genes thru their population, and then killed them off completely.
'need to read the actual study though, and not prejudge it.
And exactly what "success" would that be?..
Hairy bodies??
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does sound pretty far fetched. I suppose they may have stolen a few females here and there. Anything that far back has to be taken with a grain of salt.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if some Europeans want to be desperately connected with Neanderthals, who is to deny them this, provided that they realize that Neanderthals are not Homo Sapiens Sapiens. This would in effect make them incomplete "Homo Sapiens Sapiens" or sub-"Homo Sapiens Spiens"; they should remember this, when they attacking the ability of the rest of us Homo Sapiens Sapiens, i.e. the most successful Homo Sapiens.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So is it possible that maybe the europeans that interbred may be somewhat inferior since, they're mixed with an inferior species?
Looks like science when unbiased, is the Africans best friend. The truth is coming out at an alarming, yet satisfyingly rapid rate. Posts: 214 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^That's exactly what I meant--- modern science refutes the old Eurocentric notion that Europeans are somehow "unique" or "special" (The former might be true in the case of pigmentation.) But every time Western scholars try hard to maintain the old notion, the more inconsistencies and contradictions they make until eventually they are entangled in a net made of their own making! Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bruce Lahn's hypothesis seems to confuse correlation with causation. The Neanderthals were bigger brained than modern humans yet they did not survive as the incoming Africans did.
I suspect that this constant effort to prove that the Neanderthals contributed to the modern European gene pool is to get rid of the embarrasing fact that modern Europeans derive exclusively--as per Peter Stringer et al.-from Africans.
But the ironic thing about this assumption is that the Neandrthals despite their greater cranial capacities--which proves that brain power is not exclusively a function of cranial volume--were less technologically productive than the incoming homo sapiens from Africa. And by the way--not that it means much in this instance--Bruce Lahn is East Asian.
The brain cranial capacity hypothesis doesn't work because elephants and other large mammals have larger brains yet they lack the brain power of humans. Also, given that woemn have smaller brains than men--on average--what does that make them?
Other anomalies: Eistein's brain which was preserved was quite average in size, contrary to what the brain phrenologists would expect. Note: just think of the human brain as a kind of computer and reflect on whether size has anything to do woths power. And the cranial capacities of the AEs?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Bruce Lahn's hypothesis seems to confuse correlation with causation. The Neanderthals were bigger brained than modern humans yet they did not survive as the incoming Africans did.
I suspect that this constant effort to prove that the Neanderthals contributed to the modern European gene pool is to get rid of the embarrasing fact that modern Europeans derive exclusively--as per Peter Stringer et al.-from Africans.
Indeed. It is absolutely ridiculous that they find such a fact "embarassing" since not only their very biological ancestry but their very cultural heritage that made them so 'great' i.e. Modern Behavior came from Africa!
quote:But the ironic thing about this assumption is that the Neandrthals despite their greater cranial capacities--which proves that brain power is not exclusively a function of cranial volume--were less technologically productive than the incoming homo sapiens from Africa. And by the way--not that it means much in this instance--Bruce Lahn is East Asian.
A pity. Comes to show that one does not need to be 'white' to fall under the influence (corruption) of Eurocentrism.
quote:The brain cranial capacity hypothesis doesn't work because elephants and other large mammals have larger brains yet they lack the brain power of humans. Also, given that woemn have smaller brains than men--on average--what does that make them?
Kind of reminds me of an old argument I had with Nur.
quote:Other anomalies: Eistein's brain which was preserved was quite average in size, contrary to what the brain phrenologists would expect. Note: just think of the human brain as a kind of computer and reflect on whether size has anything to do woths power. And the cranial capacities of the AEs?
Yes, especially since their cranial capacities are the same as many other Africans-- small in comparison to Europeans and other cold-adapted people as Rasol has explained why.
Let's keep busting the pseudoscientific myths!
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The differences is average cranial size in ethnic groups is actually quite small.
As with many things differences within groups - and between individuals - are greater than differences between them.
And whether measuring within or between groups, science has not managed to link behavior to size or shape of the crania at any rate - a hypothesis which may be driven by wishful thinking more than anything else.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing I find curious is this statement:
quote:Dr. Lahn said it did not necessarily show that interbreeding was widespread. It could have been a rare, perhaps even single, event.
So this human-neanderthal coupling occured just once; yet this star crossed Romeo and Juliet (gazing longingly at each other across some fresh reindeer kill) passed on their big brained alleles to 70% of all modern humans. That would make them none other than the Eurasian Adam and Eve.
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Exactly. I would love to see a mathamatical model that explains how Neanderthal alleles could exist in 70% of humans - while leaving no surviving distinctive female or male lineages.
I might settle even for a model of "European" alleles spreading throughout the world in ancient times without any evidence of corresponding European originated lineages.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: this reminds me of an old argument I had with Nur.
[/QB]
I never even IMPLIED that brain size correlates with intelligence in that 'arguement'...
By your inaccurate logic and memory of the arguement as you call it, any part of the text in the guy's post should of reminded you of the arguement. Unless of course i did say brain size influenced intelligence.
Posts: 214 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did not read racism into this study. Sounds like the guy just went out on the edge trying to get attention for his research. If one tried to use brain size as the cause of european ascendancy he would have a counter point for every point made. An idea like that is just too far out on the edge. Europeans were around for a long time before the Greeks ignited the spark that changed the world. Its hard to believe that the Neanderthals had anything to do with Athenian genius.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: I did not read racism into this study...
Well I'm sorry to say, but you are obviously oblivious to certain Eurocentric contexts.
quote:Sounds like the guy just went out on the edge trying to get attention for his research. If one tried to use brain size as the cause of european ascendancy he would have a counter point for every point made.
LOL The counterpoints have already been made on this thread alone!
quote:An idea like that is just too far out on the edge. Europeans were around for a long time before the Greeks ignited the spark that changed the world. Its hard to believe that the Neanderthals had anything to do with Athenian genius.
LOL Arrow99, do you really want to go there? I mean, if Greeks somehow "ignited the spark that changed the world," then what are we to make of the Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Indians, Chinese, Toltecs, etc. etc.?
And what about this "Greek spark"? Do you know the exact origins of this??
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Dr. Bruce Lahn, whose research on the genetics of race and intelligence, human evolution and brain size created a storm of controversy, is no longer feeling so motivated to continue the investigation.
Excerpt from the Wall Street Journal (subscription only):
The data showed that evolution had continued in recent millennia. A statistical analysis of DNA patterns suggested that new mutations in each of the two brain-related genes had spread quickly through some human populations. Evidently, these mutations were advantageous among those populations — just as the genetic variant promoting milk digestion was advantageous to early Europeans. Dr. Lahn and his team further observed that the new mutations are found most frequently outside of Africa.
What the data didn’t say was how the mutations were advantageous. Perhaps the genes play a role outside of the brain or affect a brain function that has nothing to do with intelligence.
While acknowledging that the evidence doesn’t permit a firm conclusion, Dr. Lahn favors the idea that the advantage conferred by the mutations was a bigger and smarter brain. He found ways to suggest that in his papers. One mutation, which according to his estimates arose some 40,000 years ago, coincided with the first art found in caves, the paper observed. The other mutation, present mostly in people from the Middle East and Europe, and estimated to be 5,800 years old, coincided with the “development of cities and written language.”
That suggested brain evolution might have occurred in tandem with important cultural changes. Yet because neither variant is common in sub-Saharan Africa, there was another potential implication: Some groups had been left out.
These fascinating observations made many people uneasy. Genes that differentiate between groups of people always do. After all, we like to think we’re all born equal. Must the illusion be shattered?
More recently, Dr. Lahn says he was moved when a student asked him whether some knowledge might not be worth having. It is a notion to which he has been warming. Dr. Lahn says he once tried testing himself for which version of the brain genes he has. The experiment’s outcome was blurry “but it wasn’t looking good,” he says. He hasn’t tried testing himself again.
I feel kind of sad that Dr. Lahn no longer feels comfortable doing the kind of research that he feels driven to do especially since he doesn’t appear to have any racist motives (being Chinese himself). It’s always the trendsetters and risk takers who make the greatest contributions but catch the most flak. Very depressing to think that those of us too scared to go out on a ledge aren’t encouraging others who are willing to go out there for us.Posts: 18 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
So this doctor is purporting to have found the art gene, the writing gene, and the city building gene. Interesting.
Let's not even bring up the fact that Africans first developed art, cities, and writing - someone will say that they're mixed.
I wonder how he explains the fact that Native Americans who left too early to benefit from the superior gene bonanza, of 5800 years ago, developed both cities and writing?
quote:The other mutation, present mostly in people from the Middle East and Europe, and estimated to be 5,800 years old, coincided with the “development of cities and written language.”
Thanks Southern Woman. I think the article you posted shows Dr. Lahn's intent use science to prove his belief in the superiority of Eurasians. Its really nothing new.
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by nur23_you55ouf: LMAO your name alone (southern) for some reason makes me think your a bigot, let alone the content you just posted.
He isn't 'comfortable', because he knows the studies are flawed.
LOL Southern woman is black, and has expressed her Afrocentric views on this board plenty. I think she cited the article for the very point you just mentioned!
quote:Originally posted by Calypso: So this doctor is purporting to have found the art gene, the writing gene, and the city building gene. Interesting.
Let's not even bring up the fact that Africans first developed art, cities, and writing - someone will say that they're mixed.
I wonder how he explains the fact that Native Americans who left too early to benefit from the superior gene bonanza, of 5800 years ago, developed both cities and writing?
Thanks Southern Woman. I think the article you posted shows Dr. Lahn's intent use science to prove his belief in the superiority of Eurasians. Its really nothing new.
^Indeed Calypso. Obviously Dr. Lahn didn't hear about the cave paintings in South Africa that pre-date those in Europe by tens of thousands of years! Or that agriculture in the Near East corresponds both anthropologically and genetically with African emigrations! LOL
There goes his thesis!
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
What the hell are you talking about??? How in the world does my name denote me as a bigot?? I typically go by originalwoman but that name was already taken, so southern woman because my fam is from the south. What's the problem??
Do me a favor don't start that immature crap. I have been reading this site for about a year now and I mainly lurk, as is my right!
Furthermore, I posted that article because I think the content is crap quite frankly and I was posting it hoping to see it disected...or do I not have your permission to do that???
Posts: 18 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bruce T. Lahn of the University of Chicago his not taken seriously by is counterparts...it's not the first time his findings are completely opposite to what has been discovered in genetics....I'll come back on this soon...just analyse his findings, you'll find some correlations with the basic fact that Europeans and Asians derived from Africans...but he's not very familiar with archeogenetics otherwise he wouldn't make such subjective conclusions...Europeans are as Africans as Asian or anyone’s on earth...
It is reassuring that the analysis of other markers also consistently gives the same results in this case. Moreover, a specific evolutionary model tested, i.e., that Europe is formed by contributions from Asia and Africa, fits the distance matrix perfectly (6). In this simplified model, the migrations postulated to have populated Europe are estimated to have occurred at an early date (30,000 years ago), but it is impossible to distinguish, on the basis of these data, this model from that of several migrations at different times. The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively.
The alleles studied are found in all human population...and it's not even clear that they regulate the brain size... Just read the following article which is the basis of what he's trying to demonstrate and you will find so many flaws in his thinking, I'm wondering how he got his job at the University of Chicago:
Study says human brain still evolves U. of C. researchers find growth genes keep rapidly mutating
By Ronald Kotulak Tribune science reporter Published September 9, 2005
Could you use more brainpower?
Nature apparently thinks you can, according to two University of Chicago studies providing the first scientific evidence that the human brain is still evolving, a process that may ultimately increase people's capacity to grow smarter.
Two key brain-building genes, which underwent dramatic changes in the past that coincided with huge leaps in human intellectual development, are still undergoing rapid mutations, evolution's way of selecting for new beneficial traits, Bruce Lahn and his U. of C. colleagues reported in Friday's issue of the journal Science.
The researchers found that not everyone has these genes but that evolutionary pressures are causing them to increase in the population at an unprecedented rate. Lahn's group is also trying to determine just how smart these genes may have made humans.
One of the mutated genes, called microcephalin, began its swift spread among human ancestors about 37,000 years ago, a period marked by a creative explosion in music, art, religious expression and tool-making.
The other gene, ASPM (abnormal spindle-like microcephaly-associated), arose only about 5,800 years ago, right around the time of writing and the first civilization in Mesopotamia, which dates to 7000 B.C.
"People have this sense that as 21st century humans we've gotten as high as we're going to go," said Greg Wray, director of Duke University's center for evolutionary genomics. "But we're not played out as a species. We're still evolving and these studies are a pretty good example of that."
Just as major environmental changes in the past, such as dramatic shifts in the climate, food supply or geography, favoured the selection of genetic traits that increased survival skills, the pressures on gene selection today come from an increasingly complex and technologically oriented society, said Lahn, a professor of human genetics and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator.
"Our studies indicate that the trend that is the defining characteristic of human evolution--the growth of brain size and complexity--is likely still going on," he said.
"Meanwhile, our environment and the skills we need to survive in it are changing faster then we ever imagined. I would expect the human brain, which has done well by us so far, will continue to adapt to those changes."
Evolutionary changes occur when a member of a species experiences a mutation in a gene that gives him a new skill, like running faster, seeing farther or thinking better. The genetic mutation increases his likelihood of survival and having more children, thereby allowing the new mutation to spread quickly through the population.
That's what happened to the microcephalin mutation, which now occurs in 70 percent of all people, and the ASPM gene mutation, which so far has spread to 30 percent of all people.
Other experts called the U. of C. studies stunning but said that while the two genes appear to make people smarter by helping to engineer bigger brains, there are many more genes involved in brain building and human intelligence and cognition.
"It's very exciting but it's really just the beginning of a whole new phase of research," Wray said. "These aren't going to be the only genes and these aren't going to be the only changes. We don't even really know exactly what these changes mean, but it's a glimpse into the future of our understanding of how the human brain came to be and function the way it does."
Probing the genes of intelligence has been controversial in the past and is likely to be so now because of fears that the knowledge could be misused to grade people's intelligence based on their genes.
But intelligence is a complex issue that is greatly influenced not only by the genes people inherit, but also by their early learning experiences.
Researchers have learned over the last two decades that genes and the environment work together--genes provide for a range of possible outcomes and the environment determines which specific outcome is likely to occur.
Most of the brain, for instance, gets built after birth when learning experiences determine the way in which brain cells connect to each other. How a brain gets wired directly affects its computing power.
"There are genetic differences that make each of us unique," Wray said. "But there's no way for you to look at a single gene and say `OK, you've got this mutation, you're smarter than someone else.' Maybe at some point we will know that but not with these genes."
Ever since the human line diverged from other primates between 6 and 8 million years ago the human brain grew steadily bigger as a result of selective genetic mutations. Chimps, our closest primate relative, on the other hand, stayed pretty much the same.
Some 200,000 years ago, the anatomically modern human emerged with a brain three times the size of a chimp's. As humans got smarter, Lahn said, selection pressure for smartness became intensified.
The microcephalin and ASPM genes played a big role in expanding the size of the brain. People born with defects in these genes develop brains that look normal but are only one-third the size of a full-grown human brain. As a result, their mental capacity is sharply reduced and they cannot live on their own.
To show that brain evolution is an ongoing process, Lahn's team studied the genes of more than 1,000 people representing 59 ethnic populations worldwide. Their genes were compared with those of the chimpanzee to provide a historical marker as to what the genes looked like before they diverged.
Both the microcephalin and ASPM genes come in a number of different varieties. They all do the important job of building the brain but with slightly different variations that occur among specific population groups. At this point scientists are trying to understand what extra benefits seem to be conferred by the variations.
The new variations in the microcephalin and ASPM genes occurred at a frequency far higher than would be expected by chance, indicating that natural selection was driving their spread in the population.
The U. of C. researchers found that one variety of the ASPM gene identified as haplogroup D occurs more frequently in Europeans and surrounding populations, including North Africans, Middle Easterners and South Asians. A specific variety of the microcephalin gene, also called haplogroup D, was most abundant in populations outside of sub-Saharan Africa.
"What we're seeing is that there is genetic variation in the human population that selection cares about," Wray said. "It means that evolution is still happening."
The parts I highlighted basically destroy his theory...it is now well known that "modern behaviour" occurred earlier: more than 70k in Africa...and Afro Asiatic are the father of farming in Western Asia... 1. Modern behaviour didn't occur 37,000 years ago in Europe, it occurred more than 70,000 years ago in Africa, there is well known proofs in Southern Africa. 2. The earliest Neolithic revolution occurred in the area between the Nile Valley and the Levant more than 10,000 years ago... The man is wrong on every point...
"LOL Southern woman is black, and has expressed her Afrocentric views on this board plenty. I think she cited the article for the very point you just mentioned!"
I have a grand total 6 posts including this one...at what point did I "express my Afrocentric views on this board plenty"????? Also, I made clear in my above post why I cited the article.
At what point have I given ANY details about myself? Not that its a big secret or anything but I think you have me confused with another. Yes...I am a Black woman living in Washington DC who enjoys researching/reading about African history.
Click on my name and check out my post history, I think you will see you've made a mistake. I am neither a troll nor bigot...I simply like to read about Africa...plain and simple.
I was always hesitant to post and now I remember why.
Posts: 18 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Southern Woman: nur23_you55ouf
What the hell are you talking about??? How in the world does my name denote me as a bigot?? I typically go by originalwoman but that name was already taken, so southern woman because my fam is from the south. What's the problem??
Do me a favor don't start that immature crap. I have been reading this site for about a year now and I mainly lurk, as is my right!
Furthermore, I posted that article because I think the content is crap quite frankly and I was posting it hoping to see it disected...or do I not have your permission to do that???
My mistake... it was my first time seeing you post, and those studies made me think you were some nut trying to 'enlighten' everyone with that crap...to add to the insult, i simply pointed out the 'southern' part of your name...
Also the fact that you wanted it 'disected' would have NEVER been noticed by some, (like me) and could have been specified.
You simply posted the study...
And i believe you mentioned having a grand total of 6 points, hence the reason i misidentified you as something you're not...it's hard to remember every member you know.
Posts: 214 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Southern Woman: Djehuti
"LOL Southern woman is black, and has expressed her Afrocentric views on this board plenty. I think she cited the article for the very point you just mentioned!"
I have a grand total 6 posts including this one...at what point did I "express my Afrocentric views on this board plenty"????? Also, I made clear in my above post why I cited the article.
At what point have I given ANY details about myself? Not that its a big secret or anything but I think you have me confused with another. Yes...I am a Black woman living in Washington DC who enjoys researching/reading about African history.
Click on my name and check out my post history, I think you will see you've made a mistake. I am neither a troll nor bigot...I simply like to read about Africa...plain and simple.
I was always hesitant to post and now I remember why.
LOL Sorry, I've seen your posts before but I thought you posted here more frequently under another name.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm, very reminiscent of one of Coon's works where he juxtaposes pictures of an indigenous Australian with a Japanese and labeled them the alpha and omega of brain size and intelligence.
Isn't it the number of convolutions of the brain not its cubic centimetres or weight that relate to "intelligence."
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
And exactly what "success" would that be?..![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Hairy bodies??
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic