Safe Mode: On
Neanderthal breeding idea doubted



Similarities between the DNA of modern people and Neanderthals are more likely to have arisen from shared ancestry than interbreeding, a study reports.

That is according to research carried out at the University of Cambridge and published this week in PNAS journal.

Previously, it had been suggested that shared parts of the genomes of these two populations were the result of interbreeding.

However, the newly published research proposes a different explanation.

The origin of modern humans is a hotly debated topic; four main theories have arisen to describe the evolution of Homo sapiens.

All argue for an African origin, but an important distinction in these competing theories is whether or not interbreeding - or "hybridisation" - occurred between Homo sapiens and other members of the genus Homo.

In the current study, Cambridge evolutionary biologists Dr Anders Eriksson and Dr Andrea Manica used computer simulations to reassess the strength of evidence supporting hybridisation events.

They argue that the amount of DNA shared between modern Eurasian humans and Neanderthals - estimated at between 1-4% - can be explained if both arose from a geographically isolated population, most likely in North Africa, which shared a common ancestor around 300-350 thousand years ago.

When modern humans expanded out of Africa, around 60-70,000 years ago, they took that genetic similarity with them.

By contrast, previous ancient DNA studies of Neanderthal remains have shown that their genomes harbour genetic signatures - polymorphisms - that are also seen in the genomes of modern Europeans, East Asians and Oceanians (from Papua New Guinea) but not in modern African populations.

The findings challenged previously held views - based on several lines of evidence - that modern humans had replaced the Neanderthals with little or no gene flow occurring between the two groups.

The observations from the Neanderthal genome led some evolutionary biologists to argue that this genetic similarity had arisen through hybridisation between Neanderthals - already resident in Europe and western Asia - and the ancestors of present-day non-Africans.

Prof David Reich, from Harvard University in Cambridge, US - an exponent of the hybridisation theory - is not convinced that the data represents a powerful argument against interbreeding.

By using methods that are able to differentiate between genetic similarity caused by gene flow via hybridisation vs shared ancestry, he argues that "the patterns observed [in our analyses] are exactly what one would expect from recent gene flow" - a view shared by his collaborator Professor Svante Paabo from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

Prof Reich went on to say that their data shows that Neanderthals and non-Africans last exchanged genetic material 47-65,000 years ago.----

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19250778


Added: Aug-14-2012 Occurred On: Aug-14-2012
By: MB-UK
In:
Science and Technology
Tags: neanderthal, breeding, human, evolution
Marked as: approved
Views: 1515 | Comments: 40 | Votes: 0 | Favorites: 0 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 1
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.
  • Rubbish.

    LL is full of Neanderthals, some of them will turn up soon to tell us that this is junk science and that god created man in his image 6000 years ago.

    3...2...1


    .

    Posted Aug-14-2012 By 

    (2)

    • @God_Himself
      For something you believe to be utter nonsense, you certainly seem to be a bit obsessed with it. Personally, I don't believe in bigfoot or flying saucers, so I don't waste a moment of time thinking about that stuff, nor do I give a fuck who believes in them.

      Posted Aug-15-2012 By 

      (0)

    • @Enod

      Obsessed??
      That's a big word!!

      But I do admire the fact that bigfoot and flying saucers don't keep you awake at night.
      What's you secret my religious friend?

      Do you just go on your knees by your bed and pray to your imaginary friend in the sky or do you pop a sleeping pill?? lol

      Never mind, it was a rhetorical question but I like it how the '3...2...1' worked on you lol


      .

      Posted Aug-15-2012 By 

      (1)

    • Comment of user 'MB-UK' has been deleted by author!
    • @God_Himself
      Nevermind, it's over your head..

      Posted Aug-15-2012 By 

      (-1)

    • @MB-UK
      And you, my Shitish friend, appear to be obsessed with the United States. What's wrong, little brown toothed sissy, feeling small and inferior?

      Posted Aug-15-2012 By 

      (-1)

  • in my opinion we did interbreed and evolved at the same time.Look at todays society and all races of all different kinds interbreed.Even as early as the 1950's the average height and weight of a man is different today due to liveing standards.Go to a castle just 300 years old and the hallways and doors and beds etc are way smaller than today.we are constantly evolveing to our enviornment and to the food we eat and so on

    Posted Aug-14-2012 By 

    (2)

  • It's silly to think there wasn't mixing. Seriously we have proof of men having sex with sheep, donkeys & other animal life here on this site alone. If anyone wanted there's proof of much more mixing out there in the interwebs.

    All species first and primary desire is to procreate.....and many don't care with what they attempt the procreation endeavor with. I'll bet five Jews to any one else's 10 Jews that not only did man and female neanderthal mate but so did neanderthal man and the bigges More..

    Posted Aug-14-2012 By 

    (0)

    • @KutKorners
      Silly? It's ridiculous! They will say or do anything to preserve their out of Africa dogma.

      Posted Aug-15-2012 By 

      (0)

    • @Enod Nigroids are only a couple hundreds years old. Whites go back thousands of years. Look at the global demographics from the 1800s blacks made up less than a single % of the planet and now they are everywhere. It's a new mutation.

      Posted Aug-15-2012 By 

      (0)

    • @HailToTheSkunk
      What really doesn't make sense to me is how the the supposedly first and oldest people are the least developed and 'evolved' mentally, mechanically, and physically.

      Posted Aug-15-2012 By 

      (0)

  • doesn't the known modern logic and evidence point to our alien heritage?

    Posted Aug-14-2012 By 

    (0)

  • Funny how scientists gladly refer to us as apes, but will NOT refer to Neandertals as humans. Hell fire, I got docked two points by the mods on LL for saying some people aren't humans...

    Posted Aug-15-2012 By 

    (0)

  • Visit the urban areas in the U.S. northeast.
    Evidence of Homo sapiens is scarce.

    Posted Aug-15-2012 By 

    (0)

  • so he is not shure

    Posted Aug-15-2012 By 

    (0)

  • Another nail in the coffin of the evo-propaganda hoax, soon to go the way of the dodo bird and the theory of global warming. Good riddance the farce.

    Posted Aug-14-2012 By 

    (-2)

    • @Nicodemus it's no surprise that man made climate change deniers and creationists are teaming up across the united states to pass anti-science laws.

      Posted Aug-15-2012 By 

      (0)

    • @kiddkidd An evolutionist knows that carbon dating exists; a creationist understand how it actually works and discerns it's flaws.

      Same with global warming.

      You know know how to memorize information presented to you as science but you know not what to make of any of it.

      That is the difference, my credulous and gullible little one.

      Posted Aug-15-2012 By 

      (-1)

    • @Nicodemus creationists are laughingstocks to those who understand science. always have been, always will be. lol at following ken ham and kent hovind among others.

      Posted Aug-15-2012 By 

      (2)

    • @Nicodemus
      Bwahahahahaaaahahah!!!

      yOu are fUnnY!

      Oh, and a conceited fundy. Isn't that against your rules? ;)

      Posted Aug-15-2012 By 

      (1)

    • @rmg03c Oh sure it is, but stating plain facts is never conceited, but I guess you can't discern those important differences either.

      Posted Aug-15-2012 By 

      (-1)