Looks like much of the analysis is still pending but the gurus at Max Planck have finally done it. And a million base pairs to boot!

BBC article on Neanderthal Nuclear DNA

Wow! So cool :new_thumbsupsmileyanim: Thanks for posting this ApeMan!! Truly fascinating.

From the article:



That kind of goes back to a discussion here a few months back where I was thinking that other hominids probably aren't too closely related to the human "population bottleneck" around 60,000 years ago. The tie should be much earlier than that in my opinion, and potentially there were other divergences of other hominid species near the time of the Neanderthal divergence. And maybe, just maybe, one of those is our dear friend the sasquatch?

-FN

Which brings me to a question, regarding a thought I had a few weeks ago. Can they say for certain, with the evidence they have, that Homo Sapiens were interbreeding with Neanderthals, or could this suggest that we, Homo Sapiens, are the product of Neanderthals breeding with another species?

The consensus seems to be that we most definitely did not interbreed with Neanderthals.

I have had several discussions and arguments with other anthropology people on this subject and I believe the DNA information from the link in the previous post proves me wrong.

Cheers

Alex

This new nuclear DNA seems to confirm previous mitochondrial DNA samples from two or three Neandertals, which suggested a divergence time of about 500K yrs ago. So no or little interbreeding. Maybe we smelled too bad for Neandertal males to be interested in our women, or vice versa (that's kind of a joke: Presumably some kind of behavioural difference or preference kept us apart). Interesting news.

H. Sapiens (the current general view) evolved from H. heidelbergenis type hominids in Africa, and Neandertals came from the same general stock.

Sasquatch doesn't seem particularly similar to the genus Homo (from erectus onwards) besides walking on two legs to be as closely related to us (difference in size, limb proportion, behaviour, mid-tarsal break, lack of manufactured culture, etc.). But I wonder about Central (and possibly Southern) Asian cryptic hominids like the Almasti.

(Apeman, interesting DNA study, sorry from veering off the thread subject a bit, just couldn’t resist responding). Since the type specimen of Heidelbergensis obviously lived near Heidelberg (in present day Germany), why is it that we came from African Heidelbergensis type hominids and not the ones from Europe? Some Heidelbergensis were apparently quite large, perhaps 6 feet plus and very muscular, so growing a foot or two larger does not seem that improbable to me. Certainly, there is a lot of variability in our own species. If it did grow into a giant, perhaps its limb proportions were also modified. The Homo erectus/ergaster fossil KNM-WT 15000 apparently has very long limbs yet Neanderthals are generally short limbed. The limb proportions of Eskimos and Masai are also very different. I think it is a relatively easily modified characteristic. I have read that Homo rhodesiensis and H. antecessor were thought probably to be ancestral to modern humans and not Heidelbergensis but I have seen so many “current� theories end up being wrong as additional fossils are found that it is hard to take any of them too seriously. There is apparently a hypothetical line called the Movious Line running north and south through or near present day Bangladesh. Reportedly to the east of this line, only crude Homo erectus tools have been found. Some have theorized that these particular H. erectus may have modified bamboo into tools but they are only theories. If I am not mistaken, most of the tools from Homo erectus in China were found in deposits younger than 500,000 years ago and therefore it seems quite possible that some early members of the genus homo (presumably H erectus) were technologically deficient. I could be mistaken, but didn’t Dr. Meldrum theorize that some fossilized H. erectus footprints indicated a mid-tarsal break?

Good point you brought up Jim. Anthropology is in flux concerning who is in what species or even how many species are known from what exists in museums (forget about what we haven't discovered yet). Homo heidelbergensis (thanks for correcting my spelling) evolved in Africa, and then spread to Asia and Europe. An African heidel. population evolved into us (so the current majority thought goes), while the European heidels evolved into Neaderthal.

Some books say heidel., some say rhodesiensis were our immediate ancestors, while others say they are the same species, while at least one other says neither has much to do with us. I guess you gotta pick your own horse. You say rhodesiensis, I say heidel., let's call the whole thing off.

There's a more or less (mostly less) continuous chain of fossils in Africa (and a bit in Israel-Palestine) that roughly shows heidel-rhoden. changing into H. sapiens over several hundred thousand years. In Europe the earliest H. sapiens they have found (so far - who knows what they'll find tomorrow) are about 40K years old and are described as "fully modern" though still not exactly like any modern population alive today.



Because of the flux in thinking about exact species and so on, I used the word "heidelbergensis grade" in case the masters of Anthropology decide to make African heidel. a different species from the European. I do the same with "erectus grade" which covers several nominal species (like ergaster) that existed about the same time as erectus with about the same level of technology.

Using my own shorthand is probably confusing, sorry, but it's the only way to wrap my brain around the shifting sands (how's that for mixed metaphors?). I equate rhodesiensis (and antecessor)with heidelbergensis because they were contemporary in time and technology and were a step up in "grade" from the "erectiles".


I don't think (along with you) that size alone is a very good indicator of separating species. Like you mentioned, it looks like it is pretty easy to evolve small (pygmies) or large (Watusi) bodies even within a given species. If you have other, stronger characteristics to go on, throwing size into the mix doesn't hurt (or add much, for that matter) the argument.


Yeah, the Asian stone tools are very crude, and rare. I'm not entirely convinced that H. erectus decided to give up his tool making abilities though (I'll grant you that the "bamboo tool kit" hypothesis is just that). All I have to go on is my gut feeling. Living in a tropical jungle instead of a savanna doesn't seem like enough of a kick to make you give up pointy sticks and fire.

Dr. Meldrum is a physical anthropologist who specializes in bipedality, so if he thought that some H. erectus had a mid-tarsul(sp?) break, I would certainly listen hard (and be very surprised; but that's the glory of life, the world view changing surprises that evolution throws up now and then).

By the way, Meldrum is coming out with his book on Sasquatch in September on Barnes and Noble.

I will never buy that statement, regardless of the data. Horny men, given the opportunity, will pork anything, that's a fact.


If the female neandertal and her hybrid offspring were not accepted in Homo sapien clans, the new dna wouldn't continue. I think it's that simple.

I say the "female" neandertal, because that would be the most likely senario. A female homo sapien wouldn't be interested in breeding with a male neandertal, that would've been a "step-down".

Or, in today's language, a guy driving a cherry Porsche is likely to get lucky, a guy in a rusted Yugo isn't.
Or, in yesterday's language, a homosapien who hunts with an atlatl is likely to get lucky, a neandertal who lacks that technology isn't.

I'd think it more likely that a male Neanderthal could rape a female homo sapien, whereas a female Neanderthal could likely rip the face off a male homo sapien............. just thinking out loud........... that's dangerous!

I read a book called a while back called "Guns Germs and Steel" by Jerrod Diamond (Pulitser Prize winner) that was extremely interesting and informative. He discussed a group of people of Chinese origin who were very technologically advanced. They had very advanced tools and agriculture but they migrated into Myanmar (aka Burma, I am pretty sure that is where it was) and lost thier technology and agriculture because it no longer was viable in the jungle. So I wonder even if bigfoot's ancestors may have been more technologically advanced, if they too might have lost some of the technology due to lack of need or changing niche and habitat.

Chonic, I about spit my Pepsi thru my nose. Hilarious.

I, personally, am not terribly attracted to sheep or chickens or chimps, but on the other hand, I'm also not too proud of my beer goggle days back in college.



You know what? Your theory makes alot of sense to me. If I were a lonely Cro-Magnon, and a Neandertal gal was the only going thing (and she doesn't rip my face off, as suggested by WmRoy) I'm not going to worry too much what the next clan over the hill is going to think.

Excellent book Jim. This is kind of an extension of our discussion on another thread.

Another good example are the Australian Aborigines. The tools found that are about 40-10K years old in Australia are actually more sophisticated and numerous in types than what are found today.

The explanation is that as resources decreased (fewer big animals, more desert climate and grass land because of intentional Aborigine fires) semi-sedentary clans had to disperse into widely roving small family groups in order to make a living. The tool kit shrunk greatly as a result.

Point advantage to you Jim. Nice post.