Modern Humans Have Neanderthal DNA

This is fascinating information that I find very interesting.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1987568,00.html

Extracted from the above "link":

The gene flow of Neanderthal DNA into early human DNA was found in only one direction: from Neanderthals to us.

HA, are they inferring that the Homo sapien females were too "easy" ..... or that the Neanderthal females were too "ugly"?

That Sam is a question we may never know the answer to. Or the Neanderthals may have had a taboo against it of some type and females found to have interacted with homo sapiens sapiens may have been killed along with their children at birth.

SamCogar wrote:Extracted from the above "link":

The gene flow of Neanderthal DNA into early human DNA was found in only one direction: from Neanderthals to us.

HA, are they inferring that the Homo sapien females were too "easy" ..... or that the Neanderthal females were too "ugly"?

I don't think they know what they think they know. At any rate, the use of attractiveness as a "functional advantage" is fascinating, but any trip to WalMart will show you that THAT certainly has not evolved.

Extracted comments ...... without the "fluff":

Neanderthals, ……… existed from roughly 400,000 to 30,000 years ago,

scientists reconstructed …….. ancient DNA extracted from bones of ……. three female Neanderthals ………. from a cave in Croatia. The bones are 38,000 to 44,000 years old.

Researchers compared the Neanderthal genome with the genomes of five living people: ……. Scientists discovered that 1% to 4% of ….. DNA ….. is shared with Neanderthals — proof that Neanderthals and early modern humans interbred.

The gene flow of Neanderthal DNA into early human DNA was found in only one direction: from Neanderthals to us. The study found no early modern human DNA in the Neanderthal genome.

It is not clear whether interbreeding happened a few times among small populations or frequently among large populations; ……. The Neanderthal DNA appears in the modern human genomes randomly, suggesting it offers no evolutionary benefit and is merely a genetic relic.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1987568,00.html

To recapitulate the above:

1. Neanderthals were still living in Europe 30,000 years ago but potentially could have still been living there for another 5,000 to 15,000 years.

2. DNA was extracted from 38,000 to 44,000 years old bones of three (3) female Neanderthals from the same family unit.

3. Those 3 females lived sometime between 8,000 and 14,000 years prior to the last confirmed Neanderthal of 30,000 years ago.

4. Researchers determined from DNA samples that Neanderthals and early modern humans were interbreeding sometime prior to 38,000 to 44,000 years ago.

5. Given the above said, DNA samples from one (1) Neanderthal family unit would not be sufficient to infer, imply or even suggest that gene flow only occurred from the Neanderthals to early modern humans, ……. especially given the premise that the two groups had been interbreeding for a bare miniimu, of 8,000+ years and a potentially maximum of 14,000+ years.

6. And given the fact of “low population numbers” for both Neanderthals and early modern humans during said 8,000+ to 14,000+ years of interbreeding …… it is potentially possible that the Neanderthals were in actuality “bred out of existence”, rather than having died off or been killed off.

And the following pretty much confirms that said “14,000+ years of interbreeding” is the correct number of years, to wit:

Teeth and jaw are from 'earliest Europeans'

The results fit with stone tool discoveries that had suggested modern people were in Europe more than 40,000 years ago. Now, scientists have the direct physical remains of Homo sapiens to prove it.

It confirms also that modern people overlapped in Europe with their evolutionary cousins, the Neanderthals, for an extended period.

These humans went extinct shortly afterwards, and the latest discoveries will raise once again the questions over Homo sapiens' possible role in their relatives' demise.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15540464

the use of attractiveness as a "functional advantage" is fascinating, but any trip to WalMart will show you that THAT certainly has not evolved.

HA, you might not of said that ....... iffen you had seen their mothers.

SamCogar wrote:

the use of attractiveness as a "functional advantage" is fascinating, but any trip to WalMart will show you that THAT certainly has not evolved.

HA, you might not of said that ....... iffen you had seen their mothers.

Ah but Sam, sometimes beauty is in the 'eye of the beholder'. Perhaps since that time the concept of beauty has changed....