Human Devolution? Interesting Article...

by AGuest 233 Replies latest jw friends

  • NewChapter
    NewChapter

    There is no conflict between the two statements (99% and 3%). Both Sapiens and Neanderthals share common DNA in percentages exceeding 99%.

    These are DNA, but genes encoded in that DNA have variants. The majority of differences between Neanderthal and Sapiens genes are related to sperm and testis, smell, and skin. We see variations between humans too, even though 100% of the DNA is the same. Some of us carry gene variants that allow us to process milk, for example. Others have mutations that confer resistence to HIV. Same DNA, different mutations of those genes encoded in the DNA.

    Thanks, BTS. This is the piece I was looking for. But now you see, it has caused Sab to call science a conspiracy.

    Instead SAb, look at it this way. When you brought out the 99% number, I said a couple of times that I had read something very different. Then I said that I was not an expert on genetics, and there may be something that I don't quite understand. I kept reading, and then I went to BTS to ask for some clarification. He has come here to explain what I am missing. I willl follow that up with some more reading, to try to internalize it.

  • NewChapter
    NewChapter

    Some are saying we are descended from Neanderthals. Some are saying we aren't descended from Neanderthals, but that we are a parallel branch with a common ancestor. In a sense, both statements are true, although the second statement is truer. Neanderthals are a different branch than Sapiens, but genes flowed into the modern Sapiens population from Neanderthals through interbreeding

    Yes, but let's highlight that while some Sapiens may have some Neanderthal somewhere in their history, our species did not evolve from Neanderthal, and in fact, there are many Sapiens with no Neanderthal in their lineage. Interbreeding---yes probably (a theory they continue to try and falsify)---but our ancestors as in how we branched off, no.

  • frankiespeakin
    frankiespeakin

    A bit off top[ic but related:

    Humanzee:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee

    Terminology

    Geneticists generally use portmanteau words to describe hybrids, with the order of syllables indicating which parent is which. This is important because of the phenomenon ofgenomic imprinting where genes are expressed differently depending on which parent contributed them. The names are formed according the convention first part of sire's name +second part of dam's name (except where the result is unwieldy). For geneticists, "Chuman" therefore refers to a hybrid of male chimpanzee and female human, while "Humanzee" or "manpanzee" refers to a hybrid of male human and female chimpanzee. [2] (cf. tigon/liger) This distinction is not always followed in popular speech.

    [edit] Feasibility

    Humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than other apes, since the ape chromosomes 2 and 4 have fused into a large chromosome (which contains remnants of thecentromere and telomeres of the ancestral 2 and 4) in humans. [3] Having different numbers of chromosomes is not an absolute barrier to hybridization. Similar mismatches are relatively common in existing species, a phenomenon known as chromosomal polymorphism.

    The genetic structure of all the great apes is similar. Chromosomes 6, 13, 19, 21, 22, and X are structurally the same in all great apes. 3, 11, 14, 15, 18, and 20 match between gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans. Chimps and humans match on 1, 2p, 2q, 5, 7–10, 12, 16, and Y as well. Some older references will include Y as a match between gorillas, chimps, and humans, but chimpanzees (including bonobos) and humans have recently been found to share a large transposition from chromosome 1 to Y that is not found in other apes. [4]

    This level of chromosomal similarity is roughly equivalent to that found in equines. Interfertility of horses and donkeys is common, although sterility of the offspring (mules) is nearly universal (around 60 exceptions have been recorded in the whole of equine history [citation needed] ). Similar complexities and prevalent sterility pertain to horse-zebra hybrids, orzorses, whose chromosomal disparity is very wide, with horses typically having 32 chromosome pairs and zebras possessing between 44 and 62 depending upon species. In a direct parallel to the chimp-human case, the Przewalski horse (Equus przewalskii) with 33 chromosome pairs, and the domestic horse (E. caballus) with 32 chromosome pairs, have been found to be interfertile, and produce semi-fertile offspring, where male hybrids can breed with female domestic horses. [5]

    In the 1920s the Soviet biologist Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov carried out a series of experiments to create a human/non human ape hybrid. At first working with his own sperm and chimpanzee females, none of his attempts created a pregnancy. [6] In 1929 he organized a set of experiments involving nonhuman ape sperm and human volunteers, but was delayed by the death of his last orangutan. [6] The next year he fell under political criticism from the Soviet government and was sentenced to exile in the Kazakh SSR; he worked there at the Kazakh Veterinary-Zootechnical Institute and died of a stroke two years later.

    In 1977, researcher J. Michael Bedford [7] discovered that human sperm could penetrate the protective outer membranes of a gibbon egg. Bedford's paper also stated that human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of non-hominoid primates (baboon, rhesus monkey, and squirrel monkey), concluding that although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea.

    In 2006, research suggested that after the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees diverged into two distinct lineages, inter-lineage sex was still sufficiently common that it produced fertile hybrids for around 1.2 million years after the initial split. [8]

    However, despite speculation, no case of a human-chimpanzee cross has ever been confirmed to exist.

  • sabastious
    sabastious
    But now you see, it has caused Sab to call science a conspiracy.

    Science IS a conspiracy, I am just trying to fill in details.

    Instead SAb, look at it this way. When you brought out the 99% number, I said a couple of times that I had read something very different. Then I said that I was not an expert on genetics, and there may be something that I don't quite understand. I kept reading, and then I went to BTS to ask for some clarification. He has come here to explain what I am missing. I willl follow that up with some more reading, to try to internalize it.

    I think it's funny because I actually helped you learn something about Neanderthals right after you said this:

    Neanderthal is not our ancestor. This is why these conversations are frustrating.

    The reason why I didn't suspect the number to be false initially was that it was on a Wikipedia page and if it was grossly false it would have been removed, so there must be some truth to it despite you and racket saying it was false. That's just a rule of thumb I go by so that I don't have to comb the data with a fine tooth every time I come across a complex statistic.

    -Sab

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety

    You didn't help her learn anything, Sab. I've discussed this subject with NC before, and she is well aware of interbreeding. She is also correct in stating that Sapiens is a different branch from Neanderthal sharing a common ancestor.

  • botchtowersociety
  • NewChapter
    NewChapter

    I think it's funny because I actually helped you learn something about Neanderthals right after you said this:

    Indeed you did, however we did not evolve from Neanderthal. BTS was pointing out that it is not incorrect to say that Neanderthal is an ancestor. However I find it to be misleading to state it the way that you stated it, and BTS was doing something my Anthropology prof often did---which is point out that while one answer can fit sometimes, the other answer is better and more accurate. Neanderthal is not an ancestor of Sapien, however SOME sapiens may have Neanderthal in the ancestry. As a speicies, we did not rely on Neanderthal, with or without their genetic input, we would still be Sapien. This is proven by the fact that plenty of sapiens do not carry Neanderthal genes.

    So while I can see that your statment can be technically true in some cases, I still find it misleading and don't think it is what you meant.

    BTS also pointed out to me that Chimps share 99% of our DNA, and I know I've read that too. Last night before I fell asleep, I was listening to Dawkins, and a comment was made that our DNA was not that different from worms. The piece that I am missing is something about the coding, and I've read about this before, but need to read about it again to fully understand.

    You took Wiki's word for it, but it raised questions for me, so I kept asking. I am getting closer to a better understanding now.

    Science is not a conspiracy, Sab. It doesn't offer black and white answers, which is stimulating and leads to discussion, but I think we have cleared some things up for now. I wonder why the article did not also point out that we share 99% of our DNA with chimps, to show that this does not mean that we are of the same line, or that Neanderthal is not shockingly close to us, but that we all have a common ancestor.

  • EntirelyPossible
  • sabastious
    sabastious
    Indeed you did, however we did not evolve from Neanderthal.

    I never said we evolved from Neanderthal, I claimed them to be our ancestors and by that I meant our very distant relatives. Sure, chimps share 99% of our DNA, and we can also find our DNA in fish, but that doesn't mean we must directly compare fish brains with human and draw conclusions. The data helps when it's needed and the connections have been documented. However, Neanderthal is a humanoid primate instead of a great ape and we both know there is a big difference between the two especially in social capacity and functionality. While you want to point out possible flaws in my wordage you completely miss the points and theme I am trying to construct. And that is that when speaking about Neanderthals the debate is basically wide open. Just because one has intricate inside knowledge of the human brain or has went to classes doesn't make their opinion greater than anyone elses when discussing a topic where data is close to nill. We all should be simply working with the same data. If you have some that I seem to be unaware of, please present it, not complain about my ignorance. Why engage with me if not to help me learn and learn from me? If you know the brain you will prove incredibly useful in the discovery process, but pushing weight around isn't conducive to scientific progress. The fact is, there is a lot of creative thinking to be done in order to reconstruct this species everyday life and it's everybody's game, not just people who meet a certain educational criteria. All it takes is a solid understanding of logic and reason coupled with real data and anyone can come to a conclusion. We are not publishing our ideas, we are discussing them and there is a big difference.

    You didn't help her learn anything, Sab.

    Yes I did, I showed her that there is more than one way to approach this subject. A great uncle is still an ancestor as he is among the generation that brought me into the world. No, he would not be considered a direct predecessor, as in his direct actions didn't cause me to be born, but those are just technicalities that are not necessarily relevant. If I was making a point about my ancestors I could intuitively include the one's that were in and outside of my direct line. It's all just semantics.

    -Sab

  • NewChapter
    NewChapter

    Calm down, Sab. I don't think you are emotionally equipped at this moment to have this conversation. You get so animated when someone calls out something you say. I can't talk to a person like that about science. And as far as your conspiracy theory and science, I REALLY can't carry on a discussion when that is where you are coming from.

    But for those that are interested into what science is looking into, and the social aspects of Neanderthal, there is an interesting hypothesis out there right now about Neanderthal genes possibly being responsible for autism. More research to come, I'm sure, but if they can link it, it really shines a light on just how Neanderthal interacted socially.

    It's some fascinating stuff.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit