Neanderthal genome sequenced, interbreeding found

[Peter]

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5979/710

Neandertals, the closest evolutionary relatives of present-day humans, lived in large parts of Europe and western Asia before disappearing 30,000 years ago. We present a draft sequence of the Neandertal genome composed of more than 4 billion nucleotides from three individuals. Comparisons of the Neandertal genome to the genomes of five present-day humans from different parts of the world identify a number of genomic regions that may have been affected by positive selection in ancestral modern humans, including genes involved in metabolism and in cognitive and skeletal development. We show that Neandertals shared more genetic variants with present-day humans in Eurasia than with present-day humans in sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting that gene flow from Neandertals into the ancestors of non-Africans occurred before the divergence of Eurasian groups from each other.

Implications for modern human origins. One model for modern human origins suggests that all present-day humans trace all their ancestry back to a small African population that expanded and replaced archaic forms of humans without admixture. Our analysis of the Neandertal genome may not be compatible with this view because Neandertals are on average closer to individuals in Eurasia than to individuals in Africa. Furthermore, individuals in Eurasia today carry regions in their genome that are closely related to those in Neandertals and distant from other present-day humans. The data suggest that between 1 and 4% of the genomes of people in Eurasia are derived from Neandertals. Thus, while the Neandertal genome presents a challenge to the simplest version of an "out-of-Africa" model for modern human origins, it continues to support the view that the vast majority of genetic variants that exist at appreciable frequencies outside Africa came from Africa with the spread of anatomically modern humans.

["couldbecousin"]

[airheaded non-scientific response]Yay, I'm part Neanderthal! [/airheaded non-scientific response]

[Peter]

Does nobody else find it interesting that their great to the nth grandparent was a neanderthal?

[Osensitive1]

There must be a mistake of some sort.

[Callaway]

Does nobody else find it interesting that their great to the nth grandparent was a neanderthal?

I found it very interesting, Peter.  Thanks for posting this.

I had already read a summary of the article you linked, but I was very glad to see the actual article in Science.

I thought it very likely that they had interbred with our ancestors rather than being completely exterminated by them, even before this discovery.  I also wondered if their bigger heads may have made it more difficult for their mothers to give birth to them and may have led to their eventual decline.

[Peter]

Does nobody else find it interesting that their great to the nth grandparent was a neanderthal?

I found it very interesting, Peter.  Thanks for posting this.

I had already read a summary of the article you linked, but I was very glad to see the actual article in Science.

I thought it very likely that they had interbred with our ancestors rather than being completely exterminated by them, even before this discovery.  I also wondered if their bigger heads may have made it more difficult for their mothers to give birth to them and may have led to their eventual decline.

They also had wider pelvises, and I've read that it would have compensated for the large heads and made their childbirth difficulties comparable to Homo sapiens, but the wider pelvises made them less efficient at running, plus they had shorter legs and the anatomy of their shoulders made it difficult for them to throw projectile weapons, so they would have been at a disadvantage when hunting in open terrain.

[Scrapheap]

Does nobody else find it interesting that their great to the nth grandparent was a neanderthal?

I found it very interesting, Peter.  Thanks for posting this.

I had already read a summary of the article you linked, but I was very glad to see the actual article in Science.

I thought it very likely that they had interbred with our ancestors rather than being completely exterminated by them, even before this discovery.  I also wondered if their bigger heads may have made it more difficult for their mothers to give birth to them and may have led to their eventual decline.

They also had wider pelvises, and I've read that it would have compensated for the large heads and made their childbirth difficulties comparable to Homo sapiens, but the wider pelvises made them less efficient at running, plus they had shorter legs and the anatomy of their shoulders made it difficult for them to throw projectile weapons, so they would have been at a disadvantage when hunting in open terrain.

They also had (American) Football shaped heads with a more sloped forehead, so getting the head through the birth cannal would've been easier in the first place.

The one clue that I had, that there was interbreeding between Sapiens and Neanderthals, is the hanfull of Basques that I know!!!

["couldbecousin"]

Does nobody else find it interesting that their great to the nth grandparent was a neanderthal?

I found it very interesting, Peter.  Thanks for posting this.

I had already read a summary of the article you linked, but I was very glad to see the actual article in Science.

I thought it very likely that they had interbred with our ancestors rather than being completely exterminated by them, even before this discovery.  I also wondered if their bigger heads may have made it more difficult for their mothers to give birth to them and may have led to their eventual decline.

Both my parents and all three of us kids in the family have big heads!