backtop


Print 76 comment(s) - last by Paj.. on Sep 1 at 7:28 AM


Neanderthals and Denisovans, two archaic hominid species, have been shown by genetic tests to have interbred with human migrants in Europe and Asia.  (Source: Corbis)

Researchers speculate that such sexual attractions between the species were rare, but that the children were much more genetically fit, so came to dominate the population.  (Source: Google Images)

The highest rates of Denisovan DNA occurrence were found in the DNA of natives of Papua New Guinea.  (Source: Flickr)

The immune proteins our hominid relatives gave to us during interbreeding made us hardier and more resist to potentially deadly infections.  (Source: Paul de Bakker)
Turns out Europeans and Asians may be the least "genetically pure" homo-sapiens

It turns out that European DNA, like that of Asians and Africans, has traces of archaic hominids mixed in with the familiar Homo sapien-specific stretches.

The sequencing of the Neanderthal genome
 has led to some incredible discoveries -- among them, that humans were having sex with Neanderthals.  A pair of new studies has shown that Neanderthal genes aren't evenly distributed throughout the entire human population -- rather some populations have more or less of them.

A new study, whose senior author is 
Peter Parham, a professor of cell biology, microbiology and immunology at the Stanford University School of Medicine, examines how interbreeding with our closely related hominids led to a superior human immune system.

Svante Pääbo, director of the Department of Genetics at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and senior author on the paper [abstract] detailing the original Neanderthal genome draft, suggests that one of two possibilities occurred.  Either migrants to Asian and Europe broadly had sex with Neanderthals or just a few did, but whose progeny survived in greater numbers, passing on the early hominids' genetic material.  Researchers believe the latter explanation is more likely the case.

Humans are thought to have migrated from Africa around 67,500 years ago, spreading to Asia and Europe.  In these regions they encountered Neanderthals and Denisovans -- another archaic hominid, who they at least occasionally engaged in sexual intercourse with.  Interbreeding is thought to have occurred starting around 50,000 years ago.

Those hairy charmers passed something valuable along to the migrants -- improved immunity.  Many of Eurasians'  HLA genes -- fast evolving human immune system components -- are thought to have been "borrowed" from the Neanderthal and Denisovan genome.

It found that one Denisovan-derived gene -- HLA-A  -- was 95 percent likely to occur in residents of Papua New Guinea, 70 percent in residents of China, 50 percent in Europe, and virtually non-present in Africa.

The genes are thought to have conferred improved survival rates on the migrants, as they gained defenses against local diseases, which took their archaic hominid co-inhabitants millennia to develop.

Africans, who never personally interbred with the Denisovans and Neanderthals did receive a bit of these genes second hand, from migrants who returned to the region around 10,000 years ago.  And they are thought to have an even stronger and more diverse immune system, as they bred with other species of archaic hominids
, which were native to Africa.

Previous studies have shown that non-Africans have around 4 percent Neanderthal genes, while Melanesians -- natives of Indonesia and the surrounding islands -- also have 4 to 6 percent of their genes derived from the Denisovans.

The study on the project is published
 [abstract] in the prestigious peer-reviewed journal Science.

The new work could offer some additional explanation of why Native Americans may have been so susceptible to diseases brought to the New World by Europeans and Africans.  Native Americans may have missed much of the interbreeding opportunities.  Thus while they may be the most "pure" examples of Homo sapiens DNA, that may have proved fatal to many of them.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Hmm...
By Kurz on 8/26/2011 5:15:52 PM , Rating: 2
Since Neanderthals had Amazing Immune systems, Bigger Brains, and *Cough* Larger Penes. I am starting to dig my European descent a bit more. If only I didn't have to be cursed with hairer than average legs... Oh well nothing a buzz trimmer cant solve.




RE: Hmm...
By Smartless on 8/26/2011 5:47:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah than how did us Japanese end up with the small penes. haha sorry is penes or peniseses.

On a slightly more serious note, I thought native Americans were Homo Sapiens that had migrated from Asia hence the similarities in looks. I get mistaken for being American Indian or Mexican all the time. Or does this theory still hold true and i just wasted my typing time.


RE: Hmm...
By DigitalFreak on 8/26/2011 7:31:17 PM , Rating: 5
You're Japanese and get mistaken for Mexican? You must be hanging around some pretty retarded folks.


RE: Hmm...
By GulWestfale on 8/26/2011 8:45:55 PM , Rating: 5
i'm german, we'll fuck anything.


RE: Hmm...
By Vowel_Movement on 8/26/2011 11:32:10 PM , Rating: 2
That's what the article said. Dans gut!


RE: Hmm...
By Alexvrb on 8/26/2011 8:58:02 PM , Rating: 2
"You were right Joe. I DO look like a nip."

From Windtalkers.


RE: Hmm...
By sleepeeg3 on 8/27/2011 5:45:08 PM , Rating: 3
Soy milk. Pene shrinker juice.


RE: Hmm...
By wordsworm on 8/27/2011 10:30:36 PM , Rating: 2
I saw a documentary on The Sex Files that put forth the theory that races whose mothers cuckold their husbands end up having competing sperm working against each other to reach the egg. It was found that much of sperm is actually capable of fighting the sperm of other males. Larger penises increase the pleasure of the lady, and consequently, the convulsions caused by orgasm, improves the odds of that male's sperm in achieving the end of impregnating the female. Over a period of evolution, that means that the ones with the larger penises ended up having children while the ones with smaller penises did not. In the Asian culture, the female is often a one man woman. Therefore, the Asian male did not have to compete with other males in order to impregnate the female. So, races of humans that have small penises can be said to have more loyal females, whereas the races having larger penises have females who have sex with many competing males.

If you knew Asian women, you'd find that their vaginae are also proportionately smaller, whereas western vaginae are much bigger.

In trailer-park-speak, western women are sluttier than eastern women. That's why western men have larger penises.


RE: Hmm...
By mindless1 on 8/28/2011 1:23:40 AM , Rating: 3
Seems like a load of nonsense to me. Except for group orgies the sperm which fertilizes the egg has everything to do with the moment the egg is viable, it's about WHEN the female has sex.

Within the same group the males who had children were those more physically dominant. The weaklings were the *slaves* and kept busy doing labor regardless of how big their johnsons were.

The asian culture you mention is from recent centuries, it would not be applicable to evolution many thousands of years ago.

Leave it to TV though, to make up BS just to have a vehicle for selling commercials or at least get paid.


RE: Hmm...
By wordsworm on 8/28/2011 7:39:54 AM , Rating: 2
Obviously you have never seen the Sex Files. The Sex Files was a series of documentaries about sex.

As was pointed out on that episode, the intensity of orgasm that the female has can cause the female's vaginal muscles to contract more strongly than when she does not. This does, apparently, make a difference on which male's sperm wins the race.

In terms of having to be at an orgy for sperm to compete with other sperm, that's not true either. Fertilization is not an insta-matic process. It takes time: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=200807...

What's more, though it was long thought that 90% of sperm served no purpose, it has since been discovered that sperm from different males will actually fight with each other: http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20041010011121dat...

The Asian culture I refer to goes back thousands of years. At least it goes back as far as history itself. Perhaps it goes back to prehistory as well.

In terms of your belief that weaklings are slaves and masters are strong, that's a silly notion. People can control horses, lions, and even elephants. Each of these animals is significantly stronger than humans. By the very virtue that slaves had to do hard physical labour, they developed superior strength compared to their lazier masters. Look at the American blacks. In the days of slavery, they were bred to the point where they became superior to their white masters. Despite being continually discriminated against and vilified in the media, almost all of the greatest Americans are black. This includes, but is not limited to, feats of athleticism, the current American president (Obama is a genius compared to Bush), and even the arts (inventing jazz and blues, to name just two).


RE: Hmm...
By 91TTZ on 8/28/2011 9:34:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Obviously you have never seen the Sex Files. The Sex Files was a series of documentaries about sex.


What you describe sounds like the typical low-grade entertainment "documentary" that's common on The Discovery Channel nowadays. Real documentaries don't get high enough ratings so you get this crap. I'll file this between "Ancient Aliens who Built the Pyramids" and "Secret Nazi Mind Control Technology"

quote:
Look at the American blacks. In the days of slavery, they were bred to the point where they became superior to their white masters. Despite being continually discriminated against and vilified in the media, almost all of the greatest Americans are black. This includes, but is not limited to, feats of athleticism, the current American president (Obama is a genius compared to Bush), and even the arts (inventing jazz and blues, to name just two).


American Blacks bred to be superior to whites? What kind of racist crap are you spewing? American Blacks were just strong African Blacks that were stolen from their homeland so they could be forced to do work here. Most successful athletes in high intensity physical sports are of black Western African descent nowadays, whether they're from the US, Canada, the Carribean, or Western Africa. Most successful athletes in marathons are of Eastern African (Kenya, Ethiopia) descent. And everyone is a genius compared to Bush.


RE: Hmm...
By wordsworm on 8/28/2011 9:17:11 PM , Rating: 1
Most of the sprinters who are black are descended from blacks who were slaves. The blacks from Africa are the ones who do the long distance marathons.

You can file facts wherever you want. All of the evidence on that particular episode to which I referred can be corroborated by further research. I'm sorry if these ideas don't jive with your views gleaned from the Bible.

As to the things I said that you believe are racist, where were you when the Japanese were being insulted for the size of their penises?

I agree with your final point, though. Bush II made a lot of folks look like geniuses. He really was as dumb as mud.


RE: Hmm...
By sviola on 8/29/2011 10:55:18 AM , Rating: 3
Yet, he was voted president of the US. Seems to me he is not as dumb as people think he is.


RE: Hmm...
By wordsworm on 8/30/2011 5:41:11 AM , Rating: 2
His father was an evil genius with a lot of power. Without dad, and arguably without his brother's influence over the recount in Florida, there's no way he'd have become president.


RE: Hmm...
By tastyratz on 8/29/2011 11:00:02 AM , Rating: 2
The difference is that the japanese penis jokes were jokes albeit in poor taste by politically correctness. You are spewing narrow minded fabricated facts of untruth. Africans were bred years ago selectively like animals in the slave trade for prowess in manual labor, not overall supremacy. This resulted in stronger physical genetics sure, but not super humans. They are still human like ANYONE else.

All great Americans were black? How is that ANY different from a white supremacist saying all greats were white?

All great Americans were AMERICANS and from multinational decent. Many greats have come from MANY countries


RE: Hmm...
By wordsworm on 8/30/2011 5:37:12 AM , Rating: 1
It wouldn't be the first time that happened: a slave race bred to be superior than the race that bred it. Don't take it personally. It's not your fault that African Americans are substantially better endowed, stronger, or more artistic than their white counterparts. That aside, there are a number of anti-Asians here. All the Chinese, Japanese, etc., hatred from the writers and readers of DT is kind of sickening.

I haven't fabricated anything. Everything I've said can be substantiated by research. I provided links to research the first time. I don't think anyone read them, so I won't do it again.


RE: Hmm...
By mindless1 on 8/30/2011 9:28:15 PM , Rating: 3
You are a little deluded. The slaves brought over were picked to be the strongest men (better workers) and were those who survived horrible conditions in the galley of slave ships. Natural selection ensured that those who had the chance to rear children in this terrible period of history, were genetically gifted compared to most other people regardless of skin color. The same would have been true if Africans had kidnapped and enslaved Englishmen.

Everything you have written can no more be substantiated than the opposing points of view. That something "seems" like it agrees is not a PROOF that can be assumed while rejecting contradictory evidence.

Bah, this is a silly argument we're having and a true waste of time so I'll stop. Have a nice evening.


RE: Hmm...
By wordsworm on 8/30/2011 11:14:05 PM , Rating: 1
Huh... I wonder how they managed to breed them at all, then. I would have thought that some women were brought to America, too.

Evidence means nothing to you. Most just like the idea that God created folks the way they are rather than there being some fundamental biological reason why the races have evolved to have their unique characteristics.

You can examine any animal that has been bred for specific purposes and see how they exceed their counterparts in the wild in those specific regards. Humans are as much animal as any of them. We were not created from the image of God, God was created in the image of the men who invented him. It's a myth. We are animals. There's no reason to doubt that the men who were bred in captivity had time to improve certain characteristics beyond their natural counterparts. Their masters, on the other hand, bred amongst each other and often within the same family according to bloodlines. Those who were bred as slaves were bred according to the best characteristics. It's natural to see that the masters degenerated while the slaves improved. I don't agree with slavery. I am saying that we don't naturally make the best choices for ourselves. Those who are in the business of breeding for a purpose are much better at creating a Nietzschean superior race than those who choose according to money and possessions. They can also choose the best studs (in the literal sense) to procreate while often neutering those who were not.

In order to be objective, you sort of have to disregard the idea that facts and evidence don't give a damn about what we are comfortable with thinking or what is politically correct. It does not matter if I'm Caucasian, Asian, or any other race. It has no merit in a conversation about biology. What we would like to be true is rarely going to be true.


RE: Hmm...
By Spuke on 8/31/2011 12:04:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The slaves brought over were picked to be the strongest men (better workers) and were those who survived horrible conditions in the galley of slave ships.
Natural selection indeed brought the strongest of the strong over from Africa BUT slaves were indeed "bred".


RE: Hmm...
By 91TTZ on 8/29/2011 1:21:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most of the sprinters who are black are descended from blacks who were slaves. The blacks from Africa are the ones who do the long distance marathons.


Western Sub-saharan Africans are built much differently than Eastern Africans. Western Africans are much more muscular and have more explosive strength from fast twitch muscle fibers while Eastern Africans tend to be thinner and have more endurance from slow twitch muscle fibers. Eastern Africans from countries such as Kenya, Ethiopia, and Eritrea absolutely dominate marathon races while they're just about nowhere to be found in sprinting type events.

quote:
I'm sorry if these ideas don't jive with your views gleaned from the Bible.


I'm not religious at all.

quote:
As to the things I said that you believe are racist, where were you when the Japanese were being insulted for the size of their penises?


Where was I? Probably nowhere near a computer. I wasn't part of that conversation.

quote:
I agree with your final point, though. Bush II made a lot of folks look like geniuses. He really was as dumb as mud.


Sadly, I think that Idiocracy really is going to be our future. Regardless of what race someone is, it seems that the worst examples of their race tend to have more children than the best examples of their race.


RE: Hmm...
By Skywalker123 on 8/29/2011 11:35:00 PM , Rating: 2
Larger penises give women more pleasure? Not according to my college text Human Sexuality

Slaves weren't bred to be smart, just strong, and Obama is half white. But you sir, appear to be an ignorant, inbred moron.


RE: Hmm...
By wordsworm on 8/30/2011 6:13:42 AM , Rating: 1
When you've got a white and a black parent, you're black. Hence, all the headlines that came out declaring Obama as America's first black president.

My half sister, for example, has a black father and a white mother, and everyone says she's black. Donald Brashear, my cousin, is also half black. His dad is black, his mom is white. But everyone says he's black.

I also would wager that a smart slave is an awful lot better than a dumb one.

I'm curious, Skywalker, why do you have a hard time with anti-white rhetoric but have no problem with anti-Asian rhetoric? Both my father and mother are white. I work in Korea and am married to an Asian. A good 1/3 of my relatives are black. My family is as multi-racial as they come.

Most of the folks who have replied to my reaction to the 'ha ha, Japanese have small penises' have been offended that I said that African Americans are superior to Caucasian Americans, or that I said that the reason why Asian men have smaller penises is because their women are loyal (for which there is a fair amount of evidence if you look at other species).


RE: Hmm...
By mindless1 on 8/31/2011 9:51:06 PM , Rating: 2
Actually there isn't a fair amount of evidence, these things you claim as proofs would have had to happen long before recorded history to have had any significant impact on evolution, so what you claim as proof is either only someone's guess, propaganda from a hate group, or invalid due to being a time period too recent.

What you've done is classic pseudo-learning. You hear someone propose an idea and state a fact, nevermind if the fact is relevant, or proof, if you have all the facts, or if other contradictory facts are more significant.

I can claim "outer space" is blue because when I look up the sky is blue. In ancient times, before we had more knowledge than we do now, most people would believe I was right. Once they form their opinion they are reluctant to weigh further evidence equally.

This is a terrible human fault, the insistence that we "know" things for certain when the evidence is essentially built like a house of cards.


RE: Hmm...
By dark matter on 8/28/2011 3:08:57 AM , Rating: 2
That's a load of balls.


RE: Hmm...
By cigar3tte on 8/26/2011 5:48:57 PM , Rating: 2
But Asians tend to be less hairy.


RE: Hmm...
By MrWho on 8/26/2011 5:59:23 PM , Rating: 5
Not in the movies I usually see...


RE: Hmm...
By ClownPuncher on 8/26/2011 6:12:54 PM , Rating: 5
Those are usually pixelated.


RE: Hmm...
By B3an on 8/27/2011 8:50:56 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder how Asians evolved to have pixelated privates. Interesting.


RE: Hmm...
By retrospooty on 8/27/2011 9:19:26 AM , Rating: 2
"Not in the movies I usually see... "


+6 LMAO still =)


RE: Hmm...
By B166ER on 8/28/2011 1:18:32 AM , Rating: 2
Genius. Pure Comedy.
I lol'd.


RE: Hmm...
By fakeStevejobs on 8/26/11, Rating: -1
RE: Hmm...
By shaidorsai on 8/26/2011 7:05:05 PM , Rating: 3
Really? You're calling him insecure? I thought his post was funny...


RE: Hmm...
By Alexvrb on 8/26/2011 9:00:34 PM , Rating: 5
Not to mention that he didn't say anything racist at all, and yet was called a racist, BY a racist.


RE: Hmm...
By Kurz on 8/27/2011 8:18:21 AM , Rating: 3
He is just Envious of my genetic background.
Though if he wants some of 'this' (Does sweeping arm movements of his body) I do have a fairly attractive sister I can pimp out. Though she is a bit underage, I think we can work something out.


RE: Hmm...
By Motoman on 8/27/2011 12:38:45 PM , Rating: 2
In his case, the underage bit isn't a problem, since he's probably about 12 himself...


RE: Hmm...
By Spuke on 8/30/2011 7:00:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He is just Envious of my genetic background.
"But, but, but, you're black!"


RE: Hmm...
By ClownPuncher on 8/26/2011 7:21:29 PM , Rating: 5
Too true, Africa is doing rather well for itself.


RE: Hmm...
By DigitalFreak on 8/26/2011 7:32:46 PM , Rating: 2
Like the real Steve Jobs, it's time for you to retire.


RE: Hmm...
By B3an on 8/27/2011 8:54:54 AM , Rating: 1
You mean it's time for him to get cancer and die already.


RE: Hmm...
By shane.carroll on 8/26/2011 9:14:15 PM , Rating: 5
Let me guess... You're an "intelligent Black African" (in your intelligent words) that thinks that every one in the world who is not a "Black African" is racist and that no "Black African" has ever been racist in any situation... correct?


RE: Hmm...
By B166ER on 8/28/2011 1:20:48 AM , Rating: 1
Don't. Just don't.
Stooping to racist comments to battle a so-called racist.
That's so Jerry Springer.


RE: Hmm...
By Vowel_Movement on 8/26/2011 11:35:23 PM , Rating: 1
Penne is a pasta, I think you mean penises ??? Sometimes folks can't tell the difference.


RE: Hmm...
By Vowel_Movement on 8/26/2011 11:41:12 PM , Rating: 1
Penne is a pasta, I think you mean penises ??? Sometimes folks can't tell the difference. What is this fixation on Pasta?

Now the Bedouin and the Arabs must be 75% Neanderthal. They got hair coming out of their backs for days.


RE: Hmm...
By Kurz on 8/27/2011 8:09:44 AM , Rating: 2
I was trying not to say penises... In Latin Grammar to make an 'is word plural you change it to 'es. Testis becomes testes.

Nah Hair isn't a marker by itself.


RE: Hmm...
By Motoman on 8/27/2011 8:48:38 AM , Rating: 5
...so this guy gets on a plane, and finds that he is seated next to a stunningly beautiful woman. He notices that she has some...interesting...reading material with her.

She sees his surprise at her reading material, and explains "I'm a human sex researcher." while nodding towards her stack of magazines. The guy nods and says "Oh, I get it" with a wry smile.

She continues "...it's amazing what you can discover when you start looking. For example, it's a myth that black men have the largest penises...actually, native Americans have the largest penises. And despite popular belief, French men aren't the best lovers...Jewish men are." "Oh, but look at me babble...my name's Molly - what's yours?"

...and without missing a beat, the guy says "Tonto. Tonto Goldstein."


RE: Hmm...
By Kurz on 8/27/2011 10:32:09 AM , Rating: 2
I will allow this...


RE: Hmm...
By Spuke on 8/30/2011 7:02:46 PM , Rating: 2
I'm black and I approve this message.


RE: Hmm...
By highlander2107 on 8/28/2011 3:53:16 PM , Rating: 2
Only a fool would twist being a caveman into a good thing.


RE: Hmm...
By Kurz on 8/28/2011 8:50:26 PM , Rating: 2
And only a fool will fail to see the benefits of being one.
Honestly though I don't look like a caveman at all.


discovering more leads to knowing less.
By drycrust3 on 8/26/2011 6:09:05 PM , Rating: 4
I can't understand how it is that after analysing all these different species' genome in great detail that you end up not knowing when one animal is or isn't the same species as another. Is a German Shepard dog the same species as a poodle? It was, but now it would be considered as a different species with genes taken from the poodle (or the other way around).
Or is a bird the same species as a spider? It may seem obvious that it isn't, but since there is no clear cut boundary of difference between on one group of genome and another, then anyone can define whether one group of genomes is the same as another (so they are the same species) is different (so they are different species).
This is a very unscientific approach. There should be enough genomes analysed by now that scientists should be able to determine that a German Shepard is the same species as a poodle, and that a bird isn't a spider.
The result of all this ambiguity is that we have a whole lot of human ancestors that aren't considered humans, not because they weren't our ancestors, nor because the difference in that group of genomes passes a threshold that normally indicates a difference in species, but just because someone liked the idea of those people being different a different species from us.




RE: discovering more leads to knowing less.
By Gurthang on 8/26/2011 10:27:27 PM , Rating: 5
The taxonomy we use to describe the relationships of organizms here on earth is an imprecise beast. Animals do not come with little books in their back pockets containing complete ansestral trees.

Though it helps to have a basic definition of species. In general it is a group of like animals (in form and behavior) that live in the same geographic area and that are able to breed with each other.

As to speciation through husbandry like domestic dogs. Although they display a wide variety of physcal traits. I suspect most are controlled from just a small set of genetic changes and since these changes are not localized for most they just fall into the accepted morphic range of the domestic dog species.

Another thing to remember is our genes are like an undocumented open soource project they change over time accumulating new things and forking and combining into many other projects. And by looking at today's code you may see parts and ideas from ancient projects long gone but deciding how two programs are really related from just the code will always be challenging and the decision of where to draw the "line" may at times seem arbitary.


By Iketh on 8/27/2011 2:24:02 PM , Rating: 2
Considering we came to inhabit the same area as neanderthals, and we mated, and are certainly a like in form and behavior, we are the same species. Or are neanderthals considered a subspecies?

Maybe these findings will reclassify them as an ancient race?


By Paj on 9/1/2011 7:28:35 AM , Rating: 2
Yep. The idea of a species being clearly distinct from other organisms within a taxonomy is a legacy from Victorian era science - the more we discover about genetics, the more the previously clearly defined boundaries start to shift, change or disappear altogether.


We already knew this!
By Samus on 8/26/2011 4:38:34 PM , Rating: 5
I guess nobody watched Battlestar Galactica :)




RE: We already knew this!
By gorehound on 8/26/2011 4:54:14 PM , Rating: 2
yes hahahahha


written for children?
By Ramtech on 8/27/2011 4:54:29 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Researchers speculate that such sexual attractions between the species were rare


common people that wasnt attraction it was rape plain and simple




RE: written for children?
By B166ER on 8/28/2011 1:24:45 AM , Rating: 2
Yup, domination of inferior tribes. Killed the men, kept the women and made 'em baby factories.
History is awesome.


hm
By Spikesoldier on 8/26/2011 5:47:07 PM , Rating: 5
guess when god threw the dice of life for us we all got half orc




My neighbor
By mablazarus on 8/26/2011 7:51:47 PM , Rating: 5
This article gives me more ammo to throw at my neighbor. I've already printed it out in preparation for our confrontation. He gets crazy mad when I call him a Neanderthal and has even threatened to press harassment charges. Just last week he had a bunch of his stupid family out in his back yard making all kinds of racket. I yelled, "Keep it down, you stupid cave people!" and the biggest one walked over to the fence. I guess he was the leader but I had my pepper spray.

This article supports my belief that my neighbor is the last surviving Neanderthal. I've called National Geographic but they also threaten me with legal action. Whatever. I can now rub these facts in his stupid Mongoloid face and prove that I am correct. I believe he's 95%-114% Neanderthal and his wife is probably a prostitute. Thanks, Science!




About Native Americans
By TeXWiller on 8/26/2011 7:13:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Native Americans may have missed much of the interbreeding opportunities.
If the interbreeding started around 50000 years ago, why wouldn't the ancestors of the Native Americans had the opportunity for interbreeding for the 35000 years their ancestors lived in the continent of Eurasia? The deceases which killed in the American continent originated from livestock which the Native Americans supposedly didn't have.




RE: About Native Americans
By Murloc on 8/27/2011 8:17:44 AM , Rating: 1
also they didn't miss it: now mexicans are natives interbred with caucasoids right? and they're immune too, right?


neanderthals
By queitanino on 8/27/2011 9:00:31 AM , Rating: 2
What is not mentioned in the post is that the neanderthals (which, incidentally, means "valley of the new man", because its first remains were found in a valley in Germany, although the homo sapiens are really the new men) came to a complete extinction some 20000 years ago for unknown causes, although supposed to be related to the arrival of the homo spiens. So their believed superior inmunity did not seem to have worked then.




RE: neanderthals
By ShaolinSoccer on 8/30/2011 5:01:21 PM , Rating: 2
What makes you think they died from disease? Maybe we got tired of them raping our women so we decided to kill them all?


Neanderthals and me
By UThunk on 8/26/2011 6:08:15 PM , Rating: 2
Now that why we grunt when we sexing.......




RE: Neanderthals and me
By 91TTZ on 8/28/2011 9:44:07 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Now that why we grunt when we sexting.......


Fixed.


...
By rburnham on 8/26/2011 5:09:06 PM , Rating: 2
Science!




Neanderthal Sex
By beachray2000 on 8/26/2011 5:59:43 PM , Rating: 2
Well this should be a positive refreshing outlook for all those bimbos that prefer to sleep around with Jocks...




Extra
By Exegisis on 8/26/2011 7:06:39 PM , Rating: 2
A great many people are of Extraterrestrial origin so this does not apply. I am a mixture of humans and a race from Planet 7.

Watch out!




Well there you go
By cohetedor on 8/26/2011 7:45:29 PM , Rating: 2
Never let our wives say we didn't give them anything.




Not just way back.
By YashBudini on 8/26/2011 7:52:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The sequencing of the Neanderthal genome has led to some incredible discoveries -- among them, that humans were having sex with Neanderthals.

And some of us continue to devolve. Look at Tommy Lee. If it has a pulse he's going to try to hump it.




By moenkopi on 8/26/2011 10:37:53 PM , Rating: 1
It happened in Eurasia first, before it was taken over to the new world by columbus and his cohort.




Urgo and Fatwaddizumba
By Vowel_Movement on 8/26/2011 11:30:42 PM , Rating: 1
So the Denisovans and the Neanderthals didn't mate with Black African's near the river Bolongo eh? Hmmm, the more things change, the more things stay the same.





This is just a bunch of bunk
By lolguidos on 8/28/2011 6:13:31 PM , Rating: 1
Humans could not have bred with Neanderthals. They don't have any hard DNA evidence. It's just pure speculation. I read an article in the National Geo describing both sides of the debate and the anti-human-bred-with-neanderthal side made a much better case.




It all makes sense now
By PrinceGaz on 8/29/2011 6:29:03 PM , Rating: 1
This club-weilding neanderthal inter-breeding probably explains why, as a guy living in Northern Europe, I am such an enormous dick, ehehe :)




By mstrmac on 8/27/2011 6:59:23 PM , Rating: 2
Well about 6000 years ago the Adamic dna was introduced (one who can show red or blood/blush in their flesh) formed somewhat different then the homo sapiens 12000/15000 years ago who were hunters and fisher nomads nevertheless. Now i am sure those earlier dispersed humans did their thing amongst the Neanderthals and whatever. but you can easily find pure adamic humans around. Also just because there is a link with africa does not mean the skin was dark.


"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki