Hey Marshall . . .
- Thread starter digitS'
- Start date
897tgigvib
Garden Master
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Messages
- 5,439
- Reaction score
- 923
- Points
- 337
It's pretty good to be mixed blood, especially if the mix is part Neanderthal.
A lot of us have some, just that different traits show. I have sharp shin bones like a modern human. I have the shape of the brow, but much reduced. That's just the famous trait. My Foramum Magnum is strongly scalloped almost identically to La Ferrassie, but you have to see it in xray, and see the doctor's face looking at it. (That was the time I had very stiff neck muscles. Stretching exercises fixed that.) Yep, my toes are definitely Neanderthal.
My business Math teacher had a Neanderthal head, and he joked about it. His father had one too and Luther Burbank knew his father when he was young, Burbank called him the bright young man with the Neanderthal head.
These findings don't at all surprise me. I'd have been shocked if they said moderns don't have Neanderthal DNA.
A lot of us have some, just that different traits show. I have sharp shin bones like a modern human. I have the shape of the brow, but much reduced. That's just the famous trait. My Foramum Magnum is strongly scalloped almost identically to La Ferrassie, but you have to see it in xray, and see the doctor's face looking at it. (That was the time I had very stiff neck muscles. Stretching exercises fixed that.) Yep, my toes are definitely Neanderthal.
My business Math teacher had a Neanderthal head, and he joked about it. His father had one too and Luther Burbank knew his father when he was young, Burbank called him the bright young man with the Neanderthal head.
These findings don't at all surprise me. I'd have been shocked if they said moderns don't have Neanderthal DNA.
- Thread starter
- #3
digitS'
Garden Master
An adequate amount of DNA was found.
Highly inbred individual.
That it is a toe bone and not a tooth.
Steve
Highly inbred individual.
That it is a toe bone and not a tooth.
Steve
897tgigvib
Garden Master
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Messages
- 5,439
- Reaction score
- 923
- Points
- 337
Wikipedia has someone on it already. Looks like they may be working on it as I type, but the Intro has reference to this, and the warning header is at this moment preliminary!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genome_project
I have not yet looked at my history, edit, or talk tabs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genome_project
I have not yet looked at my history, edit, or talk tabs.
bobm
Garden Master
Marshall... Isn't it about time that you did an DNA test for yourself to see what percentage of Neanderthal genes that you actually have ?
897tgigvib
Garden Master
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Messages
- 5,439
- Reaction score
- 923
- Points
- 337
That'd be a cool test to do. I'm sure it is higher than average.
- Thread starter
- #7
digitS'
Garden Master
- Thread starter
- #8
digitS'
Garden Master
I was hoping to fit in here somewhere: "the Denisovan genome differs from the Neandertal genome in that it contains about 2.7 to 5.8 percent of the genome of an unknown archaic hominin."
Steve
Steve
897tgigvib
Garden Master
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Messages
- 5,439
- Reaction score
- 923
- Points
- 337
Yes, very likely if so, an asian Erectus. the phylogeny is not clear though because the time must be the same, plus, it appears that much of the erectus genome is from female erectus, being that was found in the mitochondrial dna, which comes only from the mother's side.
Also, looks like most denisove dna was passed down to the pacific islander region. The Neanderthal dna passed down worldwide except to africa.
Also, Africa is considered to be where the modern human lineage began, around 200,000 years ago, near to and south of the congo, spreading first to south africa, and then up northward concurrent to the early Zulu migrations northward, then back southward.
That was followed by developments out of africa at the red sea. Those migrants, about 100,000 years ago, then came across populations of humans whose ancestors had left africa at earlier times.
The African late migrators had the evolutionary physical advantage of requiring less food, having thinner bones, with more efficient usages of less food.
179,000 years ago, and also 59,000 years ago there were absolutely terrible weather patterns. Those with the ability to survive on less food were preferentially selected for survival. (This is how the theory goes). It was also about the same time as that, that those with the modern human bodies began making modern tool kits.
Before that, the early modern humans were making tools almost identical to Neanderthal tools, except possibly some tools to harvest and eat shellfish, oysters, muscles, scallops, and possibly fish hooks. Those are found at a cave site near the ocean in south west Africa.
Very likely, modern humans are descended from survivors of an extended famine around the Congo, which happened shortly before 200,000 years ago. There are no fossils found in the congo area jungles. The soil there does not allow fossils to form, hardly at all. These famine survivors were the ones who had more efficient thinner bones. Not as strong, especially at first, as future developments for musculature to match probably came later. They must have been hurting, so they had to be smarter.
Some theories say early humans came close to going extinct twice, during those 2 times of terrible weather. That it might even have gotten down to one single tribe by the time of ancestral Eve, about 180,000 years ago.
Here's the brain twister: Ancestral Adam lived 59,000 years ago. It was explained to me, but can you dig up the explanation and say the story of it?
Ancestral Eve... 180,000 years ago
Ancestral Adam... 59,000 years ago
Also, looks like most denisove dna was passed down to the pacific islander region. The Neanderthal dna passed down worldwide except to africa.
Also, Africa is considered to be where the modern human lineage began, around 200,000 years ago, near to and south of the congo, spreading first to south africa, and then up northward concurrent to the early Zulu migrations northward, then back southward.
That was followed by developments out of africa at the red sea. Those migrants, about 100,000 years ago, then came across populations of humans whose ancestors had left africa at earlier times.
The African late migrators had the evolutionary physical advantage of requiring less food, having thinner bones, with more efficient usages of less food.
179,000 years ago, and also 59,000 years ago there were absolutely terrible weather patterns. Those with the ability to survive on less food were preferentially selected for survival. (This is how the theory goes). It was also about the same time as that, that those with the modern human bodies began making modern tool kits.
Before that, the early modern humans were making tools almost identical to Neanderthal tools, except possibly some tools to harvest and eat shellfish, oysters, muscles, scallops, and possibly fish hooks. Those are found at a cave site near the ocean in south west Africa.
Very likely, modern humans are descended from survivors of an extended famine around the Congo, which happened shortly before 200,000 years ago. There are no fossils found in the congo area jungles. The soil there does not allow fossils to form, hardly at all. These famine survivors were the ones who had more efficient thinner bones. Not as strong, especially at first, as future developments for musculature to match probably came later. They must have been hurting, so they had to be smarter.
Some theories say early humans came close to going extinct twice, during those 2 times of terrible weather. That it might even have gotten down to one single tribe by the time of ancestral Eve, about 180,000 years ago.
Here's the brain twister: Ancestral Adam lived 59,000 years ago. It was explained to me, but can you dig up the explanation and say the story of it?
Ancestral Eve... 180,000 years ago
Ancestral Adam... 59,000 years ago
Last edited:
Smart Red
Garden Master
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2012
- Messages
- 11,303
- Reaction score
- 7,395
- Points
- 417
- Location
- South-est, central-est Wisconsin
I would warn against that, Marshall. It is one thing for you to suspect your ancestry and quite another for THEM to know for sure. You could be abducted for experiments, poked, and prodded and certainly taken away from the gardening you enjoy. I just wouldn't risk it.
