Siberians Share DNA with Extinct Human Species

Telegraph (London), November 1, 2011

Researchers have found that people in East Asia share genetic material with Denisovans, who got the name from the cave in Siberia where they were first found.

The new study covers a larger part of the world than earlier research, and it is clear that it is not as simple as previously thought.

Professor Mattias Jakobsson, of Uppsala University in Sweden who conducted the study together with graduate student Pontus Skoglund, said hybridisation took place at several points in evolution and the genetic traces of this can be found in several places in the world.

He said: “We’ll probably be uncovering more events like these.

“Previous studies have found two separate hybridisation events between so-called archaic humans–different from modern humans in both genetics and morphology–and the ancestors of modern humans after their emergence from Africa.

“There was hybridisation between Neanderthals and the ancestors of modern humans outside of Africa and hybridisation between Denisovans and the ancestors of indigenous Oceanians.

“The genetic difference between Neanderthals and Denisovans is roughly as great as the maximal level of variation among us modern humans.”

The Uppsala scientists’ study demonstrates that hybridisation also occurred on the East Asian mainland.

The connection was discovered by using genotype data in order to obtain a larger data set.

Complete genomes of modern humans are only available from some dozen individuals today, whereas genotype data is available from thousands of individuals.

These genetic data can be compared with genome sequences from Neanderthals and a Denisovan which have been determined from archeological material.

Only a pinky finger and a tooth have been described from the latter.

Genotype data stems from genetic research where hundreds of thousands of genetic variants from test panels are gathered on a chip.

However, this process leads to unusual variants not being included, which can lead to biases if the material is treated as if it consisted of complete genomes.

Prof Jakobsson and Skoglund used advanced computer simulations to determine what this source of error means for comparisons with archaic genes and have thereby been able to use genetic data from more than 1,500 modern humans from all over the world.

Prof Jakobsson said: “We found that individuals from mainly Southeast Asia have a higher proportion of Denisova-related genetic variants than people from other parts of the world, such as Europe, America, West and Central Asia, and Africa.

“The findings show that gene flow from archaic human groups also occurred on the Asian mainland.”

Skoglund added: “While we can see that genetic material of archaic humans lives on to a greater extent than what was previously thought, we still know very little about the history of these groups and when their contacts with modern humans occurred.”

Because they find Denisova-related gene variants in south east Asia and Oceania, but not in Europe and America, the researchers suggest that hybridisation with Denisova man took place about 20 million years ago, but could also have occurred earlier.

This is long after the branch that became modern humans split off from the branch that led to Neanderthals and Denisovans some 300,000 to 500,000 years ago.

Prof Jakobsson said: “With more complete genomes from modern humans and more analyses of fossil material, it will be possible to describe our prehistory with considerably greater accuracy and richer detail.”

The findings were published in the online edition of the journal PNAS.

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • German

    Some liberals still say if two races can breed together, there are one species.

    For all AmRen-readers here is a site: http://goo.gl/6Wf8o

    A polar bear can and do breed with an grizzly. So are grizzlys now the same as polar bears? Is there absolutely no difference between both?

    I have a good idea, let’s bring all the grizzlies to the polar region and if they die out, let’s blame the white polar bears 🙂

  • Anonymous

    “researchers suggest that hybridisation with Denisova man took place about 20 million years ago, but could also have occurred earlier.

    This is long after the branch that became modern humans split off from the branch that led to Neanderthals and Denisovans some 300,000 to 500,000 years ago”

    Is this part of the article a typo? It doesn’t seem to make sense.

  • Jeddermann.

    “a Denisovan which have been determined from archeological material.

    Only a pinky finger and a tooth have been described from the latter.”

    From so little they are able to infer so much?

    DNA was extracted and analyzed? This is not clear?

  • Anonymous

    …”he researchers suggest that hybridisation with Denisova man took place about 20 million years ago, but could also have occurred earlier.”

    This didn’t make sense to me, and indeed, the original article comments addressed it. It should be 20,000 years, or even earlier.

  • Peter K

    This is a very poorly written article from the Telegraph about a very important subject. Firstly, the title is not even correct. The title should be, Southeast Asians Share DNA with Extinct Human Species. That was the main revelation of the study.

    Secondly, as I’m sure many caught, it should read that southeast Asians interbred with Denisovans 20 thousand year ago, not 20 million years ago. That find suggests that there was a primitive human species coexisting with homo sapiens in southeast Asia in the not so distant past. This certainly explains a great deal about some of the features of southeast Asians.

  • A. Windaus

    “The genetic difference between Neanderthals and Denisovans is roughly as great as the maximal level of variation among us modern humans.”

    So they accept that Neanderthals and Denisovans are two different species, yet they also claim that modern humans are all the same species? Something is not right with this picture.

  • American

    @German, two groups are considered the same species if they can reproduce, and the children are completely fertile. So different human races are the same species, but grizzlies and polar bears are not. However, your claim that being the same species means there is absolutely no difference is absolutely bogus, it is possible for different groups to be significantly different and still be the same species, or even subspecies.

  • Anthrodude

    Polar bears are related to grizzly bears, the former branched off (50,000) some years ago. Recent studies have shown Africans are also about 50,000 years separated from Whites, which, technically is about 5% difference from forming a new species, although I thought the math said in 200,000 years and interbreeding could not take place, so 20% difference, and there would be no interbreeding, or it would be like a mule, sterile or?. There is so much interbreeding going on now though, its doubtful a wishful level of separation could ever be accomplished, with the Globalists wanting to wipe out the white man.

  • (AWG) Average White Guy / Indianapolis

    Consider that Africa is a geography, not a race.

    While our ancestors may have migrated from the African landmass, there is no evidence that I have seen that supports the notion that we are descended from blacks.

  • Anonymous

    Neanderthal Power!!!

  • Buridan

    #4 Anonymous.

    As you do, I suppose that they have written 20 million instead of 20,000 years. The migration out of Africa is supposed to have happened 70,000 years ago. Then, some of them mixed with Neandertalians, some of them with Denisovans, and maybe some with both.

    #5 A. Windaus.

    The fact that Denisovans and Neandertalians have separated 300,000 to 500,000 years ago do not mean that they could not hybridize. A Finn has no common ancestor with a Black prior to 70,000 years ago, so Finns and Blacks separated (at least) 70,000 years ago, as my first cousin’s descent and mine separated two generations ago, that does not mean that Finns and Blacks, or my first cousin and I, cannot have children together.

  • HtA

    The Out-of-Africa Theory is already dead, give the establishment 20 to 30 years until they realize it, too:

    http://goo.gl/8L7nZ

  • Buridan

    #1 German

    Even on places where the two populations cohabit, it is extraordinarily rare that a polar bear breeds with a grizzly, whereas the breeding of two human populations, on the fringe of their territories, is the norm : between the Whites and the Blacks there are populations which are intermediaries between them, between the Whites and the Yellows there are populations which are intermediary between them. So, one considers Polar Bear and Grizzly as two different species, but considers the diverse populations of man as subspecies (race is the name given to the human subspecies). So, the criterium for characterizing two populations as different species is not the physical impossibility of interbreeding (and there you are wright), but is not the mere extent of the physical difference between the populations (and there you are wrong), it is rather the quasi-absence of hybridization on the borders of the territories of these populations, due to behavioral differences/aversions. This behavioral difference/aversion does not really exist among humans, see the Kazakhs, the Tuaregs, or the present-day president of the United States.

    This criterium makes sense : because they do not interbreed even where they live together, the destiny of the Polar bear and of the Grizzly is to become progressively less and less physically able to interbreed, while the interbreeding among a population like the population of Man maintains continuously the physical possibility of interbreeding. So, species names a community of (genetic) destiny : Polar Bear and Grizzly have in common only the past, so they are two species, Whites and Yellows have in common the Kazakhs, that testifies that they are two subspecies. There is no gain for a racialist to refuse the scientific position and to say that races are different species, instead of different subspecies. Nobody says that the physical, intellectual and pychological differences between subspecies cannot be wide. In peculiar, man has be selected on intelligence and psychology : three millions years ago, man was not very different from now, except on the size (and quality) of the brain. In a less evolved population man is not slow, or tiny, or a very bad jumper, he is less intelligent. Blacks and Melanesians are these less evolved populations. The descent of the people who went out of Africa about 70,000 years ago (in a wawe different from the Melanesian one) is the more evolved part of humanity. One does not know yet when they acquired their superior intelligence : while still in Subsaharian Africa ? While in North-East Africa ? While in the Middle East ? And, of course, after that evolution, they still had some more intellectual and emotionnal evolutions, but which seem less decisive than the one with the Blacks and Melanesians.

  • sbuffalonative

    “The genetic difference between Neanderthals and Denisovans is roughly as great as the maximal level of variation among us modern humans.”

    A small difference and yet they are identifiable as different early humans.

  • John Engelman

    Because they find Denisova-related gene variants in south east Asia and Oceania, but not in Europe and America, the researchers suggest that hybridisation with Denisova man took place about 20 million years ago, but could also have occurred earlier.

    This is long after the branch that became modern humans split off from the branch that led to Neanderthals and Denisovans some 300,000 to 500,000 years ago.

    Telegraph (London), November 1, 2011

  • highduke

    Misceginating with archaic humans gave the feeble-minded sickly Africans better immunity and possibly abstract thinking as well as auto-immune disorders, microcephaly and possibly Autism (see Stan Gooch and Neanderthal Theory of Autism). Think of archaic humans as too introverted & imaginative and the pure Africans as too gregarious & dull witted while their descendants represent an average. Too much archaic blood makes Australoids, too little makes Bantus, making Autism & Blackness atavistic.

  • Anonymous

    Some liberals still say if two races can breed together, there are one species.

    Maybe liberals say this, but scientists don’t. Lions and tigers are considered separate species, but they can breed together without any difficulty, producing perfectly healthy and fertile offspring. Lions and tigers are two different species because they are two different breeding populations, separated by geography. Here’s another interesting fact: lions and tigers (when in their natural environments) have very different social behaviors.

  • b

    Point of origin doesn’t equal sameness. I don’t know what both Amren readers and leftist alike cannot understand this concept.

  • John Engelman

    The reason many whites do not want to accept the out of Africa theory of human origins is that they do not want to believe that 60,000 years ago their ancestors looked more like African blacks than European whites.

    The alternative to the out of Africa theory is that the Caucasian race is descended from Neanderthals. What we know about Neanderthals indicates that they were much less intelligent than any existing race of humans, and much stronger. They also had better reflexes and coordination.

    If you think a black neighborhood is dangerous after dark, try to imagine what a Neanderthal neighborhood would be like.

    The available evidence is that Caucasians are primarily descended from a small number of people who left Africa fifty to seventy thousand years ago, and that Caucasians have a very small amount of Neanderthal ancestry.

    The out of Africa theory does not mean that racial differences are only cosmetic. A lot of evolution happened during the past fifty to seventy thousand years.

  • Buridan

    #17 Anonymous

    Lions and tigers are separated by geography now that lions have been wiped off India by man. But before, India was the place where the territory of the tiger and the one of the lion met. But there was no interbreeding, due to differences of sexual behavior. Sahel was the place where the territory of the white man and the territory of the black one met, and interbreeding there was indeed. And Sahelians interbred with North Africans, North Africans with South Europeans, South Europeans with North Europeans… That’s the reason for which Tiger and Lion are considered as two species, whereas Man is one species with different subspecies. It is not out of political correctness that scientists say that man is a species : it is congruent with their science. When there are discrete populations, one talks of species, whent there are not discretre populations, the situation is very different, and one talks of subspecies.

  • David Ashton

    I tried to download this item and the discussion that followed it from a Norfolk County Library Service computer in the “free country” of Britain, but was denied access because of its “violence/hatred/racism content”.

    Meanwhile, William Hague, Cabinet Minister, tells an international cyber-war conference in London that there should be no inteference with free information on the internet.

    As they used to say in the old days of uncensored handwritten mail delivered by stage-coach, I hope this reaches you as it leaves me!

  • Sureesh

    All man are the same species but different subspecies. Indians and Whites are the same subspecies of Caucasian. Africans are a different subspecies. Yet, Americans are routinely taught that race and skin color are the same thing resulting in white people mistaking me and my fellow dark skinned Indians for Black.

    If you look at the skeletons of someone from South India and someone from Norway, there will be little difference. If you look at the skeleton of an African, there will be vast differences.

    Science can prove that the racial differences are genetic and that we Indians are just as white inside as you are.

    BTW- Evolution has more racial arguments than creationism yet many conservative whites stick to Christianity and even fundamental Christianity.

  • Buridan

    #22 Sureesh

    Arthur Jensen (“Intelligence, race and genetics”, 2002) : “the genetic distance between the population of India and that of Northern Europe is surprisingly small, in fact hardly more than between, say, those of England and those of southern Europe”.

    I see that you used the term “Caucasian” to name the race (and the terms “Whites” and Indians” to divide it into two components) and it seems to me judicious : “Indo-European” is not available. That said, there is maybe less danger of confusion if one uses the more scientific term of Caucasoids (as opposed to Mongoloids).

  • Deniz

    “the genetic distance between the population of India and that of Northern Europe is surprisingly small, in fact hardly more than between, say, those of England and those of southern Europe”.

    ___

    One of the ludicrous things I’ve ever read on Amren.

    http://goo.gl/ijhDd

    http://goo.gl/4xwKi

    http://goo.gl/W9JrF

    If you think they are of same origin (no need to explain who is who), sorry you need to refresh your knowledge, together with Arthur Jensen.

    Indian population, particularly Dravidians in the South do not cluster with Europeans, neither on the paternal nor on the maternal side. The high levels of R1a in the North are obviously related to Aryan invasions. Their blood had completely been absorbed by the locals despite the notorious caste system and no full blooded whites remained in India. Some light-skinned and light-eyed Bollywood actresses are examples of genetic throwbacks of prehistoric whites.

    http://goo.gl/RkJgE (although not very up-to-date, it clearly shows the clusters)

    http://goo.gl/WguWe

  • Anonymous

    the genetic distance between the population of India and that of Northern Europe is surprisingly small, in fact hardly more than between, say, those of England and those of southern Europe

    For census purposes, Indians should be classified as white, period. The current census categories have been confusing in this respect, classifying Iraqis and Iranians as white, but not Indians.

    But I do agree that Caucasian would be a better term, as white is also an adjective which leads to the assumption that color is the determining factor, and Indo-European refers to linguistics, not genetics.

  • Anonymous

    “This is still consistent with the out of Africa theory, which holds that everyone who is not a 100 percent African black is descended from one hundred to several hundred modern humans who left Africa 50,000 to 70,000 years ago. As these spread and multiplied, they occasionally had children by more primitive humans, who were descended from humans who left Africa several hundred thousand years earlier.”

    Out of africa is completely bogus. 2 marxists at Cal Berkely created the out of africa theory. The study was biased in its methodology.

    There is a 750,000 old partial skeleton and skull that was a fully modern human asian type found in indonesia.

    60 years ago the anti Whites had a theory that Whites were the first humans and remained primitive while the black, brown and golden beige humans evolved from the primitive Whites.

    The theory was based on body hair and animal, bird and fish skin. Animals have more body hair than humans. Whites have more body hair than asians, blacks and american indians. Whites have white skin like animals.

    Therefore, Whites are more like animals than asians, blacks and american indians.

    60 years ago Whites are animal like primitives because the other races evolved from us. Nowdays we are all descended from african blacks which somehow makes us inferior.

    I do not believe that the dark brown and black and pale white skin on different ethnic groups evolved in a short 60,000 years.

    Whatever it is, it is not out of africa. Look at the source of out of africa. Look at how the theory appeared right on schedule as part of the exterminate Whites program.

  • Anonymous

    “20 — Buridan wrote at 4:29 AM on November 3:

    #17 Anonymous

    Lions and tigers are separated by geography now that lions have been wiped off India by man.’

    There are still lions in India. They more or less co exist with people in a national park area. There is a national geographic documentary about this that runs on Nat Geo channel sometimes.

    The park rangers feed the lions well so they don’t eat the farmers and their animals.

  • Anonymous

    “Their blood had completely been absorbed by the locals despite the notorious caste system and no full blooded whites remained in India. Some light-skinned and light-eyed Bollywood actresses are examples of genetic throwbacks of prehistoric whites.”

    I’ve read a few biographies of 19th and 2oth century indian women. Huge prices were paid for light skinned and light eyed spouses either man or woman. Light skinned light eyed baby girls were allowed to live instead of the midwife snapping their necks. Extended families would help support a lighter couple so they could afford to raise a big lightskinned family.

    There was something of a breeding program going on.

  • margaret

    22 — Sureesh wrote at 1:34 PM on November 3:

    ” Americans are routinely taught that race and skin color are the same thing resulting in white people mistaking me and my fellow dark skinned Indians for Black.

    Stop this nonsense Sureesh. Do you really live in this country?

    Americans have always known that a very dark brown person who has caucasion wavy or straight black hair, a thinnish nose and thin lips is a dark caucasian Indian and not a dark brown skinned

    african or african american.

    We do have eyes Sureesh. When we look at you and all your dark brown skinned family we know that you are a caucasion with dark brown skin.

    No american has ever thought that indians and africans are the same race. Not the 17th colonial slave traders, not the abolitionists, not the nazis, not the pre or after civil war confederates or federals, not any school course from nursery school to PHD.

    To pass for an african or afro american you would have to get an african wig and an expensive theater make up job on your nose, lips and jaw.

    Americans all know that you and yours are dark brown skinned indian caucasions. American 4 year olds know the difference.

    I can’t believe your narcissism. Dark skinned Indians are less than 1 percent of the population but you seem to think you should get some affirmative action privileges.

    I think your real problem is that all your fellow indians up in Sunnyvale are medium brown and look down on you and your family because you are several shades darker than the ideal indian whatever that is.

    So stop blaming White European Americans for the discrimination against your complexion by your fellow indians.

  • Buridan

    #24 Deniz

    1° On the photos you refer to : The colour of the skin is adaptative to the climate ; apart from that, as can be seen on the photos, South Indians look very much like Europeans, to the point of being in general almost undiscernible from them. Anyway, it is not on how persons look that the notion of race is scientifically set. It was on hundreds of features, it is now on genetic distance.

    .2° On the haplogroups maps you refer to : it is not on one haplogroup only that the genetic distance between two population can be calculated. Indeed in your maps, one does not see any group, even the white european one. And maps like these are used by the people who pretend that races do not exist : on only one haplogroup almost anything may happen.

    .3° As regards the genetic proximity between Indians and Europeans, nothing is out-of-date in Arthur Jensen 2002 science, be you pleased with that or not.

    4° The genetic proximity does not necessarilly mean that significative differences on the genetical basis of intelligence and character do not exist. For instance, Jews and Kurds are extremely near genetically, but that does not exclude that Jews are on average significantly more clever than Kurds (which seems probable, Jews being on average already more clever than Europeans).

  • James C

    I’ve found a site that really goes into this line of study very well, laying out the scientific evidence of

    1) Eurasian origin for modern humans, (Homo sapiens sapiens)

    2) extensive interbreeding with Homo erectus and archaic sapiens, leading to

    3) extant, hybridized populations whose characteristics reflect that ancestry

    (in other words, the genetic evidence that “underprivileged minorities” have an appreciable amount of sub-Homo sapiens ancestry)

    The site is http://www.rafonda.com/

  • Anonymous

    It would be useful to see this topic in the perspective of recent

    relevant science. Multi-regionalists for three decades or so, have been trying to place some question marks over a whole-hog

    out of African hypothesis. There appears, however, to have been

    scant references in AR to the multi-regionalists. When/how/ did

    it become “breaking news” that OoA might need to be brought back to the drawing board??

  • Deniz

    Anyway, it is not on how persons look that the notion of race is scientifically set. It was on hundreds of features, it is now on genetic distance.

    As regards the genetic proximity between Indians and Europeans, nothing is out-of-date in Arthur Jensen 2002 science, be you pleased with that or not.

    ___

    Oh really, what about the physical anthropology? Caucasians have generally light skin, thin nose with relative long bridges, straight hair (not brush-like like your fellow South Asians) with non-oblique eyes. While your fellow Indians satisfy some of these requirements, they still don’t match the others…

    Be pleased or not, Dravidians, hence South Indians are neither morphologically nor genetically Caucasian. Both old school anhropology (classified related to Australian Aborigines at that time) and modern genetics (possible ancient black African admixture) show this. I don’t start posting tons of papers or other sources, this is outside of the scope of this Amren article. People do have eyes and they certainly know who are white or Caucasian and who are not.

    But please stop manipulating the terms. The only “Caucasian” Indians live in the north, heavily mixed with the indigenous Dravidians and produced different skin tones, stretching from porcelain white to very black, almost blue tones, even darker than central black Africans.

  • Anonymous

    “30 — Buridan wrote at 4:00 AM on November 4:

    #24 Deniz

    1° On the photos you refer to : The colour of the skin is adaptative to the climate ;”

    I’ve always wondered if that is true. Arabs and desert peoples are the most exposed to the sun. They should be the darkest because of the sun, yet they are light tan. The darker ones mixed with their black slaves later.

    The Kurds of the Middle East are much, much lighter than the Arabs among whom they live.

    Eskimos, Siberians and Canadian Indians are tan, not pale White like Scandinavians, Russians and other Whites who live in the same far north. Many Greeks have very pale skin, as pale as the Irish. So do many Turks.

    The black Africans lived in the jungles, not the deserts. In the jungles they would have been in very heavy shade.

    N. Japan, Korea, Manchuria and N. China are very cold northern climates. Many have dark tan skin. Many have white skin, many have light tan skin.