The Little Bit of Neanderthal in All of Us

Carl Zimmer, New York Times, January 29, 2014

Ever since the discovery in 2010 that Neanderthals interbred with the ancestors of living humans, scientists have been trying to determine how their DNA affects people today. Now two new studies have traced the history of Neanderthal DNA, and have pinpointed a number of genes that may have medical importance today.

Among the findings, the studies have found clues to the evolution of skin and fertility, as well as susceptibility to diseases like diabetes. More broadly, they show how the legacy of Neanderthals has endured 30,000 years after their extinction.

{snip}

Neanderthals, who became extinct about 30,000 years ago, were among the closest relatives of modern humans. They shared a common ancestor with us that lived about 600,000 years ago.

In the 1990s, researchers began finding fragments of Neanderthal DNA in fossils. By 2010 they had reconstructed most of the Neanderthal genome. When they compared it with the genomes of five living humans, they found similarities to small portions of the DNA in the Europeans and Asians.

The researchers concluded that Neanderthals and modern humans must have interbred. Modern humans evolved in Africa and then expanded out into Asia and Europe, where Neanderthals lived. In a 2012 study, the researchers estimated that this interbreeding took place between 37,000 and 85,000 years ago.

{snip}

The first draft of the Neanderthal genome was too rough to allow scientists to draw further conclusions. But recently, researchers sequenced a far more accurate genome from a Neanderthal toe bone.

Scientists at Harvard Medical School and the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany compared this high-quality Neanderthal genome to the genomes of 1,004 living people. They were able to identify specific segments of Neanderthal DNA from each person’s genome.

“It’s a personal map of Neanderthal ancestry,” said David Reich of Harvard Medical School, who led the research team. He and his colleagues published their results in the journal Nature.

Living humans do not have a lot of Neanderthal DNA, Dr. Reich and his colleagues found, but some Neanderthal genes have become very common. That’s because, with natural selection, useful genes survive as species evolve. “What this proves is that these genes were helpful for non-Africans in adapting to the environment,” said Dr. Reich.

In a separate study published in Science, Benjamin Vernot and Joshua M. Akey of the University of Washington came to a similar conclusion, using a different method.

Mr. Vernot and Dr. Akey looked for unusual mutations in the genomes of 379 Europeans and 286 Asians. The segments of DNA that contained these mutations turned out to be from Neanderthals.

Both studies suggest that Neanderthal genes involved in skin and hair were favored by natural selection in humans. Today, they’re very common in living non-Africans.

{snip}

It’s possible, Dr. Akey speculated, that the genes developed to help Neanderthal skin adapt to the cold climate of Europe and Asia.

But Dr. Akey pointed out that skin performs other important jobs, like shielding us from pathogens. “We don’t understand enough about the biology of those particular genes yet,” he said. “It makes it hard to pinpoint a reason why they’re beneficial.”

{snip}

Some of the Neanderthal genes that have endured until today may be influencing people’s health. Dr. Reich and his colleagues identified nine Neanderthal genes in living humans that are known to raise or reduce the risk of various diseases, including diabetes and lupus.

To better understand the legacy of Neanderthals, Dr. Reich and his colleagues are collaborating with the UK Biobank, which collects genetic information from hundreds of thousands of volunteers. The scientists will search for Neanderthal genetic markers, and investigate whether Neanderthal genes cause any noticeable differences in anything from weight to blood pressure to scores on memory tests.

{snip}

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.
  • NeanderthalDNA

    My people!

    • And that’s the point. Our people, not all people.

      • Edruezzi

        Non-Africans are 2-4% Neanderthal. I’d argue that water with 4% coffee dissolved in it would be largely indistinguishable from the regular beverage.

        • Karolina

          I don’t get why it even matters.

          The fact that modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens Negro and European have had 100,000 years of independent evolution makes the whole Out-of-Africa argument (as a basis for racial solidarity) moot anyway.

          If you go back far enough, even the Neanderthal has it’s origins in Africa; the question is, why the hell does it even matter? Africa is a continent, not a race. At one point in time there was not even a single Negro on the continent of Africa.

          Also, it’s INDEPENDENT evolution that counts, not the origin of a certain race/sub-species/species.

          Europeans and Negroes evolved separately for 100,000 (I’d put it closer to 200,000) years. That has given us a lot of time to evolve different mutations, and adaptations through natural selection.

          • Edruezzi

            There are no remains of Homo sapiens as old as 100,000 years outside Africa.

          • Karolina

            The timeline of the divergence keeps being pushed back as new advances and more research becomes available:

            http://www.sciencenews . org /article/ hints-earlier-human-exit-africa

          • M&S

            According to _The Ten Thousand Year Explosion_, humans from as recently as 1,650AD Italy (based on skulls found in underground necropolis where brain case impressions were scanned) show massive differences in number and density of convolutes from those of modern humans.
            Take this back to Bronze Age Greece and things are even more pronounced to the point where modern structural biologists wonder if they were even thinking as we do.
            When you read Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, you are reading the -modern- interpretation of ancient understandings. There is an echo there, a faint glimmering of what we were to become, but especially in things like the fates of Odysseus’ wife and son, these are attitudes of another /mind/ as much as era.
            OTOH (_Before The Dawn_), if you look at genetic sweeps and it appears that people bred to success at ENORMOUS rates of transferrance, only to end up dead ended at certain enormous gulfs of culture as much as climate change. In Africa.
            Modern genes for speech, for lactose tolerance, for fair skin, all seem to be have more recent and haphazard an introduction into Africa. As indeed the L1/2 from L3 split became L3 into M/N differentiation seems to have taken off at 50-70KYA and basically never stopped accelerating into the Asian and European lineages as indicated by multiple mitochondrial (which are not as stable as we once thought) as well as specific nuclear DNA mutative changes. All of which seems to point towards those who left Africa as having more growth, evolutionarily.
            Africa, which retained L1/L2 is at once both ancient and more explicitly evolved on narrower HG breeder frontages of specialization without the widescale adaptations that seem to have only come from our meandering peregrinations from the Horn into Saudi and across to India before moving up into Asia itself.
            I would offer that smaller populations, -induce- change, either through epigenetic influences upon the genome due to changing environmental challenges. Or through an inbreeding consequence of added recombinancy between closely consanguineous lineages as perhaps and anti fertility depression safeguard.
            And yes, perhaps also via interbreeding with prior Homo lineage escapees already ‘naturalized’ to the new environmental stresses. Although here the reality is that the Neanderthals were known cannibals and sat firmly across on the Levantine bridge up into Europe and thus may have formed a stopper to Homo Sapien’s entry into same at the time we leapt the Red Sea by land bridge.
            Whatever the causation, you are correct, we are much more rapidly evolving than we are given credit for being. To the point where we are likely on the verge of true speciation. It would be beyond horror if we ended up losing that one chance to /become/ something newer and better yet again because some idiot ‘just one race’ was asleep the day his/her teacher covered Selection in biology. And instead got on the happy wagon with all the other miscegenists trying to travel back in time through their genes.

          • Edruezzi

            The 200,000 year figure is not supported by either the archeological record or genomic comparisons. The same can be said about the 100,000 year old figure, but I’m trying to leave a sufficient margin of error.

          • Karolina

            What are you talking about? Modern estimates go as high as 125,000 years ago. I just posted a link proving that below.

          • Edruezzi

            Good. I reckon you’ve proved it. Now ask yourself this, using another long-lived mammalian species, say blue whales or elephants, as an example. What is 125000 years in the lifetime of a whale or elephant species. It’s an evolutionary eye-blink.

          • Karolina

            LOL, maybe to whale or elephant species; but not to Humans, whose lives are not measured in the number of animals you can kill in a 24-hour period.

            We measure our lives by our ability to invent technology, our ability to live in the artificial world that we (primarily European, but also East Asian and Middle-Eastern) Humans have created, and our ability to remain true to the values that we have established over the preceding millenia (regarding everything from crime to politeness).

            Sure, in ancient times, when humans were still consigned to being as ‘animalistic’ as all other creatures, this didn’t much matter. But the civilizations we have built have opened up these small genetic discrepancies and made them really big. The fact that I may be 99.9999% related to an African makes no difference to me; I’m also 97-99% related to a Chimpanzee.

          • AndrewInterrupted

            If you’re 4% Neanderthal and an African is less that 1%, it would seem unlikely that you are 99.9999% related.

          • Karolina

            If we are 97-99% genetically identical to Chimpanzees, then surely we are more than 97-99% identical to Blacks.

            I don’t like writing these words anymore than you do, but I take comfort in the notion that tiny genetic differences can lead to the Hubble Telescope on one side (Humans), with primitive stone use (Chimpanzee) on the other.

          • AndrewInterrupted

            Yes, the percentage metric is probably a Liberal distraction.

            Scientists know how to word and shape things to keep the government grant money flowing.

            We should be looking at which ones, not percentages. I know one gene in particular they are looking at in Europeans is the DRD3 group.

  • D.B. Cooper

    I like the other theory better. We are descended from Cylons and the former crew of the battlestar Galactica who then bred with the primitive people on Earth.

    • NeanderthalDNA

      You know, that makes about as much sense as the SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN “theory” of disparate impact!

      Who needs science when you got lawyers?

      • D.B. Cooper

        Actually, I would go as far as suggesting that my theory has more evidence than the theory of disparate impact. I mean, what with our Greek myths, constellations, and the Cylons bringing monotheism; the advanced people of the ragtag fleet jump started our “evolution”.

        • NeanderthalDNA

          No no no! Alien reptiloids from Beta Sigma Reticuli!

          • William Krapek

            You lie! ALPHA Sigma Reticuli!

          • NeanderthalDNA

            Which alien race comes from Nu Iota Gamma Gamma Epsilon Rho?

        • wildfirexx

          Are you suggesting genetic engineering !

    • Edruezzi

      Is that the new Galactica or the old series? The new Cylons are pretty hot.

  • Daniel Schmuhl

    That’s where my hairy knuckles and protruding mouth come from.

    • The mystery of the unibrow is also solved.

      • I have a unibrow, and in spite of being part Injun, I grow a good “dogface” all the way up to near my eyes. My best friend from high school is literally built like a gorilla. A big one. Sayaka once said after watching us move a piano that it is quite obvious people descended from apes. I picked up my end of the piano with my left hand and steadied it with my right, so as not to damage my neighbor’s walls. Sayaka has concave incisors, which is also a Neanderthal trait, common to east Asians, but which Western whites do not possess.

        • When I was younger I had a Filipino girlfriend that had concave incisors. I thought they were cute & sexy, but another thought lurked underneath: those teeth could rend human flesh!

  • Sharps Rifle

    Nice to know I’m not related to anyone or anything in or from Africa.

    • SirMe

      Neanderthals were originally from Africa..

      • Sharps Rifle

        Oh? So where’s the Neandertal DNA in Africans? Look it up. They have none, nor apparently do Australoids. Europeans and Asians do, but the others don’t.

        • NeanderthalDNA

          I got yer Neanderthal DNA right here buddy!

        • SirMe

          Neanderthal ancestors came from Africa..

          • Sharps Rifle

            Maybe you’re related to Africans. I am not.

          • Edruezzi

            The bad news is that the Non-Neanderthal proportion of the DNA of a non-African is largely indistinguishable from that of an African. Just sayin.

          • sddasasd

            You actually do, but I think your infantile “B…B…B….B…. BUT I DON’T WANNA BE RELATED TO A N!GG3R!!!” attitude is clouding it.

          • NeanderthalDNA

            Homo Hiedelbergensis? They were rather robust. Perhaps that’s some of the up to 30% unidentified archaic DNA in the Bantus?

          • Romulus

            Possibly homo Floriensis?
            Anyhow, so they have a common ancestor that originates in Africa ,neanderthal who’s a little lower on the ladder leaves first and then modern humans leave to mingle with

            Them later on in history. Ooooh, now I get it (snark). I thought the article was worded oddly(sarc)

          • NeanderthalDNA

            Too far from Afreaka.

            Nah…something is missing in this puzzle. Something yet to be discovered I think…

          • Edruezzi

            If the proportion of unidentified archaic DNA in Bantus was that high mixed race people like our President would not exist or would be sterile.

          • NeanderthalDNA

            I believe you are correct and redact that statement. The percentage appears to be anywhere from 2 – 8% from an as yet unidentified archaic human strain.

            Thanks for the correction. Truth good.

            Still think there is much to learn.

          • AndrewInterrupted

            Yes, but they evolved for 400,000 years in Europe after that.

        • Rick Brooks

          Australoids do have Neanderthal DNA and they also have genes from a “sister” race/sub-species called the Denisovans. Only Sub-Saharan Africans are completely free of Neanderthal DNA.

          • Edruezzi

            Someone said the past is another country, or something. Well, he was thinking of the historical past. If that’s the case, what are we to make of the prehistoric past? When ancestral humans were fornicating in the glades with Neanderthals the categories ‘European” , “Australoid” and so on did not exist. The component groups had probably not fragmented into distinct populations. I reckon it must have been teenagers wandering off from their family bands to have sex with kids from other bands, or probably a great deal of what we in our cushier times call rape. The concept of consensual sex, and maybe even the concept of rape, probably did not exist in that more innocent age. However it happened, it was all about location, location, location. You could only meet up with a species that had speciated outside Africa if you got out of Africa.

        • kris

          Khazars do, 4 % of the population is of Neanderthal. Not I, but I’d be happy to go through a DNA test. I can trace my family tree all the way back to year 1040, in fact it’s right in front of me on a desk.

      • Bantu_Education

        They’ve found a few remains in the Maghreg (NW Africa) but black Africans never lived in N.Africa, unless you’re one of those who think they built the pyramids.

        • SirMe

          We had a common ancestor with Neanderthals 600,000 years ago, that common ancestor was in Africa..

          • NeanderthalDNA

            Seems the genetics of the Ethiopians – except for some mixture with the Bantu – is very different than the Bantu Africans.

            Furthermore, unions between Whites or Asians and the Ethiop seem to produce surprisingly Caucasian looking individuals.

            Alexander Pushkin is widely known to have been like…1/8 “black”, but his “black” ancestor was an Ethiop. Same I believe with Peter Ustinov, who did not find this out until well in his adulthood. Even the Austral Abo genetics seem recessive when mixed with Whites, despite their very different appearance and very low IQ.

            But the Bantu? Something very divergent happened somewhere back there and I’ve still not heard a very good explanation from PC style science. I’m faithful it’s just around the corner, though when it does come out suspect there will be an all out effort on the part of some to bury it quick.

            I suspect that the folks from around eastern Africa are the source of modern humans. Their genetic makeup seems to be very elastic, and that region has yielded many finds regarding different evolving hominids.

            What has been really found in the wetter jungle regions from which arose the Bantu?

          • Bantu_Education

            Chimpanzees?

          • NeanderthalDNA

            It has been theorized that such is possible, but it’s never been observed, or scientifically documented at least.

            Witness Oliver the Humanzee. He has his own saint day in the Church of the Subgenius. Thought by some to once have been just such a critter, DNA tests eventually showed that he was naught more than a very bizarre chimp.

            Hmmm…

            Fun wiki search there.

          • Tom B.

            I remember that Dude!- he worked on the farm for my Uncle Charlie–a pretty good cotton picker as I recall.

          • NeanderthalDNA

            What about this…

            What if the Bantu negro, as opposed to the Ethiop, for example, or even some indigenous South African peoples, WAS actually a later development/hybrid?

            I seem to remember that they did not always occupy sub Saharan areas outside their most common range along western and central Africa, that their arrival in southern and eastern Africa was relatively recent.

            We think of evolution as resulting in more “advanced” specimens, but what does “advanced” mean? In fact, evolution results in organisms that are suited to their environment better, that are more likely to survive…

            Considering their fecundity, and the fact that if left alone they definitely self regulate their population via Malthusian principals, further considering their intellectual deficiencies and pathetic helplessness seems to elicit in more intelligent and compassionate subspecies of humans a suicidal empathy and desire to help…

            Perhaps the Bantu negro is actually a later evolutionary development somehow, eminently suited to surviving in their own brutal and insidious manner…

          • Bantu_Education

            Your theory that, assuming “we” came from Africa, it was from the Ethiopian region and not from the Guinean (Bantu origin) makes a great deal of sense. I’ll remember that next time some liberal twerp tries to bring up the “Out of Africa theory” – I’ll say, “maybe but not from the fugly Bantu” – you can claim descent from them if you like”.

          • Edruezzi

            Ethiopian descent only pushes back the problem. The key fact remains. The center of the speciation even that produced Home sapiens was on the African continent.

          • Karolina

            Cool, and if you go back far enough, all of life has a common origin going back to the largest dinosaur and the tiniest bacteria.

            I still wouldn’t date a bacteria though.

          • Edruezzi

            Of course, we can’t date bacteria. Some of them really enjoy getting into our bodies, however.
            Yes, all living things share a common ancestor. It’s kind of like how all Indo-European languages clearly branched off from a single language spoken on the Eurasian steppe or maybe somewhere in what is today Turkey. If you go further back still, it’s clear that all languages spoken from Britain to Korea derive from one ancestor. That the word for “go” in some West African languages is “ga” cannot be random either. That almost identical phonemes mean the same thing in African languages and English can’t be random. Genetic relatedness, in the age when we can read genomes literally as books enables us to do a lot more than we could in the past.
            The point about this however is that some languages are more closely related and groups of languages share properties derived from more recent ancestors. The relatedness of dinosaurs to humans is so close that Paul Sereno, a dinosaur paleontologist at the University of Chicago, teaches first year medical students human anatomy. If we think of genes as clusters of beads, however, I share more of those beads with any human or even a Neanderthal than I do with a dinosaur. So the irreducible fact remains that the cluster of beads ANY modern human shares is a basically African cluster. Maybe a handful of those 20000 or so beads derive from radical mutations that took place once non-Africans left Africa, like the gene for blue eyes. Maybe some derive from the Neanderthal bunch of beads. The vast majority of those beads are a humdrum assemblage of beads from Africa. A look at those beads have even enabled scientists to determine that Homo sapiens emerged somewhere near the modern Angola-Mozambique border.

          • Karolina

            I mean the tiniest of single-celled organisms (because they are the oldest lifeforms on Earth). We can even trace our descent from them simply by the fact that all life has a common origin.

          • Edruezzi

            If the two races evolved independently for 300,000 years, that means they have been evolving independently longer than Homo sapiens has existed.

          • Karolina

            Nope.

            Have you not seen the most recent studies? A paper last year reported that a previously unknown lineage had been found, which pushed the estimated date for the most recent common ancestor (Y-MRCA) back to 338,000 years ago.

            Google: “An African American Paternal Lineage Adds an Extremely Ancient Root to the Human Y Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree”

            Anyway, it makes no difference as to how much time we have diverged for. The fact that we did diverge and evolved independently for at least 60,000 years (I’d say closer to 10x that!!) is proof that we have large differences!

          • Edruezzi

            Your numbers are quite elastic. I thought you said we’d been diverging for 600,000 years ago a moment ago.
            It’s also nice to see I’m not the only person who uses Google here. I got insulted a while ago for suggesting that people Google something to check it up.

          • Karolina

            No, I’m pretty sure I stated 300,000 years.

          • Edruezzi

            That would apply to all humans, African, African American or not. It happens to be a haplogroup missed in earlier analyses.
            Yes groups have diverged in the sense of living in different places. Whether selection has been strong enough to produce striking differences is another question. Only selection could have produced that effect. Merely living apart for a long time is irrelevant.

          • Karolina

            I’m saying that the date of Homo Sapiens evolution is continually being pushed back, and the multiregional hypothesis continues to gain traction.

            “Whether selection has been strong enough to produce striking differences is another question”

            You won’t be convincing anyone that Blacks and Whites are the same; you might as well move on! We can see the differences from afar, as well as close enough when living among them.

            “Only selection could have produced that effect. Merely living apart for a long time is irrelevant.”

            Living apart IS relevant; it means that there is a divergence. You can’t produce differences if the populations have significant gene flow.

          • Edruezzi

            Hi,
            Of course I won’t be convincing anybody. That is not my objective. It’s the scientific howlers that first got me posting stuff here.

            1. Coon’s multiregional hypothesis apparently has been a long time dying. We have to recognize what the multiregional hypothesis would mean. If it is accurate it means we have a model of human origins that flies in the face of everything we know about speciation. No species forms by its different subpopulations evolving in different regions and then somehow merging. It simply doesn’t happen, in humans or anything else. Species form in small, well-defined regions. That has to be the case in a world where there are no jet liners making it possible for people having a tryst in New York and then London on the same day to keep gene pools unified. The entry of Neanderthal and Denisovan genes into Non-African human gene pools merely indicates that we are close relatives of these populations. It doesn’t change the bare facts of how and where our species originated. Hell, some people found the slope-faced Neanderthals attractive. That was their cup of tea. (I definitely wouldn’t have done a Neanderthal.)

            2. Yes, living apart is relevant. However, in the absence of selection, gene frequencies stay unaltered in the different populations, something expected for a species that by the end of the Paleolithic had no more natural enemies and that was driving everything large enough into extinction. Without ruthless levels of selection acting on the different populations we would expect human gene frequencies to stay the same in the different continental populations. Which, duh, is what we mostly find. Aside from small changes in genes regulating skin color and hair form and reflecting the ravages of diseases found in different areas, continental human populations are remarkably uniform. And just as future scientific research or Kuhnian paradigm shifts are not going to find a new molecular formula for water anytime soon, there is no strange quantum mechanical quirk that’s going to show up to invalidate what I just said. We know how genes work.
            That’s the world as it is and as we find it, and we must live in it. Gravity pulls a liberal the same way it pulls a conservative. Their politics doesn’t change that.

          • Karolina

            1. I’m actually not sure which of the two competing theories is true; I just said that recent studies are giving it more traction.

            “In August 2011, human leukocyte antigen (HLA) alleles from the archaic Denisovan and Neanderthal genomes were found to show patterns in the modern human population demonstrating origins from these non-African populations; the ancestry from these archaic alleles at the HLA-A site was more than 50% for modern Europeans, 70% for Asians, and 95% for Papua New Guineans.”

            – Google Search: “The Shaping of Modern Human Immune Systems by Multiregional Admixture with Archaic Humans”

            2. There was selection (and random mutation); how do you explain the large differences in behavior, intelligence, and phenotypic diversity?

          • Edruezzi

            Are you saying that Europeans are 50% Denisovan-Neanderthal, Asians are 70% D-N and New Guineans are 95% D-N? Well, congratulations to the authors of that paper. They’ve blown the established paradigm in modern biology out of the water. We should retire the species name Homo sapiens altogether and fire everybody teaching anthropology and human biology and maybe all of biology in almost every university in the world right now.

            As for competing theories, there is no competition. Out of Africa enjoys the scientific consensus. That’s just the way it is. The human genome practically screams that.

            At the risk of offending a lot of people I’d argue that the differences in behavior and intelligence are artifacts of ecology and resource distribution and fleeting artifacts of a particular historical moment. Read Guns, Germs and Steel.

          • Karolina

            Listen, we can use Out-of-Africa if you want, but your misquoting the study.

            Anyway, it doesn’t change the fact that the time of branching out continues to be pushed back. We’re at 125,000 years so far.

            And you can spare us the typical reference to Guns, Germs and Steel; we tire of hearing the race-denialists copy paste this title into a comment box in an almost robotic matter. The conclusions derived from that book are wishful at best!

            I am particularly proud of a response a friend of mine penned in an rebuttal towards someone making the same remarks as you. It really puts all of the ignorance on your side of the aisle out on public display for all to see. So if you will, this goes for you to:

            “Barring the mediocre performance for some immigrant groups on tests of verbal ability (which may be dismissed by their lack of familiarity with the language of their host country), the consensus among psychometricians is that IQ gains from practice are hollow, resulting in a temporary boost in a narrow range of cognitive abilities, and do not reflect any corresponding increase in overall intelligence.

            Practicing endlessly on the Raven’s Progressive Matrices may temporarily increase your ability to rotate objects in your head and recognize patterns, which should increase your performance on that “IQ” test by a couple of points — but this documented increase never translates into a greater facility with numbers, or an easier time learning physics or chemistry. The same goes for tests of digit span, vocabulary, pitch recognition, et al. You can read and re-read Dostoevsky until your eyes bleed from strain, but that’s just too bad — all else held equal, that kid who actually scored 148 on the WISC will kick your ass not only in English, but also in mathematics, chemistry, physics, and every other subject you can think of. This brings me to point two:

            What we call “IQ testing” is the reflection of the astonishing finding that all cognitive abilities which are valuable in the context of a modern, industrialized society are positively correlated. Seemingly unrelated skills such a backward-digit span, pitch recognition, and the ability to understand a passage of written prose all tend to rise or fall together — and these correlations are not trivial, but the highest ever documented in the social sciences. Statistically speaking, Sandra who scores high on physics is also likely to write better essays than Mindy who scores low. Occasional exceptions to this rule do not disprove this overall trend. A narrow, one-dimensional measure of a “linear” sort of intelligence, IQ surely is not.

            As for the notion that other cultures have definitions of intelligence that are just as valuable as our own, spare me your chicanery. In the 21st century, there is absolutely no alternative to industrial civilization. The fruits of modern science and engineering have produced a standard of living that is without parallel throughout the entire history of our species. We owe our long lifespans today to immunology, modern sanitation, physics, chemistry, and the fruits of modern medicine — and it is just too bad that IQ tests do an excellent job measuring your ability to succeed in any and all of these fields. Emotional intelligence alone does not build skyscrapers or bridges; neither will it find the cure cancer or sanitize your water supply.

            It is indeed that primitive cultures do honor alternative definitions of intelligence that are perhaps better suited to their environment. For example, the Waripari of Australia teach their children to search for water in the middle of the desert, otherwise they will die from thirst during the dry season. But we don’t. We’ve got geologists and engineers for that. Third world immigrants from hellholes like Haiti and Guinea-Bissau are busy trying to emigrate here, and nobody ever tries to relocate themselves there — so much for their native definitions of intelligence. Once you discount the three Rs (reading, ‘riting, ‘rithmetic), what’s left?

            The twin studies and longitudinal adoption studies demonstrate unequivocally that heredity, and not the environment, is responsible for the vast majority of the variation in IQ scores. If you have ever studied psychometrics, you may recall that the narrow-sense heritability of IQ is roughly 0.5, meaning that heredity is responsible for 50% of the variance in IQ, within the range of environments sampled by the twin studies. This estimate is a *floor*, not a ceiling — people conveniently forget that the “environmental” component also factors in things like dominance, epistasis, and other genetic effects that usually add up to a total of 75% by adulthood.

            And if you have heard somewhere that twin studies are racist, evil, and irredeemably flawed (all of these are lies), we have multiple GWAS studies that largely replicate the same heritability figures for IQ. None of these are biased by the confounding variables that are traditionally blamed for inflating the genetic component to IQ.

            By the way, that 25% that is environmental has almost nothing to do with parenting, school quality, choice of neighborhood, or any other variables that children in the same household share in common until they leave the nest. The longitudinal adoption studies are especially compelling on this matter. (See: the Colorado adoption study) Developmental psychologists (who, by the way, are wrong about just about everything) are beside themselves trying to explain away the pesky fact that the children of low IQ parents, who are adopted by the wealthy, score no higher on IQ tests at age 21 than their siblings who were never given up for adoption.

            If you are incredulous, consider that IQ scores are no higher among Whites in egalitarian, Nordic Sweden than they are in socially stratified America, and may even be slightly lower. How’s that for the power of the environment? And if you don’t believe my words, controlling for race, Americans also score higher on tests of actual academic achievement than every single country in the world. White Americans scores higher on the PISA than any European country. Asian Americans too sweep the board on these tests, scoring higher than even Chinese in Shanghai and Singapore. Latin Americans, too, score higher than any Latin American country that has been tested, although they still score significantly lower than the former two groups.

            In order for egalitarian well-wishers to dismiss away the success of immigrant groups who succeed in our supposedly racist society, in spite of all social odds, you are left in the awkward position of having to argue that Asian and Jewish immigrants have been *more* privileged than their White counterparts throughout the entirety of American history. And of course, we know this just isn’t the case. Sociologists and historians have documented just exactly how Jewish immigrants from Russia lived in places like New York City at the turn of the 20th century — they were wretchedly poor, crowded twenty to thirty a room in ramshackle urban tenements, and chronic sufferers of “crowding” diseases such as tuberculosis and whooping cough. And yet today their descendants are responsible for over 25% of our Nobel Prizes in Science. Ditto for Chinese Americans, who are over-represented in most fields that require scientific or mathematical ability. You try explaining *that* away through nurture.

            Self-selection by immigrants doesn’t explain away this phenomenon, either. Japanese Brazilians were imported to the sugar cane fields of Brazil as manual laborers. And yet mysteriously, they too face affirmative action “quotas” restricting their numbers at elite universities in Brazil. There isn’t a single place on *Earth* where East Asians do not constitute a model minority, and incidentally, these ethnic groups also tend to score higher than the White mean on IQ tests. It’s true in Malaysia, where the Chinese are the descendants of illiterate tin miners. And in Canada, where they were hired to work the railroads.

            By the way, the idea that Jewish people once scored as low as African Americans on IQ tests is a complete lie, and it originates from a discredited article by the Marxist psychologist Leon Kamin. European Jewish people have always been high academic achievers in the United States and elsewhere. The 1920s was when Ivy League universities first instituted quotas restricting the enrollment of Ashkenazi Jews, because they scored too high on their exams of cognitive ability. Contrary to popular belief, no politician in America ever cited the supposed “cognitive inferiority” of Jews as a rationale for the Immigration Act of 1924. Henry H. Goddard, that architect of American eugenics, himself recorded a higher documented IQ for European Jewish immigrants — in 1926, he oversaw a thesis by a Jewish graduate student named Irma Cohen documenting years of psychometric research proving this trend.

            The funniest thing about this hysterical brouhaha over race and IQ is that nowhere in his thesis does Richwine ever posit that ethnic differences in IQ are fixed and hardwired. I challenge you to find a single passage where he does. (Incidentally, neither do Herrnstein and Murray in the notorious Bell Curve.) Hispanics indeed have a lower documented IQ than White Americans, and the gap persists throughout the third and fourth generation, closely following their poor record of academic achievement. (See: “Generations of Exclusion” by sociologists Telles and Ortiz.) Whether or not genetics plays any role is moot. If there were *ever* such a thing as an ethnic group in America that demonstrates minimal progress up the socioeconomic ladder after a hundred years, it would be pretty damn stupid to skyrocket their numbers by rewarding millions of lawbreakers with US citizenship.

            Fact of the matter is, whether or not IQ is real, you people simply do not have an intellectual leg to stand on — your only recourse left is to smear and tarnish the reputations of psychometricians like Eysenck or Jensen, silence any and all debate through hysterical cries of “racism”, or permanently exile any researchers in the social sciences who dare to espouse politically incorrect points of view. Deconstructing Richwine’s thesis through actual facts is simply too complex for some people. No — it’s better concoct fish tales about magical gains in IQ through Head Start and early preschool, the pernicious impact of “stereotype threat” on minority performance, and novel teaching methods that mysteriously close any and all racial gaps on test performance.

            This is what you charlatans in the educational industry are all but good for. And I count myself lucky that I see your chicanery for what it truly is. High IQ or not, the vast majority of people in this country are fools, and it is no credit to the chronic dishonesty from “experts” such as the ignoramus who penned this blog entry.”

          • AndrewInterrupted

            I don’t know of any study that suggests Neanderthal hadn’t evolved separately for something like 400,000 years.

          • Edruezzi

            Physical beauty. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. That’s a cliche, of course, but it is still true. I’m sure that if the average American child grew up seeing mostly black faces on TV and in the movies they’d have a different aesthetic. That aside, even beauty evolves for a reason embedded in the brutal winnowing of nature. Natural selection does not set out with the objective of making white women beautiful. It not only does not do that, it cannot do it. Even if it was sexual selection we are back to the eye of the beholder argument. Evolution has no higher goal or purpose. Lupita Nyong’o or Whoopi Goldberg look the way they do and Jennifer Lawrence and Nicole Kidman look the way they do because of the demands of survival and reproduction in the stone age, not because of natural selection, an insensate and mindless process, striving to elevate one beauty ideal over another.

          • Karolina

            True; I still think the fact that most cultures admire lighter skin (even before they knew of the existence of Europeans), and the large number of plastic surgery to look more Caucasian (especially in SE and East Asia), as well as the bleaching pandemic in South Asia, are proof of ‘something’.

            Look at the multiple surveys which always put White males at the top; this really has to do with White people being featured in movies more so than non-Whites? REALLY? It has to do with Whites having been the strongest powers on Earth for the last few centuries? Again, REALLY?!! After all, a great many non-Whites do not take appreciation to the fact that Whites have been so dominant, remember? If anything, they’d hate us for it, not adore us.

          • Karolina

            Also, the fact that white females have higher estrogen levels and lower testosterone levels compared to black females (for instance), is just one example of why men would favor white females.

          • Max

            I *suspect* that you are smart enough that you are being disingenuous with these arguments. If so, I need not debate because you know the truth, if not, I need not debate because you can’t understand the truth.

          • sddasasd

            I also think it’s the case that most humans derive from an east african population- they are more closely to non-africans, and the physical similarities are clear. That’s not an uncommon belief, however.

            Then again, when the bulk of modern humans left SS africa, I’m pretty sure they- ancient east africans- looked far different than they do now.

            There is also your description of ethiopians: “Considering their fecundity, and the fact that if left alone they definitely self regulate their population via Malthusian principals, further considering how their intellectual deficiencies and pathetic helplessness seems to elicit in more intelligent and compassionate subspecies of humans a suicidal empathy and desire to help…

            Perhaps the Bantu negro is actually a later evolutionary development somehow, eminently suited to surviving in their own brutal and insidious manner…”

            “Malthusian principals,” “deficiencies and pathetic helplessness seems to elicit in more
            intelligent and compassionate subspecies of humans a suicidal empathy
            and desire to help…”- doesn’t this describe ethiopia to a T? A malthusian cesspool reliant on foreign aid due to their own pathetic helplessness and deficiencies? And even moreso their brethrens the somalians, who’s pathologies are well known abroad? But you want to idealize them as some kind of developed ancestor of ours. I guess that must come easily to you, since you unabashedly fetishize neanderthals, which is hardly uncommon among racialists, but you take it another step further.

            What is it about neanderthals that draws you to them? They were physically much more ancestral than modern europeans and bared close resemblance to australian aborigines. Their brain sizes were identical to cro-magnons, which makes them unlikely to have contributed much of anything.

            Well, I do have an idea, but it’s likely related to what I’m guessing is autism on your part.

          • Humanzees.

          • William Krapek

            Yeah but that’s not what we’re really talking about there. They left 600,000 years ago. That’s plenty of time for evolution to have an impact on them. Evolution is actually very fast when animals move into new niches. For example, it sped up dramatically after civilization started.

        • Edruezzi

          Maybe Marvel Comics and Lucasfilm could make a killing exploring that black pyramid story. That stuff belongs in SF, not schools. It doesn’t matter how good it makes black kids feel.

      • NeanderthalDNA

        You sure? They must not have stayed long or seems like the Bantus would have some of my dna in them.

        No Bantu has my DNA in them, I assure you…

        • KevinPhillipsBong

          You share 98% of your DNA with chimps, so of course you have a lot of DNA in common with blacks.

          • NeanderthalDNA

            Yup…

            I was trying to fart out a funny, Kevin…you know, like “me neanaderthal, ugh”, lol.

            Don’t get me wrong and not bragging here (not much at least) but I did pretty well for a non-Bantu, non-Rock Star in my heyday, but…

            No Bantu has my DNA in them, sir, I assure you!

            But good point, Mr. Bong.

          • I have over 90% of my DNA in common with a housefly. Yrchs are 100% compatible with elves, but we have fallen.

          • Jack Burton

            That’s mostly junk DNA, common with all animals.

            Think about the very minute differences in DNA between a low-IQ moron and a high-IQ genius. The devil is in the details.

          • Max

            The fly homology comparison is inaccurate and the “junk” is the least conserved portion of the DNA generally speaking. The highly conserved similar genes are the most essential to living forms as we know them.

          • rightrightright

            Only 2% difference between Europeans and chimps, yet look how different the two species are.

            Only 2.7% difference between Europeans and Africans, yet look how different the two species are.

            We are not supposed to say that.

          • Franklin_Ryckaert

            Europeans and Africans are not two different species but two different sub-species (= varieties or races).

          • Edruezzi

            The human races do not exhibit enough genetic distance to qualify as subspecies.

          • NeanderthalDNA

            I believe that is debatable, but I’m not qualified to debate it. I’ll look into it though.

          • Karolina

            “Only 2% difference between Europeans and chimps, yet look how different the two species are.

            Only 2.7% difference between Europeans and Africans, yet look how different the two species are.”

            So Chimpanzees and Europeans are more related than Europeans and Africans?

            You’ve got that completely wrong.

          • Edruezzi

            You’re free to say whatever you want, sir. It is a free country. The facts are still out there, however. Your 2.7% number is totally wrong. The difference is down to less than 1%.

          • Geo1metric

            But wait…..the chimps invented the airplane, didn’t they? No wait, that was the kenyans… . I get so confused sometimes.

        • WR_the_realist

          I assure you that as a eukaryote you share some of your genes with mushrooms.

        • Abdihakim Saeed

          Ahh, the Neanderthal, an animal so rapt in his self that he set out on a long and arduous campaign to hide his modern existence from MAN. his hairy, obtrusive ridges cloud reason so he set out in an all out war of larceny and misinformation to finally defeat his old nemesis ( MAN), but wait, there is a piece yet revealed in this soap opera. lol I take pride in my birth as an East African (original indigenous man). Peace to my brothers in the blessed land abundant in truth. the scourge has finally reached its zenith only to collapse itself under its false narcissistic hatred. Yahu, and may it consume you. vile, base creature of discord and envy and wickedness.

        • sddasasd

          There are proven back migrations into africa that have given most africans neanderthal DNA. Like bantus.

          Will that lead you to drop your autistic fetishization of neanderthals? Or the fact papuans, abos etc. have it in them too?

    • Karolina

      All life on Earth has a common origin, no matter how far back you go.

      That’s not the reason Blacks and Whites are different; it has to do with evolution independent of each other, not never having a common origin in the first place.

      • Abdihakim Saeed

        I don’t think we share much in common. We from the continent known to you all as “africa” are diverse in our variations of “ugliness” and “beauty” and only recently have we come to think and be base in our behavior, however as an east “african” the innate understanding we have among us concerning Neanderthals or Europeans and those not of africa is akin to studying something not of this world. While we display “savage” behavior to ourselves, there is a quiet conclusion reached of the destructiveness, and utter evil wreaked by this new race we are in contact with. Just reading these comments, the hatred and unfounded arrogance emanating from your words which are physical in characteristic, only adds to the truth we have concluded. Destruction follows you and your “invention” and by all means the cosmos correct such sick diversions from the norm. Apologies, Neanderthal for Man has seen you once before and left you to your abode, only now you found your way out and have spread like a disease. Eating and infecting, but in my human soul I can’t help but feel the antidote brewing in a sweet and swift way. Look around you and what you have caused collectively. YOU, yes YOU, are also guilty, but you will also witness, the measure of MAN. Lol you beautyful creature lol beautiful…

  • Spartacus

    “What this proves is that these genes were helpful for non-Africans in adapting to the environment,”

    ——————————————————————————————————————–

    This man is a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews .

    • JDInSanD

      Doesn’t it also prove that Africans have genes that are unhelpful in adapting to our environment?

  • Brian

    It’s such a small step from this to acknowledging differences between currently living populations of humans. If Neanderthals looked pretty much like humans, and could interbreed with humans, and had some of the rudimentary aspects of culture like basic tool use.. and yet, we were meaningfully different, you’re already right around the corner from admitting that perhaps Negroes and the rest of us represent two distinct, albeit very similar and interbreeding, subspecies.

    I mean frankly, the reconstructions of Neanderthals I have seen are closer in appearance to modern Europeans than Africans are.

    • Evette Coutier

      Just an fyi, Neanderthals actually had more advanced tools than homosapians at the time of their existence. They also had larger brains.

      • Edruezzi

        Neanderthal toolkits were not as advanced as those of humans and showed slower innovation. The rapid extinction of Neanderthals after the entry of modern humans into the Neanderthal range clearly suggests the inability of Homo neanderthalis to compete with Homo sapiens.

        • Evette Coutier

          Actually, that’s not true. Neanderthal had more advanced processes for tool making especially concerning axe development. Moreover, there is a school of thought that Neanderthal did not go extinct due to out competition. They were small in numbers and it has been postulated that they inbred into the current modern Eurasian.

          • Geo1metric

            That idea has a very strong echo today.

            The population of Whites hovers around ten percent of the population of the world. The population of White women of breeding age is around two percent.

          • Evette Coutier

            We could be going the way of the Neanderthal.

        • AndrewInterrupted

          Actually the Neanderthals got tricked by those people who convinced them to engage in something called ‘free trade’.

          Their glue innovation was also ripped-off by those folks. The first known manufacturing process. Innovated by Neanderthal.

      • sddasasd

        No, they didn’t, their brain sizes were identical to that of cro-magnons.

        • Evette Coutier

          That’s simply not try. They had larger skull capacities. The current theory is that the dedicated a greater amount to the visual cortex, less to socialization, and more to body control. But this is all speculation. What is certain is they had larger skulls.

          • sddasasd

            Yes, it is. From wikipedia on cro-magnons:

            “The brain capacity was about 1,600 cubic centimetres (98 cu in), larger than the average for modern humans.”

            Neanderthals: “With an average cranial capacity of 1600 cm3,[11] Neanderthal’s cranial capacity is notably larger than the 1400 cm3 average for modern humans, indicating that their brain size was larger.”

            The current theory is not that, and it’s ignorant to the fact early humans worldwide had much larger brain sizes than they do now (including australia and africa), the basic association between brain size and intelligence, and the fact neanderthals were indeed human.

    • Edruezzi

      Think in terms of branching evolutionary trees. Unless you are prepared to dismiss evolutionary biology as libtard propaganda, the genetic distance between Neanderthals and whites is equal to that between Neanderthals and blacks, irrespective of the introgression of Neanderthal DNA into the non-African population.

  • Romulus

    Modern humans and neanderthals arose from a common ancester 600,000 yrs ago, yet modern humans left africa and then interbred with them already in europe???!!!
    Huh?
    Am i missing something here?

    As mr. Sharps rifle says, however, its nice to know that we’re far removed from blackus africanus!

    • Bantu_Education

      I’m also very confused. Bullshit baffles brains..!

    • Jack Burton

      Compared to Negroes even Neanderthals look acceptable.

      • If I was still single, I’d date a Neanderthal gal before a negress.

        • Jack Burton

          Fair skin, blue eyes, those child-bearing hips… mighty tempting on those cold, lonely nights in the cave.

          • Geo1metric

            Hey, after a couple of gourds of mead, well….

    • Karolina

      Yes, the ancestors of Homo Sapiens and the ancestors of Neanderthals branched off of a common ancestor around 500,000-600,000 years ago (probably Homo heidelbergensi). While the ancestors of the Neanderthal went on to colonize Europe, the ancestors of Homo Sapiens continued to stay in Africa.

      After a couple hundred thousand years (approx. 350-400,000 years ago) the African branch (ancestor of Homo Sapiens) began to evolve INTO Homo Sapiens, and the European branch (ancestor of Neanderthal) began to evolve into Neanderthal.

      Homo Sapiens itself began to ‘branch out’ around 60,000-100,000 years ago (although I think it may have been quite a bit longer than that), with one group staying in sub-Saharan Africa (ancestors of the Negroes), and the other group going out to conquer the world (everyone else’s ancestors). The group that went on to colonize the world found the Neanderthal and interbreed with them (as well as probably pushed them into extinction).

    • Abdihakim Saeed

      No, in fact it did not. You are what you are and out of the land of truth you have no ties. Yahu, and may it consume you, arrogant ward.

  • bigone4u

    Our Neanderthal genes provide us with another fact to use in arguing against people like my old department chair at the university. Her opinion was that all humans are identical and that it was dangerous for me to express my contrary opinion. A sharp white student arguing for a white student union has a lot of science going for him, not that it would matter to a libtard.

    • Whitey Ryan

      And the libs hilariously claim to be the pro-science ones.

      • Franklin_Ryckaert

        They are pro Marxist “science”. Ask the Lysenkoists what that means.

      • Edruezzi

        So if the wind makes the bushes rustle the wrong way and it scares you the Liberals did it. Cool

    • Edruezzi

      4% alien DNA when you share the rest (96%) with the other humans definitely provides good grounds for separatism. When I was a student in an international school in Australia if I got 96% on a test and someone else got 100% I wouldn’t consider that doing too badly.

      • AndrewInterrupted

        Supposedly, Dr. Paabo’s people found much higher amounts of Neanderthal DNA in the Caucasus region. Those Chechen/Khazar lunatic types.

    • Edruezzi

      I wonder who’s “tarded” the libtard professor, or the person arguing for separateness on the basis of less than 5% DNA inherited from cavemen who died out 35,000 years ago. I reckon you’re a white American. Well, statistically, a white American whose family was in the US at least before 1820 probably has more DNA from African Americans than he does from Neanderthals.

  • Extropico

    I knew I had the genes of a spelean troglodyte. Avoiding the MSM narrative- So easy a caveman can do it.

  • negrolocaust

    three blacks just beat a 60 yr old white bus driver in knockout attack flint mi.

  • wildfirexx

    Another possible theory to add to our recent evolution of mankind! It does make some sense, that survival of the fittest in our genetic makeup could result in our lighter skin, hair and eye color that the Neanderthal’s passed on. But our Cro-Magnon features we probably brought with us from Central Asia and Africa.
    The unravelling of our recent human evolution puzzle from DNA genetic research over the last few years is finally starting to show some merit ! Looking forward to more evidence to support this theory.

    • wildfirexx

      I wonder who seduced Who ?

      • NeanderthalDNA

        I think I’ve seen that guy somewhere…

        Riding a Harley? Shaving with a handaxe?

        • wildfirexx

          A close relative, Maybe!
          ( Neanderthal Museum in Germany)

        • Franklin_Ryckaert

          Google : Richard Falk pictures for a glimp of a modern walking Neanderthal.

      • William Krapek

        Yeah but he looked funny. Chicks dig guys with a sense of humor.

      • Max

        Well that may be fun but a more accurate representation is the Neanderthal mating with a black African and the family migrating north, never to return.

        The girl would be the result many generations later, H.sapiens sapiens.

  • negrolocaust

    FLINT, MI — The attorney for a teen arrested in connection with the assault of a Mass
    Transportation Authority bus driver said he doesn’t believe his client was involved in a so-called “knock-out” game.

    Attorney Nicholas R. Robinson also said in an email that his client
    doesn’t know the other teens who may have been involved in the attack.

    Robinson said that his investigation has
    uncovered no evidence to indicate that his client was involved in a
    so-called “knock-out” game.

    Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton said he never called the
    assault on the MTA bus driver the “knock-out” game. Leyton said two
    juveniles have been charged with assault with intent to do great bodily
    harm. He said one of the juveniles is suspected of hitting the driver
    and one is suspected of recording the incident.

    “According to the police report, they conspired to do exactly what
    occurred,” said Leyton about the assault and recording of the attack.

    The Flint bus incident occurred around 6:40 p.m. Thursday, Jan. 23, when a man was attacked while
    driving the bus.The driver suffered several facial injuries, according to police.

    Police originally said the incident occurred because one of the suspects
    was
    upset about having to pay a bus fare. While Leyton is not referring to the attack as the “knock-out” game, Flint police are. Flint police Capt. Collin Birnie told The Flint Journal further investigation showed it was a planned attack.

    A third suspect who police believe helped orchestrate it remains
    at large. Anyone with information about the whereabouts of the third suspect is asked
    to call Flint police at 810-237-6801 or Crime Stoppers at 1-800-SPEAK-UP.

  • LHathaway

    “Mr. Vernot and Dr. Akey looked for unusual mutations in the genomes of 379 Europeans and 286 Asians. The segments of DNA that contained these mutations turned out to be from Neanderthals”.

    So, if it’s an unusual genome, ‘it’s Neaderthal’. I bet in their off-time these scientist do global warming research.

  • Jack Burton

    Archaic admixture may play a bigger role in racial and cognitive differences than we think.

    Europeans and Asians have around 2% Neanderthal ancestry. Despite the stereotype of a stupid Neanderthal, there is evidence that the D allele of microcephalin may have come from Neanderthal admixture, and may influence brain development and brain volume. The distribution of the D allele of microcephalin is high in Europe and Asia but low in sub-Saharan Africa.

    Australoids have a different archaic admixture, Denisovan, which is at 4% on average.

    Sub-Saharan Africans have a yet unknown source of archaic admixture, perhaps the reason for their 3% incidence of polydontia.

    • I would encourage anyone interested in the subject to read Erectus Walks Amongst Us by Richard D. Fuerle. The whole text is available for free online. http://erectuswalksamongst. us/

  • William Krapek

    So we are NOT out of Africa. Not the part that makes all the magic, anyway.

    🙂

  • scutum

    “Modern humans evolved in Africa and spread out into Asia and Europe”. I don’t think so, how owuld this be possible when there is no evedence modern humans ever resided in Africa. The evidence indicates that the inhabitants of Africa were Homo Erectus and that modern Africa is inhabited by the descendents of Homo Erectus.

  • scutum

    Homo erectus heads were strikingly different from ours in shape. They
    had relatively strong muscles on the back of their necks. Their foreheads were
    shallow, sloping back from very prominent bony brow ridges (i.e., supraorbital tori)
    Compared to modern humans, the Homo erectus brain case was more
    elongated from front to back and less spherical. As a consequence, the frontal and temporal lobes of their brains were narrower, suggesting that they would have had somewhat
    lower mental ability.

    One of the first specimens identified as
    Homo erectus was the Java Man fossil discovered in 1891. Orginally named
    Pithecanthropus erectus, it was not recognised as a close human relative at first, as
    old theories held that our ancestors would have had human brains and ape-like bodies, rather than the converse.

  • Alucard_the_last

    Blacks are homo erectus not homo sapiens. They have more in common with animals than man.

  • M&S

    Neanderthal got locked out of their principle hunting ranges and perhaps savaged by contagions as much as spear brought by the outsider group. Yet here we are destroying the gulf that separates us from the other competing species without understanding what horrific damage to our own evolutionary thresholding we may be doing.
    We need to look at Neanderthal as a lesson equivalent to Hawaii or New Zealand wherein a Darwinian terrain isolate was invaded by cats and rats and pigs brought by ships and all the non-threat adapted species (ground living birds etc.) not already gutted by the previous locals ended up being further attrited to nothing.
    My personal bet is that the markers we’re using to define peoples (Denisovans in particular bred with Neanderthal but not all humans) are much more fluid than we think and that they represent, not LCA but rather the differentiation plateau indicator for failed speciation sweeps overtaken by much larger populations flooding in due to disaster or population expansion.

    • AndrewInterrupted

      I’ve been trying to make that point here also. Western Europeans evolved higher and differently. Several “regulars” here dumb down the equation by isolating and fixating on IQ tests. Western Europeans evolved with a high number of specialists. IQ is just the agrarian metric.

      • M&S

        Ironically whites, because of our high conceptual intelligence, are often mistakenly classified as being generalists which is to say ‘good at everything but not excellent at anything’. This is the basis of the false conception of a 100 IQ median intelligence.
        The exact opposite is the case because what conceptualism does is allow broad topic confluence and synergism which requires ‘connections’ with multiple areas of verbal, math-spatial and rational centers, concurrently.
        The value of whose collective synthesis output is never greater than the ability of any one contributor to provide good data points (GIGO applies).
        My understanding of B10 is that it acts like a high charge capacitor relay for holding multiple strategic and active working-process goal mental states in cohesive combination with each other so as to formulate more complex work theories as efficient execution pathways.
        Ethics/morality is then likely a study in what is rewarding to efficiency because if mediates a path between blatant forcing condition risk and adaptive workaround. We live in a soft society where workaround has been emphasized over forcing condition and so have lost much of what is explicit in the notion that long term loss outweighs short term aversion gains to define the breakout position where risk is essential for survival.
        We have become the people we defeated, as the new Neanderthals, being forced out of our own living spaces by high TFR _invited_ interlopers.
        Without the balance of struggle against a hard environment we are losing the ability to spike our own risk conditioned behaviors in responding to exogroup racial stress as an alternative to reproductive annihilation. Conditions which we likely never faced during our prior evolution in a protected Terrain Isolate environment.
        While I am not altogether convinced that it is functionally explicit (humans already have something like a 7:1 volumetric improvement over bonobos in this area) via braincase morphology; it would stand to reason that any population facing a much more adverse environmental norm as on the interglacial Eurasian plateau, would selecto out those individuals whose near term -failure to foresee- a far field conditioned ‘mistake in progress’ as late recognition = no immediate resources to apply to the problem.
        Thus Europeans, would have more active function in that area which overrides the nominal 1-3% difference between black and white B10 volumes.
        That this also stimulates ethical behavior as the knowledge of what is right vs. empathic behavior as the moral ‘feeling’ of it is no surprise.
        Again, what appears to be happening within the B10 prefrontals area is layered fatty insulators protecting a granular sieve backplane transfer grid circuit for pyramidal ‘capacitor’ memory stacks holding high-charge cellular imprint data from other brain centers in clusters of active memory for much more prolonged periods of immediate recall.
        This may certainly be part of what drives us to constant higher levels of internalized ‘mustn’t vs. can’t’ behavioral constraints as we live within our conscience rather than having it remind us only in the wake of accident or misstep.
        But it is also a working bus controller MCP, enabling more of our brains individual centers to be selectively active in processing complex process trees of statistical weighting essentials to greater depths of outcome bias than many other races can master. i.e. We have a compromise of selective brain function in any one region feeding prefrontals which serve as a buffer page store once that region shuts down and another goes active to contribute it’s datums.
        We are comfortable within our virtual environment as a quantum tangle of memory neuron tubicles discharging into our ‘living mind’ and B10 serves as the sifting translator as much as CRT screen for how that virtual dialogue prints out within our active conscience.
        Where this is a function of very high caloric rate intake and very high thermal margins, it is quite likely that peoples living in the mid latitudes around the equator actually selected -against- it’s development, not simply as a low hanging fruit argument but because they couldn’t afford the system penalties that those living in the higher temperate climes (and eating a lot of fish and other high density ‘brain food’ proteins and fats too) could as much as had to.
        If half of what I guess is true, it is likely too late to reverse this process in the other subspecies of man. It may also well be that it has created in us, our ‘own little world’ shortcomings of imaginative or dissonance driven (OCD etc.) behaviors which we are less well attuned to recognizing as the biologic realities of simple living tissue because we are, ironically, less listeners to our own instincts than the masters of the data trains that that biology produces.
        Still, we must not allow what we have become to be backdated to what those who have evolved separately, _cannot be_ in the hopes of a better hybrid. And that is what multiculturalism seeks to force upon us.
        We must specifically not allow social aversion training to cause us to fail to note and grade the racial differences which prevent us from recognizing in ourselves, the wondrous nature of who we are as a distinct genetic lineage with our own, evolutionarily separate, worth.
        As part of this, we NEED to reestablish our Terrain Isolates and move forward within our own evolutionary pathway. Not invite other racial groups to try and turn our living spaces into models for their own primitivism.
        We must not become the new Neanderthals.

        • AndrewInterrupted

          What he/she said…..<;-)

          • Max

            It will be on another planet or in another dimension. This is filled forever with intractable debris.

          • AndrewInterrupted

            Yes, we weren’t checking for termites.

  • Edruezzi

    Ah, the Neanderthals, a proud species that never got around to the concept of art and that never crossed a body of water without land visible on the horizon.

  • ShermanTMcCoy

    Ever since the discovery in 2010 that apes interbred with the ancestors of living humans, scientists have been trying to determine how their DNA affects africans today.

    • How does this admixture affect modern Africans?

      They’re really stupid. How’s that for a start?

    • sddasasd

      So you consider neanderthals apes?

  • NeanderthalDNA

    Excellent graphic. More to be added soon…

  • Truth Teller

    What about the the thetans, a sort of scientology 100 million bc clam?

  • Max

    They *can* but they don’t.

    If Africans had the genetic contribution of the Neanderthals from the period in question, they would be, and are what we call “white”. I’m the guy you are looking for, a white, Anglo-European.

  • Max

    You may want to review your systematics.

  • Karolina

    It seems you replied seven different times and six of them were deleted before I could even read what you said.

    The comment I’m responding to is the only one that went through.

    Never exceed 100,000 years? It’s ALREADY 125,000 years. Wow, so much for your predictions. Already wrong before you posted them.

    Once again: http://www.sciencenews . org /article/ hints-earlier-human-exit-africa

  • AndrewInterrupted

    The out-of-Asia theory might better explain the Denisovan sites?

  • ShermanTMcCoy

    Thanks for that. I can understand now why bantus are so unviable, i.e., useless.

  • sddasasd

    Neanderthal DNA in aborigines is barely different than that of eurasians. Other australoids like papuans and many melanesians are much less archaic looking despite the same archaic ancestry.