What is our effective Neanderthal/Denisovan ancestry?

[Kale]

These may not be exact figures, but it's to build the question
1) Whole genome base pair similarity between humans and neanderthals is roughly 99.7%
2) We have in inherited 1-4% of our whole genome base pair similarity from neanderthals
3) 98% of human genome does not code for any protein, i.e. they are not functioning genes. (so 98% of statistic 1 doesn't matter)
4) Humans have about 20,000 genes (that actually do something)
5) Our effective Neanderthal ancestry is (# of Neanderthal inherited genes)/20,000

What is our effective Neanderthal (or Denisovan) ancestry?

[armenianbodyhair]

If you want help with math homework, this is probably not the best place to get it.

[Kale]

If you want help with math homework, this is probably not the best place to get it.

Thank you for the bump. Actually not really because your signature if fucking disgusting and is slowing the crap out of my browser.

[Time Traveller]

Denisovans were either an outbred Neanderthal group or a hybrid Neanderthal-mystery hominid mix. They share too much Neanderthal DNA to be a different species. The effective Neanderthal ancestry is 99% since everyone shares more similarities with Neanderthals than San, Yoruba, the French or any other so-called "modern human." 1-4% is a bare minimum estimate as the Neanderthal genome hasn't been fully mapped yet. It's the equivalent of having a great-great Neanderthal grandparent.

[Stefan]

I just read an article recently about Tibetans and a Denisovan-originated gene which allows them to produce more hemoglobin in their blood.

http://news.sciencemag.org/archaeology/2014/07/tibetans-inherited-high-altitude-gene-ancient-human

[Time Traveller]

I just read an article recently about Tibetans and a Denisovan-originated gene which allows them to produce more hemoglobin in their blood.

http://news.sciencemag.org/archaeology/2014/07/tibetans-inherited-high-altitude-gene-ancient-human

We are quickly learning that most of the things we like to chalk up to our own "adaptations" were in fact the achievements of earlier, more robust predecessors of today's pathetic people.

[Kale]

Denisovans were either an outbred Neanderthal group or a hybrid Neanderthal-mystery hominid mix. They share too much Neanderthal DNA to be a different species. The effective Neanderthal ancestry is 99% since everyone shares more similarities with Neanderthals than San, Yoruba, the French or any other so-called "modern human." 1-4% is a bare minimum estimate as the Neanderthal genome hasn't been fully mapped yet. It's the equivalent of having a great-great Neanderthal grandparent.

I'm not doubting the percentage is a lot, given the great phenotypical overlap, but 99% sounds a bit much. Got any links?

[Prisoner Of Ice]

You can't really calculate it that way. The main reason being selection, both positive and negative. You also can't tell for sure what genes are fixed in human or euro population that originate with neanderthals because they don't get tagged as neanderthal in the first place.

Evolution has also sped up a great deal with increased populations and farming. The main difference between europeans and africans on a PCA chart is europeans are fixed for a large number of genes that came about this way.

So the overall percentage of genes has nothing to do with the ancestry.

On the other hand, simple features that are probably neutral but we know originate with neanderthals, are probably a good indicator. Greek toe originates in neanderthals and rh - almost certainly does as well. Judging by those frequencies europe as a whole has about 15% neanderthal ancestry, and much higher in some areas. Back when blood tests were still novel UK showed about 30% rh-, and up to 40% in some places. Now it's around 20% which shows how quickly outside mixing is happening.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

bump

[Gauthier]

Not sure. On 23andme I get 2.8% Neanderthal and on the Stanford Interpretome I get 5%. So go figure.

http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/103/4mak.jpg (http://img829.imageshack.us/i/4mak.jpg/)

[Linebacker]

Average people got around 3%.And thats normal.

Anything above 10% and you will not look human.

[Kale]

You can't really calculate it that way. The main reason being selection, both positive and negative. You also can't tell for sure what genes are fixed in human or euro population that originate with neanderthals because they don't get tagged as neanderthal in the first place.

Evolution has also sped up a great deal with increased populations and farming. The main difference between europeans and africans on a PCA chart is europeans are fixed for a large number of genes that came about this way.

So the overall percentage of genes has nothing to do with the ancestry.

On the other hand, simple features that are probably neutral but we know originate with neanderthals, are probably a good indicator. Greek toe originates in neanderthals and rh - almost certainly does as well. Judging by those frequencies europe as a whole has about 15% neanderthal ancestry, and much higher in some areas. Back when blood tests were still novel UK showed about 30% rh-, and up to 40% in some places. Now it's around 20% which shows how quickly outside mixing is happening.

You're completely right. Ancestry though, is out of my 1024 great-great-gajillion-great-grandparents. 619 were from England, 28 from Germany, and the rest were fish. Maybe all my fish DNA got selected out, but that's fine...because I'm not asking how many fish ancestors I have, I'm asking how many fish genes I have.

[Kale]

Average people got around 3%.And thats normal.

Anything above 10% and you will not look human.

I don't know man...you must not have been to many folk metal concerts. :P

[Ice Brother]

I'm not doubting the percentage is a lot, given the great phenotypical overlap, but 99% sounds a bit much. Got any links?

This is not a scientific source but a compilation of scientific data found at the Atala.FR website, which neatly and precisely explains it.

You are 99.7% Neanderthal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO1CwnIsC00

[armenianbodyhair]

Thank you for the bump. Actually not really because your signature if fucking disgusting and is slowing the crap out of my browser.

She is a prime example of the path of human evolution, what's not to like.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

You're completely right. Ancestry though, is out of my 1024 great-great-gajillion-great-grandparents. 619 were from England, 28 from Germany, and the rest were fish. Maybe all my fish DNA got selected out, but that's fine...because I'm not asking how many fish ancestors I have, I'm asking how many fish genes I have.

Nope, wrong again. Every generation genes mutate a bit, and sometimes they stick. There's not really any proof of ANY genes being introduced to europe at any time until recently. Every change between neanderthals and modern europeans could easily have developed in situ.

The only way to give evidence of this is to sequence an ancient population and see that it has genes that exist in humans today, but didn't exist in neanderthals, which is older than the neanderthal DNA we've sampled.
Otherwise you are just making up a fantasy. That doesn't exist, not for one single autosomal gene.

So that is the question here. There's only a couple possibilities.

1. All of it evolved in europe from the neanderthal we know about.
2. All of the difference already existed in some mystery population that came to europe. Who? Where? Why are those genes no longer in that location any more?!?!
3. All the populations in europe were isolated from each other and the genes we see today are just the result of increasing outbreeding.

For scenario 1 we know that there's thousands of genes that this did happen. Scenario 2 is made up by this marxist guy in sweden who was sure no neanderthal genes existed in humans. Scenario 3 is certainly some part of it but it is impossible to tell how much of a part without sampling more neanderthals.

So basically you can make up whatever fantasy you want, but before declaring one the winner I expect to have quite a bit of proof, and there isn't any for the migration theory crap.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

For that matter the glaring flaw comes up that you can't point to this anatomically modern population in the first place. It doesn't really exist until suddenly 35-40k years ago the fossils show up fully modern looking. 90k years ago in levant you still have obvious neanderthal. At 130k you have something in africa, but it's incomplete and on the border of the levant, and not really that modern. The 750k year old homo erectuses in china are more modern looking and have bigger brain sizes. Whoops.

It's not science or archaeology, it's pure anthropology. IE made up guesses.

[Ice Brother]

For that matter the glaring flaw comes up that you can't point to this anatomically modern population in the first place. It doesn't really exist until suddenly 35-40k years ago the fossils show up fully modern looking.

Actually, brother, I am not so sure that any fully modern looking skulls exist 35,000 years ago. The only skulls during this time in Europe are Saint Cesaire 1 (Neanderthal), Neanderthal fragments associated with Aurignacian and Chatelperronian cultures throughout Spain and France, the Oase remains (which Trinkaus has shown to have Neanderthal morphologies), and not much else. Even in the late 20,000s you have strong Neanderthal features at Predmosti and Dolni Vestonice. There is Chancelade and Grimaldi, but Grimaldi is highly controversial, and Chancelade, like all of the Upper Paleolithic Europeans is closer to Neanderthals and very distinct from the typical strain of humanity that inhabits most of the world. In the Magdalenian period there are next to no remains at all, Neanderthal or modern. I'd say that truly modern looking people didn't even appear until the Holocene. Which would make sense. So-called "anatomical modernity" is nothing but a degenerative state caused by an agricultural lifestyle. Out-Of-Africa fails to explain why Arikara Indians very closely match Neanderthals according to K=5 metric analysis.

[Herr Abubu]

You can't really calculate it that way. The main reason being selection, both positive and negative. You also can't tell for sure what genes are fixed in human or euro population that originate with neanderthals because they don't get tagged as neanderthal in the first place.

Evolution has also sped up a great deal with increased populations and farming. The main difference between europeans and africans on a PCA chart is europeans are fixed for a large number of genes that came about this way.

So the overall percentage of genes has nothing to do with the ancestry.

On the other hand, simple features that are probably neutral but we know originate with neanderthals, are probably a good indicator. Greek toe originates in neanderthals and rh - almost certainly does as well. Judging by those frequencies europe as a whole has about 15% neanderthal ancestry, and much higher in some areas. Back when blood tests were still novel UK showed about 30% rh-, and up to 40% in some places. Now it's around 20% which shows how quickly outside mixing is happening.

There is a genetic calculator that usually calculates Neanderthal ancestry in Europeans much higher than is usual. Someone posted it here on TA some time ago.

Edit: http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?92497-Felix-Neanderthal-Calculator&highlight=neanderthal+calculator

[Kale]

Nope, wrong again.

WTF? I clarified a question I was asking. What if this happened.
Melonhead: What does a starfruit taste like?
Me: WRONG!!!!@@!!!

Ok. You want an evidence.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/07/altitude-adaptation-in-tibetans-came.html

Tibetans got one. How many more?

[Prisoner Of Ice]

There is a genetic calculator that usually calculates Neanderthal ancestry in Europeans much higher than is usual. Someone posted it here on TA some time ago.

Edit: http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?92497-Felix-Neanderthal-Calculator&highlight=neanderthal+calculator

The number of genes is definitely higher than most of the calculators estimate, but the percentage of ancestry is not the same thing, and is probably much higher. It could even be that the amount is actually 100% and neanderthal evolved into people today completely in place.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

WTF? I clarified a question I was asking. What if this happened.
Melonhead: What does a starfruit taste like?
Me: WRONG!!!!@@!!!



Nope, wrong yet again. This is why it is so frustrating to talk to you. You are either trolling or else have some severe inability to understand this subject matter.



Ok. You want an evidence.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/07/altitude-adaptation-in-tibetans-came.html

Tibetans got one. How many more?

We know that genes came from neanderthals and denisovans, what is not proved is the other way around, that the genes we have today that do not show up in ancient neanderthals, were around at that time and evolved somewhere besides neanderthals. There's no proof that any genes came from any other source. Not one single gene. Not even for mtdna!

If you take a gene someone has today, there is no way to tell where it came from except to find some ancient DNA source we can attribute it to. Since we don't have ancient preneanderthal 'modern' DNA, or fossils that belong to them, and no CULTURE which shows evidence of a migration, it could be they simply didn't exist at all and the whole idea is a fantasy. The lack of a culture to attribute to them which shows migrations out of africa (or anywhere else) is especially damning since tools and such are very durable and therefore much more common. Recently archaeologists looking for out of africa evidence went to the levant to look for evidence by digging sites and doing dating. What they found was clear sings of migration into africa from the levant from 100k years until 50k years. Whoops. So the archaeology shows ancient europeans moving into north africa and ancient levantines doing the same so I guess that they need to come up with an out of atlantis theory.

Like I said already, the majority of the difference between europeans and africans on a PCA plot are genes that are fixed in european population, which occurred in the farming era. Evolution in last 10k years has been faster than in the 500k years before that, due to higher population levels. So it could in fact be not one single gene came out of africa or any other place to europe in ancient times. Let alone the case that people like modern humans existed in some mystery place we don't know about and then showed up one day and totally replaced neanderthals.

The only way to prove this happened is to come up with a population that has genes we have today but is concurrent with neanderthals. Considering one skeleton in europe only 30k years ago sequenced to be a full neanderthal and they are supposed to be extinct by then, you might be waiting a long time.

[Kale]

Nope, wrong yet again. This is why it is so frustrating to talk to you. You are either trolling or else have some severe inability to understand this subject matter.

Nope, wrong yet again. This is why it is so frustrating to talk to you. You are either incapable of reading, or have taken your supervillain form, albinonig, and start chimping out everywhere. That's why your name is Melonhead right? Be thuggin' wit dem watamelonz yo?

In regards to your Neanderthal-CroMag continuation theory, I'll have to consider it a possibility because I haven't yet found anything that goes against it, granted I haven't looked to hard.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Nope, wrong yet again. This is why it is so frustrating to talk to you. You are either incapable of reading, or have taken your supervillain form, albinonig, and start chimping out everywhere. That's why your name is Melonhead right? Be thuggin' wit dem watamelonz yo?

Pathetic, dude. Obviously you are the one not understanding things, not me. I have to explain the simplest thing to you ten times.



In regards to your Neanderthal-CroMag continuation theory,


That's not my theory per se, but one that's been around since forever.



I'll have to consider it a possibility because I haven't yet found anything that goes against it, granted I haven't looked to hard.

The main thing that goes against it is that they look different. However since now we know the looks in neanderthals are mostly epigenetic changes brought on by cold weather, and we've sequenced bone fragments that are merely 30k years old that have turned out to be fully neanderthal, maybe this is the main explanation.

Regardless, we now know most of the genes different between neanderthals and people today are actually very new genes. That doesn't mean that cromags evolved from neanderthals for sure though. I am not sure I believe that. Probably a combination of in situ evolution, mixing of small bands in europe we don't know about, and migrations from siberia and central asia of some kind of cromag-like population. There could be a migration out of africa before than bt if so my guess is 1 million years plus. Definitely not in last 100k.

[Kale]

Pathetic, dude. Obviously you are the one not understanding things, not me. I have to explain the simplest thing to you ten times.

Ok. I am just going to ignore anything Watermelonhead says now...or at least not take it personally/seriously...as he can't help it.


The main thing that goes against it is that they look different. However since now we know the looks in neanderthals are mostly epigenetic changes brought on by cold weather, and we've sequenced bone fragments that are merely 30k years old that have turned out to be fully neanderthal, maybe this is the main explanation.

Regardless, we now know most of the genes different between neanderthals and people today are actually very new genes. That doesn't mean that cromags evolved from neanderthals for sure though. I am not sure I believe that. Probably a combination of in situ evolution, mixing of small bands in europe we don't know about, and migrations from siberia and central asia of some kind of cromag-like population. There could be a migration out of africa before than bt if so my guess is 1 million years plus. Definitely not in last 100k.

My guess is an out of Africa migration about 1.8 million years ago. We all farted around Europe and Asia for a while. Whenever a new, beneficial gene showed up, it spread like wildfire with minimal migrations, allowing individual populations to diverge. These new genes will have developed everywhere; Europe, Siberia, East Asia, South Asia...but only the population in the middle would have gotten them all (somewhere in the Middle East). From there 100-200kya, one group split off and went into Africa, got isolated in the jungle (so new genes did not get shared much), and now we have Africans. Back in the Middle East, genes kept getting spread around, eventually making the positively selected ones fixed.