BBC Focus Magazine

[Liam Sheppard]

Apparently it is official that all non-Africans have Neanderthal DNA in them (about 2.5%)
but some people today may have considerably more!

http://io9.com/5822357/confirmed-all-no ... eanderthal

what if any traits do you think those people may have?

stronger muscles? more hair? Blue eyes?

discuss

[MikeG]

2.5% is actually a huge amount. Less than that differentiates us from chimpanzees.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Such a high percentage makes me think that we may have been very much more closely related to Neanderthals than previously thought.

As to traits, well I guess you would have to compare actual percentages with physical characteristics over a reasonable population sample but I would expect physical strength may well be one factor to look for, skull shape perhaps and the proportional length of long bones in the arms and legs....... My eyes are not blue but I am beginning to wonder what percentage of Neanderthal I have in my genes though.

[Liam Sheppard]

ginger hair?

[MikeG]

It would be interesting to see an analysis of DNA percentage from South to North. If there were a significant variation, and the highest concentration of DNA is found North (Scandinavia), then perhaps this can also explain the disappearance of the Neanderthal. I assume here that being 2 different species (or sub-species since they could produce viable offspring), Neanderthals were light skinned and fair, whereas the human population was darker skinned and dark haired.

I take it as a given, that whenever humans saw the blond neanderthal women, their reaction was pretty much the same as today. That is, jaw drops, tongue rolls out, eyes bulge...you get the picture . If the neanderthal women caused such a reaction, they were probably highly prized and sought after. Given that they were much smaller as a population than humans, it didn't take long for them to be absorbed into the general population, remaining only as percentage of our own DNA. This would explain their apparently non-violent demise. The fact that they were concentrated up North, would explain the reason why Scandinavians are fairer.

We've seen similar scenarios play out in recent history, so don't laugh out loud just yet. When the Turks arrived from Mongolia, they were also short and dark skinned. As soon as they laid eyes on the Balkan women, they preferred them to their own, to the extent that you would never guess that Turks are not an indigenous people in the area they now occupy, while the people that once lived in what is now modern Turkey are nowhere to be seen.

[M Paul Lloyd]

while the people that once lived in what is now modern Turkey are nowhere to be seen.

Well............... Cagla Sikel springs to mind.........

[Liam Sheppard]

Neanderthals were in europe for 500,000 years from Portugal to the Altai Mountains in Russia.
Where another common ancestor (1.3M bp) of Homo Sapiens and Neamderthals has possibly been found.

I assume that the Genes are not concentrated in any one area but pervasive across europe with maybe pockets of higher concentrations on Portugal annd South France (the Neanderthals last refuge).

However I think it is more likely that there are no outwardly distinctive physical traits obvious in todays populous.

More likely just some differences in the immune system or Bone size.

It would be pretty amazing if there were one or more archaic human genes present in us all today, and giving us some advantage maybe!? Maybe it was this union that started the genetic explosion of Homo sapiens making huge leaps in technology from 40,000 years ago to today!?!? Although that wouldn't explain Far Eastern Homo Sapiens making the same leaps almost independently.

However, revealing the Neanderthal genes in modrn people may give rise to another form of racism... or specism if you will.

[Shadowwolf]

Possibly, however, as it is not a visible trait there would need to be a fairly comprehensive DNA test to ascertain it; bit hard to discriminate on that currently.

Regards the increasing rate of technological development, not sure how much that would be related to genetic change. More of an exponential increase, roughly speaking the more tech develops the less amount of time it takes to reach the next step.

[Liam Sheppard]

indeed, I agree. I think that Modern Humans had the same potential to walk on the moon if they were alive today. However there is/was a school of thought that proffered the idea that there was a genetic change that kick-started a cultural revolution in humans... Probably to do with language.

But I think that technological advances came about through an increase in trade through contact.
and that the ability to develop was always there just never used.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Competition for dwindling resources may have played a part in forcing us to change lifestyles, with tool use going from something useful to absolutely essential for survival whilst over-running and assimilating other species in the process?