How the Neanderthals became the Basques

Discussions on other historical eras.
User avatar
waldzee
Banned
Posts: 1422
Joined: 03 Feb 2012 03:44
Location: Calgary Alberta

Adoph's African Grandpappy?

Post by waldzee » 12 Apr 2012 04:30

This fascinaitng website
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_h ... tml#Berber explains why the Basques, Like the Saami, Ingush, etc.,are a 'corner isolate outlier' but no more Neanderthal than you or I! ( also no less)

It also explains ( drum roll, wait for it !) the 2010 DNA study that revealed dthat Adoph Hitler , Like Napoleon , had the North African Berber RECENT acquired dreaded Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA)Which his ancestors may have obtained from a ................., or a Berber- Lybian travelling sales rep... in theory , within the last few generations.

The Daily mail blurb...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... eveal.html

User avatar
Dieter Zinke
In memoriam
Posts: 9828
Joined: 02 Dec 2003 09:12
Location: Koblenz / germany

Re: Adoph's African Grandpappy?

Post by Dieter Zinke » 15 Apr 2012 14:12

Good grief,

surely it would be better to post the correct proper names of the contemporary individuals then to lose yourself in an absurd rampant speculation.

The name I'm refering is Adolf - and not "Adoph" Hitler.

However the following remains true: In place of attention you earn little beyond spiteful remarks !

Dieter Z.

User avatar
waldzee
Banned
Posts: 1422
Joined: 03 Feb 2012 03:44
Location: Calgary Alberta

Re: How the Neanderthals became the Basques

Post by waldzee » 15 Apr 2012 17:07

Thank you Dieter!

It is important to read the dissertations inthe first link, & at best, skim the Daily Mail's account.
An Iryllian ancestor is the 'likely senario'. a haplogroup is a 'marker', as DNA is a complex relationship.

HFK
Member
Posts: 815
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 05:19
Location: Katy TX USA

Re: How the Neanderthals became the Basques

Post by HFK » 16 Apr 2012 11:12

Sorry, but this topic is ridiculous, and based on guesswork and speculation. And who were or are Iryllians ?

Harry

User avatar
waldzee
Banned
Posts: 1422
Joined: 03 Feb 2012 03:44
Location: Calgary Alberta

Re: How the Neanderthals became the Basques

Post by waldzee » 16 Apr 2012 14:36

Hi Harry:
Read the dissertation instead of the Daily Mail's blurb.

My point is that reading a 'blurb' in a tabloid ,& posting on it, or getting 'vexed' by it, is a waste of time. It is impossible for rthe Basques to have evolved separately from the neanderthal. NADA.
There are multiple senarios for the unique Hitler Y-marker. But if you won't read the posted link- don't ask for a clarification.

User avatar
waldzee
Banned
Posts: 1422
Joined: 03 Feb 2012 03:44
Location: Calgary Alberta

Re: How the Neanderthals became the Basques

Post by waldzee » 17 Apr 2012 17:10

Additon: The e1e1b marker(s) exist throughout Germany at a 5-7% level- so the Hitler/heidler marker is unusual, bu tnot unexpectedly so.

User avatar
Vikki
Forum Staff
Posts: 3300
Joined: 08 Jul 2003 01:35
Location: Amerika

Re: How the Neanderthals became the Basques

Post by Vikki » 01 Mar 2013 08:17

Ironmachine wrote:
Vikki wrote:Even more interesting is the bloodtype and Rh distribution among the Basques in the early twentieth century:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... 7-0062.pdf
Not so interesting, it seems:
http://hemeroteca.abc.es/nav/Navigate.e ... 9/064.html
http://hemeroteca.abc.es/nav/Navigate.e ... 9/065.html
It would be great if you could translate a synopsis of the articles here, Ironmachine.

~Vikki

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5633
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 10:50
Location: Spain

Re: How the Neanderthals became the Basques

Post by Ironmachine » 01 Mar 2013 12:49

Reduced to the basics, it say that the frequencies of Rh- and B blood group in Basques are similar to those of other Western Europe populations, that genetically Basques are more closely related to other Spaniards and Argelians than to other European groups, and that Basques and Spaniards in general are closer to African groups than to European groups.

User avatar
RJ55
Member
Posts: 114
Joined: 10 Oct 2012 09:50

Re: How the Neanderthals became the Basques

Post by RJ55 » 01 Mar 2013 16:07

I don't know why some members are getting hot under the collar at the thought that humans might have some Neander DNA in their line. All of us are more likely to be closely related to someone in Africa than someone next door. A few people may be implying some sort of racial slur, and if that is the case, it backfires because Neanders were a sister human species that was better than us in some things, and not as good as us in others.

Durand, E. Y., N. Patterson, et al. (2011). "Testing for Ancient Admixture between Closely Related Populations." Molecular Biology and Evolution 28(8): 2239-2252.
One enduring question in evolutionary biology is the extent of archaic admixture in the genomes of present-day populations. In this paper, we present a test for ancient admixture that exploits the asymmetry in the frequencies of the two nonconcordant gene trees in a three-population tree. This test was first applied to detect interbreeding between Neandertals and modern humans. We derive the analytic expectation of a test statistic, called the D statistic, which is sensitive to asymmetry under alternative demographic scenarios. We show that the D statistic is insensitive to some demographic assumptions such as ancestral population sizes and requires only the assumption that the ancestral populations were randomly mating. An important aspect of D statistics is that they can be used to detect archaic admixture even when no archaic sample is available. We explore the effect of sequencing error on the false-positive rate of the test for admixture, and we show how to estimate the proportion of archaic ancestry in the genomes of present-day populations. We also investigate a model of subdivision in ancestral populations that can result in D statistics that indicate recent admixture.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/2 ... 9.abstract
FREE:-
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/2 ... 9.full.pdf

Noonan, J. P. (2010). "Neanderthal genomics and the evolution of modern humans." Genome Research 20(5): 547-553.
Humans possess unique physical and cognitive characteristics relative to other primates. Comparative analyses of the human and chimpanzee genomes are beginning to reveal sequence changes on the human lineage that may have contributed to the evolution of human traits. However, these studies cannot identify the genetic differences that distinguish modern humans from archaic human species. Here, I will discuss efforts to obtain genomic sequence from Neanderthal, the closest known relative of modern humans. Recent studies in this nascent field have focused on developing methods to recover nuclear DNA from Neanderthal remains. The success of these early studies has inspired a Neanderthal genome project, which promises to produce a reference Neanderthal genome sequence in the near future. Technical issues, such as the level of Neanderthal sequence coverage that can realistically be obtained from a single specimen and the presence of modern human contaminating sequences, reduce the detection of authentic human–Neanderthal sequence differences but may be remedied by methodological improvements. More critical for the utility of a Neanderthal genome sequence is the evolutionary relationship of humans and Neanderthals. Current evidence suggests that the modern human and Neanderthal lineages diverged before the emergence of contemporary humans. A fraction of biologically relevant human–chimpanzee sequence differences are thus likely to have arisen and become fixed exclusively on the modern human lineage. A reconstructed Neanderthal genome sequence could be integrated into human–primate genome comparisons to help reveal the evolutionary genetic events that produced modern humans.
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/20/5/547.abstract
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/20/5/547.full.pdf

These papers suggest to me that humans and neanders did indeed interbreed, but not recently.

it must be remembered that there is significant genetic variation even within a single species, both in terms of protein coding and gene regulatory networks which determine how where and when a protein or other trait is expressed.
Further, pathogen-mediated lateral gene transfer [eg via Retroviruses, or Wolbachia in insects] can confuse the picture considerably, although not as it turns out, destroy the basic validity of phylogenetic trees.

It must also be remembered that not all traits are adaptive or functional, and yet this leads to diversity also, both within and between species. For example, hair colour does not seem to confer any particular advantage. Blonds may have more fun, but not every male is obsessed by a blond and may prefer a redhead or brunette.

User avatar
Vikki
Forum Staff
Posts: 3300
Joined: 08 Jul 2003 01:35
Location: Amerika

Re: How the Neanderthals became the Basques

Post by Vikki » 09 Mar 2013 07:35

Ironmachine wrote:Reduced to the basics, it say that the frequencies of Rh- and B blood group in Basques are similar to those of other Western Europe populations, that genetically Basques are more closely related to other Spaniards and Argelians than to other European groups, and that Basques and Spaniards in general are closer to African groups than to European groups.
Thanks for that, Gonzalo. Sorry I'm so late to reply, I just saw this.

I guess I should have stuck to my original statement, that the Basque are considered a discrete group because of their language. :)

~Vikki

User avatar
henryk
Member
Posts: 2457
Joined: 27 Jan 2004 01:11
Location: London, Ontario

They Did Not Hunt Rabbits

Post by henryk » 20 Mar 2013 18:08

A new theory as to why the Neanderthals disappeared:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... /[quote][b] Failure to Hunt Rabbits Part of Neanderthals' Demise?
The inability to shift prey may have been deadly, study says. Rabbits are small, fast, and devilishly hard to catch. And that could have had dire consequences for Neanderthals.[/b]
Ker Than for National Geographic News Published March 11, 2013
A new study suggests that an inability to shift from hunting large mammals to wild rabbits and other small game may have contributed to the downfall of European Neanderthals during the Middle Paleolithic period, about 30,000 years ago. "There have been some studies that examined the importance of rabbit meat to hominins"——or early human ancestors——"but we give it a new twist," said study lead author John Fa, a biologist at the United Kingdom's Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust and Imperial College London. "We show in our study that [modern humans] used rabbits extensively, but Neanderthals didn't."
Fa and his team analyzed animal bone remains spanning a period of 50,000 years from Neanderthal and modern-human-occupied sites across Iberia, the part of Europe that includes Spain and Portugal, and southern France. They found that rabbit remains only started to became common at sites around 30,000 years ago, which is around the time that Neanderthals started to disappear and——perhaps not coincidentally——when modern humans first arrived in Europe.
The authors speculate that over the course of thousands of years, as climate change or human hunting pressure whittled down populations of Iberian large animals such as woolly mammoths, rabbits would have become an increasingly important food resource. But Neanderthals may have been unable or unwilling to "prey shift" to smaller game, the authors argue in a new study, which will be published in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Human Evolution. "Neanderthals were large mammals hunters, par excellence," Fa said, but they "could have found it difficult to hunt the smaller, but superabundant, rabbit."
John Shea, a paleoanthropologist at Stonybrook University in New York City who did was not involved in the research, agreed. Most people underestimate how hard it is to hunt rabbits, Shea said. "If I say, 'Let's go hunt a mammoth,' you'll probably think I'm nuts and that we're going to die. But if I say, 'Let's go hunt rabbits,' then it's a piece of cake."
Weapons Not Up to the Task?
In reality, the cost and benefits for Neanderthals would have been almost reversed, Shea said. "If you have the technology to kill a mammoth when you run into it"——as Neanderthals did——"then the risk is low and the return is high. Whereas with a rabbit, the cost in killing it is negligible, but the return is tiny." The piercing spears and clubs known to have been used by European Neanderthals weren't very well suited for catching rabbits. In contrast, early modern humans used complex projectile weapons such as spear throwers and possibly bows and arrows——both of which are better for hunting small, fast-moving prey.
There are other ways to catch rabbits, however. There is evidence that Neanderthals were capable of making string, so it's very possible that they were able to weave nets and snares to use as traps, Shea said. But even if Neanderthals could make such traps, they still might not have done so because of the high startup costs involved. "There's more time and energy involved in trapping than most people think," Shea said. "You have to set a lot of them and monitor them, because once an animal is trapped, it becomes vulnerable to predation by rival carnivores."
The process could have been too demanding for Neanderthals, who likely had higher energy requirements than modern humans. Stockier and more muscular than humans, and lacking humans' tailored clothes, scientists estimate that Neanderthals could have needed twice as many calories to survive and stay warm.
Bunny Hunting a Family Affair
Fa and his team speculate that most of the rabbit hunting among early modern humans may have been done by women and children, who could have stayed behind in settlements while the men went on hunting trips for larger prey. The women and children "may have specialized in hunting rabbits, by surrounding warrens with nets or smoking the rabbits out of the warren," Fa said.
Ancient rabbit hunters may also have had help from a four-legged ally picked up during their travels from Africa: dogs. The oldest fossil evidence for dogs is only about 12,000 years old, but there is genetic evidence suggesting dogs may have split from wolves as far back as 30,000 years ago-around the time that humans were arriving in Europe. "What we are saying is that this may have occurred," Fa said. "The domestication of the dog for hunting purposes may have been a tremendous advantage for human hunters."
Why Not Adjust?
Bruce Hardy, an anthropologist at Ohio's Kenyon College, said he's unconvinced. "I think the data is at a very gross level and they're drawing implications from it that are quite frankly speculative," said Hardy, who also did not participate in the research. Hardy also finds it difficult to imagine that Neanderthals couldn't change their hunting strategies to target rabbits when they had thousands of years to do so, or turn to other food sources, such as plants. "If they were this inflexible, why did they make it for 250,000 years?" Hardy said. It's like saying "'Oh, the big animal are gone. I guess I'm going to starve now.' That doesn't make sense for any animal, not to mention a large-brained hominin that's very closely related to us."
But the Neanderthals' longevity might have been irreversibly tied to the big game they hunted, Fa said, and once those prey items disappeared, our highly specialized cousins found it difficult to adapt. "We are not saying that small prey was not part of the diet," he said. "What we are saying is that the Neanderthals could have specialized to such an extent that [it] did not allow them to use a superabundant but more difficult to catch food source."
[/quote]

User avatar
henryk
Member
Posts: 2457
Joined: 27 Jan 2004 01:11
Location: London, Ontario

Re: How the Neanderthals became the Basques

Post by henryk » 31 Jan 2020 21:49

https://blog.eogn.com/2020/01/31/all-mo ... rch-finds/
All Modern Humans Have Neanderthal DNA, New Research Finds
Dick Eastman · January 31, 2020 · DNA · No Comments
If someone calls you a Neanderthal, that might not be an insult! We all likely have a bit of Neanderthal in our DNA — including Africans who had been thought to have no genetic link to our extinct human relative, a new study finds.
You can read more in an article by Katie Hunt in the CNN web site at: https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/30/africa/a ... l-dna-scn/.
Now your challenge is to find the documentation that proves you have Neanderthals in your family tree!
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/30/africa/a ... l-dna-scn/
All modern humans have Neanderthal DNA, new research finds
By Katie Hunt, CNN
Updated 11:00 AM ET, Thu January 30, 2020

Got allergies? You can blame the Neanderthals 01:31(See video on source)

(CNN)We all likely have a bit of Neanderthal in our DNA -- including Africans who had been thought to have no genetic link to our extinct human relative, a new study finds. Evidence that our early ancestors had babies with Neanderthals first emerged in 2010 when the first genome, extracted from the bones of the Stone Age hominims who populated Europe until around 40,000 years ago, was sequenced. They found that modern Europeans, Asians and Americans -- but not Africans -- inherited about 2% of the genes from Neanderthals, with our ancestors apparently hooking up with their stocky cousins only after they moved out of Africa. However, researchers from Princeton University now believe, based on a new computational method, that Africans do in fact have Neanderthal DNA and that very early human history was more complex than many might think.

"This is the first time we can detect the actual signal of Neanderthal ancestry in Africans," said Lu Chen, a postdoctoral research associate at Princeton's Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics (LSI) and a co-author of a new paper that published Thursday in the journal Cell.
Joshua Akey, a professor at LSI who led the study, suggested their findings cast doubt on the widely held "out of Africa" theory of human migration -- that modern humans originated in Africa and made a single dispersal to the rest of the world in a single wave between 60,000 and 80,000 years ago. "Our results show this history was much more interesting and there were many waves of dispersal out of Africa, some of which led to admixture between modern humans and Neanderthals that we see in the genomes of all living individuals today."

He said that their data indicated that a wave of modern humans left Africa approximately 200,000 years ago and this group interbred with Neanderthals. This ancient group of Europeans then migrated back into Africa, introducing Neanderthal ancestry to African populations.
The paper said that technical constraints and the assumption that Neanderthals and ancient African populations were geographically isolated from each other had led to a blind spot in the field. Previous studies had relied on reference populations, or panels, that were assumed to have no Neanderthal DNA. The team also found that previous estimates suggesting that East Asians might have have approximately 20% more Neanderthal ancestry compared to Europeans, were wrong and humans on different continents had Neanderthal ancestry "surprisingly similar to each other."

Fernando Racimo, an assistant professor at the Globe Institute at the University of Copenhagen, said that the study was "significant" and "interesting." "This new method allows one to find Neanderthal ancestry in a set of genomes without having to rely on a panel that is assumed to be unadmixed (not comparable), so the authors are now able to apply their method to look for Neanderthal ancestry in Africans as well."

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

Re: How the Neanderthals became the Basques

Post by Gorque » 31 Jan 2020 22:31

You have more Neanderthal variants than 98% of 23andMe customers.
And no calloused knuckles. :? Go figure.

User avatar
henryk
Member
Posts: 2457
Joined: 27 Jan 2004 01:11
Location: London, Ontario

Re: How the Neanderthals became the Basques

Post by henryk » 27 Oct 2020 20:12

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/27/92777210 ... anderthals
'Book Review
Kindred' Dismantles Simplistic Views Of Neanderthals
October 27, 202010:12 AM ET
BARBARA J. KING

Kindred: Neanderthal Life, Love, Death and Art, Rebecca Wragg Sykes
Bloomsbury Sigma

Neandertals are ancient humans who sometimes mated with early Homo sapiens in Europe and Asia — then went extinct around 40,000 years ago. Yet their genes live on in many of us.

If your ancestry traces back to populations outside sub-Saharan Africa, there's a good chance that your genome includes contributions from Neanderthals. In Kindred: Neanderthal Life, Love, Death and Art, archaeologist and science writer Rebecca Wragg Sykes explains in splendidly engaging prose why this fact is cause for wonder and celebration.

Neanderthals "possess pop-cultural cachet like no other extinct human species," Wragg Sykes says, but too much of that cachet is constructed from stereotypes. "Neanderthal" is a popular insult, meant to refer to stooped and club-wielding cave people who could hunt pretty well in their Ice Age habitats but were inferior in every way to our own early ancestors. When in the early '90s I began to teach human evolution to college students, even the scientific consensus claimed that Neanderthals, compared to early Homo sapiens, tended to remain locally near their hearth and home sites, eking out a living and incapable of much creativity beyond basic survival.

More than any other book in paleoanthropology I've read, Wragg Sykes convincingly blows up those simplistic views. She describes evidence comprehensively across time (Neanderthals first appeared around 350,000 years ago) and space (Neanderthals lived "from north Wales across to the borders of China, and southwards to the fringes of Arabia's deserts"). The facts show that as innovative tool- and fire-makers, Neanderthals adapted to changing climates. They adopted symbolic cultural practices and expressed profound emotions as they lived day by day.

Of course, Neanderthals didn't look like we do. Their bodies were short and robustly muscled; their skulls featured brow ridges, prominent noses, and an occipital bun (bump) in the back. For years, this anatomy was explained as adaptation to glacial conditions but it turns out that Neanderthals thrived also in steppe-tundra and even Mediterranean woodlands. More than climate, experience sculpted their bodies. Life was "extremely demanding" for them, in terms of making a living. Males and females were doing different things — males' arms for example were asymmetric, suggesting one-handed scraping or possibly spearing, whereas women's lower arms were well-developed, a possible indicator of double-handed hide working.

In describing behavioral patterns Kindred comes most to life, for it's here that our kinship with Neanderthals shines through. The theme Wragg Sykes draws on is one of innovation and creativity — the opposite of those cave-people myths. When it comes to technology, Neanderthals didn't just construct a varied tool kit but also invented composite tools that "imply impressive mental capacity to plan, design and anticipate." They successfully hunted "enormous beasts" including 1,100-lb. horses, but also knew how to take advantage of whatever the regional ecology offered as food, ranging from tortoises to jays and magpies. Judging from how far Neanderthals carried away artifacts from their original sources, individuals moved across as much as 60 miles of the landscape.

Across the millennia are found traces of cultural practices that go way beyond survival. Neandertals incised a hyena bone in ways that suggest an early notation system. The application of color pigment to objects including shells and a geode apparently pleased Neanderthals' aesthetic sense. Wragg Sykes reminds us that classical ideas of art don't take us far enough in appreciating Neanderthals; "sometimes the significance and symbolism may have been in the act of transformation itself." And mysteries remain. What do the elaborate rings that Neanderthals constructed of broken-off stalagmites on the cave floor at Bruniquel in France mean? We don't know.

Occasionally the writing bogs down in details overly numerous and technical for a wide readership, as when Wragg Sykes describes too many fine distinctions among too many tool types. How you feel about the lyrical introductions she pens to each chapter will depend on your affinity for dense prose like this: "He lingers close to the light of the hearth — fanged ones always follow kills — but his feet dance as the un-made deer arrive on many shoulders, haloed by puffed breath in the frigid air."

Make no mistake, though. What Wragg Sykes has produced in Kindred, after eight years of labor, is masterful. Synthesizing over a century and a half of research, she gives us a vivid feel for a past in which we weren't the only smart, feeling bipedal primate alive. That feel comes across sometimes in startlingly fresh ways. I was entranced by the chapter "Many Ways to Die." Wragg Sykes honors Neanderthal love and grief through describing the burials they planned and carried out. Then she invites us to comprehend a cultural system in which butchery and cannibalism was seen as an "act of intimacy, not violation" and where bodily consumption may have been part of "grief management." Here is mind-expanding popular science!

Why, if they were so competent, cooperative, and cultural, did the Neanderthals die out at the population level? Somehow, they reached a limit to their adaptability. Wragg Sykes thinks it may have been a perfect-storm combination of factors, in which highly unstable climate and competition from Homo sapiens finally proved too much to withstand.Yet to think of the Neanderthals as a failed lineage is plainly wrong: "That the vast majority of living people are their descendants is, by any measure, some sort of evolutionary success."

Kindred tells of another success story, too. "After more than 160 years, we have finally begun viewing Neandertals on their own terms," Wragg Sykes writes. It's about time.

Barbara J. King is a biological anthropologist emerita at William & Mary. Her seventh book, Animals' Best Friends: Putting Compassion to Work for Animals in Captivity and in the Wild, will be published in March. Find her on Twitter @bjkingape.

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

Re: How the Neanderthals became the Basques

Post by Gorque » 18 Nov 2020 03:20

I've always had difficulty finding reading/sunglasses that would fit my head properly. The "Temple Length" was always too short and I would have to bend the eyeglasses/sunglasses arms straighter in order for the glasses to stay on my head. Perhaps I'm reading into this too much, but I do prefer raw meat.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/scie ... Position=2
On Thursday, a team of scientists revealed that two pieces of Neanderthal DNA may have another effect: They may change the shape of our brains.

The study, published in the journal Current Biology, wasn’t designed to determine how Neanderthal genes influence thought — if they do so at all. Instead, the value of the research lies in its unprecedented glimpse into the genetic changes influencing the evolution of the human brain.

.....

One thing is clear: They were not short on brains. By measuring the volume inside Neanderthal skulls, researchers have found that their brains were as big as ours, on average, perhaps bigger.

But their brains did not mimic ours. “We have roundish brains,” said Philipp Gunz, a paleoanthropologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. “All other human species have elongated brain cases.”

Dr. Gunz and his colleagues study CT scans of fossil skulls to track brain evolution. As it turns out, the oldest skulls of modern humans, dating back 300,000 years, held elongated brains — more like those of Neanderthals than our own.

Return to “Other eras”