# “Confirmed”: all non-Africans are part Neanderthal



## TremulousTetra (Aug 9, 2011)

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/110718_neanderthal

*Some of the hu­man X chro­mo­some orig­i­nates from Ne­an­der­thals and is found only in non-Af­ri­cans, a new study con­cludes.

“This con­firms re­cent find­ings sug­gest­ing that the two popula­t­ions in­ter­bred,” said re­search­er Damian La­bu­da of the Uni­vers­ity of Mont­real, whose work with col­leagues is pub­lished in the July is­sue of the jour­nal  Mo­lec­u­lar Bi­ol­o­gy and Ev­o­lu­tion*

*Ne­an­der­thal people, whose an­ces­tors left Af­ri­ca about 400,000 to 800,000 years ago, evolved in what is now mainly France, Spain, Ger­ma­ny and Rus­sia, and are thought to have lived un­til about 30,000 years ago. Mean­while, early mod­ern hu­mans left Af­ri­ca about 80,000 to 50,000 years ago. The ques­tion has been wheth­er the phys­ic­ally stronger Ne­an­der­thals, who had the gene for lan­guage and may have played the flute, were a sep­a­rate spe­cies or could have in­ter­bred with mod­ern hu­mans.

 The re­sults show that the two lived in close as­socia­t­ion, prob­ably early on in the Mid­dle East, La­bu­da said. “In ad­di­tion, be­cause our meth­ods were to­tally in­de­pend­ent of Ne­an­der­thal ma­te­ri­al, we can al­so con­clude that pre­vi­ous re­sults were not in­flu­enced by con­tam­i­nat­ing ar­ti­facts.”

Labuda and his team al­most a dec­ade ago iden­ti­fied a piece of DNA, called a hap­lo­type, in the hu­man X chro­mo­some that seemed dif­fer­ent and whose ori­gins they ques­tioned. When the Ne­an­der­thal ge­nome was se­quenced in 2010, they com­pared 6,000 chro­mo­somes from all parts of the world to the Ne­an­der­thal hap­lo­type. The Ne­an­der­thal se­quence was pre­s­ent in peo­ples across all con­ti­nents, ex­cept for sub-Saharan Af­ri­ca, and in­clud­ing Aus­tral­ia.

“There is lit­tle doubt that this hap­lo­type is pre­s­ent be­cause of mat­ing with our an­ces­tors and Ne­an­der­thals. This is a very nice re­sult, and fur­ther anal­y­sis may help de­ter­mine more de­tails,” said Nick Pat­ter­son of the Mas­sa­chu­setts In­sti­tute of Tech­nol­o­gy and Har­vard Uni­vers­ity, a hu­man an­ces­try re­search­er who was not in­volved in the new stu­dy.

“Labuda and his col­leagues were the first to iden­ti­fy a ge­net­ic varia­t­ion in non-Af­ri­cans that was likely to have come from an ar­cha­ic popula­t­ion. This was done en­tirely with­out the Ne­an­der­thal ge­nome se­quence, but in light of the Ne­an­der­thal se­quence, it is now clear that they were ab­so­lutely right,” said Da­vid Re­ich, a Har­vard Med­i­cal School ge­net­icist, one of the prin­ci­pal re­search­ers in the Ne­an­der­thal ge­nome proj­ect.

 So did these ex­changes con­trib­ute to our suc­cess across the world? “Vari­abil­ity is very im­por­tant for long-term sur­viv­al of a spe­cies,” said La­bu­da. “Every ad­di­tion to the ge­nome can be en­rich­ing.”

* * **


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 9, 2011)

That's very small writing.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

But very big news.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> But very big news.


A bit late though - it was mentioned on "the now show" a fortnight ago.


----------



## Santino (Aug 9, 2011)

It's not big news until The Guardian starts a liveblog.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

Greebo said:


> A bit late though - it was mentioned on "the now show" a fortnight ago.



30,000 years too late, apparently.


----------



## alsoknownas (Aug 9, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> [snip] The ques­tion has been wheth­er the phys­ic­ally stronger Ne­an­der­thals, who had the gene for lan­guage *and may have played the flute*, were a sep­a­rate spe­cies or could have in­ter­bred with mod­ern hu­mans.


 They're quite interesting aren't they? Whatever next...


----------



## Mation (Aug 11, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> http://www.world-science.net/othernews/110718_neanderthal
> 
> * So did these ex­changes con­trib­ute to our suc­cess across the world? “Vari­abil­ity is very im­por­tant for long-term sur­viv­al of a spe­cies,” said La­bu­da. “Every ad­di­tion to the ge­nome can be en­rich­ing.”*
> 
> ** * **


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 11, 2011)

So people with pronounced eyebrow ridges might not be backward after all?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

Mation said:


>



Hmmm. Rubbish response to a question with a clear agenda, imo. The honest response would have been to say 'we have absolutely no idea yet what changes the interbreeding with Neanderthals brought about', and leave it at that.


----------



## Mation (Aug 11, 2011)

The authors do say something to that effect in the paper (I can't remember the exact wording nor find the article in which I read it; I can't access the paper itself). But given the similar wording of all the news stories about it, all including that line I quoted, it must have come from the press release and so have been approved by the research team.

Hmmmmmmmmmm.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Aug 11, 2011)

OP
tscr

(too small couldn't read)


----------



## camouflage (Aug 11, 2011)

I'm fairly sure humans shagged every other type of homo we came across on our travels to be honest. Neanderthals, those little green midget ones, the big hairy fuckers and especially the ones with saber-teeth.

I was talking to a friend of mine about this yesterday and he described Neanderthals as having been 'wiped out' by us. I disagreed with this term, why see it like that, looks more likely the two types of human just gradually intermingled (though doubtless a few clashes over territory I imagine). Why see the gradual 'africanization' of local hairy-hillbillies as as an act of destruction? There's still a somewhat victorian/colonialist slant to some sciences I reckon. Like the term 'survival of the fittest' wrongly attributed to Darwin.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 12, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> OP
> tscr
> 
> (too small couldn't read)


Some of the hu­man X chro­mo­some orig­i­nates from Ne­an­der­thals and is found only in non-Af­ri­cans, a new study con­cludes.

“This con­firms re­cent find­ings sug­gest­ing that the two popula­t­ions in­ter­bred,” said re­search­er Damian La­bu­da of the Uni­vers­ity of Mont­real, whose work with col­leagues is pub­lished in the July is­sue of the jour­nal Mo­lec­u­lar Bi­ol­o­gy and Ev­o­lu­tion

Ne­an­der­thal people, whose an­ces­tors left Af­ri­ca about 400,000 to 800,000 years ago, evolved in what is now mainly France, Spain, Ger­ma­ny and Rus­sia, and are thought to have lived un­til about 30,000 years ago. Mean­while, early mod­ern hu­mans left Af­ri­ca about 80,000 to 50,000 years ago. The ques­tion has been wheth­er the phys­ic­ally stronger Ne­an­der­thals, who had the gene for lan­guage and may have played the flute, were a sep­a­rate spe­cies or could have in­ter­bred with mod­ern hu­mans.

The re­sults show that the two lived in close as­socia­t­ion, prob­ably early on in the Mid­dle East, La­bu­da said. “In ad­di­tion, be­cause our meth­ods were to­tally in­de­pend­ent of Ne­an­der­thal ma­te­ri­al, we can al­so con­clude that pre­vi­ous re­sults were not in­flu­enced by con­tam­i­nat­ing ar­ti­facts.”

Labuda and his team al­most a dec­ade ago iden­ti­fied a piece of DNA, called a hap­lo­type, in the hu­man X chro­mo­some that seemed dif­fer­ent and whose ori­gins they ques­tioned. When the Ne­an­der­thal ge­nome was se­quenced in 2010, they com­pared 6,000 chro­mo­somes from all parts of the world to the Ne­an­der­thal hap­lo­type. The Ne­an­der­thal se­quence was pre­s­ent in peo­ples across all con­ti­nents, ex­cept for sub-Saharan Af­ri­ca, and in­clud­ing Aus­tral­ia.

“There is lit­tle doubt that this hap­lo­type is pre­s­ent be­cause of mat­ing with our an­ces­tors and Ne­an­der­thals. This is a very nice re­sult, and fur­ther anal­y­sis may help de­ter­mine more de­tails,” said Nick Pat­ter­son of the Mas­sa­chu­setts In­sti­tute of Tech­nol­o­gy and Har­vard Uni­vers­ity, a hu­man an­ces­try re­search­er who was not in­volved in the new stu­dy.

“Labuda and his col­leagues were the first to iden­ti­fy a ge­net­ic varia­t­ion in non-Af­ri­cans that was likely to have come from an ar­cha­ic popula­t­ion. This was done en­tirely with­out the Ne­an­der­thal ge­nome se­quence, but in light of the Ne­an­der­thal se­quence, it is now clear that they were ab­so­lutely right,” said Da­vid Re­ich, a Har­vard Med­i­cal School ge­net­icist, one of the prin­ci­pal re­search­ers in the Ne­an­der­thal ge­nome proj­ect.

So did these ex­changes con­trib­ute to our suc­cess across the world? “Vari­abil­ity is very im­por­tant for long-term sur­viv­al of a spe­cies,” said La­bu­da. “Every ad­di­tion to the ge­nome can be en­rich­ing.”

* * *


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 12, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hmmm. Rubbish response to a question with a clear agenda, imo. The honest response would have been to say 'we have absolutely no idea yet what changes the interbreeding with Neanderthals brought about', and leave it at that.


Yeah, the agenda was what I picked up on. But I don't think we can just dismiss it, we need to take on the argument to batter these fuckers into submission, with irrefutable scientific evidence.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 12, 2011)

camouflage said:


> I'm fairly sure humans shagged every other type of homo we came across on our travels to be honest. Neanderthals, those little green midget ones, the big hairy fuckers and especially the ones with saber-teeth.
> 
> I was talking to a friend of mine about this yesterday and he described Neanderthals as having been 'wiped out' by us. I disagreed with this term, why see it like that, looks more likely the two types of human just gradually intermingled (though doubtless a few clashes over territory I imagine). Why see the gradual 'africanization' of local hairy-hillbillies as as an act of destruction? There's still a somewhat victorian/colonialist slant to some sciences I reckon. Like the term 'survival of the fittest' wrongly attributed to Darwin.


I don't think we really know yet one way or the other, however it is pretty demonstratable the human beings have wiped out all major predators, to an extent that we have upset the balance of nature, and are now in some parts reintroducing large carnivorous predators. Were Neanderthals competitor predator, wiped out by us like all the others?  I would have said yes before I saw this evidence, even though I have seen suggestions before about interbreeding. Now I'm not sure sure.

Secondly, I detect, may be wrongfully, a sense of moral repugnance at the thought that we may have wiped out Neanderthals. If we did, it's nothing to do with morality, is to do with evolution. If we did, so what? The same goes for Native Americans, Southern and Northern. There is no point in getting morally indignant about what happened, surely the point is to find the 'truth', and then learn from it.


----------



## camouflage (Aug 12, 2011)

It's not so much about moral indignity, as it is about an over-willingness to see things in certain terms. I merely argue that there are other ways to see it, and indeed that other relationships may have occured than a mere 'wiping-out of the one party by the other.

Take pregancy for instance, sure you can see it as what we usually do, a mothers body nurturing and protecting and providing for her growing unborn child. but you can also see it as the invasion of a malign parasite of a female body by a selfish organism resulting from the intrusive penertation of some other selfish organism intent only on its own survival. But a mother loves her child you say? Parasites often alter the behaviour of the host. What is the truth of it? Perhaps a matter of circumstance, but for me choosing to see pregnancy that way isn't required or useful.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 12, 2011)

Choice.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 12, 2011)

camouflage said:


> It's not so much about moral indignity, as it is about an over-willingness to see things in certain terms. I merely argue that there are other ways to see it, and indeed that other relationships may have occured than a mere 'wiping-out of the one party by the other.
> 
> Take pregancy for instance, sure you can see it as what we usually do, a mothers body nurturing and protecting and providing for her growing unborn child. but you can also see it as the invasion of a malign parasite of a female body by a selfish organism resulting from the intrusive penertation of some other selfish organism intent only on its own survival. But a mother loves her child you say? Parasites often alter the behaviour of the host. What is the truth of it? Perhaps a matter of circumstance, but for me choosing to see pregnancy that way isn't required or useful.


Hey, I might be misunderstanding you, but when you say there is an over willingness to view things in certain terms, the certain terms of we wiped out the Neanderthals, that is not my experience. In my experience there is an over willingness by some people to view it in that way, and by other people there is an older willingness to view this in terms of intermingling. This is similar to the story of Native Americans. Anti-imperialist are over willing to view it in terms of destruction and subjugation of an indigenous people by Europeans, and defenders of a imperialism are over willing to overlook the ‘crimes’and overemphasise the ‘benefits’. What I'm trying to say, perhaps badly, is I don't see only ONE over willingness to view things in certain terms.

My question to you would be, if we just intermingled, why aren't there still Neanderthals still walking around amongst the human population? Physically, Neanderthals were superhuman creatures who could snap a modern human in two quite easily. So we would notice them. lol


----------



## camouflage (Aug 12, 2011)

The difference is that we cannot know what transpired between many thousands of small communities of hunter-gatherers over many generations thirty thousand years ago, all we do know is that neanderthals were about, they did stuff, and today there's evidense that the two species (or subspecies) of human interbred.

Very different from the known and documented impact of European imperialism on the native Americans. That reek is still in the air, it pretty much happened thismorning compared to thirty thousand years ago. How can we imagine how hunter-gatherer societies met eachother back then, there's simply no grounds to make any assumptions about what went on between those innumerable bands of people. No gold rush was involved, no railroads, no capitalism no manifest destiny no massive hunting of buffalo into extinction and no sense of a christian mission to civilize the noble savage. We can't even realisticly gage how intense they might have competed for food and other resources. For all we know the big strapping neanderthals might have been prestigeous for the fresh-from-Africans to have hung around with ("Wow, mighty giants! We must make them our allies immediately!"). Or they may have attempted in most cases to kill eachother on sight. The scientific inquirey continues.

Personally I just don't see the point of assuming it was all a zero-sum game, as we just don't know how it really went down. Probably a bit of everything I reckon.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 12, 2011)

great post.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 12, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> http://www.world-science.net/othernews/110718_neanderthal
> 
> *Some of the hu­man X chro­mo­some orig­i­nates from Ne­an­der­thals and is found only in non-Af­ri­cans, a new study con­cludes.*
> 
> ...



It might also explain why there tend to be more genetic mutations the further you get away from africa. To the extent that genetic 'weakness' contributes to negative health consequences, it seems to be more prevalent 'out of africa'

Perhaps this is a feature added by the neanderthal genetic material.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 12, 2011)

I'm just loving the irony of the Africans being the actual 'pure' race!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 12, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I'm just loving the irony of the Africans being the actual 'pure' race!



I'm not getting the irony. Must be because I'm a Canadian.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 12, 2011)

Yes. That must be why.


----------



## IC3D (Aug 12, 2011)

How will we promote race mixing for the betterment of humankind, I suggest an informal meet and greet in a friendly pub where we can ask questions about allergies, sporting prowess and crossword ability before getting down to the fun stuff.


----------



## zenie (Aug 12, 2011)

IC3D said:


> How will we promote race mixing for the betterment of humankind, I suggest an informal meet and greet in a friendly pub where we can ask questions about allergies, sporting prowess and crossword ability before getting down to the fun stuff.



My mate reckons her health problems are on account of her parents 'mixing their genes'


----------



## IC3D (Aug 12, 2011)

zenie said:


> My mate reckons her health problems are on account of her parents 'mixing their genes'


Classic I hope she's told them, how would she possibly have any evidence for it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 13, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It might also explain why there tend to be more genetic mutations the further you get away from africa. To the extent that genetic 'weakness' contributes to negative health consequences, it seems to be more prevalent 'out of africa'
> 
> Perhaps this is a feature added by the neanderthal genetic material.



Doubt it. Africans are far more genetically diverse than non-Africans, that's all. There was quite a population bottleneck some 80 to 100,000 years ago among the population that left Africa, and all non-Africans are descended from a very small group of people from that time. If anything it is quite possibly true that interbreeding with neanderthals mitigated against some of the worst effects of that bottleneck. But nevertheless, it takes a long time to regain genetic diversity once it's been lost, and non-Africans are still quite considerably more 'inbred' than Africans.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 13, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Doubt it. Africans are far more genetically diverse than non-Africans, that's all. There was quite a population bottleneck some 80 to 100,000 years ago among the population that left Africa, and all non-Africans are descended from a very small group of people from that time. If anything it is quite possibly true that interbreeding with neanderthals mitigated against some of the worst effects of that bottleneck. But nevertheless, it takes a long time to regain genetic diversity once it's been lost, and non-Africans are still quite considerably more 'inbred' than Africans.



I wasn't aware that there is more ethnic diversity in Africa, as opposed to a comparison of people from Yunnan vs Finland vs Oaxaca vs Kerala.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 13, 2011)

IC3D said:


> How will we promote race mixing for the betterment of humankind,.



Make it your personal policy only to date people from other races.


----------



## Yossarian (Aug 13, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I wasn't aware that there is more ethnic diversity in Africa, as opposed to a comparison of people from Yunnan vs Finland vs Oaxaca vs Kerala.



Genetic diversity, not ethnic - the further away a population is from Africa, the less genetic diversity there is among that population.

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2009-05-03-voa1-68815237.html


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 13, 2011)

Yossarian said:


> Genetic diversity, not ethnic - the further away a population is from Africa, the less genetic diversity there is among that population.
> 
> http://www.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2009-05-03-voa1-68815237.html



Fair enough. But if the migrants out of Africa interbred with neanderthals, wouldn't that bring with it an increase in genetic diversity?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 13, 2011)

Well, that explains my sublime flute-playing then.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 13, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Well, that explains my sublime flute-playing then.



It also explains your sloped forehead.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 13, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It also explains your sloped forehead.



Jutting brows are cute.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 13, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Fair enough. But if the migrants out of Africa interbred with neanderthals, wouldn't that bring with it an increase in genetic diversity?


Yes, but the bottleneck in the population migrating from Africa more than counters it. The net effect is far less genetic diversity. I can't remember the exact figure, but it is thought that every non-African is descended from one of irrc five women who lived about 80,000 years ago. It is that bottleneck that massively reduced genetic diversity.


----------



## camouflage (Aug 13, 2011)

I wonder if disease played a role, it could be true to say diseases carried by the new humans from Africa 'wiped-out' or decimated many neanderthals communities that had no immunity to such diseases. Usually with diseases there would be a few that turned out to be immune, or just managed to survive and henceforth be immune (effectively vaccinated). but many they may have looked around them once the bodies were buried  (neanderthal style) and perhaps found themselves in communities too small to sustain themselves, without enough neanderthals of the opposite sex to be getting on with. This could have meant they were more likely to seek new-humans as partners.

I still wouldn't call this a wiping-out of the neanderthals by us newcomers though, especially as (according to the article) all humans today that aren't African are basically (in part) their descendants.

Reminds me of that old red-squirrel/grey-squirrel chestnut.


----------



## camouflage (Aug 13, 2011)

Chomsky saying something vaguely related to a point I made earlier in this thread...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, but the bottleneck in the population migrating from Africa more than counters it. The net effect is far less genetic diversity. I can't remember the exact figure, but it is thought that every non-African is descended from one of irrc five women who lived about 80,000 years ago. It is that bottleneck that massively reduced genetic diversity.



But wouldn't the neanderthal stock have developed its own extensive genetic diversity? Someone posited that the language gene came from the Neanderthals [which seems doubtful, given that africans not possessing neanderthal dna also can speak. And play the flute.] Access to that extensive gene pool by the 'bottlenecked' Africa-leavers should have brought their DNA diversity up again.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 14, 2011)

A bit of interbreeding would introduce new genes but wouldn't fully restore diversity. I'll need to read the latest evidence carefully, because it was only a couple of years ago that it was discovered that humans had interbred with Neanderthals at all. Before that, it was only known that neanderthal dna hadn't shown up in the mitochodrial dna that had been identified that far, so any possible interbreeding had to have been minimal. I'm assuming that initial finding still stands and that interbreeding was indeed minimal.

The language gene didn't come from Neanderthals. It's still disputed whether or not they did speak afaik. I have read theories that they _sang_ to each other, which is actually a very different kind of communication from speaking - stroke victims can lose the ability to speak but retain the ability to sing. That 'dubious agenda' I spoke of earlier and that Mation highlighted might be in play here. There are non-scientists with bad motives who want to show that neanderthal interbreeding gave non-Africans some special qualities. I very very very much doubt that there is any truth to that at all, and it is certainly true that the science doesn't even suggest such a thing yet.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, but the bottleneck in the population migrating from Africa more than counters it. The net effect is far less genetic diversity. I can't remember the exact figure, but it is thought that every non-African is descended from one of irrc five women who lived about 80,000 years ago. It is that bottleneck that massively reduced genetic diversity.


oi. I hope you're not referring to my great great great great great great great great <snip> grand mother as a bottleneck.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A bit of interbreeding would introduce new genes but wouldn't fully restore diversity. I'll need to read the latest evidence carefully, because it was only a couple of years ago that it was discovered that humans had interbred with Neanderthals at all. Before that, it was only known that neanderthal dna hadn't shown up in the mitochodrial dna that had been identified that far, so any possible interbreeding had to have been minimal. I'm assuming that initial finding still stands and that interbreeding was indeed minimal.
> 
> The language gene didn't come from Neanderthals. It's still disputed whether or not they did speak afaik. I have read theories that they _sang_ to each other, which is actually a very different kind of communication from speaking - stroke victims can lose the ability to speak but retain the ability to sing. That 'dubious agenda' I spoke of earlier and that Mation highlighted might be in play here. There are non-scientists with bad motives who want to show that neanderthal interbreeding gave non-Africans some special qualities. I very very very much doubt that there is any truth to that at all, and it is certainly true that the science doesn't even suggest such a thing yet.



Yes, that last part, about the special agenda, jumped out at me as well. It would  create a defining difference between blacks and non blacks.


----------



## kmarxs&sparks (Aug 14, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> But very big news.



Breaking news
*EDL members are Ne­an­der­thals.*


----------



## kmarxs&sparks (Aug 14, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Yes, that last part, about the special agenda, jumped out at me as well. It would create a defining difference between blacks and non blacks.



The various races are different. The physical variations show that quite clearly.
However, we are all humans and should all be treated the same. Frankly I don't give a toss what skin colour someone has; what's in their heart is a lot more important to me.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 14, 2011)

kmarxs&sparks said:


> The various races are different. The physical variations show that quite clearly..



Different people do look different; that's a fact.


----------



## kmarxs&sparks (Aug 14, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Different people do look different; that's a fact.



It'd be bloody boring if we were all the same. I'm taking the greatest pleasure in exploring other cultures and other ways to live. I wonder if xenophobes realise how much they miss because of their stupid way of thinking.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 14, 2011)

I embrace my inner neanderthal...

I already have some english, some scottish and a little bit of french so a bit of stone age should fit right in!!


----------



## Cid (Aug 18, 2011)

kmarxs&sparks said:


> The various races are different. The physical variations show that quite clearly.
> However, we are all humans and should all be treated the same. Frankly I don't give a toss what skin colour someone has; what's in their heart is a lot more important to me.



All the obvious difference (colour) reflects is that people living in places with less light evolved lighter skin in order to absorb equivalent levels of vitamin D, there's more genetic diversity within Africa than there is within all other human groups (iirc).


----------



## kmarxs&sparks (Aug 18, 2011)

^
I'll be honest and say I really don't give a toss about what race, skin colour, religion or whatever someone is. I can't see it makes the slightest difference to who they are or what they're like under all the stuff that xenophobic tossers use as labels.


----------



## alsoknownas (Sep 3, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I wasn't aware that there is more ethnic diversity in Africa, as opposed to a comparison of people from Yunnan vs Finland vs Oaxaca vs Kerala.


There is.

I read once (but can't verify) that if you take three people at random - two black people and one other, that one of the black people would be statistically likely to share more DNA with the non-black person that with the black person.

Race is basically a social rather than biological construct.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I wasn't aware that there is more ethnic diversity in Africa, as opposed to a comparison of people from Yunnan vs Finland vs Oaxaca vs Kerala.


just to point out I don't think that ethnic diversity and genetic diversity are the same thing. As far as I am aware genetic diversity is scientifically measurable, where as ethnic diversity is a social construct.the racists, in order to justify slavery, did try to claim there was a scientific basis to ethnic diversity, but every claim of scientific basis has been discredited as far as I'm aware.

for some people, it is this claim other pseudoscientific basis for discrimination, that distinguishes the racism of capitalism, from the prejudices of pre-capitalism.


----------



## 100% masahiko (Sep 4, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I'm just loving the irony of the Africans being the actual 'pure' race!



The argument to this is the assumption that all Africans are black.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Sep 4, 2011)

100% masahiko said:


> The argument to this is the assumption that all Africans are black.


that doesn't make sense. What do you mean to say?


----------



## 100% masahiko (Sep 4, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> that doesn't make sense. What do you mean to say?



I should have wrote that 'not all Africans are black'

but the argument is incoherent and crap cos it should be on species not race...

(was discussing this yesterday and the argument stuck in my head)


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 4, 2011)

Cylons


----------



## camouflage (Sep 5, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> just to point out I don't think that ethnic diversity and genetic diversity are the same thing. As far as I am aware genetic diversity is scientifically measurable, where as ethnic diversity is a social construct.



Hutus, Tutsis, and sick Belgiumese tossers.


----------



## camouflage (Sep 5, 2011)

100% masahiko said:


> I should have wrote that 'not all Africans are black'
> 
> but the argument is incoherent and crap cos it should be on species not race...
> 
> (was discussing this yesterday and the argument stuck in my head)



I agree. What he said also sucks in a similar way to the whole 'White-trash' thing.


----------



## dylanredefined (Sep 5, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Cylons


http://youtu.be/iSFDrOxWCXY
  Is the reply to that.


----------



## Kizmet (Sep 5, 2011)

camouflage said:


> I agree. What he said also sucks in a similar way to the whole 'White-trash' thing.



You realise I wasn't serious, right? I just think it's funny that the white supremacist lot have been going on for years about how the whites are the 'pure race' and yet it turns out that the black Africans are!

It's funny. Not that it makes any difference.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Sep 5, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> You realise I wasn't serious, right? I just think it's funny that the white supremacist lot have been going on for years about how the whites are the 'pure race' and yet it turns out that the black Africans are!
> 
> It's funny. Not that it makes any difference.


Gone weird this thread.


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 5, 2011)

Would that be Flemish Belgiumese tossers, or Walloon Belgiumese tossers?


----------



## Kizmet (Sep 5, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Gone weird this thread.



Must be the neaderthal in it.


----------



## bluestreak (Sep 5, 2011)

well, i'd have fucked a hot neanderthal, why shouldn't my distant ancestors?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 5, 2011)

bluestreak said:


> well, i'd have fucked a hot neanderthal, why shouldn't my distant ancestors?



Bluestreak looks through the beer goggles:


----------



## bluestreak (Sep 6, 2011)

i suspect our distant ancestors had different aesthetic values.  whilst B is undoubtedly pleasant, A could probably defend one's offspring from a pack of sabertooths. her circulation doesn't seem up to much though, the sooner she invents socks the better.


----------



## camouflage (Sep 14, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Would that be Flemish Belgiumese tossers, or Walloon Belgiumese tossers?



Tell ya what, we'll divide em up by nose-size and head-shape and set the Walloons up as  some sort of ruling elite.


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 14, 2011)

camouflage said:


> Tell ya what, we'll divide em up by nose-size and head-shape and set the Walloons up as  some sort of ruling elite.



That would be a good start. We should follow it up by redrawing Belgium's borders so that Flanders and Wallonia no longer have even a passing resemblance to the areas in which Flemish and French are spoken, and make Italian the official language for the whole lot.


----------



## Next2China (Sep 25, 2011)

Having Neanderthal Genes doesn't seem to have done us any harm, quite a successful people up until now.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 25, 2011)

Well given that Neanderthals and modern humans were able to successfully interbreed, we should probably call them part of the same species anyway. After all, it only takes a few tiny tweaks in our genes to bugger up our language capabilities, so just because Neanderthals didn't have language, that doesn't imply a big genetic difference, and clearly the language capability was retained - any products of this union without it have not successfully been selected subsequently. My strong suspicion - given that Neanderthals died out - would be that nothing important to survival was either gained or lost by these interactions.


----------



## Corax (Sep 25, 2011)

What I find exciting is the potential for inherited memories.  I read that Neanderthals inherited memories genetically from their ancestors, which made up for their relative inability to communicate vocally when it came to passing knowledge down the line.  If a lot of us have Neanderthal DNA in us, is it possible that we may have the same ability?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 25, 2011)

'Inherited memories'? What you are talking about is presumably simply instinctual behaviour - ie not learned. One of the reasons for the success of humans is that we have so little instinctual behaviour, that we have to learn so much.

If it's 'fixed' at birth, that leaves less room for adaptation and new behaviours, quite possibly why the Neanderthals died out. Insects are a very good example of animals with often complex behaviours and communication systems that are entirely inherited.


----------



## Corax (Sep 25, 2011)

No it was more than that.  For instance, the role of medicine woman was passed down through a family line because the medicine woman's female children would grow up already knowing about what plants to use for what, even if the clan had moved before she was born and she had never actually seen the plants she knew about.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 25, 2011)

You mean individual families would have their own sets of inherited knowledge? Sorry, but I doubt that very much. Where did you read that? How could anyone possibly know!? Sounds decidedly Lamarckian.


----------



## Corax (Sep 25, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You mean individual families would have their own sets of inherited knowledge?


Exactly. Knowledge passed down through a family line, coded into their DNA. DNA has the potential for storing ridiculous amounts of information.


littlebabyjesus said:


> Where did you read that?


It was a paper titled _clan of the cave bear_, but I can't remember which journal it was in.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 25, 2011)

It was a _novel_ titled The Clan of the cave bear!


----------



## Corax (Sep 25, 2011)

Wut? _No!!! _

Next you'll be telling me that all these months practising _Wingardium Leviosa_ won't ever amount to anything.


----------



## Kizmet (Sep 25, 2011)

Good book, that one. Clan of the cave bear.


----------



## silverfish (Sep 25, 2011)

Where do rugby players fit into this


----------



## fishfinger (Sep 25, 2011)

Rugby players are throwbacks. It's in the rules.


----------



## Kizmet (Sep 25, 2011)

that's 'coz throwing forward is against the rules.


----------

