Asians have Denisovan Genes

[Dr. Cheese]

Siberians share DNA with extinct human species - Telegraph

First Neaderthal, now Denisovan DNA in Asian populations have been found in Asian and Pacific Island populations. I guess African descended populations have the only "pure" Homo Sapiens DNA, for whatever that is worth.

At least that is what it looks like for now, who knows what will be dug up in some cave tomorrow?

[Phalex]

Originally Posted by Dr. Cheese

Siberians share DNA with extinct human species - Telegraph

I guess African descended populations have the only "pure" Homo Sapiens DNA, for whatever that is worth.

Sounds about right. With my pronounced supraorbital ridge, I'd guess I must be at least 1/3 Neanderthal. In fact, I've been called that on more than one occasion. According to some women I know, I'm also part Philistine.

[Strohsx]

I like the idea that all of us ancient hominids were just banging the crap out of each other, not that we just came out of africa and killed everyone else for being stupid.

[iamlowsound]

If you go back far enough, we are all related.

lowsound

[ehque]

Originally Posted by iamlowsound

If you go back far enough, we are all related.

lowsound

To Adam.

The oft-cited definition of species is: "A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring." (Wikipedia). If, according to the article, these hominids are human (homo sapiens) enough for their genes to enter the gene pool (fertile offspring), then they ARE human. Calling them an extinct species is either a journalistic error or science with an agenda.

[aborgman]

Originally Posted by ehque

To Adam.

The oft-cited definition of species is: "A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring." (Wikipedia). If, according to the article, these hominids are human (homo sapiens) enough for their genes to enter the gene pool (fertile offspring), then they ARE human. Calling them an extinct species is either a journalistic error or science with an agenda.

Or using a different definition of "species" than the biological species concept... it isn't the only scientifically valid one after all.

[MakiSupaStar]

Mmmmmmm

[fishtx]

oh well...maybe I can get work on a Geico commercial...

[Rattman]

Originally Posted by ehque

To Adam.

The oft-cited definition of species is: "A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring." (Wikipedia). If, according to the article, these hominids are human (homo sapiens) enough for their genes to enter the gene pool (fertile offspring), then they ARE human. Calling them an extinct species is either a journalistic error or science with an agenda.

To Noah...and his three sons.

[bassybill]

Good grief - there are so many misconceptions about genetics here, I hardly know where to start.

Gene lineages and organism lineages are totally different things. For example, blood group is determined by genes. It's quite possible for a human to share genes for blood group A with a chimp who has the same blood group that would not be present in the DNA of a person or a chimp with blood group B. In terms of your blood group, you are absolutely and 100% most certainly genetically closer to some chimps then you are to some people who live in your street. (unless, of course, every single person in your street shares the same blood group. Shoot me.)

There is no such thing anywhere as "pure" Homo sapiens DNA. We all share some of our genes with organisms like mice, fruit flies and pondweed. The article is referring to evidence about where genes may or may not have been concentrated or exchanged in prehistoric times to give clues as to human movements during particular periods. It is most emphatically not about establishing where the "pure" strain of Homo sapiens comes from. There can be no such thing from a genetic perspective.

[Dr. Cheese]

Originally Posted by bassybill

Good grief - there are so many misconceptions about genetics here, I hardly know where to start.

Gene lineages and organism lineages are totally different things. For example, blood group is deteremined by genes. It's quite possible for a human to share genes for blood group A with a chimp who has the same blood group that would not be present in the DNA for a person or a chimp with blood group B. In terms of your blood group, you are absolutely and 100% most certainly genetically closer to some chimps then you are to some people who live in your street. (unless, of course, every single person in your street shares the same blood group. Shoot me.)

There is no such thing anywhere as "pure" Homo sapiens DNA. We all share some of our genes with organisms like mice, fruit flies and pondweed. The article is referring to evidence about where genes may or may not have been concentrated or exchanged in prehistoric times to give clues as to human movements during particular periods. It is most emphatically not about establishing where the "pure" strain of Homo sapiens comes from. There can be no such thing from a genetic perspective.

Why the offended tone? I put pure in quotes and made it clear that I understand that our undersanding of prehistoric human populations is prone to sudden shifts whenever a new discovery is made.

As for the DNA and genetic information, I appreciate it. I am a historian, and not a scientist, so I'm not surprised that I have misuderstood things.

I suspect you took things seriously when I thought I made it clear I was tongue in cheek.

[coreyfyfe]

Originally Posted by ehque

To Adam.

The oft-cited definition of species is: "A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring." (Wikipedia). If, according to the article, these hominids are human (homo sapiens) enough for their genes to enter the gene pool (fertile offspring), then they ARE human. Calling them an extinct species is either a journalistic error or science with an agenda.

You should have kept reading that wikipedia page:

Some biologists may view species as statistical phenomena, as opposed to the traditional idea, with a species seen as a class of organisms. In that case, a species is defined as a separately evolving lineage that forms a single gene pool. Although properties such as DNA-sequences and morphology are used to help separate closely related lineages,[5] this definition has fuzzy boundaries.[6] However, the exact definition of the term "species" is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[7] and this is called the species problem.[8] Biologists have proposed a range of more precise definitions, but the definition used is a pragmatic choice that depends on the particularities of the species of concern.[8]

Science does not give simple or easy answers nor does it have an agenda. It has experiments, observations, and facts.

Originally Posted by Dr. Cheese

As for the DNA and genetic information, I appreciate it. I am a historian, and not a scientist, so I'm not surprised that I have misuderstood things.

I'm a scientist, not a historian, but I believe you did a fine job describing the brief bit of scientific history you've shared. I Don't think Bill was responding to your post...

[bassybill]

Originally Posted by Dr. Cheese

Why the offended tone? I put pure in quotes and made it clear that I understand that our undersanding of prehistoric human populations is prone to sudden shifts whenever a new discovery is made.

As for the DNA and genetic information, I appreciate it. I am a historian, and not a scientist, so I'm not surprised that I have misuderstood things.

I suspect you took things seriously when I thought I made it clear I was tongue in cheek.

Doc, forgive me if I gave the wrong impression, I'm not "offended" at all - you know I always appreciate your take on stuff - but I will admit to sometimes getting exasperated.

Your OP was not the only post that prompted my comment, by the way, as coreyfyfe has correctly inferred.

To me, this sort of natural history is crucial to our understanding of the world and our own place in it, and a lack of that understanding really hampers us, imo. This is really the bottom line. No offence intended to anyone. I think the reason so many people don't know the very first thing about this is very complex and I don't pretend to have an answer.

[sandmangeck]

Are you telling me the world isn't 6000 years old!

[bassybill]

The really interesting fact here - bearing in mind some of the race oriented discussions we have, to everyone's benefit - is how little the racial classifications we use relate to any genetic factors. The genetic differences are so superficial it's totally counter-intuitive to the way most of us think and it ain't even funny.

For example, walk into a bar filled with black and white folks. You want to know who are your closest relatives? Well, ignore anything about who's black or white. That means pretty much nothing - you may as well start finding your folks based on their shoe sizes.

Or, to put it another way - get any random group of people and sort them into two categories based on "black" or "white". Now sort them again, based on "big feet" or "small feet". Neither sorting process has more significance than the other (in fact, I'd probably bet on feet size being a better indicator of genetic similarity - but not with great confidence, I'd need more reading up to be certain).

We white folks all quite probably more closely related to some folks who are black than we are to some folks who are white. And vice versa. Weird, huh? But true. Such is the human gene pool.

Of course, cultural and social divisions do exist. I'm just saying that these have no basis in genetics or other areas of biology.

[chuck norriss]

That's what people in Siberia look like?
"Hi. I share genetic material with Denisovans."
Doesn't sound sexy but I'll try it anyway.

[Dr. Cheese]

Originally Posted by bassybill

The really interesting fact here - bearing in mind some of the race oriented discussions we have, to everyone's benefit - is how little the racial classifications we use relate to any genetic factors. The genetic differences are so superficial it's totally counter-intuitive to the way most of us think and it ain't even funny.

For example, walk into a bar filled with black and white folks. You want to know who are your closest relatives? Well, ignore anything about who's black or white. That means pretty much nothing - you may as well start finding your folks based on their shoe sizes.

Or, to put it another way - get any random group of people and sort them into two categories based on "black" or "white". Now sort them again, based on "big feet" or "small feet". Neither sorting process has more significance than the other (in fact, I'd probably bet on feet size being a better indicator of genetic similarity - but not with great confidence, I'd need more reading up to be certain).

We white folks all quite probably more closely related to some folks who are black than we are to some folks who are white. And vice versa. Weird, huh? But true. Such is the human gene pool.

Of course, cultural and social divisions do exist. I'm just saying that these have no basis in genetics or other areas of biology.

That is something I understand well. That was why I talked about so-called "pure" homo sapiens DNA being African. Mind you, I did not say "black" because that is literally only skin deep.

Genetics make me think of linguistics, and how language relationships so often have nothing to do with racial differences. Just think about the differing appearances of the people who speak Turkic languages or say Afro-Asiatic languages.

[bassybill]

Originally Posted by Dr. Cheese

That is something I understand well. That was why I talked about so-called "pure" homo sapiens DNA being African. Mind you, I did not say "black" because that is literally only skin deep.

Genetics make me think of linguistics, and how language relationships so often have nothing to do with racial differences. Just think about the differing appearances of the people who speak Turkic languages or say Afro-Asiatic languages.

All hominids can be traced back to Africa - including Denisovans, Neanderthals and my uncle Bob.

You and I definitely shared a "human" ancestor who was African. And further back, we definitely shared an ancestor who was not (and wasn't human, either).

We're all Laurasiatheres if you go a long, long way back further in mammalian evolution (that means we're not from Africa, on that timescale).

Where do we say we started? Our ancestors lived before Africa even existed. I'm sure you're understanding my point now.

By the way - I'd bet big money that we were al black when we lived in Africa. That sun is darned ferocious! Give Texans and Arizona folk a few hundred millennia to respond to the selection pressure, and they'll all be black too.

[Relic]

Originally Posted by bassybill

The really interesting fact here - bearing in mind some of the race oriented discussions we have, to everyone's benefit - is how little the racial classifications we use relate to any genetic factors. The genetic differences are so superficial it's totally counter-intuitive to the way most of us think and it ain't even funny.

For example, walk into a bar filled with black and white folks. You want to know who are your closest relatives? Well, ignore anything about who's black or white. That means pretty much nothing - you may as well start finding your folks based on their shoe sizes.

Or, to put it another way - get any random group of people and sort them into two categories based on "black" or "white". Now sort them again, based on "big feet" or "small feet". Neither sorting process has more significance than the other (in fact, I'd probably bet on feet size being a better indicator of genetic similarity - but not with great confidence, I'd need more reading up to be certain).

We white folks all quite probably more closely related to some folks who are black than we are to some folks who are white. And vice versa. Weird, huh? But true. Such is the human gene pool.

Of course, cultural and social divisions do exist. I'm just saying that these have no basis in genetics or other areas of biology.

I had an epiphany a few years back when my wife and I took DNA tests just to sort of see what it would come up with.

Now, given the fact that I'm certain that they are not anywhere near 100% perfect, they were good enough that I have been able to contact relatives in quite a few different countries. After some conversation with them, we've discovered common ancestors and whatnot. Phenomenal stuff.

To make a long story short, NONE of us are what we "think" we are. My wife has always gone with the assumption that she was of Chinese and native Central American ancestry, it turns out that she has a lot of European and African ancestry as well. As for me, pretty much all European but the whole "Slavic, vs Germanic vs Latin, vs Magyar vs whatever, was blown out of the water. We are all so mixed that it's almost pointless to try to categorize oneself into a specific slot other than maybe national origins.

[aborgman]

Originally Posted by bassybill

We white folks all quite probably more closely related to some folks who are black than we are to some folks who are white. And vice versa. Weird, huh? But true. Such is the human gene pool.

Of course, cultural and social divisions do exist. I'm just saying that these have no basis in genetics or other areas of biology.

Yep...

There is more genetic variation among blacks in Africa than in the rest of the world combined.

It's quite possible that an Inuit, an Irishman, and myself are more closely related to African tribesman X than is African tribesman Y that only lives 20 miles away from tribesman X.