---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

Apparently we share about 97.5 %

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genome_project

 

There is also growing evidence that modern humans may have interbred with Neanderthals

 

http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/science-neanderthal-genes-modern-human-dna-01734....

---

but surely, if they are using the dna from only one Neanderthal* and comparing it with a large number of modern humans, it would conceivably give  a loaded result? ie that particular Neanderthal may have had dna different from the 'norm' of Neanderthals in that period?

* NB what was the process by which they determined that this individual was indeed Neanderthal.

[edit: especially since, in this example they only had a toe bone to work with}

also, I note:

According to preliminary sequences, 99.7% of the base pairs of the modern human and Neanderthal genomes are identical, compared to humans sharing around 98.8% of base pairs with the chimpanzee (Other studies concerning the commonality between chimps and humans have modified the commonality of 99% to a commonality of only 94%, showing that the genetic gap between humans and chimps is far larger than originally thought.)

my great-great auntie

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

also, I note:

 

According to preliminary sequences, 99.7% of the base pairs of the modern human and Neanderthal genomes are identical, compared to humans sharing around 98.8% of base pairs with the chimpanzee (Other studies concerning the commonality between chimps and humans have modified the commonality of 99% to a commonality of only 94%, showing that the genetic gap between humans and chimps is far larger than originally thought.)

---

Is that surprising? The beauty of science is that it moves forward as more evidence is found and tested. The new studies do not prove that we are not closely related genetically to chimpanzees, only that we are not as closely related as was first assumed.  In the same way, future studies maywell  determine that we are either more or less closely related to Neanderthals. It is highly unlikely that they will ever prove there the  relationship is distant or non existant. 

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

Apparently we share about 97.5 %

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genome_project

 

There is also growing evidence that modern humans may have interbred with Neanderthals

 

http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/science-neanderthal-genes-modern-human-dna-01734....

---

but surely, if they are using the dna from only one Neanderthal* and comparing it with a large number of modern humans, it would conceivably give  a loaded result? ie that particular Neanderthal may have had dna different from the 'norm' of Neanderthals in that period?

 

* NB what was the process by which they determined that this individual was indeed Neanderthal.

[edit: especially since, in this example they only had a toe bone to work with}

---

does anyone know about these questions?

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

also, I note:

 

According to preliminary sequences, 99.7% of the base pairs of the modern human and Neanderthal genomes are identical, compared to humans sharing around 98.8% of base pairs with the chimpanzee (Other studies concerning the commonality between chimps and humans have modified the commonality of 99% to a commonality of only 94%, showing that the genetic gap between humans and chimps is far larger than originally thought.)

---

Is that surprising? The beauty of science is that it moves forward as more evidence is found and tested. The new studies do not prove that we are not closely related genetically to chimpanzees, only that we are not as closely related as was first assumed.  In the same way, future studies maywell  determine that we are either more or less closely related to Neanderthals. It is highly unlikely that they will ever prove there the  relationship is distant or non existant. 

---

no, it's not surprising. BUT, in terms of DNA differences - I understand that even 0.2% came make a HUGE difference - eg What is the % between say Chinese V Indian V Anglo Saxon V Pigmy?

no-one know? 

How is it relevant? As far as I know the races you mentioned are all members of the race Homo sapiens, Neanderthals were a separate species of the genus Homo.

In December 2013,  In addition, scientists reported, for the first time, the entire genome of a Neanderthal. The genome was extracted from the toe bone of a 130,000-year-old Neanderthal found in a Siberian cave.

Comparison of the DNA of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens suggests that they diverged from a common ancestor between 350,000 and 400,000 years ago. This ancestor was probablyHomo heidelbergensis. Heidelbergensis originated between 800,000 and 1,300,000 years ago, and continued until about 200,000 years ago. It ranged over Eastern and South Africa, Europe and Western Asia. Between 350,000 and 400,000 years ago the African branch is thought to have started evolving towards modern humans and the Eurasian branch towards Neanderthals. Scientists do not agree when Neanderthals can first be recognised in the fossil record, with dates ranging between 200,000 and 300,000 years 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

If 200,000 years is the latest possible accepted date for the first appearance of Homo Neanderthalis then it would not be difficult for a scientist to recognize a 130,000 year old specimen.

Also Genetic studies and fossil evidence show that archaic Homo sapiens evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa between 200,000 and 60,000 years ago,[1] that members of one branch of Homo sapiens left Africa at some point between 125,000 and 60,000 years ago, and that over time these humans replaced more primitive populations of the genus Homo such asNeanderthals and Homo erectus.[2] The date of the earliest successful "out of Africa" migration (earliest migrants with living descendants) has generally been placed at 60,000 years ago based on genetics, but migration out of the continent may have taken place as early as 125,000 years ago according to Arabian archaeological finds of tools in the region.

[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans

It is therefore highly unlikely that a 130,000 year old fossil found in Siberia could have been Homo Sapiens.

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

How is it relevant? As far as I know the races you mentioned are all members of the race Homo sapiens, Neanderthals were a separate species of the genus Homo.

 

In December 2013,  In addition, scientists reported, for the first time, the entire genome of a Neanderthal. The genome was extracted from the toe bone of a 130,000-year-old Neanderthal found in a Siberian cave.

 

Comparison of the DNA of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens suggests that they diverged from a common ancestor between 350,000 and 400,000 years ago. This ancestor was probablyHomo heidelbergensis. Heidelbergensis originated between 800,000 and 1,300,000 years ago, and continued until about 200,000 years ago. It ranged over Eastern and South Africa, Europe and Western Asia. Between 350,000 and 400,000 years ago the African branch is thought to have started evolving towards modern humans and the Eurasian branch towards Neanderthals. Scientists do not agree when Neanderthals can first be recognised in the fossil record, with dates ranging between 200,000 and 300,000 years 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

 

If 200,000 years is the latest possible accepted date for the first appearance of Homo Neanderthalis then it would not be difficult for a scientist to recognize a 130,000 year old specimen.

Also Genetic studies and fossil evidence show that archaic Homo sapiens evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa between 200,000 and 60,000 years ago,[1] that members of one branch of Homo sapiens left Africa at some point between 125,000 and 60,000 years ago, and that over time these humans replaced more primitive populations of the genus Homo such asNeanderthals and Homo erectus.[2] The date of the earliest successful "out of Africa" migration (earliest migrants with living descendants) has generally been placed at 60,000 years ago based on genetics, but migration out of the continent may have taken place as early as 125,000 years ago according to Arabian archaeological finds of tools in the region.

[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans

 

It is therefore highly unlikely that a 130,000 year old fossil found in Siberia could have been Homo Sapiens.

 

 

 

 

---

but surely, if they are using the dna from only one Neanderthal* and comparing it with a large number of modern humans, it would
conceivably give a loaded result? ie that particular Neanderthal may have had dna different from the 'norm' of Neanderthals in that period?

* NB what was the process by which they determined that this individual was indeed Neanderthal. perhaps not Neaderthal and not homo sapien

[edit: especially since, in this example they only had a toe bone to work with}

no, it's not surprising. BUT, in terms of DNA differences - I understand that even 0.2% came make a HUGE difference - eg What
is the % between say Chinese V Indian V Anglo Saxon V Pigmy?