/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15722582]

If Neanderthals interbred with Sapiens, then why are they considered to be separate species?

[Anonymous No.15722586]

The offspring of Neanderthals and modern humans was highly dysgenic and often infertile. This suggests they were genetically different enough to be classified as separate species

[Anonymous No.15722590]

>Some organisms commonly reproduce with similar species in the wild, forming genetic hybrids. In 2006, the first wild polar bear–grizzly bear hybrid was confirmed in Canada. Called “pizzly” or “grolar” bears, these hybrid bears can produce fertile offspring. However, polar bears and grizzly bears are still classified as different species due to their habitat needs.

[Anonymous No.15722620]

Shouldn't we apply an one drop rule to the Neanderthal-Sapiens race mixing and conclude that all Whites and Asians are Neanderthals and not Humans? Since those who believe Blacks are a different species also believe their descendents mixed with Humans are Black.

[Anonymous No.15722665]

>>15722620

[Anonymous No.15722770]

>>15722586
no evidence for that

[Anonymous No.15722805]

>>15722586
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.15722822]

>>15722582
in real life, different species can breed and produce fertile offspring. defining groups only to be species if they can't produce fertile offspring isn't a very good choice for the definition.

[Anonymous No.15723029]

>>15722582
Neanderthals being a species or subspecies is a debate. You'll find papers using both terms. The definition of species and subspecies is fuzzy. It's hard to break a continuum into discrete pieces.

[Anonymous No.15723034]

Retard low iq sub-sapient question. You definitely have Neanderthal IQ
>15722582

If canaries and finches sometimes reproduce and there is some canary in the finch DNA why are canaries different species

[Anonymous No.15723036]

>>15722620
One drop rule is stupid. If you have at least one recessive trait, or carry the genes for said trait you're white enough

[Anonymous No.15723582]

>>15723034
Yes, Dummy.

[Anonymous No.15723593]

>>15722582
Only a fraction of the neanderthal genome remains suggesting most of it was so incompatible that it was heavily purged

[Anonymous No.15723648]

>>15722620
>are Neanderthals and not Humans?
All homos are humans.

[Anonymous No.15723657]

>>15722582

[Anonymous No.15723666]

>>15723657
Whitest man in Brazil

[Anonymous No.15723692]

>>15722770
So where is the Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA?

[Anonymous No.15723889]

>>15722586
>The offspring of Neanderthals and modern humans was highly dysgenic and often infertile.
this is true but only for female neanderthal + male homo sapiens couples

[Anonymous No.15723897]

>>15722582
They aren't by some which is y they r sometimes called H. Sapiens Neanderthalensis implying a subspecies
Also diff species can interbreed and sometimes even have fertile offspring (ex. brown and polar bears)

[Anonymous No.15723915]

>>15723034
>You definitely have Neanderthal IQ
Jokes on u neanderthals were prob geniuses
Niggers r the lowest iq ppl on earth and also the only group that has no neanderthal DNA
Coincidence? I think not

[Anonymous No.15723921]

>>15722770
It's not certain, and the other anon exagerrates, but there is evidence.
Firstly there's just the fact that the Neanderthal contribution to the gene pool is so low. An obvious way to explain that is selection against most Neanderthal specific alleles.
Secondly, there's a distinct mismatch in the pattern of inheritance of Neanderthal X-chromosone DNA compared with autosomal DNA. We only have about 20% as much X-chromosome introgression from Neanderthals as we do autosomal introgression; and X-chromosome alleles with high level of expression in the testes show even less Neanderthal ancestry. All this could be signs of reduced fertility in male hybrids.
It's not the only possible explanation, and "highly dysgenic" is a stupid exagerration, but a lower fertility of hybrids does account quite well for some of the patterns of inheritance we see.

[Anonymous No.15724117]

>>15723915
all humans have neanderthal ancestry

[Anonymous No.15724596]

>>15724117
Are we really sure about that? I saw claims about having found "some" in Africa, but I never saw where from in Africa. Places such as Madagascar had a large Asian influx in more recent time, so finding Neanderthal genes on that island is reasonable. I am more curious about, say, the Khoisan.
Remember the Neanderthal DNA was found in Africa only after scientisst had found it had beenficial aspects.
And what about Denisovan DNA in Africa?

[Anonymous No.15724889]

>>15722582
It's more complicated, we have pretty modern looking skulls from Africa from 300kya but also erectus like skulls from 130k ago from Asia. And considering h. florensiensis allegedly even with several h. habilis traits it looks like there were waves of migration from Africa since 2mya and each new wave occasionally breed with more archaic species they met on their way. We have evidence that homo erectus passed some genes into Denisovians in Asia about 450kya.

[Anonymous No.15724902]

>>15722582
Tigers and Lions can interbreed.
And there are reports that humans and chimps can interbreed as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk-wR72Q98M

[Anonymous No.15724918]

>>15724889
You would be able to have fertile offsprings even with homo erectus probably but scientists must derive some names for different species with their specific traits to because the research and discourse about the evolution and migration is not possible without it.

[Anonymous No.15724929]

>>15724918
>You would be able to have fertile offsprings even with homo erectus probably
Tell me more. Would be plausible to revive homo erectus using DNA samples in the near future? How would you estimate the probability of a homo erectus girlfriend?

[Anonymous No.15724954]

>>15724929
I wouldn't want to have a homo erectus gf. I feel she would be so dumb it would be scary.

[Anonymous No.15724961]

>>15723889
This means that human women have always been messing around.

[Anonymous No.15724991]

>>15722582
Species are not actually rigorously defined. American bison and domestic cattle can have fertile offspring despite not even being in the same genus. Most remaining bison herds actually incorporate domestic cattle DNA into appreciable protion of their genome, much to the dismay of conservationists. It's actually an ongoing problem in biology to define what actually makes a species and why it's possible for crossbreeding.

[Anonymous No.15725450]

>>15724596
>>15724889
It was just one species. Denisovans and Neanderthals are from populations that didn't make it, "neanderthal DNA" are the alleles specific to that subpopulations.

[Anonymous No.15725461]

>>15724889
its not THAT complicated. it's just that there are a couple of missing pieces

the indication seems to be that modern humans evolved around the black sea, then interbred with other hominids, mostly unsuccessfully, but that the larger and more diverse presence of other hominids in africa and in the south more generally, guaranteed larger amounts of introgression in these areas

humans are still a separate species. some humans just have more prehominin DNA as you go further south. there's nothing complicated about it. tell me what's complicated.

>>15725450
neanderthal DNA has strong evidence of beign selected against if you look at it through molecular biology. the only remaining DNA is exclusively a few brain alleles, and then immunity alles, if I am not mistaken.

[Anonymous No.15725600]

>>15723029
>the definition of any level in the cladistic hierarchy of kingdom-phylum-class-...-genus-species is mere word salad
ftfy.

[Anonymous No.15725674]

>>15724596
This is an estimate of Neanderthal DNA in different populations. The chart on the left is Africans compared with other populations, the right hand chart is different African populations. No Khoisan in here though - this was using the populations in the 1000 genomes project, so it's just west Africans plus the Luhya in Kenya.

[Anonymous No.15726323]

>>15722582
I'm curious why were ancient hominids migrating so much. It is assumed that population of hominids (habilis, erectus, neanderthals) never exceeded 50-70k individuals, despite that they started to migrate to the furthest parts of the World as soon as 2 million years ago (habilis in the form of h. florensiensis reached Indonesia), Erectus was basically in Africa and Asia at the same time and then neandertals, Denisovians and early sapiens also dispersed in the whole eurasia despite wery limited populations. In the same time a limited jungle area in Africa is enough to house thousands of chimps. Why did early humans feel the need to migrate so much? There was literally one thousand people in germany, one thousand in Italia, one thousand in Syria etc. What were the reasons for migration?

[Anonymous No.15726334]

>>15726323
I imagine that early hominids after they were "expelled" from the jungle didn't really fit to their new environment and had to travel very long distances to find places that were rich enough in food and realtively safe from other predators that were quicker, stronger and heavier. Then the environmental pressure decided that being smart and durable is the only remaining strategy that can be used compete with predators on open land.