# Different kinds of humans **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 21, 2013, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/different-kinds-of-humans/676887 "2013-12-21T08:08:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2013, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/different-kinds-of-humans/676887/41 "2013-12-27T00:32:32Z")
The point is that there is no evidence for advantageous Neanderthal genes. The genes will spread without any advantage. So what **Colibri** wrote is not “especially true” if the genes are advantageous. It will happen regardless. The sensationalist creation of a university’s public relations department is not a “hypothesis actual scientists are making”. For that, we look at the actual journal. Which is not great, but there are worse. The article (10.1074/jbc.M113.515767) hasn’t been issued yet, but the pre-release is available online at the above DOI. From a cursory look, the data are consistent with DPB1\*0401 originating from Neanderthals. However, it does not rule out human origin. N-DP is fragmentary. Yes, mostly in areas that are highly conserved, but identification of 35-36 would help. Both K69 and GGPM84-87 occur, separately, in populations that are geographically unlikely to have inherited those mutations from Neanderthals. As the authors write, “the K and GGPM motifs may have had their origin purely within Homo sapiens.” Assuming the publisists’ first straw-grasp is correct, and it would be cool if it were, there is no evidence to support the second, i.e. that this particular heterodimer is advantageous. As written, “Whether this selection was positive, particularly over the northern hemisphere, or disadvantageous over areas of Africa and South America remains uncertain.” Boiled down, this paper doesn’t tell us much of anything. It’s solid work, but there is a reason they went for JBC, and the data aren’t there to support the fantasies we see in [sciencedaily.com](http://sciencedaily.com). Fortunately the authors weren’t so silly in the actual paper. It’s not really the point of the paper. But someone likes catchy headlines. I can’t really complain, because I like that it gets folks interested. ---
**Author:** ![Esox\_Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Esox\_Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esox_Lucius)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2013, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/different-kinds-of-humans/676887/42 "2013-12-27T03:32:29Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > But there has been so much interbreeding within populations of Modern Humans, that it gets swamped out. And keep in mind that we’re talking statistics here. If the Average European has 2-3% Neanderthal DNA, there is going to be lots of variation around that point. And when you get to populations in Africa and Australia, for instance, then you find little to no Neanderthal DNA. > [@Colibri](#): > > Remember that in a small population after a few generations the entire population will share the same ancestors in the original population. It wouldn’t take very many Neanderthals in the ancestral population for a few genes to spread throughout the entire population 10 generations down the line. Thanks for the explanations. My gut feeling was that it wasn’t possible, but luckily for me, I’ve reached the point where my brain overrules my gut. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/different-kinds-of-humans/676887.md?page=2)