Is it true that “there is a evidence that the people of the Middle East are Human/Neanderthal hybrids” ?
For me, seeing people thinking like that is just sad. (I hope he’s a troll and what he says is not correct.)
Someone asks a question:
And the answer is:
Well, yeah, people in the Middle East and all other humans outside Africa as well. I’m of Irish/German ancestry, and I probably have Neanderthal DNA too.
There is genetic evidence that all humans outside of Africa have some Neanderthal DNA, including Europeans, Chinese, and Papuans. The hybridization most likely took place in the Middle East when modern humans first left Africa; there is some skeletal evidence for limited hybridization in the Middle East. But Middle Easterners are not unique in that respect. Whoever wrote that post, assuming he wasn’t of pure sub-Saharan African ancestry, was also a modern human/Neanderthal hybrid.
PS. The first answer you quote isn’t very good either. While it’s true that skin color does not correspond to racial groupings, these days scientists link populations mainly by genetics rather than by “bone structure.”
If you got a hunnert bucks and can spit, you can find out how much Neanderthal blood you got in you.
There is evidence that all non-african human populations have some degree of Neanderthal ancestry. That would include people from the Middle East, but also Caucasians, Asians, Native Americans, and most of the rest of the human race.
If I recall, Europeans usually have the highest percentage of Neanderthal, up to 5%, but the rest of humanity outside of sub-Saharan Africa typically has 2-4%.
These are averages, of course - any randomly selected person outside of sub-Saharan Africa could have 0-5%
I’ve heard a lot of anti-Semitism in my day, but that one takes the cake!
~VOW
“A evidence”?
Actually, the most recent data from the 1,000 Genomes Project indicates possible continued hybridization events in Europe, not just a few local ones in the M.E. when humans first left Africa.
From Colibri’s cite in post #2:
The old concept of isolated populations has already frayed at the edges. If more samples are examined we should see a much more complex picture of the interaction of human populations that moved out of Africa.
What are you implying? :dubious: My Uncle’s never been to Europe.
Earlier this month, the TV show NOVA had an episode called “Decoding Neanderthals” that was about this, and according to them, yes, a whole lot of people all over the world have Neanderthal DNA. The scientists theorized that it’s a good thing we do, because when the more advanced Cro-Magnons moved into Europe where the Neanderthals were, they didn’t have immunity to a lot of the germs present. Cro-Magnon/Neanderthal hybrids did have some immunity, though.
The show also presented evidence that the Neanderthals were much brighter than people think, made some effective tools, etc.
Fascinating stuff.
www.wgbh.org/programs/NOVA-16/episodes/...Neanderthals-43265 - Cached
It is interesting how the views about Neanderthals changed extremely rapidly in some circles after it was found just how significant Neanderthal generic contributions are in some populations, especially European ones. Accusing someone of being partly Neanderthal used to be an insult of the highest order because the old popular perception was that they were nothing but brutish cavemen who got wiped out quickly as soon as the smarter homo sapiens moved onto their turf.
However, now that we have good evidence that people of European descent are really homo sapien/Neanderthal hybrids, some of the more savvy white supremacists groups are using that fact to show genetic superiority by making a 180 degree turn on the popular perception of how smart Neanderthals were.
It is hard to know why the person in the OP singled out Middle Easterners as having Neanderthal DNA. Ten years ago, it would have been considered a huge insult. Now it isn’t that we know that all non-African populations have some Neanderthal DNA contribution. The comment was either ignorant or selectively coy about what that statement means based on what we know today.
It’s hard to know but it isn’t hard to guess.
I think it’s a bit much to say Europeans are “hybrids”. The term generally refers to the first generation of interbreeding. There were hybrids at one time, but it’s more accurate to say they have been absorbed back into one of the parent populations-- ie, H. sapiens.
Oh, so you have a special practice. You handle one client.
Before it was proven that Neanderthals and H.Sapiens interbred, I thought it was hilarious how some archeological anthropologists thought it would be preposterous for H.Sapiens to interbreed with such a ‘different’ form of humans.
Hilarious because any anthropologist who studies modern-day H.Sapiens will tell you that we’ll [del]fu[/del]breed with anything. Well, at least some among us.
No, you had that correct before the strike out - we can only breed with our own (and closely related hominids, all of which are currently extinct) but humans seem willing to f**k just about anything, living or inanimate.
History repeating itself. I recall reading about how for some time racial “scientists” considered whites to be more mature, more developed than non-whites, pointing out all the features that “proved” this. Then the idea arose that many distinctive human traits are an example of neoteny, the retention of juvenile traits; and suddenly those same “scientists” turned around and started pointing out all the ways whites were according to them more “juvenile”, had more neotenous features.