Home » Human evolution, News » Researchers: Neanderthals and modern humans did not interbreed, had common ancestor

Researchers: Neanderthals and modern humans did not interbreed, had common ancestor

From “Research Raises Doubts About Whether Modern Humans and Neanderthals Interbred” (Science Daily, August 13, 2012), we learn,

In the last two years, a number of studies have suggested that modern humans and Neanderthals had at some point interbred. Genetic evidence shows that on average Eurasians and Neanderthals share between 1-4 per cent of their DNA. In contrast, Africans have almost none of the Neanderthal genome. The previous studies concluded that these differences could be explained by hybridisation which occurred as modern humans exited Africa and bred with the Neanderthals who already inhabited Europe.

However, a new study funded by the BBSRC and the Leverhulme Trust has provided an alternative explanation for the genetic similarities. The scientists found that common ancestry, without any hybridisation, explains the genetic similarities between Neanderthals and modern humans. In other words, the DNA that Neanderthal and modern humans share can all be attributed to their common origin, without any recent influx of Neanderthal DNA into modern humans.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

10 Responses to Researchers: Neanderthals and modern humans did not interbreed, had common ancestor

  1. Um, Neanderthals and modern humans shared a common ancestor AFTER the modern humans left Africa?? I don’t see how this is possible since Neanderthals were living in Europe 400,000 years ago and “early modern humans” didn’t appear even in Africa until 200,000 years ago.

    Even when a scientist makes a wild guess, the guess is supposed to be plausible. Such a common ancestor isn’t plausible. Guess again.

  2. Once again the great presumption is in the fixity of DNA.
    If there is biological change from other innate processes then the dna would change too.
    Africans DNA shows great difference because they changed the most from the original people from babel.
    If they could change, black skin and this and that, then their DNA would change too.
    its exactly as it looks.
    Blacks are more different from the rest of us on points.
    so their dNA is different more and less like neanders /eurasians .

    neanderthals are just tough people who adapted to a tougher world.
    The few skeletons are missing the big picture.

    The bible mentions different types of peoples due to original migration issues. there were giants and others and so different dna.
    DNA is not a accurate trail of origins if biological change can happen quickly.
    It surely did and would mess DNA trails.

  3. Robert Byers posted this:

    “Blacks are more different from the rest of us on points.
    so their dNA is different more and less like neanders /eurasians .”

    Does anyone else commenting on this site agree with Robert Byers’ assessment of the genetic status of modern Africans relative to other human ethnic groups?

  4. I hope not. And doubt it.

  5. ID must be a Big Tent indeed.

  6. “Does anyone else commenting on this site agree with Robert Byers’ assessment of the genetic status of modern Africans relative to other human ethnic groups?”

    Mr. Byers viewpoint on difference, but not direction, is the same as Dr. Manica from the article; and everyone else involved in the Neanderthal hybridization issue.

    Do you agree that Mr. Byers, Dr. Manica, Evolutionists, and Geneticists are morally suspect?

  7. timothya
    Oh no naughty naughty.
    Your insinuating I’m saying blacks are inferior because of more different dna.
    I’m not saying anything about inferior/superior.

    If one follows these things they always say there is more genetic difference in Black africans then others.
    so they conclude africa is the origin of mankind because the less diversity means migration from the centre of greater diversity.
    A common thing they do and why they claim horses came from the americas first and so on and so on.

    A answer to greater diversity is that upon migration to africa these peoples changed the most relative to other people.
    Colour and many points of the body are quite different to the rest of us.
    So more change means more DNA diversity.

    So I took this thread about neanders and Eurasions dna comparison and the lack of likeness, claimed, of africans to neanders genome and showed why DNA is not a trail of heritage.
    Its just a reflection of change from other processes in bodies.

    Africans are the most different for the reason they are. They had to change the most.
    so there would be no reason to be closer to neanders, who are just ordinary peoples to me living in rough areas, then other peoples living closer to them.

    I don’t write well but i was still clear enough and no just reason to invoke serious assertions.
    All assertions are morally right if sincere but still some assertions are more unwelcome and reflect badly on one.
    No tent expansion needed.

  8. Robert Byers posted:

    “Oh no naughty naughty.”

    I was misled by your construction of “so their dNA is different more and less like neanders /eurasians”, which I read as meaning that you regarded modern African DNA is “more or less like” Neanderthal DNA.

    I accept that you are referring to the genetic “distance” between the groups, and not to any similarity between Africans and Neanderthalers.

    I apologise.

  9. Neanderthals and modern humans could have interbred and all of those descendents have died

  10. timothya
    Okay . lIke i said I write carelessly .
    I do think everyone insisting DNA are trails is a flaw as if its the only option.
    If there is other profound ways for great changes in bodies then the DNA would follow that..
    For example I am confident marsupials are just placentals with pouches etc.
    Yet the marsupials are closer in dNA to each other then to placentals they are identical in looking like in those cases.
    Wolves, lions, moles, mice, etc.
    So I conclude when these placentals changed upon migration to further away areas their DNA changed in like manner for all of them.
    The DNA FOLLOWED the change or hand in glove.
    SO looking today at their DNA is a waste of thought and instead looking at their anatomy tells the truth of origins.

Leave a Reply