Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.
--------
Question: According to two studies published on Wednesday, DNA from these pre-modern humans may play a role in the appearance of hair and skin as well as the risk of certain diseases. Although Neanderthals became extinct 28,000 years ago in Europe, as much as one-fifth of their DNA has survived in human genomes due to interbreeding tens of thousands of years ago, one of the studies found, although any one individual has only about 2 percent of caveman DNA. “The 2 percent of your Neanderthal DNA might be different than my 2 percent of Neanderthal DNA, and it’s found at different places in the genome,” said geneticist Joshua Akey, who led one of the studies. Put it all together in a study of hundreds of people, and “you can recover a substantial proportion of the Neanderthal genome.”  Both studies confirmed earlier findings that the genomes of east Asians harbor more Neanderthal DNA than those of Europeans. This could be 21 percent more, according to an analysis by Akey and Benjamin Vernot, published online in the journal Science. Still, “more” is a relative term. According to the paper by geneticists at Harvard Medical School, published in Nature, about 1.4 percent of the genomes of Han Chinese in Beijing and south China, as well as Japanese in Tokyo come from Neanderthals, compared to 1.1 percent of the genomes of Europeans. Anthropologists expressed caution about the findings. Fewer than half a dozen Neanderthal fossils have yielded genetic material, said Erik Trinkaus of Washington University in  St. Louis, one of the world’s leading experts on early humans. Using this small sample to infer how much Neanderthal DNA persists in today’s genome is therefore questionable, he said. As expected, since Neanderthals never existed in Africa, Africans and those who trace their ancestry to that continent have almost no Neanderthal DNA, the Harvard team found. Human ancestors began migrating out of humanity’s natal continent as early as 1 million years ago, paleoanthropologists infer from fossil evidence, and between 500,000 and 200,000 years ago evolved into the robust, large-browed Homo neanderthalensis in Western Europe. Ever since scientists extracted DNA from the remains of Neanderthals, they have known that people today carry snippets of cavemen genes, in the amounts of 2 percent to 3 percent. That clinched the case that Neanderthals and modern humans interbred, probably 40,000 to 80,000 years ago, soon after the latter arrived in Europe from Africa. The new studies add details about how much DNA and of what kind we inherited. “The story of early human evolution is captivating in itself, yet it also has far-reaching implications for understanding the organization of the modern human genome,” Irene Eckstrand of the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of General Medical Sciences, which partially funded the research, said in a statement. “Every piece of this story that we uncover tells us more about our ancestors’ genetic contributions to modern human health and disease.”  The Harvard team used a novel genetic algorithm to estimate the probability that a particular genetic variant arose from Neanderthals. Basically, they started with the genome of a 50,000-year-old Neanderthal, and determined whether pieces of it also appeared in some non-Africans but not in sub-Saharan Africans. The algorithm identified remnants of Neanderthal DNA, called alleles, in genes associated with type 2 diabetes, Crohn’s disease, lupus, biliary cirrhosis and smoking behavior. “But we can’t tell if the Neanderthal alleles are contributing to disease,” said Harvard’s Sriram Sankararaman, lead author of the paper in Nature. Areas “with increased Neanderthal ancestry tend to be higher the farther away you go from genes,” sitting, instead, in regions of the genome that do not actually produce the proteins, enzymes and other working molecules of the body. Neanderthal DNA does sit within some genes, however, such as those for keratin, a fibrous protein that makes skin, hair and nails tough and can be beneficial in colder environments by providing thicker insulation. The endurance of this Neanderthal DNA suggests that our caveman inheritance was adaptive, picked by natural selection to persist in our genome, generation after generation, because it conferred a survival advantage in individuals who carried it. The Harvard team analyzed the genomes of 1,004 people to estimate which populations got more or fewer Neanderthal DNA. Confirming a 2013 study, they found more in the genomes of east Asians than in Europeans. But they also dug deeper. Puerto Ricans and Spaniards have the least Neanderthal DNA, 1.05 percent and 1.07 percent respectively. That is curious because Neanderthals made their last stand on the Iberian peninsula, finally dying out there 28,000 years ago. Across all populations, Neanderthal DNA is conspicuously low in regions of the X chromosome and in testes-specific genes. The paucity of Neanderthal genes among those active in the testes suggests that interbreeding wasn’t a resounding success: It produced viable children, but the males were infertile. Although as much as 20 percent of Neanderthal DNA persists in modern genomes, according to the Washington scientists, vast regions of the latter are Neanderthal deserts. Among them is a region of chromosome 7 that includes a gene called FOXP2. “FOXP2 has previously been implicated in speech and language and may be an example of a gene that influences a uniquely human trait, which is why we find no Neanderthal sequences in these regions,” said Akey.

Answer: Modern humans more Neanderthal than once thought, studies suggest.


Question: "State lawmakers have left Albany for the year without taking up a bill that would extend the statute of limitations for child sex abuse victims. Current law allows those victims to bring criminal charges against their alleged abuser until the age of 23. The Child Victims Act would extend the age to 28 and create a one-year revival period for past cases regardless of when they happened. Victims could also bring civil cases until age 50. The bill passed in the State Assembly with the support of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, but was blocked by Republicans in the State Senate. Comedian Samantha Bee took aim at the Senate on her weekly late-night talk show last week. ""I don't want you to think the New York Senate is anti-child,"" Bee said. ""This session they passed legislation allowing minors to race snowmobiles, get their own hunting licenses, and not be employed gathering or picking rags, cigar stumps, or collecting bones."" Anyone who does not follow New York state politics closely may be surprised by the claim. Those inside what’s known as the ‘Albany bubble’ were most likely not. But Bee is known for comedy. Some may have seen her claim as satirical. Were those bills a joke, or was Bee talking about legislation that actually passed the Senate? Snowmobile racing The Senate passed a bill in March that would allow people under the age of 18 to compete in organized snowmobile racing events without a safety certificate from the state. Current law requires anyone under the age of 18 to take a state-approved safety course before they ride a snowmobile. Anyone under 14 has to also be supervised by an adult when riding. The regulations do not apply if the minor rides on land owned by their parent or guardian. The bill would throw out those rules as long as the minor is participating in a snowmobile racing event. The bill, sponsored by Republican Sen. Betty Little of the North Country, passed the 63-member Senate with 49 votes. The Assembly did not take up the bill. Looser hunting restrictions Another bill, passed by the Senate in June, would allow 12-year-olds to get a universal hunting license by lowering the age for some hunting activities. You can start hunting when you are 12 in New York, but certain restrictions remain until the hunter is 14. The bill would drop the age from 14 to 12 for someone to participate in muzzle-loading season, obtain muzzle-loading privileges, hunt with a crossbow, and hunt big game. The child would have to be supervised by a parent or youth mentor. The sponsor, Republican Joseph Griffo, says in the bill’s memo it’s intended to give parents the opportunity to teach children about hunting at a younger age. The bill passed the Senate with 53 votes. The Assembly did not take it up. Begging for money The third bill targets people who use children to panhandle on the street. It’s already illegal for someone to use a child to beg for money but the crime is under the state’s arts and cultural affairs law instead of the penal law. This bill, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Jeffrey Klein of the Bronx, would transfer the crime to the penal law and strengthen the penalty for repeat offenders. The bill says someone cannot ask or allow a child under 16 to beg for money or receive payment for ""picking rags, or collecting cigar stumps, or collecting bones."" That provision has actually been in state law since 1971. It’s part of a broader law that bans children from doing several things for money. Among the more interesting: children cannot be employed as tightrope walkers and cannot receive money for displaying a physical deformity. The Klein bill to move the crime to the penal law passed the Senate in June with 55 votes. The bill was not taken up in the Assembly. Our ruling Comedian Samantha Bee said the New York State Senate ""passed legislation allowing minors to race snowmobiles, get their own hunting licenses, and not be employed gathering or picking rags, cigar stumps, or collecting bones."" Each of the bills is real and passed the Senate this year. Her claim is ."

Answer: "The New York State Senate ""passed legislation allowing minors to race snowmobiles, get their own hunting licenses, and not be employed gathering or picking rags, cigar stumps, or collecting bones."


Question: "The costs of foods containing vitamin E is not really in question, so we’ll call this one not applicable. The story comes a whisker away from earning a satisfactory on this one. It leads by noting that participants with the highest vitamin E intakes had a 25% lower risk of dementia compared with those who had the lowest intakes, It more precisely quantifies this benefit later in the story, where it explains that 120 people developed dementia in the group with the highest vitamin E intake compared with 164 people in the low- intake group. What would have been most informative, however, is if the story had provided some denominators for this comparison — that is, 120 out of how many people developed dementia in the first group compared with 164 out of how many people in the second? This would given readers a better sense of the absolute risk reduction associated with higher vitamin E intake. We know this sets the bar high, but for good reason, we think. There are no known harms to eating a diet rich in foods containing vitamin E, but this story goes the extra mile and notes that high vitamin E intake from supplements can cause excessive bleeding. The story uses appropriate language and caveats when reporting on the results of this observational study. It notes that the findings ""do not prove that vitamin E itself protects the aging brain,"" and there is no talk about vitamin E ""lowering the risk"" of dementia. The story also provides the key details regarding how the researchers conducted the study, including the number of participants; how vitamin E intake was assessed; how long the participants were followed; what confounding factors were included in the analysis; and how much vitamin E participants were getting in the group that had the lowest risk. Had the story sought out a comment from an expert in nutritional epidemiology, they likely would have pointed out some problems with trying to assess dietary intake from a single baseline questionnaire as was used in this study. They also would have provided additional context about the MANY other studies (including other large cohorts) that have looked at associations between antioxidants and dementia/ cognitive decline. Nevertheless, readers can’t miss the take-home message, which is that these findings are not conclusive. There was no disease-mongering of dementia in this story. Although the story is generally well balanced, it could have benefited from the inclusion of an independent comment on the findings. Valuable context about prior studies and the serious limitations of the current study would have been helpful. There is currently no proven method for preventing age-related dementia. We might have wished that this story had mentioned some other diet and lifestyle choices that are associated with reduced risk in observational studies. These include staying physically active, not smoking, eating a Mediterranean-style diet (rich in fruits and vegetables and omega-3 fatty acids), and keeping your mind engaged in intellectually challenging pursuits. But since the evidence is kind of squishy for all of this, we rule this satisfactory. The story provides a list of foods that are rich in this micronutrient. The idea that vitamin E and other antioxidants might protect against dementia is not new, and the story doesn’t suggest that it is. While the story doesn’t appear to have lifted anything directly from the press release issued for this study, it also doesn’t seem to have interviewed anyone about the research. Since we can’t be sure to what extent the story relied on a release, we’ll call it not applicable."

Answer:
Higher vitamin E intake tied to lower dementia risk