Talk:Neanderthal genome project

message: Much of this article is still material added during the early phase of the project. Most of the "criticism" stuff is obsolede, or at least only of historical interest. Such "criticism" as seems relevant should be put into the "history" section. Otoh, the publication of the draft should be moved out of the history section, as these is a project result, not project history. It can be moved into "history" once they publish a definite sequence. --dab (𒁳) 10:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if its obsolete. It is probably still relevant as criticism of the earlier sections of DNA the project released reports on.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: People were still talking about this and debating at a May 2010 forum on computational biology and bioinformatics, so although it seems as if most of the researchers weigh in on one side of the debate, it isn't "history" just yet and there is still a small, but significant, group that continues to question the results.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.70.214.104 (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criticism" and "History" sections 

message: I've copied the following from a section I made on the "Heritability of Autism" page.
My only request is that you read before you delete:
The Journal of Evolutionary Psychology just published a paper that supports the hypothesis that the confirmed neanderthal admixture event(s) provided cognitive variations that were subsequently selected for, sometimes causing a locus of deleterious recombinations in the genomes of children with parents who selected one another for those characteristics: http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP09207238.pdf
:* "People on the autism spectrum are conceptualized here as ecologically competent individuals that could have been adept at learning and implementing hunting and gathering skills in the ancestral environment."
:* "The autism continuum could represent a remnant of genetic introgression that took place before humans were the lone species in our genus.  Perhaps some of the genes for autism evolved not in our direct ancestral line but in a solitary subspecies which later merged genetically with our line of descent through gene flow."
:* "Many of the behavioral and cognitive tendencies that autistic individuals exhibit are viewed here as adaptations that would have complemented a solitary lifestyle. For example, the obsessive, repetitive and systemizing tendencies in autism, which can be mistakenly applied toward activities such as block stacking today, may have been focused by hunger and thirst toward successful food procurement in the ancestral past. Both solitary mammals and autistic individuals are low on measures of gregariousness, socialization, direct gazing, eye contact, facial expression, facial recognition, emotional engagement, affiliative need and other social behaviors. The evolution of the neurological tendencies in solitary species that predispose them toward being introverted and reclusive may hold important clues for the evolution of the autism spectrum and the natural selection of autism genes."
:* "This article emphasizes that individuals on the autism spectrum may have only been partially solitary, that natural selection may have only favored subclinical autistic traits and that the most severe cases of autism may be due to assortative mating. "
:* "Unfortunately, the genetics, molecular biology and neuroscience of autism are still, relative to many other neurological disorders, shrouded with uncertainty due to their highly complex nature (O’Roak and State, 2008)."
:* "A portion of this complexity and uncertainty arises from the relatively large number of distinct susceptibility genes that have been identified, many of which can be completely absent even in pronounced autism (Freitag, 2007). This genetic heterogeneity may be responsible for the clinical heterogeneity..."
:* "1. isolated pockets of humans can remain reproductively insulated for long enough to evolve discrepant ecological strategies; 2. such populations can quickly (less than 40,000 years in the South American and Asian pygmies; Cavalli-Sforza, 1986) develop features that vary markedly from the norm; 3. these traits can involve multiple genes at different loci; and 4. interbreeding can result in either continuous or polymorphic variation in subsequent generations. It is interesting to note that, as these indigenous people become assimilated into other gene pools, the genes for short stature will persist and may affect phenotypic variability in sporadic and unpredictable ways for a long time to come."
:* "Like other polygenic, continuous traits, the mutations responsible for autism could have been maintained by “environmental heterogeneity,” a form of balancing selection. In other words, the genes responsible for autism may have remained in our gene pool because as social-environmental conditions fluctuated in the past, discrepant genetic polymorphisms, or “multiple alternate alleles,” were favored."
Here are some peer reviewed sources that imply a link between the genes garnered via neanderthal admixture and the genes that code for ASDs:
:* Brain development after birth differs between Neanderthals and modern humans (2010, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology) B]
::"The development of cognitive abilities during individual growth is linked to the maturation of the underlying neural circuitry: in humans, major internal brain reorganization has been documented until adolescence, and even subtle alterations of pre- and perinatal brain development have been linked to changes of the neural wiring pattern that affect behavior and cognition [9]. The uniquely modern human pattern of early brain development is particularly interesting in the light of the recent breakthroughs in the Neanderthal genome project [10], which identified genes relevant to cognition that are derived in living humans. We speculate that a shift away from the ancestral pattern of brain development occurring in early Homo sapiens underlies brain reorganization and that the associated cognitive differences made this growth pattern a target for positive selection in modern humans."
:* A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome
::"Mutations in CADPS2 have been implicated in autism (67), as have mutations in AUTS2 (68)."
:* Autism, the Integrations of ‘Difference’ and the Origins of Modern Human Behaviour (McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research)
The fact that the male side of the admixture(s) was/were strictly neanderthal would mean that we share none of their mtDNA.  This explains the lack of mtDNA abnormality and the existence of mitochondrial dysfunction in people with ASDs: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2350/12/50
:* "the frequent observation of concomitant mitochondrial dysfunction and ASD could be due to nuclear factors influencing mitochondrion functions or to a more complex interplay between the nucleus and the mitochondrion/mtDNA."
The neanderthal haplotype described in this 2011 paper is x-linked: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/01/25/molbev.msr024.full.pdf+html
:The abstract finishes by saying: "It indicates a very early admixture between expanding African migrants and Neandertals prior to or very early on the route of the out-of-Africa expansion that led to the successful colonization of the planet."  [On a side note: This could also explain the unique, cyclical pattern of brutal invasion, cultural assimilation, and intermarriage that is so common in the written history of human civilization.  Evidence of mostly patrilineal migrations among early AMHs is just coming out: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/24/1100723108 "Ancient DNA reveals male diffusion through the Neolithic Mediterranean route" (May 2, 2011)]
More evidence is cited in this wrongplanet thread: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp3696657.html#3696657 Slartibartfastibast (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to Autism 

message: How is this not mentioned? It is proven that loads of people are in fact part-Neanderthal. With it tiny percents, like one of the paragraphs in this page mentions was predicted (1% - 4%). That should be in articles, on this wikipedia page, on other wikipedia pages where it's relevant, etc. So, why are scientists ignoring this research material, and evidence? And, why doesn't it get mention on related wikipedia pages? Even without this evidence, you can clearly see that many people alive today are part-Neanderthal, because they literally have obvious Neanderthal morphology, while of heritage where the Neanderthals were.
How is it that after the finding that many people are probably 1-to-4% Neanderthal got followed by BS about how Homo Sapiens Sapiens weren't in the area yet, when the DNA PROVES humans were in the area?
This, and other Wikipedia pages are in dire need of correction. As is the outdated dogma many people are teaching in direct defiance of LOADS of scientific evidence. While Wikipedia editors can't do anything about the latter, you CAN do something about inaccuracies on wikipedia pages.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.240.244 (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirmed Intermixing By Genome Mapping Type Groups (The Genographic Project, 23andMe, etc.) 

message: They say you are what you eat...
Has anybody looked into the possibility that Neanderthal genes in humans (assuming there actually are any) might result from early humans EATING Neanderthals and not from mating with them?  Cro Magnons killing and eating Neanderthals has been verified and was probably common, while the idea of cross breeding is very difficult to believe and in fact James Shreve's "Neanderthal Peace" article flatly stated that there was zero archaeological evidence of it on the planet.  Bacterial insertion is a known vector of gene accumulation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swolf46 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Humans (some at least) eat quantities of beef, pork, lamb, chicken, turkey and fish without evidence that they have acquired genes from those sources.  The process of digestion is quite destructive toward macromolecules like DNA, RNA and protein.24.108.28.165 (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree that it is unlikely Neanderthal DNA in modern day humans is a result of eating Neanderthals, particularly for the reasons stated by IP 24.108.28.165 --- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:   Eating Neanderthals 

message: The article claims, as an aside to FINDINGS, that humans share 98.8 % base pairs with the chimpanzee. This number, afaik, results from an older comparision of DNA which did NOT compare on the level of actual base pairs, using that method, the difference is far greater. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project does not make a claim like that, either.
Could you please either add a reference to a study that is either recent or specifies the methodology claimed to be used here, or delete the chimpanzee reference as not factual? Thank you. 
195.37.190.154 (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Percentage of shared base pairs 

message: "Analysis of the specimen's nuclear DNA is under way and is expected to clarify whether the find is a distinct species". Relevant cites are dated 2010. Any updates on this? 
Kortoso (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denisova DNA status? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Neanderthal genome project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217175926/http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Green_Complete_Cell_2008.pdf to http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Green_Complete_Cell_2008.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Ancient homo sapiens from same region? Ancient homo sapiens from elsewhere entirely? Modern local DNA donor? Modern human from elsewhere entirely??
This uneducated layman cringes each time some researcher publishes data like that in the main Neantderthal article in wikedia, and it seems like these new DNA percentages are much the same. Admitting a possible lack of understanding of more complex information, let's just go after stuff like "Males stood 164 to 168 cm (65 to 66 in) and females 152 to 156 cm (60 to 61 in) tall": 1 inch height range, REALLY???? 
Yet somehow there's a 6 inch difference between just 2 generations in my own family, despite (presumably) far less genetic variation than the Neanderthal race. Take it up a notch, just to females this layman has dated in this lifetime, and there's a *19* inch range (4ft 9in to 6ft 4in)... i gotta wonder if these same "scientists" would, given a skeletal xray or DNA, classify either the 4'9" girl or the 6'4" girl (same ethnicity, same city btw) as the same species, or, heck, if EITHER of them would fall into Homo sapiens at all. 
And what % match would their DNA be, I do wonder.
Sloppy sloppy half-azzed research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.67.249.167 (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  What/whom are they using for their human specimen, exactly?