Neanderthal: 99.5 Percent Human

[Regulator75]

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiol...rthal_dna.html

Humans and their close Neanderthal relatives began diverging from a common ancestor about 700,000 years ago, and the two groups split permanently some 300,000 years later, according to two of the most detailed analyses of Neanderthal DNA to date.

The results from the new studies confirm the Neanderthal's humanity, and show that their genomes and ours are more than 99.5 percent identical, differing by only about 3 million bases.
"This is a drop in the bucket if you consider that the human genome is 3 billion bases," said Edward Rubin of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, who led one of the research teams.

"Humans went through several stages of evolution in the last 400,000 years," said study co-author Jonathan Pritchard of the University of Chicago. "If we can compare humans’ and Neanderthals’ genomes, then we can possibly identify what the key genetic changes were during that final stage of human evolution."
A completed genome will also reveal new insights about Neanderthals, who disappeared mysteriously about 30,000 years ago.
"In having the Neanderthal genome sequence ...we're going to learn about the biology, learn about things that we could never learn from the bones and the artifacts that we have," Rubin said.
The results of Rubin's team are detailed in the Nov. 16 issue of the journal Nature; Paabo's team's results are detailed in the Nov. 17 issue of the journal Science.

[Cheese]

MOD edit: Deleted. Off topic.

[ken0042]

I guess the number doesn't really shock me. From a genetic standpoint, don't we share something like 97% of our coding with chimps?

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I guess the number doesn't really shock me. From a genetic standpoint, don't we share something like 97% of our coding with chimps?

Yup, and 85% with a lobster, and 40% with a cucumber.

[ken0042]

^^ Well, that does explain several of my co-workers then.

[AC]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I guess the number doesn't really shock me. From a genetic standpoint, don't we share something like 97% of our coding with chimps?

99.7% is the most common one I've been told.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

99.7% is the most common one I've been told.

i'm not sure if it would make sense to share more with a chimp than it would be of a descendant that is closer to us. im no scientist, but didnt we split from monkey's longer ago than we did from neandrathals?

[mykalberta]

So do they believe that to be the direct link?

How do they assume it survived the Ice Age or is this post Ice Age - its been a little while since Bio30?

Thanks

MYK

[KevanGuy]

What do you mean by 'direct link'? We branched off from a common ancestor Homo Erectus (cue fotze).

They existed during the Ice Age.

Kinda curious that they article uses the term 'disappeared mysteriously'. As far as I know, Neanderthals lost the competition for space and food with Homo Sapiens. Not really that much of a mystery. I believe the last group of Neanderthal's existed in and around Gibraltar. Also it is interesting to note that some current Homo Sapiens actually contain traces of Neanderthal specific DNA (edit: Well, that article says otherwise but that was what I was taught).

[AC]

Originally Posted by Table 5

i'm not sure if it would make sense to share more with a chimp than it would be of a descendant that is closer to us. im no scientist, but didnt we split from monkey's longer ago than we did from neandrathals?

No, you're right, as the chimp and hominin lineages seperated before, the most logical assumption would be that we share the least amount of DNA with chimps than with any other of the previous hominins.

So perhaps with this latest study - assuming it is correct - the 99.7% will be reconsidered. It just depends who you talk to though.

edit:
According to http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2833
The % of DNA shared had been revised. Some people must just be citing that old belief still then.

[AC]

Originally Posted by KevanGuy

What do you mean by 'direct link'? We branched off from a common ancestor Homo Erectus (cue fotze).

Not sure I understand the question either. The term 'missing link' is misleading because there really is no gap in the hominin phylogeny.

The specific species that the split occured from isn't directly known, but the most widely accepted phylogeny indicates the split at 5-8 million years ago, with the hominin lineage starting with Ardipithecus ramidus, then leading to the Australopithecines, which splits again at Australopithecus afarensis, into 3 branches, 2 of which went extinct, and one, which lead to the Homo species.

Originally Posted by KevanGuy

Kinda curious that they article uses the term 'disappeared mysteriously'. As far as I know, Neanderthals lost the competition for space and food with Homo Sapiens. Not really that much of a mystery.

There are two popular theories in regards to what happened to Homo (sapiens) neandethalensis:

One is that they simply were not able to compete with the more advanced anatomically modern Homo sapiens.

The other however, is that they may have interbred with the anatomically modern Homo sapiens.

Neanderthal fossils have also been found in the middle east dating to the same period indicating that there was a co-existence of anatomically modern Homo sapiens and Neanderthals. So either competition or interbreeding must have occured logically.

edit: yay Evolutionary Anthrpology courses

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

There are two popular theories in regards to what happened to Homo (sapiens) neandethalensis:

One is that they simply were not able to compete with the more advanced anatomically modern Homo sapiens.

The other however, is that they may have interbred with the anatomically modern Homo sapiens.

Neanderthal fossils have also been found in the middle east dating to the same period indicating that there was a co-existence of anatomically modern Homo sapiens and Neanderthals. So either competition or interbreeding must have occured logically.

Thats fairly obvious isnt it? Hasnt anyone seen Wrestling lately?

[KevanGuy]

I cant imagine they were interbred out of existence. If that were true I dont think they would be saying there was only a chance if that happening, I think it would be pretty obvious with DNA records. Actually, it would probably be pretty obvious physicologically.

[AC]

Originally Posted by KevanGuy

I cant imagine they were interbred out of existence. If that were true I dont think they would be saying there was only a chance if that happening, I think it would be pretty obvious with DNA records. Actually, it would probably be pretty obvious physicologically.

As mentioned in the article, with DNA comparative analysis, they've only just now figured out that it was unlikely they interbred - though its still difficult to say for sure. Comparing DNA is still a very inconsistent procedure.

As stated in this article:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/238852_chimp01.html

Humans and chimps each have some 3 billion base units of DNA in their genomes, differing by only 1.2 percent when compared in this way. Other methods of comparison estimate a genetic difference of at most 4 percent

And thats when dealing with two fresh samples. When using DNA that is over 30,000 years old, fragmentations are used, so it's even tricker.

Luckily, there are advancements all the time in the field of DNA analysis, so it appears as if we're getting a clearer and clearer view of our past with every advancement.

[jolinar of malkshor]

According to this recent Time articel. We share almost 99% DNA with chimps.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16...061009,00.html

[AC]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

According to this recent Time articel. We share almost 99% DNA with chimps.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16...061009,00.html

Exactly, so consistancy is hard to find. Unlikely that we can pinpoint an exact number yet.