Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum AUSTRALIAN ABORIGNE

Is it possible that the original Australians are related to Neanderthal man. There seems to be some similarity in the facial structures.

Based on DNA analysis ... no.

From what I've read, they're no more related to Neandertals than any other Homo sapien.

As I recall, mtDNA analysis of some Neandertal remains indicated that Neandertals split away from the ancestors of Homo sapiens somewhere around 800,000 years ago, more than half a million years before our species existed. There is also no evidence that our Homo sapiens ancestors were able to interbreed with Neandertals when they met in their travels.

Olsen's book, Mapping Human History, might be of interest to you.

In fact the answer is YES.

They are related, as are you, I & everyone else.
But, as soilguy points out, not necessarily more so.

Anyway Neanderthal man is, I believe, only known from northern latitudes (Europe & Western Asia in fact) so a genetic influence seems unlikely.

posted January 11, 2006 10:59 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DA Morgan
Based on DNA analysis ... no.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In fact the answer is YES.

They are related, as are you, I & everyone else.
But, as soilguy points out, not necessarily more so.

Anyway Neanderthal man is, I believe, only known from northern latitudes (Europe & Western Asia in fact) so a genetic influence seems unlikely.


But could they not have migrated, perhaps when an asteroid struck the earth or something?

Calling nonsense guys:

Check it out for yourselves:
http://www.psu.edu/ur/NEWS/news/Neandertal.html

And for those too lazy to use the link to Pennsylvania State University:

"A team of U.S. and German researchers has extracted mitochondrial DNA from Neandertal bone showing that the Neandertal DNA sequence falls outside the normal variation of modern humans."

My ancestors, being human, believed in war not love. We may have driven them to extinction but we didn't take them as wives.

I don't believe I said that neanderthals were modern humans or that they interbred with them, merely that they were related.

They share Homo Erectus as a common ancestor.

Do you dispute this?

PS just supposing for a moment that modern humans and neanderthals did in fact interbreed and produce viable offspring, the fact that mtDNA falls outside the normal variation of modern humans just means the female line is extinct. The male line (Y-chromosome) could still be extant and even if not some nuclear DNA (genes) may have crept through. Although I have to say this is extremely unlikely.

Eduardo wrote:
"I don't believe I said that neanderthals were modern humans or that they interbred with them, merely that they were related."

Every animal on earth shares a common ancestor so there was no reason to assume that you were stating the obvious. So in that sense Chris Maxwell is correct in that we, Neandertals, and pygmi rhinos share a common ancestor. But I think that rather irrelevant to the question Chris posed with respect to Neandertals and extant aborigine.

Current theory holds that Neandertals became extinct only 30,000 years ago and co-existed with modern humans in Europe. The team, however, found that Neandertals and modern humans diverged genetically 500,000 to 600,000 years ago, suggesting that though they may have lived at the same time, Neandertals did not contribute genetic material to modern humans

Don't you find this difficult to swallow, if they co-existed with humans they must have intermingled. perhaps the fossilized DNA lost the mitrocondria element?

Up until how many years ago ... whites didn't intermingle with blacks on most of the "advanced" and "civilized" countries on this planet. Would you like me to go on?

Of course there was a guy last year out here in Washington State who was killed by a horse when he and his brother tried to intermingle with it. But it didn't result in progeny and likely would not have even if the horse had had less horse-sense.

In short Philege ... (A) there is no evidence that the two species could have interbred and (B) if they did there is no evidence that the offspring would have been fertile and (C) if they were there is no evidence they wouldn't have made great bloody sacrifices to the god of thunder or some other such nonsense.

OK, I can see how you may have become confused. I was merely hilighting the sweepingness of your 'No' reply. Perhaps I should have clarified this with a :p

According to Olsen, these researchers were going on the assumption that Homo sapiens males will have sex with anything, so that if it were possible for the two types of humans to successfully mate, they would have successfully mated.

The fossilized DNA did not lose its mitochondria element. They were able to isolate mitochondria from the Neandertal remains and compare its DNA to that of modern human mitochondria.

The fossilized DNA did not lose its mitochondria element. They were able to isolate mitochondria from the Neandertal remains and compare its DNA to that of modern human mitochondria.

Would they as D. A. Morgan suggested be sterile?

Likely can't tell or it would have been announced.

But even if they were to mate ... think of what has happened repeatedly in human history when male human's have mated ... well lets be honest here ... raped ... females.

Think about the children of US GI's in Vietnam.
Think about the many many other examples.

I doubt those children would have survived in that Neolithic world.

As I stated before, mitochondrial DNA is only passed down the famale line. So, for instance, a neanderthal male mating with a modern human female would produce offspring with purely modern human mtDNA. This is after only one generation let alone a thousand. I am not saying this happened merely that mtDNA evidence cannot be used to rule it out.

Sorry to be pedantic but I think you mean Paleolithic.

Yes, it doesn't rule out male neandertals successfully mating with Homo sapiens females, and it doesn't rule out the possibility that Neandertal X Homo sapiens matings didn't successfully occur, but it is significant evidence against successful matings, and significant evidence that our Homo sapiens ancestors and Neandertals were two distinct species.

Bottom line: There is no reason to believe that Australian Aborigines are more closely related to Neandertals than any other modern humans. If you want to hold out hope for a connection, that's your business.

Marvellous, then we agree.

Oh! wait...

It's evidence sure, but I wouldn't be so sure how significant it is.
It's akin to someone with the surname Jones asserting that ALL his ancestors had the name Jones also.

If you'd bothered to read my previous posts you would know that I never suggested any such connection. In fact I rated it 'extremely unlikely' and actually gave a much more robust argument (than mtDNA) to the contrary... :rolleyes:

:p

Look B4 you leap, Read B4 you rant.

"It's evidence sure, but I wouldn't be so sure how significant it is. It's akin to someone with the surname Jones asserting that ALL his ancestors had the name Jones also."

Bad analogy, and you probably know it.


"If you'd bothered to read my previous posts you would know that I never suggested any such connection. In fact I rated it 'extremely unlikely' and actually gave a much more robust argument (than mtDNA) to the contrary..."

I did *bother* to read the whole thread. Your half-hearted defense of the idea was somewhat odd. The argument that it is unlikely because Neandertals were only in N. Europe holds no water, because Neandertal remains were found in the Middle East as well -- along the likely pathway that the ancestors of the Australian Aborigines took. mtDNA, IMO, is a far more solid piece of evidence.


"Look B4 you leap, Read B4 you rant."

Have a clue before you play devil's advocate.

Eduardo wrote:
"It's akin to someone with the surname Jones asserting that ALL his ancestors had the name Jones also."

Your analogy is irrelevant and valueless.

The lack of Neandertal DNA is very close to conclusive proof of something. Your Mr. Jones has not even a shred of evidence to support anything.

DA M. "The lack of Neandertal DNA is very close to conclusive proof of something. Your Mr. Jones has not even a shred of evidence to support anything."

The lack of neandertal DNA is the whole point dear boy, THINK. All we have so far is mtDNA.

Well correct me if i'm wrong but that's a [content deleted] of a long way from Australia!!!

Who the [content deleted] is MY MR JONES!!!!!

Eduardo wrote:
"Who the [content deleted] is MY MR JONES!!!!!"

To which I will refer you to your post January 18, 2006 11:04 AM in which you wrote: "It's akin to someone with the surname Jones asserting that ALL his ancestors had the name Jones also." So yes it is YOUR Mr. Jones.

You are, I hope, aware that mDNA is far better conserved than is any other DNA which is why it matters most. If there was interbreeding than it would most likely be mDNA from Neandertals that would have survived. We are killers not lovers.

Read on... (Europe & Western Asia in fact)

'You are, I hope, aware that mDNA is far better conserved than is any other DNA '
You are I hope aware that mtDNA is only passed down the female line...

Originally posted by Eduardo:
............


Tone it down, Eduardo. No need to get so uptight.

While I do not know what you moderated I would like to commend you for what you did and how you did it.

By leaving evidence of the original post and that content was removed you have made it possible for us to have faith that something reponsible is being done.

I would hope that both Kate and Rose see how this was handled and flatter you by doing the same. I, for one, will reward this with something more substantial than just kind words. I'll stop pushing the envelope in order to encourage this.

From the lab rat to the lab tech: Thanks, finally, for cleaning the cage!

Theres no pleasing some people! First you're uptight because I didn't do something, now you're uptight because I'm leaving no traces. When I clean up I clean up. No traces to tease with. I've deleted a number of posts lately for being off-topic or just plain weird. Or hadn't you noticed?

No criticism intended.

I'm happy when you remove garbage. But what you've done is invisible and makes it impossible to tell thqt something happened or what it was that happened. Am I on the same thread or not? Hard to tell. I like what Rusty did and just wanted to recommend it to all.

Just a recommendation on what seems a better way to accomplish the task.

If you make it obvious that moderators are doing something other than making idle threats then things will improve: Even me. ;-)

I'm not averse to taking moderator lessons; I came into this job not knowing anything about it at all and I'm learning by doing. I'm happy to pick up any skills I can, from anyone. Your point is taken. I shall amend my ways.

Amaranth

Seems we both will then.

My sense here is that moderation that is invisible has not deterent effect.

~ A kinder, gentler, lab rat.