Neanderthals and Homo sapiens were in contact for 5,000 to 7,000 years. Both lived in the same type of environments, but our species had a competitive advantage that gradually forced Neanderthals to the edges of Europe. These maps show the range of Neanderthals (left) and Homo sapiens (right) between 38,600 and 36,500 years ago. By this time, Neanderthals had been crowded out of Europe except the Iberian peninsula. The white circles are archaeological sites. (Courtesy William Banks)
Archaeology.org – The scientific, legal, and ethical obstacles.
“Newly developed techniques could make cloning Neanderthal cells or body parts a reality within a few years. The ability to use the genes of extinct hominins is going to force the field of paleoanthropology into some unfamiliar ethical territory”.
“I think there would be no question that if you cloned a Neanderthal, that individual would be recognized as having human rights under the Constitution and international treaties,” says Lori Andrews, a professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law.”
“Hawks believes the barriers to Neanderthal cloning will come down. “We are going to bring back the mammoth…the impetus against doing Neanderthal because it is too weird is going to go away.”
It would nice to clone Jesus perpetually, so every generation has the distinct pleasure of crucifying him.
An article in the New Scientist claims microbial species exchange genes horizontally, from one organism to another, and this not the vertical “survival of the fittest” was the most important factor in the early stages of evolution and formation of the genetic code. The evolution of evolution:
“This is all very different from evolution as described by Darwin. Evolution will always be about change as a result of some organisms being more successful at surviving than others. In the Darwinian model, evolutionary change occurs because individuals with genes associated with successful traits are more likely to pass these on to the next generation. In horizontal gene transfer, by contrast, change is not a function of the individual or of changes from generation to generation, but of all the microbes able to share genetic material. Evolution takes place within a complex, dynamic system of many interacting parts, say Woese and Goldenfeld, and understanding it demands a detailed exploration of the self-organising potential of such a system. On the basis of their studies, they argue that horizontal gene transfer had to be a dominant factor in the original form of evolution.”
The best kisser wins… (via kottke.org)
In the article about the Stray Dogs of Moscow there are two interesting observations: the stray dogs develop a similar look and they are in the behavioral process or returning to their wild ancestors, the wolves. There is an equally enlightening article in the Times – The truth dogs reveal about evolution by Richard Dawkins who points to the fact that every single dog on earth evolved from a domesticated wolf. It’s fascinating that in a relatively short period of time the dogs have been bred to be distinctly different not only from their ancestors but also to have little resemblance between the breeds, as if there are different species. To illustrate his point Richard Dawkins describes the foxes breeding experiment by Dimitri Belyaev. Amazing how a similar genetic structure can produce so many variations rapidly.
Sir Edwin Landseer, R.A. A Farm Team, ca. 1812
In my post about Darwin and Prince Kropotkin I quoted from David Sloan Wilson. This is a new concept for me so I would like to write it down as concisely as I can.
- The classic Darwinian evolutionary idea of survival of the fittest. Self interest trumps the interest of others. Two men went into a ring, one left standing.
- But it’s rather obvious that belonging to a strong group could increase your survival odds and therefore altruism and unselfish giving, required for a functional group structure, is also an evolutionary trait. It seems that this aspect of the evolutionary selection was only alluded by Charles Darwin but deemed a heresy by American scientists in the sixties (a huge subject for another day).
The relentless eternal tension is that self interest contradicts group interest. In fact you must sacrifice, even your life, for the benefit of a group. More often a group or a society would only recognize 1st principle and postulate that the human animal needs protection from selfish inclinations by fear. In comes a dictator whose interest is in cultivating the 1st principle and downplaying the 2nd principle. This is also the root of the eternal cynicism about the human nature, when people even in democratic societies long for another Stalin. So you might have a society when a group acts not only contrary to the altruistic principles but even more selfish than a free roaming Neanderthal. When a group betrays its original charter the human animal prefers a group free existence. But it also deprives a person from the genetic evolutionary trait of being altruistic, being giving, being connected to others unselfishly.
Image licensed courtesy of Picture Library of the Royal Academy of Arts
Dienekes reviews The American Society of Human Genetics 2009 Abstract. There is a preliminary overview of genetic study of seven Jewish subgroups: Eastern European Ashkenazim; Italian, Greek and Turkish Sephardim; Iranian, Iraqi, and Syrian Mizrahim (Middle Easterners). All Jewish groups appear genetically distinct but closest to Southern Europeans, Druze, Bedouins and Palestinians. With exception of Iraqis and Iranians only European “Ladino” Sephardim and Syrians were part of this study. So it’s not a surprise that European admixture with admittedly wide range of 30-60% includes Greek and Turkish Sephardim and Syrian Mizrahim (Aleppo was nearest to Europe Silk Road stopover).
“STRUCTURE results show that the Jewish Diaspora groups all demonstrated Middle Eastern ancestry, but varied significantly in the extent of European admixture. There is almost no European ancestry in Iranian and Iraqi Jews, whereas Syrian, Sephardic, and Ashkenazi Jews have European admixture ranging from 30%~60%. Analysis of identity-by-descent provides further insight on recent and distinct history of such populations. These results demonstrate the shared and distinctive genetic heritage of Jewish Diaspora groups.
So, it seems that there will soon be real genomic data on the source and extent of admixture in Jews. The absence of Greek and Anatolian samples may be problematic in finding the sources of such admixture, but the presence of Tuscans, who are reasonably close to them in a pan-European context, should do well to serve as a substitute. In a recent sutdy (in which Anatolians were not included), the closest populations to Ashkenazi Jews were Italians of mostly southern provenance (Fst=0.0040) and Greeks (Fst=0.0042) and fairly close to Tuscans (Fst=0.0066).”
Speaking of migrations, over the past decade the genetic sampling has enabled research into genographic patterns. This data was applied to a test in Astoria Queens. National Geographic:
“In recent centuries those prehistoric paths have reconnected in New York and other immigrant havens. “From the beginning of the project,” Wells says, “I’ve wondered if it would be possible to sample all the major lineages on Earth on a single street.” On 30th Avenue he almost did—the 193 volunteers turned out to be carrying genetic markers for virtually all the major migrations that peopled the continents. The only missing lineage was the oldest one, which Genographic scientists found in Khoisan hunter-gatherers in southern Africa; their ancestors initially diverged from other modern humans more than 100,000 years ago.”
Two similar maps from the National Geographic, the one (above) from the current article and same map (below) from 2006 (ancient). You can see how the snazzy graphics dropped the key component out of the map, namely the numbers for migration sequence. ►►►read more
Speaking of innovation, scientists powdered the transition in Europe from hunter gatherers to farming. Was this a breakthrough evolution or an innovation brought from outside? There seems to be skeletal evidence that farming was imported to the Central Europe by a genetically distinct group. National Geographic:
“…it’s possible that the first farmers in Europe were part of a vast chain of farming populations that stretched perhaps as far as the ancient Near East, including Anatolia (now Turkey) and Mesopotamia (roughly present-day Iraq)—where agriculture is thought to have been born about 11,000 years ago.”
Dieneke’s anthropology blog quotes:
“The study identifies the Carpathian Basin as the origin for early Central European farmers. “It seems that farmers of the Linearbandkeramik culture immigrated from what is modern day Hungary around 7,500 years ago into Central Europe, initially without mixing with local hunter gatherers,” says Barbara Bramanti, first author of the study. “This is surprising, because there were cultural contacts between the locals and the immigrants, but, it appears, no genetic exchange of women.”
(via Gene Expression)
Charles II (1661 – 1700), was the last Habsburg King of Spain and the ruler of nearly all of Italy (except Piedmont, the Papal States and the Republic of Venice), the Spanish territories in the Southern Low Countries, and Spain’s overseas Empire, stretching from Mexico to the Philippines.
Carlos II of Spain by Juan Carreño de Miranda
There is an interesting article – The Role of Inbreeding in the Extinction of a European Royal Dynasty (via Gene Expression). The article publishes this family tree of the last king [click to enlarge]:
“… Charles II, the last king of the Spanish Habsburg dynasty, presented important physical and mental disabilities suffering from a number of different diseases during his life, hence being known in Spanish history as El Hechizado (“The Hexed”). According to contemporary writings, he was often described as “big headed” and “weak breast-fed baby”. He was unable to speak until the age of 4, and could not walk until the age of 8. He was short, weak and quite lean and thin. He was described as a person showing very little interest on his surroundings (abulic personality). He first marries at 18 and later at 29, leaving no descendency. … He suffers from sporadic hematuria and intestinal problems (frequent diarrhea and vomits). He looked like an old person when he was only 30 years old, suffering from edemas on his feet, legs, abdomen and face. During the last years of his life he barely can stand up, and suffers from hallucinations and convulsive episodes. His health worsens until his premature death when he was 39, after an episode of fever, abdominal pain, hard breathing and comma.”
Via Genetic Future : The decline of inbreeding, written in our genes:
"The graph shows a steady decline in estimated inbreeding levels across the studied time span, consistent with an increased tendency for individuals to find mates far from the place they were born - something made a lot easier by mechanised transport and increased urbanisation, and something that (barring civilisational catastrophe) seems set to continue for the foreseeable future."
How do people AKA scientists get paid to produce studies about subjects self evident to a child? That’s why they call it a melting pot stupid! They should have tested Brazil where assimilation is/was a government policy, or even the genetically stable Russia where the post industrial, post revolutionary trend graph would look much similar. The emphasis on America is only in reference to the sample, but certainly is a byproduct of the global industrial revolution. Truly interesting subject is not the increase itself but the historic acceleration. For example it is interesting to take a two hundred thousand year span and measure the assimilation hot spots where the commingling suddenly shot up. That study would readily trace the imperial conquests.
Razib claims in his post Gene Expression: Decline in inbreeding over time that cousin marriages where the Protestant innovation prohibited by the Catholic church (true?). He writes:
“In Europe as a whole the rate of consanguinity has not changed monotonically over the past 1,000 years. After the Reformation cousin marriage was sanctioned in many Protestant nations whereas before the Catholic Church had strictly proscribed it. The main caveat to this is that religious regulation of marriage was a much greater concern for elites than it was for common people, as the latter often entered into common law relationships which were never formally solemnized.”
What was the Anglican and its many American offshoots policy in regards to the cousin marriages? Does this also explain all the inbreeding jokes about the American South?
