Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Thursday, May 6, 2010

Can They Blame This On Gay Marriage?

Posted by on Thu, May 6, 2010 at 2:46 PM

NYT:

Neanderthals mated with some modern humans after all and left their imprint in the human genome, a team of biologists has reported in the first detailed analysis of the Neanderthal genetic sequence.

 

Comments (28) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Explains the Tea Party and Republicans in general.
Posted by Tom on May 6, 2010 at 2:50 PM
treacle 2
Do neanderthals actually count as another race? (As opposed to the erroneous application of 'race' to homo sapiens sapiens people with merely different skin colors and cultural customs.) If so, then the "purity" of our race was diluted millenia ago and it's a lost cause. Not that bigots will be able to follow that logic very well, or will want to.
Posted by treacle on May 6, 2010 at 2:52 PM
Banna 3
Is there anything you can't link to the gay struggle? What does this have to do with that?
Posted by Banna http://www.ucp.org on May 6, 2010 at 2:53 PM
Vince 4
Sounds more like rape.
Posted by Vince on May 6, 2010 at 2:54 PM
Heather 5
I suppose the homophobes could say that Neanderthals introduced the "gay gene" into the human species. But since there is a crossover between homophobes and creationists they are likely to say that merely because Neanderthals are not mentioned in their book that they did not exist in the fictional Garden of Eden.
Posted by Heather on May 6, 2010 at 3:01 PM
You Look Like I Need A Drink! 6
That would explain why there are redhead modern humans- they found the redhead gene in Neanderthals a few years ago http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7062415.stm

I've always loved redheads- now I think I like em more...
Posted by You Look Like I Need A Drink! on May 6, 2010 at 3:01 PM
Mittens Schrodinger 7
Hawt!
Posted by Mittens Schrodinger on May 6, 2010 at 3:08 PM
Canuck 8
I don't know...uni-brows and excess body hair, doesn't sound very gay to me. I think just the opposite, probably we should be blaming Neanderthals for Nascar and George Reker.
Posted by Canuck on May 6, 2010 at 3:24 PM
Max Solomon 9
of course we fucked them before we killed them. it's just HUMAN NATURE!
Posted by Max Solomon on May 6, 2010 at 3:52 PM
AustinCynic 10
@2: Yes, I would say so at the very least. Depending on who you talk to, they're considered either a different subspecies of humanity (H. sapiens neandertalensis) or a different species altogether (H. neandertalensis), albeit one at least somewhat genetically compatible with modern humans.
Posted by AustinCynic on May 6, 2010 at 4:00 PM
Delishuss 11
Of COURSE Gay Marriage did this. After all, Gay Marriage killed the dinosaurs in the first place.

http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid…
Posted by Delishuss on May 6, 2010 at 4:08 PM
Canuck 12
Hey Dan, you old homophone, I just thought of the title for your upcoming kids' sex ed book:
"Just Say Know." Heh.
Posted by Canuck on May 6, 2010 at 4:11 PM
john t 13
Neanderthals are hot, with their brow ridges and their sloped foreheads and big feet.
Posted by john t on May 6, 2010 at 4:24 PM
Fifty-Two-Eighty 14
Sorry, dude, but foot size has nothing to do with penis size.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on May 6, 2010 at 4:32 PM
tupa 15
so easy a cave man can do him?
Posted by tupa on May 6, 2010 at 4:58 PM
16
I was at Svante Paabo's (he's pretty much the spearhead of all this stuff) talk today at Vanderbilt where he essentially broke the news, just a couple hours after the papers went live. SO FREAKING COOL. And if anyone wants a brief explanation of the science, I'm happy to oblige.
Posted by doublehelix20 on May 6, 2010 at 4:59 PM
Will in Seattle 17
I am shocked.

I thought Jesus only had sex with dinosaurs and now you want me to believe he had sex with short stocky hairy women?
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on May 6, 2010 at 5:31 PM
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 18

Imagine getting pegged with a stone axe.
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://yrihf.com on May 6, 2010 at 5:45 PM
19
If two species can interbreed and have viable offspring (children that aren't sterile) then by definition they are not separate species at all. I'd be interested to know what modern humans would have looked like had they not interbred with Neanderthals. Christ, the Eugenicists are going to have a field day.
Posted by Brandon J. on May 6, 2010 at 8:22 PM
20
I guess I mated with a couple of them years ago when NYC's Lure was open. They may have been Neanderthals but they were fucking hot.
Posted by OperaBrian on May 6, 2010 at 8:44 PM
john t 21
@14, I've seen enough feet and cocks to know that there isn't a size correlation. I still like big feet though.
Posted by john t on May 6, 2010 at 9:39 PM
22
@19

Agreed. This finding brings up interesting questions about speciation. Humans seem to break the speciation mold though. Other species where members are separated for thousands of years (eg. Darwin's finches) speciate and can no longer interbreed at all or at least produce fertile offspring, yet when humans encountered a segregated population of themselves in America thousands of years later speciation had not occurred.
Posted by sickgirl on May 6, 2010 at 9:50 PM
23
According to Dr. Klein, people in Africa expanded their range and reached just Israel during a warm period some 120,000 years ago. They retreated during a cold period some 80,000 years ago and were replaced by Neanderthals.


So now does Israel belong to the Africans or to the Neanderthals?
Posted by madcap on May 6, 2010 at 10:00 PM
24
A couple things:

Brandon @ 19. Just...no. We don't have Neandertal GENES, per se, and there's no evidence yet that the segments of the genome that came from them are selected for in any way. What it looks like right now, for instance, is that the 1-4% of MY genome that's Neandertal-fragments are probably different from the fragments of your 1-4%. And we DO know what modern humans who didn't interbreed with Neandertals look like: Africans.

sickgirl @ 22: Remember, though, that the timescale for speciation is generations, not years, and the selective pressures on Darwin's finches and many of our best examples of speciation-as-we-watched are incredibly strong AND occurred in species that have relatively short generation times. Humans don't break the mold as far as any biologist I know is concerned. Not to mention, of course, that we commonly delineate species not just by them being UNABLE to interbreed but by them not doing so for whatever reason. In this sense, the species difference is useful because humans and Neandertals were morphologically and likely socially different, but it doesn't necessarily have to apply to their ability to mate.
Posted by doublehelix20 on May 6, 2010 at 10:09 PM
25
@24 I agree with you that this is incredibly cool. I almost couldn't believe what I was reading when the story broke. Thanks for reminding me of the distinction between being able to and actually mating. It's good to have a biologist around.
Posted by David from Chicago on May 7, 2010 at 6:13 AM
26
I read about this 20 years ago in Clan of the Cave Bear.
Posted by Jean Auel was right on May 7, 2010 at 10:13 AM
27
@22 - Finches have a much shorter life cycle than humans. You can't compare the evolutions of species by years, you have to compare it by numbers of life cycles; that's why they use fruit flies for evolution experiments.

This does raise interesting questions, though. If anything, I should think this would be a final nail in the coffin for anyone who still believes in racial genetic essentialism; humans of different colors aren't different sub-breeds of the same species, humans and neanderthals are.
Posted by laurelgardner http://www.etsy.com/shop.php?user_id=5877570 on May 7, 2010 at 2:24 PM
slomopomo 28
The other bad news: there's another, simpler explanation for the data. The few genes some modern Europeans, Asians, and Papua New Guineans, but not modern Africans, seem to share with the tiny sample of Neandertal DNA, are just as likely to be genes our common ancestor had. The gene pool that stayed in Africa could have lost those segments (assuming we don't find them there after all, with more testing) after H.s.s left Africa for parts east.
Posted by slomopomo on May 12, 2010 at 10:01 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy