For everyone that thinks Neanderthals were us.?

Question

How can you explain that mtDNA recovered from their fossils show that they were 100% a diffrent human species?

There were many human species but I am talking about them not belonging to Homo sapiens.

mtDNA proves we are not descendents from Neanderthals.

mtDNA is DNA from the mitochondria, an organelle in our cells. It is only passed on from mother to offspring. There are in fact many types of DNA we have not just chromosomal.

Answer 1

Mitochondrial DNA mapping is only one way we determine differences in the genetic makeup of species, but is often the most useful in figuring out how old a particular species is relative to any other (us, for instance). Since neanderthals were a branch in our evolutionary tree that is separate from the one that became homo habilis some million and a half years ago, they share a common ancestor, and cannot be 100% different from us -- by every evolutionary model, we HAVE to share at least some traits in common (bipedal locomotion, opposable thumbs, some similarities in physiology, etc.)

Neanderthals were a failed branch of the tree, though why they failed is up for debate. Two main theories exist, the first being more likely -- because neanderthal did not develop nearly as sophisticated a brain as our ancestors did, changes in the environment and eventual competition with homo habilis and later homo erectus eventually put too much pressure on them to survive, since they were less able to adapt; they just weren't smart enough to realize that the way of life that had worked for generations just wasn't working so well any more, and they eventually just starved to death.

The other theory is that, because they were still pretty close to their cousins in the human camp, genetically speaking, there was some cross-over during mating season. Because our human progenitors were more successful and more prolific, we outnumbered the neanderthal and eventually they just blended in and became extinct as a discrete species because they just joined with ours and faded away. So perhaps, in some ways, neanderthals ARE us, at least in part, but we're predominantly descended from homo habilis.

Difficult and perhaps impossible to prove what actually happened, since it's so far back in prehistory, but interesting to consider.

Answer 2

A better question is:

Why don't organisms more evolutionarily primitive have hypercoded or supercoded DNA?

In other words, we know with certainty that genetic mutations occur; however those mutations result in either (a) variation ... that may or may not offer a survival advantage ... within a species, or (b) a sterile new species.

Perhaps the simplest example of this concerns the origins of mules (P= mDonkey, fHorse; O=almost always sterile) and hinnys (P= fDonkey, mHorse; O=almost always sterile). Donkeys have 62 chromosomes; horses have 64; mules and hennies each have 63.

Cases of hinny fertility (1 in China in 1981, 1 in Morocco in 2003) are so rare that they are documented in the Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinny#Fertility.2C_sterility.2C_and_rarity ). Also, "Since 1527 there have been more than 60 documented cases of foals born to female mules around the world." (quote from Wikipedia article on mule fertility)

So, speciation deriving from mutation must answer several questions: (1) can the mutation occur in nature; (2) does the mutation result in either (a) a survival advantage or in (b) a variation capable of reproduction and survival; and (3) from what species was derived the organism having the reduced DNA complexity?

First-generation mules and hennies occurring naturally is extraordinarily unlikely; nevertheless, it is not altogether impossible. It is even more unlikely that such breeding would result in a species capable of the multi-generational breeding essential to survival.

In those cases, though, we can always trace the origin to the horse as the source of the extra chromosome pair. In other words, descending the evolutionary ladder ALWAYS entails the discovery of an organism having one or more additional chromosome pairs than its mutated offspring.

Solely on the basis of chromosome pair counts, you MIGHT be able to find, for instance, that donkeys descended from horses; however, horses could never have descended from donkeys.

However, that begs the question, "What begat horses?" You've got to find an organism having more than 32 chromosome pairs; otherwise, the best that you can hope for is to find something superficially resembling what one might imagine to be an ancestor of the horse -- but which either (a) had an independent evolutionary path, or (b) was a failed mutation of the horse.

Answer 3

hmmm...and yet you clearly refer to them correctly as a "human" species. What's yer point?

Ok ok I'll get real...it is not said that were come from neanderthals only that they existed at the time that modern man began to proliferate. While never proven it is quite possible that some genetic mixing took place at that time. Neanderthalic features are seen in modern man even today. However the stronger genetic material of the home sapiens lead to the eventual supplication of the neanderthal people.

Of course then there is the more commonly believed theory that we came into the world as two whole adult humans with complete cognitive powers in one instant 6000 years ago.

Hmmm so hard to choose a fact to follow...

Answer 4

I don't know any scientific study implying that neanderthals were our ancestors, it's already said to be a completely different species. latest discoveries,tough, have shown that, in Spain, our ancestors and neanderthals have lived together probably fought against and may be crossbreeds from time to time, but any hard evidence is found yet, may be it was like horses and donkeys; never ended up as fertile siblings.

Answer 5

The same type of evidence showed us developing from the Cro-Magnon, a hominid one step up the evolutionary latter from Neanderthal, being the first species to create art.

Answer 6

mtDNA, or Mitochondrial DNA is not the DNA of the actual creature, only of the Mitochondria, which are in fact symbiotic creatures that reside in every single one of our cells. They have nothing to do with our personal DNA.

Answer 7

Since chimp DNA matches 98% of human DNA, I seriously doubt that Neanderthals are 100% diifferent.

Still -- we do know that they are sufficiently different that they are not us. Who says they are? And do you really want to argue with someone who believes otherwise without looking at the evidence?

Answer 8

Well some folks alive today are evidence of an argument in favor of descent from Neanderthals, but really, the whole thing is a crock.

Answer 9

And your sources for this, and I use the term VERY loosely, is what exactly?
Yeah that's what I thought. More creationist Pious Fraud masquerading as science.
Don't you guys EVER get tired of lying to try and get your point across?

Answer 10

I thought everyone knew they were a parallel species to our ancestors.