Updated Tentative map of Neanderthal DNA

evolutiontheorist Genes and HBD, , , , , , ,

Picture 1

Based on my previous tentative map of archaic DNA, plus recent findings, eg Cousins of Neanderthals left DNA in Africa, Scientists Report. As usual, let me emphasize that this is VERY TENTATIVE.

Basically: Everyone outside of Africa has some Neanderthal DNA. It looks like the ancestors of the Melanesians interbred once with Neanderthals; the ancestors of Europeans interbred twice; the ancestors of Asians interbred three times.

Small amounts of Neanderthal DNA also show up in Africa, probably due to back-migration of people from Eurasia.

Denisovan DNA shows up mainly in Melanesians, but I think there is also a very small amount that shows up in south east Asia, some (or something similar) in Tibetans, and possibly a small amount in the Brazilian rainforest.

Now some kind of other archaic DNA has been detected in the Hazda, Sandawe, and Pygmies of Africa.

6 thoughts on “Updated Tentative map of Neanderthal DNA”

  5. Funny, when you look at the data very closely, it contradicts that (((Neanderthal admixture hypothesis))) shilled for by the (((Pääbo))) and (((Green))) et al, and the (((mainstream media))) – Discover Magazine and NatGeo paramount among them.

    Compare the levels of “Neanderthal admixture” in Eurasia with actual Neanderthal range and the pattern shows nearly the opposite of what one would expect were Neanderthals and Sapiens interfertile.

    I do not deny varying levels of archaic AFFINITIES among different populations of the human species, but to call it archaic ADMIXTURE is wrongheaded, presumptuous, and stupid. I believe that H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens were mutually incompatible species, that successful hybridization did not occur, as it could not occur. Yes, Homo sapiens probably encountered Neanderthals in Eurasia at different times, and cross-fertilization may even have occurred, but any such hybrid offspring would have been afflicted with the hybrid sterility that results with cross-species breeding, as with, e.g. mules or ligers.

    I think these varying levels of archaic affinities, prematurely called “admixture” could better be explained by: COMMON ANCESTRY (via Homo heidelbergensis); ANCIENT POPULATION SUB-STRUCTURE IN AFRICA; INCOMPLETE LINEAGE SORTING; and, last but not least, differential NATURAL SELECTION. Taken together, all these evolutionary processes explain the affinity of living human population to extinct hominin species far better and more parsimoniously than direct admixture could. Yes, Neanderthal and Denisovan affinities vary in clines across human populations in Africa, but CONTRARY TO WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE DISTRIBUTION OF THOSE HOMININ SPECIES. Yet, mainstream pop-sci publications shill for the archaic admixture hypothesis.

    I do not believe that research over the past decade in any way undermines the recent single origin (“Out of Africa”) model of human evolution. On the contrary it only strengthens the theory! Now that we have a good idea what admixture from “archaic” species should probably look like, noticing that such so-called “admixture” in human populations from where those respective hominin species were known to live is often lower than elsewhere, is evidence against such admixture having taken place. However, the DNA evidence DOES overturn the once-popular VERSION of OOA that implies a very, very recent and homogenous origin of humans from Y-chromosomal (((Adam))) and mitochondrial (((Eve))) favoring a “Big Eden” model in which humanity originated from a somewhat larger, more diversified population diffused across Africa. It seems that the early origins of Homo sapiens is less (((Noah))) and more )))Deucalion((( after all!

    I think much of the diversity of the living human species goes back to Homo heidelbergensis. The Neanderthal affinities of non-Africans (and Denisovan affinities of Australoids) could be explained in part by their common ancestry in North-East African populations. Contrary to the SJW-friendly implications of the earlier version of “Out of Africa” that “there’s, like, only one race, the human race, man! Race is a social construct, and junk!” …one could correctly argue that living humanity comprises multiple subspecies.

    You have Australoids (“Costal Clan subspecies”) with varying degrees of Neanderthal affinity, greater than that of most sub-Saharan Africans, lesser than most Eurasians and Americans…

    You have Eurasians and Americans (one or more “cosmopolitan subspecies”) with widely varying degrees of Neanderthal affinity, but little or no other archaic affinity.

    You have one or more sub-Saharan subspecies with minimal Neanderthal/Denisovan affinity, but with possible affinities to unknown or poorly understood hominin species. (Unfortunately, such hominin remains have not been studied enough to determine, for instance how many sub-Saharan African subspecies exist. (It is likely that Negroids (“Blacks”), Capoids (Khoi-San), and Pygmoids (Aka-Mbuti) comprise different subspecies in their own right!) If Black people are close to “baseline” Homo sapiens, perhaps the Khoi Khoi and San have Boskopid affinities.

    It is from Homo heidelbergensis / Homo rhodesiensis that Homo sapiens descend, as well as Neanderthal man, Denisova man, and Boskopids. Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Boskopids were all off-branches, while the H. heidelbergensis populations at the “trunk” of the tree in Central/East Africa retained enough compatibility and interfertility to co-evolve into H. sapiens. However, different early H. sapiens populations, depending where they were found in Africa, would maintain different relation to other off-branches. As Neanderthals and Denisovans were Eurasian species, they would be closer to populations in Northeast Africa than to South African populations.

    [These discrepancies are also explained by natural selection. Remember that Neanderthals were a species from Ice Age Eurasia. The first migration out of Africa, the so-called “Costal Clan” followed a tropical route, so selection would not favor “Neanderthal-like” genes. By contrast, the second migration out of Africa entered the heart of Eurasia, where climactic and environmental conditions would select for Neanderthal-like genes. This further explains why Neanderthal admixture in Sudan is lower than almost anywhere outside of Africa but higher than almost anywhere in sub-Saharan Africa… or why East Asians and Native Americans have more Neanderthal affinity than Europeans and Middle Easterners, even though there were no known Neanderthals in deepest Siberia! The various “Mongoloid” groups who largely originated in and around Siberia evolved into a more Neanderthal like direction due to more extreme Arctic climate, whereas West Eurasians, whose native area overlaps closely with the Neanderthal range, nevertheless were not exposed to selective pressures as extreme as those that shaped Asiatic peoples. (Even though if the admixture hypothesis had any merit, then West Eurasians should be the most Neanderthal admixed!)]

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment