Reflectorites
Here is a story on Yahoo! which says that new DNA tests of a neandertal
child showed it was too distinct to be related to modern humans.
It does not say if it was nuclear DNA.
If this holds up it will further underline the uniqueness of modern humans.
Steve
=======================================================
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000328/sc/neanderthal_study_1.html
Yahoo!
[...]
Tuesday March 28 2:03 PM ET
Study: Humans Not Descended From Neanderthals
By Patricia Reaney
LONDON (Reuters) - Modern humans are not descended from
Neanderthals but co-existed with them about 40,000 years ago, scientists
said Tuesday.
An analysis of DNA extracted from the ribs of a 29,000 year-old
Neanderthal infant buried in a cave in southern Russia showed it was too
distinct to be related to humans.
"There wasn't much, if any mixture, between Neanderthals and modern
humans," William Goodwin, of the University of Glasgow, told Reuters.
[...]
"Though they co-existed we can't find any evidence of genetic material
being passed from Neanderthals to modern humans," he added.
The study, reported in the science journal Nature, also supports the "Out of
Africa" theory of modern human evolution -- that modern humans evolved
from a common ancestor in Africa and spread across the world around
100,000 years ago.
Research Verifies Earlier Findings
The bones from the Neanderthal infant were very well preserved and came
from among the last of the Neanderthals who died out about 30,000 years
ago.
Exactly what happened to them is a mystery. Various theories suggest they
were either killed, lost out to competitors or simply absorbed by modern
humans.
The research by Goodwin and his Swedish and Russian colleagues is also
important because it verifies the findings of the first analysis of Neanderthal
DNA in 1997.
That study of DNA taken from the first Neanderthal skeleton found in the
Feldhofer Cave in Germany in 1856 supports the theory that modern
humans replaced Neanderthals.
The DNA sequence from the infant was very similar to the specimen from
the Feldhofer Cave -- proving both are genuinely Neanderthals and that
there was little diversity among them, according to Goodwin.
"If they had been very diverse at the DNA level they could have
encompassed modern humans. The fact that these two Neanderthals are
closely related and not related to modern humans implies that they don't
have the diversity to encompass a modern human gene pool," said
Goodwin.
DNA comparisons also showed that different ethnic groups do not have
any links to Neanderthals.
"We compared the amount of difference between the Neanderthal sequence
and a group of European, African and Asians. There is no real
difference...That suggests they are not more closely related to either one of
those races," said Goodwin.
In a commentary on the research in Nature, Matthias Hoss, of the Swiss
Institute for Experimental Cancer Research, said the two studies provide
the most reliable proof so far of the authenticity of ancient DNA sequences.
The similar features of the two samples "argues against the idea that
modern Europeans are at least partly of Neanderthal origin," he said.
E-mail this story | Printer-friendly format
[...]
Copyright (c) 2000 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.
Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited
without the prior written consent of Reuters.
Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any
actions taken in reliance thereon.
=======================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed
over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed.
This can be called the "Special Theory of Evolution " and can be
demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is
the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single
source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called
the "General Theory of Evolution" and the evidence that supports it is not
sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a
working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about
speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the
development of new phyla. The answer will be found by future
experimental work and not by dogmatic assertions that the General Theory
of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will
satisfactorily take its place." (Kerkut G.A., "Implications of Evolution," in
Kerkut G.A., ed. "International Series of Monographs on Pure and Applied
Biology, Division: Zoology," Volume 4, Pergamon Press: New York NY,
1960, p.157)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 29 2000 - 17:33:36 EST