[Taxacom] Were many Neanderthal genes actually advantageous rather than deleterious?

Kenneth Kinman kinman at hotmail.com
Mon Jun 17 21:58:15 CDT 2019

Dear All:
        Regarding purported evidence of genetic disadvantage to Neanderthal-modern human hybrids (from which neanderthal genes appear to have been purged by selection), I do not find such evidence as definitely demonstrating major genetic disadvantage.
       Frankly I am amazed that modern populations still have 2-4% Neanderthal DNA after all this time. Given those long periods of time, the loss of such genes could be due to chance (rather than indicating that they were deleterious). I think more studies are needed on that subject.
       Furthermore, one article states that " alleles – or gene variants – inherited from Neanderthals had only decreased by 56 percent, tens of thousands of years after the initial interbreeding occurred. This suggests that they were eliminated very slowly, indicating that they probably weren’t as detrimental to the reproductive success of hybrids as previous theories claimed."   Source: "Neanderthal Genes May Not Actually Be That Harmful To Humans":https://www.iflscience.com/health-an...armful-humans/<https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/neanderthal-genes-may-not-actually-harmful-humans/>
        And even if there were some Neanderthal genes eliminated because they were deleterious, a lot more attention needs to paid to the genes that have persisted because they were advantageous. Neanderthal-modern human hybrids may have actually been healthier than their parents, and not disadvantaged at all. This needs to be more thoroughly researched and debated.
                      ----------------Ken Kinman

From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of Kenneth Kinman via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2019 1:57 PM
To: taxacom
Subject: [Taxacom] classification of archaic humans of Eurasia

Dear All,
           A new paper ("Neanderthal-Denisovan ancestors interbred with a distantly-related hominin") shows even more interbreeding of Neanderthals, Denisovans, and other archaic humans in Eurasia (long before modern humans spread into Eurasia).  I assume the scientific name for the "superarchaic" populations would be Homo sapiens heidelbergensis, and that Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (including Denisovans) is a late (and better known) offshoot of the superarchaics in general.
            Therefore, I continue to use the following classification, with a paraphyletic (%) H. s. heidenbergensis giving rise to H. s. neanderthalensis:

  1  Homo habilis%

               1   H. h. rudolfensis

              2A   H. h. habilis

              2B   H. h. floresiensis ("hobbit")

               3   {{H. erectus + H. sapiens}} (exgroup marker)

  _a_ Homo erectus%

               1  H. e. georgicus

               2  H. e. ergaster

               3  H. e. erectus

             _a_  {{Homo sapiens}}  (exgroup marker)

   _a_ Homo sapiens

               1A  H. s. antecessor

               1B  H. s. cepranensis

                2  H. s. heidelbergensis%

              _a_  H. s. neanderthalensis

                3  H. s. rhodesiensis

                4  H. s. idaltu

                5  H. s. sapiens

Weblink to the new paper:


More information about the Taxacom mailing list