In the article only the negative effects of Neanderthal genes are discussed. Is this because genetic datasets are mostly about gene/diseases correlations, or is it because the researchers did not analyze any gene/benefits datasets?
The third option (all Neanderthal genes are bad) does not seem reasonable.
>In the article only the negative effects of Neanderthal genes are discussed.
Actually, that is not true: "It revealed links between Neanderthal DNA and depression, obesity and certain skin disorders, with some variants being associated with an increased risk and others with a reduced risk" (emphasis mine).
The article lists a number of positive effects from "archaic genes". Two include: genes that improve the speed of one's immune response, and genes (present in Tibetans) that allows them to live at high altitudes. It's just that the effects aren't always completely positive or negative and, some of the Neanderthal/Denisovian genes have effects that "might be maladaptive today".
They also went to say these "maladvantage" were advantage back in the days but because of today lifestyle they've becomes a hinder.
So... they were positive effect but now have become a relic of the past and a burden.
edit:
Quote:
“Many traits that were adaptive 10,000 years ago might be maladaptive today” because of lifestyle, diet and other shifts, notes Rasmus Nielsen, a population geneticist at the University of California, Berkeley.
If there were notable positive effects, it would likely be danced around, because saying positive things about the groups with Neanderthal admixture is a touchy subject.
The highest rate of Neanderthal admixture is in East Asians, but there is also a non-trivial rate (2-6%) in most Europeans. The admixture in sub-Saharan Africans is much lower, which creates a risk of any discussion of positive Neanderthal traits pulling in much broader baggage relating to race & genetics.
You didn't answer: is that vetoed in public research program or is it the media or the philosophy undergrad who don't know how to deal with the subject and thus avoid it ?
I think this is what the poster was talking about: race issues - that is, how (white) Europeans tend to have more Neanderthal DNA compared to, (black) sub-Saharan Africans. So if you show that some neanderthal gene provides some nominal increase in IQ, you'll have lots of people jumping on it as proof that whites are superior to blacks.
Of course, east asians and specifically melanesians have probably the most neanderthal DNA, maybe twice the amount of the average European, and I would love to hear a white supremacist argue for the genetic supremacy of Melanesians.
Correction: Melanesians have Denisovan DNA not Neanderthal DNA, people from southern Europe have higher Neanderthal DNA than anyone else...the highest (up to 4-5%) in people from Tuscany...
I like the idea that Neanderthal genes helped Homo Sapiens spread, through increased resistance to diseases unique to Europe. Explains why their gene contribution is so prevalent - it directly contributed to survival in the new environment.
Maybe so but the article only mention diseases both genres suffered from and that are DNA related (asthma, skin disorders, etc.) with almost identical links to genes.
I'd venture to guess HS would have spread with or without Neanderthal genes.
Interestingly, if you use 23andMe's genetic analysis service, it'll tell you how much Neanderthal DNA you have. The average European has 2.7% (I have 3.2%).
Has there been any sort of serious audit or quality review of the 23andMe service? I'm dimly curious but would at present guess it's mostly a load of nonsense, and who even knows how replicable their results are.
I'm not entirely sure, I mean, from my level of understanding it could all be relatively faked data and I wouldn't know any different. They claim they do quality review[0] and you can compare them to some of the competition[1], and they don't offer anything except genealogy records and your results in a big file you can download. You can use that information to parse on other sites for medical things (there's quite a few sites that take the data file as an upload, actually). I'd be interested in reading a more comprehensive audit though.
(I will admit to not having compared more than a handful of SNPs with what 23andMe has to say about them, and I suppose they could have tampered with the data, but that seems like a lot of effort for the one-time payment they got from me...)
23 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 25.4 ms ] threadActually, that is not true: "It revealed links between Neanderthal DNA and depression, obesity and certain skin disorders, with some variants being associated with an increased risk and others with a reduced risk" (emphasis mine).
I don't know whether there are good gene/benefits datasets, but they used gene/diseases datasets.
So... they were positive effect but now have become a relic of the past and a burden.
edit:
Quote:
“Many traits that were adaptive 10,000 years ago might be maladaptive today” because of lifestyle, diet and other shifts, notes Rasmus Nielsen, a population geneticist at the University of California, Berkeley.
Is research on the subject tabooed and not encouraged ?
You didn't answer: is that vetoed in public research program or is it the media or the philosophy undergrad who don't know how to deal with the subject and thus avoid it ?
Of course, east asians and specifically melanesians have probably the most neanderthal DNA, maybe twice the amount of the average European, and I would love to hear a white supremacist argue for the genetic supremacy of Melanesians.
I'd venture to guess HS would have spread with or without Neanderthal genes.
[0] - https://customercare.23andme.com/hc/en-us/articles/202904760...
[1] - http://www.isogg.org/wiki/Autosomal_DNA_testing_comparison_c...
(I will admit to not having compared more than a handful of SNPs with what 23andMe has to say about them, and I suppose they could have tampered with the data, but that seems like a lot of effort for the one-time payment they got from me...)