I thought neanderthal males were thought to be a lot less aggressive than homo sapiens (possibly even the reason for their extinction)? Even though I suspect you could be right. I think it's possibly a mistake to apply how we are today to how our relatives were 40,000+ years ago. Also they might not have a comparable concept of rape if you go back far enough. So the personal trama, cultural implications, and psychological impact are possibly hard to analyze from a modern lense.
1: Neanderthals are also humans for the purpose you're discussing, the results of higher cognitive functions. The label is actually applied to all hominins by anthropologists (note the nin and not nid)
2: A lot of tribal cultures have historically had more female autonomy than women in industrialized or preindustrial cultures. There's a lot of discussion about why that is exactly but this image of women as caveman chattel is just a lie
There is a few different potential reasons as well as sexual preference.
Genetic incompatibility - the interspecific cross could only occur one way.
Genetic bottlenecks in the neandertal lineage. A high inbred coefficient could have decreased the neandertal females overall fertility (high deleterious alleles load). This could also cause a rapid reduction in the percentage of neandertal DNA in a mixed population.
Maternal behavior - Neandertals females might not have cared for hybrid offspring appropriately. This could be for anything from milk production requirements to differences in physiological developmental rates.
I think the idea of there being health issues in certain types of mixed families is super interesting because that almost certainly would have been noticed and lead to certain cultural practices or taboos within both species' societies.
If I had to guess the successful crosses were potentially much healthier than either parent line. Heterosis (hybrid vigor) would likely be pretty extreme in genetic lines that has been isolated by 300,000+ years of time. Of course the degree of fertility was likely lowered due to genetic distance. Once the initial cross was made however, back-crossing to either species by the hybrid would likely be much easier.
Many of those ancient stories about individuals with super strength and size etc could have likely been based upon these crosses.
The evidence is showing neadertals never truly died out. Their smaller population bred back into the modern humans who came later.
Keep in mind heterosis isn't always the result of hybridization and even then the magnitude of isolation doesn't always positively correlate. Outbreeding depression can also be the result, increasingly so when two groups are more genetically distant or when one group is already subject to heavy inbreeding depression, as the neanderthals were thought to be.
Out-breeding depression primarily results in a decrease of fertility and infant mortality. So although it is occasionally observed in surviving offspring, in general it is much lower probability.
Also the neandertal crossing was deleterious it would be much lower percentage in modern humans. It also would not have come from multiple crossing events.
Just to preface, I'm a scientist: micro- and molecular biology. I'm not saying to take what I say as gospel, just giving context that I might know things. Sometimes.
Outbreeding depression has more possible implications than fertility decrease and infant mortality increase, entirely dependent on the heritable traits responsible for the depression effects. While the probability of persistent outbreeding depression seen in subsequent generationa would be lower due to traits subject to higher selective pressure, like increases in early infant mortality, the overall probability of outbreeding depression itself isn't influenced post facto by its results, just its persistence.
Given we don't know the original extent of neanderthal/human interbreeding, what we're seeing now COULD be the "much lower percentage" you mention and still could come from multiple events. In fact, if these crosses resulted in stronger depression effects, I'd argue a greater number of crossings would be one factor behind the persistence of some genes today.
Genetic incompatibility - the interspecific cross could only occur one way.
This could be human male-neanderthal female (HMNF) coupling didn't result in fertile offspring right? Could it also be that HMNF (coupling) didn't result in fertile female offspring, but did have fertile male offspring?
Usually these issues are caused by mitochondrial DNA not nuclear DNA. Mitochondrial DNA is only passed on from the female. So if there is an incompatibility, it's usually completely lethal to any offspring.
So a HMNF coupling could not have been possible because of the neanderthal's female mitochondrial DNA.
First, sex chromosomes. In mammals, sex is determined by the sex chromosomes - males have XY, females XX. If interbreeding was equal between the sexes of both species, this would be reflected in the frequency of neanderthal genes on each chromosome in the current human population, but it's more heavily skewed toward the Y chromosome than we'd expect if equal pairing was true. This suggests a higher proportion of successful male neanderthal/female human offspring.
Second, mitochondrial DNA. While genomic DNA in a sexually-reproducing species is a mix between the parents, in most mammals the inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is purely maternal. This is because only the egg's mitochondria typically survive, though on rare occasion paternal mitochondria are also passed on. There is no known existent neanderthal mtDNA in the human population. This suggests either female neanderthal/male human crosses didn't happen much and/or didn't often produce offspring capable of further reproduction.
Of course, there are many other explanations for all of these. These are just amongst the simplest possible options, and in population genetics, it's not uncommon that the simplest answers are frequently correct.
They died out during the last ice age when one of the big differences from previous ones they survived was the presence of homo sapiens.
I'm guessing it was from a combination of lack of space, raids, and integration (willing or not).
We (who carry it) have a small amount of Neanderthal DNA, but it's not the same DNA for all of us, it's pretty diverse, so cross breeding events between us weren't limited to just a few times.
hunter gatherers vs agriculturers say otherways. Mass of graves and the murdering entire family lines and clans and villages go back as far as humankind goes back. Homo sapiens are no different than any other animal—opportunistic killers like cows and horses are.
Yep, the relative lack of heterogeneity in the Y-chromosome compared to mtDNA is somewhat testament to that too, but those mass grave sites are late stone age. Neanderthals predate those sites by a large margin, so it'd be hard to say that they didn't necessarily follow the same brutal history against their own kin
If anything, our assholes outlivng theirs show we are more peqceful, because maybe they also had a type of asshole who got off on hilling assholes for the good of the peaceful group.
Human genome contains significant contribution from Neanderthals. Because of the location of the neanderthal genes in our genome it can only have come from male Neanderthals.
There was study that determined that the remnant neanderthal DNA in humans mostly came from neanderthal male and human female pairings and not the other way around.
As others have pointed out in the comments that's not really proving that the other pairings didn't happen as often or even more often, there could be fertility issues with the opposite pairing and a whole host of other factors.
Check out Beforeigners - there is some prehistoric romance atuff there: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8332130/
(and the series are generally interesting)
66 Comments
Sunsofold@lemmings.world · 74 pts · 197d
This is kind of the best-case fantasy of what happened to introduce that DNA so let's just hope it's true for now.
massacre@lemmy.world · 40 pts · 197d
Yeahhh.... first thought I had when the DNA news hit was that this had pretty rapey vibes...
I don't think there was a lot of consent on offer.
MonkRome@lemmy.world · 30 pts · 197d
I thought neanderthal males were thought to be a lot less aggressive than homo sapiens (possibly even the reason for their extinction)? Even though I suspect you could be right. I think it's possibly a mistake to apply how we are today to how our relatives were 40,000+ years ago. Also they might not have a comparable concept of rape if you go back far enough. So the personal trama, cultural implications, and psychological impact are possibly hard to analyze from a modern lense.
kossa@feddit.org · 17 pts · 197d
Gotta need a time machine for that
sweet neanderthal pussyinteresting anthroplogic research.DancingBear@midwest.social · 13 pts · 196d
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social · 11 pts · 196d
1: Neanderthals are also humans for the purpose you're discussing, the results of higher cognitive functions. The label is actually applied to all hominins by anthropologists (note the nin and not nid)
2: A lot of tribal cultures have historically had more female autonomy than women in industrialized or preindustrial cultures. There's a lot of discussion about why that is exactly but this image of women as caveman chattel is just a lie
5too@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 195d
From a very cursory Wikipedia check, hominini includes chimpanzees?
I might have missed something - you're saying anthropologists consider all hominins human? Including chimpanzees?
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social · 3 pts · 195d
Hominini is not the same thing as hominin, in short. Hominins are more properly known as the subtribe hominina of the tribe hominini.
I know, it's obnoxious. It's like some of these dudes are just making names up as they go along.
5too@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 195d
Okay, that makes more sense. Thanks for the clarification!
nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 24 pts · 197d
A trend that continues to this day tbh
neidu3@sh.itjust.works · 19 pts · 197d
How do we know it wasn't the other way around?
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world · 56 pts · 197d
a paper came out recently. it's also possible that male humans and female neanderthals made non viable babies.
The_v@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 197d
There is a few different potential reasons as well as sexual preference.
Genetic incompatibility - the interspecific cross could only occur one way.
Genetic bottlenecks in the neandertal lineage. A high inbred coefficient could have decreased the neandertal females overall fertility (high deleterious alleles load). This could also cause a rapid reduction in the percentage of neandertal DNA in a mixed population.
Maternal behavior - Neandertals females might not have cared for hybrid offspring appropriately. This could be for anything from milk production requirements to differences in physiological developmental rates.
azi@mander.xyz · 7 pts · 197d
I think the idea of there being health issues in certain types of mixed families is super interesting because that almost certainly would have been noticed and lead to certain cultural practices or taboos within both species' societies.
The_v@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 196d
If I had to guess the successful crosses were potentially much healthier than either parent line. Heterosis (hybrid vigor) would likely be pretty extreme in genetic lines that has been isolated by 300,000+ years of time. Of course the degree of fertility was likely lowered due to genetic distance. Once the initial cross was made however, back-crossing to either species by the hybrid would likely be much easier.
Many of those ancient stories about individuals with super strength and size etc could have likely been based upon these crosses.
The evidence is showing neadertals never truly died out. Their smaller population bred back into the modern humans who came later.
SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 196d
Keep in mind heterosis isn't always the result of hybridization and even then the magnitude of isolation doesn't always positively correlate. Outbreeding depression can also be the result, increasingly so when two groups are more genetically distant or when one group is already subject to heavy inbreeding depression, as the neanderthals were thought to be.
The_v@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 195d
Out-breeding depression primarily results in a decrease of fertility and infant mortality. So although it is occasionally observed in surviving offspring, in general it is much lower probability.
Also the neandertal crossing was deleterious it would be much lower percentage in modern humans. It also would not have come from multiple crossing events.
SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 195d
Just to preface, I'm a scientist: micro- and molecular biology. I'm not saying to take what I say as gospel, just giving context that I might know things. Sometimes.
Outbreeding depression has more possible implications than fertility decrease and infant mortality increase, entirely dependent on the heritable traits responsible for the depression effects. While the probability of persistent outbreeding depression seen in subsequent generationa would be lower due to traits subject to higher selective pressure, like increases in early infant mortality, the overall probability of outbreeding depression itself isn't influenced post facto by its results, just its persistence.
Given we don't know the original extent of neanderthal/human interbreeding, what we're seeing now COULD be the "much lower percentage" you mention and still could come from multiple events. In fact, if these crosses resulted in stronger depression effects, I'd argue a greater number of crossings would be one factor behind the persistence of some genes today.
m0darn@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 196d
This could be human male-neanderthal female (HMNF) coupling didn't result in fertile offspring right? Could it also be that HMNF (coupling) didn't result in fertile female offspring, but did have fertile male offspring?
The_v@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 196d
Usually these issues are caused by mitochondrial DNA not nuclear DNA. Mitochondrial DNA is only passed on from the female. So if there is an incompatibility, it's usually completely lethal to any offspring.
So a HMNF coupling could not have been possible because of the neanderthal's female mitochondrial DNA.
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 197d
FosterMolasses@leminal.space · 6 pts · 196d
This is a fantastic thread, I love this meme sub
fossilesque@mander.xyz · 26 pts · 197d
FreshLight@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 197d
SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 196d
Two ways.
First, sex chromosomes. In mammals, sex is determined by the sex chromosomes - males have XY, females XX. If interbreeding was equal between the sexes of both species, this would be reflected in the frequency of neanderthal genes on each chromosome in the current human population, but it's more heavily skewed toward the Y chromosome than we'd expect if equal pairing was true. This suggests a higher proportion of successful male neanderthal/female human offspring.
Second, mitochondrial DNA. While genomic DNA in a sexually-reproducing species is a mix between the parents, in most mammals the inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is purely maternal. This is because only the egg's mitochondria typically survive, though on rare occasion paternal mitochondria are also passed on. There is no known existent neanderthal mtDNA in the human population. This suggests either female neanderthal/male human crosses didn't happen much and/or didn't often produce offspring capable of further reproduction.
Of course, there are many other explanations for all of these. These are just amongst the simplest possible options, and in population genetics, it's not uncommon that the simplest answers are frequently correct.
Benign@fedia.io · 16 pts · 197d
I thought this was referencing modern dating at first 🙄
JayDee@lemmy.sdf.org · 16 pts · 197d
So, how likely is it that neanderthals and humans just lived in tribes together, and neanderthals just eventually died off within human tribes?
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 197d
I bet it at least ended that way.
They died out during the last ice age when one of the big differences from previous ones they survived was the presence of homo sapiens.
I'm guessing it was from a combination of lack of space, raids, and integration (willing or not).
We (who carry it) have a small amount of Neanderthal DNA, but it's not the same DNA for all of us, it's pretty diverse, so cross breeding events between us weren't limited to just a few times.
ivanafterall@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 197d
Nice.
5too@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 195d
Iirc, there's speculation that neanderthals needed something like 3000 calories per day just to sustain themselves.
We may have just survived because we can go leaner.
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 195d
One difference that I'm aware of is we were using bone needles at that point to make more advanced clothing, which would have helped in an ice age.
JamesBoeing737MAX@sopuli.xyz · 4 pts · 197d
They were probably just genocided like many other minorities in history. And since Homo Sapiens succeeded, everyone promotes how superior we are.
BTW, our genetics apparently just merged, but my theory is probably also true.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social · 3 pts · 196d
I'm not sure what the right word for it would be but I know calling neanderthals minorities isn't it.
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 14 pts · 197d
I'm something of a Neanderthal myself.
Er... I mean... Unga bunga?
starlinguk@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 197d
Neanderthals were more peaceful than Homo Sapiens.
tetris11@feddit.uk · 20 pts · 197d
We don't actually know that. Homo Sapiens is on the whole a peaceful species, but we have a few assholes that like to kill and subjugate.
Just because our assholes outlived their assholes, doesn't mean that they were any less assholes on average than we are/were
dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 196d
hunter gatherers vs agriculturers say otherways. Mass of graves and the murdering entire family lines and clans and villages go back as far as humankind goes back. Homo sapiens are no different than any other animal—opportunistic killers like cows and horses are.
tetris11@feddit.uk · 6 pts · 196d
Yep, the relative lack of heterogeneity in the Y-chromosome compared to mtDNA is somewhat testament to that too, but those mass grave sites are late stone age. Neanderthals predate those sites by a large margin, so it'd be hard to say that they didn't necessarily follow the same brutal history against their own kin
RamenJunkie@midwest.social · 2 pts · 196d
If anything, our assholes outlivng theirs show we are more peqceful, because maybe they also had a type of asshole who got off on hilling assholes for the good of the peaceful group.
tetris11@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 196d
how do you mean?
RamenJunkie@midwest.social · 7 pts · 196d
I am.saying they maybe didn't tolorate their assholes living so long and killed them before they became President of the US etc.
Meanwhile, our collective pascifist asses let our assholes roam free and even went back to beg for more after a few years.
tetris11@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 196d
Ah! Yeah good point. We are way to pacified on the whole, and it seems like it literally just does take one asshole to push us around
Riverside@reddthat.com · 0 pts · 196d
romanticremedy@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 8 pts · 196d
Context?
m0darn@lemmy.ca · 10 pts · 196d
Human genome contains significant contribution from Neanderthals. Because of the location of the neanderthal genes in our genome it can only have come from male Neanderthals.
Echolynx@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 196d
https://apnews.com/article/human-neanderthal-mating-dna-chromosome-5bedad6998e5b397f28d5a0eaceb2a8b
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 196d
Unga bunga bang bang
lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 196d
I don't get it either. Is the model labelled neanderthal known for acting like a neanderthal?
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social · 23 pts · 196d
There was study that determined that the remnant neanderthal DNA in humans mostly came from neanderthal male and human female pairings and not the other way around.
As others have pointed out in the comments that's not really proving that the other pairings didn't happen as often or even more often, there could be fertility issues with the opposite pairing and a whole host of other factors.
It's enough to make a silly meme tho
Bakkoda@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 196d
Clan of the cave bear vibes
tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 195d
The first one was engaging but subsequent novels really felt like Auel was writing them with one hand
jeffep@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 196d
As a modern male, cannot confirm
thatradomguy@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 197d
Did they have bigger
dicksor something?Baggie@lemmy.zip · 10 pts · 197d
Pretty sure they actually did
thatradomguy@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 197d
Vespair@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 196d
You're allowed to say dick on the internet
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 196d
ulterno@programming.dev · 3 pts · 196d
You are also allowed to say
dickif you feel like.No idea how you pronounce that though.
Hule@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 196d
Coughing while saying it!
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 197d
What's with that
dicks?psud@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 192d
He thinks it's inappropriate to do mild swears but it's ok if he pretends it's not there
thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 196d
self censoring? on the libre internet? heresy
lessthanluigi@lemmy.sdf.org · -1 pts · 196d
self censoring is based, don't listen to these fools suppressing your free speech on censoring yourself for your own personal reasons
ICastFist@programming.dev · 3 pts · 196d
So, all those cartoons depicting cavemen dragging a woman by her hair were on to something. Time to write some caveman on modern woman smut!
sirico@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 196d
And that's why we have romantic fantasy novels
toofpic@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 197d
Check out Beforeigners - there is some prehistoric romance atuff there:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8332130/
(and the series are generally interesting)
pupbiru@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 169d
my neanderthal ginger genes still work like this in the gay community
andybytes@programming.dev · -3 pts · 197d
BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz · 0 pts · 197d
Wtf