I think this has a lot to do with 'man as a predatory animal,' a frequent Lawmage assertion.

When I first became a member of FM, I posted conclusions I'd drawn after reading an article published in a science periodical. The article spoke about 'junk' DNA within the human genome and how it could be remenants of Homo Sapien/Neanderthal interbreeding.

Since then, some things have happened; for example, a mule, heretofore considered 'sterile,' has given birth, amd scientists have shown an important function of the appendix--to supply the gut with enzymes needed for digestion during drought periods when vegetation is scarce.

Just recently, DNA evidence indicates that the FOXP2 gene was present in the fossil remains of two Neanderthals who lived 43,000 years ago. The FOXP2 gene is crucial to the development and understanding of language and even our closest existing relative, the chimpanzee, doesn't have that gene.

The bones of the Neandertals were well-preserved because of cannibalism--the flesh had been stripped, The breaks in the long bones indicated that bone marrow had been sucked out.

Some scientists dispute the findings, saying that the bone evidence has been degraded by handling from modern humans; however, the bones were excavated under 'sterile conditions' and sent to a 'clean room' where the silt was removed. The DNA was also compared with bones from a 38,000 year old homo sapien specimen. Ir matched.

Is the 'Junk' DNA within the human genome really 'junk?' Or is it 'hidden' under ages of human development started by Sapien/Neanderthal successful (i.e.'fertile') interbreeding? Could it have been submerged at one point only to be resurrected at another. A lot of us have wisdom teeth, for example--my daughter doesn't.

Does this mean that man as a hunter/gatherer and man as a gatherer/hunter could have co-existed? Could speciation--the separation of one species from another--result in a co-mingling of genes (Neandethal=regressive, Sapien=dominant?)

If so, would that result in Sapiens with dominant sapien genes result in a 'predatory' sub-species--and the Hunter/Fisher/Gather Sapiens with the regressive Neanderthal traits as a sub-species of gatherer/hunter?

Liz, interesting topic...

Can I suggest a book for you to read? Its a sci-fi book but the subject matter is well researched and relevant to the topic. Indeed, I recommend the book to all of you who read this thread and are interested. Its called Darwin's Radio, by Greg Bear. The topic is evolution among modern humans and the role of our DNA. The book is quite good, it won the 2000 Best Novel of the Year award as well as the Endeavour Award for science fiction.

I am not sure where to weigh in on the topic of homo N. and homo S. intermingling. I suspect that the two species were very close, perhaps close enough to successful interbreed and that some genetic trace of such interbreeding might still be evident. I simply do not know enough about genetics to speak intelligently as to the extent of interbreeding necessary to have left detectable traces in the modern genome though...I suspect it would have to be considerable. I am not sure how much successful interbreeding could have taken place though if home N. and home S. are in fact distinct species. By definition, distinct species are not normally fecund with one another.

is it possible homo N. and home S. were not different genotypes but rather different phenotypes of one species? Could competition for land and resources have forced one phenotype to submerge into the other and appear to die out?

I know that for years there was a "war" between conflicting theories on this subject. One camp proposed that "Cro-Magnon" man (phenotypically identical with modern humans) freely interbred with Neaderthals until the two species were indistinct and the remaining genotype/phenotype was what we are now. The other camp vigorously insisted that modern man was a seperate species that out-competed Neanderthal to extinction. The waters were further muddied by the discovery of a child's skull that bore features of both species, suggesting interbreeding to one camp, and anomolous mutation to the other.

Comparisons of mitochondrial DNA found in bones of both show that they didn't share the same female ancestors. Only females pass mitochondrial DNA to their offspring; males make no contribution, so this type of pedigree is completely a maternal line. The conclusion can't be absolute though, because if, hypothetically, if Cro-magnon males (only) interbred with Neanderthal females sucessfully, the hybrid offspring would only bear the maternal mitochondrial DNA, and the hybrid line would still look distinct from the "modern" line. If Neanderthal males (only) sucessfully interbred with Cro-magnon felmales, the hybrid line would bear the Cro-magnon maternal mitochondrial DNA only.




No, DNA analysis of fossils show that each was indeed a seperate species, with a seperate genotype, and distinct mitochondrial DNA. I favor the theory of interbreeding, personally, although I have to admit the competition/extinction theory carries much weight, since Nature often works that way.

Separate species are the individual organisms of a natural population that generally interbreed at maturity in the wild and whose interbreeding produces fertile offspring (fertile during many generations).
This is an interesting article. The researches show that Homo and Neanderthals interbred. May be they weren’t separate species?.....
"Evidence that the adaptive allele of the brain size
gene microcephalin introgressed into Homo sapiens
from an archaic Homo lineage"
.http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0606966103v1

Elena,

The question you posit is what I was trying to ask--you asked it better than I did. The article you quoted is also very similar to the one I read.

Helice, your explaination of mytochondrial DNA as coming only from the mother suggests that the females were fertile and did pass on their DNA for generations.

Rather than, however, re-hashing the scientific debate about whether or not Homos and Neanderthals interbred and produced viable, fertile children, what I was trying to do was offer a theoretical explanation of why some existing homo sapiens are more aggressive than others, using my interpretation of recent newspaper articles (pseudoscience at best, since newspapers are written at a 12 yr. old comprehension level,) about a suppossedly infertile hybred--the mule--who gave birth to a foal; the funtion of the appendix; and the discovery of the FOXP2 gene in the DNA of Neanderthal bone fossils which was then compared with DNA found in a later Homo Sapiens genome and found to be identical.

The introgression of haplotypes within the DNA of dominent species could lead to what is called, in modern humans, 'junk' DNA--genes that still remain but can be called upon when needed, depending on selection necessary for the moment.

Speciation would occur when the most successful adaptation in evolution becomes dominant and survives. That species would be the one species to live on, but it would also carry within it the surviving genes of its ancestors, perhaps as regressive--or 'junk' DNA.

Modern man--and by that I mean man within recorded or oral history--isn't able to live without war--and yet, some of us are happiest with peace.

Will the 'war' gene, which seems to be currently dominant among some homo sapiens, remain dominent? Or will the 'peace' gene ultimately take precedence?

Liz, I don't think you can postulate a "war" gene or a "peace" gene...even in figurative terms.

I would argue, though admittedly there is as yet no physical evidence, that ALL human beings possess a more or less equivalent propensity for violence and that apparent differences in that propensity are not biological in origin but rather sociological. Seeking a genetic answer to the question seems rather premature in light of the complete absence not only of evidence for such a position but also the complete absence of even a suggestion of such a genetic answer.

I readily conceed however that at the moment, genetics is still in its infancy as a discipline and our understanding of the human genome is astronomically far from complete.

I have read some interesting suggestions that the so called "junk DNA" in our genome is actually NOT junk at all but rather, it is simply of an unknown purpose. Some limited research at actually removing supposed "junk DNA" from the genome of some lab animals (I think the SciAm article was about mice) found that removing apparently noncoding sections of DNA resulted in animals that were sickly and died prematurely.) If I had a decent internet connection, I would do some online research. Maybe Liz will look into for us...

The topic of "junk DNA" is one that my classes have recently addressed, and I can relate to you what was explained to me.

Our DNA is composed of many sections, some are coding sequences for proteins, some are "junk", or unknown. The coding sequences are called "exons" and the non-coding sequences are called "introns". During the process of RNA "transcription" (the process whereby our cells actually use the codes in our DNA to manufacture useful substances for our bodies), the introns are spiced out, and relevant exons are assembled in the proper order to make needed proteins and enzymes. The cool thing about this arrangement is that the splicing deal allows our cells to mix'n'match coding sequences to make all different variations of proteins, as if we had far more genes than we really do. This splicing increases the potential productivity of our cells by several orders of magnitude, making us very complex creatures indeed.... if we had genes that were straightforward, "written" sequentially with no breaks or "junk" between the sequences, we'd be far less complicated.... bacteria have DNA with no "junk" in them, for example, and you can see how limited they are compared to mammals and other eukaryotic life.

So incredible complexity and variety of function is one perk of the junk DNA we haul around with us. Another benefit is protection from DNA replication errors. When our cells divide, it happenes that amino acids and codons are mis-copied from time to time when chromosomes (closely packed with DNA) are duplicated. Having lots of introns (junk) means that there's a much better chance that one of these errors will happen in a non-coding sequence of our DNA and therefore be harmless to the cell being copied. I'd need to look up the rate of copy errors (leaky memory) but I recall that because of the existance of our introns, our "junk" DNA, the chance of DNA copy errors falls to one in one million, rather than the higher number I'm too lazy to look up for you.

As to purpose other than the two I've mentioned, science has yet to explain other uses for non-coding DNA. I suggested in class that perhaps it was meant for future expansion, and my thought was met with amusement. I'd like to have a window into the future to see if I'm right.



Hmm? For me the answer to that seems obvious... a combination of culture and instilled values, hormonal drives, and personal inclination have the greatest influence on modern humankind's propensity to war. As to genetics... look at the history of humans. Has there ever been a culture, or nation, or city-state, or tribe, that has not been to war? That was rhetorical. There never has been. If there ever was a group that had a tendency to not fight back when attacked, then of course they were subjugated and/or wiped out by those who were willing and happy to rape and pillage them. That's natural selection at work. If you want to think about a "war gene" in humans, think about natural selection. In Nature there are peaceable gentle grass-eaters and there are rapacious brutal meat eaters. When they encounter one another, guess who's coming to dinner?

I tend to favor the theory that humankind has the strong tendency to make war (in a general sense, we're always looking for it), and that environmental influences and cultural context can either dampen or inflame that tendency in various ways.

There is not enough evidence to tell whether the Neanderthals were closely elated to us, or were not. There have been two major investigations of the DNA in Neanderthal fossils, and both gave conflicting results.

What would a Neanderthal-Sapiens hybrid look like or act like? I am not sure. There are different brain sizes and brain shapes in the two species, so it would be interesting to see if hybrid would have some type of lowering of intelligence or some type mental physical handicap caused by conflicts between the two sets of genes during brain development. A hybrid might be shorter and stronger than a Sapiens, if Neanderthal physical traits were dominant. A hybrid might have heavier brow ridges than modern humans.

If there were a different number of chromosomes between Neanderthal and Sapiens, then it would be possible that such hybrids would be sterile or have a low fertility rate.

I am not sure we are more "predatory" than Neanderthal was, but we did have more efficient hunting techniques.

Too bad we cannot do experiments to test the ideas...Perhaps in the future viable DNA can be extracted or refabricated from Neanderthal fossils and an attempt to create a modern human-Neanderthal hybred can be made. Or maybe not...who knows.

On the topic of junk DNA...Helice, I have read in both fiction and non-fiction about the possibility that some of the junk DNA we carry around is "foreign" DNA in the sense that it is DNA incorporated into our own genome as a result of infection by viruses. This "foreign" DNA then retains the ability to snip itself back out of our genome and emerge in the body as an active virus. Tell us, Helice, have you heard anything like this or anything that refutes or supports such an idea?

If you think that stem cell research got people in a uproar, wait until somebody tries something like that. From a scientific point of view, I would be fascinated by such a hybrid, but from a ethical point of view, I would hope they would only do such experiments on early embryos. Of course, considering that both species are of the genus Homo, most of the interesting developments would not happen until later in fetal development. There are serious ethical considerations involved in such research.

A lot of the junk DNA is probably not junk at all. It might be involved in error checking mechanisms in cells, and thus help prevent mutation. We have only begun to understand how different genes work and interact.

Yes some of our DNA is viral. It is not a theory at all, they have made DNA comparisons with a specific virus, and they matched, when the various errors DNA, which accumulate over time are taken into account. I forget what the specific virus was called though.

Considering the amount of time life has existed on Earth, it would be surprising if we did not have large amount of junk or dormant code in our genes.

I haven't yet encountered this theory, which says nothing about whether it's a good theory or not, just that I'm not conversant with it.

My first impulse is to wonder by what mechanism this foreign DNA would "snip itself" out of our genome and reassemble? The process of DNA tranlation and transcription is a multi-step one that takes place after cascading signals from the cell nucleus. In order for this theoretical reassembly of viral DNA to happen, we would need a built-in cell signaling pathway to initiate, sustain, and complete the process, and I don't believe such a thing has been discovered to date.

It doesn't sound like a likely scenario to me, but I haven't got a doctorate in molecular biology. I tend to disfavor this theory, but am willing to listen to evidence that will sway me.

.

If such a hybrid was actually created and permitted to develop to viability, I would consider it to be a human being, with all attendent human rights. Scientifically, a fascinating question. Ethically, a very bad one. Bringing such a hybrid into the world, if something viable could actually be created from ancient DNA as you theorize, would make a humanoid creature that may have all sorts of unfortunate physical and mental development problems, and its life is certain to be a very unhappy one.

As much as the result would be fasacinating to study, I would have nothing to do with it.

We can see altruists and egoists, aggressive and cowardly creatures in any species. As for aggressiveness, it is connected with genes, for sure. For example, when selective breeders tried to get non-aggressive fur-bearing animals, they also got a bad quality of fur.
Intraspecific competition is the cruelest one, because of particular ecological niche.
I don’t think that homo is more cruel, aggressive and immoral than any other specie. All creatures are in a permanent state of war.
About gene of aggression. I read that aggression is controlled by a group of genes and caused not by their activity, but vice versa – these genes should be “turned off”. In this case the organism doesn’t produce some Neurotransmitters, which amplify and modulate signals between a neuron and another cell. Thus, aggression isn’t a norm, but aggressive creatures are necessary for society (for defense, getting new resources etc).

Liz- I think this has a lot to do with 'man as a predatory animal,' a frequent Lawmage assertion.

Modern man--and by that I mean man within recorded or oral history--isn't able to live without war--and yet, some of us are happiest with peace.

Will the 'war' gene, which seems to be currently dominant among some homo sapiens, remain dominent? Or will the 'peace' gene ultimately take precedence?

Wax- WOW!
I think we can leave Neanderthal... the question is much more simple.

It can be boiled down to: what is man?
And it must include the statement: "some of us are happiest with peace."

Really?
That is interesting to say the least, who would "US" be?
More importantly perhaps what would "Happiest" mean?

Before we begin of course we must at least define the parameters of the question and at least the claims that have been made so far:
If one includes "Bright young Americans who have the wealth, comfort and well.. luxury; of pretending that such a thing was not won by severe violence then the answer is quite simple!"
You see that is where the claims of "civilization and man's higher purpose" come from!
People are always "happy" when affluence allows it.
But they forget what affluence is and it is far from free.

So what is man?
Has he... or more importantly could he change in some fundamental way?

The question itself always amazes me, and of course the answer is always shocking to those who receive it.

In a small way your question is quite silly; but in the end it is the quest of all entities "What am I, What is my goal and my worth?"

Man is what we have become but in the end we have not changed and will not change for millions of years.

I am sorry but the girl who stands up and declares that we should not kill our enemy... should not eat meat... should recycle everything we can... should "love our enemy" and so on is following the rules established by a pack hunting predator and may or may not gain the packs support.
But she is asking for it one way or another.
She may if she struggles win a short term battle just as others did in her past when they stood forth and declared, "We do not eat other humans!"
In that case a "more" (moral) was created which is carried by all who hear it and accept it.
But the problem of courses that mores have limits: I won;t eat human flesh but I will if I must because the fact is that I am much more and much less than others might claim: I am a predator. For better or worse I am the best predator that nature has produced thus far!

There is no known visible eco that I can not become the supreme predator in... none!
I can eat that which flies, that which swims, that which crawls and if I need to that which grows!
I can eat snales, and I can eat creatures that poison every other predator that seeks it!
I can not only live on scorp's and rattlesnakes I could if given enough time remove them from the biodiverse area in which I live!

I have survived to breed... which is the only thing that nature(GOD) cares about on algea!
Now I utilize it as a tool at my whim to salt or taste my meals because I can.
Yet still I have that afformentioned problem???

It is not new:
There have been many times when those among us have declared themselves too advanced to be human.
More power to them I say.
In Egypt they pretended to be Gods, but in Greece and Rome they simply declared themselves somehow better than the rest of us: simple predators nothing more!

Of course the sad fact is that each of them in the time they lived learned better as the walls they pretended could exist came crumbling down.

Then "we" had solid walls but today they are much less.
Yes: Man is a cultured creature who has passed far beyond those vulgar implulses and you can sleep well tonight knowing that most mean you absolutely no harm.

Now all I need is a crowbar and a sledgehammer and my contribution to the pack will be complete!

Hi wax,

Nice to read your posts again. Are people really happy when affluence allows it?

Wax, I have disagreed on your ideas on the real predatory powers of Man before, and I won't revisit them unless I must. Happiness? Happiness can mean many things. Harmony is a much better thing to aspire to.

Unless Man harmonizes with his environment, ultimately the environment will destroy him, because Nature is far more powerful than Man. I state this as a fact, not as some pseudo-religious mantra.

If society collapses, it may well be because of some of the things you find to be praiseworthy in Man.


Man has intellect, and is a predator because intellect has given him powers of killing far beyond the natural powers of his puny body. Man has intellect for many reason, many of them beyond the control of Man or his precursor species. Man *is* because of certain shifting currents within the flux of change within the universe, and it would not take many changes in such currents, to make it almost like Man never existed at all.

Wax, Buddha said "All we are is the result of what we have thought. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him. If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him."

Psychologist Daniel Coleman and the Dali Lama co authored a book, Destructive Emotions: A Scientific Study With the Dali Lama. Coleman said, "The very act of concern for others well-being in others' it seems, creates a greater state of well-being within oneself." Destructive states of mind are the root of human suffering.

How about we all just follow the "golden rule" and love thy neighbor? "One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts." Yoruba of Nigeria...

Most men and women are inherently good...but there is a certain group of people in our population who are not good and never will be. Their destructive influence needs to be recognized and stomped out!

Liz, it is modern man that came up with a disgusting faith like the Creativity Movment...no golden rule subscription here! Just a bunch of self centered modern humans believing the white race is superior to all.

Good and evil are not inherent. It is possible to support things like compassion from first principles, but calling it good or evil is just giving labels. True understanding of ones nature, will incline one towards compassion, but ones true nature is often hidden under the biological animal nature. One often sees the gross and coarse things, the apparent things, but they don't see the subtle things that lie underneath. I am verging on a discussion about Eastern Philosophy in the wrong forum.

Sure, as long as you are a human with a conscious. There is a small portion of our population who do not possess a conscious. They are "hallow" and have described themselves as such... A person with a conscious put in a position where he or she that has to kill, such as in a war or self defense often times develop ptsd because the act of killing is so opposed to what he knows is right and wrong. A person without a conscious who kill are the Jeffrey Dahmers...

Yes, I have much to say on this...but it is a topic of it's own. The whole man, has a conscious. I would guess Neanderthal man was no different.

The brain of the neanderthal was large, larger than a modern humans in size, but the shape of the brain was different, so thought processes, and the impacts that would have upon Neanderthal culture and technology would have been different from those a Homo Sapiens brain makes upon their own technology and culture.

Mental illness does not change this true nature, it just changes ones capacity to realise it.

Neanderthals had organizing skills, language and care for each other. They not only co-existed with homo sapien sapien, both may have shared a common ancestor, possibly homo antecessor or homo heidelbergensis.

Since the Neanderthals diet consisted primarily of animal protein, they had to be the hunter-predators of the pre-human species. They developed finely-shaped, razor-sharp stone tools and the injuries shown in fossil remains indicate not only close-in, tribal (organized) hunts, but also their care for those injured in such hunts.

But did any of those traits continue in modern man--genetically. We don't know. So far, most scientists say NO. And yet there is the skull of the boy that shows a blending of outward characteristics.

My point is that to label Homo Sapien Sapien as primarily preditory, genetically, may be wrong.

Homo Sapiens is an omnivore; he is built to eat whatever he can find. If we look at the diet of chimps, then I would say our diet should probably contain more plant material than meat.

I don't know how closely Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens were genetically since different studies have yelded different results.


I don't know if they could interbreed, and if they could, that the resulting offspring would be fertile and therefore able to pass on the hybrid DNA.

Man is more like a parasite or a virus in his modern technological form, than a predator. A predator has limits to what he can kill, while a virus often reproduces and uses the resources of the host, until the host dies.