Interesting read.
Simple explanation: both matings occurred, but Neanderthal communities went extinct. So since the child is reared in the community of the mother, we only get Neanderthal male admixture
That was my first assumption on reading the title, but the article mentions two other things:
-
The male-gene bias apparently persisted for subsequent generations after the initial human/Neanderthal pairing: male children of mixed ancestry had more offspring than their female siblings
-
In Neanderthal communities, the bias was reversed (i.e., more human DNA was retained in the X-chromosome female line.)
-
Anyone bother to copypaste the articles content?
I ain’t accepting nor paying.
Fuck the cookies! Here the archived link for whoever despite accepting cookies like me: https://archive.is/tmyNq
Woah wtf?
Here’s an alternative I found in another thread:
Thank you
That site changes the content of the articles. It’s not to be trusted.
Do you have a source?
If the two species were biologically incompatible, modern human DNA should have been missing from Neanderthal X chromosomes as well. However, the analysis revealed that Neanderthal X chromosomes had a 62% excess of modern human DNA compared with their other chromosomes – a mirror-like reversal of the distribution of Neanderthal DNA in human populations.
I dunno—isn’t that still consistent with a scenario where there’s a specific incompatibility between some gene on the Neanderthal X chromosome and a human gene on some other chromosome?
Otherwise you have to have two parallel-but-opposite trends in human and Neanderthal societies, where human societies favor male offspring of human/Neanderthal unions, but Neanderthal societies favor female offspring.
(Maybe this is addressed in the full paper—I don’t have access.)
Genndy Tartakovsky was right!
What kind of society was this? Was it just rape?
Look, I just wanted to start an interesting conversation and it worked. I don’t mind the downvotes because every reply and vote, up or down, means people are talking.
Humans have a pretty spotty history with how they treat each other, it’s not a huge stretch to imagine some weird historical moment where consent wasn’t a concept or wasn’t recognized. The word rape was pretty strong for me to use, but just a few years ago we used to call it date rape instead of just rape.
If only based on typical human behaviour: Probably both. There’s always someone that’s into something a bit different, so if Sapiens and Neaderthals intermixed sufficiently, there’ll always be some couple that gets it on. Hell, there’s people that fuck dogs (and dogs that try to fuck people). If dogs had been capable of consenting, I’m absolutely positive that some consenting human/dog couple would exist. I would say that consenting inter-species couples would have been inevitable given enough mixing of the groups.
Then there’s also the long history of sexual violence in conflicts. Sapiens and Neanderthals were competing for resources, so there’s bound to have been tribal conflict at some point. Just based on how humans behave in that kind of situation, it’s pretty much guaranteed that people were raped during those conflicts.
Hell beyond sexual violence in conflicts, H. sapiens has a long cross cultural tradition of using marriage to seal peace. Sex to resolve conflict is also present in one of our closest extant relatives (the bonobo), though not in their closest relative. We know very little about Neanderthals’ behavior. We don’t even know to what extent their behavior was cultural vs instinctive. If prior to reestablishment of contact sapiens were sending daughters as part of peace (as we did until relatively recently) while Neanderthals were sending sons and nobody wanted to fight over this difference you could wind up with an entirely cultural reason for this split.
Topics like these greatly sadden me as I think of all the cousins we killed before we even had the technology to write about them. What a fascinating world it must have been to have other members of our genus around, and how sad none were in any of the places we reached last.
I know some vegans who are going to be very upset with this point of view.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but it seems that you ae implying that vegans are zoophillic. Veganism ≠ beastiality.
no, I’m making a reference to a shitpost that was made earlier this week where it brought attention to bestiality laws in conjunction with animal husbandry/breeding on farms.
the original image was a repost of a repost where someone made a catty comment about vegans.
the uproar was immense and caused the post to spill over to vegan communities where they clutched their pearls at the commentary that wasn’t even made by anyone on Lemmy and proceeded to raid the shitpost community.
the comments were a disaster and the entire thread was quickly overrun by veganistic puritans who just wanted a flame war.
it was honestly the most hilarious thing I ever saw on here.
post looks to be deleted now though.
There’s likely no way for us to determine.
It’s difficult to determine if someone consented last night, never mind tens of thousands of years before the earliest written histories. We have precious little evidence of what societies were like during that time period.
Even today, a large majority of women are attracted to grotesque men for inexplicable reasons. Why is rape the first explanation on your mind? Lol
From an evolutionary biological perspective, rape is seen as a mating strategy. Given the eventual extinction of Neanderthalensis, and the fact that physical attractiveness is also an important factor in modern mating practices of homo S, it makes more sense that the introduction of homo N. genes into homo S. population was less likely caused by sapiens being physically attracted to Neanderthals and more likel introduced through the sexual domination of sapien females by Neanderthal males. If that weren’t the case the physical differences between the two species would have been less pronounced. That’s my theory anyway.
‘Rape’ is a pretty meaningless term in this context, given that we were closer to monkeys than modern humans at the time.
Totally incorrect. The article is talking about modern humans and neanderthals, who are also human, not monkeys. It’s right in the headline even.
I was referring to societal development, not genetics. Some hyperbole may also be involved.
Comment to find tomorrow
You can just save posts. It’s a star or bookmark sign somewhere, depending on what interface you’re using.
And even if that feature doesn’t exist, you still have the bookmark feature qm you’re web browser. Posting like that is selfish
I often use “boost” as a way to mark stuff for later re-reading. It makes sense, if I want to read it again later then I probably think others would want to read it too.
No! 😯
You’re like those dudes that park across four spots because it was just simply more convenient for them.
I can appreciate you don’t like this, but much like someone thats warlike about mistaken grammar, I’m a bit at a loss for how the original action is that problematic compared to the intolerant response. Its minor spam that gets downranked my most options for reading, presuming you’re not desperate on reading every single comment but that’s a bit inconsistent with the “taking away my time” slight you appear to be offended by
There’s a certain cost-benefit imbalance in these habits: sure, it’s not a great cost to leave some litter around. People can just step over it. But while one person marginally benefits from it, hundreds more pay the (also tiny, admittedly) cost of the unpleasantness. When you multiply it like that, the negligible becomes gligible.
So anyone that says something others don’t like shouldn’t speak?
The whole platform is based around upvotes and downvotes as a signal to highlight/filter (via sorting) posts and comments that, based on the viewing algorithm chosen, are more/less useful to an averaged user.
I get the litter analogy, that was blindingly obvious from the first comment. I just don’t think it carries well for a platform like this, or quickly expands to “I don’t personally like your comments and the way you use this platform so stop”. I appreciate sometimes that’s needed, but this seems pretty far from those situations. Plus the post seemed presumptuous and insulting because… someone used a tool slightly differently than them and had the audacity to reply?
Ok, I didn’t mean for things to get insulting. My first comment to them was a neutral attempt at telling them there is something else they could do instead. Their reply was a rude “no!” so I wrote back more reproachfully.
I realize it’s a bit of a fight against windmills. People will do what they please and the platform will float towards whatever the natural equilibrium position of such platforms is, so I’ll just let it go.
