Have YOU been tested for Neanderthal genes?

Page 2 of 6 [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

07 Jan 2013, 5:15 pm

Baryonyx wrote:
Some norwegian scientific adventurer even built an egyptian boat and made it over the atlantic ocean.


His name is Thor Heyerdahl.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

08 Jan 2013, 9:47 am

slave wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
The real granddaddy of all working scientists today was not galileo, nor newton, nor copernicus, but a certain smooth talking Italian sailor with no science diploma who managed to talk certain powers-at-be into giving him a research grant. This first ever research grant in human history was to test the sailor's theory that the edge of asia was only six hundred miles west of the Azores- and thus an easy hop by boat from western europe. Folks laughed at him.

But he got the grant and bought three ships- and tested his theory by sailing west in 1492.
And guess what!

The folks who laughed at him were proved RIGHT! They all thought that the planet had to be much bigger than this crazy Italian said it was, and they were proved right ( asia starts 12 thousand miles west of the Azores).

It was a friggin' dumb theory. But in the act of testing his theory the guy accidently stumbled upon two new huge continents that were previously unknown.

Anyway.
The Neanderthal theory of autism/aspergers is in, in my opinion, probably like columbus's small earth theory. Probably wrong, but interesting, and worth looking into nontheless. Its the kind of thing that may cause us to stumble upon a new continent or two even if its wrong.

It costs money to get your genes tested. So far only rockstars like ozzy osbourne can afford it. He found that he had some significant smidgen of neanderthal DNA ( he has dyslexia but I doubt that he has autism-he seems more adhd in personality than aspie to me).

There is a certain logic to the neanderthal-autism link theory. But I agree with the op that you could just as easily argue the opposite notion.

Perhaps autistics and aspies are less primate and are more Sapien than most homo sapiens! The fact that we miss social cues fail to read body language and take verbal comunication too litereally shows that we are less monkey like- than most people - and are sort of inbred over sapien sapiens. This might mean that we have a pausity of archaic homid genes, and not an over supply of them.We are farther from the apes than NT's- and thats the problem with us!

Just a thought.


Columbus did not discover the Americas. Read some History.


Im aware that the paleoIndians discovered America in the Ice Age.
I didnt claim that the they didnt.
That people got there first has absolutely no baring on the point I was making.

The fact that you think that your comment is relevent shows that you obviously cant handle having a discussion with grownups, so just runalong and play now please.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

08 Jan 2013, 9:56 am

Baryonyx wrote:
There's also the theory that egyptians made it over and brought their pyramid building to south america. I made a presentation in school about that. Some norwegian scientific adventurer even built an egyptian boat and made it over the atlantic ocean. But gene research says that this hypothesis is very unlikely to be true.

Oh, I went too off topic I guess... :P

I always thought that those people with large brow ridges are the ones with more neanderthal genes - or is it possible that these are passed on recessively? :scratch:
But I can't say how this relates to autism - I don't know any aspies or autists with large brow ridges... :shrug:

EDIT: And no, I've not been tested. I have no large brow ridges either! :lol:


I dont know any beetle browed auties nor aspies either. Folks with prominent eyebrows tend to be NT.

But I am barrel chested. Cromagnons had modern non barrel chests. But monkeys, apes, and early hominids (including neanderthals) were all barrel chested. So ...maybe there is something to it.



Tyri0n
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,879
Location: Douchebag Capital of the World (aka Washington D.C.)

08 Jan 2013, 10:18 am

Sidmor wrote:
Tyri0n wrote:
My first reaction is that NT's are more like primitive species (groupthink, herd/gang mentality, etc.) than aspies are, from a behavioral standpoint. The neanderthals must have heavily depended on nonverbal communication also, which aspies suck at.


Actually the groupthink and the gang mentality requires the intricate development of certain advanced social, emotional and multitasking functions that the aspies lack.

I'd view autism as that it happens to have some positive, as well as some negative traits as a result of the underdevelopment of certain social and emotional functions.

You know, tribalism is deeply rooted in the NTs, and while this groupthink seems primitive to us, it actually used to be an evolutionary trait that allowed the NTs to cooperate and adapt effectively.

Neurological social traits this complex are probably unique to the NTs, I'd say that all the animals, as well as probably the Neanderthals too, sucked at nonverbal communication when compared to the NTs.

I don't wholly understand the "neanderthals are ret*d" mentality. Sure, they were impractical (like we tend to be), but if autism and Neanderthals have a connection, they could actually have been theoretically smart in the same way we are. They did have larger brains too "Neanderthals had a 1500cc brain volume, while modern humans have 1400cc" even though the brain size alone does not determine intellect.


Well, if it requires so much brain development, I'm curious as to why multiple lower forms of life, such as sheep, fish, geese., and apes, exhibit similar group behavior to NT's.



slave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2012
Age: 113
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,420
Location: Dystopia Planetia

08 Jan 2013, 3:14 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
slave wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
The real granddaddy of all working scientists today was not galileo, nor newton, nor copernicus, but a certain smooth talking Italian sailor with no science diploma who managed to talk certain powers-at-be into giving him a research grant. This first ever research grant in human history was to test the sailor's theory that the edge of asia was only six hundred miles west of the Azores- and thus an easy hop by boat from western europe. Folks laughed at him.

But he got the grant and bought three ships- and tested his theory by sailing west in 1492.
And guess what!

The folks who laughed at him were proved RIGHT! They all thought that the planet had to be much bigger than this crazy Italian said it was, and they were proved right ( asia starts 12 thousand miles west of the Azores).

It was a friggin' dumb theory. But in the act of testing his theory the guy accidently stumbled upon two new huge continents that were previously unknown.

Anyway.
The Neanderthal theory of autism/aspergers is in, in my opinion, probably like columbus's small earth theory. Probably wrong, but interesting, and worth looking into nontheless. Its the kind of thing that may cause us to stumble upon a new continent or two even if its wrong.

It costs money to get your genes tested. So far only rockstars like ozzy osbourne can afford it. He found that he had some significant smidgen of neanderthal DNA ( he has dyslexia but I doubt that he has autism-he seems more adhd in personality than aspie to me).

There is a certain logic to the neanderthal-autism link theory. But I agree with the op that you could just as easily argue the opposite notion.

Perhaps autistics and aspies are less primate and are more Sapien than most homo sapiens! The fact that we miss social cues fail to read body language and take verbal comunication too litereally shows that we are less monkey like- than most people - and are sort of inbred over sapien sapiens. This might mean that we have a pausity of archaic homid genes, and not an over supply of them.We are farther from the apes than NT's- and thats the problem with us!

Just a thought.


Columbus did not discover the Americas. Read some History.


Im aware that the paleoIndians discovered America in the Ice Age.
I didnt claim that the they didnt.
That people got there first has absolutely no baring on the point I was making.

The fact that you think that your comment is relevent shows that you obviously cant handle having a discussion with grownups, so just runalong and play now please.



I don't have to take that kind of rude condescension from you.

It speak volumes about your internal psychological state that when someone points out an inaccuracy in your writing that you immediately choose to engage in a humiliation tactic.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

08 Jan 2013, 3:25 pm

Quote:
Columbus did not discover the Americas. Read some History.


There were the Viking/Norsemen explorers something like 500 years or so before Columbus, but as someone else suggested, they didn't exactly publish their results or otherwise make them known.

Also any completley independent rediscovery is itself a discovery. I've heard of no suggestion that Columbus was aware of the earlier Viking/Norsemen explorations.



Rascal77s
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

08 Jan 2013, 3:43 pm

slave wrote:
...rude condescension...



Imagine that, on an ASD forum of all places :lol:



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

08 Jan 2013, 4:05 pm

slave wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
slave wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
The real granddaddy of all working scientists today was not galileo, nor newton, nor copernicus, but a certain smooth talking Italian sailor with no science diploma who managed to talk certain powers-at-be into giving him a research grant. This first ever research grant in human history was to test the sailor's theory that the edge of asia was only six hundred miles west of the Azores- and thus an easy hop by boat from western europe. Folks laughed at him.

But he got the grant and bought three ships- and tested his theory by sailing west in 1492.
And guess what!

The folks who laughed at him were proved RIGHT! They all thought that the planet had to be much bigger than this crazy Italian said it was, and they were proved right ( asia starts 12 thousand miles west of the Azores).

It was a friggin' dumb theory. But in the act of testing his theory the guy accidently stumbled upon two new huge continents that were previously unknown.

Anyway.
The Neanderthal theory of autism/aspergers is in, in my opinion, probably like columbus's small earth theory. Probably wrong, but interesting, and worth looking into nontheless. Its the kind of thing that may cause us to stumble upon a new continent or two even if its wrong.

It costs money to get your genes tested. So far only rockstars like ozzy osbourne can afford it. He found that he had some significant smidgen of neanderthal DNA ( he has dyslexia but I doubt that he has autism-he seems more adhd in personality than aspie to me).

There is a certain logic to the neanderthal-autism link theory. But I agree with the op that you could just as easily argue the opposite notion.

Perhaps autistics and aspies are less primate and are more Sapien than most homo sapiens! The fact that we miss social cues fail to read body language and take verbal comunication too litereally shows that we are less monkey like- than most people - and are sort of inbred over sapien sapiens. This might mean that we have a pausity of archaic homid genes, and not an over supply of them.We are farther from the apes than NT's- and thats the problem with us!

Just a thought.


Columbus did not discover the Americas. Read some History.


Im aware that the paleoIndians discovered America in the Ice Age.
I didnt claim that the they didnt.
That people got there first has absolutely no baring on the point I was making.

The fact that you think that your comment is relevent shows that you obviously cant handle having a discussion with grownups, so just runalong and play now please.



I don't have to take that kind of rude condescension from you.

It speak volumes about your internal psychological state that when someone points out an inaccuracy in your writing that you immediately choose to engage in a humiliation tactic.


AWwwww you poor baby!
You have a right to rude to others, but others cant be rude to you back!

Exactly WHAT inaccuracy did you point out?

And why is YOUR rude condension "Read some history."acceptable? And mine not?

Columbus did indeed 'discover' america for himself and his sponsers. Nothing that you said contradicted that.
The powers at be in medeaval europe did not know of america.
So FOR THEM - columbus discovered america.

Thus...illustrating my point- that it sometimes pays to risk money on testing a theory. AND further.. it sometimes pays to risk money on testing a theory-even when the theory turns out to be wrong.

Those were my two points.

The fact that vikings (or chinese or phonecians or irish monks) land centuries earlier than columbus doesnt change my point.


READ SOME HISTORY.

The age of exploration and exploitation and settlement of america did not start with those irish monks or phonecians, or even vikings or what have you. It started with columbus. Because widespread european awareness of the new world started with columbus- and not with these earlier adventurers (bold as they have been).

Nitpicking about who landed first doesnt have anything to do with my point.

The fact that you even THINK that it is relevent is mystifying to me.



Anomiel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,023

08 Jan 2013, 6:49 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
I dont know any beetle browed auties nor aspies either. Folks with prominent eyebrows tend to be NT.

But I am barrel chested. Cromagnons had modern non barrel chests. But monkeys, apes, and early hominids (including neanderthals) were all barrel chested. So ...maybe there is something to it.


Barrel chest could also be a sign of lung disease or ankylosing spondylitis or osteoarthritis etc. But I guess you'd know if it was that and not just your build. But then again auto-immune disorders might come from Neanderthals (and Denisovans).
my family on both sides (and me) have a ton of auto-immune disorders.
Kind of related: Isn't there a link between aspies and auto-immune disorders? Anyone recommend a thread here (or articles, litterature, studies, whatever) about that because someone must have brought it up before?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/ ... n-immunity
Quote:
The Neanderthals contributed a string of HLA gene variants, or alleles, to the modern Eurasian population's gene pool, the study found.

There was good reason for Neanderthal and Denisovan immune system genes to have spread through the populations of modern humans who encountered them. Both Neanderthals and Denisovans had established themselves long before modern humans arrived. Their immune systems had adapted to the threats of the local environment. When those genes crossed into modern humans, they conveyed an advantage. Natural selection took care of the rest.

But the scientists think there was a downside. Inheriting Denisovan or Neanderthal immunity genes will have helped modern humans to fight the diseases of the day, but beyond the age of reproductive maturity they might have a more harmful effect, turning our immune systems on ourselves.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

08 Jan 2013, 8:10 pm

Sorry to hear about that kind of problem in your family.

Gosh - the things theyre learning these days.
But at the same time -that the stuff theyre 'learning' isnt that solidly proven.

That issue of the guardian also has an article that questions whether our neanderthal and denisovian genes really came from cross breeding and not from a common earlier ancestor.

But -gosh-IF they can prove that lupis, or whatever, might be linked to having neanderthal genes that might lend credence to the idea that autism might be related to neanderthal genes as well.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

08 Jan 2013, 8:22 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Sorry to hear about that kind of problem in your family.

Gosh - the things theyre learning these days.
But at the same time -that the stuff theyre 'learning' isnt that solidly proven.


Often nothing but an hallucination.



Anomiel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,023

08 Jan 2013, 8:41 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Sorry to hear about that kind of problem in your family.

Gosh - the things theyre learning these days.
But at the same time -that the stuff theyre 'learning' isnt that solidly proven.

That issue of the guardian also has an article that questions whether our neanderthal and denisovian genes really came from cross breeding and not from a common earlier ancestor.

But -gosh-IF they can prove that lupis, or whatever, might be linked to having neanderthal genes that might lend credence to the idea that autism might be related to neanderthal genes as well.


Thanks. That's genetics for you.

I think there is a stronger case for crossbreeding than just a common ancestor, but it will probably go back and forth with studies until they come to a conclusion. As it should, as long as it leads to more information and not just the dismissal of a hypothesis for no reason. That recent study didn't take into account the auto-immune stuff either (neanderthal remains with rheumatism etc) or why Homo sapiens would react so badly when they have the HLA alleles found in Neanderthals.

Yes, if they can prove that, it's a really strong case for autism being linked to neanderthal genes.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

08 Jan 2013, 8:48 pm

Anomiel wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Sorry to hear about that kind of problem in your family.

Gosh - the things theyre learning these days.
But at the same time -that the stuff theyre 'learning' isnt that solidly proven.

That issue of the guardian also has an article that questions whether our neanderthal and denisovian genes really came from cross breeding and not from a common earlier ancestor.

But -gosh-IF they can prove that lupis, or whatever, might be linked to having neanderthal genes that might lend credence to the idea that autism might be related to neanderthal genes as well.


Thanks. That's genetics for you.

I think there is a stronger case for crossbreeding than just a common ancestor, but it will probably go back and forth with studies until they come to a conclusion. As it should, as long as it leads to more information and not just the dismissal of a hypothesis for no reason. That recent study didn't take into account the auto-immune stuff either (neanderthal remains with rheumatism etc) or why Homo sapiens would react so badly when they have the HLA alleles found in Neanderthals.

Yes, if they can prove that, it's a really strong case for autism being linked to neanderthal genes.


I suspect that it is more likely that everyone has some amount of "Neanderthal genes" and they have little or nothing to do with Autism at all.



Anomiel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,023

08 Jan 2013, 8:51 pm

eric76 wrote:
Anomiel wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Sorry to hear about that kind of problem in your family.

Gosh - the things theyre learning these days.
But at the same time -that the stuff theyre 'learning' isnt that solidly proven.

That issue of the guardian also has an article that questions whether our neanderthal and denisovian genes really came from cross breeding and not from a common earlier ancestor.

But -gosh-IF they can prove that lupis, or whatever, might be linked to having neanderthal genes that might lend credence to the idea that autism might be related to neanderthal genes as well.


Thanks. That's genetics for you.

I think there is a stronger case for crossbreeding than just a common ancestor, but it will probably go back and forth with studies until they come to a conclusion. As it should, as long as it leads to more information and not just the dismissal of a hypothesis for no reason. That recent study didn't take into account the auto-immune stuff either (neanderthal remains with rheumatism etc) or why Homo sapiens would react so badly when they have the HLA alleles found in Neanderthals.

Yes, if they can prove that, it's a really strong case for autism being linked to neanderthal genes.


I suspect that it is more likely that everyone has some amount of "Neanderthal genes" and they have little or nothing to do with Autism at all.


Not if you're from Sub-Saharan Africa, then you don't have any.

The small amount of autism in people of that descent relative to in people of european descent (who have the biggest % of Neanderthal genes) also speaks volumes.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

08 Jan 2013, 9:23 pm

Anomiel wrote:
eric76 wrote:
Anomiel wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Sorry to hear about that kind of problem in your family.

Gosh - the things theyre learning these days.
But at the same time -that the stuff theyre 'learning' isnt that solidly proven.

That issue of the guardian also has an article that questions whether our neanderthal and denisovian genes really came from cross breeding and not from a common earlier ancestor.

But -gosh-IF they can prove that lupis, or whatever, might be linked to having neanderthal genes that might lend credence to the idea that autism might be related to neanderthal genes as well.


Thanks. That's genetics for you.

I think there is a stronger case for crossbreeding than just a common ancestor, but it will probably go back and forth with studies until they come to a conclusion. As it should, as long as it leads to more information and not just the dismissal of a hypothesis for no reason. That recent study didn't take into account the auto-immune stuff either (neanderthal remains with rheumatism etc) or why Homo sapiens would react so badly when they have the HLA alleles found in Neanderthals.

Yes, if they can prove that, it's a really strong case for autism being linked to neanderthal genes.


I suspect that it is more likely that everyone has some amount of "Neanderthal genes" and they have little or nothing to do with Autism at all.


Not if you're from Sub-Saharan Africa, then you don't have any.

The small amount of autism in people of that descent relative to in people of european descent (who have the biggest % of Neanderthal genes) also speaks volumes.


Image



Anomiel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,023

08 Jan 2013, 9:41 pm

eric76 wrote:
Anomiel wrote:
eric76 wrote:
Anomiel wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Sorry to hear about that kind of problem in your family.

Gosh - the things theyre learning these days.
But at the same time -that the stuff theyre 'learning' isnt that solidly proven.

That issue of the guardian also has an article that questions whether our neanderthal and denisovian genes really came from cross breeding and not from a common earlier ancestor.

But -gosh-IF they can prove that lupis, or whatever, might be linked to having neanderthal genes that might lend credence to the idea that autism might be related to neanderthal genes as well.


Thanks. That's genetics for you.

I think there is a stronger case for crossbreeding than just a common ancestor, but it will probably go back and forth with studies until they come to a conclusion. As it should, as long as it leads to more information and not just the dismissal of a hypothesis for no reason. That recent study didn't take into account the auto-immune stuff either (neanderthal remains with rheumatism etc) or why Homo sapiens would react so badly when they have the HLA alleles found in Neanderthals.

Yes, if they can prove that, it's a really strong case for autism being linked to neanderthal genes.


I suspect that it is more likely that everyone has some amount of "Neanderthal genes" and they have little or nothing to do with Autism at all.


Not if you're from Sub-Saharan Africa, then you don't have any.

The small amount of autism in people of that descent relative to in people of european descent (who have the biggest % of Neanderthal genes) also speaks volumes.


Image


Hmm, the study I read must have been really old then. I know about the recent uptick in autism rates for black people in America, though. FYI, I meant people still living in Africa. Though my googling states the rate of autism in Africa as unknown, I do remember having read that it is very low.