All Non-Africans Part Neanderthal, Genetics Confirm

Analysis by Jennifer Viegas
Monday July 18, 2011 – discovery.com

NeanderthalIf your heritage is non-African, you are part Neanderthal, according to a new study in the July issue of Molecular Biology and Evolution. Discovery News has been reporting on human/Neanderthal interbreeding for some time now, so this latest research confirms earlier findings.

Damian Labuda of the University of Montreal’s Department of Pediatrics and the CHU Sainte-Justine Research Center conducted the study with his colleagues. They determined some of the human X chromosome originates from Neanderthals, but only in people of non-African heritage.

Full Article : discovery.com

36 Responses to “All Non-Africans Part Neanderthal, Genetics Confirm”


  • “They determined some of the human X chromosome originates from Neanderthals, but only in people of non-African heritage.”
    Billions have been spent on research to prove that people look different long ago. Why the obssession with the external features of man? Seeing that he goes back to the ground. So what if my ancestors looked a bit different from me, isnt it expected, seeing they ate different food, different climate and different lifestyle. And proving that man was ape like does not extracate the divine that exist in all of creation. After all isnt God the sole source of life.

  • This is very satisfactory. I was never happy with the idea that the Neanderthal was an entirely different species that died out. It seemed such a waste.

  • Get this! Only the African/Blacks evolved. No soul;no spirit; no relationship with God.All others are of QUESTIONABLE origin.What a sad world we live in.

  • This would be the top story of every major psych journal,news station/newspaper and top discussion on CNN etc here in good old US of A, had they (scientists) found that neanderthals evolved from Africans. Once again taking every opportunity to convince africans that they are less than humans. BUT THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE, IT JUST NEEDS TO BE REVISITED MORE OFTEN. Thanks author!

    • As a matter of fact that is what they’re trying to say; its what they have been implying ever since they discovered decades ago that they carried within their DNA the genes of modern humans’ savage, prodigal cousin.

  • This study conflicts with the last one I read, which indicates that Neanderthals were the first to walk out of Africa in a migration which preceded Cro-Magnons. Based on this, it was found that even modern Africans have Neanderthal genes. But this new study is intriguing and I would like to see more of it.

  • Thank you Derick for awhile there I was worried about the comments to this story. Somehow no one seems to fully appreciate the fact that a highly evolved species; the African Homo-Sapien-Sapien mated with a less evolved species; the Homo-Neanderthalensis and produced much of the world we live in today.

    The African hominid that produced the Neanderthal left the continent more than a million years before the evolution of Homo-Sapiens; the Neanderthal was never found in Africa; anthropology has revealed the Neanderthal to be the most prodigal of hominids, and would have wasted himself into extinction were it not for the unfortunate encounters.

    This single revelation should give those of us of African descent great pause.

  • This gives Diop’s Civilization or Barbarism and Chancellor Williams’ the Destruction of Black Civilization a whole new meaning.

  • Chancellor Williams on Tony Brown’s Journal

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XPxgmbWzIY

  • No one can tell you about your HISTORY… You have to see it for yourself… caution.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucawazomgGA&feature=fvwrel

  • a study was completed by national geographic,in it the moderator gave an insight that seems to suggest that 90 percent of all males seems to have a common ancestor.that through global migration our species populated this earth and the common source of origin was in Africa.then common sense will tell me that if most off if not all humans came from Africa then obviously our ancestry would most likely be the same. science in most cases contradicts itself.

  • I once read where Chinese researchers had concluded that the characteristic “Oriental look” was as a result of the neanderthal content of their gene pool. I’m not sure how these new findings fit in with that!

  • Thank you Karibkween, (I like the sobriquet) and Tristan. Let me say Tristan that science concludes that all men and women living today have common ancestors in Africa, our ancestral home. In fact all women inherit mitochondrial DNA from their mothers and all women alive can trace this DNA to a common ancestor in the Afar region of Ethiopia. Now Karibkween, your contention is that Neanderthals are not found in Africa and you are right,none has been found at this point. But if Neanderthal’s ancestors are to be found on the continent and indeed walked out of Africa and developed into Neanderthal,even as close as the Middle East, what would have prevented them from developing into Neanderthal on the continent? This story of humanity has many twists and turns yet, my hope is that one day we can arrive at something called accurate. Remember though, that we are all savage and we are all human, one race one people just different adaptations to climate and environment.

  • Am I mistaken; or was it this self-same Neanderthal that hunted and ate the cold-adapted ungulates into extinction? There is no disputing their carnivorous nature because a reading of their DNA reveals that they were veritable meat-sacks. Translation; they were predators, think modern Big Cats.

    How does one square that Neanderthal nature to the revelation that according to paleo-anthropologist, natural selection eliminated large canines from the hominid line to Modern Human millions of years ago? Think Ardi: Small canines equal less aggression better family man; greater chance of survival. It has been proven that the male Baka of Central West Africa make some of the best parents. The Baka of course represent some of the earliest modern humans on the planet. Their y-DNA line goes back 150k years.

    Is evidence, that ones exposure to raw and uncooked meat makes one susceptible to contracting Toxoplasmosis okay with everyone; despite the fact that the Gondii parasite has exhibited the ability to alter the mind of its hosts? Are we also okay with the fact that Schizophrenia, ADHD, Bi-Polar disorder, etc has been linked to an infection by this parasite during pregnancy?

    Are we also okay with the fact that those parasites that invade human pubic hair were also eliminated from modern humans only to be reintroduced as a consequence of interbreeding; and are we clear what this evidence implies? For those who aren’t, it suggests that the hominid line that leads to modern humans was HAIRLESS (no body hair) for hundreds of thousands of years before they encountered the Neanderthal. Consider the Himba of Namibia.

    Anyone familiar with Fragile X syndrome? How about the fact that it is an X-linked paternally inherited mutation; and that it’s been linked to Asperger’s syndrome and Autism? Or the fact that the older a woman is at the time of her pregnancy the greater her chances of producing a child with any number of these maladies on the Autism Spectrum? Everyone okay with the fact that these deleterious mutations affect mostly non-Africans and Africans in the Diaspora descended from enslaved African ancestors?

    Are we okay with the fact that the RHD gene is dominant in most modern Africans but recessive or absent in many Caucasians; and that the splitting, recombining, duplicating and deleting at this gene locus occurred at the time of Hominid-Primate separation some seven (7) million to five (5) million years before present? Is it okay that the only way the offspring of RHD and RHCE parents survive is through human scientific intervention? Translation, they aren’t natural or of nature.

    If these things are okay with everyone then I suggest we all stop complaining about our present situation and get used to our Hell on God’s green earth.

  • The Children of Men: Welcome to a Fragile X Universe

    “O Eagle, only treachery can destroy familial love.
    Descendence from the woman, descendence from the woman has ended.
    But descendence from the woman is better than sterility
    And sterility is better than an evil child.” —Duga , a Bambara epic of Mali

    The Divine Feminine:

    “It is said to be the custom among the Nubians, when a king dies and leaves a son, and also a nephew, the son of his sister, that the latter reigns after his uncle, instead of the son…” –Abu Salih, the Armenian

    By the way this is also in your Bible Genesis 6:4

    • What the ancients knew; and might it be the Natural Genesis for the Euro-Asiatic’s preference for males…

      There is an old wives tale in T’n’T that says the birthing of a male child is dependent on the strength of the woman/wife; while the birthing of a female child implies that the man/husband is the stronger of the two parents. I, and I assume many others, have hitherto dismissed this saying as some sexist disparagement; hen-pecked men and wives who wear the pants, as in bossy/bitchy.

      But what if the ancients knew that producing a girl mean’t she had a 50/50 chance of inheriting her father’s defective X chromosome? And with a genetically weak mother a 100% chance that it would be the dominant X; Whereas a male child can only inherit his father’s y-chromosome, and in a genetically stronger mother its likely that his mothers genes will be dominant.

      I guess its better to be a Mama’s boy than Daddy’s girl. Ahh, we children of men.

  • http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals

    Neanderthals have contributed approximately 1% to 4% to the genomes of non-African modern humans. This evidence of interbreeding sheds light on how we think of the expansion of modern humans out of Africa. It refutes the strictest scenario in which anatomically modern humans replaced archaic hominins completely without any interbreeding. However, even with some interbreeding between moderns and archaic hominins, most of our genome still derives from Africa.

    What the study found, is that all of the modern groups, with the exception of Africans have 1% to 4% of neanderthal genes. The interbreeding occurred after the first migrations from Africa. Diasporian Africans and Africans on the continent do not have these genes. African Americans can only have these genes if they are mixed with other groups. Remember the mixing occurred before the Atlantic slave trade, when the ancestors of diasporian Africans would have still been on the continent.

    Anti-black racial prejudice in the world is a common trait among all other groups. It has the same manifestations, the same stereotype, the same foundation of myths and stupidly conceived notions. When different groups across wide geography, culture and religion share a common aversive trait it has to be attributable to something.

    In addition, racial prejudice originated in a doctrine that people are superior and inferior based on how they look. The people with this traditional belief as part of their ancestry and culture are more likey to be racist,and any examination of these belief systems and the practice and social stratifications in nations where such belief systems existed or still exist, will unequivocally corroborate this fact.

  • So Keith is it your contention that there was no interbreeding between enslaved Africans and their part-Neanderthal owners?

  • http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43866502/ns/technology_and_science-science/

    “The DNA fragment, found on the human X chromosome, is present in 9 percent of humans across the world from Asia to Europe to America — except in Africa, where it does not appear.

    “It’s in the Middle East, it’s in Europe, it’s in Eurasia, it’s in America, it’s in Australia,” study researcher Damian Labuda of the University of Montreal told LiveScience. “This one event which led to this on the human X chromosome has to occur very early after modern man left Africa.”

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/01/neandertal-admixture-revisiting-results-after-shaken-priors/

    “The authors revisit a genetic locus where there have been earlier suggestions of hominin admixture dating back 15 years. In particular, they focus on an intronic segment spanning exon 44 of the dystrophin gene, termed dys44.

    “So what’s dystrophin‘s deal? From Wikipedia:

    Dystrophin is a rod-shaped cytoplasmic protein, and a vital part of a protein complex that connects the cytoskeleton of a muscle fiber to the surrounding extracellular matrix through the cell membrane. This complex is variously known as the costamere or the dystrophin-associated protein complex. Many muscle proteins, such as α-dystrobrevin, syncoilin, synemin, sarcoglycan, dystroglycan, and sarcospan, colocalize with dystrophin at the costamere.

    Dystrophin is the longest gene known on DNA level, covering 2.4 megabases (0.08% of the human genome) at locus Xp21. However, it does not encode the longest protein known in humans. The primary transcript measures about 2,400 kilobases and takes 16 hours to transcribe; the mature mRNA measures 14.0 kilobases….

    Dystrophin deficiency has been definitively established as one of the root causes of the general class of myopathies collectively referred to as muscular dystrophy. The large cytosolic protein was first identified in 1987 by Louis M. Kunkel…after the 1986 discovery of the mutated gene that causes Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) ….”

  • He said that people from every continent were tested. Does that mean he was testing indigenous people of these continents like various Native American groups in theNew World, along with Aboriginiees in Australia, or where random Europeans living in their former colonies tested?

  • The Sun never set on the British Empire; it also never set on the Spanish empire; is it safe to assume that the sun never set on the European Phallus.

    Ninety-nine percent of the human genome is out of Africa; and so far the few questionable loci have proven to have deleterious consequences when they are dominant; and there really isn’t any proof that these do not exist in the modern the African population, but, manifest differently. Nature’s divine experiment; throw out what doesn’t work, how was she to know humans would go rummage through her trash.

    For instance this HLA B-006 protein is just one of many, as the name implies polymorphisms.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_histocompatibility_complex

  • If all races descended from a common african ancestor named Lucy we are forced to ask the question, “What did that ancestor descend from ?” Theory of evolution, anyone?

    • I believe that Common African Ancestor was Eve; the jury is still out on Lucy’s DNA.

      These Neanderthal genes they speak of isn’t part of our MtDNA its part of out nuclear DNA those 50-50 genes you receive from both mother & father that are not part of our primal mother’s egg. However, now that they’ve learned how to swap out mother’s genes for Dad’s who knows what the furure holds for humanity.

      Here’s the science:

      http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/Sexual_Reproduction.html

  • Are women in the African Diaspora ready for this? Black mothers are twice as likely to be single parents.

    “Mother-child bond takes stressful toll when kid has ADHD
    Link between mother’s mood and child’s behavior stronger when kid has disorder.” By Stephanie Pappas

    http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43859425

  • karibkwean

    So Keith is it your contention that there was no interbreeding between enslaved Africans and their part-Neanderthal owners?

    I don’t know how you could come to that conclusion after reading my comment, African Americans can only have these genes if they are mixed with other groups. Remember the mixing occurred before the Atlantic slave trade, when the ancestors of diasporian Africans would have still been on the continent.. This clearly and unambiguously accepts that there was intermixing between enslaved Africans and their part neanderthal slave masters.

    Again, both articles presented find that the mixing occurred after the first migration. The translactic slave trade in which Africans were kidnapped and reduced into slavery was not a migration. Traces of neanderthal existence was not found in Africa. Therefore, by any reasonable deduction Africans who were brought to the West thousands of years after the extinction of neanderthals could not inherit those genes except by interbreeding with others who had thos genes.

  • There has always been a question about how come every other group in this world share the same hair type,(straw)(Straight), ass type (flat), as opposed to the short and wollen texture of the hair of Africans, and their shapely rear ends. Obviously because they share a common geneology that Africans do not have. In addition, the common prejudiced aversion to Africans, found in all of these types, even if learned, is indictive of a shared mindset that is receptive to these idiotically fomulated notions that people are born superior or inferior.

  • Sorry, I was referring to this sentence:
    “Diasporian Africans and Africans on the continent do not have these genes.”
    But still, are you implying that African-Caribbeans are somehow exempt?

    The notion of superior genes vs inferior genes has a natural genesis i.e. these descriptions like all things were originally observed in Nature. Consider Haldane’s rule on hybrids: “When in the offspring of two different animal races one sex is absent, rare, or sterile, that sex is the heterozygous [heterogametic] sex”. Scientists still have no explanation for this, and I’m always having to explain to those who say a mule isn’t viable (able to reproduce), that if the mule was a hinney she most certainly could reproduce.

    The new discoveries are proving that Nature keeps rejecting these hybrids but MAN keeps making the choice to perpetuate them. Science is proving that the longer this goes on the more likely that the Human Race will be riddled with autosomal diseases, i.e. previously recessive genes will become dominant. Persuasive advertising has made natural selection Unnatural.

    In other words; two genetically different organisms mated and reproduced, if the offspring is male (XY)he is likely to be sterile; in the absence of fertile sons, the only way to propogate would be for daughters to MATE with their fathers; and even then the closeness of their genes would render them extinct in a short notice.

  • Nieces could also mate with their uncles. We are paying/atoning for the sins of our fore-fathers; but the sin is being perpetuated by persuasive advertising, propaganda and the unrestrained aggression of the Neanderthal descended Male.

  • A question that still needs to be answered, is the Neanderthal and example of evolution or an example of de-volution by inbreeding depression?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding

    Inbreeding may result in a far higher phenotypic expression of deleterious recessive genes within a population than would normally be expected. As a result, first-generation inbred individuals are more likely to show physical and health defects, including:
    Reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
    Increased genetic disorders
    Fluctuating facial asymmetry
    Lower birth rate
    Higher infant mortality
    Slower growth rate
    Smaller adult size
    Loss of immune system function

    Natural selection works to remove individuals with the above types of traits from the gene pool. Therefore, many more individuals in the first generation of inbreeding will never live to reproduce. Over time, with isolation such as a population bottleneck caused by purposeful (assortative) breeding or natural environmental stresses, the deleterious inherited traits are culled.

    Island species are often very inbred, as their isolation from the larger group on a mainland allows for natural selection to work upon their population. This type of isolation may result in the formation of race or even speciation, as the inbreeding first removes many deleterious genes, and allows expression of genes that allow a population to adapt to an ecosystem. As the adaptation becomes more pronounced the new species or race radiates from its entrance into the new space, or dies out if it cannot adapt and, most importantly, reproduce.

    The reduced genetic diversity that results from inbreeding may mean a species may not be able to adapt to changes in environmental conditions. Each individual will have similar immune systems, as immune systems are genetically based. Where a species becomes endangered, the population may fall below a minimum whereby the forced interbreeding between the remaining animals will result in extinction.

    Natural breedings include inbreeding by necessity, and most animals only migrate when necessary. In many cases, the closest available mate is a mother, sister, grandmother, father, grandfather… In all cases the environment presents stresses to remove those individuals who cannot survive because of illness from the population.

    There was an assumption that wild populations do not inbreed; this is not what is observed in some cases in the wild. However, in species such as horses, animals in wild or feral conditions often drive off the young of both genders, thought to be a mechanism by which the species instinctively avoids some of the genetic consequences of inbreeding.”

    See also:
    Haemophilia in European royalty
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haemophilia_in_European_royalty

  • “Diasporian Africans and Africans on the continent do not have these genes.”
    But still, are you implying that African-Caribbeans are somehow exempt?

    karibkween African Americans are diasporian Africans, and the comment I posted subsequently clearly asserted that as disaporian Africans they could have gotten those genes by intermixing with other groups. Diasporian Africans whose link remained unmixed, would not have them since they left Africa after the first migration when the intermixing with neanderthals was thought to have taken place.

    There are Africans in the diasporia who have maintained purity in their genes. Those diasporians would have no neanderthal genes.

    The study did not provide information on where the sample population came from, whether it was 100% on the continent or whether they also sampled Africans in the diaspora. What it highlights however is the crass ignorance of some of the outsiders who populated this forum who assume the hubris to determine who is an African and who is not.

    Africans are unmutated original humans that first walked the face of the earth. We are generally very litle different than our ancestors who stayed on the continent rather than migration. Those who migrated mutated and interbred and became completely different in form as well as personalities. That they display a shared hate for those who have not mutated is more an issue of envy and than anything else. If you are comfortable in your skin you will not need to fabricate silly notions of racial and ethnic superiority over black people. That is all that is needed to be understood when examining racism in T&T and elsewhere.

  • African Caribbeans are not the only diasporians from the continent. Every African descendant outside of Africa is an African diasporian. So what ever obtains in the case of African Americans also obtains for African Caribbeans. They both share a common history.

  • Hi Karibkween, I have read all your comments and you seemed to have deviated from the topic at hand, your discourse at this juncture seems to be a bit remote, so please can you clearly articulate the point you are attempting to make.

    Thank You

Comments are currently closed.