Nuclear DNA tests strongly suggest that Denisovans and Neandethals diverged quite some time after they, collectively, diverged from H.s.sapiens. (Subsequently in this piece I will use “human” as a synonym for H.s.sapiens for brevity and elegance.)

Despite this, Y and mt-DNA comparisons tended to show that Neanderthals and humans are more closely related than are Neanderthals and Denisovans, or humans and Denisovans.

As older specimens were analysed, it became clear that at some point, the mt-DNA of Neanderthals was completely replaced by a human strain, probably between 500000 and 250000 years ago.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms16046

A couple of years ago it also was shown that the Y-DNA was also replaced with a human strain. (Y-DNA is apparently less well preserved or harder to sequence, because there are fewer dot points than for mt-DNA).

https://www.science.org/content/article/how-neanderthals-lost-their-y-chromosome

This is interesting to think about, for me, for a couple of reasons.

Firstly it is a reminder about how different mt- and Y- DNA inheritance are from the nuclear DNA that gets shared through sexual reproduction. mt and Y have family trees like bacteria. A parent has many children but each child has only one parent. So while an interbreeding event can introduce some new traits to a population, it can’t result in a wholesale eradication of the population’s nuclear DNA information, but it can result in the eradication of all the previous mt and Y DNA information: wiped, completely lost, such that the mt-Eve or Y-Adam were, suddently, outsiders.

Secondly the mt-DNA story might tell us a little about the relationships between us and the Neanderthals. It’s been known for ages that there were interbreeding events between the two groups, but it might for instance have resulted from fleeting liaisons: a human and a neanderthal had sex, the female became pregnant and gave birth, but the two basically remained in their own groups afterwards. But the fact that human mt-DNA entered (and indeed eventually dominated) the Neanderthal pool means that the female human must have joined the Neanderthal group, had daughters that also bred with Neanderthals etc.

dv said:

Nuclear DNA tests strongly suggest that Denisovans and Neandethals diverged quite some time after they, collectively, diverged from H.s.sapiens. (Subsequently in this piece I will use “human” as a synonym for H.s.sapiens for brevity and elegance.)

Despite this, Y and mt-DNA comparisons tended to show that Neanderthals and humans are more closely related than are Neanderthals and Denisovans, or humans and Denisovans.

As older specimens were analysed, it became clear that at some point, the mt-DNA of Neanderthals was completely replaced by a human strain, probably between 500000 and 250000 years ago.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms16046

A couple of years ago it also was shown that the Y-DNA was also replaced with a human strain. (Y-DNA is apparently less well preserved or harder to sequence, because there are fewer dot points than for mt-DNA).

https://www.science.org/content/article/how-neanderthals-lost-their-y-chromosome

This is interesting to think about, for me, for a couple of reasons.

Firstly it is a reminder about how different mt- and Y- DNA inheritance are from the nuclear DNA that gets shared through sexual reproduction. mt and Y have family trees like bacteria. A parent has many children but each child has only one parent. So while an interbreeding event can introduce some new traits to a population, it can’t result in a wholesale eradication of the population’s nuclear DNA information, but it can result in the eradication of all the previous mt and Y DNA information: wiped, completely lost, such that the mt-Eve or Y-Adam were, suddently, outsiders.

Secondly the mt-DNA story might tell us a little about the relationships between us and the Neanderthals. It’s been known for ages that there were interbreeding events between the two groups, but it might for instance have resulted from fleeting liaisons: a human and a neanderthal had sex, the female became pregnant and gave birth, but the two basically remained in their own groups afterwards. But the fact that human mt-DNA entered (and indeed eventually dominated) the Neanderthal pool means that the female human must have joined the Neanderthal group, had daughters that also bred with Neanderthals etc.

Perhaps human females were treated decently by Neanderthals and decided to stay, perhaps even holding a place of reverence

dv said:

Nuclear DNA tests strongly suggest that Denisovans and Neandethals diverged quite some time after they, collectively, diverged from H.s.sapiens. (Subsequently in this piece I will use “human” as a synonym for H.s.sapiens for brevity and elegance.)

Despite this, Y and mt-DNA comparisons tended to show that Neanderthals and humans are more closely related than are Neanderthals and Denisovans, or humans and Denisovans.

As older specimens were analysed, it became clear that at some point, the mt-DNA of Neanderthals was completely replaced by a human strain, probably between 500000 and 250000 years ago.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms16046

A couple of years ago it also was shown that the Y-DNA was also replaced with a human strain. (Y-DNA is apparently less well preserved or harder to sequence, because there are fewer dot points than for mt-DNA).

https://www.science.org/content/article/how-neanderthals-lost-their-y-chromosome

This is interesting to think about, for me, for a couple of reasons.

Firstly it is a reminder about how different mt- and Y- DNA inheritance are from the nuclear DNA that gets shared through sexual reproduction. mt and Y have family trees like bacteria. A parent has many children but each child has only one parent. So while an interbreeding event can introduce some new traits to a population, it can’t result in a wholesale eradication of the population’s nuclear DNA information, but it can result in the eradication of all the previous mt and Y DNA information: wiped, completely lost, such that the mt-Eve or Y-Adam were, suddently, outsiders.

Secondly the mt-DNA story might tell us a little about the relationships between us and the Neanderthals. It’s been known for ages that there were interbreeding events between the two groups, but it might for instance have resulted from fleeting liaisons: a human and a neanderthal had sex, the female became pregnant and gave birth, but the two basically remained in their own groups afterwards. But the fact that human mt-DNA entered (and indeed eventually dominated) the Neanderthal pool means that the female human must have joined the Neanderthal group, had daughters that also bred with Neanderthals etc.

A parent has many children but each child has only one parent.

I thought that only happened once?

Cymek said:

Perhaps human females were treated decently by Neanderthals and decided to stay, perhaps even holding a place of reverence

Perhaps.
It should be noted that the converse didn’t apply: ancient Y and mt DNA are not present in modern humans (though Neanderthals did have a detectable input into the nuclear DNA of modern humans).

Nuclear DNA is just the plain old ordinary DNA: you get half from your mum, half from your dad, it lives in the nucleus and determines your traits.

I still say Denisovan = Heidelbergensis.

Which appeared a long time before the first Neanderthal was a twinkle in its mother’s eye.

Whether Neanderthal evolved from Heidelbergensis is uncertain, but either way …

sibeen said:

A parent has many children but each child has only one parent.

I thought that only happened once?

I look forward to your treatise on how the Holy Spirit represents mitochondrial mitosis as an ancestral memory of liaisons with Neanderthals.

dv said:

sibeen said:

A parent has many children but each child has only one parent.

I thought that only happened once?

I look forward to your treatise on how the Holy Spirit represents mitochondrial mitosis as an ancestral memory of liaisons with Neanderthals.

Did you mean to say, ‘only one female parent’?

Cymek said:

dv said:

Nuclear DNA tests strongly suggest that Denisovans and Neandethals diverged quite some time after they, collectively, diverged from H.s.sapiens. (Subsequently in this piece I will use “human” as a synonym for H.s.sapiens for brevity and elegance.)

Despite this, Y and mt-DNA comparisons tended to show that Neanderthals and humans are more closely related than are Neanderthals and Denisovans, or humans and Denisovans.

As older specimens were analysed, it became clear that at some point, the mt-DNA of Neanderthals was completely replaced by a human strain, probably between 500000 and 250000 years ago.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms16046

A couple of years ago it also was shown that the Y-DNA was also replaced with a human strain. (Y-DNA is apparently less well preserved or harder to sequence, because there are fewer dot points than for mt-DNA).

https://www.science.org/content/article/how-neanderthals-lost-their-y-chromosome

This is interesting to think about, for me, for a couple of reasons.

Firstly it is a reminder about how different mt- and Y- DNA inheritance are from the nuclear DNA that gets shared through sexual reproduction. mt and Y have family trees like bacteria. A parent has many children but each child has only one parent. So while an interbreeding event can introduce some new traits to a population, it can’t result in a wholesale eradication of the population’s nuclear DNA information, but it can result in the eradication of all the previous mt and Y DNA information: wiped, completely lost, such that the mt-Eve or Y-Adam were, suddently, outsiders.

Secondly the mt-DNA story might tell us a little about the relationships between us and the Neanderthals. It’s been known for ages that there were interbreeding events between the two groups, but it might for instance have resulted from fleeting liaisons: a human and a neanderthal had sex, the female became pregnant and gave birth, but the two basically remained in their own groups afterwards. But the fact that human mt-DNA entered (and indeed eventually dominated) the Neanderthal pool means that the female human must have joined the Neanderthal group, had daughters that also bred with Neanderthals etc.

Perhaps human females were treated decently by Neanderthals and decided to stay, perhaps even holding a place of reverence

Jean M. Auel
Also wrote; the clan of the cave bear.

Covers this aspect.

Cymek said:

dv said:

Nuclear DNA tests strongly suggest that Denisovans and Neandethals diverged quite some time after they, collectively, diverged from H.s.sapiens. (Subsequently in this piece I will use “human” as a synonym for H.s.sapiens for brevity and elegance.)

Despite this, Y and mt-DNA comparisons tended to show that Neanderthals and humans are more closely related than are Neanderthals and Denisovans, or humans and Denisovans.

As older specimens were analysed, it became clear that at some point, the mt-DNA of Neanderthals was completely replaced by a human strain, probably between 500000 and 250000 years ago.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms16046

A couple of years ago it also was shown that the Y-DNA was also replaced with a human strain. (Y-DNA is apparently less well preserved or harder to sequence, because there are fewer dot points than for mt-DNA).

https://www.science.org/content/article/how-neanderthals-lost-their-y-chromosome

This is interesting to think about, for me, for a couple of reasons.

Firstly it is a reminder about how different mt- and Y- DNA inheritance are from the nuclear DNA that gets shared through sexual reproduction. mt and Y have family trees like bacteria. A parent has many children but each child has only one parent. So while an interbreeding event can introduce some new traits to a population, it can’t result in a wholesale eradication of the population’s nuclear DNA information, but it can result in the eradication of all the previous mt and Y DNA information: wiped, completely lost, such that the mt-Eve or Y-Adam were, suddently, outsiders.

Secondly the mt-DNA story might tell us a little about the relationships between us and the Neanderthals. It’s been known for ages that there were interbreeding events between the two groups, but it might for instance have resulted from fleeting liaisons: a human and a neanderthal had sex, the female became pregnant and gave birth, but the two basically remained in their own groups afterwards. But the fact that human mt-DNA entered (and indeed eventually dominated) the Neanderthal pool means that the female human must have joined the Neanderthal group, had daughters that also bred with Neanderthals etc.

Perhaps human females were treated decently by Neanderthals and decided to stay, perhaps even holding a place of reverence

Just as likely, if no more so, that they were slaves and chattels.

sibeen said:

dv said:

sibeen said:

A parent has many children but each child has only one parent.

I thought that only happened once?

I look forward to your treatise on how the Holy Spirit represents mitochondrial mitosis as an ancestral memory of liaisons with Neanderthals.

Did you mean to say, ‘only one female parent’?

Putting on my pointy hat maybe the transmission of certain dna entirely down the female line makes ‘female parent’ redundant?

mollwollfumble said:

I still say Denisovan = Heidelbergensis.

That would make sense chronologically and morphologically. Seems as though no one has successfully sequenced Heid DNA yet?

sibeen said:

dv said:

I look forward to your treatise on how the Holy Spirit represents mitochondrial mitosis as an ancestral memory of liaisons with Neanderthals.

Did you mean to say, ‘only one female parent’?

Uh, no? Here:

Firstly it is a reminder about how different mt- and Y- DNA inheritance are from the nuclear DNA that gets shared through sexual reproduction. mt and Y have family trees like bacteria. A parent has many children but each child has only one parent.

Y’all get the point? When it comes to mt or Y DNA, the family trees have one parent.

dv said:

sibeen said:

dv said:

I look forward to your treatise on how the Holy Spirit represents mitochondrial mitosis as an ancestral memory of liaisons with Neanderthals.

Did you mean to say, ‘only one female parent’?

Uh, no? Here:

Firstly it is a reminder about how different mt- and Y- DNA inheritance are from the nuclear DNA that gets shared through sexual reproduction. mt and Y have family trees like bacteria. A parent has many children but each child has only one parent.

Y’all get the point? When it comes to mt or Y DNA, the family trees have one parent.

So, the mt only comes from one branch – the maternal and the Y only comes from one branch – the paternal.

sibeen said:

dv said:

sibeen said:

Uh, no? Here:

Firstly it is a reminder about how different mt- and Y- DNA inheritance are from the nuclear DNA that gets shared through sexual reproduction. mt and Y have family trees like bacteria. A parent has many children but each child has only one parent.

Y’all get the point? When it comes to mt or Y DNA, the family trees have one parent.

So, the mt only comes from one branch – the maternal and the Y only comes from one branch – the paternal.

Yes that’s what I’m getting at

dv said:

Nuclear DNA tests strongly suggest that Denisovans and Neandethals diverged quite some time after they, collectively, diverged from H.s.sapiens. (Subsequently in this piece I will use “human” as a synonym for H.s.sapiens for brevity and elegance.)

Despite this, Y and mt-DNA comparisons tended to show that Neanderthals and humans are more closely related than are Neanderthals and Denisovans, or humans and Denisovans.

As older specimens were analysed, it became clear that at some point, the mt-DNA of Neanderthals was completely replaced by a human strain, probably between 500000 and 250000 years ago.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms16046

A couple of years ago it also was shown that the Y-DNA was also replaced with a human strain. (Y-DNA is apparently less well preserved or harder to sequence, because there are fewer dot points than for mt-DNA).

https://www.science.org/content/article/how-neanderthals-lost-their-y-chromosome

This is interesting to think about, for me, for a couple of reasons.

Firstly it is a reminder about how different mt- and Y- DNA inheritance are from the nuclear DNA that gets shared through sexual reproduction. mt and Y have family trees like bacteria. A parent has many children but each child has only one parent. So while an interbreeding event can introduce some new traits to a population, it can’t result in a wholesale eradication of the population’s nuclear DNA information, but it can result in the eradication of all the previous mt and Y DNA information: wiped, completely lost, such that the mt-Eve or Y-Adam were, suddently, outsiders.

Secondly the mt-DNA story might tell us a little about the relationships between us and the Neanderthals. It’s been known for ages that there were interbreeding events between the two groups, but it might for instance have resulted from fleeting liaisons: a human and a neanderthal had sex, the female became pregnant and gave birth, but the two basically remained in their own groups afterwards. But the fact that human mt-DNA entered (and indeed eventually dominated) the Neanderthal pool means that the female human must have joined the Neanderthal group, had daughters that also bred with Neanderthals etc.

Quest For Fire