It's not so much about them being closely related. Rather it's the idea that a mind so distant from my own, that lived a life so alien from my own drew that. I find that deeply fascinating.
The fact that they are lost to us just makes them seem even more interesting, the fact that we can never really know, we can never really understand why they drew that, why they took the time out of their harsh and unforgiving lives to draw some lines on a wall that one day, a different species would ponder over.
I can't even imagine the impact they would have had on the evolution of our culture and religions if they'd stuck around. The "winning" religions hinge on humans having dominion over all other animals in clear-cut ways.
Might belief systems like Buddhism or Jainism be more hegemonic if there had been a bridge species to tell us we're not so clearly special. And if they'd stuck around, would we still be having such a nail-biting time threading the needle on this extinction event that's predicated on our dominant cultures seeing nature as "other.
I think I'm using the former as a proxy for the latter. If Neanderthals were more distantly related then I would imagine their minds to be more distant from my own. If less, then less. I imagine that my mind is much closer to that of a chimpanzee than that of an octopus, so I would be less amazed by similar behavior in the former than the latter. This isn't to say that I find no amazement in what little we know of Neanderthal culture, just that it's nowhere near the amazement I would find in seeing a truly alien culture. They're on the same continuum, but not at the same point on that continuum.
Well, genetically they were not much different, close enough for interbreeding.
But their mind ... and culture was probably very alien to us.
My point was actually that the DNA difference probably does not lead to a very different thinking. But different culture does.
Has this been proven? I mean both conditions, ie: that everyone of sub-Saharan descent having no Neanderthal DNA? Also, the percentages are really low, eg: my friend from China did 23andme and his Neanderthal percentage was 0.1%.
There are also people that have far more than the average (2-3%) - for every person like your friend there are other with way more.
What does it mean to be a separate species if you're interbreeding in a significant way?
What does it mean to have n٪ Neanderthal DNA if that DNA is found in a significant proportion of "modern humans"?
As for what it means if some of us have Neanderthal DNA and some don’t is some of us are a hybrid species [1].
Species is a squishy concept. You might be amazed at how much intense arguing that continues to be about what delineates two closely related species. I think it's hard to consider Neanderthals a separate species, given what we now know thanks to ancient DNA. I think the term sub-species makes more sense.
> What does it mean to have n٪ Neanderthal DNA if that DNA is found in a significant proportion of "modern humans"?
It means that before the point at which the lineage that we call "humans" interbreed with the lineage that we call "neanderthal", these particular pieces of DNA were found only in the neanderthal lineage.
I admit my sort of base assumption is that simple quantitative metrics such as n% African/n% Neanderthal peddled by the likes of online genetics testing labs are grossly oversimplified at best and probably borderline meaningless at worst...
Regarding ancestry testing: it’s pretty valid, in general. DNA extracted from ancient human remains has completely revolutionized our understanding of recent, ancient, and extremely ancient human history. The online testing companies use the same methods and data sets. The way they present results boils a lot of different stuff down to a single number, so nuance and some fidelity is inevitably lost, but that’s always an issue when you try and make a nuanced subject understandable to laypeople. But, generally speaking, if an online test says that your DNA is 5% Neanderthal whereas someone else’s is 1%, or that you’re 20% Western European and 40% Eastern European, that is probably a valid way to present things.
If 'Neanderthal DNA' is found in a huge percentage of 'modern humans', on the face of if, it seems to me the notion that Neanderthals should be considered a separate species is the preposition that seems somewhat/increasingly spurious...
There is evidence that the offspring of the Neanderthal hybrids follow Haldane's Rule [1].
Yes, great question. Pheasants and chickens can breed and produce fertile offspring, along with many other combinations. Are they different species? Most say they are, but why given matching chromosomes?
They look dramatically different and are from different areas, true, but just like Native American Chihuahuas and Greek Harehounds, both which we claim to be dogs. They definitely don't look the same to me, or to most people.
As far as Homo Sapiens Neanderthals goes, well... yes, some still say that's actually Homo Neanderthals, but a lot now agree it's not really a different species. Source of quite a few bitter fights in academia though.
I'm not saying it wasn't made by a Neanderthal, and I don't think it's unlikely that Neanderthals made cave paintings, but there were human expeditions out of Africa during that time[0].
> To me, that's as profound as the discovery, if ever, of another intelligent species in the universe.
For me, the fact that Neanderthals are so closely related to us removes some of the amazement. If octopuses were making paintings on the ocean floor, that would seem more comparable to finding aliens doing the same thing.
[0]: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/01/oldest-human...