mattrix

I found a reference that states that 99.7% of neanderthal DNA is the same as sapiens DNA. I don't see why we can't say, when relatively small numbers of sapiens from Africa migrated to Eurasia, they were subsumed into the larger neanderthal population and the sapiens contributed a small amount of new DNA into the population that went on to populate the world. (this is only half tongue in cheek) With such a small difference in DNA and the ability to interbreed, how many generations would it take for the 2 populations to converge? I know Chimps also have 98.8%, but I believe there are chromosome differences, one ancestral chromosome split in Pan, Or two chromosomes fused in homo?. Still why don't we get hybrids, as do other genera , walleroo, mule, ass etc Clearly I don't understand evolutionary genetics. Can anyone suggest a good book?

That actually, for me, muddies the waters. As far as I know, nearly every loci in current humans shows some form of polymorphism. ( I hope I used the terminology correctly). I doubt that we know all of these alleles for current humans, let alone all possible allelomorphs in archaic sapiens. That a sequence occurs in the Altai neanderthal does not mean it did not arise independently in sapiens, or is not a hanger on from a common ancestor, no matter how rare. I think I'm pondering around: How do we know the direction the allele took between neanderthal and archaic sapiens? At least without us having an awful lot more exemplars. I'm not sure how to interpret this. Whilst on the face of it, it seems reasonable, I would have difficulty explaining it. It is not so much the words but how one formulates it into their understanding. I'll think on it.

Thanks Genady for expressing those questions. I've had a chance to think about this. What is to say that European sapiens didn't diverge from African sapiens before they interbred with neanderthals. Then the genetic material in question, could be sapien DNA that was introduced into neanderthal DNA. We talk about populations, but as far as I can find we only have 1 or very few reliable sources of neanderthal DNA. Totally confused!!

Thanks exchemist, I have no problem sharing genes with neanderthals or bananas for that matter. I wonder how much difference there is between neanderthal and african sapiens, if as you say, it is 1-4% of this difference. Your take at least makes sense. ^^ to rephrase that, I wonder how much DNA they have in common? The split was not that long ago, geologically speaking.

I missed the edit window. Above I said "coding DNA", but I meant "functional DNA".

This has been asked before but not adequately answered. "It's indicated online that 1–4% of the genetic material of modern non-African humans is Neanderthal DNA but this doesn't make sense when both Neanderthals and earlier-Sapiens both evolved from a common ancestor." I just don't know what "4%" this is referring to. Neanderthals and modern humans share a plethora of features; bilateral symmetry 2 eyes, 2 ears, 2 kidneys, 2 hands each with 4 fingers and a thumb; complex organs kidney, liver, lung, brain; and the chemicals and hormones that support them; and a million other things. Am I to believe that all of this is encoded in less than 1% of our coding DNA? I think I heard somewhere that something like 90% of a butterflies (or your favorite genus) DNA is found in humans. Are we more related to a butterfly than we are to neanderthals? So the reason for my not understanding, "4%" of what?