How can modern people have Neanderthal DNA if Homo Neanderthalensis

>>2108623

There are some species that can interbreed.

>>2108635
Then they aren't different species and should be reclassified.

>>2108642

No, because there is no univocal, precise, definition of species.

>>2108623
It's not a different species but a different sub-species. Homo sapiens subsp. neanderthalensis.

>>2108623
The definition of a species is somewhat fuzzy, and it's actually possible for different species to generate hybrid offspring (that may or may not be sterile, but if lions and tigers can do it there's little reason humans and neanderthals shouldn't.)
Besides that, Neanderthals have actually been classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis by some people, and I doubt there are any hard reasons to refuse that.

>>2108644
Yes there is. If they can make fertile offspring with each other, they are of same taxonomic species.

>>2108623
Speciation is a gradual process. It was probably the same situtation as horse and donkey who even if they aren't of the same species can have offspring, who, in some rare case can also have offspring
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinny
>Namely, in China, in 1981, a hinny mare proved fertile with a donkey sire. When the Chinese hinny was bred to a jack, she produced the so-called "Dragon Foal," which resembled a donkey with mule-like features.[2] In Morocco, in 2002, a mule mare bred to a donkey sire produced a male foal.

>>2108651

No, that is one definition.

>>2108651
look up the phylogenetic species concept and evolutionary species concept, those two are the main competitors of the biological species (the one you subscribe to) concept

>>2108651
What if they can only make partially fertile offspring?

>>2108667
Then they are somewhat far related subspecies.

There are only two semi-solid definitions in animal biology.

The species consists of every individual that can breed with a particular individual.

The genus consists of every individual that is descended from a particular individual.

>>2108651
>>2108686
That's nice except we have to rewrite virtually all known species by those criteria.

>>2108623
there was interbreeding. europeans have about 6% neanderthal dna, africans have 3-4%
also, denisovian genes were found in siberians and native americans.

ive read something about only CRO magnon men being able to impregnate Neanderthal women

Or was it the other way around?

anyway, there is a growing consesus that interbreeding occured but it wasnt always as easy as once assumed

Check out how coyotes and dogs can sometimes produce fertile offspring and sometimes can

also tigons are always sterile but sometimes ligers aren't

>>2108651
>implying species can't breed across families

High school biology was fun. lol

>>2108623
if we can breed with blacks I don't see why we can't breed with another species

>>2110406
Africans have 0% you fucking tard. Maybe african americans have some, but subsaharan africans have none.

drive on the parkway park on the driveway

tomayto tomahto

species an shiet

>>2110424
other way around iirc

>>2110406
sub saharan africans ain't got none

>>2108644
Which proves once more that biology is babby tier science

>>2108623
We also interbred with denisovan men and another type that has yet to be identified. Our ancestors where total whores.

The breeding theory is weird. Because asians can have high amounts of Neanderthal DNA and Italians have the highest percentage. It wouldn't make sense given the I1 haplogroup is the oldest in Europe. Presumably we're just closely related to Neanderthals and Africans just are more distant than previously considered.

>>2111318
interdasting.
africans are more distant how? they seperated from neanderthals longer ago?

>>2110472
No Africans have low amounts of Neanderthal ancestry. They first researchers used modern Africans as base,, they only later recognized the complex origin of Africans and are starting to recognize Paleoafricans and contemporary Africans aren't the same.
>>2111318
Africans are the same as the rest of the world. We are afrasian, except we absorbed some paleoafricans who split off awhile ago and that makes us more distant.

>>2108623
Because the term species is not well defined. It sounds weird but we don't have a good definition of species. I mean in simplest terms it usually is defined by the inability for two animals to make a sexually viable offspring. This definition however is not perfect; for example it doesn't work for the majority of organisms which primarily reproduce asexually.

Neanderthal dna is only found in paternal dna so scientists think that male neanderthals and homo sapien females could have fertile offspring but female neanderthals and male homo sapiens could not.

>>2108623
The same way an alsatian and a corgi can mix.

>>2108651

Fuck off.

http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2006/10/01/a-list-of-26-species-concepts/

File: IMG_20161219_164216760.jpg (2MB, 2432x4320px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2432x4320px

who /neanderthal/ genetics here?