35
submitted 2 months ago by osanna@lemmy.vg to c/science@lemmy.world

Interesting read.

top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

If the two species were biologically incompatible, modern human DNA should have been missing from Neanderthal X chromosomes as well. However, the analysis revealed that Neanderthal X chromosomes had a 62% excess of modern human DNA compared with their other chromosomes – a mirror-like reversal of the distribution of Neanderthal DNA in human populations.

I dunno—isn’t that still consistent with a scenario where there’s a specific incompatibility between some gene on the Neanderthal X chromosome and a human gene on some other chromosome?

Otherwise you have to have two parallel-but-opposite trends in human and Neanderthal societies, where human societies favor male offspring of human/Neanderthal unions, but Neanderthal societies favor female offspring.

(Maybe this is addressed in the full paper—I don’t have access.)

[-] Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it 3 points 2 months ago

Fuck the cookies! Here the archived link for whoever despite accepting cookies like me: https://archive.is/tmyNq

[-] iopq@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Simple explanation: both matings occurred, but Neanderthal communities went extinct. So since the child is reared in the community of the mother, we only get Neanderthal male admixture

[-] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

That was my first assumption on reading the title, but the article mentions two other things:

  • The male-gene bias apparently persisted for subsequent generations after the initial human/Neanderthal pairing: male children of mixed ancestry had more offspring than their female siblings

  • In Neanderthal communities, the bias was reversed (i.e., more human DNA was retained in the X-chromosome female line.)

[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 points 2 months ago
[-] NoSpotOfGround@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

You can just save posts. It's a star or bookmark sign somewhere, depending on what interface you're using.

[-] Beacon@fedia.io 4 points 2 months ago

And even if that feature doesn't exist, you still have the bookmark feature qm you're web browser. Posting like that is selfish

[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 0 points 2 months ago
[-] NoSpotOfGround@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

You're like those dudes that park across four spots because it was just simply more convenient for them.

[-] porcoesphino@mander.xyz 0 points 2 months ago

I can appreciate you don't like this, but much like someone thats warlike about mistaken grammar, I'm a bit at a loss for how the original action is that problematic compared to the intolerant response. Its minor spam that gets downranked my most options for reading, presuming you're not desperate on reading every single comment but that's a bit inconsistent with the "taking away my time" slight you appear to be offended by

[-] NoSpotOfGround@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

There's a certain cost-benefit imbalance in these habits: sure, it's not a great cost to leave some litter around. People can just step over it. But while one person marginally benefits from it, hundreds more pay the (also tiny, admittedly) cost of the unpleasantness. When you multiply it like that, the negligible becomes gligible.

[-] porcoesphino@mander.xyz 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

So anyone that says something others don't like shouldn't speak?

The whole platform is based around upvotes and downvotes as a signal to highlight/filter (via sorting) posts and comments that, based on the viewing algorithm chosen, are more/less useful to an averaged user.

I get the litter analogy, that was blindingly obvious from the first comment. I just don't think it carries well for a platform like this, or quickly expands to "I don't personally like your comments and the way you use this platform so stop". I appreciate sometimes that's needed, but this seems pretty far from those situations. Plus the post seemed presumptuous and insulting because... someone used a tool slightly differently than them and had the audacity to reply?

[-] lol_idk@piefed.social 0 points 2 months ago

What kind of society was this? Was it just rape?

[-] lol_idk@piefed.social 1 points 2 months ago

Look, I just wanted to start an interesting conversation and it worked. I don't mind the downvotes because every reply and vote, up or down, means people are talking.

Humans have a pretty spotty history with how they treat each other, it's not a huge stretch to imagine some weird historical moment where consent wasn't a concept or wasn't recognized. The word rape was pretty strong for me to use, but just a few years ago we used to call it date rape instead of just rape.

[-] OwOarchist@pawb.social 1 points 2 months ago

There's likely no way for us to determine.

It's difficult to determine if someone consented last night, never mind tens of thousands of years before the earliest written histories. We have precious little evidence of what societies were like during that time period.

[-] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

If only based on typical human behaviour: Probably both. There's always someone that's into something a bit different, so if Sapiens and Neaderthals intermixed sufficiently, there'll always be some couple that gets it on. Hell, there's people that fuck dogs (and dogs that try to fuck people). If dogs had been capable of consenting, I'm absolutely positive that some consenting human/dog couple would exist. I would say that consenting inter-species couples would have been inevitable given enough mixing of the groups.

Then there's also the long history of sexual violence in conflicts. Sapiens and Neanderthals were competing for resources, so there's bound to have been tribal conflict at some point. Just based on how humans behave in that kind of situation, it's pretty much guaranteed that people were raped during those conflicts.

[-] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

I know some vegans who are going to be very upset with this point of view.

[-] bold_omi@lemmy.today 0 points 2 months ago

Forgive me if I am wrong, but it seems that you ae implying that vegans are zoophillic. Veganism ≠ beastiality.

[-] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

no, I'm making a reference to a shitpost that was made earlier this week where it brought attention to bestiality laws in conjunction with animal husbandry/breeding on farms.

the original image was a repost of a repost where someone made a catty comment about vegans.

the uproar was immense and caused the post to spill over to vegan communities where they clutched their pearls at the commentary that wasn't even made by anyone on Lemmy and proceeded to raid the shitpost community.

the comments were a disaster and the entire thread was quickly overrun by veganistic puritans who just wanted a flame war.

it was honestly the most hilarious thing I ever saw on here.

post looks to be deleted now though.

[-] bold_omi@lemmy.today 1 points 2 months ago
[-] javasux@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago
[-] Dasus@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago

Anyone bother to copypaste the articles content?

I ain't accepting nor paying.

this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2026
35 points (100.0% liked)

science

26588 readers
12 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

dart board;; science bs

rule #1: be kind

lemmy.world rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS