Tiny traces of DNA found in cave dust may unlock secret life of Neanderthals

[muriel_volestrangler]

Scientists have pinpointed major changes in Europe’s Neanderthal populations – from traces of blood and excrement they left behind in a Spanish cave 100,000 years ago.
...
The key point about Galería de las Estatuas is that it has been studied very carefully by palaeontologists and archaeologists so that each layer of cave sediment has been analysed and dated precisely. “That means we could put an exact date to the samples of DNA that we found in each layer,” said Vernot. And that led to an unexpected discovery. The team found that, about 100,000 years ago, the population who had been living in the cave for millennia were replaced by a completely different group of Neanderthal people.

“It was as if a modern human population of Europeans had been replaced by East Asians,” said Vernot. “However, we have no idea whether this was a violent replacement or a relatively slow process.”

However, Vernot pointed out that at around this time Earth experienced a significant change in climate when weather systems cooled. “It could be that the first population could not tolerate or survive the cold in the area surrounding Galería de las Estatuas and died out or decided to leave. Later, when the weather improved, a new population – with a different genetic signature – moved in,” added Vernot.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/may/16/tiny-traces-of-dna-found-in-cave-dust-may-unlock-secret-life-of-neanderthals

[bucolic_frolic]

1. Yeah, but maybe they used their didgeridoo to send for hairy cousins to keep them warm

or maybe the cold stimulated genetic mutations over a few thousands years.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

2. Cold does not stimulate mutations. Nor do giraffes stretch their neck and pass it to their young.

Evolution operates by Darwinism, not by Lamarckism.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. How would you know the effects of uncooked raw wooly mammoths or cannibalism

on Neanderthal populations in frigid climes? Because they undoubtedly ate both. Nature accommodates and adjusts to conditions, and we don't know diddly about those conditions.

[The_REAL_Ecumenist]

4. WORD.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

6. The word is Lamarckism. It seems you don't know what it means and

you have ignored its application to the post I replied to. The poster's second reply has nothing to do with the point they incorrectly attempted to make in their first post.

[The_REAL_Ecumenist]

8. Umm, WTF?! I was responding to the person you were talking to... do you have a degree in biology?

I don't think you had anything to do with the "conversation" I was engaging in comments with the post that was placed in RESPONSE to what you said. Take your time, I'll wait.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

9. I don't have to have a degree in biology to talk intelligently about it. I was responding to you.

The poster I replied to made a rebuttal that did not address my reply and did indicate a lack of even a superficial understanding of mutation and Darwinism vs Lamarckism.

Then you wrote "WORD" to agree with their nonsensical post. As if that requires a degree in biology.

Do YOU have a degree in biology? Does that automatically trump me and disqualify me from pointing out scientific facts and theories.

I repeat. COLD DOES NOT CAUSE MUTATIONS.

[The_REAL_Ecumenist]

12. Nope, no it doesn't but the way you came at people reminds me of the arrogant Sumbitches who

believe that because they have a degree and others don't, somehow, their word on any subject discounts what anyone else is saying. You seem to come across with that same kind of attitude. Some of us know more than others because of our education but that does not make us any better than someone else who doesn't have an actual diploma....and actually, EXTREME temps can indeed cause mutations! Heat is pretty much self explanatory, (due to protein denaturing) but COLD can and DOES cause mutations. it's also known as "TS", (aka Temperature Sensitive) Mutations. In fact, warmer temperatures, (AKA GLobal Warming), not only causes mutations BUT they are more destructive to whatever organism is the target of the mutations because of the detrimental effects on protein function & as you should know, just about everything, from Enzymes to generation of those enzymes to how they perform & what they do to countless other processes in a biological systems are either flat out proteins or intimately & irretrievably ties to proteins and their functions. Just sayin'.

Your turn...

[Bernardo de La Paz]

13. Temperature Sensitive Mutations are NOT CAUSED by cold. You are confused between cause and effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature-sensitive_mutant

Temperature sensitive mutations are AFFECTED by cold.
They are not EFFECTED by cold (not caused by cold).

Cold weather does NOT cause mutations.

Thinking cold weather causes mutations is Lamarckism, which is a nonsense theory.

Further, you have forgotten that humans (mammals) are warm blooded and have a pretty constant body temperature in cold or hot weather, so the enzymes and proteins work pretty much the same in all climates and weather.

I insist on clear thinking and reasoning and respect for facts. That is not arrogant. "Sumbitch"? It is just the opposite.

[The_REAL_Ecumenist]

11. Umm, I was responding to the person you were talking to... do you have a degree in biology?

I don't think you had anything to do with the "conversation" I was engaging in with the post that was placed in RESPONSE to what you said. Take your time, I'll wait.

BTW, this is a personal belief, though there are many others who believe this too. It's actually a fairly proven theorem. See, Brotha Lamarck was on to something but due to the limitations of his time, didn't have the pieces to make his theory work.

As anyone with a moderate amount knowledge in the diversification of species,AKA EVOLUTION, knows, it happens whenever natural selection happen due to an organism being the best individuals to survive and reproduce.

Now, let's use the Giraffe. you know, the neck thing. Now, it doesnt make a whole lot of sense to say that when that same giraffe mates & has little ones, it would automatically get that long neck BUT that's not the entire answer to this question. See, let's say that there is a bad regional drought that is an extended one, (has happened before). Let's say that the there were areas of their range where the majority of the most nutritious food was on VERY tall acacias *& other trees, forbs, trees & plants growing in areas that put them out of reach for other herbivores for a myriad of reasons.

Now, let's say there were a herd of giraffes that have a high rates of a natural mutation that resulted in elongated necks. Because of these longer necks, they are able to reach foodstuffs & survive at a much higher rate than other individuals of their species who don't possess that same elongated neck. As the matings & births happen along with the deaths of the less Cervically endowed along with the the same things happening to those that have shorter necks, the population of the longer necked giraffes would grow larger and larger with each generation whilst the short necks would not disappear for a number of centuries but eventually, unless something happened to make food more readily available over an extended amount of time, that strain would eventually die out.

This has happened over time, most of the time over epochs & occasionally over very short period of time if the environmental changes, (let's say climate change), happened & were severe enough, it wouldn't take more than a century or 2 to completely wipe out organisms who were maladapted to the new biological conditions.

Remember, there IS NO such thing as "Survival of the Fittest", only "SURVIVAL OF THE FITTER", as in Temporarily so until someone comes along that's better adapted than the former champion.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

14. If you want a private conversation with the poster, use DU mail

If you post publicly, you are not having a "conversation" with the poster, you are posting a public post which is up for discussion by DU members like other posts on DU.

You agreed with the poster. I disagreed with both of you and pointed out that both of you had ignored my point.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

15. You have not helped your case. You have described Darwinism, not Lamarckism

Some mutations help surviving cold better.

Cold does not cause mutations!

The two statements are very different. The poster (bucolic_frolic) claimed that cold causes mutations! It does not. Further, the article is not discussing a gradual series of mutations that over eons provide better adaptations; it is describing a wholesale replacement of a population group in an evolutionarily very brief time period.

The results of some mutations (better survival in cold) are results. The cold does not cause mutation. Things like radiation (cosmic rays) cause mutation.

Better results do not cause mutations. Mutations (can) cause better results. This is fundamental to biology. To believe otherwise, to believe in Lamarckism, is to believe in nonsense.

Modern science has not disproven Darwinism and proven Lamarckism. Exactly the opposite has happened. Your personal beliefs require evidence if you want to convince others by posting in forums. The evidence for Darwinism is overwhelming. Larmarckism is not credible.

[The_REAL_Ecumenist]

16. Ah Grasshopper, uh, wrong answer!! lol I'll explain why when I'm able to get out

of this bloody hospital, (which is the ONLY reason I haven't responded, trust me). Please allow me to humbly, though securely point out the fundamental errata in your post by demonstrating how little you know, let alone understand, about the difference between Evolution & Lamarckism, (or Neo-Larmackism, which is what I was talking about- I'll explain to you in addition that your belief about the theory of Evolution is SUPER flawed ). Hint: Evolution is EXTREMELY slow moving, happening over epochs & eons but NOT decades or even centuries, So there's that. I digress....

We'll talk more soon. Count on it. Until then, have a great Memorial Day Wknd....

[Bernardo de La Paz]

17. We'll discount the personal slight and wish you well. . . . nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

5. I don't think you know what Lamarckism is.

Sure "Nature adjusts", but that is not what you said. You said that maybe "cold stimulates mutations". It does not and could not. That's NOT how Nature adjusts.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. But you know the effects. So solidly that you say "undoubtedly".

Uncooked meat does not cause mutations. Cannibalism does not cause mutations. It appears you have little idea how mutations occur. Best stop digging and do a little learning.

Does the certainty with which you hold your beliefs increase their credibility?

You know about Neanderthal diet without any doubts ("undoubtedly" ) but another DU is automatically incapable of knowing things?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

10. Interesting development. Thanks for posting. Wish article explained technique.

Guardian articles are generally better than that one.

But the key point about a wholesale population change is fascinating.