Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

wittor t1_jaa9ifm wrote

Reply to comment by dub-fresh in Revealed: Europe's Oldest Humans had Surprisingly Frequent Intermingling with Neanderthals by OptimalCrew7992

I would not say there was something to lose or win in this case. As new populations (of homo sapiens) settled(in Europe, coming from other regions) the admixture (of the gene polls of both populations) diluted Neanderthal's contribution (that they made to the gene poll of the more ancient population) to the total gene pool of (present) Europe.
Edited for clarification ()

82

Swanlafitte t1_jab5e68 wrote

My guess is there are more Neanderthal genes around today than at any time before. One study says they never had more than 5000-70,000 at their peak. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sciencealert.com/how-a-perfect-storm-of-sex-and-population-size-may-have-sealed-the-neanderthals-fate/amp

If this is correct then they were never diluted.

50

supersecretaqua t1_jaaup6a wrote

Is that not what they said? I think you interpreted it as somehow meaning "the genes themselves physically lost battles in expression" or something but I'm certain they're just talking about overall dilution over time for the reasons you said ad an example lol, since that is generally the thing like they said

16

wittor t1_jab7g0f wrote

I think winning and losing are not a good analogy for the fluctuations on a gene pool caused by the contact of two previously separate populations and their interbreeding.

12

supersecretaqua t1_jab9u36 wrote

Plenty of people disagree with you. It's officially used more than you seem to realize. It is the reality of it too. Like the words literally properly encompass what happened... If a species dies out... It lost. Period.

−9