Sex with Neanderthals boosted human immunity

[Katabole]

I saw this article on CBC yesterday.

Some immune system genes carried by modern humans came from interbreeding with Neanderthals and other ancient hominins called Denisovans, a new study suggests.

"The cross breeding wasn't just a random event that happened," said Peter Parham, who co-authored the study published online in Science Express, in a statement. "It gave something useful to the gene pool of the modern human."

Parham, a professor of microbiology and immunology at California's Stanford University, and his collaborators analyzed a family of immune system genes called human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genes, which are extremely varied and help the body recognize and destroy disease-causing pathogens.

They sequenced and compared HLA genes from humans with those from:

Neanderthals, who lived in West Asia and Europe and died out 30,000 years ago.
Denisovans, a group of hominins who lived in East Asia 30,000 to 50,000 years ago and were discovered in 2008 from a finger bone and a tooth in a cave in Siberia. Those are still the only known Denisovan remains.
What the researchers found was that humans outside Africa share certain HLA genes with Denisovans and certain HLA genes with Neanderthals. This suggests that these genes entered the human genome through interbreeding with those other hominin groups after humans spread out of Africa 65,000 years ago.

A Denisovan gene variant called HLA-B*73 was most common in West Asia, leading scientists to believe that was "the most likely site for the fortuitous mating to have taken place," said a Stanford University news release.

While Neanderthal genes typically make up one to six per cent of the genome of humans from outside Africa, Parham said, Neanderthal and Denisovan HLA genes account for a much higher percentage of HLA gene variants.

For one class of HLA genes, over half the variants in Europeans, 80 per cent in Asians and 95 per cent of variants in Papua New Guineans originally came from Neanderthals and Denisovans.

That suggests that these variants gave a survival advantage to humans who carried them, the researchers concluded.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story ... umans.html

Opinions?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Would this count as bestiality?

[RickD]

If anyone is interested, here's the response from Reasons.org:
http://c450913.r13.cf2.rackcdn.com/snf20110620fr2.mp3

[zoegirl]

THanks Rick, listening to it now!

Interesting article....and podcast

[Katabole]

Thanks Rick for putting up the podcast. When I first read the article it struck me they were making a huge assumption.

This suggests that these genes entered the human genome through interbreeding with those other hominin groups

This is a purely speculative assumption using Darwinism. Not science, but philosophy. If two different species were created by the same Creator at completely different times, then why wouldn't they have similar characteristics in DNA? I think it is a classic case of Darwinism corrupting the evidence to back up a world view.

[Murray]

Would this count as bestiality?

Ohh this gave me a good laugh

[Murray]

If anyone is interested, here's the response from Reasons.org:
http://c450913.r13.cf2.rackcdn.com/snf20110620fr2.mp3

Definitely worth listening to

[Reactionary]

If anyone is interested, here's the response from Reasons.org:
http://c450913.r13.cf2.rackcdn.com/snf20110620fr2.mp3

Another, written response from AiG, section 2:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... e-09102011

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Thanks Rick for putting up the podcast. When I first read the article it struck me they were making a huge assumption.

This suggests that these genes entered the human genome through interbreeding with those other hominin groups

This is a purely speculative assumption using Darwinism. Not science, but philosophy. If two different species were created by the same Creator at completely different times, then why wouldn't they have similar characteristics in DNA? I think it is a classic case of Darwinism corrupting the evidence to back up a world view.

So you are not actually related to your parents at all, but a complety separate, you could have been assigned to an Australian Aboriginal mother just as easily?

[Katabole]

you could have been assigned to an Australian Aboriginal mother just as easily?

That would depend on your interpretation of the first two chapters of the book of Genesis. As an old earth gap creationist that doesn't believe in macroevolution, I simply believe the fossilized remains of extinct prehistoric apes are exactly that: Extinct prehistoric apes. Those apes existed in the age (eon) before this present age. That age, (and the Bible doesn't say how long it lasted), I believe was destroyed by God due to Satan's rebellion and a new age was created. Same Earth. Different age. All fossilized remains belong to that previous age. I believe that there were two seperate creations of man in this second age; one on the sixth day; (humankind) and one after the seventh; (Adam). Aboriginees in my opinion, were created on the sixth day and a seperate bloodline was created after the seventh day. Adam's bloodline was created in order for Christ to eventually be born through that bloodline, as documented in the family lineage in Matt 1 by law and Luke 3 by blood.

I also happen to believe in European Israelism so to be assigned to an Australian Aboriginal mother would be a long shot from my knowledge of the history of migrating Israelite tribes.

[RickD]

Katabole,

what you wrote here has got my curiosity up:

I believe that there were two seperate creations of man in this second age; one on the sixth day; (humankind) and one after the seventh; (Adam).

Do you have any literature that speaks about this?

[Rob]

Katabole,

what you wrote here has got my curiosity up:

I believe that there were two seperate creations of man in this second age; one on the sixth day; (humankind) and one after the seventh; (Adam).

Do you have any literature that speaks about this?

I would be interested in seeing this as well. It sort of reminds me of what I've read in Dake's notes on Genesis, which are pretty interesting.

[Katabole]

Do you have any literature that speaks about this?

I have mentioned it before on posts in the past. It's real simple. You would need a good interlinear Bible. I use Green's Interlinear. Check out the Hebrew words transliterated as the English word "man" used in Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7. They are different words and cannot be substituted for one another. In Genesis 1:26 the word "man" is pronounced (Ha `adam) and it means 'mankind or humankind'. In Gen 2:7 the word "man" is pronounced (eth ha `adam) and it means 'the man Adam'.
When read in the English language it would seen that God created Adam on the sixth day but when read from the Hebrew language it is saying some entirely different, that God created humanity on the sixth day and did not create, 'the man Adam' until after the seventh. If (eth ha `adam) was used in Gen 1:26, then I would certainly believe Adam was created on the sixth day. But that word is not utilized within that scipture.

[RickD]

Katabole,

what you wrote here has got my curiosity up:

I believe that there were two seperate creations of man in this second age; one on the sixth day; (humankind) and one after the seventh; (Adam).

Do you have any literature that speaks about this?

I would be interested in seeing this as well. It sort of reminds me of what I've read in Dake's notes on Genesis, which are pretty interesting.

Tread cautiously, and pray for discernment:http://www.dakebibleboard.com/index.php

[Rob]

Katabole,

what you wrote here has got my curiosity up:

I believe that there were two seperate creations of man in this second age; one on the sixth day; (humankind) and one after the seventh; (Adam).

Do you have any literature that speaks about this?

I would be interested in seeing this as well. It sort of reminds me of what I've read in Dake's notes on Genesis, which are pretty interesting.

Tread cautiously, and pray for discernment:http://www.dakebibleboard.com/index.php

I tend to take everything I read, especially interpretations, with a grain of salt.

EDIT: Also, I just visited that link, read some things and...Wow. Some of the folk on there were painfully smug and had some seriously flawed thinking. :\