Not paracetamol - Neanderthal?!?! (Don't tell the US president)

This is fascinating, yet I would be highly suspicious of reaching conclusions due to the limited availability of clinical data, especially as it’s in the US. The study makes this limitation abundantly clear, so I agree that “more research is necessary”.

I would be interested to understand more about this point:

Hybridization in non-human species is recognized as a destabilizing event with the potential to promote compensatory adaptation in other regions of the genome and, ultimately, speciation in some lineages [40]. Therefore, there is an additional possibility that Homo sapiens specific variants that evolved after Neanderthal introgression may nevertheless be in influenced by these earlier events.

Separately from this study, there is an ongoing argument around classifying non-Homo Sapiens as humans, e.g., should we call Neanderthals humans or are they a different species. So is the study alluding to Neanderthals not being human? If yes, that may have negative connotations if it is being linked to autism. I prefer to think of Neanderthals being human, especially since it is suggested that we contain DNA from multiple types of yet to be identified ancestor.

My DNA has been analysed and in common with most people of European heritage, I have around 2% Neanderthal DNA. Some of this means I am likely to be a better sprinter than long distance runner— correct— well, it was at one time! 

Can I join you at the camp fire? 

I'm staying inside the cave, thanks to Storm Amy and her mate who's got here early.

Do we know enough about genes to be able to say this? Do we know enough about Neanderthals to say how thier brains were organised?

Modern humans have interbred with many other species of sapiens, some of who we only know about from relic DNA. I tend to think of us as more like cats, lions and tigers are distinct, but can breed and produce off spring, domestic cats can and do breed with wild cats across the world hence breeds like Bengals. The reason put forwards is that cats only seperated as distinct breeds fairly late on, even in the wild, horses seem to be the same. 

I dont' have a problem with other sapiens being recognised as human, but I can understand why others do, it puts us in a rather messy place, not the divinely inspired, top of the tree species that we've been brought up to believe we are and when you have large numbers of people who believe the Genesis story is the literal truth, then acknowleging our cousin species is difficult.

TheCatWoman said:

Do we know enough about genes to be able to say this?

Well we don't even know the genes that cause autism (assuming that it is genes - there is no proof yet) so all this talk of linking our ancient ancesters to it seems premature and tenuous.

Agreed no genetic "cause" for autism found Iain , however the hereditary link is widely accepted with genetic factors contributing a 40-80% likelihood of being autistic .  Genetics is indeed a highly complicated field tho'.  As I understand it 1000 genes (and counting...) have been shown to be associated with autism.  

Agreed no genetic "cause" for autism found Iain , however the hereditary link is widely accepted with genetic factors contributing a 40-80% likelihood of being autistic .  Genetics is indeed a highly complicated field tho'.  As I understand it 1000 genes (and counting...) have been shown to be associated with autism.