How Many Chromosomes Did Neanderthals Have? 

Not Necessarily! Just look at the Bangel Cat breed & other, different chromosome count, pairings that create fertile females like Donkeys with Horses or Lions with Tigers. It is entirely possible different human groups had different chromosome counts & still interbred though that would have likely meant male hybrids were infertile until the 4th or 5th generation like with Bengal cats IIRC

@Tommy Decker that's an illegal site so no thank you

Our pleasure!

Glad it was helpful!

I'll have to check this out.

yes, I also believe there was another study that gave the range of 1-1.5 million years ago. So very likely they had 23 but still possible they had more or less.

Thank you! 😃

Falcons can though if you hybridize anything with peregrines then only the males are fertile

@@stevejoyce6511 I thought males were more likely to be infertile in hybrids

Not Necessarily! Just look at the Bangel Cat breed & other, different chromosome count, pairings that create fertile females like Donkeys with Horses or Lions with Tigers. It is entirely possible different human groups had different chromosome counts & still interbred though that would have likely meant male hybrids were infertile until the 4th or 5th generation like with Bengal cats IIRC

Glad you found this interesting.

Other testing companies offer the Ancient DNA (and Neanderthal) information but I don't look into them since I'm a genetic genealogist. Those companies lack the genetic genealogy research tools and are simply an expensive 'party knowledge' company. I did make a video discussing Neanderthal variants and whether someone could have all of them. I think that's all I'll do regarding that so I can focus on teaching people how to build their genetic family tree using DNA matching. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-oc2nKfCjp20.html

Neanderthals as a pure species died out we are the descendants of hybrids

Hahahah I'm 91%. No wonder I always have this urge to run around in my underwear at work and hit people over the head with a rock......shouldn't have said that

Or the urge to buy Progressive Insurance!

23andme said something similar about me, then they updated their software and now it says only 16% or so.

I’m 88%

@@cathyc6725 It was GEICO Insurance...

Glad you enjoyed it

When we say that autosomal dna only goes back so many generations it is in respect of the genealogical purposes. Our autosomal dna is only useful for identifying individual ancestors up to so many generations. But we still get dna from our ancestors far back into time, only that the ancestors which we get it from a very random selection of all the ancestors that we have.

Thanks

Where can we read more about this?

Yes. Denisovans were discovered more recently so are not ingrained into the science textbooks like Neanderthals are. I figure most everyone has heard of Neanderthals. Much fewer have heard of Denisovans so no need to complicate the explanation.

The limitation in genetic genealogy is what researchers are able to capture and what they're willing to share with other curious researchers.

Glad you watched. Thanks for your support. Please go watch some of Devon's research related videos. She'd appreciate it.

Thanks. Glad to hear it.

Short answers don't always explain the reasons why that answer is the answer.

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics Sometimes it's preferable to hear the answer first then explore the reasons behind it.

For those who don't understand the reason behind the answer, they appreciate the 'long way to say' we don't know. I gave them the why. Enjoy.

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics Thanks for your reply. Any comment on the interbreeding claims vs number of chromosomes uncertainity?

You can see that?

Genetics is awesome. It's why I love studying it when I'm not doing my day job.

Speciation is generally a bit more complex and nuanced than you described. 😉 No monkey gave or gives birth to a "humanish" baby. All populations of almost all animals (plants, bacteria, non-sexual reproducers, etc can sometimes create a new species in one or a few generation) give birth to exactly the same species as themselves. There are mutations in the DNA of each offspring (humans average around 100 mutations per birth), but that doesn’t change their species. If you look at the fossil records for horses or whales or humans you can see the very slow development/change over millions of years from a cat-sized, many-toed, short-legged, forest herbivore into today’s horses, donkeys, zebras, etc. The same gradual changes are seen from a land-dwelling, wolf-like carnivore to today’s whales and dolphins and the tree-dwelling, four-footed/handed, furry, mostly herbivorous ape to humans. Each transformation was accomplished by many, many thousands of small, barely noticeable changes in each generation that had to slowly spread through the rest of the population (because those with the tiny change, on average, had more success in reproducing than those without the change)and were acted upon by natural selection. It’s actually a bit more complicated than that…genetic drift, sexual selection and other factors all contribute, too. That’s just too complex to cover here, though. I think the rest of the steps in evolution, after the DNA stuff, is equally fascinating! (if my expounding ad nauseam wasn’t a clue! 😋)

@@joonzville There was some sarcasm mixed in my post. I can understand a slow process, but some of it seems like a large jump to make. I suppose by random chance things are the way they are. So by random I mean natural selection.

@@alanheadrick7997 I wasn’t sure about the humor/sarcasm but thought I’d clear up any misunderstanding anyone else might have had. WRT "a large jump to make", a) we’d need to define "large" in order to assess if any particular fit and b) "large" changes (like going from land back to the sea or losing all but one toe or becoming bipedal don’t happen all at once or in a few steps. Whale ancestors didn’t have their forelimbs turn into flippers in a couple of generations, they started by going into water to find food near the beginning of whale evolution…kinda like today’s fishing cats, then enough changes to be like otters, then maybe like seals, etc. until their hind limbs became flukes and their forelimbs became flippers and they lived only in water.) are still accomplished over hundreds of thousands of generations and millions of years.

Embrace your genes.

Awe, you are a victim of the stupid Tomkins gibberish. First, there would be no fusion if the telomeres were not damaged and broke. So don't expect a 'pristine' fusion' site. Also, since the fusion took place mutation has happened - which always does in any species - because they are not acting as telomeres anymore and are thus subject to the neutral rate of mutation in areas that are not conserved. Second, those teleomere repeats are found in the center of the Chromosome not at the ends where they should be normally. Having multiple 6 bp repeats is indicative of teleomeric sequences which is very unlikely to randomly appear (as multiple repeats) elsewhere in the DNA. Those repeats are also opposite base pairs on either side of the fusion cite (the reverse and forward strands). That is one of the chromosomes flipped 180 degrees before the fusion and that is why on one side you have repeats of TTAGGG and the other CCCTAA. How do you explain that? Third, the disabled (not deleted) 2nd centromere is not anywhere near DDX11L2. DDX11L2 is next to the fusion site which represents telomeres not centromeres. Fourth, DDX11L2 is not a gene it is a psuedo-gene as can be seen even on the tool that Dumb Tomkins used. What do you think the 'L' means - it means 'Like'. What's it like? It is like the functional DDX11 protein coding gene found on Chr.12. There are 18 duplicated DDX11L pseudo genes scattered throughout the genome on different chromosomes. Guess where 17 of them are on all those other Chromosomes - right next to telomeres. EXCEPT one - which one do you think that is? If you are smart you guessed DDX11L2 right in the center of chromosome 2 next to a fusion site that has those 6 bp telomere repeats. Fifth, the RNA transcript does not make a protein. It's that simple. So if DDX11 is the functional protein coding gene why does this DDX11L2 (a duplicated and truncated copy) fail to make an RNA that can go onto translation and make a functional protein? That's why it is a pseudo-gene sweetie! Tell me what does this RNA do? Oh yeah, you don't know and neither does anyone. When any part of the process fails to procure its purpose - either to make a functional RNA or a functional protein - it is junk, sub-optimal, spurious, or disease causing, etc. It might get co-opted later to have a function ans some pseudo genes do as a result of mutations. Sixth, there are alphoid repeats in centromeres and we find those also in the disabled cnetromere of Chr.2. Seventh, There is a big difference between 'function' and 'noise' or 'biological activity.' You need to learn about spurious transcription. Just because something gets transcribed does not mean it is a biological function that is beneficial or necessary for the organism. Your genome is messy and inefficient in many respects and has potential to kill you if it goes wrong. It's also messy in such a way that much of this is neutral. Binding sites are very small stretches of DNA around 10 bp to maybe a little more. So, any stretch that will mutate to resemble a binding site will attract polymerase 2 and start transcription when a few other molecules in the cell (transcription factors) are present and start transcribing. The fusion cite will be treated as an intron. This is solely based on the assumption that there even is a longer transcript that would cross the fusion based on interpreted alignments. That's not a given with these annotation and the reference sequence that was aligned. In order to understand that you have to understand how they arrive at cataloging these RNA's and how they aligned them with the ref-seq. You need to familiarize yourself with RNA-seq protocols. I'm not gonna get into that here. But if this is a true transcript it is spurious transcription - as noted above - if it is not it is simply an error in the alignment. Some better annotators do not have this transcript crossing the fusion site (see the Havana project). Again, transcription is necessarily no more a function than plugging in a TV and getting static and wavy lines on your screen and saying - 'look it has function.' There is a ton of noise and bio-activity going on and annotators collect that data and record it in the databases to be further vetted. That process depends on a lot of other tests (conservation, expression, etc.). Eighth, infertility is an issue but not absolute. It depends on many circumstances. There are plenty of examples in the literature that show offspring (healthy) when different types of fusions/fission and other chromosomal abnormalities happen. Stop blindly believing creotards!

We know only what's currently available. There's more to know in the future.

@Family History Fanatics & Genealogists actually we know very much. But instead of just looking at the evidence people are trying to limit them to a certain time frame. Knowing that certain futures of a human being never stop growing we can safely conclude based on the futures that we see in them that they were just very old humans. Very old. Like nearly 1000 years old. Pre flood old. And about 4 to 500 years after the flood old. Certainly over 900 years OLD.

No, we made the gods in our image. The old Greeks had already found that out.

And what time should it say?

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics Time? Chromosome 2 was designed that way, it never changed. To show that it's even possible, the Evolutionary Biologists need to do more than claim it happened. They need to take Ape DNA and change it into a fully functional Human, otherwise it's pure "Imagination" Spongebob Style.