Slashdot Mirror
Neanderthal Genes Found In All Non-African Populations
Med-trump writes "Neanderthals, whose ancestors left Africa about 400,000 to 800,000 years ago, evolved in what is now mainly France, Spain, Germany and Russia, and are thought to have lived until about 30,000 years ago. Now scientists have identified a piece of Neanderthal DNA (called a haplotype) in the human X chromosome and conclude that this haplotype is present because of mating between our ancestors and Neanderthals. The study was published in the latest issue of the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution."
Someone needs to do a little digging to make sure this isn't just an elaborate piece of GEICO astroturfing.
The Neanderthals didn't become extinct so much as they merged with H. sapiens.
Dog is my co-pilot.
Somehow I doubt that telling those white supremacists that they're the ones descended from Neanderthals and that the Africans are the only group lacking Neanderthal DNA would do anything to change their perspectives.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
So.. Just how "different" are/were they? It sounds to me like we are calling neanderthals non homosapiens when in reality they are no more different from us than say a tall blond Scandinavian is from a short Asian.. Or a chihuahua from a great dane.
The human genome contains all kinds of junk that isn't expressed, including code for various viruses. However, that does not make one a virus any more than it makes one a neanderthal.
I think it's proof that most of us slashdot geeks are such social basket cases even our ancestors had to move to a foreign land and get a neanderthal to date them.
Those slashdotters who are from Africa get a free pass on this one.
Of course phisical anthropology makes a distinction. Just watch Bones or read a paper: you can divide caucasian, asian, african. It's like red, green and blue: you have those 3, and infinite colors in the middle. And red is not "better" than violet or pink.
There is no problem with races, the problem arises when one race is arbitrarily defined as being "better" than others. Also, there are no strict bounds, just like you can't draw a line between red and pink.
Maybe. I don't really know that much about the different species (and biology is more description and cataloging than discovery IMO), but I think it's more than that. Like the homosapiens are more intelligent (by a large margin) and the neanderthals are stronger (by a large margin). We couldn't have an olympics between the species because the homosapiens would get demolished. Nor could we have a spelling bee, because the opposite would be true. This is what I am thinking.
I also think that Africans and descendants are stronger by nature, so I think it's odd that they didn't interbreed with the stronger neanderthals. (I don't think that's racist to say, but certainly not PC)
i have read some of the archaeology people's writings, and uhm, they have a nice euphemism. "outcompeted". they look at burial sites and so forth to chart the spread of the species.
and uhm. the neanderthals were mass slaughtered.
actually its pretty common in history, from the genetic records, to have waves of populations come in and slaughter the existing population, completely displacing it.
yay us.
From what I understand paleontologists love balling each other out over this sort of things. Doubly so when humans are involved.
If early modern humans and neanderthals were still closely related enough to mate should they be considered the same speciees? If so then our species has a much larger family tree than thought. If not then why would the offspring of the two different species mating be considered homo sapient and not homo neanderthalensis. Why why why?
Glad there's pepole thinking about this stuff....I sure can't wrap my head around it.
has never seen Steve Ballmer dance around the stage yelling "developers developers developers"
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
...
Currently we believe they were far more stocky and muscular than modern humans (from looking at the way their muscles connected to the bones), and they appeared to be more robust (several severely fractured bones show signs of healing).
I think the most interesting difference is that their children appeared to mature faster than ours, taking only 11 years to become fully-grown. (I think the evidence for this is still debated). Even though interbreeding evidently took place, it seems to me they were nevertheless very different.
Procrastination Man strikes again!
From what I understand paleontologists love balling each other ...
*snicker* *giggle*
It's 'bawling out' dude.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
One of the problems here in saying whether Neanderthal's are a different species to Homo Sapiens is that the word species is poorly defined. It's actually been a problem since Darwin's day, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem gives an idea of how long we've been arguing this. Personally if I feel if they were routinely successfully breeding with homo sapiens then calling them a separate species may be a bit of a stretch.
The idea that Neanderthal Man was a sub-species is a product of 19th century "scientific" assumption. It might also be called a case of finding what you are looking for, or making what you find to be what you are looking for (seen most baldly in "Piltdown Man").
The "scientific" assumption error has been enshrined by the popular application of "Neanderthal" to characterize someone as "subhuman". Archaeological evidences indicate Neanderthals were human and had human intelligence, engaged in human differentiating activities (toolmaking, ceremonies, religious activities) and interacted with (other) humans.
If you look at "classic Nordic" facial features in profile Neanderthal elements, contradictory to assigned "Homo Sapiens" features, although modified by mixture with other human feature varieties, are visually evident: Back-sloping brow, for example (instead of vertically rising), heavy and prominent eyebrow ridges, prominent cheekbones, etc. For example, Google for a profile picture of Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain). Also see Albrecht Durer's study drawings of variant Germanic human facial features. Many he selected to draw evidence distinctively "Neanderthal" features.
Most who have scientifically, and independently, reviewed the science of the 19th century and "Neanderthal Man" evidences (Creationists and religious scientists are alike in locking to their learnt beliefs) have anticipated that DNA evidences would/will proof Homo Neanderthalis not a hominid sub-species, but a component of Modern Human (Homo Presumptuous) ancestry.
Morphologically there were considerable differences. Just because two species can interbreed does not make them the same. You would indeed know if a Neandertal was sitting across from you on the bus. I'm not saying he would be any less human, but this isn't the very minor genetic differences one finds between, say, an Amerindian and a San bushman. There may be Neandertal genes in everyone but sub-Saharan Africans, but all in all, humans are still a very closely related group, more closely related, for instance than some chimp populations are to each other.
It still leaves a lot of behavioral questions wide open. For instance, Neandertals basically kept the same toolkits for hundreds of thousands of years, maintaining the unimaginably slow pace of innovation that previous hominids were noted for. It was Cro-Magnon and related modern populations that pushed out of Africa around 60,000 years ago and within 50,000 years had pretty much reached every continent except Africa that brought with them the extraordinary advances, not just in tools, but in cultural trapping. Neandertals in Europe only began to respond to this technological revolution at the very end of their tenure. This suggests a very large cognitive and behavioral gap. Some seem to think it's language, that Neandertals, whatever their brain size might have been, lacked fully modern linguistic capabilities, and thus cultural transmission was limited and slow, whereas the moderns that flooded the Old World, and eventually the New World, had a neural skill package far beyond what Neandertals could hope to compete with.
Now it surely doesn't surprise me that there was some interbreeding going on. The one thing humans are noted for is screwing as often as possible, and it there was thousands of years of interaction between the two species, so it was probably prolonged, though the lack of mtDNA genes suggests that we're not talking about a constant screw-fest, and maybe there was enough distance that successful interbreeding was not all that common, but common enough to leave a mark in our genome.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
JOf course phisical anthropology makes a distinction. Just watch Bones or read a paper: you can divide caucasian, asian, african. It's like red, green and blue: you have those 3, and infinite colors in the middle. And red is not "better" than violet or pink.
There is no problem with races, the problem arises when one race is arbitrarily defined as being "better" than others. Also, there are no strict bounds, just like you can't draw a line between red and pink.
Well, that's one problem. The other problem is the idea that those three groups are the "natural" divisions, the way red, green, and blue are the natural primary colors (for human eyes, anyway.) The primary colors are dictated by our visial anatomy; racial classifications have no such biological basis. In fact you can make both anatomical and genetic arguments for the existence of anywhere from two to several tens of racial groups, and none of these distinctions is any more valid than any other.
Or to put it more simply, the three-races idea can be neatly disposed of with one word: "India."
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
This has been "obvious" for quite some time.
Take a look at NBA player Jason Kidd. Anyone with a brow ridge like THAT has got to be at least 50% Neanderthal.
Human refers to the members of the genus homo. Homo neanderthalensis are in that genus and therefore definitely human. It doesn't come up very often because there is only one extant human species, homo sapiens. There is debate as to whether neanderthals are properly their own species of human, homo neanderthalensis, or actually just a different subspecies, homo sapiens neanderthalensis vs homo sapeins sapiens. Without reading TFA, assuming that the summary is precise in saying that "conclude that this haplotype is present because of mating between our ancestors and Neanderthals," then if the research is correct that would pretty much decide the issue in favor of the single-species two-subspecies hypothesis.
Apparently whether they are classified as Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is still debated by anthropologists. Neanderthal: Classification
I'd say, given that they were at least very similar to modern humans and there was at least some interbreeding, that it's easiest to just call them humans,
s/JOf/Of and s/visial/visual/, of course. Grrr arrgh. With all the rounds of needless "improvements" /. has made to the interface recently, couldn't they find time to put in some kind of editing function -- say, posts would be editable until someone replies to or moderates them? Please?
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Taxonomy is about description and cataloguing. Biology is much much larger than that.
As to the "stronger" thing. I have no idea what you mean. Certainly there physiological differences. Modern humans are presumed to have had much higher endurance than Neandertals, who had a body much more built for a cold climate, and had shorter legs. Physically one would presume Neandertals were stronger, but moderns' greater range certainly would give them substantial edge at hunting, not to mention a larger access to a wider gene pool.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"God made man
But he used the monkey to do it
Apes in the plan
We're all here to prove it
I can walk like an ape
Talk like an ape
Do what a monkey can do
God made man
But a monkey supplied the glue"
-Devo
Zoid.com
No it wouldn't. There are numerous examples of interbreeding between closely related species. Interbreeding is not the definitive answer as to whether two species can interbreed or not. If it was, there would be no such species as a polar bear, and yet clearly, based on behavior and environment, polar bears are more than just a subspecies of brown bear.
When we talk about Neandertals, we're talking about a hominid that separated from our African ancestors and lived largely in isolation for several hundred thousand years, and retained robustness lost in modern humans, not to mention evolving considerable morphological differences.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Justifying superiority is easy. Just latch on to any arbitrary characteristic that differentiates you from your target, and proclaim that the expression you have of this characteristic is automatically superior than any other expression.
Often, you can find several of these.
Keep fucking with these humans if you want to, MORE MONKEY PUSSY FOR ME!!!
a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring
. So if humans and neanderthals could in fact interbreed, then wouldn't they be the same species? Were they any further apart than pygmys and tall white europeans? I would think that if neanderthals had survived to this day, they would have all the same rights as the rest of humans, and probably be considered human.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
It could be a merger, it could be a little bit of gene flow followed by extinction. The data don't say.
A previous result suggested non-African humans have about 4% of their genome descended from Neandertals. For the sake of argument, I'll take that as a fact.
Merger scenario: a big wave of modern humans flow into Neandertal territory, outnumbering them by about 25 to one. They all form one big happy interbreeding population, soon forming a uniform gene pool which is about 4% Neandertal, reflecting the original population proportion, and then go on to colonize the rest of the planet.
Genocide/extinction scenario: Big bad Modern hunts down and kills the poor Neandertals, raping the women as they go. Some of the half-breeds integrate into the Modern population and leave descendants, but the purebred Neandertals all die on the end of a spear. Despite a Modern population rather smaller than the Neandertal population, in the end we have only Moderns left with only 4% of the genes coming from the once more populous Neandertal, and the non-meek inherit the earth.
I suppose we could even go for:
Neandertal conquest scenario: Once upon a time there was a large population of peaceful Moderns. The nasty Neandertals fell upon them like a wolf upon the fold, killed all the men and kept the women for their pleasure. The resulting society had a small number of master race Neandertals ruling the Modern peons. But due to the Modern women being hotter than the Neandertals*, the Neandertal bloodline was quickly diluted until they were indistinguishable from the slaves. It is because we lack our Master Race rulers that we're in such a mess today.
* Ask anyone you know, they'll agree on this. That proves it!
Note that I've presented exaggerated scenarios for dramatic effect - do not assume they represent my personal opinions. As presented, my genocide scenario does not explain why we see no Neandertal mitochondrial DNA in present populations, but it could be tweaked to account for that.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Hmmm, does this mean Neanderthals are a social construct too? Help me out guys, I need to fit these scientific findings into my egalitarian political views.
I read on a cave wall somewhere that it was one particular, and really hot, Neanderthal chick, "Loose Lucy", who the Neanderthal gene dates back to. Her kids really got around.
Gently reply
I hope you're trolling, cause if not you're really stupid. The 3/5ths compromise wasn't a declaration of "how human" slaves were -- if anything, you'd have to say it was about "how much of a citizen", but it's not really that either.
Note that the Northern states wanted slaves _not_ to count, while Southern states wanted them _to_ count, exactly the opposite of the "3/5th human" notion. In reality, it was just a compromise over political power -- Northern states with few slaves would gain power (in the house of representatives, specifically) if slaves weren't counted, and Southern states with lots of slaves would gain power if slaves were counted. Neither would voluntarily submit, so they worked out a compromise that left them all feeling they had an acceptable share of power.
If it were some moral argument about ensuring slaves were/weren't fairly represented, there'd have been something in there about letting them vote -- increasing the effective voting power of their masters would be exactly the wrong thing.
Is there some reason why this could not have happened by way of a virus?
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
Except, you are full of crap. Homo Sapiens Sapiens also were quite content with the Mousterian toolkit and no artwork in the modern sense for tens of thousands of years. Just because modern humans had the cultural revolution and Neanderthals didn't does not mean they were incapable. And besides, assuming we can get any real grasp on the complexity of very ancient cultures based on their lithics technology is INCREDIBLY shortsited. It is tantamount ot saying we could understand today's cultures based on some screwdrivers and a hammer.
Also, in the presence of a much larger population, a smaller mtDNA line will be completely swamped and die out after a very small number of generations. A similar phenomenon is well-documented by genealogists in patrilineal naming conventions - less common names tend to die out more quickly and everyone eventually ends up being named "Smith". For some reason, paleogeneticists always seem to ignore this fact.
YIAAA (Yes I am an archaeologist)
Will the academics who were run out of academia and called racist for hypothesizing the same thing be getting their jobs back? I had a physical anthropology professor at UCB whose classes were regularly disrupted by protesters (as usual, many non-students), in the 1980s for teaching this exact theory. He, and many others were called racist for failure to preach the "out of Africa" orthodoxy, and were forced out.
This is claimed to be scientific evidence that furthers the genetic distance between Africans and others. If I were a white supremacist (which I am not), I would be drooling over this.
Property rights haven't been the same since.
It is good to be racist, because you acknowledge the good of populations being isolated to speciate thereby assuring they each have unique bodily advantages to repel disease and develop differing cultures, but that goes out the window when the retards of the world bring HATE into the mix.
When species inter-mix, this is what tampers their DNA to either leucistic or albino phases of their genome to manifest in what many call as Black & White characteristics. This was first observed in ancient Canaan where the original Judahites displaced the North Africans (voodoo/druidic, Yew), and then the Ashkenazim (mongol Asiatic) arrived to fold into what became known as Afro-Asiatic that doesn't resemble Israel and neiter Judah, yet their mixing has effected the melanin production in their skin and how their metabolism hangs fat from their bodies to what is presently mistakenly referred to as "characteristic."
Skin naturally is supposed to darken as it absorbs valuable nutrition from the sun and mediate between damage of over-exposure, while the skin will return to normal levels based on it's environment and never to "burn." Evidence of this proves that Black men can't live in a prison climate because they require not less than 5 hours of daily sunlight or their bones and immune system weaken, while a White only needs 30 minutes of exposure to sunlight and not more. In this regard, we can see that Black & White is a "nom de guerre" created to culturally unbalance two separate regions in the name of government and religion. The question is who caused this speciation based on mere color-blindedness? I believe it was the anti-racists that did it, because only someone that shallow could ever think to prosecute racism as to conceal the elimination of neighboring cultures by painting them two colors rather than the colors of the rainbow that make them so beautiful and unique. In this regard, is to weaken an entire planet, but in terms of purity what you see is that the advocacy of multi-culturalism in itself is good except for the part where the perverts say that you should dis-respect the lineage of ancestry that brought your neighbor to present form.
Who benefits by race-mixing? In all regards, government and religion benefit: it's a power grab to mediate between differences -- perpetually. It's a live-stock tag forever placed on your children, not recognizing them as the contributions of two supplementary parents but forever dis-allowing the union by governmental "conditions." Religion too achieves this by rendering sinful nature and guilt onto the matter by declaration rather than fact, because the truth of the matter is all law is a matter of religion while government was brought to help the declared "criminal" to measure-up with the image of man that the subject supposedly doesn't meet.
Every culture is relative, and the only one's that benefit from the civil war of reproduction is the one culture that demands honoring their interpretartion of events by seniorage. Much of Hollywood advocates stereotypes and race-mixing as consequence of daily activities to encoursage harm because such marriage was intended to destroy the more scholastic cultures in competition with the event used to dominate the world in the cruel God-complex that differentiates between inferior and superior: commerce, and all sources point to the jews as being the most race-mixed culture that alone used it's cunning interpretive logic to convince all the world that they are the purer of race-mixers only fit to rule the world through inheritance of their parents coming together, meanwhile original races are looked upon as the unenlighted feudal hosts that never gave such cruel notion as what their wayward children erected in hatered.
I'm well aware there were anatomically modern humans who had Mousterian toolkits. But the guys that came rushing out of Africa into Europe, Asia and Australia sure the hell were beyond that. The evidence, if you're an archaeologist you will know, for any kind of ritualism among Neandertals amounts to what, one or two finds, and interpretation is nowhere near universal.
Beyond that only at the tail end of Neandertal's time after thousands of years around HSS did it's toolkit show much advancement. One would think if it's cognitive capabilities were the same as the Cro Magnons it would have been a helluva lot faster.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Or to put it more simply, the three-races idea can be neatly disposed of with one word: "India."
I read a book that sheds some light on this... this one. Basically, a long time ago, there were people from Africa that couldn't exactly be classified as "black" in the way that we are familiar today. These people migrated to and from Africa at differing points in history and to different places. The further they migrated, the more separated they were from the original people from Africa. The closer they settled, the more they tended to retain the features of the original people due to increased exposure to one another. This can probably explain how Indians are dark, yet many have straight hair like Orientals (some coarse and wavy), and how Greeks have bronze skin with typically curly or wavy hair.
Putting Neanderthals in the mix (not discussed in the book), can probably explain the emergence of Caucasian people in Europe (and possibly Orientals in Asia) due to the fact that mating with a different species is likely to produce some immediately apparent mutation such as low pigmentation (As a side note supporting this theory, given the effects of the sun's rays, light pigmentation isn't likely to be something that would evolve naturally over time). Inter-mating between these people outside of Africa could be responsible for the many variations that we have seen emerge in Europe and Asia. Meanwhile, Africans who have never left the continent, could have simply continued to evolve within the same conditions.
This makes an interesting point apparent to me. One race of people may have "superior" genes, but their evolution could be stunted by not changing their environment for thousands of years. Likewise, other races of people may have "inferior" genes, but have learned to evolve in a more variable and challenging environment. However, all of this is moot in the present given the technology that we have today that enables us to fly halfway across the world within hours to meet and mate with people with varying genetic stock; and also the technology which enables us to learn anything that anyone else in the world can learn. The only thing separating us now is the existence of affluence and freedom of association, since nowadays, this is what basically allows people of differing races to interact with each other, especially in North America and Europe. This also means that it is not conducive to human evolution to separate each other by race just because one group thinks they are better than the other.
Ha! Dr. Freud, please call your office.
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
you can divide caucasian, asian, african.
If you're going to go by the old (and obsolete and disproved) definitions of race by physical anthropology, there would be five races. Two african ones, Congoid and Negroid; and the Australoid race.
I feel so much less alone now..
In other news, it appears that The Doctor was right.. except not just in the centuries ahead... the human race will bonk anything.. anytime.. anywhere..
You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
This information (that non-African populations have some Neanderthal DNA) was in the textbook for the Anthropology class I took last semester. The textbook is Our Origins: Discovering Physical Anthropology (second edition.) If I had more time I'd look up the chapter and see what source they cite.
As for Neanderthals remaining static, their toolkit changed a lot in Italy.
Consider isolated low population density modern human populations. We "lost" the use of fire in Tasmania and some (one?) of the Andaman islands. Even some Homo Erectus had the use of fire, not to mention huts/shelters with piles.
Given the Neanderthal's lack of population density, I argue that to have maintained their level of culture, they were smarter than modern humans.
Larger, more muscular, more pronounce brow http://moviecarpet.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/connan.jpg Seems right to me.
To welcome our new Neandertahl overlords
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
The Neanderthals are not the only one having descendants roaming the earth today.
Do not forget the Denisova Hominin, however.
They too have descendants - in the form of the Pacific Islanders.
Next time you look at a Hawaiian (or Fijian or Indonesian) wondering why they look weird, it's in the genes.
As a side note supporting this theory, given the effects of the sun's rays, light pigmentation isn't likely to be something that would evolve naturally over time)
Avoiding chronic vitamin D deficiency is a pretty good reason to evolve light pigmentation. It is all fine and good as long as you are somewhere sunny, but up here in the cold, dark north, you need all the vitamin D you can get, to hell with skin cancer. Of course, farther north, the thinner ozone layer pushes towards darker pigmentation again.
I think the most interesting difference is that their children appeared to mature faster than ours, taking only 11 years to become fully-grown.
"Fully Grown" doesn't mean what you think it does. We measure "growth" by looking at the merging of the bone plates and changes to the muscle and bone structure caused by puberty.
If we apply the same set of criteria to modern humans, they would be considered to be "fully grown" between the ages of 10 and 13 for females, and 12-15 for males... and I'll also note that lately people have been having fits because girls are starting to mature earlier.
Ask which one a woman would preffer as a partner and you have your answer.
Oh, NOTHING racist in the OP. Nothing at all.
*barf*
http://xkcd.com/875/
It should be noted that both Homo Sapiens and Neanderthalis evolved in Africa, and Neanderthalis left Africa first, with Cro-Magnon not being a seperate species from Sapiens but rather a period in our cultural history defined by a change in artefacts or procedures in tool making. The Cro-Magnon period began before the first intra Africa (and then outra-Africa) migration c.70,000 years ago. By that point, the proto-language and culture for which all humans descend existed.
Oh, and don't you love it how Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis were migratory as well? We just can't keep still can we.
It is called evolution. Read up on it.
So if humans and neanderthals could in fact interbreed, then wouldn't they be the same species? ... I would think that if neanderthals had survived to this day, they would have all the same rights as the rest of humans, and probably be considered human.
Any member of the genus Homo is human, just not all the same species of human. As for neanderthals, whether they deserve their own species or are just a subspecies (H. neanderthalensis vs. H. sapiens neanderthalensis) is an open question, although when I studied anthropology in college, the professor was of the opinion they were a subspecies, and implied that the majority of anthropologists were in the latter camp.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
This definitely isn't news... Is it? I remember reading about all of this months ago, regarding papers that were published... at least a year before that.
I'm from Southern Africa (Swaziland) and this is something we've always wondered about. Why do people from this part of the world struggle to apply simple logic to a situation? Now that this has come out, it's logical!
Exactly, "better" is is only relevant when measured against a specific yardstick. For example, being short is "better" if you value fitting in sports cars, being tall is "better" if you want to play basketball. Having dark skin is "better" if you live in an area with very high UV exposure, having light skin is "better" if you live in a place that is cloudy/rainy 6 months out of the year.
Almost any non-superficial difference is "better" than another given a certain context (and vice-versa). The problem of racism arises when people just focus on the "better" and ignore the context. The problem of political correct idiocy arises when any differences that could be construed as "better" are thrown out, context be damned.
(The latter is probably the lesser of two evils though.)
Very good point, I would just like to add that the 3/5 was about increasing the voting power of slave owners. So, if the constitution had been written the way those who now use the 3/5 number as an indication of racism would like, slavery would likely still exist in this country (the slave owners might have had enough political power to expand slavery and prevent the things that lead them to seccede).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Perhaps they had a word of mouth religion that forbade any tools other then those approved by the rock God "Thud". Would seem to explain the lack of tool development much as how the Catholic church set us back by 400 years of science development.
Can it be that instead of having interbred, we merely share a common distant ancestor?
E Proelio Veritas.
although some people enjoy calling it "merging" and "assimilation"
Take into account you have monkey genes, or even virus genes. That doesn't make them human.
Btw, it raises the question, not begs the question. ;)
I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
My understanding was that for a group of (sexually reproducing) individuals to be considered a separate species from another the two cannot create viable offspring (mules aren't considered viable as they are sterile, so horses and donkeys are still considered different species). If humans have neanderthal DNA, and the conclusion is that interbreeding put it there, then the two are simply sub-species of the same species.
If this is the case, then how exactly did homo sapiens evolve from them. Shouldn't we all have that gene if that's where we came from?
I guess the lack of Neanderthal mDNA shows that the chances of a male H. Neanderthal mating with a female H. Sapiens were much higher than the opposite. Anyone surprised?
"Like the homosapiens are more intelligent (by a large margin) and the neanderthals are stronger (by a large margin)."
This doesn't seem to be the case (at least, not by a large margin).
There are homo sapiens that are stronger than the average neanderthaler and there is enough evidence to suggest there were neanderthalers smarter than the average homo sapiens.
So there realy is a large overlap and it may be due to culture alone, or due to agressiveness or another slight hormonal imbalance that homo sapiens got the upper hand.
Well, this finally explains about all the politicians in Washington and why they cannot get it together.
So.. Just how "different" are/were they? It sounds to me like we are calling neanderthals non homosapiens when in reality they are no more different from us than say a tall blond Scandinavian is from a short Asian.. Or a chihuahua from a great dane.
Obviously they aren't far enough from human to prevent procreation, which also means that they are to be considered the same species.
the mind fairly boggles.
lol
lose != loose
Neanderthals are human. They are of the species Homo sapiens. They are Homo sapiens neandertalensis, while we are Homo sapiens sapiens. They're considered a different subspecies.
Modern day jews are the descendants of Neanderthals. Modern day Aryans (whites) are the descendants of CroMagnons. Niggers are a kind of monkey, and always have been.
And yes, I'm white, I AM a racist, and I'm proud of it. Race is reality, and racism is truth. So what else you got?
I have a problem with the interbreeding of neanderthals and sapiens. It is this. Children need years of care to survive and pass on their genes. What did sapiens guy do to support this?? Did he bring his ugly, mentally challenged pregnant neanderthal female home to his sapiens village amd the open loving arms of his community? Not likely. Did he live with the neanderthals? Not likely. That leaves rape of neanderthal women who bore and raised the resulting child under the protection of the neanderthal group. Not likely. So, what exactly is the mechanism of this so-called interbreeding?
E Proelio Veritas.
It all pink inside,my pecker has always been color blind. lol lol
X Chromosome that would mean that mitochondrial Eve in non Africans was a Neanderthal. Now we can explain Teabaggers! Yes evolution makes sense.
science +1
religion -1
www.theblurredchronicles.com
Back when all this occurred (way before the invent and use of soaps, deodorants, perfumes and other such products masking our senses), humanities ancestors had a way better developed olfactory they relied on for hunting, gathering and obviously they all smelled estrous and I'm sure acted befitting to the need of procreation and its excitement taken in through smell. Folks we are animals, just because we think we are better than animals, it doesn't mean we aren't animals, revel in it. Though all the other animals combined do less to the ruination of our planet than we "the smart ones" do.
Ha, ha! The longer the world goes on, the more ridiculous the claims of the "evolutionists" persist! Sometimes I think that God is perhaps allowing these fools who deny His existence to just go on with their silly, "discoveries" that maybe one day they will read Genesis 1 and conclude that God does indeed exist and has created the universe, including them!
I think it explains a lot.
My grandfather was what they termed freakishly strong. He took a pair of 6'+ German MPs and bloodied them up so bad they had to be carried out in stretchers and they were asking where the weapon was. My dad to this day has higher than average bone density, they did it last a couple of years back when he was like 45 and said it was better than the majority of 20 year olds they have come in and is very barrel chested and we have a mix of genetics so it is hard to tell exactly where it came from, but a mix of english, irish, german. I personally have broken at least one tire iron and have only known a handful of people that could best me in an arm wrestling match and normally people who work in manual labor(carpenter) or who are far larger than myself and I hardly get a chance to work out. So again there is definitely some Neanderthal genetics still running around.
how could the last dinosoar neanderthal human die out thirty thousand years ago when the universe is only a few thousand years old ,people walked with dinosoars the bones of dinosaurs are evrywhere early humans had them for pets ,what you going to believe your bible or some forced educated atheist lie, your not forced into gods house ,only uncle sams house you must be in person or pay the consecuenses of a hell of legal lies
Neanderthals were humans, simple as that. Very strong men with super human strength. The lived about 200 to 300 years of age. They weren't 30,000 years old, that is ridiculous. And how were these guys dated? The earth they were buried in? lol. Lucy was NOT a human, we know that. She was a small ape that lived in the trees. The human feet they put on her does not make her human. Her angled leg bone is not a human characteristic, only a tree climbing ape. Come on guys, let's get real here. Why not bring up the Nebraska man or Piltdown man and not just Lucy to make a point here. lol. Let's find a cave where a bunch of monkeys fossils are and then ignore the human fossils that ate them and call them the "Missing link and tell everyone that monkeys used tools." lol.
Members of different but related species can mate and produce offspring, but they cannot produce produce both male and female offspring that are fertile. For a sexually reproducing organism, that's the definition of species. The article talks about modern humans, which clearly have fertile males and females, having neanderthal genes coming from neanderthal ancestors. That implies that neanderthals and sapiens interbred and produced fertile offspring, which implies they are the same species. In your polar bear example, if polar bears and some species of brown bears can interbreed and produce fertile males and fertile females, that too would imply they are the same species irrespective of "behavior and environment."
no sexual taboos like humans every body forched it was the neaderthal way.
From what I understand paleontologists love balling each other out over this sort of things.
I think you mean they bawl each other out. Unless you are suggesting that questions in paleontology are settled with basketball games. Which might explain a few things.
Is the abbreviation for Neanderthal, NEA?
ooga-booga
You might find that there were already answers. Such as educational differences, cultural bias, diet/health and well being differences, etc.
Yeh, Victorian physical anthropology.
Just watch some trashy pop detective series or read a paper (a newspaper? anthropology paper? white supremacist propaganda?). Yeh right.
Three super races, of which everyone else is a variation of, right. Ever heard of clinal variation? Come back when your older.
"So if humans and neanderthals could in fact interbreed, then wouldn't they be the same species? "
Capable of producing offspring is a condition of the category 'species'. This does not exclude the fact that different species can also interbreed.
"Were they any further apart than pygmys and tall white europeans?"
Classification of species is based on the study of lineages, not phenotypical differences, which are often quite superficial and controlled for by only subtle genetic differences.
"and probably be considered human"
I believe Neanderthals are considered a human species. When people say 'modern humans', they mean Homo Sapiens Sapiens, as opposed to now extinct non-modern humans.
Looks likeits time to reread "Clan of the Cave Bear".
Wouldn't it really be a more sound statement to say that a gene has been discovered that is common to Neanderthals and homo sapiens, that is for some reason, absent in samples found in sub Saharan African samples? There is no statistical sample control to this... ALL conclusions are nothing but speculation, and this is the garbage that drives bad science.
The truth is, it would be much easier to lose a gene than gain one. A copy or a copy of a copy loses integrity. It doesn't gain. It would be more logical to assume that my Irish and German ancestors lost their pigment (because we are quite pasty and pink) due to lack of exposure to the sun, than it would be to think that our African counterparts somehow mysteriously gained it due to exposure to the sun. (Think about your appendix...)
So much speculation! So many rash ideas and conclusions from one, teeny tiny, piece of data.
Gary Della Bate (however it is spellled), from the Howard Stern Show, is no doubt, a Neanderthal hybrid with very few non-Neanderthalus features. It's all there, and he is a walking specimen and proof.
Thank-You for confirming what my wife has said for years --- I am a Neanderthal --
Personally, I am not qualified to speak to this ongoing conversation; however, I am relieved to learn that at least some inter-breeding occurred between Neanderthal (N) and Homo Sapiens (HS). I have seen several HS males (Caucasians) who appeared to have strong N traits; e.g., a short, stocky build with a very pronounced brow ridge, heavy body hair & etc.. My question: With what's been alluded to here, are HS & Cro Magnon (CM) being equated? If not, was there inter-breeding between CM & N or CM & HS?
I remember this being mentioned quite some time ago (months? A year or more maybe?). I don't have a link to post but I'm certain this has already been reported; if not by these scientists, then another.
(and biology is more description and cataloging than discovery IMO)
Hearty belly laugh...... DARWIN (was a biologist)?
Fnord Fnord Fnord