Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Genes Say Some Are Part Neanderthal


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Genes Say Some Are Part Neanderthal Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Genes Say Some Are Part Neanderthal - 5/11/2010 11:04:07 PM   
Caius


Posts: 175
Joined: 2/2/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
Wow, that was pretty comprehensive even by my standards. Very interesting to know that Chales Darwin's cousin promoted eugenics. Actually I do myself.


No? Get out of here. What a surprise...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
But in the study of Man's development there are many things we will never know. Accepting the theory of survival of the fittest, it can't give a true indication of what those left for dead died from. Was it war or disease ? Could've even been stupidity. We see alot of that these days because it's not lethal, and some think it's actually funny. But in the past stupidity was fatal. That is why I believe we are actually devolving in that respect. I've oft found as well that in quite a few cases these days, one's wealth is inversely proportional to their true intelligence. The ramifications of that can be scary if considered carefully.


A) Actually, in the history of evolution, intellect is really nowhere near a front-runner for most successful adaptation.  It's worked out well for primates so far, but there are many species of organism that have existed virtually unchanged for literally many tens of thousands of times longer than we've been on the planet.  And it remains to be seen if intelligence of the unprecedented level we have achieved will not ultimately be a dead end. I don't like to think so, but as an empiricist I must concede the possibility.
B) There is no such thing as de-evolution, not in the biological context.   Natural selection is nothing more than the likelihood that better-adapted organisms will survive longer and thus be more likely to pass on their genetic stock.  It's like saying you can de-think something.  Once it's done, it's done and there's no absolute value to the act, one way or another.
C) Who says there has to be a direct and consistent causal link between intellect and wealth?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
But now this theory tha Man is in whole made up of several species' is not foreign to me, in fact I tend to believe it. You look at people of different ethnicities and find them so different it's not to be disregarded.


Yeah, especially if you're an ignorant racist who can't look beyond the incredibly superficial to the vast body of evidence from every relevant scientific discipline (to say nothing of broader common sense) that shows just how amazingly similar we are innately.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
And genetics is no laughing matter.


No, it's not. And it's genetics more so than anything that at long last confirmed the blatantly obvious fact that we are one species.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
I think what formed what we refer to now as the human race depended mainly on sexual and reproductive compatibility. I believe the homo sapiens developed around the same time but in different places. As such, if we are all descendant from lower primates, well the lower primates differed in different geographical locations on the globe.


Except there's absolutely no chance that happened.  Our closest relatives all hail/hailed from Africa and we have an unambiguous record of our migration outward from that continent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
What happened next is a bit elusive. Who migrated, who built boats eventually ? It gets really complicated from there.


Complicated, not retarded.

< Message edited by Caius -- 5/11/2010 11:18:53 PM >

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 121
RE: Genes Say Some Are Part Neanderthal - 5/11/2010 11:41:57 PM   
Whiplashsmile4


Posts: 2305
Joined: 12/2/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Oh....don't forget that aliens could have landed and forced them to interbreed as an experiment.


Can't forget about the Alien spin factor here... not to mention Planet Nibiru (a twisted Hoax).


_____________________________

Жизнь ума ебет.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUzJI4Palq0

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 122
RE: Genes Say Some Are Part Neanderthal - 5/12/2010 12:03:24 AM   
Caius


Posts: 175
Joined: 2/2/2005
Status: offline
Two excellent points, and I'm glad you brought them into the discussion.  They do require some caveats for contextualization though.  First, taxonomic distinction is not as cut-and-dry as the source makes it sound; there are times that we classify species as distinct even when interbreeding is a possibility. Second, the scenario he envisions for the, let's call it proto-neanderthal genetics being the relic of a somewhat isolated common ancestor, while interesting, is really very unlikely; it doesn't fit with the current model of hominid diversification, that is, the timing and placement of where Neanderthalensis evolved as a separate branch, nor does the isolationism of that common ancestor would have to have seem likely in the African context.  Still, great food for thought.

< Message edited by Caius -- 5/12/2010 12:07:51 AM >

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 123
RE: Genes Say Some Are Part Neanderthal - 5/12/2010 12:04:10 AM   
Resnick


Posts: 5
Status: offline
I see it like this, you get a great dane and a border collie in the room, one's in heat, I bet you they would still try to mate. I don't see why there has to be rape or anything, though from my views on history, that's been the case in many societies. But I think it's possible that two species simply mated because the option was there. Then, as different species were made and different adaptations were needed for survival or looked more desirable to mates, Neanderthals died out. I don't think it has anything to do with war or rape really...

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 124
RE: Genes Say Some Are Part Neanderthal - 5/12/2010 12:11:44 AM   
Caius


Posts: 175
Joined: 2/2/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Caius


A) Actually, in the history of evolution, intellect is really nowhere near a front-runner for most successful adaptation.  It's worked out well for primates so far, but there are many species of organism that have existed virtually unchanged for literally many tens of thousands of times longer than we've been on the planet.



This should read: "It's worked out well for primates so far, but there are many species of organism that have existed virtually unchanged for literally many tens of thousands of times longer than we've been on the planet that have only the most basic instinctual reactions to their environment, possessing nothing even remotely approaching abstract thought." 

D'oh. Fatigue certainly has me thinking more like a Neanderthal tonight.

< Message edited by Caius -- 5/12/2010 12:16:02 AM >

(in reply to Caius)
Profile   Post #: 125
RE: Genes Say Some Are Part Neanderthal - 5/12/2010 12:21:14 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Resnick

I see it like this, you get a great dane and a border collie in the room, one's in heat, I bet you they would still try to mate. I don't see why there has to be rape or anything, though from my views on history, that's been the case in many societies. But I think it's possible that two species simply mated because the option was there. Then, as different species were made and different adaptations were needed for survival or looked more desirable to mates, Neanderthals died out. I don't think it has anything to do with war or rape really...


Dogs identify by smell more than sight so, baring extreme size differences, dogs will mate with any other dog. Great apes identify by sight and what little evidence we have is that the clear physical differences between H sapiens and H neadertalis would preclude more than very rare voluntary matings. If that was enough to account for the gene flow the paper in question reports is, IMO, unknowable. I think it more likely that the gene flow is the product of rape.

(in reply to Resnick)
Profile   Post #: 126
RE: Genes Say Some Are Part Neanderthal - 5/12/2010 12:24:15 AM   
Resnick


Posts: 5
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Resnick

I see it like this, you get a great dane and a border collie in the room, one's in heat, I bet you they would still try to mate. I don't see why there has to be rape or anything, though from my views on history, that's been the case in many societies. But I think it's possible that two species simply mated because the option was there. Then, as different species were made and different adaptations were needed for survival or looked more desirable to mates, Neanderthals died out. I don't think it has anything to do with war or rape really...


Dogs identify by smell more than sight so, baring extreme size differences, dogs will mate with any other dog. Great apes identify by sight and what little evidence we have is that the clear physical differences between H sapiens and H neadertalis would preclude more than very rare voluntary matings. If that was enough to account for the gene flow the paper in question reports is, IMO, unknowable. I think it more likely that the gene flow is the product of rape.


But there is scientific evidence that though we don't know it, humans go on pheromones as well. So what is to say that in a more animalistic society sapiens and neanderthals didn't decide to mate this way as well?

I am not saying it definitely wasn't rape, but humans interbreed so much now, couldn't it be the same back then?

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 127
RE: Genes Say Some Are Part Neanderthal - 5/12/2010 1:07:14 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
I'm not saying its impossible I just think its unlikely. Keep in mind that H neandertalis was clearly not the same as H sapiens. The limb proportions and skull morphology are very different. There doesn't seem to have been any mixing of material culture (H neandertalis sites don't start having tools developed by H sapiens after the two came into contact) which probably excludes peaceful cohabitation and trade.

(in reply to Resnick)
Profile   Post #: 128
RE: Genes Say Some Are Part Neanderthal - 5/12/2010 1:42:25 AM   
Caius


Posts: 175
Joined: 2/2/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKenGreat apes identify by sight and what little evidence we have is that the clear physical differences between H sapiens and H neadertalis would preclude more than very rare voluntary matings. If that was enough to account for the gene flow the paper in question reports is, IMO, unknowable. I think it more likely that the gene flow is the product of rape.


You're proposing a non-sequitur false causality there;  the fact that vision plays a more central role in our arousal (comparable to some randoms selection of other far-removed species) doesn't mean anything in the evaluation of what the specimens in question might have subjectively viewed as acceptable breeding possibility.  In fact, what little evidence from primatology we have suggests quite the contrary -- chimps and bonobos (pygmy chimps), both very 'visual' species when it comes to mating and also our closest surviving ancestors and the creatures closest to us in terms of mating behaviour in all the animal kingdom, have been known to readily interbreed in the past in the rare circumstances they have been kept in captivity together (the range of their natural habitats do not overlap).  The phenotypical differences between these two species are at least as significant as those that would have existed between Cro-magnon and Neanderthal.   What's more, we have evidence for interbreeding between precursor species even closer related to us than genus Pan.  

Regardless we have many other significant reasons to believe rape would not have been a very common reproductive strategy even in these cases of interbreeding.  For examples of these, see my last half-dozen or so responses in this threat.  You'll have to forgive me for not reiterating them here in the context of your particular points but I've had to do the same several times in this thread already and unfortunately don't have the time to do so again at the moment.  Still, I think you might them interesting since you seem to have an interest in genetics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
I'm not saying its impossible I just think its unlikely. Keep in mind that H neandertalis was clearly not the same as H sapiens. The limb proportions and skull morphology are very different.


Well, many species overcome much more distinct variation within their own species in choosing mates, not even considering the many species in which the sexes are so different that they were initially mistaken for entirely different creatures.  Such superficial distinctions don't always matter.  Granted, these kinds of differences mean a fair bit more to hominids than they do in other parts of even the mammalian sphere, but even so I'm doubtful that the differences in question would have been that big a hurtle to the occasional (and remember, it need be only occasional) voluntary interbreeding between Homo sapiens sapiens and Neanderthals. 

Furthermore there's something of a peculiarity in your assumption that that these species would not find each-other to be acceptable enough for 'willing' interbreeding.  Rape is still a willing act for one of the two parties involved.  It seems odd to make the assumption that the females would be horrified by the prospect of the interbreeding and the males gung-ho for it, especially when it was the females of the two species were the ones who looked so vastly different (Neanderthal females seem to have possessed few of the distinguishing secondary sexual characteristics that mark such a striking difference between males and females in our species*) while the males of both species looked, by comparison at least, much more similar.  So, you'd really expect the opposite, if anything; I personally expect neither side was too picky to prevent the occasional "walk on the wild side," so to speak.   So, unless you think Neanderthal man simply saw tits for the first time and thought, "Damn, I gotta get me some of that!" -- which may be appealing argument to us but was unlikely to move a species adapted to flat-cheastedness for unbroken millions of years, we have yet another reason to doubt the "rape was the driving force of Neanderthal man's entry into out genetics" theory.


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
There doesn't seem to have been any mixing of material culture (H neandertalis sites don't start having tools developed by H sapiens after the two came into contact) which probably excludes peaceful cohabitation and trade.


Trade, certainly not, but then strictly speaking trade didn't exist anywhere in the world at this time, or at least was an extreme rarity, being one of the last precursors of human culture to manifest itself during the gradual progression of prehistory into history.  What you aptly call the material culture was more often a case of inheritance.   As for cohabitation, it depends on your definition.  We knows the two species to have coexisted over vast swaths of western Eurasia, including the bulk of southern Europe and very frequently in close enough proximity that they would have at the very least been routinely aware of one-another existence.  As for them sitting down at the campfire to try to communicate with one-another, no, of course not.  But then, bands of the same species would not have even done this at the time.  The human world was a very isolated thing during this period, with one group having no more conception of the greater community of their species than any given group of Darwin's finches do.

* Well, I guess technical we now know Neanderthals to be "our" species as well.  It's gonna be hard to unlearn some habits when it comes to talking about them. 


< Message edited by Caius -- 5/12/2010 2:47:40 AM >

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 129
RE: Genes Say Some Are Part Neanderthal - 5/12/2010 1:53:46 AM   
Caius


Posts: 175
Joined: 2/2/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Resnick

But there is scientific evidence that though we don't know it, humans go on pheromones as well. ck then?



Well, we certainly can't count olfaction as out of the running in any area of human behaviour.  Unlike all of the other special senses, which go through intermediary neurological structures, olfaction plugs directly into centers of the brain primarily associated with memory and emotion.  Hence their evocative and excitatory power.   Going so far as to say that we have true reproductive pheromones, on the other hand -- that's a little bit more questionable. For a long time this was considered a crackpot notion by most serious researchers.  Only recently has there begun to be some small concession of the possibility of a weak role for olfcatory signals indicating sexual receptivity in humans.  I have the relevant research laying around here somewhere.  I'll try to find it and relate the details (most of which escape my memory at the moment) if you care to check back tomorrow.

< Message edited by Caius -- 5/12/2010 2:52:37 AM >

(in reply to Resnick)
Profile   Post #: 130
RE: Genes Say Some Are Part Neanderthal - 5/12/2010 3:55:45 AM   
Caius


Posts: 175
Joined: 2/2/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Caius
Hence their evocative and excitatory power. 


Should read: "Hence the evocative and excitatory power of certain scents."

~sigh~ Definitely need to save further commentary for tomorrow.

(in reply to Caius)
Profile   Post #: 131
RE: Genes Say Some Are Part Neanderthal - 5/12/2010 6:51:08 AM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Hang on, is there any genetic evidence suggesting that the recessive gene that causes Downs' Syndrome is a neanderthal holdout, or are you just basing this on a few illustrations of neanderthals with prothagonous jaws and sloping foreheads?

In the real world, distinct from termy's racist fantasies, Down's Syndrome is caused by trisomy 21. That is the person in question carries 3 chromosome 21 in every cell instead of the usual pair. This is almost always a result of a problem in the division of the either the egg or sperm cell that led to the affected person. It is not a recessive gene that is passed from parent to child. As a matter of fact most people with trisomy 21 are sterile but in the rare instances where they do have children the offspring usually inherit trisomy 21 as well.

My mistake. Thank you for clearing that up.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 132
RE: Genes Say Some Are Part Neanderthal - 5/12/2010 9:23:20 AM   
MsAlisedeSade


Posts: 92
Joined: 4/21/2010
Status: offline
There are theories that support that Neanderhals and Cro Magnon man existed at the same time. Both were Homo Sapiens so the possibility of intermixing and producing offspring is possible. a good example is the wolf-dog hybrid, Since they both are canines (of the same species) they can produce fertile offspring that can reproduce and so on. Scientist are still arguing whether or not the finding of Lapedos Child which some believe is a hybrid of Cro Magnon and Neanderthal man.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


People of European descent, as well as oriental people and islanders... everyone but people whose lineage is directly African, are part Neanderthal. There is also speculation about other such mixing even further back in time with more ancient hominids, and the genetic research continues.

I wonder about the specifics, how that worked. Was there war, where brides were captured? Or were they friendly exchanges for the most part?

Were the last Neanderthals the proverbial ogres and trolls who lived under bridges, etc?

But I digress. Here's the article:

quote:


WASHINGTON – We have met Neanderthal and he is us — at least a little. The most detailed look yet at the Neanderthal genome helps answer one of the most debated questions in anthropology: Did Neanderthals and modern humans mate? The answer is yes, there is at least some cave man biology in most of us. Between 1 percent and 4 percent of genes in people from Europe and Asia trace back to Neanderthals.

"They live on, a little bit," says Svante Paabo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

Researchers led by Paabo, Richard E. Green of the University of California, Santa Cruz, and David Reich of Harvard Medical School compared the genetic material collected from the bones of three Neanderthals with that from five modern humans. Their findings, reported in Friday's edition of the journal Science, show a relationship between Neanderthals and modern people outside Africa, Paabo said.

That suggests that interbreeding occurred in the Middle East, where both modern humans and Neanderthals lived thousands of years ago, he said.

Full article here





< Message edited by MsAlisedeSade -- 5/12/2010 9:51:36 AM >


_____________________________

My Clips

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 133
RE: Genes Say Some Are Part Neanderthal - 5/12/2010 9:34:09 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Caius
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
I'm not saying its impossible I just think its unlikely. Keep in mind that H neandertalis was clearly not the same as H sapiens. The limb proportions and skull morphology are very different.


Well, many species overcome much more distinct variation within their own species in choosing mates, not even considering the many species in which the sexes are so different that they were initially mistaken for entirely different creatures.  Such superficial distinctions don't always matter.  Granted, these kinds of differences mean a fair bit more to hominids than they do in other parts of even the mammalian sphere, but even so I'm doubtful that the differences in question would have been that big a hurtle to the occasional (and remember, it need be only occasional) voluntary interbreeding between Homo sapiens sapiens and Neanderthals. 

Furthermore there's something of a peculiarity in your assumption that that these species would not find each-other to be acceptable enough for 'willing' interbreeding.  Rape is still a willing act for one of the two parties involved.  It seems odd to make the assumption that the females would be horrified by the prospect of the interbreeding and the males gung-ho for it, especially when it was the females of the two species were the ones who looked so vastly different (Neanderthal females seem to have possessed few of the distinguishing secondary sexual characteristics that mark such a striking difference between males and females in our species*) while the males of both species looked, by comparison at least, much more similar.  So, you'd really expect the opposite, if anything; I personally expect neither side was too picky to prevent the occasional "walk on the wild side," so to speak.   So, unless you think Neanderthal man simply saw tits for the first time and thought, "Damn, I gotta get me some of that!" -- which may be appealing argument to us but was unlikely to move a species adapted to flat-cheastedness for unbroken millions of years, we have yet another reason to doubt the "rape was the driving force of Neanderthal man's entry into out genetics" theory.

I'll readily admit to making some assumptions but they're founded in good science. First I'm assuming that H sapiens and H neandertalis bands were male led (true of common chimps and both species of gorrila). Therefore for the cross breeding to get into and stay in our gene pool the female involved would have had to be part of a H sapiens band. This suggests that either a female H neandertalis joined a sapiens band, unlikely due to the extreme differences in diet, or that the female H sapiens bore a child from a mating outside the group. That outgroup mating was, IMO, the most likely occurence and as much as we might like the Romeo and Juliet romance the truth is likely closer to rape as weapon of war when bands of the two species were in direct competition.

quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
There doesn't seem to have been any mixing of material culture (H neandertalis sites don't start having tools developed by H sapiens after the two came into contact) which probably excludes peaceful cohabitation and trade.


Trade, certainly not, but then strictly speaking trade didn't exist anywhere in the world at this time, or at least was an extreme rarity, being one of the last precursors of human culture to manifest itself during the gradual progression of prehistory into history.  What you aptly call the material culture was more often a case of inheritance.   As for cohabitation, it depends on your definition.  We knows the two species to have coexisted over vast swaths of western Eurasia, including the bulk of southern Europe and very frequently in close enough proximity that they would have at the very least been routinely aware of one-another existence.  As for them sitting down at the campfire to try to communicate with one-another, no, of course not.  But then, bands of the same species would not have even done this at the time.  The human world was a very isolated thing during this period, with one group having no more conception of the greater community of their species than any given group of Darwin's finches do.

This doesn't hold up. We know tool styles spread rapidly after introduction. Specifically the Upper Paleolithic Revolution. We also know that H neandertalis did not adapt these new tool technologies despite lasting roughly 20,000 years past when they were introduced. That's an awfully long time during which the same basic tool tech spread throughout H sapiens but made no inroads in the other species. Clearly H sapiens traded, including knowledge, and clearly this trade did not include H neadertalis.

(in reply to Caius)
Profile   Post #: 134
RE: Genes Say Some Are Part Neanderthal - 5/12/2010 9:50:10 AM   
MsAlisedeSade


Posts: 92
Joined: 4/21/2010
Status: offline

Homo Sapien Neaderthalensis and Homo Sapien Sapein. Doesn't that make them both Homo Sapien?

_____________________________

My Clips

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 135
RE: Genes Say Some Are Part Neanderthal - 5/12/2010 4:25:58 PM   
Caius


Posts: 175
Joined: 2/2/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I'll readily admit to making some assumptions but they're founded in good science. First I'm assuming that H sapiens and H neandertalis bands were male led (true of common chimps and both species of gorrila). Therefore for the cross breeding to get into and stay in our gene pool the female involved would have had to be part of a H sapiens band. This suggests that either a female H neandertalis joined a sapiens band, unlikely due to the extreme differences in diet, or that the female H sapiens bore a child from a mating outside the group. That outgroup mating was, IMO, the most likely occurence and as much as we might like the Romeo and Juliet romance the truth is likely closer to rape as weapon of war when bands of the two species were in direct competition.



Really, it would be better if you read my previous posts if you're going to continue to discuss these points with me.  Many of your arguments have already been addressed in-full within them.   Yes, your assumptions are founded in good science in the respect that you are applying the empirical process properly with what you know, but you are lacking some rather crucial knowledge about the particulars of...

The context in which members of these species are most likely to have met and the nature of conflict between bands (which people keep wanting to unrealistically analogize to war):   http://www.collarchat.com/m.asp?m=3198031&mpage=4&key=

and

The nature of sexual selection and the rarity of rape as a reproductive strategy:  http://www.collarchat.com/m.asp?m=3200189&mpage=4&key=


Yes, you are correct, these bands were almost certainly male-led, in the context of both species.  Specifically they would have tended to have had an hierarchy presided over by a dominant male who had his pick of the females and would have been the final arbiter on whether new members (almost invariably female) were admitted to the group (although this hierarchy is mitigated some by the fact that this is right in the thick of the period in which we believe Homo sapiens to have begun to diversify towards slightly less polygamous mating practices).  However, the male-dominant structure is exactly the reason we can expect there to have been ample opportunity for willing breeding between the two species when a female desperately (due to hunger and fear) sought admittance into a band of the opposite species after having left her own -- either because the group disintegrated or drove off excess females during a time of strained resources or because, for the sake of genetic diversity, females were prone to wander off anyway, both of which scenarios are consistent with how modern non-human primates deal with these situations and both of which are part of the accepted model of how our ancestors would have behaved --  and been granted admittance. 

There's absolutely no reason to believe that the initial interbreedings couldn't have taken place in this manner -- dietary differences alone do not suffice as both species were opportunistic hunter-gatherers who clearly were able to survive in the same environments and the only notable difference that is attested to in their eating habits is that Neanderthals preferred to get the vast majority of their protein from meat. Anyway, the fact that the resulting offspring survived in such amazing numbers that they to this day account for up to 4% of the genetic material of some persons today, many tens of thousands of  years after the last of these breedings occurred, demonstrates that the offspring were not at a significant  competitive disadvantage in the context of the species they were raised within and thus it is unlikely the dietary needs of their 'outsider' parent were insurmountable. Consider that the entire reason that Neanderthal man became extinct in the first place was largely that they were out-competed for the food sources they shared with Homo sapiens sapiens; so not only was their shared diet considerable, but in this this context a  a female Neanderthal joining a Homo sapiens sapiens group would, on average, be presented with much better eating opportunities than she would be getting in Neanderthal bands which were, bone records show, routinely suffering from mal-nutrition once Cro-magnon man came on the scene while a female Homo sapiens sapiens joining a  Neanderthal band would have had considerably smaller caloric requirements than the rest of the members of the band.

Let's also bear in mind that once the initial breeding took place the resulting hybrid offspring would have been more sexually acceptable to more members of both species as females moved from group to group.  Really what this new evidence does is open up the door again for the idea that Neanderthals were as much absorbed into Cro-magnon man as they were driven to extrinction by them.  The interbreeding may not have even been all that rare, it could simply be a case of the specimens with more Neanderthal DNA being only so well adapted compared to their contemporaries and thus not surviving as readily to pass on their genes.   Regardless, as the bands became slightly more amalgamated (and again, given the amount of Neanderthal DNA that has survived, it is fair to assume that there was the occasional region dotted with the rare band that had predominantly members who were much closer to true hybrids), then normal breeding behaviours would have been even further expected.   In any account, as there was ample context for willing interbreeding we have no reason to believe rape was a driving factor in the introduction of Neanderthal genetic material into out surviving species, that it was to any significant degree more common as a breeding strategy between these species than it was within them -- that is to say, very rare compared to the more common willing mating consistent with the driving force of sexual selection.   We don't need star-crossed lovers to assume this model, we simply need go with the odds. 



quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

This doesn't hold up. We know tool styles spread rapidly after introduction. Specifically the Upper Paleolithic Revolution. We also know that H neandertalis did not adapt these new tool technologies despite lasting roughly 20,000 years past when they were introduced. That's an awfully long time during which the same basic tool tech spread throughout H sapiens but made no inroads in the other species. Clearly H sapiens traded, including knowledge, and clearly this trade did not include H neadertalis.


Trade in the sense of actual commerce (the exchange of goods and technologies via bartering) was, at the very most, a relative rarity.  The tools spread 'rapidly' only in in the sense that they spread more quickly than their precursors in Homo sapiens sapiens' forerunners.  The tool-lore, what little of it was not innate to the human brain by this point, was inherited (in the educational, not genetic, sense) and to some limited extent spread by members slowly migrating to other bands, these three factors (innate knowledge, spread of the species, rare occasion of a new member bringing her native band's neat new little trick to a new group) more than capable of accounting for the 'rapid' spread of these tools in the context of tens of thousands of years.  Regardless, Cro-Magnon left Africa and migrated into Neanderthal lands (the Near East and Europe) already possessing the majority of its tool-fashioning capability.  Also note that the Great Leap Forward is a concept of some uncertainty and fraught with debate even amongst it's adherents, so we have to be careful about adding it to our empirical treatment of this subject, though mind you I agree with the likelihood of many of its elements.   Anyway, the inability for Neanderthals to acquire this knowledge says nothing about Cro-magnon exchange of ideas; Neanderthals were simply incapable of adapting these technologies, as is evidenced by the fact that they lived in the same environment for hundreds of thousands of years and never adapted their precursor technologies the way Homo sapiens sapiens did.   On a side-note, 20, 000 years may be a little on the high-side for the period we now expect the two species to have co-existed together.   In fact, it might be twice the amount of time it took Cro-magnon to drive them into extinction/absorb them to some small degree, if you accept the most recent models.  I still tend towards the more neutral 15, 000 years, but then, clearly, I'm a consensus builder. ;)


< Message edited by Caius -- 5/12/2010 4:36:51 PM >

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 136
RE: Genes Say Some Are Part Neanderthal - 5/12/2010 4:34:07 PM   
FetishRose


Posts: 212
Joined: 8/7/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity



And what it might have been like for a woman with a modern human's body to carry and give birth to a half Neanderthal baby?



*Rips out her undergrad Anthro degree*
At least in skeletal structure, Neanderthal was a much more heavily boned creature, and their women had much wider hips.  The skeletons of Neanderthal infants found also have a heavier bone structure, and likely weighed considerably more than your average human infant.  Thus, it is likely that a Homo sapiens woman would have had a very hard pregnancy indeed, if impregnated by a Neanderthal man.

*Puts her degree back in the drawer*
Owwwiiieee.  Can you imagine giving birth to a 15 pound baby with a head one and a half times as big as a modern infant?  Yeowch.

< Message edited by FetishRose -- 5/12/2010 4:36:13 PM >

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 137
RE: Genes Say Some Are Part Neanderthal - 5/12/2010 4:59:19 PM   
Caius


Posts: 175
Joined: 2/2/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FetishRose

Owwwiiieee.  Can you imagine giving birth to a 15 pound baby with a head one and a half times as big as a modern infant?  Yeowch.


Indeed...






Pictured: Crybaby.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Caius -- 5/12/2010 5:15:47 PM >

(in reply to FetishRose)
Profile   Post #: 138
RE: Genes Say Some Are Part Neanderthal - 5/13/2010 10:46:30 AM   
calamitysandra


Posts: 1682
Joined: 3/17/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsAlisedeSade


Homo Sapien Neaderthalensis and Homo Sapien Sapein. Doesn't that make them both Homo Sapien?


Homo Sapiens Neaderthalensis is outdated, it is now Homo Neaderthalensis. The old nomenclature stems from the mistaken believe, that the Neanderthaler was a subspecies of Homo Sapiens.

The common ancestor for both is believed to be Homo Erectus, who followed out of Homo Ergaster.


So both were Homo, but only one was Homo Sapiens.

_____________________________

"Whenever people are laughing, they are generally not killing one another"
Alan Alda


(in reply to MsAlisedeSade)
Profile   Post #: 139
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Genes Say Some Are Part Neanderthal Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109