The Neanderthal in some of us

[American Horse]

You mean like "donkeys and horses" or "lion and tigers"?

"but somehow I still think It's possible that they mis-interpreted the genetic evidence"

You make my point. Rather than saying, "But this evidence says so and so and I believe they are wrong because.....", you are saying, "I don't want to believe what they say, so without any evidence, I say they are wrong, or they could be wrong, which adds enough doubt, it proves they are wrong". While my position, with no evidence whatsoever, could be right.

I certainly do believe they could be right.
I just make a contrary point.
But for them to be right and there to be a mix of Neanderthal in our genetic make up today seems to be enough of a stretch that I will look forward to how this will turn out in the future.

The fact that the intermingling of genes occured in Europe, to me, adds to the validity a great deal because we know that there were encounters between Homo Sapiens and Homo Neandertalensis in Europe but not in Africa.

It was also a one way preservation of those genes, because Homo Neanderthal did not survive, and it seems doubtful while they did survive that there was anything other than occasionally isolated events of genetic comingling. The fact that they are no longer around because of a failure to be able to compete suggests we played a role in their demise.

I find it more fascinating to spend time considering the situations and subsequent events that permanently imbedded those genes in our dna, because of the fact that this was certainly a case of "them" and "us," and so it was an inherently hostile situation.

I doubt that it came about because of any sort of physical "attraction of opposites", which was an interpretation I read in a variation of the same report in today's WSJ.

 

[Care4all]

Very interesting.

Neanderthal DNA lives on ... in some of us - Cosmic Log - msnbc.com

The first rough draft of the Neanderthals' genome suggests that they interbred with our own species - but only enough to leave a tiny mark on the genetic code of humans from outside Africa.

"The Neanderthals are not totally extinct," said Svante Pääbo, a geneticist at Germany's Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. "In some of us they live on, a little bit."

Pääbo is the leader of an international team of researchers who worked for four years to extract the genetic code from half a gram of ground-up Neanderthal bone, taken from three separate specimens. The resulting draft sequence, which represents about 60 percent of the entire genome, is unveiled in this week's issue of the journal Science.

Old Rocks...you know I love ya.... (uh oh, what is Care going to say, after that flattering?)

I think this is great news, from a religious perspective....

It matches up with some very very old myths out there about the hairy giant and it also matches up with later stories that are included in the Bible.

I have not read the entire article yet....and I know that we had already determined that Neanderthal lived for just a little time out of their entire existence...side by side with humans....or at least I had thought that is what was said on one of those history or Discoveyr channel specials...does this mean that there is no relation between pure neanderthal and pure humans?

care

 

[rightwinger]

"The Neanderthals are not totally extinct," said Svante Pääbo, a geneticist at Germany's Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. "In some of us they live on, a little bit."

Total nonsense

 

[JBeukema]

that explains the existence of conservatives...

Funny, I was just thinking that it explained the knuckle dragging mouth breathers on the Left.

you can't throw a molotov if your knuckles are dragging behind you....

 

[JBeukema]

It's really very odd, that two different species, not even as close as sub-species, could breed and produce offspring that would be fertile so that they would breed again enabling their genes to be transmitted to the gene pool of Homo Sapiens. Lacking that secondary sexual contact, no individual birth could add to the genetic material.

If memory serves, hinnies and ligers have bred back into the parent populations

The instinct that would cause such sexual contact, it seems to me, would have to take place in a scenario like I mentioned back in post #3, in a "spoils of war" and a taking of slaves type scenario; remember that rape is an act of violence and power,

Or the same fetish for the exotic that drives GIs to LBFMs, enticed slavemasters to impregnate their slaves, and drives Sunni Man to mate with donkeys...

 

[JBeukema]

Or very bigoted against the Basques.

Bigotry is all too common among elitists and snobs. They actually believe their own bigotry is founded on truth; they delude themselves.

Of course, people like you are better than that, right?

 

[American Horse]

It's really very odd, that two different species, not even as close as sub-species, could breed and produce offspring that would be fertile so that they would breed again enabling their genes to be transmitted to the gene pool of Homo Sapiens. Lacking that secondary sexual contact, no individual birth could add to the genetic material.

[1] If memory serves, hinnies and ligers have bred back into the parent populations

The instinct that would cause such sexual contact, it seems to me, would have to take place in a scenario like I mentioned back in post #3, in a "spoils of war" and a taking of slaves type scenario; remember that rape is an act of violence and power,

[2] Or the same fetish for the exotic that drives GIs to LBFMs, enticed slavemasters to impregnate their slaves, and drives Sunni Man to mate with donkeys...

[1] I believe you’re right about that so I stand corrected; but those deliberately(?) contrived conditions (of animals in captivity) would have been rare between two human types of completely different species competing for habitat. That would need to be factored in. The ofspring from sex between fully developed modern humans and a creature that was no doubt considered an animal, would find a hard time finding a mate in a hierarchical human society. Remember, that child would have imbued on it the lowest of low status of it's mother (an animal and a slave) in finding a mate.


[2] The impregnation of slaves by their masters describes my own preferred most likely scenario. That situation was slaves taken in battle, and consequently raped as "spoils of war." I would not assign it to an attraction for the “exotic,” but instead to show power over the vanquished because the losers weren’t people. In that very important way they differed from the black slaves of colonial America, (or of ancient Rome)

To the contrary, the flat-headed beetle-browed Neanderthals with barrel chests and short lower legs, akward gait, and inability to speak would seemed to have been but animals to their conquerors. Consider the attitude of the British towards the native Tasmanians arriving on their Island. The Tasmanians, at least, had the distinction of being human.

* Between 1642 and 1830 a population of 5,000 in Northeast Tasmania was reduced to 72 adult men, 3 adult women, and no children. Of those one British shepherd shot 19 Tasmanians with a swivel gun loaded with nails. Four other shepherds ambushed a group of 30 natives, killed thirty, and threw their bodies over a cliff remembered as “Victory Hill”

On the way to a final solution, in 1830 the survivors were rounded up and taken to Flinders Island where by 1869 only one man and one woman survived, dying in 1876. Actually some children of Tasmanian women by white sealers have survived, and their descendants constitute an embarrassment to the Tasmanian government today.

I mention this genocide to show the attitude of fully modern men towards other fully developed human beings, much less the case of animals likewise competing for territory.

*Jared Diamond - The Third Chimpanzee

 

[American Horse]

Or very bigoted against the Basques.

Bigotry is all too common among elitists and snobs. They actually believe their own bigotry is founded on truth; they delude themselves.

Of course, people like you are better than that, right?

I’d like to think so; self awareness helps.
As for me, I don’t have any right to snobbery so I don’t claim it, because unlike some here I got over feeling superior and being arrogant many years ago.
But I know it when I see it...and I was responding to the hubris of some who assign stupidity and innate narrow mindedness to others here on the board who had yet to even speak up on the subject.

So, no I do not do that, and you will find no instance of my having ever done so.

BTW the OP was posted in the forum for “Science and Technology” not the “Flame Zone,” so I feel I have the right to speak up when there are posts that flame and discourage rather than encourage useful discourse.

 

[JBeukema]

two human types of completely different species

?

Not all that different, really. If they could interbreed, then they were fairly closely related.

competing for habitat. That would need to be factored in

I suspect it'd be like when the White man was competing with habitat for the Indians, the Native Americans, the native Mexicans, the Moors, or other White people.

Plenty of race mixing was involved.

.

The ofspring from sex between fully developed modern humans and a creature that was no doubt considered an animal, would find a hard time finding a mate in a hierarchical human society.

Like creoles and mestizos?

Remember, that child would have imbued on it the lowest of low status of it's mother (an animal and a slave) in finding a mate.

you assume that the neanderthal was basically a ******?

[2] The impregnation of slaves by their masters describes my own preferred most likely scenario. That situation was slaves taken in battle, and consequently raped as "spoils of war."

Or bedslaves bought at the market to fill Jeffersons chambers

To the contrary, the flat-headed beetle-browed Neanderthals with barrel chests and short lower legs, akward gait, and inability to speak

projecting much? You've evidence that they could not speak? They must have ben able to speak, given their culture, art, and collective hunting.

would seemed to have been but animals to their conquerors. Consider the attitude of the British towards the native Tasmanians arriving on their Island. The Tasmanians, at least, had the distinction of being human.

Neanderthals, being of fairer skin, would be better compared to 'the dirty french' or 'german cavemen' or some other European group you might hate at you klan rallies.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Or very bigoted against the Basques.

Bigotry is all too common among elitists and snobs. They actually believe their own bigotry is founded on truth; they delude themselves.

The biggest bigots are some of the dumbest people.

 

[American Horse]

two human types of completely different species ?

Not all that different, really. If they could interbreed, then they were fairly closely related.
Up to the present, Homo Sapiens Neandertal and Homo Sapiens Sapiens have been seen as different species. That may be about to change, but IF it does, it been only recently; but the participants in our saga were less informed.
Some differences in the skull structure:

competing for habitat. That would need to be factored in

I suspect it'd be like when the White man was competing with habitat for the Indians, the Native Americans, the native Mexicans, the Moors, or other White people.

Plenty of race mixing was involved.
This fits my example of Tasmania. But the American pushing the frontier, or even the first settlers/pilgrims recognized the original inhabitants as being human. They shared interpreters, material goods, and ideas.

The offspring from sex between fully developed modern humans and a creature that was no doubt considered an animal, would find a hard time finding a mate in a hierarchical human society.

Like creoles and mestizos?
You seem to be “eat up” by race. I thought we were talking about two early versions of humanity, but you want to bring it forward to today’s tensions surrounding race and imputed racism, I suspect because you see everything through that political filter. I guess that works for you and your ilk.

Remember, that child would have imbued on it the lowest of low status of it's mother (an animal and a slave) in finding a mate.

you assume that the neanderthal was basically a ******? [!!!?]
I was making no such assumption! Here I was making reference to maternal status. Entertain the idea for a moment, that early in human history, in hunter-gatherer societies, the female endowed status on her offspring. The child of a low status female was either stigmatized or imbued with her clan status.

It seems to me that the status of a female from “the others” would have from the start held the lowest status. Since it would’ve been doubtful (my assumption) that they would’ve kept both male and female slaves, there would not have been many marital options for the female slave.
With the statement: "...you assume that the neanderthal was basically a ******?" you escalate your racist rhetoric

The impregnation of slaves by their masters describes my own preferred most likely scenario. That situation was slaves taken in battle, and consequently raped as "spoils of war."

Or bedslaves bought at the market to fill Jeffersons chambers
I'm not sure of the relevance. But what you seem to be saying (versus what I am saying) is that the Neanderthal’s and Sapiens’s societies were not much different from that of today’s modern day society. These were pre-civilization tribal societies living in clans. The first civilizations came into being with the first cities, etc.

To the contrary, the flat-headed beetle-browed Neanderthals with barrel chests and short lower legs, awkward gait, and inability to speak

projecting much? You've evidence that they could not speak? They must have ben able to speak, given their culture, art, and collective hunting.
As far as communicating in hunting parties I suspect that it would've been largely hand and body signals as it still is today. It has been theorized that PART of the reason that men are less verbally articulate than women is derived from the fact the male was the hunter, and silent signals were more useful than vocal ones that would give their presence away. In hunter/gatherer societies (essentially all early human ancestral societies), the females were the gatherers, and spoken/verbal articulation would be more of a help and less of a hindrance for them which may have added to their superior verbal skills

As for their art, I’m not sure what their art would’ve had to do with their ability for expansive use of language, beyond what we have already deduced from their larynx/hyrax bone, about which it is enough to say that they did not speak so that Homo Sapiens would have recognized it as being speech. That, at least, is the essence of what I implied in my mention of their “inability to speak.”

Neanderthal man speaks after 30,000 years - CNN.com (herewith quoted from the link)

"They would have spoken a bit differently," McCarthy said at the annual meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists in Ohio this month. "They wouldn't have been able to produce these quantal vowels that form the basis of spoken language."

The result is a single syllable that sounds strange and unremarkable: part croaking frog, part burping human. But McCarthy says that's because Neanderthals lacked the "quantal vowels" modern humans use.

You seem to be hung up on the theory that I am concluding that Neanderthals were inherently inferior to Sapiens. Well they no doubt were in various ways that would have been useful for their survival after the retreat of the glaciers when their competition for habitat became more acute from Sapiens (or Sapiens Sapiens). They actually had a larger cranium than their competition. The implication of their physique, as I have understood it, is that they were not built for running after game but for organizing for a kill, and taking it down at close quarters using spears (and ?). They had no bows and arrows or javelins.

would seemed to have been but animals to their conquerors. Consider the attitude of the British towards the native Tasmanians arriving on their Island. The Tasmanians, at least, had the distinction of being human.

Neanderthals, being of fairer skin, would be better compared to 'the dirty french' or 'german cavemen' or some other European group you might hate at you klan rallies [!!!?]
PROJECT MUCH? Since you purport to read me your version of my pedigree, I’ll play the game:: To my way of thinking a “klan” (as you referred to it) is made up of people who hate, are angry, and are given to intimidation; in part because they are insecure. They even wear masks to hide their identities.
When I look at the face in your Avie, I see an angry, hateful male, given to attempts at intimidation, whose probably not getting enough of something and needs to deflect that deficiency from what otherwise might be useful conversation into insults for a feeling of power, all within the secrecy of the internet.

You obviously have a wealth of knowledge about many subjects. Why do you display it in such an uncivil and insulting way rather than using it to teach, even here, instead of putting people off with juvenility?

 

[JBeukema]

Up to the present, Homo Sapiens Neandertal and Homo Sapiens Sapiens have been seen as different species.

If they could interbreed, then they were fairly closely related.

Some differences in the skull structure:

Racial variation in some parts of the skull involved in chewing

This fits my example of Tasmania. But the American pushing the frontier, or even the first settlers/pilgrims recognized the original inhabitants as being human. They shared interpreters, material goods, and ideas.

And the Cro-magnon and the Neanderthals appear to have lived sideby side for quite some time- much longer than the Europeans and the Native Americans.

Like creoles and mestizos?

You seem to be “eat up” by race. I thought we were talking about two early versions of humanity, but you want to bring it forward to today’s tensions surrounding race and imputed racism, I suspect because you see everything through that political filter. I guess that works for you and your ilk.

Seeing as the wentire point of this thread is about another race of humans

The only difference is slightly more variation resulting from a greater period of isolation. If they interbred, however, then they clearly weren't that far from eachother. In fact, many experts have long argued that they are Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, another subspecies of h.sapiens. evidence suggesting interbreeding supports the argument that they were h. sapiens neanderthalis and not h. nanderthalis (recall that we, too, are a subspecies of h.sapiens, h. sapiens sapiens)

you assume that the neanderthal was basically a ******?

I was making no such assumption!

Could they click?

If so, they can speak like the San Bushmen

 

[amrchaos]

Let us keep our politics out of our Theology.

Remember, your ideals on how to live are the foundation of your politics, not the other way around.

OPPs--I just suggested that your religion is the basis for your politics. But then, was that not always obvious?

 

[rdean]

that explains the existence of conservatives...

Funny, I was just thinking that it explained the knuckle dragging mouth breathers on the Left.

Only 6% of scientist are Republican and only 9% conservative. The innovation, the new ideas, clearly these come from the left.

Conservative - to conserve - keep things the same - pickled in sugar.

Well, the good news is the "white wing" can say they are different than "African Americans".

That gives them two things to celebrate, the "Confederacy" and their "Neanderthal" heritage.