Re: More on the Neanderthal debate

On Jun 22, 4:32 pm, rick_so...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jun 22, 10:09 pm, "rev.goetz" <jimgoetz...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jun 22, 3:33 pm, JTEM <jte...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Ron O <rokim...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

QUOTE:
This analysis, along with a number of considerations of
human genetics, argues that the fate of the Neandertals
was to be absorbed into modern human groups. Equally
important, it also says that the behavioral difference
between the groups was small. They saw each other as
social equals.
END QUOTE:

There are some things that you can't get out of fossils
so what are these conclusions worth?

The conclusions are:

#1. Neanderthals (I'm not German) were absorbed into the
modern human groups.

#2. Neanderthals & moderns saw each other as social
equals.

To me, #1 seems a great deal stronger than #2, as it is
not dependent on #2 being true... and seems just as
likely to be true even if Neanderthals & moderns saw
each other as inferior.

Well, #2 does not depend on 1# being true. They could have considerred
each other equal even if their interbreeding could not produce fertile
offspring. But that does not strengthen the argument for #2.

Could not produce fertile offspring?
Latest DNA results show Neanderthal has 99.9% the same DNA as Modern
Man.

Edward Rubin of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley,
California states that recent genome testing of Neanderthals suggests
human and Neanderthal DNA are some 99.5 percent to nearly 99.9 percent
identical.

One tenth of a percent is enough to make two species incompatible.


They could surely mate, and lived side by side, occupied the same
caves, and at the same time.
Lets put it this way, in Scotland, the sheep were very nervous at
times, because men being as they are, have rather strong urges to
procreate. They would surely have not missed any opportunity to join
with a Neanderthal. To think it didn't or couldn't happen, does not
seem very logical to me.

Of course there were modern humans who tried to mate with
neanderthals. They may even have put up with it. But that doesn't mean
they produced offspring, or that those offspring were fertile.


May I point out that mor eof us eat more lambchops than indulge in
interspecies romance. Considering how we treat our fellow humans, I
would expect us to (at various times) mate with them, kill them, and
compete with them.

If they usually lost in warfare or competition, that would be enough
to wipe them out in time. it remains to be seen if they contributed to
our genepool.

And given that the reconstruction of Neanderthal, using forensics,
shows they look much more like a modern Caucasian today, than any
Caucasian today looks like a black African, I would have to say that
people appear to be in denial of the obvious.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Neanderthal_child.jpg

No, they don't. That was a child, and seen head on.
Compare with these:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0310_050310_neandertal.html
http://www.livescience.com/history/050310_neanderthal_reconstruction.html
http://www.yale.edu/peabody/exhibits/fossils/fossils/neanderthal.html

They had big noses we know, and presumably they had white skin - they
had thousands of years to adapt to the European sun. But they were
built far differently from us. The differences between Europeans and
various African groups are trivial.

I point out that the neanderthals were very strong. Europeans are not
especially strong compared to other ethnic groups. Nor are we
especially chinless or wide hipped. The white skin would have happened
to any group that moved int o Europe and stayed long enough. Europeans
have a variety of noses. Nor do we have heavy eyebrow ridges.

True enough, these *were humans. If you dressed this guy in modern
clothes I would notice him but probably not think too much about him.


Do I think there is a vast right wing conspiracy regarding
Neanderthal?
Anyone who does not see the obvious attempts to hide the truth of the
matter, are just not paying attention.

No, there's no conspiracy. There little evidence that we successfully
interbred. What little evidence there is seems to be some
paleontologists interpreting some features of human fossils from the
time as expressing neanderthal-like characteristics. Most people in
the field are not yet convinced.


The question is why? Why all the attempts to make Neanderthal into a
separate sub human species?

Who calls them "sub" human? They *were a different species. They were
identifiably different, and it appears as though we did not
interbreed. Given our propensity to romance anything that will hold
still, that strongly suggests we couldn't.

Why all the attempts to make them into a
mere animal

*I am an animal, and there is nothing "mere" about it.

and promote this fallacy that all modern peoples came from
one woman Eve,

We didn't come *just from her. But everybody alive today had her as an
ancestor.

and one family that came out of Africa.

There was a bottleneck at some point that suggests we are all
descended from about 2000 people. More than a family. There were
likely others, but their genes didn't get passed on.

When Australian
aborigines as a for instance do not share the same mtDNA and mtDNA is
not the same as normal DNA, anyways and proves absolutely nothing to
begin with.

Ummm... what? Do you have a cite for what you're trying to say?


First we hear well they were killed off, went extinct possibly by
modern man, but there is no proof of that at all.

We had bows and sprear throwers; they did not. If that described two
modern human tribes, how many centuries do you think that situation
could be stable?

In fact, all the proof points to them being the race of Caucasians.

Nope. Skin color is trivial. Their skull is not.

In
appearance. Show me any Caucasian, who looks like a an African from
Nigeria, or Kenya, or anywhere in Africa.
Yet look at the reconstructions of Neanderthal and you will see people
on the street, who look like that today.

No, you don't. He could pass, but he doesn't look like us.


So obviously someone is not telling the truth or their methods are
simply flawed and there is a conspiracy to hide the truth and suppress
evidence of man's origins.

Or, we have no neanderthal blood, and you're imagining conspiracies
where there are none. A number of scientists are interested in this
issue, and if they contributed to our gene pool we'll find out. But
even the most remote of modern humans, say, Swedes and Australian
aborigines, are only separated by 40,000 to 70,000 years. It's been
500,000 years since we shared a common ancestor with the neaderthals.

Kermit

.

Relevant Pages

  • New Scientist: The Neanderthal within
    ... find the remains of an early modern human - Neanderthals were thought to be ... was the product of long and extensive interbreeding between early Europeans ... it played an important role in our evolution. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: A Poll
    ... Neanderthals existed from 130,000 years ago. ... You claim the Neanderthal were capable of interbreeeding. ... where the modern human Neanderthals, ... Darwin would agree that you are a nutjob. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Chez Watt: asynchronous deglaciations => asynchronous sea level rises
    ... that a Neanderthal was stronger than the average modern human. ... anthropologists shirk away from saying just HOW tall, for some reason. ... Paleolithic man averaged 6'1 as a WHOLE, with individual populations ... Neanderthals is not yet well established to my knowledge. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Chez Watt: asynchronous deglaciations => asynchronous sea level rises
    ... Here's the quote for neanderthals and goalposts and memebers of the ... that a Neanderthal was stronger than the average modern human. ... Paleolithic man averaged 6'1 as a WHOLE, with individual populations ... data support a height well within the range of Homo Erectus. ...
    (talk.origins)