293 replies to this topic

[The Puzzler]

BigfootBuster, on 04 May 2011 - 12:06 PM, said:

Last Neanderthals Were Smart, Sophisticated
http://dsc.discovery...thal-tools.html

Thanks for that article Bigfoot.

"This study offers a rare chance to answer some crucial questions about just how technologically advanced Neanderthals were and how they compare with our own species," said Barney Sloane, head of Historic Environment Commissions at English Heritage.

Archaeologist Mike Pitts, the publisher of British Archeology, echoed the sentiment.

Pitts told Discovery News that just "a generation ago, people thought the Paleolithic in Britain was little more than a lot of un-stratified flint hand axes and a few rare fossils, and now we are increasingly finding really well preserved in situ material."

"It was always there, but no one had the confidence to seek it out," Pitts added.

http://dsc.discovery...l-tools-02.html

[The Puzzler]

SYDNEY: Modern humans contain a little bit of Neanderthal, according to a new theory, because the two interbred and became one species.

The theory is the latest addition to the ongoing debate about what happened to this early species of human.

In a paper published this week in the U.S. journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a team of European researchers report a "mosaic of modern human and archaic Neanderthal features" in 30,000 -year-old human fossils from Romania.

Co-author Erik Trinkaus from Washington University explains: "[Some] closely related species of mammals freely interbreed, produce fertile viable offspring, and blend populations." This is what appears to have happened with Neanderthals and modern humans, he says.

Shorter and stouter than modern humans, but with larger brains, Neanderthals lived in Europe, central Asia and the Middle East for about 170,000 years before disappearing between 33,000 to 24,000 years ago.


http://www.cosmosmag...thals-interbred

What did Gooch say - the 2 interbred and became one - us.

'New' theory, gotta love that.

[cormac mac airt]

Quote

"What we falsify here is the very hard Out of Africa theory," said Pääbo. "We show that outside Africa there is this 1% to 4% that came from archaic humans. Of course, it's totally possible that archaic forms that we don't know contributed to Africans today. I don't think we should take this as evidence that only people outside Africa have some 'caveman' biology within them."

Study: Neanderthal DNA Lives On in Modern Humans

Quote

Professor Chris Stringer, research leader in human origins at London's Natural History Museum, is one of the architects of the Out of Africa theory. He told BBC News: "In some ways [the study] confirms what we already knew, in that the Neanderthals look like a separate line.

Neanderthal genes 'survive in us'

Quote

It is important to note that although we detect a
signal compatible with gene flow from Neandertals
into ancestors of present-day humans outside
Africa, this does not show that other forms of gene
flow did not occur (Fig. 6).

And

Quote

Although gene flow from Neandertals into
modern humans when they first left sub-Saharan
Africa seems to be the most parsimonious model
compatible with the current data, other scenarios
are also possible. For example, we cannot currently
rule out a scenario in which the ancestral population
of present-day non-Africans was more
closely related to Neandertals than the ancestral
population of present-day Africans due to ancient
substructure within Africa (Fig. 6). If after the
divergence of Neandertals there was incomplete
genetic homogenization between what were to
become the ancestors of non-Africans and Africans,
present-day non-Africans would be more
closely related to Neandertals than are Africans.
In fact, old population substructure in Africa has
been suggested based on genetic (81) as well as
paleontological data (86).

Source:

A Draft Sequence of the
Neandertal Genome

DOI: 10.1126/science.1188021

Science 328, 710 (2010);

Richard E. Green, et al.

cormac

[The Puzzler]

Just to follow that up because the press release only came in 2010 about the reconstructed genome, this is the offical press release:

Analysis of the Neandertal genome indicates that, contrary to previous beliefs, humans and Neandertals interbred

The first genome sequence from an extinct human relative is now available. Together with an international research team, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig present an initial draft of the genome sequence of the Neandertal, a human form which died out some 30,000 years ago. Initial analyses of four billion base pairs of Neandertal DNA indicate that Neandertals left their mark in the genomes of some modern humans.
http://www.eva.mpg.d...glish/press.htm

[questionmark]

The Puzzler, on 04 May 2011 - 04:20 PM, said:

SYDNEY: Modern humans contain a little bit of Neanderthal, according to a new theory, because the two interbred and became one species.

The theory is the latest addition to the ongoing debate about what happened to this early species of human.

In a paper published this week in the U.S. journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a team of European researchers report a "mosaic of modern human and archaic Neanderthal features" in 30,000 -year-old human fossils from Romania.

Co-author Erik Trinkaus from Washington University explains: "[Some] closely related species of mammals freely interbreed, produce fertile viable offspring, and blend populations." This is what appears to have happened with Neanderthals and modern humans, he says.

Shorter and stouter than modern humans, but with larger brains, Neanderthals lived in Europe, central Asia and the Middle East for about 170,000 years before disappearing between 33,000 to 24,000 years ago.


http://www.cosmosmag...thals-interbred

What did Gooch say - the 2 interbred and became one - us.

'New' theory, gotta love that.

Besides being a little sensationalistic in its makeup, there was never any evidence found that modern humans also had DNA exclusive to Neanderthals but that they share some of the same genes. Because that is more predominant with Europeans and Asians than with Africans, Native Americans and Australian Aborigines (see Bonham et al. or this Science article) it could be due to (a very small scale, after all we talk about 1% of same genes)  interbreeding. But that does not mean that a neanderthal and a sapiens had a love affair or even a cultural interchange. That could mean that a horde caught a few women from another horde during a fight for territory (something quite common until historic days) or that a horde caught a few men during same fight (because it is probably and generally accepted...except by Mr. Gooch... that pre-agricultural societies were mostly matriarchal or of no sex defined chieftainship).

As for Gooch's theory, it has very little to do with archeological or paleontological findings but are a continuation of his Theory Of Polarities, and therefore more based on speculation and his "training" as medium than on tangible evidence.

[PersonFromPorlock]

"Ultimately Gooch developed a framework and theory of human personality in terms of dualities, such as unconscious versus consciousness, religion versus science, magic versus logic, dreaming versus waking. In his list are two key comparisons: psychic phenomena versus materialism, and Neanderthal man versus modern man."

The problem with this approach is that if you postulate simultaneous opposite-extreme tendencies, then of course you're going to be able to explain any behavior lying between the extremes as resulting from their interaction. This is a standing criticism of Freud's theories.

[The Puzzler]

PersonFromPorlock, on 05 May 2011 - 12:25 AM, said:

"Ultimately Gooch developed a framework and theory of human personality in terms of dualities, such as unconscious versus consciousness, religion versus science, magic versus logic, dreaming versus waking. In his list are two key comparisons: psychic phenomena versus materialism, and Neanderthal man versus modern man."

The problem with this approach is that if you postulate simultaneous opposite-extreme tendencies, then of course you're going to be able to explain any behavior lying between the extremes as resulting from their interaction. This is a standing criticism of Freud's theories.

True to a point. When a personality assessment is done in counselling you work out your Type A,B,C,D an extreme type question list is asked and appropriate answers are marked on a graphed cross, it consists of 2 lists of questions. Your main answers will fall into one of the 4 boxes and that will be your personality type.
Questions like.. are you more dominant or more passive. I studied human behaviour to get a Counselling certificate and this is how it works, I have the chart here.

So, yes, you get a very wide area between one extreme and the other but if you break down each of those extremes into smaller parts you get a narrower picture of the personality of a person.

This may no relation whatsoever but your post made me think of it because I had considered similiar myself. I imagine the article in the New Dawn mag is very condensed in his actual interpretations of how he got to these conclusions.

[The Puzzler]

questionmark, on 04 May 2011 - 04:39 PM, said:

Besides being a little sensationalistic in its makeup, there was never any evidence found that modern humans also had DNA exclusive to Neanderthals but that they share some of the same genes. Because that is more predominant with Europeans and Asians than with Africans, Native Americans and Australian Aborigines (see Bonham et al. or this Science article) it could be due to (a very small scale, after all we talk about 1% of same genes)  interbreeding. But that does not mean that a neanderthal and a sapiens had a love affair or even a cultural interchange. That could mean that a horde caught a few women from another horde during a fight for territory (something quite common until historic days) or that a horde caught a few men during same fight (because it is probably and generally accepted...except by Mr. Gooch... that pre-agricultural societies were mostly matriarchal or of no sex defined chieftainship).

As for Gooch's theory, it has very little to do with archeological or paleontological findings but are a continuation of his Theory Of Polarities, and therefore more based on speculation and his "training" as medium than on tangible evidence.

My own opinion is that if any breeding occurred at all it may have been with Neanderthal men and Cro-Magnon woman, to me it seems little more viable maybe that the more modern woman was able to carry a baby of a different type but that it might not be possible for a Neanderthal woman to carry a human baby, simply because her body was different. ie; too ancient a type

Probably stupid of me to even mention such a vague notion but that's what seems logical to me. It's all about logical really, in anything I do, what's the most logical conclusion..?

That these 2 people, very close to each other but not quite couldn't breed at all, I doubt it, what I do doubt is Neanderthal women being able to carry Cro-Magnon babies and that could have contributed to their eventual demise too. If women were basically unable to give birth to children, dead foetuses and other things that possibly would have occurred it could have led to may other kinds of rituals and thoughts, as well as the women dying in childbirth or prior from bleeding or all manner of complications if they did impregate. The children may have even survived in the Neanderthal woman, Cro-Magnon man, they then could have developed genetic problems or died young, or they could have been sterile.
The Donkey is a great example of this occurance.

While different species of the Equidae family can interbreed, offspring are almost always sterile. Nonetheless, horse/donkey hybrids are popular for their durability and vigor. A mule is the offspring of a jack (male donkey) and a mare (female horse). The much rarer successful mating of a male horse and a female donkey produces a hinny.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey

Again, I often go for examples and logic - it seems to this this might be the same. We all come from one common ancestor - which means it could have been ONE mating that produced us in the first place. One child of this mating went on to populate out - this child had something about it that was different, an ability to advance to a new stage - this seems to me like it may have been a similar situation and the changes come from a new input in the mix, which may or may not mostly die out and only be found in small quantities.

My own opinion is that warfare was going on but an incoming approach of assimilation then eradication by disease or many other means as well as some warring is more than likely a good reason - like what happens to many indigenous cultures.

Edited by The Puzzler, 05 May 2011 - 07:07 AM.

[Leonardo]

The Puzzler, on 05 May 2011 - 06:29 AM, said:

My own opinion is that if any breeding occurred at all it may have been with Neanderthal men and Cro-Magnon woman, to me it seems little more viable maybe that the more modern woman was able to carry a baby of a different type but that it might not be possible for a Neanderthal woman to carry a human baby, simply because her body was different. ie; too ancient a type

Probably stupid of me to even mention such a vague notion but that's what seems logical to me. It's all about logical really, in anything I do, what's the most logical conclusion..?

You should do a little more research, Puzz. The anatomical evidence from skeletal remains indicates that neanderthal women had a wider pelvis, and presumably a larger/wider birth canal, than their sapiens counterparts. Further indications are that neanderthal babies were larger at birth than their sapiens counterparts.

Put these together, and it is far more likely that any successful interbreeding would have been between sapiens males and neanderthal females.

Edited by Leonardo, 05 May 2011 - 07:50 AM.

[jules99]

Leonardo, on 05 May 2011 - 07:49 AM, said:

You should do a little more research, Puzz. The anatomical evidence from skeletal remains indicates that neanderthal women had a wider pelvis, and presumably a larger/wider birth canal, than their sapiens counterparts. Further indications are that neanderthal babies were larger at birth than their sapiens counterparts.

Put these together, and it is far more likely that any successful interbreeding would have been between sapiens males and neanderthal females.

Hi Leonardo;
What are you hinting at with neanderthal women having a large birth canal and presumably neander males being adapted to a cold climate? This might place sapiens males in a desired position for breeding comming from a warmer climate and not suffering from the limitations of frostbite the neander males likely did.

[The Puzzler]

jules99, on 05 May 2011 - 08:26 AM, said:

Hi Leonardo;
What are you hinting at with neanderthal women having a large birth canal and presumably neander males being adapted to a cold climate? This might place sapiens males in a desired position for breeding comming from a warmer climate and not suffering from the limitations of frostbite the neander males likely did.

Certainly so, women want comfort, now and always.  

To Leonardo too - I'm not talking about the ability to push a child out or room for it to grow and in fact, Nordic and Western European people have largish heads compared to an Asian or Middle eastern person - I'm talking about the ability to actually create a successful birth ratio to continue on without the onset of sterility or genetic diseases from interbreeding and if the women could maintain the baby inside for the full term because they were not adapted to create a 'human' child. They find very little maternal dna in these specimens of the genomes and whatever they test, it led me at the time to think the lineage of the small amount of Neanderthal in us came from the male - as (imo) female Cro-Magnons carried the few successfully bred children. These children may have had the capabilities to establish a new 'behavioually modern human - BMH' by then being able to use the abilities that make us what we are, at the cross-over point to the BMH. of c. 50,000BC.

The artwork found in the caves at an early date might even indicate that these were done by these new people with more understanding of the world around them from the bonding of the 2 cultures.

Edited by The Puzzler, 05 May 2011 - 09:43 AM.

[questionmark]

jules99, on 05 May 2011 - 08:26 AM, said:

Hi Leonardo;
What are you hinting at with neanderthal women having a large birth canal and presumably neander males being adapted to a cold climate? This might place sapiens males in a desired position for breeding comming from a warmer climate and not suffering from the limitations of frostbite the neander males likely did.

For that you would have to establish first that they knew something about breeding, and that would be about 20.000 years later. All that remained from the neanderthal by that time is distant memories of giants who roamed the earth.

As far as racial characteristica, being a neanderthal was not exactly "desirable" at the time he met sapiens because he was so well adapted to the receding cold forest that survival presented an uphill battle, that they eventually lost.

[jules99]

questionmark, on 05 May 2011 - 11:58 AM, said:

For that you would have to establish first that they knew something about breeding, and that would be about 20.000 years later. All that remained from the neanderthal by that time is distant memories of giants who roamed the earth.

As far as racial characteristica, being a neanderthal was not exactly "desirable" at the time he met sapiens because he was so well adapted to the receding cold forest that survival presented an uphill battle, that they eventually lost.

Hi;
By breeding I just meant fit to mate or reproduce, and  sapiens male maybe being the desired breeding partner for both sapiens and neander females. Being politically correct n all if neander and sapiens could breed and produce viable offspring then arent they simply part of our family that some might define as a race, such as caucasian?
Also Im not sure whether neander males or females were considered desirable back then..I mean I look at some of the sapiens female statues (cattal huyuk) and think blah neander females couldnt have been that much worse you wouldnt think...

http://www.trholme.c...-e-danu/GG1.htm

[questionmark]

jules99, on 05 May 2011 - 04:34 PM, said:

Hi;
By breeding I just meant fit to mate or reproduce, and  sapiens male maybe being the desired breeding partner for both sapiens and neander females. Being politically correct n all if neander and sapiens could breed and produce viable offspring then arent they simply part of our family that some might define as a race, such as caucasian?
Also Im not sure whether neander males or females were considered desirable back then..I mean I look at some of the sapiens female statues (cattal huyuk) and think blah neander females couldnt have been that much worse you wouldnt think...

http://www.trholme.c...-e-danu/GG1.htm

Or, what is more likely, sapiens and neanderthal were as capable to communicate between species as Humans and Chimpanzees are. Possible but very little likely.

As far as desirable, nothing indicates that the basic signs were the same as they are today.

[Leonardo]

jules99, on 05 May 2011 - 08:26 AM, said:

Hi Leonardo;
What are you hinting at with neanderthal women having a large birth canal and presumably neander males being adapted to a cold climate? This might place sapiens males in a desired position for breeding comming from a warmer climate and not suffering from the limitations of frostbite the neander males likely did.

Hi jules.

Well, I don't think the 'preferred breeding partner' at that time would have been based on looks, nor on whether the male had all his toes in the case of frostbite. Cretainly the loss or impairment of function of another 'digit' would have meant a lack of success in the reproductive stakes, but that can hardly be surmised to have been a common state of affairs.

Success in reproduction was basically down to success in finding food. Maybe the sapiens males were more successful hunters than the neanderthal males, but again that is pure speculation.

As for the reference I made to the neanderthal women having wider hips, and maybe a larger birth canal - that is all down to the relative ease (although 'ease' is hardly an appropriate noun) with which they were able to deliver a larger baby. Given that a hybrid sapiens-neanderthal baby would be larger than a non-hybrid sapiens baby (which is not a given, but a reasonable conclusion), it makes sense that more successful births would have resulted if the mother was neanderthal.