Neanderthal Man and Homo Sapiens

[Freddie53]

A new development on the Neanderthal Man has been done. The first really complete skeleton has been put together and it shows some differences not expected. The rib cage is much bigger. And the physical strength is believed to have been much stronger. The article referred to Neanderthal Man as a different species, but definitely human.

The average brain size given was actually larger than modern homo spaiens.

The Neanderthals co-exist with modern homo sapiens for several thousand years according to this study. This was an article on MSN Home Page one day this past week. Pictures and all.

SO, COULD AND DID NEANDERTHALS MATE WITH MODERN HOMO SAPIENS AND PRODUCE CHILDREN?

Lots of different theories by reputable scientiests.

 

[Dr Rock]

it's generally accepted that hybridization did occur throughout the history of the two species, but it would have declined in frequency overall as the neanderthals died out and homo sapiens diversified. it's largely an academic point anyway since we're talking 50,000+ years ago, any traces of neanderthaler genes have long since been subsumed and diluted across the entire species.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

The currently prevalent theory is that they were two separate subspecies of the same species: Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. If that is the case, then they definitely could mate. If, as some anthropolgists theorise, they were indeed different species, there is a probability that they could mate, but it is possible that resulting offspring would be sterile. That's often what happens with hybrids among higher mammalian species.

 

[jonb]

Well, no one says "higher" anymore, but otherwise, Jacinto's described it. The DNA evidence shows no evidence of the two; however, this depends on finding ancient remains with intact DNA, a rarity to say the least. Early humans are closer to H. ergaster (the African hominid of the day), though.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX+Mar 14 2005, 08:40 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ChimeraTX &#064; Mar 14 2005, 08:40 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-jonb@Mar 14 2005, 03:00 PM

[post=290848]Quoted post[/post]​

Isn&#39;t there a 500,000 year divergence between the two? Homo neanderthelensis is believed to be a descendant of Homo habilis as well aren&#39;t they?

I think I have read a study analyzing H.N. DNA, and it said was nothing like modern DNA.

When the heck did Neanderthals become sapiens? That doesn&#39;t make very much sense at all. Why isn&#39;t there more than the one (suspected; Middle Eastern) hybrid?

[post=290946]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
The two terms that DBW used are the scientific terms being used today. Neanderthal Man had the brain size of about 1300 to 1700cc. Modern man has the brain size of about 1300 to 1550 cc as I recall. That doesn&#39;t measure intelligence though. We know that a donkey and a horse can breed and a mule is the result. And the mule is sterile.

Also your timing for the Neanderthal Man is a bit off. He evolved about 130,000 years ago and died out some where between 20,00 and 40,000 years ago. Modern Homo Sapians appears to have come out of nowhere about 60 to 80 thousand years ago depending on which "expert" you read about. There is substantial proof that the two groups of humans did co-exist. There is evidence of a human much like the Neandertal in other parts of the world as well.

What may never be proved is if there are any Neanderthal direct ancestors in our geneology. Just at 500 years into the past we reach one million direct ancestors. (2.4.8.16.32.64.128. etc.) Doesn&#39;t take long to mushroom into huge figures. Of course that menas we all have a lot of the same direct ancestors. There is that theory that there must be some direct ancestors and not that far into the past, for two creatures to mate and produce offspring that are not sterile such as the mule.

I would love to know the average IQ of the Neanderthal Man.
I would like to know the real and complete DNA results of testing which I understand is not available yet.
And I would like to know if the Neanderthal Man interbred with modern Homo Sapians and lost his identity or was he killed out either by the modern Homo Sapians or the climatic changes.

If the two groups could mate and produce offspring that were not sterile, then I would say that there was some interbreeding going on. Some antrhopologists say that there are certain remnants of Neanderthal features iin some people if you look for them.

Keep posting what you know about this subject. It is controbersial and the most avid and knowledgable scientists who are strong proponants of evolutionary theory do not agree on this subject.

It would be terrific if a frozen and not decomposed body of a Neanderthal could be discovered. Then a lot could be found out.

 

[jonb]

I meant no evidence of the two interbreeding.

I don&#39;t care about their IQs; estimation of IQs without testing is just masturbation. But neanderthals only had one material culture, the Mousterian industry, for their entire history. But they did apparently have a complex language, as evidenced by the hyoid bone.

Depending on how you mark generations -- 20 or 25 years -- it can be 400 or 500 years. At 15 years, it becomes 300 years. At 30, it becomes 600. It&#39;s just 20 generations either way, barring inbreeding.

Most likely neanderthals were just out-competed. The two species shared the same niche.

 

[jonb]

A positive correlation of .1. Significant indeed.

 

[jonb]

Apparently you don&#39;t understand that everything&#39;s correlated, but correlation is NOT proof of causality.

FWIW, in social sciences, -.6<r<.6 is considered insignificant.

 

[jonb]

Basically, a correlation of 1 or -1 makes it perfect, while a correlation of 0 means no real correlation at all. You square the correlation coefficient to get predictions. So .1 would mean the correlation fits perfectly 1% of the time. Not very good.

Also, there&#39;s a lot more to neuroanatomy than brain size.

 

[Freddie53]

I meant no evidence of the two interbreeding.

Do you mean that you don&#39;t believe the Neaderthal interbred with our direct ancestors or are you just saying we don&#39;t have proof of such interbreeding.
There is a difference.

I do know that I read several years back and the researcher showed eastern European peoples and some examples of where certain body characterisics of modern people came from the Neanderthals. There are people with larger than normal brow ridges. There are people who are short and squatty. And the list goes on. I wish I remembered who the research was.

And I know this is only speculation. But I wonder if a new born Neanderthal baby was raised in our modern culture by modern people who had the best education to offer, what would happen to that baby. Would the baby grow up and be able to learn to read and be on grade level? Of course to know that answer it would take a large pool of babies to raise to get an average. But I still comptemplate the mental intelligence of this group of people.

For those reading this post and don&#39;t know the answer, the best experts on prehistoric man do not agree on whether the Neanderthal Man interbred with modern man and lost his identity or whether the Neanderthal Man was a different species and has no living descendants at all and thus is an extinct species. New siceintific information comes along like what I first posted which is new information on how the Neanderthal Man looked. So the majority viewpoint is not stable but has changed several times in my lifetime alone and likely will change again.

DoubeMeatWhopper gives in his post what was once the majority viewpoint. As far as I know, that is still what textbooks for use in elemenary and high schools still today.

 

[jonb]

Isn&#39;t Carleton Coon a bit pre-DNA? The problem is, even restricting to moderns, Coon&#39;s "sub-species" are polyphyletic. We&#39;ve been over this before.

 

[Ineligible]

There is one skeleton that has been found, which ChimeraTX briefly alluded to, whose features suggest it is a Neanderthal/sapiens hybrid. It&#39;s not known whether it was fertile, and it has been suggested that it is not a hybrid, but just an outlier of one or the other species. No trace of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans would be a strong argument if it includes mitochondrial DNA, since that doesn&#39;t mix with the generations and so doesn&#39;t get diluted. (But mitochondial DNA only gives information about mothers, not fathers.)

It&#39;s postulated, based on dietary evidence, that Neanderthals lacked adaptability compared with sapiens.

 

[Freddie53]

[post=291126]Quoted post[/post]​

I have heard those theories, and the European tendencies to robusticty can simply be explained by the Cro-Magnon peoples. After all, genetic studies show 80% of modern genetic material from Europeans is paleolithic in origin.

Are you referring to Carleton Coon&#39;s hypothesis? In his book on H. N. he included a drawing of a neanderthal in modern European dress, and gave the opinion that the individual wouldn&#39;t look out of place in Europe. The reconstructions I have seen look like Vin Diesel.

[post=291199]Quoted post[/post]​

I don&#39;t know to whom I was referring. But in my lead into this thread I referred to the fact that they have put together the first complete Neanderthal skeleton and the surprizes were in the body shape, a huge rib cage and very squatty physique. This new evidence would seem to me to make it harder to pass of a Neatherthal in a business suit as a modern European.

My personal belief is that if these two groups were close enough in evolutionary development to mate and produce offspring that were not sterile. (Like mules) then there are probably some Neanderthal ancestors back there.

One thing is for sure, if you believe in evoluation then you have to believe that modern homo sapians evolved from some lower human form. And the Neanderthal is the closest to modern humans at least in brain size. So somewhere before about 60,000 years ago when modern man appeared on the scene, modern man had ancestors. Now just who were these ancestors and just where did they live? To rule out Neanderthals leaves us looking somewhere else for direct ancestors.

It has been postulated that modern man made a giant leap through some mutations and made a huge evolutionary jump. The missing link is what we called it in high school. There were these early human like primates more human then the chimps and then.....here is modern man with a missing link.

I did not know about the one skeleton that appeared to be half modern human and half Neanderthal. That is new information.

I have enjoyed the scholarly debate on this subject. But to those of us who are social studies people, we just want to know the geneology of modern man. Which prehistoric primates were ancestors of present day humans and which were not.

Until we invent a time machine, I doubt we will ever conclusively know the answers. But keep sending in responses. I am still learning new information and would love to learn some more.

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX@Mar 15 2005, 06:22 PM
C. S. Coon is ancient. "The Races of Europe" is good for a laugh because of things like the "Mediterranean Unity Theory." He did a lot of good anthropology in the Middle East aswell I believe, but his works are little more than a reference in the modern world of anthropology.

I think you&#39;ve gotten me with the polyphletics. Monophletic is a requirement for subspecies isn&#39;t it? I honestly will not try to deny the truth, and I won&#39;t say the same things over and over if you have me debunked already. I will read into it tonight.

[post=291276]Quoted post[/post]​

I knew his work was ancient.

DNA helps a lot; for the most part, it doesn&#39;t fit into racial categories. Here&#39;s a quick quiz to understand just how much DNA doesn&#39;t fit into racial categories:

Which of the following pairs of people would be genetically the most similar?

A. A Lakota and a Chinese
B. An Ethiopian and a Saudi
C. A Sierra Leonean and a Zimbabwean
D. An Italian and a Norwegian
E. A Korean and a Selkup

The answer is B. The other two Africans, as well as the Lakota, would be the genetically quite distinct from any of the other 7 on this list -- and genetically distinct from each other. The Selkup would be genetically close to the Norwegian. The Italian would be genetically close to the Saudi and Ethiopian. The Korean would be genetically close to the Chinese. Of these ten, only the Chinese and the Korean remain true to old racial groups under any system. But that Korean&#39;s still genetically closer to a West Papuan than to a Selkup.

 

[jonb]

Not at all. That Ethiopian would still be closer to a Somali or Sudani than an Egyptian, and closer to an Egyptian than to a Saudi.

You do get some strange things. A Gambian would be closer to a Japanese than that Ethiopian.

It doesn&#39;t fit any old-fashioned racial system, or any you can really eyeball.

 

[KinkGuy]

space alien.

 

[LuckyLuke]

Originally posted by jonb@Mar 15 2005, 02:27 AM
Most likely neanderthals were just out-competed. The two species shared the same niche.

[post=290960]Quoted post[/post]​

While I generally agree that this is the most obvious explanation, I&#39;ve read some speculations that &#39;H-Sapien-Sapien&#39; may have &#39;killed off&#39; Neanderthals and this is generally &#39;evidenced&#39; by the persistence and patterns of &#39;racism&#39; found in humans. In this respect, the Neanderthals would have been seen as dangerous competitors.

That being said, I&#39;m very impressed with some of the posts here with pretty good information posted on the topic - though I&#39;m no specialist in the field of physical anthropology.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by LuckyLuke+Mar 16 2005, 08:00 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(LuckyLuke &#064; Mar 16 2005, 08:00 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-jonb@Mar 15 2005, 02:27 AM
Most likely neanderthals were just out-competed. The two species shared the same niche.

[post=290960]Quoted post[/post]​

.

[post=291521]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
Yes I have read this theory that modern man killed of the Neanderthals because they were "different" in looks and probably some in culture. The speculation and it is pure speculation is that after killing the men and boys, the H-Sapien Sapien took the Neanderthal mens wives as their own and that is why some of the Neaderthal characteristics are still sometimes seen in people. Not all of them in the same person of course. This theory is based on the ancient practice of ulitmalte humiliatin of the enemy by having sexual relations with the widow.

After reading all that I have read before and what I have read here, my conclusion is that the Neanderthal was able to breed with the modern man types that cooexisted and that Neanderthal was killed of bgy wars and climatic changes and that yes there is some genetic DNA that comes from the Neanderthal man in our modern gene pool.

But all of this discussion leaves a major hole. Where did modern Homo Sapiens come from. The Neaderthal is the closes realative that we have found so far. Homo Sapiens seems to just appear suddenly. If you believe in evolution then he either evolved very early from the Neanderthal Man or the Neanderthal Man evolved from modern man to survice the ice age and then died out.

The only other theory has modern man migrating to Europe out of Asia, but where are his ancestors if that is the case. There have been no skeletal finds of an evolving human from earlier huminoids.

And if we are not descended from Neanderthals. Then does that also mean that we are not descended from the Homo Erectus and "Lucy" as well.

If we throw all of those out as our ancestors, we have then created a situation where the only other theory is creationism where God suddenly created a modern man. That may be true, but it goes against what evolution theory teaches.

 

[Freddie53]

Two questions I have. In all of this debate, which term is winning out? Jonb your answer and Chimera TX your answer.

QUESTION ONE:
For the teaching of this to upper elementary students we need social studies and science teachers on the same page. Which words are the best to use and whyand be short and simple.
Ethnic Groups
Racial Groups
Subspecies
Nationalities
Other
And when should they and should they not be used. And how many of these gorups. How do we determine a group? If you were wrting the text book how would you write it. THe very short form of course.

QUESTION TWO:
In the teaching of evolution of the species Homo Sapians: Which huminoids were our ancestors? Which ones were not? Did some breed into our present species. Where did modern homo spaians come from? Write a short summary of how you would present that in a lesson to upper elementary.

Upper elementary social studies is my bag. I love it. In your answers forget about how the "fundies might kick your book out or it might not be bought because it is revolutionary or different. I wnat your honest answers, not what you think might sell books.

Hope that is not asking too much. But you two have really had a ball with this discussion. Please remember that upper elementary will not understand those big big words. This is how it is presented at that age group. "It is believed that modern man descended from BLANK because Blank lived in SOME AREA and there are skeletol features found that appear human and are more like present day humans then THIS GROUP. The jaw is and son and and so forth. It is believed that humans did not evolve from THIS GROUP BECAUSE THE JAW IS DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER HUMINOID AND MODERN MAN.That is the style of an upper elementary book.

I am hoping for each of you to give a consensus that goes to the questions. I realize that the first question really belongs in the other thread so please put your answer in that thread and the second answer in this thread. I realize that with all the discussion your opinions have been changed or fortified. I have enjoyed it very much. Hope you two will continue your scholarly debate. But come down to the elementary level for one day.

If others want to take a day writng a short paragraph or two staing your position for the upper elemenary. please feel free to do so.

I will try my hand at it as well. Be interesting to see how each question is handled.

For the record, the average adult&#39;s reading level is only sixth grade. The newspaper except for some vocabulary words is written at the fourth grade level.

There are many high school graduates that can&#39;t successfully read a book written on a twelth grade reading level. They only passed by learning the notes the teacher gave or they took in class or a friend helped them learn enough to pass the test.

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by Freddie53@Mar 17 2005, 07:31 AM
And if we are not descended from Neanderthals. Then does that also mean that we are not descended from the Homo Erectus and "Lucy" as well.

If we throw all of those out as our ancestors, we have then created a situation where the only other theory is creationism where God suddenly created a modern man. That may be true, but it goes against what evolution theory teaches.

[post=291643]Quoted post[/post]​

That&#39;s not quite true, Freddie. We may not be their sons and daughters, but we can still be their nephews and nieces. LOL

Seriously, though, creationism doesn&#39;t offer any predictions and basically engages in tautology; all the evidences against it are just God testing your faith. (Hmm . . . Maybe Inktomi would do something like that.)