Neanderthal Man and Homo Sapiens

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX@Mar 17 2005, 11:04 PM
1. Racial Groups. Racial groups atleast implies different varieties of a species, while it is sub-species which is being debated.

2. I am not so great when it comes to the human genesis. I would think it would be something similar to this though:

Homo ergaster -> Homo habilis -> Homo sapiens

H. Erectus and H. Neanderthalensis diverged from H. Habilis, and are not direct ancestors. There isn't much evidence, in my opinion, to support that H. Neanderthalensis interbred with H. Sapiens.

I would honestly save the genesis of the Homo sapiens for high school, because it tends to have an inimaginable effect on young children. I would favor neither creationism nor evolution, until the children where atleast in the 6th grade. That is ethics and not actual information.

[post=291827]Quoted post[/post]​

Thansk. It was sixth grade that I tuaght and yes evolutoin was right there in the book much to the chagrin of the fundies.

I taught what was fact and what was theory. Evolution can be proved by breeding of dogs and the domestication of the turkey. No doubt it can happen. It does. That is factual. But what happened in prehistoric times probably will always be theory to some degree. We have frozen speciments of the great mammoth, So it is not a theory that it existed. Wish some frozen prehistoric men were found. It could really change some of our theory into facts.

As much as I have reservations about it. The fact that the Neaderthal and modern made co-existed for several thousand years and there has only been one example where there might have been interbreeding lead to the conclusion that did not interbreed.

So I can understand your position on that well. On paper it makes sense that Neandertahl Man evolved into modern man. But the archoological record shows only one example to indicate that this happened and it is questionable at that, Had the two interbreed, one would think that there would be off spring skeletoal remains to be found.

I still don't understand how modern man seems to pop out of nowhere. There has to be some missing peices of the history that we haven't found.

 

[jonb]

Actually, ergaster is a subspecies of erectus. The debate on whether or not the Turkana boy and Java man are the same species; Turkana boy's called ergaster by those who think they aren't.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by jonb@Mar 18 2005, 11:24 AM
Actually, ergaster is a subspecies of erectus. The debate on whether or not the Turkana boy and Java man are the same species; Turkana boy's called ergaster by those who think they aren't.

[post=291927]Quoted post[/post]​

Let's compare this discussion to the dog and the wolf. When I was in school, it was made very clear to us that while dogs were decinded from the wolves, they were not the same species. And some of the teachers even said that the two could not breed together.

Well, I read that they are accoridng to DNA samples the same species and in fact their DNA material is the same.

Yet we know that goes are usually smarter than wolves. And we have through selective breeding created so many different breeds of dogs.

And a baby wolf as cute as it may be, becomes dangerous as he passes ionto an adult creature. Many a wolf has been put down because he coldn't be tamed.

So if Neadertahl and modern man are not the smae species and have no direct interbreeding at all then they were further apart than dogs and wolves are far as being related. I would enjoy that comparison to be done. I don't know the answers. I just know what I have read.

 

[13788]

carolinacurious: I'm not ready to jump into this one yet although I'm eventually going to get into one of these evolution threads.

I just wanted to point out:

"Yet we know that goes are usually smarter than wolves."

I assume "goes" is supposed to be "dogs".

This is a matter that is certainly open for debate and I don't think can be accepted as a "given" at this time.

 

[jonb]

Actually, wolf cubs generally can be tamed. They think of their master as the alpha. The difficulty is that many of them have a nervous tic; my grandma raised one who was afraid of anything metallic and would attack anyone holding something metallic.

It's easy to see neanderthals and moderns as farther apart; modern humans are why dogs and wolves split.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by carolinacurious@Mar 21 2005, 04:12 PM
I'm not ready to jump into this one yet although I'm eventually going to get into one of these evolution threads.

I just wanted to point out:

"Yet we know that goes are usually smarter than wolves."

I assume "goes" is supposed to be "dogs".

This is a matter that is certainly open for debate and I don't think can be accepted as a "given" at this time.

[post=292676]Quoted post[/post]​

I am refering to an article in the newspaper in which German Shepherds and Wolves were mated. It seems the offspring was much more dangerous then wolves that were raised from birth as a tame animal. The police officers doing the investigations pointed out that the offspring was smarter than wolves concerning its relationship to man; that wolves have a natural fear of man that dogs to not have. The point is that the mating of German Shepherds and Wolves was terminated and outlawed in that particular area.

Too many of the half breeds viciously and suddenly attacked humans without cause.

I am only quoting a news papaper article that I read two or three years ago. My memory and the article both are suspect I am sure.

And thanks for humorously pointing out my wondeful typos. They look so clearly wrong the next day or week, but not the day they are typed. They look so wonderfully perfectly typed right then. I read what is supposed to be there, not what is there. Not my best suit.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by jonb@Mar 21 2005, 05:33 PM
Actually, wolf cubs generally can be tamed. They think of their master as the alpha. The difficulty is that many of them have a nervous tic; my grandma raised one who was afraid of anything metallic and would attack anyone holding something metallic.

It's easy to see neanderthals and moderns as farther apart; modern humans are why dogs and wolves split.

[post=292716]Quoted post[/post]​

That was the answer I was expecting. Now I have done some thinking on the subject. Many antropologists believe that modern man developed in Asia and then migrated into Europe where the Neanderthals all ready lived. Some believe that the Neaderthal actaullly was a sub species that develped from modern man or something close to modern man and mutated to the Neandertahl creature to adapt to the ice age.

Then I looked at modern people, with Hitler trying to exterminate all the Jews. The extreme taboo on interracial marriages that was in place until about 40 years ago.

Then I realzied that even if Neanderthals and modern man could mate, it was probably a very big taboo then to do so. The two groups probably were enemies fighting over the same land. Surely if a Neanderthals could be recreated in our society today. Families would be torn apart at the "mxied marriages". It would be much worse that the "black and white" problems we have today. OH sure, the appearance by some unvailalble technology would facinate people at first. When the first Neanderthal baby appears, it would be oh so cute. UNTIL we had a bunch of them ready to marry our children. Then.....oh my...... the battle would be on.
"I don't want my grandchidlren looking like that" and on and on the babble would go. And we live in a tolerent civilized society! At least we say we do. I can just imagine the scene when little Johnny brought home a Neanderthal girl to present to Mom and Dad as his new honey some thousands of years ago.

My point is that it is entirely possible that the Neanderthals and modern man were able to mate and produce chidren and grandchildren. But the social taboos in both groups made it almost impossible to do so. So that would explain why only one or two possible hybrid skeletal remains exists. They just weren't many that were birthed.

I have come to the conclusion that the Neanderthals were defeated by climatic changes and continuous wars with modern man. They were basically killed out. A few may have mated with modern man, but not enough to make a major difference in our gene pool. There are a few people with some slight Neanderthal features so perhaps those are Neaderthal genes, but basically there is little if any Neanderthal genes floating around in the modern man gene pool.

 

[blackwood]

Freddie...

To me, we MUST be related to and share some neanderthal traits. I base this on some comments made by a couple of of chicks in the past, after popping my load on their chest and abdomen or some other "accident". They called me neanderthal on several occasions after they tried so hard to convinced me that they knew it all.


blackwood..

 

[jonb]

Don't you mean Africa? Really, human habitation of anywhere outside of Africa only begins around 50,000-60,000 years ago. Then suddenly it's in North and South America and southern Asia. Soon after that Europe and Australia. Then nothing happens for a while until the Arctic regions are colonized, followed by Polynesia and Micronesia.

It's not as simple as looking like something; most taboos on marriage are related to economics.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by jonb@Mar 24 2005, 09:23 PM
Don't you mean Africa? Really, human habitation of anywhere outside of Africa only begins around 50,000-60,000 years ago. Then suddenly it's in North and South America and southern Asia. Soon after that Europe and Australia. Then nothing happens for a while until the Arctic regions are colonized, followed by Polynesia and Micronesia.

It's not as simple as looking like something; most taboos on marriage are related to economics.

[post=293820]Quoted post[/post]​

That depends on which theory you choose to follow and what you refer to as man. There are skeletal remains of huminoid creatures predating 50, 60,000 years ago all around the globe.

Modern homo sapaains or modern humans do appear to appear suddenly out of no where. The old research says that the moern man invaded Europe from Asia ad from the Caucus area at that. Of course modern man had to come somewhere before that. There is no question that man originalted in Africa in my mind. But I am not sure about which species we are talking about. And which species were close enough to have mated if given a choice and which ones were not able to mate. I have not read the latest oldest skeletal find of what would pass for a modern man today. That is a human that a modern haircut plus a suit would appear as a normal business person or normal adult in any soceity on earth now. There is the train of thought that the Neanderthal man had the intelligence to be as have the IQ of modern man. But as the originator of this post, there is noew evidence of the skeletal look of the Neanderthal and that evidence points to a creature that looks even more different then modern man than previously thought. That does give credence to the idea that Neanderthal may have been a totally different species. Maybe just as smart, but unable to mate with modern man. Certainly a species with different skills then we have.

No one will know unless we actually fine a frozen fossil of a Neanderthal Man. Now that would rock all science.

Jonb, I appreciate your scholarship input. It has been almost beyond an old man like me so removed from the classroom and reading the latest scholarly reports concerning the origin of man. I know there are move than one theory floating around and I know that the theories are changing all the time. Thanks for your input so much. And continue your input.

I would like to hear exactly where the earliest fossil remains of a mdoern man who looks just like us has been found.

Also, these early huminoid creatures that did get out of Africa many thousands of years ago, there were others besides the Neandertahl, did they die out? Did they evolve.

From what you wrote, I gather that your lastest research shows that modern man as we know him first developed in Africa then moved across the planet.

I find it interesting that North and South America had humna habitatin befoer Polynesia and Micronesia. The reason is that in one of my gradualte courses, it was suggested that native Americans from South America, not North America, may have come from Micronesia and Polynesia. Now comes the concept that maybe there was migration from North and South America as well as migration into North and South America.

AT any rate, this is from a thread, but you have convinced me that trying to place a;; people presently living into just there racial groups just doesn't really fit. And if we had sub groups of modern man that have died out in the mix as well, who knows what the groups could be reconfigured at.

Here is my take on it. There has been to much interbreeding within the last 50,000 years to even consider pure breads with well defined features that fit all people in that racial group.

Look at pedigree dogs, we have breed them to the point that the height, wieght, color and all features are remarably similar.

We really cant categorize people to that degree. Jonb your research into this convinced me of that.

I don't want to try to guess at the number of racial groups.

I am a social studies teacher, I prefer to just group people by ethnic qualifiers, culture of a people and that sort of thing. People have control over some of that. They can change languages, religions, life style etc. Those don't have to be based on genetics you are born wtih and also die with.

Again thanks to all who have posted. I think most schools of thought have been represented here. If more have something to offer, then speak up. You may be the one with the right answer.

Thanks to all.