- #1
Gold Barz
- 467
- 0
Or they are not related?
Phobos said:FWIW, neandertals were "human"...just a different species of human than we are.
Gold Barz said:Aha, I see...just like different breeds of dogs?
90,000 hits, Phobos:Phobos said:and we would be Homo sapiens sapiens [...] But [...] we’re Homo sapiens
Phobos said:Perhaps if more evidence is found to indicate that Neandertals and Cro-Magnons (early H. sapiens) actually interbred, then perhaps the subspecies/breed label would be more appropriate.
hitssquad said:90,000 hits, Phobos:
http://www.google.com/search?q="Homo+sapiens+sapiens"
...Neanderthals and modern humans (Homo sapiens) are very similar anatomically -- so similar, in fact, that in 1964, it was proposed that Neanderthals are not even a separate species from modern humans, but that the two forms represent two subspecies: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens. This classification was popular through the 1970's and 80's, although many authors today have returned to the previous two-species hypothesis. Either way, Neanderthals represent a very close evolutionary relative of modern humans.
I frequently see Hss.Phobos said:I assume Homo sapiens is a convenient enough shorthand for practical purposes).
spicerack said:The skull was as big or even bigger than today's humans and the part where the intelligence nests was small while the part devoted to the memory was huge. So, the Neanderthal must have possessed a capacity for uncanny memory, unthinkable for us, which could have been his tool for empirical knowledge. In his more than 100,000 years of existence, the Neanderthal could have stocked a fantastic amount of knowledge about the nature that surrounded him. He must have known everything about medicinal plants, etc. If your reasoning capacity isn't very developed but you can put two and two together thanks to memory, you are somewhere at the ante-chamber to intelligence.
spicerack said:Have you read "clan of the cave bear" - Jean Auel
spicerack said:and if not the capacity for memory then what other function would a large neandertahl cranial capacity have ?...psychokinesis, telepathy ?
spicerack said:Redheads 'are neanderthal'
Culture/Society News
Source: Times UK
BY A CORRESPONDENT
RED hair may be the genetic legacy of Neanderthals, scientists believe.
Researchers at the John Radcliffe Institute of Molecular Medicine in Oxford say that the so-called �ginger gene� which gives people red hair, fair skin and freckles could be up to 100,000 years old.
They claim that their discovery points to the gene having originated in Neanderthal man who lived in Europe for 200,000 years before Homo sapien settlers, the ancestors of modern man, arrived from Africa about 40,000 years ago.
Rosalind Harding, the research team leader, said: �The gene is certainly older than 50,000 years and it could be as old as 100,000 years.
�An explanation is that it comes from Neanderthals.� It is estimated that at least 10 per cent of Scots have red hair and a further 40 per cent carry the gene responsible, which could account for their once fearsome reputation as fighters.
Neanderthals have been characterised as migrant hunters and violent cannibals who probably ate most of their meat raw. They were taller and stockier than Homo sapiens, but with shorter limbs, bigger faces and noses, receding chins and low foreheads.
The two species overlapped for a period of time and the Oxford research appears to suggests that they must have successfully interbred for the �ginger gene� to survive. Neanderthals became extinct about 28,000 years ago, the last dying out in suthern Spain and southwest France.
it seems a logical choice for the sudden appearance of the whiteman and his nature since the last ice age as ther is no other logical reason why blacks out of africa could naturally mutate to white. By nature i mean due to cultural evolutionary processe in much the same way as culture acts as an operator to behaviour in any ethnic grouping
and this
What we know about Neanderthals is that they didn't have perfect use of fire and didn't have the faculty of speech but they had tools that, though extremely primitive, made them Hominians. The skull was as big or even bigger than today's humans and the part where the intelligence nests was small while the part devoted to the memory was huge. So, the Neanderthal must have possessed a capacity for uncanny memory, unthinkable for us, which could have been his tool for empirical knowledge. In his more than 100,000 years of existence, the Neanderthal could have stocked a fantastic amount of knowledge about the nature that surrounded him. He must have known everything about medicinal plants, etc. If your reasoning capacity isn't very developed but you can put two and two together thanks to memory, you are somewhere at the ante-chamber to intelligence.
We can suppose that some individual Neanderthal could have possessed intelligence superior to the Neanderthal average, comparable to Homo Sapiens.
so what happens when you breed the two ?
You get a lighter skinned more intelligent and thus better equipped to survive species of man with a somewhat lesser than civilised behaviour.
spicerack said:I don't think the fossil record is going to help as from my understanding it requires catastrophism on a large scale for animals to be buried and compressed in mud before becoming fossilised.
A carcass left in the open won't fossilise just descompose.
From what I know, one of those factors involved in gene-dating is to look at the distribution of the gene in different human populations.zoobyshoe said:This "ginger gene" thing is very interesting. I wonder how they determine that gene, or any gene, goes back 100,000 years?
This is an example of a trend I've seen a lot of recently which is to make Neanderthal reconstructions as "human" looking as possible. Earlier ones played up "ape" characteristics.hypatia said:reconstructed face of a childhttp://www.rdos.net/neanderthal.jpg"
Can I ask where you got that information from? It seems counter-intuitive to me since arctic mammals have very thick fur as part of their "insulation" to protect them against the cold. And non-human mammals in temperate climates have thin fur coats in the summer and thick fur coats (more of an "under" layer of downy fur) in the winter. So, while a thin coat of hair would provide some protection against the sun, it would seem to me a thicker coat would help provide warmth (you wouldn't be sweating if you're cold, so sweat freezing shouldn't be an issue). But, I'm just basing this on other mammalian species. Did you base your statement on some evidence for humans that's different from other mammals?hypatia said:Humans who live in colder areas have less body hair{sweat can freeze on hair}
The images wouldn't show up for me at that site you linked to. That's OK because I googled chimp, gorila, and orangutan skull images. I see what you mean: unlike Neanderthal the ape noses are just apertures that don't even project up off the face. Neanderthal clearly has sides and a bridge to the skeletal nose like we do.hypatia said:If you notice from this photo apes have a different shape to the supporting bone of the nose. I want to say its almost heart shaped.
This makes me wonder, then, if gorillas, chimps, and orangutans sweat. They must get pretty warm in the jungles.hypatia said:Moonbear, that's correct, its only humans this applies to because we sweat. And yes, human sweat all the time, even while we sleep, even if we are cold. We also sweat more more reasons then just temp control.