Are Neanderthals Connected With Humans?

[moe darklight]

lol no I wasn't arguing your usage of words. All I meant was that you can't go 100% on either side. You may find it a good idea for the multiregional hypothesis/theory to studied further (as I'm sure it will be), but you can't completely overlook out of africa until there is enough solid evidence to negate it (if it happens to turn out that way). I just got the impression that you jumped on multiregionalsm too hastily.

As for calling people names... well... I hope you all know that I was just being jokingly over dramatic

good to know it was only a joke— sarcasm/humorous hyperbole is hard to communicate over the internet... take it from me, I got the little red mark in my profile as a warning for a joke I made a while ago that wasn't as obviously a joke to the rest as I thought it would be . The internet is full of quacks and it's hard to tell who's joking from who's not.

 

[H. jonathanensi]

Multiregionalism is essentially out of Africa. The two theories simply differ on when h. erectus became h. sapiens, and where modern traits came from.

See, I think it's much more logical for the genes to move out of Africa after the populations have already settled more or less. Anyway... no one's brought up any new points... so until they do, it is a little stupid for me to post just for the sake of seeing my own writing



Jon

 

[Peter Hiatt]

Interesting topic began long ago. This year (2008) will be an important scientific date since we will have the genome of Neanderthal mapped. This is already answering some of the topics raised in this thread. Thus far, there is nothing to suggest in DNA that modern man evolved from Neanderthal. In fact, thus far (except for some contaminated remains showing researcher DNA), it is apparent that we did NOT evolve from Neanderthal. I am sure that some "scientific trials" were attempted 28,000-40,000 years ago, but apparently they were unsuccessful. They may have produced a few mules but mules very rarely have offspring. On redheads, the genes for human and neanderthal redheads are different so no go there. As for blue eyes and white skin in humans, the DNA aging suggests 6000-12,000 years ago for that, and Nean wasn't around then. It is only natural for more Northern man to develop light skin as vitamin D isn't made well by dark skinned individuals in Northern Lattitudes. That leads to greater susceptibility to disease. The lighter skinned individuals tended to live longer.

Another intersting find is that Neanderthal fossils have been found with hyoid bones and DNA that goes along with speech. Moreover, even Homo Erectus has been found with the "speech" genes. I don't know if we have found a hyoid bone in H Erectus yet. Could be speech has been around a LONG time. Being able to start fires has been around at least 1.9 million years and quality tools 2.6 million years. One amazing thing is that H Erectus has been documanted to have lived on Java only 30,000 years ago making him coexisting in time with modern man and Neanderthals and likely outliving H Heidelbergensis who is thought to be the link between Erectus and both modern man and Neanderthals. Quite an adaptive little guy. Neanderthals are likely to have been around 500,000 years from DNA timing (about 1/2 that shown from fossils) and modern man 200,000 years from DNA timing and 195,000 years from fossils. Cro Magnon has been shown to be right in the middle of modern Europeans DNA wise (not saying much if he was French).

Another few years should show a lot more intersting facts from the mass of DNA testing going on now.

 

[Evo]

Good post.

It's not just a "speech gene" although that's the big buzz right now. That would have more to do with cognitive abilities than the actual physical ability to form words. It's the formation of bones and soft tissue that allowed "speech" to develop in humans.

I can't find my old article, but this abstract will give you the idea.

Go to "On the Kebara KMH2 Hyoid and Neanderthal speech".

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2743977

 

[Peter Hiatt]

Evo, that is not the gene of which I was talking (pun). The gene I was speaking of was the FOXP2 if I remember correctly. I presume that the "Kebara KMH2 Hyoid" of which you spoke has something to do with the formation of the hyoid bone. That is a physical manifestation allowing physical speech. The FOXP2 gene is related to the brain and how it allows the brain to manifest speech. We share it with Nean plus even Homo Erectus. Without this gene, humans have a mental inability to speak. It is manifested in certain unfortunate humans who cannot speak. I forget which type in which it is seen. From what we have seen in Neanderthals thus far, they had the ability to speak (or AN ability to speak). Quite possibly Erectus could, too.

It was believed by by many scientists that although humans have been around for 200,000 years, that something formed in our brain about 50,000 years ago allowing for our current advancement. Two things they look for is a sign of religion and "bling" like necklaces and otherwise useless ornamentation. However, a cave in the South of Africa has revealed definite proof of a python religion which dates to 70,000 years ago. Furthermore, in the country of South Africa, "bling" jewelry has been found in a cave that which has been dated to 110,000-135,000 years ago.

This indicates the type of abstract thinking that scientists thought started occurring 50,000 years ago. The question is now why we didn't start evidence of civilization sooner.

There are a couple of reasons why greater advancement was not seen sooner. Humans existed in two areas of Africa which were cut off from each other for about 100,000 years. This was the Southern part of Africa and the East (Ethipian area). But climate changes over the 10's of thousands of years. They were reunited. However, the numbers remained small and we were almost part of an extinction event. About 75,000 years ago, humongous volcanic activity in SE Asia resulted in a vicious ice age which lasted about 2,000 years and reduced the number of modern humans to only about 2500 breeding pairs. Hard to get a significant civilization with numbers that small.

At about 50,000 years ago, there was a milder ice age which turned the Saharan Desert into a savanah. Man was now free to wander out of Africa to populate the world. He was in China by 40,000 years ago and Europe by at least 35,000 years ago. He found his way to the New World by 14,500 years ago (by recent findings in Oregon). There is some evidence (not totally accepted yet) suggesting he may have been here by 30,000 years ago.

Significant increases in population is thought to have occurred about 25,000 years ago. Significant agriculture is thought to have occurred at least 8000 years ago. This allowed man to reside in a permanent area. Horses are known to have been domesticated at least 5600 years ago and likely well before that. In any event, with blondes being here and there 6,000-12,000 years ago, significant population increases were guaranteed.

 

[Evo]

Evo, that is not the gene of which I was talking (pun). The gene I was speaking of was the FOXP2 if I remember correctly.

Yes, I know, and I said that gene would be for cognitive purposes, not for the actual physical ability to speak. You misunderstood what I said. The link I provided to the jstor article has to do with the ability to actually form words.

If you have thoughts, but can't form words, you can't "speak".

 

[Peter Hiatt]

Evo, I cannot get access to that site.

 

[Evo]

Evo, I cannot get access to that site.

You can't even see the page? The article itself requires a subscription.

 

[Peter Hiatt]

I really do not want to PAY for a 15 year old article on DNA.

 

[Evo]

I really do not want to PAY for a 15 year old article on DNA.

The page with the information is there in plain view, just not the entire report. You don't see it?

 

[Peter Hiatt]

Using a different system, I was able to read one of the 4 pages of the article. Stated on that page was that due to differences in phyical formation between Neans and modern humans, they would not be able to produce some of our sounds.

I would reply: "So?" They do not need to produce all of our sounds to have a language known and understood within their local communities. They apparently did not move over great distances so likely had local languages. As shown by later scientific findings, they had the ability to make numerous utterances, and certainly had the FOXP2 gene which is required in humans for speech. I find it illogical to assume that if they had these two abilities (FOXP2 and hyoid, etc), that they could not communicate. Moreover, some of their tools indicate exceptional insight. The pitch glue used in conjunction with spears and spear points is complex to make properly and teach to others.

As we finish the Nean DNA genome and further understand our own, we will understand the Nean much better.

 

[Evo]

Using a different system, I was able to read one of the 4 pages of the article. Stated on that page was that due to differences in phyical formation between Neans and modern humans, they would not be able to produce some of our sounds.

Ok, the reason I was asking was that I could type the information for you, but since I can't copy and paste it with this computer, I would have had to actually type it. Glad you were able to view it.

The debate about spoken language is a very interesting one. Here is some information on the debate you might be interested in discusiing.

The debate over the speech capabilities of Homo neanderthalensis continues to grow everyday. All that remains to spur this debate are the fossils, but how difficult is it to reconstruct behavior (including linguistic behavior) from the remains in the fossil record? (Gibbons, 1992) This question has created two camps of debaters: the pro-Neanderthal speech camp and the anti-Neanderthal speech camp (Gibbons, 1992). The head of the pro-speech camp is David Frayer, a paleoanthropologist for the University of Kansas. With his data from a Neanderthal hyoid bone and a reconstructed skull, Frayer believes it is “now time to reject the notion that Neanderthals lacked the capacity for modern speech” (Frayer, 1992). Leading the pack of anthropologists who believe Neanderthals were not capable of modern complex speech are Brown University linguist Philip Lieberman and anatomist Jeffery Laitman of Mt. Sinai School of Medicine. Lieberman and Laitman believe that the Neanderthal vocal tract is similar to that of a human infant and never evolved into that of modern Homo sapiens (Gibbons, 1992).

Neanderthal remains were the first fossil human remains to be found and are contemporaries of modern humans (Foley and Lewin, 2004). One of the most famous sets of Neanderthal remains is from La Chapelle Aux Saints in France. Jean-Louis Heim of the National Museum of Natural History took on the challenge of reconstructing the famous Neanderthal skull of La Chapelle, which had been falling apart due to decades of handling (Gibbons, 1992). His results showed a more angled base of the cranium than in previous reconstructions (Heim, 1989). This angle indicates a lowered placement of the larynx, similar to that of human adults. A high larynx leaves little room for pronouncing sounds necessary for recognizable speech (Lieberman, 1992). David Frayer used this reconstruction along with another piece of evidence found in Kebara Cave near Mount Carmel in Israel.

Kebara Cave and the finds!

Mugharet el-Kebara is located on the western side of Mt. Carmel and is at about 60-65 m above sea level. The arched entrance is essentially the same as it was during the Middle Paleolithic and early Upper Paleolithic times. The entrance of Kebara is made of limestone, while the cave itself was formed within dolomite. The material from the site has been dated using absolute dating techniques like Carbon 14. According to the results of Bar-Yosef et al. (1992), the most complete Neanderthal skeleton (KMH2) was found in Kebara Cave and is about 60,000 years old. The skeleton is lacking its entire cranium, except for the hyoid bone. The hyoid bone is a small, U-shaped bone that lies between the root of the tongue and the larynx and is connected to the muscles of the jaw, larynx, and tongue (Foley and Lewin, 2004). Baruch Arensburg, whose team discovered the bone, says this feature is proof that Neanderthals had the same language capacity as modern humans (Foley and Lewin, 2004). Lieberman and camp feel that the hyoid bone and the reconstructed skull are not enough to definitely answer the question concerning Neanderthal speech capabilities.

continued...

http://sjohn30.tripod.com/id1.html

It's hard finding an actual paper that doesn't require a subscription, but this is a nice blurb.

Also, for anyone else interested, here is an article explaining the FoxP2 gene.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/19/MNM6SS9C6.DTL&type=science

 

[Peter Hiatt]

The FOXP2 is covered in several easy to access articles on Science Daily if anyone is interested. Free site.

I think the most interesting point is that the FOXP2 has also been found in Homo Erectus. I think we can interpolate and say it was also in homo Heidelbergensis who is the likely link between us and Erectus and the likely source of H Neanderthal, too. I cannot see that gene carrying on for two million years if it did not provide some benefit. Little Erectus inhabited the far corners of the world and lived in an isolated pocket until 30,000 years ago so was the most successful homo by far (so far).

 

[Peter Hiatt]

I read the NY Times article (I think the only one I have ever read from that failing, socialist rag), and I know why now.

It suggested opinions from three sources, one the opinion that a change in the human mind began about 50,000 years ago which has been already invalidated by other findings which I cited to above. One source revised a date from 200,000 years to 350,000years for the change saying "...350,000 years ago the time that the Neanderthals and modern humans lineage split..."

Now that is either poor journalism or poor science. The writer may have certainly misquoted the scientist. We know that from both fossil evidence and DNA timing evidence, the most accurate time for modern humans mutating from Homo Heidelbergensis (the currently accepted modern human source) is 200,000 years. Neanderthals are thought to have also mutated from the same Homo Heidelbergensis about 500,000 years ago. So either humans and Neanderthals independently developed exactly the same FOXP2 gene (not likely especially since we are not directly related), or we both got it from Homo Heidelbergensis at both 200,000 years for humans and 500,000years for Neanderthals. I don't know of it being tested for in Homo Heidelbergensis but a form of it (don't know what form) has been found in Homo Erectus. One source stated about the changes of dates in question: "not flawed but rely on assumptions that are necessary but also universally known to be oversimplifications of the reality." A very good statement to hide embarrassment.

The other articles I have read have been directly written by scientists and explains it better, but the fact remains that neither Neanderthals, erectus, very old humans, or Heidelbergensis are around to ask. As we discover more about our own genome and develop the Neanderthal genome (supposedly later this year), we will likely solve the question or define something new for which to look.

 

[BoomBoom]

The FOXP2 gene is related to the brain and how it allows the brain to manifest speech. We share it with Nean plus even Homo Erectus. Without this gene, humans have a mental inability to speak.

Not to nit-pick, but this is a somewhat misleading statement and seems you are suggesting that anything with the FoxP2 gene can have an ability to speak?

In fact a wide assortment of animals have the FoxP2 gene...reptiles, birds, mammals, fish, etc.

But then again, I guess they can all speak (in their own languages).

 

[Peter Hiatt]

Good point, BB, but there are numerous varieties of FOXP2 and Neanderthals and Humans have the exact same variety. Also, with a problem in the FOXP2 as we see in some humans, we see a corresponding inability to speak. So, it is very important but not everything. Still more to learn.

 

[BoomBoom]

there are numerous varieties of FOXP2 and Neanderthals and Humans have the exact same variety. Also, with a problem in the FOXP2 as we see in some humans, we see a corresponding inability to speak. So, it is very important but not everything. Still more to learn.

Yeah, as I said, I was probably nit-picking. I just thought it might be good to throw some clarification out there so that someone wouldn't read that and get the wrong idea (that only humans have a FoxP2 gene).

It is unlikely that anyone gene is responsible for the development of human speech, as it seems that most (if not all) genes have numerous interactions with many others and the answer is most likely quite complicated. As you said...still more to learn.

Interesting stuff though!

 

[RufusDawes]

I bet Neanderthals were a superior human. I hope its got something to do with Homo Sapien's being either more fertile, or better looking with a higher tendency for Neanderthal men to mate with Homosapien women hence breeding out Neanderthal.

I like that better than a superiority complex.

 

[BoomBoom]

... with a higher tendency for Neanderthal men to mate with Homosapien women hence breeding out Neanderthal.

That wouldn't breed them out, that would breed them in. If breeding was ever possible between the two, I bet their genes are still out there mixed in with our population.

 

[Peter Hiatt]

Two years ago we were told that the Neandethal genome would be completely revealed this year. What we WERE told is that the significant differences in KNOWN human/Neanderthal DNA shows that there was no breeding between the two that carried on. Now boys and girls will be boys and girls, but a cross between the two may have been something like horse/donkey crosses which produces mules which are virtually always infertile (sometimes it does work). I can see it now, Mr Cro Magnon tells wifey "I did NOT have sex with that furry beast!" Then he tries to explain the definition of "is" as he rolls a new cigar. We need to find intact copies of the "European Enquirer" of the day.

 

[RufusDawes]

That wouldn't breed them out, that would breed them in. If breeding was ever possible between the two, I bet their genes are still out there mixed in with our population.

Or really, really, old people that survived in conditions we don't have today therefore they look different.

There have been a lot of points in history where we have classified humans living today as being a different species. So I'm not rushing to believe that we couldn't interbreed.

 

[Peter Hiatt]

Rufus, DNA shows that we don't carry Neanderthal genetic code. Of course that does not mean we did not breed, just that we did not successfully breed.

 

[Peter Hiatt]

Researchers at the Max Planck Institute have successfully sequenced the complete Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA. What they found falls outside the variations found in humans today. While not definitive, it suggests there was no cross breeding. More information will be upcoming from the next research which is the sequencing of the complete Neanderthal nuclear genome...which is underway.

 

[epenguin]

My info to hand is memory and a bit outdated, however I think it is 10 or more years geneticists are convinced we are not to any extent descendants of Neanderthals.

Before that info on the nuclear Neanderthal genome comes along, sequences of the Neanderthal mitochondrial genome (which is more abundant number of copies in remains) were sequenced and found to be distinctly different from any present humans, as Peter Hiatt says.

But even before that they were convinced anyway. N. has clearly evolved separately over a period to be so distinct. If their different genome had later become re-mixed with H.sap and left modern descendants, then there would be clearly more heterogeneity in modern mit genome sequences than there is, and it should show up in the geographical distributions too.

Like genetics usually, this does not say that mating between the two subspecies never happened or that there was not offspring, only that no one alive today is descended from them. And strictly it shows that no one is descended from N. females. But it seems to me a model in which there was much male input without any female is fairly hard to imagine. (At first sight maybe but then think about it some more.)

Then as to whether N. had speech, we can probably get an idea fro the sorts of evidence mentioned. But our sureness of it depends on the completeness of our understanding of the genetic determination of speech. Without having studied it specifically I'd guess any answer is quite subject to revision at the moment.

 

[Peter Hiatt]

Some of the Homo Erectus fossils from Java are only 30,000 years old. I'd love to see what DNA we can get from these and Homo Heidelgergensis fossils.