Are Neanderthals Connected With Humans?

[Moonbear]

Humans who live in colder areas have less body hair{sweat can freeze on hair}

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?

 

[zoobyshoe]

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.

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]

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. Stress, ever see someone with sweaty palms? sweat out a tuff exam? or break out in sweat from eating big meals? If you also notice, people in really warm areas like Italy are really hairy all over. Sweat trapped in hair helps cool you.
Its just a general rule of thumb for humans, more so before the 1900's when populations didn't move/intermix as much.

 

[zoobyshoe]

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.

This makes me wonder, then, if gorillas, chimps, and orangutans sweat. They must get pretty warm in the jungles.

I know that Orangutans like to play in water, and that there is a kind of Gorilla deep in the Congo that actually spends a lot of the day up to its neck in rivers, which they figure is a way to stay cool.

 

[Psi 5]

Good question. I have a couple of observations on the subject.

First, I seem to be the only person who has noticed that people have 2 kinds of feet. Some people, like me, have toes that evenly recede in length from the big toe. Other people have a much longer second toe than the big toe. Naturally, this seems to me to be the more primitive form, while mine is obviously the higher evolved form of the foot. My theory is that people who have Neanderthal blood can be easily identified by which set of toes they have.

Second, as we all know, men will have intercourse with anything that walks, if it doesn't walk they will help it along and then have intercourse with it. We would have intercourse with a woodpile if we thought there was a knothole in there somewhere. In short, of COURSE we interbred, have you seen what some people marry?

 

[zoobyshoe]

In short, of COURSE we interbred, have you seen what some people marry?

You are missing the whole point about whether or not our genes are compatible enough to produce offspring, and if they are, were the offspring sterile or could they reproduce. You may have sex with as many goats as you like but no little goat-boys will result.

 

[Psi 5]

You are missing the whole point about whether or not our genes are compatible enough to produce offspring, and if they are, were the offspring sterile or could they reproduce. You may have sex with as many goats as you like but no little goat-boys will result.

I didn't miss the point at all, is your second toe longer than your big toe?

 

[zoobyshoe]

I didn't miss the point at all, is your second toe longer than your big toe?

I can't see my toes: there's too much hair in the way.

 

[newp175]

Hi all

I just read that article from spicecrack; it is a complete load of nonsece from start to finish, written by some losers to make them feel better about their miserable selves.

As far as I know the genes for red and blonde hair arose from some region in northeastern europe early in history due to inbreeding of isolated communities, after all those genes are recessive. Some studies claim that in 150-200 years, due to globalisation the genes will have dissapeared.

 

[scott1]

http://www.rdos.net/eng/asperger.htm#Abstract
It's a theory about the Neanderthals being realted to asperger,autsim and ADHD.I'am not sure if it's true but it's intersting

 

[zoobyshoe]

http://www.rdos.net/eng/asperger.htm#Abstract
It's a theory about the Neanderthals being realted to asperger,autsim and ADHD.I'am not sure if it's true but it's intersting

The conclusion that can draw from all this, is that psychiatric disorders are no disorders or dysfunctions, rather the remains of a hybridization with Neanderthals.

This is exactly the kind of idea that occurs to me when I want to write a spoof of whacky theories.

 

[H. jonathanensi]

Now Begins the Turning of the Wheels of Revolution!

Neanderthals and H. sapiens (along with H. erectus) are all ONE species. We modern folk have a tendency to split things up in smaller and smaller divisions the closer we get to the present. Take for example, Roman Empire, Middle Ages, Rennasciance, Colonial, Industrial Revolution, Information Age...

Notice how we place our divisions? They become more precise as we approach modernity. The Roman Empire and Middle Ages lasted about as long as all the other periods COMBINED! Yet, we form extra splits. The Rennasciance, Colonial period, IR, and Information Age are really just part of the Capitalistic Period (that's what they'll call it in 1000 years ).

We do the same with species division, creating more and more splitting the closer we come to modern times. Why do we do this? To make ourselves feel special of course. Humanity has a way of exaggerating its own history, and this is not excepted in the study of our own evolution.

There are many populations alive today that have skull forms almost IDENTICAL to what would normally be classified as erectus or neanderthalensis. People who have very large brow ridges, or jutting jaws. There are many stocky folks with short arms (*points to himself *). As well, there is an incredible amount of difficulty in classifying some fossils as erectus, neanderthalensis, or sapiens. Some obvious erectus fossils are classified simply as sapiens for the time they were thought to have existed in. Our classification of these things as separate species, then, is out of our own self pride... shame we like to reject our own history so much, all in the favour of our ego .

Two million years ago H. erectus spread from Africa, reaching the ends of the Old World. Like all expanding populations, it remain connected, and like all populations it continued to evolve. It's modern forms are still around: H. erectus neanderthalensis, H. erectus sapiens, and H. erectus erectus. There are earlier forms of H. erectus, that do not exist anymore, however; they look nothing like a human as we would think of them .

Face it, this is the truth, and you folks cannot hide behind your speciocentric arrogant veil of Capitalistic conceit forever. Soon the world will understand the TRUE tale of our origins, and will realize that we are no more special than any other chunk of flesh and bones out there on this funny-shaped rock that we have taken upon ourselves to call Earth.

Regards,
Jon

 

[moe darklight]

Face it, this is the truth, and you folks cannot hide behind your speciocentric arrogant veil of Capitalistic conceit forever.

lol this is all you had to say, this explains everything...


or wait, couldn't the reason we split species closer to our time more carefully be because we have MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THEM.

We couldn't possibly gather all the genetic, behavioral, physical, social, etc. information about pre-human primates as we can about humans and animals that exist now (not to mention dinosaurs). hence: we can be more accurate (or arrogant and speciocentric capitalists, whichever way you like to see it).


WARNING! OVER-SIMPLISTIC ANALOGY!:
Suppose we have a picture of a basket full of oranges taken in poor light. Looking at this picture, all we can really say is "this is a basket full of oranges" (maybe we can also say "one is rotten", maybe "that one looks bigger than the rest," but still not much). Some oranges you can't even see; they are hidden beneath or behind other oranges...
That's pretty much where we're at with fossils— and the older the fossil, the poorer the lighting.

Now suppose you have a basket full of oranges—right here, right now: REAL oranges—now can see that they are not really all the same: some are juicier, some smell stronger, some have a rougher skin, etc...

The closer the specimen is to us (in space and time), the better we can understand and differentiate it.

This also goes for people (usually creationists) who criticize the fossil record (so called "holes" in evolution): some oranges are hidden—NOT EVERY ANIMAL TO EVER DIE IS TURNED INTO A PERFECT FOSSIL, "missing links" don't mean that there is NO link.



The same can be said about your roman empire thing.
We own less than 5% of important roman literature, many cities and artifacts are completely destroyed... we just don't know a lot about what was happening back then.

Much of what we know comes from stories about, say, 400 BC, written in 60BC or 50BC— Roman history books written hundreds of years after the fact (most likely embellishing Roman achievement) and probably not the most accurate account.

So we fit over 500 years into "Roman Times" because we don't know enough to divide this period very accurately (I should also say: there are differentiations within "Roman times," there is the empire, there is the republic, etc.)

Also, there are over 6 billion humans now... technology has helped us to communicate, calculate, build, and create faster than ever before... couldn't it also be that society actually IS changing at a faster rate than back in the roman times, middle ages, greeks, and so on?

O, if only Socrates had myspace...

 

[H. jonathanensi]

Everything you've said only gives a different reason for why we do what we do; it does not, however, justify any of it.

Whether we are splitting them more now because we have more data, or because we think we are special, does not change the fact that such excessive splitting is right, or justified.

So, why do you think it's okay to split what is really just one long continuous species into three separate, isolated species?


Regards,
Jon

 

[moe darklight]

dogs and humans also have a common ancestor, as do humans and zebras, rats, and maple trees.

even though, by your reasoning, a human and a maple tree are both part of the same continuous species, I don't see much chance of a human and a maple tree socializing, falling in love, and reproducing. For science to advance, there has to be a classification system that tells us what is what.

The point where one species starts and another ends is at times very hazy, but we* have to make these decisions in order to communicate our thoughts better.

Yes, there is no clear point at which a pre-human primate (provided it is on the same evolutionary branch) becomes a human... if you keep going back in time the line is always hazy and it's impossible to say for sure when one species becomes another, we could go back to the Dimetrodon without finding a CLEAR point when the human stopped being human... the process is so slow that we have to leave our obsession to detail aside and decide, more or less, where this happens.

(I hope you can at least appreciate the difference between a human and a Dimetrodon )The further you go back in time, the harder it is to collect data, so the harder it is to differentiate one species from another (or social state like with the Roman Times).

Right now, we can easily tell the difference between an asian Elephant and and African elephant, they both have very distinct features. But if all we had to work with was 60-million year old fossils of whatever elephant happened to die under the special circumstances under which a fossil forms, and that fossil wasn't somehow destroyed... well... we would probably just know of THE elephant.

If the fossil record was very damaged, and all we had to go on was a hip bone here and there or a skull fragment, classification might be even worse, and we might think that it was a giraffe bone or a rhino bone and assumed them to be all the same (ok the bone structure of those animals looks nothing alike, so I doubt anyone would confuse an elephant hip bone with a giraffe hip bone, but you get my main point).so in some way, the names we give animals are artificial, but it's the only way humans can propperly communicate ideas. When someone says "chair," you know what they are talking about even though one chair can be completely different from another... if you have a three legged plastic chair, then a 4 legged wooden chair might have more things in common with a table than with that specific chair— but when someone says "chair" you still know what they mean.

When one biologist says "African Elephant," it's very important that the other biologist knows that they are talking about an African Elephant and not a Zebra or a Cactus (even if they all technically have common ancestors and are part of the same big long process of life).* well, I say "we" as in "we as people" ... my line is film not science hahaha

 

[H. jonathanensi]

This comes down to the two competing theories, Multiregionalism and Out of Africa (MH and OOA).

The reason I have trouble with OOA is that it is very strict on the point that there was no (or only a negligible amount) of breeding between what it considers three separate species. A common definition of species is any populations that can or potentially can breed. Neanderthals, erectus, and sapiens all were able to breed with one another. We see this in the regional continuity of Asia and Australia, the ginger gene of Europe.

We can also look at Neanderthals and sapiens skulls and compare them with the earlier form h. erectus. If we do this, we see that they have a tendency to evolve similar characteristics (smaller zygomatic arch, flatter jaw, more rounded head, etc.). One of these might be taken as coincidence, but when we see so many similarities like this, the best conclusion is that they were breeding them back and forth between each other, as they co-evolved. The logical conclusion, then, should be that they are members of the same species... think of different house cats all able to breed, yet with many varieties all over the world.

Furthermore, where we draw the line for species becomes increasingly important when the results have such a profound impact on the study of culture, race, and regional diversity. For MH, such diversity has been in the makings for over a million years, and the human population as a world population has existed for just as long. In OOA, the diversity is said to be superficial; to not exist. This, of course, all sounds a little too quantum mechanical to me--‘the wall doesn't really exist; it's just a bunch of matter waves’. The problem, is that the diversity IS real, and it DOES exist. Perhaps not in the DNA that has been bottlenecked more than the soda at the Coke company, but it's there in the populations, and ESPECIALLY in their bones, and in the fossil record.

I have a report that you might all be interested in reading:

http://studentweb.stcloudstate.edu/ahjo0601/diversity_2-o-2.pdf

Abstract:

The human population has relatively low levels of racial and regional diversity when compared with other species. In this report, I look at that phenomenon through the lenses of two opposing theories of human evolution: ‘Out of Africa’ theory, and Multiregional theory. I will first introduce an hypothesis of diversity that is based on the latter theory, and then explain each theory briefly. Next, I will present evidence regarding genetic studies and the fossil record in an attempt to show Multiregionalism to be correct. Having shown Multiregionalism to be the correct theory, I will conclude that the hypothesis of diversity presented in the introduction is more plausible than the one accepted by ‘Out of Africa’ proponents. The report will finish with an analysis of my research, and address minor problems in the diversity hypothesis and this report.

Please enjoy


Regards,
Jon

 

[Evo]

Hi Jon,

After reading the paper, the conclusion appears to be what we already know, that although there is no genetic evidence of mtDNA contributing to modern humans, that due to the small sample size, the experts won't completely rule out the possibility. So far there is no evidence of interbreeding, genetic or fossil.


No Evidence of Neandertal mtDNA Contribution to Early Modern Humans

David Serre1, André Langaney2,3, Mario Chech2, Maria Teschler-Nicola4, Maja Paunovic5‡, Philippe Mennecier2, Michael Hofreiter1, Göran Possnert6, Svante Pääbo1*

1 Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany, 2 Laboratoire d'Anthropologie Biologique, Musée de l'Homme, Paris, France, 3 Laboratoire de Génétique et Biométrie, Université de Genève, Genève, Switzerland, 4 Department of Anthropology, Natural History Museum, Vienna, Austria, 5 Institute of Quaternary Paleontology and Geology, Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Zagreb, Croatia, 6 Ångström Laboratory, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

"Despite intense research efforts, no consensus has been reached about the genetic relationship between early modern humans and archaic human forms such as the Neandertals. While supporters of “multiregional evolution” argue for genetic exchange or even continuity between archaic and modern humans (Weidenreich 1943; Wolpoff et al. 1984, Wolpoff et al. 2000; Duarte et al. 1999; Hawks and Wolpoff 2001), proponents of a “single African origin” of contemporary humans claim that negligible genetic interaction took place (Cann et al. 1987; Stringer and Andrews 1988; Ingman et al. 2000; Underhill et al. 2000; Stringer 2002)."

"It is noteworthy that under the model of constant population size, about 50 early modern human remains would need to be studied to exclude a Neandertal mtDNA contribution of 10%. To exclude a 5% contribution, one would need to study more early modern human remains than have been discovered to date. Thus, definitive knowledge of the extent of a putative contribution of Neandertals to the modern human gene pool will not be possible, although extensive studies of variation in the current human gene pool may clarify this question (Wall 2000). It is, however, worthwhile to note that samples considered as anatomically “transitional” between modern humans and Neandertals, such as Vindija (Smith 1984; Wolpoff 1999) and Mlade (Frayer 1986, Frayer 1992; Wolpoff 1999), analyzed here, fail to show any evidence of mtDNA admixture between the two groups. Thus, while it cannot be excluded that Neandertals contributed variants at some genetic loci to contemporary humans, no positive evidence of any such contribution has yet been detected."

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0020057

 

[moe darklight]

This comes down to the two competing theories, Multiregionalism and Out of Africa (MH and OOA).

Key word being theory.

One can't throw oneself 100% at every hypothesis that comes along. It may turn out to be correct, but as of now we don't know that, so completely disregarding the current theory (and calling those who study it names?) right off the bat isn't very helpful.

And "species" is not as black and white as that,* especially when speaking in terms of the evolution of one species into another. All roads lead to "what came first, the chicken or the egg" lol.* think of the mule

 

[H. jonathanensi]

It is my opinion that many, if not most to all, of the genes that eventually spread to the populations of h. neanderthalensis and h. erectus probably first appeared in Africa. For this reason, we get a ‘genetic origin’ in Africa, despite the fact that many of the individuals in Africa probably would not have moved out too far from there. This actually jives pretty well with some of what we know:

1) the human population was for the longest time larger in Africa than anywhere else
2) ‘transitional’ fossils found outside of Africa

The posted report briefly mentioned a theory called ‘centre and edge.’ Unless requested, I will not go into much detail on it, but it is a great explanation for the diversity yet connectedness seen in the world today of humans. What's more, is that this theory fits beautifully with MH, and the fossil record... and better yet: common sense.

Regards,
Jon

 

[H. jonathanensi]

Key word being theory.

One can't throw oneself 100% at every hypothesis that comes along. It may turn out to be correct, but as of now we don't know that, so completely disregarding the current theory (and calling those who study it names?) right off the bat isn't very helpful.

And "species" is not as black and white as that,* especially when speaking in terms of the evolution of one species into another. All roads lead to "what came first, the chicken or the egg" lol.


* think of the mule

Who are you arguing? The terms theory and hypothesis, in this case at least, don't have much bearing. OOA is just called a theory because more people accept it, whereas MH is an hypothesis because OOA folks run the show at the moment.

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

Regards,
Jon

 

[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?