NationStates Jolt Archive

Neanderthals 'mated with modern humans'
A hybrid skeleton showing features of both Neanderthal and early modern humans has been discovered, challenging the theory that our ancestors drove Neanderthals to extinction.

The skeleton of a young boy was found in Portugal.

Scientists say it shows for the first time that Neanderthals, who became extinct tens of thousands of years ago, mated with early members of our own species.

The scientists believe that the offspring of the interbreeding could be ancestors of modern man. ...

Full article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/323657.stm)

The article is from 1999, but the issue remains undecided between scientist.
Neanderthals and Cro Magnon coexisted in Europe for thousans of years, so the possibility definitely was there.
What I can't help wondering though is if, even given that they did interbreed and that there was offspring, if this offspring in turn would have been capable of reproduction, or if the species were too remote already, so that the offspring remained sterile (like modern-day mules for example)

Full article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/323657.stm)

The article is from 1999, but the issue remains undecided between scientist.
Neanderthals and Cro Magnon coexisted in Europe for thousans of years, so the possibility definitely was there.
What I can't help wondering though is if, even given that they did interbreed and that there was offspring, if this offspring in turn would have been capable of reproduction, or if the species were too remote already, so that the offspring remained sterile (like modern-day mules for example)

I don't see the problem.
Surely Homo Sap. Cro Magnon and Homo Sap. Neanderthalensis were at least as close together as Wolf and Dog.
Now, last time I checked, the offspring of such unions are not sterile either.

Why wouldn't we carry Neanderthal DNA, many of those skeletons could of probably just been really old humans....dare I say it, perhaps the humans who lived for hundreds of years back in Genesis times :D. It seems to me that neanderthals and humans are exactly the same, except people keep going on about bone structure and such, but just because, say, a person's bone might be bent out of shape because they might of had a really bad fall, doesn't turn their leg into a non-human leg, so why should skeletons where all the bones are bent out of shape be considered absolutly and not-a-chance-of-anything-else non-human?

Well tahts a suprise to me. Shows how much I know. You were right Westy

Why wouldn't we carry Neanderthal DNA, many of those skeletons could of probably just been really old humans....dare I say it, perhaps the humans who lived for hundreds of years back in Genesis times :D. It seems to me that neanderthals and humans are exactly the same, except people keep going on about bone structure and such, but just because, say, a person's bone might be bent out of shape because they might of had a really bad fall, doesn't turn their leg into a non-human leg.

These sceletons were found all over Europe and they all showed the same skeletal structure, with the typical short figure that differed largely from the tallish slender Cro Magnon, and brains that were about 10% larger than modern days Homo Sapiens.
Those features would be very hard to aquire by a fall, and they wouldn't then spread over an entire continent, would they?

Edit: Here's a list of sides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_neanderthal_sites) were Neanderthal skeletons were found so far

These sceletons were found all over Europe and they all showed the same skeletal structure, with the typical short figure that differed largely from the tallish slender Cro Magnon, and brains that were about 10% larger than modern days Homo Sapiens.
Those features would be very hard to aquire by a fall, and they wouldn't then spread over an entire continent, would they?

Well the fall thing I was saying was just me making a separate point about how bones bent out of shape do not necessarily make something not the same species as us, im just saying old age, especially several hundred years, would tend to wear down on the bones i'd think.

I don't see the problem.
Surely Homo Sap. Cro Magnon and Homo Sap. Neanderthalensis were at least as close together as Wolf and Dog.
Now, last time I checked, the offspring of such unions are not sterile either.

It would depend at what stage the two species split and how much further they developed independently...
Do you have any dates on that?

It would depend at what stage the two species split and how much further they developed independently...
Do you have any dates on that?

*grin* My eldest Bro has had and bred several of such hybrids. Including our latest addition... Luna, 3 months old. Both her parents half ( Malinois ) dog, half wolf :d

Addition: does my family like interbreeding?
I guess so... I don't think any of our four grandparents were not the result of what was then called miscegenation. It runs in the family...

dare I say it, perhaps the humans who lived for hundreds of years back in Genesis times :D

Yeah, when pixies roamed the countryside and by the Ginnungagap Niflheim came into contact with Muspellsheim, and the fires melted the ice, which yielded Ymir, the Frost-Giant with a human form. From Ymir's sweat came a race of Giants, so that a huge cow (Audhumla) was created to feed them. One day the cow licked the ice and hair emerged, on the next day a head, and on the third day Buri emerged, fully formed. Buri begot a son, Bur, who in turn had three sons: Odin, Vili, and Ve. These three were a new race, not Giants but gods. They banded together and murdered Ymir. Most of the other Giants drowned in Ymir's blood, which created a great sea. From Ymir's body the three gods made solid land, the earth, and from his skull they made the heavens. They then created a race of dwarves from the maggots that fed upon Ymir's body. This was followed by the creation of the first man and the first woman. They shaped the man from an ash tree and the woman from a vine.

Well the fall thing I was saying was just me making a separate point about how bones bent out of shape do not necessarily make something not the same species as us, im just saying old age, especially several hundred years, would tend to wear down on the bones i'd think.

Neanderthals buried their dead. And they did bury them where they themselves lived, in caves. As far as I know - and I'm no archaeologist, sorry - the bones hardened as they would when fossilising.

That's how one such find was discredited. The Pildown Man (http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/piltdown.htm) was a hoax, providing the scientific world with the "missing link" they had been waiting for and fabricating it according to their specifications. It shows a large brain, with and ape-like jaw, supposedly supporting the theory that human development started out with the development of larger brains.
While this find was discussed and praised among scientists, one real "missing link", the Australopithecus, had been discovered, but wasn't given the due attention. That only cam much later on.

The fraud of the Piltdown Man was discovered when scientists took bone probes and found them to be softer than expected, and therefore much fresher than they should have been...

Full article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/323657.stm)

The article is from 1999, but the issue remains undecided between scientist.
Neanderthals and Cro Magnon coexisted in Europe for thousans of years, so the possibility definitely was there.
What I can't help wondering though is if, even given that they did interbreed and that there was offspring, if this offspring in turn would have been capable of reproduction, or if the species were too remote already, so that the offspring remained sterile (like modern-day mules for example)

As I understand it, they tested our DNA with those found in the bones of Neanderthals. According to those tests, we do not have any markers for Neanderthal heritage. In other words, we probably killed them out rather than interbred with them, although anyone remotely familiar with humans should have seen that one coming.

Yeah, when pixies roamed the countryside and the by the Ginnungagap Niflheim came into contact with Muspellsheim, and the fires melted the ice, which yielded Ymir, the Frost-Giant with a human form. From Ymir's sweat came a race of Giants, so that a huge cow (Audhumla) was created to feed them. One day the cow licked the ice and hair emerged, on the next day a head, and on the third day Buri emerged, fully formed. Buri begot a son, Bur, who in turn had three sons: Odin, Vili, and Ve. These three were a new race, not Giants but gods. They banded together and murdered Ymir. Most of the other Giants drowned in Ymir's blood, which created a great sea. From Ymir's body the three gods made solid land, the earth, and from his skull they made the heavens. They then created a race of dwarves from the maggots that fed upon Ymir's body. This was followed by the creation of the first man and the first woman. They shaped the man from an ash tree and the woman from a vine.

I love Nordic mythology... it's so much more plausible than the Hebrew tales :D

As I understand it, they tested our DNA with those found in the bones of Neanderthals. According to those tests, we do not have any markers for Neanderthal heritage. In other words, we probably killed them out rather than interbred with them, although anyone remotely familiar with humans should have seen that one coming.

It's the thing I just don't see coming :confused: most warriors and soldiers I've met, regardless what side they were on, preferred intercourse with the females of defeated enemies over outright killing them.
I've always considered rape ( both active and passive ) as survival mechanisms for the benefit of the species as a whole. The sexual exploitation option sho'nuff tends to slow down outright killing.

It's the thing I just don't see coming :confused: most warriors and soldiers I've met, regardless what side they were on, preferred intercourse with the females of defeated enemies over outright killing them.
I've always considered rape ( both active and passive ) as survival mechanisms for the benefit of the species as a whole.

Well, even if they did rape them (VERY ancient human tradition indeed), it's not said that they necessarily could have offspring. The DNA evidence just suggests that we today hve no traces of Neanderthal DNA, it doesn't make statements regarding the Cro Magnon's conquering habits.
And as I said, it's quite possible that there was indeed offspring, but that these could then not reproduce in turn.
I found a timeline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution) on wikipedia that says that Homo Neanderthalis branched of the tree 50 000 years before Homo Sapiens evolved. That's quite enough time to become a seperate species, I guess.

I don't see the problem.
Surely Homo Sap. Cro Magnon and Homo Sap. Neanderthalensis were at least as close together as Wolf and Dog.
Now, last time I checked, the offspring of such unions are not sterile either.
Neandertal Man is not the same species as us. Such a view is horrifically outdated.

Why wouldn't we carry Neanderthal DNA, many of those skeletons could of probably just been really old humans....dare I say it, perhaps the humans who lived for hundreds of years back in Genesis times :D. It seems to me that neanderthals and humans are exactly the same, except people keep going on about bone structure and such, but just because, say, a person's bone might be bent out of shape because they might of had a really bad fall, doesn't turn their leg into a non-human leg, so why should skeletons where all the bones are bent out of shape be considered absolutly and not-a-chance-of-anything-else non-human?

Interesting fact. The first reconstructions of how Neaderthals looked were wrong because they were based on an old and arthritic specimen with bent bones. This lead to the popular conception that Neanderthals were much more bestial and less erect than they actually were. Eventually, younger and less disease-ravaged specimens were found and Neanderthal's reputation was somewhat restored...though a lot of people still picture them as almost apelike.

I love Nordic mythology... it's so much more plausible than the Hebrew tales :D

Nordic mythology was written by Christian scribes.

As to Neanderthal DNA in modern humans, I personally believe that, that is an assuredly.

Human placidity over the ages would suggest that Neanderthals wouldn't even be on the extreme edge of human body types, IMO.

Nordic mythology was written by Christian scribes.

It was written down by them, correct. But they didn't create it :)

It was written down by them, correct. But they didn't create it :)

You can't prove that, now can you.


EDIT: Evidence of Neanderthal DNA in modern human lineage...

http://www.adcphotography.com/p09.htm

;)

You can't prove that, now can you.


EDIT: Evidence of Neanderthal DNA in modern human lineage...

http://www.adcphotography.com/p09.htm

;)

No, I can't.

With that guy, I think I might fall back on Theorb's theory of broken and misshapen bones :D

Interesting fact. The first reconstructions of how Neaderthals looked were wrong because they were based on an old and arthritic specimen with bent bones. This lead to the popular conception that Neanderthals were much more bestial and less erect than they actually were. Eventually, younger and less disease-ravaged specimens were found and Neanderthal's reputation was somewhat restored...though a lot of people still picture them as almost apelike.

So if the bones we have now are straight and less disease-ravaged, whats the difference between us and them now? If it's just like a cranium size thing, who's to say these particular skeletons didn't have a genetic trait for big heads that people today can't have?

So if the bones we have now are straight and less disease-ravaged, whats the difference between us and them now? If it's just like a cranium size thing, who's to say these particular skeletons didn't have a genetic trait for big heads that people today can't have?

10% is a huge difference. Yes, they obviously had genes that todays humans don't have, that's what makes them a different species.
But anyway, here's a short list of the differences:

* Cranial
o Suprainiac fossa, a groove above the inion
o Occipital bun, a protuberance of the occipital bone that looks like a hair knot
o Projecting mid-face
o Globe-shaped skull (from rear)
o Low, flat, elongated skull
o Supraorbital torus, a prominent browridge
o 1200-1700 cm³ skull capacity (10% greater than modern human average)
o Receding chin
o Crest on the mastoid process behind the ear opening
o No groove on canine teeth
o A space behind the last molars
o A broad, projecting nose
o Bony projections on the sides of the nasal opening
o Distinctive shape of the bony labyrinth in the ear
o Larger foram in skull for facial blood supply.
* Post-Cranial
o Considerably more muscular
o Large round finger tips
o Barrel-shaped rib cage
o Long, gracile pelvic pubis (superior pubic ramus);
o Large kneecaps
o Long collar bones
o Short, bowed shoulder blades
o Thick, bowed shaft of the thigh bones
o Short shinbones and calf bones

Nobody else cares???

10% is a huge difference. Yes, they obviously had genes that todays humans don't have, that's what makes them a different species.
But anyway, here's a short list of the differences:

* Cranial
o Suprainiac fossa, a groove above the inion
o Occipital bun, a protuberance of the occipital bone that looks like a hair knot
o Projecting mid-face
o Globe-shaped skull (from rear)
o Low, flat, elongated skull
o Supraorbital torus, a prominent browridge
o 1200-1700 cm³ skull capacity (10% greater than modern human average)
o Receding chin
o Crest on the mastoid process behind the ear opening
o No groove on canine teeth
o A space behind the last molars
o A broad, projecting nose
o Bony projections on the sides of the nasal opening
o Distinctive shape of the bony labyrinth in the ear
o Larger foram in skull for facial blood supply.
* Post-Cranial
o Considerably more muscular
o Large round finger tips
o Barrel-shaped rib cage
o Long, gracile pelvic pubis (superior pubic ramus);
o Large kneecaps
o Long collar bones
o Short, bowed shoulder blades
o Thick, bowed shaft of the thigh bones
o Short shinbones and calf bones

Many Basques have an occipital bun. Many modern humans have broad, projecting noses and receeding chins. Barrel-shaped rib cages are common in human populations that have been living in mountain areas. It allows for bigger lungs to breathe the thinner air.

There certainly are traits found in Neanderthal skeletons that aren't found in modern humans, but that might be explained by the fact that the Neanderthal genes were seriously diluted by Cro Magnon genes. Cro Magnons lived in larger communities than Neanderthals. If they incorporated a small band of Neanderthals, or some captured womenfolk into their gene pool one would expect that the Neanderthal genes would be diluted over several generations and some Neanderthal traits would be lost.

Full article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/323657.stm)

The article is from 1999, but the issue remains undecided between scientist.
Neanderthals and Cro Magnon coexisted in Europe for thousans of years, so the possibility definitely was there.
What I can't help wondering though is if, even given that they did interbreed and that there was offspring, if this offspring in turn would have been capable of reproduction, or if the species were too remote already, so that the offspring remained sterile (like modern-day mules for example)
Yes, Yes we do Neandertahls were humans, they were more of a race, then an other type of human, they were equalley interligent. Anyways, yeah we do;)

Many Basques have an occipital bun. Many modern humans have broad, projecting noses and receeding chins. Barrel-shaped rib cages are common in human populations that have been living in mountain areas. It allows for bigger lungs to breathe the thinner air.

There certainly are traits found in Neanderthal skeletons that aren't found in modern humans, but that might be explained by the fact that the Neanderthal genes were seriously diluted by Cro Magnon genes. Cro Magnons lived in larger communities than Neanderthals. If they incorporated a small band of Neanderthals, or some captured womenfolk into their gene pool one would expect that the Neanderthal genes would be diluted over several generations and some Neanderthal traits would be lost.

Cro Magnon Genes can be found in the Balkans, they stayed there, while the others walked towards the east, but then again back in to euope. Cro Magnons were also tall. They stayed in Europe while the other Aryans went to the East before going back west again.... Then they blended in with the other aryans who returned to europe some 6000 years ago. After they had gone to Asia, Cro Magnon are infact modern humen old europeans

Many Basques have an occipital bun. Many modern humans have broad, projecting noses and receeding chins. Barrel-shaped rib cages are common in human populations that have been living in mountain areas. It allows for bigger lungs to breathe the thinner air.

There certainly are traits found in Neanderthal skeletons that aren't found in modern humans, but that might be explained by the fact that the Neanderthal genes were seriously diluted by Cro Magnon genes. Cro Magnons lived in larger communities than Neanderthals. If they incorporated a small band of Neanderthals, or some captured womenfolk into their gene pool one would expect that the Neanderthal genes would be diluted over several generations and some Neanderthal traits would be lost.

True, but that says very little when you consider how often convergent evolution happens. Technically, a giant squid and a human have very similar eye structures, but if you screwed a squid's mantle, that doesn't mean you'd produce an eight-legged human.

The simple fact is that if you look at things like mitochondrial DNA (which doesn't change (or at the least changes very, very slowly and infrequently) from generation to generation--I have the same mitochondrial DNA as my mother, my grandmother, my great-great-great-great grandmother, on up to a common ancestor that lived about 500,000 or so years ago) and Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA, we just don't share any common markers, meaning that we aren't related. I'm pretty sure that they haven't found anyone else who is related either. I suppose while its possible that children were produced, but they were probably sterile. Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon men were simply too different.

Neanderthals buried their dead. And they did bury them where they themselves lived, in caves. As far as I know - and I'm no archaeologist, sorry - the bones hardened as they would when fossilising.


There's no concrete evidence Neanderthals buried their dead. IIRC the only example for basing that tentative conclusion on was a body found in Iraq surrounded by pollen grains, which might be a result of laying the body in state and strewing it with pretty flowers, but which might equally have been a rotting corpse in the back of the cave covered in drifting leaves.

A very interesting topic this. I'm inclined to believe there was little or no sexual interaction between Neanderthals and modern humans not only because of a different genetic make-up, but also because of the vast differences between the cultures. I doubt they had much in common besides the general physical shape and the use of tools: knowing humanity it's much more likely they pointed at the strange, blasphemous devil-men and eradicated them in the name of whatever local gods they were worshipping at the time. We'll never know, which is what makes Archaeology such a great subject ;)

From what I understand, australian aborigines are racialy similar to neanderthals. "Australian Aborigine
Considerable uncertainty exists about the racial origins of the Australian aborigines, and, because no proven connection can be traced with any other living race, ethnologists usually class them as a separate race called Australoid. Among the physical characteristics of the Australoids are small, long skulls, low, receding foreheads, heavy brow ridges, and skin pigmentation that varies from reddish brown to dark brown. Some ethnologists view the Australoids as representing an archaic Caucasoid type, probably migrants from the Asian mainland in prehistoric times, with Dravidian and Melanesian affinities. Other ethnologists identify the Australoids as a surviving remnant of Neanderthals (see Human Evolution)."http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/project/theo-3/data/web_country/australia/aushumn.html

True, but that says very little when you consider how often convergent evolution happens. Technically, a giant squid and a human have very similar eye structures, but if you screwed a squid's mantle, that doesn't mean you'd produce an eight-legged human.

The simple fact is that if you look at things like mitochondrial DNA (which doesn't change (or at the least changes very, very slowly and infrequently) from generation to generation--I have the same mitochondrial DNA as my mother, my grandmother, my great-great-great-great grandmother, on up to a common ancestor that lived about 500,000 or so years ago) and Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA, we just don't share any common markers, meaning that we aren't related. I'm pretty sure that they haven't found anyone else who is related either. I suppose while its possible that children were produced, but they were probably sterile. Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon men were simply too different.
The squid's eye is better. I'm jealous.

Well the fall thing I was saying was just me making a separate point about how bones bent out of shape do not necessarily make something not the same species as us, im just saying old age, especially several hundred years, would tend to wear down on the bones i'd think.
How the hell do bones wear down when theyre fossilized dickwad. I bet dinosaur bones are just really worn down human bones too huh?

Many Basques have an occipital bun. Many modern humans have broad, projecting noses and receeding chins. Barrel-shaped rib cages are common in human populations that have been living in mountain areas. It allows for bigger lungs to breathe the thinner air.

There certainly are traits found in Neanderthal skeletons that aren't found in modern humans, but that might be explained by the fact that the Neanderthal genes were seriously diluted by Cro Magnon genes. Cro Magnons lived in larger communities than Neanderthals. If they incorporated a small band of Neanderthals, or some captured womenfolk into their gene pool one would expect that the Neanderthal genes would be diluted over several generations and some Neanderthal traits would be lost.
The thing is, a definition of species is that they are reproductively isolated so the gene pools would never had been mixed if there were two different species. Therefore either we don't have neanderthal genes, or they were really subspecies, which i seriously doubt.

The thing is, a definition of species is that they are reproductively isolated so the gene pools would never had been mixed if there were two different species. Therefore either we don't have neanderthal genes, or they were really subspecies, which i seriously doubt.

If you are going to stick with this position you are going to have to claim that lions and tigers are the same species (the female offspring of a male tiger and a female lion are fertile).


EDIT: typed 'sterile' when I meant to type 'fertile'. Mea culpa.

If you are going to stick with this position you are going to have to claim that lions and tigers are the same species (the female offspring of a male tiger and a female lion are fertile).


EDIT: typed 'sterile' when I meant to type 'fertile'. Mea culpa.

really? I didn't know that:P

Also this means that my biology teacher lied to me, because he said that the distingushing "thing" between species was that different species can not produce fertile offspring.

If you are going to stick with this position you are going to have to claim that lions and tigers are the same species (the female offspring of a male tiger and a female lion are fertile).
The tiger and the lion are geographically isolated , another definition of species.

really? I didn't know that:P

Also this means that my biology teacher lied to me, because he said that the distingushing "thing" between species was that different species can not produce fertile offspring.

More mundanely, fertile mules, although rare, are not unknown.

The tiger and the lion are geographically isolated fartknocker, another definition of species.

Horse and donkeys?

While we're on it, what is a 'fartknocker'?

Horse and donkeys?

While we're on it, what is a 'fartknocker'?
horses and donkeys make a mule which is STERILE and in case your too stupid to figure out what that means IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE GENE POOL.

From what I understand, australian aborigines are racialy similar to neanderthals. "Australian Aborigine
Considerable uncertainty exists about the racial origins of the Australian aborigines, and, because no proven connection can be traced with any other living race, ethnologists usually class them as a separate race called Australoid. Among the physical characteristics of the Australoids are small, long skulls, low, receding foreheads, heavy brow ridges, and skin pigmentation that varies from reddish brown to dark brown. Some ethnologists view the Australoids as representing an archaic Caucasoid type, probably migrants from the Asian mainland in prehistoric times, with Dravidian and Melanesian affinities. Other ethnologists identify the Australoids as a surviving remnant of Neanderthals (see Human Evolution)."http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/project/theo-3/data/web_country/australia/aushumn.html

They are listed as African, that what is written there is more like propaganda to make them not count as human, something that australia did right up til 67.

horses and donkeys make a mule which is STERILE and in case your too stupid to figure out what that means IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE GENE POOL.

Do some research.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2399773.stm

About 60 cases of mules giving birth have been recorded in the past few hundred years.

Ergo, they can be fertile, and thus the gene pool does change.

A FARTKNOCKER IS ONE WHO KNOCKS FARTS IN WITH HIS PENIS. IM CALLING U GAY.

And what exactly does my sexuality have to do with the matter at hand? And why the assumption that I have a penis?

Do some research.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2399773.stm

About 60 cases of mules giving birth have been recorded in the past few hundred years.

Ergo, they can be fertile, and thus the gene pool does change.
In some third world country who knows what the animals parents were for all we know the father could have had sex with the donkey but oh wait i vagely remeber something about species are reproductively isolated somethin or other, oh well.

I remember watching something about this we probably did interbreed

unfortunately ideas about interbreeding and mass genocide ignore the simple law that whenever a people move to a new area they take disease with them much like flu devastated American peoples.

Now that leaves the question of “what about the cross breeds” well even with extensive breeding the Neanderthal features like different brain shape, % used for something like language and the massive resistance to pain would still be there and as of yet no Human has ever been found to have a suitable amount of Neanderthal features (though some of us have one or two similarities) the question of what happened to them is most likely to do with persecution or survival of the fittest (Neanderthals were already in trouble before we arrived due to the Ice age ending leading to there design of specialization to the cold being obsolete)

I evolved from a monkey, damn it! I refuse to believe I evolved from other human species.

If you are going to stick with this position you are going to have to claim that lions and tigers are the same species (the female offspring of a male tiger and a female lion are fertile).


EDIT: typed 'sterile' when I meant to type 'fertile'. Mea culpa.

I've never heard of a "liger" being fertile, while yes tigers and lions can mate as far as I know there offspring are sterile. The mule thing was a surprise though, I've never heard of a fertile mule, but thats more of a freak incident, its the exception. Back to the original subject, somewhere along the line, over thousands of years I'm banking that at least one Cro-magnon and one Neanderthal mated, but no I do not think we have Neanderthal DNA, if they mated I think there offsrping were sterile, just like the grand majority of mules.

How the hell do bones wear down when theyre fossilized dickwad. I bet dinosaur bones are just really worn down human bones too huh?
If they've had time to be fossilized it also means they've had time for natural forces to erode away at them, bones aren't plastic, even they degrade eventually. Of course, sometimes they degrade very little in certain environments, and in others they degrade a very large amount, which often ends up being directly related to how much water is in the environment and other conditions.

I evolved from a monkey, damn it! I refuse to believe I evolved from other human species.

well here's your proof:

http://www.wholewheatradio.org/hc/images/Building%20The%20Wheat%20Hall/Mr%20-%20Monkey%20moved%204%20of%20the%20logs%20by%20himself%20-%20In%20his%20work%20clothes.JPG

http://newsfeed.tcm.ie/images/people/mattdamonPA.jpg

The tiger and the lion are geographically isolated fartknocker, another definition of species.
Dickweed? Fartknocker? You're new here, aren't you? Don't flame people. It's not the Christian thing to do.

If they've had time to be fossilized it also means they've had time for natural forces to erode away at them, bones aren't plastic, even they degrade eventually. Of course, sometimes they degrade very little in certain environments, and in others they degrade a very large amount, which often ends up being directly related to how much water is in the environment and other conditions.

Which is why we don't have the bones of every single individual that ever existed....

If they've had time to be fossilized it also means they've had time for natural forces to erode away at them, bones aren't plastic, even they degrade eventually. Of course, sometimes they degrade very little in certain environments, and in others they degrade a very large amount, which often ends up being directly related to how much water is in the environment and other conditions.


Your right, most of the bones are probaly worn down some, many are probaly broken or damaged exc but the chances of so many different fossils spread so far apart having breaks and wears similar enough to fool dozens of scientists that they were all a different species, come on. First off, some of the differences coudn't possibly have come from being worn down or broken, like the jutting brow bone Neanderthals had. When a something wears down, it wears down not out.

well here's your proof:

http://www.wholewheatradio.org/hc/images/Building%20The%20Wheat%20Hall/Mr%20-%20Monkey%20moved%204%20of%20the%20logs%20by%20himself%20-%20In%20his%20work%20clothes.JPG

http://newsfeed.tcm.ie/images/people/mattdamonPA.jpg
Mom? Dad?

horses and donkeys make a mule which is STERILE and in case your too stupid to figure out what that means IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE GENE POOL. A FARTKNOCKER IS ONE WHO KNOCKS FARTS IN WITH HIS PENIS. IM CALLING U GAY.

Grow up.

You'll care when satan is ramming your but with a pitchfork for sinning. Repent and accept Jesus.
FUCK Jesus. Fuck GOD. HMM NOTHING BAD HAPPENED TO ME WHAT A SURPRISE.

You'll care when satan is ramming your but with a pitchfork for sinning. Repent and accept Jesus.

your trying to scare someone with Butt ramming when there name is MenXXX that’s like trying to get a fly to avoid soup by having a dump in it

Id Just Like To Remind You That This Is A discussion On Evolution So All You Religious Nuts Get The Hell Out.

your trying to scare someone with Butt ramming when there name is MenXXX that’s like trying to get a fly to avoid soup by having a dump in it
He's not a fly, he's a person. I think most people would avoid soup with turds in it.

Id Just Like To Remind You That This Is A discussion On Evolution So All You Religious Nuts Get The Hell Out.
I contributed to the discussion earlier, but now I feel it's important to warn you that you're being offensive to your fellow posters and you're violating forum rules. Please delete your offensive posts even if only to prevent being banned.

I contributed to the discussion earlier, but now I feel it's important to warn you that you're being offensive to your fellow posters and you're violating forum rules. Please delete your offensive posts even if only to prevent being banned.
GET THE HELL OUT

GET THE HELL OUT
You need to work on your anger issues. From an evolutionary standpoint they're a dead end. Modern humans are gregarious creatures and any behavior that makes the rest of the population dislike you is likely to decrease your chances of passing on your genes.

GET THE HELL OUT

In case you're not aware, you've been reported already.
I suggest you stop the flaming and the personal insults and contribute to the discussion.

Id Just Like To Remind You That This Is A discussion On Evolution So All You Religious Nuts Get The Hell Out.

no it isn't its about the mysterious extinction of an ethnic group and the evidence of zoophiles at play

well there animals if they couldn’t imagine though many scientists would disagree with there mental capacity I think the appearance of necklaces at the time of Homosapien migration is a bit too suspicious

In case you're not aware, you've been reported already.
I suggest you stop the flaming and the personal insults and contribute to the discussion.
OH MY IM QUAKING, SCREW YOU AND YOUR "DISCUSSION"

OH MY IM QUAKING, SCREW YOU AND YOUR "DISCUSSION"
Check the moderation forum. You had better delete your offensive posts in a hurry and issue an apology or the mods will forumban you. Just some friendly advice.

OH MY IM QUAKING, SCREW YOU AND YOUR "DISCUSSION"

Nobody's forcing you to post. But if you do, please follow the rules. It's not that difficult...
You can read the up here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=410573)

Check the moderation forum. You had better delete your offensive posts in a hurry and issue an apology or the mods will forumban you. Just some friendly advice.

DCD, you are not helping - mods as a weapon is against the rules, as is your goading him on and trolling with Jesussaves antics. You should refrain from further comments to save your own ass, IMHO.

DCD, you are not helping - mods as a weapon is against the rules, as is your goading him on and trolling with Jesussaves antics. You should refrain from further comments to save your own ass, IMHO.
Ok, I'll delete the Jesussaves type stuff.

Neandertal Man is not the same species as us. Such a view is horrifically outdated.

what are you stupid or something! Think about both species lived about the same time, they both inhabitad the same relitive area (Middle East, Asia, Africa and Southern Europe)! There must have been breeding between the species, its only natural. Also our DNA was so close together the offspirng, would also be able to breed, I think that we all carry Neanderthal DNA.

(Also a recent study in Iceland has shown that Neanderthals actually may have survived into at least 1000 C.E. due to the fact that there is sufficent evidence to show that a Viking village had a conflict with a group of people, all of whom had petruding foreheads and were extremely muscular however the mysterious people were wiped out by the Nordic village, true theory)

DCD, you are not helping - mods as a weapon is against the rules, as is your goading him on and trolling with Jesussaves antics. You should refrain from further comments to save your own ass, IMHO.

if you think about it you just did the same thing

anyway anyone care to state what they think the Neanderthal intelligence was because the large language of there brain must mean they had a complex language (QI is it was sign language) and language requires mental imaging which is pretty much imagination though how far this would go in terms of imagining Pink elephants is debatable since language can exist on very little imagination

if you think about it you just did the same thing

No, I didn't. Mods as a weapon is threatening mod action. I didn't threaten it, I asked DCD to back off, by mentioning that he may get himself into trouble by doing this.

Dickweed? Fartknocker? You're new here, aren't you? Don't flame people. It's not the Christian thing to do.

Not everyone here is Christian genius. In fact I'm a Jewbu (Jew and Buddhist combined). I hate it when Christian groups or Christian people talk like they are the only monotheistic religion on Earth! THERES AT LEAST 3 DUSHBAG!

No, I didn't. Mods as a weapon is threatening mod action. I didn't threaten it, I asked DCD to back off, by mentioning that he may get himself into trouble by doing this.
Wait a minute, I didn't threaten to use the mods as a weapon. I warned him about how strict the mods can be on this forum. Fass, I've only once, maybe twice reported anyone to the mods. I don't like to rat people out. It's not my way.

if you think about it you just did the same thing

anyway anyone care to state what they think the Neanderthal intelligence was because the large language of there brain must mean they had a complex language (QI is it was sign language) and language requires mental imaging which is pretty much imagination though how far this would go in terms of imagining Pink elephants is debatable since language can exist on very little imagination

Brain matter itself doesn't directly correlate to intelligence, but given the fact that the Neanderthals did have a hyoid bone, and therefore would have been capable of articulate speech and given the fact also that they seemed to have developed a certain culture in the sense of that they used fire and constructed elaborate shelters, I think it's fair to assume that they had a language as well.

Not everyone here is Christian genius. In fact I'm a Jewbu (Jew and Buddhist combined). I hate it when Christian groups or Christian people talk like they are the only monotheistic religion on Earth! THERES AT LEAST 3 DUSHBAG!
That's nice.

http://tinypic.com/mb1hft.jpg

Please don't flame on the forums.

Wait a minute, I didn't threaten to use the mods as a weapon. I warned him about how strict the mods can be on this forum. Fass, I've only once, maybe twice reported anyone to the mods. I don't like to rat people out. It's not my way.

Once again I would like to say that you my friend, are a jackass! I am fine with Christianity, I don't care if you think that a 2000 year old carpenter is your lord, but keep your propoganda to yourself got! (Breaths 10 times) ok I'll yelling at you now, but please can we get back to the Neanderthal thing, please?

SNIP

actually we were the same species in the sense that we had a common ancestor (that existed in places such as the far east for a while after the Neanderthals to point out how successful it was) the idea that we would all have Neanderthal DNA would be doubtful even if some of us did if you look at the numbers at the time when we would of made contact we had a large amount more so the odds would be against it even after all these years

the second part is quite interesting if it is true Neanderthals certainly wouldn't be on the level of animals also there could be Neander -sapien descendants in Iceland still!

Id Just Like To Remind You That This Is A discussion On Evolution So All You Religious Nuts Get The Hell Out.

A) this was never a disscussion on evolution, is was a question asked id neanderthal DNA made its was into our DNA profile, this has nothing to do wiht evolution on 3 differnt fronts
1) if there was neanderthal DNA mixed with ours it never manifessed in a large enough situations to promote change in our species.
2) neanderthal and Homo sapien sapien never evolved from neanderthal
3) we are not talking about the parent species

therefore we are not talking about evolution

B) Grow up, we dont need flaming here, try having a conversations instead.

ok to the subject at hand.....i wish my wife was here because she is an arceologist(sp?), and this is not my main field

lets try to stay away from cognitive arc. eg the behavior of neanderthal or early homo sapien, it is unproveble, and it would be hard to prove if offspring would be fertile or not because we lack the bodies to study. all we know is that neanderthal and homo sapiens did live and coexist together and most likely interacted together...maybe even bread together. MDNA is not reliable becasue it is only passed down by the mother, but is the mother was homo sapien there would be no differences.

i can say that there could be Neanderthal DNA in our gene pool becasue i look at a friend and say to myself HOLY CRAP add a Occipital bun and a prononced super orbital toruse then you got yourslef a neanderthal

but we do not have the evidence

actually we were the same species in the sense that we had a common ancestor (that existed in places such as the far east for a while after the Neanderthals to point out how successful it was) the idea that we would all have Neanderthal DNA would be doubtful even if some of us did if you look at the numbers at the time when we would of made contact we had a large amount more so the odds would be against it even after all these years

the second part is quite interesting if it is true Neanderthals certainly wouldn't be on the level of animals also there could be Neander -sapien descendants in Iceland still!


Your absolutely right, I used the wrong words, I didn't exactly mean to say ALL of us but over the last several millenia there must be more than a few Neander-Sapien hybrids. (If you want to know more about the Viking-Neander conflict you can look it up on Wikipedia or Answers.com)

Once again I want to apologize for raging on you like that Drunken Commie Deleted, and I am sorry for flaming. :(

lets try to stay away from cognitive arc. eg the behavior of neanderthal or early homo sapien, it is unproveble, and it would be hard to prove if offspring would be fertile or not because we lack the bodies to study. all we know is that neanderthal and homo sapiens did live and coexist together and most likely interacted together...maybe even bread together. MDNA is not reliable becasue it is only passed down by the mother, but is the mother was homo sapien there would be no differences.

i can say that there could be Neanderthal DNA in our gene pool becasue i look at a friend and say to myself HOLY CRAP add a Occipital bun and a prononced super orbital toruse then you got yourslef a neanderthal

but we do not have the evidence

Sure we do.

Have you ever been to Eugene, Oregon? Very compelling evidence exists there of the continued existence of the Neanderthal ... just be sure to show up for the Saturday Market, or one of the anarchist conventions, if you want to see them.

They can usually be spotted as the large and hairy tye-dyed creatures buying hemp lip balm.

This has certanly turned into quiet a controversial subject.
:sniper:

Your absolutely right, I used the wrong words, I didn't exactly mean to say ALL of us but over the last several millenia there must be more than a few Neander-Sapien hybrids. (If you want to know more about the Viking-Neander conflict you can look it up on Wikipedia or Answers.com)

Once again I want to apologize for raging on you like that Drunken Commie Deleted, and I am sorry for flaming. :(
FIGHT THE POWER!

Sure we do.

Have you ever been to Eugene, Oregon? Very compelling evidence exists there of the continued existence of the Neanderthal ... just be sure to show up for the Saturday Market, or one of the anarchist conventions, if you want to see them.

They can usually be spotted as the large and hairy tye-dyed creatures buying hemp lip balm.

that's just terrible we're having a serious discussion and you turn it into a joke.
:rolleyes:

FIGHT THE POWER!

and what does that have to do with ANYTHING! I said?

Brain matter itself doesn't directly correlate to intelligence, but given the fact that the Neanderthals did have a hyoid bone, and therefore would have been capable of articulate speech and given the fact also that they seemed to have developed a certain culture in the sense of that they used fire and constructed elaborate shelters, I think it's fair to assume that they had a language as well.

ah but a language sector of the brain would not of developed had there not been language unfortunately the hyoid bone of a Neanderthal would be terrible for complex wording or anything above a growl so combine this with the fact that Neanderthal communities isolated themselves meaning a point was part of the universal language (this would become the basis of language) you naturally expect sign language

(we use words because we can use a variety of different sounds meaning are groans don’t start a fight)

I think Neanderthal culture wouldn't of existed because they didn't do anything with a dead body of a fellow meaning that a fundamental sign of imagination namely religion wasn’t practiced unlike are ancestors who made elaborate burials for there dead much like we do now

All of this disscussion has got me thinking. What if the Neaderthal had survived and the Homo Sapiens had died out, what would the world be like now?

ah but a language sector of the brain would not of developed had there not been language unfortunately the hyoid bone of a Neanderthal would be terrible for complex wording or anything above a growl so combine this with the fact that Neanderthal communities isolated themselves meaning a point was part of the universal language (this would become the basis of language) you naturally expect sign language

(we use words because we can use a variety of different sounds meaning are groans don’t start a fight)

That conception was refuted in 1983, when a Neanderthal Hyoid bone was found. From reconstructing the skull and larynx, it is can be safelty assumed that the Neanderthal were capable of a lot more than simple groans and grunts. In fact, their voices would have been slightly higher than modern man's.

Your absolutely right, I used the wrong words, I didn't exactly mean to say ALL of us but over the last several millenia there must be more than a few Neander-Sapien hybrids. (If you want to know more about the Viking-Neander conflict you can look it up on Wikipedia or Answers.com)

Once again I want to apologize for raging on you like that Drunken Commie Deleted, and I am sorry for flaming. :(

ok the wife is here so iam going to let her talk

No we do not carry an significant amount of Neanderthal DNA. It is possible that there is some neanderthal mtDNA present in Homo sapien sapiens but this makes abosolutly no difference to us because mtDNA ( the only evidence we have of Neanderthal genes) is not part of the porpogation of our species but instead a leftover from thousands of years ago that still exists in our cells but does not contribute to our own genes (hence being passed down only though the mothers line)

As for Neanderthals and Homo Sapien sapiens being the same species, there is a .09% difference between our genes and those of Chimpanzees but from the evidence we have, there is a .6% difference between us and Neanderthals, we are closer to chimpanzees than Neanderthals. Yes we had a common ancestor, but we also had a common ancestor to Homo erectus, australopithecines, early primates and far enough back early reptiles. Have a common ancestor does not make us the same species. Neanderthals and Homo sapien sapiens evolved in different areas of the world for thousands of years, and only came in contact at about 30,500 years ago when Homo sapien sapiens made their way into europe and only a short time later at 27,000 years Neanderthals became extinct as a species.

There is always the possiblity that at some point there was interbreeding between the speices but from the evidence we have, no neanderthal genes made it into the current gene pool.

So no we dont have Neanderthal genes and no we are not the same species or even close, (we are genetically closer to chimpanzees).

All of this disscussion has got me thinking. What if the Neaderthal had survived and the Homo Sapiens had died out, what would the world be like now?

It would be decidedly more low-brow.

All of this disscussion has got me thinking. What if the Neaderthal had survived and the Homo Sapiens had died out, what would the world be like now?

Less populated, I would imagine.
They lived in far smaller groups, and it is assumed that their reproduction wasn't as fast-paced as ours is...

It would be decidedly more low-brow.

no pun intended I assume
:)

SNIP

your going to have to provide a link since wiki seems to be hiding the article

but I did find this rather interesting possibility

Some recent genetic research has pointed toward the possibility that the gene responsible for red-hair and freckles in modern Europeans had Neanderthal origins

ah but a language sector of the brain would not of developed had there not been language unfortunately the hyoid bone of a Neanderthal would be terrible for complex wording or anything above a growl so combine this with the fact that Neanderthal communities isolated themselves meaning a point was part of the universal language (this would become the basis of language) you naturally expect sign language

(we use words because we can use a variety of different sounds meaning are groans don’t start a fight)

I think Neanderthal culture wouldn't of existed because they didn't do anything with a dead body of a fellow meaning that a fundamental sign of imagination namely religion wasn’t practiced unlike are ancestors who made elaborate burials for there dead much like we do now

Actually the hyoid bone of the Neanderthal is almost identical to our own the question is how the bone is placed inside the throat, which without a fully perserved neanderthal we will never know.

But talking really makes no difference you can still have culture without having complex language, that is in the definition of culture itself.

And saying that neanderthal culture did not exist because they did not burry their dead, and had no religion has two major problems
1) Neanderthals did in fact burry thier dead
2) Not having religion or belief in needing to burry ones dead does by no means indicate a total and complete lack of culture.

Since when are the theories of interbreeding and mass-extinction mutually exclusive?

I always suspected that Neanderthals and Cro Magnon both interbred but regardless, the Neanderthals could not compete with the rising Cro-Magnon population and died out (or possibly were even exterminated).

This might account for any trace Neanderthal DNA that is in our genome and would satisfy the extinction hypothesis...

Since when are the theories of interbreeding and mass-extinction mutually exclusive?

I always suspected that Neanderthals and Cro Magnon both interbred but regardless, the Neanderthals could not compete with the rising Cro-Magnon population and died out (or possibly were even exterminated).

This might account for any trace Neanderthal DNA that is in our genome and would satisfy the extinction hypothesis...

This is a very good way of looking at things there really is no way to know if interbreeding happened or not.

Just for the record there is no such thing as a Cro Magnon, it is a Homo sapien sapien, Cro Magnon is just a place where an early human skeleton was found, so no one is confused Cro Magnon is Homo sapien sapien, the former is just an olded, out of favor term (for archaeologists)

This is a very good way of looking at things there really is no way to know if interbreeding happened or not.

Thankyou.

Just for the record there is no such thing as a Cro Magnon, it is a Homo sapien sapien, Cro Magnon is just a place where an early human skeleton was found, so no one is confused Cro Magnon is Homo sapien sapien, the former is just an olded, out of favor term (for archaeologists)

I know. I merely stuck to Cro Magnon because I wanted to be clear and not misunderstood in a discussion that uses the unscientific terminology....

SNIP

Cro-Magnon was man before cave paintings started appearing it is thought some freak change caused this (QI is that this appeared when we had contact with Neanderthals and Neanderthals developed jewellery at the same time though they were still eating are dust even if they did make the jewellery that was found)

Oh and could someone post the source where it says that Neanderthals buried there dead this is quite contrary to anything I’ve heard and I will admit I forgot Neanderthals could speak well *slaps self*

Totally understanding the terms can get out of hand...

Cro-Magnon was man before cave paintings started appearing it is thought some freak change caused this (QI is that this appeared when we had contact with Neanderthals and Neanderthals developed jewellery at the same time though they were still eating are dust even if they did make the jewellery that was found)

Oh and could someone post the source where it says that Neanderthals buried there dead this is quite contrary to anything I’ve heard and I will admit I forgot Neanderthals could speak well *slaps self*

Although much has been made of the Neanderthal's burial of their dead, their burials were less elaborate than those of anatomically modern humans. The interpretation of the Shandiar IV burials as including flowers, and therefore being a form of ritual burial (Ralph Solecki 1975), has been questioned (Sommer 1999). In some cases Neanderthal burials include grave goods such as bison and aurochs bones, tools, and the pigment ochre.

http://neanderthal.ask.dyndns.dk/

The source for Neanderthals burring their dead, I dont know if everyone can access this it requires either access though a univeristy or a subscription to jsor but one of the may includes LEROI-GOURHAN. 1975. The Flowers found with Shanidar IV: a Neanderthal Burial in Iraq. Science. 190:562-564. If you want to look it up on the net just search Shanidar or Neanderthal flower burial.

Your right, most of the bones are probaly worn down some, many are probaly broken or damaged exc but the chances of so many different fossils spread so far apart having breaks and wears similar enough to fool dozens of scientists that they were all a different species, come on. First off, some of the differences coudn't possibly have come from being worn down or broken, like the jutting brow bone Neanderthals had. When a something wears down, it wears down not out.

Eh, Fair enough. But these bones certainly have fooled scientists before in many instances, and who knows, somehow, someway, they might be fooled now :/. Either that or there's some part of our DNA we don't fully understand, (After all, mapping our DNA didn't tell us what each and every part did, it just told us the order of sequences) that for whatever reason or another, may of dropped into some near-permanent dormant state awhile ago and stopped us from having big brows when humans started having babies with more diverse populations, perhaps it was some super recessive gene or something.

Unfortunatly everone says that Neanderthal and Anatomically modern human burials are so different, but in reality if you compare Human burrials from before 27000 years ago then the differences are fairly minor, and after 27000 well Homo sapien sapiens continued on and Neanderthals were extinct. If you used the criteria for calling a Neanderthal body a burrial on Homo sapien sapiens then over half of Human bodies from the same time period as neanderthals would NOT be considered burials.

(Also a recent study in Iceland has shown that Neanderthals actually may have survived into at least 1000 C.E. due to the fact that there is sufficent evidence to show that a Viking village had a conflict with a group of people, all of whom had petruding foreheads and were extremely muscular however the mysterious people were wiped out by the Nordic village, true theory)

Assuming this isn't just some sort of clever joke, do you think you could find a link to back this up? I tried googling it, but all I found was a review of an apparently very interesting movie involving Vikings, Neanderthals, cowboys and a German U-boat crew duking it out in central Africa...


EDIT: Woops. Wasn't a movie after all, but a... List or something. Very obscure. Anyway, it should be a movie.

Not everyone here is Christian genius. In fact I'm a Jewbu (Jew and Buddhist combined). I hate it when Christian groups or Christian people talk like they are the only monotheistic religion on Earth! THERES AT LEAST 3 DUSHBAG!

And at least three of those have the same god anyway.

Some recent genetic research has pointed toward the possibility that the gene responsible for red-hair and freckles in modern Europeans had Neanderthal origins

So you're saying that what is trad. thought of as celtic markers (such as the freckled-tanning that I, my sister, my aunt and my grandmother posses) would be N markers?

There is absoulutly no proof that features we have today came from Neanderthals, actually there is absolutly no proof that we have any neanderthal DNA at all.

Assuming this isn't just some sort of clever joke, do you think you could find a link to back this up? I tried googling it, but all I found was a review of an apparently very interesting movie involving Vikings, Neanderthals, cowboys and a German U-boat crew duking it out in central Africa...


EDIT: Woops. Wasn't a movie after all, but a... List or something. Very obscure. Anyway, it should be a movie.

It is quite possible that a population of muscular people who have brow ridges could have attacked the Vikings, but that does not mean they are Neanderthals. If you look at pictures of Australian Aborigenees they have very pronounced brow ridges, this is not a neanderthal throwback but instead a documented part of Human diversity, or the wide variation which human features take on. So it is very possible that large browed people existed at 1000 years ago because they exist now, it does not mean they were Neanderthals.

OH MY IM QUAKING, SCREW YOU AND YOUR "DISCUSSION"Check the moderation forum. You had better delete your offensive posts in a hurry and issue an apology or the mods will forumban you. Just some friendly advice.
That line's been crossed. Three Day forumban. Please note that any attempt to log in with any other nations will result in the deletion of both nations, and possible permanent ban from the site.

Chill out, learn the rules, and maybe you can come back. If you can't live with that ... bye. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.


~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

That line's been crossed. Three Day forumban. Please note that any attempt to log in with any other nations will result in the deletion of both nations, and possible permanent ban from the site.

Chill out, learn the rules, and maybe you can come back. If you can't live with that ... bye. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.


~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop
Um, why is my post quoted in there?

Um, why is my post quoted in there?

You warned XxxMenxxX by telling him to erase traces of his misdeeds. The moderator quoted your warning in response telling you that the line had already been crossed by XxxMenxxX and that it was too late for him....

Back to the issue at hand...

In some third world country who knows what the animals parents were for all we know the father could have had sex with the donkey but oh wait i vagely remeber something about species are reproductively isolated somethin or other, oh well.

As a general rule, yes, but not as an absolute one.

The point being that if homo sap/neanderthal interbreeding took place we have a window of several hundreds of thousands of years where a fertile crossbreed could have been produced, and so despite the fact that we and the neanderthals are different species it is possible that neanderthal DNA is still carried by modern humans.

All of this completely ignoring the debate as to whether homo sap. and neanderthals are in fact the same species or not.

I evolved from a monkey, damn it! I refuse to believe I evolved from other human species.

From a monkey? Then you are some weird johnny-come-lately evolution. The rest of us are generally acknowledged to have evolved from an ape, and only share a common simian ancestor with the monkeys.

Assuming this isn't just some sort of clever joke, do you think you could find a link to back this up? I tried googling it, but all I found was a review of an apparently very interesting movie involving Vikings, Neanderthals, cowboys and a German U-boat crew duking it out in central Africa...


EDIT: Woops. Wasn't a movie after all, but a... List or something. Very obscure. Anyway, it should be a movie.

Well I first heard of this in a special on the discovery channel, but it might be hard to find due to the fact that many scientists dismiss this as false. Sorry I have no link but keep looking through google.

From a monkey? Then you are some weird johnny-come-lately evolution. The rest of us are generally acknowledged to have evolved from an ape, and only share a common simian ancestor with the monkeys.

I felt something looked wierd in that post too but I didn't say anything.

My statement of the Viking-Neander conflict raises an intresting question... how did a group of people described in Nordic text found at the supposed sight of the Nord village as being completly inempt at any kind of technology save basic clubbing weapons, and very basic stabbing weapons, have gotten over from the main land mass to the small island of Iceland?

My personal theory is that a structure resembling the land bridge of North America linked the small nation to the land mass and the Neanderthals simply wanered over it in search of food, the bridge melted and they were trapped.

Full article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/323657.stm)

The article is from 1999, but the issue remains undecided between scientist.
Neanderthals and Cro Magnon coexisted in Europe for thousans of years, so the possibility definitely was there.
What I can't help wondering though is if, even given that they did interbreed and that there was offspring, if this offspring in turn would have been capable of reproduction, or if the species were too remote already, so that the offspring remained sterile (like modern-day mules for example)
Thanks! I now can shut up people who think there are seperate races among humans. Inadvertantly though...well interesting thought. I'll have my people call your people.

what are you stupid or something! Think about both species lived about the same time, they both inhabitad the same relitive area (Middle East, Asia, Africa and Southern Europe)! There must have been breeding between the species, its only natural. Also our DNA was so close together the offspirng, would also be able to breed, I think that we all carry Neanderthal DNA.

Leopards and Lions live in the same area, and they don't interbreed.

Anyways, Neandertal Man (Homo neandertalensis and H. sapiens are not the same species. If you want to ignore all the molecular evidence that shows this, then go ahead. Just expect to be called out on your ignorance.

FIGHT THE POWER!
PLIGHT THE FLOWER!
:rolleyes:

I don't see the problem.
Surely Homo Sap. Cro Magnon and Homo Sap. Neanderthalensis were at least as close together as Wolf and Dog.

Steady on! I thought that the scientific community was undecided whether or not to classify Neandertal man as Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis or Homo Neanderthalensis.

If they could breed with humans and produce fertile offspring, then they're a subspecies (Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis) if not, a seperate species(Homo Neanderthalensis). You can't say that they must have been able to interbreed with us based on the classification when the classification is based on whether they were able to interbreed.

Circular, innit.

Also, I think we're leaning towards the seperate species. There are, I think, other explanations of the one fellow's unusual bone structure than interbreeding between neanderthals and us.