Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8748 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-22-2017 7:10 PM
395 online now:
Asgara (AdminAsgara), Coyote, CRR, Hyroglyphx, jar, kjsimons, Meddle, ooh-child (8 members, 387 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: kmastes01
Post Volume:
Total: 808,793 Year: 13,399/21,208 Month: 2,881/3,605 Week: 223/933 Day: 119/104 Hour: 0/6

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34567Next
Author Topic:   All in the Family - Guest star: Neanderthal
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 141 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 16 of 96 (277042)
01-08-2006 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Funkaloyd
01-07-2006 9:27 PM


Re: you need to clarify, imo
Ape or person?

yes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Funkaloyd, posted 01-07-2006 9:27 PM Funkaloyd has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1719 days)
Posts: 2962
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 17 of 96 (277053)
01-08-2006 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by randman
01-07-2006 11:44 PM


Re: not this again
and that there is no reason to think Neaderthal people if alive today could not mate with and live among us as just people.

This is interesting. Obviously we all know that no one has any hard evidence that Neanderthals could mate with cro-mag and produce viable offspring. It would require some sort of time machine to verify, or a very very isolated modern group which still had a distinctly Neanderthal feature. So, it's just speculation.

What I find interesting though, is that you are basically say, "Despite the fact that there is no evidence, we should assume the affirmative argument." Yet, when dealing with others, it seems no amount of evidence is enough to assume the affirmative.

I think you should meditate on that a bit.

Personally, I'd love it if it turned out that Neanderthals bred with people in the past. I see the end of Neanderthals (a HUGELY successful group living in harsh conditions) as a red flag for modern man. Our hold upon the Earth is tenuous at best - we should not forget it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by randman, posted 01-07-2006 11:44 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by arachnophilia, posted 01-08-2006 4:34 AM Nuggin has responded
 Message 26 by randman, posted 01-08-2006 3:20 PM Nuggin has responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 141 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 18 of 96 (277077)
01-08-2006 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Nuggin
01-08-2006 2:02 AM


Re: not this again
It would require some sort of time machine to verify

finding a hybrid skeleton would do just fine. i've mentioned it before on here: i thought i had heard of one found, but i'm unsure of the veracity of the claim.

Personally, I'd love it if it turned out that Neanderthals bred with people in the past. I see the end of Neanderthals (a HUGELY successful group living in harsh conditions) as a red flag for modern man. Our hold upon the Earth is tenuous at best - we should not forget it.

we all die sooner or later, and speciation will probably continue to happen...


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Nuggin, posted 01-08-2006 2:02 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Nuggin, posted 01-08-2006 9:49 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1719 days)
Posts: 2962
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 19 of 96 (277105)
01-08-2006 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by arachnophilia
01-08-2006 4:34 AM


Hybrid
There was a childs skeleton found that had some features of both. The bones were thick like Neanderthals, but the skull was very cro-mag.

The thing is - this child could have been a mule. We have no way of determining if it was sterile or not. So unless there were a population of hybrids, we'd need a time machine to verify it.

That's one of the reasons I don't like the "if they can't breed" specific definition. For example - do we know for sure that T-Rex couldn't breed with (insert other dinosaur here)?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by arachnophilia, posted 01-08-2006 4:34 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Belfry, posted 01-08-2006 10:54 AM Nuggin has not yet responded
 Message 23 by Coragyps, posted 01-08-2006 11:19 AM Nuggin has not yet responded
 Message 25 by arachnophilia, posted 01-08-2006 2:00 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

    
Belfry
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 20 of 96 (277112)
01-08-2006 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Nuggin
01-08-2006 9:49 AM


Re: Hybrid
Nuggin writes:

That's one of the reasons I don't like the "if they can't breed" specific definition. For example - do we know for sure that T-Rex couldn't breed with (insert other dinosaur here)?


Yeah, it just doesn't work as a prerequisite criterion. In the plant kingdom, we can frequently take two tree species (for example) within the same genus that are morphologically, ecologically, and geographically distinct from one another, sometimes from diffferent hemispheres of the earth, and breed them to make fertile hybrids. Researchers with the American Chestnut Foundation have been doing this with American and Chinese species, crossing and back-crossing to breed for chestnut blight resistance, and hopefully reintroduce the once-prevalent genus Castanea into eastern forests.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Nuggin, posted 01-08-2006 9:49 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
Belfry
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 21 of 96 (277113)
01-08-2006 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by randman
01-07-2006 11:46 PM


Re: you need to clarify, imo
randman writes:

The problem, imo, is evo scientists have made the term "species" to at times not be very useful.


Um, by "evo scientists," I guess you must mean "biologists."

randman writes:

But as people, I think we all understand the term people, and so I am using it for clarity. Neanderthals were a race or tribe of people that either died out, or intermingled with other tribes and lost their distinctiveness.


No, I'm sure that many of us have somewhat different concepts of what "people" means, so you should define how you're using it. I would consider other modern species within the great ape family to be "people," for example - that's just my personal feeling, because the term has no scientific definition that I'm aware of. Certainly the evidence suggest that H. neanderthalis would fit my concept of "people." That's not very meaningful, biologically.

This message has been edited by Belfry, 01-08-2006 11:01 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by randman, posted 01-07-2006 11:46 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5268
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 22 of 96 (277115)
01-08-2006 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by randman
01-07-2006 11:46 PM


Re: you need to clarify, imo
The problem, imo, is evo scientists have made the term "species" to at times not be very useful.

It was ol' Mother Nature that made the term "not very useful." Scientists just discovered the examples that make it that way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by randman, posted 01-07-2006 11:46 PM randman has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5268
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 23 of 96 (277118)
01-08-2006 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Nuggin
01-08-2006 9:49 AM


Re: Hybrid
There was a childs skeleton found that had some features of both.

http://www.archaeology.org/9907/newsbriefs/hybrid.html
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/13/7604
From PNAS:
The discovery of an early Upper Paleolithic human burial at the Abrigo do Lagar Velho, Portugal, has provided evidence of early modern humans from southern Iberia. The remains, the largely complete skeleton of a 4-year-old child buried with pierced shell and red ochre, is dated to ca. 24,500 years B.P. The cranium, mandible, dentition, and postcrania present a mosaic of European early modern human and Neandertal features. The temporal bone has an intermediate-sized juxtamastoid eminence. The mandibular mentum osseum and the dental size and proportions, supported by mandibular ramal features, radial tuberosity orientation, and diaphyseal curvature, as well as the pubic proportions align the skeleton with early modern humans. Body proportions, reflected in femorotibial lengths and diaphyseal robusticity plus tibial condylar displacement, as well as mandibular symphyseal retreat and thoracohumeral muscle insertions, align the skeleton with the Neandertals. This morphological mosaic indicates admixture between regional Neandertals and early modern humans dispersing into southern Iberia. It establishes the complexities of the Late Pleistocene emergence of modern humans and refutes strict replacement models of modern human origins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Nuggin, posted 01-08-2006 9:49 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Barbarian, posted 02-19-2006 12:51 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1336 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 24 of 96 (277171)
01-08-2006 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by arachnophilia
01-08-2006 1:31 AM


Re: not this again
yes i think that one. and a joke :p
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by arachnophilia, posted 01-08-2006 1:31 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 141 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 25 of 96 (277182)
01-08-2006 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Nuggin
01-08-2006 9:49 AM


Re: Hybrid
The thing is - this child could have been a mule.

well, yeah, maybe. i geuss you're right. that's kind of tricky. they obviously CAN interbreed, but the question is really can there be an interbreeding population.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Nuggin, posted 01-08-2006 9:49 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2307 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 26 of 96 (277200)
01-08-2006 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Nuggin
01-08-2006 2:02 AM


Re: not this again
There is not enough differences in Neanderthals to claim them as a different species, imo. Keep in mind that it took, once again, about 100 years to get evos to begin to back off insisting Neanderthals were a link between apes and humans.

Look at the representations of Neanderthals. The older are the more brutish and the more recent are the ones that depict Neanderthals as essentially identical in appearance to someone you'd see walking by you on the street, as you say. There is a reason for the progressive change in depiction. There was a myth created that all the evidence points to as a myth, and gradually the evo community has come to grips with it, and began to show Neanderthals as essentially just people.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Nuggin, posted 01-08-2006 2:02 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Belfry, posted 01-08-2006 3:56 PM randman has responded
 Message 28 by Nuggin, posted 01-08-2006 4:06 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 36 by Nuggin, posted 01-10-2006 8:43 PM randman has responded

  
Belfry
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 27 of 96 (277210)
01-08-2006 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by randman
01-08-2006 3:20 PM


Re: not this again
randman writes:

There is not enough differences in Neanderthals to claim them as a different species, imo. Keep in mind that it took, once again, about 100 years to get evos to begin to back off insisting Neanderthals were a link between apes and humans.


Neanderthals and humans are both apes. You might want to consider rephrasing and discontinuing the use of that term.

randman writes:

Look at the representations of Neanderthals. The older are the more brutish and the more recent are the ones that depict Neanderthals as essentially identical in appearance to someone you'd see walking by you on the street, as you say. There is a reason for the progressive change in depiction. There was a myth created that all the evidence points to as a myth, and gradually the evo community has come to grips with it, and began to show Neanderthals as essentially just people.


Um, the "evo community" are the ones responsible for this change in depiction in response to the evidence. So what is your point?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by randman, posted 01-08-2006 3:20 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by randman, posted 01-08-2006 5:37 PM Belfry has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1719 days)
Posts: 2962
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 28 of 96 (277214)
01-08-2006 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by randman
01-08-2006 3:20 PM


Species differentiation
There is not enough differences in Neanderthals to claim them as a different species

The problem for this arguement is that there are literally hundreds of examples of animals which are physically very similiar, more similiar than Neanderthal and Cro-Mag which can not reproduce.

I'm sure there are examples of animals who can reproduce who look significantly different as well. (Wholphins, etc)

So how do we differentiate appropriately?

If we say that Neanderthal and Cro-Mag (and Flores for that matter) are all the same species, then clearly the range of morphology we consider viable would include Homo Erectus.

Extending that, the range around Homo Erectus would easily include include Homo Habilis. The range around Homo Habilis would include Africanus. Etc. Etc.

It sounds like, by arguing that Neanderthals are just a form of people, you are infact endorsing gradual speciation.

Look at the representations of Neanderthals. The older are the more brutish

Yeah, same with representations of Africans. Despite the advances we've made in the last hundred years, the world as a whole as a major legacy of racism/elitism. Is this the cause of all the white Jesus's or the effect of them? Hard to say.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by randman, posted 01-08-2006 3:20 PM randman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by arachnophilia, posted 01-08-2006 9:58 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2307 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 29 of 96 (277241)
01-08-2006 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Belfry
01-08-2006 3:56 PM


Re: not this again
Um, the "evo community" are the ones responsible for this change in depiction in response to the evidence. So what is your point?

Not solely. In fact, one of the common creationist complaints since the 50s is that evos misrepresent Neanderthals. It seems that with the advent of the internet, creationist criticism has gained a wider audience, and at the same time there has been more change within the evo community to drop the things creationists have long contended were erroneous. The change has been very slow, and it may not be possibe to prove causation, but it sure seems like creationist criticism is having an effect.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Belfry, posted 01-08-2006 3:56 PM Belfry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Nuggin, posted 01-08-2006 6:33 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 31 by Modulous, posted 01-08-2006 7:10 PM randman has responded
 Message 32 by Belfry, posted 01-08-2006 7:15 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1719 days)
Posts: 2962
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 30 of 96 (277268)
01-08-2006 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by randman
01-08-2006 5:37 PM


Re: not this again
one of the common creationist complaints since the 50s is that evos misrepresent Neanderthals.

Another of them is that meteorologists aren't recognizing 40 day Floods. So, forgive us if we take what the Creationists say with a pillar of salt.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by randman, posted 01-08-2006 5:37 PM randman has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
34567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017