Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8782 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-21-2017 3:49 PM
93 online now:
dwise1, Faith, glowby, kbertsche, PaulK (5 members, 88 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,661 Year: 21,267/21,208 Month: 1,700/2,326 Week: 155/881 Day: 77/78 Hour: 8/8

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67Next
Author Topic:   All in the Family - Guest star: Neanderthal
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2398 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 61 of 96 (278129)
01-11-2006 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Nuggin
01-11-2006 10:55 AM


Re: It's not the Neanderthals I'm worried about...
Nuggins, thanks for posting that image. It is exactly the type of thing I am talking about. I am not sure what current theory is, but we were taught Cro-magnon averaged 6' tall, had a slightly larger brain as well.

Neaderthal seems misrepresented as well.

Btw, I had thought more than one specimen, not just a girl, indicated interbreeding. Note the following article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3129654.stm

This message has been edited by randman, 01-11-2006 11:57 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Nuggin, posted 01-11-2006 10:55 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Nuggin, posted 01-11-2006 1:27 PM randman has responded
 Message 66 by Nuggin, posted 01-11-2006 1:31 PM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2398 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 62 of 96 (278132)
01-11-2006 12:00 PM


note as well
Neanderthals and modern humans not only coexisted for thousands of years long ago, as anthropologists have established, but now their little secret is out: they also cohabited.

At least that is the interpretation being made by paleontologists who have examined the 24,500-year-old skeleton of a young boy discovered recently in a shallow grave in Portugal. Bred in the boy's bones seemed to be a genetic heritage part Neanderthal, part early modern Homo sapiens. He was a hybrid, they concluded, and the first strong physical evidence of interbreeding between the groups in Europe.

"This skeleton demonstrates that early modern humans and Neanderthals are not all that different," said Dr. Erik Trinkaus, a paleoanthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis. "They intermixed, interbred and produced offspring."

Although some scientists disputed the interpretation, other scientists who study human origins said in interviews last week that the findings were intriguing, probably correct and certain to provoke debate and challenges to conventional thinking about the place of Neanderthals in human evolution.

Neanderthals and modern humans presumably were more alike than different, not a separate species or even subspecies, but two groups who viewed each other as appropriate mates.
.....
"This find should be devastating to the out-of-Africa people," Dr. Wolpoff said. "It shows their theory doesn't work, at least in Europe. And it shows that fundamentally, Neanderthals are the same species we are and they contributed their genes to European ancestry."

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Neanderthal.html

I realize this is a NYT's article, but it does reflect my view of Neanderthals not as a separate species, but as a different tribe of people.

This message has been edited by randman, 01-11-2006 12:01 PM


Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Belfry, posted 01-11-2006 12:24 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 67 by Nuggin, posted 01-11-2006 1:35 PM randman has responded

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 2176 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 63 of 96 (278142)
01-11-2006 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
01-07-2006 2:25 AM


I'm awaiting more evidence
Let's hear what people think and why they think it.

I am very interested in the relationship of neanderthal and cromagnon.
It's a question of how much divergence took place. I've not taking sides at the moment though as I don't think the evidence is conclusive.

lfen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 01-07-2006 2:25 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
Belfry
Member (Idle past 2584 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 64 of 96 (278143)
01-11-2006 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by randman
01-11-2006 12:00 PM


Re: note as well
Very interesting, thanks!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by randman, posted 01-11-2006 12:00 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 65 of 96 (278163)
01-11-2006 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by randman
01-11-2006 11:49 AM


Re: It's not the Neanderthals I'm worried about...
we were taught Cro-magnon averaged 6' tall

I agree with that statement, but I don't think the picture shows anything different. There's no scale put up, so assuming Cro-Mag there is 6 ft, then the modern man is what? 6'2". I have at least 4 friends who meet or beat that criteria and none of them play basketball.

A better question to ask is why everyone in the picture seems to be white?

Neaderthal seems misrepresented as well.

How so? I pointed out two features that I "think" aren't accurate -
1) Should be more muscled
2) I think the neck is located an inch or two too far back in the skull.

Are you seeing other things or just those two? Because, even though I pointed them out, it's a much better picture than I could ever hope to draw.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by randman, posted 01-11-2006 11:49 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by randman, posted 01-11-2006 1:39 PM Nuggin has responded
 Message 70 by randman, posted 01-11-2006 1:43 PM Nuggin has responded

    
Nuggin
Member
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 66 of 96 (278164)
01-11-2006 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by randman
01-11-2006 11:49 AM


Re: link
Good link, Rand. Interesting find.

The science is only as good as the most recent evidence.

It's entirely possible that there was hybridization and that Neanderthal genes were simply swamped by the comparitive inrush of purely Homo Sapien genes.

Or, it could be that there was hybridization and all members of the hybrid group and their decendants died out before modern day, leaving no DNA record in the current gene pool.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by randman, posted 01-11-2006 11:49 AM randman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by bernd, posted 01-11-2006 5:08 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

    
Nuggin
Member
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 67 of 96 (278168)
01-11-2006 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by randman
01-11-2006 12:00 PM


Back to my earlier question
it does reflect my view of Neanderthals not as a separate species

Let's run with that. Obviously Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens had different features, and started up in different areas.

It seems apparent that Homo Erectus was the seeder of both populations.

Would we then assume that Homo Erectus, Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens shouldn't be considered different species, but rather different extremes within a larger group?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by randman, posted 01-11-2006 12:00 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by randman, posted 01-11-2006 1:40 PM Nuggin has responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2398 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 68 of 96 (278169)
01-11-2006 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Nuggin
01-11-2006 1:27 PM


Re: It's not the Neanderthals I'm worried about...
Nuggin, depicting modern man as typically 6'2" is way off the mark. I don't know what the average height is now, but in the 70s, it's far less than 6', and more like 5'7", something like that. Gotta remember that some Oriental nations have far less height and yet great numbers.

So an accurate depiction would show Cro-Magnon significantly taller than modern man, and would cut all the extraneous stuff like one having a beard and another not. That stuff creates a false appearance of some anatomical evolution taking place which has not basically occurred for the most part, except people are smaller than they once were, and even that is changing some now back the other way due to nutrition.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Nuggin, posted 01-11-2006 1:27 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Nuggin, posted 01-11-2006 2:34 PM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2398 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 69 of 96 (278170)
01-11-2006 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Nuggin
01-11-2006 1:35 PM


Re: Back to my earlier question
Nuggins, I think evos ought to consider Neanderthals and Cro-magnons and modern people all the same species.

Because evos look at things differently, I don't think they are going to call Homo Erectus the same species, but I have no problem with that, or perhaps species is not the best term.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Nuggin, posted 01-11-2006 1:35 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-11-2006 2:20 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 75 by Nuggin, posted 01-11-2006 2:44 PM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2398 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 70 of 96 (278171)
01-11-2006 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Nuggin
01-11-2006 1:27 PM


Re: It's not the Neanderthals I'm worried about...
On Neanderthals, my understanding is Neanderthals had larger brains and a side view limits some aspects as well. The arms seem longer and larger on all 3, but maybe not.

The basic problem is we could find 3 people today, line them up, dress them funny, one shaven and another not, and create a similar line-up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Nuggin, posted 01-11-2006 1:27 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Nuggin, posted 01-11-2006 2:38 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5277
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 71 of 96 (278174)
01-11-2006 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Adminnemooseus
01-10-2006 11:48 PM


Re: Official warning - Those little irrelevant one-liners creeping in again
So cut it out, you old fart geologist idiot.

Yessir. I'll try to be good.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-10-2006 11:48 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3529
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 72 of 96 (278181)
01-11-2006 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by randman
01-11-2006 1:40 PM


Neanderthals, Cro-magnons, and modern people same species?
Nuggins, I think evos ought to consider Neanderthals and Cro-magnons and modern people all the same species.

Not the expert here, but I think that Cro-magnons and modern man ARE both considered to be Homo sapiens.

The Homo sapeins vs. Neanderthal relationship is much more debated. I think there are some scientists that do consider Neaderthal man to be a variety of Homo sapiens.

I think it may be much like the relationship between the domestic dog and the wolf.

The wolf is Canis lupus. The dog is Canis familiaris to some, and Canis lupus familiaris (a breed of wolf) to others. I like the "breed of wolf" concept. But this is not a wolf/dog topic. I bring such up because...

I think some file Neanderthal man under Homo neanderthalis and some file him under Homo sapiens neanderthalis.

I point out that there is the existing topic Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon, started by Mammuthus.

Moose (the other smelly hairy member)

This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-11-2006 02:27 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by randman, posted 01-11-2006 1:40 PM randman has not yet responded

    
Nuggin
Member
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 73 of 96 (278186)
01-11-2006 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by randman
01-11-2006 1:39 PM


Re: It's not the Neanderthals I'm worried about...
re: Average heights

I agree that the overall average height of people is under 6', mostly due to low protein content in Asian food and their disproportionately high numbers.

Still, this image of a man is clearly not Asian. I'd suggest N. European - so the height is right on mark.

However, if you want to talk about whether or not this picture should show a N European as opposed to a sub-saharan African, I'm right there with ya.

re: The Beard and the Spear
I agree, not much reason to put it in there. I can only assume it's there because, frankly, there isn't any physical difference to depict, so how does the artist convey that these two are different groups other than mangy hair and primative tools. Seems out of place to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by randman, posted 01-11-2006 1:39 PM randman has not yet responded

    
Nuggin
Member
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 74 of 96 (278187)
01-11-2006 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by randman
01-11-2006 1:43 PM


Re: It's not the Neanderthals I'm worried about...
my understanding is Neanderthals had larger brains and a side view limits some aspects as well

Larger by volume, but not up/down height. A side view of the skull is actually better to evaluate the Neanderthal size. However, with the flesh on, it's pretty hard to make anything out.

The basic problem is we could find 3 people today, line them up, dress them funny, one shaven and another not, and create a similar line-up.

Of the first two, certainly. Of the Neanderthal? I dunno know. There are a lot of people out there, some pretty weird looking, but no forehead, no chin is a tricky find.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by randman, posted 01-11-2006 1:43 PM randman has not yet responded

    
Nuggin
Member
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 75 of 96 (278189)
01-11-2006 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by randman
01-11-2006 1:40 PM


Re: Back to my earlier question
Because evos look at things differently, I don't think they are going to call Homo Erectus the same species, but I have no problem with that, or perhaps species is not the best term.

Yeah, we're a little limited by our vocabulary here. The real definition of species may not suit us well.

My overall point is this -
If we consider a group ranging from H. Erectus to Neanderthals to H. Sapiens as a collection which we consider "varitions on a theme" (since "species" isn't really suitable), then there is a theoretical perfectly average individual. A mid-point of the group, whose features are equadistant from all versions.

Sort of like a Chocolate Lab standing amoung a wide ranging group of dogs.

Agreed?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by randman, posted 01-11-2006 1:40 PM randman has not yet responded

    
Prev1234
5
67Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017