All in the Family - Guest star: Neanderthal

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

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

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

Very interesting, thanks!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

So cut it out, you old fart geologist idiot.

Yessir. I'll try to be good.

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

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.

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.

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?