'Your Forefathers Were Not Neanderthals'

IOL ^ | 1-26-2004 | Maggie Fox

[blam]

'Your forefathers were not Neanderthals'

January 26 2004 at 02:30PM

By Maggie Fox

Washington - You may think your grandparents act like Neanderthals, but United States researchers said on Monday they had strong evidence that modern humans are not descended from them.

A computer analysis of the skulls of modern humans, Neanderthals, monkeys and apes shows that we are substantially different, physically, from those early humans.

New York University paleoanthropologist Katerina Harvati said Neanderthals should be considered a separate species from Homo sapiens, and not just a sub-species.

"We interpret the evidence presented here as supporting the view that Neanderthals represent an extinct human species and therefore refute the regional continuity model for Europe," she and colleagues wrote in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Some anthropologists believe that Neanderthals, who went extinct 30 000 years ago, may have at least contributed to the ancestry of modern Europeans.

There is strong evidence that Homo sapiens neanderthalis, as they are known scientifically, interacted with the more modern Cro-Magnons, who eventually displaced them. Cro-Magnons are the ancestors of modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens.

Some research has suggested they may have interbred to a limited degree, although this is hotly disputed in anthropological circles.

At least one study that looked at fragments of Neanderthal DNA suggested any Neanderthal-Cro-Magnon offspring did not add to the modern gene pool.

Harvati and colleagues combined modern computer technology and the tried-and-true method of determining species that uses physical comparisons.

They examined the skulls of modern humans and Neanderthals and 11 existing species of non-human primates including chimpanzees, gorillas and baboons.

They measured 15 standard skull and face landmarks and used 3-D analysis to superimpose each one on the other.

"From these data, we were able to determine how much variation living primate species generally accommodate, as well as measure how different two primate species that are closely related can be," Harvati said in a statement.

Their computer analyses showed that the differences measured between modern humans and Neanderthals were significantly greater than those found between subspecies of living monkeys and apes.

[PatrickHenry]

These are now discarded?

Donno. I don't keep up with Neanderthal news. Ask Blam.

[visualops]

I'm a little late arriving at this thread, but I couldn't ignore your comment regarding horse evolution.

Excerpted from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

Horse Evolution

by Kathleen Hunt

Copyright ©1995-2003

his is a companion file for the Transitional Fossils FAQ and is part of the Fossil Horses FAQs. In this post I will try to describe the modern view of evolution within the horse family. I apologize in advance for the length; I didn't want to cut it down any more than this, because horse evolution has been oversimplified too many times already. I wanted people to see some of the detail and complexity of the fossil record of a fairly well known vertebrate group. (In fact, even at this length, this post is still only a summary!) People who are in a hurry may just want to read the intro and summary and look at the tree.

Outline

1. Historical background -- why fossil horses are famous
2. Timescale and horse family tree
3. Small equids of the Eocene
4. Medium-sized browsing equids, late Eocene and Oligocene
5. The Miohippus radiation of browsing equids (24 My)
6. Horses move onto the plains: spring-foot & high-crowned teeth (18 My)
7. The merychippine radiation of the late Miocene (15 My)
8. One-toed grazing horses of the Pliocene & Pleistocene
9. Modern equines
10. Summary
11. References

I. Historical Background

In the 1870's, the paleontologist O.C. Marsh published a description of newly discovered horse fossils from North America. At the time, very few transitional fossils were known, apart from Archeopteryx. The sequence of horse fossils that Marsh described (and that T.H. Huxley popularized) was a striking example of evolution taking place in a single lineage. Here, one could see the fossil species "Eohippus" transformed into an almost totally different-looking (and very familiar) descendent, Equus, through a series of clear intermediates. Biologists and interested laypeople were justifiably excited. Some years later, the American Museum of Natural History assembled a famous exhibit of these fossil horses, designed to show gradual evolution from "Eohippus" (now called Hyracotherium) to modern Equus. Such exhibits focussed attention on the horse family not only as evidence for evolution per se, but also specifically as a model of gradual, straight-line evolution, with Equus being the "goal" of equine evolution. This story of the horse family was soon included in all biology textbooks.

As new fossils were discovered, though, it became clear that the old model of horse evolution was a serious oversimplification. The ancestors of the modern horse were roughly what that series showed, and were clear evidence that evolution had occurred. But it was misleading to portray horse evolution in that smooth straight line, for two reasons:

1. First, horse evolution didn't proceed in a straight line. We now know of many other branches of horse evolution. Our familiar Equus is merely one twig on a once-flourishing bush of equine species. We only have the illusion of straight-line evolution because Equus is the only twig that survived. (See Gould's essay "Life's Little Joke" in Bully for Brontosaurus for more on this topic.)
2. Second, horse evolution was not smooth and gradual. Different traits evolved at different rates, didn't always evolve together, and occasionally reversed "direction". Also, horse species did not always come into being by gradual transformation ("anagenesis") of their ancestors; instead, sometimes new species "split off" from ancestors ("cladogenesis") and then co-existed with those ancestors for some time. Some species arose gradually, others suddenly.

Overall, the horse family demonstrates the diversity of evolutionary mechanisms, and it would be misleading -- and would be a real pity -- to reduce it to an oversimplified straight-line diagram.

With this in mind, I'll take you through a tour of the major genera of the horse family, Equidae. CAUTION: I will place emphasis on those genera that led to the modern Equus. Do not be misled into thinking that Equus was the target of evolution! Bear in mind that there are other major branches of the horse tree that I will mention only in passing. (See the horse tree for a lovely ASCII depiction.)

Small preface: All equids (members of the family Equidae) are perissodactyls -- members of the order of hoofed animals that bear their weight on the central 3rd toe. (Other perissodactyls are tapirs and rhinos, and possibly hyraxes.) The most modern equids (descendents of Parahippus) are called "equines". Strictly speaking, only the very modern genus Equus contains "horses", but I will call all equids "horses" rather indiscriminately.

Most horse species, including all the ancestors of Equus, arose in North America.

 

II. Timescale and Horse Family Tree

Recent	10,000 years ago to present
Pleistocene	2.5-0.01 My (million years ago)
Pliocene	5.3-2.5 My
Miocene	24-5.3 My
Oligocene	34-24 My
Eocene	54-34 My

And here's the tree...note that the timescale is a bit weird (e.g. the Oligocene is compressed almost to nothing) to keep it from being too long. All the names on the tree are genus names, so recall that each genus encompasses a cluster of closely related species.

The is a brief description of the tree for those who are visually impaired. Hyracotherium is shown giving rise to three lineages. Two lineages quickly go extinct. The third branches many times. There are many branches alive during most times until two million years ago when only the various species of Equus remain. The tree itself is unreadable to those who are visually impaired so skip the tree graphic.

2My        Old & New World Equus
                \  |  /
                 \ | /
4My   Hippidion  Equus                                           Stylohipparion
         |        |                   Neohipparion   Hipparion   Cormohipparion
         |        |    Astrohippus         |           |             |
         |        |    Pliohippus          ---------------------------
12My     Dinohippus    Calippus                     \  |  /
             |          |         Pseudhipparion     \ | /
             |          |              |               |
             -------------------------------------------     Sinohippus
15My                  \  |  /                                 |
                       \ | /                     Megahippus   |
17My                Merychippus                      |        |
                         |           Anchitherium    Hypohippus
                         |                 |           |
23My                Parahippus             Anchitherium             Archeohippus
                         |                       |                       |
                  (Kalobatippus?)-----------------------------------------
25My                              \  |  /
                                   \ | /
                                     |
35My                                 |
                                Miohippus  Mesohippus
                                      |        |
40My                                  Mesohippus
                                          |
                                          |
                                          |
45My                      Paleotherium    |
                              |          Epihippus
                              |              |
                       Propalaeotherium      |       Haplohippus
                              |              |       |
50My         Pachynolophus    |              Orohippus
                   |          |                 |
                   |          |                 |
                   ------------------------------
                                    \  |  /
                                     \ | /
55My                             Hyracotherium

X. SUMMARY

For many people, the horse family remains the classic example of evolution. As more and more horse fossils have been found, some ideas about horse evolution have changed, but the horse family remains a good example of evolution. In fact, we now have enough fossils of enough species in enough genera to examine subtle details of evolutionary change, such as modes of speciation.

In addition to showing that evolution has occurred, the fossil Equidae also show the following characteristics of evolution:

1. Evolution does not occur in a straight line toward a goal, like a ladder; rather, evolution is like a branching bush, with no predetermined goal.

   Horse species were constantly branching off the "evolutionary tree" and evolving along various unrelated routes. There's no discernable "straight line" of horse evolution. Many horse species were usually present at the same time, with various numbers of toes, adapted to various different diets. In other words, horse evolution had no inherent direction. We only have the impression of straight-line evolution because only one genus happens to still be alive, which deceives some people into thinking that that one genus was somehow the "target" of all the evolution. Instead, that one genus is merely the last surviving branch of a once mighty and sprawling "bush".

   The view of equine evolution as a complex bush with many contemporary species has been around for several decades, and is commonly recounted in modern biology and evolution textbooks.

2. There are no truly consistent "trends".

   Tracing a line of descent from Hyracotherium to Equus reveals several apparant trends: reduction of toe number, increase in size of cheek teeth, lengthening of the face, increase in body size. But these trends are not seen in all of the horse lines. On the whole, horses got larger, but some horses (Archeohippus, Calippus) then got smaller again. Many recent horses evolved complex facial pits, and then some of their descendants lost them again. Most of the recent (5-10 My) horses were three-toed, not one-toed, and we see a "trend" to one toe only because all the three-toed lines have recently become extinct.

   Additionally, these traits do not necessarily evolve together, or at a steady rate. The various morphological characters each evolved in fits and starts, and did not evolve as a suite of characters. For example, throughout the Eocene, the feet changed little, and only the teeth evolved. Throughout the Miocene, both feet and teeth evolved rapidly. Rates of evolution depend on the ecological pressures facing the species.

   The "direction" of evolution depends on the ecological challenges facing the individuals of a species and on the variation in that species, not on an inherent "evolutionary trend".

3. New species can arise through several different evolutionary mechanisms.

   Sometimes, new species split off suddenly from their ancestors (e.g., Miohippus from Mesohippus) and then co-existed with those ancestors. Other species came into being through anagenetic transformation of the ancestor, until the ancestor had changed appearance enough to be given a new name (e.g. Equus from Dinohippus). Sometimes only one or a few species arose; sometimes there were long periods of stasis (e.g. Hyracotherium throughout the early Eocene); and sometimes there were enormous bursts of evolution, when new ecological opportunities arose (the merychippine radiation). Again, evolution proceeds according to the ecological pressures facing the individuals of a species and on the variation present within that species. Evolution takes place in the real world, with diverse rates and modes, and cannot be reduced to a single, simple process.

[edwin hubble]

Blam,

PatrickHenry referred me (with these questions) to you, He not being a Neanderthal expert (I am not either):

--- my post #178

---

Before this study there were these items:

1. Fossil remains of an apparent 'hybrid' child found in Spain (some components of Neanderthal and some H. Sapiens sapiens.)

2. The 'red head' gene, believed by some to be from the N. European Neanderthal.

These are now to be discarded?

[antiRepublicrat]

Correct one needs to reject the literalism and inerrancy of the Bible, but to do so is to reject the God of the Bible, as the Word is his communication with a fallen world.

This is a debate even among faithful Christians, from those who believe every word of the Bible as God-given fact (and therefore must believe that rabbits are ruminants and bats are birds) to those who believe in it more as spiritual and moral guidance written by errant human hands through God's inspiration.

No it isn't.

Convincing argument :)

The earlier part of Genesis was formulated at a time when the Jews were still a polytheistic tribe. This polytheism is quite evident throughout the early OT, as God tries to get rid of it.

[hopespringseternal]

Creationists have certainly pretended to make such claims, but they are as scientific as Miss Cleo's claptrap.

Oh please. Ever bloody your nose with that knee jerk?

I have met perfect atheists who snort in derision at the theory of evolution. Just because you like the koolaid doesn't mean everyone does.

Scientific progress and observation is not limited to those who hold to the faith of evolution.

[greenwolf]

Hunt doesn't seem to have gotten the word yet. A quick google search on 'horse' and 'evolution' should convince anybody that there's a problem with trying to use horses to prove evolution. One article notes:

The evolution of horses was once one of the evolutionist's favorite example of the theory. Now however, you'll hardly ever hear it mentioned by an evolutionist, yet it's still in many school textbooks. Some horses had three toes on their hind feet. Other horses had three toes with the two outer toes reduced in size, while still other horses had one toe, such as modern horses. Some horses had browsing teeth while others had grazing teeth. Yet there are no transitional fossils between horses with grazing teeth and horses with browsing teeth, no transitional fossils between horses with three toes and horses with one toe. What should have happened was a steady increase in size, a steady decrease in toes, a steady increase in ribs, etc. There has never been found a horse with two and a half toes, or one and a half toes. The fossils show no progressive increase in size, or no progressive increase in ribs as there should be. Where are all the fossils showing the evolution of horses? Simple, there are none.

Apparently most evolutionists have given up on horses.

It's not that you can't make ANY sort of a case for evolution; just that, as the years go by, the cases people do make seem to be getting more problematical and tenuous.

With theories which withstand the test of time, the arguments gets better as evidence comes in.

[realpatriot71]

This is a debate even among faithful Christians, from those who believe every word of the Bible as God-given fact (and therefore must believe that rabbits are ruminants and bats are birds) to those who believe in it more as spiritual and moral guidance written by errant human hands through God's inspiration.

When one starts picking and chosing which bits of the Bible are and are not literal, they've screwed up. God is not the god of confusion. He clear with His history and His Gospel.

I see since the Hewbrew refered to bat as birds, which is completely appropriate for the tiem it is written, Bible believing Christians now must also hold that bat are birds? Obviously they are not. God does not expect a person to "check his brain at the door" when reading His Word.

Convincing argument :) The earlier part of Genesis was formulated at a time when the Jews were still a polytheistic tribe. This polytheism is quite evident throughout the early OT, as God tries to get rid of it.

The statement wasn't meant as an argument, merely a statement of fact. The Bible is 100% Monothesistic, but I do not have the time, nor energy to "prove" everything to everyone. Look it up, only liberal, non-Bible believing scholars hold that this is true. If you want to join their camp, do so, but I hope you look into the subject and find the truth. Monotheism was carried through the generations by the decendants of Shem (Son of Noah), until we reach Abram, who as we all know is the father of the Jewish nation, and Abram was NO monotheist. Polytheism came about from the decendats of Ham (Son of Noah), specifically the worship of Cush, his son Nimrod, and Nimrod's wife around the time that the towel of Babel was built. All apostate religions since that day have remained largely unchanged, although the names of the "gods" changed from culture to culture. Look this up as well. It's an interesting subject.

[Virginia-American]

... In all other organisms, subspecies can and do interbreed and create viable, fertile offspring. ...

Chhuahuas and great Danes?

[VOA]

Washington - You may think your grandparents act like Neanderthals, but United States
researchers said on Monday they had strong evidence that modern humans are not
descended from them.

What bunk.
One of my classmates at the church-affiliated college I graduated from was
the spitting image of just about every Neanderthal male you'll ever seen
in some diorama at some natural history museum.

He was smart, friendly and a good classmate.
But he drove an older Cordoba with rich Corinthian leather...that alone
would identify a person as a Neanderthal in some fashion-conscious quarters.

[Little Bill]

I will almost forgive you for being a Libertarian for this post. Back in the the late 60's and early 70's when I was in school. I mentioned to a prof of mine that that evolution sounded like a tautology and the distribution of existing archaic species didn't make a hell of a lot of sense.

The guy went into anger mode and pointed out the work of the Leakey's and other Kenya worthies and generally foamed at the mouth. I pointed out to him that Heradotus had the Pygmies on the Niger River and all of this stuff, Don Johnson et al, seemed like a retrograde movement, being pushed to the extremities.

[NukeMan]

"I'd like some studies done on DNA of early modern humans and modern humans to see how much they diverge. The discrepancy might equal that observed between modern man and the Neanderthal specimens.

I think we are the same species and interbreeding could have produced and probably did produce, viable offspring."

Done! Lake Mungo Man (in Australia) has interesting results. Lake Mungo Man is anatomically modern, and anywhere from 40-60k years old - but his mitochondrial DNA differs a fair amount from modern mtDNA.
Here is a decent link:

http://www.neanderthal-modern.com/genetic2.htm

[VadeRetro]

Hunt doesn't seem to have gotten the word yet.

Sites spouting creationist claptrap are making a point of not getting the word. A number of posts made to you on this thread show that your 97 is ridiculous: not all species were present at the same time. A branching tree structure connects Hyracotherium, overall rather unhorselike but still representing the first appearance of some key characters, and Equus. Yes, many species--not all--were simultaneously present at various times. Yes, while many lines were simultaneously present, there often seemed to be no clear overall direction. But all the lines show change over time from Hyracotherium, and all but one died out.

Your points have been answered with what science actually tells us on the subject. You've answered the answers by quoting a single creationist site that echoes your rebutted nonsense. Note also the ridiculousness of this lawyerly dance:

Yet there are no transitional fossils between horses with grazing teeth and horses with browsing teeth, no transitional fossils between horses with three toes and horses with one toe. What should have happened was a steady increase in size, a steady decrease in toes, a steady increase in ribs, etc. There has never been found a horse with two and a half toes, or one and a half toes.

We have a lawyerly focus upon integer numbers of toes and not upon their size/usefulness/vestigiality. What it wishes away is that we see the toe changes perfectly, as shown in post 111. This is utterly bankrupt sophistry, if not shameful dishonesty.

[thefactor]

what do you think?

[tpaine]

I'm in agreement with 'Blam' that the out of africa bit is bull.. -- Not "that evolution sounded like a tautology".

The evidence that man has been evolving for hundreds of thousands of years is clearly visible to the rational mind.

[PatrickHenry]

Lurking ...

[Little Bill]

You as usual missed the point, a Tautology is defined as: A Is, because A Was, it is irreversible and unfalsifiable.( Bad, Bad, Karl Ott would dope slap you on that one, if he hadn't died.

I don't have a problem with the unproven guess of evolution, but I do have a problem with the Out Of Africa Theory.

[qam1]

Hunt doesn't seem to have gotten the word yet. A quick google search on 'horse' and 'evolution' should convince anybody that there's a problem with trying to use horses to prove evolution. One article notes:

The evolution of horses was once one of the evolutionist's favorite example of the theory. Now however, you'll hardly ever hear it mentioned by an evolutionist, yet it's still in many school textbooks. Some horses had three toes on their hind feet. Other horses had three toes with the two outer toes reduced in size, while still other horses had one toe, such as modern horses. Some horses had browsing teeth while others had grazing teeth. Yet there are no transitional fossils between horses with grazing teeth and horses with browsing teeth, no transitional fossils between horses with three toes and horses with one toe. What should have happened was a steady increase in size, a steady decrease in toes, a steady increase in ribs, etc. There has never been found a horse with two and a half toes, or one and a half toes. The fossils show no progressive increase in size, or no progressive increase in ribs as there should be. Where are all the fossils showing the evolution of horses? Simple, there are none.

Apparently most evolutionists have given up on horses.

You have got to be kidding. Post 111 shows that statement wrong about the toes and the teeth that transitional fossils are the Parahippus and Merychippus a simple Google search proves you wrong on that.

I swear you creationist are the same as Liberals, You are shown the facts showing you to be wrong and yet despite that you will just continue to spout the same tired old sound bites over and over again.

And speaking of Horse fossils and the Bible, There are numerous references to unicorns throughout the Bible so where are all the unicorn fossils?

[antiRepublicrat]

I see since the Hewbrew refered to bat as birds, which is completely appropriate for the tiem it is written, Bible believing Christians now must also hold that bat are birds? Obviously they are not. God does not expect a person to "check his brain at the door" when reading His Word.

You appear to be picking and choosing which parts are literal.

The statement wasn't meant as an argument, merely a statement of fact. The Bible is 100% Monothesistic, but I do not have the time, nor energy to "prove" everything to everyone.

Already seen it, already proven -- the earliest Bible stories come from a polytheistic culture and that is reflected in the writing. Attempts to reconcile this with the latter monotheistic culture is what results in the apparent inconsistencies in Genesis.

[tpaine]

As usual, you didn't make a good point.. Your obtuse bit here is a case in point:

"Tautology is defined as: A Is, because A Was, it is irreversible and unfalsifiable.( Bad, Bad, Karl Ott would dope slap you on that one, if he hadn't died."

Good god little gertie what is that all about?

[Little Bill]

Logic, you should read more, start with Aristotle and Aquinas.