I do not understand hou one can conclude that two genotypes of the same species, who coexisted, did not interbreed.
Remember, the definition of species is "cabable of breeding."
Furthermore, Many humans exhibit neanderthal traits - I do. If you put my skull up there, scientists would argue for years over which class it belonged in. Some traits of both.
Also, Neandethal had a brain volume of about ~1500cc, modern humand about ~1400cc. The argument that modern humans are smarter seems silly.
I don't know what happened, but it seems the simplest answer is that the two became one, by interbreeding.
Any interbreeding was probably minimal.
Until very modern times, women were usually not even passed from one tribe or clan to another, much less all the way to another species.
Moreover, even primitive peoples have a sense of aesthetic, and by any sense of human aesthetics I'm aware of Neanderthals must've been butt ugly.
Finally, a child must not be merely born. It must be raised. Most cultures practiced infanticide of 'deficient' infants until relatively modern times. Raising an infant requires a great expenditure. Why on earth would modern humans want to raise a hybrid?
I think the arguments that humans and Neanderthals interbred are rather inane myself. And modern humans don't just "exhibit Neanderthal traits"; heck, modern humans exhibit chimpanzee traits, and even some duck-bill platypus traits. What that reveals is some degree of common ancestry, not human/duckbill interbreeding.
The argument that modern humans are smarter hardly seems silly. It is not just cranial capacity that matters. It is also brain/body proportions and neural structure.
The simplest answer is not interbreeding. That is a strained answer. Humans clearly did not emerge from Neanderthals; they emerged elsewhere and moved into Neanderthal territory. The simplest answer is that they killed the Neanderthals. That is what humans typically do to predecessor occupants of territory they conquer.
Larger usually means smarter, yet there is a steady improvement at modern-human sights in flints and tools, but Neanderthal sights show zero advancement in hundreds of years. There is also a lack of evidence (which is never conclusive) that they did not make drawings, although they did appear to bury their dead with some sentimentality (flowers). The interbreeding concept was the traditional thought, but modern DNA analysis appears to nullify it (see, THE NEANDERTHAL ENIGMA, by James Shreeve). It does seem odd that there would be no interbreeding, but we don't know the physical and cultural traits of Neanderthals. After all Wolves and Poodles aren't likely to make it happen, although it is possible. Another idea is that offspring were sterile like mules. I recommend the above book to anyone who has a curiosity about this. He is honest in not asserting what he really doesn't know, while exploring the possibilities.
Now although many of these different bird "species" have been shown to be capable of producing mixed offspring, they never do.
My point is that you shouldn't read too much into the skeletal similarities.
Seems to me that we could use someone with at least a high school education to moderate this "discussion" which, in many ways, sounds like one might expect from primitives discovering some modern tool like say a calculator.
Has anybody ever heard of the notion of the "opposable thumb"?
Did'nt think so.
Or anything having to do with Human Intelligence?...like the concept of "object permanence"?
Better "tools" are thought to be reflections of more advanced mental development and manual skills.
Maybe we should find a primer on Anthropology?
(And learn how to use our SpellCheckers?
And for at least the first hour avoid references to "BrokeBack Mountain"?)
>>Neandethal had a brain volume of about ~1500cc, modern humans about ~1400cc. The argument that modern humans are smarter seems silly.
I thought it was all about wrinkles, not size. Wait a second, I'll go ask my whale.
First of all, we can't apply that definition of species dogmatically to Neanderthals and humans because we are unable to tell by looking at their bones whether they were capable of interbreeding. Originally they were considered to be a subspecies, so one would think that they almost certainly would have been capable of interbreeding, but currently it is thought that they represent a distinct species. So it is unknown whether or not interbreeding would be genetically possible.
Secondly, even assuming that interbreeding could produce viable offspring, there are many other variables that can reduce the odds of interbreeding to zero. There are many species that are capable of interbreeding artificially but do not in nature because of behavioral and physiological constraints.
Probably the most significant factor to be considered in interbreeding is the intelligence of the species. We all know that modern humans are quite adept at dividing groups into Self and Other. For humans, Neanderthals would have been decidedly Other. We don't know if Neanderthals had this same tendency towards bigotry (most likely, since it has adaptive value), but we do know that they were fairly insular, living in small family groups, not travelling very far, and not engaging in trade to any great extent. This makes alliances between the species unlikely.
Because the Neanderthals seem to have been fairly insular it is unlikely they would welcome a human male into their population. They may have felt differently about human females. However, they probably would find it difficult to get their hands on them considering humans considered women to be a valuable commodity. Because of this, they would be unlikely to allow the small bands of Neanderthals to steal women. On the other hand, humans would be unlikely to allow a Neanderthal male (Other and male to boot) into their group to mate with a human woman. They might be more accepting of Neanderthal women, but in general they probably considered human women preferable.
All of this would have been compounded if it is true (as some have argued) that Neanderthals had not developed sufficiently for complex language. It is certain that they could make a wide variety of vocalizations, but it's hard to say if they had speech.
This would show up very clearly in the mtDNA. The studies to date don't show it.
Agree.
Sloping foreheads and receding chins are very common among Europeans. I also see those elongated skulls and many males with serious brow ridges.
I think ruling out interbreeding is simply a matter of arrogance.
Incorrect. Species means they can breed and produce viable, fertile offspring. Horses and mules are not the same species. You can breed them and get a viable, infertile offspring called a mule.
Homo sapiens may not have been able to create a viable, fertile offspring with Neanderthals.
Diet plays a significant part in the quality of the human brain. Access to fish with EPA/DHA components will produce a better brain. Cranial volume is not the final arbiter of intelligence. Natural selection will also play a part. The smarter ones figure out how to survive.
Occam's Razor says that you are more likely to be correct in that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. This flies in the face of some creditable, although not conclusive, studies so I am inclined to think that some of my fellow men, and Helen the Doyen of the WH press corps, have more Neanderthal in them then others.