Posted on 02/26/2006 3:25:01 AM PST by Pharmboy
Maybe they just didn't have time to get to know each other.
The question of what Neanderthals and Homo sapiens might have done on cold nights in their caves, if they happened to get together and the fire burned down to embers, has intrigued scientists since the 19th century, when the existence of Neanderthals was discovered.
A correction in the way prehistoric time is measured using radiocarbon dating, described last week in the journal Nature, doesn't answer the enduring question, but it might at least help explain why no DNA evidence of interbreeding has been found: the two species spent less time together than was previously believed.
The old radiocarbon calculation is now known to be off by as much as several thousand years, the new research shows. That means that modern Homo sapiens barged into Europe 46,000 years ago, 3,000 years earlier than once estimated. But the radiocarbon dating under the new calculation also shows that their takeover of the continent was more rapid, their coexistence with the native Neanderthals much briefer.
snip...
Was that advantage cognitive, technological or demographic? Their personal ornaments and cave art, now seen to have emerged much earlier, are strong evidence for an emergence of complex symbolic behavior among the modern newcomers, a marked advance in their intelligence.
That doesn't mean they didn't interbreed with the Neanderthals.
snip...
"Since these two species may have been able to interbreed, as many closely related mammal species can," Dr. Harvati said, "a restricted coexistence interval may be easier to reconcile with the observed lack of Neanderthal genetic contribution to the modern human gene pool and with the paucity of convincing fossil evidence for hybridization."
The caves, it would seem, still hold their secrets.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
bump
No, not really.
Those of us (like the MI Ping list members,) who took and honor that oath by not talking are in essence protecting our nation which includes most FReepers.
You really wouldn't want us "leaking" would you?
The Neandertal EnigmaFrayer's own reading of the record reveals a number of overlooked traits that clearly and specifically link the Neandertals to the Cro-Magnons. One such trait is the shape of the opening of the nerve canal in the lower jaw, a spot where dentists often give a pain-blocking injection. In many Neandertal, the upper portion of the opening is covered by a broad bony ridge, a curious feature also carried by a significant number of Cro-Magnons. But none of the alleged 'ancestors of us all' fossils from Africa have it, and it is extremely rare in modern people outside Europe." [pp 126-127]
by James Shreeve
Nah . . . who'da thunk!
No. Now I understand, at least approximately.
Mutant red head, or "I'd rather be dead than have red on my head." Maybe that's what killed out the Neanderthals?!!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1585939/posts?page=100#100
Post 151 gets into THAT. :)
I don't think interspecies sexual contact is at all unusual or even remarkable. I myself have seen dogs try to mount just about anything that moves. My sister had a llama that she had to have castrated because it kept raping her sheep. Stories of moose mounting cattle are common and hybrid species like mules, ligers, pixie-bobs and beefalo are not terribly unusual. If you google "world's worst hunting dog" you'll find a variety of pictures of dogs being mounted by wild animals.
The common factor in all these cases are males that are more horny than they are particular and there is no reason to believe that Neanderthals were any different. In any event, we aren't talking about two wildly divergent species. If you were to see a Neanderthal walking down the street today dressed in modern clothing you might not even notice him. Heck, there's even an outside possibility that there might have been a sexual attraction between the two groups. That seems to be the case today with white men and Asian women and black men and white women.
Probably closer to the truth than some would care to believe..
Consider the following..
It's generally accepted that the "races" of modern man in the northern climates developed lighter skin (loss of melanin) to absorb more sunlight, producing needed vitamin D..
Likewise, the northern humans body hair changed to fine and straight, in order to better preserve body heat..
Neanders, having survived 2 Ice Ages, ( they were around for 200,000 years! ) probably also had light skin and fine, straight body hair..
Evolution itself may account for sufficient change in DNA structures to account for the lack of present evidence of Neander / Human assimilation..
Although many like to claim the DNA "Eve" as the first human, that's not really the case..
She's just all the farther we can go back by tracing mtDNA..
There were probably hundreds, if not thousands of other mtDNA lines that have simply died out and can no longer be traced back to their origins.
The same may be true for Neanderthal..
http://www.athenapub.com/8zilhao1.htm
You (and others) may find it interesting in it's conclusions..
Has a DNA "Eve" been identified?
If you're referring to the biblical Eve, no..
What I am referring to is the tracing of mtDNA to it's origins, or as close to them (as far back) as science is able to go..
The "origin" geneticists call Eve, and is referred to as the mother of us all..
That is, the only traceable source, or origin for those of us that live today..
IIRC, there is also a group called "the Seven Sisters" or something that are also considered primal ancestors of modern humanity..
All descendents of "Eve", naturally..
No, we don't, but here is what we do know:
1) No Neanderthal mtDNA lineage has been found to date among several thousands of Europeans.
2) No Neanderthal mtDNA lineage has been found to date in fossils of early modern Europeans.
3) Models of intra- and inter-specific craniofacial variation support a clear morphologocal distinction between Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon.
4) The considerably shortened period of Neanderthal somatic development points strongly toward a clear distinction between Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon.
5) The clear divergence and monophyly of Neanderthal mtDNA suggests a long separation of Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon female lineages, four times greater than that of the most recent common ancestor of human mtDNAs. IOW, the most recent common ancestor of Neandertal and modern human mtDNAs is indicated to have been roughly 550,000 years ago.
6) Intermediate hominid forms stand between their most recent common ancestor and each respective lineage of Neanderthal and of Cro-Magnon.
7) We find no evidence of the contribution of Neanderthals to modern human genetics in haplotype tree analyses and performed phylogeographic analyses.
8) Neanderthal fossils cease to occur in a region almost immediately following the advent of modern human fossils into that region.
9) We find no mixed communities of Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon.
10) We find no hybrid intermediate forms signifying Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon admixture.
11) Cro-Magnons were the first to produce arrowlike projectiles tipped with ivory and amber, while Neanderthal weapons were only wooden spears sometimes tipped with stone points.
12) Cro-Magnons also made figurines and created objects of bone, an ability the Neanderthals apparently largely lacked.
13) Cro-Magnons learned to build the first true houses; there is only one known instance where a Neanderthal appears to have built a crude dwelling, quite possibly by imitation of Cro-Magnons.
14) It is almost certain that the FOXP2 gene that is critical in modern human speech and language was absent in Neanderthal. Silent polymorphisms in the gene date the critical mutations in the FOXP2 gene to the last 100,000 years, long after the last common ancestor of Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon.
I meant to ping the two of you also to my post #175, that you may find of interest!
Fifteen years ago I leaned strongly toward the multiregional hypothesis. I did not change my mind because I felt a need to be "race-sensitive" or whatever it is you seem to imply. I changed my mind because of the evidence that contradicted the hypothesis. With specific regard to the Neanderthals, I have outlined the latest evidence above. With regard to posited admixture in Southeast Asia, I have actually shifted from rejection of the hypothesis to a neutral stance, because of the evidence (or, to some degree, lack thereof).
My views on this are not determined by the politics of race. I do not hesitate to reject unsupported PC notions if the evidence contradicts them. As a matter of fact, I think The Bell Curve has considerable merit, notwithstanding its volatile implications. I do not have the slightest problem with investigations into matters of race or gender or sex or anything else.
It is simply my very strong judgment at this point in time that the weight of the evidence is overwhelmingly against the notion of Neanderthal/Cro Magnon admixture as any type of consequential phenomenon, and that indeed the weight of the evidence suggests that the two were fully distinct species.
PS. And with regard to hybrids, point well-taken.
Have you noticed the remarkable tendency of your examples to cite domesticated animals? The behavior of domesticated animals is oftentimes very different from the behavior of wild animals, precisely for that reason: domestication.
Now I don't have the time or motive to explain to you the various differences, but I will add this: To the best of our knowledge, neither Cro-Magnons nor Neanderthals were kept as pets of the other or as pets of any other species. In fact, the best evidence we have suggests that there were no domesticated animals during the era when Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons were coterminous.
Moreover, the term "extraordinary" is meant to contrast with the term "ordinary" - IOW, that ordinarily interspecies sex does not occur - and it is not meant to be confused with the term "nonexistent" - IOW, it does occur, it's just an extraordinary occurrence.
And finally, "not terribly unusual" is terribly subjective terminology. What percentage of the progeny of lions or tigers would you guesstimate to be ligers? Probably a not a terribly high percentage if the answer were accurate..
"But then, a lot of people will have to admit they were flat out wrong.
I guess it is easier to just keep "updating" the theory."
I think you are right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.