Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Good Neanderthal Was Hard to Find
NY Times:Week in Review ^ | February 26, 2006 | JOHN NOBLE WILFORD

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: crevolist; europe; godsgravesglyphs; helixmakemineadouble; humanevolution; milfordwolpoff; neandertal; neandertals; neanderthal; neanderthals
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 241-252 next last
To: Pharmboy; bert; AntiGuv
"I believe that based on carbon dating, those may have to be revised."

So is that where the custom of giving a Diamond engagement ring came from? From carbon dating among the cave people?

81 posted on 02/26/2006 7:15:05 AM PST by NicknamedBob (Islamists say we shouldn't make a mockery of religion -- funny, that's the problem I have with them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
Then if that is true, then ancient human DNA shows humans did not evolve from Neandertals, correct?

How does this impact the theory of evolution then?

Not at all. I wonder why you would think that it would have some type of impact considering humans are not thought to be descended from Neanderthals. . .

82 posted on 02/26/2006 7:18:08 AM PST by ahayes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Interesting. Thank you. You have prodded me to look into this further, especially the Out of Africa theory.

Genetic Studies: Do They Support Human Evolution?

83 posted on 02/26/2006 7:21:20 AM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
But it is worth noting that in paleo-anthropology tool-making and cultural behaviors are conventionally regarded as the barometers of intelligence. Therefore, if the Neanderthals were clearly inferior to the Cro-Magnon in those regards, then it is extrapolated that were clearly less intelligent.

And finally, it is worth noting that it is a fallacy to craft an analogy between modern post-Industrial society and the pre-urban subsistence world of the Cro-Magnon. Back then, and until relatively very recent times (about 5000 years ago) the degree of technological aptitude or cultural sophistication was all but indistinguishable between humans worldwide.

You are a bit smug about this. First you say intelligence and technolgy matter. In the next breath, you say they don't. Your readiness to throw around words like "fallacy" are a hint. Tool making is driven by necessity, not intelligence. Those who live in the garden of eden where food is plentiful and climate is not harsh can do very well without technology.

The bushman of the Kalahari dessert spend only four hours a day working to survive. The same with Amerindians deep in the Amazon Jungle. Where people compete for scarce resources, they learn each other's technology which more often than not had to do with fighting. The endless wars and competition among people of Eurasia brought them to a more advanced state of development than elsewhere. An old saying, "necessity is the mother of invention." is a good commonsense explanation of technological differences than the academic one that looks for intelligence in genetics. One would have Condolezza Rice washing floors with such a view.

84 posted on 02/26/2006 7:24:20 AM PST by LoneRangerMassachusetts (From behind enemy lines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: ahayes
Perhaps because that has been a theory in many circles for years.

There are 87,000 hits alone on Google for this subject.

Human+Beings+Descended+from+Neanderthals

85 posted on 02/26/2006 7:24:55 AM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

The same argument shows that Kenniwick Man was just a deformed Indian.


86 posted on 02/26/2006 7:25:10 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Dustbunny; Pharmboy
"What we need is a time machine so we can go back and collect the information on the theories we keep coming up with."

I used my time machine to go back and "collect infromation" about the sex habits of Neanderthals and early Cro-Magnon.

I don't have a definitive answer to the lack of interbreeding, but my butt still hurts.

(/sarc)

87 posted on 02/26/2006 7:25:11 AM PST by NicknamedBob (Islamists say we shouldn't make a mockery of religion -- funny, that's the problem I have with them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts

At no point did I say that intelligence and technology don't matter. What I did was agree with you that they did not matter in the way that you incorrectly thought I had previously said that they mattered.

The Neanderthals lived in a much harsher environment than that where the early modern humans that replaced them originated.


88 posted on 02/26/2006 7:28:19 AM PST by AntiGuv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Phil Connors
My question: Is it possible that the story of Cain and Abel is actually a faint race memory of our first genocidal war--against the Neandertal?

I think so. Here's my since refuted theory (I'm giving you all of it because, despite being wrong in key details, its' a good story) The bolded paragraph is somewhat germane...

The First Man Was a Woman

I can't prove it, but I believe the first man was a woman.

Modern science has used mitochondrial DNA to track human origins back to a single female. This is the so-called Eve hypothesis.

I believe that this was the first fully human Homo Sapiens. A girl was born with a genetic 'defect' in her mitochondria. The mitochondria control the enzyme activity in the cell. This change affected her metabolism at a deep cellular level.

The first human had an altered metabolism that manifested itself in a suite of gross differences:

She lacked vibrissae, the sensory whiskers common to all other mammals.
She had full lips, not the thin line at the rim of the mouth typical of other species.
She was weak, compared to others of her kind.
Her features retained a more child-like appearance as she grew up.
But, the two most critical differences were a lack of body hair, and a monthly estrus cycle.

Why are the last two most critical?

The lack of body hair provided an interesting advantage. To understand this, let's look at cats. There is a breed of hairless cat. Instead of fur, they have a velvety skin. Their owners often comment on how affectionate their cats are. Affectionate? Not really, these cats are just COLD, they snuggle to keep warm!

Back to our first human, she sure is cuddly. She is much more desirable than her standoffish hairy sisters.

Rather than the annual fertility cycle, she is 'in heat' all of the time. Cuddly and friendly too!

Lacking muscle strength, she needed to be protected. The beginnings of love as we now understand it.

That she needed protection is deeply ingrained it the human psyche. In propaganda there are surprisingly few common themes. The enemy is depicted as snakes, spiders, octopus, and, ... and ... hairy ape-men seizing the furless women. The massive muscular King Kong is interested in the petite Fay Rae. Did you ever wonder why this resonated with the audience?

Simple. The first man was a woman...

89 posted on 02/26/2006 7:29:49 AM PST by null and void (Imagine what they would be doing if it wasn't a religion of peace!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

I will add my uninformed thoughts to the others on Neanderthals.
Having survived in a northern clime for eons, they were probable furry.
There evidently are no descendants from FEMALE Neanderthals.
If females had to be taken by force (kept the race strong), and the average female Neanderthal was strong enough to sling the average horny Cro-Magnon male into the next county there would be very few successful Cro-Magnon-Neaderthal rapes.


90 posted on 02/26/2006 7:30:22 AM PST by Hiddigeigei (One doesn't have to regret the Enlightenment to be a conservative!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

It hasn't been a theory in scientific circles for decades. It has been thought possible that interbreeding occurred between early humans and Neanderthals, but as we've discussed in this topic that now appears unlikely to have occurred to any significant extent.

I'm afraid much of the material you can find on Google tends to lag behind the scientific cutting edge by decades (or in some cases centuries!)


91 posted on 02/26/2006 7:33:26 AM PST by ahayes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Lovely-Day-For-A-Guinness
This is tenuous evidence as even today there are tools in use that aren't much different than what was used thousands of years ago.

Yeah, but the Neanderthalers didn't improve their tools for 100,000 years. That just ain't human...

92 posted on 02/26/2006 7:33:32 AM PST by null and void (Imagine what they would be doing if it wasn't a religion of peace!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: NicknamedBob

You are a bad man.

But I guess I've told you that before...


93 posted on 02/26/2006 7:36:21 AM PST by null and void (Imagine what they would be doing if it wasn't a religion of peace!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: PUGACHEV

I continue to question the validity of any comparisons to modern H. sap DNA. The comparisons should be to similarly old H. sap. DNA.

Plus the genetic differences appear not to be great enough to guarantee inter-group infertility, even at this chronological remove.


94 posted on 02/26/2006 7:36:42 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Molecular Clockwork And Related Theories
95 posted on 02/26/2006 7:37:58 AM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

The debate was inevitable but it's certain the context of the burial (Gravettian not Mousterian) and the subsequent evidence of the cranio-facial analysis supports Schwartz and Tattersall not Trinkaus.


96 posted on 02/26/2006 7:38:16 AM PST by Varda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot; AntiGuv

I don't have an opinion in this debate. I do, however, have some concerns about DNA evidence. Based on recent problems in the Houston Police Department crime lab it seems that DNA can prove whatever someone wants. Maybe there are others who are competent in DNA testing.


97 posted on 02/26/2006 7:38:38 AM PST by FreePaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

And how many of those hits include "not" in the actual text?


98 posted on 02/26/2006 7:39:13 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: blam

That looks very interesting. I don't have time to read it right this moment (I have to leave for a couple hours) but I will definitely plan on it later. Thanks for the ping!


99 posted on 02/26/2006 7:39:25 AM PST by AntiGuv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Lovely-Day-For-A-Guinness
Today's archaeologists are really no different than the British expeditions into deepest and darkest Africa where their findings made outrageous claims that the people they encountered were subhuman primitives.

So you think archaeological method and theory has not advanced in 150 years?

What cave have you been hiding in?

Signed: Coyoteman (an archaeologist)

100 posted on 02/26/2006 7:40:47 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 241-252 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson