[fishtank]

Article image.

[bgill]

#NLM!

[Architect of Avalon]

Neanderthals, the superhumans who were the progenitors of Vikings and Celts, should be respected.

[2ndDivisionVet]

[arthurus]

The low percentage of Neanderthal genes in the modern population likely reflects the very low Neanderthal population relative to that of the newcomers. Interbreeding indicates same species. The whole range of Chihuahuas to Wolves represents one species. The “coyotes” I see where I work range from little fellows of maybe 25 pounds to a critter that is easily 80 pounds or more. In the East at least, there seems to be no fine between wolves and coyotes and coyotes have been making puppies with domestic dogs for a long time.

[Snickering Hound]

[mac_truck]

I read something recently which suggested that Neanderthals may not have practiced the same mating ritual exclusion of family members that their modern human counterparts did, and that may have led to their demise.

[Leep]

Darwin was a racist.

[mga60]

Please read or view Danny Vendramini’s “Neanderthal’s Predation Theory.”

[metmom]

It sure does and groups like BLM insist on keeping it going.

Seems to me that a great many blacks do not want to let racism die.

[JimSEA]

The questions this raises are interesting and deal with both cultural and physical adaptation to a drastically changing environment. “The 2 million year melee—neanderthals vs. humans” in Physics dot Org explores the probable answer. Basically it argues that the Neanderthal was well adapted to the ice age conditions of Europe and lived in more isolated communities. When the great melting came, the Homo Saipins were better able to survive in an environment where connected cultures and the physical adaptations for running and hunting on a warming environment gave a reproductive advantage. The full article can be found here.

[BroJoeK]

from the article: "The evidence shows that Neanderthals were fully human, having shared genetic information with us.
Why, then, do Darwin Supremacists continue to treat them as “other” than human? "

Other than bashing alleged "Darwin Supremacists" (??) it's not at all clear what this article is trying to say.
The real issue is: where exactly, by definition, do we draw the lines separating different races (breeds/varieties) of the same sub-species, or different sub-species of the same species, or different species of the same biological genus, or different genera of the same biological family, etc.
Where we draw such lines matters a lot in saying whether populations like Neanderthals were a different race/breed of humans, homo sapiens-sapiens, or a different sub-species, homo-sapiens-Neanderthal of the human species, or a whole different species, homo-Neanderthal, of the homo genus.

The fact is that Neanderthals were not as closely related to us as we are to each other -- even the most distantly separated humans are more closely related to each other than to any Neanderthals.
That makes Neanderthals more than just another "race" (breed) of humans, they must be at least a sub-species and since they interbred with our ancestors, they cannot be more separated than a different species.

Where things stood until recent years: Neanderthals were considered at least a separate species, if not entirely different genus.
But since the DNA evidence has weighed in, they are now classified as only a different sub-species within humans: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

But how such changes justify the article's verbal assaults on "Darwin Supremacists" escapes me.