Skip to comments.
Archaic Genes in Modern People?
Science Magazine
| 2005-04-22
| Elizabeth Culotta
Posted on 04/23/2005 8:30:41 PM PDT by Lessismore
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 last
To: blam
Also, I've read that the brain size of Cro-Magnon Man was larger than modern humans. And, someone mentioned on another thread that Homo-Erectus and Neanderthal had larger brains too but, I suspect this is incorrect. Cro-Magnon is about the same height, a larger brain case (~1500cc), and probably larger in body size than modern humans (we got smaller around the start of agriculture 15,000 - 10,000 ya). But anatomically, they were modern humans.
Brain capacity, in general:
- A. afarensis 375-550
- A. africanus 420-500
- H. habilis 550-725
- H. ergaster 750-900 (remained in Africa)
- H. erectus 800-1225 (migrated out of Africa)
- H. heidelbergensis 1200-1300
- H. sapien neanderthalensis 1350-1750
- H. sapien sapien 1300-1500
81
posted on
04/25/2005 11:27:49 AM PDT
by
dread78645
(Sarcasm tags are for wusses.)
To: Lessismore
Now we're going to start having some fun.
To: AntiGuv
" I'm not sure about Cro-Magnon, although my impression was that they are all but indistinguishable from modern humans. " The only one I'm certain about are the Cr-Magnon, they had a larger brain than moderns. The jury is still out on all others.
Here's an info filled article, Human Origins, I read down to where it said that Neanderthals had a larger brain than moderns(us).Gotta do something else now, back later.
83
posted on
04/25/2005 11:40:34 AM PDT
by
blam
To: dread78645; AntiGuv
Characteristics of Neanderthals: 1. Brain size average 1500 cc (larger than ours).
2. Thicker, more robust bones.
3. Cranium large, long, low with marked brow ridges.
4. Forehead higher than Homo erectus but lower than Homo sapiens.
5. Face projecting forward; nose large.
6. Front teeth large, heavily worn as if used as a vice to hold objects.
7. No chin
84
posted on
04/25/2005 11:47:32 AM PDT
by
blam
To: Ichneumon
"Make that two of us, out of Africa is bogus." "What's your evidence for that conclusion?"
He really, really wants it to be.
85
posted on
04/25/2005 11:58:16 AM PDT
by
b_sharp
(Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
To: Lessismore
hinting that modern humans interbred with other human species
But, but, but I thought that one of the (nearly) sacred definitions of a sexual species was that it could not breed true outside of itself.
To: Prophet in the wilderness
"Jessy Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan , and all the race baiters are all sadden now. " "Yes, they will be sadden now that there maybe evidence that humans came from SE ASIA and not from Africa and will target their racism more towards Asians now instead of Caucasians."
You might want to reread the post. Apparently you mis-understood it the first time.
87
posted on
04/25/2005 12:02:55 PM PDT
by
b_sharp
(Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
To: mikegi
"I guess it comes down to a battle between natural evolution and human-directed evolution. Which will win?" There is no winning against natural evolution. Until we can completely control our environment, including pathogens, we will be unable to overcome or even just surpass natural evolution.
Even our technology and societal structure causes undirected, natural evolution, we simply cannot get away from it.
88
posted on
04/25/2005 12:11:46 PM PDT
by
b_sharp
(Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
To: Frumious Bandersnatch
But, but, but I thought that one of the (nearly) sacred definitions of a sexual species was that it could not breed true outside of itself.That would be a creationist definition of species.
In real biology, it's more complicated.
89
posted on
04/25/2005 12:13:53 PM PDT
by
js1138
(e unum pluribus)
To: js1138
Sorry, but it seems to be, in point of fact, an evo argument. Whenever speciation is inferred by these people as a result that either the species will not mate outside of their own group, that they cannot mate outside of their own group or they cannot produce non-sterile children outside of their own group.
This, of course applies to sexual species only.
To: blam
Characteristics of Neanderthals:
1. Brain size average 1500 cc (larger than ours).
2. Thicker, more robust bones.
3. Cranium large, long, low with marked brow ridges.
4. Forehead higher than Homo erectus but lower than Homo sapiens.
5. Face projecting forward; nose large.
91
posted on
04/25/2005 12:48:25 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
To: PatrickHenry
Thanks for the ping PH.
Good post and good responses all around.
92
posted on
04/25/2005 5:10:33 PM PDT
by
narby
To: Frumious Bandersnatch
Whenever speciation is inferred by these people as a result that either the species will not mate outside of their own group, that they cannot mate outside of their own group or they cannot produce non-sterile children outside of their own group. OK, but that isn't what you originally said. It's still more complicated than this. The most common cause of speciation is geographical isolation. There are such things as ring species, whose territories span great distances. Any two individuals separated by short distance can and will mate, but individuals from the extreme ends of the range will not mate if given the opportunity.
Specises is not a clean and tidy concept.
93
posted on
04/25/2005 5:30:22 PM PDT
by
js1138
(e unum pluribus)
To: shuckmaster
Doesn't work that way. The "center" gets the most mutations. Same for language. English has more variations in London than in India.
94
posted on
04/25/2005 9:26:40 PM PDT
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: js1138
That's exactly what I said, only with more words. And you are right that speciation is not neat and tidy. It is often times in the eye of the beholder. IOW, what one person claims is a species another person claims is not.
However, it is generally agreed amongst evos that if two disparate sexual groups are able to interbreed as a matter of course, and their offspring can also breed, then the two groups are of the same species.
That's my point. How can two separate species of humanoids interbreed and produce non-sterile offspring. My argument here, would be that both groups are of the same species and that they are probably of different races, certainly no more than different sub-species.
To: Frumious Bandersnatch
However, it is generally agreed amongst evos that if two disparate sexual groups are able to interbreed as a matter of course, and their offspring can also breed, then the two groups are of the same species. No, that's a very confused statement.
Of course individuals that routinely breed are of the same species, but there are populations that are genetically capable of producing fertile offspring that seldom or never interbreed. You are asking questions that imply the word species somehow determines reality. Species is just a word with fuzzy edges. Darwin called species a strong variety. He also used the term race interchangeably with species. They're just words.
96
posted on
04/26/2005 11:43:52 AM PDT
by
js1138
(e unum pluribus)
To: js1138
Actually, it is very clear. Reread it. It appears to me that either you don't understand what the statement "as a matter of course" means or you missed it in your reading of my post.
That said, I reiterate that I'm not trying to start a flamefest here. I'm just pointing out that amongst evos, speciation is often a matter of opinion that has nothing to do with the ability to crossbreed. The article implied that different species of humanoids interbred routinely. According to your own statement, this means that these humanoids were not of different species.
To: The Duke
Evolution is amazing... I wonder who invented it?
98
posted on
04/27/2005 8:58:22 AM PDT
by
Protagoras
(Evolution is amazing... I wonder who invented it?)
To: AntiGuv
I know people who have skulls like that now. I wonder what they will think if they are all dug up in a few thousand years?
99
posted on
04/27/2005 9:02:55 AM PDT
by
Protagoras
(Evolution is amazing... I wonder who invented it?)
100
posted on
06/16/2010 8:32:27 PM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
("Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others." -- Otto von Bismarck)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson