Posted on 08/13/2006 4:11:37 PM PDT by blam
Sleep with Neanderthals? Apparently we (homo Sapiens) did
By Faye Flam
The Philadelphia Inquirer
Though it's been 150 years since mysteriously humanlike bones first turned up in Germany's Neander Valley, the find continues to shake our collective sense of human identity.
Neanderthals are humanity's closest relatives, with brains at least as big as ours, and yet we don't know whether we should include them as members of our own species.
No longer does science consider them our direct ancestors but some suspect Neanderthals and modern homo Sapiens interbred during the 20,000 some-odd years we co-existed in Europe. The archaeological record doesn't tell us one way or another, but earlier, researchers announced they would seek more clues by scraping DNA from Neanderthal bones and teeth.
The question of sex with Neanderthals speaks to our understanding of ourselves, our origins and our uniqueness. If this other type of human being wasn't like us, what was he like?
As I started researching this issue, I found myself staring at a picture of a nude Neanderthal man — a forensic sculpture created by Duke University paleoanthropologist Steve Churchill that was published last year in the journal Science. The model, based on a skeleton found at La Ferrassie in France, is mesmerizing in its combination of familiarity and alienness.
To be honest, he's really not half bad looking. He's got a good, muscular body, and while he's nobody's idea of handsome, that could be forgiven if he had a nice personality or I was starving and he offered to throw some rhino steaks on the fire for me.
We're not talking about the stoop-shouldered, hairy, apelike Neanderthal of popular culture. There's no evidence they were hairier than modern people, says anthropologist Harold Dibble, a curator at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...
There are those who have and those who will, Dr "Ignorance".
W.K.
I'm sure you are. I just couldn't figure out why Eaker posted that photo right then. And - I'm just jealous that I missed the chili cookoff.
You better show me where it has been documented and peer reviewed that it does NOT. But, if you must:
Is Evolution Science, and What Does 'Science' Mean?
As you can see, TToE passes EVERY possible definion of science and uses the scientific method.
Don't bring a moped to a car fight.
The term is used to describe a situation wherein someone appears to be inappropriately belligerent or bellicose relative to the discussion at hand. It can apply to men or women.
Now, if you were in west Texas, it would go something like "Sugar, what have you got your panties in a knot over?" I'm sure there are other regionalisms that would describe this situation - these are just two that I would use.
We'll happily shoot & cook whenever you show up!
It's a thing we do.....
The evidence is not definitive, but what evidence there is points toward no interbreeding. There is certainly enough evidence to declare that the headline of this article is false. By all appearances, we did not sleep with Neanderthals (even if we did). It is not 'appearances' that makes people such as this lady imagine that we did; it is nothing but merely their fantasies about how Paleolithic hominid populations in Europe 'must' have behaved..
Don't you mean "Dr. Ignorence?"
I'll bet you'ld do it even if I didn't show up! Oh, wait, you did.
W.K.
obviously.
W.K.
Here we all are, discussing a very intruiging subject.
And you want to drag up my wild youth!
There is a long history of men taking women prisoner as sex slaves. The only question would be if it was possible to make Neanderthal women submit to such over the long term
Probably this .
A lot of "Genesis is literal" creationists and IDers are not taking the Kansas Board of Education election results well.
Probably this .
A lot of "Genesis is literal" creationists and IDers are not taking the Kansas Board of Education election results well.
Oh -- you were talking about your reference to ME (I believe you used "might be"). Here I thought you wanted to talk about the subject of your post, not silly name-calling. Had I realized your orientation, I would have been clearer on what I am saying.
I stand by what I posted about the theory of evolution.
Despite the fact I have provided a dead-bang direct refutation. Pretty standard for people like you.
The DNA studies pretty much resolved the mystery.There have been a couple of mtDNA studies; the first one used fewer than 400 base pairs -- assumed to be from the ancient sample and not from, say, bacteria -- out of a presumed 16,000+, and used that data to claim, rather grandiosely, that the divergence was too great. It was GIGO. And mtDNA studies can't tell whether two people can interbreed, because mtDNA has nothing to do with interbreeding.
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.