Posted on 09/13/2006 11:09:49 AM PDT by blam
Neanderthals and humans lived side by side
18:00 13 September 2006
NewScientist.com news service
Rowan Hooper
Neanderthals were thought to have died out as modern humans arrived in Europe. Now, artifacts found in a cave in Gibraltar reveal that the two groups coexisted for millenia before Neanderthals finally dwindled out of existence.
Homo sapiens moved into Europe about 32,000 years ago. But the newly unearthered artefacts shows that a remnant population of Homo neanderthalensis clung on until at least 28,000 years ago, a significant overlap.
Clive Finlayson at the Gibraltar Museum, and colleagues, recovered 240 stone tools and artefacts from sediments dated to the Upper Palaeolithic period – between 10,000 and 30,000 years ago. Mass spectrometry dating puts them between 28,000 and 24,000 years old.
The exciting point is that the tools are all of a type known to palaeontologists as Mousterian: they are flints, cherts and quartzites exclusively associated with Neanderthal manufacture.
“Mousterian technology is firmly associated with Neanderthals across Europe,” says Finlayson, who adds that in the sediment layers where the tools where found there is no hint of intrusion from more recent layers, and no sign of tools made by modern humans.
Genetically distinct
Since modern humans and Neanderthals seem to have overlapped for thousands of years in Europe, the big question is: did they interbreed?
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
One doesn't have to look far to realize that Neanderthals did not go extinct. Just look at Congress as living proof.
BWAAAAHAAAHAA - great picture!
Mitochondrial DNA says no.
They inbreeded, became neansexuals and aborted their babies. Humans would not sex them, they were toooo uglyyy, so they died out, just as dummycRAT tribe is going to.
According to my series research and digging in the dumps of the world.
Nothing new here. Neanderthals (a.k.a. democrats) and humans (a.k.a. republicans) continue to live side by side.
Based on some post-party experiences I had in college, I would say definitely yes.
Interbreeding is why they are no more. Only logical answer.
I still say that is where Down's Syndrome comes from, a throw back of some sort.
Umm, no. Mitochondrial DNA indicates no interbreeding took place. And Down's Syndrome is caused by the presence of an extra copy of chromosome 21, which is caused by nondisjunction in meiosis when the gametes are made. Please, please don't repeat that hurtful and wrong idea again.
Homo sapiens are Homo sapiens, whether they are Maori Aboriginals or Dutchmen. The differences that you see are largely a matter of geographical adaptation, not descent.
Thank you for your comments in your post #50....
Why isn't it possible that Neanderthals had and extra copy of chromosome 21. Why is it a hurtful and wrong idea? If true it would finally be an answer as to why.
Does that mean that Chelsea is sterile?
I had an opportunity to handle Neandertal and Homo Sapiens skulls recently. It made me wonder what the cross section of that incredibly long Neandertal skull is compared to H. sapiens.
If the difference is as large as what it looks like, my take on it is that they died in childbirth. Unless they had an extremely large pelvic opening (which I would also like to check out), giving birth would have been very deadly indeed.
If the difference is as large as what it looks like, my take on it is that they died in childbirth. Unless they had an extremely large pelvic opening (which I would also like to check out), giving birth would have been very deadly indeed.
That is the way to approach the study: handle the casts of the originals.
You can learn a lot about the theory of evolution from actually looking at the data. And there are thousands of casts available!
I fondled the bones for about six years in grad school, and learned a great deal. Line up the best crania on the desk and sort them by eye and see what you get. Just look at the gross features, and put them in whatever order seems appropriate.
I bet you will order them in the same way the rest of the experts do. Its not rocket science--you really can see it for yourself if you just look at the casts.
I don't recall a Neanderthal pelvis from when I studied. I do recall great specimens of chimp, Australopithecus, and modern human. Folks who are asked to make two groups out of these almost always put Australopithecus and modern human together based on shape, rather than Australopithecus and chimp together based on size). It is just the natural thing to do.
And that is what most of the study of fossil man is--connecting like traits. And, you know, it works!
It was a pretty awesome class day. We had A. pith, A. robustus, H. habilis, erectus, neandertal, sapien, and sapien sapien. The last two were real, so extreme care was necessary. Also casts of a chimp, and a gorilla. I couldn't wait until class ended so I could walk up to the prof with my hands out like I was holding an imaginary vase, saying "can I, um..." :-)
You're absolutely right. It was obvious who belonged to whom. Even Taung Baby was clearly one of us, and no chimp. I'd only ever seen pictures. Seeing the real thing was awesome.
That gorilla skull... whoa... that critter could be one mean mutha if it wanted to be. I never really paid any attention to their fangs (or the structures for the muscles that drive them) before. That skull was nightmare stuff.
It would be obvious in the structure of their skull if that were correct. It is a very serious error in cell division. It is noticeable. Very.
Neandertals were also very strong, and very efficient hunters. They were highly social, and cared for their dead. This is one of the reasons why their extinction is a mystery. They had it all: Strong musculature, large brains, and very good imagination.
Some say that they didn't have that much imagination, based on their tools, which didn't change much over a very long period of time. Personally, I think that they were the type that looked at it like "what do I need a ratcheting box wrench for? My socket set works just fine."
Down's Syndrome people are very 'simple'. They are like fully grown, very young children. Quite often, they are just smart enough to get themselves into a serious amount of trouble in a very short amount of time, just like a child can. They can be very difficult to care for. There is no way in the world that they could have existed as a standard in a normal population.
I don't know anybody with Down's Syndrome, but I think that I can understand why your comment was 'hurtful'. Throughout history, children with this affliction have been killed because of it. They're "different". It's not their fault. It was just an untimely error in cell division. Implying that an entire species of extinct people are extinct because they all had Down's Syndrome tends to lend credence to the type who think that their elimination is a good thing.
I don't believe that you feel that way, not at all, especially from your comments. You seemed surprised that somebody would find your comment hurtful. Many abortions are performed today because the parents fear that they may be carrying a Down's baby. A friend of mine almost did so (and she is an avid pro-lifer) only to find out that the test came out positive for Down's because they had the date of conception figured out wrong.
It is something that people who know a Down's Syndrome person, or have one in the family, take very personally.
Patricia Heaton belongs in the "ours" section.
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.