Wrong. See the chart below.
Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html
Posted on 10/12/2006 11:22:03 AM PDT by blam
Humans aren't hominids placemark
The split had been established at something in the 350,000 year range based on the fossil record.
Just in the last week or so I saw an article, I think here on FR, that suggested a split a little earlier based on genetics. They placed that in the 400,000 year range.
I would take that with a grain of salt to start with, until more data comes to light but it seems that the evidence is heading toward an early split at this point.
Certainly the mtDNA tests that were done suggest no close relationship or interbreeding.
"People of European descent may be 5% Neanderthal, according to a DNA study that counters the view that modern humans left Africa and replaced all other existing hominids."
The researchers agree with recent studies that conclude Neanderthals did not contribute any mitochondrial DNA, or mtDNA, genetic material that is passed from mothers to children.But they say other portions of the European genome, such as those associated with nuclear DNA, may still harbour the Neanderthal imprint.
Plagnol says different parts of the genome have different ancestry, so an individual could have a fraction of a certain chromosome that is inherited from a Neanderthal, but then possess "very typical Homo sapiens mtDNA".
The scientists are not certain which early human group could have contributed to West African DNA, but both Europeans and Africans in the study showed about the same 5% archaic contribution.
Interesting. Thanks!
That's like claiming that a 243 is too small to hunt rhinos with and I should therefore go out after rhinos with a 22.
Wrong. See the chart below.
Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html
In the back of my mind, is the memory of an article--popular science stuff--that explains modernity as the result of infantilization, with the moderns retaining the relatively large skull of the infant. That would make the Neanderthal types our ancestors and collateral cousins.
I think the infantilization was to permit a large brain through a small birth canal. The trick is to have a long infancy during which most of the brain growth occurs.
It will take more than this to show that Neanderthals were our ancestors.
The small face and jaw are also a feature of human infants. From what I have seen of Neanderthal infants, it was also true of them. Females normally have such features and if somehow these can be fixed in the males we have something approximating homo sapiens. IAC, I am bothered by so much specuation based on skimpy evidence. Extrapolations from present data, in either direction, is chancey, especially if it is driven by a philosphical agenda.
I agree. That's why I don't take what creationists say about evolution seriously. They don't know the data, and they wouldn't believe it if they did.
Out for a few hours (work to do).
Once you mate with Ayla you can never go back to Neanderthal women.
When you get back, what do you know about dog populations. It is amazing that so many different shapes could come from the original wolf population. How come so much variety? I will be looking for answers.
Where do Cro-Magnons fit into this equation?
Yet, our opposition on FR continues to call these people scientists!
What do you mean "wrong"?? Your chart shows precisely the thing I claim, i.e. both neanderthal and us descending from something more primative than either, despite the neanderthal having been ruled out as a plausible ancestor for us because he was too primative.
It's the new (mistaken) name, that was resolved probably before you'd even heard of it. Apatasour is the original (and current) name.
The original post here involved a claim that neanderthals merged straight into modern humans, which is clearly untenable. As far as humans AND neanderthals both being descended from some third party more primative than either, that is clearly nonsensical; the neanderthal has been ruled out as a human ancestor precisely because the genetic gap is too wide and you're proposing that we must therefore be descended from something with an even wider gap.
I disagreed. Now you write:
What do you mean "wrong"?? Your chart shows precisely the thing I claim, i.e. both neanderthal and us descending from something more primative than either, despite the neanderthal having been ruled out as a plausible ancestor for us because he was too primative.
Lets take this a step at a time. You originally wrote:
As far as humans AND neanderthals both being descended from some third party more primative than either, that is clearly nonsensical...But now you write
Your chart shows precisely the thing I claim, i.e. both neanderthal and us descending from something more primative than either.It sounds like you are coming around to agree with me.
Here is the chart again showing both H. sapiens and Neanderthal descending from an earlier common ancestor:
Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html
Cro are modern humans, just an earlier flavor.
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.
