Neanderthal News

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:12 am

Your observation about the supposed contrast between populations in the levant and Europe DB is one of the reasons I have never gone down the road of HSS the genocide.
Inbreeding is a subject that has been raised here on a number of occasions with emphasis on its downside, but remember DB this is the means by which a race or breed is fixed.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 5:16 am

Hawks has doubt about the population model.

The report I posted from Hawks states in bold letters that he has a doubt about the amount of DNA contamination that was reported. As he pointed out at the end, there seems to be a possibility that the Neanderthal bone that they chose to test may have been from an individual that was already admixtured.

The mDNA identified the bone as a Neanderthal that lived over 38,000 yrs. ago. Now they are standing around saying that the sample must be contaminated with "human" DNA. Hawks points out, in a pretty technical blog, that the results are consistent across the board, suggesting accurate results.

The highly unlucky researchers may have gotten a bone of a "modern" HS with a Neanderthal DNA admixture in it's maternal line.

daybrown · Post by **daybrown** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 3:25 pm

There are different breeds of hominids today, just as there are different breeds of dogs. And while some lines are smarter, any dog breeder will tell you that the standard of deviation within any given line is too large to be ignored if you wanna stay in business.

So both the mulitracial liberals and the racial jingoists are wrong when it comes to individuals. And being an individual, I care about that.

But just like dogs, hominid inherit behavior patterns that have pretty predictable effects when large numbers of any given breed are together. Some, like the stock dogs, understand the idea of cooperation better.

So now, the hybrization process with Neanderthal explains some aspects of behavior seen today. The idea that individuals could inherit instinctive behavior patterns conflicts with the Christian principle of free will, and group think, being what it is, has heaped abuse on those looking into it. And of course, if its inherited, its in the DNA.

Christian dogma would have it that the DNA of all men is the same- which is why all men are "sinners". They dont condemn animals to hell fire because they have different DNA, and you can do whatever you want to a zygote so long as it does not have hominid DNA.

And, as Nietzsche noted, these Christian principles have been embedded in the socialization so long Native Europeans dont even know they exist, but simply accept them as part of the "nature of man".

Finally, it is in the nature of man to get really angry when his delusions are challenged, and thus we see the ad hominum and flaming over what the DNA results are. It is refreshing to read the postings here which have so little of that. I push a lotta hot buttons, and appreciate the patience.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:58 am

It is refreshing to read the postings here which have so little of that.

I've been here for quite a while DB, although not as long as some, and while the board seems pretty peaceful right now, I can tell you that you just have to give it a little time.

We've had our flamers, and I agree with you about people's entrenched attitudes and beliefs, and I am pretty sure that history repeats itself. But even when this forum has to endure some difficult posters I still feel that this is the best forum for expression on the 'net.

What happened to Anthrotech? Spammers are everywhere.

BTW, and very interesting, most "experts" have begun using the word admixture instead of hybrids. Being a picayune person as I am, I'm seeing a trend here. And for me it's encouraging. I am well aware of what most people feel about our "cave cousins" but I haven't shared that attitude for 25 yrs. I only hope I'm around when all of this is finally discovered. Based on what we currently know though, I doubt it.

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:33 am

Speciesa category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name

So....if HNS and HSS were actually capable of interbreeding they would not be separate species....would they?

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:38 am

Lots of argument there Min. Chances are, that if inter-breeding occurred as often as Trinkaus and others think, there was more frequent contact between HS and HN prior to 45kya than realized.

We've seen maps showing the known range of Neanderthal. He has been found in Morocco in NW Africa and in Egypt in NE Africa. So possibly he lived all around the shores of the Med., and evidence in Africa has just not been found yet. So contact might have been earlier and more frequent than is thought.

Despite all the talk and hypothesizing, we actually know very, very little.

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:53 am

Understood. I'm just querying the assumption of a "species."

They could have had all the contact in the world....weekend keggers and yahtzee parties if you will.... but if they are really separate species all the screwing around in the world would not produce a hybrid?

Or would it?

Or were they not all that different in the first place??

What if the differences between HSS and HNS are simply natural selection working because of environment and not any genetic distinction?

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:56 pm

HSS and HSN are supposed to have arisen from common stock Min, so if the split was recent enough, then yes, they could breed.
Much like horse and Zebra.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 7:17 pm

What if the differences between HSS and HNS are simply natural selection working because of environment and not any genetic distinction?

That's how speciation begins. But I wonder if the isolation was ever total. When the animals migrated south, so did Neandertal. How often he moved into the levant is just not known. Very likely he was always there.
If so, I suspect that contact with his more southern cousins were more frequent.

I would like to see the DNA from HS from southern Africa in the mix.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:14 pm

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 091107.php

Our findings suggest that there was no single climatic event that caused the extinction of the Neanderthals,” concludes palaeonthropologist Katerina Harvati of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. “Only the controversial date of 24,000 radiocarbon years for their disappearance, if proven correct, coincides with a major environmental shift. Even in this case, however, the role of climate would have been indirect, by promoting competition with other human groups.”

The theory that Neanderthal was wiped out by a sudden cold snap has been thrown out. We were way ahead of them here.

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:21 pm

Let's not forget this recent bombshell.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... id=1828706

Here, an application of x-ray synchrotron microtomography reveals that an early Homo sapiens juvenile from Morocco dated at 160,000 years before present displays an equivalent degree of tooth development to modern European children at the same age. Crown formation times in the juvenile's macrodont dentition are higher than modern human mean values, whereas root development is accelerated relative to modern humans but is less than living apes and some fossil hominins. The juvenile from Jebel Irhoud is currently the oldest-known member of Homo with a developmental pattern (degree of eruption, developmental stage, and crown formation time) that is more similar to modern H. sapiens than to earlier members of Homo.

I tell you, Beags. The more I learn about this stuff the less I think I know.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 9:32 pm

I've seen you draw some very good analogies about how much/little we actually understand about this period in our history. The theories change every year and then usually come full circle.

I've never thought there was a single OOA event. There were, I think, many back and forth movements of Homo (HS and HN).

I've been waiting for news from Paabo et al in their HN genome research. From what little I'm reading, they're more confused than ever.

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:14 pm

they're more confused than ever.

Good. Maybe they'll work harder!

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:20 am

Mas.

http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/ ... 956409.ece

The latest evidence appears to point in the direction of the Neanderthal being pushed out of their European heartland rather than being struck down by a change in weather patterns. A team of scientists led by Katerina Harvati of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig has all but ruled out climate change as the sole cause of their demise.

"Our findings suggest that there was no single, abrupt climatic event that caused the extinction of the Neanderthal," Dr Harvati said yesterday.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:36 am

Or did it have something to do with the arrival of a taller, less bulky but more intelligent rival?

Where'd they get that from?
As regards HSS pushing them out of their hunting grounds etc, I doubt that HSS was numerous enough for that.
Anyone got any figures for that?