Archaeologica.org

Exactly like I've seen clearly caucasian NA indians. That was in Big Sur. 1985.
That was when the dime dropped for me.

Yet I'm not aware of a homo chimpanzensis walking around.

I think I worked for one.

If your hybrid is X+Y how do know unless you have samples of pure X and pure Y to compare your hybrid with?

Does anybody know the answer to this or is the answer so obvious, and the question so stupid, that you are all sparing my blushes?

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/ear ... _2007.html

John Hawks discusses his thoughts on the article. Titled "Bleeding Handaxe".

Like I asked earlier Beag, how can DNA prove, or disprove, hybridisation?

Like I asked earlier Beag, how can DNA prove, or disprove, hybridisation?

Sorry Dig, I didn't know you asked me. My feeling is that it would depend on the degree of difference in the two genomes, but as for proof positive - I would doubt that it could. Cogs might have a better answer.

I doubt that's helpful.

I didn't specifically ask you Beag, more a case of a plea for info, as I see it proof isn't possible till possible unhybridised DNA is available.
For example, a Mule is a cross between a horse and a donkey.
If you have never seen a horse or a donkey how would you know that it's a hybrid, and without horse and donkey DNA could you prove that the mule was a hybrid?
That's my problem.

In my opinion, its very difficult to prove hybirdization based on morphological similarities to closely related species. Yes, you would need samples from X, Y and Z and even then you have not necessarily proven anything, except perhaps they were closely related.

You may be correct Monk but I think there is a reverse view here as well.
A mule is a hybrid between a male horse and a female donkey, and is immediately identifiable as a mule rather than a horse or a donkey.
My father used to breed canaries and they are frequently crossed with various finches to produce 'Mules' and as F1 hybrids their parentage is obvious to other breeders.
I have always held the opinion that we are hybrids based on morphology.
In my youth the prevailing view was that HSN could not be related to modern man, based mainly on early reconstructions, but Cro Magnon! Now that's different, tall, slender, pronounced chin, presumeably light skin and blue eyes as well!
This view I have always felt owed more to prejudice than reality and the only way I find to relate the various physical forms we see in the streets is by accepting that we are hybrids.
Regardless of possible DNA differences I would point out that to HSS and HSN probably worked more on the basis of 'cor look at the boobs on that one!'

Digit wrote:This view I have always felt owed more to prejudice than reality and the only way I find to relate the various physical forms we see in the streets is by accepting that we are hybrids.

Cultural prejudice perhaps, like painting Jesus to look like a european from the middle ages.

We recognized canary hybrids or horse hybrids because we've seen the results of the parings first hand. Imagine if all you had were a few bone fragments and you were asked to identify a hybrid from a bona-fide, heretofore, unknown species. How would you do it?

Regardless of possible DNA differences I would point out that to HSS and HSN probably worked more on the basis of 'cor look at the boobs on that one!'

Either we are all cavemen to some extent, or we haven't evolved as much as we like to credit ourselves.

How would you do it?

Exactly my point Monk, we recognise the mule because we know it is a mule.
Imagine seeing one without knowing about horses or donkeys.
That is our position with us. But take an animal that definitely isn't a hybrid, there doe not seem to be any where near as much variation in physical form as with us.
Once you move away from F1 hybrids to F2s etc then you begin to see dramatic variations in morphology.
Why are we so varied in such a short history if we are not mongrols?

<Why are we so varied in such a short history if we are not mongrols?>
Indeed. The hybrization process produces many more fertile males than females because of the complexity of the female reproductive system.

So- if there is a marked diff between the variation- what else would you make of the fact that there are only 7 mtDNA European lines, but several score Y Chromosome lines?

Good point.

Sorry Dig, I didn't know you asked me. My feeling is that it would depend on the degree of difference in the two genomes, but as for proof positive - I would doubt that it could. Cogs might have a better answer.

The answer is: it is virtually impossible to verify genetic hybridization at this time due to the lack of nuclear DNA data for HSN as well as Cro Magnon individuals. Think about it for a moment. How long would it take to wash out HSN yDNA or mtDNA in a population that was only occasionally breeding? And that's what has been analysed so far.

<Good point.>
Agreement is a rare, but cherished gift amid all the ad hominum online.

I've been arguing on line for years, all the way back to Fido, that Native Europeans were hybridized with Neanderthals. I admit that the few bones found was not much to go on.

And the attempts at rebuttal, such as after the discovery of a hybrid child found in Portugal were remarkably inventive. But I've seen that inventiveness before.

Back when I was in high school, there were still debates about whether Schliemann really found Troy. I detected the attitude, that if it was in the Bible, then it was history, but if written anywhere else, then pure myth.

And since, Castledon outlines the source of the Atlantis myth on Thera. Velikovsky, of all people, shows us the story of Oedipus is actually that of Akhnaton with a remarkable piece of scholarship. They found Sodom & Gommorah south of the Dead Sea. I've read of 5 different locations where Amazons were buried. Then too, there's Ryan & Pitman's Great Flood.

And in the tale of Gilgamesh, his sidekick Enkidu, sure sounds like a Neanderthal. I read a report that the Ainu usta make a clay dummy of a bear, and then cover it with a bear skin for their rituals to the worship of the Great Cave Bear. Even tho Great Cave Bears've been extinct on Hokkaido since even before the Ainu moved there. But then, I read of another report in a cave in Europe, where they found just such a clay dummy, with the remnants of a bear skin, and the bear skull on the floor with the femurs thrust thru the eye sockets. The Ainu made the same kind of skull and crossbones in their rituals. which is kind of a clue as to where that icon came from.

So- when I look back to the first reports of bones in the Neander valley, I can detect the Christian sensibilities at work here, as if this is an animal, and the Bible says that mankind is not an animal.

Archeology departments were, after all, first funded by Christians wanting proof of the Bible. Group think set in at once to prevent disturbing the sensibilities of the grant money. And it has been there ever since.

Anyone ever read "The Naked Ape"? He starts with the idea of tacking a hominid hide on the wall along with all the other primates. So the name for our species is really obvious. A hairless or naked ape.

But now, likewise, tack the hide of a Native European on the wall along with all the other gene pools. Only a fool, or someone suffering from group think would not say there is *something* really different. But everyone in the group of course, will be really innovative in finding ways to dismiss.

My points are generally regarded with unwarrented dismissiveness, so for agreement when I find it, I am grateful... altho, I worry about the formulation of just another group think.