Neanderthal DNA

[Digit]

There is an obvious argument against that Cog in that changes, in the environment for example, could occur more rapidly than the subsequent genetic changes to counter it could spread through the species, so even if that is correct extinction would be likely and once again we would have no knowledge of it.

[Minimalist]

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/bei ... tatus.html

NEANDERTHALS as innovators? That the concept seems amusing goes to show how our sister species has become the butt of our jokes. Yet in the Middle Palaeolithic, some 300,000 years ago, innovation is what the Neanderthals were up to.

This period is usually regarded as undramatic in cultural and evolutionary terms, with little in the way of technological or cognitive development. Palaeoanthropologists get more excited about the changes in tools found later, as the Middle Palaeolithic gave way to the Upper, and as modern humans replaced Neanderthals, some 40,000 years ago.

Terry Hopkinson of the University of Leicester, UK, has now challenged this view, showing that Neanderthals were far from behaviourally static. They incorporated different forms of tool construction into a single technique, and learned to cope with the ecological challenges posed by habitats in eastern Europe.

"There has been a consensus that the modern human mind turned on like a light switch about 50,000 years ago, only in Africa," says Hopkinson. But the putatively modern traits accompanying the change, such as abstract art, the use of grindstones and elongated stone blades, and big game hunting began to accumulate in Africa from 300,000 years ago, he says. "It was the same in Europe with Neanderthals, there was a gradual accumulation of technology." If Homo sapiens developed human traits gradually, then why not Neanderthals?

[Beagle]

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/bei ... tatus.html

Terry Hopkinson of the University of Leicester, UK, has now challenged this view, showing that Neanderthals were far from behaviourally static. They incorporated different forms of tool construction into a single technique, and learned to cope with the ecological challenges posed by habitats in eastern Europe.

Short article on Neanderthals. After a year and a half of HNS posts in this forum, there isn't much new here. But more scientists seem to be crossing the line of political correctness.

[Minimalist]

Great minds think alike, Beags.....

and apparently, us too!

[Beagle]

'Tis the truth. BTW, thanks for the "entertaining" emails while I was gone.

[Minimalist]

I trust that by now you realize that even if they are not labelled "open carefully" that you should.

[Beagle]

You bet your "bippy" I do.

[Cognito]

There is an obvious argument against that Cog in that changes, in the environment for example, could occur more rapidly than the subsequent genetic changes to counter it could spread through the species, so even if that is correct extinction would be likely and once again we would have no knowledge of it.

Beags, oh Beags. You argue my point from a different angle. I do not ... no how ... believe in gradualism, especially in genetics. Mutagenic genetic changes in response to environmental stressors can occur quite rapidly. It doesn't take months, years or eons. Rapid geological changes stimulate a rapid genetic response (either that, or extinction).

There is no such animal as a gradual genetic mutation.

[Charlie Hatchett]

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/bei ... tatus.html

NEANDERTHALS as innovators? That the concept seems amusing goes to show how our sister species has become the butt of our jokes. Yet in the Middle Palaeolithic, some 300,000 years ago, innovation is what the Neanderthals were up to.

This period is usually regarded as undramatic in cultural and evolutionary terms, with little in the way of technological or cognitive development. Palaeoanthropologists get more excited about the changes in tools found later, as the Middle Palaeolithic gave way to the Upper, and as modern humans replaced Neanderthals, some 40,000 years ago.

Terry Hopkinson of the University of Leicester, UK, has now challenged this view, showing that Neanderthals were far from behaviourally static. They incorporated different forms of tool construction into a single technique, and learned to cope with the ecological challenges posed by habitats in eastern Europe.

"There has been a consensus that the modern human mind turned on like a light switch about 50,000 years ago, only in Africa," says Hopkinson. But the putatively modern traits accompanying the change, such as abstract art, the use of grindstones and elongated stone blades, and big game hunting began to accumulate in Africa from 300,000 years ago, he says. "It was the same in Europe with Neanderthals, there was a gradual accumulation of technology." If Homo sapiens developed human traits gradually, then why not Neanderthals?

A very open-minded report, backed up by observation. These guys quite possibly manufactured and played flutes, created jewelry, created art, etc...To tell you the truth, they remind me a lot of Solutreans. Neanderthals supposedly dissappeared from the record 24,000 B.P. and Solutreans popped up, "out of nowhere", in the record 21,000 B.P., on the Iberian Peninsula. No skeletons have been found in association with Solutrean technology, though a Clovis burial, including red ocher was discovered in Montana:

Clovis sites elsewhere give us some insight into ritual and belief systems. In southern Ontario ( Ellis and Deller 1991 ) a cache of about 200 burnt chert implements were discovered in a pit which may represent the remains of a cremation burial. Furthermore, at a Clovis burial site in Montana, powdered red ochre (hematite) was found on the remains of two adolescents and the grave goods that were buried with them. The use of red ochre on burials is an ancient one that extends back to European and Asian traditions. The practice persisted amongst many Aboriginal groups until the 19th century.

http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/ ... ovis2.html

[Beagle]

There is an obvious argument against that Cog in that changes, in the environment for example, could occur more rapidly than the subsequent genetic changes to counter it could spread through the species, so even if that is correct extinction would be likely and once again we would have no knowledge of it.

Beags, oh Beags. You argue my point from a different angle. I do not ... no how ... believe in gradualism, especially in genetics. Mutagenic genetic changes in response to environmental stressors can occur quite rapidly. It doesn't take months, years or eons. Rapid geological changes stimulate a rapid genetic response (either that, or extinction).

There is no such animal as a gradual genetic mutation.

Hi Cogs - thanks but I didn't make that statement. It was Digit.

[Digit]

Eh? When?

[Beagle]

Top o' page 28 Dig.

[Digit]

As I recall the discussion my view was thus.
Imagine a group of, say bird like Dinos, amongst the species one part, large or small in number, excrete less water than the others.
They live in a lush sub-trop environment.
Tectonic activity raises a chain of hills or mountains that divides the group and results in a change to a more arid climate on one side of the mountains.
Those animals that excrete less water now have an advantage over their compatriots and should become dominant, and eventually a new species.
This means that the new species is exploiting an existing condition that Natural Selection can work on, not creating a condition within the species.
Is there any disagreement on this? If so, how please?

[Bruce]

Another Sexual Attraction is Possible...

http://www.physorg.com/news101562165.html

The European corn borer, Ostrinia nubilalis, is a model species that is particularly well-suited to study the first steps along the road to speciation and the deep mysteries of reciprocal attraction - or lack thereof - between potentially interfertile individuals. Indeed, two types of females and two corresponding types of males coexist within this species: one type communicates with the so-called "E" pheromone while the other communicates with the "Z" pheromone. Although hybrid matings produce perfectly viable offspring, both types very rarely mate in nature. At a first glance, it is tempting to believe that this is due to their different pheromones.

However, in a study published in the June 20th issue of the online, open-access journal PLoS ONE, researchers from the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, from the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique and from the University of Toulouse show that, while pheromones are probably used for meeting, they may not be used for mating per se. Performing crosses and backcrosses between different pheromone races of this moth, they obtained groups of individuals sharing the same pheromone type but differing in their overall genetic relatedness with the "pure" races, and, conversely, groups of individuals sharing a very similar genetic background but using different pheromones.
The former were expected all to show similar mating performances with a group of pure-race individuals - but they didn't. The latter were expected to show differences in mating succes s with pure-race individuals - but, again, they didn't. Therefore, overall relatedness rather than pheromone type seems a good predictor of the ability to mate, at least within this species studied here.

These results suggest that the role of pheromone divergence in speciation may not be quite as strong as previously thought - at least within this model species - since another recognition system seems to coexist and constitute a powerful mating barrier. Why, then, don't the corn borer Capulets and Montagues mate more often? So far, the researchers can only dream of their next findings...

[Cognito]

Digit, I agree with you that many genetic adaptations are already inherent in the population. In addition, random mutation does play a part in large populations. Every microbiology and genetics 101 lab starts with the following experiment:

Place E. coli bacteria in a petri dish and grow them for a few days. Then, irradiate the dish with ultraviolet light. Most of the bacteria will die but a few will randomly mutate, enabling them to grow in utraviolet light. The bacteria population must be large enough or you'll wind up with an empty petrie dish ... it's just a numbers game. I cannot get into all of the details here, but different experiments prove that the ability to withstand ultraviolet radiation did not genetically exist prior to the experiment (the relevant gene can be characterised).

There is a similar idea on the table right now regarding North American megafauna extinctions: the Holocene warming affected climate to the point where the silica content of grasses increased. Those herds with short teeth and poor calcium content died earlier as a result of increased wear, thereby negatively affecting reproduction rates. Some animals mutated and survived (bison) while others went extinct (horse). Of course, humans hunting reduced populations wouldn't help either.

Just a thought on a slow day.