Major DNA study shows that our ancestors could have interbred with Neanderthal populations at least twice in our history and that most humans carry some Neanderthal genes
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … tists.html
Just got a chance to read the article, and its very interesting. (Funny, I scrolled through the comments, and the second one makes mention of Clan of the Cave Bear.)
Will definitely be something to keep an eye on the news for new developments.
Many hanks for the link.
Well, I am from Europe, Croatia (former Yugoslavia), where we have one of the richest Neanderthal´s fossil findings in Europe.(caves of Krapina, 130.000 years ago, discovered 1899.) Due to all research done on fossils, our scientists over the many years easily accepted the fact that Neanderthals are human ancestors, so I was really shocked when I discovered that it still exists the theory that opposes to that - but scientist always argue about every theory, and, as typical humans, not easily accept new things (now can we say that this stubbornes is due to the Neandhertal gene, LOL).
Neanderthals are scientifically accepted into human family years ago- their Latin name is Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis - that classifications says a lot.
It was recently done (work of forensic experts and artisans) reconstruction of faces of Neandhertals, they look completely like us.
14 months ago I published I hub with these photos, as well as I collected many photos of art that belongs to Neandhertals - and art of Neanderthals very much differs from artwork of Cro-Magnons (which I also presented in this Hub) http://hubpages.com/hub/prehistoric-humans-neanderthals
There is one photo of bone-flute that Neandhertals used (fossil found in Slovenia) - that play Mi-Fa-So-Lah tones (because is broken, but it used to play full scale of tones.) Amazing, isn´t it?
More Neanderthal news
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/scien … tml?src=mv
For those wanting a little more detail, here is another good article:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/ … d-genomes/
I really do need to write a hub about this
well some of us took our lineage from Boskops. (he he) seriously.
some people today still have the over-sized occipital bun. I took a picture of one person in Italy.
Well that would explain a lot! UG! Cool find, will check out the link in a bit.
I'll have to read that article.
Has anyone read the Clan of the Cave Bear series? It touches on this theory, and is really fascinating.
I read that series - Jean Auel isn't it? Very good books, but very long if I remember rightly.
I read the entire series a few times. It is really a great piece of work.
It is Jane Auel (sp?) and VERY long. But, I really love it. I'm still waiting for the last book... We'll see if she ever finishes. I know its sometimes years between books since she does so much research.
This is funny because I was watching the other day a documentary with Tony Robinson about how humans evolved from Afica and Neanderthals evolved from Europe, we evolved social skills and they didn't.
So when hardships came we worked together and they started eating each other :p
That is a fairly difficult assumption of behavior to validate. Only a few years ago, many anthropologists argued that Neanderthals could not make their own jewelry, therefore lacked any creative vision at all. Any jewelry found at Neanderthal sites was excused as being stolen from modern humans. In January, anthropologists in Spain released findings of jewelry dated to a time when Europe was only inhabited by Neanderthals.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic … -art-human
There is quite a deal of bias against Neanderthals. Though I'm not sold on the interbreeding until more data are analyzed, the general perception of this species as mindless and barbaric is unsubstantiated by the fossil record.
Now we need to sort out which (race) among us resembled Neanderthals, which one Apes, which one Humans (?) and which one Aliens.
Forgive me, let me say at the outset that my grasp on this topic may be tenuous, but it interests me. The so-called Neanderthals and so-called Modern humans co-existed, did they not? They certainly did as the questioner indicated in saying that scientists have found that these two groups may have interbred at least twice. These groups are also described as two different species (have I got that right?).
I thought members of two different species could not interbreed. Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't researchers found that these so-called Neanderthals had a brain size equal to or larger than so-called modern humans at the time? They should have been just as smart.
Isn't the main physical difference between the groups the fact that so-called Neanderthal skeletons show them to have been more "robust" of stature, thicker-boned and more heavily muscled. But don't farmers (generations of farmers) tend to be more "robust" of build than city folks?
I know there are other features that are supposed to separate the two groups. Neanderthals have "protruding" foreheads and so forth. Interestingly, researchers say that human beings have some Neanderthal facial and physical characteristics. But couldn't we just as easily say that Neanderthals had human characteristics?
Isn't true that those skeletons have their name due to a valley in Prussia, where they were found?
But consider this. Suppose that archeologists and anthropologists, fifty thousand years from now, came back to Earth to study our society of this moment. Would it be possible for them to mistakenly discern different "types" of humans? What might they think of skeletons of "normal" sized men and women as compared to remains found at professional men and women's basketball stadiums? Might they not come up with a ridiculous designation like Madison Man (for Madison Square Garden)? And yet none of us would say that I (a 5'11" 165lb, forty-year old man)is a different species than, say, Margo Dydek (a 7'2" over two hundred pound WNBA player).
Thing is that they are now sequencing the Neanderthal genome, so they know that Neanderthals were a different species of human to homo sapiens. There had also been several other species of human that evolved, like homo erectus, but now only homo sapiens remains, unless you want to include possibles like Big Foot and Yeti.
Plenty of species interbreed. Dog species are regularly crossed, and lions and tigers are also crossed to create 'ligers'. No reason why ancient human species shouldn't have cross bred.
What defines a separate species? Genetic sequencing has significantly altered how scientists can reasonable argue for many taxonomic decisions made by experts. Recent findings have determined that Neanderthal DNA survived in us, so are H. sapiens the only species that remains? Interesting stuff
Also chimpanzees and gorillas are something like 98% genetically the same as homo sapiens, so really where do you draw the line between species? We are all more the same than we are different.
This is one of the most interesting finds in my life time - who knows what we can learn? We might even be able to re-create a Neanderthal.
I have always been fascinated with Neanderthals, and cynic that I am think it was us that wiped them out when we became sentient.
Thank You, CMHypno. I said my grasp of the material is shaky. I guess what I'm getting at is this: Is it socially useful to thiink of so-called Neanderthals and so-called modern humans different species?
Would these two groups have interbred, back in the day, if they, themselves (the "neanderthals" and "modern" humans) really thought they were so different? I would appreciate some clarification as to the nature of genetic difference such that they are considered different species.
Remember the wrestler, Andre The Giant, 7'5," five hundred pounds. Remember, I'm 5'11" 165 lbs. Andre was said to have acromegaly, a condition crudely known as giantism. Are there not genetic differences, there, such that anthropologists, fifty thousand years from now, might classify us as "different' species? But, of course, we would not say that old Andre and I are different, would we?
Members of different species often interbreed - perhaps the most common is the mule, from a horse and a donkey. Goggle "hybrid" and you will find dozens of examples. Most are infertile, but not all.
Thank You, Wilderness. But aren't those animal cross-breedings involuntary? Presumably, the so-called Neanderthal and "modern" humans got it on without any outside prompting.
For the most part, yes they are. Or at least semi-involuntary. The biggest problem seems to be wrong pheromones, wrong appearance, etc. Man does not always have that problem and doesn't seem to always care when he does have it. That sheep run from the herders in Montana is not entirely a joke. Maybe our lack of a "breeding season" has something to do with it.
The movie (my personal favorite of all time ) The 13th Warrior is actually based on a book The Eaters of the Dead by Michael Chrichton, which is in turn based in part on a manuscript by a 9th or 10th century Persian guy (or something to that effect, it's been awhile) who traveled to northern Europe (Scandinavia) and met with Viking folks who had stories of these mysterios "other" people. Some of the stuff I read about that suggest that the old stories (and the people in the movie) were a last pocket of Neanderthals.
(Ok, now I have to watch the movie again too. lol. Damn thing is so good. I should probalby just write a hub on it and be done with it.)
Will have to see if I can get hold of that movie, Shadesbreath, it sounds fascinating. Plenty of people think Yetis and Big Foot are remnant ancient species of human.
Quite simply ... we bred Neanderthals out of existence. As many of their traits were submissive to ours, there wasn't a lot of difference made in our species, but some residuals do reside.
As for Neanderthals being dumb overbearing oxes, this just wasn't the case. In fact, they had a larger brain than ours, but used it more for hunting than problem solving.
Remember ... Neanderthals depended on a staple diet of meat to survive, so agriculture wasn't on the menu unless they grew extremely desperate for nutrients. As such, they had to hunt for large prey to meet their needs and this customized their hunting style and weapons.
As the mega mammals slowly disappeared, the competitive Homo Sapiens nudged them out through interbreeding and helping to finish off the mega mammals, creating no path for the Neanderthals except extinction.
So to speak ... our ability to diversify allowed us to survive, making it simpler for us to push our bigger brother out of the crib and onto his head.
Ah - So you think it was accidental rather than intentional?
Myself - having studied the destruction of the Bushmen, Pygmies, Australian Aboriginals, Native American Indian etc etc etc am more inclined to believe that we saw them as different and deliberately wiped them out.
Perhaps it was accidental. The genocide you mention mostly took place as a result of someone else wanting the land those peoples were on. At the time of the Neanderthal, Europe was pretty empty with plenty of land for anyone. Not much reason for the risk involved in killing the top of the food chain. Unless Neanderthal was the foodstuff for Homo Sapiens?
Or maybe simply incidental. A mammoth is easier to take from Neanderthal than to kill yourself. A nice cave used by Neanderthal is easier to find than a new one.
That's also a very plausible scenario. We already know that humans will compete over resources, so one harsh winter could make enemies of all of them. And given that the Homo Sapien technology of the time was geared toward long-distanced kills, versus the hands-on approach of the Neanderthals, it would make sense that the Homo Sapiens had the high ground in such a battle.
Then again ... breeding them out would be just as effective. It's also highly likely, considering sheep look nothing like humans and some of our species have shown no aversion to such a mating in the past.
Thank You, yoshi97. But consider this. Archeology, we must never forget, only reveals partial findings to us. That is the nature of the study trying to reconstruct life over hundreds of thousands of years, well before written history. Are we sure that so-called Neanderthal used his bigger brain only for hunting, as opposed to problem-solving?
Consider this. Not many men are 7'1" and probably 300 lbs, as is basketball great, Shaquille O'neal. In fact, global statistics show that it is rare for a man to be taller than 6'2." We know of many, many, many seven foot tall professional men's basketball players, and more are coming out of high schools and colleges everyday; we even know of one or two women in the seven foot range, with a good many more of them at 6'6" or taller. Globally, it is very rare for a woman to be taller than 5'10."
How many seven foot violin players are there? How many seven foot college professors? How many seven foot chemists or mathematicians? How many seven foot lawyers? How many seven foot doctors, and the like?
The answer is far fewer than there should be, and I blame our education system for that - but that's neither here nor there. The height of seven foot is very, very, very rare. Putting ourselves in the mind of anthropologists, fifty thousand years in the future, mightn't we conclude that "Madison Man" (for Madison Square Garden where the remains of basketball players would be found) used his big brain for sports or "hunting" rather than "problem-solving," having to do with the intellectual professions?
If all of the Neanderthal remains came from one region, then yes, this would almost certainly be the case. However, their remains have been found in many different places, and they appear to be the same wherever they are found.
However, it is definitely wise to remember that archeology never tells the whole story, and can often be proven wrong later.
Most of what we are told about pre-history has been proved to be total rubbish, but the ideas persist anyway. The moronic creatures that the 'experts' described for us a few years ago appear to have been more intelligent than the anthropologists who described them.
I have this uncomfortable feeling that neanderthals would have been the top of the food chain that went, evolutionary speaking, with the disappearance of a plentiful supply of big animals that occurred at the same time. Maybe we only got our chance at the top when they moved on, just beating out the jackals and other lower forms that hung around their rubbish pits.
The idea that the two species did not interbreed is absurd - we know that humans will have sex with anything, from animals to plastic blow up dolls.
I'm convinced that some of us are more Neanderthal than others.
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter4 years ago
If humans evolved from fish or chimpanzees, why are there still fish and chimpanzees?Many scientists agree that man evolved from fish or chimpanzees. If that is the case, why are there still fish and...
by lizzieBoo6 years ago
seriously though, 50,000 years and nothing to show for it. No great buildings, no books not even the wheel for crying out loud. Did they have souls like us, or were they just a prototype, a practice species? Just a...
by Lawal Abiodun2 years ago
If man evolved from monkeys, how come we still have monkeys?According to scientists, it has always to been said, times without number, that humans evolved from some kind of chimpanzee, ape or monkey. Well, this...
by Mahaveer Sanglikar6 years ago
<image removed>I wanted to know that who created God? I mean who is father of God? Homo Sapiens or Neanderthal?
by Disappearinghead6 years ago
It has been established by genetic inquiry that Neathderthals were a different species from Homo Sapiens, but possessed large brains, perhaps a culture, and possibly speech. There have been a few reconstructions from...
by Amy Pirozzolo4 years ago
Are humans related to Neanderthals?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.