Neanderthals, humans didn't mix

[Kiri]

Ok Ok I give up!

Give up? I hadn't figured you for the submissive type...

 

[Alaric]

I cannot possibly see the problem with neandertals and sapien sapiens mating. Human family and tribal groupings would have adopted them no problem considering most of the differences between the two SEEMED to be behavioural(muscle mass was different so prey would be different). I remember reading about how Neadertal males would not hang around to guard the female after they did the hanky spanky...thus leading to terrible mortality rates. Apparently one of the advantages Homo Sapien um..Sapiens had was that male "stick around" factor. I can EASILY see a HSS male accept a neanderthal baby and mum into his family as long as she will carry one of his to term and since sticking around WAS part of his programming..its pretty ideal for the neanderthal female as well.
Im not sure the male neanderthals understood larger family structures so well since Neaderthal groups were much smaller ..but im damned sure some made the leap and became a useful part of the tribe. Remember...survival survival survival. Neanderthals were no dumber-just bigger. Thus they needed smaller hunting parties and were more territorial.

I also read that the larger noses we have in northern europe, the thick necks and chest size also come from Neanderthal ancestry. Now, if its been definatively proven that there was no mixing...evolution could simply have adopted those characteristics to survive certain conditions (shrugs).
For gods sakes I have a brow ridge and cannot fit in 95 percent of automobiles built...I refuse to beleive that my ancestors were the ONLY ones getting creative in the bedroom.

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

I

I also read that the larger noses we have in northern europe, the thick necks and chest size also come from Neanderthal ancestry. Now, if its been definatively proven that there was no mixing...evolution could simply have adopted those characteristics to survive certain conditions (shrugs).

Thermoregulation: diiferent body types have different advantages when it come to thermoregulation.
Larger noses make sense in colder climates, to warm up the air travelling through the nose to the lungs.

Tall lanky people tend to have a harder time staying warm in cool climates. Short, stocky, "compact" bodies would be better suited to cool climates. Europeans traditionally were generally short and stocky with big noses, though there are now many exceptions with the advent of technology applied in our lives today.

Genes and environment both influence a populations physical traits as those with advantageous traits survive to pass on their genes. Homo Sapein Sapien in Europe may only superficially resemble Neanderthal in Europe as they quite likely adapted similiarly to the European climate.

 

[jj]

leetahs or teetahs, chions and chigers. Stop me!

Tigons and chigers and wears, OH MY!

(edited to say: Oh well, I guess that wasn't as original as I thought. Oh well. And I do like "beers" better than "wears". I was trying to come up with another ursid, there aren't that many.)

 

[jj]

Haven't there been mules that are not sterile?

Yes. They are, however, fairly rare, and most of their offspring don't seem to be fertile, usually.

 

[BillHoyt]

http://animal.discovery.com/convergence/movie/wolf/facts/facts.html

Wolves and dogs are in the same family, however, they are different species. Humans and chimps cannot breed.

Denise,

I think Discovery got this one wrong. Although, to be fair, the classifications may have changed over time and I see a number of sources getting it wrong. Dogs and wolves are the same species. Dogs constitute a separate variety.
Wolves = Canis lupus
Dogs = Canis lupus familiaris

source

Cheers,

 

[Denise]

Denise,

I think Discovery got this one wrong. Although, to be fair, the classifications may have changed over time and I see a number of sources getting it wrong. Dogs and wolves are the same species. Dogs constitute a separate variety.
Wolves = Canis lupus
Dogs = Canis lupus familiaris

source

Cheers,

Thank you Bill. So, do we really know what a species is then? Neanderthals are supposed to be a different species, but it seems like the term can't even be agreed upon. Saying all hybrids are sterile is wrong, because not all hybrids are sterile. So, I don't think there is any way to know if there is Neanderthal in modern humans. By the way, this isn't directed just at you, but the forum. Some creationists claim that speciation has never been observed, but science can't even agree on definitions of the species can they?

 

[jj]

Thank you Bill. So, do we really know what a species is then? Neanderthals are supposed to be a different species, but it seems like the term can't even be agreed upon. Saying all hybrids are sterile is wrong, because not all hybrids are sterile. So, I don't think there is any way to know if there is Neanderthal in modern humans. By the way, this isn't directed just at you, but the forum. Some creationists claim that speciation has never been observed, but science can't even agree on definitions of the species can they?

It's a hard problem. You can get "ring species', and all sorts of things, because it's the genetic distance (for critters with the same number of chromosomes, at least) that matters.

A ring species is, for instance, a kind of bird where the birds that live in New Mexico can breed with the ones in Arizona and Texas. The ones in Texas can't breed with the ones in Arizona, but can breed with the ones in Oklahoma and Kansas. Those can breed with the ones in Nebraska and Wyoming. None live in Utah, it's way too dry there, btw, this is important The ones in Wyoming can breed with the ones in Montana and Idaho. Those with the ones in Oregon and Northern California, and those with the ones in Southern California.

But the ones from, say, Montana and NM won't breed at all.

What constitutes a species, in this case?

I have used a hypothetical example, but this kind of thing has been observed.

The whole problem is that when species or variants are close, they may be able to interbreed, while more physical distance may mean selection pressures will enforce different genetics, which means those can't, even though they both may be able to breed with the bunch in the middle, etc.

Ditto dogs, wolves, coyotes, ...

One thing interesting about dogs vs. wolves is that dogs seem to have instinctive wiring to understand human facial and physical attitudes, and wolves don't, according to some recent studies.

BUT having met a wolf-shepherd cross that was fertile, smart, and sneaker than (*&(**, and a wolf-newfie cross that was huge, hungry, and laid back to a fault, I knwo that wolves and dogs can cross pretty widely without much problem While the news is anecdotal, there appears to be some mixing of coyotes with domestic dogs as well. That's more speculative, I have only heard anecdotes. Given that I see coyotes loping down the road in North Redmond, the chance isn't too hard to imagine.

 

[zakur]

According to the Georgia DNR:

If mated with dogs, a female coyote can produce a coyote/dog hybrid called a "coydog." However, this is uncommon due to the unsynchronized breeding cycles of the two species.

And according to the Pennsylvania Game Commission:

Coydogs were once believed to be found in good numbers in Pennsylvania, especially when our once-expanding coyote population was thought to be having difficulty finding same-species mates. Truth is, most of these so-called coydogs were probably coyotes or feral dogs, since the breeding cycles of dogs and coyotes are not synchronized. Studies have confirmed coyote-dog interbreeding rarely happens.

And finally, from the New York Dept. of Environmental Conservation:

Coyotes and dogs theoretically can interbreed to produce what is called a ‘coydog'. However, these crossbreeds have a reproductive cycle of dogs, not coyotes, and will give birth at times of the year when the pups cannot possibly survive (i.e., January). In addition, there are behavioral differences between dogs and coyotes which prevent crossbreeding from occurring. Coyotes want to mate with other coyotes and not with dogs. Coyotes are actually more likely to prey upon a domestic dog instead of mating with it. It is in this manner that dog genes are prevented from entering the gene pool of true coyotes, maintaining the two separate species. Coydogs occurred at the leading edge of coyote range expansion during the 1950 to early 1970's. The occurrence of a coydog would be an extremely rare event in New York today.

Coyotes are fascinating creatures. I'm partial to wolves, though.

 

[Dymanic]

When we start getting into coyotes, jackals, and foxes, it is a different matter. The coyote is considered to be a different species, Canis latrans.

It is in this manner that dog genes are prevented from entering the gene pool of true coyotes, maintaining the two separate species.

The fact that in this case, the hybrids are sterile probably helps a lot, too.

 

[BillHoyt]

Thank you Bill. So, do we really know what a species is then? Neanderthals are supposed to be a different species, but it seems like the term can't even be agreed upon. Saying all hybrids are sterile is wrong, because not all hybrids are sterile. So, I don't think there is any way to know if there is Neanderthal in modern humans. By the way, this isn't directed just at you, but the forum. Some creationists claim that speciation has never been observed, but science can't even agree on definitions of the species can they?

There are differing definitions of species, but mostly for pragmatic reasons.

With asexually reproducing organisms, the definition is a) clear morphological differences or b) 10% difference in genome.

With sexually reproducing organisms, the definition is the lack of ability to interbreed to produce viable offspring.

When talking about Neanderthals, however, we have a problem, because there aren't any to test-mate. There the calls are made based on morphology rather than on the genes.

Cheers

 

[Denise]

There are differing definitions of species, but mostly for pragmatic reasons.

With asexually reproducing organisms, the definition is a) clear morphological differences or b) 10% difference in genome.

With sexually reproducing organisms, the definition is the lack of ability to interbreed to produce viable offspring.

When talking about Neanderthals, however, we have a problem, because there aren't any to test-mate. There the calls are made based on morphology rather than on the genes.

Cheers

How much of Neanderthal DNA do we have? I've heard that we have mitochondrial DNA. I'm not sure how much we would need in able to say for sure, that we could not have interbred. What is morphology? Is that like the DNA tests that amplify the sample like PCR?

What do you mean by viable offspring? Offspring that live, or offspring that can breed? Hasn't there always been examples of offsprings that can breed? Not many, but one here or there?

 

[arcticpenguin]

How much of Neanderthal DNA do we have? I've heard that we have mitochondrial DNA. I'm not sure how much we would need in able to say for sure, that we could not have interbred. What is morphology? Is that like the DNA tests that amplify the sample like PCR?

What do you mean by viable offspring? Offspring that live, or offspring that can breed? Hasn't there always been examples of offsprings that can breed? Not many, but one here or there?

If you go back to the opening post and follow the link, you'll find that studies to date consistently show that we do not share mitochondrial DNA with Neanderthals.

Morphology is shape, i.e. body shape.

For purposes of the current discussion, offspring which can breed would be the best interpretation. The prevalence of this depends on which two species you are crossing. Fertile mules are pretty rare, but I recall reading about one last year. Sapiens- Neanderthal hybrids - who knows?

 

[hammegk]

There are differing definitions of species, but mostly for pragmatic reasons.

Pragmatic being a better scientific term than "god-of-the-gaps".

The data that we have is clear; evolution does not occur bit-by-bit, rather in quantum jumps. The problem then is how/why do a fertile male-female pair that breed true occur same time/same place and on so many occasions.

Nothing like the religion of "scientism".

 

[BillHoyt]

Pragmatic being a better scientific term than "god-of-the-gaps".

The data that we have is clear; evolution does not occur bit-by-bit, rather in quantum jumps. The problem then is how/why do a fertile male-female pair that breed true occur same time/same place and on so many occasions.

Nothing like the religion of "scientism".

I was very specific with the reasoning for differing definitions. Perhaps you could contest one of those specific points?

Cheers,

 

[jj]

The data that we have is clear; evolution does not occur bit-by-bit, rather in quantum jumps. The problem then is how/why do a fertile male-female pair that breed true occur same time/same place and on so many occasions.

That's exactly what the evidence does not show.

Try again. Methinks you're in De Nile.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Don't you think it's fascinating to think what life would be like with a competing species? Us humans have been at the top of the food chain for so long. Would the Neanderthals have their own nations? Imagine the UN!

Actually, it seems that there were a number of competing pre-hominids. Then there may have been a selection race, first leaving only Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalis, then finally only Homo Sapiens (Sapiens). One could speculate that our tendency to racism and xenofobia is a relict instinct from such time as there really WERE "not our kind" people.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

I cannot possibly see the problem with neandertals and sapien sapiens mating. Human family and tribal groupings would have adopted them no problem considering most of the differences between the two SEEMED to be behavioural(muscle mass was different so prey would be different). I remember reading about how Neadertal males would not hang around to guard the female after they did the hanky spanky...thus leading to terrible mortality rates. Apparently one of the advantages Homo Sapien um..Sapiens had was that male "stick around"

*snip*

Been reading Jean Auel, have you? Actually we know very little about the mating and family habits of either Cro Magnon or Neanderthal. But we do have indications that Neandertals lived in familiy groups and had a religious culture (burial rituals).

Hans

 

[Badger]

One thing to keep in mind about Neanderthals and Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH)is that, when referring to competition, they lived in the same areas for thousands of years.

This makes me think that the difference in adaptation to the environment wasn't all that great, between the two groups. It also makes me think that there were no genocidal tendencies between them.

I think these things due to the timeframe involved in replacement of one by the other. If AMH's out competed N's for resources, they would have had to avoided eachother completely or there would have been territorial conflict for resources. If there were genocidal tendencies, AMH has a history of making species extinct in a whole lot less time than AMH and N existed together.

Another thing to mention is the statistical aspects of difference in mtDNA that the comparisons done so far show. First point is that there can be greater difference between modern individuals mtDNA than there is between neanderthal mtDNA and AMH mtDNA (think bell curve here). Second point is that as far as I know only 2 samples of Neanderthal mtDNA have been compared to average AMH mtDNA. This is only 2 individuals out of the population of Neanderthals compared to the generic mtDNA for many more samples of us. The sample poplulation is too small to be definitive at this time. More tests need to be done.

And finally, my personal little theory is that maybe mtDNA was the mutation that gave "us" the advantage over "them". mtDNA comes from mitochondria, which are responsible for converting nutrients to energy within a cell. As such, if "we" had slightly more efficient mitochondria than "them", we would eventually out compete "them". If there's a famine and my mitochondria can generate more energy from the same food than yours can, I'll be more likely to survive the famine. But I have little to base my theory on, so take it for what it's worth......electrons hitting the screen in front of you.

 

[Dymanic]

The data that we have is clear; evolution does not
occur bit-by-bit, rather in quantum jumps.

I don't think it is necessarily all that clear, but it is possible to make a convincing argument in that general direction. It seems to depend a lot on which data you look at and what you mean by 'jumps'. No 'hopeful monsters'--that much is clear. Macromutation produces dead or doomed organisms at best, aborted fetuses more often.

But the fossil record still doesn't give up much in the way of the transitional forms which the gradualist model would lead us to expect.