Neanderthals, humans didn't mix

[Mark]

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 have trouble with this conclusion. By only checking burial sites, one might conclude that blacks and whites have never had any animosity towards each other either. Or Aryans against Jews or whatever. But clearly there have been genocidal conflicts amongst homo sapiens. How can we know there were not between sapiens and neanderthals? Or am I missing something?

 

[Badger]

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 have trouble with this conclusion. By only checking burial sites, one might conclude that blacks and whites have never had any animosity towards each other either. Or Aryans against Jews or whatever. But clearly there have been genocidal conflicts amongst homo sapiens. How can we know there were not between sapiens and neanderthals? Or am I missing something?

My thought is based on timeframe and technology. First, they existed together for many thousands of years. If there was genocide, one group would have eliminated the other in a shorter time period than that. Second, both groups had the same tools, and skills (same type of stone tools and hunting/survival skills) so would be fairly evenly matched so no group appears to have had a technological upper hand and thus an advantage.

By checking burial sites, differences in technology between blacks and whites can be discovered, mainly due to the quality of clothing they were buried in, and the things they were buried with. I'm talking about from approx 100 yrs ago on back. I agree with you about applying it to the present day, though.

With regards to arayans and Jews, I agree with you, speaking strictly from burial evidence. However, this is where time scale comes in to play. Again, in my opinion.

 

[Mark]

My thought is based on timeframe and technology.

Thanks, Badger. I don't know why I find the subject of Neanderthals so interesting, but I do. Of course, some on this board would probably say it's because I am one.

 

[Badger]

My thought is based on timeframe and technology.

Thanks, Badger. I don't know why I find the subject of Neanderthals so interesting, but I do. Of course, some on this board would probably say it's because I am one.

You and me both!

 

[DrChinese]

Because they would have found each other repulsive? I personally wouldn't have sex with another species, even on a drunken dare.

Come on! Everyone knows the other sex IS another species.

 

[daver]

Hmmmmm..... not sure.

But seriously, don't you think that humans and neanderthals look enough alike that they might mate?

Neanderthals are likely a lot closer to human than some of the things humans have tried to f*ck (mating to me implies intercourse with the expectation of offspring). So unless the sexual organs had teeth or barbs, i would expect some interspecies humping. Maybe not mutually consensual.

Someone told me that there is a wide variation in penis sizes among the various primates. I haven't checked on this. It could be that neanderthals were enough different that interspecies intercourse wouldn't be very satisfying, and indeed potentially damaging.

 

[LW]

Because they would have found each other repulsive? I personally wouldn't have sex with another species, even on a drunken dare.

The late paleontologist Björn Kurten had an interesting hypothesis on the subject (He didn't want to call it a theory since there's absolutely no hard evidence to support it). His suggestion was that probably neanderthals would have found cro-magnon people more attractive than vice versa. The reason for this is that modern humans have more "baby-like" features. In a same way that we find a puppy cute because its proportions are close those of a baby (large forehead, etc.), a neanderthal might found an adult human cute.

Speculating further, this might make cro-magnon - neanderhal hybrids (if there could be one) more common in neanderhal groups since they would be more likely to adopt a member of different species. Moreover, if the hybrids were sterile and reasonably commmon, they could be a contributing factor to the decline of neanderthals.

 

[BillHoyt]

The late paleontologist Björn Kurten had an interesting hypothesis on the subject (He didn't want to call it a theory since there's absolutely no hard evidence to support it). His suggestion was that probably neanderthals would have found cro-magnon people more attractive than vice versa. The reason for this is that modern humans have more "baby-like" features. In a same way that we find a puppy cute because its proportions are close those of a baby (large forehead, etc.), a neanderthal might found an adult human cute.

Speculating further, this might make cro-magnon - neanderhal hybrids (if there could be one) more common in neanderhal groups since they would be more likely to adopt a member of different species. Moreover, if the hybrids were sterile and reasonably commmon, they could be a contributing factor to the decline of neanderthals.

If you go back to the original post, though, LW, you will see that Mitochondrial DNA analysis fails to show we have any Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA. It points instead to a common ancestor of Neanderthals and humans. So far, then, the evidence refutes any interbreeding hypothesis.

Cheers,

 

[Megalodon]

If you go back to the original post, though, LW, you will see that Mitochondrial DNA analysis fails to show we have any Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA. It points instead to a common ancestor of Neanderthals and humans. So far, then, the evidence refutes any interbreeding hypothesis.

Cheers,

I think it only refutes the gene "dilution" hypothesis, not the one LW was talking about. If the hybrids where sterile, no DNA would have been passed to future generations.

 

[BillHoyt]

I think it only refutes the gene "dilution" hypothesis, not the one LW was talking about. If the hybrids where sterile, no DNA would have been passed to future generations.

If the hypothesis includes assumptions about this cross-mating being "reasonably common" and "contributing to the decline" of Neanderthals, then one would expect to find hybrid fossils, some showing human mitochondria, others showing Neanderthal.

Cheers,

 

[Megalodon]

If the hypothesis includes assumptions about this cross-mating being "reasonably common" and "contributing to the decline" of Neanderthals, then one would expect to find hybrid fossils, some showing human mitochondria, others showing Neanderthal.

Cheers,

But that would only apply if there were a large number of fossils to begin with, which I don't think happens.

 

[LW]

If the hypothesis includes assumptions about this cross-mating being "reasonably common" and "contributing to the decline" of Neanderthals, then one would expect to find hybrid fossils, some showing human mitochondria, others showing Neanderthal.

Badger mentioned that a grand total of two Neanderthal have been examined for mDNA thus far, so the sample size is very low. Also, some suspected hybrid fossils have been found. Anyway, the future finds will hopefully shed more light on relationship between the two human species.

Kurten had also other interesting stuff in his books. In one of them he compared few stone-age cave pictures depicting realistically-drawn women (instead of usual stone-age stick figures) to modern pictures in men's magazines. He managed to find a modern duplicate for each stone-age picture. And this happened before the internet.

 

[Mark]

Badger mentioned that a grand total of two Neanderthal have been examined for mDNA thus far, so the sample size is very low. Also, some suspected hybrid fossils have been found. Anyway, the future finds will hopefully shed more light on relationship between the two human species.

Sounds like any conclusion is a bit premature at this point. Researchers really should be examining some of my cousins, though.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

This thread title is abosolutely wrong -- has Baker never seen a fraternity mixer in his life?

NA

 

[BillHoyt]

Megalodon:
But that would only apply if there were a large number of fossils to begin with, which I don't think happens.

True, but see LW's latest post.

LW:
Badger mentioned that a grand total of two Neanderthal have been examined for mDNA thus far, so the sample size is very low. Also, some suspected hybrid fossils have been found. Anyway, the future finds will hopefully shed more light on relationship between the two human species.

Yes, the numbers are small, but the results are already significant. They point to a common ancestor. You have to keep in mind that there is no recombination with mitochondrial DNA and that it is inherited strictly from the mother.

mark:
Sounds like any conclusion is a bit premature at this point. Researchers really should be examining some of my cousins, though.

And a lot of guys at bars tonight.

Cheers,

 

[LW]

Yes, the numbers are small, but the results are already significant. They point to a common ancestor. You have to keep in mind that there is no recombination with mitochondrial DNA and that it is inherited strictly from the mother.

I might have been more clear in my post. I took it for granted that modern humans and Neanderthals had a common ancestor. The thing is, that one point of the time (or perhaps the "point" is wrong word here) two human groups got separated from each other. One of them became ancestors of Neanderthals and one the ancestors of modern men. Before this separation they could interbreed. For some time after this separation they could have done that, but for some reason (probably because of geographical separation) they didn't, and thus they evolved into different directions.

Now, whether the groups stayed genetically close enough with each other that they could still interbreed after meeting each other again is the question. There's some evidence that they did but, as far as I know, the evidence is not conclusive. The lack of clear Neanderthal features in modern humans suggests that if interbreeding happened, the hybrid lines died out for a reason or other. Sterility is one possible explanation.

 

[jj]

If you go back to the original post, though, LW, you will see that Mitochondrial DNA analysis fails to show we have any Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA. It points instead to a common ancestor of Neanderthals and humans. So far, then, the evidence refutes any interbreeding hypothesis.

Cheers,

No, it means that Neanderthal females didn't breed with human males. Mitochondrial DNA comes from the female.

It says NOTHING about the possibility of a human female fathering a hybrid.

 

[BillHoyt]

No, it means that Neanderthal females didn't breed with human males. Mitochondrial DNA comes from the female.

It says NOTHING about the possibility of a human female fathering a hybrid.

Right on the first point. Regarding the second point: at the pub a bit early tonight, jj?

Cheers,

 

[arcticpenguin]

No, it means that Neanderthal females didn't breed with human males. Mitochondrial DNA comes from the female.

It says NOTHING about the possibility of a human female fathering a hybrid.

SIG! SIG! SIG!

 

[BillHoyt]

LW:
I might have been more clear in my post. I took it for granted that modern humans and Neanderthals had a common ancestor. The thing is, that one point of the time (or perhaps the "point" is wrong word here) two human groups got separated from each other. One of them became ancestors of Neanderthals and one the ancestors of modern men. Before this separation they could interbreed. For some time after this separation they could have done that, but for some reason (probably because of geographical separation) they didn't, and thus they evolved into different directions.

Now, whether the groups stayed genetically close enough with each other that they could still interbreed after meeting each other again is the question. There's some evidence that they did but, as far as I know, the evidence is not conclusive. The lack of clear Neanderthal features in modern humans suggests that if interbreeding happened, the hybrid lines died out for a reason or other. Sterility is one possible explanation.

LW,

I agree these are all possibilities. Without persuasive genetic evidence, though, my take is that the "they never again interbred" hypothesis is the more probable. The possible existence of a Neanderthal-human fossil starts to tilt this equation away from that hypothesis. What we would need to know is the mtDNA sequence of this fossil. If it matches human mtDNA, that would suggest a human female mated with a neanderthal male. If it matches neanderthal mtDNA, it gives us no new (non-morphological) information.

Cheers,