PDA

View Full Version : I love Neandertals!!


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums

Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!



Spiznet
Tue, Aug-01-06, 06:16
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/living/health/15160633.htm
Love with a certain Neanderthal? It could have happened By
Faye Flam Inquirer Staff Writer

Though it's been 150 years since mysteriously humanlike bones
first turned up in Germany's Neander Valley, the find
continues to shake our collective sense of human identity.

Neanderthals are humanity's closest relatives, with brains at
least as big as ours, and yet we don't know whether we should
include them as members of our own species.

Science no longer considers them our direct ancestors, but
some suspect Neanderthals and modern Homo sapiens interbred
during the 20,000-odd years we coexisted in Europe. The
archaeological record doesn't tell us one way or another, but
earlier this month, researchers announced that they would seek
more clues by scraping DNA from Neanderthal bones and teeth.

The question of sex with Neanderthals speaks to our
understanding of ourselves, our origins, and our
uniqueness. If this other type of human being wasn't like
us, what was he like?

As I started researching this issue, I found myself staring at
a picture of a nude Neanderthal man - a forensic sculpture
created by Duke University paleoanthropologist Steve Churchill
that was published last year in the journal Science. The
model, based on a skeleton found at La Ferrassie in France, is
mesmerizing in its combination of familiarity and alienness.

To be honest, he's really not half-bad-looking. I can't say
for certain I wouldn't sleep with him. He's got a good,
muscular body, and while he's nobody's idea of handsome, that
could be forgiven if he had a nice personality or I was
starving and he offered to throw some rhino steaks on the
fire for me.

We're not talking about the stoop-shouldered, hairy, apelike
Neanderthal of popular culture. There's no evidence they were
hairier than modern people, says anthropologist Harold Dibble,
a curator at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of
Archaeology and Anthropology. For all we know our La Ferrassie
man had a smooth chest and back.

Nor is there any reason to consider Neanderthals more closely
related to chimpanzees than we are. The current scientific
consensus holds that our ancestors and those of Neanderthals
branched off from a common "archaic human" ancestor about
800,000 years ago.

Around half a million years ago the Neanderthal line spread
through Europe and the Middle East, while our dominant
ancestral line didn't move into Europe until much later -
around 45,000 years ago. There, we overlapped until about
28,000 years ago.

The archaeological record suggests Neanderthals knew how to
control fire and created complex tools. "No matter how you cut
it, they were not the Stone Age idiots they were portrayed as
in bad movies," says John Relethford, an anthropologist at the
State University of New York College at Oneonta and author of
Genetics and the Search for Modern Human Origins.

We don't know why Neanderthals became extinct, he says. It
could have been genocide, disease, a change in available food
sources, or absorption into our gene pool through sex. It
didn't have to be anything dramatic, he says. When two groups
are living in the same environment, it takes only a slight
edge for one group to dominate.

Will genetics fill in the story's gaps? That's the hope, says
Michael Egholm of the Connecticut-based 454 Life Sciences.
Getting good information from Neanderthal bones is a long shot
considering that the majority of DNA extracted comes from
bacteria and contamination from people. Still, Egholm says,
the company's technology allows much of this to be sorted out.

But clues also lie within the DNA we're carrying around in our
cells today. Biologist Alan Templeton of Washington University
in St. Louis has found hints that some people of European
ancestry carry genes that emerged in Europe more than 300,000
years ago - far before our main ancestors left Africa.

There's some speculation that genes associated with light skin
and red hair first arose in Neanderthals, for example.

The story Templeton's genetic studies tell is one of
successive waves of humanlike groups moving from Africa to
Europe and Asia, first more than a million years ago, then
800,000 years ago, and finally less than 100,000 years ago.
Each wave of immigrants appears to have mixed with the
previous one already living in Eurasia.

It certainly mirrors what we know of the more recent history
of human migration and exploration. Even when unfamiliar
groups label each other as subhuman, they almost always have
sex anyway.

Will In Ne
Tue, Aug-01-06, 06:16
spiznet wrote:
> http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/living/health/15160633.h-
> tm Love with a certain Neanderthal? It could have happened
> By Faye Flam Inquirer Staff Writer
>
> Though it's been 150 years since mysteriously humanlike
> bones first turned up in Germany's Neander Valley, the find
> continues to shake our collective sense of human identity.

Why? Or why would they shake it more than some of the other
varieties of apes like us?

>
> Neanderthals are humanity's closest relatives, with brains
> at least as big as ours, and yet we don't know whether we
> should include them as members of our own species.

Yes, we do. They are not members of our own species. They did
have brains as large as ours, which proves nothing about their
mentality except that it could have been formidable. What we
have found of their material culture shows some haunting
beauty and some sense of what they were. Very interesting.

>
> Science no longer considers them our direct ancestors, but
> some suspect Neanderthals and modern Homo sapiens interbred
> during the 20,000-odd years we coexisted in Europe. The
> archaeological record doesn't tell us one way or another,
> but earlier this month, researchers announced that they
> would seek more clues by scraping DNA from Neanderthal bones
> and teeth.

This has been done already. Of course, new evidence could
arise but it seems very likely that no Neanderthal DNA
survives in modern humans.

> The question of sex with Neanderthals speaks to our
> understanding of ourselves, our origins, and our uniqueness.
> If this other type of human being wasn't like us, what was
> he like?

That is an interesting question, no doubt. It is still
interesting when approached with a bit more objectivity.

>
> As I started researching this issue, I found myself staring
> at a picture of a nude Neanderthal man - a forensic
> sculpture created by Duke University paleoanthropologist
> Steve Churchill that was published last year in the journal
> Science. The model, based on a skeleton found at La
> Ferrassie in France, is mesmerizing in its combination of
> familiarity and alienness.

I have seen several of those. They can be haunting in a way
that similar pictures of our own ancestors cannot. What WERE
they like?

>
> To be honest, he's really not half-bad-looking. I can't say
> for certain I wouldn't sleep with him. He's got a good,
> muscular body, and while he's nobody's idea of handsome,
> that could be forgiven if he had a nice personality or I was
> starving and he offered to throw some rhino steaks on the
> fire for me.

Well, I thought _I_ was easy.

>
> We're not talking about the stoop-shouldered, hairy, apelike
> Neanderthal of popular culture. There's no evidence they
> were hairier than modern people, says anthropologist Harold
> Dibble, a curator at the University of Pennsylvania Museum
> of Archaeology and Anthropology. For all we know our La
> Ferrassie man had a smooth chest and back.

Living under those conditions? Not likely. However, he might
not have been hairier than a modern living in the arctic.

>
> Nor is there any reason to consider Neanderthals more
> closely related to chimpanzees than we are. The current
> scientific consensus holds that our ancestors and those of
> Neanderthals branched off from a common "archaic human"
> ancestor about 800,000 years ago.

"More closely related to chimpanzees" is not a criticism,
although it is probably untrue of Neanderthals.

Will in New Haven

--

Day Brown
Wed, Aug-02-06, 06:16
The issue of surviving HNS DNA has to be re-evaluated in light
of data about the nature of conception.

There is *NO* moment of conception, but a period of time
during which the ovum wall remains permeable. Sometimes *two*
sperm are present. If both are XX or XY, no biggie, no
problem. but if one is XX and the other XY, the common result
is hermaphroditism. Which modern lab results show is far more
common than once thot. Many hermaphrodites show now external
difference.

For instance, one ballsy chick I know, developed problems at
menopause, which body scans revealed was from undescended
testes. The way she was stacked, you'd never know.

Then too, if you recall "Sperm Wars" you can understand why
both sperm need not even be from the same donor. This gets
even more comp[icated when you realize that DNA dont join
together like the zipper on a new jacket. The molecule is not
straight, but twisted out like a plate of spaghetti, and
chunks of DNA join like the teeth on an old Jacket with loops
of DNA hung out to be joined with other segments... that could
be from another Y chromosome line. ... a Neanderthal line.

We dont have any ancient HNS Y Chromosome to look it,
the molecule is not stable enough. But Native Europeans
have a number of obviously HNS traits that were passed
on in this way.

Al Zeller
Wed, Aug-02-06, 17:16
Day Brown wrote:
> The issue of surviving HNS DNA has to be re-evaluated in
> light of data about the nature of conception.
>
> There is *NO* moment of conception, but a period of time
> during which the ovum wall remains permeable. Sometimes
> *two* sperm are present. If both are XX or XY, no biggie, no
> problem. but if one is XX and the other XY, the common
> result is hermaphroditism. Which modern lab results show is
> far more common than once thot. Many hermaphrodites show now
> external difference.
>

Sperm are usually haploid. They don't perform their function
very well as diploid.

Al Zeller

Spiznet
Fri, Aug-04-06, 06:15
Al Zeller wrote:
> Day Brown wrote:
> > The issue of surviving HNS DNA has to be re-evaluated in
> > light of data about the nature of conception.
> >
> > There is *NO* moment of conception, but a period of time
> > during which the ovum wall remains permeable. Sometimes
> > *two* sperm are present. If both are XX or XY, no biggie,
> > no problem. but if one is XX and the other XY, the common
> > result is hermaphroditism. Which modern lab results show
> > is far more common than once thot. Many hermaphrodites
> > show now external difference.
> >
>
> Sperm are usually haploid. They don't perform their function
> very well as diploid.
>
> Al Zeller

There's some speculation that genes associated with light skin
and red hair first arose in Neanderthals, for example.

The story Templeton's genetic studies tell is one of
successive waves of humanlike groups moving from Africa to
Europe and Asia, first more than a million years ago, again
800,000 years ago and again less than 100,000 years ago. Each
wave of immigrants appears to have mixed with the previous one
already living in Eurasia.

It certainly mirrors what we know of the more recent history
of human migration and exploration. Even when unfamiliar
groups label each other as subhuman, they almost always have
sex anyway.