Extinct cave bear DNA sequenced

Page 3 of 5 [ 74 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,332
Location: Louisville, KY

07 Jun 2005, 5:29 pm

Ah, there was another article on the Human Origins links but I had forgotten it:

http://www.esimpletech.com/origins/news ... ews_id=169

Granted, they are quoting some of the same people. But it might give a better picture on what is the general opinion of the paleoanthropological community. However, I did a little reading into the FOXP2 gene and I do believe it is no longer the "hype" it was at the time of the writing of this article.

Nevertheless, I keep looking

"Articles, articles, articles..."

_________________
My Science blog, Science Over a Cuppa - http://insolemexumbra.wordpress.com/

My partner's autism science blog, Cortical Chauvinism - http://corticalchauvinism.wordpress.com/

Sophist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,332
Location: Louisville, KY

07 Jun 2005, 5:51 pm

Yes, as to the recessive genes, I have blue eyes (which are a recessive trait ).

Father = brown eyes (Ab)
Mother = blue eyes (bb)

Clearly my father had blue eyes in his genes somewhere otherwise I would have ended up with brown ones.

_________________
My Science blog, Science Over a Cuppa - http://insolemexumbra.wordpress.com/

My partner's autism science blog, Cortical Chauvinism - http://corticalchauvinism.wordpress.com/

PeterMacKenzie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 626
Location: BANNED FOR DISCUSSING RECENT BANNINGS!

07 Jun 2005, 5:57 pm

Just read this article from the second link you posted: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/3/l_073_02.html

Summery of interesting bits:

Quote:

I think one of the best expressions of this difference is the use of symbols and pictures. Pictures are a way to communicate with someone else without this person being here. It can be a far distance or it can be in the far future. A picture allows communication without the presence of the two interlocutors. And this is apparently what modern humans used to do and Neanderthals did not.

And it means something about the existence of some kind of long-distance social nets, very complex in the Upper Paleolithic, something that likely did not exist in the Middle Paleolithic of Europe. One has to see the Neanderthal groups like big families of Neanderthals, living in one spot and exploiting the local resources in a very opportunistic way. For some reasons when they could not survive longer in this part, they would just move away.

The picture we have of the Upper Paleolithic modern humans in Europe is quite different. When one considers the objects, the raw materials found in their sites, it's very clear that these people were involved in net exchanges at long distances, several hundred kilometers, sometimes more than 500 kilometer. They belonged to big entity, a big cultural entity, and it's very likely that Neanderthals did not have this conscience at all.

Quote:

Q: Do you think the two species had different brains or different minds?

A: It's difficult to [argue] that Neanderthals and modern humans would have very different brains. So far, anatomically, they don't look so different. But definitely, they had a different mind.

I think modern humans just invented a new way to think. And we see this, for example, in the burst of innovations in the technology. The Middle Paleolithic world is a world where changes were very slow. But when we move into the Upper Paleolithic with modern humans, we have a lot of innovations. Every few centuries there is something new happening, and this is probably a very different way to adapt to the environment.

One other thing we have to keep in mind is that Neanderthals were rather well adapted to the environment of Europe. Their body was well adapted to this environment. It's a paradox to think that this tropical population coming from a completely different environment finally survived in Europe while the Neanderthal [became extinct].

I think one reason for this major difference in the behavior of modern humans and Neanderthals in the European continent is that because of their low level of biological adaptation, this tropical population in Europe had to innovate a lot. And probably this is something also that boosted their need for invention, their need for technological adaptation in this very challenging environment.

Q: Do you think Neanderthals had language?

A: It's very likely that Neanderthal spoke. The problem is what did they say, exactly? It's difficult to answer this question, of course. I don't think it's really a question relevant of physical anthropology -- we can find little difference in the ability of producing sounds in one group or another.

I think the major difference probably lies in the archaeological record. The use of symbols and pictures by modern humans probably is just the external sign of a major linguistic revolution in these groups. And probably the major difference between Neanderthals and modern humans did not lie so much in some kind of different technological ability, but probably in the major difference in the level of communication between groups.

Going to go sleep...

_________________
Banned for discussing the recent spate of bannings.

Malcolm_Scipo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Mar 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,007

08 Jun 2005, 12:06 am

I personally do not like the idea that AS was contracted from Neanderthals. I find this highly unlikely, due to the fact that although the social abilities are reduced the person will still have a great imagination and ability with logic, which I believe that Neanderthals lacked. Also, I do not think that the interbreeding with Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens Sapiens would have occured that often and that their descendents would have bred that often to spread anything.

_________________
THOUGHT IT WAS THE END.
THOUGHT IT WAS THE 4TH OF JULY.
I WOKE UP AND THEN I REALISED,
I WAS NOT WHAT I HAD ALWAYS TRIED TO EMULATE.
INSTEAD A SHADOW OF FORMER GLORY.
AND THEN I CRIED.

PeterMacKenzie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 626
Location: BANNED FOR DISCUSSING RECENT BANNINGS!

08 Jun 2005, 7:16 am

Quote:

Clearly my father had blue eyes in his genes somewhere otherwise I would have ended up with brown ones.

I have tri-coloured eyes: brown, light blue and dark blue. Maybe there's more than two genes per individual for eye-colour. It's been a while since I've done any genetics, but I'm sure I remember than plenty of traits have more than one gene per chromosome on a single chromosome pair that code for them.

_________________
Banned for discussing the recent spate of bannings.

PeterMacKenzie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 626
Location: BANNED FOR DISCUSSING RECENT BANNINGS!

08 Jun 2005, 8:01 am

Malcolm_Scipo wrote:

I find this highly unlikely, due to the fact that although the social abilities are reduced the person will still have a great imagination and ability with logic, which I believe that Neanderthals lacked.

Perhaps they had more or less imagination than we think. How many psychologists have proclaimed that asperger's lack imagination, based on their observations of us? If highly trained and intelligent professionals can make that mistake with people who're alive and available for examination, what chances do they have with a group that's been extinct for the past 30 millenia?

_________________
Banned for discussing the recent spate of bannings.

PeterMacKenzie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 626
Location: BANNED FOR DISCUSSING RECENT BANNINGS!

08 Jun 2005, 8:05 am

Mmmm... termites... http://bric.postech.ac.kr/science/97now/01_1now/010116c.html

_________________
Banned for discussing the recent spate of bannings.

Malcolm_Scipo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Mar 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,007

09 Jun 2005, 12:15 am

Oh well. I just dislike the idea that AS is contracted from Neanderthals. I prefer to see it as evolution among the Homo Sapiens Sapiens rather than the result of cross-breeding.

Sophist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,332
Location: Louisville, KY

09 Jun 2005, 1:19 am

Peter, I know at least for human eye color, the only pigment which exists is brown. Blue eyes are simply a lack of pigment. However, I know it's not an all-or-nothing situation with eye color, so that even though I have blue eyes I still have some brown pigment, because there are certainly people with bluer eyes than me. That is also how some people get green eyes and gray eyes and all sorts. Just different amounts of brown pigment.

_________________
My Science blog, Science Over a Cuppa - http://insolemexumbra.wordpress.com/

My partner's autism science blog, Cortical Chauvinism - http://corticalchauvinism.wordpress.com/

Malcolm_Scipo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Mar 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,007

09 Jun 2005, 11:24 am

Interesting. So the browner your eyes, the more pigment. Hmmmm.....

PeterMacKenzie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 626
Location: BANNED FOR DISCUSSING RECENT BANNINGS!

13 Jun 2005, 5:08 am

There was a study done to compare neanderthal and sapiens mitochondial DNA a while ago, which found no link, but it was criticised for only having a single neanderthal sample and for only being able to detect neanderthal female <> sapiens male matings, since mitochondrial DNA is 99% from the female (more mitochondria in the egg vs. the sperm). It's possible that only male neanderthal <> female sapiens matings took place with any frequency, if at all, since neanderthal females would have been substantially more rhobust that sapiens males (in the female bodybuilder who's gone all hairy and big-boned sense).

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2004_11_01_dienekes_archive.html wrote:

PLoS Biol. 2004 Nov 30;2(12):e421 [Epub ahead of print]

Modern Humans Did Not Admix with Neanderthals during Their Range Expansion into Europe.

Currat M et al.

The process by which the Neanderthals were replaced by modern humans between 42,000 and 30,000 before present is still intriguing. Although no Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) lineage is found to date among several thousands of Europeans and in seven early modern Europeans, interbreeding rates as high as 25% could not be excluded between the two subspecies. In this study, we introduce a realistic model of the range expansion of early modern humans into Europe, and of their competition and potential admixture with local Neanderthals. Under this scenario, which explicitly models the dynamics of Neanderthals' replacement, we estimate that maximum interbreeding rates between the two populations should have been smaller than 0.1%. We indeed show that the absence of Neanderthal mtDNA sequences in Europe is compatible with at most 120 admixture events between the two populations despite a likely cohabitation time of more than 12,000 y. This extremely low number strongly suggests an almost complete sterility between Neanderthal females and modern human males, implying that the two populations were probably distinct biological species.

_________________
Banned for discussing the recent spate of bannings.

Malcolm_Scipo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Mar 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,007

13 Jun 2005, 10:46 am

Cross breeding between neanderthals and modern humans is wrong. It is beastiality in my opinion.

Sanityisoverrated
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Jul 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,382

13 Jun 2005, 11:20 am

Is it just me, or did my incredibly astute and insightful post here get deleted?

PeterMacKenzie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 626
Location: BANNED FOR DISCUSSING RECENT BANNINGS!

13 Jun 2005, 11:33 am

Sanityisoverrated wrote:

Is it just me, or did my incredibly astute and insightful post here get deleted? Confused

There was an incredibly astute and insightful post?

Malcolm_Scipo wrote:

Cross breeding between neanderthals and modern humans is wrong. It is beastiality in my opinion.

I don't think anyone had heard of the judaic system of moral values back then...

_________________
Banned for discussing the recent spate of bannings.

PeterMacKenzie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 626
Location: BANNED FOR DISCUSSING RECENT BANNINGS!

13 Jun 2005, 11:38 am

Also, people used to say similar things about negro-caucasian interbreeding. If something can produce fertile offspring when you breed with it, it is, by definition, of the same species as yourself, which I would take as a pretty strong argument against it being bestiality.

_________________
Banned for discussing the recent spate of bannings.

Malcolm_Scipo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Mar 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,007

13 Jun 2005, 12:55 pm

I personally think that modern humans breeding with neanderthals is wrong no matter what.

Page 3 of 5 [ 74 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Jump to:

Extinct cave bear DNA sequenced Post Reply New Topic

Extinct cave bear DNA sequenced