It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Neanderthals - a new species?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Neanderthals are now our cousins?




A new, simplified family tree of humanity, published on Sunday, has dealt a blow to those who contend that the enigmatic hominids known as Neanderthals intermingled with our forebears.





[edit on 13-5-2008 by Jbird]




posted on May, 6 2008 @ 04:46 AM
link   
Considering tigers and lions can interbreed and create ligers and such.... What is the evolutionairy gap in terms of years between those 2?



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 05:24 AM
link   
It's been known for a while that Neanderthals probably didn't interbreed with humans. That doesn't mean though that they didn't have children together, the children would just not have been fertile.

Like with lions and tigers, they might be able to have offspring, but infertile offspring.

And with different species interbreeding: Species borders are amazingly flexible, it's actually not always clear cut what a species is. You could have two animals interbreeding and making fertile offspring even though they look like totally different species.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Inter species breeding

Breeding between Neanderthals and HSS might also have lead to the bigger head of the N comming into conflict with the narrower birth canal of the HSS.

DNA studies on the existing 400 Neanderthal skeletons continues

[edit on 6/5/08 by Hanslune]



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 11:10 AM
link   
i've never understood why so many people object to having the Neanderthals added to the family tree. They were a fascinating species, that adapted to very harsh environments, yet still managed to thrive even if in low numbers.

They had cranial capacities as large or larger than ours, they weren't built like modern day bodybuilders and possessed tremendous strength, practiced ceremonial burials, made tools, and may even of had a rudimentary religious belief system.

The genetic testing that has been done, I think is still inconclusive to rule them out. They were thinking, feeling beings that lived very difficult lives. There's absolutely nothing about them to be ashamed of in my opinion, and I'd gladly claim them as an ancestor.

[edit on 5/6/08 by LLoyd45]



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   
There still our cousins

They would have been good direct ancestors too



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by LLoyd45
i've never understood why so many people object to having the Neanderthals added to the family tree. They were a fascinating species, that adapted to very harsh environments, yet still managed to thrive even if in low numbers.

They had cranial capacities as large or larger than ours, they weren't built like modern day bodybuilders and possessed tremendous strength, practiced ceremonial burials, made tools, and may even of had a rudimentary religious belief system.

The genetic testing that has been done, I think is still inconclusive to rule them out. They were thinking, feeling beings that lived very difficult lives. There's absolutely nothing about them to be ashamed of in my opinion, and I'd gladly claim them as an ancestor.

[edit on 5/6/08 by LLoyd45]


Saying that Neanderthals didn't contribute to our DNA isn't about objecting to the idea, it's about genetic proof.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by monkey_descendant
 
I think they have a real problem extracting enough viable DNA from the fossilized remains they have to do an accurate comparison.

There was a study several years back, where I believe they used several incomplete samples of DNA from bones to run a comparison. If i remeber correctly, a lot of there results showed a direct connection, but were later discarded because of possible lab contamination issues.

It'd be great if they could find a viable sample of sufficient quantity to resolve the issue once and for all.

I like to think they still exist somewhere, like the story of the Almas.



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
In most cases Neanderthal remains aren't fossilized yet. The bone structure has not yet been replaced by stone.

Must read up on that quest (for N dna)



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Hello all,

It's not about nuclear DNA, but here are a couple of links to analysis' of the differences of Human and Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA.

Neanderthal DNA

Fossil Hominids: mitochondrial DNA

As can be seen, there is quite a bit of genetic difference between the two.

cormac



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Two great links Cormac, just what I had planned to look for







Conclusions

The studies of Neandertal mtDNA do not show that Neandertals did not or could not interbreed with modern humans. However, the lack of diversity in Neandertal mtDNA sequences, combined with the large differences between Neandertal and modern human mtDNA, strongly suggest that Neandertals and modern humans developed separately, and did not form part of a single large interbreeding population. The Neandertal mtDNA studies will strengthen the arguments of those scientists who claim that Neandertals should be considered a separate species which did not significantly contribute to the modern gene pool.





[edit on 13-5-2008 by Jbird]



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Glad you liked them Hans,

I got interested in my own genetics after 10+ years of researching my family tree. Last year I had my mtDNA tested. Found out I'm somewhat of an oddity. I'm haplogroup K. Out of 966 currently documented people tested so far in my group, I'm the only one with my particular genetic mutations.

cormac



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 08:11 PM
link   
MUTANT!

I understand "k" people look like this?





[edit on 7/5/08 by Hanslune]



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   
What a comedian Hans,

Actually out of 966 documented Haplogroup K people, I'm pre-K1a10.

Hyper Variable Region 1: 215G,224C,311C,519C

Hyper Variable Region 2:
73G,195C,263G,315.1C,497T,524.1C,524.2A,524.3C,524.4A,524.5C,524.6A,524.7C,524.8A

My documented maternal ancestry is from Ireland.

cormac



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   


Irish you say?

[edit on 7/5/08 by Hanslune]



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Well how about Neanderthals being regular humans who lived for hundreds of years as in the book of Genesis? They lived just after the worldwide flood, while the lifespan was rapidly decreasing in each generation born.

source



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   


Well how about Neanderthals being regular humans who lived for hundreds of years as in the book of Genesis? They lived just after the worldwide flood, while the lifespan was rapidly decreasing in each generation born.


Howdy TC

ahhhh, no they are genetically difference from modern men, have a different skeletal makeup, cultural implements and died out about 25,000 years ago (AFAIK). They are our cousin from one of the many associated lines of hominids that evolved but then died out. Also of course there is no evidence for a world wide flood and massive amounts of evidence against it.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   
On the topic of the human family tree,

We must also add chimpanzee's into the tree as we are infact an off-shoot of chimpanzee, whereas gorilla and orangutan took seperate paths, us and chimpanzee's evolved along the same path, It is also accepted by many specialists that the earliest humans and chimpanzee's wouldve mated together for tens of thousands of years,

so in effect chimpanzee's DNA would be in modern human DNA by decent from our ultimate ancestors



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   
The evidence and scientific finds keep throwing the theory of evolution into dissaray. We keep finding that Homo Erectus didn't evolve out of Homo Habilis for example, Homo Sapiens didn't evolve out of Homo Erectus, "Lucy" is not linked to humans, Neandethals not related to humans etc. etc. In fact there is no evidence anywhere to prove that one species ever came out of another species. They can't even name what the predecessor to humans was let alone what the common ancestor of all apes allegedly is. LOL!!!!
news.scotsman.com...



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by AmmonSeth
On the topic of the human family tree,

We must also add chimpanzee's into the tree as we are infact an off-shoot of chimpanzee, whereas gorilla and orangutan took seperate paths, us and chimpanzee's evolved along the same path, It is also accepted by many specialists that the earliest humans and chimpanzee's wouldve mated together for tens of thousands of years,

so in effect chimpanzee's DNA would be in modern human DNA by decent from our ultimate ancestors


Researchers Find Shocking Difference Between Human and Chimp Genomes, Chimps not related to Humans. Humans and animals are not the same thing
www.broad.mit.edu...

and-
www.newscientist.com...

Many people have long believed humans and chimps share 99 of the same DNA, this however has been proven as false and fake. In just the last few years many completely unique sequences in both species have been found
www.sciencemag.org... esourcetype=HWCIT

also
www.arn.org...

More sources,
health.dailynewscentral.com...

Audio interview-"Brain Evolution" Gene Reveals evolution to be false
www.podcastdirectory.com...

the HAR1 gene also appears to disprove, or go against, common descent-
www.hhmi.org...

Now genetic data reveals that the bigger the brain the slower it should evolve, that seams to disprove the notion of "Human Accelerated Genes"
cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com...

More molecular evidence disproving evolution-
www.idthefuture.com...

Evolution down the toilet
news.bbc.co.uk...

"Lucy" debunked
www.pnas.org... andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

Oh no, these are clearly apes not human beings
www.msu.edu...

40,000 year old human footprints in mexico
en.epochtimes.com...



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join