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 ‘had sex’ with modern man

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Selahobed
Yet another so-called human sub species or missing link that was debunked years ago.
The reason why they were able to produce offspring with homo erectus is because they were one and the same also.
The bones from the natural history museum were removed after it was found that these poor people were the victims of childhood rickets bought on because of a combination of the ice age; the cloud cover reflected a lot of the light needed for the bodies production of vitamin D, coupled with having to stay in caves due to weather conditions. Poor diet because food was hard to come by, and what they did get was not nutrient rich. The same effect can be seen in fossils found in the tropics in varying degrees, this is due to the cloud cover reaching there also.

Neandathal=human with rickets


Uh, no.

Please see CC051.1: Neanderthal Rickets




posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:25 AM
link   
The question you people should ask, is will the next step in evolution in man, want to have sex with man and women of today. I doubt it.

I do not believe in evolution, and i think alot of this is just down to guessing.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 
the normal ones will decide wit whom: woman or a man ...
maybe finally they will choose a pony...



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


The cause of hybrids being sterile is that the two parents have a different chromosome number. Now, if Neanderthals had the same chromosome number as us, in theory, they might have produced fertile offspring.

As for the question how compatible Neanderthals and our species were... I'd say pretty compatible. Not everybody agrees if they were a different species than us, but if they were a different species than us, they were still human. Just a different species of human.

Which i find quite cool, i wish they were still around



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Selahobed
Neandathal=human with rickets


Very interesting angle!

Thankyou for that. I like it when someone tells me something I haven't heard before. This is what ATS is about!

IRM



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   
First off, Neanderthals were not modern humans with rickets, nor any pathological form of homo sapiens. They were considerably larger than modern man. Now maybe a Neanderthal with rickets could have been confused for a modern human fossil, I'm sure they suffered all the same maladies we do.


Not everybody agrees if they were a different species than us, but if they were a different species than us, they were still human. Just a different species of human.

Which i find quite cool, i wish they were still around


That is what I find so fascinating - we've become so convinced we are the only intelligent species on the planet, what would it be like having several neighboring intelligent species, with their own languages, cultures, art, etc. Most people don't stop to think about the fact we didn't evolve from the Neanderthal, they were a different branch of evolution for homo. Neanderthals may have only spread throughout Europe, but were pockets of Neanderthals isolated enough to develop different races (as we find with modern man)? Did they interbreed with Cro-Magnon, rather than with modern man? Did pockets of these hybrids survive in isolation as short-lived species before they, like all the other species of homo (excluding us), went extinct?

There's so many competing theories out there, and no one can agree on anything. Hopefully mapping the genomes of Neanderthals and Cro Magnon will shed some light on the subject. I'm still reminded of the biblical passage (inherited from earlier Sumerian writings) of the "sons of god and the daughters of men". If the "sons of god", thought of as being the Sethite line by biblical scholars, were in some way a remnant line from such a merging between Neanderthal or Cro Magnon, or any hybrid species produced by such unions led to a race of men that were distinguished from modern man. Supposedly the intermarriage of the sons of god (the Sethite line) with the daughters of men (a Cainite race) led to the race of "violent men" regarded as the Nephilim, did King Og or Goliath belong to such a race that (using portions of the bible as a anecdotal record of history) was of greater stature than modern homo sapien? Perhaps they were the descendants of one of these unknown hybrid races that managed to last longer than we imagined (I know the above comment is way off topic and a bit "fringey", my apologies!)



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   
I call BS on the report.



Originally posted by WalterRatlos

Yes, but the offspring of the donkey and the horse is the mule and is sterile and cannot be bred further. And horses and zebras are not that different, aren't they? I'm not sure about their offspring: are they sterile like the mules?


For the record not all mules are sterile.
www.denverpost.com...
Too bad the sire wasn't a quarter horse stallion then the foal could be registered as a 3/4 horse with the AQHS. And yes that foal would probably be fertile.

Zorses so far have been sterile. They yelp rather than bray.
However they are also small, slow, impossible to saddle fit off the rack, dirty stoppers, untrustworthy, you pet them on the neck without warning and they will try to bite your arm off, and plain old mean.
They are half wild for goodness sakes besides the color they don't have a whole lot of good things about them and it is not their fault.

[edit on 28-10-2009 by ..5..]

[edit on 28-10-2009 by ..5..]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
This is very interesting matter.

I hybridize species myself (rodents, birds, reptiles etc) and came to the conclusion that the so called " species barrier" is quite thin at some points.

Mammals usually have infertile hybrid males the first 5 generations, in reptiles and birds the opposite is true and the first 5 generation of hybrid females are infertile. However I've also found exceptions to that case. Sometimes a first generation male mammal is fertile and reproduces in " normal " way... Their children are fertile and capable of maintaining themselves if placed in a environment where adequate food and water is present.

Some rules as stated in many books (rules like " a species needs the same diploid number to hybridize " ) appear not to be true in my experiences. So the possibility for human/neanderthal hybrids that reproduce doesn't seem that far of to me.

[edit on 28-10-2009 by DrDragonfly]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I probably shouldn't say this(I don't want him as an enemy) but I always thought that Nikolai Valuev(the beast from the east) looks like a neaderthal:



www.girlstalksports.com...

Baddass or what?



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Silcone Synapse
 


I must say to that WTF happened to him??? WOW!!!

On this whole interbreeding thing, I don't know, I still contemplate how Darwin is possibly correct even the slightest bit as these seemingly seperate species of homo actually existed at the very same time in the history of man????

Just makes no sense to me...Maybe I am missing something?



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Judging by some of the ladies my mates end up taking home on a Friday night, I'd say humans are still copulatung with Neanderthals!

Peace, kiwifoot!

[edit on 28-10-2009 by kiwifoot]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
How kinky, though not suprising.
Wouldn't that be considered a form of beastiality, in reverse?

edit: ... for the record, I was responding to the original question by the OP, not to the post above mine.

[edit on 28-10-2009 by Alxandro]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
How kinky, though not suprising.
Wouldn't that be considered a form of beastiality, in reverse?


Remember its just guess work.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


Hm, that's like saying you don't believe in evolution cause 5 or so different species of bears exist at the same time. I don't get it, how does fact that two different species of humans existed at the same time contradict the theory of evolution? In fact, that's what evolution is all about, related species tracing back to common ancestors.

Besides, Neanderthals evolved in Europe, modern humans in Africa. They weren't even competitors until "we" migrated to Europe.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   

I probably shouldn't say this(I don't want him as an enemy) but I always thought that Nikolai Valuev(the beast from the east) looks like a neaderthal


I can't tell you how many times I've looked at some people and thought "there's living proof Neanderthals never went extinct..."



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   
I don't doubt that other humanoid species could be genetically compatible with us. My biggest question has always been:

Who do you think discovered fire first?

Sure most of you will say it was us, but how do you not know it was them?



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


It might have been Homo Erectus, which is even more primitive than Neanderthal.

archaeology.about.com...



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Highly doubtful. Two different species.

There would be no offspring from such a union.

Some modern humans have sex with sheep, but that is not the source of the modern phenomena of "sheeple".



It's possible to breed humans with chimpanzees. Not a nice thought , but possible


Uhhh, sources for that claim please?



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
How kinky, though not suprising.
Wouldn't that be considered a form of beastiality, in reverse?

edit: ... for the record, I was responding to the original question by the OP, not to the post above mine.

[edit on 28-10-2009 by Alxandro]


Considering when you apply flesh to the skull of a Neanderthal you get this....



Look like anyone you know? Looks pretty Sapien to me....



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Interesting perspective.
Thanks for posting this. I'm doing some research into this very thing.

Thanks again



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join