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: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
I would imagine natural selection endowed modern humans with a genetic imperative that ensured they steered clear of any such liaisons. I doubt the Neanderthals personalities were so infectious that modern humans were able to look beyond the aesthetics and transcend those boundaries.

IRM


People will screw anything that has a hole. You think ugly makes a difference? Horse, pig, dog, chicken, car exhaust pipes, vacuum cleaner, TREE KNOT.

[edit on 2009/10/29 by Aeons]




posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Silcone Synapse
 


holy cow, that's a face only a mother could love.

[edit on 2009/10/29 by Aeons]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer

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..."


So, you've run into my family. Be nice now...the women are all attractive but we're way stronger than you suspect.



Originally posted by DaMod

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....


Yep. Looks like my Dad and Uncles.

[edit on 2009/10/29 by Aeons]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
I recall this being proposed several years ago, and a study was done on the skulls.

There were some 13-15 pointed differences between Neanderthal skulls and modern skulls. The most significant differences were in the nasal cavity.

Indications were that there were greater similarities between Neanderthals and chimpanzees than Neanderthals and modern man.

This transitional crap that keeps being introduced is difficult to swallow.

If you look at the state of art aircraft in 1909, then in 1929, then 1939, and up to 2009, you'll see a natural progression.

We don't have that in the fossil record where Neanderthal/Modern transitional species would indicate interbreeding.

Zero evidence, and just a couple genomes can be a big difference.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
I've recently picked up an interesting book on H. Neanderthalensis which covers newer research that Neanderthals and modern man may have spent a greater length of time interacting with one another, here is a chapter excerpt:


The general framework and the factors behind the demise of the Neanderthals are still fiercely debated, and there remain many uncertainties in the data. While accelerator dating has purged the record of spurious fossils and confirmed the ages of others, it is likely that many of our current “dates” for the last Neanderthals and the earliest moderns in Europe are minimum ages, from the perspectives of both calibration and contamination by more recent radiocarbon. While the Aurignacian probably does reflect a dispersal of modern humans, it may not represent the oldest such dispersal into Europe. And while much new morphological data support a specific distinction for H. neanderthalensis, nevertheless the modern and Neanderthal lineages may be better characterized as allotaxa. Regarding the factors behind Neanderthal extinction, these are likely to have been many and varied, but almost certainly included the unstable climatic context of the period between 25–40,000 years ago. Finally, taking a wider context on the Neanderthal — sapiens relationship, we should remember that these events in western Europe were only the endpoints of hundreds of thousands of years of possible competition and interaction between these evolving lineages.


Neanderthals Revisited: New Approaches and Perspectives

So man may have entered Europe earlier than thought, and both species may have had contact and interaction earlier and longer than previously thought, with the final presence of Neanderthals in Europe occurring later (about 25000 BC). However this book, from what I've gathered, does not indicate any interbreeding, or contributions to human DNA from Neanderthals.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity

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?


Yes, you are missing something: Moderns didn't descend from Neanderthal.

Moderns and Neanderthals had a common ancestor, but they evolved along different 'branches' from that common ancestor, and more or less in parallel.

Edit: sorry, I see that you have already been answered.

[edit on 29/10/2009 by rnaa]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Ginger gene has been connected as being a possible contribution to the human gene pool from Neanderthal. mtDNA haplogroup X has also been theorized to potentially be a Neanderthal heritage. High functioning Aspies (Aspergers) have a theory that the condition might be connected to Neanderthal.

www.gnxp.com...

The diversity found in the European populace cannot be explained by the current model. However, if you took into account that there were other branches and isolated twigs of the more advanced homo species in various areas....and that the homo sapiens migrating would have had varied amounts of interaction (sexual) with those groups, you could easily account for it.

Asians would have more cross-back with earlier, and then climatically isolated early Cro-Magnon. Europeans would have more interaction (and probably more sustained interaction) with Neanderthal.

Most game during the successive ice ages moved West to East and then West to East. Isolated early Cro-Magnon or late Erectus would have followed this pattern. And then been cut off to develop on their own. In Asia. When the next wave of homo came through, they would have been absorbed. (Probably not nicely.)


While the multiple points of origin theory doesn't get a lot of respect, the fact remains that people in South America were Cro-Magnon. People in Africa were Cro-Magnon. Without any replacement, both groups proceeded to develop into modern humans in very similar ways. No replacement necessary.


One forum has a discussion on this - but I have read it elsewhere as well -
The posit that the cultures with women who have most often been in more gender egalitarian societies might be connected with Neanderthal. That Homo Sapiens have developed more gender disparity, while Neanderthal was more gender equal.

[edit on 2009/10/30 by Aeons]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod

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



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


No no you get this..... an earlier poster mentioned, Nikolai Valuev
Another picture: img2.blogcu.com...


I think Neanderthals are still with us today in some genetic form that is diluted in our gene pool. The genes of Neanderthals and modern humans are more closely related than chimps and humans, and that would make interbreeding very possible, in the end they became us.



[edit on 30-10-2009 by imitator]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
This is covered by the Bible

God made man, pure man............ the devils angels, then took the daughters of man and then corrupted the pureness of man.

Untill Noah and his few were the only ones left, so then God wiped the world clear. But considering angels can't die on earth they of course weren't killed off but set back...and returned.

So basically unless you have clear and uninterrupted blood lines to the few on the Ark then you have corrupted DNA...including me.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by 297GT
 


What does the ark and the bible have to do with this? Noah lived within walking distance of every species on the planet and stuck them on a boat including the Neanderthals?



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Phlegmi
 




Not going to argue with you, do some reading or not and keep believing what you want, choice is yours and no amount of to and fro-ing from me is going to change your mind. That ball is entirely in your court.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   

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".



You just compared a humanoid whos DNA is very similar to ours, to a sheep?

Do you consider yourself intelligent ?

Why is it highly doubtful?

Please give your reasons.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Knowing "modern man" i would say that this has to be the other way around...

Modern man 'had sex' with Neanderthals...

So I suppose you know Neanderthals well enough to believe they did NOT also want to have sex with Modern Humans?



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Giggity...

Giggity...



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Knowing "modern man" i would say that this has to be the other way around...

Modern man 'had sex' with Neanderthals...

So I suppose you know Neanderthals well enough to believe they did NOT also want to have sex with Modern Humans?


He's making commentary on the usual course of human interaction with new groups.

Kill the men, the old, the infirm, and the children, take the girls and women, rape them, get babies on them.

Even if they are less fertile, only a few being capable of it would be enough. Girl children are treated the same, and probably live short lives. Boys are carefully selected, and the strong used. Most probably don't make it to adulthood, and if they do they don't make it far. Sexual encounters by them are limited to their breathern, and those children receive the same treatment. Read - the males don't bred "up." Unless they distinguish themselves.

In just a few generations you could almost severely limit the Y-chromosone contribution, and if enough girls are badly treated and only their cross bred sons and daughters survive after a couple of generations, the most likely contribution to the genes will come from the surviving males - which will wash out the mtDNA haplogroups assuming that they don't share many of the same basic mtDNA as we do.

[edit on 2009/11/3 by Aeons]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


Neanderthals and Modern Humans lived in Europe together for about 20,000 years. It's not really analogous to Europeans colonists driving away the aboriginal Americans.

I do think its likely that the "overthrow" of Neanderthals by Modern humans was often violent, but I see no reason to assume that Modern Humans were the lone aggressor and Neanderthals were some sort of innocent victim.

If there was violence, don't you think it is equally possible that the Neanderthals felt threatened and initiated the violence towards the Modern Humans simply to "defend their territory". This happens all the time in nature, so why not with the Neanderthals? I'm not saying this definitely happened, but it is just as equally possible as Modern Humans being the initiator of aggression.

Back to what I said before: What evidence do we have that would make people think that Neanderthals would not be as equally likely to 'have sex' with Modern Humans as Modern Humans were to 'have sex' with Neanderthals?



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
it is a distinction without difference.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
it is a distinction without difference.


I think there is a difference. In the animal world, there is usually an "initiator" of a sexual act. In the human animal (like many other animals), that initiator is usually the male.

The question could then be asked:
if there was sexual contact between Neanderthals and Modern Humans, then were MORE modern human males initiating that contact with Neanderthal females, or were MORE Neanderthal males initiating the sex with Modern females, or was it equally divided among both species.

The point I was making in my reply to the post by 'operation mindcrime' is that he made it sound like Modern Humans were by and large the sexual aggressor (even making it sound a little like Modern Humans basically "raped" Neanderthals) based on what he knows about the aggressiveness of us Modern Humans. I'm simply saying that we have no way of knowing that, because we don't know that much about Neanderthals. Neanderthals could have been equally (or more) aggressive.

By the way, there may have been sexual contact, but that doesn't mean they successfully interbred.


[edit on 11/3/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Twenty years ago when I was doing research in Portugal I remember speaking with Portuguese anthropologists about remains that had been found where the skeletal structure showed clear Neanderthal features mixed with those of homo sapiens sapiens. At least that is how I remember it. It was big news in the Lusophone world, but I don't recall it being translated into English or appearing in the English-language press. Perhaps that information is now available on the net.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by Aeons
it is a distinction without difference.


I think there is a difference. In the animal world, there is usually an "initiator" of a sexual act. In the human animal (like many other animals), that initiator is usually the male.
[edit on 11/3/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]


You are apparently a male.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join