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.

 

Proof of Neanderthal and Human interbreeding, and Oh they wore make up too!!!!

page: 2
26
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
sooo your going to sit there & tell me that this man is not a neanderthal?

www.hayemaker.com...




posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by thinline
I never understood why people think that homosapiens and neanderthal never mated. Did the scientist never go to a party in college and watch guys smashed out of their minds hit on anything that moves?


It's not so much a question about having sex, but whether or not they were capable of producing offspring.

The more recent findings have suggested some successful hybridization between neanderthal and sapiens. It's all based on some pretty sketchy genetic testing that I don't have all of the details on. Up until this research, archaeologists had not been able to find the similarities they were looking for between neanderthal's DNA and ours.

As far as the second article goes, it's always better to have fully developed skeletons and teeth for research purposes. There have been numerous cases like this one where a child's teeth and bones showed unusual characteristics. This is generally due to the fact that they are not fully developed.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Neanderthals did not die out, they migrated south to get away from the super competent Australopithecine.

In our country we put them into a team sport called "Rugby" to entertain the masses during our boring winter months.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Dad??? What are you doing on ATS??
And you have been told about cross dressing in public?? That reminds me, I want my stillettos back! Sheesh!








[edit on 043131p://f10Saturday by Selahobed]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Lol funny thread, but seriously it always makes me wonder why people think that neanderthals weren't capable of higher brain thought.

Neanderthals actually had a larger brain size than humans. 1400 cc verses our 1200 cc I think. The only difference between us and them was our frontal lobe was larger, however I'm not entirely convinced that we were much more superior than they were.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
If you look at some tribes of humans today there is face painting for various reasons. Why would it not be done 50,000 years ago?

I read somewhere (I didn't keep link) awhile ago neanderthals were hunted for food and sport. The link I found the quickest that may support that idea is:

Neanderthal Injury



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
I have gone into it on other threads in depth. Briefly.

Much new thinking by advanced anthropologists on Neanderthal. Much of what has been accepted for decades is a vestige of earlier thinking - i.e. Neanderthal man ugly, stupid, inferior, etc.

Neanaderthal man was actually Homo Sapiens just like his contemporary Cro-magnon Man. A number of skulls and skeletons found in Spain and Eastern Europe with characterstic of both indicate hybridization. The two strains of early humanity, separated by geography for the better part of a million years were genetically compatible, capable of mating and producing health offspring.

Hard for many to accept, modern man, at least a few million Europeans and residents of the Middle East and North Africa, have Neanderthal inheritence.
Their ancestor actually had a slightly larger brain case, was into mysticism and religion earlier, and may have been te intellectual of the family. Cro-magnon man discovered refined tooling earlier and was more aggressive - possibly accounting for his predominance when the two strains competed in the same territories.

The make-up speculation is silly btw. A bad reporter trying for something sensational. Early men all probably used dyes and animal skins as ornamentation. Rarely do these organic artifacts survive.


M


[edit on 9-1-2010 by mmiichael]


I am positive that I have Neanderthal blood.

I am also positive that this post by mmiichael will shed some light on the conflicts between spirituality and war in the human race.

I have long thought that the human race isn't a Species... but it's a Family.

And you know what that means... there are more.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Thanks for the update -- this is an excellent article on the possible DNA evidence of Neanderthal-Human interbreeding.

www.newscientist.com...

Stan Gooch is the most prominent theorist arguing for a Neanderthal culture as the hidden history of modern humans:

www.amazon.com...

I've corresponded quite a bit with Gooch. My own take is that the Bushmen culture is drastically different from modern humans and needs to be considered in comparison to Neanderthals as well.

reply to post by kiwifoot
 



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by drew hempel
 


Thanks for that article Drew. It was really good. I love threads like this where information is pooled. I have always suspected that there HAD to have been Neanderthal/Cro Magnon interbreeding. I am loving it that science is finally able to demonstrate it. Go genetics!



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
There are many problems in these discussions. The abuse of the term species. Species cannot interbreed, but there are compatible sub-species.
Neanderthal Man and Cro-magnon mating is not exactly analogous to horses and donkey, a particularly aberrant example anyway. Maybe closer to wolves and dogs.

More complex than that, but you get the picture.


Yeah -- That's the question:

Were Neanderthal a variant of Modern Humans or were they a separate species?

Nobody knows that answer yet.

- If they were variations of the same species, then they could produce fertile offspring (such as wolves plus dogs)

- If they were different species (but still closely related), then they may produce offspring, but the offspring would be infertile (such as Horses plus Donkeys)



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


really? no neanderthal gene in homo sapiens? I find that hard to believe



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by thinline
I never understood why people think that homosapiens and neanderthal never mated. Did the scientist never go to a party in college and watch guys smashed out of their minds hit on anything that moves? I can see either a Homosapiens or Neanderthal is out foraging, ends up eating some mushrooms. Next thing he knows, he is in his cave telling his cavemate how he scored and he believed she was HOT.

Sorry to say I did so and ended up marrying the made up beast. Woe is me. Thank God it only lasted for 20 years.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 


Its known they had medicine and semi-cultural traditions. But I fail to see this as meaning they were closer to humans.

This is a bit close to human evolution too. Though I believe that any species above the intelligence of homo erectus is going to develop some impressive skills.

The only difference between us and them is that we could imaginate and innovate, they could not. I've often had Ideas of finding an lien species that abducted Neanderthals for slavery because unlike humans, they could not understand they are slaves as long as they were fed well enough.

[edit on 9-1-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by drew hempel

Stan Gooch is the most prominent theorist arguing for a Neanderthal culture as the hidden history of modern humans:


I've corresponded quite a bit with Gooch. My own take is that the Bushmen culture is drastically different from modern humans and needs to be considered in comparison to Neanderthals as well.


Wow, Drew Hempel. The Drew Hempel.

When I was first dropped off a cloud into Conspiracy Land yours was one of the first names I encountered. You're brilliant. Mad. But still brilliant.

This was at Conspiracy Central (is that the name?) a place with some very ugly karma where the lunatics have taken over the asylum - and not in a good way.

But on topic - what a coincidence! I knew and met with Stan Gooch years ago when I lived in England. He was and still is way ahead of his time in reseach and understanding of what Neanderthal Man really was and is. We all have him as a common ancestor - and for the better.

Good running into you again. We'll be in touch.

Mike

[edit on 9-1-2010 by mmiichael]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   
I think this link may be of interest to those wandering through this thread.

www.rdos.net...

It's called "The Neanderthal Theory" [of Autism]

It's quite alot of reading; but here's the abstract:


In the past there have been numerous theories for the cause(s) of autism, Asperger's syndrome, ADHD and Tourette syndrome. Most of these theories can at best explain small parts of these diverse syndromes. Many of them extend their findings in spectacular ways to be able to claim to explain larger parts of the autism spectrum with little success.

This theory approaches the problem from a new radical viewpoint. Instead of approaching autism as a disorder, brain defect or the result of poor socialization or parenting, it claims that autistics are fully functional.

All the areas that are central to autism are related to species-typical adaptations that vary widely between species. These include nonverbal signals, social organization, sensory acuteness, motor skills, general preferences, sexuality, physical traits and biological adaptations. Some of this diversity in autistics is poorly understood and virtually unresearched and therefore is not published in peer-reviewed journals. Because of this lack of research, Aspie-quiz, an online questionnary, is heavily referenced for these traits.

Recent genetic research have demonstrated that the Out-of-Africa (OoA) model with no interbreeding fails to explain nuclear DNA diversity in Eurasia. Several models of interbreeding that do explain this diversity exists today. It therefore is quite likely that Neanderthals contributed to the Caucasian genome. Aspie-quiz have demonstrated in a large survey in the US population that Afroamericans have only 1/6 of the autism prevalence of Caucasians. The same survey also indicates that Asians and American Indians have about 1/2 of the autism prevalence of Caucasians.

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of Aspie-quiz yields axises that seems to be related to the first Eurasian Homo, the formation of modern humans in Africa or South Asia and the hybridization between modern humans and Neanderthals in Europe. These axises seems to be 1.8 million years, 150,000 years and 37,000 years, which fits pretty good with the archaeologic evidences available.


So, I find this discovery of symbolic thinking quite striking, how about you?



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Yeah the new format of concen.org... is not getting much traffic. Most websites tend to get inbred after a while -- genetic drift if you will. Thanks for the heads up!

reply to post by mmiichael
 



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by thefallenacorn
 


Makes sense actually. And I'd expect the human genes that make us human to be really really dominant due to the circumstances that lead to their development, so no mental lost would occur.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by kiwifoot
 


Its known they had medicine and semi-cultural traditions. But I fail to see this as meaning they were closer to humans.

This is a bit close to human evolution too. Though I believe that any species above the intelligence of homo erectus is going to develop some impressive skills.

The only difference between us and them is that we could imaginate and innovate, they could not. I've often had Ideas of finding an lien species that abducted Neanderthals for slavery because unlike humans, they could not understand they are slaves as long as they were fed well enough.

[edit on 9-1-2010 by Gorman91]


Well, most of what we 'know' about neanderthals is guesswork.

For example, the physical and genetic variation in the known specimens, is well within the range of modern man, then and now.

The cultural evidence is very much guesswork, based on alot of preconceived ideas about them being less advanced than modern man.

The idea that they could not innovate, is based on the lack of innovation in stone tools discovered so far.

All of the above is based on very few specimens, from very few locations, spread out over a period of about 100,000 years.

Someone posted an image of a neanderthal as they are usually shown. hulking, with large heads and very prominent brows etc., so let me show you a forensic reconstruction of a neanderthal child from the University of Zürich.


Anthropological Institute, University of Zürich / Switzerland

[edit on 9-1-2010 by aaa2500]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Reply to post by kiwifoot
 


Hey some guys will do anything with a hoo ha. This might be the origin of the bag over the head.



 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by aaa2500
 


seen it. You forget that the brow grows in for adults. The same technique used to create that child's face lead to this:

mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com...

And to me, if you don't change over the course of 100,000 years, then you simply do not innovate. It's known that they did not have a large population because they were in the epicenter of the ice age. Early man had their total population size in a couple of few villages in East Africa. It's also known that mankind is always found with necklaces that seem to show allegiances and brotherhood. Neanderthals are not found with these things because, again, they were cut off in an ice age. Mankind has countless evidences found to show they were innovative. Neanderthals only ever show any traces of it during contact with humans. Before that, they were essentially human-looking apes that were smarter than apes. They had our intelligence levels, but not the ability to be a blank slate and to create yourself. They simply did as taught and did it as long as it worked. Once it didn't work, or something better was found, they would seek something new, but only based on what they found. Now we humans can always innovate. The simple fact is that if they had our abilities, they wouldn't be extinct.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join