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

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 09:27 PM

Originally posted by drew hempel
That's the focus of Tony Wright who stayed awake from some 20 plus days by just eating mainly raw fruit for special sugars. I ordered his book "Left in the Dark" which is all about evolution and diet - fascinating read but I just couldn't agree with his argument to the degree he took it. Still I now notice the published has a new updated edition

Wright is right about a lot of things.

Subject to a certain misunderstanding. Impairment and damage aren't necessarily bad things. It forces overcompensation which forces the formation of new ways of operating by creating workarounds. This is the basis of genius.

The reason Jews excel so often with the genetic predisposition to Tay-Sachs.

People just have to make sure the imbalance they create for themselves is a beneficial one. Most aren't.


posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 09:39 PM
So I guess we have to mention Gooch's Jew-Neanderthal argument?

faked apollo photos - AULIS Online
Gooch's answer in short is that it has, both in legend and in structures ... The Tabün bones were Neanderthals, the Skühl bones were Cro-Magnon (now .... We are convinced that the original Sphinx had the full Neanderthal/Jewish nose, ...

reply to post by mmiichael

posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 10:09 PM

Originally posted by drew hempel
So I guess we have to mention Gooch's Jew-Neanderthal argument?

faked apollo photos - AULIS Online
Gooch's answer in short is that it has, both in legend and in structures ... The Tabün bones were Neanderthals, the Skühl bones were Cro-Magnon (now .... We are convinced that the original Sphinx had the full Neanderthal/Jewish nose, ...

Interesting story when I met with Gooch in London years ago. He's half Jewish.

Neanderthal hybrid discoveries are few but getting more attention and respect. One major one in Spain, one in Eastern Europe, forget which country.

Also forget a certain bone spur anomaly particular to Neanderthal that shows up in certain European populations. Gooch was wrong about African blacks being Neanderthal, possibly corrected in his latest book I've yet to get a copy of.

But right on the money on almost all his conjectures he did his best to back up with hard data. His dismissal of Left-Right brain dichotomy is solid. It answers some questions but not as many as people want to believe.

Because his books weren't acknowledged by academia he fell into the rabbit hole of the occult/New Age/mysticism marketplace. Not a place to visit too long. It has it's share of charlatans and delusionals.

Credibility is important if you want to make a career in print. Gooch lost it and will never recover it again.

Good news is many hard scientists now see that one can't separate brain function from mind function. A great time to be learning.


posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 02:40 AM

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by aaa2500

Egypt got conquered by Nigerians when they.... bla bla bla... and Russia and America conquered their parts of the world.

Modern civilizations and wars have absolutely nothing to do with it. Noone knows why neanderthals were extinct, that's why there are so many different theories.

You can quote the entire world history, but you are completely missing my point, which is that pretty much everything we think we know about neanderthals is speculation.

On what basis do you have that this fact is made up? It is not. Advanced people conquer less advanced people. It is history.

Irrelevant history as it all happens 25,000 years after neanderthals were extinct. It's all just speculation.

I try to keep speculation and fact separate.

Why farm when you have what you need? Farms were made when civilization began. before that humans lived in clans that didn't need farms.

Actually permanent settlements were the begining of civilisation. settlements became cities and farming became easy and needed.

But they did farm water. Humans buried jugs of water in Africa long long ago, and they had dogs.

You don't farm water. Any water burried in jugs would be stale a day after burial.

All this during the times of the Neanderthal.

No the things you refer to happened 20,000 years after the neanderthals went extinct.

Necessity is the mother of invention. We created civilization, thus we created farming.

it was the other way around.

Neanderthals could have created civilization, but they didn't.

And neither did modern humans in the same timeframe.

And I'm simply afraid that the truth is that they are not better than us. They are equal to us minus imagination and innovation. Thus they could not have done more than primitive man.

Pure speculation.

Further proof we were smarter, as Neanderthals did not. When they ran out of food, they left their cave or died out, hence why there are none today.


No, we had more. Again our species began 50,000 years ago, not hundreds of thousands of years ago. our form has existed longer than our species has.

No, our species began 250,000 years ago and hasn't changed much since.

in 20,000 years we went from flint knives, to what you see bellow. Neanderthals never went past flint stones and spears.

And in the same timeframe neither did modern humans.

Stone points which have been identified as arrowheads were being used in Africa by about 60,000 years ago.[1] By 16,000 BCE flint points were being bound by sinews to split shafts. Fletching was being practiced, with feathers glued and bound to shafts.

If you actually read the wikipedia article this came from, it says ' from the late Paleolithic about 9000-8000 BC. The arrows were made of pine and consisted of a mainshaft and a 15-20 centimetre (6-8 inches) long foreshaft with a flint point. There are no known definite earlier bows or arrows, but stone points which may have been arrowheads were made in Africa by about 60,000 years ago'

You missed the qualifiers 'no known definite' and 'may have been', in your haste to claim speculation as fact.

This would further disprove your own theory, not reinforce it. Human and Neanderthal bones are not old, and they are relatively easy to find. Not a lot has changed geologically in 50,000 years.

I don't have a theory. You are the one with the theories.

I have no doubt that a cloned Neanderthal would live in modern society with no problems or disablement. But Neanderthals could not create this modern world in the time we did.

And neither could the modern human during the existence of the neanderthal.

It is dificult to debate you. You mix timeperiods tens of thousands of years apart, cherrypick 'facts', present speculation as irrefutable fact, and use modern civilisation history to explain things that took place 30,000 years ago.

[edit on 11-1-2010 by aaa2500]

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 06:00 AM
The Portugal find of a hybrid allegedly Neandertal and Homo sapien sapien
has been contested. As one poster suggests, skeletal finds dating back
prior to 40,000 years ago are notoriously hard to date accurately unless there is associated finds with them.

I think evidence does suggest only H.neadertal died out. They may or may
have had contact with modern humans who came up from Africa and were
technologically more advanced so it is thought. It suggests and has been
now scientifically proven, through DNA, the Neandertals were from a different genetic pool than modern humans.

No proof they ever met to have sex, or preyed on one another, or had hybrid or cross bred offspring. They were around a long time adapting to fluctuating climate changes primarily ice age adaptation.

There are no rock paintings attributed to Neandertals, but - maybe they were adopted into a modern human clan, but could not breed offspring.

Or more likely were killed off and/or died of some infection or disease introduced by Cro-Magnons. Or just diminished through lack of numbers.
Their biological clock stopped ticking. Small numbers indicate in breeding

As far as makeup is concerned - well it was fun to think about it... but
one poster on another site thinks they had long fur instead of clothes, as
they had no needles... this is untrue too. They hunted large animals, ate
mainly a seasonal high protein diet, as there were not many fruits or nuts
during the last ice age. And lived quite short and dangerous lives according
to the skeletal finds with evidence of bone breaks etc, that healed.

But there is evidence they buried their dead, and gave grave offerings, but
few examples of this. That are disputed too? I think what some people
speculate about Neandertals can be related to creationists who believe that
humans only evolved six thousand years and walked with dinosaurs? But one can Google now and get a wide selection of worthy palaeoanthropological and archaeological reports. Though there are gaps
in the archaeological records, there is enough now with modern scientific
and dating methodology to make a reasonable intelligent hypothesis.

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 06:01 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 07:30 AM
Regarding post from 'nutter' and Oliver - the human X chimpazee.

I watched all six parts of a very good programme. Nutter reckons this
is evidence that neandertals could have bred successfully with modern humans.

Actually 'nutter' the conclusion was Oliver was a chimpazee although rather
different and could be a mutant chimpanzee who had no interest in other
chimpanzees. (Chimps brought up by humans, and other high apes may show also a indifference to their own kind) Modern genetic and DNA research discovered he was not a hybrid or cross bred, although this can happen in some species. The interesting factor in it, he could be a throwback genetically to sometime millions of generations ago, when one primate unlike other living primates today, got up and walked on two legs.

Although rescued from a research institute where he ended up for 9 years in a cage and cellar, he now lives (I think still) in a primate rescue. But blind.

It's an ethical issue that may have been done so it stated on this programme, that it maybe possible to inseminate a female chimp with human sperm. Allegedly this has been done secretly, and the offspring resembled a human child that was euthanized shortly after the birth. That's criminal. If it were possible then it was pointed out, that culturally the offspring would not belong to any group comfortably. They would be freaks, and treated as such. But that is speculation also. Interesting programme, but doesn't prove that Neandertals interbred with humans, we won't ever know. We don't even know their sexual habits either. Neandertals may
not have menstrated every month, or they only had one child every 5 years
it will remain a mystery for a long time.

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 05:06 PM
reply to post by aaa2500

Why did you skip the entire part about technology of the era?

And sorry, but you fail to see the difference between what you look like and what you actually are. Something can look human and not be human, and vice versa. Modern humans, as we are today as a species, evolved 50,000 years ago. 250,000 ago the first anatomical humans, key word being anatomical, evolved. They split off into several species, including Homo rhodesiensis, idaltu men, Homo heidelbergensis, etc etc. You've failed to see it as a tree. There's a HELL of a lot more after homo erectus than just Neanderthals and us. There are many species of men that evolved 200,000 years ago, all looking like us. Inf act, they all could probably interbreed. They are separate because they had tiny differences and were geologically isolated. 50,000 years ago, the species homo sapiens sapiens evolved. These were our ancestors. They killed off everyone else, or just out competed them. Before this, they only looked like us, but they were not us.

50,000 years ago, humans evolved. By 30,000 years ago they had killed off a few other species and had advanced tools. By 20,000 years ago they were settling, and by 10,000 years ago they were forming civilizations from India to Egypt. By 5,000 years ago they had formed empires, and by 2,000 years ago they had formed industries, modern relgions, tactics, stories, etc etc. After that it continues to now. As you can see here, it's exponential. And it's still exponential today.

So I say again. Our species began 50,000 years ago with nothing but what our ancestors had. From that time onward, they exponentially grew. The first 20,000 years were hard because they had NOTHING. no ideas of where to start. This was the development of what we would become. It is where our culture and behaviors started. after they graduated from sentience pre-school, they were exponentially growing from then on out, with each stage of development being:

total time of existence - (current time stage / 2) = era time.

20,000 , 10,000 , 5,000, etc etc. Each time being when something big began around +- 10,000 years.

An again, it is not speculation. Math is universal truth. Math eliminates speculation. Mathematically mapping humanity's advancement with comparison to other homo species clearly shows a species that is exponentially advancing amongst species who were not.

Now in every way shape and form, this graph can be pulled further out, to 50,000 years before, and then 100,000 years before, still obeying the rule. But what breaks the rule is that fact that species at that time only looked like us, but had some anatomical variation. And that time frame is long enough for new species to begin. Modern man has only been separated for 50,000 years. Not enough time for anything but minor tweaks to environments, explaining skin color and facial changes.

And as to farms, it's simple. First came villages, then came trade, then came farms. Cities came after that, but they were not cities. A city in those days was just basically having a wall around yourself.

Also, stale water? honestly is that your reason for disproving water jugs? Listen. When an ice age is happening and the water around you is disappearing and forming glaciers on another continent, stale water is the least of your care. You drink what you find. You live. End of story. Humans buried water for when they needed it. They survived by working together to store food in plenty, and eat in drought. They enjoyed their ice age while Neanderthals suffered. Then when they could, they left Africa in search of better.

[edit on 11-1-2010 by Gorman91]

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 05:48 AM
The problem being is that Neandertals were a separate genus from Cro-Magnon people who came up from Africa to Europe and the Lavant or Arabia possibly 60 k plus years ago. (Probably black too? LOL) They most probably shared similarly habitats with H.Neandertal but not necessarily during the same generation (ie.40 - 50 life years). It would seem they were outclassed not so technologically but most probably psychologically, and the two didn't hit it off. Environmental change from ice age to our current environmental era, happened on an off for thousands of years for 20 thousand or more years.

Neandertal people did use dyes or whatever to paint themselves so they were conscious of some tribal identification, and considering that they may have had territorial disputes particularly if the modern humans were psychologically more adapted to a warmer climate and with better technology, or more successful hunting and with larger clans, they went north to the colder climate better suited for themselves and their culture. But I think they just couldn't adapt like modern humans.

We will never know, until some more of the archaeological record is revealed. But they weren't apex carnivores depicted in Danny Vandramini's
'Them + Us" (Long haired coated, with cat like eyes for seeing in the dark?) Well maybe apex carnivores as all humans can be described
but modern humans survived not just on flesh, then became omnivores,
that allowed them more variety in their diet to subsist on, and maintain more people in a clan. Neandertals weren't fishers either, they may have eaten fish, but modern humans did fish by the technology they left behind.

RIP dear Nathaniel man and women... you did your best and survived a lot
longer than we Homo sapien sapien's have so far. Until your biological clock ran down, and you were tooo specialised to adapt to a warmer climate.

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 06:11 AM
reply to post by Gorman91
Modern humans were evolving in Africa much longer than 50,000 years ago. They I believe in Africa more like 160,000 years ago, possibly longer, then drifted up to eventually settle in Europe, parts of the Levant and modern day Arabia.

The archaeological evidence suggests although the African genus changed,
were not dissimilar in lots of respects as far as what they hunted, but their technology because they had a much more varied environment and diet that was less dependent on hunting large game, they had become more culturally adjusted for sustaining larger clans that were more like the
classic hunter and gatherer and fisher. Where as Neandertals seem to
depend on purely eating flesh from hunting, that would mean the women
were not left purely to hunt or trap smaller game, or gather fruits or whatever to sustain them like the Africans. This would mean and has been discovered the Neandertal child/baby had a shorter care period to develop and reach maturation than modern humans. Meaning the women had to go along to hunt too! Large game. Their metabolism of cause could have evolved like the Eskimos, to exist mainly of protein and blubber without
any need for Carbohydrates. Where we are now as our ancestors did,
need more carbohydrates in our diet to sustain us.

And if you leave the women, children and older people to gather or fish, etc.,
the food base is extended, and less people and children will die during a hunt
for very large prey.

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 08:23 AM
I always figured they were just another race, that was eliminated/breed out. This seems to support that idea. Nice articles; thanks for posting!

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 03:03 PM
reply to post by Bush bunny

As I mentioned above, anatomical humans evolved 200,000 years ago. But they only looked like us. These humans evolved into several species of homo sapiens. Yes, that's right. Several species of homo SAPIENS. This was after the break off between us and Neanderthals. Many forget that our species is NOT homo sapien. It is homo spaien sapien. This species evolved 65,000-50,000 years ago. It was when the haplogroup L2 and the Y-chromosomal Adam first appeared. They either exterminated or out competed every single other homo sapien and hominid species on Earth.

Makes you feel proud to be the ancestors of genocidal maniacs, mmmhmm?

[edit on 12-1-2010 by Gorman91]

[edit on 12-1-2010 by Gorman91]

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 03:56 PM
Your point is well-taken but according to this recent mitochrondial study the Bushmen Khoi-san are actually a "different" species -- in other words the Khoi-San separated off from homo sapiens around 90,000 years ago before homo sapiens left Africa.

Also the Bushmen Khoi-san do not have a genocidal warfare culture -- quite the contrary -- all the males have to spend a month at puberty fasting to learn trance dance through the same physiological transformation of the pgymy chimp bonobo males -- both Bushmen males and pygmy chimp bonobo males rarely have ejaculations. The Bushmen, like the pygmy chimps, are a very peaceful culture -- no warfare.

This is why the first anthropological book on the Bushmen was called the "Harmless People" -- certainly anthropologists since then have gone back to the Bushmen and documented a rate of violence no different than an urban ghetto. But what gets neglected in these LATER studies of the Bushmen is that after the first study of the Bushmen the Bantu "negros" followed the tire tracks of the anthropologists, along with the Dutch -- and then the Bushmen Khoisan were ENSLAVED.

In fact the Bantu have been enslaving the Bushmen for at least the last 1000 years so it was difficult to find any modern Bushmen tribes unaffected by "homo sapien sapien" -- the genocidal maniacs.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Bush bunny

As I mentioned above, anatomical humans evolved 200,000 years ago. But they only looked like us. These humans evolved into several species of homo sapiens. Yes, that's right. Several species of homo SAPIENS. This was after the break off between us and Neanderthals. Many forget that our species is NOT homo sapien. It is homo spaien sapien. This species evolved 65,000-50,000 years ago. It was when the haplogroup L2 and the Y-chromosomal Adam first appeared. They either exterminated or out competed every single other homo sapien and hominid species on Earth.

Makes you feel proud to be the ancestors of genocidal maniacs, mmmhmm?

[edit on 12-1-2010 by Gorman91]

[edit on 12-1-2010 by Gorman91]

posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 02:07 AM
reply to post by drew hempel

You're point is well taken as well, and my God, very interesting. However, while the mitochondrian eve existed many eons ago, the Y-chromosomal Adam existed 60,000 years. ago. This is the man who is the earliest form of modern behavior, IE, complex religious belief, innovation, and creativity. This man, because the male controls the gender of the child, is the source of that one mutation that caused OUR species. He also had the mitochondria eve gene, but bare in mind that mitochondria do not control behavior and intelligence. They merely power it. So therefore, the source of modern humans acting as they do, and innovating, and creating at the rates they do, is this man, or someone along his lineage, some 60-50 thousand years ago. ANd again, from that point onward, humans grew exponentially. In a mere 10,000 years they had some complicated ideas and philosophies, and in another 10,000 years, they began using it to conquer the world.

And while the Bushmen are peaceful, bare in mind that in the time since their evolution, think of the countless, and I mean quite literally countless, people who have come and gone over the eons and interjected that genetic code of humanity into them.

Due to the fact that human behavior is global, it is very likely that this gene was dominate over whatever it replaced. Therefore, it would have spread out and, due to its betterment to the species, would be selected by mates.

Again, we exterminated, but we also simply out competed. This is a time close enough to allow hybridizing. Genetic drift had barely changed them. They were only isolated, and thus considered different species.

[edit on 13-1-2010 by Gorman91]

posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 10:37 PM
Thanks for the clarification. There are some "traditional" Bushmen left -- so I don't think they've intermarried as much as you're implying. Still it's increasingly true that the Bushmen are now urbanized, etc., with intermarriage I assume.

But then it begs the question of supposed different "species" being able to interbreed successfully -- as would technically be the case with the Bushmen. Also is the question of the secret lineage of Bushmen trance healing training whereby the males learn to ejaculate very rarely so as to decrease stress, need for food, and be able to create alchemical healing energy. In other words this training has genetic changes and the training is environmental -- behavioral. So even though the male may be the dominant for phenotypes -- there can still be a subversive culture which originated from a different lineage of males. In fact it's well-documented that females secretly control breeding -- as over 10% of children are not raised by their biological father -- without the husband knowing. Professor Robin Dunbar's book "Gossip, Grooming and the Evolution of Language" gives the details.

[edit on 13-1-2010 by drew hempel]

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 08:33 PM
Number one when I see media reports like this I cringe.

Why you may ask?

First of all archeologists do the digging and identification not scientists. And then anthropologists do the cultural interpretations. Maybe they use some scientists to do some lab work to identify unknown substances or do C 14, thermo illuminesense and when it comes to ages beyond 40,000 years ago- potassium argon dating. They are coming up with new techniques as we speak. Nevertheless the terminology Team really bugs me. It's like a flag to me that this is a media event. Crap the shells were probably an artist pallet to paint the hides and cave walls .Adornment is not out of the question but to use rhetoric like this is preposterous.

"To me, it's the smoking gun that kills the argument once and for all," he told BBC News.

"The association of these findings with Neanderthals is rock-solid and people have to draw the associations and bury this view of Neanderthals as half-wits."

new topics
top topics
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in