Fossil finger records key to Neanderthals' promiscuity

November 03, 2010

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/713741ae8899.jpg[/atsimg]

Fossil finger bones of early human ancestors suggest that Neanderthals were more promiscuous than human populations today, researchers at the universities of Liverpool and Oxford have found.

Scientists, in collaboration with researchers at the universities of Southampton and Calgary, used finger ratios from fossilised skeletal remains of early apes and extinct hominins, as indicators of the levels of exposure species had to prenatal androgens – a group of hormones that is important in the development of masculine characteristics such as aggression and promiscuity.

It is thought that androgens, such as testosterone, affect finger length during development in the womb. High levels of the hormones increase the length of the fourth finger in comparison to the second finger, resulting in a low index to ring finger ratio. Researchers analysed the fossil finger bone ratios of Neanderthals and early apes, as well as hominins, Ardipithecus ramidus and Australopithecus afarensis, to further understanding of their social behaviour.

The clue's in the ring finger: a fossilied hand of an early modern human
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/79ea191e9e12.jpg[/atsimg]

www.physorg.com...

It's amazing how much is in the news right now about the Neanderthals, seems to be everywhere. How in the world can they tell if someone is promiscuous by the shape and length of their or maybe your fingers. It would seem to me that their fingers were large and long because of their shear size, they weren't exactly small people.

They think early humans were likely to be more competitive and promiscuous than people today, that is an understatement, I cannot imagine them being more competitive or promiscuous then humans today, it seems we are out of control on those fronts, this method could prove to be an exciting new way of understanding how our social behaviour has evolved today. That is interesting, it may have always been with us from the beginning.

Originally posted by Aquarius1

It's amazing how much is in the news right now about the Neanderthals, seems to be everywhere. How in the world can they tell if someone is promiscuous by the shape and length of their or maybe your fingers. It would seem to me that their fingers were large and long because of their shear size, they weren't exactly small people.

They think early humans were likely to be more competitive and promiscuous than people today, that is an understatement, I cannot imagine them being more competitive or promiscuous then humans today, it seems we are out of control on those fronts, this method could prove to be an exciting new way of understanding how our social behavior has evolved today. That is interesting, it may have always been with us from the beginning.

its not the size of the finger, its the ratio of one to an other. in the womb the ring finger grows longer than the index because of certain hormones. nothing to do with over all size. If you were to compare my ring finger and index to all my big buddies, mine would be longer cause in the womb i received slightly more testosterone than my friends. Scientist assume they were more promiscuous because higher levels of testosterone make males aggressive/out going and ups their sex drive. Please read the article again and think about what you wrote

reply to post by Aquarius1

It is an interesting article. One of the problems, however, with drawing a definite conclusion, is the following segment from the article:

Although the fossil record is limited for this period, and more fossils are needed to confirm our findings

Drawing conclusions with limited data, as is obviously the case here, can lead science down the wrong path. In fact, often the wrong conclusion is drawn for other reasons. For example, perhaps those with similar index finger to ring finger ratio, might be more prone to have their remains found, due to habitat factors.

Scientists often propose theories, then try to find data that fit those theories, failing to take into account many other factors.

AGW proponents are a prime example of this flaw. They concentrate on ONE factor, such as CO2 levels, and try to draw a straight line comparison. Unfortunately, true scientists, would never made such an assumption.

This could totally explain tons of things! It's always the neanderthal looking guys that seem to cause more of a problem for my wife at her job!

Seriously though, it's wild they they've figured this out. Sounds like we don't need to ask "What's the world coming to?" as another thread does, eh?

well this info kinda sheds new
credence to the old adage of the caveman
bopping women over the head and dragging
her by the hair to his cave.

hmmmm

reply to post by ProfEmeritus

Drawing conclusions with limited data, as is obviously the case here, can lead science down the wrong path. In fact, often the wrong conclusion is drawn for other reasons. For example, perhaps those with similar index finger to ring finger ratio, might be more prone to have their remains found, due to habitat factors.

Scientists often propose theories, then try to find data that fit those theories, failing to take into account many other factors.

Hi Prof. it seems that most of the articles we see on these topics are premature conclusions, evidenced by the fact we never hear any more about them, the follow ups if any may prove them wrong and they aren't going to publish those findings.

Thanks for posting.