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.

 

Were Some Neandertals Brown-Eyed Girls?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Were Some Neandertals Brown-Eyed Girls?

Recent DNA studies have suggested that some Neanderthal women
had brown eyes and were brunette with yellowish brown skin.

The samples were studied from two females from Croatia.


by Traci Watson on 19 March 2012, 3:29 PM -- sciencemag.org

In museums around the world, reproductions of Neandertals sport striking blue or green eyes, pale skin, and gingery hair. Now new DNA analysis suggests that two of the most closely studied Neandertals—a pair of females from Croatia—were actually brown-eyed girls, with brunette tresses and tawny skin to match. The results could help shed new light on the evolution of the family that includes both modern humans and Neandertals, who died out some 30,000 years ago.

The study has provoked deep skepticism among several outside researchers, however, who criticize numerous aspects of its methodology. The results also run contrary to other genetic evidence and to a long-held hypothesis that Neandertals, who lived mostly in northern latitudes, must've had light skin to get enough vitamin D.

But even scientists who have doubts about the new research say it still provides food for thought. "Neandertals occupied a wide geographical range," says John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who was not involved in the study and who is also studying the physical traits of ancient humans, so "it's likely that they were variable in pigmentation. ... We are really at the first step." ....



informative article !
Brunette Neanderthals ?




posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Dude! You spelled Neanderthals wrong in your thread title and your headline but you have the correct spelling in your link!
FAIL!



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
OP...are you implying that the characterization of Neanderthals as "White" people is incorrect and that they should be understood that Neanderthals are in fact better described as Asian people?

and that being the case then that 'White' people probably belong to the younger less interesting Cromagnon groups...

or am I wrong in interpreting this thread as a device for establishing a new racial theory?



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Dude! You spelled Neanderthals wrong in your thread title and your headline but you have the correct spelling in your link!
FAIL!


The title is from the article headline.

I left it alone.

Many articles use that spelling


I don't know why ?



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by michaelbrux
OP...are you implying that the characterization of Neanderthals as "White" people is incorrect and that they should be understood that Neanderthals are in fact better described as Asian people?

and that being the case then that 'White' people probably belong to the younger less interesting Cromagnon groups...

or am I wrong in interpreting this thread as a device for establishing a new racial theory?


Well I am not suggesting anything.

The article might be.

Caucasians and Asians however are 1% - 4% Neanderthal.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


Well Asians and Europeans generally have some degree of Neanderthal DNA. Really this just shows that they were more diverse than we originally thought.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by michaelbrux
OP...are you implying that the characterization of Neanderthals as "White" people is incorrect and that they should be understood that Neanderthals are in fact better described as Asian people?

and that being the case then that 'White' people probably belong to the younger less interesting Cromagnon groups...

or am I wrong in interpreting this thread as a device for establishing a new racial theory?


OMG! Really?

Did you have to put this spin on OP's article?

Why , oh why must EVERYTHING have a racial theory or a hidden meaning to it?



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by lifeissacred
 


that's a nice middle ground to stand on...

because its generally assumed that Neanderthals are the more ancient of the two main human groups...possessing DNA from them could be used by racialists to claim a superior social standing than those groups of humans that don't possess Neanderthal DNA.

When reading an article or thread of this topic, i like to first understand the motives of the author.

is he trying to correct errors and expand understanding of human origins...or just trying to exalt one group and diminish another by using 'scientific' discoveries as the vehicle?



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Dude! You spelled Neanderthals wrong in your thread title and your headline but you have the correct spelling in your link!
FAIL!


The title is from the article headline.

I left it alone.

Many articles use that spelling


I don't know why ?



Have your tried using Google search? I have, and didn't find Neandertals. In fact, if that was a spelling error in that article, then the researcher publishing this feed is not credit worthy in my opinion. I completely dismiss his claim from an academic point of view.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by CB6699
 


because racialism is an often used way for human's to separate from and degrade one another.

its done every single day...



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


If only people did not try to separate themselves into groups just to become
friendlier with some people and not with the others than our species would
seen as a whole and people would be given truly fair and equal opportunities.
Although this idea will never be unless there is a common enemy which even then
is only to a certain extent of unity. People will continue to separate themselves
because the feeling of superiority feels good.

edit: reply is slight of topic to the thread so I will add that Neanderthals being brown
eyed and yellowish-brown skin means they can be ancestors of more than one group of
humans, this could mean that Neanderthals did not just cease to exist but co-existed
with cor-magnon's and formed hybrid's slowly erasing the pure breed till none was left.
edit on 20-3-2012 by foreshadower99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by foreshadower99
 


the common enemy exists...

...misunderstanding, misinterpretation.

but I think that enemy is losing miserably as we engage with one another more often.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011

Originally posted by xuenchen

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Dude! You spelled Neanderthals wrong in your thread title and your headline but you have the correct spelling in your link!
FAIL!


The title is from the article headline.

I left it alone.

Many articles use that spelling


I don't know why ?



Have your tried using Google search? I have, and didn't find Neandertals. In fact, if that was a spelling error in that article, then the researcher publishing this feed is not credit worthy in my opinion. I completely dismiss his claim from an academic point of view.


well if you insist:


Ne·an·der·thal (n-ndr-thôl, -tôl, n-ändr-täl) also Ne·an·der·tal (-tôl, -täl)
Ne·an·der·thal, also Ne·an·der·tal





The most well-known late archaic humans were the Neandertals click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced. More Neandertal skeletons have been found than any other ancient human species. They lived in Europe and Southwest Asia from at least 130,000 years ago until around 28,000 years ago. This is in the late Pleistocene Epoch. It is likely that the Neandertals evolved from Homo heidelbergensis in Southern Europe. Neandertal-like skull characteristics have been found in 400,000 year old fossils from Spain. The Neandertals adapted physically and culturally to the ice age conditions that prevailed during much of their time.

No other ancient people have aroused more controversy and confusion over the last century and a half than have the Neandertals. There is an on-going debate as to whether they should be considered Homo sapiens. If they were members of our species, they were a different variety or race (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis). On the other hand, if they were dissimilar enough to be a distinct species, they should be called Homo neanderthalensis
Neandertals





ScienceDaily (Oct. 19, 2011) — While most studies have concluded that a cold climate led to the short lower legs typical of Neandertals, researchers at Johns Hopkins have found that lower leg lengths shorter than the typical modern human's let them move more efficiently over the mountainous terrain where they lived. The findings reveal a broader trend relating shorter lower leg length to mountainous environments that may help explain the limb proportions of many different animals.
Solving the Mysteries of Short-Legged Neandertals



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Some believe Neanderthals interbred with CroMagnon...which would suggest, if the offspring of these unions also produced offspring...that Neanderthals and CroMagnon are not different but the same species. I wonder how they first came to be called by different names if this is the case.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


I understand your point, however I think you're overreacting slightly as this article and the connotations that can be drawn from it are extremely benign.

All humans have a common origin, we're all just different shades of the same animal. Racism is a stupid and outdated concept that only survives because of delusion and lack of education.
edit on 20-3-2012 by lifeissacred because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by lifeissacred
 


not much of an overreaction...the article points out how neanderthals are currently portrayed in Museums in contrast to recent 'discoveries'...my response questioned the motives of the both the article and the OP...reasonable and well measured.

please everyone...come down off your soapbox.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Dude! You spelled Neanderthals wrong in your thread title and your headline but you have the correct spelling in your link!
FAIL!


Fail on you, Bud. "Neandertal" is an alternative spelling. Here's an example from Scientific American:

Neandertal

Here's one from Encyclopedia Britannica that mentions both spellings.

And here's one from Science Magazine.

So, would you like to argue with Scientific American, Science magazine, and Britannica about how to spell "Neandertal"? Indeed, both work, but the OP is not wrong in his headline.


Have your tried using Google search? I have, and didn't find Neandertals. In fact, if that was a spelling error in that article, then the researcher publishing this feed is not credit worthy in my opinion. I completely dismiss his claim from an academic point of view


Then you must be an incompetent searcher. There are hundreds of references under Google or Bing with that spelling. Interesting that you would completely dismiss sources such as Scientific American and Britannica "from an academic point of view." Somehow I trust Scientific American to be more erudite than you are.

The joke
is on you.
edit on 3/20/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by michaelbrux
Some believe Neanderthals interbred with CroMagnon...which would suggest, if the offspring of these unions also produced offspring...that Neanderthals and CroMagnon are not different but the same species. I wonder how they first came to be called by different names if this is the case.


Because originally they simply did not know. One of the first specimens recovered was an "old" man with rickets, so he had a bent posture. The assumption was that they were all like this. As new skeletons were uncovered they appeared to be shorter, stockier, and actually with slightly larger brains than the more gracile Cro Magnon. There actually has always been argument whether they justified being called a different species. Fifty years ago the prevailing sentiment was that they were a sub species: Homo sapiens neanderthalis. It's only recently that DNA has confirmed that analysis is most correct. Indeed, many of the proto Homo sapiens were likely sub species.

It would be REALLY interesting to sequence Homo erectus and see where they fit in our ancestry. Although the more we find out, the more complex this becomes, also the basic idea is still reenforced.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Skywatcher2011
 


en.wikipedia.org...

www.talkorigins.org...

anthro.palomar.edu...

www.scientificamerican.com...

www.sciencemag.org...

www.eva.mpg.de...


really? you didn't find anything? that's so weird, these are five of the top six results for neandertal.

it can be spelled either with or without the H. neither way is incorrect. so perhaps you can stop being so dramatic.

edit on 21-3-2012 by optimus primal because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join