Neanderthals May Have Sailed to Crete

page: 4
32
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Perfectly. It shows that you have your own definition of species based on whether two animals can create a viable offspring.

In other words, you have your own definition of "species."

Fine by me. I wonder what Larus gulls think about it.

Harte


Actually, Harte, what I believe was said was that species are genetically "allowed", if you will, to breed.. and not only reproduce, but create offspring which can reproduce. The only thing missing from the previous reply was the example of the mule. Horse + Donkey = (infertile) Mule.

Cheers!




posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fimbulvetr

Perfectly. It shows that you have your own definition of species based on whether two animals can create a viable offspring.

In other words, you have your own definition of "species."

Fine by me. I wonder what Larus gulls think about it.

Harte


Actually, Harte, what I believe was said was that species are genetically "allowed", if you will, to breed.. and not only reproduce, but create offspring which can reproduce. The only thing missing from the previous reply was the example of the mule. Horse + Donkey = (infertile) Mule.

Cheers!


The word "mule" has become synonymous with infertile. But some female mules might argue with you on that one.

Male mules are sterile, but fertile female mules (mollies) sometimes occur and can be mated to either a horse or donkey stallion.
Source

The Larus Gull is an example of what's called a "ring" species, where interbreeding doesn't follow the transitive rule, which was what I was spelling out earlier.

The statement was made that if H. Sapiens could mate with Neanderthals, then they are the same species. "Period." And it was asserted that exactly the same was so for Denisovans. So, what could we say if, for example, H. Sapeins could mate with Neanderthals, and H. Sapiens could mate with Denisovans, but Neanderthals couldn't mate with Denisovans? Who is the "same species" then?

What I'm describing has been observed in nature, is all I'm saying. Hence, I disagreed with the definition of species given in that post, and still do.

Harte
edit on 12/8/2012 by Harte because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Don't know how this has degraded towards breeding between different human species,but I think any of the species were capable of such tasks such as making a boat.
Heck,they were making spears a few hundred thousand years ago,so why not some type of flotation device.

Oh,and the breeding.........


A bundle of recent genetic studies have suggested that modern humans had sex with Neanderthals thousands of years ago when the two populations roamed the planet alongside each other. However, the bones left behind by the two species don't bear any obvious traces of interbreeding and a new study of monkeys in Mexico shows why we shouldn't expect them to. Researchers examined blood samples, hair samples and measurements collected from mantled howler monkeys and black howler monkeys that were live-captured and released in Mexico and Guatemala between 1998 and 2008. The two monkey species splintered off from a common ancestor about 3 million years ago and today they live in mostly separate habitats, except for a "hybrid zone" in the state of Tabasco in southeastern Mexico, where they coexist and interbreed.

www.livescience.com...



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Hmm.. I must be misreading something between the two of you then.

Although he did refer to Denisovans, Neanderthals, and Modern Humans as the same generic species.. there was room enough to leave open the door that they were different sub-species. I don't know if I agree that the Denisovans were close enough to be the same or not, but I'm not an expert in that field.

What I have looked for, however, is the fact that Homo Sapien Sapien and Homo Sapien Neanderthalis could potentially be the same species, albeit different subspecies as theorized. Also.. Denisovans definitely had the potential to interbreed not only with neanderthal, but also with modern humans... therefore, a stronger argument that they may indeed be a subspecies could be made. Again, I'm not a geneticist to tell anyone what to 'classify' something as. All I did was look around for research and found that the three branches of humanity could and did interbreed. In generic terms, that would mean they're the same species if they're creating - for the most part - viable offspring.


We three groups were all enough alike that some of our ancestors could interbreed and produce fertile offspring. But the differences in the genomes of Denisovans, Neanderthals, and modern humans are also revealing the genetic traits that set us apart from them—the traits that made us human.


www.slate.com... tml



In biology, a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, the difficulty of defining species is known as the species problem


en.wikipedia.org...

But as far as you, Harte, having a definition of species in mind, apparently even the scientific community can't fully agree on a single definition to the word that will encompass all of the bio-diversity neatly into a nice little DNA package. There are too many factors to consider, including sub-species.. and apparently in plants they break it down further than that on occassion.

Very interesting thread here.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fimbulvetr
Hmm.. I must be misreading something between the two of you then.

Although he did refer to Denisovans, Neanderthals, and Modern Humans as the same generic species.. there was room enough to leave open the door that they were different sub-species. I don't know if I agree that the Denisovans were close enough to be the same or not, but I'm not an expert in that field.

What I have looked for, however, is the fact that Homo Sapien Sapien and Homo Sapien Neanderthalis could potentially be the same species, albeit different subspecies as theorized. Also.. Denisovans definitely had the potential to interbreed not only with neanderthal, but also with modern humans... therefore, a stronger argument that they may indeed be a subspecies could be made. Again, I'm not a geneticist to tell anyone what to 'classify' something as. All I did was look around for research and found that the three branches of humanity could and did interbreed. In generic terms, that would mean they're the same species if they're creating - for the most part - viable offspring.


My point was that the term "species" cannot be defined exclusively by the ability to produce viable offspring. As was posted, "...then they are the same species period." I disagree with that statement. Particularly the "period."

Regarding Neanderthal, Denisovan and Sapiens, I would agree with you that they may well be subspecies.

Harte



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Digging through old history articles, I found something talking about sophisticated fishing 40,000 - 50,000 years ago and thought it might be a fun addition in this thread.

Early Humans Were Skilled Deep-Sea Fishermen

Granted the topic frames the discussion around Humans/Homo Sapiens, but, the time frame is such that coexistence with Neanderthal, and even the prospect of cooperation, or whatever speculation one may want to have on the matter may have been going on at the time as it applies to coastal living.





top topics
 
32
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join