The Neanderthal--a comprehensive introduction to the fossil record

reply to post by tadaman


But are you not mistaken in suggesting that nocturnal traits are only exclusive of Neanderthals and hence those with Neanderthal DNA? Many people, healthy and well-nourished would be capable of seeing very well in the dark, depending on individual genetics, no?

Originally posted by HomoSapiensSapiens
reply to post by Lostmymarbles

 

Regarding your part about tongue-clicking language - but those guys in the video can clearly speak English and probably other spoken non-tongue-clicking languages. Are you suggesting that Neanderthals could speak languages with words or what?

they don't know the exact answer to this. If you read the OP he explains about a bone in the throat found in the fossil records which indicates that they did have language. I see no reason why they were not as smart or as dumb as we are.

where else in the animal world can two separate species mate and have offspring that could reproduce? the whole concept is fascinating.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
where else in the animal world can two separate species mate and have offspring that could reproduce? the whole concept is fascinating.

well there are two ways to look at this 1] we were not separate species, they were homo sapien.
2] there was no interbreeding we just had common ancestors ????

I think both are true personally.

reply to post by HelenConway


Having researched more on the topic, I would venture to say that they could speak/communicate as much as we could. But let's not be soft here - Neanderthals were much more physically robust than Homo Sapiens Sapiens, both in bones and muscles. If a Neanderthal existed today, he'd be relatively noticeable.

reply to post by HelenConway


So you're saying that Homo Sapiens didn't interbreed with Homo Neanderthalensis?

reply to post by HomoSapiensSapiens


there was a very recent study or a metaanalysis or something - will try to find link. This crew of scientists stated that the DNA from neanderthals found in Europeans was due to common ancestry rather then breeding because according to them, neanderthals had all died before our ancestors appeared.
www.guardian.co.uk...

When scientists discovered a few years ago that modern humans shared swaths of DNA with long-extinct Neanderthals, their best explanation was that at some point the two species must have interbred.

Now a study by scientists at the University of Cambridge has questioned this conclusion, hypothesising instead that the DNA overlap is a remnant of a common ancestor of both Neanderthals and modern humans.

When the genetic sequence of Homo neanderthalensis was published in 2010, one of the headline findings was that most people outside Africa could trace up to 4% of their DNA to Neanderthals. This was widely interpreted as an indication of interbreeding between Neanderthals and early Homo sapiens just as the latter were leaving Africa. The two species would have lived in the same regions around modern-day Europe, until Neanderthals died out about 30,000 years ago.

But Andrea Manica said the analysis had over-estimated the amount of shared DNA between Neanderthals and humans that could be explained by interbreeding. The analysis had not taken into account the genetic variation already present between different populations of the ancestors of modern humans in Africa.

Alok Jha
Tuesday 14 August 2012
science correspondent
The Guardian

Originally posted by tadaman
reply to post by Byrd

 

OK fair enough. I only included the autism Neanderthal link because it was an interesting perspective based off behavioral science. It is entirely impossible to prove without genetic studies and maybe not even then since we only know 60% of the Neanderthal genome.

Actually, if you read the blog post, you will see how much of it was completely unfounded.

What about the them and us paper which broke down the Neanderthal traits and argued as I that they were built for nocturnal hunting. Especially the part about Neanderthal eye sockets since you mentioned that before?

Your source, as I said, wasn't a very good one (which is why he's self-published.) His lack of expertise in comparative vertebrate anatomy and in behavioral analysis leads to him leaping to conclusions all over the book and the article. There is:
* no real difference in the eye sockets (or in the proportional size of them)
* no significant difference in the occipital lobes (involved with seeing)
* given that large carnivores (lions, wolves, etc) are crepuscular/nocturnal hunters, this would put humans in greater conflict with them, whereas hunting during the day usually avoids those animals. And in an "us versus them" scenario, a pack of carnivores (hyenas) would quickly do in the poor ol' hominids.
* in addition, the prey (deer, elk, etc) sleep for short periods of time and are active at both day and night. There's no particular advantage in nocturnal hunting (where light varies with the phase of the moon and where something rambling around on two feet is more likely to trip and fall.) Deer, in fact, typically are asleep at high noon.

reply to post by HelenConway


And yet, some Eurasians/Europeans have only about 4% Neanderthal DNA. Homo Sapiens Sapiens as a species share a common ancestor - unless you're saying that those who have little to no Neanderthal DNA (for example Africans) are descended from a completely different species - but we clearly no this to not be the case. On Earth today, we have one human species - not several human species.

Great thread

As to breaking bones and having others care for the individual, this was possibly a family affair in which the family cared for the individual. This same sort of broken bone care has been noted in the fossil record of dinosaurs, and if memory serves it was T-Rex in which such a healed fossil was found.

As to interbreeding, of course, and most likely there are a few families today in which the Neanderthal played a part in their heritage.

About the tall Africans shedding body heat, wouldn't larger ears have accomplished the task easier? I'm not joking. Tall bones allow an individual to travel faster and longer, but the possibility of breaking one of those long bones is much greater.

another question i had is why did humans and neandertals continue on in freezing temps when they were not suited for life in those temps, no fur etc etc. could this be a factor as to why the neandertals died off? why did humans shed fur and other animals in hot places like africa still have fur after all these years?

reply to post by NarcolepticBuddha


Hi,
Thanks for the thread, its awsome.

On a couple of points when people think of the replacement of Hn by modern humans they almost always think in terms of direct competition for resources, but by the time physically modern humans come on to the scene Hn had already been competing with at least 2 two other species, the denisovans, and homo erectus in eurasia.
And honestly by the time He falls off of the scene in Asia they are essentially modern humans, physiologically speaking.
Neanderthals demise has more to do with his specialization as a species, direct competition with modern humans
Neanderthals larger brain was a response to a colder environment, its larger volume more suited to keeping an optimum temperature, but it does not mean they were any more intelligent than the average human.
Their shoulder structure did not allow for an over the shoulder movement, thus they could not throw a weapon but had to thrust it. This is also reflected in their robustness, they had to get up close and personal with their prey.
This hunting strategy was dictated by their environment the , the forests of the northern hemisphere, where the dense growth limits line of sight to just a few yards or less. In these environments a hunter waits for his prey to.come across him, at beneficial spot, such as watering holes and trail leading to and from such places.
I Hn lived in large enough groups they could have driven game towards hidden hunters, but that is very difficult in heavily wooded areas.

reply to post by Byrd


I should add (in response to the brain discussion) that I looked at endocasts (molds) of Neanderthal brains -- or the ones that were available. There's no huge distinction in the size of the occipital area in Neanderthals -- it appears (and I'm going on brain landmarks) that it's roughly the same size as that of h. sapiens.

Since we don't have preserved brains, we can't really say precisely how much gray matter versus white matter (processing neurons versus transmitting neurons) were there. But the brains are awfully similar, proportionally speaking.

reply to post by NarcolepticBuddha


Wow! Two things I really like, neanderthals and Eddie Izzard. The way the presenter pronounced it came out "is-odd", which s suiting. I'd like to get my dna done, but money is a problem. Thanks for this fine post, it made for a very nice evening.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
where else in the animal world can two separate species mate and have offspring that could reproduce? the whole concept is fascinating.

It happens frequently. Dogs and wolves are a common example (as are dogs and coyotes, coyotes and wolves.)

reply to post by Byrd


Byrd, it is clear that you have an excellent grasp on the material and on physical anthropology. I'm glad to have you participating in this thread to provide us with some more concrete answers, rather than speculations. Thanks.

reply to post by tadaman


Tadaman, thanks for helping keep the thread interesting with your research and ideas. I appreciate all that you have contributed

reply to post by WaterBottle


Yeah, my thread was inspired as a response to that article and has already been provided by member Druscilla. I find it completely silly that any legitimate researchers would even try to prove this. Surely their research proposal got lost in translation when it fell into a writer's hands?

On member Druscilla's thread, I went over my case to illustrate why I think it's a ridiculous theory. As member Tadaman pointed out...they exploited multiple food sources. They were probably getting food the way they knew how to for hundreds of thousands of years.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
another question i had is why did humans and neandertals continue on in freezing temps when they were not suited for life in those temps, no fur etc etc. could this be a factor as to why the neandertals died off? why did humans shed fur and other animals in hot places like africa still have fur after all these years?

It seems reasonable that the Neandertal was better acclimated to survive the cold climate (remember my example of the Inuit in the OP? Not only did they construct garments to stay warm, their bodies were better able to withstand the cold.) And don't forget that Neandertal constructed garments and shoes (cultural adaptation) to keep warm as well. Humans would have been constructing cold-climate garments as well, don't ya think?

I'm not sure, but have always wondered, when and where we dropped the fur in favor of sweat glands etc. Maybe Byrd knows a little more about this one.

reply to post by NarcolepticBuddha

I'm not sure, but have always wondered, when and where we dropped the fur in favor of sweat glands etc. Maybe Byrd knows a little more about this one.

That 'train' of thought could take you along the tracks of AAT or aquatic ape theory. They list that possibility along with year round body fat(which NO ape has)as well as walking upright on two legs among other ideas. I think we have a long way to go before we discover where exactly man came from and what path he took to arrive where he is now.

Originally posted by NarcolepticBuddha
reply to post by WaterBottle

 

Yeah, my thread was inspired as a response to that article and has already been provided by member Druscilla. I find it completely silly that any legitimate researchers would even try to prove this. Surely their research proposal got lost in translation when it fell into a writer's hands? ]

Probably not, though it did get somewhat... uhm... changed when the reporters got ahold of it. They are going on the assumption that organisms react poorly to major changes in the environment -- and were the Neanderthals a branch of (for example) chimpanzee instead of human, I think I'd go along with "couldn't cope with change in available food supply. But we're talking humans, and one of the primary features of hominids is the ability to adapt behaviorally.

Even chimps do that.

So if it was food based, they'd either move or learn to eat something else. There were other large animals available for food... so I'm not at all taken with the "bunny" theory.