Neanderthals and Denisovans our Genetic cousins

reply to post by Gorman91


My first issue would be using the phrase "hybridization" this isn't as if some ancient laboratory were doing genetic experimentation. These crossbreedings happened quite naturally. Boy meets girl and who knows how many attempts by who knows how many couples over a period of 30,000 years or more. As those older lines became less and less who they once were [Less Genetically viable] and Modern man became more prevalent. [The stronger of the two]

Those older lines simply faded. Not necessarily going "Instinct quickly" as some have speculated on.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

... Slayer, let me ask. Why do you think mankind took 40,000 years from his evolution to actually get anywhere, but a brief 2000 years to get to the modern world?

we were allowed to..

only explanation.....Somebody has been overseeing or observing our evolution.....

when they see it necassary , they teach us something valuable and it's up to us to maintain that and pass it on...

They don't give us fish....they teach us how to fish....If we fail to pass that skill on it is our own fault.

Some skills that we have learned have been horded by some to allow them to attain a higher level of knowledge thus allowing them to control their immediate areas because they posses a skill that others don't.

they have created value for themselves that will last through the ages....

That is why certain bloodlines are mixed.....or one of the many reasons for doing such.....

to OP....Great thread....and to others....good new info for us to chew on.....

reply to post by SLAYER69


I still have to ask how though. I certainly think it's possible for a human-neanderthal hybrid. It's just that their brains had evolved hugely different. While the organs and everything didn't really change that much, it's just the sheer scale of change mentally. We don't exactly find Neanderthal art or culture. The most we have is evidence for a flower on a body, and a rock that kind-of looks like a face. But for humans, we have a gigantic cultural and artistic record going back all the way to the first humans 50,000 years ago. This alone indicates the fundamental ways their minds worked were radically different.

So in terms of a... crossbreed? I have to wonder about just how viable they were. This is why I wonder to what extent these genes are proven as from Neanderthals and Denisovans. Because if they were in Homo Erectus, it cannot be said to be proof of crossbreeding. Just left over genes. That doesn't mean a crossbreed is impossible. It's just that we shouldn't assume that we survived because we had traits from them, when some evidence may show we had those traits all along.

reply to post by LucidDreamer85


But that's nonviable. It's clear that we evolved to where we are on our own. And the record of this planet is more than full of destruction to hold us back.

There's simply no evidence of external influence. Mankind is, quite frankly, a god of a species. We got here on our own, through the sweat of our brow and the blood of our splintered hands.

reply to post by Gorman91


If you look at studies of ice cores, the planet experienced multiple major climate shifts that if one happened today, would probably send most of the planet back to the dark ages.

The last sort of big one was the 4.2 ky event (2200 BCE)
Before that: (Note, they get worse the further back you go)

5.9 Ky event 3900 BCE, supposedly destroyed the Sahara and caused mass migration to the river valleys.

8.2 Ky event 6200 BCE, large glacial meltwater pulses may have caused a permanent 4 meter (12 feet) sea level rise.

Bond Event 6 and 7: 7400 BCE and 8300 BCE, freezes and droughts.

The Younger Dryas: 9100 BCE, rapid glaciation, between the Younger Dryas and the 7th Bond Event, the Nautufian Culture rises in the Levant, domesticates Rye and builds the city of Jericho. Jericho was abandoned and the culture collapsed by the 6th Bond Event.

Each time these happened, it was like hitting a reset button on human civilization.

The one's prior to the Yonger Dryas, such as the Older and Oldest Dryas were even more apocalyptic in scale, causing widespread mass extinctions

As for modern humanity, developing 50,000 BCE. Thats not exactly right. Technically we are looking at Homo Sapiens, but what is called Archaic Homo Sapiens. They still had some vestiges of ancestors. 10,000 BCE is when they fell off the fossil record.

Modern human breeds, traits such as blue eyes, blonde hair and green eyes, did not emerge until around or after 10,000 BCE.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by Gorman91

 

The Romans constructed buildings of pre fabricated concrete, a technique not seen again until the 17th century.

We lose technology, reinvent it. We still havn't figured out the exact formulas for Roman cement and concrete, which still seems to be superior to modern versions. Damascus Steel is another wonder we still havn't been able to fully replicate in modern times.

That's true about Roman concrete. The concrete they used to line and repair their aqueducts and cisterns was actually able to set and harden underwater.

reply to post by Gorman91


Here is an interesting story I just remembered from a few years ago. I can't seem to find the original news article...

Hybrid Child from Portugal

In 1998, the discovery of an early Upper Paleolithic human burial in this site has provided evidence of early modern humans from southern Iberia. The remains, the largely complete skeleton of an approximately 4 year old child buried with pierced shells and red ochre, is dated to ca. 24 500 years B.P. The cranium, mandible, dentition, and postcrania appear to present a mosaic of European early modern human and Neanderthal features, although this interpretation is disputed. If the child was indeed a hybrid of anatomically modern humans and Homo neanderthalensis, there could be significant implications regarding the Neanderthal interaction with Cro-Magnons and the taxonomical classification of these (possibly sub-) species.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


hmm. But would that honestly be considered evolution? Or just adaptation. What fundamentally changed?

The human brain, I suppose more accurately, evolved 50,000 years ago. The human body 200,000 years ago. And I've heard, but haven't been able to find actual articles, that human vocal chords as they are today evolved some 20,000 years ago. What interesting little facts. What exactly happened 10,000 years ago that makes you think that's when we, as a species, emerged. I thought the last global contact (IE, genetic pool contact), was from something like 14,000 years before we settled in our perspective continents and remained isolated for a long time.

Originally posted by Gorman91
So in terms of a... crossbreed? I have to wonder about just how viable they were. This is why I wonder to what extent these genes are proven as from Neanderthals and Denisovans. Because if they were in Homo Erectus, it cannot be said to be proof of crossbreeding. Just left over genes. That doesn't mean a crossbreed is impossible. It's just that we shouldn't assume that we survived because we had traits from them, when some evidence may show we had those traits all along.

Fair enough. Let's look at it this way.

The Neanderthals and Denisovians didn't really die out. We are them. [Well all non Africans] most of us are carrying their genes to varying degrees. We took on their genes and we changed them from having sloped foreheads to the modern smooth rounded ones we all pretty much have now.

reply to post by SLAYER69


hmmm. But see, that's a kid. Was it murdered by a racist human? was it genetically unstable and died? That's my question. Were there any stable hybrids that could carry any genes from Netherlands into humanity. More so, do we have proof that these traits were not present in our common ancestor, or humans between the two points in time?

reply to post by Gorman91



The proof you seek is in the journey. The majority of Africans do not show any signs of either Neanderthals nor Denisovans. However, Everyone of us carry Homo Sapien DNA from Africa. So what does this tell us?

Those traits you question again do not show in the oldest Homo Sapien lines yet all non Africans show them to varying degrees. This means there was a Genetic migration out of Africa. That moved into areas inhabited by those other lines. They breed with taking on their genetic material and in the process changed their appearance and physical build more to our own. Which also could explain why there are such a variation in appearance in modern man besides those that are the result of environmental factors.

As Modern man moved into strange new environments which those older lines already had adapted to. As we swapped genes those genetic aspects best suited for those newer isolated regions were kept naturally...

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by MikeboydUS

 

hmm. But would that honestly be considered evolution? Or just adaptation. What fundamentally changed?

The human brain, I suppose more accurately, evolved 50,000 years ago. The human body 200,000 years ago. And I've heard, but haven't been able to find actual articles, that human vocal chords as they are today evolved some 20,000 years ago. What interesting little facts. What exactly happened 10,000 years ago that makes you think that's when we, as a species, emerged. I thought the last global contact (IE, genetic pool contact), was from something like 14,000 years before we settled in our perspective continents and remained isolated for a long time.

1. Vestiges vanish from the human fossil record. Something happened there.
2. The rise of the Nautifian Culture in the Levant and on the Euphrates. Birth of agriculture and first stone structures.
3. I don't know if there is a connection but blonde hair and blue eyes also emerges at this time.
4. We domesticated cats and sheep.
5. It could also be claimed this is when humans domesticated themselves.

There are some people who think the domestication of cats, may have been a epic step in human history.
The reason being this is when we were introduced to a parasite, Toxoplasma Gondii. Some think the parasites may have radically altered our behavior.

Regardless of the parasites, something happened that affected the human phenotype and something caused the humans to build cities. I can't imagine what caused the phenotype change, but I can imagine that a conflict arose from nomadic sheep herders and rye crop farmers, a "Cain and Abel" conflict, which would lead the crop farmers building the first fortified urban settlements to defend against the sheep herders.

Its not a worldwide phenomena, it begins in the Levant, in what is modern Israel and Syria. From there it spreads like a virus and before long agriculture and settlements pop up all over.

reply to post by SLAYER69

Which while doing so taking on their genetic material which was better suited for the widely dispersed isolated local environments

One might speculate that this accelerated our adaptation to new environments as we migrated out of Africa and made our species more resilient. It's possible that the human race is a mutt, a collective of some of the best features of our closest relatives.

An impressive buffet of information and links to follow Slayer, star and flag

reply to post by SLAYER69


I see. it's just that there's a lot of "how did it happen" to the situation. Examples include that Neanderthal DNA for hair color wasn't the same gene for humans. Such situations could cause dramatic injury. I mean, if that line of dna is involved with insulin, you could end up having a hair pancreas. lol.

That's the thing. It's not so much that it wasn't possible. It's how did it succeed.

And that's really what I want to read up on. Please, if you have articles showing how Africans and earlier human lines don't have neanderthal traits, I'd love to read up on them.

It's just that there's a host of genes that would really be awkward in a hybrid. What exactly would they function as. Red hair genes in Neanderthals were not the same red hair genes in humans, so where would they go?

A part of me also ponders. New research into things like prions. I wonder... Could humans have ate Netherlands and gained unexpected genes from them via prions? This situation caused disease in other locations. But it is interesting. We are, after all, very related. Genes could have transferred as protein sequences were absorbed.

reply to post by MikeboydUS

1. Vestiges vanish from the human fossil record. Something happened there.
2. The rise of the Nautifian Culture in the Levant and on the Euphrates. Birth of agriculture and first stone structures. 3. I don't know if there is a connection but blonde hair and blue eyes also emerges at this time.
4. We domesticated cats and sheep.
5. It could also be claimed this is when humans domesticated themselves.

Ah, interesting story to those genes. Ever wonder why Caucasians and some Indians look so similar? Turns out the first Caucasians are from people who migrated north of India, and had an albino gene. Took them a few generations to stabilize and adapt. At first the albino gene was not a benefit. but as time went on, they adapted to their predicament and the genes stabilized.

Everything else you mentioned are indeed advances of human intellect. lol. "the first person to drink milk from a cow was very very thirsty."

The reason being this is when we were introduced to a parasite, Toxoplasma Gondii. Some think the parasites may have radically altered our behavior.

Interesting. See my prion statement in the previous post.

Regardless of the parasites, something happened that affected the human phenotype and something caused the humans to build cities. I can't imagine what caused the phenotype change, but I can imagine that a conflict arose from nomadic sheep herders and rye crop farmers, a "Cain and Abel" conflict, which would lead the crop farmers building the first fortified urban settlements to defend against the sheep herders. Its not a worldwide phenomena, it begins in the Levant, in what is modern Israel and Syria. From there it spreads like a virus and before long agriculture and settlements pop up all over.

This too is interesting. Rage virus anyone? lol. In all seriousness I understand what you are saying. Nothing really physically changed with us in the last 50,000 years or so. But our behavior radically changed. Like some sort of God-virus infected us and made us suddenly changed our species. This occurring naturally i without a soubt possible, and indeed plausible. Hence by question into prions and the like. I wonder if, rather than interbreeding, we ate these other relatives, and got infected with some brain-altering virus. that affected us and integrated into our dna. A subtle change that changed us profoundly.

One thing that hasn't been brought up yet is the Rhesus factors, especialy RH negative.

Some think there is a connection between the parasite, Toxoplasma Gondii and the Rhesus factor.

reply to post by Gorman91


The cannibalism idea, oh wow.

I think you may have hit the nail on the head there. I didn't think of that. Maybe we didn't mate with them, but we ate them.

We know based on the fossil record that cannibalism was rampant back then. Even in more "modern" hunter gather cultures, the victors would often consume the defeated, to draw "strength".

I have also heard of a related eating theory, involving mind expanding substances, a "fruit" if you will, that were consumed causing radical change. Maybe its all tied together, the parasites, cannibalism, and the "fruit".

reply to post by MikeboydUS


Yea I know. After reading about Kuru I couldn't help but think "hmmm. This causes big problems... But what if the opposite happened"

Not that I like to say ancient beliefs are correct, but the idea of drawing strength had to come from somewhere. And is it chance that it's places of popularity were the locations inhabited by our cousin species? Only except of course being Mesoamerica, however there is significant evidence of some kind of cultural contact between India in the Maya. Something along the lines similarities of myths.

For the Record.

When I refer to Africans not having any signs of either Neanderthal or Denisovian. I'm referring to "Africans living in Africa" African Americans and all others living outside of Africa who for whatever reasons have in their family tree some interracial heritage do show signs of either Neanderthal and or Denisovian to a lesser degree.

Which by itself supports this new theory.

That's what this is...

A new way of looking at our heritage.

reply to post by SLAYER69


This would seem to me to tie into the Rh factor , lactose intolerance and other food allergies.

Something radically changed the population out of Africa.