Beebo Brink

Neanderthals WERE NOT APES!

They were an offshoot of our own hominid line, and there is still controversy over whether they can even be considered a separate species from homo sapiens. There is no scientific evidence to indicate that they were stupid. In fact based on brain to body ratios, they may even have been more intelligent than current homo sapiens.

One of the theories about their disappearance is that there was enough intermarriage that they basically just melded into the current genetic pool. THAT is how close to us they were.

__________________

Tyche Shepherd

What ... as in Wacky Races ?

__________________

Cindy Claveau

There was a fascinating article in the October issue of National Geographic on Neanderthals, which outlined some of the current anthropology being done.

A couple of interesting snippets:

* Bite and cut marks on bones point to the Neanderthals being canabalistic. It's possible this was a development late in their existence as the Ice Age advanced and food became more scarce.

* Analysis of a pigmentation gene from the DNA of an individual at El Sidron indicates that at least some Neanderthals had red hair, pale skin and possibly freckles.

* Two El Sidron individuals also appeared to share with modern humans a version of a gene called FOXP2 that contributes to speech and language ability, acting not only in the brain but also on the nerves that control facial muscles.

* Due to the close similarities between Neanderthal and Human DNA, one of the biggest problems in analysis is to avoid contamination by human DNA. Extremely strict excavation practices have been put in place to address this problem.

* Humans emerged from Africa with the "cultural buffer" of an economically efficient approach to hunting and gathering that resulted in a more diverse diet. Neanderthals did not enjoy such benefits of a division of labor. The archaeological record shows that Neanderthals relied almost entire on hunting big and medium sized mammals. Neanderthal women and children probably participated in the hunts.

* From the article: "We know that the human and chimpanzee sequences are 98.7% the same, and Neanderthals are much closer to us than chimps. So the reality is that for most of the sequence there's no difference between Neanderthals and modern humans. But the differences - less than half of a percent of the sequence - are enough to confirm the two lineages had begun to diverge around 700,000 years ago."

"So while the new genetic evidence appears to confirm that Neanderthals were a separate species from us, it also suggests that they may have possess human language and were successful over a far larger sweep of Eurasia than previously thought."

__________________
Sometimes, "I hit it with my axe" is the best solution.

Beebo Brink

So I'm curious about why you disagreed with my post. This basically re-inforces what I was saying: Neanderthals are hominids, but probably not homo sapiens. The article doesn't refute the intelligence issue one way or another, although the comparison I referenced is speculative at best. We just don't know.

Overall, they were very much like us. Language, burial rites, all the markers of a being with an ability to create abstractions.

Cindy Claveau

I disagreed only on your comment that they may have been more intelligent.

They weren't apes, but there's not much controversy over them belonging to a different species. Their DNA is very close to ours, but different enough to deserve separation.

And no, they weren't stupid, but their cultural development wasn't anywhere near that of homo sapiens. While they may have had some form of rudimentary speech, their tribes were not organized as efficiently as ours (see my previous post) and this could well have been a major reason they became extinct in the face of climactic change and population pressure from Cro Magnon.

EDIT: Since I didn't disagree with everything you posted, I also added an "Agree"

Cristiano

I read this thread title as "Return of the Netherlands". I'm sad to find out the Dutch are not making a comeback.

__________________
"At least he died doing what he loved most - blogging on the Huffington Post" - 30 Rock

* slu stuff *

Beau Perkins

I'd like to say. Lucifer gave me a lesson and edumacated me. I still think it is a bit extreme to be so sure of their err "human" nature.....but I will accept they are more human than monkey.

__________________

Beau Perkins

I will say this. For all we know this could be the equivalent of bringing a retarded person( sorry I hate using that word) into the world. We can not be so sure and claim they are as smart. We have no clue really, its all theory.

This is my issue with some of science. Lets actually bring one in before we claim they can walk amongst us. To assume so may very well end up being the cruelest thing we can do to them.

Chalice Yao

Oh, no doubt about that one. I already don't want today's more natural tribes to walk among us for their sake.

Rev Eponym

Sorry, I must have missed that one. How many cloned mammoths do we have running around, now?

I'm skeptical of the whole genes+cell = viable organism plan. Especially with what happened to Dolly the sheep dying early. There's stuff here that we still don't know about.

As for Neanderthals being human/not human, we need to get off the old "ape-man" thing completely, that stereotype rides a dinosaur like Alley Oop.

National Geographic says:

__________________
MadScience Laboratories: Theoretical and applied fetish research
The MadScience Blog, unsafe for any workplace. Magnetic soundtrack shielding currently untested.

Lucifer Baphomet

Hmm..

New Evidence Debunks 'Stupid' Neanderthal Myth

__________________

Cindy Claveau

First, Beau, we're decades or more away from actually being able to fabricate a real Neanderthal from recovered DNA. So it's not happening soon, if ever.

Second, anthropology and paleontology are like detective careers. We can use the evidence we find to arrive at a lot of very reliable conclusions. These are more than just guesses - and the 'theories' are scientific theories established to explain the evidence, not baseless hypotheses.

For example, not only does the presence of the FOXP2 gene indicate the possibility of Neanderthal speech, but the presence of a hyoid bone in fossils also indicates that they had this ability (the hyoid is a small bone that holds the root of the tongue in place, a requirement to human speech).

I probably wasn't as clear replying to Beebo as I should have been - I have no doubt that the Neanderthal were intelligent. The remnants of art and music artifacts and tools would indicate they were bright.

However, for all members of the homo genus, intelligence was a survival trait. We were slow, weak, and naturally defenseless compared to the claws, fangs, and speed of our natural enemies. We overcame that by forming tribes (communities), creating tools and developing superior hunting tactics. The Neanderthals did that, as well. However, the fine point that differentiates us from them is that we developed adaptation and invention at such an amazing rate around 30-40k ya that we outpaced the Neanderthals, whose tool use and tribal organization appears to have stagnated at that time.

In other words, we adapted, they didn't. Brain size is only one part of determining intelligence - many animals have larger brains than humans, but the human brain has developed much more completely and much faster than other species. And that's why we are the only species capable of wiping out all life on the planet. We's smart.

Cindy Claveau

"No less intelligent" is not "smarter than".

See my post to Beau - the reason Neanderthals went extinct had a great deal to do with their inability to adapt. And in the genus homo, adaptation is a direct function of intelligence.

Lucifer Baphomet

Heh... Ive been explaining to Beau the extent to which the methods of forensic medicine apply to this on yahoo.

Lucifer Baphomet

Cindy... those in the field haven't even settled on an agreed theory as to why exactly the neanderthals died out. You can't state the reason they died out with any certainty...

Me, I tend to go with the interbreeding theory.

Briana Dawson

I support the Comet Hale Bob theory....just that the neanderthals did not need snazzy Nike's which is why the others in 90's got left behind.

Cindy Claveau

I really struggle with that notion - I have strong doubts that we were interfertile with 0.5% difference in DNA sequence. Sure it could have happened, but the odds of birth defects and infant mortality would have been much higher. It would also not explain how thousands of other Neanderthals, who would presumably continue to procreate among themselves, just disappeared.

I lean harder toward the theory, widely supported, that a combination of climate changes and population pressures from Cro Magnon resulted in their demise. homo Sapiens was unable to penetrate the European continent until about 40-45k ya when their tool/weapon designs finally surpassed those of the Neanderthals whose designs had stagnated.

There are also genocide and pathogen theories which go more directly to the issue of widescale death than assimilation does.

Gonna Wiki this thread now:

Neanderthal extinction hypotheses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


It's not enough evidence to completely dismiss the notion, but it is enough to question how widespread such theoretical assimilation could have been -- which in turn makes it a marginal candidate in the Neanderthal's extinction.

Lucifer Baphomet

Mitochondrial evidence isn't the be all and end all.

Beebo Brink

Monkeys aren't apes. Apes share a lot of our DNA, but monkeys are farther removed.

Chimpanzees and bonobos are our closest living relatives, sharing about 98 to 99 percent of their DNA - so close we could accept a blood transfusion or a kidney. Gorillas are next, then orang-utans. In comparison rhesus monkey share about 93 percent of their DNA with humans. Rhesus monkey ancestors diverged from those of humans roughly 25 million years ago, while chimpanzees diverged from our lineage 6 million years ago.

We're all primates, but humans, apes and monkeys are distinct branches of that root tree.

References:
BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Should apes have human rights?

Monkey DNA Points to Common Human Ancestor | LiveScience

Aimee Weber

I'd like to think that genetic similarity to humans would not be important when determining how a species should be treated. A hypothetical to illustrate this would be if we discovered a creature that was as much or more intelligent, feeling, sentient, and capable of using language as ourselves ... but this species happened to be genetically closer to squids than humans.

Human Experimenters: "Sorry old chap, you've made a heartwarming and compelling argument in your own defense, but we're just too dissimilar, therefore we're going to have to dissect you."

Squidman: "Alas I lament I'll not have a chance to get to know humans better. Proceed!"

Instead we should be guided by the potential that the other creatures can and will feel pain, either physical or emotional. For many animals that do not have a concept of their own mortality or even their own existence, this can be relatively easy.

But for what we understand about the Neanderthal, it was likely sentient, used tools, was capable of abstract thought, and it understood death and its own mortality. If we were to create a Neanderthal now, we would be responsible for a being that may very well sit up from the experimenter's bench and ask us why we did what we did, where he could find his fellow Neanderthals, will he ever find a mate, where does HE fit in our society, and why the hell are you sticking that needle in his arm.

I'm not exactly against the idea, but researchers should be aware of the awesome responsibility they will have for this life, and they should be held accountable inhumane behavior, even if the subject of the experiments is not strictly human.

__________________
"I asked the Ouija Board about the ideomotor effect, but it just told me to f*ck off."

Beebo Brink

I need like 10 Agree buttons for your post, Aimee.

Beau Perkins

By "rights" I was not talking about being cruel. Treating it like one of us just may be a cruel thing to do. I am in no way saying we have a right to torture any form of life. I am thinking more along the lines of protecting it from this world in fact. We would need to study a couple complete life cycles before saying "go and live among us"

That is all I was saying. I did not mean we can inflict pain. I agree with you 100% Aimee. When I said the same rights as any animals.....well I am a animal lover and never hurt one of them either. Ok that is a lie, I have hunted a few down but you get my point.

Trout Recreant

If it turns out that it's a cannibal, then we had better clone several. If we only clone one, he'll get awfully hungry.

I agree with Aimee. We need to assess the sentience and emotional ability of whatever we end up with and determine what the kindest and most respectful way to treat it is, then go from there without making its similarity to humans an issue.

Malachi

There is a school of thought which says that our cousins in genus Pan are viewed as radically different from us, not because they are, but because we find it ethically untenable to believe otherwise. There are also credible arguments that we should share a genus (e.g. Pan sapiens or Homo troglodytes) but that this hadn't been done because early taxonomists simply couldn't accept the notion.

Only species is real, all else are the arbitrary decisions of taxonomists. Even species is not as hard edged as one might like it to be.

io Kukulcan

Finally, my prophecy of Neanderthal casinos dotting the Eurasian continent is at hand!
And you all laughed at me a couple weeks ago.