Neanderthal's "human" ?
Return to Board  •  Menu  •  Bottom  Page 1 of 2  
Message
Neanderthal's "human" ?
Posted by ottothewise on 6/15 at 9:26 am
[quote]Cave painting, he said, "is an example of symbolic behaviour, which makes us human."

Read more: LINK ]

cave drawings were done by Neanderthals, not only by homo sapiens


This post was edited on 6/15 at 9:28 am

Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by RollTide1987 on 6/15 at 9:52 am to ottothewise
There is disagreement among the scientific community on that. Some think they were Neanderthals, others think they were Homo sapiens.




Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by tiger1014 on 6/15 at 10:10 am to ottothewise
Depends on what you define as "human"

What about that gorilla that does sign language?

What about the dolphin group that pushes a boat off of a submerged sandbar?

I don't many people in the scientific community believe that present day humans are descended from Neanderthals. Our genetic info is pretty distinctly different.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by SundayFunday on 6/15 at 10:14 am to ottothewise
Most physical evidence says that they were a different species. They were VERY close to homo sapiens, most likely able to cross breed. The main difference was brain capacity. There are plenty of bone structure differences also.

Although evidence also says it may be more along the lines of a different breed. Kind of like dogs. They are all the same species, Canine famliliaris, but they have many many different breeds that differ in look, structure, and intelligence.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Fat Man on 6/15 at 10:17 am to ottothewise
quote:

the most solid evidence dates the arrival of modern humans to 40,500 years ago. If the cave art is at minimum 40,800 years old - and probably centuries if not millennia older


Scientifically speaking, this sentence strikes me as jabberwocky.

the most solid evidence has a difference of 300 years on a 40,000 year estimate. Perhaps the margin of error would be important to know.

and probably ... probably? there's a term you don't see in a lot of Scientific jounrnal.

centuries if not millennia older Yet no where in the findings / article do they offer any support for this claim.

Per their article, humans were in the neighborhood at this time. However, it must have been neaderthals or we wouldn't have an article to write.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by McLemore on 6/15 at 10:58 am to ottothewise
:evolutionisreligionboardpleasewhackthread:


Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Celery on 6/15 at 11:23 am to ottothewise
Some believe the Spain paintings were done by Homo Sapiens migrating "out of Africa".
Also, even today a number of non-African homo Sapiens have Neanderthol DNA.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by XKEnut on 6/15 at 11:55 am to Celery
True. Non- African, i.e. humans with European and Asian ancestry share up to 6% of their DNA with Neanderthals, which shows that the two sub-species did interbreed when humans first migrated out of Africa. On the other hand humans with African ancestry, those who's ancestors never left the continent, have no Neanderthal DNA at all.
Makes one want to rethink the idea of a stupid Neanderthal, doesn't it. It also disputes the notion that we're all the same except for melanin content.


This post was edited on 6/15 at 11:57 am

Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by PsychTiger on 6/15 at 12:56 pm to SundayFunday
quote:

They were VERY close to homo sapiens, most likely able to cross breed. The main difference was brain capacity.


Guess that explains Rex.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by SundayFunday on 6/15 at 1:02 pm to PsychTiger
quote:

Guess that explains Rex.





This post was edited on 6/15 at 1:03 pm

Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by lordguill on 6/15 at 1:07 pm to SundayFunday
quote:

Most physical evidence says that they were a different species. They were VERY close to homo sapiens, most likely able to cross breed. The main difference was brain capacity. There are plenty of bone structure differences also.


My understanding is that they were a different species of human.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by lordguill on 6/15 at 1:09 pm to XKEnut
quote:

True. Non- African, i.e. humans with European and Asian ancestry share up to 6% of their DNA with Neanderthals, which shows that the two sub-species did interbreed when humans first migrated out of Africa. On the other hand humans with African ancestry, those who's ancestors never left the continent, have no Neanderthal DNA at all.
Makes one want to rethink the idea of a stupid Neanderthal, doesn't it. It also disputes the notion that we're all the same except for melanin content.



Citation needed.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by SundayFunday on 6/15 at 1:25 pm to lordguill
quote:

My understanding is that they were a different species of human.



Yeah that the generally accepted idea. But there are always differing theories since there has never been a "Living" specimen tested on. I agree with the different species though.

Idea is they were stronger than us but we either won out because we just outsmarted them or we bred them out. Hard to know for sure.


This post was edited on 6/15 at 1:26 pm

Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Poodlebrain on 6/15 at 1:31 pm to XKEnut
quote:

Non- African, i.e. humans with European and Asian ancestry share up to 6% of their DNA with Neanderthals, which shows that the two sub-species did interbreed when humans first migrated out of Africa. On the other hand humans with African ancestry, those who's ancestors never left the continent, have no Neanderthal DNA at all.
From relative IQ test scores it seems that having Neanderthal DNA is beneficial.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by KT70 on 6/15 at 1:34 pm to ottothewise
I know people who have Neanderthal traits.

This post was edited on 6/15 at 1:35 pm

Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by XKEnut on 6/15 at 2:02 pm to lordguill

From "Science News"
... from universities, journals, and other research organizations

Neanderthal Genome Yields Insights Into Human Evolution and Evidence of Interbreeding With Modern Humans


LINK

Been a while since I read it. The correct pct. of Neanderthal DNA in non-Africans is up to 4%, not 6% as I stated, but still significant.


This post was edited on 6/15 at 2:17 pm

Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by XKEnut on 6/15 at 2:04 pm to Poodlebrain

"From relative IQ test scores it seems that having Neanderthal DNA is beneficial."

You win the prize.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by BugAC on 6/15 at 2:06 pm to Poodlebrain
quote:

From relative IQ test scores it seems that having Neanderthal DNA is beneficial.



Otto must be a full blown barney rubble then...



This post was edited on 6/15 at 2:07 pm

Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Celery on 6/15 at 2:14 pm to Poodlebrain
quote:

From relative IQ test scores it seems that having Neanderthal DNA is beneficial.


Depends on who those 4% are. I grew up with a kid who HAD to have been one of those. Dude had a full beard when he was 12. He was dumb as a post.


This post was edited on 6/15 at 2:16 pm

Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by XKEnut on 6/15 at 3:02 pm to Celery
Up to 4% of the DNA of all whites and Asians, not 4% of the population.


Reply  •  Back to Top  •  Refresh
Return to Board
Jump to Page   

           Page 1 of 2           

 

 Message Boards
 Tiger Rant
 Recruiting Board
 SEC Rant
 Saints Talk
 Pelicans Talk
 More Sports Board
 Soccer Board
 O-T Lounge
 Tech Board
 Outdoor Board
 Movie/TV Board
 Music Board
 Political Talk
 Money Talk
 Fark Board
 Gaming Board
 Fantasy Sports
 Food and Drink Board
 Ticket Exchange
 Help Board
 

 Other Options
 >> Search
 

 SECRant.com Links
 SEC Rant
 SEC Recruiting
 SEC Tickets
 Off-Topic Board
 

 Geaux.com Dining Guide
 New Orleans
 Baton Rouge
 

 Site Features (Full Version)
 Home Page
 LSU Football Schedule
 LSU News/TD News Wire
 Pick'em Home Page
 
Back to top
Sign In 
View in: Desktop
Copyright ©2014 TigerDroppings.com.