|
Post by jam on Nov 28, 2005 16:17:24 GMT -5
That´s true! I´m sure that this lady would be laid on a saturday night anywhere today! ;D She´ll start to look good after a couple of drinks. I think is safe to assume she and other female Neanderthals where very hairy,which no doubt covered much of their entire bodies....I don't believe they where likely to have shaven unless at some point Humans introduced shaving to them just prior to their extinction. Isn't that just an actress in a lot of make-up? The Neanderthal skulls I've seen have all very very very prominent prognatism, and that's completely missing in the above pic. Some of the Neanderthals look almost like a human/ape mix (although their bodies were much closer to h. sapiens, of course, although there's also some significant differences there.) WHY is it assumed that they mixed? If they did, then Neanderthal was H. sapiens, its as easy as that. Here's the real thing: Here's the "longness" of the skull well displayed:
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Nov 28, 2005 16:23:42 GMT -5
Yes, and because of that, they can't just chisel her chin off, which should not be present.
|
|
|
Post by jam on Nov 28, 2005 16:44:26 GMT -5
Compare: African, who does have a little prognatism, but certainly not like the above, and the skull is of a completely different shape: European -no prognatism - and it's euros who's supposedly mixed with Neanderthals: East Asian, again a little bit of prognatism, though very moderate: I fail to see the resemblance
|
|
|
Post by ndrthl on Nov 28, 2005 16:52:40 GMT -5
the Neanderthal skull clearly looks closer to the European than to the African, if one pays attention to the nasal region (prominent nose hinted and drop shape of the nasal apparatus - whilst one only sees a big round hole in the nasal region of the African skull).
|
|
|
Post by jam on Nov 28, 2005 16:59:55 GMT -5
Yes, the nose was high bridged, but it must have been a really big proboscis, as its also very wide. Look how its rounded on the top, unlike euros noses, In fact, the shape is more African like than Euro like, in that respect. It really DOESN'T look like any human nasal region, though.
I don't have an Australian Abo skull pic, but they should be irrelevant, considering their geographical placement.
|
|
|
Post by ndrthl on Nov 28, 2005 17:04:18 GMT -5
Yes, the nose was high bridged, but it must have been a really big proboscis, as its also very wide. Look how its rounded on the top, unlike euros noses, In fact, the shape is more African like than Euro like, in that respect. It really DOESN'T look like any human nasal region, though. I don't have an Australian Abo skull pic, but they should be irrelevant, considering their geographical placement. the Abo's skull is quite unique, and it does show strong browridges: img368.imageshack.us/my.php?image=aboskull2kc.jpg
|
|
|
Post by jam on Nov 28, 2005 17:11:14 GMT -5
Wow, the brow ridge's nothing compared to the Neanderthal, but it's still pretty impressive. I'm surprised at the shape of the top of the head, it seems so narrowly ridged.
But the general layout is still very different from the Neanderthal.
|
|
|
Post by ndrthl on Nov 28, 2005 17:15:41 GMT -5
sure, Neanderthal's skull is quite unique indeed
|
|
|
Post by jam on Nov 28, 2005 17:24:35 GMT -5
And that's just the skull, the whole skeleton is equally unique, as the Neanderthal was built differently than any modern man, regardless of race.
|
|
|
Post by jam on Nov 28, 2005 17:38:41 GMT -5
Here's an inconclusive article on the subject of Neanderthal + Human interbreeding: www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050223/news_1c23neander.htmlI can't help noticing the following: "Chris Stringer, a paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in London, noted that some species apparently less close than Neanderthals and modern humans can interbreed and produce hybrids. Stringer is a leading proponent of the theory that modern Homo sapiens emerged in Africa as early as 150,000 years ago and then spread to Asia and Europe, replacing the remnants of archaic humans they encountered there. " What he fail to realize (I guess he's no biologist) is that it happens very rarely in nature, and theres NO LONGTERM VIABLE CONTRIBUTION in such circumstances, as male intra spices offspring is always infertile. The female are, in rare cases, fertile, but the exotic genes will be bred out fast. That's what happens to the various exotic cat hybrids that's been made lately. Something that can only happen under controlled circumstances anyway. So, FAT CHANCE I say. PS. Individual hybrids could have existed, of course, but they wouldn't have contributed anything to Europe's people.
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Dec 1, 2005 5:05:52 GMT -5
Its quite probable humans and neanderthal interbreed, There has allways been a split over whether they did so in paleoanthropological community and the ninities were the heydays for the splitter crowd but the multiregional model is coming back strong lately. Stringer, Thorne, Alan R. Templeton, and John B. Relethford are all people in the field who are extremely well respected and who do very rigorous work backed by strong arguments all favor multiregionalism.
Neanderthals according to the most accepted theory would be no more likely to be hairy then modern humans. The lack of hirsutenes in the human line is likely to have an adaption to being a running predator/scavenger on the african savana back in the erectus/ergaster/rudolphensis era. Given the enviormental conditions they faced neanderthals probably would have had similar hirsuteness levels to modern artic peoples. Comparing them to individuals with lycanthropy is nonsensical.
And Jam your wrong about hybrids many species more distinct then humans and neanderthals can produce viable offspring. The entire canis genus to start with(wolves, dogs, coyotes and jackals) jackals and dogs are seperated by 7 million years of evolution but domestic dogs are still considered a minor threat to the breeding intregrity of endangered jackal populations. Tigers and lions produce viable offspring, Polar bears and Brown bears too, any like sized members of the falco(true falcons) genus, infact many bird species.
Within biology zones called hybrid zones are major issue in species determinancy, in some places you'll find to species that interbreed only in that location despite living side by side in other locations. The contreversial east coast canis species(Canis Lycaon/Rufus) maybe an example of such a zone of interbreeding between coyotes and wolves which do not interbreed anywere else in their range.
Your basic biology book will give you the biological species concept, that if it can interbreed it must be the same species that same standard simply doesn't work in actual biology.
Before you go insulting proffesional scholars biology chops, you should go hone your own.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Dec 1, 2005 5:13:46 GMT -5
Welcome back Faelcind, it was about time. What's up with dyslexia, you seem to have "lost it" completely.
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Dec 1, 2005 5:43:23 GMT -5
Thanks for the welcome knock, as for the dyslexia well I tend to regress late at night, between 1 and 2 am was when I wrote that post. I have continued to lurk on occasion just haven't encountered threads that peeked my interests. I don't feel like arguing as much either I am not actively studying biology or anthropology anymore and don't feel like searching out citations doesn't appeal to me as much anymore.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Dec 1, 2005 6:05:36 GMT -5
as for the dyslexia well I tend to regress late at night, between 1 and 2 am was when I wrote that post. Actually I meant you have "lost" dyslexia, as it is no more detectable from your posts. I even thought that this time off from Dodona you may have done something to eliminate it!
|
|
|
Post by Ilmatar on Dec 1, 2005 7:06:57 GMT -5
Nice to see you here again, Faelcind ! I'm not a biologist, but a humanist, and have always thought it likely that neanderthals and homo sapiens did occasionally encage in sex and even produced offspring. I also thought that it was likely that the offspring was infertile, as it happens with donkeys and horses. I also remember reading a study on the neanderthal anthropology pointing out that though generally speaking robust, the neanderthal females had a pelvical structure that made giving birth more difficult to them than it would be to homo sapiens females. The fact that even more neanderthal females were likely die when giving birth than homo sapiens females has been pointed out as one of the reasons for the ultimate distinction of the species. It's not out of the question that something in the pelvical structure of the neanderthal females hindered the birth of children fathered by homo sapiens completely. The fact that there are no neanderthal lineages found among the modern European DNA might also be pure chance. After all, there have been numerous homo sapiens DNA lineages that have had the same faith.
|
|