|
|
Post by Human on Dec 28, 2004 10:20:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Human on Dec 28, 2004 10:35:23 GMT -5
article... maybe explaining why red haired humans (similar to orangotangos) have nearly all originated in Europe....  Red hair a legacy of Neanderthal man (The Sunday Mail - p.22. 22/04/2001) Red hair may be the legacy of Neanderthal man. Oxford University scientists think the ginger gene, which is responsible for red hair, fair skin and freckles, could be up to 100,000 years old. They say their discovery points to the gene having originated in Neanderthal man, who lived in Europe for 260,000 years before the ancestors of modern man arrived from Africa about 40,000 years ago. Research leader Dr. Rosalind Harding said: "It is certainly possible that red hair comes from the Neanderthals." The Neanderthals are generally thought to have been a less intelligent species than modern man, Homo sapiens. They were taller and stockier, but with shorter limbs, bigger faces and noses, receding chins and low foreheads. They had a basic, guttural vocabulary of about 70 words, probably at the level of today's two-year-old, and they never developed a full language, art or culture. They settled in Europe about 300,000 years ago, but 40,000 years ago, a wave of immigrants - our forefathers, Cro-Magnon Man - emerged from Africa and the two species co-existed for 10,000 years. Dr Harding's research - presented at a London conference of the Human Genome Organization during the week - suggests the two species interbred for the ginger gene to survive. Dr Harding said redheads should not be offended by being to the primitive Neanderthals. "If it's possible that we had ancestry from Neanderthals, then it says that Neanderthals were more similar to us than we previously thought," she said. Scientists at the Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, at Oxford University, compared the human ginger gene with the equivalent in chimpanzees. They found 16 differences, or mutations, between the two genes. Since an early version of the gene developed in chimps roughly 10 million years ago, the scientists estimated there has been one mutation every 625,000 years. They used a computer to calculate how long it must have taken for the mutation responsible for the ginger hair to have passed down through the generations and become so common among Western people. They concluded the mutation was older than 50,000 years and could be as old as 100,000 years. Some scientists believe Neanderthals were ultra-humans - able to adapt to extremes of climate and surviving for 272,000 years. But they became extinct about 28,000 years ago, outwitted for territory and food by the more socially advanced Cro-Magnons. END OF REPORT www.dhamurian.org.au/anthropology/neanderthal1.html |
|
|
|
Post by Human on Dec 28, 2004 10:40:44 GMT -5
take a look at the prominent nose... that may explain why prominent noses are found only among Europeans. From early hominids, only the ugly Neanderthals had prominent noses... maybe the hairiness is related to them too (the hairiest Europeans, the Portuguese and the Spaniards, are located in a region which is considered the last refuge for the ugly Neanderthals).... ![]()  img154.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img154&image=39673233huntbbc203long6ed.jpg |
|
|
|
Post by Human on Dec 28, 2004 10:47:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by nymos on Dec 28, 2004 21:18:48 GMT -5
Why did they model the mouth part of the soft tissue so far off the jaw bone?   |
|
|
|
Post by Italian Stallion on Dec 28, 2004 23:37:33 GMT -5
Why did they model the mouth part of the soft tissue so far off the jaw bone? The skull (and bones in general) leaves tell-tale signs as to how much musculature surrounds it. In the case of Neanderthal, they had very strong muscles, which constricted and "striated" the underlying bone structure, along with leaving prominent "grooves" where their muscles/tendons attached to the their joints. Anthropologists/forensic scientists are able to determine the amount of "flesh" covering that bone by looking at these "imprints". |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 29, 2004 0:09:30 GMT -5
that may explain why prominent noses are found only among Europeans. Are you sure this is true? If the noses that these Amerindians have in the photos below aren't considered prominent, then I don't know what noses are.     |
|
|
|
Post by Human on Dec 29, 2004 5:05:51 GMT -5
i guess you know well these noses are the
exception, not the rule.
among amerindians there are all sorts of nose....
among europeans, prominent noses are the
rule (although flat noses are not excluded.... see
Socrates, for example).
also these amerindians you showed may be not
pure... and they may also have very distant
European ancestry
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 29, 2004 15:07:05 GMT -5
i guess you know well these noses are the exception, not the rule. among amerindians there are all sorts of nose.... among europeans, prominent noses are the rule (although flat noses are not excluded.... see Socrates, for example). also these amerindians you showed may be not pure... and they may also have very distant European ancestry I think that the typical noses for Amerindians vary from tribe to tribe. For example, most plains types I've seen like the Sioux seem to have prominent noses. On the other hand, northwest coast tribes seem to have flatter noses, which would seem to me to say that they came over from Asia later than others. As for prominent noses being the rule among Europeans, while that is certainly true with most of the subraces, I thought that Alpines and East Baltics consistently have snubbed noses. Though if you (or anyone) know otherwise about anything I've said here, don't be afraid to correct me. |
|
|
|
Post by riaupar04 on Dec 29, 2004 15:34:47 GMT -5
Maybe the prominent noses on the Native Americans are remnants of the Solutreans. A lot of Native Americans also have Semetic kind of noses.
|
|
|
|
Post by Human on Dec 29, 2004 15:44:08 GMT -5
but taking into account the whole amerindians...
all of them... one should conclude their noses
resemble more the noses of the asians mongoloids
than the caucasians...
sure these prominent nosed amerindians may have
got some caucasoid ancestry, after 1500...
or before (vikings, solutreans, clovis, etc etc)...
in any case prominent nosed people, hairy people,
ginger people are most commonly found in Europe...
most native amerindians ive seen including the north
native americans are flat nosed or have some other
sort of nose other than roman or eagle like noses...
features which are found principally in Europe or also
in the Middle East, locations where the ugly Neanderthal
had thousands of years to develop them fully
|
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on Dec 29, 2004 15:57:00 GMT -5
take a look at the prominent nose... that may explain why prominent noses are found only among Europeans. From early hominids, only the ugly Neanderthals had prominent noses... maybe the hairiness is related to them too (the hairiest Europeans, the Portuguese and the Spaniards, are located in a region which is considered the last refuge for the ugly Neanderthals).... As a hairy European with a prominent nose, from an area even more hairy and prominent nosed than Iberia, I take offense. My hair is not red but my mother's eyes are green and won't have anyone saying green eyes are not nice.  To top it all up I consider myself and my race and subrace particularly attractive.  Do you know of a scientist who has discovered the red hair gene in Neandertal mtDNA?  Is there anyone willing to stake his reputation as a scientist on the colour of their hair or skin? Who can say they were all of the same pigmentation? Who can prove they did not, or some of them did not look like this?  or even like this  Funny how some pictures of Europeans disguised and made up as Neanderthals, for the needs of a TV series, brings a tsunami in impressionable minds. Since you focus on noses, did you know that except prominent, Neanderthal noses were supposed to be broad, low rooted and fleshy? Isn't it funny these characteristics point to a direction away from Europe? Well, the exact shape of nose is just guesswork. Let's concntrate on what we have at hand. Please compare this Neanderthal skull  with an African  and a European  I do not want to know your conclusions as I am sure you are not interested in mine. Since I feel I am the aggrieved part (Neanderthals being unable to feel aggrieved any longer) though, I will remark that you appear to dislike both, Neanderthals and Europeans. I wonder if you consider Europeans part of humanity  To be quite honest, I get the feeling you don't like yourself Human  |
|
|
|
Post by Human on Dec 29, 2004 16:14:58 GMT -5
is Native European...
and may explain Socrates, for example...
|
|
|
|
Post by Human on Dec 29, 2004 16:38:39 GMT -5
www.mc.maricopa.edu/~reffland/anthropology/anthro2003/origins/hominid_journey/outofafrica/outofafrica5.htmlat one point it is said: 'Wolpoff and others argue that populations today retain distinct regional features dating back a long time, like the phenomenal Neanderthal nose'.. As a matter of fact, many scientists, like Wolpoff, claim that... The article follows below: So is multiregionalism dead? Should Java Man and the Neanderthals be barred from any future family reunions? Not at all -- at least not if you ask Alan Templeton, a geneticist at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. His quarrel with Eve goes back to 1991, when he showed that Wilson's team had inadvertently misused the computer program that constructed their evolutionary tree. That part of their work, he proved, was invalid. Now Templeton is launching a more sweeping critique, to be published in an upcoming book. He argues that the genetic studies to date have made a fatal, untested assumption: They presume that different populations of humans could not, or would not, interbreed. For instance, the Out of Africa supporters assume that modern humans left Africa some 100,000 years ago and scattered across the planet. The fragmented populations were never again in close enough contact to interbreed. If this is what really happened, any genetic mutation they all shared and passed to current populations must have cropped up before their populations split. Under these assumptions, the 200,000 year date for Eve has important implications. It tells us when our species arose and helps pinpoint the date of our great migration out of Africa. But what if, as Wolpoff and Templeton believe, there was no one great migration, no time when the population fragmented into isolated units? What if, instead, different human groups have always been moving about and swapping genes through breeding? If that is true, a 200,000-year-old date for Eve has no special meaning. It doesn't represent the first budding of a new branch on the family tree. Nor does it suggest that a conquering horde of Eve's descendants wiped out more ancient lineages. It just means that people were simply breeding at random, and Eve's mutation just happened to arise by chance and spread by interbreeding through the species. Templeton gives a modern-day analogy: the presence of a gene for sickle cell anemia in Caucasians in Portugal. The gene traces back to a mutation that occurred in Africa and spread through interbreeding between Africans and Europeans. "The Africans didn't come up, reconquer the Iberian peninsula, kill off all the Europeans, and that's why there are sickle cell alleles in Portugal today," he says. The presence of the sickle cell gene in Portugal "means that Portuguese and Africans have met and they've interbred, just like humans tend to do." Templeton interprets the genetic data used to support the Out of Africa theory in the same way. To him, the evidence suggests unbroken interbreeding, not a complicated scenario that requires people to migrate en masse out of Africa, to fragment and then to annihiliate other established groups. "There wasn't an Out of Africa event," he says. "It wasn't even a close call." Of course, Out of Africa proponents haven't let Templeton go unchallenged. Many other geneticists, such as Masatoshi Nei of Pennsylvania State University, think it's highly implausible that all of the human groups were in close enough contact to stay genetically connected. It's far more likely, Nei says, that populations were scattered and isolated for long periods. The world of Homo erectus, after all, was a mosaic of different environments. Once a population settled down, its members would stop breeding with groups in other areas. Over time, so many genetic differences would build up that the population would become reproductively cut off as well. Unable to breed with other populations, it would become a separate species. Nei concedes that Out of Africa does rest on untested assumptions. But he says multiregionalists make unsupported claims as well. For instance, Wolpoff and others argue that populations today retain distinct regional features dating back a long time, like the phenomenal Neanderthal nose. This suggests that mixing of genes and dilution of traits between populations was limited. But to explain how we evolved as a single, unified species, they also claim that people must have interbred widely across continents. How can the multiregionalists have it both ways? Nei asks. No one knows what will resolve this dispute. More evidence would help: fossils with more reliable dates, genetic tests with more discriminating power. But even so, the conflict may remain intractable for reasons that have nothing to do with science. The issue, after all, involves our own species, our own history. And as Tattersall and Templeton point out, when we study ourselves we can never shake off deep-seated bias and emotion. In Tattersall's mind, scientists show this bias by lumping diverse human forms together -- the multiregionalists' penchant for linking everything from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens into "one big happy species," as he puts it. Paleontologists don't give other animals such special treatment, he says. Nor do they blink at the notion of one species driving another to extinction. Why is it unthinkable that our ancestors did the same? Templeton says Out of Africa proponents betray bias by excessively splitting the human line. We make far too much of our anatomical differences, as our fixation on trivial racial differences so often tragically demonstrates. Biologists who study, say, fruit flies know that each population can look quite distinct, he says, and yet they're not tempted to hastily split them into separate species. Why must we look at ourselves any differently? "A lot of the special treatment this controversy gets is just the fact that we're talking about humans," he says. "If this were a fruitfly dataset, there would be no controversy at all." On that single point at least, both sides would heartily agree. PS. EUROPE WAS THE HOMELAND OF NEANDERTHAL MAN (NEANDERTHAL MAN) IS A GERMAN WORD. IF PEOPLE OUTSIDE EUROPE (AFRICANS, SAY GENETI CISTS AND OTHERS) EUROPEANS MIGHTS STILL BE LOOKING LIKE THEM....'
|
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on Dec 29, 2004 16:42:48 GMT -5
Hair in humans is not for protection against the cold. Neanderthals existed for more than 300,000 years in a huge area and climate fluctuated. In the time of their existense they had time to turn from white to black and back to white many times over. They were not all of the same pigmentation as modern humans are not.
They lived mostly in very cold conditions, I agree. They also lived in Mediterranean latitude. In the summers the sun was hot and they would have needed protection. The snow is very bright as well, and light eyes can be more sensitive to light. Do not make assumptions without proof. I read the article about red hair and there is nothing in there to prove the red hair gene comes from Neanderthals. We shared a common ancestor with them 600,000 years ago, that is all. We are a different species. Most anthropologists and geneticists today agree there was no mixing, and it was probably impossible anyway. The genetic distance is too great.
If you want to feel inclusive, I have no problem with that whatsoever, but putting down your own race is not the way. Seeing the beauty in all races is the key.
As for Socrates, he was considered ugly and not only because of his nose. I was born a few dozen miles from his birthplace and snub or very low rooted noses are considered not necessarily ugly but definitely a little unusual. Most people have straight or aquiline noses. I am sure it was the same in his time.
|
|
To top it all up I consider myself and my race and subrace particularly attractive. 
Is there anyone willing to stake his reputation as a scientist on the colour of their hair or skin? Who can say they were all of the same pigmentation? Who can prove they did not, or some of them did not look like this?
