Neanderthals?!?

Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Neanderthals?!?

I need some help with a problem.

The thing is, there is somebody who keeps on bombarding me with "evidence" (see links at the bottom) for how Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons were intebreeding in early Europe. However, my understanding of the issue is that Cro-Mags and Neanders were too far apart genetically to be able to produce anything but sterile offspring (as is the case with for instance horses and donkeys). I am a bit of a sitting duck here because I am by no means cock sure about my own interpretation of how modern humans evolved, whereas my esteemed opponent is almost fanatically playing on every doubt in me. But that's my bulwark of defence as well, because I instinctively reject information that seems to be too enthusiastically presented.

I hope that there is someone here with some insight into the matter who can explain, or point me in the right direction.

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Neanderthal.html

http://www.duerinck.com/migrate.html

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2396
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
1st no 2nd yes.

 

 

 

            The first link if you read it carefully debunks  its own theory of interbreading.  It dates the so called Hybred at 24,500 yrs ago.  Then mentions the last of the Neanderthals died out 28,000 yrs. ago. That would make one of the parants 3,500 years old.  The skeleton came from a large boned Cro-magnon, is this possible?  Think of Shaq O'Neil standing next to Martin Short and they are both Cro-magnon.

 

 

 

          The second link is a good reference point for further studies and makes it clear the Cro-magno/Neanderthal split happened 500,000 yrs ago,  there was co-habitation for 6000 or so years.  That means they lived in the same area;  there may have been sexual contacts.  But there is no current evidence of Hybred offspring,  none.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
There are some rational

There are some rational arguments in favour of the Many Origins Model, but not nearly as many as Out of Africa 2.

My main objection to MOM is however a philosophical, moral and political one: It supports racism.

Therefore you can say that I hope that OA2 is the correct interpretation of the available data, but I don't actually know.

MOM theory supports the idea that the human races evolved simultaneously over a long period of time (much longer than the 50K years that OA2 is operating with), leaving some races to be higher evolved than others; thereby justifying a hierarchy of human value. (BTW, It stands to be mentioned that the irrational idea of "creationism" - and/or "intelligent design" - also paves the ground for racism, probably even much more so than MOM. If the races were "created", is it not, then, the will of God that they should stay segregated? Those are the ideas of for instance the KKK.)

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Well, simply, Neanderthals

Well, simply, Neanderthals and our direct ancestors never interbred successfully.  This can be proven by comparing our DNA and that of Neanderthals'.  This conclusively has proven that there is no Neanderthal in us.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:This can be

Thomathy wrote:

This can be proven by comparing our DNA and that of Neanderthals'.  This conclusively has proven that there is no Neanderthal in us.

Nope. We have no Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA. That doesn't mean that we have no Neanderthal nuclear DNA. The distinction between those two is extremely important. We have only been able to test for similarities in mitochondrial DNA. That only rules out Neanderthal female ancestors. Neanderthal male/homo sapien female pairings can't be ruled out by noting that we lack Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA.

 

Marquis wrote:

leaving some races to be higher evolved than others

That very phrase is a stupid thing to say. If someone believes that that the phrase "more highly evolved" makes any sense at all, then I think that they have already discredited themselves. That being said, racists do like to fall back onto that retarded concept for just the same reasons they like to bring up Ham.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Marquis

Jormungander wrote:

Marquis wrote:

higher evolved

That very phrase is a stupid thing to say.

 

You and I may know that assigning a "purpose" to human life is what consitutes the cornerstones of moral relativism.

However, if I remember correctly, the argument of being "higher evolved" was what racism was based in back when.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
It's irrelevant speculation

 

But given neanderthals had the FOX2P speech gene, I wonder what they called themselves? It would be fucking fascinating to know more about these folks. Apparently they had tools, some art and culture - little or no different from our direct ancestors.

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
They even had music. I took

They even had music. I took a physical anthropology class a while ago and we saw a picture of a Neanderthal flute that was carved to look like a wolf. The flute is only a large fragment though. Too bad it isn't in one piece. Then we could know what it sounded like.

They also had complex burial rituals and an average brain size larger than the current average homo sapien brain size. I know that bigger doesn't neccessarily equal better. But I know of no reason to think that they were our intellectual inferiors. Art, music, burial ceremonies and bigger brains than us. That's pretty impressive.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote: a

Jormungander wrote:

a Neanderthal flute

 

I had to go look that one up. Apparently, the theory that is must be a flute can be questioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divje_Babe_flute

But if it was a flute, it might have sounded something like this...

 

 

 

 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"Higher evolved" really

"Higher evolved" really doesn't make sense, or at least begs some major questions.

Separated groups will typically change at different rates and in different directions, so they may well end up different in various characteristics and degrees to each other and to their common ancestor, but evolution does not lead automatically in any sense to progressively "higher" states, whatever that is supposed to mean. Just to being better adapted to their current environment, ie, having more kids than the other variations which arose along the way.

The only differences between the the various theories of our evolutionary history is just when and how many times our ancestors emerged from Africa.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology