Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 19 Jul '11 03:26
    Check out this article/news that I came across on the net.

    http://news.discovery.com/human/genetics-neanderthal-110718.html
  2. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    19 Jul '11 17:40
    Originally posted by shahenshah
    Check out this article/news that I came across on the net.

    http://news.discovery.com/human/genetics-neanderthal-110718.html
    It turns out to be a good thing, mixing genes is what keeps us one step ahead of bacterial and viral predators. That's why sexual reproduction is so useful, and fun on the side
  3. 21 Jul '11 08:42
    Yes, but this is contrary to conventional theory that man evolved from the Cro-Magnon man, not from the Neanderthal man
    This article seems to imply that the pure "Human" stock came from sub-saharan Africa and Australia (perhaps the Bushman of the Kalahari desert and the Aborigines of Australia.
    Perhaps that is why the Bushman and Aborigines seem to be more peaceful?
  4. 21 Jul '11 09:13
    Originally posted by shahenshah
    Yes, but this is contrary to conventional theory that man evolved from the Cro-Magnon man, not from the Neanderthal man
    Not at all. Conventional theory is that some Europeans may be partly descended from Cro-Magnon man (though that does depend on what you mean by Cro-Magnon man);
    The article doesn't change that view at all, it only adds the fact that there was some interbreeding with Neanderthals (probably prior to Cro-Magnon man). However, most of our genes are from the human branch.

    This article seems to imply that the pure "Human" stock came from sub-saharan Africa and Australia (perhaps the Bushman of the Kalahari desert and the Aborigines of Australia.
    Perhaps that is why the Bushman and Aborigines seem to be more peaceful?

    Humans evolved in Africa, and those that left, interbred with Neanderthals. African peoples other than the Bushmen do not have the Neanderthal genes so far identified.

    Bushman and Aborigines seeming more peaceful probably has more to do with culture and life style than anything else. (and may all be in your mind anyway).
  5. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    21 Jul '11 18:28
    The Maori committed genocide on the Moriori.
  6. 21 Jul '11 21:17
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    The Maori committed genocide on the Moriori.
    But the Maori have nothing whatsoever to do with the Australian Aborigines. They are descended from a people related to the original Taiwanese and Phillipinese, who spread all across the Pacific and back again. In fact, as far as I know New Zealand is the last landmass of any reasonable size to be settled by humanity, somewhere after 1000 AD. Australia, by contrast, was settled at least 40.000 years ago.

    Richard
  7. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    22 Jul '11 00:46
    Originally posted by shahenshah
    Yes, but this is contrary to conventional theory that man evolved from the Cro-Magnon man, not from the Neanderthal man
    This article seems to imply that the pure "Human" stock came from sub-saharan Africa and Australia (perhaps the Bushman of the Kalahari desert and the Aborigines of Australia.
    Perhaps that is why the Bushman and Aborigines seem to be more peaceful?
    We evolved separately early on but humans who left Africa bred some with Neanderthals, we only have a few percent neanderthal genes in us so it's not like we were one big happy interbred community.

    A few dudes of either variety getting the other type pregnant and do that for a few generations, that's all it would take. It's clear we didn't get much in the way of actual neanderthal characteristics like the heavy chest and short legs and such.

    I wonder if there is anyone alive today expressing more than say 10 percent neanderthal through recessive combinations?

    That would be an incredible find. Russ, have you been tested
  8. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    22 Jul '11 01:56
    Originally posted by Shallow Blue
    But the Maori have nothing whatsoever to do with the Australian Aborigines. They are descended from a people related to the original Taiwanese and Phillipinese, who spread all across the Pacific and back again. In fact, as far as I know New Zealand is the last landmass of any reasonable size to be settled by humanity, somewhere after 1000 AD. Australia, by contrast, was settled at least 40.000 years ago.

    Richard
    Oh! Thanks for the info. So Maori are Viking like people to the Aborigines' Irish.
  9. 22 Jul '11 03:54
    "the heavy chest and short legs and such.
    I wonder if there is anyone alive today expressing more than say 10 percent neanderthal through recessive combinations? "

    Hmmm, has anyone seen the guys on WWF (Wrestling) on TV.
  10. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    22 Jul '11 09:24 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by shahenshah
    "the heavy chest and short legs and such.
    I wonder if there is anyone alive today expressing more than say 10 percent neanderthal through recessive combinations? "

    Hmmm, has anyone seen the guys on WWF (Wrestling) on TV.
    Well comparing Neanderthals with those steroided up grotesquenesses displayed on WWE or the other so-called wrestling channels denigrates neanderthals. I think if a real neanderthal was to get in the ring with those creepy braggarts shouting their proclamations, said braggarts would quickly find out just how much stronger the neanderthal really was in a real fight, which of course wrestling is anything but.
  11. 22 Jul '11 13:20 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    We evolved separately early on but humans who left Africa bred some with Neanderthals, we only have a few percent neanderthal genes in us so it's not like we were one big happy interbred community.

    A few dudes of either variety getting the other type pregnant and do that for a few generations, that's all it would take. It's clear we didn't get much in t ...[text shortened]... gh recessive combinations?

    That would be an incredible find. Russ, have you been tested
    There are more neanderthal characteristics than a "heavy chest and short legs" that the modern non- African do possess today.
  12. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    22 Jul '11 18:10 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    There are more neanderthal characteristics than a "heavy chest and short legs" that the modern non- African do possess today.
    Like what? Not disagreeing with you, just wondered what you mean.

    For instance, forensic evidence of their skeletons indicates they could not run very fast but it seems most modern humans would have been able to beat them in a race, assuming similar physical development, not comparing a 4 yo Neander to a 20 yo racer.

    But along those lines, the fastest runners now are Africans so maybe there is something there. Could be just a guess though.
  13. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    22 Jul '11 18:28
    They couldn't throw stuff either.
  14. Standard member avalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    22 Jul '11 20:47
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    They couldn't throw stuff either.
    Of course they could throw stuff! They probably weren't very good at it, but i bet they could throw much heavier stuff than H. Sap Saps.
  15. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    23 Jul '11 06:14
    Originally posted by avalanchethecat
    Of course they could throw stuff! They probably weren't very good at it, but i bet they could throw much heavier stuff than H. Sap Saps.
    Yeah but the thing that seems to be true is they were certainly stronger but if they chucked a rock at our ancestor humans, we would have been fast enough on the trigger to get out of the way. Would not want to have arm wrestled one though