how did man appear on earth

[S-word]

Not impossible... just that the results would not have been contributing to the gene pool of either species.

I'm not saying on some cold lonely night, things didn't happen. Mules happen in the wild too you know.

wa:do

I don't know about mules mate, I've seen more than a few people who appear to be carrying certain genetic characteristics of the ancient Neanderthals walking our streets today, with their protuding foreheads, wide nostrils, heavy eyebrows, hairy bodies, stooped sholders and knuckles almost dragging on the ground.

I think that I'd need some proof, that it was impossible for there to have been breeding communities of Neanderthal - Cro-Magnon cross breeds, before I am convinced that certain people of today are not carrying the genes of both species.

 

[fantome profane]

I don't know about mules mate, I've seen more than a few people who appear to be carrying certain genetic characteristics of the ancient Neanderthals walking our streets today, with their protuding foreheads, wide nostrils, heavy eyebrows, hairy bodies, stooped sholders and knuckles almost dragging on the ground.

I think that I'd need some proof, that it was impossible for there to have been breeding communities of Neanderthal - Cro-Magnon cross breeds, before I am convinced that certain people of today are not carrying the genes of both species.

Well of course we are carrying genes of both species, we are carrying genes of chimpanzees as well. But that doesn’t mean that our ancestors interbred, just that we have a common ancestor.

The characteristics you describe are all human characteristics.

 

[Riverwolf]

Well of course we are carrying genes of both species, we are carrying genes of chimpanzees as well. But that doesn’t mean that our ancestors interbred, just that we have a common ancestor.

The characteristics you describe are all human characteristics.

After all, Neanderthals were human.

They were just a different species of human. (wrap your head around that one )

 

[Father John]

I go with the scientific world view for gravity and nuclear fission. Why should I throw out that view in respect of evolutionary theory just because there is a biblical myth that seeks to convey a theological idea.

 

[painted wolf]

I don't know about mules mate, I've seen more than a few people who appear to be carrying certain genetic characteristics of the ancient Neanderthals walking our streets today, with their protuding foreheads, wide nostrils, heavy eyebrows, hairy bodies, stooped sholders and knuckles almost dragging on the ground.

These are well within the normal range of the human phenotype. Neanderthals were built radically different from humans. From brain size and shape to bone density. Even aging... Neanderthals reached puberty twice as quickly as we do.

I think that I'd need some proof, that it was impossible for there to have been breeding communities of Neanderthal - Cro-Magnon cross breeds, before I am convinced that certain people of today are not carrying the genes of both species.

Is the genetics of Neanderthals not enough?
Genetic study of Neanderthal DNA reveals early split between humans and Neanderthals

We do know a thing or two about genetics and how it influences reproductive success.

wa:do

 

[S-word]

These are well within the normal range of the human phenotype. Neanderthals were built radically different from humans. From brain size and shape to bone density. Even aging... Neanderthals reached puberty twice as quickly as we do.

Is the genetics of Neanderthals not enough?
Genetic study of Neanderthal DNA reveals early split between humans and Neanderthals

We do know a thing or two about genetics and how it influences reproductive success.

wa:do

Yes, I have read where scientists have sequenced the mitochondrial DNA of a Neanderthal at the Max Planck institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, but there is no unequivocal statement that cross breeding never occured, in fact I read that Neanderthal DNA shows that they rarely interbred with us.

 

[painted wolf]

I never said that we never had sex.. I just said that it wouldn't have contributed to our genetics... you would end up with a mule at best.

The two species have a common ancestry, say the authors, but do not share much else after evolving their separate ways. The study, published in this week's issue of Science, also finds no evidence of genetic admixture between Neanderthals and humans.

According to the authors, "If Neanderthal admixture did indeed occur, then [it would] manifest in our data as an abundance of low-frequency derived alleles in Europeans where the derived allele matches Neanderthal. No site in the data set appears to be of this type."

Genetic study of Neanderthal DNA reveals early split between humans and Neanderthals

We know also that humans and Neanderthals didn't interbreed enough to leave a mark in either genome. The new, complete sequence firms up these conclusions.

First Neanderthal genome completed - life - 07 August 2008 - New Scientist

wa:do

 

[Eddy Daze]

When thinking about the Neanderthal and earlier hominids I think it may help to ponder what is going on today genetically with the different races.It would seem strange to me that one of them would be capeable of being split for so long that they start to be classified as a seperate , subspecies or even new species, and which line of the split would keep the species name? (not hundred percent sure that earlier ones would have clumped together regarding racial(?)characteristics, but this seems a logical assumption)

 

[Breathe]

I never said that we never had sex.. I just said that it wouldn't have contributed to our genetics... you would end up with a mule at best.

Hmm, that made me think..!

Generally cross-breed species tend to be less fertile (I don't think sterility is as common as reported, and probably not genetic) than, ugh, I hate to say this, "pure breeds" of species.

Perhaps it's possible that human/Neanderthal mixed children tended not to be as fertile, and thus were more of a burden in general as they were less likely to produce children?

Not to mention that it would generally have been female Neanderthals giving birth, this would have been quite difficult, I'm thinking, for the human-Neanderthals being brought up with them, since they matured a lot faster than us..! Since times were hard during the ice age, I doubt many would have managed to get past 10.

[I s'pose this leads back to another thread about cloning Neanderthals. I'm all for it]

 

[painted wolf]

Not to mention the risks of birth defects, many of which many have kept the child from reaching full term.
Life for both groups would have been very tough and infant mortality would have been shockingly high. The odds of reaching reproductive age for a healthy child are bad enough.

[I am at this point anti-cloning of Neanderthals, for the clones sake.]

wa:do

 

[Breathe]

Yeah, I agree - they would have had tough lives, especially with the differentiations in aging, as well - not to mention they would have been ugly, probably to both species..

[Can you elaborate on the clones' sake? I'm curious as to what you mean!]

 

[Eddy Daze]

Also I find this concept hard to grasp, other species that form societies have differnt castes , such as ants (queen, worker,soldier), which differ greatly it is not that they are seperate species. Its a bit dodgy though this in referring to humans as it may appear racists, but what the hell we are here we have differences, I have nothing against anyone different than me. (maybe at one stage in history their were very different types of human being that made up a functioning society)

 

[Eddy Daze]

I do not know if this has been mentioned on here , but what we witness in the physical world is structures forming independently, such as planets, stars and individual elements. (Dont think we can say there is absolute proof regards the big bang or all elements coming from Hydrogen)..So why is this not usually considered regards abiogenisis? why not individual species forming independently?

 

[painted wolf]

Because we would notice that in the genetics.
We all have a shared genetic history... that wouldn't happen if we all formed independently.

wa:do

 

[Valjean]

I do not know if this has been mentioned on here , but what we witness in the physical world is structures forming independently, such as planets, stars and individual elements. (Dont think we can say there is absolute proof regards the big bang or all elements coming from Hydrogen)..So why is this not usually considered regards abiogenisis? why not individual species forming independently?

Do you suppose that transitional species disappear as soon as a new model comes to the fore, and that species develop in isolation, unaffected bu the other species they interact with?

 

[Eddy Daze]

Because we would notice that in the genetics.
We all have a shared genetic history... that wouldn't happen if we all formed independently.

wa:do

I did mean human evolution as opposed to plants for instance. The similarities between genes or atomic structure (in the case of the universe starting)could lead us to assume one origin, think of all the inventions that use a carbon in their makeup , we do not automatically assume they rose from one source.

(miss pellers of the whirled...)

 

[Eddy Daze]

Do you suppose that transitional species disappear as soon as a new model comes to the fore, and that species develop in isolation, unaffected bu the other species they interact with?

No. But it can happen that a part of a species becomes isolated for so long. But even if they cannot now breed with the other part I think it incorrect to give one part a label of a new species. Think about that...if it could be proved that evolution occured and we could do it rapidly with microbes this labelling would soon become very confused.And there maybe even some that can by chance interbreed again.

 

[Valjean]

But we can do it with microbes. We've even done it inadvertantly with all the chemicals we've introduced into the biosphere.

I can understand your questioning the propriety of using reproductive compatability as the final measure of speciation, Eddy. It is kind of arbitrary and doesn't necessarily reflect the actual degree of genetic difference, but it was all we had back when the traditional, heirarchic pigeonholes were developed. But think about it. Even small changes, multiplied over enough generations, must needs produce clearly different creatures.

 

[Eddy Daze]

Its this idea I have of an atachment of the whole differing types connected to the base of the species.For instance the connection of a tree leaf to the seed, or an adult to an embryo...both physicaly very different but still labeled as "part of" or that particular entity.I cannot see this being different regarding a flowing system over massive time spans (simply refering to the adding of the label here and not arguing that living things can become geneticaly seperate)

 

[bosniak]

well its beter sound that God create us, so life have sence, and Darvins evolution,.... is just empty, ,.......