The Oldest Dna Evidence Yet Of Humans With An Interesting Twist

[JDL]

This is interesting from Them and Us.

[Yuchi1]

It has often been said, and it bears repeating: Homo Sapiens aren't the only human species to have ever existed, we are only the winners. (To which I'll add: "So far", and; "Maybe not 'the' ")  

 

Well spoken.

[Guest Stan Norton]

Them and us? Complete nonsense. Plenty of credible papers written by credible people so no need to refer to silly unfounded cod science.

[Guest]

I would agree but,,,, Neanderthal skulls are twice the size of a humans with a brain capacity of 1600cc compared to humans at 1350cc.  I don't care how you splice it or dice it, or how you spit shine a Neanderthal and put him in a suit, I think he'd get noticed real fast.

 

Here's why....

 

sapiens_neanderthal_comparison.gif

 

I do realize after researching this that there is still a debate over this amongst the academics. But if I saw a person in a suit that was bow legged, short in stature, muscular, large hands, sloped forehead, prominent brow bridge, no chin, with a head twice the size of mine, yeah I'd take notice. Although almost genetically identical, the mental and physical attributes are controlled by genes that either turned on, or off. So being almost genetically identical doesn't mean looking or acting identical. On the surface that would be a logical conclusion, but in the end, science doesn't care about logical conclusions. Science only cares about finding the facts.

 

I'm very interested in Homo Floresiensis, When we get done haggling over Neanderthal I'd like to explore that.

I don't know about that. I've had boyfriends like this. Their skulls were not really twice the size of ours.

 

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

 

"With an average cranial capacity of 1600 cc,^[19] Neanderthal's cranial capacity is notably larger than the 1400 cc average for modern humans, indicating that their brain size was larger. However, due to larger body size, Neanderthals are less encephalized.^"

 

^{Cro Magnon man also had a larger brain and likely skull than modern average. But modern sizes are not all the same. Hence the need to average.}

 

^{200 cc is approximately 4/5 of a cup. That is not a lot in visual appearance. Spread that toward the back of the skull and would not be noticeable while talking with the fellow. Even when looking at him from the side, one would not likely notice the length of his skull unless the hair was exceedingly short. Even then, there are people with long heads. Would he be noticeable? likely yes, but hardly would someone call him a Neandertal. A scientist in anthropology might but not the average person.}

[Cotter]

Here's a pic I snapped of a Neanderthal at Dairy Queen.

 

 

[Guest DWA]

I remember from my childhood an assertion (I think it was in the LIFE Nature Library volume Early Man) that if a Neanderthal donned a Brooks Brothers suit and got on the New York subway, he'd go pretty much unremarked.

[Guest Stan Norton]

Indeed. Neanderthals were not evil, slopey browed hairy monkey men with cat eyes who hunted and sexually molested Homo sapiens. They were an extremely successful and well adapted species who thrived across a huge geographical range for tens of thousands of years and who left behind evidence of a sophisticated material culture.

[Guest]

I remember from my childhood an assertion (I think it was in the LIFE Nature Library volume Early Man) that if a Neanderthal donned a Brooks Brothers suit and got on the New York subway, he'd go pretty much unremarked.

Well, New York come on! I think a sleestak would pass unnoticed. Especially now with everyone looking at their phones all the time.

[Guest WesT]

That's fine and all, but, since none of us has ever seen a living breathing Neanderthal, all any of us can do is speculate. I may be right, and I may be wrong, and likewise, you may be right, and you may be wrong. The way I see it, a Bluejay and a Robin are both a species of bird, but I know the difference between the two when I see one or the other. Even if dressed in identical tuxedo's...... but I could be wrong, and lord knows it wouldn't be the first time.

Edited May 11, 2014 by WesT

[norseman]

Indeed. Neanderthals were not evil, slopey browed hairy monkey men with cat eyes who hunted and sexually molested Homo sapiens. They were an extremely successful and well adapted species who thrived across a huge geographical range for tens of thousands of years and who left behind evidence of a sophisticated material culture.

Agreed. The cat eyed version would be much too distant of a cousin for the majority of humanity to cross breed and have up to four percent of their genes.

[Guest WesT]

I agree as well. I don't buy into the cat-eyed version. But neither do I buy into the "identical looking" version. I'm confident it's relatively close, but still no cigar.

[norseman]

Agreed.

I too feel there was major differences....but within context.

[bipedalist]

New date calculations on split of Modern Humans from Neanderthals

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7523/full/nature13810.html

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/45-000-year-old-leg-bone-reveals-when-neanderthals-humans-n231806

[bipedalist]

And not to usurp a Neanderthal-like thread with other drivel but the Home floresiensis debate now adds the possibility it was not Homo but Australopithecine 

suggesting a whole new branch of the tree dispersing across Asia has been missing 

 

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/new-theory-hobbit-species-out-africa-theory-0109832

Edited October 23, 2014 by bipedalist

[norseman]

And not to usurp a Neanderthal-like thread with other drivel but the Home floresiensis debate now adds the possibility it was not Homo but Australopithecine 

suggesting a whole new branch of the tree dispersing across Asia has been missing 

 

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/new-theory-hobbit-species-out-africa-theory-0109832

 

WOW! This is huge.

 

I find it odd though that some scientists are trying to describe this find as deformed homo sapiens, and others are leaving the homo erectus hypothesis for something even more primitive.

 

It would certainly explain the size.