This Is A Neanderthal.

[gigantor]

Isn't it possible for Neanderthal to evolve 10-15% of the same DNA patterns independently?

[Guest]

Understood, but the degree to which genomic studies are able to predict characteristics such as eye colour, hair colour, susceptibility to various diseases is really quite remarkable. I'm certain Galton would have been thrilled to see what is possible. I think that scientists are able to bring us to a level of incredible understanding but, as ever, there is a great deal more to learn. I think we can be sure though that Neanderthals were not cat eyed massive sex perv men....

 

Neanderthals may not have been "cat eyed massive sex perv men", but saying that, "The degree to which genomic studies are able to predict characteristics such as eye colour, hair colour, susceptibility to various diseases is really quite remarkable. I'm certain Galton would have been thrilled to see what is possible.", is, again, refuted quite directly by this study publish in Nature:  http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v17/n8/full/ejhg20095a.html

 

I apologize for nit picking, however I think it is warranted.  Perhaps I am being "obsessively pedantic" by pointing this out.  However by utilizing the scientific method, scientists have found that predicting height based on genetic markers alone is 8 to 10 times less effective than predicting height based on the Galtonian method.  

 

The neanderthal reconstruction you posted originally is based on the genome and skeletal morphology.  It is possible that the artist's reconstruction is grossly inaccurate...  As inaccurate as a the "Us and Them" reconstruction?  Highly unlikely; yet entirely possible.    

Edited May 30, 2014 by Okfej

[Guest]

That wasn't a what-if -- it was a statement of fact.

 

The additional facts that 20% of the Neandertal genome is preserved within the modern human genome, and that each non-sub-Saharan African possesses 1-4% of his genes that were derived from Neandertals demonstrate that hybridization between our two species was quite common at some time.

 

It suggests to me that our ancestors saw a benefit in hybridizing.  Perhaps offspring displayed hybrid vigor.  Perhaps they found red hair and freckles attractive.  Perhaps Neandertal women were easy to chase down.  Neandertal populations were low and apparently had little genetic variation, so they may have welcomed the availability of outside mates to preclude inbreeding.

 

Skepticism is essential to science.

Not having read the paper myself and obviously not checking their work, I can't really make a comment regarding those numbers. However, 20% of the DNA necessary to create a clone of one is not really that much. Sapien females who bred with neandertal males would not pass on neandertal mtDNA. Neandertal women might not have been kept in sapiens camps and so might not contribute much if anything to our genome. If most of these children were born in sapiens communities (most likely), their genes would recurve back into the sapiens population. Here they would be recombined and successful variants would concentrate within the population affected. While genes would be lost, useful ones would not. Considering our ancestors were moving into new environments, any new gene that conferred an advantage would have swiftly moved to dominate the gene pool, no matter how many generations passed. Genes that affect the immune system have been identified in the crossover. Those genes and any attached to them on the same chromosomes would have been concentrated in the gene pool. If each population that had hybrid children in them preserved 1% of the DNA that came in with the hybrid (a conservative amount really) then we would need only 20 such incidents. That's not a lot. Even if we suggest that hybrids were only successful 10% of the time (also conservative), that leaves us with only 200 instances of hybridization. Not exactly an orgy of breeding. Reproductive difficulties are believed to have actually impaired male hybrids, at least first generation and possibly second or third as well.

 

Neandertal women who moved in with sapiens husbands or masters may have had issues with acceptance from the community's other women. As such their children would have been less privileged than other full blooded children. This happens in human societies and among chimpanzees as well, so I don't think I'm being unreasonable. Female hybrids may have been able to find mates (well they were chicks) but they and their offspring may well have suffered from their lower status. Violence is commonly visited upon those with lower status and poverty is also a common problem which can reduce an individual's fitness. In a population that is overwhelmingly sapiens, one would expect only useful genes to thrive while all else would disappear and that appears to be what has happened. The mtDNA was simply not useful and was outnumbered to boot.

 

All hybrids in neandertal camps would likely have kept useful sapiens genes and discarded anything unhelpful. MtDNA of such a population would have most likely been neandertal. That such DNA is not in our genome suggests that modern humans come from the sapiens camps and not the neandertal ones.

[JDL]

Just want to stop in and give an "atta-boy" to Stan.  He's fighting the good fight with class.  The epidemic of science-skeptics is disheartening and I would have gotten rude long ago.

 

For the record, I, Pteronarcyd, and others on this Board actually are scientists.

[southernyahoo]

Not having read the paper myself and obviously not checking their work, I can't really make a comment regarding those numbers. However, 20% of the DNA necessary to create a clone of one is not really that much. Sapien females who bred with neandertal males would not pass on neandertal mtDNA. Neandertal women might not have been kept in sapiens camps and so might not contribute much if anything to our genome. If most of these children were born in sapiens communities (most likely), their genes would recurve back into the sapiens population. Here they would be recombined and successful variants would concentrate within the population affected. While genes would be lost, useful ones would not. Considering our ancestors were moving into new environments, any new gene that conferred an advantage would have swiftly moved to dominate the gene pool, no matter how many generations passed. Genes that affect the immune system have been identified in the crossover. Those genes and any attached to them on the same chromosomes would have been concentrated in the gene pool. If each population that had hybrid children in them preserved 1% of the DNA that came in with the hybrid (a conservative amount really) then we would need only 20 such incidents. That's not a lot. Even if we suggest that hybrids were only successful 10% of the time (also conservative), that leaves us with only 200 instances of hybridization. Not exactly an orgy of breeding. Reproductive difficulties are believed to have actually impaired male hybrids, at least first generation and possibly second or third as well.

 

Neandertal women who moved in with sapiens husbands or masters may have had issues with acceptance from the community's other women. As such their children would have been less privileged than other full blooded children. This happens in human societies and among chimpanzees as well, so I don't think I'm being unreasonable. Female hybrids may have been able to find mates (well they were chicks) but they and their offspring may well have suffered from their lower status. Violence is commonly visited upon those with lower status and poverty is also a common problem which can reduce an individual's fitness. In a population that is overwhelmingly sapiens, one would expect only useful genes to thrive while all else would disappear and that appears to be what has happened. The mtDNA was simply not useful and was outnumbered to boot.

 

All hybrids in neandertal camps would likely have kept useful sapiens genes and discarded anything unhelpful. MtDNA of such a population would have most likely been neandertal. That such DNA is not in our genome suggests that modern humans come from the sapiens camps and not the neandertal ones.

 

I've considered another possibility that sapiens females in Neanderthal camps could have been favored, in which case sapiens mtDNA could have taken over. This might have resulted in separate types of hybrids in separate camps, perhaps never to re-breed again or infrequently. 

[Incorrigible1]

For the record, I, Pteronarcyd, and others on this Board actually are scientists.

Ah say, son, I say....there's also one self-proclaimed scientist.

[Guest Coonbo]

Holy Moley!!  This thread runs from the thoughtful and well presented to absolutely ridiculous blather.   To some, especially Stan, I compliment you on your self control and restraint from the resorting to personal attacks.  And there are for sure several folks that are regulars on this site that are certainly much more knowledgeable than I in the fields of anthropology, DNA analysis, genetics, archaeology, biology, and physiology. 

 

Whether Ol' Stanky is Neanderpithecus or Gigantothal may not be solved even if we have a steaming body laying on a slab in a lab, dead from a stab, studied by scientists who are allowed to blab.

 

And no matter whose educated interpretation of what Neanderthal really looked like is correct, one thing is certain to me:  take the "Neanderthal" interpretation from "Them + Us" and lose the cat eyes and the spear, fix the nose a bit, and you have what I, personally, categorize as a Type 2 Bigfoot or what other folks would call the "Swamp Ape" type.   This is the type that I have seen the most.

 

The thing that has bothered me about saying that BF is a remnant Neanderthal, is that it is an adequately proven fact (I believe) that Neanderthal were skilled crafters and users of stone implements and weapons, and BF are not.    So if BF are Neanderthal, did they de-evolve?? (Makes me think of the old '80's group Devo.)   I'm no anthropologist - just a lowly redneck, ex-rocket scientist - but I haven't heard of real de-evolution.  So I guess my official opinion du jour is that BF is something more primitive, evolved from an earlier branch of the primate tree.  (And, YES, I know that the subject of this thread was what Neanderthal really looked like, not  whether or not BF were descended from them, so please forgive me - I just couldn't get that fired up about the original argument of this thread.)

Edited May 30, 2014 by Coonbo

[JDL]

Thank you, I was hoping you'd weigh in.

[norseman]

Holy Moley!! This thread runs from the thoughtful and well presented to absolutely ridiculous blather. To some, especially Stan, I compliment you on your self control and restraint from the resorting to personal attacks. And there are for sure several folks that are regulars on this site that are certainly much more knowledgeable than I in the fields of anthropology, DNA analysis, genetics, archaeology, biology, and physiology.

Whether Ol' Stanky is Neanderpithecus or Gigantothal may not be solved even if we have a steaming body laying on a slab in a lab, dead from a stab, studied by scientists who are allowed to blab.

And no matter whose educated interpretation of what Neanderthal really looked like is correct, one thing is certain to me: take the "Neanderthal" interpretation from "Them + Us" and lose the cat eyes and the spear, fix the nose a bit, and you have what I, personally, categorize as a Type 2 Bigfoot or what other folks would call the "Swamp Ape" type. This is the type that I have seen the most.

The thing that has bothered me about saying that BF is a remnant Neanderthal, is that it is an adequately proven fact (I believe) that Neanderthal were skilled crafters and users of stone implements and weapons, and BF are not. So if BF are Neanderthal, did they de-evolve?? (Makes me think of the old '80's group Devo.) I'm no anthropologist - just a lowly redneck, ex-rocket scientist - but I haven't heard of real de-evolution. So I guess my official opinion du jour is that BF is something more primitive, evolved from an earlier branch of the primate tree. (And, YES, I know that the subject of this thread was what Neanderthal really looked like, not whether or not BF were descended from them, so please forgive me - I just couldn't get that fired up about the original argument of this thread.)

I keep saying this and nobody listens.....if Sasquatch is human or of the genus homo and lives in the forest like an animal? We will have rewrite everything we know about human evolution from the fossil record.

I think it's much more plausible that a shy elusive ape gets great intelligence attributed to it because it's shy and elusive. And it remains elusive because it does not exhibit human traits such as living in a village, using cooking fires and flaking stone tools.

[Guest Coonbo]

I keep saying this and nobody listens.....if Sasquatch is human or of the genus homo and lives in the forest like an animal? We will have rewrite everything we know about human evolution from the fossil record.

I think it's much more plausible that a shy elusive ape gets great intelligence attributed to it because it's shy and elusive. And it remains elusive because it does not exhibit human traits such as living in a village, using cooking fires and flaking stone tools.

 

YES!   Exactly!   Very well said. 

 

BUT, it's genetically closer to us than chimps or gorillas.  Close enough that it can interbreed with us.  Or it thinks it can, and the stories of BF and human interbreeding are just that: stories.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Coonbo

[Yuchi1]

YES!   Exactly!   Very well said. 

 

BUT, it's genetically closer to us than chimps or gorillas.  Close enough that it can interbreed with us.  Or it thinks it can, and the stories of BF and human interbreeding are just that: stories.

 

Wrong, sir! There is evidence of this interbreeding...lawyers.

 

To cap onto what Norsey stated above, anytime you establish an abode such as a camp, village, etc. there is one additional factor created by this form of social structure, you make yourself a target to invaders with hostile intentions. IMO, the UHS/ may well have observed the conflicts of homo sapiens (with each other) over the centuries and made the conscious decision (for self-preservation purposes) to have no part of it. Sounds like a plan and seems to be working, so far.

[norseman]

Well yucky.....

What evidence do you have that Sasquatch deliberately chooses to live like an animal?

Your human......can you go live in the forest for a year with no clothes, tools or fire?

Coonbo,

Orangs have raped human females before, so I don't think that is a human marker per say. Although it would be with me:)

[Yuchi1]

Well yucky.....

What evidence do you have that Sasquatch deliberately chooses to live like an animal?

 

Your human......can you go live in the forest for a year with no clothes, tools or fire?

Coonbo,

Orangs have raped human females before, so I don't think that is a human marker per say. Although it would be with me:)

 

In making the assumption that you imply "animal" as living in a primitive state (as compared to homo sapiens of today), possible evidence includes the fact there are no populated subdivisons such as BF Acres and that they keep eluding capture by homo sapiens, save the occasional maiming of one, by gunfire.

 

Live in the woods? Possible, but would be extremely tough as homo sapiens lack the physical characteristics of UHS.

[norseman]

Right, and why are we so different in physical characteristics?

And I mean living like an animal compared to a homo Erectus 2 million years ago...... No fire no handaxe, etc

[Cotter]

A human living in the wild can survive, even at a very young age.....if he/she has a little help

 

http://www.mnn.com/family/babies-pregnancy/photos/9-children-who-were-raised-by-animals/from-myth-to-reality