Neanderthals, humans didn't mix

[Baker]

Any one read this story from CNN on Neanderthals?

He said modern studies of mitochondrial DNA from Neanderthal fossils suggest that the modern humans and the Neanderthals had a common ancestor about 500,000 years ago. But he said the studies do not support the notion that there was interbreeding after modern humans evolved in Africa and invaded Neanderthal habitats, starting about 45,000 years ago.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/03/07/neanderthal.puzzle.ap/index.html

[Dymanic]

Harpending said the genetic evidence is only marginal and open to different interpretations.
Maybe one of the different interpretations is that they simply didn't breed sucessfully. I thought artifacts from both types had been found in the same sites, and dated to the same times?

[kedo1981]

But you know, back in old days we had a saying, “ once you went THAL, you be having a ball”
Signed
Ogg

[neutrino_cannon]

It would be interesting having more than one kind of human running around.


There is no convincing evidence, says Richard G. Klein of Stanford University, that Neanderthals and modern humans ever mixed in substantial numbers, which means that when the Neanderthals died out, so did their genes.

Based on modern human sexual behavior, I doubt it stopped anyone trying.

[Always Free]

I must be psychic. Yesterday I happened to be thinking about Neanderthal and Modern Humans.

Anyway the documentary I saw a while back showed a skeleton that was found in the area where it is believed neanderthal and humans lived at the same time around the 40,000 yr mark.

From examinations of the bones---size of leg bones---thickness, length etc and the skull, the conclusion was drawn that this was an example of the offspring of the two species.

The leg bones were typical neanderthal--shorter, thicker than human but the skull was more human, smaller, 'finer' in shape.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Based on modern human sexual behavior, I doubt it stopped anyone trying."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is true.;)

But it's an interesting topic.

[Denise]

I remember that also, Always Free.

[Skeptoid]

Seems I remember reading somewhere that even if interbreeding did occur, the offspring would have been sterile.

[Denise]

Suffice it to say, that we don't know at this time if Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens interbred. We don't know enough about this yet. We know the Neanderthals died out, but we don't know if some of us have Neanderthal in us.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Denise
but we don't know if some of us have Neanderthal in us.

leave it alone fool, leave it alone :)

[Denise]

Originally posted by The Fool


leave it alone fool, leave it alone :)

Arr Arr Arr. Seriously though, we don't know if we intermixed. Geez! I like a little neanderthal in my man! Kidding!

[Badger]

Does anyone know how long it takes for a species to differentiate? What I mean is if Neanderthal and Homo Sapien Sapien split 500 000 years ago, is that long enough for them to become separate species, or merely different breeds?

[zakur]

Originally posted by Always Free
Anyway the documentary I saw a while back showed a skeleton that was found in the area where it is believed neanderthal and humans lived at the same time around the 40,000 yr mark.

From examinations of the bones---size of leg bones---thickness, length etc and the skull, the conclusion was drawn that this was an example of the offspring of the two species.

The leg bones were typical neanderthal--shorter, thicker than human but the skull was more human, smaller, 'finer' in shape.The alleged human-Neandertal hybrid was discovered in Portugal. There was a lot of controversy about it at the time (1999), and many said that a definitive answer could not really be made from a strictly morphological comparison - but that a comparison of mitochondrial DNA should be done. This most recent DNA study may have definitively answered that question.

I use 'definitively' hesitantly because we all know that's the great thing about science. With continued study in this area we'll learn much more and may revise theories of human origins even further.

Anyway, here's the abstract of that 1999 report (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10377462&dopt=Abstract):The early Upper Paleolithic human skeleton from the Abrigo do Lagar Velho (Portugal) and modern human emergence in Iberia.

Duarte C, Mauricio J, Pettitt PB, Souto P, Trinkaus E, van der Plicht H, Zilhao J.

Instituto Portugues do Patrimonio Arquitectonico, Divisao de Conservacao e Restauro, Palacio da Ajuda, 1400-206 Lisbon, Portugal.

The discovery of an early Upper Paleolithic human burial at the Abrigo do Lagar Velho, Portugal, has provided evidence of early modern humans from southern Iberia. The remains, the largely complete skeleton of a approximately 4-year-old child buried with pierced shell and red ochre, is dated to ca. 24,500 years B.P. The cranium, mandible, dentition, and postcrania present a mosaic of European early modern human and Neandertal features. The temporal bone has an intermediate-sized juxtamastoid eminence. The mandibular mentum osseum and the dental size and proportions, supported by mandibular ramal features, radial tuberosity orientation, and diaphyseal curvature, as well as the pubic proportions align the skeleton with early modern humans. Body proportions, reflected in femorotibial lengths and diaphyseal robusticity plus tibial condylar displacement, as well as mandibular symphyseal retreat and thoracohumeral muscle insertions, align the skeleton with the Neandertals. This morphological mosaic indicates admixture between regional Neandertals and early modern humans dispersing into southern Iberia. It establishes the complexities of the Late Pleistocene emergence of modern humans and refutes strict replacement models of modern human origins.

PMID: 10377462 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Badger
Does anyone know how long it takes for a species to differentiate? What I mean is if Neanderthal and Homo Sapien Sapien split 500 000 years ago, is that long enough for them to become separate species, or merely different breeds?
Check this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=15237) about a speciation event that happened pretty much overnight do to a chromosomal rearrangement that prevents inter-breeding. After that, the two species would drift apart over time due to randomness and selection.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Denise
Suffice it to say, that we don't know at this time if Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens interbred. We don't know enough about this yet. We know the Neanderthals died out, but we don't know if some of us have Neanderthal in us.
Can humans and succubi interbreed? I'd be willing to experiment.

[Baker]

Originally posted by zakur
The alleged human-Neandertal hybrid was discovered in Portugal. There was a lot of controversy about it at the time (1999), and many said that a definitive answer could not really be made from a strictly morphological comparison - but that a comparison of mitochondrial DNA should be done. This most recent DNA study may have definitively answered that question.

I use 'definitively' hesitantly because we all know that's the great thing about science. With continued study in this area we'll learn much more and may revise theories of human origins even further.

Anyway, here's the abstract of that 1999 report (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10377462&dopt=Abstract):

I wonder why CNN failed to mention that I recall hearing about it also but nothing has been said on it.

[Denise]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Can humans and succubi interbreed? I'd be willing to experiment.

I'll be over later...

[Always Free]

Originally posted by Denise
I remember that also, Always Free.

Hi Denise,

That was one well done documentary. I wish I could remember the name of it.
Maybe someone will find the dna of a neanderthal being in the fossilised sample of sap from a tree which grew thousands of years ago, which has encased a blood filled mosquito which had bitten the neanderthal man and landed on the sticky sap and was trapped. Then the dna could be used in the laboritory to create a--------Nah, that could never happen.;)

[Crossbow]

Some 20,000 years ago there were three different species of humans existing at the same time.

Due to major enviromental changes, many of the large mammals died out and the weather patterns underwent considerable change. Two of these three species were not able to adjust to these changes so they did not survive. However, one species, Homo Sapiens, was able to adjust to the changes and survive.

I think that fact is a big blind spot of the Creationists, in that they only see one species of humans now so they think that there has always only been one species of humans. However, at different times in history there have been two, or even three, different species living on Earth at the same time.

For more details on the facts, I reccomend the TalkOrigins web site.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Always Free

Maybe someone will find the dna of a neanderthal being in the fossilised sample of sap from a tree which grew thousands of years ago, which has encased a blood filled mosquito which had bitten the neanderthal man and landed on the sticky sap and was trapped. Then the dna could be used in the laboritory to create a--------Nah, that could never happen.;)
A pretty unlikely scenario.

Red blood cells do not have DNA, only white blood cells, so there's not much to start with.

Mosquito guts are filled with digestive enzymes, which would break down any DNA.

The time span involved (28K+ years) is at the long end of the scale for finding DNA samples at all. Bone marrow from fossils has been examined, and they have found some mitochondrial DNA, but not nuclear DNA, which is more fragile.

[BobM]

I think that fact is a big blind spot of the Creationists, in that they only see one species of humans now so they think that there has always only been one species of humans. However, at different times in history there have been two, or even three, different species living on Earth at the same time.Yeah.. but Creationists only go back about 6,000 years. You start saying "20,000 years ago, such and such" and they already know you are mistaken.

[Soapy Sam]

I think you're mistaken too.
By at least a factor of ten.

[Oso]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
I think you're mistaken too.
By at least a factor of ten. Or somewhere in between. Homo Erectus, Homo Sapien and Homo Neanderthalensis appear to have been contemporary with each other for 50-150 thousand years. Possibly as late as 30,000 years ago but almost surely 50,000 years ago. Homo Heidelbergensis appears to have gone extinct before Homo Sapiens or Homo Neanderthalensis. But maybe we just haven't found the right fossil yet. Four distinct human species, existing at the same time? WOW! Let's keep digging!
See:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by Badger
Does anyone know how long it takes for a species to differentiate? What I mean is if Neanderthal and Homo Sapien Sapien split 500 000 years ago, is that long enough for them to become separate species, or merely different breeds?


Evolution doesn't follow any particular speed rules.
Since we don't have an independent species of Neanderthal around today, the uestion might be moot. But my own theory is that while Neanderthals and Humans are capable of interbreeding, for the most part they avoid each other, and Neanderthals went on to become Republicans.:D

[c0rbin]

The real reason Neanderthals and humans didn't mix...

[Larspeart]

I am quite sure I have heard/read evidence of human and neaderthals living in the same areas at the same times. As far as interbreeding, I have also heard (mind you, this was three years ago) that the prevailing thought is that humans do indeed possess 'Thal' genes, or at least there is a good chance some do. I believe there is a colony of them residing in Brooklyn today actually. . . but I digress.

On a serious note, I can't see why not. I have no idea on the sterility issue, but if it wasn't a congenial encounter, and was more of a forced rape, then I can see it as plausible that humans and 'Thals' mixed. Imagine you are one of a few members of humans (or thals for that matter) and your tribe gets killed by some accident, rival tribe, dies from starving. you are all alone, and a tribe of neaderthals spots you. Evidence suggests we would look pretty similar. Ugly to each other, but I've seen some pretty ugly people out there as well, and THEY find mates. I just don't see it as being that remote a possibility.

Course, those are just my thoughts.

Then, if you ask Michael Chrichton, he believes they are STILL around, and live in remote parts of scandinavia. LOL

[Denise]

It seems to me that I saw a show, yeah I know a lot of these shows are not totally trying to show the truth, that Neanderthals did not have particular things by themselves, but when Homo Sapiens Sapiens moved in, the Neanderthals adopted some of their inventions.

So, I see no reason that they wouldn't have interbred as well. We succeeded as a species not only because of our brain power, but because of our social system that included compassion to a certain extent of our fellow tribesmen. People were taken care of, from what I understand, sometimes when they couldn't care for themselves. They have found remains of crippled humans that probably were unable to hunt, but their injuries were healed, so someone must have been taking care of them. Even if the Neanderthals did not take in humans, I bet the humans took in Neanderthals. Of course, I have no way of really knowing this!:D

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by c0rbin
The real reason Neanderthals and humans didn't mix...

Hm, looks like a politician...

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Denise

So, I see no reason that they wouldn't have interbred as well.
Because they would have found each other repulsive? I personally wouldn't have sex with another species, even on a drunken dare.

[Denise]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Because they would have found each other repulsive? I personally wouldn't have sex with another species, even on a drunken dare.

Oh come now! We have no idea really how they would have viewed each other, do we. After all, there is only one species of us on Earth right now. Dogs and wolves mate, aren't they different species?

Maybe the caveman homo would have found the cavewoman neanderthal "exotic!":D

[Oso]

Originally posted by Denise
Dogs and wolves mate...:D Hell, a friends got a dog that trys to mate with anything that gets close to it.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Denise

Oh come now! We have no idea really how they would have viewed each other, do we. After all, there is only one species of us on Earth right now. Dogs and wolves mate, aren't they different species?

Maybe the caveman homo would have found the cavewoman neanderthal "exotic!":D
Would you have sex with a chimpanzee?

My continued worship of you may depend on the answer.

[zakur]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Because they would have found each other repulsive? I personally wouldn't have sex with another species, even on a drunken dare. Not even a green skinned Orion slave girl (http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/trinidad/1487/)? ;)

[Kiri]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

I personally wouldn't have sex with another species, even on a drunken dare.

Myself, I'm partial to anything equine, but I'm a special case.

[Denise]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Would you have sex with a chimpanzee?

My continued worship of you may depend on the answer.

It seems to me that humans and neanderthals are far closer than humans and chimps!

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Denise

It seems to me that humans and neanderthals are far closer than humans and chimps!
Was that a Yes or a No?

[Denise]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Was that a Yes or a No?

No, I would not have sex with a chimpanzee. Call me crazy, but I would not have sex with most humans either!

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Denise

No, I would not have sex with a chimpanzee. Call me crazy, but I would not have sex with most humans either!
Now we're getting somewhere. Do you feel you could restrict yourself to just one human, if he were cute and rugged looking?




:D :D :D

[Denise]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Now we're getting somewhere. Do you feel you could restrict yourself to just one human, if he were cute and rugged looking?




:D :D :D


Hmmmmm..... not sure.:D

But seriously, don't you think that humans and neanderthals look enough alike that they might mate?

[Dymanic]

Wolf and dog are the same species. The domestic dog (Canis lupus familiarus) and wolf (Canis lupus) can freely interbreed and produce fertile offspring. The differences between domestic and wild dogs are no greater, genetically speaking, than the differences between two such diverse breeds as the Great Dane and the Chihuahua.

I don't think the genetic distance between humans and chimps is any greater than that between horses and zebras for instance, which have been sucessfully bred. Something I've wondered about is whether fertility grades off by degrees as genetic distance increases, making sucessful matings less and less likely, and finally impossible. Maybe the only reason we don't see any chimpumans walking around is that no one has been willing to make a sustained effort (that's probably a good thing).

It seems plausible to me that the genetic distance between Neandertals and humans would be even less.

[Denise]

http://animal.discovery.com/convergence/movie/wolf/facts/facts.html

Wolves and dogs are in the same family, however, they are different species. Humans and chimps cannot breed.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Denise
http://animal.discovery.com/convergence/movie/wolf/facts/facts.html

Wolves and dogs are in the same family, however, they are different species. Humans and chimps cannot breed.
The definition of "Species" is open to debate. Some people use the ability to inter-breed as a chief criterion.

[Badger]

National Geographic "morphed" a couple of pictures of an adult and a child, to match Neanderthal bone structure. The resultant images weren't all that strange looking.

I think that people have to keep in mind that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens shared the same range for tens of thousands of years, too. So it's not like they were trying to wipe eachother out in wars.

The appear to have co-existed for tens of thousands of years! We can't even co-exist amongst our own species for a few months. I find that an amazing concept.

[Dymanic]

Denise,

It is not hard to find conflicting views on the wolf/dog species/subspecies thing. Recently, dogs were reclassified as Canis lupus familiarus, recognizing their almost complete genetic identity to wolves.

Since they breed true (fertile hybrids), and since this is the common definition of species, most taxonomists today would classify them as the same species.

But of course the term "species" is itself the subject of much debate, and the term "subspecies" is not even considered meaningful by some.

[Denise]

http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/ligers2.html

Ligers!

[MRC_Hans]

This "fertile crosbreeding" speciation criteria is mainly theoretical. I mean, there's a couple of million species out there, how many do you think we have tried to cross-breed? ;)

Denise, what about Tions?

Hans

[Denise]

leetahs or teetahs, chions and chigers. Stop me!

[Denise]

Haven't there been mules that are not sterile?

[Denise]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
This "fertile crosbreeding" speciation criteria is mainly theoretical. I mean, there's a couple of million species out there, how many do you think we have tried to cross-breed? ;)

Denise, what about Tions?

Hans

And now, a silly moment for you!

http://www.jackalopejunction.com/Jackalopes_for.html

I might have to buy one, I've seen them in taverns. Never in the wild though:eek:

[Dymanic]

This "fertile crosbreeding" speciation criteria is mainly theoretical. I mean, there's a couple of million species out there, how many do you think we have tried to cross-breed?
Yes, that's pretty much the point I was trying to make.

Ornithologist Ernst Mayer illustrated this by likening species to watching an individual Paramecium in the process of division; at the beginning of this process, it is easy to say, "here is a single paramecium"; and at its end to say, "here are two"; but at any middle point in the process, the question is not so easy to answer.

[Kiri]

Originally posted by Denise
leetahs or teetahs, chions and chigers. Stop me!

Tions and ligers and beers, oh my!

[Denise]

Originally posted by Kiri


Tions and ligers and beers, oh my!

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

[Denise]

Originally posted by Dymanic

Yes, that's pretty much the point I was trying to make.

Ornithologist Ernst Mayer illustrated this by likening species to watching an individual Paramecium in the process of division; at the beginning of this process, it is easy to say, "here is a single paramecium"; and at its end to say, "here are two"; but at any middle point in the process, the question is not so easy to answer.

Don't you think it's fascinating to think what life would be like with a competing species? Us humans have been at the top of the food chain for so long. Would the Neanderthals have their own nations? Imagine the UN!

[zakur]

First camel-llama hybrid:

Rama the Cama (http://www.datadubai.com/cama1.htm)

http://www.datadubai.com/cama1.jpg

[Kiri]

Originally posted by Denise


Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

Professor Marvel- the original Ozzy!

This is tangential to this topic, but that never stops me:

A hot theological topic of the Middle Ages was whether or not sexual acts with demons would produce offspring. Apparently, this sort of thing happened all the time...

[Denise]

http://www.datadubai.com/images/camaa1.jpg

Rama the Cama as an adult. Cool!

[Kiri]

Originally posted by zakur
First camel-llama hybrid:

Rama the Cama (http://www.datadubai.com/cama1.htm)

http://www.datadubai.com/cama1.jpg

Incredibly cute! Wonder if it'll have humps?

[Denise]

We must have posted at the same time. Above is adult picture. No humps. Don't know if it is humping or has been humped either.:D

[Dymanic]

We must have posted at the same time. Above is adult picture.
I thought posting adult pictures was against forum rules.

[Kiri]

Originally posted by Denise
We must have posted at the same time. Above is adult picture. No humps. Don't know if it is humping or has been humped either.:D

You ARE a naughty girl, aren't you?

[Denise]

Ok Ok I give up!:D

[Kiri]

Originally posted by Denise
Ok Ok I give up!:D

Give up? I hadn't figured you for the submissive type...

[Alaric]

I cannot possibly see the problem with neandertals and sapien sapiens mating. Human family and tribal groupings would have adopted them no problem considering most of the differences between the two SEEMED to be behavioural(muscle mass was different so prey would be different). I remember reading about how Neadertal males would not hang around to guard the female after they did the hanky spanky...thus leading to terrible mortality rates. Apparently one of the advantages Homo Sapien um..Sapiens had was that male "stick around" factor. I can EASILY see a HSS male accept a neanderthal baby and mum into his family as long as she will carry one of his to term and since sticking around WAS part of his programming..its pretty ideal for the neanderthal female as well.
Im not sure the male neanderthals understood larger family structures so well since Neaderthal groups were much smaller ..but im damned sure some made the leap and became a useful part of the tribe. Remember...survival survival survival. Neanderthals were no dumber-just bigger. Thus they needed smaller hunting parties and were more territorial.

I also read that the larger noses we have in northern europe, the thick necks and chest size also come from Neanderthal ancestry. Now, if its been definatively proven that there was no mixing...evolution could simply have adopted those characteristics to survive certain conditions (shrugs).
For gods sakes I have a brow ridge and cannot fit in 95 percent of automobiles built...I refuse to beleive that my ancestors were the ONLY ones getting creative in the bedroom.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Alaric
I

I also read that the larger noses we have in northern europe, the thick necks and chest size also come from Neanderthal ancestry. Now, if its been definatively proven that there was no mixing...evolution could simply have adopted those characteristics to survive certain conditions (shrugs).


Thermoregulation: diiferent body types have different advantages when it come to thermoregulation.
Larger noses make sense in colder climates, to warm up the air travelling through the nose to the lungs.

Tall lanky people tend to have a harder time staying warm in cool climates. Short, stocky, "compact" bodies would be better suited to cool climates. Europeans traditionally were generally short and stocky with big noses, though there are now many exceptions with the advent of technology applied in our lives today.

Genes and environment both influence a populations physical traits as those with advantageous traits survive to pass on their genes. Homo Sapein Sapien in Europe may only superficially resemble Neanderthal in Europe as they quite likely adapted similiarly to the European climate.

[jj]

Originally posted by Denise
leetahs or teetahs, chions and chigers. Stop me!

Tigons and chigers and wears, OH MY!

(edited to say: Oh well, I guess that wasn't as original as I thought. Oh well. And I do like "beers" better than "wears". I was trying to come up with another ursid, there aren't that many.)

[jj]

Originally posted by Denise
Haven't there been mules that are not sterile?

Yes. They are, however, fairly rare, and most of their offspring don't seem to be fertile, usually.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Denise
http://animal.discovery.com/convergence/movie/wolf/facts/facts.html

Wolves and dogs are in the same family, however, they are different species. Humans and chimps cannot breed.

Denise,

I think Discovery got this one wrong. Although, to be fair, the classifications may have changed over time and I see a number of sources getting it wrong. Dogs and wolves are the same species. Dogs constitute a separate variety.
Wolves = Canis lupus
Dogs = Canis lupus familiaris

source (http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/canis/c._lupus_familiaris.html)

Cheers,

[Denise]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Denise,

I think Discovery got this one wrong. Although, to be fair, the classifications may have changed over time and I see a number of sources getting it wrong. Dogs and wolves are the same species. Dogs constitute a separate variety.
Wolves = Canis lupus
Dogs = Canis lupus familiaris

source (http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/canis/c._lupus_familiaris.html)

Cheers,

Thank you Bill. So, do we really know what a species is then? Neanderthals are supposed to be a different species, but it seems like the term can't even be agreed upon. Saying all hybrids are sterile is wrong, because not all hybrids are sterile. So, I don't think there is any way to know if there is Neanderthal in modern humans. By the way, this isn't directed just at you, but the forum. Some creationists claim that speciation has never been observed, but science can't even agree on definitions of the species can they?

[jj]

Originally posted by Denise


Thank you Bill. So, do we really know what a species is then? Neanderthals are supposed to be a different species, but it seems like the term can't even be agreed upon. Saying all hybrids are sterile is wrong, because not all hybrids are sterile. So, I don't think there is any way to know if there is Neanderthal in modern humans. By the way, this isn't directed just at you, but the forum. Some creationists claim that speciation has never been observed, but science can't even agree on definitions of the species can they?

It's a hard problem. You can get "ring species', and all sorts of things, because it's the genetic distance (for critters with the same number of chromosomes, at least) that matters.

A ring species is, for instance, a kind of bird where the birds that live in New Mexico can breed with the ones in Arizona and Texas. The ones in Texas can't breed with the ones in Arizona, but can breed with the ones in Oklahoma and Kansas. Those can breed with the ones in Nebraska and Wyoming. None live in Utah, it's way too dry there, btw, this is important :) The ones in Wyoming can breed with the ones in Montana and Idaho. Those with the ones in Oregon and Northern California, and those with the ones in Southern California.

But the ones from, say, Montana and NM won't breed at all.

What constitutes a species, in this case?

I have used a hypothetical example, but this kind of thing has been observed.

The whole problem is that when species or variants are close, they may be able to interbreed, while more physical distance may mean selection pressures will enforce different genetics, which means those can't, even though they both may be able to breed with the bunch in the middle, etc.

Ditto dogs, wolves, coyotes, ...

One thing interesting about dogs vs. wolves is that dogs seem to have instinctive wiring to understand human facial and physical attitudes, and wolves don't, according to some recent studies.

BUT having met a wolf-shepherd cross that was fertile, smart, and sneaker than (*&(**, and a wolf-newfie cross that was huge, hungry, and laid back to a fault, I knwo that wolves and dogs can cross pretty widely without much problem :) While the news is anecdotal, there appears to be some mixing of coyotes with domestic dogs as well. That's more speculative, I have only heard anecdotes. Given that I see coyotes loping down the road in North Redmond, the chance isn't too hard to imagine.

[zakur]

According to the Georgia DNR (http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/content/displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=91):If mated with dogs, a female coyote can produce a coyote/dog hybrid called a "coydog." However, this is uncommon due to the unsynchronized breeding cycles of the two species.And according to the Pennsylvania Game Commission (http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/PGC/wildlife/coyoteknow.htm):Coydogs were once believed to be found in good numbers in Pennsylvania, especially when our once-expanding coyote population was thought to be having difficulty finding same-species mates. Truth is, most of these so-called coydogs were probably coyotes or feral dogs, since the breeding cycles of dogs and coyotes are not synchronized. Studies have confirmed coyote-dog interbreeding rarely happens.And finally, from the New York Dept. of Environmental Conservation (http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/coyinny.htm):Coyotes and dogs theoretically can interbreed to produce what is called a ‘coydog'. However, these crossbreeds have a reproductive cycle of dogs, not coyotes, and will give birth at times of the year when the pups cannot possibly survive (i.e., January). In addition, there are behavioral differences between dogs and coyotes which prevent crossbreeding from occurring. Coyotes want to mate with other coyotes and not with dogs. Coyotes are actually more likely to prey upon a domestic dog instead of mating with it. It is in this manner that dog genes are prevented from entering the gene pool of true coyotes, maintaining the two separate species. Coydogs occurred at the leading edge of coyote range expansion during the 1950 to early 1970's. The occurrence of a coydog would be an extremely rare event in New York today.Coyotes are fascinating creatures. I'm partial to wolves, though. ;)

[Dymanic]

When we start getting into coyotes, jackals, and foxes, it is a different matter. The coyote is considered to be a different species, Canis latrans.

It is in this manner that dog genes are prevented from entering the gene pool of true coyotes, maintaining the two separate species.
The fact that in this case, the hybrids are sterile probably helps a lot, too.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Denise


Thank you Bill. So, do we really know what a species is then? Neanderthals are supposed to be a different species, but it seems like the term can't even be agreed upon. Saying all hybrids are sterile is wrong, because not all hybrids are sterile. So, I don't think there is any way to know if there is Neanderthal in modern humans. By the way, this isn't directed just at you, but the forum. Some creationists claim that speciation has never been observed, but science can't even agree on definitions of the species can they?

There are differing definitions of species, but mostly for pragmatic reasons.

With asexually reproducing organisms, the definition is a) clear morphological differences or b) 10% difference in genome.

With sexually reproducing organisms, the definition is the lack of ability to interbreed to produce viable offspring.

When talking about Neanderthals, however, we have a problem, because there aren't any to test-mate. There the calls are made based on morphology rather than on the genes.

Cheers

[Denise]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


There are differing definitions of species, but mostly for pragmatic reasons.

With asexually reproducing organisms, the definition is a) clear morphological differences or b) 10% difference in genome.

With sexually reproducing organisms, the definition is the lack of ability to interbreed to produce viable offspring.

When talking about Neanderthals, however, we have a problem, because there aren't any to test-mate. There the calls are made based on morphology rather than on the genes.

Cheers

How much of Neanderthal DNA do we have? I've heard that we have mitochondrial DNA. I'm not sure how much we would need in able to say for sure, that we could not have interbred. What is morphology? Is that like the DNA tests that amplify the sample like PCR?

What do you mean by viable offspring? Offspring that live, or offspring that can breed? Hasn't there always been examples of offsprings that can breed? Not many, but one here or there?

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Denise


How much of Neanderthal DNA do we have? I've heard that we have mitochondrial DNA. I'm not sure how much we would need in able to say for sure, that we could not have interbred. What is morphology? Is that like the DNA tests that amplify the sample like PCR?

What do you mean by viable offspring? Offspring that live, or offspring that can breed? Hasn't there always been examples of offsprings that can breed? Not many, but one here or there?
If you go back to the opening post and follow the link, you'll find that studies to date consistently show that we do not share mitochondrial DNA with Neanderthals.

Morphology is shape, i.e. body shape.

For purposes of the current discussion, offspring which can breed would be the best interpretation. The prevalence of this depends on which two species you are crossing. Fertile mules are pretty rare, but I recall reading about one last year. Sapiens- Neanderthal hybrids - who knows?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


There are differing definitions of species, but mostly for pragmatic reasons.


Pragmatic being a better scientific term than "god-of-the-gaps".

The data that we have is clear; evolution does not occur bit-by-bit, rather in quantum jumps. The problem then is how/why do a fertile male-female pair that breed true occur same time/same place and on so many occasions.

Nothing like the religion of "scientism". ;)

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by hammegk


Pragmatic being a better scientific term than "god-of-the-gaps".

The data that we have is clear; evolution does not occur bit-by-bit, rather in quantum jumps. The problem then is how/why do a fertile male-female pair that breed true occur same time/same place and on so many occasions.

Nothing like the religion of "scientism". ;)

I was very specific with the reasoning for differing definitions. Perhaps you could contest one of those specific points?

Cheers,

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk

The data that we have is clear; evolution does not occur bit-by-bit, rather in quantum jumps. The problem then is how/why do a fertile male-female pair that breed true occur same time/same place and on so many occasions.


That's exactly what the evidence does not show.

Try again. Methinks you're in De Nile.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Denise


Don't you think it's fascinating to think what life would be like with a competing species? Us humans have been at the top of the food chain for so long. Would the Neanderthals have their own nations? Imagine the UN! Actually, it seems that there were a number of competing pre-hominids. Then there may have been a selection race, first leaving only Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalis, then finally only Homo Sapiens (Sapiens). One could speculate that our tendency to racism and xenofobia is a relict instinct from such time as there really WERE "not our kind" people.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Alaric
I cannot possibly see the problem with neandertals and sapien sapiens mating. Human family and tribal groupings would have adopted them no problem considering most of the differences between the two SEEMED to be behavioural(muscle mass was different so prey would be different). I remember reading about how Neadertal males would not hang around to guard the female after they did the hanky spanky...thus leading to terrible mortality rates. Apparently one of the advantages Homo Sapien um..Sapiens had was that male "stick around"

*snip*

Been reading Jean Auel, have you? Actually we know very little about the mating and family habits of either Cro Magnon or Neanderthal. But we do have indications that Neandertals lived in familiy groups and had a religious culture (burial rituals).

Hans

[Badger]

One thing to keep in mind about Neanderthals and Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH)is that, when referring to competition, they lived in the same areas for thousands of years.

This makes me think that the difference in adaptation to the environment wasn't all that great, between the two groups. It also makes me think that there were no genocidal tendencies between them.

I think these things due to the timeframe involved in replacement of one by the other. If AMH's out competed N's for resources, they would have had to avoided eachother completely or there would have been territorial conflict for resources. If there were genocidal tendencies, AMH has a history of making species extinct in a whole lot less time than AMH and N existed together.

Another thing to mention is the statistical aspects of difference in mtDNA that the comparisons done so far show. First point is that there can be greater difference between modern individuals mtDNA than there is between neanderthal mtDNA and AMH mtDNA (think bell curve here). Second point is that as far as I know only 2 samples of Neanderthal mtDNA have been compared to average AMH mtDNA. This is only 2 individuals out of the population of Neanderthals compared to the generic mtDNA for many more samples of us. The sample poplulation is too small to be definitive at this time. More tests need to be done.

And finally, my personal little theory is that maybe mtDNA was the mutation that gave "us" the advantage over "them". mtDNA comes from mitochondria, which are responsible for converting nutrients to energy within a cell. As such, if "we" had slightly more efficient mitochondria than "them", we would eventually out compete "them". If there's a famine and my mitochondria can generate more energy from the same food than yours can, I'll be more likely to survive the famine. But I have little to base my theory on, so take it for what it's worth......electrons hitting the screen in front of you.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by hammegk

The data that we have is clear; evolution does not
occur bit-by-bit, rather in quantum jumps.

I don't think it is necessarily all that clear, but it is possible to make a convincing argument in that general direction. It seems to depend a lot on which data you look at and what you mean by 'jumps'. No 'hopeful monsters'--that much is clear. Macromutation produces dead or doomed organisms at best, aborted fetuses more often.

But the fossil record still doesn't give up much in the way of the transitional forms which the gradualist model would lead us to expect.

[Mark]

This makes me think that the difference in adaptation to the environment wasn't all that great, between the two groups. It also makes me think that there were no genocidal tendencies between them.

I have trouble with this conclusion. By only checking burial sites, one might conclude that blacks and whites have never had any animosity towards each other either. Or Aryans against Jews or whatever. But clearly there have been genocidal conflicts amongst homo sapiens. How can we know there were not between sapiens and neanderthals? Or am I missing something?

[Badger]

Originally posted by Mark
This makes me think that the difference in adaptation to the environment wasn't all that great, between the two groups. It also makes me think that there were no genocidal tendencies between them.

I have trouble with this conclusion. By only checking burial sites, one might conclude that blacks and whites have never had any animosity towards each other either. Or Aryans against Jews or whatever. But clearly there have been genocidal conflicts amongst homo sapiens. How can we know there were not between sapiens and neanderthals? Or am I missing something?

My thought is based on timeframe and technology. First, they existed together for many thousands of years. If there was genocide, one group would have eliminated the other in a shorter time period than that. Second, both groups had the same tools, and skills (same type of stone tools and hunting/survival skills) so would be fairly evenly matched so no group appears to have had a technological upper hand and thus an advantage.

By checking burial sites, differences in technology between blacks and whites can be discovered, mainly due to the quality of clothing they were buried in, and the things they were buried with. I'm talking about from approx 100 yrs ago on back. I agree with you about applying it to the present day, though.

With regards to arayans and Jews, I agree with you, speaking strictly from burial evidence. However, this is where time scale comes in to play. Again, in my opinion.

[Mark]

My thought is based on timeframe and technology.

Thanks, Badger. I don't know why I find the subject of Neanderthals so interesting, but I do. Of course, some on this board would probably say it's because I am one.

[Badger]

Originally posted by Mark
My thought is based on timeframe and technology.

Thanks, Badger. I don't know why I find the subject of Neanderthals so interesting, but I do. Of course, some on this board would probably say it's because I am one.

You and me both! :)

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Because they would have found each other repulsive? I personally wouldn't have sex with another species, even on a drunken dare.

Come on! Everyone knows the other sex IS another species.

[daver]

Originally posted by Denise



Hmmmmm..... not sure.:D

But seriously, don't you think that humans and neanderthals look enough alike that they might mate?

Neanderthals are likely a lot closer to human than some of the things humans have tried to f*ck (mating to me implies intercourse with the expectation of offspring). So unless the sexual organs had teeth or barbs, i would expect some interspecies humping. Maybe not mutually consensual.

Someone told me that there is a wide variation in penis sizes among the various primates. I haven't checked on this. It could be that neanderthals were enough different that interspecies intercourse wouldn't be very satisfying, and indeed potentially damaging.

[LW]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Because they would have found each other repulsive? I personally wouldn't have sex with another species, even on a drunken dare.
The late paleontologist Björn Kurten had an interesting hypothesis on the subject (He didn't want to call it a theory since there's absolutely no hard evidence to support it). His suggestion was that probably neanderthals would have found cro-magnon people more attractive than vice versa. The reason for this is that modern humans have more "baby-like" features. In a same way that we find a puppy cute because its proportions are close those of a baby (large forehead, etc.), a neanderthal might found an adult human cute.

Speculating further, this might make cro-magnon - neanderhal hybrids (if there could be one) more common in neanderhal groups since they would be more likely to adopt a member of different species. Moreover, if the hybrids were sterile and reasonably commmon, they could be a contributing factor to the decline of neanderthals.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by LW

The late paleontologist Björn Kurten had an interesting hypothesis on the subject (He didn't want to call it a theory since there's absolutely no hard evidence to support it). His suggestion was that probably neanderthals would have found cro-magnon people more attractive than vice versa. The reason for this is that modern humans have more "baby-like" features. In a same way that we find a puppy cute because its proportions are close those of a baby (large forehead, etc.), a neanderthal might found an adult human cute.

Speculating further, this might make cro-magnon - neanderhal hybrids (if there could be one) more common in neanderhal groups since they would be more likely to adopt a member of different species. Moreover, if the hybrids were sterile and reasonably commmon, they could be a contributing factor to the decline of neanderthals.

If you go back to the original post, though, LW, you will see that Mitochondrial DNA analysis fails to show we have any Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA. It points instead to a common ancestor of Neanderthals and humans. So far, then, the evidence refutes any interbreeding hypothesis.

Cheers,

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


If you go back to the original post, though, LW, you will see that Mitochondrial DNA analysis fails to show we have any Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA. It points instead to a common ancestor of Neanderthals and humans. So far, then, the evidence refutes any interbreeding hypothesis.

Cheers,

I think it only refutes the gene "dilution" hypothesis, not the one LW was talking about. If the hybrids where sterile, no DNA would have been passed to future generations.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Megalodon


I think it only refutes the gene "dilution" hypothesis, not the one LW was talking about. If the hybrids where sterile, no DNA would have been passed to future generations.

If the hypothesis includes assumptions about this cross-mating being "reasonably common" and "contributing to the decline" of Neanderthals, then one would expect to find hybrid fossils, some showing human mitochondria, others showing Neanderthal.

Cheers,

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


If the hypothesis includes assumptions about this cross-mating being "reasonably common" and "contributing to the decline" of Neanderthals, then one would expect to find hybrid fossils, some showing human mitochondria, others showing Neanderthal.

Cheers,

But that would only apply if there were a large number of fossils to begin with, which I don't think happens.

[LW]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

If the hypothesis includes assumptions about this cross-mating being "reasonably common" and "contributing to the decline" of Neanderthals, then one would expect to find hybrid fossils, some showing human mitochondria, others showing Neanderthal.
Badger mentioned that a grand total of two Neanderthal have been examined for mDNA thus far, so the sample size is very low. Also, some suspected hybrid fossils (http://www.archaeology.org/magazine.php?page=9907/newsbriefs/hybrid) have been found. Anyway, the future finds will hopefully shed more light on relationship between the two human species.

Kurten had also other interesting stuff in his books. In one of them he compared few stone-age cave pictures depicting realistically-drawn women (instead of usual stone-age stick figures) to modern pictures in men's magazines. He managed to find a modern duplicate for each stone-age picture. And this happened before the internet.

[Mark]

Badger mentioned that a grand total of two Neanderthal have been examined for mDNA thus far, so the sample size is very low. Also, some suspected hybrid fossils have been found. Anyway, the future finds will hopefully shed more light on relationship between the two human species.

Sounds like any conclusion is a bit premature at this point. Researchers really should be examining some of my cousins, though. :D

[NoZed Avenger]

This thread title is abosolutely wrong -- has Baker never seen a fraternity mixer in his life?

NA

[BillHoyt]

Megalodon:
But that would only apply if there were a large number of fossils to begin with, which I don't think happens.
True, but see LW's latest post.
LW:
Badger mentioned that a grand total of two Neanderthal have been examined for mDNA thus far, so the sample size is very low. Also, some suspected hybrid fossils have been found. Anyway, the future finds will hopefully shed more light on relationship between the two human species.
Yes, the numbers are small, but the results are already significant. They point to a common ancestor. You have to keep in mind that there is no recombination with mitochondrial DNA and that it is inherited strictly from the mother.
mark:
Sounds like any conclusion is a bit premature at this point. Researchers really should be examining some of my cousins, though.
And a lot of guys at bars tonight.

Cheers,

[LW]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Yes, the numbers are small, but the results are already significant. They point to a common ancestor. You have to keep in mind that there is no recombination with mitochondrial DNA and that it is inherited strictly from the mother.
I might have been more clear in my post. I took it for granted that modern humans and Neanderthals had a common ancestor. The thing is, that one point of the time (or perhaps the "point" is wrong word here) two human groups got separated from each other. One of them became ancestors of Neanderthals and one the ancestors of modern men. Before this separation they could interbreed. For some time after this separation they could have done that, but for some reason (probably because of geographical separation) they didn't, and thus they evolved into different directions.

Now, whether the groups stayed genetically close enough with each other that they could still interbreed after meeting each other again is the question. There's some evidence that they did but, as far as I know, the evidence is not conclusive. The lack of clear Neanderthal features in modern humans suggests that if interbreeding happened, the hybrid lines died out for a reason or other. Sterility is one possible explanation.

[jj]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


If you go back to the original post, though, LW, you will see that Mitochondrial DNA analysis fails to show we have any Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA. It points instead to a common ancestor of Neanderthals and humans. So far, then, the evidence refutes any interbreeding hypothesis.

Cheers,


No, it means that Neanderthal females didn't breed with human males. Mitochondrial DNA comes from the female.

It says NOTHING about the possibility of a human female fathering a hybrid.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by jj

No, it means that Neanderthal females didn't breed with human males. Mitochondrial DNA comes from the female.

It says NOTHING about the possibility of a human female fathering a hybrid.
Right on the first point. Regarding the second point: at the pub a bit early tonight, jj?

Cheers,

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by jj

No, it means that Neanderthal females didn't breed with human males. Mitochondrial DNA comes from the female.

It says NOTHING about the possibility of a human female fathering a hybrid.
SIG! SIG! SIG!
:D

[BillHoyt]

LW:
I might have been more clear in my post. I took it for granted that modern humans and Neanderthals had a common ancestor. The thing is, that one point of the time (or perhaps the "point" is wrong word here) two human groups got separated from each other. One of them became ancestors of Neanderthals and one the ancestors of modern men. Before this separation they could interbreed. For some time after this separation they could have done that, but for some reason (probably because of geographical separation) they didn't, and thus they evolved into different directions.

Now, whether the groups stayed genetically close enough with each other that they could still interbreed after meeting each other again is the question. There's some evidence that they did but, as far as I know, the evidence is not conclusive. The lack of clear Neanderthal features in modern humans suggests that if interbreeding happened, the hybrid lines died out for a reason or other. Sterility is one possible explanation.
LW,

I agree these are all possibilities. Without persuasive genetic evidence, though, my take is that the "they never again interbred" hypothesis is the more probable. The possible existence of a Neanderthal-human fossil starts to tilt this equation away from that hypothesis. What we would need to know is the mtDNA sequence of this fossil. If it matches human mtDNA, that would suggest a human female mated with a neanderthal male. If it matches neanderthal mtDNA, it gives us no new (non-morphological) information.

Cheers,

[jj]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Right on the first point. Regarding the second point: at the pub a bit early tonight, jj?

Cheers,

heh.

YOU NOTICED! :D :D :D

I was waiting, I was waiting!

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by jj


heh.

YOU NOTICED! :D :D :D

I was waiting, I was waiting!

You're conversing with a giant, blinking, telescopic eye and you expect otherwise? :D

[jj]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


You're conversing with a giant, blinking, telescopic eye and you expect otherwise? :D

Heh, then you're conversing with WHAT, Bill? :D

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by jj


Heh, then you're conversing with WHAT, Bill? :D

A talking head, obviously...

[jj]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


A talking head, obviously...

And this round goes to BillHoyt by knockout!

(still laughing)

[arcticpenguin]

There is a new study out on Cro Magnon DNA. http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2003/512/1 (subscription required)

Someone analyzed the DNA from 25000 year old Cro Magnon bones.

The DNA sequences from the Paglicci specimens fell "well within" the range of variation of modern humans, and "differ sharply" from findings on three Neandertals that have been published so far, the authors report online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences this week.
...
Some scientists are thrilled at the results. This work is "another nail in the coffin" of the multiregional hypothesis, says Stanford University anthropologist Richard Klein. But others point out that it's impossible to be 100% certain whose DNA they've got. Fred Smith of Loyola University in Chicago, who is sympathetic to multiregionalism, says that despite all the precautions the authors took, "no protocol exists that will prove these sequences are authentically ancient DNA and not more recent contamination."


The issue of contamination will always be present with PCR. But this is clearly more evidence against Neandertal ancestry of modern humans and the multiregional hypothesis.

[Genghis Pwn]

It happened all the time...

http://www.innervisioncomics.com/images/marcus/neanderthallovelarge.jpg


By the way, seeing this picture makes me think we might want to start by investigating modern pro wrestlers...

http://members.iinet.net.au/~chawkins/neander2.2.gif