Fairytale?

[Schroeder]

For once, amazingly, I have to agree with Schroeder. The word, "race" can mean any number of lineages, but the most common misuse of that is to equate it to subspecies, which hasn't applied since at least the last 30,000 years or so. Genetically, we are indestinguishable in as much as it is impossible to simply look at someone's genome and decide which continent their ancestors came from.

HOLY COW. I am SHOCKED. i dont know what to say. But can you PROVE that we had subspecies in the past besides just claiming a fossil looked close to us.

 

[Schroeder]

You're confusing "race" with "species". There are actual races, which we define by inheritable physical traits. If we continued to live in complete isolation without breeding between groups, given enough time we would see speciation to two or more human species. That could still happen if, for instance, we send groups off on "generation ships" to colonise distant planets but can't easily send people between different inhabited worlds.

what ARON- RA said. and you cant prove what your saying. your saying it only because of what you believe. there are groups that have lived in VERY ISOLATED places and they are the same as you and me genetically which is waht the theory is supposed to be all about. even though it is not. evolution is about genetics. I find it odd we seem to be the ONLY "animal" that doesnt speciate even when there are i am sure many the same age or younger then we(in terms of the thoery and evolution process).

 

[Schroeder]

I have read this sentence three times and still have no idea what you are talking about. Other species have many types of species?

like ring species that can not breed anymore. SORRY my grammer is very bad.

 

[Tomk80]

what ARON- RA said. and you cant prove what your saying. your saying it only because of what you believe. there are groups that have lived in VERY ISOLATED places and they are the same as you and me genetically which is waht the theory is supposed to be all about. even though it is not. evolution is about genetics. I find it odd we seem to be the ONLY "animal" that doesnt speciate even when there are i am sure many the same age or younger then we(in terms of the thoery and evolution process).

Speciation requires isolation. Humans have always been a trading and traveling species, meaning that there has always been cross-over between most human populations. This makes isolation very hard, which in turn makes speciation very hard.

 

[tanzanos]

Neanderthal man became extinct and thus we are not a continuation of his lineage. They were a different albeit closely related species.

 

[Aron-Ra]

HOLY COW. I am SHOCKED. i dont know what to say. But can you PROVE that we had subspecies in the past besides just claiming a fossil looked close to us.

Yes. In paleontology, having sufficiently distinctive morphology is the only determinant to identify different species, and that is, admittedly, a bit subjective. We can't say for sure whether Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Kenyanthropus, and/or any of the Australopiths were in fact different species or merely different versions or stages of the same one.

But in the biology of animals, speciation is determined by whether two recognizeably distinct populations can and will interbreed. It they either can't, (because they're physically or genetically incompatible) or they still wouldn't even if they could, then we can consider them different species. We can't really know whether that was the case with Neandertals, so we can't say conclusively whether they were Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. But the criteria for subspecies is a lot less strict, and equates to a "breed" in dogs. Each member of the subject population must share some trait with every other member of that population, and that trait must be unique to that group, not shared with any member of the alternative group. And of course the alternate group should have their own unique distinction shared amongst all of them that isn't present in any member of the subject group.

The earliest neandertals were already distinguishable from Archaic Homo sapiens. But later groups diverged much more significantly so that we may have the makings of a speciation, but we definitely already have a separate subspecies.
:

The more recent Neanderthals consistently had a stockier build, stronger deeper jaw, broader nasal cavity, and a pronounced brow ridge with no forehead to speak of. This was in common with Homo erectus, "father" to both Sapiens and Neanderthals. Both of the daughter species had larger brains than erectus, but Neanderthal brains were actually larger than ours! Although their frontal lobe may not have been as well-developed, and this may account in part for the lack of artistic expression found in Neanderthal homesites. But yes, at the very least, Neanderthals were a distinct subspecies, if not an entirely different species by the time they went extinct.

 

[Loudmouth]

But in the biology of animals, speciation is determined by whether two recognizeably distinct populations can and will interbreed. It they either can't, (because they're physically or genetically incompatible) or they still wouldn't even if they could, then we can consider them different species. We can't really know whether that was the case with Neandertals, so we can't say conclusively whether they were Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

What we do know is that there was no detectable gene flow between known Neanderthal DNA samples and co-existing H. sapiens. The first evidence was from hypervariable regions in mitochondrial DNA which can lead to false conclusions. However, the neanderthal genome is being sequenced and the latest data supports the mitDNA results. We will never know whether or not neanderthals and anatomically modern humans COULD produce viable offspring. What we do know is that they didn't in enough numbers to show up in either populations genome.

Sequencing and analysis of Neanderthal genomic DNA.

Noonan JP, Coop G, Kudaravalli S, Smith D, Krause J, Alessi J, Chen F, Platt D, Pääbo S, Pritchard JK, Rubin EM.

U.S. Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute, 2800 Mitchell Drive, Walnut Creek, CA 94598, USA.

Our knowledge of Neanderthals is based on a limited number of remains and artifacts from which we must make inferences about their biology, behavior, and relationship to ourselves. Here, we describe the characterization of these extinct hominids from a new perspective, based on the development of a Neanderthal metagenomic library and its high-throughput sequencing and analysis. Several lines of evidence indicate that the 65,250 base pairs of hominid sequence so far identified in the library are of Neanderthal origin, the strongest being the ascertainment of sequence identities between Neanderthal and chimpanzee at sites where the human genomic sequence is different. These results enabled us to calculate the human-Neanderthal divergence time based on multiple randomly distributed autosomal loci. Our analyses suggest that on average the Neanderthal genomic sequence we obtained and the reference human genome sequence share a most recent common ancestor approximately 706,000 years ago, and that the human and Neanderthal ancestral populations split approximately 370,000 years ago, before the emergence of anatomically modern humans. Our finding that the Neanderthal and human genomes are at least 99.5% identical led us to develop and successfully implement a targeted method for recovering specific ancient DNA sequences from metagenomic libraries. This initial analysis of the Neanderthal genome advances our understanding of the evolutionary relationship of Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis and signifies the dawn of Neanderthal genomics.

PMID: 17110569 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

and . . .

Analysis of one million base pairs of Neanderthal DNA.

Green RE, Krause J, Ptak SE, Briggs AW, Ronan MT, Simons JF, Du L, Egholm M, Rothberg JM, Paunovic M, Pääbo S.

Max-Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany. green@eva.mpg.de

Neanderthals are the extinct hominid group most closely related to contemporary humans, so their genome offers a unique opportunity to identify genetic changes specific to anatomically fully modern humans. We have identified a 38,000-year-old Neanderthal fossil that is exceptionally free of contamination from modern human DNA. Direct high-throughput sequencing of a DNA extract from this fossil has thus far yielded over one million base pairs of hominoid nuclear DNA sequences. Comparison with the human and chimpanzee genomes reveals that modern human and Neanderthal DNA sequences diverged on average about 500,000 years ago. Existing technology and fossil resources are now sufficient to initiate a Neanderthal genome-sequencing effort.

Back to Aron-Ra:

The more recent Neanderthals consistently had a stockier build, stronger deeper jaw, broader nasal cavity, and a pronounced brow ridge with no forehead to speak of. This was in common with Homo erectus, "father" to both Sapiens and Neanderthals. Both of the daughter species had larger brains than erectus, but Neanderthal brains were actually larger than ours! Although their frontal lobe may not have been as well-developed, and this may account in part for the lack of artistic expression found in Neanderthal homesites. But yes, at the very least, Neanderthals were a distinct subspecies, if not an entirely different species by the time they went extinct.

Thought you might be interested in this abstract:

Neanderthal, Chimp and Human Genomes: Hypotheses wanted for research into brain evolution.
Erren TC, Cullen P, Erren M.

Institute and Policlinic for Occupational and Social Medicine, School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, D-50937 Köln, Lindenthal, Germany.

The recent sequencing of Neanderthal DNA and the release of drafts of human and chimp genomes in 2001 and 2005, respectively, provide an opportunity to better understand why our brain is different from those of extinct and living relatives. However, it is not clear that hypothesis-free analysis of genetic differences alone will shed light on the complex "big bang" evolution of human brains that is thought to have taken place about 100,000 years ago. Rather than pursuing black box genomics, we suggest that genetic analyses should be guided by hypotheses. One plausible candidate in this regard is the"fat-utilization" hypothesis proposed by the late David Horrobin.

I am looking forward to further sequencing of the Neanderthal genome hoping that they will hit genes like foxp2 which is known to be linked to human speech. From here

Dr. Paabo believes that genetic analysis is the best hope of doing so. He has paid particular attention to a gene known as FOXP2, which from its mutated forms in people seems to be involved in several advanced aspects of language. The human version of the gene differs at two sites from the chimp version. Knowing whether the sequence of the Neanderthal gene is closer to chimps or humans would help decide whether they had advanced speech like people or some lesser form of communication, perhaps without syntax.​

 

[RichardT]

Homo Neanderthals could reproduce with us. They were of the same species.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070403-china-human.html

 

[gluadys]

Homo Neanderthals could reproduce with us. They were of the same specie.

I take it you mean "species".

Neither 'sapiens' nor 'neandertalensis' are coins.


spe·cie (spsh, -s)
n.
Coined money; coin.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/specie

 

[RichardT]

I take it you mean "species".

Neither 'sapiens' nor 'neandertalensis' are coins.


spe·cie (spsh, -s)
n.
Coined money; coin.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/specie

Yes. Thank you for pointing out the error in my ways. Without your correction no one would have an idea of what I was talking about.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Yes. Thank you for pointing out the error in my ways. Without your correction no one would have an idea of what I was talking about.

What difference would it make to you whether Neandertals were a subspecies or their own species?

 

[ReverendDG]

Homo Neanderthals could reproduce with us. They were of the same species.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070403-china-human.html

sorry but this doesn't really imply what you think it does

However, he is unconvinced that the skeletal analysis is proof of interbreeding between early modern humans from Africa and more archaic species.

being able to breed at all doesn't mean they are the same species
it means they still can if they have to, but Neanderthals are not homo sapien sapiens!

 

[Loudmouth]

Homo Neanderthals could reproduce with us. They were of the same species.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070403-china-human.html

Viable hybrids is not a criteria for two populations being the same species. It is whether or not they do interbreed in enough numbers to sustain gene flow between the populations. As it stands right now, this did not happen. Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA can not be found in modern human populations, nor can it be found in anatomically modern humans (AMH's) who coexisted with neanderthals. With 1 million bases of the neanderthal DNA and the complete human geneom in the books it is quite plain that no neanderthal DNA is found in today's human population.

Did these two species produce hybrids on rare occasions? It's very possible. Were neanderthals and AMH's interfertile? They probably were. Did they interbreed with any regularity? The evidence thus far emphatically says no.

There are many non-human species that also fit this bill. For example, wolves and coyotes can produce viable and fertile hybrids. However, they don't interbreed in the wild. They are two different species.

 

[LittleNipper]

Errr, that's not how evolution works, Nipper.

And I think that defining features, such as skin color and whatnot, aren't exactly a sign of complexity.

And what about IQs. Did you know that blacks score lower as a whole on all IQ tests? Does that make them inferior or borderline human? On the whole Orientals score the highest on aptitute test and blacks the lowest. What does that reveal to you? Are Blacks as a group inferior according to the figures? Do figures lie? And if the above is in error (somwhow), how can we trust that all the evolution data is not also corrupt as well? Can the figures be misleading?

 

[Aron-Ra]

And what about IQs. Did you know that blacks score lower as a whole on all IQ tests? Does that make them inferior or borderline human? On the whole Orientals score the highest on aptitute test and blacks the lowest. What does that reveal to you? Are Blacks as a group inferior according to the figures? Do figures lie? And if the above is in error (somwhow), how can we trust that all the evolution data is not also corrupt as well? Can the figures be misleading?

Asian culture leans more toward education, and their schools are a lot more efficient than American schools, especially those schools in the predominantly "minority" areas. This says more about American culture than any actual difference between races.

I wonder why it is that creationists say that evolutionists are racist? Is it another case of the pot calling the silverware black?

 

[LittleNipper]

Asian culture leans more toward education, and their schools are a lot more efficient than American schools, especially those schools in the predominantly "minority" areas. This says more about American culture than any actual difference between races.

I wonder why it is that creationists say that evolutionists are racist? Is it another case of the pot calling the silverware black?

Evolutionists are racists. The Founder of Planned Parenthood and Henry Ford were ardent Facists and Evolutionists. It is all about placing man at the top of the heap and finding the smartest and the greatest to idolize-----in the name of Science.... That doesn't explain IQs of whites, blacks and asians in the United States....

 

[Molal]

Evolutionists are racists. The Founder of Planned Parenthood and Henry Ford were ardent Facists and Evolutionists. It is all about placing man at the top of the heap and finding the smartest and the greatest to idolize-----in the name of Science.... That doesn't explain IQs of whites, blacks and asians in the United States....

These types of arguments lead no-where. For every good or bad point you may bring we can bring up as many.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Evolutionists are racists. The Founder of Planned Parenthood and Henry Ford were ardent Facists and Evolutionists. It is all about placing man at the top of the heap and finding the smartest and the greatest to idolize-----in the name of Science.... That doesn't explain IQs of whites, blacks and asians in the United States....

I am an evolutionist, and I am not racist. Nor is any evolutionist I know. But nearly every creationist I know is racist, and sexist, and nationalist, adhering to as many prejudices at one time as possible. Which is why you say stupid things that don't make any sense. Who or whatever Ford or Planned Parenthood are is irrelevant. But science definitely does not have any man on the top of any heap. Nor do they idolize anyone. There is no leader of science. But that doesn't matter to you because truth doesn't matter to you.

 

[LittleNipper]

These types of arguments lead no-where. For every good or bad point you may bring we can bring up as many.

If that is true, why not simply get on GOD's side instead of promoting man.

 

[Edx]

If that is true, why not simply get on GOD's side instead of promoting man.

Here I will correct the above:

"If that is true, why not simply get on a book written by mens side instead of promoting man."

No need to thank me.