Neanderthal-Human interbreeding

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Neandertal Genome Study Reveals That We Have a Little Caveman in Us: Scientific American

This is from Scientific American which is a fairly legitimate magazine.

If Neanderthal's interbred with humans does that mean that Neanderthal's might as well be classified as humans or do they still require a separate definition?

This also muddies the waters for creationists even more.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

If Neanderthal's interbred with humans does that mean that Neanderthal's might as well be classified as humans or do they still require a separate definition?

The ability to interbreed is not a sufficient condition to declare two populations to be the same species (although the corrollary, the inability to interbreed, would be enough to separate them). There are still too many physical distinctions (skull shape, bone and muscle structure, size, speech) and behavioral distinctions (art, trade) to consider them the same. In addition, their genetic history indicates they left Africa much, much earlier than homo sapiens. We are their cousins, but we are not the same.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

If Neanderthal's interbred with humans does that mean that Neanderthal's might as well be classified as humans or do they still require a separate definition

First of all, Neanderthals are humans.

There's not much difference between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens sapiens.

I sometimes wonder if there is any difference at all.

"For the past 150 years, early humans have been regarded as inferior to us, unable to create art, think abstractly, or even to speak. ... early peoples such as Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Neanderthals, and Homo heidelbergensis were just as intelligent as we are in today's modern world." -- John Feliks, scholar, 2009

Use of body ornamentation shows Neanderthal mind capable of advanced thought

ScienceDaily (Jan. 12, 2010) — The widespread view of Neanderthals as cognitively inferior to early modern humans is challenged by new research from the University of Bristol published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Professor João Zilhão and colleagues examined pigment-stained and perforated marine shells, most certainly used as neck pendants, from two Neanderthal-associated sites in the Murcia province of south-east Spain (Cueva de los Aviones and Cueva Antón). The analysis of lumps of red and yellow pigments found alongside suggest they were used in cosmetics. The practice of body ornamentation is widely accepted by archaeologists as conclusive evidence for modern behaviour and symbolic thinking among early modern humans but has not been recognised in Neanderthals -- until now.

However, an important fact to note is that Homo sapiens sapiens and Neanderthal man coexisted in time. Therefore Homo sapiens sapiens cannot have possibly evolved from Neanderthal man.

"These were the strongest generation of earth-born mortals,
the strongest, and they fought against the strongest, the beast men
living within the mountains, and terribly they destroyed them.
I [Nestor] was in the company of these men....'"
-- Homeros, poet, Iliad, Book I: 247-269, 8th century B.C.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090720163729.htm

ScienceDaily (July 22, 2009) — The wound that ultimately killed a Neandertal man between 50,000 and 75,000 years [ago] was most likely caused by a thrown spear, the kind modern humans used but Neandertals did not, according to Duke University-led research.

"What we've got is a rib injury, with any number of scenarios that could explain it," said Steven Churchill, an associate professor of evolutionary anthropology at Duke. "We're not suggesting there was a blitzkrieg, with modern humans marching across the land and executing the Neandertals. I want to say that loud and clear."

But Churchill's analysis indicates the wound was from a thrown spear, and it appears that modern humans had a thrown-weapons technology and Neandertals didn't. "We think the best explanation for this injury is a projectile weapon, and given who had those and who didn't that implies at least one act of inter-species aggression."

 

[Maxwell511]

The ability to interbreed is not a sufficient condition to declare two populations to be the same species (although the corrollary, the inability to interbreed, would be enough to separate them). There are still too many physical distinctions (skull shape, bone and muscle structure, size, speech) and behavioral distinctions (art, trade) to consider them the same. In addition, their genetic history indicates they left Africa much, much earlier than homo sapiens. We are their cousins, but we are not the same.

Isn't there an ongoing debate about whether the correct classification should be a species or subspecies? From what I have heard it is not conclusive either way.

 

[laconicstudent]

First of all, Neanderthals are humans.

There's not much difference between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens sapiens.

You must be joking.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

You must be joking.

Do you claim Neanderthals are not humans?

 

[laconicstudent]

Do you claim Neanderthals are not humans?

Depends on how you are defining "human".

 

[sfs]

Isn't there an ongoing debate about whether the correct classification should be a species or subspecies? From what I have heard it is not conclusive either way.

There is no single definition of "species", so it's not as if there is some standard that can be appealed to. The Neandertal/Hss case is squarely in the gray area: some gene flow between the populations, but only a small amount.

 

[Shemjaza]

I'm willing to go with AoS's "Neanderthals are humans". Intelligant, tool using hominid with an imagination and culture. Sure, that's a human. But they are not a Homo sapien.

I wish some Neanderthals had survived, maybe in northern Canada. (Then again considering how cruel we have been to people of our own species who looked a little different, imagine how we would have treated a different species).

 

[laconicstudent]

I was defining "human" as Homo sapiens sapiens.

 

[Maxwell511]

There is no single definition of "species", so it's not as if there is some standard that can be appealed to. The Neandertal/Hss case is squarely in the gray area: some gene flow between the populations, but only a small amount.

I thought we were definitively considered a subspecies.

I'm willing to go with AoS's "Neanderthals are humans". Intelligant, tool using hominid with an imagination and culture. Sure, that's a human. But they are not a Homo sapien.

From what I understand humans are not just homo sapiens. We are Homo sapien sapien. A subspecies. If we are a subspecies there must by extinct subspecies of our species. Neandarthals may be one.

 

[Gracchus]

I thought we were definitively considered a subspecies.
From what I understand humans are not just homo sapiens. We are Homo sapien sapien. A subspecies. If we are a subspecies there must by extinct subspecies of our species. Neandarthals may be one.

Bear in mind that hard cases make bad taxonomy. Difficulty in classification is just what one would expect from evolution, and not what one would expect from special creation.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

I was defining "human" as Homo sapien.

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is homo sapiens...

 

[laconicstudent]

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is homo sapiens...

Oops, I guess I forgot to put the final "sapiens". Fixed.

 

[Maxwell511]

Bear in mind that hard cases make bad taxonomy. Difficulty in classification is just what one would expect from evolution, and not what one would expect from special creation.

We choose to make classifications and do other science, not because it is easy, but because it is hard, because that goal will serve to measure and organize the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win. ~Something JFK might have said.

 

[Shemjaza]

I'm pretty sure the whole Homo sapiens neanderthalensis VS Homo sapiens sapiens as different subspecies thing has been updated to Homo neanderthalensis VS Homo sapiens as different species.

 

[Michael]

First of all, Neanderthals are humans.

FYI, thanks for those links.

 

[callmeMurph]

I'm pretty sure the whole Homo sapiens neanderthalensis VS Homo sapiens sapiens as different subspecies thing has been updated to Homo neanderthalensis VS Homo sapiens as different species.

Yeah, I remember reading the latest issue of Scientific American and I thought they said that we were not related.

 

[marlowe007]

I find it hard to believe that we mingled with these beings en masse: it just isn't consonant with what we know of human nature. (But then again, I've also read William Golding's THE INHERITORS.) That's why I cling to the other interpretation of such research, namely:

The researchers were not able to rule out one possible alternative explanation for their findings. In that scenario, the signal they detected could represent an ancient genetic substructure that existed within Africa, such that the ancestral population of present-day non-Africans was more closely related to Neanderthals than was the ancestral population of present-day Africans. "We think that's not the case, but we can't rule it out," Green said.

Neanderthal genome yields insights into human evolution and evidence of interbreeding with modern humans

 

[sfs]

I thought we were definitively considered a subspecies.

Standard classification of modern humans is as a subspecies (which is why I wrote "Hss" as an abreviation).

From what I understand humans are not just homo sapiens. We are Homo sapien sapien. A subspecies. If we are a subspecies there must by extinct subspecies of our species. Neandarthals may be one.

Yes, archaic African Hs are considered a different subspecies. The work under discussion provides evidence for deciding about Neandertals, but the question also comes down to taste: are you a lumper or a splitter?