Neanderthals and Denisovans

[FaithT]

Are they humans?

 

[JackRT]

Are they humans?

The evidence indicates that they had burial rituals and cared for their elderly. DNA evidence indicates that there also was interbreeding between them and anatomically modern humans. I would conclude that they were human beings.

 

[Gene2memE]

There is no consensus whether they are a homo sapiens sub species, or independent hominid species. They are both archaic humans though. There is little doubt about that.

 

[Occams Barber]

Are they humans?

Yes. All three can interbreed with each other and have done in the past. There are recognisable differences in each groups DNA.

Mum’s a Neanderthal, Dad’s a Denisovan: First discovery of an ancient-human hybrid

OB

 

[FaithT]

Thanks all!

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Thanks all!

Asked. Answered. Done!

 

[Ophiolite]

Asked. Answered. Done!

If only they were all this easy my blood pressure would be normal and I would have time for sleep.

 

[kiwimac]

Are they humans?

Yes.

 

[Shemjaza]

If the five (at least) kinds of hominid who lived at the same time had survived independently into the modern world, I wonder how we would treat each other?

Homo sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans would all be pretty close to each other in appearance and intelligence... but Homo erectus and Homo florensis would be a weird case, far more human then any animal we know, but still clearly different.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If the five (at least) kinds of hominid who lived at the same time had survived independently into the modern world, I wonder how we would treat each other?

Homo sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans would all be pretty close to each other in appearance and intelligence... but Homo erectus and Homo florensis would be a weird case, far more human then any animal we know, but still clearly different.

I doubt it would go well...

 

[Tanj]

What a missed opportunity....

a

Homo sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans

walk into a bar....

 

[Shemjaza]

I doubt it would go well...

Given how we treated others from the same species... yeah.

 

[HitchSlap]

What a missed opportunity....

a


walk into a bar....

... and only one walks out?

 

[Speedwell]

If the five (at least) kinds of hominid who lived at the same time had survived independently into the modern world, I wonder how we would treat each other?

Homo sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans would all be pretty close to each other in appearance and intelligence... but Homo erectus and Homo florensis would be a weird case, far more human then any animal we know, but still clearly different.

And yet they're all extinct but us. Hmm...

 

[Paul James]

If the five (at least) kinds of hominid who lived at the same time had survived independently into the modern world, I wonder how we would treat each other?

Homo sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans would all be pretty close to each other in appearance and intelligence... but Homo erectus and Homo florensis would be a weird case, far more human then any animal we know, but still clearly different.

Put any of these in a business suit and in a crowd of people, and we wouldn't know any difference. Homo Erectus and Homo Florensis are truly human and may have been separated as all the others into separate language groups and died out before their population became large enough to be seen as a particular cultural group living in their part of the world. Even though their skulls were smaller, their smaller brains would have been just as functional as any other humans. Homo Erectus and Florensis skulls have human facial characteristics and have foreheads, which are quite different from the sloped faces and the no forehead characteristic of ape skulls.

 

[Shemjaza]

Put any of these in a business suit and in a crowd of people, and we wouldn't know any difference. Homo Erectus and Homo Florensis are truly human and may have been separated as all the others into separate language groups and died out before their population became large enough to be seen as a particular cultural group living in their part of the world. Even though their skulls were smaller, their smaller brains would have been just as functional as any other humans. Homo Erectus and Florensis skulls have human facial characteristics and have foreheads, which are quite different from the sloped faces and the no forehead characteristic of ape skulls.

Untrue.

Brains were proportionally quite different in an erectus or florensis.

Looking at the skulls we have, I just don't see the massive gap between "ape" and "man":

 

[Paul James]

Untrue.

Brains were proportionally quite different in an erectus or florensis.

Looking at the skulls we have, I just don't see the massive gap between "ape" and "man":

I couldn't tell them apart either just by looking at the pictures, but when the lecturer took those same skulls and actually showed the different characteristics, then it was made very clear which were the ape ones and which were the human ones. He picked up another skull which he thought might have filled the gap, but he found that it didn't. It wasn't an ape-human at all, but was a different category of human. So what he demonstrated was that there were the human skulls and the ape skulls, but none in the middle of ape and human.

By the way, the lecturer is a world expert in examining ancient skulls and bones, so he knew what he was talking about.

 

[Shemjaza]

I couldn't tell them apart either just by looking at the pictures, but when the lecturer took those same skulls and actually showed the different characteristics, then it was made very clear which were the ape ones and which were the human ones. He picked up another skull which he thought might have filled the gap, but he found that it didn't. It wasn't an ape-human at all, but was a different category of human. So what he demonstrated was that there were the human skulls and the ape skulls, but none in the middle of ape and human.

By the way, the lecturer is a world expert in examining ancient skulls and bones, so he knew what he was talking about.

I'm dubious about this expert. Can you present how they justify their competence?

Modern apes and humans are already pretty similar in structure... and the existence varieties of tool using bipedal "apes" and of varieties small brained heavier featured "humans" seems to me that there isn't a clear difference.

A pointy nose and receded jaw as definitions of "human" so Erectus and Neanderthal get to be "human" seem like arbitrary and pointless classifications compared to upright stance and tool use.

 

[Paul James]

I'm dubious about this expert. Can you present how they justify their competence?

Modern apes and humans are already pretty similar in structure... and the existence varieties of tool using bipedal "apes" and of varieties small brained heavier featured "humans" seems to me that there isn't a clear difference.

A pointy nose and receded jaw as definitions of "human" so Erectus and Neanderthal get to be "human" seem like arbitrary and pointless classifications compared to upright stance and tool use.

In the face of contention which will prove nothing, I will leave it to having my opinion and just allowing to have yours.

 

[Shemjaza]

In the face of contention which will prove nothing, I will leave it to having my opinion and just allowing to have yours.

I respect your right to just back away... but if there's something unjustified in my attitude I'd like to address it.

I think reducing disagreements to differences of opinion isn't helpful when points of fact can be defined and discussed. (Especially, when false statements can be discovered and corrected).