Neanderthal/Homo Sapiens New Data

[mootsman]

Anybody understand how to factor Homo Erectus into these new findings?

All Non-Africans Part Neanderthal, Genetics Confirm : Discovery News

[joshuaream]

My 2000th Great Grandpa back in Europe wasn't picky if his woman had a brow ridge and his inlaws made different shaped tools.

[mootsman]

And depending on the exact time he might have had a bit of a brow ridge himself!

[Palmwood]

Originally Posted by joshuaream

My 2000th Great Grandpa back in Europe wasn't picky if his woman had a brow ridge and his inlaws made different shaped tools.

My college room mate was the same way.
Funny how we haven't changed in a 100,000 years.

[paleo_joe]

I didn't really understand the question about homo erectus and I found this was helpful.

I lean more toward the power of procreation as a fundamental driver. Displacement isn't nearly as fun as interbreeding.

[rokdok]

That's a good question. Homo erectus is supposedly the ancestor of all later hominids. Fossilised remains found in the Easern Rift Valley of Africa have dated to around two million years old, and because of this fact and the fact that earlier hominids have been found there most researchers believe that they evolved into modern humans in Africa. The finding of fossilized H.erectus in european Georgia dated to at laest 1.75 million years ago at least suggests that the multi-regional hypothesis for human evolution should be reconsidered. Homo erectus as well as H. Neanderthalensis and Native Americans and Northeastern asians all share the trait of shovelled incisors which is interesting. Neanderthals, the Denisovan remains (who some researchers think may be H. erectus) and Native Americans all share an x-linked form of the dystrophin gene, which has NOT been found in northeast asians, and, is the least derived(and thusly older) than the haplotypes found in SubSaharan Africa which also flies in the face of an African origin of allmodern humans.And then there is H. floriesensis, which some scholars say is a pygmy form of H. erectus which survived until around 20,000 yrs ago.

[TurtleMan]

I had always thought that this "out breeding" had occured at some time in our history. The simple fact of the matter is that people have alwas been interested in the newest "thing" be it tec. or people. Think back to your school-days. Everyone new about the new kid, most usualy in a negitive way, but there always was at least a few who found them atractive if only for the fact they were different. I can see a paleo Romeo & Juliet sanerio play out. Two tribes of humans in the same valley. Both very interested in one another, but for cultural differences also have a fear of the other. One day down by the creek the neanderthal Ogg chances apon the fair maidan Ooohh. He is inthralled by her svelt lines and soft features, she to his brutish good looks and massive build (mutch larger than anyone from her tribe). Over a period of months and clandestine meetings the inevitable happens; Ooohh gives birth to a child. And he (threw his superior size and smarts) passes more of his genes on to subsiquint genorations. Prehaps even breaking cultural stigmas and leading to a conflux in the population.

[TurtleMan]

Originally Posted by rokdok

That's a good question. Homo erectus is supposedly the ancestor of all later hominids. Fossilised remains found in the Easern Rift Valley of Africa have dated to around two million years old, and because of this fact and the fact that earlier hominids have been found there most researchers believe that they evolved into modern humans in Africa. The finding of fossilized H.erectus in european Georgia dated to at laest 1.75 million years ago at least suggests that the multi-regional hypothesis for human evolution should be reconsidered. Homo erectus as well as H. Neanderthalensis and Native Americans and Northeastern asians all share the trait of shovelled incisors which is interesting. Neanderthals, the Denisovan remains (who some researchers think may be H. erectus) and Native Americans all share an x-linked form of the dystrophin gene, which has NOT been found in northeast asians, and, is the least derived(and thusly older) than the haplotypes found in SubSaharan Africa which also flies in the face of an African origin of allmodern humans.And then there is H. floriesensis, which some scholars say is a pygmy form of H. erectus which survived until around 20,000 yrs ago.

I have a theory about H. floriesensis. What if a small pop. of Erectus made it to the remote island were floriesensis was found. with them they carried a resseive gene that predisposed them to a form of dworfisim. Due to the fact that they were a small pop. a high level of inbreeding ocured, resulting in a higher percentage of dwarfs being born. Now the way I understand it the islands were they ocure are quite stark in the way of food, so being smaller would be adventagous. Leading to the domination of said island by a pop. of dwarf erectus. This theory is slightly different than a convetional island dwarf sinareo, were over thousands of years because of lack of food the pop had to get smaller to servive.Unlike the conventional way, my theory would allow this to happen in just a matter of a few generations.

[Panola]

O Boy----I can't wait for the next revelation ! Just wait a few weeks or months and we will get another scientist with indisputable evidence about something that means nothing , and amounts to little .

I remember when that Italian scientist was threatened with hanging if he continued to spout off about the earth being round ----and Clovis first ----absolutely , Hey I'm not downing anyone's post here or their interest in stuff like this ----I jest have NO faith in MAN 'S ability to explain ANYTHING---I guess too many years in the school business will make for a G. O. F.-------------like me and V V T

[mootsman]

Originally Posted by TurtleMan

I had always thought that this "out breeding" had occured at some time in our history. The simple fact of the matter is that people have alwas been interested in the newest "thing" be it tec. or people.

I think the scientific question hasn't been whether or not there was a "will" but rather was there a "way" for breeding to take place. Not the obvious physical act but would a fetus occur and, if so, would it be fertile or not. Sorta like the mule which, obviously, is born and viable but is not fertile.