Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I remember a time not too long ago when we humans considered Neanderthals to be 'cave men', lacking in intelligence, low-brow, non-verbal, and ignorant.
Suddenly, with the knowledge that everyone except sub-saharan Africans supposedly have some Neanderthal genes, Neanderthals are being touted as intelligent and innovative, and we are supposed to be proud that 'we' have Neanderthal some blood, small as it probably is.
Gee, I wonder why our perceptions have changed?
(it's not the scientists who are promoting this 'pride', either)
We do know that the Neanderthals had large brains, and did have some cultural traits suggesting a degree of sophistication. However, in their 300,000+ years as a species they did very little to compare to modern humans in terms of material culture. That leads me to think modern humans were smarter, but perhaps the Neanderthals had certain dimensions of intelligence where they were superior.
My hypothesis is that some of the high creativity and analytical capacities in Eurasian populations was due to some sort of "hybrid vigor." Both species were fairly smart, but their offspring had some new attributes that neither parent possessed in the same amounts. This is just speculation, but I think that modern humans were more innovative and socially skilled (they could organize and create civilizations), whereas the Neanderthals were more solitary and perhaps more capable of abstraction/mathematical thinking. An analogy would be wolves vs. bears. Both are intelligent, but culturally very different. If bears could learn to collaborate and hunt in packs, well... you get the picture.
What I find interesting is that under the current political climate, if we found that Africans has higher percentages of Neandertal or Denisovan DNA, it would be almost unpublishable and unspeakable, whereas they seem to have the least, so not controversial.
If we find out that all non Africans have admixtures with something else that does not have an image problem like the Neanderthals, do you think it would be publishable and speakable?
If we find out that all non Africans have admixtures with something else that does not have an image problem like the Neanderthals, do you think it would be publishable and speakable?
Well, only if it did not imply the proposition that Eurasians are superior. We can say they are inferior. That is acceptable. Most of this has to do with intelligence, which is an explosive topic.
The interesting thing, to me, is that races (not so much skin tone, but other features) do tend to have a biological basis that is fascinating. We know that all humans are > 95% similar, with the vast majority of our genome shared. Apparently the 0.1-5% difference is ancient and important. It gives us clues into the interrelationships of various parts of the human family tree. Science suggest that rather than a single ladder leading up to modern humanity, the hominid tree had a number of branches that separated and backcrossed on occasion, carrying different signatures into the modern human genome.
Well, only if it did not imply the proposition that Eurasians are superior. We can say they are inferior. That is acceptable. Most of this has to do with intelligence, which is an explosive topic.
The interesting thing, to me, is that races (not so much skin tone, but other features) do tend to have a biological basis that is fascinating. We know that all humans are > 95% similar, with the vast majority of our genome shared. Apparently the 0.1-5% difference is ancient and important. It gives us clues into the interrelationships of various parts of the human family tree. Science suggest that rather than a single ladder leading up to modern humanity, the hominid tree had a number of branches that separated and backcrossed on occasion, carrying different signatures into the modern human genome.
Just look at dogs. Just 5,000 years ago, all dogs are the same. Due to selective breeding (isolation), although Chihuahua and German Shepard are 99.99% genetically the same, they do have different abilities, strengths and weaknesses.
There was a time when all humans were black....What point are you trying to make here?
During the expand of thousands of years, including present time, there were/are varieties of humans with different skull shape, skin tones, hair textures, etc.
During the expand of thousands of years, including present time, there were/are varieties of humans with different skull shape, skin tones, hair textures, etc.
Yes but all other species of the genus homo went extinct long ago....We homo sapiens are the only ones left. Different skull shape, skin tones, hair textures, etc. do not define a species.
Yes but all other species of the genus homo went extinct long ago....We homo sapiens are the only ones left. Different skull shape, skin tones, hair textures, etc. do not define a species.
I didn't say different races are different species. It is just simply that different races are different. Can you deny that?
Yes but all other species of the genus homo went extinct long ago....We homo sapiens are the only ones left. Different skull shape, skin tones, hair textures, etc. do not define a species.
I am not sure I agree with the bolded. We know that the Homo floresiensis (a dwarf, tool using Homo erectus derivative) died out only about 12, 000 years ago, and Neanderthal existed until 30, 000 years ago. Both are assuming that the last records are the final dates for other Hominids. Legends and folklore suggest that ancient hominids (giants, wildmen of various sorts) coexisted with modern humans into early historic times (~5, 000 years ago). The interesting thing is that many of the changes that differentiate modern humans (explosive increases in brain size, neoteny) do not necessarily mean that we were reproductively isolated from close cousins. Behaviorally, most likely, but not physically. So there was a long period where isolated early hominids (Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo erectus?) could have interbred with modern humans in different parts of the world, infusing eons of evolution into parts of the human genome. I do not believe we have genetic information from H. erectus, so that is only speculation, based on the fact that they were human in just about all dimensions except brain size.
More philosophically, I wonder, given the continuum from ape to modern human, at what stage did we become "human?" Brain size would be a metric, but it shows a continuum, and if Neanderthal had a larger brain than us, but did not develop civilization, etc. was he/she/ it human? I would say yes, and perhaps so was Homo erectus, Australopithicus,etc. I just don't know where I would draw the line.
More philosophically, I wonder, given the continuum from ape to modern human, at what stage did we become "human?" Brain size would be a metric, but it shows a continuum, and if Neanderthal had a larger brain than us, but did not develop civilization, etc. was he/she/ it human? I would say yes, and perhaps so was Homo erectus, Australopithicus,etc. I just don't know where I would draw the line.
I would draw the line when they started stand up right and walk on two feet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
