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.
You obviously don't understand the intricacies of what we're discussing therefore I suggest you should refrain from posting nonsense. It is possible you can enlighten yourself by reading the posts and learning otherwise keep your nonsensical posts out of the thread.
I was about to answer the same thing to him. Thanks for your post!
Must be a slow day in the science and new department. Just because someone throws out a story like this doesn't mean it has any merit. People these days will believe anything.
Read the article and get back to us on why it is "paranormal". The article reports the discovery of bones that appear to be hybrids of Neanderthal and Denisovan. It's more evidence that Denisovans were a distinct species, and it's interesting to learn that they interbred with Neanderthals.
The article was indeed interesting without doubt, but we already knew early humans did not have much of a problem inter breeding with each other. The fact that they could interbreed just proves how closely related they were. You can't interbreed and produce fertile offspring unless you are very closely related.
From National Geographic...
"According to one theory, Neanderthals, Denisovans, and modern humans are all descended from the ancient human Homo heidelbergensis. Between 300,000 to 400,000 years ago, an ancestral group of H. heidelbergensis left Africa and then split shortly after. One branch ventured northwestward into West Asia and Europe and became the Neanderthals. The other branch moved east, becoming Denisovans. By 130,000 years ago, H. heidelbergensis in Africa had become Homo sapiens—our ancestors—who did not begin their own exodus from Africa until about 60,000 years ago."
I'm not even sure why anyone would be surprised that they would mix and breed with each other since they probably didn't look like different species to each other when they met. They probably looked much more similar to eachother than let's say a northern European and sub Saharan African of today.
Ever read "Clan of the Cave Bear"
Huge when it first came out probably 40 yrs ago???
Not sure didn't look it up--maybe more like 30
At the time Jean Aurel's thesis that there could be inter-breeding among different humanoid groups was pretty shocking from what I remember
Maybe because there was not as much documented DNA evidence from removed bones at that time
DNA probably didn't even really exist back then--certainly not as sophisticated as it is now...
But I respect that book for making people more aware and interested in the early tribes of Man
Also anyone see a movie "Quest for Fire"
Story built around a humanoid tribe attacked by more animalistic group and loses their tribal fire in their retreat...
Three males go out on quest to locate it because their culture doesn't know how to make fire from friction/flint
Adventure, lot of humor, and love develop
Interesting because shot all on location in Canada and Africa
Created several languages for different tribes to speak
Rae Dawn Chong's first movie role I think
Everett McGill played one of the fire-seekers...
Not on cable very often but available on Amazon I think...
From National Geographic...
"According to one theory, Neanderthals, Denisovans, and modern humans are all descended from the ancient human Homo heidelbergensis. Between 300,000 to 400,000 years ago, an ancestral group of H. heidelbergensis left Africa and then split shortly after. One branch ventured northwestward into West Asia and Europe and became the Neanderthals. The other branch moved east, becoming Denisovans. By 130,000 years ago, H. heidelbergensis in Africa had become Homo sapiens—our ancestors—who did not begin their own exodus from Africa until about 60,000 years ago."
Except Java Man and Peking Man are much older.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts
It's possible that we ate them.
We did. And we ate ourselves.
About 25,000 years ago was the peak of the glacial maximum, and conditions in many areas were horrendous. There is evidence of cannibalism, but it's not surprising.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozarknation
I only assume that 4 or 5 million years ago, there were only three human races: Homo Sapiens (africa) Neanderthal (europe) and Denisovans (asia)
They did not exist "4 or 5 million years ago."
Homo Sapiens Sapiens is very recent, about 35,000 years ago. Homo Neanderthalis and Homo Denisovan didn't exist until about 350,000 to 450,000 years ago. Homo Sapiens is a new-comer, appearing a few 100,000 years after them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts
Homo Erectus was the ancestor of both species (or all three, perhaps) and existed roughly 1 million to 500K BC.
I believe the evidence disputes that.
You ignore Homo Habilis.
The evidence suggests either Homo Habilis or Homo Erectus existed until about 12,000 BCE to 7,000 BCE, and maybe later than that, possibly as late as 2,000 BCE.
Neither Homo Habilis nor Homo Erectus have the FOXP2 gene, so they were totally incapable of speech, but that does not mean they couldn't communicate.
They could.
They communicated by making clicking noises with their tongue.
For proof, I give you the Khosian Language.
Depending on the source, there are 1,500 to 2,000 spoken languages in Africa, but only 12 languages, existing as three groups comprising the Khosian Language are known as "click-languages." When they speak, they make clicking noises with their tongue.
The peoples who speak those click-languages all live in two areas: in and around the Kalahari Desert in Namibia, and in the Rift Valley in Tanzania.
I believe those peoples were in contact with one or more groups of Homo Habilis or Homo Erectus who survived until recently. They learned how to communicate with those groups of Homo Habilis or Erectus using clicking noises with their tongue, and then incorporated those clicking noises into their own spoken language.
There is no other logical, valid or reasonable explanation for click-languages, which exist only in those two places on Earth and no where else.
When you listen to someone speaking a Khosian Language, I believe you're actually hearing the way Homo Erectus or Habilis communicated. Even some of the words in use today may be the exact clicking noises made by Homo Erectus or Habilis, words like home, mother, father, child and perhaps the names of some local animals, which would not change over time as a language evolves.
Speaking of the FOXP2 gene, it creates a bit of a poser.
How did Homo Neandertalis and Homo Sapiens evolve with the same gene?
Also don't forget that the climate was changing, which is what allowed early humans to start moving in to what was formerly Neanderthal territory. Neanderthals were adapted to an ice age climate and the planet was warming.
What!?
You mean 'Global Warming' was occurring without current technology and industry? Say it ain't so, Joe! Must have been all those campfires. Too bad they didn't have Al Gore to save them, we might still have Neandertals today...oh, wait, we still do, and they're still harping on 'Global Warming'...er, I mean 'Climate Change'.
About 25,000 years ago was the peak of the glacial maximum, and conditions in many areas were horrendous. There is evidence of cannibalism, but it's not surprising.
They did not exist "4 or 5 million years ago."
Homo Sapiens Sapiens is very recent, about 35,000 years ago. Homo Neanderthalis and Homo Denisovan didn't exist until about 350,000 to 450,000 years ago. Homo Sapiens is a new-comer, appearing a few 100,000 years after them.
I believe the evidence disputes that.
You ignore Homo Habilis.
The evidence suggests either Homo Habilis or Homo Erectus existed until about 12,000 BCE to 7,000 BCE, and maybe later than that, possibly as late as 2,000 BCE.
Neither Homo Habilis nor Homo Erectus have the FOXP2 gene, so they were totally incapable of speech, but that does not mean they couldn't communicate.
They could.
They communicated by making clicking noises with their tongue.
For proof, I give you the Khosian Language.
Depending on the source, there are 1,500 to 2,000 spoken languages in Africa, but only 12 languages, existing as three groups comprising the Khosian Language are known as "click-languages." When they speak, they make clicking noises with their tongue.
The peoples who speak those click-languages all live in two areas: in and around the Kalahari Desert in Namibia, and in the Rift Valley in Tanzania.
I believe those peoples were in contact with one or more groups of Homo Habilis or Homo Erectus who survived until recently. They learned how to communicate with those groups of Homo Habilis or Erectus using clicking noises with their tongue, and then incorporated those clicking noises into their own spoken language.
There is no other logical, valid or reasonable explanation for click-languages, which exist only in those two places on Earth and no where else.
When you listen to someone speaking a Khosian Language, I believe you're actually hearing the way Homo Erectus or Habilis communicated. Even some of the words in use today may be the exact clicking noises made by Homo Erectus or Habilis, words like home, mother, father, child and perhaps the names of some local animals, which would not change over time as a language evolves.
Speaking of the FOXP2 gene, it creates a bit of a poser.
How did Homo Neandertalis and Homo Sapiens evolve with the same gene?
I think you're missing Miracea's point. That's a very early primate ancestor, not even in the genus Homo (and in fact may be as ancestral to modern chimps and bonobos as to us, depending on exactly when that split occurred), and so not really relevant to this current discussion. The three Homo species (or possibly subspecies) being discussed in this scientific article (Neanderthals, Denisovians, and archaic modern humans) only evolved much later. Certainly four million years ago there were other ape-like animals around besides those in the genus Austraolpithecus, and perhaps some of those interbred with A. afarensis, but this story concerns much more recent evolutionary events - the events that may hold the key to the final genetic changes that gave us fully human minds and made us US.
Miracea is right: primates as a family are fairly old (dating back to about 55 million years ago), but species we'd classify as truly human only evolved pretty recently. We're quite young, as species go.
The evidence suggests either Homo Habilis or Homo Erectus existed until about 12,000 BCE to 7,000 BCE, and maybe later than that, possibly as late as 2,000 BCE.
Neither Homo Habilis nor Homo Erectus have the FOXP2 gene, so they were totally incapable of speech, but that does not mean they couldn't communicate.
They could.
They communicated by making clicking noises with their tongue.
For proof, I give you the Khosian Language.
Depending on the source, there are 1,500 to 2,000 spoken languages in Africa, but only 12 languages, existing as three groups comprising the Khosian Language are known as "click-languages." When they speak, they make clicking noises with their tongue.
The peoples who speak those click-languages all live in two areas: in and around the Kalahari Desert in Namibia, and in the Rift Valley in Tanzania.
I believe those peoples were in contact with one or more groups of Homo Habilis or Homo Erectus who survived until recently. They learned how to communicate with those groups of Homo Habilis or Erectus using clicking noises with their tongue, and then incorporated those clicking noises into their own spoken language.
There is no other logical, valid or reasonable explanation for click-languages, which exist only in those two places on Earth and no where else.
When you listen to someone speaking a Khosian Language, I believe you're actually hearing the way Homo Erectus or Habilis communicated. Even some of the words in use today may be the exact clicking noises made by Homo Erectus or Habilis, words like home, mother, father, child and perhaps the names of some local animals, which would not change over time as a language evolves.
Cites for any of this (especially the claim that H. erectus was around until just a few thousand years ago)? I find this this line of conjecture fascinating - and it's completely new to me!
Quote:
Speaking of the FOXP2 gene, it creates a bit of a poser.
How did Homo Neandertalis and Homo Sapiens evolve with the same gene?
The most likely answer is that the mutation occurred in the H. heidelbergensis population shortly before the population migrations that subsequently gave rise to Neanderthals, Denosovians, and archaic H. sapiens. Less likely is that it arose in one of the three later lineages, and then rapidly spread to the other two via interbreeding.
It's possible also that modern humans killed off the Neanderthals that they encountered, possibly taking some women as slaves. No one really knows, but the Neanderthals were the dominant species across Europe and Asia up until about 30,000 years ago, when they were rather suddenly displaced by modern humans. ***
***
However Neanderthal technology appeared to be behind that of modern humans. It is thought that around the time the two species encountered each other, modern humans were already using atl-atls, a tool for throwing arrows, while Neanderthals are thought to have stuck with spears and relied on their great strength and speed. Atl-atls gave humans the edge in hunting.
Question.
Is it a possibility that by applying the: Adaptive Sex Ratio Adjustment Hypothesis:
Under normal circumstances, all healthy female mammals have male-dominant birth rates (about 3%) over female birth rates & this is because males have higher death rates than females. It's a biological auto-correct.
Under circumstances of duress (famine, war, disease, etc), only the strongest and most dominant males of a species will reproduce but females are more likely to reproduce regardless of their low health status & the biological auto-correct swings to favor a higher female birth rate. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...x6DTBcVuiOG.99
Given that the Neanderthals were physically superior & likey more hardy & healthy; could they have become extremely male dominant as a society, with not enough females to mate with?
And at the same time, the less healthy & hardy modern humans were becoming an extremely female dominant society? Because this could be a win-win situation for both & of course; ensure the continuation of the human race.
Could the Neanderthal "extinction" possibly be due more to "dilution" than annihilation? Ha; a literal "Make Love Not War!" scenario. I don't know, just a thought. Or at least it could have tipped the scales in the favor of the modern humans; as they had a surplus of what (who) was becoming a precious commodity to the Neanderthals: Women.
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.
