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 don't know if this is a serious question or if you were being facetious.
But I have believed for a long time that there were TWO species of Man roaming the earth, and that it accounts for the various body shapes in people. People I'd say that to all thought I was nuts. So you can imagine my glee when I read a couple of years ago about the discovery of Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens existing simultaneously. Later came a very interesting article about Neanderthals in the National Geographic.
I think each lived within their own tribes but that a few cross-mated.
When I look at Samoans I think of Neanderthals because of their natural ultra-sturdy torsos.
Neanderthals weren't a separate species. They were a subspecies - ie, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, as opposed to our Homo sapiens sapiens. This is very common with all sorts of animals. For example, there are 13 separate subspecies of Great Horned Owls, and 13 extant (and at least 3 extinct) subspecies of Brown Bears.
More than anything, human societies are responsible for the vast differences in human body types. Unusual body types usually result in individuals that cannot survive and thus do not breed and pass on their genetic material. For a long time, human societies have had the capacity, and often the inclination, to assure that weak individuals survive and produce offspring.
Neanderthals weren't a separate species. They were a subspecies - ie, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, as opposed to our Homo sapiens sapiens. This is very common with all sorts of animals. For example, there are 13 separate subspecies of Great Horned Owls, and 13 extant (and at least 3 extinct) subspecies of Brown Bears.
More than anything, human societies are responsible for the vast differences in human body types. Unusual body types usually result in individuals that cannot survive and thus do not breed and pass on their genetic material. For a long time, human societies have had the capacity, and often the inclination, to assure that weak individuals survive and produce offspring.
Even simpler... dogs. You have tiny little yorkies and gigantic great prynese. Both are dogs. Genetically they have variations but not sufficent they can't make mutts. And it is human intervention which has created these breeds not nature. If you let dog do what they want, they'll be *mostly* medium sized dogs with shepard like bodies, and various colors. The other thing which is improtant to realize is mutts are generally healthier and don't have the genetic traps that have been inadvertently bred into them.
Cats also have breeds, but far fewer people try to breed for some one thing with cats, thus cats remain much more alike than different.
If neanderthal and human make children, the elements which are of advantage will be passed on, the ones which don't will either be 'junk' dna or if its so disadvantageous, nature will breed it out. The huge body of the neanderthal did not do well when the climate warmed, and this favored those with more compact frames. But it has been speculated that increased brain size (seen when homo sapiens got renamed homo sapiens sapiens, as in wise wise man due to a sudden leap in creativity and skills) just may have come in part from Neanderthal's larger brain. Maybe when we became 'mutts' we got smarter and stronger with the new variety and combinations which formed.
Interesting this is in line with the plot like of Jean Aules "clan of the cavebear" even though it was only a tiny portion of the scientific community who believed in the theory of the time. Even the area it was set in is said to be the first mixing ground.
Never discount an idea. Maybe its just that we don't have the tech to find out yet.
Even simpler... dogs. You have tiny little yorkies and gigantic great prynese. Both are dogs. Genetically they have variations but not sufficent they can't make mutts. And it is human intervention which has created these breeds not nature. If you let dog do what they want, they'll be *mostly* medium sized dogs with shepard like bodies, and various colors. The other thing which is improtant to realize is mutts are generally healthier and don't have the genetic traps that have been inadvertently bred into them.
Cats also have breeds, but far fewer people try to breed for some one thing with cats, thus cats remain much more alike than different.
If neanderthal and human make children, the elements which are of advantage will be passed on, the ones which don't will either be 'junk' dna or if its so disadvantageous, nature will breed it out. The huge body of the neanderthal did not do well when the climate warmed, and this favored those with more compact frames. But it has been speculated that increased brain size (seen when homo sapiens got renamed homo sapiens sapiens, as in wise wise man due to a sudden leap in creativity and skills) just may have come in part from Neanderthal's larger brain. Maybe when we became 'mutts' we got smarter and stronger with the new variety and combinations which formed.
Interesting this is in line with the plot like of Jean Aules "clan of the cavebear" even though it was only a tiny portion of the scientific community who believed in the theory of the time. Even the area it was set in is said to be the first mixing ground.
Never discount an idea. Maybe its just that we don't have the tech to find out yet.
That is a dangerous topic. Researchers have found differences in genes responsible for the development of the brain, for instance regarding Microcephalin or ASPM. But then again, these don't seem to make any difference in mental capacity according to research. After all, nature has no goal. When people move far away from each other and don't mix, there will be mutations and they will spread among the respective populations. But that doesn't mean that a mutation is better or worse than the original.
Okay. Now I remember reading that scientists have established that there was NO link between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens (where "Origins" are concerned). There was even an article on TV about it (Discovery Channel, I believe) ~ I watched it last year. I interpret "no link" to mean "no subspecies".
Maybe I need to try and find one of those articles.
Even simpler... dogs. You have tiny little yorkies and gigantic great prynese. Both are dogs. Genetically they have variations but not sufficent they can't make mutts. And it is human intervention which has created these breeds not nature. If you let dog do what they want, they'll be *mostly* medium sized dogs with shepard like bodies, and various colors. The other thing which is improtant to realize is mutts are generally healthier and don't have the genetic traps that have been inadvertently bred into them.
Cats also have breeds, but far fewer people try to breed for some one thing with cats, thus cats remain much more alike than different.
If neanderthal and human make children, the elements which are of advantage will be passed on, the ones which don't will either be 'junk' dna or if its so disadvantageous, nature will breed it out. The huge body of the neanderthal did not do well when the climate warmed, and this favored those with more compact frames. But it has been speculated that increased brain size (seen when homo sapiens got renamed homo sapiens sapiens, as in wise wise man due to a sudden leap in creativity and skills) just may have come in part from Neanderthal's larger brain. Maybe when we became 'mutts' we got smarter and stronger with the new variety and combinations which formed.
Interesting this is in line with the plot like of Jean Aules "clan of the cavebear" even though it was only a tiny portion of the scientific community who believed in the theory of the time. Even the area it was set in is said to be the first mixing ground.
Never discount an idea. Maybe its just that we don't have the tech to find out yet.
I didn't mention dogs because they are a subspecies in and of themselves. Rather, two subspecies - Canis lupus familiaris and Canis lupus dingo. These two distinct subspecies evolved (largely through artificial, not natural, selection) separately. Anyway, different breeds - for example, Doberman or Golden Retriever or Chihuahua - are all of the same sub-species, the aforementioned Canis lupus familiaris. And as I mentioned, the Dingo itself isn't a breed, but a subspecies that itself branched off from a separate subspecies of Canis lupus as Canis lupus familiaris.
Aside from the two subspecies created by humans, Canis lupus had some 37 other subspecies - many are now extinct. So the wolf itself is an excellent example of a species with a great many subspecies.
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.
