Do we descend from Neanderthal ?

Do we descend from Neanderthal ?

  • Yes, all humans descend exclusively from Neanderthal

    Votes: 4 2.8%
  • Most/all Europeans descend exclusively from Neanderthal

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Europeans descend from Neanderthal AND Homo Sapiens

    Votes: 16 11.3%
  • Some Europeans (blue eyed, fair haired...) descend from Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens

    Votes: 15 10.6%
  • Only some strange people in remote parts of Scandinavia descend from Neanderthal (possibly mixed wit

    Votes: 8 5.7%
  • Neanderthal is completely extinct - thus we all descend from Homo Sapiens

    Votes: 70 49.6%
  • Not a clue what you are talking about

    Votes: 3 2.1%
  • Don't care

    Votes: 11 7.8%
  • Other possibility (please specify)

    Votes: 14 9.9%

  • Total voters
    141

Julien

Lord
Joined
May 27, 2001
Messages
265
Location
Europe
There has been many theories about the Neanderthal Man. Some say they became completely extinct (either because of the climate or because of Homo Sapiens coming from Africa). Others say that Europeans descend from both Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens, but can't agree whether it is all Europeans or just Northern Europeans (with blue eyes or fair hair) or even a tiny minority living in remoter part of Scandinavia.

What do you think ?
 
Hi Julien, long time no see. :)

No. Seems like according to the latest research, the Neanderthals were not in our direct ancestry path...

One interesting fact - the Neanderthals managed to survive in Iberia for thousands of years, after they'd gone extinct elsewhere, before they too succumbed.

I'll look for the news items later.
 
New Study Shows Neanderthals Were Not Our Ancestors

In the most recent and mathematically rigorous study to date determining whether Neanderthals contributed to the evolution of modern humans, a team of anthropologists examining the skulls of modern humans and Neanderthals as well as 11 existing species of non-human primates found strong evidence that Neanderthals differ so greatly from Homo sapiens as to constitute a different species.

The findings could potentially put to rest the decades-long debate between proponents of the regional continuity model of human origins, which maintains that Neanderthals are a subspecies of Homo sapiens which contributed significantly to the evolution of modern Europeans, and the single-origin model, which views Neanderthals as a separate, distinct species. The research will be published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The scientists, led by Katerina Harvati of New York University, used a new technique known as geometric morphometrics to measure the degree of variation between and amongst living primate species, represented by over 1000 specimens. The scientists measured 15 standard craniofacial landmarks on each of the skulls and used 3-D analysis to superimpose each one in order to measure their shape differences, irrespective of size. Random samples were chosen from each species and the differences between them were calculated 10,000 times, in order to simulate the sampling effects of the fossil record. . The data used included Neanderthal fossils , Upper Paleolithic European modern human fossils, and recent human populations, as well as data from living African apes and Old World Monkeys.

"Our motivation was to devise a quantitative method to determine what degree of difference justified classifying specimens as different species," said Harvati. "The only way we could effectively do this was to examine the skeletal morphology of living species today and come up with models. From these data, we were able to determine how much variation living primate species generally accommodate, as well as measure how different two primate species that are closely related can be."

The study found that the differences measured between modern humans and Neanderthals were significantly greater than those found between subspecies or populations of the other species studied. The data also showed that the difference between Neanderthals and modern humans was as great or greater than that found between closely related primate species.

Among the species of existing primates included in the study were gorillas and chimpanzees, which are known to be the closest relatives to humans, as well as mandrills, macaques and baboons, who represent a greater degree of geographic and ecological diversity. As a result, Harvati's team's study constitutes the most extensive inter- and intra-species comparison of primate evolution ever recorded.

"What the data give us is a robust analysis of a widely representative sample of primates, and provides the most concrete evidence to date that Neanderthals are indeed a separate species within the genus Homo," Harvati added.

###

The PNAS paper, entitled "Neanderthal taxonomy reconsidered: Implications of 3D primate models of intra- and interspecific differences," was co-authored by Stephen R. Frost of New York College of Osteopathic Medicine at the New York Institute of Technology and Kieran P. McNulty of Baylor University, and will be available on their website the week of January 26-30, 2004.

Katerina Harvati is an assistant professor of anthropology at New York University, specializing in human evolution, Neanderthals and modern human origins. She conducts fieldwork in her native Greece. She earned a bachelors degree from Columbia University and a Ph.D. from the City University of New York Graduate Center. The studies were funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, L. S. B. Leakey, Wenner-Gren and Onassis Founadion, the American Museum of Natural History, the Smithsonian Institution and the New York Consortium in Evolutionary Primatology.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040127085316.htm
 
@XIII

Positive; Usefull information
Negative; Yah just killed a thread before it had a chance dude!
 
It's the latest news - just happened to come across it sometime back. :p

However, who knows, someone in the future might come up with evidence of Neanderthal descent amongst some of us.
 
Originally posted by XIII
Hi Julien, long time no see. :)

Hi ! You changed your username. That's a long time I haven't visited the forum, I admit...

No. Seems like according to the latest research, the Neanderthals were not in our direct ancestry path...

If we compare Neanderthal skulls with Homo Sapiens's it indeed seems too different to show any continuity with modern humans. However, if both species had mixed to create a new species, it would be much more difficult to see in the phisiological or genetic traits. Espcially if the proportion of Neanderthal genes is noticeably lower than that of Homo Sapiens (e.g. 1%, which means only a small group of Neanderthal actually mixed with the mainstream Homo Sapiens surviving to this day).

Another interesting thing is that the first "humans" (homo erectus in this case) reached Asia 1 million years ago ("Peking and Java man"), and Europe 500.000 years ago. But genetical studies have also shown that modern Asian don't descend from them, but from a more recent African ancestor (Homo Sapiens, about 100.000-50.000 BCE).

Neanderthal skeletons found show that the species suddenly disappeared around 40.000 BCE. They could either have been exterminated in a fight against Homo Sapiens, or have perished from misadaptation, or have mixed with Homo Sapiens. The same thing might have happened in Asia. The first Asian Homo Erectus would have evolved into a very similar species to the Homo Sapiens (i.e. the former African Homo Erectus), which could be yet another species not found by archeologist so far, along with Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens.

In short, Homo Erectus could be found in Africa, Asia and Europe. The difference of climate and environment would have made them evolved in 3 new species : Homo Sapiens in Africa, Neanderthal in Europe and another undiscoved species in Asia. There is a possibility that all humans descend from this African ancestor, but that doesn't exclude that the 2 other species might have been assimilated by a larger group of Homo Sapiens "invader", resulting in the modern physiological difference between Caucassians, Mongoloids and Negroids (with other mixes between these 3 groups, such as the Indians or Semites).
 
I hope you know who I am... :p

In any case, the genetic evidence seems to indicate all the races descending fr a relatively small number of homo sapiens who pushed out of Africa only very recently - not fr all the various homo erectus groups on all three continents.

I'll look for the news article later; seemed to remember reading them quite a while ago... :)
 
Here's the news article... :p

Scientists Use DNA Fragments To Trace The Migration Of Modern Humans
Human beings may have made their first journey out of Africa as recently as 70,000 years ago, according to a new study by geneticists from Stanford University and the Russian Academy of Sciences. Writing in the American Journal of Human Genetics, the researchers estimate that the entire population of ancestral humans at the time of the African expansion consisted of only about 2,000 individuals.

"This estimate does not preclude the presence of other populations of Homo sapiens sapiens [modern humans] in Africa, although it suggests that they were probably isolated from one another genetically, and that contemporary worldwide populations descend from one or very few of those populations," said Marcus W. Feldman, the Burnet C. and Mildred Finley Wohlford Professor at Stanford and co-author of the study.

The small size of our ancestral population may explain why there is so little genetic variability in human DNA compared with that of chimpanzees and other closely related species, Feldman added.

The study, published in the May edition of the journal, is based on research conducted in Feldman`s Stanford laboratory in collaboration with co-authors Lev A. Zhivotovsky of the Russian Academy and former Stanford graduate student Noah A. Rosenberg, now at the University of Southern California.

"Our results are consistent with the `out-of-Africa` theory, according to which a sub-Saharan African ancestral population gave rise to all populations of anatomically modern humans through a chain of migrations to the Middle East, Europe, Asia, Oceania and America," Feldman noted.

Ancient roots

Since all human beings have virtually identical DNA, geneticists have to look for slight chemical variations that distinguish one population from another. One technique involves the use of "microsatellites" - short repetitive fragments of DNA whose patterns of variation differ among populations. Because microsatellites are passed from generation to generation and have a high mutation rate, they are a useful tool for estimating when two populations diverged.

In their study, the research team compared 377 microsatellite markers in DNA collected from 1,056 individuals representing 52 geographic sites in Africa, Eurasia (the Middle East, Europe, Central and South Asia), East Asia, Oceania and the Americas.

Statistical analysis of the microsatellite data revealed a close genetic relationship between two hunter-gatherer populations in sub-Saharan Africa - the Mbuti pygmies of the Congo Basin and the Khoisan (or "bushmen") of Botswana and Namibia. These two populations "may represent the oldest branch of modern humans studied here," the authors concluded.

The data revealed a genetic split between the ancestors of these hunter-gatherer populations and the ancestors of contemporary African farming people - Bantu speakers who inhabit many countries in southern Africa. "This division occurred between 70,000 and 140,000 years ago and was followed by the expansion out of Africa into Eurasia, Oceania, East Asia and the Americas - in that order," Feldman said.

This result is consistent with an earlier study in which Feldman and others analyzed the Y chromosomes of more than 1,000 men from 21 different populations. In that study, the researchers concluded that the first human migration from Africa may have occurred roughly 66,000 years ago.

Population bottlenecks

The research team also found that indigenous hunter-gatherer populations in Africa, the Americas and Oceania have experienced very little growth over time. "Hunting and gathering could not support a significant increase in population size," Feldman explained. "These populations probably underwent severe bottlenecks during which their numbers crashed - possibly because of limited resources, diseases and, in some cases, the effects of long-distance migrations."

Unlike hunter-gatherers, the ancestors of sub-Saharan African farming populations appear to have experienced a population expansion that started around 35,000 years ago: "This increase in population sizes might have been preceded by technological innovations that led to an increase in survival and then an increase in the overall birth rate," the authors wrote. The peoples of Eurasia and East Asia also show evidence of population expansion starting about 25,000 years ago, they added.

"The exciting thing about these data is that they are amenable to a combination of mathematical models and statistical analyses that can help solve problems that are important in paleontology, archaeology and anthropology," Feldman concluded.

###

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and the Russian Foundation for Basic Research.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030528081109.htm
 
I don't buy the "pure 'human'", out-of-Africa dogma.

The basic problem is that the evidence is simply appaling. A few, sparsely scattered skeletons scattered over the entire length of the planet and separated by thousands of years each. They're trying to reconstruct the city of London from the damaged base of a Fulham letterbox. :eek:

A smaller problem is that it flies in the face of our knowledge of human beings. The idea that every primitive humanoid was totally wiped out everywhere is plainly nonsense. Virtually all the human evolution that we can document is cultural, not genetic. If humans kill rival groups, they don't tend to kill fertile women...at least, there is a strong tendency not to in all the cultures surveyed by anthropologists. T

Also, don't they have to explain why human habitation of Australasia appears to significantly predate the African exodus. Maybe the "Africans" did get to Australia before the modern era, but they clearly mixed with the indigenous inhabitants.

http://home.twmi.rr.com/canovan/kowswamp/kowswamp.htm

My problem is that I'm really not an expert. Yet people tell me all these things, and "scientists" appear to be very bad historians. The Out-of-Africa theory is nothing more than a suggestion in the face of almost total ignorance...and it'll change once they start to dig up more skeletons, as it always has.
 
But the genetic evidence does support the out of Africa theory - humans are a very undiverse species - a single tribe of a couple dozen chimpanzess has more genetic diversity than the entire human race. If early humans did mix with other hominids, you would expect there to be a lot more genetic diversity. Now, I expect that early humans did TRY to mix with other hominids - but it is entirely possible that homo sapiens just couldn't have fertile children with other hominids.
 
Yeah...but there's no evidence for that.

You might as well postulate that a bunch of invisible blue fairies march daily up and down 5th Avenue...just as much evidence :p
 
Originally posted by Julien
Others say that Europeans descend from both Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens, but can't agree whether it is all Europeans or just Northern Europeans (with blue eyes or fair hair) or even a tiny minority living in remoter part of Scandinavia.
That was the dumbest **** I've read today. The ice age in Scandinavia ended just about 10 000 years ago.
 
Yeah. We may appear primitive up here, but we're still homo sapiens :viking:
 
Originally posted by Karl Lenin

That was the dumbest **** I've read today. The ice age in Scandinavia ended just about 10 000 years ago.

Of course, but that's not the point ! Neanderthal could have been progressively pushed back North by other hominids. If you had the slightest knowledge of ethnological history, you should know that modern Europeans descend mainly from the Aryans living around the Black Sea (Ukraine, Caucasus...) around 5000 BCE. Among these were different tribes which evolved into the Celts, Germanics, Latins, Greeks and Slavs. Another group of Aryans invade what is now Iran, Pakistan, India and Banglasdesh, and mixed with the locals (some high-caste Indians nowadays still have white skin and blue-grey eyes, as they didn't mix with the local Dravidians at all).

Celts were living in most of what is now Britain, France, Belgium Southern Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Northern Italy and Spain.
They were however pushed century after century to the Western edge of Europe to Ireland, Scotland, Wales, little Britanny (in France) and North-West Spain (Galicia, Asturias...). As Aryans invaded Europe from the East, there is a chance that a remaining group of Neanderthal (or mixed Sapiens-Neanderthal) was pushed up to Northern Scandinavia (Lapons, or even legendary Trolls ?).
 
Originally posted by XIII
I hope you know who I am... :p

How could I forget one of the few Singaporian of this forum (actually Malay, aren't you ?) with such a brilliant mastery of history, KnightDragon. :) You are still in my buddy list. :p
 
Originally posted by Julien
Of course, but that's not the point ! Neanderthal could have been progressively pushed back North by other hominids. If you had the slightest knowledge of ethnological history, you should know that modern Europeans descend mainly from the Aryans living around the Black Sea (Ukraine, Caucasus...) around 5000 BCE. Among these were different tribes which evolved into the Celts, Germanics, Latins, Greeks and Slavs. Another group of Aryans invade what is now Iran, Pakistan, India and Banglasdesh, and mixed with the locals (some high-caste Indians nowadays still have white skin and blue-grey eyes, as they didn't mix with the local Dravidians at all).

Celts were living in most of what is now Britain, France, Belgium Southern Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Northern Italy and Spain.
They were however pushed century after century to the Western edge of Europe to Ireland, Scotland, Wales, little Britanny (in France) and North-West Spain (Galicia, Asturias...). As Aryans invaded Europe from the East, there is a chance that a remaining group of Neanderthal (or mixed Sapiens-Neanderthal) was pushed up to Northern Scandinavia (Lapons, or even legendary Trolls ?).
That hasn't been proven...

We don't know if there's such a thing as an 'Aryan', or rather an Indo-European 'race' or if it's only a cultural grouping of a few peoples. This 'Aryan' invasion into Europe could be nothing more than the spread of a culture and its implements (incl language) westwards amongst the Neolithic communities of Europe IMO.

Same for the Celts - unsure if it's more of a cultural grouping, than of a single race of people.
 
Originally posted by Julien


Of course, but that's not the point ! Neanderthal could have been progressively pushed back North by other hominids. If you had the slightest knowledge of ethnological history, you should know that modern Europeans descend mainly from the Aryans living around the Black Sea (Ukraine, Caucasus...) around 5000 BCE. Among these were different tribes which evolved into the Celts, Germanics, Latins, Greeks and Slavs. Another group of Aryans invade what is now Iran, Pakistan, India and Banglasdesh, and mixed with the locals (some high-caste Indians nowadays still have white skin and blue-grey eyes, as they didn't mix with the local Dravidians at all).

Celts were living in most of what is now Britain, France, Belgium Southern Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Northern Italy and Spain.
They were however pushed century after century to the Western edge of Europe to Ireland, Scotland, Wales, little Britanny (in France) and North-West Spain (Galicia, Asturias...). As Aryans invaded Europe from the East, there is a chance that a remaining group of Neanderthal (or mixed Sapiens-Neanderthal) was pushed up to Northern Scandinavia (Lapons, or even legendary Trolls ?).
With knowledge in ethnological history you have, you should at least know that the Samis arrived to Scandinavia from east.
 
Originally posted by calgacus
Yeah...but there's no evidence for that.

You might as well postulate that a bunch of invisible blue fairies march daily up and down 5th Avenue...just as much evidence :p

But there IS VERY strong evidence that humans are genetically undiverse. If humans did intermix with other hominids to any significant degree, and the offspring were fertile, blended into the human population, then you would expect there to be a LOT more genetic diversity in the human race.

Currently, we don't know directly if early homo sapiens did or did not attempt to interbreed with other hominids, or if such a union could produce fertile offspring. But even if they did produce fertile children, said children had little or no effect on current human's genetic makeup.
 
Originally posted by calgacus

A smaller problem is that it flies in the face of our knowledge of human beings. The idea that every primitive humanoid was totally wiped out everywhere is plainly nonsense. Virtually all the human evolution that we can document is cultural, not genetic. If humans kill rival groups, they don't tend to kill fertile women...at least, there is a strong tendency not to in all the cultures surveyed by anthropologists.

There are quite a few respectable theories that support this premise. The Catastrophe theorists have gone so far as to link it with a definite event- the eruption of the Toba "Supervolcano" in what is now Sumatra.
 
Back
Top Bottom