Rase Mixing, Old School: Researchers find Neatherthal DNA in Modern Humans

[emzie]

I've heard that term, but I'd always thought it's use was dependent on the assertion that Neanderthals were also classified as Homo sapiens. Is that so, or does it have some other significance?

I see it more in contrast with so-called archaic homo sapiens. Your and my ancestors from 250,000 years ago are more similar to Neanderthals than us.

 

[Bill3000]

I've heard that term, but I'd always thought it's use was dependent on the assertion that Neanderthals were also classified as Homo sapiens. Is that so, or does it have some other significance?

There are other homo sapiens subspecies, namely [wiki]homo sapiens idaltu[/wiki].

 

[Lord Baal]

This is really interesting, but not really that surprising. As innonimatu said earlier, cohabitation between early homo sapiens and Neanderthals was already known from grave sites, as are several apparent mixed offspring. Jean M. Auel even wrote a very popular series (Earth's Children) about it.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I thought Neanderthals were mainly from Northern Europe/Asia and Homo Sapiens were from Africa?

I think it explains the ginger gene though

 

[bathsheba666]

Ah well, that explains Republicans.

So, where were they stored on the Ark?

 

[Elta]

Just posting to be subscribed

 

[Traitorfish]

I see it more in contrast with so-called archaic homo sapiens. Your and my ancestors from 250,000 years ago are more similar to Neanderthals than us.

I see; in this model, Homo sapiens becomes the name of a shared ancestor of both modern humans and Neanderthal. Where does H. rhodesiensis fit in this model? Or do would they be the initial sub-species of H. sapiens? (Wiki notes that they are sometimes termed H. sapiens rhodesiensis.)

There are other homo sapiens subspecies, namely [wiki]homo sapiens idaltu[/wiki].

Interesting, thank you.

Also, out of interest, exactly how far is the label "human" understood to extend? Is it simply to Homo sapiens sapiens, to all homo sapiens or to the entire genus? I assume that it doesn't extent to non-homo hominids, at least not unless we implicitly include chimps.

 

[emzie]

I see; in this model, Homo sapiens becomes the name of a shared ancestor of both modern humans and Neanderthal. Where does H. rhodesiensis fit in this model? Or do would they be the initial sub-species of H. sapiens? (Wiki notes that they are sometimes termed H. sapiens rhodesiensis.)

This kinda gets at a question that floats around my mind. How different are we, from the prospective of an outsider, to Homo heidelbergensis or Homo rhodesiensis or any other hominid fossil from the last million years? Certainly, to us they look... different. But is their morphology as different from us as the three species of zebra? My suspicion is no. It is for that reason that I would lean towards considering them all homo sapiens... and it's also why trying to label species, I think, is somewhat of a silly endeavour.

But to get back to your question, I'm not sure where to place any specific fossil in relation to our ancestors. Trying to label any as a human ancestor is guess work. I'm not too concerned with knowing just which fossilized example was our direct ancestor. It's enough to get the idea of what the ancestor would have been like. It's for this reason that I lean towards calling Homo heidelbergensis or Homo rhodesiensis as just archaic, or if pushed to give a precise name, include them as subspecies to Homo sapiens.

If you want a hard answer, ask a paleontologist. If you don't like the answer you get from him or her, ask any other paleontologist for a totally different answer.

Also, out of interest, exactly how far is the label "human" understood to extend? Is it simply to Homo sapiens sapiens, to all homo sapiens or to the entire genus? I assume that it doesn't extent to non-homo hominids, at least not unless we implicitly include chimps.

Another question that will yield you completely different answers based on whom you ask! I would lean towards what I said earlier about silly endeavours. The variation found in modern humans (between mental retardation and those with minds beyond my comprehension) is going to be larger than the average person today and our ancestor 500,000 years ago.

 

[Yared]

So, where were they stored on the Ark?

I wonder this myself.

 

[Babbler]

Here's an interesting post from somebody who know WTH they are actually talking about.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

See - I told you neanderthals were ginger!

 

[civ_king]

I thought Neanderthals were mainly from Northern Europe/Asia and Homo Sapiens were from Africa?

I think it explains the ginger gene though

bwahahaha mind rape opportunities

 

[civverguy]

There could be other subspecies like Homo sapiens idaltu inter breeding in Africa if that's true.

 

[Lord Baal]

There could be other subspecies like Homo sapiens idaltu inter breeding in Africa if that's true.

There were probably plenty of them. We just haven't found most of them yet. Homo Idaltu isn't the only subspecies of homo sapiens, after all.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I wonder this myself.

Wasn't it only two of each animal?

Now the giants were upon the earth in those days; and after that when the sons of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men, they bore [children to them, those were the giants of old, the men of renown. - Genesis 6:4

 

[Yared]

Are you saying that the giants were the Neanderthals?

 

[Lillefix]

Wasn't it only two of each animal?

Seven pairs of all "clean" animals. I don't know if the Jews consider humans to be "clean".

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I'm just giving a citation from the Bible. You're the one saying things

*snip*the giants were the Neanderthals*snip*

 

[Yared]

Well, I was wondering if there was something special about just that verse

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Does this mean that were are the same species as them, as we could interbreed and make fertile offspring?