Whatever happened to browridges?

[Mise]

So what you're saying Carlos is that large brow ridges were filtered out purely (or rather primarily) because they are less physically attractive than smaller brow ridges?

On second thoughts, I think I'm misunderstanding that last sentence -- do you mean women prefer small brow ridges and large brains, or do you mean brow ridges physically inhibit the development of a larger brain, thereby reducing the carrier's ability to survive?

 

[carlosMM]

Mise: very large browridges inhibit (because they are in direct neighbourhood to) the signal 'smart guy' (from large forehead), thus they get selected less. OTOH, they themselves signal 'very masculine guy' thus they are not totally gone.


Women prefer both: smart guys and masculine, strong guys. But you can't really have both all the way. Basically, medium to weak (but still existent) browridges are a compromise of selection.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Edit: Here's a paper concluding that the Lagar Velho kid was just an unusually heavily built modern (Cro Magnon) boy.

Its weird that there isnt any absolutely conclusive evidence either way regarding interbreeding. Neanderthals were so recent youd think there would be plenty of their DNA stil intact to compare to ours. Ive read that there have been some DNA studies that indicated Neanderthals werent just thick, muscular humans, but I wonder from what time period these DNA samples were taken. If they were taken from 200,000 year old fossils, before the long period of interaction between them and modern humans, then it wouldnt be surprising that they appear to be very distinct. Maybe a 200,000 year old Neanderthal DNA sample and a 50,000 year old sample would show that there had been some genetic mingling? The article discounting the Lagar Velho kid as being a hybrid is interesting in that it shows how looking at a single piece of evidence can produce completely different conclusions depending on the mindset of the person looking at it. Duarte looks at the childs skeleton and emphasizes the similiarities to Neanderthals, and the other side looks at it and focuses on the similiarities to modern humans. It seems possible to me that a hybrid thats the result of millennia of interbreeding would easily produce these two different opinions precisely because its a hybrid and possesses enough features from both neanderthals and humans to give ammunition to both sides of the debate.

 

[carlosMM]

bozo: the big problem is that we expect hardly ANY difference in DNA - what are the chances of actually finding THAT piece that will be different enough from us 8and our variation) but typical for a neandthal man?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

bozo: the big problem is that we expect hardly ANY difference in DNA - what are the chances of actually finding THAT piece that will be different enough from us 8and our variation) but typical for a neandthal man?

Oh you mean that our DNA and that of neanderthals are so similar that finding something to distinguish between the two would be like finding a needle in a haystack? If our DNA is so similar then wouldnt that imply that interbreeding was possible and could have produced viable offspring?

 

[jonatas]

so what is the scientific community's opinion on the possibility of Neanderthal / Homo Sapiens interbreeding? I mean historically it's swung back and forth, hasn't it? so what is the most current understanding?

 

[Shaihulud]

Well if humans and neanderthal can breed then I certainly see that there was propablly interbreeding on their part years ago. Anyway I like the idea that we were descended from cavemen.

 

[carlosMM]

Oh you mean that our DNA and that of neanderthals are so similar that finding something to distinguish between the two would be like finding a needle in a haystack? If our DNA is so similar then wouldnt that imply that interbreeding was possible and could have produced viable offspring?

possibility from DNA view doesn't mean they did. I'd say: insufficient data!




another thing about the brow ridges that came to me when looking in the mirror:

I have quite light skin and dark eyebrows. These emphasize the brow ridges a lot, thus I do not need big brow ridges. It is entirely feasible that a stronger contrast between skin and eyebrows (and the total lack of hair on far larger areas of the face than previously) led to a selection for weaker brow ridges - the effect was already there without them, and large ridges look - well - brutish!

 

[Masquerouge]

One not-so-good explanation is that people with apparent browridge would be less selected by mates to procreate, because you look rather backward and ugly with a browridge...

O dear, apparently my not-so-good guess is backed up by CFC's paleontologist ?

 

[carlosMM]

O dear, apparently my not-so-good guess is backed up by CFC's paleontologist ?

well, what's it like today? Obviously, there has at some time in the past been a shift from whatever previous beauty ideal to a preference for people who look smart and have rather undistinguished facial features except for the nose. High flat forehead, small retracted snout, flatter than before cheeks, less prominent eyeborw ridges. Compare an average human to any average other Great Ape and you will see the trend: pro large braincase & small face, pro youth, contra prominent (indicating maturity) features, contra teeth.

 

[The Last Conformist]

bozo: the big problem is that we expect hardly ANY difference in DNA - what are the chances of actually finding THAT piece that will be different enough from us 8and our variation) but typical for a neandthal man?

I saw a study of some Neanderthal DNA fragments that concluded that for those pieces at least, Neanderthals were outside the range of variation found in modern humans, and probably to be considered a separate species.

Maybe I can find it again.

 

[carlosMM]

I saw a study of some Neanderthal DNA fragments that concluded that for those pieces at least, Neanderthals were outside the range of variation found in modern humans, and probably to be considered a separate species.

Maybe I can find it again.

I remember something like that as well - if you work with a large enough database you get good results for the groups. it is the individual that's hard to place.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

The ideally-survivable human being would be one who has the armor plating of a crab, natural weaponry such as claws, sharper senses such as an eagle's eyesight and a wolf's sense of smell, a hammerhead shark's electrical sensor for detecting hidden prey.

That kind of creature would have no need to get very smart. Indeed, with no claws, no body armor and even no fur insulating the body humans could only get smarter to survive. But look at it from a diferent perspective: we now have both intelligence, body armor (kevlar), fire arms, "eyes" to see megaparsecs away, a literal capacity to move mountains, crack open the crust of the Earth and destroy all superior life forms on the surface of the planet. We sure did get more than we bargained for

 

[The Last Conformist]

I remember something like that as well - if you work with a large enough database you get good results for the groups. it is the individual that's hard to place.

Found a talk.origins article on the subject.