Skip to comments.First Love Child of Human, Neanderthal Found
Posted on 03/30/2013 4:48:56 AM PDT by Renfield
click here to read article
Or the Supremes’ Love Child
You might be better off dealing with orcs...
Who changed the definition?
Mis-leading headline by Foxnews. It suggests Neanderthals were not human. They were fully human.
Nobody. If this is what you were taught the person who taught you was wrong. A species is an interbreeding population. Tigers and lions are separate interbreeding species and they can also produce fertile offspring when mated in captivity.
Negative ghostrider - they are all Canis lupus. Genetically all the various breeds represents reductions in the genetic code variations available, but the genomes map the same.
They are all the same species. Wolves, coyotes and Paris Hilton’s purse dog. One could argue domestic dogs are a subspecies, but that is just for the convenience of taxonomy, not genetics or biology.
p.s. I am a recovering physiologist by education.
“Tigers and lions are separate interbreeding species and they can also produce fertile offspring when mated in captivity.”
Really? Where can I see these fertile offspring? This is the first I have ever heard of this. When I look up Tiglon it is referred to as a sterile hybrid cross.
|GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach|
Thanks Renfield.Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution.The Neandertal Enigma"Frayer's own reading of the record reveals a number of overlooked traits that clearly and specifically link the Neandertals to the Cro-Magnons. One such trait is the shape of the opening of the nerve canal in the lower jaw, a spot where dentists often give a pain-blocking injection. In many Neandertal, the upper portion of the opening is covered by a broad bony ridge, a curious feature also carried by a significant number of Cro-Magnons. But none of the alleged 'ancestors of us all' fossils from Africa have it, and it is extremely rare in modern people outside Europe." [pp 126-127]
A tigon bred with a tiger and produced a ti tigon. Google image and you cqn see one.
Negative. Coyotes are not wolves. There are genetic differences, obvious morphology differences, and behavioral differences. And they rarely interbreed, but they are capable of doing so.
1) Come up with a Theory
2) Modify for Politcal correctness
3) Apply for Governemnt Grant
4) Repeat from (1) endlessly
Aren’t coyotes Canis latrans, a different species than wolves/dogs, Canis lupus?
Mules have fertility problems but offspring are not unknown. Are donkeys and horses the same species? Zedonks also can sometimes produce offspring. Are zebras and donkeys the same species?
66 posts. I bet it’s already too late for IBTHP...
German & Austrian descent here with some Irish sprinkled in. One of the last known genetic defects of the Neanderthal race is identified as HLA-B27, an indicator for Ankylosing Spondylitis, which is a spontaneous fusing of the spine and joints, along with characteristics of a protruding chin and oversided knuckles. HLA-B27 explains much of why Neanderthals were portrayed with protruding chins and hunched backs. Ankylosing Spondylitis causes spontaneous fusion followed by curvature of the spine.
As luck would have it, I have that gene. Researched it to the hilt, it was spread by the Noords who, upon invading much of Europe "spread their seed" including primarily what are now known as German's Austrian's French and the like. Speculation was the Noords also routinely inter-bred with the Neanderthals, who, generations later bred with the Germans, Austrians, Irish, French, etc..
So when my wife calls me a knuckle dragging neanderthal, I simply grunt and say "yep."
No, NO and NO!!! Those are human-PIG hybrids (specially that larger pic of Waxman. He’s the bastard homosexual lovechild of Porky Pig and his “companion.”)
Nor would they ever elect one president.
Shrinkage. Cold water...
I have pictures of my 3’boy some 20-30 years back playing with my harvested deer, pheasants and rabbits. I called them Neanderthal then. And they still fit the bill.
Joe Sex-Pack ~ The retriever would beg to differ.
Perhaps the Cro-Mangon did, to no avail.
Varmintman believes that a Cro-Magnon would never find a Neanderthal sexually attractive, and no Neanderthal would ever rape a Cro-Magnon. I think he's wrong on both counts. No way we'll ever actually know who's right.
One could also argue that Paris Hiltons purse dog and a Great Dane are different species. Tab A will not fit into Slut B!
You takee leakee, Dr. Leakee?
You spend a lot of your time shilling for Danny Vendramini, a director and producer with no discernible education in advanced biology (nor much a record as a director or producer), and his cheesy book. Over here is one of the sites debunking him.
There couldn't, therefore they were not separate species. There may have been a lot of genetic distance between Cro Mag and Neanderthal, but not enough to bar mixing. For example, although lions and tigers look very different, they can produce fertile offspring.
Consider the variation in appearance between all the various breeds of dogs. Nevertheless, the chihuahua, the mastiff, the pit bull, the golden retriever, and the poodle are all dogs, and will interbreed and produce viable offspring.
Exactly.... the most sucessful civilizations have evolved from those of mixed genetic heritage.
The fertility of hybrid big cat females is well documented across a number of different hybrids. This is in accordance with Haldane’s rule: in hybrids of animals whose sex is determined by sex chromosomes, if one sex is absent, rare or sterile, it is the heterogametic sex (the one with two different sex chromosomes e.g. X and Y).
According to Wild Cats of the World (1975) by C. A. W. Guggisberg, ligers and tigons were long thought to be sterile: in 1943, a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an ‘Island’ tiger was successfully mated with a lion at the Munich Hellabrunn Zoo. The female cub, though of delicate health, was raised to adulthood.
In September 2012, the Russian Novosibirsk Zoo announced the birth of a “liliger”, which is the offspring of a liger mother and a lion father. The cub was named Kiara.
This only indicates the production of what I would call a third generation offspring, there have been isolated reports of a third generation mule but so far as I know there have been no reports of a fourth or fifth and so on. A third generation means nothing unless the third and succeeding generations are themselves fertile. Do you have any evidence of that? So far I am still convinced that true hybrids of mammals are sterile.
Coyote are not are not wolves are not Shelties are not Beagles. And the genetic differences are a result of genetic reduction, ie Shelties lack the genes to breed Beagle-like (morphologically) offspring but they are all the same ‘species’ genetically. Taxonomy is not an exact science.
Reality doesn’ t always conform to the nice neat boxes that people want to segregate them into, but even the most extreme lumper taxonomist doesn’t classify wolves and coyotes as the same species. Inability to easily reproduce together is a possible effect of a long reproductive separation. It is not what defines species.
Given time and effort, one could THEORETICALLY start with a pair of wolves and produce “Beagles” but the reverse is not true, as the genes for Wolf morphology have been bred out of the Beagle population.
Definition of “species” via the discipline of taxonomy was not my point. My original point is that Neanderthals were Homo sapiens genetically, and could readily inter-breed with Homo sapiens sapiens today ... given enough money.
My point comes from a genetics perspective: we and Neanderthals share the same genes/chromosome pairs. (unlike chimps and humans for example). Our gametes are compatible, if not our morphology ;-)
I have no use for Vendrtamini's thesis about predation from Neanderthals driving gracile hominids to punc-eek their way to Cro-Magnonhood, but his (Vendramini's) reconstructions of Neanderthals are totally believable. All early reconstructions such as Pierre Boule's were entirely similar to Vendramini's and this is a case where the scholars of 1900 goty it right and the yuppies of 2013 are getting it wrong. .
Given enough time and effort one could get a wolf like dog from a beagle. None of the changes in DNA are irreversible. And Neanderthal were Homo Neanderthal not Homo Sapien. They were a distinct and separate population.
The continuation of the article points out that the find had mitochondrial DNA from a Neanderthal. Thus the female parent was Neanderthal and the male Homo Sapien. The possibility of rape is mentioned.
You and i are just going to have to disagree.
If a population is homozygous for a gene or series of genes it cannot produce the absent trait. Ie blue eyed parents cannot have brown eyed offspring.
The reduction in the variation of the Canis genome that yields ‘Beagles ‘ means that Beagles’ lineage cannot be bred to make wolves (morphology ) because those genes are not in the Beagles’ chromosomes.
Sans ‘magic’ mutations in the genome of course.
Taxonomy is a human construct not a genetic one.
On mobile pardon any errors.
Mutations don’t need to be magic. The gene for floppy ears is not in the wolf population. It is a mutation that was selected for by dog breeders. A throwback mutation of that gene would give you a beagle with upright ears. If that was selected for, rather than against, you would have beagles with upright ears. Wolves don’t have genes for short stubby legs in their population.... etc, etc.
I think the point that Blueflag is making is that the genes that would produce wolf like characteristics have been bred out of the beagle line.
The wolf contains ALL the genes required to make a beagle. But the beagle does NOT contain all the genes to make a wolf.
And that point is absolutely WRONG! There are no genes for short stubby legs in the wolf population. It is not a matter of selecting from among genetic variations that are already present in wolves, it is a matter of finding and selecting for any desired variation that arises over thousands of years of dog breeding.
Thank you John O. Yes.
Like i posted before. We will have to disagree.
The morphology of the first wolf population domesticated by humans was for a WOLF morphology - not a giant Great Dane or a yappy terrier, no down ears, no webbed feet, no short stubby legs, no pushed in muzzles, etc, etc.
The combined genetic variation in all dog breeds is MUCH LARGER than the genetic variations in wolves - let alone that small population of wolves that humans domesticated.
One does not get webbed feet in Labradors by mixing the right combination of wolf DNA already present in wolf populations - one must await a spontaneous mutation (they are not that uncommon) for webbed feet and breed for that trait.
Not gonna even try to engage a discussion on codons, alleles and tripled or neutral vs deleterious mutation arguments.
There is/are a lot of non-coding or seemingly non-coding components of DNA that can express in morphology or physiology - or not- for good, bad or no known effect.
And for what it’s worth trying to get those words into a post with auto spell on is nearly impossible.
I acknowledge that mutations occur in a population, but to suggest that differences in Canis (species) morphology are preponderance due to serial mutation, and thus speciation is a place i can’t go in science.
Forgive any errors. Android auto spell killing me.
Is it your position that yappy terrier have a different gene sequence than labradors?
Obviously and empirically.
I never would have guessed that Henry Waxman was related to General Tojo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.