Neandertals Not Our Ancestors, DNA Study Suggests (Whewww!!!)

National Geographic News ^ | 5/14/03 | Hillary Mayell

[rmlew]

I wrote:
One can explain the separate adn competing hominid species of H. Sapien Neanderthalis and H. Sapien Sapien(Cro-Magnon/Modern Humans) quite easily. They each spereately evolved from H. Erectus

Really? On a scale of one to ten with an ape being one and a human ten, the neanderthal would be about a nine, while home erectus would be about a six or a seven. If we can't be descended from neanderthals because they're too apelike, how are we descended from homo erectus which is even more apelike? Or did you think home erectus was just some gay guy with a hard on???

Please work on your reading comprehension before wowing me with sophistry.
I never said that we could not have been descended from H. Neanderthalis because it was too apelike. Rather the genetic data indicates otherwise. Parallel evolution occurs all the time.

[AmericanVictory]

"None of the models we have now can explain all of the evidence."

And what about all the contrary evidence that the academic scientists generally do not deign to take notice of?

[Ahban]

H. Erectus was extinct before modern humans show up. I think you are right. If it is not Neadertal, there is nothing formodern humans to evolve from.

[Boiler Plate]

Typically, if there is interbreeding between two groups of unequal status, it often occurs between the males of the more developed culture and the females of the less developed culture.

As my wife told me, "girls always try to marry Up".

[lewislynn]

Neandertals Not Our Ancestors

I guess these people haven't seen the Baldwin brothers.

[HairOfTheDog]

Don't worry humanists and atheists. You can still claim to have been accidentally formed from a blob of primoral mud. Meanwhile, us God-fearing folk will continue celebrating that we were "fearfully and wonderfully" made by a Creator.

What a bizarre philosophy. You say that creation was "wonderful" but you mock people whose sense of wonder leads them to find out more. You are satisfied that you know as much as should be known so we should not look into origins from our feeble human ability to understand it? Should we have been satisfied with prayer and never studied medicine? Blessed are the curious. They cannot know all that God knows, but they will try to find out what they can!

[null and void]

All they've demonstrated was that Neanderthal women didn't pass on their genes. Neaderthal menn OTIH:

The First Man Was a Woman

I can't prove it, but I believe the first man was a woman.

Modern science has used mitochondrial DNA to track human origins back to a single female. This is the so-called Eve hypothesis.

I believe that this was the first fully human Homo Sapiens. A girl was born with a genetic 'defect' in her mitochondria. The mitochondria control the enzyme activity in the cell. This change affected her metabolism at a deep cellular level.

The first human had an altered metabolism that manifested itself in a suite of gross differences:

She lacked vibrissae, the sensory whiskers common to all other mammals.
She had full lips, not the thin line at the rim of the mouth typical of other species.
She was weak, compared to others of her kind.
Her features retained a more child-like appearance as she grew up.
But, the two most critical differences were a lack of body hair, and a monthly estrus cycle.

Why are the last two most critical?

The lack of body hair provided an interesting advantage. To understand this, let's look at cats. There is a breed of hairless cat. Instead of fur, they have a velvety skin. Their owners often comment on how affectionate their cats are. Affectionate? Not really, these cats are just COLD, they snuggle to keep warm!

Back to our first human, she sure is cuddly. She is much more desirable than her standoffish hairy sisters.

Rather than the annual fertility cycle, she is 'in heat' all of the time. Cuddly and friendly too!

Lacking muscle strength, she needed to be protected. The beginnings of love as we now understand it.

That she needed protection is deeply ingrained it the human psyche. In propaganda there are surprisingly few common themes. The enemy is depicted as snakes, spiders, octopus, and, ... and ... hairy ape-men seizing the furless women. The massive muscular King Kong is interested in the petite Fay Rae. Did you ever wonder why this resonated with the audience?

Simple. The first man was a woman...

[AmericaUnited]

You say that creation was "wonderful" but you mock people whose sense of wonder leads them to find out more.

NO, that's not what I'm mocking.

You are satisfied that you know as much as should be known

And once again... NO, that's not what I believe or posted.

Do you always go off into little self-made up rants? Maybe you need another drink, HairOfTheDog, to steady the nerves.

[Junior]

A Low-brow Ping...

[FreedomPoster]

>Neandertals Not Our Ancestors

>>I guess these people haven't seen the Baldwin brothers.

Not to mention:

[PatrickHenry]

A Low-brow Ping...

Must you always be so ... primitive?

[Junior]

Must be the animal in me...

[Celantro]

See here. Particularly note Skuhl 5 Cranium From Skuhl, Israel.

[martianagent]

...The lack of body hair provided an interesting advantage....

The lack of a fur coat is a disadvantage for any sort of life on land, as is the subcutaneous fat which humans have; they are adaptations for life in water. Get a copy of one of Elaine Morgan's books and read the real version.

[null and void]

Even a water ape needs to get out of the water (and warm up) once in a while...

[Lurking Libertarian]

Paging Darwin Central, ketchup spill in Aisle 3.

[martianagent]

Apparently, if you're fat enough, you don't need fur. Other adaptations for swimming and wading are having our legs be the main limbs, and being able to control our breathing. Lack of control over breathing is the main reason chimps cannot be taught to speak English.

[martianagent]

Albright has to be the ugliest woman ever invented. I'd turn gay before I'd have anything to do with her.

[Godzilla]

"An article was recently published speculating that the selective advantage that modern humans had was reproductive; that the development of a broader pelvis and wider birth canal to accommodate bigger skulls and larger brains made the difference," said Harpending. "If that were the case, it would be easy to imagine that Neandertal women breeding with anatomically modern men would have had a real hard time, and mtDNA might not show up in the modern human genome."

Excuse me (waving hand above my head), I thought that Neanderthals had, on average, a much larger cranium than C-M and moderns by several hundred cc's. If this is the case 'ol Ms N. would have had an easier time.

[null and void]

My underlying premise is that the hairless ape women are more desireable than their hairy sisters is still valid, regardless of the reason fo being less hairly and more gracile. (Water apes can get away with weaker bones and muscles)...