| Author |
Message |
    
Cavebear
cave painter
Username: Cavebear
Post Number: 2617
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 5:39 pm: |     |
(SSR) "I don't think any Neandertals were all that isolated from each other."
OK, we agree on that.
(SSR) "Personally, I think they were isolated enough from "modern" humans for long enough, so that they tended to develop, mostly through processes like genetic drift, a suite of characteristics which more or less "identifies" the fossils"
I agree with that, too. As far as I know, that's why they are separately identified as Neanderthals. I have never agreed with "Homo neanderthalis" designations.
(SSR) "But I doubt that even here, they were isoleated enough from "modern" humans not to share more important characteristics with the latter(particularly behavioral ones), so that if they met, they probably could mate. Whether this kind of absorption was the ultimate "fate" of the Neandertals, we will probably never know"
What behavioral characteristics do you think Neanderthals adopted from contact with Modern Humans? Why would the adoption of behavioral characteristics suggest that they could physically interbreed with Modern Humans?
(SSR) "As for the Neandertals, at least one biological anthropologist I am familiar with, has suggested that it is more likely that Neandertals may well have been light-haired and light-eyed, e.g., having blond or red hair for the most part, and blue, green, hazel, etc., eyes"
I have often wondered myself why so many seem to assume that Neanderthals had swarthy skin and brown and eyes. Given the climate and latitude the Neanderthals occupied, I would think light skin and eyes, too. I still think that would have been relatively uniform across their range, though. Since most superficial differences among Modern Humans seem to have originated in distinct geographical areas and are still spreading slowly through the human population by gradual genetic intermixing, I think it is unlikely that Neanderthals (in their restricted area) also happened to develop all those mutations independently. Neanderthals may have all been blonde-haired and blue-eyed, or they may have been red-haired and green-eyed, or they might have been some other combination, but I don't think they would have been all or most of them.
Machiavelli was pretty devious. For a guy... |
Sidescraper_gal
hunter
Username: Sidescraper_gal
Post Number: 356
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 8:59 pm: | |
Scott, Cavebear, and all:
To clarify: As Scott has probably guessed, I'm something of a "modified" multiregionalist. Or at least, I believe that parts of both theories contain kernels of truth. And I also think that Neandertals, even if they \were} some sort of separate species, were "species" in the way that certain species of gulls are "separate species". Two such "species" of gull interbreed in my part of the world, that people who study them throw up their hands and call them "hybrids". Something like Lagar Velho, maybe? And then, if you're more interested in mammalian interbreeding, there is a story that has been all over the various news media about a "grizzly"/"brown" bear x polar bear cross, whose "mixed up" nature was confirmed by DNA. Frankly, given their increasingly similar-seeming behavior, I rather doubt if Neandertals were even this "speciated". But that's just my opinion at the moment.
However, it would seem that Scott, Cavebear, and I tend to agree on the "essentials" -- that Neandertals were cut off for long periods of time from other human groups, e.g. those humans that became "modern". Because of this (relative) isolation, they developed some rather unique physical characteristics which make them relatively easy to identify as fossils. Yet their behavior seems to have been identical or nearly identical to that of their "modern" cousins. Whether they would have, in their little bands, a mixture of red, blond, blue eyed, green eyed, etc., people is impossible to say. However, I do think it quite likely there were geographical areas where most of the little bands of Neandertals were blond and blue eyed or mostly red haired and green or hazel eyed and so on. Those living in the Middle East may have mostly been dark haired and slightly darker skinned, for all we know. Unfortunately characteristics such as skin color don't fossilize, so we are pretty much left guessing. And while their "trading networks" or whatever they had, tended to be smaller than those of later "moderns"(at least in some places), I think this was largely due to the Neandertals' apparently relatively small populations, and not doe to any lack of brainpower or "smarts" or linguistic ability or anything else you can think of that is characteristic of "modern" humans. Also, you have to bear in mind that, until relatively "late" in the game --- probably long after there were no longer any Neandertals anywhere --- "modern" human groups were probably almost equally small and scattered. It was just that in AFrica, there were more scattered little groups than there were in Eurasia. There were, after all(and still are) more habitats for people in Africa.
Finally, bear in mind that genetic drift as a concept, covers a lot of ground. While the genetic drift of whatever population or populations "founded" the Neandertals affected their general "shape", it's perfectly possible that other characteristics like eye, skin, and hair color, might well have been somewhat variable(within a fairly limited range). And because Neandertals bands were likely not totally isolated from each other, some of these variable characteristics may well have spread from one population to another, just as such "variable" characteristics among humans do today.
Anne G |
Cavebear
cave painter
Username: Cavebear
Post Number: 2618
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 11:02 pm: | |
(SidescraperGal) "However, I do think it quite likely there were geographical areas where most of the little bands of Neandertals were blond and blue eyed or mostly red haired and green or hazel eyed and so on."
Can you support that idea in any way? It seems to have taken a much larger population and geographical distribution to develop those genetic changes across Africa/Asia among Modern Humans.
(SidescraperGal) "There were, after all(and still are) more habitats for people in Africa"
Can you support that claim? Temperate zones generally have more varied habitable conditions for humans.
(SidescraperGal) "And because Neandertals bands were likely not totally isolated from each other, some of these variable characteristics may well have spread from one population to another, just as such "variable" characteristics among humans do today"
I agree with that...
Machiavelli was pretty devious. For a guy... |
Ecfanatic
bear cub
Username: Ecfanatic
Post Number: 6
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 3:29 pm: | |
But wouldn't there still be variations among isolated populations? Genetic mutations are extremely common--that's why we all look different. It's not that I object to Auel actually telling us that the characters look similar; it's that she neglected to mention that fact altogether. 
Listen to the music inside you... |
Sidescraper_gal
hunter
Username: Sidescraper_gal
Post Number: 358
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 8:10 pm: | |
Ecfanatic:
Yes, genetic mutations of one kind or another are more common than many people like to suppose. As long as the mutations are more or less "neutral", they will spread, through drift caused by isolation, in any given population. Of course, once the population becomes "unisolated", then then other little groups will begin to spreaid their genes and "specialization" will start to break down. |
Sidescraper_gal
hunter
Username: Sidescraper_gal
Post Number: 359
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 8:13 pm: | |
Cavebear:
If you want (one) possible source of my contentions, you might want to look for a copy of Race and Human Evolution: A Fatal Attraction. It came out in 1997 and the authors are Milford Wolpoff and Rachel Caspari. Mind you, I don't agree with everything they wrote, by any means. But the map at the beginning of the book, and their explanations about that map(AFrica is prominently displayed), make a fair amount of sense to me.
Anne G |
Cavebear
cave painter
Username: Cavebear
Post Number: 2621
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 9:01 pm: | |
My admiration for Wolpoff knows no bounds. I generally agree with him. I am a multi-regionalist (with the exception of the Neanderthals mostly isolated in Europe).
I looked at the book reviews, and I think it is not a book I will purchase. Unfortunately, the "look inside" feature at amazon did not include the map you mention. If you can copy or link to it, I would be interested in seeing what you are referring to.
Be that as it may, I find it difficult to believe that Africa has "more" habitats than "the rest of the world", which is what you appear to claim. Africa has many habitats, and that variation had tremendous effect on initial hominid evolution; but I don't think you can say "more habitats". There is simply too much variation in the rest of the world.
Machiavelli was pretty devious. For a guy... |
Sidescraper_gal
hunter
Username: Sidescraper_gal
Post Number: 360
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 19, 2006 - 9:26 pm: | |
Cavebear:
To be perfectly honest, this is not what Iclaim, but what Wolpoff claims, based at least in part on the map he's talking about. And if you don't want to purchase the book, you might wish to check it out of your local library(or go through Interlibrary Loan, perhaps). It's worth reading, even if you don't agree with him about Neandertals. And then you can look at the world map, and you'll see what Wolpoff is driving at. When I looked at the map, it made perfectly good sense to me.
As for Neandertals being "isolated", sure they were. But so were the H.erectus people on Java. And the Original Australians were isolated to some extent from the rest of "humanity" for \at least} a good 60,000 years. And yet nobody says they are a "separate species", as people often say about Neandertals. So IMO, the "isolation" factor re Neandertals may not "mean much" of anything. Just look at members of the genus Canis(dogs, wolves, coyotes, jackals). They have all been shown to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Which makes for some awfully interesting "wolves", at least around the Great Lakes region and somewhat farther east.
Anyway, all I'm suggesting is, read the book by getting it from your local library, or something like that,
Anne G |
|
Ayla's World 
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page