The Peon Posted March 17, 2006 Author Posted March 17, 2006 i have learnt much from this thread! questions which now interests me' date=' inspired by this thread, is whether a great ape (with 48 chromosomes like N-man) and a human have ever successfully mated? was N-man mostly a one N-woman guy (i am curious did they mate like [i']homo sapiens[/i] too)? anyone got a good explanation for why N-men went extinct? Out competed for territory is a distinct possibility. Sapiens out of africa had superior technology and hunting skills. As to why Neanderthals did not catch on and adapt is a mystery that leads me to believe alot more war between the two hominids was present than most would like to believe. Aggressive land claims and removals were probobly taking place over the course of the 6000 years or so it took to wipe out the Neanderthals. That was your logic' date=' that prehistoric humans would have mated with the neanderthals, not mine. I didnt give my opinion. Also I am well aware interracial couples are not just confined to caucasians and blacks. Interracial couples are just not that high compared to pure racial couples even with globalizations/etc. I never claimed you were caucasian. Notice also I quoted the words caucasian because with modern anthropology, the ideas of racial subgroups (such as caucasian, mongoloid and negriod) simply dont exist. The question was, given that you were a caucasian, do you think having neanderthal genes to be a good thing or not? Im trying to understand the underlying tones behind the motivation for your claims. Everytime people claim having 'greek' caucasian features the way they are (blond hair, blue/green eyes white skin complexion) are the result of environmental factors, I would like to know the reason why they think so. I dont think having a big nose is a physical advantage in keeping the air warm for your lungs. First of all the nose doesnt improve heating of air intake that much. A larger nose means also that the surface area is larger and hense greater heat loss from convection, etc. Basically Im pointing out that all of this is just free for all debates/opinions = philosophy. Everytime I hear people use such terms as negroid/mongoloid/caucasian then try to justify some sort of philosophical agenda they have (disguised as science), I tend to be a little weiry if it is really backed up by a hint of racism. I get a little more wiery when they claim that caucasians have neanderthal genes then claim that neanderthals have bigger brains (even though bigger brain does not mean higher intelligence btw); it just seems like a start on the whole justifying superiority thing.[/quote'] Just... sigh.... Does this look like a White power forums? This is a science forums and the thread was strictly meant for that. Please take this trolling elsewhere. As for my "attack" on you I apologize, I was agitated by what I am percieving as needless trolling on a good topic. As to the one decent question you asked, I dont think having neanderthal genes would be either good or bad necessarily. In fact some of the research I have done has lead me to believe that some mental disorders are possibly caused by the genes, hence it would do more bad than good. (Which brings up an old curiousity I always had, which is the question as to why 90% of documented serial killers are "white"). In regards to your questioning the larger nasal cavitys use in cold enviroments, please read the link I posted above in regards to it. It will enlighten you.
mattbimbo Posted March 17, 2006 Posted March 17, 2006 it is a good topic but my main concern is the mating problem, 24 + 23 = 47 ! i want to use the term aneuploidy but i am not sure how it applies. is there any research where mating can occur between species of different chromosome number? i did find a reference http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1323485.stm reporting that no neanderthal genes were found on the Y chromosome. i am not sure of the significance of this but i have read that >90% of the Y chromosome is a gene junk yard.
The Peon Posted March 17, 2006 Author Posted March 17, 2006 it is a good topic but my main concern is the mating problem' date=' 24 + 23 = 47 ! i want to use the term aneuploidy but i am not sure how it applies.is there any research where mating can occur between species of different chromosome number? i did find a reference http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1323485.stm reporting that no neanderthal genes were found on the Y chromosome. i am not sure of the significance of this but i have read that >90% of the Y chromosome is a gene junk yard.[/quote'] Read my last post on page 1. I believe that answers the question. Especially the example of the coyote and the wolf. Also, the article you provided is speaking of evidence against the multiregional theory, which I don't believe in personally and I agree with the article. I am all for the out of Africa theory. What I am trying to express here is the unique genetic legacy that our African ancestors might have picked up along the extraordinary journey they made across the globe.
mattbimbo Posted March 17, 2006 Posted March 17, 2006 i have to stick to the ploidy and mating question. don't the wolf and coyote have the same number of chromosomes? 39 pairs, or 38 pairs if, like me, you don't count x-y as a pair.
The Peon Posted March 17, 2006 Author Posted March 17, 2006 i have to stick to the ploidy and mating question.don't the wolf and coyote have the same number of chromosomes? 39 pairs' date=' or 38 pairs if, like me, you don't count x-y as a pair.[/quote'] University web page: http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Neanderthal.html A quote from the article that might raise an eyebrow: "The problem with the DNA research was the interpretation," Dr. Trinkaus said. "It's demonstrably wrong. All that they showed is that Neanderthal biology is outside the range of living humans, not modern Homo sapiens back then." I was also not aware that Neanderthals had 48 chromosomes. I also had trouble finding information on this. I find it odd most credible sites and scientists I have read in regards to this issue dont state this problem, such as: Serre and his colleagues found no evidence of mtDNA gene flow between modern humans and Neandertals in either direction, but could not rule out the possibility of limited gene flow. That was from talk origins. I don't see how so many credible scientists would over look something so simple as a chromosomal pair blocking the potential for hybridization. Another quote below: However, the evidence from mitochondrial DNA is somewhat ambiguous. "The mitochondrial DNA on its own can't tell us if we're a distinct species," he explains. "It depends what mammal you take. There are some species where the difference in mitochondrial DNA between us and Neanderthals would say they were a different species. "Whereas in chimpanzees, our closest relative, you could contain the variation between us and Neanderthals in a single species alive today in Africa." Scientists need to recover better DNA from our fossils, especially the nuclear DNA. "Each gene has a separate evolution so to understand Neanderthals properly we will need different bits of their DNA to see if they're all telling us the same story," he adds. I would love for you to point me in the direction of where you got your info from. Also, does a species having an extra chromosome pair totally block out the potential for a hybrid? I am not too clear on this and would like an answer. In the end, I guess time will tell now that clearer and better DNA analysis techniques are being used. I will continue searching for answers today to see if I can come up with more info myself. Oh and lastly, from talk origins: The studies of Neandertal mtDNA do not show that Neandertals did not or could not interbreed with modern humans. However, the lack of diversity in Neandertal mtDNA sequences, combined with the large differences between Neandertal and modern human mtDNA, strongly suggest that Neandertals and modern humans developed separately, and did not form part of a single large interbreeding population. The Neandertal mtDNA studies will strengthen the arguments of those scientists who claim that Neandertals should be considered a separate species which did not significantly contribute to the modern gene pool. Again the possiblity is NOT ruled out.
Milken Posted March 17, 2006 Posted March 17, 2006 The Neanderthals did come out of africa, in the form of Erectus. But they did not evolve into neanderthals until in Europe. Thus, Neanderthals are not from Africa. And of course they look like human bones, they are[/i'] human. We've established that they were African is possible. I'm saying peripherial speciation is possible. GOOD! They are human, the main reason I responded was I thought there was an undertone of this sub-human non-sense. A wide nose does not mean a large nasal cavity. You are looking at the exterior and assuming the interior. Thats a poor way to do scientific analysis. Im sure if you do some research you will find that indeed the nasal cavity in a neanderthal was larger and unique (more evidence they were not diseased humans) compared to sapien sapiens. We agree that wider noses is prevalent among people of African descent. It's not illogical' date=' the outside is intuitive of the inside(most of the time). The bones of Neanderthal man have a shape that suggests their size. I quote this from an article on the stanford uni website: "Several explanations have been advanced for the Neanderthal mid-facial architecture: 1.An adaptation for warming inhaled frigid air as it passed through the enlarged nasal cavities; a mean of condensing and conserving moisture in exhaled breath; and a secondary consequence in the facial region of severe chewing pressures centered at the front of the jaw..." He's from Standford and his stating his opinion. I believe it's not true. Why? Inhaling cold air is a health hazard, the body naturally tries to warm it up. A wider nose/nasal cavity is not a tight fitler, it's loose. A narrow nasal cavity better acts as a filter to block cold air. There are no good loose filters. Furthermore, Neanderthal man having wide nasal cavities is an assumption that it's an adaptation. If their ancestors were from Africa as you stated it's possible they still had wide nasal cavities. He's assuming it's an adaptation to cold weather because Neanderthals lived in a cold environment, it's kinda circular. The real question is, what are the nasal cavities of living African and Caucasion populations like, since the pigment can be identified. Read this: http://www.apva.org/resource/jjrc/vol1/do22.html Caucasian ancestry is based on a moderately narrow interorbital width, a sharply defined inferior nasal border, a narrow nasal cavity width, a v-shaped palate and lack of alveolar prognathism. That statement means nothing more than an assumption' date=' baseless granted that all neanderthal bones are quite similar, contrary to a population that would have had many healthy individuals survive into fossilhood. [/quote'] It's not baseless, so I'll repost it: The same bones mentioned in your article. Exactly it's an African(dark skinned) group of people could very easily have vitamin D deficiency in a cold environment; therefore, being more susceptible to other diseases. I agree there were some healthy individuals but the unhealthy ones were uses to say they were sub-human. Since we agree they were human, the odd shaped bodies demand an explanation. Francis Ivanhoe says this in an older issue of Nature called "Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?" Virchow had reported that the eanderthal man’s ape-like appearance was due to a disease known as rickets, which is a vitamin-D deficiency characterized by overproduction and deficient calcification of bone tissue. It causes skeletal deformities, enlargement of the liver and spleen, and generalized tenderness throughout the body. Dr. Cave noted that every Neanderthal child’s skull studied thus far apparently was affected by severe rickets. When rickets occurs in children, it commonly produces a large head due to late closure of the epiphysis and fontanels. Cauasions really do not get rickets. An adults with the disease(goes by different name) have some widening of the bone and some curvature issues but it's not fatal. Another idea is Pagets disease which is hereditary. An obviously localized population like Neanderthal (pygmies all short, Masaii all tall, etc.) would have a small gene sample and a hereditary disease would easily had widespread affect. Generally, Pagets disease can cause bones to become shorter and larger and mostly affects the skull, hip, pelvis, legs, and back. Thank you for keeping your psuedobabble out of this forum. In my opinion the only head messed with is someone who believes in that. BTW what are you implying (sorry I should not be getting into this but I cant help it). Actually' date=' I wasn't serious but if I wanted to justify it and answer all your why questions I could, but I think it's pointless. Another assumption. And pray tell, why dont we see a rickets explosion in the cold climate populations today? Or in any period of european history since the dawn of writing? Maybe my history is a big foggy... If you looked into it, England had rickets problems with dark people living in the area. A dark skinned person can possible eat enough to survive just fine but living in those conditions not get any Vitamin D from the sun. The more melanin you have the more sun you need to absorb Vitamin D. Please refer to the post I posted before this one. It explains quite well how the results of the "DNA evidence" you mention have been skewed. I could pull out another issue of Nature that basically says were distinct and not related. Most the DNA studies say we're either not related' date=' or maybe a drop. There's also articles suggesting they're not related to modern caucasions at all. Who said they were subhuman? The modern concensus among scientists today is that neanderthals were completely homo sapien. I agree. Most classify them now as Homo Sapien Neanderthalis. Good, we agree. And you are right about neanderthalic technology' date=' they have alot of good development, but nothing like the invading african cousins who had much more sophisticated equipment and hunting techniques. [/quote'] Definitely believable, one group of humans wasn't as skilled as another group. I am not the best debater in the planet' date=' and I am sure my arguments contain some logical fallacies. I apologize for that, but please bring forth more substantiated evidence when presenting your claims.[/quote'] Who cares about logical fallacies? I hate when people post a logical fallacy. I can have a logical fallacy and still be right!
The Peon Posted March 17, 2006 Author Posted March 17, 2006 He's from Standford and his stating his opinion. I believe it's not true. Why? Inhaling cold air is a health hazard' date=' the body naturally tries to warm it up. A wider nose/nasal cavity is not a tight fitler, it's loose. A narrow nasal cavity better acts as a filter to block cold air. There are no good loose filters. Furthermore, Neanderthal man having wide nasal cavities is an assumption that it's an adaptation. If their ancestors were from Africa as you stated it's possible they still had wide nasal cavities. He's assuming it's an adaptation to cold weather because Neanderthals lived in a cold environment, it's kinda circular. The real question is, what are the nasal cavities of living African and Caucasion populations like, since the pigment can be identified. Read this: http://www.apva.org/resource/jjrc/vol1/do22.html Caucasian ancestry is based on a moderately narrow interorbital width, a sharply defined inferior nasal border, a narrow nasal cavity width, a v-shaped palate and lack of alveolar prognathism. [/quote'] Sorry I don't read creationist website banter. Given that 99% of scientists are not Creationists I ask that you post mainstream acceptable material. Secondly, it is not merely an "opinion" it is a valid theory. I point you again in the direction of credible evidence for it, an article from a university website quoting a credible magazine. (although granted the article disagrees with the viewpoint of hybridization, it does agree on the nasal issue at hand): http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/origins/nose.html And a quote: The apomorphies are the development of an internal nasal margin bearing awell-developed and vertically oriented medial projection, the swelling of the lateral nasal cavity wall into the capacious posterior nasal cavity, and the lack of an ossified roof over the lacrimal groove." ~ Jeffrey H. Schwartz and Ian Tattersall, "Significance of of Some Previously Unrecognized Apomorphies in the Nasal Region of Homo Neanderthalensis," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci, USA, 93(1996):10852-10854, p. 10853 *SEE PIC BELOW* It's not baseless' date=' so I'll repost it: The same bones mentioned in your article. Exactly it's an African(dark skinned) group of people could very easily have vitamin D deficiency in a cold environment; therefore, being more susceptible to other diseases. I agree there were some healthy individuals but the unhealthy ones were uses to say they were sub-human. Since we agree they were human, the odd shaped bodies demand an explanation. Francis Ivanhoe says this in an older issue of Nature called "Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?" Virchow had reported that the eanderthal man’s ape-like appearance was due to a disease known as rickets, which is a vitamin-D deficiency characterized by overproduction and deficient calcification of bone tissue. It causes skeletal deformities, enlargement of the liver and spleen, and generalized tenderness throughout the body. Dr. Cave noted that every Neanderthal child’s skull studied thus far apparently was affected by severe rickets. When rickets occurs in children, it commonly produces a large head due to late closure of the epiphysis and fontanels. [/quote'] They are "odd shaped" to you because they are a cousin of homo sapien, granted although I believe they are still sapiens, they are distinct in bone structure much as a mongoloid skull is distinct from a negroid or caucasoid. Again, I point you in the direction of this article in the hopes you read it fully. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.html I will even quote the important parts for your convenience: In the 1800's the famous pathologist Rudolf Virchow was one who claimed that the first Neandertal fossil found was of a rickets sufferer. Please note that that was even before darwin! His thoery was based on his first observations, predarwin. Yet the church still clings to this rubbish as if it was gospel. More quotes for you: Rickets does not produce a Neandertal, or Homo erectus morphology; it is clear from many sources (Reader 1981; Tattersall 1995) that the original Neandertal skeleton was unlike any previously known, even in a century in which rickets was a common disease. Here is evidence of the above statement: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/rickets.html It even includes a pic for your viewing pleasure so you can see what rickets really looks like. A far cry from Neanderthals backward curving bones. And oh, by the way, the ricket sufferers in that pic look pretty damn caucasoid to me. Contrary to your statement that they don't get rickets. The long bones of Neandertals, like those of rickets victims, are often more curved than normal, but rickets causes a sideways curvature of the femur, while Neandertal femurs curve backwards (Klein 1989). I think the rickets thing is case closed. Cauasions really do not get rickets. An adults with the disease(goes by different name) have some widening of the bone and some curvature issues but it's not fatal. Another idea is Pagets disease which is hereditary. An obviously localized population like Neanderthal (pygmies all short' date=' Masaii all tall, etc.) would have a small gene sample and a hereditary disease would easily had widespread affect. Generally, Pagets disease can cause bones to become shorter and larger and mostly affects the skull, hip, pelvis, legs, and back. [/quote'] Again, assumptions. Either way, further enhanced DNA testing that will be carried out will most undoubtedly, as with all creationist claims, prove it false. Not to mention, small gene sample? You do know that more Neanderthal bones have been found than any other hominid ever? You do also know I hope, that Neanderthals have been found in an area covering more land than the Roman Empire? We are talking from Spain to the middle east. How is that a small gene pool that a hereditary trait like you speak of could be passed around? Unless of course they got it when God threw them into that enviroment at the Tower of Babel when they were relatively few? As for caucasoids not getting rickets, evidence please? Enviromental circumstances are one thing, but genetic is another. If you looked into it' date=' England had rickets problems with dark people living in the area. A dark skinned person can possible eat enough to survive just fine but living in those conditions not get any Vitamin D from the sun. The more melanin you have the more sun you need to absorb Vitamin D.[/quote'] Thats a load of crap. I wish a doctor was reading this thread to blow that out of the water. Evidence please to back up your claims that if someone eats healthy they still get rickets from a lack of sunlight. In fact, I would go as far as to say modern man spends less time in the sun due to working indoors in our age of offices and technology, than any human in history in a general sense. I could pull out another issue of Nature that basically says were distinct and not related. Most the DNA studies say we're either not related, or maybe a drop. There's also articles suggesting they're not related to modern caucasions at all. I wrote a few posts on this allready above, which you obviously did not read. Please go over my above posts to answer this.
mattbimbo Posted March 17, 2006 Posted March 17, 2006 hi peon, as regards ploidy, i am not the one to give you a complete answer. i am just working from a few scraps of information. 1) >30% of human fertilised eggs self-abort (forgive the term self-abort) - more than any other species. why? human embryo development is very complex. even at the one cell stage, there are many 'checkpoints' the cell has to go through before it will replicate. one of these 'checkpoints' involves some kind of chromosome counting. there is an obvious need for chromsome counting and without it any species would quickly die. mutation is important, but too much mutation is deadly. note, primitive organisms including fungii count chromosomes. 2) and this chromosome counting goes occurs not only in fertilised eggs, but in all replicating cells, for instance haematopioetic stem cells. again for the same obvious need and without it we would develop cancers at such an extraordinary rate that if we survived to birth we would be more tumour than human. note, there are many connections between embryo and tumour development. but someone will ask what is the obvious need? gene dosage, my N-friends! too many copies of a gene upsets the balance. perhaps you know, females have two x chromosomes but one of them is switched off at the time of conception. (amazingly yes, there is some kind of natural selection going on within a single fertilized egg for the best x chromsome in females.) think it through...doesn't it make sense for cells to have evolved mechanisms to prevent outrageous gene dosage mutations such as altered chromosome numbers. 3) there is an old theory in cancer biology which is now gaining some favour again involving ploidy. the first microscopic observations of cancer cells showed that they frequently inherited the wrong number of chromsomes. now the theory of cancer evolution has pretty much became fixed on the multiple hit hypothesis for tumourogeneis. however there is the strange observation that many of the key genes which are mutated in cancers are the same genes; for instance in the Ras genes often the same amino acid, eg K14, is mutated; but how can one codon be so fragile that it keeps on giving rise to cancers? this is where the polyploidy-first hypothesis of cancer gains in credence because it goes someway to explaining this seemingly unfeasible situation. and here goes, if a cell loses or gains chromsome material this will alter the gene dosage of the cell. now the cell has mechanisms to detect this and the result will normally lead to apoptosis of the cell. but a cell can make mistakes; no mechanism will be perfect. this will lead to a situation where the cell will try to adapt to its new genetic makeup. theory predicts that such adaptation would be expected to favour mutation of key genes, such as Ras genes, which are central to many signalling pathways. i know my explanations aren't very erudite, but i hope they get you thinking. yes, i find it strange that no one has thought the ploidy question through. this is not an answer but i think you will find as you get older that there are a lot more bad scientists than good ones. maybe in the interests of science you should contribute to this question by sleeping with a great ape in the nearest zoo? just dangle some juicy bananas though the bars.
Milken Posted March 18, 2006 Posted March 18, 2006 Sorry I don't read creationist website banter. Given that 99% of scientists are not Creationists I ask that you post mainstream acceptable material. It's not creationist, I don't use creationist sources, well, it's rare. The website is from a site unrealted to evolution and I copy and pasted the important part. Quote: Originally Posted by Milken He's from Standford and his stating his opinion. I believe it's not true. Why? Inhaling cold air is a health hazard, the body naturally tries to warm it up. A wider nose/nasal cavity is not a tight fitler, it's loose. A narrow nasal cavity better acts as a filter to block cold air. There are no good loose filters. Furthermore, Neanderthal man having wide nasal cavities is an assumption that it's an adaptation. If their ancestors were from Africa as you stated it's possible they still had wide nasal cavities. He's assuming it's an adaptation to cold weather because Neanderthals lived in a cold environment, it's kinda circular. The real question is, what are the nasal cavities of living African and Caucasion populations like, since the pigment can be identified. Taken from this: http://www.apva.org/resource/jjrc/vol1/do22.html Caucasian ancestry is based on a moderately narrow interorbital width, a sharply defined inferior nasal border, a narrow nasal cavity width, a v-shaped palate and lack of alveolar prognathism. END In short Caucasians as we now do not typically exhibit N-Man, characteristics in nasal cavities. Secondly' date=' it is not merely an "opinion" it is a valid theory. I point you again in the direction of credible evidence for it, an article from a university website quoting a credible magazine. (although granted the article disagrees with the viewpoint of hybridization, it does agree on the nasal issue at hand): http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/origins/nose.html[/quote'] If you read your article closely, it's evidence for me. The descirbed nasal cavity does not fit caucasions at all. At this point we're arguing the likely ethnicity. *SEE PIC BELOW* Sure They are "odd shaped" to you because they are a cousin of homo sapien' date=' granted although I believe they are still sapiens, they are distinct in bone structure much as a mongoloid skull is distinct from a negroid or caucasoid.[/quote'] I don't have any cousins with heads shaped like that! The picture is not of a healthy N-manlol. You're crazy if you're passing that off as normallol,seriouslylol, come on lol. I can't stop laughinglol. I have a picture of a N-man skull that looks normal. It has half of a cone head. Again' date=' I point you in the direction of this article in the hopes you read it fully. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.html I will even quote the important parts for your convenience: Please note that that was even before darwin! His thoery was based on his first observations, predarwin. Yet the church still clings to this rubbish as if it was gospel. People still quote Darwin, they can still quote Virchow. It was read completely the first time. No one is claiming all N-man had rickets but the deformed ones used to create the Ape-man nonsense. Also, rickets would be a common occurrence for a carnivours(as you know) group of Africans living in a low sunlight environment. It would not be as likely in a caucasion group. More quotes for you: Here is evidence of the above statement: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/rickets.html Rickets does not produce a Neandertal' date=' or Homo erectus morphology; it is clear from many sources (Reader 1981; Tattersall 1995) that the original Neandertal skeleton was unlike any previously known, even in a century in which rickets was a common disease.[/quote'] For starters, only kids get rickets, so ofcourse it's not responsible for all the body types. It suggests a civilized society had rickets problem because ALOT of the initial children had the same problems which isn't evident in all the findings. In a society that isn't starving, rickets isn't an issue, unless you're dark skinned. It even includes a pic for your viewing pleasure so you can see what rickets really looks like. A far cry from Neanderthals backward curving bones. And oh' date=' by the way, the ricket sufferers in that pic look pretty damn caucasoid to me. Contrary to your statement that they don't get rickets.[/quote'] I didn't know I had to spell everything out. Rickets is not common in the civilized world among any group but if a group get's rickets this day and age, it'll be in a dark skinned group living in a low to no sunlight environment. I think the rickets thing is case closed. Even without rickets' date=' the nasal cavity alone points to a dark skinned group. Again, assumptions. Either way, further enhanced DNA testing that will be carried out will most undoubtedly, as with all creationist claims, prove it false. Not to mention, small gene sample? Creationist? I'm aware of the large area they covered. As for caucasoids not getting rickets' date=' evidence please? Enviromental circumstances are one thing, but genetic is another. [/quote'] Already addressed. Thats a load of crap. I wish a doctor was reading this thread to blow that out of the water. Evidence please to back up your claims that if someone eats healthy they still get rickets from a lack of sunlight. In fact' date=' I would go as far as to say modern man spends less time in the sun due to working indoors in our age of offices and technology, than any human in history in a general sense.[/quote'] I'll let you embarrass yourself and look it up. You can eat alot of food and not get vitamin D. As mentioned, in fairly recent England, dark skinned persons developed rickets. Most people get Vitamin D fromt the sun. If you're fair or light skinned it doesn't take much sun and it's stored better you could say. People with dark skin have to take in more sun to get vitamin D because the skin acts as a sun block, it's absorbed slowly over a longer period of time. I'll repost the other info because you may have thought it was Cist. Ivanhoe is an evolutionist, here's a different part of the article. In Nature: The extreme variation in locations of these Neanderthal discoveries probably played a role in the diversity of fossils assigned to this Neanderthal classification. The differences likely were a result of different amounts of sunlight for a given area, which prevented or retarded vitamin D production (vitamin D is manufactured in the skin upon exposure to sunlight). In adults, a lack of vitamin D causes osteomalacia (softening of the bone). This softening often results in long bones “bowing” (a condition reported in many Neanderthal fossils).END 1) N-man's Nasal cavity fits an African 2) Ancestors were Africans 3) Rickets/Pagets/Osteoperosis whatever, Some clearly had a vit D issue 4) They were carnivours (not sure how widespread this is). Meat eaters are a lot less likely to get vitamin D from the diet, leaving the sun as the other option. 5) I think N-man were Africans, or dark skinned.
The Peon Posted March 18, 2006 Author Posted March 18, 2006 hi peon' date=' as regards ploidy, i am not the one to give you a complete answer. i am just working from a few scraps of information. 1) >30% of human fertilised eggs self-abort (forgive the term self-abort) - more than any other species. why? human embryo development is very complex. even at the one cell stage, there are many 'checkpoints' the cell has to go through before it will replicate. one of these 'checkpoints' involves some kind of chromosome counting. there is an obvious need for chromsome counting and without it any species would quickly die. mutation is important, but too much mutation is deadly. [i']note,[/i] primitive organisms including fungii count chromosomes. 2) and this chromosome counting goes occurs not only in fertilised eggs, but in all replicating cells, for instance haematopioetic stem cells. again for the same obvious need and without it we would develop cancers at such an extraordinary rate that if we survived to birth we would be more tumour than human. note, there are many connections between embryo and tumour development. but someone will ask what is the obvious need? gene dosage, my N-friends! too many copies of a gene upsets the balance. perhaps you know, females have two x chromosomes but one of them is switched off at the time of conception. (amazingly yes, there is some kind of natural selection going on within a single fertilized egg for the best x chromsome in females.) think it through...doesn't it make sense for cells to have evolved mechanisms to prevent outrageous gene dosage mutations such as altered chromosome numbers. 3) there is an old theory in cancer biology which is now gaining some favour again involving ploidy. the first microscopic observations of cancer cells showed that they frequently inherited the wrong number of chromsomes. now the theory of cancer evolution has pretty much became fixed on the multiple hit hypothesis for tumourogeneis. however there is the strange observation that many of the key genes which are mutated in cancers are the same genes; for instance in the Ras genes often the same amino acid, eg K14, is mutated; but how can one codon be so fragile that it keeps on giving rise to cancers? this is where the polyploidy-first hypothesis of cancer gains in credence because it goes someway to explaining this seemingly unfeasible situation. and here goes, if a cell loses or gains chromsome material this will alter the gene dosage of the cell. now the cell has mechanisms to detect this and the result will normally lead to apoptosis of the cell. but a cell can make mistakes; no mechanism will be perfect. this will lead to a situation where the cell will try to adapt to its new genetic makeup. theory predicts that such adaptation would be expected to favour mutation of key genes, such as Ras genes, which are central to many signalling pathways. i know my explanations aren't very erudite, but i hope they get you thinking. yes, i find it strange that no one has thought the ploidy question through. this is not an answer but i think you will find as you get older that there are a lot more bad scientists than good ones. maybe in the interests of science you should contribute to this question by sleeping with a great ape in the nearest zoo? just dangle some juicy bananas though the bars. Your post was interesting until the end with the insult you threw with no apparant smiley to show you were joking. I am still going to lean on what I've read from credible scientists though. Sorry. I would think no scientist in his right mind would mention hybrids, let alone claim a fossil from portugal is one, as if something that simple were truely a roadblock to hybridism. And by the way, ever heard of the humanzee? They had a chimp that died recently (if I remember correctly) that appeared to have a strikingly different DNA genome than that of a human or chimp. I agree with the hypothesis on that in that some sicko interbred with a chimp and a once in a billion thing occured. Although I did see it on the National Geographic channel so who knows the credibility of it. And regardless, Sapiens and Neanderthals lived side by side 6000-10000 years. Thats plenty of chances with mating that a fertile hybrid to be produced, regardless of how many "misfires" or sterile offspring occured. Bla bla bla bla same crap over and over, insulting darwin by labeling him with some creationist wacko etc etc Discussion is over. You just cannot accept defeat, or the fact that I have posted credible evidence and sources while you are merely blabbing away with a psychobabble and invented garbage. Typical creationist/IDist. I am not going to keep arguing the same points. I'm positive that any who read this thread will easily understand the points I've made and agree with the credible sources I have posted. I am now in the opinion that you are a crackpot like most religious people. Enjoy holding hands with your imaginary friend. See you in hell. By the way, I am merely sharing a theory real scientist have come up with. I don't claim it to be mine. But I most certainly think the theory is true. Proof that you are a crackpot: 5) I think N-man were Africans, or dark skinned. And lastly I don't have any cousins with heads shaped like that! The picture is not of a healthy N-manlol. You're crazy if you're passing that off as normallol' date='seriouslylol, come on lol. I can't stop laughinglol. I have a picture of a N-man skull that looks normal. It has half of a cone head.[/quote'] LOLLERSKATES Unless any new discussion on this debate is going to be opened I'll let you spout off your inane hypothesis. I however, will stick to talk.origins and credible scientific evidence rather than a garbled 200 year old creationist hypothesis which has long ago been proven false. Lesson I learned from this: Dont argue with a creationist, its a waste of finger cartilage. Yea this is an ad-hominum, well suited for the circumstance in my opinion so shoot me. Much better than all the strawman garbage I've been dealing with here.
mattbimbo Posted March 18, 2006 Posted March 18, 2006 hi peon, if you so readily resort to one in a billion arguments, this in my opinion is bad science! when giving the quick reply there are no smilies. the point i should have made is that there is no need for us to develop greater DNA technology, as you seemed to think important, more of a need for expts. though i have never looked into it before, it seems there is very little research on hybridization and ploidy in mammals, so why dismiss it, especially when there is an enormous amount of research on polyploidy in relation to embryogenesis and tumorogenesis.
Milken Posted March 19, 2006 Posted March 19, 2006 Discussion is over. You just cannot accept defeat' date=' or the fact that I have posted credible evidence and sources while you are merely blabbing away with a psychobabble and invented garbage. Typical creationist/IDist. I am not going to keep arguing the same points. I'm positive that any who read this thread will easily understand the points I've made and agree with the credible sources I have posted. I am now in the opinion that you are a crackpot like most religious people. Enjoy holding hands with your imaginary friend. See you in hell. By the way, I am merely sharing a theory real scientist have come up with. I don't claim it to be mine. But I most certainly think the theory is true. Proof that you are a crackpot: Unless any new discussion on this debate is going to be opened I'll let you spout off your inane hypothesis. I however, will stick to talk.origins and credible scientific evidence rather than a garbled 200 year old creationist hypothesis which has long ago been proven [b']false[/b]. Lesson I learned from this: Dont argue with a creationist, its a waste of finger cartilage. Yea this is an ad-hominum, well suited for the circumstance in my opinion so shoot me. Much better than all the strawman garbage I've been dealing with here. Please pick up reading English so it's not so foreign to you, or get the post displayed in your native language. We've seen the actions of a prejudice, ignorant, fool in action. Don't jump to religious conclusions so quick. This is not a religious discussion. This is not a Creationist discussion. Furthermore, I used Evolutionist sources(duh!) and one source had nothing to do with Evol or Creation. Get hooked off the crack and get hooked on phonics!
Norman Albers Posted March 19, 2006 Posted March 19, 2006 I think it a mistake to project our current mores back in time into unknown cultures, whatever earlier group forms are called. I figure chaos rules unless constrained strongly. (KAOS is the Greek word for it. They celebrated it as one of their gods. I have a shrine to KAOS, and think Greeks were cool.) I wonder, too, if it is safe to dismiss questions of skin color vs. lattitute. Melanin simply develops that way; Just a little winter time in sunlight is very helpful, I read. I do not live a pasty-faced life, and don't feel good when I am forced to. I will send you a copy of my forthcoming manuscript, "GETTING IN TOUCH WITH YOUR INNER NEANDERTHAL". Ugh.
The Peon Posted March 19, 2006 Author Posted March 19, 2006 Please pick up reading English so it's not so foreign to you, or get the post displayed in your native language. We've seen the actions of a prejudice, ignorant, fool in action. Don't jump to religious conclusions so quick. This is not a religious discussion. This is not a Creationist discussion. Furthermore, I used Evolutionist sources(duh!) and one source had nothing to do with Evol or Creation. Get hooked off the crack and get hooked on phonics! OK I will do that if you promise never to return to this thread or trolling ever again. Thank you, your opinion on me is noted. Bye! *insert wavy smiley* Back on subject, I was wondering another thing about the human condition. Do any populations other than caucasoids exhibit large amounts of body hair? From all the pics of gene pools I've reviewed from around the world, it seems that caucasoids and some middle easterners are the only population to exhibit large amounts of body hair, on the chest and back area. Some gene pools in the US exhibit this as well but my guess would be from inherited caucasoid genes. Could this be a form of cold adaptation? I may be wrong in this instance though, so I would like some feedback on this.
Norman Albers Posted March 19, 2006 Posted March 19, 2006 Hopefully this is useful because I read posts on cross mating. Are not most animals of closely similar color and so easily directed to the species mate? An interesting counterexample we live with is horses. Do they care about such different colorations? (You know what they say in the operating room: they're all pink on the inside.)
The Peon Posted March 19, 2006 Author Posted March 19, 2006 Hopefully this is useful because I read posts on cross mating. Are not most animals of closely similar color and so easily directed to the species mate? An interesting counterexample we live with is horses. Do they care about such different colorations? (You know what they say in the operating room: they're all pink on the inside.) If you are typing of what I am thinking you are typing about, the process of imprinting takes an important role in sexual orientation. For instance, when younger, your brain defines what is sexually attractive to it. Thus, we tend to like and think of things which look "human" as cute. That is why when someone sees a little chihuahuas face they go "awww isnt it cute!" But when you see a squids face you are like "ewww." I dont think it has to do with color but more with structure.
Norman Albers Posted March 19, 2006 Posted March 19, 2006 I think most species don't have to deal with it, and I gather horses don't care much but I would like to hear from a horse person if they have color pecking orders, say.
Milken Posted March 20, 2006 Posted March 20, 2006 OK I will do that if you promise never to return to this thread or trolling ever again. Thank you' date=' your opinion on me is noted. [b']Bye[/b]! *insert wavy smiley* Back on subject, I was wondering another thing about the human condition. Do any populations other than caucasoids exhibit large amounts of body hair? From all the pics of gene pools I've reviewed from around the world, it seems that caucasoids and some middle easterners are the only population to exhibit large amounts of body hair, on the chest and back area. Some gene pools in the US exhibit this as well but my guess would be from inherited caucasoid genes. Could this be a form of cold adaptation? I may be wrong in this instance though, so I would like some feedback on this. I'm back! None of this really bothers me, you were the one to bring to this kind of a tone. The discussion can go up or down, doesn't matter Well Modern-day middle easterns are more likely to have a little caucasion somewhere than ancient ones. My understand is that most ethnic groups may become "hairy" but as you've surmised it's definitely associated with cold weather. In tropical groups, it's exceedingly rare to nonexistent. A "hairy" African/other tropical group is possible, empirically. Furthermore, local groups on the periphery may have no "hariy" members.
mattbimbo Posted March 20, 2006 Posted March 20, 2006 hi peon, with all your expertise on this subject can you give me an estimate of how frequently N-person and H-person would have to have successfully produced offspring for there to be a significant N-gene legacy in caucasoids?
mattbimbo Posted March 20, 2006 Posted March 20, 2006 i did find this link related to chromosome number and mating http://http:www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html i would like more examples, and a mechanistic explanation of the Prezwalski/domestic horse hybridization event in relation to sequence similarity and the formation of trivalent chromosomes at meiosis, but this is a bit of a plus for you Peon <semi-smilie>. so do you think there were singles bars in N-times?
The Peon Posted March 20, 2006 Author Posted March 20, 2006 i did find this link related to chromosome number and matinghttp://http:www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html i would like more examples' date=' and a mechanistic explanation of the Prezwalski/domestic horse hybridization event in relation to sequence similarity and the formation of trivalent chromosomes at meiosis, but this is a bit of a plus for you Peon <semi-smilie>. so do you think there were singles bars in N-times?[/quote'] I never claimed to be an expert. I am making abstract observances to supplement the allready credible scientists who make the same claim I am presenting in this thread. And I am getting tired of your condescending overtones. Take your questions to the genetic forums, or I will ignore you like I am ignoring Milken. Lack of education in a perticular subject does not mean lack of intelligence overall. but this is a bit of a plus for you Peon <semi-smilie>. In regards to the body hair, I brought up that up because its yet another caucasoid trait that appears to be cold adapted that the mongoloids do not have. And as stated earlier, according to current out of Africa theory, mongoloids inhabited a cold climate for much longer than the caucasoids. Thus its yet another piece of physical evidence for trace genes in that gene pool from the Neanderthals, as Neanderthals would have most likely had large amounts of cold adapted body hair.
mattbimbo Posted March 20, 2006 Posted March 20, 2006 Peon, chill out <smily>. i think you have discussed this issue seriously and intelligently. i had never thought of its genetic aspects before, and now i have. it seems you had, but then it seemed you hadn't. if you don't know whether it is a 'one in a billion' chance or not of successful interbreeding, despite all your reading and analysis, that's ok and you can pass the buck if you want.
The Peon Posted March 20, 2006 Author Posted March 20, 2006 Peon, chill out <smily>. i think you have discussed this issue seriously and intelligently. i had never thought of its genetic aspects before, and now i have. it seems you had, but then it seemed you hadn't. if you don't know whether it is a 'one in a billion'[/b'] chance or not of successful interbreeding, despite all your reading and analysis, that's ok and you can pass the buck if you want. On one hand you tell me to chill out, then in the next you tell me it's ok to pass the buck. Please review your language it's pretty condescending. Perhaps at this point I am being overly touchy, but to be honest after being told to have sex with a monkey, then being told it would be a "bit of a plus" if I knew something, and finally being told "it's ok.. you can pass the buck" please forgive me if I reply in a hostile way. As I mentioned before, your claims may or may not be valid. Ask a geneticist. I am not one and have no idea the chance of the two different types of genomes ability to create a hybrid. What I do know is that: A> Neanderthals and Sapiens lived side by side for 6000-10000 years, providing plenty of time for lots of sex. B> Credible modern day scientists admit the possibility of hybridization to occur, just as others deny it. I don't see how they would just brush off such strong and clear evidence they could not reproduce due to some chromosomal differences. In fact, the scientists who deny the hybrid possibility base there conclusions on mtDNA, and as an article I posted in an earlier page showed, this is a possibly flawed reason for rejection. Also, according to my understanding (I may be wrong), genetics is in its infancy as a science and much more is to be learned about this spectacular and powerful field of science. C> An apparant Hybrid skeleton was found in Portugal. D> Many genes such as the Ginger Gene are highly unlikely to have been mutated recently, and it is more probobal that it was an inherited neanderthalic gene. E> Mongoloids, according to the most currently accepted theorys have been in colder climates much longer than caucasoids, yet they do not exhibit even closely the cold adapted features caucasoids have. This could be due to inheriting Neanderthalic genes, which was a species of hominid that lived in the icy fringes of Europe for over 200,000 years or more. Thus my personal conclusion is that it is highly likely, dare I say certain, that some Neanderthalic genes however minute were passed into the caucasoid gene pool.
mattbimbo Posted March 20, 2006 Posted March 20, 2006 as regards the legacy of N-genes in caucasoids i will keep an open-and-infantile mind. don't all hypotheses have holes in them? i am, like you, in two minds about the mitochondrial data. i think your criticism of how this data is interpreted is valid. it is considerably easier to isolate sufficient amounts of intact mitochondrial DNA for sequence analysis compared to genomic DNA, this practical point biases the data - nevermind the interpretation of the data. likewise, the considerable paucity of data and difficulty, more ethical than technical, of performing hybridization expts in mammals also creates a bias. can anyone think of any expts which would overwhelmingly demonstrate the legacy of N-genes in caucasoids? the reason i ask this question is that i am most curious about whether it is in our ability as scientists to find an answer. one day someone may recreate germ cells from N-man and N-woman and see if they can fertilise or be fertilised. however even if this was done, it wouldn't be the final experiment because there are a range of immunological factors that determine fertility in vivo and also they wouldn't measure the survival fitness of the offspring. there are more obvious experiments i could think of, but these would be flawed too.
Moonquake Posted March 20, 2006 Posted March 20, 2006 So they remained side by side for 6000-10000 years and remained two completely distinct types of homonid for all this time dispite being able to interbreed?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now