Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The legacy of Neanderthal genes in the Sapien gene pool.


  • Please log in to reply
113 replies to this topic

#21 Milken

Milken

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 286 posts
  • LocationAndthe, Defenserests.

Posted 16 March 2006 - 07:53 PM

You don't bother me at all. Blutness is sometimes neccessary.

Sorry to be so rude and blunt, but do some research before posting that parroted waste of text.

First off, Neanderthal bones were not found in Africa, they were found in the middle east and Europe.


What was I thinking, traveling humans, it's preposterous. The human race did come from Africa in waves. Not only that, but some of the neanderthal bones look VERY human.

Secondly, the nasal cavity of neanderthals would be considerably larger than any african today or ever, due to the adaptation for the cold, allowing more air to be heated in the cavity before entering the lungs, the opposite is true of modern africans.


This is false. Look at the picture of neanderthal man, there are plenty of people from tropical climates with wide noses and nasal cavities. It's not an advantage in a cold region. A wide nasal cavity is better suited for a hot area . No science background neccessary it's a feature more commonly found in people descendand from hot climates.

Thirdly, what bones are you speaking of? None are "curved" they are the shape they are supposed to be. Vitamin D deficiency? What are you saying? That africans cant live in cold climates? What about whites who wish to live in the tropics? And I dont even understand your last two sentences, but than again i'm not too bright.

If I may point you in the direction of this article, you may enlighten yourself:

http://www.talkorigi...s/a_neands.html

Learn and enjoy, then comment.


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.

The last two statements were not meant to be clear. I was going to insert the Tower of Babel as another reason they were in Europe but I didn't want to mess with anyones head like that.

Taken from your source.
http://www.talkorigi...s/a_neands.html
In the 1800's the famous pathologist Rudolf Virchow was one who claimed that the first Neandertal fossil found was of a rickets sufferer. As Trinkaus and Shipman (1992) point out, Virchow, an expert on rickets, should have been the first to realize how ridiculous this diagnosis was. People with rickets are undernourished and calcium-poor, and their bones are so weak that even the weight of the body can cause them to bend. The bones of the first Neandertal, by contrast, were about 50% thicker than those of the average modern human, and clearly belonged to an extraordinarily athletic and muscular individual.


Compare here:

http://courses.washi...alU/opmal2.html
When the newly formed bone of the growth plate does not mineralize, the growth plate becomes thick, wide and irregular. This results in the clinical diagnosis of rickets, and is seen only in children because adults no longer have growth plates. When the remodeled bone does not mineralize, osteomalacia occurs, and this happens in all ages. Most of the hereditary causes of osteomalacia appear during childhood and cause rickets.


Note the disease can make bones widen or it's just a large race of humans. We have pygmies in Africa, we have the Massai tribe where the average man is 6'4 or 6'5 and these groups haven't mixed with any other groups.

In addition adults with rickets(osteomalacia) may not even have symptoms until they're older, and other diseases are prevalent with vitamin D deficiency.

http://www.talkorigi...s/a_neands.html
Modern knowledge and experience also contradicts the idea that disease is a cause of Neandertal features, because these diseases do not cause modern humans to look like Neandertals.


This is irrlevant since DNA evidence has shown Neanderthals are not ancestors of modern humans, but an extinct group of humans. The dates do not match up at all. They possibly died of the diseases brought about from vitamin D deficiency. The N-man sample is also very small.


http://dsc.discovery...eanderthal.html

Alan Cooper(evolutionary molecular biologist) at Oxford University, says there is a slim possibility that Neandertals are ancestors of modern humans and may have contributed mtDNA to modern human populations which was lost during human population bottlenecks at the end of the ice age.



I also contend they were too human to be sub human. They had our walk, larger than average brain and size. Cuivier (sp), one of the greatest of his time had a brain size of 1800 or something, and he's human, right. Neanderthals were thought to have brains a little smaller.

From Lucy to Language page 99 says Neaderthals could sew with a picture of a needle that looks like one in use today.

In conclusion, they made on-pitch flutes! Thank you peon for the challenge. . . . and I agree with you on women. . . .
  • 0
. . . . and the defense rests. :cool:

#22 The Peon

The Peon

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 426 posts
  • LocationEarth

Posted 16 March 2006 - 08:48 PM

What was I thinking, traveling humans, it's preposterous. The human race did come from Africa in waves. Not only that, but some of the neanderthal bones look VERY human.


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 human.



This is false. Look at the picture of neanderthal man, there are plenty of people from tropical climates with wide noses and nasal cavities. It's not an advantage in a cold region. A wide nasal cavity is better suited for a hot area . No science background neccessary it's a feature more commonly found in people descendand from hot climates.


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.

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..."

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.


That statement means nothing more than an assumption, baseless granted that all neanderthal bones are quite similar, contrary to a population that would have had many healthy individuals survive into fossilhood.

The last two statements were not meant to be clear. I was going to insert the Tower of Babel as another reason they were in Europe but I didn't want to mess with anyones head like that.


Thank you for keeping your psuedobabble out of this forum. In my opinion the only head messed with is someone who believes in that. :rolleyes: BTW what are you implying (sorry I should not be getting into this but I cant help it). Are you implying that God singled out the Neanderthals for some reason and placed them in an enviroment they would get rickets and live sickly in? Why did he give other races a better climate? Why pick and choose? Was it a random dispersion? Why did some races get great farmland, like Italians, while others got barren rocky highland like the scottish? Why were some people placed on small islands in the middle of nowhere, like the polynesian tribal members they found recently who were still living like stone age humans?

Compare here:


Note the disease can make bones widen or it's just a large race of humans. We have pygmies in Africa, we have the Massai tribe where the average man is 6'4 or 6'5 and these groups haven't mixed with any other groups.

In addition adults with rickets(osteomalacia) may not even have symptoms until they're older, and other diseases are prevalent with vitamin D deficiency.


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...


This is irrlevant since DNA evidence has shown Neanderthals are not ancestors of modern humans, but an extinct group of humans. The dates do not match up at all. They possibly died of the diseases brought about from vitamin D deficiency. The N-man sample is also very small.


http://dsc.discovery...eanderthal.html


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.

In regards to your "N-man sample being very small, " I am assuming you mean we dont have many neaderthal bones? Its actually quite the opposite, if I remember correctly we have more neanderthalic bones than any other species of hominid to walk the planet.



I also contend they were too human to be sub human. They had our walk, larger than average brain and size. Cuivier (sp), one of the greatest of his time had a brain size of 1800 or something, and he's human, right. Neanderthals were thought to have brains a little smaller.

From Lucy to Language page 99 says Neaderthals could sew with a picture of a needle that looks like one in use today.


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.

Neanderthal brain size was comparitively larger than modern sapiens. This might be due to the following, again taken from the Stanford uni website:

"The Neanderthal pelvis also seems to be highly characteristic, so much that in incomplete specimens the pelvic canal appeared to be unusually large, prompting Erik Trinkaus to postulate that gestation was prolonged in this species, the infant at birth therefore being larger than in modern humans."

As some scientists can tell you, a larger brain (or more intelligent I should say) requires a more pronounced delayed neotany (hope I spelled that right). Thus this would all fall into place together.


And you are right about neanderthalic technology, they have alot of good development, but nothing like the invading african cousins who had much more sophisticated equipment and hunting techniques.

In conclusion, they made on-pitch flutes! Thank you peon for the challenge. . . . and I agree with you on women. . . .


I am not the best debater in the planet, 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.
  • 0
"The biggest step to change is to let go of fear."

#23 mattbimbo

mattbimbo

    Baryon

  • Senior Members
  • 165 posts
  • LocationLondon

Posted 16 March 2006 - 11:53 PM

i have learnt much from this thread!

questions which now interests me, 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 homo sapiens too)? anyone got a good explanation for why N-men went extinct?
  • 0
- even educated fleas do it! C Porter.

#24 mattbimbo

mattbimbo

    Baryon

  • Senior Members
  • 165 posts
  • LocationLondon

Posted 16 March 2006 - 11:55 PM

oh bugger, i should be more careful.

maybe N-woman was a one N-man doll?
  • 0
- even educated fleas do it! C Porter.

#25 squishyspong

squishyspong

    Quark

  • Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 17 March 2006 - 02:01 AM

You are full of assumptions and implications, which kind is kind of depressing as you seem to be trying to make me out to be a white supremacist.

I think the opposite of what you do. I think first of all, when early humans entered Europe, they found the neanderthals, and if we look at people today using your logic, they would have mated. Why? Well people have sex with goats, trees, and even leather boots. Why not a new type of hominid ? You speak of interracial mating as being rare, but in all honesty at least in this country (the USA), its actually quite common. Perhaps you are generalizing and thinking of a black and white couple. Interracial dating covers a much larger spectrum than what I am assuming you are meaning. I personally am a result of a white and spanish couple, which I consider a result of interracial mating. Not only that, but scientist see evidence that neanderthals and sapiens lived side by side for 6000-10000 years. Clearly enough time for some nookie to have occured, along with plenty of warfare and competition. We are creatures of love and war.

Your second assumption is that I am caucasion. Which is only partly true. I am also half spanish, Cuban to be precise. And superior in what sense? I am merely fascinated at the fact that another hominid not of late african descent could have contributed part of my genetic legacy. You sir, are providing the racial undertones to the whole discussion. And to answer part of your question, Yes, I would be proud to have these genes if I did but only for the reason of my fascination, not because I would feel superior in any way.

And lastly, I don't recall exactly what benefit lighter hair and eye color provide to a cold adapted species. If anything it might just be a side effect and not a beneficial adaptation, but skin color is crucial for a certain process incured with sunlight. Im sure any resident biologists could clear up these issues for you. For your information, blue eyes and blonde hair is not the most extreme cold adaptation, green eyes and orange hair is. Also, a large nose and nasal cavity would allow air to be heated more before entering the lungs. Other cold adapted features were a shorter height and a wider build.

I hope that clears up your assumptions and removes the implications I am a Nazi. :-(

I apologize if my debate style is a bit aggressive, I have always been the type to lean on the sword and not the pen.

Oh and one last thing for the record... I prefer a nice thick black woman over a petite fair haired white lady any day of the week. Just my preference. ;)

That was your logic, 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.
  • 0

#26 The Peon

The Peon

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 426 posts
  • LocationEarth

Posted 17 March 2006 - 03:06 AM

i have learnt much from this thread!

questions which now interests me, 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 homo sapiens 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, 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.



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.
  • 0
"The biggest step to change is to let go of fear."

#27 mattbimbo

mattbimbo

    Baryon

  • Senior Members
  • 165 posts
  • LocationLondon

Posted 17 March 2006 - 04:26 PM

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.u...ech/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.
  • 0
- even educated fleas do it! C Porter.

#28 The Peon

The Peon

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 426 posts
  • LocationEarth

Posted 17 March 2006 - 04:39 PM

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.u...ech/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.



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.
  • 0
"The biggest step to change is to let go of fear."

#29 mattbimbo

mattbimbo

    Baryon

  • Senior Members
  • 165 posts
  • LocationLondon

Posted 17 March 2006 - 05:06 PM

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.
  • 0
- even educated fleas do it! C Porter.

#30 The Peon

The Peon

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 426 posts
  • LocationEarth

Posted 17 March 2006 - 07:15 PM

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.



University web page:

http://cogweb.ucla.e...eanderthal.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.
  • 0
"The biggest step to change is to let go of fear."

#31 Milken

Milken

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 286 posts
  • LocationAndthe, Defenserests.

Posted 17 March 2006 - 08:25 PM

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, 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/.../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, baseless granted that all neanderthal bones are quite similar, contrary to a population that would have had many healthy individuals survive into fossilhood.


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. :rolleyes: BTW what are you implying (sorry I should not be getting into this but I cant help it).


Actually, 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, 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, they have alot of good development, but nothing like the invading african cousins who had much more sophisticated equipment and hunting techniques.


Definitely believable, one group of humans wasn't as skilled as another group.

I am not the best debater in the planet, 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.


Who cares about logical fallacies? I hate when people post a logical fallacy. I can have a logical fallacy and still be right!
  • 0
. . . . and the defense rests. :cool:

#32 The Peon

The Peon

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 426 posts
  • LocationEarth

Posted 17 March 2006 - 09:07 PM

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/.../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.


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.marico...igins/nose.html

And a quote:

The apomorphies are the development of an internal nasal margin bearing a
well-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, 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.


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.talkorigi...s/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.talkorigi...ms/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, 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.


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? :P

As for caucasoids not getting rickets, evidence please? Enviromental circumstances are one thing, but genetic is another.



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.


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.

Attached Images

  • nosetr.gif

  • 0
"The biggest step to change is to let go of fear."

#33 mattbimbo

mattbimbo

    Baryon

  • Senior Members
  • 165 posts
  • LocationLondon

Posted 17 March 2006 - 09:32 PM

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.
  • 0
- even educated fleas do it! C Porter.

#34 Milken

Milken

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 286 posts
  • LocationAndthe, Defenserests.

Posted 18 March 2006 - 07:54 AM

[quote name='The Peon'] Sorry I don't read creationist website banter. Given that 99% of scientists are not Creationists I ask that you post mainstream acceptable material.[/quote]

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/.../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.

[QUOTE=The Peon]
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.marico...igins/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.

[QUOTE=The Peon]
*SEE PIC BELOW*[/QUOTE]

Sure

[QUOTE=The Peon]
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.[/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.

[QUOTE=The Peon]
Again, I point you in the direction of this article in the hopes you read it fully.

http://www.talkorigi...s/a_neands.html

I will even quote the important parts for your convenience:

[QUOTE=The Peon]
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. [/QUOTE]

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.


[QUOTE=The Peon]
More quotes for you:

Here is evidence of the above statement:

http://www.talkorigi...ms/rickets.html
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.[/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.

[QUOTE=The Peon]
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.[/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.


[QUOTE=The Peon]
I think the rickets thing is case closed.[/QUOTE]

Even without rickets, the nasal cavity alone points to a dark skinned group.


[QUOTE=The Peon]
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? [/QUOTE]

Creationist? I'm aware of the large area they covered.

[QUOTE=The Peon]
As for caucasoids not getting rickets, evidence please? Enviromental circumstances are one thing, but genetic is another. [/QUOTE]

Already addressed.

[QUOTE=The Peon]
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.[/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.
  • 0
. . . . and the defense rests. :cool:

#35 The Peon

The Peon

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 426 posts
  • LocationEarth

Posted 18 March 2006 - 05:22 PM

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.


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 :rolleyes:

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.


LOLLERSKATES :rolleyes:


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.
  • 0
"The biggest step to change is to let go of fear."

#36 mattbimbo

mattbimbo

    Baryon

  • Senior Members
  • 165 posts
  • LocationLondon

Posted 18 March 2006 - 05:42 PM

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.
  • 0
- even educated fleas do it! C Porter.

#37 Milken

Milken

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 286 posts
  • LocationAndthe, Defenserests.

Posted 19 March 2006 - 11:23 AM

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:

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.


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!
  • 0
. . . . and the defense rests. :cool:

#38 Norman Albers

Norman Albers

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 1,787 posts
  • LocationAt the apex of a particular set of light-cones.

Posted 19 March 2006 - 03:44 PM

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.
Here at Singularities-R-Us, we specialize in the elimination of embarrassing orders of infinity and pesky asymptotic dependencies. http://laps.noaa.gov/albers/physics/na

#39 The Peon

The Peon

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 426 posts
  • LocationEarth

Posted 19 March 2006 - 06:19 PM

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.
  • 0
"The biggest step to change is to let go of fear."

#40 Norman Albers

Norman Albers

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 1,787 posts
  • LocationAt the apex of a particular set of light-cones.

Posted 19 March 2006 - 06:51 PM

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.)
Here at Singularities-R-Us, we specialize in the elimination of embarrassing orders of infinity and pesky asymptotic dependencies. http://laps.noaa.gov/albers/physics/na




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users