It's been suggested that our neanderthal cousins disappeared because they "assimilated" with our remote ancestors within our subspecies, homo sapiens sapiens. Is this right?

I assume that means they interbred. If so, how can they be called a separate species? Surely they're the same as us, just a different ethnic group

CHEERZ

GIAN 🙂XXX

(science age 12¾)

46 minutes ago, Gian said:

It's been suggested that our neanderthal cousins disappeared because they "assimilated" with our remote ancestors within our subspecies, homo sapiens sapiens. Is this right?

I assume that means they interbred. If so, how can they be called a separate species? Surely they're the same as us, just a different ethnic group

CHEERZ

GIAN 🙂XXX

(science age 12¾)

They are a separate species that interbreed with Homo sapiens when they began migrating out of Africa via the northern and southern routes. We contain from what I know 1-4% of their dna (East Asians and Western Europeans having the highest, and Sub Saharan Africans having the lowest).

They had a diverging evolutionary path in the Genus Homo than homo Sapiens, so they are a different species.

Ethnicity/ race is a social construct, skin color or melanin concentration is not supportive of humans being different species so I’m slightly confused there.

I hope I answered your question. ☺️

1 hour ago, Gian said:

It's been suggested that our neanderthal cousins disappeared because they "assimilated" with our remote ancestors within our subspecies, homo sapiens sapiens. Is this right?

I assume that means they interbred. If so, how can they be called a separate species? Surely they're the same as us, just a different ethnic group

CHEERZ

GIAN 🙂XXX

(science age 12¾)

For your age, perhaps try checking out PBS Eons

Especially this episode: https://youtu.be/jdYwMLSNHnU?si=CVOJIXtnQSrwVMra

One of my favorite quotes from there is at precisely 11:48 in the video until the end.

3 hours ago, Gian said:

It's been suggested that our neanderthal cousins disappeared because they "assimilated" with our remote ancestors within our subspecies, homo sapiens sapiens. Is this right?

Where was this suggested?

12 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

diverging evolutionary path in the Genus Homo than homo Sapiens, so they are a different species.

+1.

Not much I can add.

12 hours ago, swansont said:

Where was this suggested?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379120302936?via%3Dihub

It suggests that "assimilation'' played only a small role, nevertheless the role was there, but haven't read the whole paper yet

GIAN🙂XXX

Edited June 1Jun 1 by Gian

4 hours ago, Gian said:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379120302936?via%3Dihub

It suggests that "assimilation'' played only a small role, nevertheless the role was there, but haven't read the whole paper yet

GIAN🙂XXX

So it has not been suggested that this was the cause of their extinction. You’ve answered your question.

10 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

+1.

Not much I can add.

Thanks!

20 hours ago, swansont said:

Where was this suggested?

Many experts agree on that instead of “interspecie war,” we gradually interbreed them to the point where they became an absorbed part of our genome, they didn’t really assimilate in the sense that immigrants do when they visit a nation. Their word choice was off, I hope this clarified.

22 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Many experts agree on that instead of “interspecie war,” we gradually interbreed them to the point where they became an absorbed part of our genome, they didn’t really assimilate in the sense that immigrants do when they visit a nation. Their word choice was off, I hope this clarified.

The cited paper called this a minor contribution. Do you have a citation that suggests otherwise?

8 hours ago, Gian said:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379120302936?via%3Dihub

It suggests that "assimilation'' played only a small role, nevertheless the role was there, but haven't read the whole paper yet

GIAN🙂XXX

Interbreeding, not assimilation. We absorbed their population genetics through migration via OOA (Out of Africa) to the point that they couldn’t be considered a separate species anymore. You seem like a very bright individual, so I strongly encourage you to take paleoanthropology at a college if they have a duel enrollment program at your school, which is what I did, or do some form of independent study to advance your knowledge!

Just now, swansont said:

The cited paper called this a minor contribution. Do you have a citation that suggests otherwise?

Source: Pääbo, S. (2014). Neanderthal Man: In Search of Lost Genomes.

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

The cited paper called this a minor contribution. Do you have a citation that suggests otherwise?

1. Green et al. (2010). A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome. Science

2. Prüfer et al. (2014). The complete genome sequence of a Neanderthal from the Altai Mountains. Nature

8 hours ago, swansont said:

So it has not been suggested that this was the cause of their extinction. You’ve answered your question.

My original question was; how can assimilation play any role if it's 2 separate species?

GIAN 🙂XXX

Edited June 1Jun 1 by Gian

55 minutes ago, Gian said:

My original question was; how can assimilation play any role if it's 2 separate species?

GIAN 🙂XXX

Did you see my explanation? Interbreeding, not assimilation. We absorbed their population genetics through migration via OOA (Out of Africa) to the point that they couldn’t be considered a separate species anymore.

1 hour ago, Gian said:

My original question was; how can assimilation play any role if it's 2 separate species?

GIAN 🙂XXX

Maybe species isn't always as separate as you think?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger

1 hour ago, Gian said:

My original question was; how can assimilation play any role if it's 2 separate species?

GIAN 🙂XXX

There are multiple definitions of species. Groups that normally don’t interbreed (for a variety of reasons) can be considered two different species. But when they do, viable (and fertile) offspring can result.

24 minutes ago, pzkpfw said:

Maybe species isn't always as separate as you think?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger

@Gian is believe is slightly confused on the subject matter or is confusing assimilation for interbreeding over time

There's a lot of variation among genera as to interspecies breeding. Some genera have very closely related species than both interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Others like Equus contain species which do not have homologous chromosomes, like horses and donkeys, so you get sterile progeny like mules. Canines otoh can produce a whole bunch of hybrids that are fertile - wolves, coyotes, dingos, jackals and Fido can all interbreed and produce fertile progeny. It's fun to imagine some of the hybrid names. Coyjack? (they're usually bald)(a joke that may be obscure to non US baby boomers)

I'm also waiting to see a dingorgi. Or a borzoiding. Of course anyone who wants to breed a jackal and a Shih Tzu doesn't know _____ about hybrids.

Our latest common ancestor with H. Neandertalensis is H. Ndutu.

We were both descendant from H. Habilis. Very often, recent speciation cousins can interbreed.

Neandertals had bigger brains and H. Sapiens had more cerebral crenelation.

Sounds like a good combo.

3 hours ago, StrontiDog said:

Neanderthals had bigger brains and H. Sapiens had more cerebral crenelation.

In a CNN study it says “From studying fossilized skulls, scientists know that the size of a Neanderthal's brain was the same as, if not slightly bigger than, that of a modern human”

It’s not accurate to say they generally had larger brains

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/13/world/neanderthal-vs-human-brain-scn#:~:text=From%20studying%20fossilized%20skulls%2C%20scientists,that%20of%20a%20modern%20human.