4 ms·

The house cat and tiger had a common ancestor; the Neanderthal WAS an ancestor of modern humans. Saying "neanderthals as a population don't exist anymore" tell

The house cat and tiger had a common ancestor; the Neanderthal WAS an ancestor of modern humans. Saying "neanderthals as a population don't exist anymore" tells us nothing, because no ancient population exists anymore - they have all been replaced by their descendants. "Extinct" is not the same as "dead". If we make a phylogenetic tree showing descent, extinction would mean the tree ends - there are no descendants. This is clearly not the case for Neanderthals.

mannykannot 8y ago
The argument you are making here seems to be that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens are not distinct species - which seems reasonable to me, given that the populations interbred to the degree they did. The set of all the descendants of a given species is a valid concept, but it is not the definition of a species (note, for one thing, the awkward self-referentiality if it were.)
- astazangasta 8y ago
  None of the extant speciation criteria seem testable across time, so the species distinction between an ancestor and its progeny seems difficult to navigate. This sort of event, of a species vanishing through the slow evolution of its progeny, is called "pseudoextinction" to distinguish from the other, true 'extinction' (the last surviving member of a lineage dies). In this case since we know that Neanderthal DNA lives on in its H. Sapiens descendants we can safely call this "pseudo" rather than a true extinction.
TangoTrotFox 8y ago
You can rephrase his example to e.g. wolves and chihuahua as one of the more absurd, but accurate, examples to confirm his point and challenge yours. And the interesting thing is is that was a crazy fast speciation by artificial selection. Not only does the "ancient population" still exist, but it'd be quite bizarre to suggest that wolves were not extinct, if they did go extinct, because chihuahuas exist. Speciation, even from a direct ancestor, is very much a thing.
- klipt 8y ago
  For interbreeding purposes, wolves and dogs (including chihuahuas) are still the same species since they can create fertile offspring.
  - philwelch 8y ago
    It seems mechanically challenging for wolves and chihuahuas to create offspring.

mannykannot 8y ago

The argument you are making here seems to be that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens are not distinct species - which seems reasonable to me, given that the populations interbred to the degree they did. The set of all the descendants of a given species is a valid concept, but it is not the definition of a species (note, for one thing, the awkward self-referentiality if it were.)

astazangasta 8y ago
None of the extant speciation criteria seem testable across time, so the species distinction between an ancestor and its progeny seems difficult to navigate. This sort of event, of a species vanishing through the slow evolution of its progeny, is called "pseudoextinction" to distinguish from the other, true 'extinction' (the last surviving member of a lineage dies). In this case since we know that Neanderthal DNA lives on in its H. Sapiens descendants we can safely call this "pseudo" rather than a true extinction.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago

You can rephrase his example to e.g. wolves and chihuahua as one of the more absurd, but accurate, examples to confirm his point and challenge yours. And the interesting thing is is that was a crazy fast speciation by artificial selection. Not only does the "ancient population" still exist, but it'd be quite bizarre to suggest that wolves were not extinct, if they did go extinct, because chihuahuas exist. Speciation, even from a direct ancestor, is very much a thing.

klipt 8y ago
For interbreeding purposes, wolves and dogs (including chihuahuas) are still the same species since they can create fertile offspring.
- philwelch 8y ago
  It seems mechanically challenging for wolves and chihuahuas to create offspring.