4 ms·
> People sometimes forget to ask the question: If humans and Neanderthals actually crossed paths as often as molecular anthropologists claim—which is not suppor
by bambax 5y ago
> People sometimes forget to ask the question: If humans and Neanderthals actually crossed paths as often as molecular anthropologists claim—which is not supported by archaeological or paleontological evidence—would they have recognized each other as potential mates? I don’t think so: They looked too different. Even present-day hunter-gatherer groups have been observed to engage in violence when they encounter each other.
Ok for the "looks" part, but violence is really not counter-evidence of interbreeding. Systematic rape is an ordinary part of war, and it would of course produce offsprings (biology permitting).
- Ozzie_osman 5y agoYea I also found this really surprising. Like you said, rape is one option, but you could still expect some mixing even if 90 or 99% of encounters were violent.
- ceejayoz 5y agoEven on the looks front, we’re a species with diverse tastes. Some humans like metal rods stuck up their urethra. The idea that a Neanderthal would universally be prohibitively ugly is a bit silly.
- shadowgovt 5y agoAgreed, and given circumstances, it doesn't take more than a few successful pairings to propagate a new hybrid species if the environment is favorable to their survival. I don't know how much we can extrapolate from modern humans to present-day, but modern psychology research suggests that what people find attractive or repulsive is extremely early-experience-dependent. I suspect a homo sapiens society living near a Neanderthal society may not grow to find them as repulsive as, say, a homo sapiens society that has rare contact with Neanderthal. And if a child was raised by Neanderthal / homo sapien parents, or adopted from one tribe to the other, I have no particular reason to assume they'd find either species repulsive.
- actually_a_dog 5y agoEven regarding looks, when I look at images of Neanderthals such as this guy on the Smithsonian's web site (https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-neanderthalensis https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/h...), I see a human, and nothing more. Leaving aside the idea that Neanderthals probably lived in groups with other Neanderthals, and modern humans with modern humans, I don't have a problem believing they may have intermated.
- JoeAltmaier 5y agoThat's a strange quote, and just wrong. There's the 1/8 Neanderthal (7/8 Cro Magnon?) buried with normal burial rituals in a 40,000yo site. If that's not evidence of 'crossing paths', (three generations of integration into a tribe?) I don't know what is.
- praptak 5y ago> would they have recognized each other as potential mates? Any doubts about that? There are literally people having sex with farm animals, why would Neanderthals be different?
- lazide 5y agoIsn’t the definition/line drawn for the delineation of a species (compared to a sub-species/variety/variant) if offspring will be produced that can also reproduce. Horse vs Donkey == mule (which can’t reproduce) being one of the few examples where anything is produced, and why they are considered different species. One challenge here of course is while we have examples of Neanderthal/human hybrids, we don’t have enough of them to say it’s anything but a crazy fluke. But that could just be due to not having enough data points, not due to it being hard. If it wasn’t a crazy fluke, then yes they shouldn’t be a separate species.
- adolph 5y agoMaybe the implicit question is how different can an interpretation/assertion from one field of study be from related fields before the fields need a reorganization for coherence’s sake? My intuition is that the gene acts as an data ledger relatively more reliable than other physical artifacts both in terms of semantics and availability. I’m open for that view to be falsified and it would be preferable for concordant interpretations and presence of molecular and other types of evidence.