Modern Humans and Neanderthals May Be More Similar Than We Imagined | Hacker News Reader

Modern Humans and Neanderthals May Be More Similar Than We Imagined

smithsonianmag.com

69 pointskqr241 comments

Our understanding of the interplay between the different groups of early humans and their relationship to us has been done a disservice by the artificial lines we've drawn in the sand. The Neanderthal and the Denisovan interbred. Both are the ancestors of modern humans, and on the same level of our family tree (i.e. the same number of generations ago). To proclaim that one group is homo sapiens and the other is not amounts to a weird sort of racism against our own ancestors, leading to the popular view of the Neanderthal as inferior.

I thought that there were sizable modern populations with no Neanderthal DNA which would suggest that they are not ancestors of modern humans:

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

There are, but not a great many, and that doesn't by any stretch countermand the gp's point.

Sub-Saharan Africa is almost entirely free of Neanderthal DNA except for some groups who acquired a bit through introgression from Eurasian modern humans.

Various sources of Archaic admixture have been observed or postulated for different modern human groups; determinations about their similarity to modern humans are made in broader grounds. As a practical matter, taxonomic distinctions between different hominid species/subspecies are generally retained until sufficient evidence accumulates to justify dissolving the boundaries. The idea that archaic groups like Neanderthals were very cognitively sophisticated has been around for a long time; the question is whether it is more informative to maintain them as different taxa.

Absolutely. I have to admit I don't really understand why neanderthalensis is separate from sapiens - H. sapiens sapiens is a widespread enough classification, so why not H. sapiens neanderthalensis?

Yeah, homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis were separated by 500.000 years, however they could still produce offspring when they met.

They had art, organisation, tools..

I have neanderthal genes in me as do many people living today. I never got the "official story" of them being dumb cave men who could barely have a coherent thought.

> I never got the "official story" of them being dumb cave men who could barely have a coherent thought.

Where did you get that "official" story, though?

Mate, you share 50% of your genes with a fucking banana. I double dare you to tell me with a straight face that you never believed the official story that bananas aren't even sentient.

There's no crediable evedence they had art.

> by the artificial lines we've drawn in the sand.

You make it sound like the distinction was completely arbitrary or something. There are anatomical differences that justified the separation into different species, from a classical point of view.

Now, the concept of species is blurry and genetic analysis shows that Neanderthal and Sapiens did interbreed. Nevertheless, the anatomical characteristics of Sapiens remained, and none of the Neanderthal ones. Therefore it seems to me that the distinction into different species remains pertinent.

> none of the anatomical characteristics of Neanderthal remained

Red hair and green eyes came probably from them

Err, isn't use of morphological classification to define species of animals super outdated? I was under the impression it was more useful to define which groups of animals could produce viable offspring. In this definition, neanderthals would be a subspecies, not a distinct species in itself. This seems both more correct and more useful.

> Err, isn't use of morphological classification to define species of animals super outdated?

It's still the best you have in most cases, notably in the fossil record.

I'm no expert but I believe that the concept of species is becoming more and more problematic nowadays. There is a wikipedia article about it[1]. So, it's complicated.

That being said, even if Neanderthal seems to have interbred with Sapiens, as far as I know, nobody seriously thinks this should revise its status as a separate species.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

Let me introduce you to the Occipital bun [0].

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occipital_bun

Neanderthals are not our ancestors, but older and very close relatives. We have common ancestors, but in Africa there was no known interbreeding (because there was no Neanderthals) AFAIK. However the physical differences are significant enough, so I don't see how it is more racist than, say, making a distinction between a husky and a golden retriever. They are close relatives and can interbreed, but they're distinctively different breeds, aren't they? Racism is only in the part where we always like to presume to be the smartest ones...

Those are both the same species.

Neanderthals and sapiens are separate species. Just look at the pictures here:

https://phys.org/news/2014-11-neanderthals-sub-species-moder...

Clearly related, but also different.

They may not be your ancestors (if you are solely of sub-saharan decent), but they are most definitely the ancestors of most people on the planet including mine.

Racism only enters the picture if we assume one Homo species is “superior” to any of the others, something for which we have no evidence. Different !== worse.

Only those of very limited imagination would assume that any of three different Homo species are “inferior” to any of the other. Tigers, lions and leopards are all different species of the genus Panthera [0], but nobody says that one is inferior to the other.

Just like the Homo species, different Pathera species can interbreed [1]. The most interesting observation is that it appears that Neanderthals and ancient Africans (we don’t seem to have a good short name for the Homo species that arose in sub-Saharan Africa) follow Haldane’s Rule [2], where only male Neanderthals and female ancient Africans were able to produce fertile offspring [3].

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panthera

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

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_rule

3. http://www.hypothesisjournal.com/?p=932

The study this article is based off seems to rely on a logical contradiction.

The entire study is founded on the age of the specimen. That age was determined to a literally unbelievable level of precision (+/- 31.025 days for a 50,000 year old corpse of a species that went extinct 40,000 years ago) by assuming that neanderthal growth rates were effectively identical to homo sapien growth rates - so enabling them to determine its age by markers based on homo sapien growth rates. They then use this assumption to show that the growth rate of neanderthals were not, in fact, identical to homo sapiens. This seemingly contradicts the assumption they used to determine the specimen's age, which in turn would effectively nullify the entire paper since it thus negates any attempt at such a precise measurement of age.

It's always best to use the maximum possible precision. This way people know they can trust your data.

Round numbers would lead people to believe you were just making things up.

Source:

How to Lie with Statistics, Darrell Huff and Irving Geis

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393310728/

Although possible I guess, but it seems weird they are so accurate on tooth age but don't even know the sex of the child.

"bone robusticity strongly suggests that it was male "

Second, inspection of the cranium—which houses the brain—implied that brain development in Neanderthals may have been a slightly more protracted process than in Homo sapiens.

This can be read as yet more evidence that Neanderthals were smarter than homo sapiens, with an even more protracted childhood to allow for longer brain development. In saying this, I'm influenced by the old arguments that Stephen Gould made suggesting a link between extended development and many of the traits that we think of as uniquely human.

Maybe the length of brain development evolved to be longer due to pressures selecting for /what/ the brain would be capable of doing, and then further evolutionary pressures compressed the time frame?

This can also lead to some potentially dicey conclusions in certain corners that analyze prevalence of Neanderthal DNA in human populations.

Like what?

He is implying that a larger amount of Neanderthal DNA would lead to greater intelligence.

It's not my assertion, just that there are those who say that.

> Through an analysis of naturally occurring markings on the juvenile’s first left upper molar, Rosas and his coauthors concluded that the child had almost certainly died between the ages of 7.61 and 7.78 years.

That seems remarkably precise. What is it about the molar that allows that level of precision?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20483555

https://www.omicsonline.org/radiographic-evaluation-of-devel...

Both of those links are about using the third molar. Is that the same as the "first left upper molar"?

The third molars are the wisdom teeth. The first molar grows around 6 years of age. At 7-8, kids only have the four first molars (molars only grow once, no tooth fairy for them).

Makes sense. Any links relevant to how they can be so precise using the first molar?

I came here to post the exact same quote, with the same question.

I also know some kids who would like to cheekily answer "how old are you" with that precision.

No one can prove them wrong.

Can't agree more with the title. I mean, have you met any fellow humans recently? Clearly 50,000 years of evolution didn't do all that much for us!

Evolutionists who believe that Neanderthals were not fully human always seem surprised by discoveries like this. As a creationist, I don't find it surprising at all - more and more evidence keeps stacking up that Neanderthals were fully human.

No one believes they were pre-human. They were our cousins.

> Evolutionists who believe that Neanderthals were some sort of pre-human

That's not saying anything more than they're ignorant of the details of paleontology, no different than people who believe that T-Rexes snacked on homonids, or anyone who doesn't know the specifics of a particular domain they know only superficially.

Shame on the people downvoting you. You're just expressing your opinion, which happens to be extremely unpopular around here. I upvoted you for contributing to the conversation.

I'm just more curious: how can you maintain your belief in creationism in spite of all the evidence to the contrary?

Matters of faith don't really depend on evidence.

This must be a troll, and it's a pretty bad one...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com