• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Neanderthals

Hsitirb

New Member
arg-fallbackName="Hsitirb"/>
(re-posted from the old forum, to allow people to reply!)

I'm looking for background on the Neanderthal species versus subspecies question. Particularly the rationales used before the mtDNA sequencing evidence. I have a question in my OU course which is asking about it, but it only wants 100 words, and from the source material I think it's only expecting an answer quoting the mtDNA evidence.

However, it's a question which I've never really felt happy with - how are such closely related fossils identified and categorised? Especially when there is such an overlap in both time and place of the fossil evidence. And what about when you have only limited fossils? As I understand it, while we now have several full skeletons, for a long time there was only one, and most of the rest was fragments.

One article I read pointed me at the technologies used - that the Neanderthals had (only?) Mousterian tools, while Homo sapiens was using more advanced toolkits.

My understanding is that the mtDNA sequencing (I think this is referring to the 1987(?) sequencing effort, not the most recent full genome) points to a Last Common Ancestor between modern humans and the Neanderthal sample existing well before the Last Common Ancestor of all modern humans.

If anyone would be so kind as to fill in the gaps in my knowledge - or at least suggest some decent resources - I would be most grateful. Perhaps even to the point of a beer (or equivalent beverage of choice) should a meet ever actually take place!
 
arg-fallbackName="Spase"/>
I'm not an expert and haven't kept up with the development of the area... so while I have a decent grasp of what we know now I can't say for certain what we knew 15 years ago.

That said, I think the very fact that they were contemporaries with significantly different skeletal features marked them as a separate species. The case for separate species stems from the amount of difference you see in them. They had pretty different skull structure..

With regular descent you don't get both the original species and the new one because the original species creates the new one by slowly changing. Within a gene pool you don't get genetic stratification from my understanding because if you're less fit you just get out competed. Speciation (a species branching) happens in cases where there's something that prevents two populations of the same species from interbreeding so that they both undergo selection based on their environments without having a chance to share genes.

I hope that at least helps. Or maybe I don't understand the question..

It seems related to a thread we had about llamas and alpacas and why they were still able to produce fertile offspring even though their common ancestor was from way back (different genus). My position is that the term species is poorly defined.. but that neanderthals were different enough justifying calling them a member of Homo Sapiens doesn't seem reasonable.

This site seemed reasonably informative:
http://dienekes.50webs.com/blog/archives/000484.html
 
Back
Top