Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Neanderthals Might Not Have Been Human?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Neanderthals Might Not Have Been Human?

    Check out this really interesting video about a theory on how neanderthals may not have been human, covered completely in hair, and cannibals/vicious carnivores. Pretty cool stuff http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZbmy...layer_embedded
    Fitness Is A Journey, Not A Destination.

  • #2
    What is their genus?

    Gordo

    Comment


    • #3
      Their genus is classified as Homo, so they would most definitely be human, but it's possible they would need a reclassification if this theory is true. However there is also evidence of intermingling of Neanderthal and human DNA, which means they would most definitely be human. But I don't remember the video saying they're not human, just that they didn't look like humans.

      But what I really wanted to say is this: So badass...

      Comment


      • #4
        Reavers!

        Interesting.

        Comment


        • #5
          This was really interesting. I always thought it was funny when they portrayed Neanderthal children in diapers. I do know some human males completely covered in hair, however...

          Comment


          • #6
            Interesting. I've always thought the human ancestor thing hard to buy. I didn't know about the interbreeding though,w hich is rather disturbing. I thought it was interesting when he showed all those scary images- they never showed one of the Grey ETs, which have huge eyes like the neanderthals did.

            I love thinking about this kind of stuff. Always more questions than answers...


            Robin's Roost
            My Primal Journal

            Comment


            • #7
              Jotuns.

              Comment


              • #8
                I remember seeing that video a few months back. I'm very interested in reading the book and see just how sound the theory is. He makes a compelling argument imho. And at the very least I get a smile out of it all.
                Homo sum, humani nil a me alienum puto

                Comment


                • #9
                  Never heard of the guy. Is he a pillar of the scientific community, or one of the lunatic fringe? (You know, like us.)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Awesome!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Cool. What he says makes a lot of sense.

                      I think that the excessive anthropomorphism of neanderthals is left over from wishful thinking that they are modern human ancestors.

                      Originally posted by DubleYoo View Post
                      they would most definitely be human. But I don't remember the video saying they're not human, just that they didn't look like humans.
                      I think that there needs to be a division between the use of human to mean modern human and human to mean humanoid (or of genus homo).

                      And just because the genetics are able to mix does not necessarily mean that they are the same species. The Linnaean taxonomic system attempts to make this distinction (same species = can interbreed, different species = cannot), but genetics are continuous where the naming system is discreet.
                      Last edited by lcme; 02-19-2011, 08:09 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Interesting. If Chimps and others of the great apes are so close to us DNA-wise, why couldn't a Nenderthal look completely different yet be closer to us biologically?

                        I also think that the idea that some of our legends and myths are from this time period is interesting. I doubt the modern (or more modern) humans were that peaceful either, though. The idea that neanderthals were the bad guys, making the poor humans become more aggressive and mean tempered seems a bit far fetched.
                        Christine
                        Wag more, bark less

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Andtckrtoo View Post
                          The idea that neanderthals were the bad guys, making the poor humans become more aggressive and mean tempered seems a bit far fetched.
                          Yeah, the closer to the end of the video he really started reaching with his theories.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by lcme View Post
                            I think that there needs to be a division between the use of human to mean modern human and human to mean humanoid (or of genus homo).

                            And just because the genetics are able to mix does not necessarily mean that they are the same species. The Linnaean taxonomic system attempts to make this distinction (same species = can interbreed, different species = cannot), but genetics are continuous where the naming system is discreet.
                            You're right, there is some ambiguity in definitions, but my understanding (and by the dictionary definition of "human") is that the entire genus homo is referred to as humans (although modern humans get preference because they're the only surviving species) while it's the family hominidae that are only considered humanoid.

                            But as for genetics mixing, the evidence comes from modern human DNA, which means the offspring would have been fertile and thus their parents were at least in the same genus Homo (assuming our taxonomic classification is correct), and therefore, by definition, "human". But that DNA mingling evidence is flimsy and I don't buy into it anyway.

                            I would definitely, regardless of what they looked like, consider neanderthals human. Not an ancestor, mind you, but a biological cousin. I think this guy probably went too far in the opposite direction just for the sake of being different though...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Just watched a History Channel show on this today. Neaderthal genome has been mapped, and they are a different species. There is no evidence thus far that any Neaderthal DNA is part of our DNA, which suggests that either they didnt crossbreed, or if they did then their offspring was infertile (much as horse + donkey = infertile mule).

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X