tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post1150933463028702236..comments2024-03-22T15:55:34.030-04:00Comments on Evo and Proud: Are we part-Neanderthal?Peter Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04303172060029254340noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-30234634769435269852012-07-03T12:08:43.789-04:002012-07-03T12:08:43.789-04:00Clomid
Precio Zithromax Espana
Flagyl ER Comprar O...<a href="http://eptamedia.com/products/clomid.htm" rel="nofollow">Clomid</a><br /><a href="http://microchasm.com/products/zithromax.htm" rel="nofollow">Precio Zithromax Espana</a><br /><a href="http://esccag.com/products/flagyl-er.htm" rel="nofollow">Flagyl ER Comprar Online</a><br /><a href="http://3ilinux.com/products/strattera.htm" rel="nofollow">Strattera Prezzo Farmacia</a><br /><a href="http://thefmcompany.com/products/amoxil.htm" rel="nofollow">Acheter Amoxil Moins Cher</a><br /><a href="http://consultces.com/products/viagra-super-active-plus.htm" rel="nofollow">Viagra Super Active Plus Online</a><br /><a href="http://hshealthspa.com/products/female-viagra.htm" rel="nofollow">Cheap Female Viagra Online</a><br /><a href="http://ecritdire.com/products/clomid.htm" rel="nofollow">Clomid</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-4205104911053071572009-06-02T11:44:41.296-04:002009-06-02T11:44:41.296-04:00Tod/RG,
I suspect that the Neanderthals looked ve...Tod/RG,<br /><br />I suspect that the Neanderthals looked very ape-like. I also suspect that relic groups persisted until modern times in high mountainous areas of central Asia. Throughout that area, the oral tradition often refers to large 'mountain apes' who were as big as humans. I don't think they were macaques.<br /><br />Once the Neanderthal genome is reconstructed, we may have a better idea as to how they looked. Unfortunately, we don't know how most genes work.Peter Frostnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-55971338132812321722009-06-02T11:37:53.591-04:002009-06-02T11:37:53.591-04:00The boosting of Neanderthals goes back to the 40's...The boosting of Neanderthals goes back to the 40's<br /><br />"Neanderthals on Trial" (PBS 2002).<br /><br />"[...]after WWII, the tide turned. <br /><br />In the era of civil rights(<B>?</B>), a new generation of anthropologists rejected racial type casting as a way of understanding human variation, and some began to question whether Neanderthals were really all that different. <br /><br />They were also wary of judging the capabilities of people based on their physical features. <br /><br />Attention turned from Neanderthal anatomy to behavior [...]<br />Recast as Stone Age flower people, Neanderthals were welcomed back in the family as direct, European ancestors just a few evolutionary steps away from becoming modern humans.<br /><br /><br />MILFORD WOLPOFF: I will say that no matter how different human beings are, when human populations come into contact, they may trade, they may fight, they may ignore each other, or they may merge, but the one thing they always do is interbreed."<br /><br />(MILFORD WOLPOFF trained John Hawkes I believe)Todnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-6058452981323592042009-06-02T10:28:11.392-04:002009-06-02T10:28:11.392-04:00Accurate portrait ?
who knows anymore. Not me.
20...Accurate portrait ? <br />who knows anymore. Not me.<br />20-15 years ago, Neanderthals were portrayed as beasts covered with fur, then they had a period of rehabilitation and until very recently, they were depicted as almost as advanced as modern sapiens, with clothes and language. But recently the picture started to deteriorate again, they were not able to speak after all, were canibalous, not able of symbolic thoughts and achieved only by copying the modern sapiens. They became again the stocky beasts possibly covered with fur that we knew.<br />Maybe one day we'll be lucky and find depictions or statues of them in a cave.<br /><br />In this web site <br />http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/savage.html <br />The last picture from "illustrator Jay Matternes, from the October issue of Science 81" looks more european than the recently published "first modern european". <br />These first modern humans could have interbred with this guy, but not with the australopithecus-like guy depicted in your picture Tod.RGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-88792950947168944172009-06-02T07:18:49.805-04:002009-06-02T07:18:49.805-04:00The more I find out the more I think the ideas of ...The more I find out the more I think the ideas of Marcellin Boule, (<A HREF="http://www.beeldbank.leidenuniv.nl/ImageDisplay.php?uid=FT091282&thumbed=5" REL="nofollow">artists impression</A>), were more accurate than almost everything that followed. <br /><br />"In part, where Neanderthals were placed on the human evolutionary tree was largely influenced by how their anatomy and behavior were viewed. Boule, for instance, who studied the Neanderthal remains from La Chapelle-aux-Saints (fig.3) and La Ferassie, described Neanderthals ... as... too apish to be ancestoral to modern humans. Boule sought to distance modern humans from what he saw as brutish beings, arguing forcefully that the Neanderthals had been annihilated by the more “elegant…inventive” Homo sapiens,"<br /><br /><A HREF="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/17/neanderthals-cannibalism-anthropological-sciences-journal" REL="nofollow">How Neanderthals met a grisly fate: devoured by humans</A>.Todnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-81756786594636657212009-05-31T10:41:54.218-04:002009-05-31T10:41:54.218-04:00RG,
Wall et al. didn't look at the Neanderthal ge...RG,<br /><br />Wall et al. didn't look at the Neanderthal genome. They reasoned that a polymorphism is archaic if it meets three criteria: (1) its alleles show multiple differences; (2) it is near another polymorphism with alleles that likewise show multiple differences; and (3) the two polymorphisms show similar patterns of geographic variation.<br /><br />The more I think about this methodology, the more it strikes me as being flawed. If the two adjacent polymorphisms are balanced polymorphisms, their alleles will very likely show (a) multiple differences and (b) similar patterns of geographic variation. Why wouldn't they?<br /><br />I also suspect that Wall et al. did attempt an admixture estimate for the African sample, but then threw it out because it was far too high. If so, this is unfortunate because we could have estimated the proportion of 'false positives' by comparing their admixture estimate with the earlier one I mention in my post.<br /><br />I agree with your second point. Archaic admixture should be higher in sub-Saharan Africans in part because the two groups were more similar there than in Europe and Asia and in part because they probably co-existed for a longer period of time.Peter Frostnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-16228760220995459102009-05-29T12:38:48.826-04:002009-05-29T12:38:48.826-04:001) Can you briefly explain the "ancient admixture"...1) Can you briefly explain the "ancient admixture" thing. Is it the same thing as comparing with "ancient polymorphisms" that can be obtained by sequencing fossil DNA (neanderthal genome is on its way I believe), <br />or is it just by estimating the age of the polymorphism, derived from the mutation rate for this polymorphism ?<br /><br />2) I've read the Dieneke's blog when he discuss the apparent presence of 800 000 years old markers in pygmee's genome. I am not shocked by the idea of early homo sapiens in Africa interbreeding somehow with late erectus or other archaic humans. After all, 200 000 years ago, early sapiens were just beginning to diverge from other archaic humans, and if we expect that they were in relatively small numbers, it might not have been a big deal for them. But 40 000 years ago in Europe ? that's 160 000 years after the first sapiens diverged from archaic human in Africa. So genetically, interbreeding must not have been so easy, even if H. Erectus genome was 99.98% identical to ours.<br />I would therefore expect more archaic marquers in african populations than in europeans.RGnoreply@blogger.com