GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2002-03 > 1015109277


From: Mark May <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Neanderthals
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 16:54:59 -0600
References: <3.0.6.32.20020301210752.00928100@ishipress.com> <3C812FAE.5B67A667@richmark.com> <3.0.6.32.20020302163924.0092ad20@ishipress.com>


Scientists researching concurrent evolution are not racists.Wolpoff is certainly not
a racist, and the leading figure. It is false that Neanderthal could not speak,
although this was beleived some years ago. His throat structure was virtually
identical to modern humans. (Tattersall and Wolpoff agree.) As for scientific
evidence that there may have been substantial interbreeding between Homo Sapien and
Neanderthal and other older populations in Asia, there is a vast amount. All one
needs to do is read the latest work in the field to see that categorical statements
about this subject are not possible, if one is intellectually honest.

I would like to see a source for the statement that Neanderthal had a different
number of chromosomes and thus could not produce fertile offspring. (This from
another posting to the list.) Tattersall does not mention this in his latest work.
Even he suggests that interbreeding was possible but he beleives it was not
significant. Plus it suggests someone has a sample of nuclear DNA for a
Neanderthal, which would be pretty big news.

J Mark May

Sam Sloan wrote:

> I have a web page on this subject at http://www.samsloan.com/neander.htm
>
> My source is Rob Kruszynski, who is with the Natural History Museum and is
> a real authority on this subject. He is also a chess player with whom I
> correspond regularly.
>
> The problem with those who are trying to claim that we are descended
> directly from the Neanderthals is that they are almost without exception
> racist who are trying to butress their claim that white men are superior to
> black men. They say that the Whites are descended from Neanderthals whereas
> the Blacks are descended from something else.
>
> I believe that there is no known scientific basis for claiming that any
> part of modern man are descended from Neanderthals.
>
> The Neanderthals were bigger than we are and had larger brains than we do,
> but they apparently could not talk and we beat them and wiped them out by
> our superior ability to communicate.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
> At 12:13 PM 3/2/2002 -0800, Thomas Fiske wrote:
> >Dear Mark,
> >
> >Thank you for the discussion about Neanderthals. I have read about the
> >skull structure of a boy found in the Middle East, which seems to show a
> >combination of features of modern man and Neanderthals. And I have seen
> >both Tattersall and Wolpoff on a science show on TV, as they explain their
> >positions. These shows take time to produce and may be out of date before
> >they are shown to the public, eclipsed by the latest research. That is why
> >I asked the question--to see if my information had been overcome by more
> >recent research.
> >
> >Tom the bewildered
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Mark May" <>
> >To: <>
> >Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 12:01 PM
> >Subject: Re: [DNA] Neanderthals
> >
> >
> >> I am not sure if this topic is appropriate to the list, but postings on
> >the subject
> >> have come up several times and typically the response has been incorrect
> >as in this
> >> posting. There is evidence on both sides as to whether there was any
> >significant
> >> mixing of Neanderthal blood with modern humans. mtDNA shows a distant
> >common
> >> ancestor, using a very small sample. On the other hand, there are skull
> >structures
> >> common to Neanderthal and modern Europeans that are not found in any other
> >peoples
> >> in the world. Two "experts" Ian Tattersall ("The Last Neanderthal") and
> >Milford
> >> Wolpoff ("Race and Human Evolution") reach totally different conclusions.
> >The
> >> simplistic Out of Africa hypothesis gets even more interesting when Asian
> >> populations are included, as we find anatomically modern humans in
> >Australia 40,000
> >> years ago, well before they were in Europe. Also intermediate forms
> >between
> >> Neanderthal and Homo Sapien are noted in Spain and the Levant, living
> >> contemporaneous with modern Home Sapien populations. Bottom line: this
> >issue is not
> >> resolved in the scientific community. J Mark May
> >>
> >> Sam Sloan wrote:
> >>
> >> > At 04:33 PM 3/1/2002 -0800, Thomas Fiske wrote:
> >> > >Dear Listers,
> >> > >
> >> > >Thank you for responding to my question about determining one's
> >geographical
> >> > >background from his blood type. I asked the question because the
> >> > >possibility seemed unrealistic. Most of you seemed to agree and I
> >relayed
> >> > >the message back to the List where it was posited.
> >> > >
> >> > >Another question arose. It had to do with Neanderthals. Someone on
> >the
> >> > >other list suggested that people with blood type O are the earliest
> >> > >ancestors of mankind. Traced to the neandrethals.
> >> > >
> >> > >Spelling of the word aside, I had read recently that there was no known
> >DNA
> >> > >connection of modern humans to Neanderthals. Am I wrong in this? What
> >> > >about blood type O?
> >> > >
> >> > >A few years ago someone wrote that red hair was traceable to
> >Neanderthals.
> >> > >I thought that was because maybe someone didn't like me.
> >> > >
> >> > >Tom the bewildered (with some red hair)
> >> >
> >> > It is well established that although modern humans and Neanderthals are
> >> > cousins and have a common origin, they are a seperate species and no
> >modern
> >> > humans are direct descendants of Neanderthals.
> >> >
> >> > Sam Sloan
> >> >
> >> > ==============================
> >> > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy
> >records, go to:
> >> > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237
> >>
> >>
> >> ==============================
> >> To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records,
> >go to:
> >> http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237
> >>
> >
> >
> >==============================
> >To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records,
> go to:
> >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237
> >
> >
>
> ==============================
> To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to:
> http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237

This thread: