|
|
|
|
|
timj82
|
Joined: 5/19/2008
Msg: 26 | |
| The Neanderthal Genome Project
Posted: 9/16/2008 10:54:17 PM | http://www.rdos.net/eng/asperger.htm#Medicine
read this for a theory about the link between autism and Neandertals | |
|
| The Neanderthal Genome Project
Posted: 9/17/2008 8:28:35 PM | Just my thoughts that’s all, so don’t get all flustered I know that I’m not an Anthropologist or an Archaeologist just fascinated by it all and that’s all.
Neanderthals were the Aboriginals of Europe. They were built for the cold and a harsh climate of Europe most of which was still frozen. As the ice started to melt, more and more nomadic humans from the east (cradle of civilisation), began to arrive.
These new eastern arrivals wiped out the Neanderthals in competing revelries for food and shelter. See the studies of Stephen Oppenheimer (genetic anthropologist), re- the origins of the Britons or the “Myths of British Ancestry”.
The Briton’s were nomads from Basque Country (Iberia), whom in turn originated from Anatolia (Turkey). They had gradually worked their way around the Mediterranean Sea (northern), through Italy, France and Spain, settling in the Iberian Peninsula and migrating further to end up in the British Isles including Ireland, which at the time was still joined to Britain.
Oppenheimer: Yet there is no agreement among historians or archaeologists on the meaning of the words "Celtic" or "Anglo-Saxon." What is more, new evidence from genetic analysis indicates that the Anglo-Saxons and Celts, to the extent that they can be defined genetically, were both small immigrant minorities. Neither group had much more impact on the British Isles gene pool than the Vikings, the Normans or, indeed, immigrants of the past 50 years.
As the ice melted Britain became separate from Europe, and Ireland separated from Britain. The Basque Pioneers (nee Anatolians), were trapped and evolved into the Britons as distinct from the Saxons, Normans or Celts. According to Oppenheimer, Queen Boudicca was a Briton not a Celt and was the most famous of Britons.
Oppenheimer: So, based on the overall genetic perspective of the British, it seems that Celts, Belgians, Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Vikings and Normans were all immigrant minorities compared with the Basque pioneers, who first ventured into the empty, chilly lands so recently vacated by the great ice sheets.
 | |
|
| The Neanderthal Genome Project
Posted: 9/30/2009 7:39:23 PM | Stan Gooch has written a few books on the thesis that Neanderthal women and Cro-Magnon men interbred to create modern humans. Gooch claims that the opposite natures of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons produced a superior offspring via the "hybrid vigor" maxim. Cro-Magnons were a patriarchal, sun-worshipping, non-dreaming, logical, right-handed, sexually repressive, daylight society whereas Neanderthals were a matriarchal, moon-worshipping, dreaming, artistic, left-handed, sexually active, nocturnal society.
For thousands of years Cro-Magnon culture has dominated the world but Neanderthal culture is getting stronger with each passing generation: Left-wing politics, wiccan religion, womens rights, etc. People that behave like Neanderthals and people that possess more of the Neanderthal genes tend to reproduce more often therefore creating a more and more Neanderthal-like world population.
Neanderthals brains were just as large, if not slighly larger, than Cro-Magnons. Neanderthals had a larger cerebellum than Cro-Magnons which sits at the back end of the brain. Neanderthals were red-haired and light-skinned. | |
|
| The Neanderthal Genome Project
Posted: 10/7/2009 1:30:15 PM | FoxP in their jeans? Does that mean neanderthals were responsible for the domestication of dogs? | |
|
| The Neanderthal Genome Project
Posted: 10/8/2009 12:35:13 AM | Neanderthals were a matriarchal, moon-worshipping, dreaming, artistic, left-handed, sexually active, nocturnal society.
Neanderthals brains were just as large, if not slighly larger
Neanderthals were red-haired and light-skinned.
Welp, that's all the proof I need..... I'm definately a descendant of the Neanderthals (except for the left-handed part).
 | |
|
| The Neanderthal Genome Project
Posted: 10/8/2009 3:04:45 PM | On cranial capacity averages among HS Neanderthalensis it should be noted several subspecies are contended, the average cranial capacities of those in Western Europe and the very small number in Eastern Europe for example are markedly different, which may colour such an anthropological comparison unduly. There is markedly less variation within regional groups of Neandertal where this is not the case with modern humans (a bit like comparing purebreds with crossbreeds). The cranial range for Germanic Neandertal and those for Asiatic Neandertal are markedly different, at opposite ends of the spectrum, Asiatic Neandertal has a smaller build much more similar to Homo Erectus as are its average cranial capacities. Germanic Neandertal is the heaviest build and has bigger averages. Iberian/Middle Eastern Neandertal is similar but has its own marked differences. The averages published are between these groups, believed to be subspecies where the variation within regional groups of modern man remain pretty much the same as the overall average, ie. with dramatic variation and lower overall averages. If you were to compare Asiatic Neandertal with modern man for example they are very similar. Germanic on the other hand as an individual group tends to be much more heavily set and has a higher floor on the lower end range of cranial capacity with an average of 1480cc. Notably according to university palaeontology departments a typical Germanic Neandertal had a significantly larger cranial capacity than a typical modern European, if you happened to just be running past and grabbed one of each randomly. Some such as one professor at the University of Wyoming (which has a world leading palaeontology dept for obvious reasons) have a rather colourful way of describing it, using terms like, "Imagine a Silverback Mountain gorilla capable of pulling out tree stumps by the roots, make him more human in proportion and put Einstein's brain in him..."
However the question regarding Neandertal intellectual potential has never been a popular one. A simple point is clear however, in the archaeological record they are at least as intelligent as modern man, who did not evolve any significant technological leaps further until the advent of agriculture ca.10K BCE or long after they died out. It is reasonably asserted by some Palaeoanthropologists that Neandertal in fact introduced much of our technology in the first place, along with religion and several tenants of culture and civilisation. But this is to take extreme controversy by the horns.
Quite a bit of research about Neandertal has been in the science journals in recent years. One project modelled their vocal chords, finding they are poorly suited to differentiating several vowels necessary for an extensive vocabulary.
Another project has been examining skulls found in Rumania which clearly exhibit both Neandertal and modern traits, along with several traits which are not present in our immediate ancestors which were not Neandertal ancestors. This suggests to the researchers that interbreeding occured, but it is not the only inferrence.
Finds in the Middle East include common, seasonal dwelling sites between the species, effectively one year Neandertals lived in a particular cave complex, then another year modern men, then yet another year Neandertal again. Another interesting point is that among independent sites Aurignacian technology, cultural artefact and tool construction is absolutely identical to Mousterian during the same periods, directly inferring that some level of trade existed between the two species.
Then there is the genetic inferrence of just how remarkably similar our material is, less than the variation between two species of chimpanzee as the University of Wyoming puts it.
All these points and others conspire to form the postulate that it is perfectly reasonable to consider human-Neandertal interbreeding. | |
|
| The Neanderthal Genome Project
Posted: 10/23/2009 4:41:55 PM | Modern consensus suggests hominids developed in south africa and moved north through ethiopea and east into India and West into Europe
The population of the Americas came much later perhaps via landbridges.
Neanderthals are always depicted as larger more primitive forms apparently more able to withstand the cold
Apparently both evolved perhaps from a common ancestor.
Now wind the clock back perhaps 100000 years ago.
What was the state of Antarctica. Could part of it have been inhabited or all of it? Perhaps being cold dry and dark in the winter months.
Would it have been possible for any of our ancestors to have evolved there in Antarctica and perhaps have colonised Africa via Namibia
Naturally there will be no forensic evidence eg bones tools since it is covered in ice but perhaps one day a cave with rock paintings may emerge when the ice melts. | |
|
| The Neanderthal Genome Project
Posted: 10/23/2009 4:53:22 PM | Neanderthals were red-haired and light-skinned.
Red haired people burn easily in the sunlight and i beleive suffer from various skin cancers
Would it not seem logical that they developed in an area where the sun was low on the horizon and perhaps absent for long periods eg Antarctica before the Ice Age
Any civilisation living on Antarctica when it was cool but dry would have to store food in tents/houses or caves to help them over the winter months.
Perhaps they were first to cultivate fire if only for candles.
Is there a link between red hair and being able to see in low light conditions?? | |
|
| The Neanderthal Genome Project
Posted: 10/23/2009 7:52:12 PM | Hmmm..seems a "cabbit" is a genetic anomaly. Basically, a cat that has defects. Which explains a lot. My cousin had one with a ball tail, it hopped (rear legs like a rabbit more than a cat), and very soft fur, more like a rabbits than a cats fur. It was also deaf. Must have been a lot of inbreeding for cats around there though.
Ok...that being said..
Why would a neanderthal migrate across the equator IF they inhabited Antarctica? It would be kind of warm for them, would it not? Also, perhaps better hunting, and more dietary choices on a seasonal basis. If they made it that far, why leave? Also, I haven't heard of anything like them being dug up in the southern areas of the planet.
I still think they may be the legendary "bigfoot"...hiding out in small groups. Removing their dead and burying them, as was their custom. This would also explain why people claim to have seen them, and provide a bit of fur that more often than not turns out to be a rabbit's fur or some such...basically, clothing. Though not ALL bits of fur were or are identifiable. Sometimes the lab simply says it cannot match it up with existing species. They cannot say "It is a bigfoots fur" or hair or whatever, because they don't have a baseline sample to compare it to.
We are still finding large mammals throughout the world which have been previously undiscovered.
Genetic anomalies, like the "cabbit"? Perhaps a "snow ape" of some kind?
I tried to google "oscar"...the "chimp" that may not BE a chimp. Seems his genetic structure is not quite chimpanzee, nor human...but somewhere in between. Also, his stature and aging do not coincide with what a normal chimp would experience.
A new subspecies? | |
|
| The Neanderthal Genome Project
Posted: 10/23/2009 8:24:12 PM | RE Msg: 27 by Chiny®™©:
Just my thoughts that’s all, so don’t get all flustered I know that I’m not an Anthropologist or an Archaeologist just fascinated by it all and that’s all. Then you won't have a problem with me analysing your post?
The Briton’s were nomads from Basque Country (Iberia), whom in turn originated from Anatolia (Turkey). They had gradually worked their way around the Mediterranean Sea (northern), through Italy, France and Spain, settling in the Iberian Peninsula and migrating further to end up in the British Isles including Ireland, which at the time was still joined to Britain. I was very insterested in this. It has some level of cultural support, because many Irish claim that they were called Gaels, because they were the descendants of Mons Gael, a Roman soldier from Tunisia. It makes sense that he might have travelled from Tunisia upwards, and that would take him through the Iberian peninsula, suggesting a possible common path of migration. It also might explain why Spain has been so important in English culture, even to this day, and yet Germany has not really been important at all, excepting for the last 2 World Wars, and that was only because Germany was the main aggressor in both. So there is a strong connection that English people have to Spain, and not nearly as strong to Germany.
Oppenheimer: Yet there is no agreement among historians or archaeologists on the meaning of the words "Celtic" or "Anglo-Saxon." What is more, new evidence from genetic analysis indicates that the Anglo-Saxons and Celts, to the extent that they can be defined genetically, were both small immigrant minorities. Neither group had much more impact on the British Isles gene pool than the Vikings, the Normans or, indeed, immigrants of the past 50 years. I'm mixed about Oppenheimer when he says stuff like this. It's well known among those from the North West of England that they had a very high proportion of blondes over the years, and that's where the Vikings settled. Likewise, you can find a tremendous amount of Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Norman influence on British culture. Half of English is from Norman French, and the other half is Anglo-Saxon, and the rest has Greek origins.
The immigrants of the past 50 years, from the Caribbean, Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, Estonia, Russia, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Germany and France, amongst others, have made a huge mark on the country. But it's not like we're all speaking Polish.
Oppenheimer is 62. He's lived through the massive changes in the UK during the last 50 years. But most of those changes are because of English changes in attitudes that are rooted in the reactions of the English to the aftereffects of World War II, such as the desire to cosset children because the children of World War II were deprived during the war, and sought to give their kids what they didn't have, and the wide-ranging changes in the UK economy because Britan suffered such a financial loss due to World War II and the loss of the British Empire, that it copied American business practices to a very large degree. So he's right about changes. But he's accounting them to immigrants, when they are down to people like himself.
As the ice melted Britain became separate from Europe, and Ireland separated from Britain. The Basque Pioneers (nee Anatolians), were trapped and evolved into the Britons as distinct from the Saxons, Normans or Celts. According to Oppenheimer, Queen Boudicca was a Briton not a Celt and was the most famous of Britons. Celtic languages are divided into 4 groups, of which ancient British count as Celtic, and so does Celtiberian. So it's more accurate to say that Queen Boudicca was a Briton, and Britons were possibly descendants of celtiberians, who were celts.
It is sincerely doubtful that the Basques were the ancestors of Britain, because Basque is a language isolate, which is similar to an ancient Acquitanian language. Also, the Spanish name for the Basque people are the Vascones, which is also the name for the people in Navarra. As Acquitane, Navarra, and Basque are all very close in distance, it's quite reasonable that the people of this area are all from the same people. But they are isolated in language and culture from the rest of Europe. Even Oppenheimer implies this. He wrote that the genetic markers that he found all along the Atlantic coast of Europe, are the basis of his theory that the ancient Britons were descended from Southwestern Europe. But these are NOT the markers of the Basques. So, his theory points to that the British are descended from Iberians. But since British is far closer to Celtiberian, and this was the language of the Celts who made their way to Iberia, it makes a lot more sense to say that the British are Celts, but Celts who migrated from Spain, and not from France.
He has interesting theories. But they are littered with inconsistencies in his thinking. Some parts makes clear sense. Others just don't add up at all. | |
|
| The Neanderthal Genome Project
Posted: 10/25/2009 8:13:51 PM | Scorpio mover
many Irish claim that they were called Gaels, because they were the descendants of Mons Gael, a Roman soldier from Tunisia. It makes sense that he might have travelled from Tunisia upwards, and that would take him through the Iberian peninsula, suggesting a possible common path of migration.
Very few Irish claim this at all since most have been brainwashed into thinking the Gaels were always in Ireland. (eg Gaelic Athletic Association)
The ancient book Lheaber Ghabala (The book of the taking of Ireland) written in Gaelic c 300 describes how the Gaels under King Mil came from North Spain and landed in what is in now Ireland c 150 AD. After his death the country he had annexed was divided into His sons Mug's part (Muns tier) and Conn's remainder (Connaght)
The Gaels came from what is called Gallicia in NW Spain and they are completely different people to the Basques of Spain
The Gaels had not annexed the Northern Part of Ireland by time of book because there was a huge fortification running West to East called Black Pigs Dyke still there today.
To the North were the Ula (Ulaidh) known on maps to the Romans as Scottii and there is archaeological support for this.
The Romans knew the tribes north of the Hadrians Wall in England as the Pictae and Caledoniae who were completely different altogether , They painted themselves blue .
Alba as it was called did not become Scotland until c 1080
The aboriginal people of Ireland prior to the Gaels knew themselves as the Cruthin .
Cruthin Dr Ian Adamson
There is strong archaeological evidence that Ireland is linked pre Ironage and pre Gael to Brittany and Iberia as well as UK and Scandinavia.
Irish folklore and tradition knows these people as giants called Tuatha de Danaan | |
|
| The Neanderthal Genome Project
Posted: 10/25/2009 8:17:25 PM | On Basques
Apparently their language is highly unusual bearing no resemblance to neighbours in Iberia or France.
Remarkably they have strong linguistic links to Finland.
How can this be explained? | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
