Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DNA Analysis Probes the End of Human-Neanderthal Sex

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the if-you-buy-their-claim-that-it's-ended dept.

Earth 160

An anonymous reader writes "Modern Europeans may have interbred with Neanderthals as recently as 37,000 years ago, after modern humans with advanced stone tools expanded out of Africa, according to a new study. In an attempt to understand why the Neanderthals are more closely related to people from outside of Africa, researchers from Harvard and the Max Planck Institute estimated that while the last sex between Neanderthals and modern humans may have occurred 37,000 to 86,000 years ago, it is most likely that it occurred 47,000 to 65,000 years ago."

cancel ×

160 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Paternity nightmare.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41576691)

Wow. Is this a platform for the US election campaign too?

snoo-snoo from damn neanderthal women (3, Funny)

rubycodez (864176) | about 2 years ago | (#41576695)

raped my great-great-.......great grandaddy! and he liked it!

Re:snoo-snoo from damn neanderthal women (1)

jhoegl (638955) | about 2 years ago | (#41577271)

Baby, it will rock your world

Re:snoo-snoo from damn neanderthal women (1)

Dave Emami (237460) | about 2 years ago | (#41577707)

"Have you noticed, that humans and Neanderthals are still having sex?
All the denouncement had absolutely no effect.
Parents and counselors constantly scorn them,
But humans and Neanderthals are still having sex and nothing seems to stop them."

Re:snoo-snoo from damn neanderthal women (1)

drkim (1559875) | about 2 years ago | (#41578275)

You know what they say:

"Once you go Neanderthalensis, you'll never go back-a-lensis!"

(Fine. You find a rhyme for 'Neanderthalensis')

The last sex between Neanderthals and humans (4, Funny)

2phar (137027) | about 2 years ago | (#41576697)

the last sex between Neanderthals and modern humans may have occurred 37,000 to 86,000 years ago

Maria Shriver begs to differ.

Re:The last sex between Neanderthals and humans (4, Interesting)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#41576791)

Funny, but Maria is probably as Neanderthal as Arnold. What interests me is that the Neanderthal genes never made it back into Sub-Saharan Africa, which means that some Africans remained mostly separated from non-Africans for a quite a long time. Same goes for Micronesians and Austrailians, who have Denisovan genes that the rest of humanity doesn't have.

And I guess this explains how it is we managed to end up with noticeably tweaked physical features. If Europeans and Mid-East people had been exchanging a lot of genes with Sub-Saharan Africans (for example if there had been a lot of trade between Africa and Europe or if there had been migrations into Africa) you'd expect there to be less difference in skin and eye color and more variation of hair curliness among Africans.

Had there been more trade or immigration to Africa, Africans might look more like African-Americans, who have a mixture of African, European and other ancestry.

Re:The last sex between Neanderthals and humans (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41577383)

I think this is probably the first time I've seen African-American not used as a catch-all term for "people of colored skin". Bravo.

Re:The last sex between Neanderthals and humans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41577431)

Had there been more trade or immigration to Africa, Africans might look more like African-Americans, who have a mixture of African, European and other ancestry.

I am pretty sure that DNA wouldn't effect the looks as much regarding skin tone and possibly hair. It was most likely thousands of years spent in a specific environment that contributed to looks. It is possible to see drastic changes to a persons body in one lifetime so you can just imagine what would happen if generations settled in a specific area.

Re:The last sex between Neanderthals and humans (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41577641)

I am pretty sure that DNA wouldn't effect the looks as much regarding skin tone and possibly hair. It was most likely thousands of years spent in a specific environment that contributed to looks. It is possible to see drastic changes to a persons body in one lifetime so you can just imagine what would happen if generations settled in a specific area.

And how do you think population characteristics are passed between generations? magic?

Re:The last sex between Neanderthals and humans (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 years ago | (#41577709)

And how do you think population characteristics are passed between generations? magic?

God did it [slashdot.org] , according to our Republican Physician Overlords, whom we do not particularly welcome.

Re:The last sex between Neanderthals and humans (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41578075)

I am pretty sure that DNA wouldn't effect the looks as much regarding skin tone and possibly hair. It was most likely thousands of years spent in a specific environment that contributed to looks. It is possible to see drastic changes to a persons body in one lifetime so you can just imagine what would happen if generations settled in a specific area.

And how do you think population characteristics are passed between generations? magic?

Dude, there's no point in arguing with Lamarck [wikipedia.org] anymore. He's just bitter that his theory was discredited after the works of Darwin, Mendel, and Watson/Crick, so he spends his time online attempting to plant seeds of doubt.

It's just some form of bizarre astroturfing/trolling he's been doing for the last ~250 years now.

Re:The last sex between Neanderthals and humans (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | about 2 years ago | (#41578337)

Had there been more trade or immigration to Africa, Africans might look more like African-Americans, who have a mixture of African, European and other ancestry.

I am pretty sure that DNA wouldn't effect the looks as much regarding skin tone and possibly hair. It was most likely thousands of years spent in a specific environment that contributed to looks. It is possible to see drastic changes to a persons body in one lifetime so you can just imagine what would happen if generations settled in a specific area.

OK, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that skin color, etc, is a choice???

Re:The last sex between Neanderthals and humans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41578033)

That depends on what you mean by "a lot of trade". Obviously population characteristics evolved in somewhat separate populations. But you are focused on the differences, not the similarities. The shared characteirstics of sub-saharan africans indicate that there was more interaction among them than with other parts of the world. I don't know that means there wasn't still a lot with Europeans.

Neanderthals and humans and Arnold and Maria (1)

Latent Heat (558884) | about 2 years ago | (#41576829)

So you are telling me, that some couple has been without sex longer than Maria and Arnold . . . (ba-doom boom!)

Re:The last sex between Neanderthals and humans (5, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41576895)

the last sex between Neanderthals and modern humans may have occurred 37,000 to 86,000 years ago

Maria Shriver begs to differ.

You got that mixed up, Neanderthals are from the past and Terminators are from the future.

Racist Idiocy (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41576701)

Something I thought of and found amusing was regarding the idea that brain-dead racists put forth saying black people are monkeys, they're inferior to whites, etc. If only they were smart enough to comprehend that, technically, blacks are more genetically pure homo sapiens than most whites are. We have Neanderthal DNA. They don't. I find it deliciously ironic, even as a white guy (although I'm not one of those bumpkins).

Re:Racist Idiocy (2)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#41576803)

Except that Neanderthals were also homo Sapiens. But they were more primitive in their technology, for whatever reason.

Re:Racist Idiocy (2)

Guru80 (1579277) | about 2 years ago | (#41576855)

Technically they are considered a subspecies of Homo Sapiens, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, or as a separate species altogether, Homo neanderthalensis.

Re:Racist Idiocy (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#41576879)

Technically they are considered a subspecies of Homo Sapiens, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, or as a separate species altogether, Homo neanderthalensis.

Given the recent data that they're our recent ancestors, only the former makes sense.

Re:Racist Idiocy (2)

khallow (566160) | about 2 years ago | (#41576947)

Given the recent data that they're our recent ancestors, only the former makes sense.

Not really. There wasn't a lot of genetic exchange even though the populations of the two groups lived by each other for up to 200,000 years.

Re:Racist Idiocy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41577663)

If two individuals give fertile descendency, aren't they of the same species?

Re:Racist Idiocy (5, Interesting)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 years ago | (#41577727)

If two individuals give fertile descendency, aren't they of the same species?

Welcome to the Species Problem. [wikipedia.org]

tl;dr - It's complicated.

Re:Racist Idiocy (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#41578071)

Yes, but isn't it generally considered that if they DO mate and produce fertile offspring "in the wild", they're the same species? Unless there's limited-interfertility issue, which can't be established now.

Re:Racist Idiocy (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about 2 years ago | (#41577959)

If two individuals give fertile descendency, aren't they of the same species?

Well, yes and/or no (i.e. it's complicated). After all, canid hybrids [wikipedia.org] are often fertile (at least, with their parent species or a like hybrid), but wolves, coyotes, dingoes, and jackals are generally considered to be different species. Similarly, felid hybrids such as ligers [wikipedia.org] are fertile with other ligers and with both lion and tiger mates.

Check also the European Herring Gull [wikipedia.org] and the Lesser Black-backed Gull [wikipedia.org] for a ring distribution of species which are mutually fertile with their neighbors, but whose end-units overlap in range and are not mutually fertile. There have also been a few cases of a female mule being fertile [wikipedia.org] when mated with either horse or donkey, despite the species having different numbers of chromosomes.

Re:Racist Idiocy (4, Informative)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#41576949)

I don't think that taxonomy has been in use for a long time. I haven't heard any researcher refer to Neandertals as a subspecies of H. sapens for many years. Nor would it make much sense considering they are likely both daughter species of H. erectus.

Re:Racist Idiocy (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41576857)

Except that Neanderthals were also homo Sapiens. But they were more primitive in their technology, for whatever reason.

Maybe, that's debatable [wikipedia.org] .

Either way, they were either Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis or Homo Neanderthalensis, but most certainly not Homo Sapiens Sapiens, which is our species. They differed not only in culture and technology, they were a separate species.

And yes, different, but closely related species, can still interbreed and have viable offspring. That definition of species is not used anywhere above high school biology, because things get a lot more complicated once you take into account ring species [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Racist Idiocy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41577001)

Apart that the biological definition of a species is that they do not interbreed.

Considering our hominid ancestors could interbreed, most consequent approach would be to call them a single species.

That scientist not all agree on that is pretty normal. And especially in this case, after all, until few years ago no-one ever believed we interbred with Neanderthaler, until DNA analysis proved otherwise.

Re:Racist Idiocy (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#41578095)

Considering our hominid ancestors did interbreed, most consequent approach would be to call them a single species.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Racist Idiocy (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#41578339)

That is not the biological definition of a species. That's the cartoon definition. The biological definition is far more nuanced.

For instance, coyotes and wolves are considered separate species and yet they do interbreed.

Species [Re:Racist Idiocy] (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41577299)

Either way, they were either Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis or Homo Neanderthalensis, but most certainly not Homo Sapiens Sapiens, which is our species.

Pedantic quibble: Homo Sapiens is a (genus and) species designation. Homo Sapiens Sapiens is a species designation with a subspecies appended. So, correctly, our species is Homo Sapiens.

As I understand it, whether Neanderthals were a subspecies of homo sap., or a separete species within the genus, has been debated without a firm consensus reached. I expect that the DNA evidence has now added a new set of evidence which will potentially allow a consensus to be reached.

Re:Racist Idiocy (4, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41577061)

Except that Neanderthals were also homo Sapiens. But they were more primitive in their technology, for whatever reason.

Because they knew what a real woman needed. Real men, with proper real tools, solid Mousterian hand axes. Real woman has no need for the effeminate Aurignacian blades, those are for pussies.

Re:Racist Idiocy (1)

Carewolf (581105) | about 2 years ago | (#41577679)

Except that Neanderthals were also homo Sapiens. But they were more primitive in their technology, for whatever reason.

I thought it had been established that Neanderthals had slightly better tools, technology if you want, than contemporary Humans. They were just loners and didn't build societies, and only lived in small family groups, and eventually disapperared as a destinct species.

Re:Racist Idiocy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41577169)

[...] blacks are more genetically pure homo sapiens than most whites are. We have Neanderthal DNA. They don't. I find it deliciously ironic, even as a white guy (although I'm not one of those bumpkins).

Where is the irony? This actually prove their point. 1) Whites different then blacks, as in not a mere skin colour difference but a real race branching. 2) White European did much better then black African. Ignore the politically correct bullshit, base your judgement only on verifiable observation like you would for any other animal species.

White European did much better, this is fact. Maybe it is due to not been so pure homo sapiens? Now who is the brain-dead? Fuck off.

Re:Racist Idiocy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41577417)

No, I'm still correct and all I did was get one of the brain-dead limp-dicked jerkoffs to run his pussy mouth, hence your post.

Re:Racist Idiocy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41577655)

but...you're not correct since the nazi's never made the claim that their superiority was derived from purity. they argued that since they were superior they should keep themselves pure. which means your statement is made up bullshit and you are a liar.

Re:Racist Idiocy (0)

siride (974284) | about 2 years ago | (#41577989)

Whites did poorly for a very long time, actually. It wasn't until the last millenium that they started diverging from the rest of the world. Before that, Northern and Western Europe was a backwater and had been since before the dawn of civilization.

Re:Racist Idiocy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41578011)

Ever heard of Alexander of Macedon? You know...the guy who conquered half the world in the 4th century BC? Yeah, that was over two millennia ago. Maybe you should go take an Intro to Western Civ class, clown.

Re:Racist Idiocy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41578167)

If whites did so poorly since the beginning of civilization why do half of the world's people speak a language based on proto-indo-european? could it be that the aryans had the most advanced political and technological systems long before anyone else? that's what the archaeological evidence supports. deal with it.

Last sex 37,000-86,000 years ago (5, Funny)

turkeyfeathers (843622) | about 2 years ago | (#41576703)

And that's still better than most Slashdot readers.

Re:Last sex 37,000-86,000 years ago (2)

metrometro (1092237) | about 2 years ago | (#41576973)

I'm sure most of the readership is tallying up the last time they got laid, and wondering if they were in fact the last of their kind to do so.

Re:Last sex 37,000-86,000 years ago (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#41578211)

And that's still better than most Slashdot readers.

When we're in charge the first order of business will be to make Ponn-Farr mandatory.

reproduction != sex (5, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | about 2 years ago | (#41576709)

Humanity never had successful reproduction with sheep, but I wouldn't go as far as to claim as a result that we've never had sex with sheep.

I do wonder what changed after the alleged period when occasional reproduction occurred.

Re:reproduction != sex (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | about 2 years ago | (#41576823)

Where is the like button?

Re:reproduction != sex (4, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | about 2 years ago | (#41576907)

lift their tail, and you'll see it.

Re:reproduction != sex (1)

Sam36 (1065410) | about 2 years ago | (#41577483)

Awesome

Re:reproduction != sex (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41576839)

Shut up faggot.

Re:reproduction != sex (5, Funny)

theskipper (461997) | about 2 years ago | (#41576975)

It's Sunday, what the heck: (Source: http://www.squidoo.com/sheepjokes#module33629552 [squidoo.com] )

A New Zealander buys several sheep, hoping to breed them for wool. After several weeks, he notices that none of the sheep are getting pregnant, and calls a vet for help. The vet tells him that he should try artificial insemination.

The New Zealander doesn't have the slightest idea what this means but, not wanting to display his ignorance, only asks the vet how he will know when the sheep are pregnant. The vet tells him that they will stop standing around and will, instead, lay down and wallow in the grass when they are pregnant.

The Man hangs up and gives it some thought. He comes to the conclusion that artificial insemination means he has to impregnate the sheep. So, he loads the sheep into his truck, drives them out into the woods, has sex with them all, brings them back and goes to bed.

Next morning, he wakes and looks out at the sheep. Seeing that they are all still standing around, he concludes that the first try didn't take, and loads them in the truck again. He drives them out to the woods, bangs each sheep twice for good measure, brings them back and goes to bed.

Next morning, he wakes to find the sheep still just standing around. One more try, he tells himself, and proceeds to load them up and drive them out to the woods. He spends all day shagging the sheep and, upon returning home, falls listlessly into bed.

The next morning, he cannot even raise himself from the bed to look at the sheep. He asks his wife to look out and tell him if the sheep are laying in the grass. "No," she says, "they're all in the truck and one of them's honking the horn."

Re:reproduction != sex (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41577293)

I do wonder what changed after the alleged period when occasional reproduction occurred.

They probably discovered donkeys...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VKWLC87Uzw

Re:reproduction != sex (3, Interesting)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about 2 years ago | (#41578069)

I do wonder what changed after the alleged period when occasional reproduction occurred.

Not just successful reproduction, but offspring whose genetics was carried forward into current populations to be detected by such research.

One possibility is the two branches diverged enough that crosses muled out. Another is that some crosses might still have remained fertile but the populations resulting from crosses after the cutoff date might have later died out without crossing back into those lines that did survive. (Perhaps cultural values or differing ideas of beauty led to a separation of these two branches of Humanity.)

Re:reproduction != sex (1)

drkim (1559875) | about 2 years ago | (#41578299)

Humanity never had successful reproduction with sheep, but I wouldn't go as far as to claim as a result that we've never had sex with sheep.

HEY!

I was just helping it over the fence!

maybe this is why africans are so stupid (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41576729)

the neanderthal dna in indo-europeans has obviously made them superior. deal with it.

Re:maybe this is why africans are so stupid (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41576885)

No, this is the information that the Nazi race scientists had supressed for so long, that the Africans were actually the purer race.

Re:maybe this is why africans are so stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41577073)

Except the Nazis claimed to be the master race and demanded purity within that. So the original AC's comment still stands, though I don't agree with it

Re:maybe this is why africans are so stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41577549)

the argument could be that mixed heritage offers the greatest chance for development.. 'purity' only leads to decay.

Re:maybe this is why africans are so stupid (1, Insightful)

drkim (1559875) | about 2 years ago | (#41578315)

the argument could be that mixed heritage offers the greatest chance for development.. 'purity' only leads to decay.

Correct.
I believe another word for 'purity' is 'inbreeding.'

Re:maybe this is why africans are so stupid (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41577717)

Nice strawman but what do the Nazi's have to do with the basic facts of the situation? Europeans have Neanderthal DNA (Neander Valley is in Germany btw) and have fared far better than the pure "humans" in the African subcontinent. Deal with it.

Re:maybe this is why africans are so stupid (2)

DarkOx (621550) | about 2 years ago | (#41577801)

Which has always been a marvel to me. Even in the 1930's there was enough known about genetics and an established theory of speciation and natural selection that should have enable people to recognize that if anything purity is no virtue at all.

Its not good for our dogs and its not good for us. Mutations are one way to gain improved forms but the direct mixing of existing genetic material followed by the selection process is a much faster way. Blood lines that were mixed before the neolithic era, probably would have the surviving individuals expressing the most robust genetic material, from all the pre-modern man and related species.

Re:maybe this is why africans are so stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41577839)

Science doesn't stop idiots and monsters from being idiots and monsters.

Re:maybe this is why africans are so stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41577867)

Your statement supports the OP then since he conjectured that Europeans are more successful due to mixed DNA. So you and the fellow you replied to are essentially saying the Nazis were right but for the wrong reasons!

Why'd it take so long for this to reach Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41576809)

I mean come on, you were even beaten to this story by a weekly podcast [youtube.com] by 2 days.

Can we probe end of human sex as well? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41576833)

Since all my female friends seem to be going dike?

Re:Can we probe end of human sex as well? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41577023)

They're just saying that to get you to stop trying to fuck them.

Re:Can we probe end of human sex as well? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41577559)

no.. going dyke is usually the result of too much feminism in her diet.

Re:Can we probe end of human sex as well? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41577229)

There's a reason they just want to be your friends.

Re:Can we probe end of human sex as well? (1)

drkim (1559875) | about 2 years ago | (#41578331)

Since all my female friends seem to be going dike?

They're doing that 'cause they don't need men on the planet anymore:
Human Sperm from Stem Cells [time.com]

Last sex 37,000 years ago (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41576915)

Alternate title: "Scientists Discover Marriage"

Technically Headline is Not Supported (2)

retroworks (652802) | about 2 years ago | (#41576921)

There may have been a lot of sex without conception, and even a number of later Neanderthal-European hookups which did conceive. If the entire Neanderthal branch of evolution died out, it's equally possible that other, later branches, of Neanderthal-Euro stepkids died out, or used contraception. But I guess this gets the word "sex" in the headline, which is probably key. The study shows the last sex which produced surviving progeny which has been blood sampled, not necessarily evidence of the last snoo-snoo.

Re:Technically Headline is Not Supported (1)

lightknight (213164) | about 2 years ago | (#41577075)

Or perhaps they didn't. Given the difference in cranial sizes, it is conceivable that they progressed technologically much faster than we did. As such, they may even still be among us, albeit hidden.

Lies! Lies! (0)

macbeth66 (204889) | about 2 years ago | (#41576933)

My wife says that when we have sex, she is doing it with a Neanderthal. But she likes it that way, so we're good.

Re:Lies! Lies! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41577031)

No, she's saying that when she has sex, she's doing it with a Neanderthal.

Re:Lies! Lies! (1)

bytesex (112972) | about 2 years ago | (#41577931)

No *you* lie! Posting on Slashdot and maintaining that you have a wife. And having sex with her and everything! Tss.

A Brief History of the World (0, Troll)

nomad-9 (1423689) | about 2 years ago | (#41576959)

Neanderthal, largely considered inferior to"humans", managed to survive a quarter of a million years through several ice ages, by practicing strict birth-control and maintaining equilibrium with the surrounding environment.

Then came the crazy "modern" warlike Human with his "modern" tools, who rapidly wiped his predecessor out.

Then Modern Human spread like a virus, infecting every corner of the earth, killing off most species including large chunks of his own kind, until every natural resource was consumed, incapable of creating an environment of self-preservation. And he thought he was so smart and the sun shined out of his human ass...

And then one day, the last human died out in the middle of his desolated planet, with his iPhone500 charged up on solar energy but with nobody left to call from his depleted "social network". In the end, just another failed, closed-end mutation of a monkey.

Re:A Brief History of the World (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41577187)

A really interesting Slashdot phenomenon is while attempting to be all scientificy and stuff and being strong advocates of Darwinian natural selection, don't seem to really grasp the implications of the concept. No species tries to maintain equilibrium. Equilibrium is forced upon them.

Re:A Brief History of the World (1, Insightful)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 2 years ago | (#41577527)

No species tries to maintain equilibrium.

An intelligent one could.

Let me know when one turns up.

Re:A Brief History of the World (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about 2 years ago | (#41577965)

Only when it's forced on it. If a species had infinite resources and infinite space, then it could expand indefinitely, and that would be the smart thing to do. In those circumstances an equilibrium would be pointless.

Now the question is: Do we have limited or (virtually) unlimited resources? If our technology advances enough that we are able to reach other star systems, then our resources will be nearly infinite. Even just mining our entire solar system would set us up nicely for centuries to come. So why go for an equilibrium now?

Re:A Brief History of the World (2)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#41578229)

Yeah, yeah. I wish everybody did things my way, too.

Re:A Brief History of the World (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41578327)

No species tries to maintain equilibrium.

An intelligent one could.

Let me know when one turns up.

Define equilibrium first.

Re:A Brief History of the World (2)

C0R1D4N (970153) | about 2 years ago | (#41577201)

Could you provide evidence to the neanderthals contraceptive practices and motivation?

Re:A Brief History of the World (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 2 years ago | (#41577329)

That's a nice story. Unfortunately it's got too many scientific errors to be science fiction but sounds too sciencey to be general fiction. I don't think you'll find a publisher willing to take it. Maybe you could write it as being mostly sex scenes and bill it as a romance?

Re:A Brief History of the World (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 2 years ago | (#41577597)

It has been published. I've read it. Might be in the Apeman Spaceman collection.

Neanderthals are like mopeds.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41576963)

They get you where you want to go, and they are a lot of fun until your friends see you riding one.

Re:Neanderthals are like mopeds.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41577053)

Real sapiens aren't ashamed to be seen on a moped. Or with a neandertal.

Re:Neanderthals are like mopeds.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41577603)

I though sapiens were supposed to be above irrational precepts like no-true-scotsman fallacies?

YouTube link, else it didn't happen! (1)

DamonHD (794830) | about 2 years ago | (#41576981)

Did I miss that post?

Rgds

Damon

Neanderthal Dates (1)

RudyHartmann (1032120) | about 2 years ago | (#41577157)

I've dated a few chicks that thought I was a Neanderthal. I still got lucky though. Chicks just dig furrow brows.

Ozzy Osbourne & Neanderthal lineage? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41577159)

Ozzy Osbourne's Genome Reveals Some Neandertal Lineage:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ozzy-osbourne-genome [scientificamerican.com]

* "Will wonders never cease"...

APK

P.S.=> I've got no problems with that, especially when he makes tunes as good as this one ( "Killer of GIANTS" ) -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXWPcFtra4A [youtube.com]

... apk

Not surprising... (1)

zig007 (1097227) | about 2 years ago | (#41577175)

I suppose it must have been about 50,000 years ago when the Neanderthals really started to let themselves go, remember?

We're All the Same, Now. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41577221)

If humans now have N genes, and didn't before, then "Modern" humans are the ones that have N genes. To say nothing about habits and manners. Don't get me started on that. :) Since then, it's all about inbreeding, really. And reinforcement. Thank goodness they didn't find any Annunaki sex toys, or something. :)

so long as (1)

nimbius (983462) | about 2 years ago | (#41577327)

the cast of the television series "Jersy Shore" continue to procreate, I for one as a scientist cannot in good conscience rule definitively on the end of human-neanderthal intercourse.

Neandertles (0)

Kerstyun (832278) | about 2 years ago | (#41577369)

why the Neanderthals are more closely related to people from outside of Africa

Some people're choosy about what they coppulate with and other's screw anything. Seems neandertle's have some taste.

Pics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41577467)

Pics or it didn't happen! (Or in this age: YouTube or it didn't happen)

Ugly ape or European ancestor (1)

dhaen (892570) | about 2 years ago | (#41577507)

What makes me laugh is the changes that have occurred in artists illustrations of Neanderthals: Before dna connection made: Ugly, primitive - almost thuggish. After dna connection: Intelligent looking, caring for others - could almost be your old uncle... (not mine though;-)

The time it stopped (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41577633)

When she said no.

Has it ended? (1)

hughbar (579555) | about 2 years ago | (#41577637)

Why only last night, but it was really dark and I was pretty wasted. I'm ashamed to tell you the rest. I think the scratches are going to heal pretty well though.

The Neander Valley (2)

RudyHartmann (1032120) | about 2 years ago | (#41577787)

Neanderthal means Neander Valley in German. I used to live near Dusseldorf which is also close to this valley in Germany. There is a really nice train ride to get to it, there's a nice nature trail and a museum with some displays of Neanderthal bones and artifacts. Neanderthals could probably interbreed with modern humans even if they were a new species. There are inter-special hybrids, such as mules. But they are usually sterile if the genome is too divergent. Neanderthal DNA is believed to be in our modern genome too. So they could not have been to genetically different than we are. Species are somewhat arbitrarily assigned anyway. It is also commonly believed by many that they were lesser mentally developed and brute beasts. The average cranial capacity of Neanderthal skulls exceeds that of modern humans. There's a lot of controversy surrounding their intellectual ability. Especially their language skills. The hyoid bone in your throat allows you to produce the sounds of modern language. They have found Neanderthal hyoid bones which were well developed. This has deepened that controversy. Just like there is great physical diversity among domestic dogs, why couldn't the same apply to homo sapiens? There is speculation that they were not immune to some of the infectious diseases that we had spread to their population. That this might have been the cause of their extinction and not our superiority. This would also explain why contact with them invariably led to extinction.

Tell that to Hitler and Goebbels... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41577939)

... so I guess Africans are the only true and pure humans on the planet :D They must be turning on their graves LOL

essentially just a different race (1)

peter303 (12292) | about 2 years ago | (#41577979)

Its still unclear how different Neanderthals may have appeared, but probably not that different. They could probably talk, but maybe not as well as cromagnon. They may have appeared more "robust", ie. muscular. Probably both of are races were your typical ape "horndogs" willing to have sex with anything that looked decent at certain times. Most of the apes and modern humans are like this.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?