WI mixed race of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon people?
- Thread starter Dan1988
- Start date
Well first of all, it's highly unlikely that a male hybrid would be fertile, or that later hybrids would be 50/50. However a female could be fertile and reproduce with either of the purebred species, preferring the more successful in the given area. I foresee most hybrids being only a small part Neanderthal, and culturally most change would be in areas where Neanderthals are the more successful. Other than that it's easy, an ice age that doesn't end as soon or as abruptly.
Hapsburg
Banned
It'd probably get subsumed into the Homo sapiens species. The humans were simply more fit and capable in that environment, and the H. sapiens genes would have become, over time, totally dominant. So, even though there would be H. neanderthalis-particular genes, they'd be recessive and very, very small in number.
In fact, there's a possibility that that is what happened OTL. We may have bred with them, but our genes were simply better and dominated.
For sake of argument, supposing something like that did happen, and supposing that for some reason or another the Neanderthal genes were on equal dominance, this new hybrid species might be more rational and accepting to change than the Neanderthals, and also more environmentally careful and peaceful than the Humans. A fair balance of traits that may or may not give it an upper hand against the "pure" species of either.
Ah, yes, such traits in any in any hominid could see a much better world indeed. It would definitely give them an advantage over either of the "pure" species. Also our traits were not particularly "better" nor did we dominate at the time of the Neanderthal, the Neanderthal dominated ice-age Europe even after our arrival. Neanderthal had a bigger brain, was "smarter" at the time (as far as we can tell), was fitter for such an environment, had also tamed fire (as did we), and had some knowledge of economic advantage (to a primitive amount), they were even able to survive by their nature and luck alone. Unlike Neanderthal, it was our inferiority of our brain and natural abilities that let us survive. We had to depend less on luck and the advantages we already had, but ironically Neanderthal would be undone by nature and luck, not us. Then even more ironically what we developed from the harsh conditions of ice age Europe, would make us superior after the ice age ended. It is unlikely that we ever successfully interbred with them, even with the decline of Neanderthal dominance after the ice-age, because if we had there would be much more genetic code and diversity in modern humans than today and quite some cultural change. So take out the factors of nature and luck, longer predictable ice age, and the Neanderthals can survive to interbreed with us.
Last edited:
Bigger doesn't necessarily mean better when it comes to brain size. Organization is everything; otherwise, elephants would be much smarter than humans.
I'm pretty sure it was the opposite way around.
True. It's thought the red hair gene might come from Neanderthals.
Where exactly did you hear this?
Last edited:
Um...pretty much every indication possible is that we were smarter and more adaptable than the neanderthal, and not by a small amount.
And yes, our traits were "better". During the Ice Age we dominated across the planet, and rivaled the Neanderthal within their specialized territory, eventually outcompeting them even there. And that was during the ice age, the environment they were designed for. By every evolutionary scale, we were "better"
During the Ice Age, no we weren't. We only "dominated" in Africa and Southern Asia. Within our specialized territory (wide open plains in tropical weather), humans didn't even make it to the Americas until the late Ice Age after we had been in Europe for quite awhile. We did not out compete them until the Ice Age had started to decline bringing the Neanderthals with it. They had a bigger brain proportionally, which says a lot considering they were bigger than us. Also their tools (which some consider "primitive") were more effective than ours in Ice Age Europe, meaning they could have been smarter. For the time and place they came from their adaptations were also better. They were just so good at surviving by nature and luck that, what they put the most thought into was being economically efficient. Where as we put most our thought into religious beliefs and imagination, which in turn supported our early exploration. The reason we eventually became superior was because our specialized territory was rapidly taking over Ice Age Europe, and ironically Neanderthal were undone by what they most depended on (nature and luck as I've said several times now). By every evolutionary scale we were not "better". You're forgetting the entire Ice Age! Trust me, I know a lot on the subject.
NapoleonXIV
Banned
My personal theory is that it was the exact opposite.
My understanding is that we know Neandertal invented religion. At least they buried their dead and the grave gifts seemed to show some belief in an afterlife. I think they're also known to take care of their injured, as some skeletons were found with broken bones that healed, bones that would have prevented that person from hunting while they were healing.
I think they probably developed other characteristics we associate with a more spiritual nature. They might very easily have become friendly perhaps even inherently kind to outsiders. Which would enable our ancestors to kill and eat them quite handily, which I also understand is pretty much the current theory of what happened.
btw, aren't Jean Auel's books about a Neanderthal hybrid girl who can reproduce with Cro-Magnons and somehow looks like Darryl Hannah. Its' not impossible that a hybrid would look more like us than them and be very attractive to us despite her ancestry.
I never said they couldn't have a religion, but when they buried their dead they buried them without cloths, with bent in limbs in smaller burial holes, that's economic. They were known to take care of their injured, never said they weren't. There is proof that humans were more spiritual, also not much in the way of Neanderthal imagination has ever been found. However they were incredibly smarter than earlier thought. They probably were friendly. It was not we who killed the most Neanderthal. As the current theory is that they were to superior (during the Ice Age) to be undone by another hominid, and thus were undone instead by the rapidly ending Ice Age. I also have no doubt that they could look like us, and so be attractive. It's just if there were hybrids today there would be much more genetic material, it has to do with a min Ice Age (after the Neanderthals were extinct) that caused a bottle neck effect on the human population.
My theory is that they were done in by both climate change and slight intelligence disadvantage. Neanderthals never progressed during their 100000 year history to making tools out of animals, something humans did. This may reveal an intelligence disadvantage; but they still must have been fairly smart, considering. Bigger brains does not equal greater intelligence; otherwise, taller people (who have bigger heads) would be much smarter than short people. The Neanderthals were stocky, to better conserve body heat in the cold (an adaptation observed today in people like the Inuit, who tend to be stockier on average than more southerly people), as well as more muscular (to insulate from the cold.) However, these muscles require a lot of energy to maintain and thus the Neanderthals needed more food than humans did. They were also highly carnivorous, obtaining most of their required protein from meat. Thus, when the climate changed, their ambush hunting methods no longer worked and their stocky build and lack of inventiveness made them unable to adopt more agile hunting strategies. This led to their extinction over time by humans, who were more adaptable and better suited to open plains.
Alcuin
Banned
Or maybe (neanderthalensis being confined to Europe) could it be that we (Europeans) gained some of our genes from the Neanderthals... white skin, for example, and blonde hair and blue eyes?
True, according to the dominant theories on the populating of the americas we did not enter North America until the tail end of the Ice Age. Observe firstly that it still had to be within the Ice Age, as we crossed over Beringia. Which was only dry land because of lower sea levels, the water being locked in glaciers.
Secondly, to get there, we needed to move through Asia and Siberia. We had also crossed to Australia long before that.
The Neanderthals were as old as us as a species. As far as I know, they never crossed over anywhere that required watercraft. Nor did they expand across Siberia when the glaciers retreated. It should have been quite suitable for them.
No Neanderthals came to compete with us in Africa. It was the other way around.
Actually, the last remnants of Neanderthals date back over 24 000 years. This period is not considered particularily warm, quite the opposite. It was on a cooling trend before the Wurm glaciation peaked. (Upper Pleniglacial) Also, the Neanderthals had no dependency on an Ice Age climate.
They flourished perfectly well in interglacials warmer than today.
If it did say anything, jocks would be smarter than nerds, men smarter than women, Scandinavians smarter than Chinese, and everyone would be more intelligent than the !San.
I have not heard of this. Where is it from?
No. They had more specialized adaptions. But we were more adaptable. Very different things. And our flexible adaptability outcompeted their static adaptions on their home court. That is pretty much the definition of evolutionary fitter.
I doubt we know anything at all about what they put thought into. Or much about what we thought about at the time. And once again, Neanderthals dropped out of sight over a cooling trend of the ice age, climate one would supect favored their adaptions.
Not that they couldn't adapt to changing climates, as they had proved over their history as a species. The entire Ice Age was not a static one-climate period.
I would also question the notion that a species of "supercarnivore" which lasted through cold periods and warm periods over a quarter of a million years depended on luck.
Unlikely. The mitochondrial DNA of Europeans and Neanderthals have several differences, implying they both descend from different ancestors. Consider that many Asians are just as light skinned as Europeans, and they gained that on their own, and THEN gained dark skin again in Polynesia (where they also evolved blonde hair.) As to eyes, there are Indians with blue eyes, I believe. Although this may be a relic of the Aryan invasions.
Anyway, adaptation to a specific environment like the Neanderthals did takes time. Look at a reconstructed Neanderthal skeleton sometime. The ribcage is quite different from a modern human; they have practically no waist, and their arms are kind of stubby. These types of adaptations take a lot of time.
Change that to Very Rarely and Sometiimes, And I'd Concur ...
As Richard Dawkins Observed in his Excellent Overview of Evolution The Ancestor's Tale, a Male Neanderthal Could Very Well Have Mated into The Sapien Family wiithout Leaving Any Record of it in Our Mitochondrial DNA ...
Furthermore, by Borrowing on The Work of Joseph Chang, he and Co-Author Yan Wong Go on to Say:
Richard Dawkins wiith Yan Wong said:
You are correct.
By the way, if somebody is interested in novels about this issue I could recommend Björn Kurtén's Dance of the Tiger. There are lots of hybrids of both genders but none of them can produce children.
VT45
Banned
It's not brain size alone that dictates intelligence. It's mostly dependent on its organization, level of development, and proportion to the rest of the body. Elephants have huge brains for example,but they're tiny compared to the rest of their body. Neanderthals had on average 4 cc more brain volume than modern humans. Also take into account that in stature, they were a bit shorter than us. Therefore, it's logical to assume that they were more intelligent than us. What did them in was their inability to adapt to the changiing climate coupled with the new competition with H. sapiens.
And, yes, I have heard that the gene for red hair may come from Neanderthals, which makes sense. Just about everyone with red hair or is carrying the gene for red hair has at least some European blood. Therefore, since the gene is over 100,000 years old, and occurs only in people of European descent, coupled with the fact that there were no humans in Europe 100,000 years ago, it is logical to say that the red hair gene comes from Neanderthals.
And, yes, I have heard that the gene for red hair may come from Neanderthals, which makes sense. Just about everyone with red hair or is carrying the gene for red hair has at least some European blood. Therefore, since the gene is over 100,000 years old, and occurs only in people of European descent, coupled with the fact that there were no humans in Europe 100,000 years ago, it is logical to say that the red hair gene comes from Neanderthals.