XxAxX said:

imago said:

I just spent TOO much time reading up on the aquatic theory

I'm perplexed as to why we lost our body hair. It's the perfect temperature regulator in hot or cold climes. While we fat (which humans have a very high percentage of compared to other mammals on land), is a great insulator for animals that spend enormous or exclusive amounts of time in the water.

that's because our alien ancestors were entirely bald. when they combined their DNA with that of earth's apes to create homo sapiens, hair/fur only barely made the cut.

Well, apparently some people nowadays are ape-like throwbacks to their ancient ancestors...

harry is as hairy does

Thank God for laser hair removal...errrr...whoever invented it!

" Homo Neanderthalis left second and settled in Europe. "

In western world it is generally believed that H. erectus led to Neanderthals in Eurasia and H. ergaster led to modern humans in Africa...So there is no fossil evidence that Neanderthal evolved or ever lived in Africa.

Some universities in the Eastern world believe both erectus and ergasted led to modern humans in all parts of the world, but generally there aint much palaeontological evidence to support that school of thought.

Ergaster and Erectus are terms usually interchangable, former is commonly used to mean African erectus

They used to say gingers had partial Neanderthal genes which was the result of neanderthal assimilation by modern humans

[img:$uid]http://ekranmemuru.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/neanderthal.jpg[/img:$uid]

[Edited 7/2/11 7:42am]

LightOfArt said:

" Homo Neanderthalis left second and settled in Europe. "

In western world it is generally believed that H. erectus led to Neanderthals in Eurasia and H. ergaster led to modern humans in Africa...So there is no fossil evidence that Neanderthal evolved or ever lived in Africa.

Some universities in the Eastern world believe both erectus and ergasted led to modern humans in all parts of the world, but generally there aint much palaeontological evidence to support that school of thought.

Ergaster and Erectus are terms usually interchangable, former is commonly used to mean African erectus

That's not how it was represented in the article that I read (which was specifically aimed at discussing the neanderthal-modern man link). But I don't have it saved so I can't say for sure.

LightOfArt said:

They used to say gingers had partial Neanderthal genes which was the result of neanderthal assimilation by modern humans

[img:$uid]http://ekranmemuru.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/neanderthal.jpg[/img:$uid]

You have to really wonder. THINK about the fact that (prior to the fairly recent migrations) outside of Europe ALL humans shared dark features...dark eyes, dark hair & some form of skin pigmentation.

This phenomenon of light skin, light eyes and light hair (and throw in hairy, thickly-muscled bodies) is exclusively a European trait. WHY? Some will say it was an evolutionary adaptation to the low light & cold environment of ice-age Europe...but the Korean Peninsula and Mongolia (for example) are at that altitude and suffered similar ice age weather. Why didn't these traits develop there?

Makes sense that these "fair" features that we are so used to now are a vague remnant of Neanderthal DNA.

...and sometimes it's not-so-vague...

^^^Hey, I resemble that remark!!!!

Tremolina said:

imago said:

I just spent TOO much time reading up on the aquatic theory

I'm perplexed as to why we lost our body hair. It's the perfect temperature regulator in hot or cold climes. While we fat (which humans have a very high percentage of compared to other mammals on land), is a great insulator for animals that spend enormous or exclusive amounts of time in the water.

Because at some point we started to wear clothes, unlike other mammals.

I don't think we've been wearing clothes that long.

And women have much less body hair than men, regardless of climate.

PurpleJedi said:

From what I understand, there were three waves of humanoid migrations.

Homo Erectus allegedly left Africa first and settles mainly in Eurasia.

Homo Neanderthalis left second and settled in Europe.

Homo Sapien was the latecomer, and supposedly spread everywhere...mixing with the former 2 and making them "extinct".

I know it's more complex than that, but basically that's what I read.

It would stand to reason why then Asians (heavy Homo Erectus features), Europeans (heavy Neanderthalis features) and Africans (unadulterated Homo Sapien features) are so unique.

Homo Sapiens didn't mate with Neanderthals. May not have even been compatible to producing offspring. Homo Sapiens did wipe out the Neanderthals though. I don't think Homo Sapiens did a lot of traveling outside of Africa and the Middle East until after one of the Ice Ages. Homo Sapiens survived subsequent Ice Ages and here we are.

PurpleJedi said:

You have to really wonder. THINK about the fact that (prior to the fairly recent migrations) outside of Europe ALL humans shared dark features...dark eyes, dark hair & some form of skin pigmentation.

This phenomenon of light skin, light eyes and light hair (and throw in hairy, thickly-muscled bodies) is exclusively a European trait. WHY? Some will say it was an evolutionary adaptation to the low light & cold environment of ice-age Europe...but the Korean Peninsula and Mongolia (for example) are at that altitude and suffered similar ice age weather. Why didn't these traits develop there?

Makes sense that these "fair" features that we are so used to now are a vague remnant of Neanderthal DNA.

...and sometimes it's not-so-vague...

As far as Homo sapiens, the lightening of the skin/hair/texture of hair/eyes, change in bone structure was due to climate/geographic changes, and lack of vitamins/nutrients, as homo sapiens/ancient/earliest humans travelled out of Africa, across the globe, from a tropical environement into cooler climates, populating it as they travelled in small groups, and resided in cooler climates for long periods of time. Not all the early humans left Africa, many stayed.

Check out in-depth research on the human species/human origins,

conducted by actual experts in the field:

Spencer Wells - The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey - (Documentary/Book)

Thomas Brophy/Robert Bauval - Black Genesis:Prehistoric Origins of Ancient Egypt (Book)

Stephen Oppenheimer - The Real Eve (Documentary/Book)

Alice Roberts - The Incredible Human Journey (Documentary)

-

Quote from Alice Roberts: "Generally a white Scandinavian and someone from sub-Saharan Africa are very similar. In fact, humans have less variation genetically than chimpanzees. It makes you realize that all the historcal attitudes towards different races are scientifically meaningless"

--

Here's a documentary that may be of interest to some of you. Enjoy.

The Human Family Tree - Spencer Wells' Project (Documentar -Project conducted in Queens, NY last year) - shown on National Geographic Channel in April/May 2011

(The entire documentary is on youtube, in several episodes)

http://channel.nationalge...s/06991_00

Here's a snippet vid of Spencer Wells' discussing "Red Hair and Freckles" in a portion of that latest project:.

http://channel.nationalge...ted-scenes

--

"MC1R - a mutated form of a gene "that spread through the early days in Europe." He states everyone with red hair and freckles carries it too. He states Neanderthals carried it in their DNA, but different from the gene in Humans, and states Neanderthals didn't mate with humans." - Spencer Wells

[Edited 7/2/11 19:17pm]

Neanderthals Didn't Mate With Modern Humans, Study Says

A small population size can "diminish the power of natural selection to remove slightly deleterious evolutionary changes," Green said.

The researchers estimate the Neanderthal population living in Europe 38,000 years ago never reached more than 10,000 at any one time.

Homo neanderthalis first appeared in Europe about 300,000 years ago but mysteriously vanished about 35,000 years ago, shortly after the arrival of modern humans—Homo sapiens—in Europe.

"If there were only a few, small bands of Neanderthals, barely hanging on, then any change to their way of life could have been enough to drive them to extinction," Green said.

"One obvious change would have been the introduction of another large hominid—modern humans."

Stepping Forward

Stephen Schuster, a molecular biologist at Pennsylvania State University, said the new study should silence a lot of theories about interbreed...ern humans.

The study shows that "at least for the maternal lineage, there are no traceable genetic markers that suggest admixture of Neanderthals and modern humans," he said.

Schuster added that the researchers were exceptionally careful to isolate the Neanderthal DNA.

"Many more precautions were taken to ensure that no contamination with human DNA has flawed the analysis," he said, noting that researchers sequenced each letter about 35 times to be sure of their work.

"This was the weak point of previous reports," said Schuster, who was not involved with the study.

Thomas Gilbert, an ancient DNA expert at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark who also was not involved in the study, called the research a "step forward" and a taste of what might come when the Neanderthal nuclear DNA is finished.

The team's argument that the Neanderthal population was small 38,000 years ago is speculative, Green said, but "it's better than what we could have said before."

http://news.nationalgeogr...l-dna.html

SUPRMAN said:

Tremolina said:

Because at some point we started to wear clothes, unlike other mammals.

I don't think we've been wearing clothes that long.

And women have much less body hair than men, regardless of climate.

Exactly, and as I mentioned, the people in colder climates who wore more clothes (ie europeans) generally have more hair than people in warmer climates who wore less clothes (ie Africans)

NDRU said:

SUPRMAN said:

I don't think we've been wearing clothes that long.

And women have much less body hair than men, regardless of climate.

Exactly, and as I mentioned, the people in colder climates who wore more clothes (ie europeans) generally have more hair than people in warmer climates who wore less clothes (ie Africans)

The hairiest MoFo's generally have some kind of European heritage from way back (or even more recently).

purplethunder3121 said:

NDRU said:

Exactly, and as I mentioned, the people in colder climates who wore more clothes (ie europeans) generally have more hair than people in warmer climates who wore less clothes (ie Africans)

The hairiest MoFo's generally have some kind of European heritage from way back (or even more recently).

Oh no . . . .

I've seen some black men with as much hair as these Nordic bear types.

All over . . . .

SUPRMAN said:

purplethunder3121 said:

The hairiest MoFo's generally have some kind of European heritage from way back (or even more recently).

Oh no . . . .

I've seen some black men with as much hair as these Nordic bear types.

All over . . . .

Well, we ALL originate from Africa...but maybe (probably) very hairy black men have some kind of more recent colder climate genes going on (European most likely). Personally, I like hairy men...just not the Wolfman type of hair!

SUPRMAN said:

The body hair issue absolutely perplexes me. It's the absolute best way to regulate body temperature, and humans have not been wearing clothes long enough (As some of you stated) for that genetic advantage to be 'neutralized'.

I do concede that there are other ways to regulate body temperate--shorter limbs, stockier bodies are good for cold climates. The aborigines of Australia are strikingly resistant to cold and hot but aren't hairy people.

Europeans are also not the only hairy people out there. Japan has an entire race of people in the North that are known for being quite hairy. Such hairy men in Thailand are very popular at gay 'panda' clubs.

Also, the epicanthic fold (slant eyes) of norther Asians (southern Asians have them due to Chinese migrations to the south), are also evident in Norway, Finland, and other far north areas in Europe.

If a genetic mutation (and I'm not saying this in a derogatory way) is beneficial and occurs in only a very very small fraction of the population, I would imagine it would only need tens of thousands of years to completely become the norm in that population. Take for example, skin pigmentation. If you have more melanin than your friends, and this reduced your chances of skin cancer by only a very very small fraction. Statistically, over thousands of years, this tiny fraction is enough to ultimately give you the advantage and you replace the 'norm'.

I also believe some features could be selectively breed. Many races are into lighter skin. Europeans could have deliberately chosen mates who were lighter in complexion, and since the environment in the north doesn't require that genetic advantage it more quickly affected that population. Here in South East Asia, these crazy folks are obsessed with light skin, but light skin gives them no genetic advantage (as a matter of fact, it's a liability here), so the battle between selective breeding and adaptation would rage on.

But, all of these changes (epicanthic fold, skin color, hair) are tiny and often superficial in my opinion. They can take place relatively quickly, but not really mean much by way of adaptive advantages. Look at our breeds of cats--even within siamese cats, there are like 12 variations now in coloring, and two major variations in shape (modern and traditional). But these changes are superficial, and they are not adaptations--they are selectively breed, and it only took 30 years.

But the stark difference between us (as human beings) to other non-aquatic mammals with regards to body fat percentages and body hair is absolutely striking. We are very very bizaare mammals. I don't have any real thought out mechanism for my opinion (i'm not that smart folks), but it just seems to me that if you're out in the open grassland, there is absolutely no genetic advantage to losing body hair, and even if we selectively breed ourselves out of body hair, I don't know if the other adaptations (Darker skin, longer limbs) were enough to counter the disadvantage of losing body hair. Had this happened under the canopies of a forest environment, I would think this was more plausible.

imago said:

The body hair issue absolutely perplexes me. It's the absolute best way to regulate body temperature, and humans have not been wearing clothes long enough (As some of you stated) for that genetic advantage to be 'neutralized'.

I do concede that there are other ways to regulate body temperate--shorter limbs, stockier bodies are good for cold climates. The aborigines of Australia are strikingly resistant to cold and hot but aren't hairy people.

Europeans are also not the only hairy people out there. Japan has an entire race of people in the North that are known for being quite hairy. Such hairy men in Thailand are very popular at gay 'panda' clubs.

Also, the epicanthic fold (slant eyes) of norther Asians (southern Asians have them due to Chinese migrations to the south), are also evident in Norway, Finland, and other far north areas in Europe.

If a genetic mutation (and I'm not saying this in a derogatory way) is beneficial and occurs in only a very very small fraction of the population, I would imagine it would only need tens of thousands of years to completely become the norm in that population. Take for example, skin pigmentation. If you have more melanin than your friends, and this reduced your chances of skin cancer by only a very very small fraction. Statistically, over thousands of years, this tiny fraction is enough to ultimately give you the advantage and you replace the 'norm'.

I also believe some features could be selectively breed. Many races are into lighter skin. Europeans could have deliberately chosen mates who were lighter in complexion, and since the environment in the north doesn't require that genetic advantage it more quickly affected that population. Here in South East Asia, these crazy folks are obsessed with light skin, but light skin gives them no genetic advantage (as a matter of fact, it's a liability here), so the battle between selective breeding and adaptation would rage on.

But, all of these changes (epicanthic fold, skin color, hair) are tiny and often superficial in my opinion. They can take place relatively quickly, but not really mean much by way of adaptive advantages. Look at our breeds of cats--even within siamese cats, there are like 12 variations now in coloring, and two major variations in shape (modern and traditional). But these changes are superficial, and they are not adaptations--they are selectively breed, and it only took 30 years.

But the stark difference between us (as human beings) to other non-aquatic mammals with regards to body fat percentages and body hair is absolutely striking. We are very very bizaare mammals. I don't have any real thought out mechanism for my opinion (i'm not that smart folks), but it just seems to me that if you're out in the open grassland, there is absolutely no genetic advantage to losing body hair, and even if we selectively breed ourselves out of body hair, I don't know if the other adaptations (Darker skin, longer limbs) were enough to counter the disadvantage of losing body hair. Had this happened under the canopies of a forest environment, I would think this was more plausible.

Africa then, was different than Africa now. Could have been all forest.

SUPRMAN said:

imago said:

The body hair issue absolutely perplexes me. It's the absolute best way to regulate body temperature, and humans have not been wearing clothes long enough (As some of you stated) for that genetic advantage to be 'neutralized'.

I do concede that there are other ways to regulate body temperate--shorter limbs, stockier bodies are good for cold climates. The aborigines of Australia are strikingly resistant to cold and hot but aren't hairy people.

Europeans are also not the only hairy people out there. Japan has an entire race of people in the North that are known for being quite hairy. Such hairy men in Thailand are very popular at gay 'panda' clubs.

Also, the epicanthic fold (slant eyes) of norther Asians (southern Asians have them due to Chinese migrations to the south), are also evident in Norway, Finland, and other far north areas in Europe.

If a genetic mutation (and I'm not saying this in a derogatory way) is beneficial and occurs in only a very very small fraction of the population, I would imagine it would only need tens of thousands of years to completely become the norm in that population. Take for example, skin pigmentation. If you have more melanin than your friends, and this reduced your chances of skin cancer by only a very very small fraction. Statistically, over thousands of years, this tiny fraction is enough to ultimately give you the advantage and you replace the 'norm'.

I also believe some features could be selectively breed. Many races are into lighter skin. Europeans could have deliberately chosen mates who were lighter in complexion, and since the environment in the north doesn't require that genetic advantage it more quickly affected that population. Here in South East Asia, these crazy folks are obsessed with light skin, but light skin gives them no genetic advantage (as a matter of fact, it's a liability here), so the battle between selective breeding and adaptation would rage on.

But, all of these changes (epicanthic fold, skin color, hair) are tiny and often superficial in my opinion. They can take place relatively quickly, but not really mean much by way of adaptive advantages. Look at our breeds of cats--even within siamese cats, there are like 12 variations now in coloring, and two major variations in shape (modern and traditional). But these changes are superficial, and they are not adaptations--they are selectively breed, and it only took 30 years.

But the stark difference between us (as human beings) to other non-aquatic mammals with regards to body fat percentages and body hair is absolutely striking. We are very very bizaare mammals. I don't have any real thought out mechanism for my opinion (i'm not that smart folks), but it just seems to me that if you're out in the open grassland, there is absolutely no genetic advantage to losing body hair, and even if we selectively breed ourselves out of body hair, I don't know if the other adaptations (Darker skin, longer limbs) were enough to counter the disadvantage of losing body hair. Had this happened under the canopies of a forest environment, I would think this was more plausible.

Africa then, was different than Africa now. Could have been all forest.

Oh I completely agree.

But, the current understanding is that we as human beings are evolved plains creatures. I don't buy that.

ZombieKitten said:

Didn't we have a thread not so long ago about an article stating that they DID mate? SUPRMAN said:

Neanderthals Didn't Mate With Modern Humans, Study Says

I've seen conflicting articles on the matter.

Seems like some scientists are adamant that homo sapien and neanderthal did NOT mate, while others are pointing to European-specific traits as proof they did.

I'm not a scientist, but as I noted on my original reply, it would seem to me that the blue/green eyes and red/blond hair scream of a different lineage than the REST of the world.

What does this mean 4 Adam and Eve?

So where's 2elijah? This is her thing. Certainly can tell it's not mine since I got my Georgias all mixed up, dammit, brilliance shines again.

Anyway, the study literature on this is just too overwelming and static for me to want to delve deeply in, so I'm just gonna roll with the DNA markers and explanation that was just disscussed in P&R about a month or so ago, looking through some of that evidence seems to answer a lot of questions about why and how physical changes took place. As far as the religious aspects for me, since I've never held to the modern traditional interpetation, I find no conflict at all, especially in light of some of the studying I've done from different ideologies, so the idea of debating ideas and stances I've never knew or held dear are pointless for me.

Is this thread making anyone else horny?

I'm off to google neanderthal porn.....

mcmeekle said:

Is this thread making anyone else horny?

I'm off to google neanderthal porn.....

homo erectus

XxAxX said:

mcmeekle said:

Is this thread making anyone else horny?

I'm off to google neanderthal porn.....

homo erectus

...and another Imago thread goes to pot.