New Ancient Human Identified 148
krou writes "Working on a finger-bone that was discovered in the Denisova Cave of Siberia's Altai mountains in 2008, Johannes Krause from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and colleagues managed to extract mitochondrial DNA. They compared it to the genetic code of modern humans and other known Neanderthals and discovered a new type of hominin that lived in Central Asia between 48,000 and 30,000 years ago. Professor Chris Stringer, human origins researcher at London's Natural History Museum, said, 'This new DNA work provides an entirely new way of looking at the still poorly-understood evolution of humans in central and eastern Asia.' The last common ancestor of the hominid (dubbed 'X-Woman'), humans and Neanderthals seems to have been about one million years ago."
X-Woman (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
It's unfortunate that somebody who would name their daughter X-woman likely will never breed. You're SOL. Wait, slashdot. You're par for course.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Her's"! Ha! That's awesome!
Summary is slightly optimistic. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Summary is slightly optimistic. (Score:4, Interesting)
I enjoyed the John Hawks analysis, and I agree that a mitochondrial sequence from a single bone is much less data than I'd like before concluding the existence of a new species.
However, I don't agree with his main argument. Yes, the Neandertal population might have a 1 million year old divergence in their mitochondrial DNA, but that can't explain why the modern human/Neandertal divergence is only about half that. Under this hypothesis, the modern human diversity lies within the Neandertal.
For this to work, basically a Neandertal has to wander from Europe into Africa, *and* she must be a maternal-line ancestor of Mitochondrial Eve. (Alternatively modern humans evolve in Europe from Neandertals, migrate to Africa and die out in Europe, only to return later. Basically this is the same scenario except for the subspecies of the African immigrant.)
Re:Summary is slightly optimistic. (Score:5, Informative)
The summary doesn't say anything about this being a new species. The word "species" doesn't even appear.
And in the article, the first use of the word "species" says this:
And this:
I'm all for shooting down /. summaries and sensational headlines, but this appears to be right on.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any reason not to assume that this is just an H. erectus? I don't quite understand the hype here. The timing would be about right, it was the last common ancestor of Neandertals and humans, and it was crawling all over Eurasia.
Re: (Score:2)
As the original article says,
"Assuming an average divergence of human and chimpanzee mtDNAs of 6 million years ago, the date of the most recent common mtDNA ancestor shared by the Denisova hominin, Neanderthals and modern humans is approximately one million years ago (mean = 1,040,900 years ago; 779,300-1,313,500 years ago, 95% highest posterior density (HPD)), or twice as deep as the most recent common mtDNA ancestor of modern humans and Nea
Re: (Score:2)
So you're basically saying that the ancient human is ... your mom!
Huh? (Score:3, Funny)
Sleeper (Score:2)
If only they had this persons nose. They could recreate the whole person then. Not much you can do with half a finger.
(and if he had eaten organic rice he would still be alive now).
Re: (Score:2)
If only they had this persons nose. They could recreate the whole person then. Not much you can do with half a finger.
Don't be too cynical. It may give us some insight into the origin of the term "giving someone the finger."
Re:Sleeper (Score:5, Funny)
Not much you can do with half a finger.
You have far too little imagination.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wendy's would beg to differ.
Want to know what he looked like? (Score:1, Funny)
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Hey humorless moderator, I thought that was actually pretty funny. Just because you don't get the joke doesn't mean it's overrated.
where are the tin-foil-hats? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's kinda late and I'm a bit brain-dead at the moment. But the first thing that came to my mind was...... The Abominable Snow Man. What are the chances that this ends up being the smoking gun for that oh-so-elusive cryptoid that has had people arguing about hairy wild apemen since time forgotten? Personally, I think it'll realistically end up being a case of contamination or something else mondan. But with the odd chance that this turns out to be scientifically investigatable, we can hang on to the slim hope that there are other samples out there waiting to be found.
Re:where are the tin-foil-hats? (Score:4, Informative)
The team was actually pondering that this may be a case of contamination. But -- which mitochondrial DNA contamination will yield a result that shows a divergence that is larger than Homo sapiens sapiens vs. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, but not large enough for Homo sapiens sapiens vs. Pan troglodytes?
PS: The Neanderthal is a narrow valley between the towns of Erkrath and Mettman, called so in memoriam of the Calvinist church teacher and hymn writer Joachim Neander [wikipedia.org]. I wonder what he would have to say about a human subspecies indirectly named for him.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
It's kinda late and I'm a bit brain-dead at the moment. But the first thing that came to my mind was...... The Abominable Snow Man. What are the chances that this ends up being the smoking gun for that oh-so-elusive cryptoid that has had people arguing about hairy wild apemen since time forgotten? Personally, I think it'll realistically end up being a case of contamination or something else mondan. But with the odd chance that this turns out to be scientifically investigatable, we can hang on to the slim hope that there are other samples out there waiting to be found.
Not a Yeti but another group is a good candidate. They are called Almas among other names. Oddly enough the description fits the divergence nicely. They were described as tall and very hairy. The point being there's no evidence that Neanderthals were extremely hairy and were probably closer to humans in the amount of hair they had. Alma type people were described from Eastern Europe nearly to the Pacific Ocean. If this group survived up to even a few thousand years ago they could be the source of the storie
Re: (Score:2)
Well, let's put it this way: Zero.
SPOILER WARNING (Score:2)
Cowboy Neal
Migration routes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We might, if we find an gigantic amount of evidence which contradicts the large amount of evidence we already have showing the opposite route. That's pretty unlikely, but hey, anything is possible.
Did the cave have a stargate in it? (Score:3, Funny)
Did the cave have a stargate in it?
Um... (Score:2)
I'm no genius, but wouldn't that mark it as a Asiatic variant of H. erectus? Like Neandertals, there's no reason to assume that this hominid was anything other than another scion of the H. erectus migrations throughout Eurasia.
Backward dates (Score:1)
Re:It's pretty amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
There is only one extant species of Homo, and that's Homo sapiens. People like you are what give Anthropology a bad name. The pressures on the minds of those who lived in Europe have been the same as those on people who lived in Africa have been the same as those who lived in Asia -- outwitting other human beings, and struggling against a hostile universe.
There are plenty of trivial physical differences between the different 'races', and that's just what they are -- trivial. Superficial. Unimportant. My mind is the same as the mind of a child growing up in China is the same as the mind of a woman in Europe.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We aren't talking about modern day humans. The article, which I'll assume you have already read, is about a possible species separate and distinct from homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis that may have existed in Eastern Europe a long long time ago. The article also discusses the "Hobbit" of Southeast Asia which lived alongside homo sapiens for thousands of years.
If, as the article suggests, there was interbreeding going on, then the genes would be passed along to offspring. Given that long range mobilit
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I saw a very interesting Ted Talk by Elaine Morgan and it seems to me that a single non mutation change in the apes could have fostered any number of branches in the early evolution. I agree that there is no great genetic difference across the planet.
It seems to me that a single change in the ability to control breathing consciously could have been the difference that makes us the human branch. There is no strong linear delimiter that I have seen which would
Re:It's pretty amazing (Score:4, Interesting)
While 115173 is a Pak like the rest of us I doubt he is a Protector because we lack the nutrients. But back to the topic at hand.
Even today Africa has most of the diversity in the human species. I wonder what would happen today if a group of african people became isolated from the rest of us. Diverse genes can lead to powerful selection pressure. I expect that this would have to happen off earth now.
Also I also wonder what would happen to humans generally if we lost the genetic diversity currently banked in Africa. Nothing good I suspect.
Come on! Give me a break! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Apes have intelligence and hands, but lack effective communication due to the inability to control vocalization ( like birds ).
I would say that Apes have quite effective communication as do many creatures...it's just not (as) vocal. Vocal communication may be _more_ effective in many ways, but even a simple house cat does a hell of a lot more than meow if you know what to look for.
Re: (Score:1)
even a simple house cat does a hell of a lot more than meow if you know what to look for
You fucking sadistic pervert. If I ever find you I will kick your fucking ass.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Evolution of speech seems to have required changes in several related areas, and this sets a minimum number of favorable mutations that had to have occurred.
Speech requires specialized centers in the higher brain. It also requires changes in what we normally call the primitive brain, so that speaking stays synced to breathing and swallowing. There are changes to the tongue and soft palate, and given the way all modern languages use some form of modifiers like adjectives or adverbs, the
Re:It's pretty amazing (Score:4, Interesting)
Your reply w.r.t. neanderthals apparently assumes that neanderthals had lower intelligence.
This is not true, or at least not proven. Just google "neanderthal intelligence" and you'll see many references that believe that neanderthals had higher or at least equal intelligence than homo sapiens. Also they interbred with homo sapience (google for "neanderthal interbreeding with humans" for many references to that claim), so "people like you" you were responding to do not have to give anthropology a bad name.
Apart from that, it is not proven that each current human race must have the same average intelligence. On the contrary, there are indications that this is not the case.
Ideologically motivated people can give anthrolopogy a bad name. This goes in both directions.
Re: (Score:1)
More to the point, the genetic differences between human beings of all racial groups are incredibly insignificant. According to a Wikipedia article on the subject, there is an average 0.1% difference between any two randomly-selected human beings, with a maximum difference of 8% between racial groups. This has led to a conclusion that race is largely insignificant at a genetic level. Race is, more than anything else, a social construct.
To paraphrase psychologist Harry Stack Sullivan's One Genus Theory, any
Re:It's pretty amazing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
"For example, if you get less nutrients growing up you likely aren't going to be as smart as someone else who does get enough nutrients."
Whoooo boy let me show you my medical history, then let me show you what I do for a living, and you'll be retracting that statement pretty rapidly, I will guarantee it.
Re:It's pretty amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"For example, if you get less nutrients growing up you likely aren't going to be as smart as someone else who does get enough nutrients."
Whoooo boy let me show you my medical history, then let me show you what I do for a living, and you'll be retracting that statement pretty rapidly, I will guarantee it.
So according to you, a single anecdote (which you claimed you could -- but didn't actually -- provide) disproves a general statement that includes the word "likely"? Granted, I wouldn't have phrased it as GP did, but I generally agree with what GP was trying to say.
How about this: "All else being equal, someone who gets less nutrients growing up almost certainly isn't going to be as smart as that same person would have been if they had had enough nutrients at crucial points in their development." If yo
Re: (Score:2)
Much of it is almost certainly cultural and environmental.
Actually, IQ tests conducted in Africa by Africans result in an average score of 65. African Americans score about an 85, due mostly to difference in nutrition in growing up as you point out.
IQ has to heritable to some extent, or we would never have evolved from our ape-like ancestors to be smarter.
Re: (Score:2)
Africa? You mean that place where millions of people starve to death every year? Can't imagine there's anything in the environment there that might result in lower IQs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which one is the cause, and which one is the effect?
Forty years ago, millions of people starved to death every year in China too, but the Chinese have a higher average IQ than Europeans. Millions more were also starving to death in India within living memory.
I'm sure nutrition has a role to play in intelligence, but clearly it isn't the defining one.
Re: (Score:2)
India still has the highest starvation rates of any single country, from what I remember.
Re: (Score:1)
Much of it is almost certainly cultural and environmental.
Actually, IQ tests conducted in Africa by Africans result in an average score of 65. African Americans score about an 85, due mostly to difference in nutrition in growing up as you point out. IQ has to heritable to some extent, or we would never have evolved from our ape-like ancestors to be smarter.
IQ alone is a dangerous measure of intelligence. It is highly susceptible to testing biases, and there is no real understanding or consensus about what it measures. In response to your point, the logical questions to ask are things like "who made those tests" and "what kind of std. deviation did they find". Personally, I find it more likely that the difference in IQ scores between Africans and African Americans is that African Americans are more likely to have received the kind of formal education that p
Re: (Score:2)
Also if you want to dip into almost racism, it is not inconceivable that during the hundreds of years in which Africans were taken as slaves that there was some selection of the more intelligent individuals (meaning the ones not taken were possibly less intelligent)
Yeah, because slave owners want bright slaves capable of questioning them and organizing resistance. I find it more likely the selection went the other way: for less intelligent and physically stronger individuals.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a scientist, but I would figure that, to explain the lower average African score, the cultural underpinnings of the intelligence test outweighs the nutrition of the examinees.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The test itself, not the administrator. Traditional intelligence tests are based in Western notions of knowledge and intelligence -- that's a common criticism of the tests. But perhaps the test of which you speak is not the kind at which that criticism is directed.
Again, that's just my notion. I'm open to argumentation; I don't have much of a preconceived conclusion, and I don't want anybody to construe my notion as an assertion of settled fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the ONE reference you give is to someone that is been criticized by his peers due to his work being poorly researched. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton [wikipedia.org]
Same as the Bell Curve was refuted by the authors peers (one such example here http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5877.html [princeton.edu] )
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
MOD PARENT UP!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If only we could find people who are genetically foo, but raised in a bar environment we might be able to solve that question.
Re:It's pretty amazing (Score:5, Informative)
From the linked article:
Most scientists believe there is insufficient data to resolve the contributions of heredity and environment.
Further, races are social constructs. As in "constructed by societies." As in "not based in actual biology." There are more genetic differences among members of any given ethnic group than there are between members of any two ethnic groups. If you ever actually acted on any interest in sociology, much less studied it, you would know this.
All this points to the argument that differences in mental aptitudes displayed in aggregate by various "races" in the U.S. are primarily a cause of each race's traditional socioeconomic status, i.e., how members of each "race" are treated and raised by agents of social control (esp. teachers) determines their evident mental prowess.
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds like wishful thinking. If I see a Maori man, I can see he's a Maori. If I see a Chinese woman, I can see she's Chinese.
That doesn't mean the differences between are nonexistent.
... he'd know that it isn't genetics?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Race is what race is -- a combination of gross physical traits that let you make some vague underlying assumptions about the broad genetic heritage of an individual. If I took the word "race" out of it, and said that said traits contained a "significant genetic component" does that suddenly change your opinion of the statement?
Specifically, how does saying something has a "significant genetic component" shared frequently by those who are descended from peoples originally native to certain parts of the worl
it's just not that hard (Score:2)
As the child of a Maori man with a Chinese woman! Do you start arguing that pepperoni pizza is a social construct every time someone comes up with a new topping combination?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
A hybrid, but it's irrelevant to the point you're trying to prove. Lurchers don't disprove the the existence of collies and greyhounds.
Re: (Score:2)
A "hybrid" is the product of cross-breeding two different species. It has absolutely nothing to do with this.
"Greyhound" and "collie" are just names for dogs that have a bunch of determined characteristics. Those definitions are merely conventions and have changed with time.
Re: (Score:1)
Wrong. The term can apply to anything of mixed origin.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hybrid [reference.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Names for things that are clearly recognizable and have different charecteristics.
It's mere convention to knock nails in with a hammer. You could do it with a screwdriver. I'd still be able to tell the difference.
So what? Since when did something have to be immutable to exist?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are more genetic differences among members of any given ethnic group than there are between members of any two ethnic groups
I'm really quite surprised to hear this. I would never have guessed that ethnically pure members of the Mbundu or San tribes of Africa were less different from the S.E. Asian Lahu tribe (or even Koreans, being as homogenous as they are) than the members of these groups were amongst themselves. Do you have any prrof of this?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Of course, this is not true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin%27s_Fallacy
"Lewontin argued that because the overwhelming majority of human genetic variation (85%) is between individuals within the same population, and about 6–10% is between populations within the same continent, racial classification can only account for between 5–10% of human variation"
"As Edwards showed, even if the probability of misclassifying an individual based on a single locus is as high as 30% (as Lewontin reported i
Re: (Score:2)
Further, races are social constructs. As in "constructed by societies." As in "not based in actual biology."
OK, that's ridiculous. I'm not arguing that one race is smarter than another or anything like that, but seeing as you can quite easily tell different races apart, there is obviously some biological difference.
Re:It's pretty amazing (Score:4, Informative)
Race is a social construct. Phenotypical differences are one axis along which race is constructed, but it is not the only axis, and in some contexts it is not even the most important. As an example, you can also tell the "race" of a person if you talk to them on the phone. This obviously has nothing do with biology.
Although race as a system of scientific categorization started in European thought during the Enlightenment, it has seriously decreased in scientific merit because of genetics. Today, physical anthropologists think in terms of "clines." Unfortunately, because of the impact of European empires and their hegemony, race as a system of categorization persists in various incarnations throughout the world. This system is perpetuated by a wide variety of structural institutions and the uneducated public.
You can tell races apart because you are conditioned to detect certain characteristics which you associate with an arbitrary categorization of people. These arbitrary categorizations gradually accrued social and cultural capital in YOUR culture. This does not mean they are based in any kind of genetic reality.
Re: (Score:1)
I think you (maybe we all) are just misinterpreting each other when we say "race". To some race is synonymous with cultural group, to some race simply means a classification based on observable hereditary differences (fair notice, that language is stolen from Wikipedia). That's why race is such a challenging concept to discuss, its very definition is culturally dependent.
The cultural bigotry comes into play when people make the assumption that cultural norms and behavior are somehow directly linked to anc
Re: (Score:1)
That is what I'm trying to address. There is the American cultural understanding of race, and there is the scientific understanding of race. In my opinion, what is happening here is the equivalent of people talking about atoms when they mean molecules. While the general public may not care or bother with it, a chemist is going to feel frustrated, and want to educate the people who are making the error.
Unfortunately, whil
Re: (Score:2)
As an example, you can also tell the "race" of a person if you talk to them on the phone. This obviously has nothing do with biology.
As an example, you can also tell the "sex" of a person if you talk to them on the phone. This obviously has nothing to do with biology.
Re: (Score:1)
Phenotype expression of X and Y chromosomes affects the development of the larynx and vocal cords. This results in higher and lower voices for females and males, respectively.
With regards to the expressive characteristics of speech, enculturation is the primary process for learning language habits early on. An example of a learned habit would be copula deletion, which is a
Re: (Score:2)
you would still not approach being right about race's connection with biology
I'm not sure to whom you're speaking, since I didn't attempt to connect race and biology. I was objecting to the totally fallacious argument you made ("foo can be determined over the phone, therefore, foo has nothing to do with biology").
I would love to hear what's "obvious" about it not being related to biology, since other things obviously are - such as larynx size being directly related to sexual dimorphism, as you so conveniently elaborated on for me.
Also, fwiw, I'm not the AC in this thread.
Re: (Score:1)
My second assertion was that even if it was based on heritable traits, the different genetic ancestries that constitute "black" in America wouldn't necessarily share them, because they are not a homogeneous population biologicall
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Highly unlikely. More likely a case of convergent evolution if anything at all.
By the way, how do we know that Neanderthals had those features? They might have had based on the shape of their skulls, but that's all guesses and extrapolations, since no-one has seen a live one.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think that homo neanderthalensis were less intelligent than homo sapiens?
Oh, and haven't you heard the expression: beauty is in the eye of the beholder?
(you sound like quite an ugly person to me)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Does his head have an occipital bun? Do his ribs flare out at the waist? Are his hips set back further than yours? Do his legs bow outward? No? Then he doesn't look like a neanderthal, he just looks like a guy with lots of testosterone. Doesn't sound like someone I'd want to tease all the time.
I don't know... (Score:4, Interesting)
Based on my extensive... erm... research in Internet porn, I have to wonder, if Johann Friedrich Blumenbach were alive today, would we end up calling it the Bohemian race? I mean, Silvia Saint, Angelina Crow, etc.
Pretty much because, yes, his opinion of races seems to have had mostly to do with how pretty he found their women. E.g., he started with the blacks being pretty much sub-human and justified it then by cherry-picking skulls and a good dose of phrenology (an opinion that would influence pseudo-scientific racism to this day.) Then he made an 180 degree turns when he met a black woman beautiful enough to fall in love with (in his own words.) He then proceeded to "prove" by the same anatomical analysis methods as before that verily they're every bit as smart and talented and everything as the Caucasians.
Could be worse, though. We could have a classification made by a gay dude with a foot fetish, for example :p
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
<sound>Crikets.wav</sound>
No, that'll never work. You should have used the <audio> tag.
Re:Hello? Anybody here? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is news for nerds. Science, including anthropology, is of interest to some of the nerds. Therefore, this story belongs here, even if you personally don't happen to find it interesting.
Since you have an UID, you could simply hide science stories in your settings rather than complain.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Assuming you're one of the parties this is of interest to, let me ask this: of what significance is this find, outside of anthropological circles? Unless it leads us to the missing link, what effect does this knowledge have on the world? What does it change? I suspect that may have been more of what GP's point was.
Okay, who forgot to shut the door? Looks like a bean counter looking for ROI found their way in.
When two Bedouin boys stumbled upon some old papers in a cave at Qumran, I will bet money that they no idea of the significance of their find either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The relevance of religious artifacts such as the dead sea scrolls is pretty obvious.
Only in hindsight. Before their significance was discovered, they were hung on a tent poles and occasionally taken out to show people.
My point is that you shouldn't hang this specific discovery on a tent pole.
Re:Hello? Anybody here? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not an anthropologist, but I'll take a swing.
This is significant, because they discovered a species of hominin that branched off before Neanderthal but may have co-existed. This can provide some more insight to our own development. How many other hominins branched off but co-existed with our ancestors? Why did they die out while our ancestors survived? Did we fight them, hunt them, cooperate with them, merge with them, out-compete with them, or some combination of the above? Does it have a major effect on normal people's lives? Probably not, but it is a pretty big discovery for science and genetics.
Also, there is no such thing as "the missing link". Evolution is always happening, all fossils are is a snapshot of that species at the time of it's death. Since not everything leaves a fossil when it dies, all of the gaps will never be truly filled. However, the gaps continue to shrink as more and more evidence is found, and that is the best we can hope for, to keep expanding on our knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
True, I actually meant to put that phrase in quotes myself. When we're looking at minuscule genetic changes accreting over timespans that we can't imagine in a significant way, every piece of new info found is a part of the links we're looking for.
Torturously worded, perhaps, but in other words - yes I see your point and agree with it. I should have been clearer in my original post.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for clarifying. No harm done. I also agree that it is pretty insignificant for most people, but many of us nerds find it interesting and it could be very important for those researching human evolution.
Re: (Score:1)
However, the gaps continue to shrink as more and more evidence is found, and that is the best we can hope for, to keep expanding on our knowledge.
The gaps split. They don't really shrink, they just get cut up..
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing whatsoever. It's just an ancient finger-bone.
Nothing. Even if it was a missing link, it wouldn't change anything outside anthropology, and even there it would only clarify a minor detail in hominid family tree.
As a side note, I find the whole te
Re: (Score:2)
As a side note, I find the whole term "missing link" weird.
True, I actually meant to put that phrase in quotes myself. When we're looking at minuscule genetic changes accreting over timespans that we can't imagine in a significant way, every piece of new info found is a part of the links we're looking for. (And perhaps that answers my own question...)
I simply assert that anthropology is one of the subjects covered by "news for nerds". Nerds existed before computers, and many of us have interests beyond them.
True, and I don't disagree on that point. I was thinking more than GP wasn't thinking it was of no interest to nerds, so much as not seeing the relevance overall. 'course, I could be reading too much into it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe God created Neanderthal Man in His image, and we went and wiped them all out. That would explain why he's pissed off all the time with all the wrath and stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
You have made an error by suggesting that the "holly" (holy) rollers base their beliefs or assertions on facts or evidence; they do not; they base their beliefs and assertions on "faith", which means belief specifically contrary to evidence. You don't need faith to believe something which is supported by the evidence.
not proven cant interbreed with chimps (Score:2)
So I'd expect humna-Neaderanthal breeding possible and possibly this new discovery.
Re: (Score:2)
From some of the links I've seen in my internet expeditions, not so abhorrent as you might think -- there appears to be a cottage industry devoted to inter-species sex.
The only reason, IMO, we don't see it more with primates is because (1) there are not a huge amount of domesticated primates and (2) those with access to primates are not the same people producing porn.
I don't want to conflate attitudes towards inter-species