Has anyone seen my links?
May 5, 2008 6:20 AM Subscribe
Some people out there believe that we evolved from these. That magically we became what we are today. In order to get from that to this, there had to be a "Missing Link". Well a new study came out and proved that both were separate species.
Also here is a link to Korn's Evolution... good song. youtube btw.
Also here is a link to Korn's Evolution... good song. youtube btw.
This post was deleted for the following reason: Weird kinda baiting presentation, the meat link is just a yahoo news writeup of research that isn't as surprising as you've framed it, and a random Korn link to boot? This might be an interesting topic to post about, but this isn't a great post about it. -- cortex
Slightly better version of the story here (with skull pictures), paper to be published here (but not yet available.)
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:34 AM on May 5, 2008
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:34 AM on May 5, 2008
Well a new study came out and proved that both were separate species.
Since when was this not the prevailing accepted theory? That's what I learned in school years ago.
posted by chillmost at 6:34 AM on May 5, 2008
Since when was this not the prevailing accepted theory? That's what I learned in school years ago.
posted by chillmost at 6:34 AM on May 5, 2008
a new study came out and proved
er, a new study came out that suggested that Neanderthals are a separate species from a morphological standpoint. Other scientists continue to differ and nothing is yet proved. And science reporting in the media has been proved to continue to suck.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 6:36 AM on May 5, 2008
er, a new study came out that suggested that Neanderthals are a separate species from a morphological standpoint. Other scientists continue to differ and nothing is yet proved. And science reporting in the media has been proved to continue to suck.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 6:36 AM on May 5, 2008
Old wine in a new bottle but still fascinating.
And I'm racking my brains regarding a discussion (NPR? Here? Scientific American?) about Neanderthals being predominantly redheads.
Anyone remember this?
posted by Dizzy at 6:39 AM on May 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
And I'm racking my brains regarding a discussion (NPR? Here? Scientific American?) about Neanderthals being predominantly redheads.
Anyone remember this?
posted by Dizzy at 6:39 AM on May 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
I thought it was well understood that Neanderthals were a separate branch humans and not precursors to Homo Sapiens. No one ever claimed that they were "missing links"
The Wikipedia article on human evolution is pretty good.
posted by delmoi at 6:42 AM on May 5, 2008
The Wikipedia article on human evolution is pretty good.
posted by delmoi at 6:42 AM on May 5, 2008
That magically we became what we are today.
That you, Ben Stein?
posted by hell toupee at 6:42 AM on May 5, 2008 [4 favorites]
That you, Ben Stein?
posted by hell toupee at 6:42 AM on May 5, 2008 [4 favorites]
Who among those who have a proper understanding of evolution thinks that humans evolved from neanderthals, that they were our progenitors?
Here's a short, interesting video from the Telegraph talking with Dr. Chris Stringer about how neaderthals and humans co-existed.
posted by inoculatedcities at 6:46 AM on May 5, 2008
Here's a short, interesting video from the Telegraph talking with Dr. Chris Stringer about how neaderthals and humans co-existed.
posted by inoculatedcities at 6:46 AM on May 5, 2008
I thought we evolved from those GEICO guys and that's why they are so pissed cuz we evolved and they still can't get car insurance?
posted by spicynuts at 6:53 AM on May 5, 2008
posted by spicynuts at 6:53 AM on May 5, 2008
Who among those who have a proper understanding of evolution thinks that humans evolved from neanderthals, that they were our progenitors?
No one. The only possible group that still believes something akin to this is Milford Wolpoff and his multiregionalists, though 1. they claim that humans and Neandertals were different populations, though part of the same species, and 2. even they have toned down the rhetoric in light of other recent research.
Biomorphometrics, of which the approach used by Gonzalez-Jose and discussed in the last link above is a part, has certainly developed in the last several years, utilizing advanced statistical methods and 3D digitization, but it's still being vastly outpaced in terms of its utility by genetic research. I've stated as much before on MeFi; in my post here I lay out some of the important papers on Neandertal DNA, which, when taken together, all indicate that Neandertals had little, if any, DNA contribution to modern humans (n.b. the title of Serre et al's 2004 paper: "No evidence of neandertal mtDNA contribution to early modern humans."), and this has been the common wisdom in paleoanthropology for some time now.
posted by The Michael The at 6:58 AM on May 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
No one. The only possible group that still believes something akin to this is Milford Wolpoff and his multiregionalists, though 1. they claim that humans and Neandertals were different populations, though part of the same species, and 2. even they have toned down the rhetoric in light of other recent research.
Biomorphometrics, of which the approach used by Gonzalez-Jose and discussed in the last link above is a part, has certainly developed in the last several years, utilizing advanced statistical methods and 3D digitization, but it's still being vastly outpaced in terms of its utility by genetic research. I've stated as much before on MeFi; in my post here I lay out some of the important papers on Neandertal DNA, which, when taken together, all indicate that Neandertals had little, if any, DNA contribution to modern humans (n.b. the title of Serre et al's 2004 paper: "No evidence of neandertal mtDNA contribution to early modern humans."), and this has been the common wisdom in paleoanthropology for some time now.
posted by The Michael The at 6:58 AM on May 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
Mastercheddaar: That magically we became what we are today.
Not to nit-pick, but you phrased this post horrifically. Specifically, I would've thought you'd know that the people who believe strongly that human beings evolved from animals are exactly the same as the people who get somewhat annoyed when you call their theories 'magical.'
In other words: no, dumbass, there's nobody who really believes we became what we are today magically through evolution. Except maybe Père Teilhard de Chardin. Magic isn't really a part of it.
posted by Viomeda at 6:59 AM on May 5, 2008
Not to nit-pick, but you phrased this post horrifically. Specifically, I would've thought you'd know that the people who believe strongly that human beings evolved from animals are exactly the same as the people who get somewhat annoyed when you call their theories 'magical.'
In other words: no, dumbass, there's nobody who really believes we became what we are today magically through evolution. Except maybe Père Teilhard de Chardin. Magic isn't really a part of it.
posted by Viomeda at 6:59 AM on May 5, 2008
Also, this link from the OP is laughably wrong, and full of context-free quotations and blatant lies.
posted by The Michael The at 7:01 AM on May 5, 2008
posted by The Michael The at 7:01 AM on May 5, 2008
And I'm racking my brains regarding a discussion (NPR? Here? Scientific American?) about Neanderthals being predominantly redheads.
Anyone remember this?
You may have seen that here.
posted by Shfishp at 7:05 AM on May 5, 2008
Anyone remember this?
You may have seen that here.
posted by Shfishp at 7:05 AM on May 5, 2008
Yeah, this is what I learned in High School 15 years ago. Not sure what the big news is?
posted by miss tea at 7:08 AM on May 5, 2008
posted by miss tea at 7:08 AM on May 5, 2008
And I'm racking my brains regarding a discussion (NPR? Here? Scientific American?) about Neanderthals being predominantly redheads. Anyone remember this?
Here's the article, and here's discussion.
posted by The Michael The at 7:10 AM on May 5, 2008
Here's the article, and here's discussion.
posted by The Michael The at 7:10 AM on May 5, 2008
And I'm racking my brains regarding a discussion (NPR? Here? Scientific American?) about Neanderthals being predominantly redheads. Anyone remember this?
I remember several discussions during my time in Ireland about how redheads are predominantly Neanderthals, but that may be a different issue.
posted by Slap Factory at 7:16 AM on May 5, 2008
I remember several discussions during my time in Ireland about how redheads are predominantly Neanderthals, but that may be a different issue.
posted by Slap Factory at 7:16 AM on May 5, 2008
Heavy emphasis on SOME. I think there has been an interesting discussion on whether or not Neanderthals and early humans interbred at all, but even that is seeming more and more unlikely.
posted by edgeways at 7:19 AM on May 5, 2008
posted by edgeways at 7:19 AM on May 5, 2008
« Older The stuff of nightmares ... | Food cartels - haven't we seen these before? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Then there's the article itself: "Interbreeding took place, which explains why the Neanderthal line died out..."
So what...we gave them AIDS?
posted by DU at 6:30 AM on May 5, 2008