Barriers to crossbreeding with Neanderthals and Denisovans -discussion

Neanderthal ancestry is also apparently limited and so is the Neanderthal genome reconstructed thus far.

We have a complete genome.


These "archaic" features are not seen in archaic homo sapiens but are derived cranial features found in Neanderthals.

That's because Irhoud is the oldest h. sapiens. His as well as Iwo Eleru's featuers recapitulate Neanderthal features because they're primitive (i. e. not like homo sapiens).


Actually, it's highly likely Neanderthal ancestry got to Morocco, which is close to Spain (Neanderthal turf). Neanderthal ancestry is likely to have made it to Nigeria by 13k YBP.

Unlikely, West Africans have archaic ancestry. Neanderthals seem to be basal to their archaic ancestor



Neanderthals were behaviorally modern. Dry distilling birch tar is a modern behavior.

By definition they weren't.
 
I don't mean to be insensitive, but the latter would probably look quite scary and even ugly to modern humans.

Actually, he would be more handsome and admired. He has more evolved features and is less ugly than Jebel Irhoud.

DjqSYhmXcAE6wFO.jpg


Reconstruction La Ferrasie 1 (that Neanderthal skeleton you posted):

ferrassieIheadsm.jpg


Jebel Irhoud 1 reconstruction:

DFDlqLcUMAA4TNK.jpg



Limitations and assumptions aside, it's very clear from the overall form of the reconstructions that the Neanderthal La Ferrassie 1 was objectively better looking than Jebel Irhoud.
 
We have a complete genome.

No, we absolutely do not and that's the second time you told a serious lie on this forum.

That's because Irhoud is the oldest h. sapiens. His as well as Iwo Eleru's featuers recapitulate Neanderthal features because they're primitive (i. e. not like homo sapiens).

Incorrect. Iwo Eleru is only 13,000 years old. The oldest homo sapiens remains (Omo) lack Neanderthal morphology, and the oldest European and Asian fossils (Heidelbergebsis and Erectus) also lack it -- fact. Jebel Irhoud has derived Neandertbal cranial features -- fact.

Unlikely, West Africans have archaic ancestry. Neanderthals seem to be basal to their archaic ancestor

There is no genetic evidence for Iwo Eleru's phylogenetic position anywhere.

By definition they weren't.

Patently incorrect; there is no "definition" of behavioral modernity and any one that favors cave art over dry distillation of birch tar is simple zealotry.
 
Actually, he would be more handsome and admired. He has more evolved features and is less ugly than Jebel Irhoud.



Reconstruction La Ferrasie 1 (that Neanderthal skeleton you posted):



Jebel Irhoud 1 reconstruction:




Limitations and assumptions aside, it's very clear from the overall form of the reconstructions that the Neanderthal La Ferrassie 1 was objectively better looking than Jebel Irhoud.

The reconstruction is ridiculous.

Neanderthals-5-640x400.jpg


This is more accurate. Add to that the short height, stubby extremities, barrel chest. These are features most humans tend to find unappealing.
 
We have 2 high quality Neanderthal genomes and a bunch of lower quality ones. 50x coverage for Altai Neanderthal and 30x for Vindija Neanderthal. That's really very good.

Still not sure whether this guy is amazingly delusional or brilliantly faking it. Arguing which artist's impression is "objectively better looking"?
 
No, we absolutely do not and that's the second time you told a serious lie on this forum.
Prüfer (2014).



Incorrect. Iwo Eleru is only 13,000 years old. The oldest homo sapiens remains (Omo) lack Neanderthal morphology, and the oldest European and Asian fossils (Heidelbergebsis and Erectus) also lack it -- fact. Jebel Irhoud has derived Neandertbal cranial features -- fact.

He doesn't. These are just archaic features.



There is no genetic evidence for Iwo Eleru's phylogenetic position anywhere.

But he's a good candidate for archaic ancestry in West Africans. Do you really think he has Neanderthal ancestry?



Patently incorrect; there is no "definition" of behavioral modernity and any one that favors cave art over dry distillation of birch tar is simple zealotry.

Must be a conspiracy.
 
The reconstruction is ridiculous.
Neanderthals-5-640x400.jpg


This is more accurate. Add to that the short height, stubby extremities, barrel chest. These are features most humans tend to find unappealing.

That reconstructuon by Kennis and Kennis is based on an older proto-Neanderthal specimen (Neandertal 1) and is therefore not even a classical Neanderthal - Kennis and Kennis actually admitted their facial reconstruction was fanciful.

You have no way of knowing what is accurate and what isn't; the reconstruction of La Ferrassie 1 by Elisabeth Daynes s what I posted and even the Kennis and Kennis reconstruction looks better than Jebel Irhoud.

"Neanderthals had barrel chests" is an old meme, just goes to show that a lot of you are argumentative out of simple ignorance rather than knowledge.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...-neanderthals-their-powerful-lungs-180970674/

The new study has found that Neanderthals? chests were not larger in volume than those of modern humans, contrary to popular belief
 
That reconstructuon by Kennis and Kennis is based on an older proto-Neanderthal specimen (Neandertal 1) and is therefore not even a classical Neanderthal - Kennis and Kennis actually admitted their facial reconstruction was fanciful.

You have no way of knowing what is accurate and what isn't; the reconstruction of La Ferrassie 1 by Elisabeth Daynes s what I posted and even the Kennis and Kennis reconstruction looks better than Jebel Irhoud.

"Neanderthals had barrel chests" is an old meme, just goes to show that a lot of you are argumentative out of simple ignorance rather than knowledge.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...-neanderthals-their-powerful-lungs-180970674/

It's not about total volume but about the protruding ribcage. Just looks like a caveman to me, but beauty standards in Korea might be different.

neander-human-comp.jpg
 
No, we absolutely do not and that's the second time you told a serious lie on this forum.
Prüfer (2014).

There is nothing in that paper that suggests there is a complete Neanderthal genome, only a reconstructer partial Neanderthal genome based on European and Siberian fossils.





He doesn't. These are just archaic features.

No they aren't. They are derived Neanderthal traits not present in early modern Africans or pre-Neanderthals.





But he's a good candidate for archaic ancestry in West Africans. Do you really think he has Neanderthal ancestry?

+250,000 years after Neanderthal introgrrssion in to the Jebel Irhoud? Maybe not much. The phenotype persisted however, just like Neanderthal phenotypes persist in modern humans.





Must be a conspiracy.

Typical childish response from the "homo sapiens uber alles" crowd.
 
It's not about total volume but about the protruding ribcage. Just looks like a caveman to me, but beauty standards in Korea might be different.
neander-human.jpg

Again, this has been exposed as an incorrect reconstruction of the Neanderthal ribcage based on recent CT analysis (from 2018).

If you choose to stick to old and disproven ideas, I cannot help you.
Would also like to add Neanderthals in West Asia weren't short like the European kind.

The Amud fossil is estimated to have stood around 178cm. This is a reconsfruction of Amud, obviously looks more evolved than Skhul-Qafzeh:

projekt_neanderthal_03_gross.jpg


156.jpg
 
There is nothing in that paper that suggests there is a complete Neanderthal genome, only a reconstructer partial Neanderthal genome based on European and Siberian fossils.

Why would Prüfer and Pääbo lie? I just don't get it.


they aren't. They are derived Neanderthal traits not present in early modern Africans or pre-Neanderthals.

Evidence? In most multivariate analyses erectus, heidelbergensis & neandertalensis are quite similar.



+250,000 years after Neanderthal introgrrssion in to the Jebel Irhoud? Maybe not much. The phenotype persisted however, just like Neanderthal phenotypes persist in modern humans.

Then why do those features persist so much? It doesn't make sense.
 
Again, this has been exposed as an incorrect reconstruction of the Neanderthal ribcage based on recent CT analysis (from 2018).

If you choose to stick to old and disproven ideas, I cannot help you.
Would also like to add Neanderthals in West Asia weren't short like the European kind.

The Amud fossil is estimated to have stood around 178cm. This is a reconsfruction of Amud, obviously looks more evolved than Skhul-Qafzeh:

You might want to post evidence for once, those reconstructions tell us nothing. Every single Neanderthal skeleton I've seen shows those distinctive ribs. Another conspiracy?
 
Why would Prüfer and Pääbo lie? I just don't get it.

They didn't, you are name dropping an author who's study you didn't pay attention to.




Evidence? In most multivariate analyses erectus, heidelbergensis & neandertalensis are quite similar.

Not in cranial shape. We are talking about cranial shape. Neanderthal cranial form is derived and not present in heidelberhensis. Source: every analysis of heidelberg/Neanderthal remains, ever.
For a more recent example see:



http://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6190/1358.full








Then why do those features persist so much? It doesn't make sense.

They are better.
 
You might want to post evidence for once, those reconstructions tell us nothing. Every single Neanderthal skeleton I've seen shows those distinctive ribs. Another conspiracy?

No, just your delusions. No Neanderthal skeleton has ever yielded a set of ribs other tha Kebara. The CT analysis of Kebara disproves old notions about Neanderthal ribcages, which has been based on nothing. I lkterally just provided a link for you 1 hour ago so it's clear I am dealing with an indignant child in talking to you.
 
They didn't, you are name dropping an author who's study you didn't pay attention to.

Cite your evidence.


Not in cranial shape. We are talking about cranial shape. Neanderthal cranial form is derived and not present in heidelberhensis. Source: every analysis of heidelberg/Neanderthal remains, ever.

Black/dark red = erectus, red stars = neandertalensis.

journal.pone.0024024.g003.png


Some Neanderthal skulls were closer to some Erectus skulls than to each other.

They are better.

Then why were their genes subject to purifying selection in the relevant regions? You are contradicting yourself.
 
No, just your delusions. No Neanderthal skeleton has ever yielded a set of ribs other tha Kebara. The CT analysis of Kebara disproves old notions about Neanderthal ribcages, which has been based on nothing. I lkterally just provided a link for you 1 hour ago so it's clear I am dealing with an indignant child in talking to you.

I've seen Feldhofer 1 in person in Germany. There are ribs.
 
Cite your evidence.

It's literally in the paper you cited.

Black/dark red = erectus, red stars = neandertalensis.
journal.pone.0024024.g003.png

Some Neanderthal skulls were closer to some Erectus skulls than to each other.

No. You are ignorant. Read the supplemental data:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/a...id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0024024.t001

The Neanderthal skulls which deviate toward Erectus are pre-Neanderthals (Feldhofer 1) or Neanderthals which are known to deviate from the classical Neanderthal cranial shape (La Quina 5, all Shanidar remains, Spy 2).

You are too ignorant to be having these discussions.

Then why were their genes subject to purifying selection in the relevant regions? You are contradicting yourself.
They weren't.
 
I've seen Feldhofer 1 in person in Germany. There are ribs.

No there is a thorax and a handful of ribs which you can't make any observations from; Kebara is the only Neanderthal specimen with a complete set of ribs.

Furthermore, Feldhofer 1 is a pre-Neanderthal.
 

This thread has been viewed 31061 times.

Back
Top