2
   

Cave Paintings

 
 
Roberta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Feb, 2007 04:30 am
Hiya Vivien, I was hoping you'd show up. How fortunate you are to have seen these things in person. I think I'd be overwhelmed.

A agree with you totally that the people who painted these things were artists--regardless of the reasons they painted them. True artists.

I'm torn about the possibility of so-called extinct species of humans having interbred with us. My first reaction to hearing this theory propounded (on a National Geographic tv show) was, Yes, of course. But the more I thought about it, the more I wondered. No other animal that I know of interbreeds with other species, even those that are closely related. Is it possible that we humans stepped over this line? Wouldn't put it past us.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Feb, 2007 04:46 am
Roberta wrote:
Hiya Vivien, I was hoping you'd show up. How fortunate you are to have seen these things in person. I think I'd be overwhelmed.

A agree with you totally that the people who painted these things were artists--regardless of the reasons they painted them. True artists.

I'm torn about the possibility of so-called extinct species of humans having interbred with us. My first reaction to hearing this theory propounded (on a National Geographic tv show) was, Yes, of course. But the more I thought about it, the more I wondered. No other animal that I know of interbreeds with other species, even those that are closely related. Is it possible that we humans stepped over this line? Wouldn't put it past us.


That's not entirely true, Roberta. Witness the mule. There are probably other examples.
0 Replies
 
Roberta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Feb, 2007 06:44 am
Recovering from having a fairly long response disappear. This will be shorter.

You're right, Andy, about mules. I tried to find out whether horses and donkeys mate cuz they like it or whether their comingling is human-induced. Couldn't find nuttin'.

I know that other cross-breeding, ligers, for example, is brought about by human intervention.

I did find out something that surprised me. Not all mules are sterile. Although all the males appear to be, some females have had foals. Live and loin.

If I'm wrong about the interspecies thing (wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong), then maybe we've got parts of other species floating around in our DNA. I like that idea, although I don't know why.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Feb, 2007 11:14 am
Recently, there was a controversy about a bear which appeared to have been bred by a grizzly bear on a polar bear (i think that was it, i'd have to check). However, all that proves is that grizzly and polar bears are not separate species. If Cro-Magnon or Neanderthal interbred successfully with homo sapiens sapiens, all that demonstrates is that they were not different species. In fact, i had always thought Cro-Magnon was homo sapiens sapiens. I'll check.

Robert, regarding losing long responses--if you have typed a long response, it is often a good idea to copy it. Right-click on the response, choose "select all" and the choose "copy." Even if you forget to do so, and after hitting post you get a "page could not be found" or "cannot connect to data base" message, you can immediately hit the "back" button, and copy the post. Then, if necessary, paste it into a notepad document which you can open from the "Start/Programs" keys in the bottom left of the screen (if you are using Windows).

Off to see if Cro-Magnon can be considered homo sapiens sapiens.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Feb, 2007 11:19 am
According to this page at the University of Minnesota at Duluth, if i have not misunderstood it, Cro-Magnon were homo sapiens sapiens.
0 Replies
 
Roberta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Feb, 2007 02:13 pm
Set, I know about copying my posts before I click submit. However, knowing about it and remembering to do it are two different things--at least for me. Thanks for trying to help.

I didn't know that cro magnons and humans are the same species. I remember (vaguely) learning something different. I recently heard of speculation about Neanderthals also not "disappearing" but interbreeding with humans. Also a possibility, I suppose.

Did the bears mate of their own volition?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Feb, 2007 03:38 pm
I don't believe anyone knows. It was only discovered after the bear was shot by a sport hunter, and DNA testing performed. You can read the CBC report here.

I have also read that a significant number of students of paeleo-anthropology believe that homo neanderthalis may have been subsumed into the homo sapiens genome.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Feb, 2007 04:02 pm
By the way, there is an image of homo neanderthalis which is just plain wrong. A skull was found at Gilbraltar in the early 19th century, and portions of remains were found right across the Eurasian landmass from the Atlantic to the central Asian highlands, and down into the middle east. But the first largely intact skeleton was found in a quarry in the valley of the Neander river in Germany--hence, Neanderthal ("Neander valley") man. This seemed to show a stooped, shambling anthropoid ape with no chin, a heavy brow-ridge, a curved spine and spindly, bowed legs. More recent examinations of those remains show it was a middle-aged man badly crippled from arthritis. The mere fact that he had survived into middle age, despite the crippling effects of advanced arthritis, and the distortion of his mouth and jaw from the loss of most of his teeth to abcesses, suggests a highly organized and successful band which could afford to continue to feed and shelter a man who might well have become a "useless mouth." The remains of another middle-aged Neanderthal shows that he had lost all of his molars, but that the jaw had healed--which is good inferential evidence that other members of his band prepared special soft foods for him, or chewed his food for him--these are not the actions of brutish ape-like creatures such as 19th century men imagined.

Their anatomy shows that they were capable of speech, although we can't of course know if they spoke or how they spoke. Many paeleo-anthropologists confidently state what their speech patterns would have been like, but i pay no attention to such pronouncements, as they simply cannot know. They were relatively short, reaching only about five and a half feet in height--but they were very strong, and their bones show that they were well-muscled, with a deep and capacious chests. If they spoke, they may well have had booming voices. Their chests were not the only capacious part of their anatomy--their brain cases were more than 10% larger than that of modern homo sapiens. They survived in the ice age, at the edge of the forests to the south of the tundra, which speaks highly of their survival skills. The evidence that many lived into middle age, and that special care supported at least one of these middle aged men, if not many more men and women, also suggests a high degree of success in food gathering and storage.

If homo neanderthalis did breed into the stock of our ancestors, there is no reason for anyone to be ashamed of or contemptuous of that part of our family tree.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Feb, 2007 04:10 pm
Svante Paabo has been a recent proponent of the "Hijacked Neander genes" into H sapiens. I didnt know that hed managed to sequence that much of the Neanderthal genome, since most samples they had were pretty degraded and they actually had to use osteocalcin.

The polar bear/brown bear issue wasnt so much a crossing of two new genomes but a relict recurrence of the grizzly subspecies , since Ursus maritmus is a "budding" off Ursus 'brownybearus" (I forgot the species fancy name, ). Sometimes a retro gene can be configured as a recessive genome (at least the part thats giving the brownybear traits) As I understood, (since this was a"setup" post from RL on another thread) from my own further reading, the brownybear/polar bear had a browny coat but everything else was polar (Big canines,, modified molars, Big paws and webbing in the feet, hollow hairs, water adapted nares and a Roman nose etc) all in all pretty much not a big issue. In otherwords, it may not have been a breeding cross but a phenotypic expression

The very definition of "species" most often incorporates a selective breeding isolation between the species. (They choose NOT to interbreed because of edaphic, niche, or morph features). Plants can easily interfertilize but usually the seed plants are sterile hybrids (like a mule or a tigron, or even a spotted/striped skunk)



_______nother subjct------------


Theres a guy in Ohio named HOTEM, whose published a number of projectile typology references. If you look at the samples hes shown from various paleo rock shelters in the east, the "clovis" points are really very fine and more similar to the Lutre's
0 Replies
 
ul
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Feb, 2007 04:16 pm
I am reading with interest what you all write.
Just a note:
I think the river you mentioned is called Düssel not Neander river.
0 Replies
 
Roberta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Feb, 2007 04:16 pm
I'm neither ashamed nor contemptuous, just fascinated.

Fascinating stuff about the grizzly-polar bear. Just when I think I know stuff, I find out I don't know nuttin'. I kinda like that. Lots more to learn. Keeps my brain cells from atrophying.

So tell me, Set. Is there anything don't know about? Your interests interest me. I know a little about a variety of things. You seem to know a lot about a lot.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Feb, 2007 04:26 pm
My adviser at university told me that history is the study of everything. But i only repeat that jokingly. To understand human nature, it is necessary to understand not just human history, but pre-history as well. To understand that, it is necessary at least to read and attempt to understand scientific findings and their significance.

That being said, i don't acknowledge knowing a lot about a lot of things. When it comes to subjects about which i don't know anything, i keep my mouth shut. When i do stumble, and state something about which i am wrong, or about which my understanding is limited, i pay attention to those who do know what they are talking about.

Human pre-history fascinates me, and i've long read as much as i could find on the subject which i deemed to be reliable. There has been for several centuries now a prevelent notion in the west which colors the teaching of history which seeks to suggest that the middle east is the cradle of all that is worthwhile in society. I don't agree, and so i've long sought the evidence of human devolopment elsewhere. The middle east has gotten a good press because of christian prejudice, and because them boys was literate. But i see great flaws in ancient hamitic and semitic civilizations, and i see great flaws in the theory which centers all of human civilized development in the middle east. So i continue to be fascinated.

That is why cave paintings and other evidence of a rich cultural life in our pre-historic ancestors fascinates me.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Feb, 2007 04:39 pm
The term Homo sapiens sapiens is a speciational determinant because of the early discovery of what was the earlier form of Homo sapiens idaltu, H.s.idaltu was discovered somehwere in the Afar area (the idaltu is somehow part of the language and meant something like "elder wise man") . The divergence of the species H.s.s from H.s.i. took place about 160 K years ago and the H.s.s. was only confirmed by stratigraphy (most dating techniques required a substrate to date and that only H.s. idaltu was found in an ash deposit which could be pinpointed more accurately . H.s. s was merely a wild ass guess from cross correlation of the dirt it was found in. So, while we may not really have a true "trinomial nomenclature" weve given it because we have this H.s.Idaltu to deal with and hes extinct.

Look up H. s. idaltu in Wikipedia, their anthro stuff is usually pretty reliable (I happen to know a few of the contributors and a few of them are "good guys")
0 Replies
 
Roberta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Feb, 2007 01:11 am
Set, I used to know a lot about a few things. Now I know less because I don't keep up. I have diverse interests though. But I'm inclined to dabble rather than immerse myself. Few people I know who are interested in history go back to prehistory, which I kinda think of as anthropology. Just a term for the history of people before there was written history.

farmerman, As soon as I figure out what you said, I'll be happy to look it up. Glad to know the people at Wikipedia are good guys. I had always suspected as much.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Feb, 2007 06:03 am
Roberta,All I meant was that a "Trinomial nomenclature" (Homo sapiens sapiens) was required to be able to recognize that there were at least 2 subspecies or varieties of sapiens. However, the earlier one went extinct and is only available as a fossil from the "Horn" of Ethiopea.
0 Replies
 
Roberta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Feb, 2007 06:11 am
farmerman, bubbele, I went to wikipedia. Now I understand--maybe. Tell your friend I said thanks. There were two groups of home sapiens. One died out. We remain.
0 Replies
 
Vivien
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Feb, 2007 11:50 am
I'm not up on the branches of man but cro-magnon man is supposed to have died out when our ancestors moved in and proved more flexible. Yes cro magnon did have much larger brains but heavier brows, an upright stance and stockier - well according to all the data in the museums in the area anyway.

as an aside - do gorillas???? they have larger heads than us.

It was awe inspiring Roberta and unforgettable Very Happy
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Feb, 2007 07:16 pm
Setanta wrote:
Recently, there was a controversy about a bear which appeared to have been bred by a grizzly bear on a polar bear (i think that was it, i'd have to check). However, all that proves is that grizzly and polar bears are not separate species.

About a year ago, there was a pretty good A2K discussion about that - starting Here and continuing more-or-less on topic across several succeeding pages.
0 Replies
 
Roberta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 01:53 am
viven, Awe-inspiring I bet. As for gorilla skulls. I believe (don't know for sure) that some skulls may be larger, but I'm not certain about the brain size or makeup. Let those more scientific in their orientation tackle that one.

Timber, thanks for the link. Read it with interest. Polar bears evolved from brown bears. One poster said that some polar bears are more closely linked genetically with brown bears than are some brown bears with other brown bears. Who knew? Not me.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 03:55 am
Vivien wrote:
I'm not up on the branches of man but cro-magnon man is supposed to have died out when our ancestors moved in and proved more flexible. Yes cro magnon did have much larger brains but heavier brows, an upright stance and stockier - well according to all the data in the museums in the area anyway.


You're confusing Cro Magnon man with Neanderthal man. Cro Magnon is more a designation of the culture of man from the Upper Paleolithic period, about 40,000 to 10,000 years ago and ranging from Western Europe to--it has been more recently discovered--the Middle East.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Cave Paintings
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/30/2021 at 09:12:38