Buffybot ,'Dirty Girls'
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
So did the scientists compare the older Neandertals' astronaut-fighting skills to the younger Neandertals?
As I recall, the "older" Neandertal was an 11 year-old girl, so I think that the astronaut could take her in a fight.
On the other hand, I expect that she could have started some really nasty rumors about the astronaut, and she might have said some very cruel things about his dorky NASA-issue clothes.
A small number of DNA samples from Neandertals about 30,000 years ago, when they were probably sharing territory with humans, seem to be clearly different from modern humans (about 25% as different from humans as chimps are).This is what I wasn't able to find. Thank you, Rick. Everywhere I looked just seemed to talk about the differences in skulls, etc., but then there would be notes about some of the "Neandertal" defining features still being extant in (some) homo sapiens, today.
But there was a strange thing just a few weeks ago. Someone managed to extract DNA from a 100,000 year old Neandertal. The DNA was clearly different from humans, and clearly similar to the previous Neandertal samples. But oddly, the older sample was MORE differnt from humans than the younger samples. This is not what you would expect if the two species had split prior to 100,000 years ago (the usual estimate is about 300,000) continued to evolve on their own paths. That one old DNA sample might be unrepresentative. Or there might have been mixing. Or there could be a third group mixing with the other two. Or the whole molecular clock thing could be flawed.I want to make sure I understand, because DNA stuff is so fascinating to me. To restate: So if they'd split X100,000 years ago, we would have expected the 100,000 year old Neandertal DNA to be more similar to humans, than later Neandertal DNA, because 100,000 was closer to the split (to the common ancestor)?
I agree with Cindy that the statements based on mitochondrial DNA tend to be too bold for the evidence. Her question, different species or different subtype, is hard to answer, because no one has extracted DNA from our common ancestors or from other ancient groups thought to be close enought to be in our own species (the desert is cruel to DNA). We really have no standard of how different DNA has to be to be a different species. So the opinions are stronger than the data.So some of it is a judgment call, then? I always wonder about stuff likethat, and I suppose unless/until some specimen loses or grows a tail, or extra nipples, or some other clear marker, it's going to be harder with homonid fossils.
I did know a little bit about Mitochondrial DNA from (lay) articles on the Mitochondrial Eve(s) [link] which is just the coolest (at least 'til I start reading about Y-chrom. studies on males). I just didn't grasp the wiki's point at one point, and figured Buffistas would do me better, which you all have. Thanks.
I can't believe I'm having to chase a guy down for next steps about a meeting he wanted called but never attended. Phone message, no joy. Instant message, nothing either. Oy. People.
I'm thinking putting a shock collar on him might be the way to go. Just keep zapping until he responds.
So if they'd split X100,000 years ago, we would have expected the 100,000 year old Neandertal DNA to be more similar to humans, than later Neandertal DNA, because 100,000 was closer to the split (to the common ancestor)?
Right.
All y'all really, really need to stop with the cavemen vs. astronauts business. Are you trying to hurt me? I just caught up in one long gulp and it's too much -- by the time I got to Cavemen Vs McGyver the laughter was causing me physical pain, and then there were LIKE 80 MORE POSTS. If I suddenly and unexpectedly end up with an Augustini instead of a Halloweenie, I am totally blaming the cavemen. Or possibly the astronauts.
Or maybe Nutty and the cheetah. I want to leave my blame options open.
In Non-PR news: puppy!
Ok, that's freaking me out a bit. WTF is going on with the ears? I had no idea their ears weren't normally all sticky-uppy. Why the hell do they do that?
I don't know -- I don't know that history of Great Danes.
My understanding is that they originally cropped ears (& docked tails) on breeds bred for hunting because those were the bits that were likely to get shredded by the teeth of another animal.
Now people do it because they're jerks.