It was the unanimously accepted opinion among the scientists that Neanderthals were a separate species and there was no interbreeding between them and humans; until that speculative, fame-seeking 'research' appeared.Your claim that there has only ever been one human species.
New research appears all the time, superceding old research. You have still provided no evidence.It was the unanimously accepted opinion among the scientists that Neanderthals were a separate species and there was no interbreeding between them and humans; until that speculative, fame-seeking 'research' appeared.
Well, the fossil records indicate otherwise. For hundreds of thousands of years there were always more than one hominid species coexisting together. In fact given the history of the hominid species as a whole, homo-sapiens being the last representation of the genus homo seems to be a fluke.I am new but I will give my point of view here. For me it's quite impossible to have more than two species of Homo kind like. Because one of those species will always rise and destroy the other. Like what happened in our current timeline with the differents species all got destroy by Homo sapiens. The only scenario where it is possible is an isolated group scenario, but it's unlikely to happen because intelligent species, colonize all the territory they can get that what make us so widely spread on earth. Those conquest of new territories are the main reason why Neanderthal for example disappeared. And the timescale needed to get an speciation is too long, example it didn't take us that long to (re)discover the American natives. Intelligent species always explore so speciation is unlikely to happened in a territory like earth. We have like many species of lion for instance cause the lion in Africa don't care that much of those in America for example(who got extinct by the way). To give you an another example we are still wandering for life outside of earth even though those living creature might not care about us. Also don't get it wrong Homo sapiens didn't have as project to destroy his brother species or race, it happen just because of conflict, like we are fighting among us based on ethnicity. And last but not least the incapacity of inbreeding is the main reason they disappeared, while they got their population falling they can barely intermix and make at least part of their DNA pass through time(Neanderthal succeeded a bit). I think that mixed races people(I am neither for mixing or against it just choose who ever fits you) can help to make relation between to far group way better. That's why most of racist people are afraid of mixing cause that mean that they are becoming what they hate the most. In the other way pro mixing is not better either, for me the hurge of inbreeding is most of time done because people think unconsciously that the race will get better or their descendant will get less discrimination.
Well I am not debating the Neanderthal inbreeding. But contrary of what you say it was in fact extremely rare. For the coexistence some millennia is nothing comparing to a species lifespan, so for me there is no reason than could get the other species to got extent. Environmental change don't explain it. The propagation ofWell, the fossil records indicate otherwise. For hundreds of thousands of years there were always more than one hominid species coexisting together. In fact given the history of the hominid species as a whole, homo-sapiens being the last representation of the genus homo seems to be a fluke.
Secondlly, Homo-Sapiens and Neanderthals were not incapable of interbreeding, they certainly did and they produced viable offspring. Today most humans outside of Africa carry some percentage of Neanderthal DNA. One theory that Neanderthals went extinct and homo-sapiens thrived is their hunting tactic. Cro-Magnon having come from the African savannah were long distance runners who wounded their prey and chased them at long distances until the animal collapsed from heat exhaustion or cardiac arrest. Neanderthals were ambush close distance predators who swarmed their prey and speared the animal to death. There are alot of disadvantages for the latter hunting strategy, because you leave yourself vulnerable to injuries and death. In fact Neanderthal bones show this. Getting close to a large animal comes at great personal cost. Which is why the homo sapien way of hunting was superior.
Thirdly Homo Sapiens were able to design and throw their spears at greater distances and more accurately than Neanderthals could with the use of atlatls. So in general Cro-Magnon hunters were able to outcompete Neanderthals in wild game hunting.
The reason why sub-saharan Africans today don't carry Neanderthal DNA is because there were no Neanderthals in sub-Saharan Africa.Yeah I though that despite the exceptionally character of interspecies inbreeding there were some inbreeding with Neanderthal that was successful. But it was the exception not the rule at all that's why all non African carry a tiny heritage of Neanderthal DNA.
And I think that by his question he implies at our current time. And I still think it's not possible one of them will have supremacy at one extent before getting enough knowledge about not killing his neighbor and human right, laws.. And there was a competition on resources don't forget no agriculture at that time.
I wasn't using the fact that only non African carry Neanderthal DNA as an argument, I know that they weren't in Africa. But it's hard to clearly define what is species or not, subspecies... It's like color we know when we got red and when we got orange but it's difficult to know where is the exact separation of the two. And two different species can breed and got a fertile descent, genetic mutation can make this happens. There are few cases of hybrids being fertile. And I say it again Neanderthal only give to non African a tiny amount of DNA which implies that the inbreeding was most of the time unsuccessful.The reason why sub-saharan Africans today don't carry Neanderthal DNA is because there were no Neanderthals in sub-Saharan Africa.
Anyway a species is defined as a group of organisms that can produce viable offspring.
The fact is homo-sapeins and neanderthals were capable of producing viable fertile offspring throws into question whether Neanderthals were a separate species at all. A wolf, a coyote and a dog for instance are closely related enough that they too can produce fertile offspring. It used to be that dogs and wolves were considered separate species (canis lupus and canis familiaris) now they are just classified as subspecies of the other. Or to be exact the dog is a subspecies of the wolf. Since Neanderthals and homo-sapiens were able to produce non-sterile offspring there is debate if they were even a separate species at all, or atleast a subspecies of each other.
|Similar History Discussions||History Forum||Date|
|Nigeria is partitioned into three separate countries by the British before they leave||Speculative History|
|The problems with the concept of "Three Kingdoms of Korea"||Asian History|
|A three-way land swap between Austria, Prussia/Germany, and Russia?||Speculative History|
|Human Traitors of Humanity (from reading of Liu Cixin's the Three-body Problem)||History Blogs|
|Similar History Discussions|
|Nigeria is partitioned into three separate countries by the British before they leave|
|The problems with the concept of "Three Kingdoms of Korea"|
|A three-way land swap between Austria, Prussia/Germany, and Russia?|
|Human Traitors of Humanity (from reading of Liu Cixin's the Three-body Problem)|