31–40 of 49 posts
One reason for that might be the size of the baby homo sapiens scull/head upon birth. Bigger brain might have meant female Neanderthals couldn’t give birth to Homo Sapiens babies. Just a theory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why no mitochondrial then?
Because these hybrids would contain mtDNA from their human female line. Neanderthal mtDNA could only be passed down by Neanderthal females. And because none of those are found in any modern human populations, we can conclude no humans today are descended from female Neanderthals. Though whether hybridized descendants from male-sapiens female-Neanderthal pairings never existed, or they did exist for some time then eve…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
However, if one happens to be a race science type, there’s a lot of profit that can be made telling suggestive “just so” stories about which homo sapiens genetic lines are allegedly tainted with a larger proportion of neanderthal genes, or however that’s supposed to work.
It would be an afrocentric trope because it’s Europeans that have the most neanderthal genes.
[flagged]
It's quite possible that at that point in time nobody was asking for permission and most sex would have been what we qualify today as rape.
Presumably this hypothesis is meant to explain why there is this observed asymmetry in the type of Neanderthal DNA we find in modern human populations that contain them, which is entirely autosomal. With none in the mitochondrial form, which is exclusively passed down along the female line, and also none in the Y-chromosome form, which is exclusively passed down along the male line. Without weighing on the validity o…
I get that it's survivor bias and all, but modern racial preference also paints a clear picture, I don't understand why we are so against this hypothesis that male homo sapiens did not particularly like the female neanderthal (I can clearly see why as any modern male would).
We found neanderthal fossils with sapiens DNA (afir it was something like 7% so not sterile hybrids, but a few generations after the hybridisation). I don't think we have ANY evidence for non viability of male sapiens + female neanderthal non-viability, we just don't like the fact that this viability proves the asymetri.
Perhaps because modern psyche loves to picture males as sexual brutes and women as these higher wonderful rosy elves and this "shocking" neanderthal(i.e. "beastly") preference goes strongly against this meme?
Why would it be so inconcievable that the male part of homo sapiens drove the sexual selection for the more "refined" features of the species and the preference for intelligence of women was not intrinsic but partially "forced" -- i.e. warbrides and all -- so it would make perfect sense that some homo sapiens women would be attracted to the physical strength cues of male neanderthals, just like... gasp... modern women are?
[flagged]
>neanderthal males were raping homo sapiens females. Neanderthals had much higher muscle mass and were much stronger than homo sapiens. It's quite possible that at that point in time nobody was asking for permission and most sex would have been what we qualify today as rape.
I understand the instinct to virtue signal but no good can come from this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
However, if one happens to be a race science type, there’s a lot of profit that can be made telling suggestive “just so” stories about which homo sapiens genetic lines are allegedly tainted with a larger proportion of neanderthal genes, or however that’s supposed to work.
It would be an afrocentric trope because it’s Europeans that have the most neanderthal genes.
And South Asians have nearly same as Europeans.
Presumably this hypothesis is meant to explain why there is this observed asymmetry in the type of Neanderthal DNA we find in modern human populations that contain them, which is entirely autosomal. With none in the mitochondrial form, which is exclusively passed down along the female line, and also none in the Y-chromosome form, which is exclusively passed down along the male line. Without weighing on the validity o…
why no mitochondrial then?
How would we know otherwise? With absolute accuracy?
We certainly don't have access to thousands upon thousands of samples. Do we?
(I genuinely wonder this now)