It's that darned evolution thing...
Some time ago, I posited a theory among friends that there were key consistencies in purely superficial traits between basically all other subgroups of humans that were notably different in the European subgroup...
Humans, from subgroups all over the planet, for the most part, have black hair, brown eyes, and medium to dark brown skin. Humans from the European sub-group have hair ranging from almost white through browns and reds to black, eyes ranging from very pale blue through greens that tint to gold or grey, to brown, and much lighter skin, ranging to almost porcelain white.
There are small but notable differences in bone shape and thickness, such that they can be used in the forensic identification of skeletal remains... And the skeletons of members of the European subgroup are arguably the easiest to identify... They're a bit more different.
There are differences in nasal structure, hair patterns (European males, particularly, tend to have a much more dense coat of hair on their bodies and faces), and so on.
Now, many people maintained that these differences were due to this subgroup living for a long period of time in the specialized conditions of Northern Europe, but to me, my understanding of how evolution worked implied a necessity to cross-breed with another stock that had had much longer to adapt to those conditions...
First, evolution just doesn't usually work that fast (at that time, we all pretty much thought it never worked that fast). Second, as a further problem to the theory that we evolved that way on our own, due to conditions, consider that we have other subgroups that have lived in more extreme conditions - such as the Inuit - for quite a long time, and they are still much closer to normal.
If cold and snow and a high fat diet and so on made us this way, why'd they get a pass?
H.Neanderthalensis may have gotten to Europe as early as 650,000 years ago, and may have already been walking a slightly different evolutionary path before they got there. H.Sapiens may not have arrived until 50,000 years ago. So, it seemed very likely to me, whether H.Neanderthalensis was a sub-species of H.Sapiens or a cousin from a common ancestor, that they seemed a likely source for our genetic differences.
One thing we've pretty much learned... If two animals in the same range can interbreed, they will interbreed. and we know H.Sapiens and H.Neanderthalensis inhabited Europe around the same time, at least for a few thousand years, so it seemed very obviously likely to me that H.Sapiens and H.Neanderthalensis also cohabited in Europe.
It also struck me as particularly amusing that for all the white racist claims that caucasians were "superior", it was quite likely that all the (purely cosmetic and insignificant) differences they actually had all came from, basically, dating out of species... But that was just the icing on the cake.
Well, eventually genetic science came along and said I'd gotten it wrong. Ok, actually genetic science came along and said something else was right, without ever hearing of the independently arrived at but far from original theories of a lay science enthusiast somewhere in the American west, but still.
At that point, while conceding that the current evidence was a blow to my theory, I still maintained that i suspected that, as we learned more about genetics, we'd eventually discover that I was right... Cross-breeding with the Geico Cave Man was still - to me, at least - the only solid available explanation as to how one particular subgroup of humans could be so cosmetically differenced after such a short period on their own.
So... I was a bit interested when, today, I saw this story saying "Early Humans Dug Neanderthals".
Humans, from subgroups all over the planet, for the most part, have black hair, brown eyes, and medium to dark brown skin. Humans from the European sub-group have hair ranging from almost white through browns and reds to black, eyes ranging from very pale blue through greens that tint to gold or grey, to brown, and much lighter skin, ranging to almost porcelain white.
There are small but notable differences in bone shape and thickness, such that they can be used in the forensic identification of skeletal remains... And the skeletons of members of the European subgroup are arguably the easiest to identify... They're a bit more different.
There are differences in nasal structure, hair patterns (European males, particularly, tend to have a much more dense coat of hair on their bodies and faces), and so on.
Now, many people maintained that these differences were due to this subgroup living for a long period of time in the specialized conditions of Northern Europe, but to me, my understanding of how evolution worked implied a necessity to cross-breed with another stock that had had much longer to adapt to those conditions...
First, evolution just doesn't usually work that fast (at that time, we all pretty much thought it never worked that fast). Second, as a further problem to the theory that we evolved that way on our own, due to conditions, consider that we have other subgroups that have lived in more extreme conditions - such as the Inuit - for quite a long time, and they are still much closer to normal.
If cold and snow and a high fat diet and so on made us this way, why'd they get a pass?
H.Neanderthalensis may have gotten to Europe as early as 650,000 years ago, and may have already been walking a slightly different evolutionary path before they got there. H.Sapiens may not have arrived until 50,000 years ago. So, it seemed very likely to me, whether H.Neanderthalensis was a sub-species of H.Sapiens or a cousin from a common ancestor, that they seemed a likely source for our genetic differences.
One thing we've pretty much learned... If two animals in the same range can interbreed, they will interbreed. and we know H.Sapiens and H.Neanderthalensis inhabited Europe around the same time, at least for a few thousand years, so it seemed very obviously likely to me that H.Sapiens and H.Neanderthalensis also cohabited in Europe.
It also struck me as particularly amusing that for all the white racist claims that caucasians were "superior", it was quite likely that all the (purely cosmetic and insignificant) differences they actually had all came from, basically, dating out of species... But that was just the icing on the cake.
Well, eventually genetic science came along and said I'd gotten it wrong. Ok, actually genetic science came along and said something else was right, without ever hearing of the independently arrived at but far from original theories of a lay science enthusiast somewhere in the American west, but still.
At that point, while conceding that the current evidence was a blow to my theory, I still maintained that i suspected that, as we learned more about genetics, we'd eventually discover that I was right... Cross-breeding with the Geico Cave Man was still - to me, at least - the only solid available explanation as to how one particular subgroup of humans could be so cosmetically differenced after such a short period on their own.
So... I was a bit interested when, today, I saw this story saying "Early Humans Dug Neanderthals".