Or were the skeletal differences simply a local population (ex. racial) difference. For example, thousands of years from now, somone could stumble upon bones from european australians and aboriginal australians and conclude they were a separate species. Yet they are not. The difference in skull and bone features are simply racial differences. Could this be the case with neanderthals?
2006-12-20 01:12:05 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Anthropology
Humans are classified as Homo Sapiens Sapiens (genus, species, subspecies). Neanderthal is classified as Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis.
Answer: Same species, different subspecies
Neanderthal probable interbred with other populations and became more like modern europeans.
Addendum: I have not seen any genetic evidence to suggest that neanderthal was a different species vs. the standard theory that he represented a subspecies. and I believe that the current theory is that neanderthal and modern man eventually interbred which is not possible unless they are of the same species or unless all of the offspring were sterile(mules)
2006-12-21 02:46:17 · answer #1 · answered by cuban friend 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, they are different species, though the are of the same genus, Homo. The difference in skull and bone are beyond what could be termed " racial " differences. The genetic information coming on line is quite definite; we are dealing with two different species.
2006-12-20 08:55:28 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
An interesting idea, certainly. While I'm sure that at some point errors of classification have been made, H. Sapiens and Neanderthal are so very different physically that it just doesn't seem possible in THIS case. Still, if one looks at modern Mongolians and modern Scandanavians, it's sometimes hard to believe that they are in fact the same species at all...
2006-12-20 02:55:21 · answer #3 · answered by B SIDE 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Recent DNA evidence suggests that humans and neanderthals were two distinct species, i.e, Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis, not the subspecies designation given above.
2006-12-21 04:58:36 · answer #4 · answered by unassailed 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They were fully human.
One of the world’s foremost authorities on Neandertal man, Erik Trinkaus, concludes: “Detailed comparisons of Neandertal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neandertal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans.” (Natural History, vol. 87, p. 10, 1978). Why then are there continued efforts to make apes out of man and man out of apes?
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3048/
2006-12-21 09:33:31 · answer #5 · answered by a Real Truthseeker 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, the were in fact contemporaries. There is some evidence that they had met in conflict. The superior brain capacity of Homo Sapiens won out.
2006-12-20 08:39:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
there are different species, and i'm not talking only about physical differencies. the scientists discovered that neanderthals couldn't speak, because they lack larynx.
2006-12-20 07:41:48 · answer #7 · answered by john s 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
they were and are different,next time your in my country pop down to number ten downing street and you ll meet one.
2006-12-20 01:17:15 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
yes they were separate.
2006-12-21 11:29:36 · answer #9 · answered by john L 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋