• tetris11@feddit.ukEnglish
      201·
      1 day ago

      We don’t actually know that. Homo Sapiens is on the whole a peaceful species, but we have a few assholes that like to kill and subjugate.

      Just because our assholes outlived their assholes, doesn’t mean that they were any less assholes on average than we are/were

      • dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        92·
        23 hours ago

        hunter gatherers vs agriculturers say otherways. Mass of graves and the murdering entire family lines and clans and villages go back as far as humankind goes back. Homo sapiens are no different than any other animal—opportunistic killers like cows and horses are.

        • tetris11@feddit.ukEnglish
          5·
          23 hours ago

          Yep, the relative lack of heterogeneity in the Y-chromosome compared to mtDNA is somewhat testament to that too, but those mass grave sites are late stone age. Neanderthals predate those sites by a large margin, so it’d be hard to say that they didn’t necessarily follow the same brutal history against their own kin

      • RamenJunkie@midwest.socialEnglish
        31·
        24 hours ago

        If anything, our assholes outlivng theirs show we are more peqceful, because maybe they also had a type of asshole who got off on hilling assholes for the good of the peaceful group.

          • RamenJunkie@midwest.socialEnglish
            3·
            17 hours ago

            I am.saying they maybe didn’t tolorate their assholes living so long and killed them before they became President of the US etc.

            Meanwhile, our collective pascifist asses let our assholes roam free and even went back to beg for more after a few years.

            • tetris11@feddit.ukEnglish
              2·
              16 hours ago

              Ah! Yeah good point. We are way to pacified on the whole, and it seems like it literally just does take one asshole to push us around

  • Sunsofold@lemmings.worldEnglish
    67·
    2 days ago

    This is kind of the best-case fantasy of what happened to introduce that DNA so let’s just hope it’s true for now.

    • massacre@lemmy.worldEnglish
      35·
      2 days ago

      Yeahhh… first thought I had when the DNA news hit was that this had pretty rapey vibes…

      I don’t think there was a lot of consent on offer.

      • MonkRome@lemmy.worldEnglish
        27·
        2 days ago

        I thought neanderthal males were thought to be a lot less aggressive than homo sapiens (possibly even the reason for their extinction)? Even though I suspect you could be right. I think it’s possibly a mistake to apply how we are today to how our relatives were 40,000+ years ago. Also they might not have a comparable concept of rape if you go back far enough. So the personal trama, cultural implications, and psychological impact are possibly hard to analyze from a modern lense.

        • DancingBear@midwest.socialEnglish
          11·
          1 day ago

          Sex doesn’t look very consensual for like 99.9% of other species…

          Fairly certain even the idea of consent is part of what makes us human.

          • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.socialEnglish
            10·
            22 hours ago

            1: Neanderthals are also humans for the purpose you’re discussing, the results of higher cognitive functions. The label is actually applied to all hominins by anthropologists (note the nin and not nid)

            2: A lot of tribal cultures have historically had more female autonomy than women in industrialized or preindustrial cultures. There’s a lot of discussion about why that is exactly but this image of women as caveman chattel is just a lie

        • kossa@feddit.orgEnglish
          15·
          1 day ago

          Gotta need a time machine for that sweet neanderthal pussy interesting anthroplogic research.

  • I Cast Fist@programming.devEnglish
    2·
    1 day ago

    So, all those cartoons depicting cavemen dragging a woman by her hair were on to something. Time to write some caveman on modern woman smut!

  • JayDee@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    16·
    2 days ago

    So, how likely is it that neanderthals and humans just lived in tribes together, and neanderthals just eventually died off within human tribes?

    • JamesBoeing737MAX@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      4·
      1 day ago

      They were probably just genocided like many other minorities in history. And since Homo Sapiens succeeded, everyone promotes how superior we are.

      BTW, our genetics apparently just merged, but my theory is probably also true.

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.worldEnglish
      16·
      2 days ago

      I bet it at least ended that way.

      They died out during the last ice age when one of the big differences from previous ones they survived was the presence of homo sapiens.

      I’m guessing it was from a combination of lack of space, raids, and integration (willing or not).

      We (who carry it) have a small amount of Neanderthal DNA, but it’s not the same DNA for all of us, it’s pretty diverse, so cross breeding events between us weren’t limited to just a few times.

    • SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      3·
      20 hours ago

      Two ways.

      First, sex chromosomes. In mammals, sex is determined by the sex chromosomes - males have XY, females XX. If interbreeding was equal between the sexes of both species, this would be reflected in the frequency of neanderthal genes on each chromosome in the current human population, but it’s more heavily skewed toward the Y chromosome than we’d expect if equal pairing was true. This suggests a higher proportion of successful male neanderthal/female human offspring.

      Second, mitochondrial DNA. While genomic DNA in a sexually-reproducing species is a mix between the parents, in most mammals the inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is purely maternal. This is because only the egg’s mitochondria typically survive, though on rare occasion paternal mitochondria are also passed on. There is no known existent neanderthal mtDNA in the human population. This suggests either female neanderthal/male human crosses didn’t happen much and/or didn’t often produce offspring capable of further reproduction.

      Of course, there are many other explanations for all of these. These are just amongst the simplest possible options, and in population genetics, it’s not uncommon that the simplest answers are frequently correct.

      • The_v@lemmy.worldEnglish
        16·
        1 day ago

        There is a few different potential reasons as well as sexual preference.

        Genetic incompatibility - the interspecific cross could only occur one way.

        Genetic bottlenecks in the neandertal lineage. A high inbred coefficient could have decreased the neandertal females overall fertility (high deleterious alleles load). This could also cause a rapid reduction in the percentage of neandertal DNA in a mixed population.

        Maternal behavior - Neandertals females might not have cared for hybrid offspring appropriately. This could be for anything from milk production requirements to differences in physiological developmental rates.

        • m0darn@lemmy.caEnglish
          1·
          8 hours ago

          Genetic incompatibility - the interspecific cross could only occur one way.

          This could be human male-neanderthal female (HMNF) coupling didn’t result in fertile offspring right? Could it also be that HMNF (coupling) didn’t result in fertile female offspring, but did have fertile male offspring?

          • The_v@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            2 hours ago

            Usually these issues are caused by mitochondrial DNA not nuclear DNA. Mitochondrial DNA is only passed on from the female. So if there is an incompatibility, it’s usually completely lethal to any offspring.

            So a HMNF coupling could not have been possible because of the neanderthal’s female mitochondrial DNA.

        • azi@mander.xyzEnglish
          6·
          1 day ago

          I think the idea of there being health issues in certain types of mixed families is super interesting because that almost certainly would have been noticed and lead to certain cultural practices or taboos within both species’ societies.

          • The_v@lemmy.worldEnglish
            5·
            1 day ago

            If I had to guess the successful crosses were potentially much healthier than either parent line. Heterosis (hybrid vigor) would likely be pretty extreme in genetic lines that has been isolated by 300,000+ years of time. Of course the degree of fertility was likely lowered due to genetic distance. Once the initial cross was made however, back-crossing to either species by the hybrid would likely be much easier.

            Many of those ancient stories about individuals with super strength and size etc could have likely been based upon these crosses.

            The evidence is showing neadertals never truly died out. Their smaller population bred back into the modern humans who came later.

            • SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
              3·
              20 hours ago

              Keep in mind heterosis isn’t always the result of hybridization and even then the magnitude of isolation doesn’t always positively correlate. Outbreeding depression can also be the result, increasingly so when two groups are more genetically distant or when one group is already subject to heavy inbreeding depression, as the neanderthals were thought to be.