Philosophy Now Forum

Can we treat them as equals?

PhilX

If they were raised in society from infants, yes. A bunch of adults and young just showing up,, not a chance.

Why would you ask?

Pluto wrote:Why would you ask?

Some feel that HS are responsible for causing Neanderthals for going extinct. Also it's currently known about 3% of our genes are linked to the Neanderthals. These are two of the reasons why I ask.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Also it's currently known about 3% of our genes are linked to the Neanderthals.

In fact almost our entire genome is identical to that of the Neanderthals and over 97% of it is identical to that of the chimpanzees. It's the little bits that aren't identical which make all the difference. There are a small number of genes in homo sapiens which are not expressed in homo neandertalis which allowed us to evolve a sophisticated verbal language which they could not. It is widely thought that it was this advantage which allowed us to out-compete them in essentially the same ecological niche.

In your hypothetical scenario this would still be the case. The Neanderthals had a brain size and complexity at least the equal of ours in most other respects but without the ability to acquire complex language they wouldn't stand a chance.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Also it's currently known about 3% of our genes are linked to the Neanderthals.

In fact almost our entire genome is identical to that of the Neanderthals and over 97% of it is identical to that of the chimpanzees. It's the little bits that aren't identical which make all the difference. There are a small number of genes in homo sapiens which are not expressed in homo neandertalis which allowed us to evolve a sophisticated verbal language which they could not. It is widely thought that it was this advantage which allowed us to out-compete them in essentially the same ecological niche.

In your hypothetical scenario this would still be the case. The Neanderthals had a brain size and complexity at least the equal of ours in most other respects but without the ability to acquire complex language they wouldn't stand a chance.

Not based on this Leo (1% - 4%):

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/

PhilX

You have misread this article, Phil. Humans even share 70% of their genome with bananas.

Obvious Leo wrote:You have misread this article, Phil. Humans even share 70% of their genome with bananas.

In this case, you're the one who misread because it's as plain as the nose on your face. Show me in print where it says that Europeans and Asians share most of their genes with the Neanderthals.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:You have misread this article, Phil. Humans even share 70% of their genome with bananas.

In this case, you're the one who misread because it's as plain as the nose on your face. Show me in print where it says that Europeans and Asians share most of their genes with the Neanderthals.

PhilX

No. Read it properly yourself.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:You have misread this article, Phil. Humans even share 70% of their genome with bananas.

In this case, you're the one who misread because it's as plain as the nose on your face. Show me in print where it says that Europeans and Asians share most of their genes with the Neanderthals.

PhilX

No. Read it properly yourself.

The National Geographic article doesn't even say anything about bananas. Did you actually read it?

PhilX

Obvious Leo wrote:Humans even share 70% of their genome with bananas.

This explains a lot.

(You guys are cracking me up.)

Philosophy Explorer wrote: The National Geographic article doesn't even say anything about bananas. Did you actually read it?

There have been a continuous flow of papers published in the science literature on this subject dating back for over a decade. I haven't read all of them but I subscribe to over a dozen science periodicals and I'm very familiar with their contents. However I also read the NG article and find no fault with the way it presents this information for a layman. The details of how 4 billion nucleotide base pairs are arranged in a single molecule is not germane to the point being made in the article but it is germane to your statement about it. You claimed that we share only 3% of our genes with another member of our own genus and that is utter bollocks.

Lacewing wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:Humans even share 70% of their genome with bananas.

This explains a lot.

(You guys are cracking me up.)

Yes I know he means our monkey cousins (including gorillas, orangutans, etc.) Still the NG article points out we only share 1% - 4% of our genes with the Neanderthals
so Leo got that fact wrong. More to the point of my OP, would the Neanderthals fit in with our society?

PhilX

Lacewing wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:Humans even share 70% of their genome with bananas.

This explains a lot.

(You guys are cracking me up.)

One could even make the case that there are humans with equivalent cognitive function to a banana.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote: The National Geographic article doesn't even say anything about bananas. Did you actually read it?

There have been a continuous flow of papers published in the science literature on this subject dating back for over a decade. I haven't read all of them but I subscribe to over a dozen science periodicals and I'm very familiar with their contents. However I also read the NG article and find no fault with the way it presents this information for a layman. The details of how 4 billion nucleotide base pairs are arranged in a single molecule is not germane to the point being made in the article but it is germane to your statement about it. You claimed that we share only 3% of our genes with another member of our own genus and that is utter bollocks.

The NG special I watched used the 3% figure and the article says 1% to 4% so nothing bollocky about it. As I asked before, show it to me in print that which backs you up.

PhilX