Turns out we DID breed with Neanderthals

Well, yes, and no. I don't think that the question of humanity's origins can truly be considered esoteric. But I do see your point...I think.
 
It's a curiosity, not really useful, especially considering that there are no live neanderthals to study, which makes it less useful than knowing how closely related we are to chimpanzees, who we can study to learn more about ourselves.
 
It's a curiosity, not really useful, especially considering that there are no live neanderthals to study, which makes it less useful than knowing how closely related we are to chimpanzees, who we can study to learn more about ourselves.
...so perhaps we just disagree on the definition of "esoteric?" I'm not familiar with that word in this particular context.

Let's follow this line of reasoning, though. If this is truly the case, why would scientists bother to reconstruct evolutionary lineages at all? Is that equally frivolous?
 
...so perhaps we just disagree on the definition of "esoteric?" I'm not familiar with that word in this particular context.

Let's follow this line of reasoning, though. If this is truly the case, why would scientists bother to reconstruct evolutionary lineages at all? Is that equally frivolous?

"Esoteric" as in only in the interest of a select few.

It's not entirely frivolous, but there's only so much that we can gain from learning about extinct species aside from the "Hmm, a stegosaurus." aspect. It doesn't have the same impact or usefulness of other discoveries, it's just discovery for discovery's sake, which is pretty frivolous to me.
 
Plenty of great discoveries were the result of "esoteric" research (like the discovery of isolated Mesoamerican cities, discovery of the cell, etc.) - it seems you're arguing for argument's sake here.
 
Eh, we've had this conversation before. It still comes down to the fact that things like the discovery of a cell have more weight than this, which doesn't say much at all.
 
I am surprised no one try to call this article racist.
 
"Esoteric" as in only in the interest of a select few.
I disagree, but I think that's simply because we look at this from different perspectives.

SuperFerret said:
It's not entirely frivolous, but there's only so much that we can gain from learning about extinct species aside from the "Hmm, a stegosaurus." aspect. It doesn't have the same impact or usefulness of other discoveries, it's just discovery for discovery's sake, which is pretty frivolous to me.
Evolutionary history reveals quite a bit about the mechanics of evolution itself. In making these types of discoveries (like the one in question), we can learn more about a process that is anything BUT irrelevant. The reason these types of discoveries get so much attention is due to man's compulsive need to understand his origins, but beyond that, I think you underestimate the usefulness of such discoveries.
 
i know one neanderthal I would interbreed with

ali_laters_cave.jpg
 
It's a curiosity, not really useful, especially considering that there are no live neanderthals to study, which makes it less useful than knowing how closely related we are to chimpanzees, who we can study to learn more about ourselves.

It's not a question of how related we are to Neanderthals, since previous studies have already suggested 99.7% similiarity after they extracted DNA from a neanderthal femur bone.

This study shows evidence that we BRED with them and more importantly, that 1-4% of Eurasians (Europeans, Asians, Eurasians, and Polynesians) have neanderthal genes; which also helps to answer the question as to what happenned to them.
 
We finally know the descendants of politicians the world over...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"