Whether Neanderthals are a different species in genus Homo (H. neanderthalensis) or a different subspecies of H. sapiens (H. sapiens neanderthalensis) doesn't even seem to be completely a matter of consensus today (similar is true of Denisovans, for instance.)
And, honestly, the more evidence of ongoing, successful, fertile interbreeding we find, the less strong the “separate species” argument is, though its ultimately unresolvable because there's not a clearcut objective definition of what constitutes a “species”. Taxonomy isn't (well, the decision as to which taxonomic level a division is, at least, isn’t; the phylogenetic organization is) science so much as a necessary tool to have names for things to use when doing science.
For example, if pressed, about as much as you could get from an evo biologist is that what distinguishes difference between species is their inability to interbreed.
Humans probably could tell neanderthal were "different" but not in a way where they thought they were truly "other".
If anything, humans tend to be more prone to look for differences than assume equality.
Sure, it can be said that different "races" among humans make up a variety of subspecies. Yet, subspecies is not an objective reality. It is an example of where humans invent words to attempt to categorize and quantify things with fuzzy, unclear boundaries.
Why do we invent words like this? Because they're useful for enhancing knowledge and communication. When a word stops doing that, for example because of some immense contextual baggage connected to it, there's no point in forcing the matter, because we can just use different words and still get the same knowledge we seek otherwise.
Humans are illogical and emotionally complex. Denying that fact and chalking it up to political maneuvers is, ironically, itself an example of illogical emotional reaction.
Just use the term "ethnicity" so we can get on with science instead of wasting time trying to dig up old words for personal gratification.
The term doesn't apply to humans because through all history black people has been in contact with non-black people, and interbreeding without any trouble. Having a bit more melatonine in your skin doesn't make you a new subspecie.
But if your head size is huge (like Neanderthal), so huge that half your iterbreed newborns die or kill the mother, you are on the path of speciation but still the same specie because interbreeding is possible.
Note the humans and chimpanzees diverged like 5 million years ago. Neanderthal is very close to us and it's reclassified as it's own specie or as the same specie from time to time.
There is a nice graphic in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_... Neanderthal is not in the graphic, but if you want to add it, you should put in near the top left, between us and H. Erectus, probably closer to us.
I always recommend one of my favorite essays for this topic: “The categories were made for man, not man for the categories”
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-ma...
This is simply false. We know for a fact that humans have an in-group bias. Studies have shown that even infants and toddlers are biased toward their own in-group.
https://phys.org/news/2017-04-infants-racial-bias-members.ht...
https://time.com/67092/baby-racists-survival-strategy/
If what you claim is true, we would never have had miscegnation laws. Most people in the world wouldn't encourage marrying their own kind.
Just think about it. If people naturally favored the out-group ( people who look different ), racial/ethnic groups and diversity wouldn't exist. Blue eyes and blonde hair wouldn't exist because they are recessive traits. We wouldn't have any diversity because ethnic/racial groups require in-group bias to exist. The fact that we have black people, white people, indian people, chinese people, etc shows that in-group bias is the norm.
People naturally find their own kind and traits to be attractive. We know it's innate since it exists in babies. To find out-group features to be desirable requires external pressure - media, education, etc.
Edit: Since so many here are downvoting science because of their political agenda...
"We Choose Friends Who Are Genetically Similar to Us"
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/we-choose-friends-...
"I like your genes: People more likely to choose a spouse with similar DNA"
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140519160716.h...
Also, the difficulty of travel until quite recently would still lead to a lot of variety in different locations.
Also, that's not how recessive genes work.
> To find out-group features to be desirable requires external pressure - media, education, etc.
This is a massive mistake, of looking at an overall average and trying to apply it to individual situations. It's like expecting every man to be taller than every woman.
I'm not "reaching". I didn't do the research. Scientists did. The research was on 3 month old infants. Before they are conscious. Before they know how to speak.
> Also, the difficulty of travel until quite recently would still lead to a lot of variety in different locations.
Right because miscegnation laws existed in the US because one simply couldn't travel from one town in alabama to another town in alabama.
> Culture is much more powerful.
I agree. Hence why I wrote: "To find out-group features to be desirable requires external pressure - media, education, etc.". Government/media/propaganda can easily undo our natural programming. But that doesn't mean that underlying natural programming doesn't exist.
> Also, that's not how recessive genes work.
No. That's exactly how it works.
To show how powerful culture is, you are denying science because it goes against your "programming". Also, just because I'm pointing out science doesn't mean I'm for miscegnation laws or against people marrying outside their group. I'm for people marrying who they like. Also, ever notice that it's people with an agenda who always downvote science?
The reach is in how far you're applying it.
> I agree. Hence why I wrote: "To find out-group features to be desirable requires external pressure - media, education, etc.". Government/media/propaganda can easily undo our natural programming. But that doesn't mean that underlying natural programming doesn't exist.
But then you can't say the natural programming is the reason. It's one factor and not one of the bigger factors.
> No. That's exactly how it works.
> To show how powerful culture is, you are denying science because it goes against your "programming".
It's not how it works, and I didn't deny any science.
Do I seriously need to pull out a genetics textbook? If you keep a steady population and have people marry at random, the number of copies of any particular recessive gene will stay the same. Mix up everyone's eye genes and you'll have a billion people with at least one copy of the gene for blue eyes. If two people with one copy have children, about a quarter of them will have blue eyes.
Even if you were making a strawman of ultra-extreme outgroup preference, where couples want to pair brown and blue eyes above all else, you'll still have carriers marrying people with blue eyes and having blue-eyed children. Even if you remove all of those, once you have a single generation of kids that all have one brown gene and one blue gene, they'll mix back up to give you kids with blue eyes.
I'm not "applying it". I'm stating what it is.
> But then you can't say the natural programming is the reason.
Sure you can. Because as I said, infants do it. It's why the researchers chose infants and toddlers. Nobody TAUGHT an infant to prefer their own kind over others.
> It's one factor and not one of the bigger factors.
You are simply not getting it. We are NATURALLY programmed to prefer our in-group. But we can be programmed via propaganda ( government, media, education, etc ) to go AGAINST our programming.
> Do I seriously need to pull out a genetics textbook? If you keep a steady population
Not only do you fail at genetics, you fail at statistics.
> If two people with one copy have children, about a quarter of them will have blue eyes.
Right and 3/4th will have non-blue eyes. Just think about it. Breeding at random, the blue eyed population will simply diminish generation after generation.
> and have people marry at random
Also, who is talking about "random". The original commenter wrote : "I think people have an instinct for enriching their genome, that's why we're attracted to features our own group lacks, like different skin/hair color, facial structure, etc."
He was saying that people have an "instinct" and preference for out-group. I proved this was false with many sources. Science says that people have an "instinct" to prefer their in-group. The only way to counter it is with societal programming/propaganda. As I said.
I provided the sources. You aren't arguing against me, you are fighting against science. I'll end the "debate" here as it gets tiring repeating science over and over again.
But I'm not talking about infants. I'm talking about people in general. By the time you're an adult, it's 90% culture.
If culture and instincts were opposites, culture would win. Which you agree with!
So when you say "If people naturally favored the out-group ( people who look different ), racial/ethnic groups and diversity wouldn't exist." that's not true. If you flipped the instinctual switch, people would still be clique-y.
> Breeding at random, the blue eyed population will simply diminish generation after generation.
No it won't. Oh my god. The more the blue-eyed population shrinks this way, the more brown-eyed carriers you have. The more carriers you have, the more often two brown-eyed people have a blue-eyed baby. This hits a steady state very quickly. We don't run out of people with a recessive trait.
And if people suddenly preferred to hook up with opposite-eyed people, the number of blue-eyed kids would actually drop down for a generation before rising over time to the steady state!
> Also, who is talking about "random".
I laid out the random scenario and the extreme out-group scenario. Neither one causes recessive traits to stop showing up en masse.
> He was saying that people have an "instinct" and preference for out-group. I proved this was false with many sources.
Yeah he was wrong about that. But you overcorrected.
Edit:
Let me put this by itself. Really simple logic.
> Right and 3/4th will have non-blue eyes. Just think about it.
These sentences were discussing parents that have one of each gene, right?
So all the parents under discussion here have brown eyes.
But only 75% of their children have brown eyes.
That sure doesn't sound like blue eyes disappearing to me!
You specifically responded to my comment which was a response to "I think people have an instinct for enriching their genome...". INSTINCT. Something that's INBORN, not cultural. That's what I specifically responded to. You are being dishonest here.
> Yeah he was wrong about that. But you overcorrected.
Overcorrected? Oh give me a break.
> Let me put this by itself. Really simple logic... But only 75% of their children have brown eyes.
I'm so glad you caught on. So you do know a little bit about statistics. So now I know all your misleading replies are not based on ignorance but agenda. Now ask yourself, in your non-biased random world, which produces 75% brown eyes and 25% blue eyes, how some countries have nearly 90% blue eyes or over 50% blue eyes? Your logic proves that in the real world, there was a bias. I won't even bother with how a recessive mutation in a 99.99% brown-eyed world ( 8000 years or so ago ) can survive without some selection bias to begin with.
https://www.livescience.com/9578-common-ancestor-blue-eyes.h...
For fun, put your two browned eyed people with recessive blue eyed genes with 98 other people without any blue eye recessive genes. And see how things work out without any bias. Randomly breed that population without bias and see how things turn out. But then again, you already know the answer right? Oh yeah, make it "real" and don't create exactly 4 offsprings either. And see how things really turn out.
I just don't understand why people like you intentionally lie about such mundane stuff. I know that you know better since you "caught" my statistical "mistake". If you weren't wasting my and other people's time with lies, I wouldn't care. Heck, you are wasting your own time. I don't get it.
I'll end it here. For reals this time. Have a nice day.
I never said there was no bias. Why do you spend so long arguing against things I didn't say?
> For fun, put your two browned eyed people with recessive blue eyed genes with 98 other people without any blue eye recessive genes. And see how things work out without any bias. Randomly breed that population without bias and see how things turn out.
But in the real world, those genes are in a pretty big fraction of people. No matter how you shuffle them around, you'll end up with tens of millions of people with blue eyes.
> I just don't understand why people like you intentionally lie about such mundane stuff.
What the fuck are you talking about?
...I got flagged for saying 'fuck', great.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy–Weinberg_principle
Also anti-miscegenation laws is not a universal thing, but rather a specific facet of an Enlightenment-era Western culture, along with slavery.
It doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing situation. If your posture was true, only Asians would find Asian girls attractive, for example. The fact that mixed people exist is proof that a subset of the population finds variance attractive, and another subset doesn't or doesn't care.
We don't have to differentiate instinct from culture from nurture, just look at the final effect. Politics has no place in this discussion.
And do you think that their societal mores regarding inter-species sex were identical to those of typical humans today?
Also, our current definition of species takes into account whether there is significant interbreeding in the wild. So that makes your question rather circular.
Clearly, Neanderthals were very much within the acceptable mate boundary, the question was whether that occurred despite recognizing them as “other” or not.
That said, I'm sure they had some concept of "differentness," which would lie on a spectrum, rather than the black and white way the above poster described it.
Humans may, for instance, find people of different races to be less attractive in general. But exceptions can be made. I imagine if you are desperate enough, you widen the pool of acceptable candidates. I have no reason to think it was very different back then.
Perhaps in a general sense yes, but across millions of people across tens of thousands of years, there will always be outliers who'll mate with anything with two legs.
So I suppose they made a point, by definition, by doing so.
You could say they were separate subspecies, but it's not clear that such a designation is reasonable without likewise considering various groups of bushmen and pygmies (e.g. khoi, san, hadza, mbuti) separate subspecies from each other and from the rest of humans as well.
Perhaps culturally a geographically close Neanderthal would be easier to relate with than a more distant modern human, but that's pure speculation.