Comments on: Human-on-human sex

By: Tom Bri

Tom Bri — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 03:24:57 +0000

#4 you are thinking about the Nephilim, I believe. Described as ‘sons of God’. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim
Later giants were said to be descended from them.

By: bob

bob — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 20:20:10 +0000

The admixture makes more sense than any other explanation. It coincides with fossil finds in the middle east that show a 40,000 year overlap of Neanderthals and moderns, and which hint at shared morphology.

Furthermore, the human bottleneck 70,000 years ago would have taken away most of the variability between northern and southern populations. Neanderthal admixture is the best explanation of the (apparently) reintroduced genetic diversity in non-African populations of moderns.

By: Gary B

Gary B — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:09:53 +0000

I’ve long had the (unsupported) idea that the section of the Bible (in Genesis? I don’t recall) discussing sex between ‘men’ and something different and lesser, that was also described as ‘men’, was about this very thing. It was an attempt to prohibit having sex with the low-life neighbors who weren’t quite ‘men’.

By: Steve C

Steve C — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:57:19 +0000

I wouldn’t be surprised if modern human/neanderthal mating corresponded with the first use of alcohol.

By: gcochran

gcochran — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 19:29:17 +0000

If there was a later wave into Australia, Neanderthal admixture could have been acquired then. The date of original settlement may not be relevant.

By: Sandgroper

Sandgroper — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 19:04:32 +0000

It aways looked likely not to have occurred in Europe, and this gives that some support.

Good to see them using arXiv – more power to them. I don’t see the point in being gratuitous about it, but I really think we should applaud researchers who do this.

I’m determined to find a suitable open-access vehicle for my next paper, now.