Jump to content
Moontanman

Neanderthal!!!???!!!

Recommended Posts

This may be naïve, but I am not sure about the depiction of Neanderthals as they are proposed in the OP.... simply because there is plenty of evidence now that shows that Neanderthals and humans interbred... and I can see no way that any human would want to get jiggy with the depictions in the OP. lol. So - I would assume (maybe wrongly) that they actually looked a little more human than ape.Y

You're making the assumption that it was consensual.

 

 

Neanderthal's face size and features were a bit more similar to 'lower' primates than modern humans. What makes modern humans unique/different from neanderthals/archaics is that most modern humans are quite anatomically distinct looking from other primates.

Though the idea that neanderthals were just a bunch of hairy gorilla monsters is of course a bit of a stretch.

 

 

I understand what you are saying except for the neanderthals brains, they were bigger.

Depends which part of the brain you're talking about.

 

In terms of just general size, neanderthals had bigger brains than modern day humans, but not bigger than what modern humans had 40,000 years ago (cro magnon.)

 

 

Technically speaking, modern humans have larger temporal lobes, have a wider orbitofrontal cortex, larger olfactory bulbs, and larger paritel lobes compared to neanderthals/ archaic humans.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3619466/

Edited by EvanF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're making the assumption that it was consensual.

 

 

 

Well - I had thought about that - it would be difficult to tell, if not impossible... It it must have happened plenty of times rather than in just a few isolated instances for the dna to appear so prominently in our genetic code.. That made me think that some of it at least could have been consensual. Although I really am just guessing here.

 

Neanderthal's face size and features were a bit more similar to 'lower' primates than modern humans. What makes modern humans unique/different from neanderthals/archaics is that most modern humans are quite anatomically distinct looking from other primates.

Though the idea that neanderthals were just a bunch of hairy gorilla monsters is of course a bit of a stretch.

 

 

I wasn't going to post this as it might come across as racist - I am not. I saw a video of BB King playing the blues with John Mayer recently... BB King is quite old in that vid and some of his facial features he exhibits are very similar to some primates I have seen... OMG - that sounds awful, but it was just what I thought at the time and I thought about this thread (I know that there is no Neanderthal dna in African people apparently). Look at his nose and cheek shapes when he is soloing. Awesome jam too if you like the blues!! :)

 

Edited by DrP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wasn't going to post this as it might come across as racist - I am not. I saw a video of BB King playing the blues with John Mayer recently... BB King is quite old in that vid and some of his facial features he exhibits are very similar to some primates I have seen... OMG - that sounds awful, but it was just what I thought at the time and I thought about this thread (I know that there is no Neanderthal dna in African people apparently). Look at his nose and cheek shapes when he is soloing. Awesome jam too if you like the blues!! :)

 

 

Lol, DrP...You just went there.

 

No worries, this is a science forum after all, not a politics forum. :lol:

 

It's not surprising there are many people alive with 'primate' looking features...we are 'primates' after all.

I couldn't really tell you though... the more 'primate' looking features are possibly due to being slightly less related to the 'Cro magnon' root group, which was possibly the 'forefather' of many modern human groups that spread around the world and replaced the archaic groups. If you look at the Cro magnon1 skull, it has basically none of the 'primate' like features of archaic humans, which is quite strange... I believe the 'Cro magnon' groups were at war with the archaic groups like the neanderthals, which ended in the neanderthal's extinction, but the neanderthals didn't exit without leaving some of their DNA behind through cross breeding...However, our species (for the most part) is still significantly different looking than other primates. In terms of evolution theory, our species was a divergent group out of Africa (or elsewhere) that went through some kind of freak rapid evolution that not only increased our brain power significantly but altered our features from looking like archaic primates.

 

 

It's telling that certain tribes of people at the distant stretches of the earth have some the highest concentrations of Denisovan/archaic DNA, etc...because that is where some of the last remnants of archaic groups survived the H.S.Sapien replacement/'Cro magnon' invasions.

 

However, a modern day African skull is still quite different looking from a neanderthal skull/archaic skull.

Edited by EvanF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think these more 'primate' looking features are possibly due to being slightly less related to the 'Cro magnon' root group, which I think was the 'forefather' of our current species that spread around the world and replaced the archaic groups.

 

 

 

Cro-magnon? Really?

 

Well, that blows the 'out of Africa' theories right out of the water, doesn't it.

 

Trailer parks across the US will be rejoicing at that astonishing revelation!

 

 

PS George Dubya was renowned for his distinctly simian facial expressions when faced with a difficult question. Wonder how the trailer trash school of anthropology explain that little factoid :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Cro-magnon? Really?

 

Well, that blows the 'out of Africa' theories right out of the water, doesn't it.

 

Trailer parks across the US will be rejoicing at that astonishing revelation!

 

 

PS George Dubya was renowned for his distinctly simian facial expressions when faced with a difficult question. Wonder how the trailer trash school of anthropology explain that little factoid

No. Cro magnon likely came 'out of Africa.'

 

Trailer parks across America don't even know what a 'Cro magnon' is.

 

And who knows...maybe George Bush has some neanderthal ancestry...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Cro magnon likely came 'out of Africa.'

 

 

 

Cro-Magnon isn't even a taxon. It's a somewhat mixed bag of exclusively European early modern human fossils. You cannot reasonably propose them as a credible common ancestor of all extant members of our species. We were in Australia even, long before the earliest Cro-Magnon date.

 

And to suggest that BB King is even slightly more distantly related to our common ancestor would put him into an outgroup would it not?

 

Is this really what you wanted to say? I really do hope not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Cro-Magnon isn't even a taxon. It's a somewhat mixed bag of exclusively European early modern human fossils. You cannot reasonably propose them as a credible common ancestor of all extant members of our species. We were in Australia even, long before the earliest Cro-Magnon date.

 

And to suggest that BB King is even slightly more distantly related to our common ancestor would put him into an outgroup would it not?

 

Is this really what you wanted to say? I really do hope not.

"Cro magnon" is not a taxon because they are considered to be a Homo sapien sapien by mainstream classification.

Cro magnon1 was the oldest skull that is anatomically closest to our modern species.

A later 'Cro magnon' skull that dated around 25,000 years ago was related to almost all human groups through haplogroup N.

 

When you say "we were in Australia before the earliest Cro-magnon date," I think you might be referring to archaic homo sapiens and Denisovans.

 

http://www.abroadintheyard.com/denisovans-discover-australia/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Cro magnon" is not a taxon because they are considered to be a Homo sapien sapien by mainstream classification.

Cro magnon1 was the oldest skull that is anatomically closest to our modern species.

A later 'Cro magnon' skull that dated around 25,000 years ago was related to almost all human groups through haplogroup N.

 

When you say "we were in Australia before the earliest Cro-magnon date," I think you might be referring to archaic homo sapiens and Denisovans.

 

http://www.abroadintheyard.com/denisovans-discover-australia/

 

Cro-Magnon1 is only 28,000 years old - it is not especially representative of our species at that time. Haplogroup N pretty well excludes all Africans. Just where exactly are you setting the boundaries for our species?

 

And I do not need you to tell me what I mean by the first arrival of early moderns into Australia (ca. 50,000 +/- 10ka BP).

Edited by sethoflagos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Cro-Magnon1 is only 28,000 years old - it is not especially representative of our species at that time. Haplogroup N pretty well excludes all Africans. Just where exactly are you setting the boundaries for our species?

 

And I do not need you to tell me what I mean by the first arrival of early moderns into Australia (ca. 50,000 +/- 10ka BP).

Cro magnon1 is around 30,000-32,000 year old, but the oldest Cro magnon type skulls date to around 45,000 years old, of course coinciding with the upper-paleolithic revolution.

There could possibly be much older Cro magnon-type skulls around Europe, North Africa, and farther east, but there is little archeology being done looking specifically for early human remains around Europe.

 

I mentioned haplogroup N just to help you understand what I meant by the Cro magnon group(s) being the 'forefather' of many modern human groups.

It doesn't exclude all Africans.

North africans are connected to haplogroup N.

Haplogroups are kind of vague though. I believe that there was an older divergent tribe of 'cro magnon'/modern types that was also the forefather of 'South' Africans that went through Africa supplanting the older archaic humans. There were many groups of archaics running around Europe, Asia and Africa as late as 40,000 years ago...There were even Homo erectus types in Africa as late as 70,000 years ago.

 

Cro magnon is anatomically 88% similar to modern day humans and definitely representative of our modern species. The skulls found in Africa like the Herto(idaltu) and Kabwe are quite 'archaic' in their appearance and range from only 70%-50% anatomical similarity to our modern species.

http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=jca

 

 

 

*Edit

sethoflagos.

 

 

You said that "We" were in Australia "LONG before" the earliest Cro magnon date...

 

Actually, the general time period of modern human migration to Australia just happens to coincide with the earliest dated Cro magnon remains and the Upper paleolithic, which led to larger human populations,(40,000-50,000 BP).

Edited by EvanF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a 28,000 year old skull from France appears to be a little more modern than a 160,000 year old skull from Ethiopia. This is hardly earth-shattering news is it?

 

Maybe greater insight can be gained from evidence lying between those dates,

 

 

Haplogroups are kind of vague though. I believe that there was an older divergent tribe of 'cro magnon'/modern types that was also the forefather of 'South' Africans that went through Africa supplanting the older archaic humans.

 

Are you referring to http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Sci...330..659M?

 

Very exciting stuff going on at Blombos Cave. A benchmark technology of undisputably modern human behaviour at 75,000 years BP. That puts your 'cultural revolution' back 30,000 years, deep into the Middle Stone Age and most definitely in sub-saharan Africa. (Incidently, rather early for the birth of Haplogroup N to have any conceivable involvement).

 

I don't believe any reputable scientist would dream of calling this a Cro-Magnon site, though. Way too eurocentric a concept.

 

But I'm quite comfortable to see sites such as this as indicative of the activities of the common ancestors of all of us. Besides which, it places my wife and I back in the same taxon. Which is nice :)

Edited by sethoflagos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a 28,000 year old skull from France appears to be a little more modern than a 160,000 year old skull from Ethiopia. This is hardly earth-shattering news is it?

 

Maybe greater insight can be gained from evidence lying between those dates,

 

 

 

Very exciting stuff going on at Blombos Cave. A benchmark technology of undisputably modern human behaviour at 75,000 years BP. That puts your 'cultural revolution' back 30,000 years, deep into the Middle Stone Age and most definitely in sub-saharan Africa. (Incidently, rather early for the birth of Haplogroup N to have any conceivable involvement).

 

I don't believe any reputable scientist would dream of calling this a Cro-Magnon site, though. Way too eurocentric a concept.

 

But I'm quite comfortable to see sites such as this as indicative of the activities of the common ancestors of all of us. Besides which, it places my wife and I back in the same taxon. Which is nice :)

It's not just a "little more modern" it is almost a whole 20%-50% more anatomically 'modern' than the African skulls,(Idaltu, Kabwe, etc.)

It's only "earth shattering" in the sense that the mainstream consensus keeps repeating that anatomically modern humans were in Africa 160,000+ years ago, which could only be considered true in a very vague sense.

 

 

 

The finds of the Bombos cave are kind of interesting, but really not much different than other archaic finds. Neanderthals also made "line artwork" and chipped tools as well.https://phys.org/news/2014-09-hashtag-evidence-neanderthal-art.html

 

But this isn't anywhere near the level of art seen in the Upper paleolithic that consists of advanced figurative, complex, and symbolic expressions. In that sense the findings in the Bombos cave are not really a cultural revolution.

 

The upper paleolithic contains the first undisputed advanced artwork, musical instruments, anthropomorphized figures, evidence of complex thinking, etc.

That is a real cultural revolution and evidence of significant cognitive change.

 

70,000-60,000 BP in Africa also roughly connects to the appearance of modernity around 50,000 years ago, with modern types theoretically starting to emerge...it's just that all of the archeological evidence is more supportive of around 50,000 years ago with the Cro magnons.

 

 

I don't know why anyone should have a phobia of a Euro-centric model, if that's what the evidence largely supports.

However, "Cro magnons" most likely emerged from tropical north Africa, as archaic indigenous Europeans had not only tropical body proportions, but also darker skin, both of which modern Europeans no longer have. http://www.livescience.com/42838-european-hunter-gatherer-genome-sequenced.html

However, certain parts of north Africa are also connected to Europe by Spain, and thus could be considered 'part of Europe'...East Africa is part of the middle east, and thus could be considered part of the 'middle east' and eastern Europe...In that sense, trying to pin it down to a certain continent almost becomes meaningless.

Edited by EvanF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So everything and everybody was archaic until one small, select band left the dark continent, and in a sudden blinding flash turned spontaneously into modern 'Cro-Magnons'.

 

Smacks rather of divine intervention, doesn't it?

 

I guess it's clear that we both find each others point of view morally repulsive. Sleep well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So everything and everybody was archaic until one small, select band left the dark continent, and in a sudden blinding flash turned spontaneously into modern 'Cro-Magnons'.

 

Smacks rather of divine intervention, doesn't it?

 

I guess it's clear that we both find each others point of view morally repulsive. Sleep well.

"Divine intervention" sounds kind of silly...though there are many wild theories out there.

In terms of evolution theory, it rather 'smacks' of some kind of rapid genetic changes/evolution, which is actually evident when studying human DNA.

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean...This discussion has nothing to do with "morals." You must have misinterpreted something I said.

 

 

But anyways, we need to stick to mostly talking about Neanderthals for the sake of this thread.

Edited by EvanF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean...This discussion has nothing to do with "morals." You must have misinterpreted something I said.

 

 

 

 

 

No. But I was watching most intently for what you didn't say (which I often find to be more informative). In particular, it was your deliberate sidestep of this key question.

 

 

 

And to suggest that BB King is even slightly more distantly related to our common ancestor would put him into an outgroup would it not?

 

Is this really what you wanted to say? I really do hope not.

 

I even gave you two further chances to declare that your (apparently arbitrary) choice of N-MtDNA Cro-Magnon as the common ancestor of all modern humans, excluded the vast majority of extant sub-saharan Africans from that category (not to mention M Haplogroup Indians etc etc). You chose not take those opportunities either. I take your silence as strong indication that this is indeed what you believe, coupled with insufficient spine to admit it explicitly.

 

The final straw was your derisory hand-waving dismissal of the recent MSA advanced culture evidence from Blombos Cave, Still Bay etc. strongly indicating that you hadn't the slightest interest in counter-evidence to your speculations.

 

I see no science in what you write. But I do detect an attempt to abuse taxonomic classification for purposes of racial discrimination.

 

At which point it ceases to be a scientific argument, and becomes an ethical one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

No. But I was watching most intently for what you didn't say (which I often find to be more informative). In particular, it was your deliberate sidestep of this key question.

 

 

I even gave you two further chances to declare that your (apparently arbitrary) choice of N-MtDNA Cro-Magnon as the common ancestor of all modern humans, excluded the vast majority of extant sub-saharan Africans from that category (not to mention M Haplogroup Indians etc etc). You chose not take those opportunities either. I take your silence as strong indication that this is indeed what you believe, coupled with insufficient spine to admit it explicitly.

 

The final straw was your derisory hand-waving dismissal of the recent MSA advanced culture evidence from Blombos Cave, Still Bay etc. strongly indicating that you hadn't the slightest interest in counter-evidence to your speculations.

 

I see no science in what you write. But I do detect an attempt to abuse taxonomic classification for purposes of racial discrimination.

 

At which point it ceases to be a scientific argument, and becomes an ethical one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you alright?

 

I was replying to DrP.

In no way did I specifically endorse or initiate any of what you are implying.

 

 

You have misinterpreted what I said, or perhaps you misunderstood what I said. And now you've even gone to the point of misrepresenting what I've said to the point of being offensive.

 

The N haplogroup of the quite late Cro magnon (24,000-25,000 BP) being related to so many human groups was simply to show you what I meant by the Cromagnon types being the 'forefather' of many modern humans/much of our modern species. Obviously that SINGLE 'cro magnon' could not be the forefather of literally every human group, as the 'modern types' that spread around the world were made up of a few 'diverse' groups coming presumably out of Africa.

 

And here's your most basic misunderstanding...I talk about science, evidence, and theory, that is all.

 

This is not a politics or religion forum. If you don't want to talk about science or neanderthals and hominids, then you have nothing more to add to this topic.

Edited by EvanF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like it or not, these are the logical consequences that must be taken on board if we were to accept the speculations that you have been bombarding us with lately.

 

So either present us with a convincing dataset demonstrating that extant basal lineages such as those occurring in high frequency amongst the Khoisan and Nilotic populations, for example, can be characterised by a suite of 'archaic' physical characteristics (such as heavy brow ridges, receding chin, sloping forehead, occipital bun, supraoccipital crest or whatever) that average so far beyond the phenotypic range of all other extant human lineages that they should be considered as taxonomically distinct:

 

...or

 

Accept that any reasonable estimate for the appearance of 'anatomically modern humans' must predate any significant isolation or divergence of those lineages and withdraw your uncorroborated contrary assertions without reservation.

 

There is no option 3)

Edited by sethoflagos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like it or not, these are the logical consequences that must be taken on board if we were to accept the speculations that you have been bombarding us with lately.

 

So either present us with a convincing dataset demonstrating that extant basal lineages such as those occurring in high frequency amongst the Khoisan and Nilotic populations, for example, can be characterised by a suite of 'archaic' physical characteristics (such as heavy brow ridges, receding chin, sloping forehead, occipital bun, supraoccipital crest or whatever) that average so far beyond the phenotypic range of all other extant human lineages that they should be considered as taxonomically distinct:

 

...or

 

Accept that any reasonable estimate for the appearance of 'anatomically modern humans' must predate any significant isolation or divergence of those lineages and withdraw your uncorroborated contrary assertions without reservation.

 

There is no option 3)

 

Speaking of what is logical...you're setting up a blatant false dichotomy and misrepresentation of what I said. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

 

 

 

 

I don't speculate. I only deal with evidence.

 

You've gone so far left field, I'm not even sure who you are trying to argue against at this point.

 

Stick to talking about neanderthals for this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Speaking of what is logical...you're setting up a blatant false dichotomy and misrepresentation of what I said. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

 

 

 

I'm happy to accept the moderators considered opinion on this. Either way. Feel free to report. The verdict would be interesting.

 

 

 

 

I don't speculate. I only deal with evidence.

 

 

 

 

I look, but I see no empirical evidence to support these claims. Quite the opposite.

Edited by sethoflagos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I look, but I see no empirical evidence to support these claims. Quite the opposite.

I can't help the faults of your own personal perception.

 

You also have to be more specific in which "claims" you are referring to.

 

You seem to be making assumptions and arguing against something I did not put forth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help the faults of your own personal perception.

 

You also have to be more specific in which "claims" you are referring to.

 

You seem to be making assumptions and arguing against something I did not put forth.

 

Grow a spine and answer for the consequences of your stated beliefs. Or retract them. Simples!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Grow a spine and answer for the consequences of your stated beliefs. Or retract them. Simples!

I have no "stated beliefs"...only possible explanations.

 

 

You need to stick to talking about the appearance of Neanderthals, and stop trying to hijack this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. How would a Neanderthal react to you informing him that he appeared archaic?

 

Would he have you before, after or with the wild garlic and chives?

 

 

 

 

Yes, I'm bored at last, No sign of any counter-argument worth thinking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, and I'm not sure so maybe one of you could tell me, weren't the racial characteristics that distinguish the differences in our appearances already in place with homo erectus, so the early moderns' who first appeared in africa intermingled their DNA far more then they replaced any populations.

 

The largest single difference between early moderns and the neanderthals was that moderns had a hole in their spine large enough to house the nerve bundle required to control the breath well enough to speak. Along with some differences in the brain the early moderns were able to speak where as the neanderthals could not. A reason sub-Saharan africans are still our best singers, the rest of us have ancestors that bred with people who couldn't even talk.

 

The neanderthals did have large brains and were more culturally advanced then us, the first to bury their dead. This advancement could have been part of what drew us to mate with them, though a lot of people just mate for fun. There could well have been more neanderthal DNA with us today if not for one simple fact. The male offspring were infertile. There is no neanderthal DNA in our testicles. If the female offspring preferred to mate with moderns because we could speak, well, there would have been blood.

 

As far as neanderthal appearance, 47 posts and not a word about how much hair they had. if they were naked then they looked far more like us then other primates. I personally think they lost their fur the same time we did. It was when the australopithecine figured out the cats wouldn't follow them into the water. We carved a niche for ourselves at the edge of the water, and to this day it is still our most valuable real estate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, and I'm not sure so maybe one of you could tell me, weren't the racial characteristics that distinguish the differences in our appearances already in place with homo erectus, so the early moderns' who first appeared in africa intermingled their DNA far more then they replaced any populations.

 

The largest single difference between early moderns and the neanderthals was that moderns had a hole in their spine large enough to house the nerve bundle required to control the breath well enough to speak. Along with some differences in the brain the early moderns were able to speak where as the neanderthals could not. A reason sub-Saharan africans are still our best singers, the rest of us have ancestors that bred with people who couldn't even talk.

 

The neanderthals did have large brains and were more culturally advanced then us, the first to bury their dead. This advancement could have been part of what drew us to mate with them, though a lot of people just mate for fun. There could well have been more neanderthal DNA with us today if not for one simple fact. The male offspring were infertile. There is no neanderthal DNA in our testicles. If the female offspring preferred to mate with moderns because we could speak, well, there would have been blood.

 

As far as neanderthal appearance, 47 posts and not a word about how much hair they had. if they were naked then they looked far more like us then other primates. I personally think they lost their fur the same time we did. It was when the australopithecine figured out the cats wouldn't follow them into the water. We carved a niche for ourselves at the edge of the water, and to this day it is still our most valuable real estate.

Not really sure why you would come to the conclusion that all the racial distinctiveness of modern humans was already in place over a million years ago with homo erectus...

It was likely much later (roughly around 70,000-50,000 BP) that modern humans started to become 'modern' and developed into diverse different human groups.

 

More than intermingling, our species likely 'wiped out' the archaic humans, as is what happened with Neanderthals in Europe.

I don't think modern human groups consensually intermingled with the archaic groups, at least not to any significant extent.

Most modern day human skulls look more or less the same, with only slight differences...showing that we all descend from a common species/ancestor.

There were some isolated modern human groups that were 'over run' by archaics however...The Australian aborigines for example carry a significant amount of Denisovan/archaic DNA. There are also many European and Asiatic people that carry a small amount of neanderthal DNA.

 

As far as "sub saharan Africans" being "our best singers"...that's quite a subjective opinion. The first musical instruments actually originated from Europe (40,000 years ago.)

 

Neanderthals were not more culturally advanced than true modern humans (cromagnons.)

Burying dead bodies is not necessarily equal to being advanced. There are basic/practical reasons why you would bury a body, for example to keep the body from smelling and attracting dangerous predatory animals, just to give one reason.

 

 

As far as Neanderthal hair...By what logic would you conclude that our two species lost all of their hair at the same time?

Neanderthals and homo s. sapiens were two divergent species living in two separate climates. I don't think they had quite as much hair as a gorilla, but there is a likelihood of neanderthals being quite hairy, not just because they were archaic humans, but because they lived for thousands of years in ice age Europe where hair would be an obvious adaptation/advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really sure why you would come to the conclusion that all the racial distinctiveness of modern humans was already in place over a million years ago with homo erectus...

It was likely much later (roughly around 70,000-50,000 BP) that modern humans started to become 'modern' and developed into diverse different human groups.

 

More than intermingling, our species likely 'wiped out' the archaic humans, as is what happened with Neanderthals in Europe.

I don't think modern human groups consensually intermingled with the archaic groups, at least not to any significant extent.

Most modern day human skulls look more or less the same, with only slight differences...showing that we all descend from a common species/ancestor.

There were some isolated modern human groups that were 'over run' by archaics however...The Australian aborigines for example carry a significant amount of Denisovan/archaic DNA. There are also many European and Asiatic people that carry a small amount of neanderthal DNA.

 

As far as "sub saharan Africans" being "our best singers"...that's quite a subjective opinion. The first musical instruments actually originated from Europe (40,000 years ago.)

 

Neanderthals were not more culturally advanced than true modern humans (cromagnons.)

Burying dead bodies is not necessarily equal to being advanced. There are basic/practical reasons why you would bury a body, for example to keep the body from smelling and attracting dangerous predatory animals, just to give one reason.

 

 

As far as Neanderthal hair...By what logic would you conclude that our two species lost all of their hair at the same time?

Neanderthals and homo s. sapiens were two divergent species living in two separate climates. I don't think they had quite as much hair as a gorilla, but there is a likelihood of neanderthals being quite hairy, not just because they were archaic humans, but because they lived for thousands of years in ice age Europe where hair would be an obvious adaptation/advantage.

 

 

First of all I was actually hoping for more evidence based material. Here is a link to a scholarly article, and a quote from it that pretty well refutes your opinions, though I wasn't disappointed to hear your opinions at all so don't take it the wrong way.

 

http://crcooper01.people.ysu.edu/trikhaus%202005.pdf

 

"The earliest modern humans outside of the core area of eastern Africa can be understood only if a variable degree of admixture with regional groups of late archaic humans occurred. "

 

This is something along the lines of what I had read earlier and it seems to make sense. The erectus that had been living outside of Africa for a period of some 1.5 million years would have had plenty of time to develop into the distinctive regional appearances we call races. Then in one region the transition to early modern occurs over a period of say any where from 2000 to 20,000 years, leaking DNA constantly to the other regions, but that DNA being absorbed into the local appearances as it moves. So to symplify, it would mean that the first early modern to reach Cambodia did not look like the African early modern, he looked like an east Indian early modern because that's where he came from, not Africa.

 

What you suggest, that the early moderns "wiped out" the others and then went on to diversify to such an extant, holds less water to me because they didn't have time nor reason. You only give early moderns 60.000 years to achieve something erectus couldn't do in 1.5 million ?!? The groups had not beed separated for long enough to become sexually incompatible so the DNA was good.

 

To my understanding all Eurasians carry some Neanderthal DNA. Your idea that the sex that led to that was nonconsensual is not in keeping with the behaviour of the species. Not only do the Bonobo chimps, our closest living relatives, enjoy all manner of sex (except incest), including as often as not gang bang, but modern humans enjoy all different kinds as well, need I make a list. The point being that for other species sex is something that gives them satisfaction, so much satisfaction that they will compete to the death at times for some, but they don't enjoy it the way we do. We've got all the bells and whistles, women's nipples get hard and so on, we'll spend all night at it. Neanderthals and early moderns were sexually compatible, intelligent, good looking creatures who absolutely loved having sex. What possible reason could you suggest for them to not consent?

 

​Maybe the reason the Europeans made the flute is because they had such bad singing voices. Just watch youtube for plenty of examples of people who play instruments but can't sing. Plus from what I can see, Africans can sing anything the Eurasians can, plus Rap, which Eurasians frankly suck at. Africans have some serious breath control and I wonder if avoiding the Neanderthal DNA had something to do with that.

 

That Neanderthals were able to address the "basic/practical reasons why you would bury a body" at a time in our history when early moderns could not, imdicates to me at least that they were more culturally advanced then early moderns at that time. Neanderthals had a larger brain then any primate that ever lived. The early moderns that first made contact with them could well have had a better organized/shaped brain, but Neanderthals must have had some knowledge to go along with the big brain that the early modern could use, and cultural knowledge such as burial practices is what the evidence tells us they had.

 

When you say early moderns "wiped out" archaics do you mean with violence? I don't really think much of that was going on. For one thing with the advent of spears and use of fire our territory was huge, we could eat almost anything and resources were plentiful. On the other hand technology and knowledge were in short supply and high demand. When two troops met, to me it seems more likely that they would be more interested in trading knowledge and DNA then in making war. Threats yes, we have a long and illustrious past of making threats. The australopithecine we evolved from could open its' mouth wider then any other primate that ever lived. In becoming human he just moved the weapon out of his mouth and into his hand, but how does he use it? Humans are after all an extremely fragile species. A scratch could get infected and kill you so if you do go to war it has to be for an awfully good reason, there will be heavy losses on both sides.

 

Humans don't use fur for insulation, they use subcutaneous fat, (the only terrestrial animal to do that except for a opossum I think, not sure) The thick bones of the Neanderthal proly indicates not that he was so strong, but that he was so fat. He metabolized fat differently then early moderns too, proly eating a lot of fat animals in the cold. He may have developed to have a little more hair then us, but with the thick bones and no reason to right that off to strength it proly was the fat. He didn't make as close fitted clothing as the early moderns, depending more on robes and what he was born with. As it warmed up the early moderns took off their coats, and the Neanderthals unable to regulate their temperature that way, over heated. They were a cold weather animal that got wiped out by warm weather.

 

At the time when hominids made the transition from using fur to using subcutaneous fat for insulation, it must have been because they had found a nice niche for themselves that favoured that trait. I think it was when the australopithecine learned how to break open shellfish with rocks, moving them down to the waters edge and learning how to use tools. Cats too, the australopithecine had cousins who chose to remain living in trees and who didm't survive that long. The use of subcutaneous fat by aquatic mammals for insulation is common, except for some, like beavers, who like to keep heavy to help with diving. The use of subcutaneous fat is so rare for land mammals, as is bipedalism. Moving on 4 legs is quicker and fur protects from sun, abrasion and is so much lighter. Yet we took the fat and I think is was 3.5 million years ago. Neanderthal may have developed to have a little more hair then us, or maybe even a lot, but he was getting the hair back. It wasn't a case of him not losing it yet. All of us lost the fur a long long time ago.

The proper niche for a human is at the waters edge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.