Aardvark Posted December 16, 2004 Author Share Posted December 16, 2004 Sarcasm? Hmmmm maybe, but the point is not beating someone to death with a club but having a brain capable of thinking about beating someone to death with a club for gain. Did Neanderthal possess this wisdom or grasp the concept of warfare? Like the Dodo, Neanderthal never saw it coming. More like silliness, i just can't help myself sometimes As for your point about grasping the concept of warfare. I agree that homo sapiens probably had greater capacity for abstract reasoning and communication enabling them to work in a more co ordinated manner in larger groups and between groups. This does strike me as the defining difference between the two population groups. I don't actually think the homo sapiens did engage in warfare against the Neanderthals on a direct basis, but rather those superior intellectual attributes enabled them to gradually marginalise and usurp the Neaderthals, pushing their populations into more and more marginal areas. The superior grasp of abtracts would have been of benefit in organised hunting and in the passing on of new ideas and innovations as well as promoting greater cohension in larger groups, strength in numbers. All this supposes that homo sapiens were responsible for the extinction of Neanderthals. Personally, that is the view i take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbender Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 ..we had the ability to make many different noises thanks to a special bone in the throat (i forgot its name) and though new evidence showed they might have had the same ability as well, most scientists doubt that they had the gift of language.... its the hyoid bone, and neanderthals has it too, but they couldn't vocalize as well becasue their throats aren't as high up as ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbender Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 ...particular scene from 2001: Space Odyssey... I hated this movie. Absolutely hate almost ever minute of it. ANyways in this scene we really don't know what these apes are supposed to be, but I doubt they were humans and neanderthals. I think they were supposed the common ancestor of both of us, australopithecus. Also did you notice there were some real chimpanzee babies in that scene? what a sucky movie, I had to say it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 The movie was ambitious at the time, to say the least. Try reading the book (it's based on the screenplay by Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick, which was in turn based on Clarke's short "The Sentinel". It makes a lot more sense than the film does, because the film avoids pandering to the thickest viewers like the current "have characters point and explain" crop do.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbender Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 When I am watching a movie I like to be entertained. I want the characters to have depth. I want to care about the characters. I want the plot to be based on something that I can easily understand and the story told in a cohesive way. This movie had none of this in my opinion. It reminded me of the film "Contact". When i finished watching the both of them I felt like I just wasted 2 hours of my life. I didn't understand the ending of either of these movies at all and that made me mad too. I might try reading the book actually so I don't still feel so confused when I think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Hellbender, I suspect you did not see this film on a full cinema screen, in the 1960s,, when special effects meant tomato ketchup for blood or sitting in a 'boat' in front of a back-projection screen. The realism was so far ahead of anything that had been done before. (Alexi Leonov, one of the first cosmonauts, and the first man to space walk, said to Clarke, after he saw the film "Now I have been in space twice.") Most people who saw it back then, liked it for the effects, though they didn't get the story. This has always puzzled me because I thought the story could hardly have been made simpler. Remember, there is only one character in the film. This point was echoed the year following the film's release by a certain Neil Armstrong. "One small step for a man, a giant leap for mankind." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbender Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Hmm I'm gald you enjoyed this movie, and it must have been cool back then in the theaters, with all the pretty LSD colors and whatnot. I still don't like this film. So he's a big giant fetus at the end.....okay. I know it was supposed to be symbolic of something, but there were no resolutions, no questions answered. I will not argue with you that the realism and setting were bad however. The sets were good and elaborate and sometimes really gave you rhe feeling of being in space. I thenk "Alien" does this much better though. What was that black monolith? What happened to Dr. Floyd? Why did HAL go nuts? Why was the main character watching himself get older and older at the end? How did the black rectangle thing go from Kenya to burying itself on the moon? What did the black thing do to the astronaut at the end? You may answer these questions if you want but I intended them to be rhetorical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimeTraveler Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Hmm I'm gald you enjoyed this movie, and it must have been cool back then in the theaters, with all the pretty LSD colors and whatnot. I still don't like this film. So he's a big giant fetus at the end.....okay. I know it was supposed to be symbolic of something, but there were no resolutions, no questions answered. I will not argue with you that the realism and setting were bad however. The sets were good and elaborate and sometimes really gave you rhe feeling of being in space. I thenk "Alien" does this much better though. What was that black monolith? What happened to Dr. Floyd? Why did HAL go nuts? Why was the main character watching himself get older and older at the end? How did the black rectangle thing go from Kenya to burying itself on the moon? What did the black thing do to the astronaut at the end? You may answer these questions if you want but I intended them to be rhetorical. I just watched it for the first time about two weeks ago, those questions pretty much sum up how I felt after watching the movie. Although I was pretty impressed with how well the movie was made, considering when it was made. As for the Neanderthal extinction, has anyone considered the idea of enslavement by homo sapiens ? Is there any evidence that may suggest anything of that nature? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Still successfully fighting down the urge to reply to your rhetorical question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 If the book is too much effort, watch 2010: The Year We Make Contact. That at least fills in some of the gaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syntax252 Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 I would prefer to think that some interbreeding occured and the Neanderthal population dwindled peacefully into our own. There is no conclusive evidence to suggest a violent end to the Neanderthalis sp. at all. I kinda think so too, and in today's world, wouldn't it be possible to check out the DNA of bones known to be Neanderthal for markers that might testify to whether or not present day man has a Neanderthal heritage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbender Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 This is one of the theories presented to me in biological anthropology. HUman fossils found before and after the Neanderthals went extinct showed no signs of interbreeding. Surely some of the Neanderthals traits would have shown up sometime, but there really is no evidence for this. I'm sure it wouldn't be waste of time to test, liek you said, syntax. Besides knowing what neanderthals looked like, I find it hard that any Homo sapiens would even want to copulate with one.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syntax252 Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 I find it hard that any Homo sapiens would even want[/i'] to copulate with one.... Oh, I don't know about that. You otta come to the East end of Battle Creek some Friday night and see what some of these guys drag into the bar with them..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbender Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 LOL! Eww I guess you are right, but still, I had to watch a lot of movies in college about extinct hominids and they made them all look like what their likely appearance in life was, and then later that interbreeding thing was mentioned. Bony forheads and wide noses aren't my thing in a girl, but I guess some individuals wouldn't mind. Also come to think of it, I do see some people who have a lot of archaic features. Anyone ever watch football? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Portugal. Coastal cave. Hominid remains with mixed sapiens and neanderthalis features. According to some. And not to others.. ...Need to google. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbender Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 wow I've never heard of that. Well I retract what I said earlier about reading that none were found. I will have to look at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimeTraveler Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Portugal. Coastal cave. Hominid remains with mixed sapiens and neanderthalis features. According to some. And not to others.. ...Need to google. This seems to be a leading theory, but as you said it is debated. Some questions I would like to know the answer to: 1. Has any evidence of any kind of slavery been suggested? 2. With the recent findings of the 'hobbit people', does that up the count of homonid species to 18? or are they considered part of an existing species? And these ones, which is open to opinion: 3. Doesn't it seem to make sense that interbreeding was a major part of the extinction of all these other species when you look at the differences in genetic makeup of modern humans? 4. Is it possible that our genetic makeup just overtook theirs in interbreeding and we became the dominant species? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ehlana Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Mesdames et messieurs... Have any of you ever seen an Australian aboriginal? They look... um... primitive. Well, suffice it to say that they look (only facially) like what you'd imagine seeing in a movie about cavemen. But they are quite human. They look very unattractive to me. "2. With the recent findings of the 'hobbit people', does that up the count of homonid species to 18? or are they considered part of an existing species?" I don't know if they're close enough to humans to be considered hominids. But I know they are hardly considered part of an existing species. They turned out to be much more primitive than people had hoped. The tools found near them must have belonged to homo erectus. "3. Doesn't seem to make sense that interbreeding was a major part of the extinction of all these other species when you look at the differences in genetic makeup of modern humans?" If it were interbreeding, it would not be extinction. It would be evolution. Or at least, the extinction would not be an effect of interbreeding. And I say no, it doesn't seem to make sense. Obviously, humans are evolving as we speak and not because of breeding with different species. "4. Is it possible that our genetic makeup just overtook theirs in interbreeding and we became the dominant species?" Personally, I doubt it because there have to be very special circumstances in order for two species to interbreed... but I'm really not qualified to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Maybe the result of Neanderthal/sapian coupling would be sterile. This would be difficult to find in the fossil record... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimeTraveler Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 "3. Doesn't seem to make sense that interbreeding was a major part of the extinction of all these other species when you look at the differences in genetic makeup of modern humans?" If it were interbreeding, it would not be extinction. It would be evolution. Or at least, the extinction would not be an effect of interbreeding. And I say no, it doesn't seem to make sense. Obviously, humans are evolving as we speak and not because of breeding with different species. Sorry I worded that wrong (it's been edited now) - anyways what I guess the question I am getting at is... What is the differences in appearances in the many different ethnic groups of today caused by? And could this have any connection with possible interbreeding at this point in history when all the other species vanished? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Maybe the result of Neanderthal/sapian coupling would be sterile. This would be difficult to find in the fossil record... Or obvious, depending on how you look at it. On a more general note, there's no evidence afaik of interbreeding between us and Neanderthal man, and no requirement for it in terms of the extinction event, so what's the point of needlessly multiplying entities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 there's no evidence afaik of interbreeding between us and Neanderthal man, Sigh... Please read my post 44. There is evidence. It may not be conclusive, but it is there. http://news-info.wustl.edu/FEC/1999/neanderthal.html deCODE Genetics, Iceland, have identified an inversion on gene 17 that is found in 20% of Europeans, is rare in Africans and almost absent in Asians. Women with the inversion have 3.5% more children than those without. [Nature Genetics, DOI: 10.1038/ng1508]. The inversion is dated to around 3,000,000 years ago. Since it provides an advantage it should have spread widely. Perhaps the inversion is associated with a disadvantage that outweighs the fertility advantage. An alternative explanation is interbreeding with another species. (Summarised from New Scientist, 22 January 2005, page 9) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Hence the use of "afaik", because I'm pretty sure I can't read everything that's ever been written. [edit] And I don't think disregarding "Portugal. Coastal cave. Hominid remains with mixed sapiens and neanderthalis features. According to some. And not to others.. ...Need to google" is particularly sigh-worthy either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 There we differ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Had you posted the content of reply #51 I'd understand why you might feel exasperated, but #44 is a little vague and, to be honest, non-committal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now