The Neanderthal Theory

Post Reply New Topic

Yes true. I would quite like a renissance style benefactor. I don't get theis 'career' nonesense, I'm all for polymath of Homo Universalis.

yeah, nowdays noble metals seem like a good investment ;p

I wouldn't know one bearded guy from another though.

sorry for going off-topic OP, I do like the theory but it seems a bit far-fetched... it might be a good material for some science-fiction novel though, I might use it one day if noone else gets the same idea .

I always wondered about Cro Magnon and Neanderthal. At a young age I had a theory that Cro Magnon wiped them all out and that they were vicious in their killing. I always wondered why humans want to kill and steal so much. What could drive a race to want to destroy all the Native Americans, for example. So I thought that maybe there is a "killer gene" or something like that. If there is any truth to this theory then those there should be some type of archetypal evidence. I mean, it should still be embedded in our psyche.

I don't think it is a superior attitude to have. I think if you think that then it could cause you to have blinders and not want to see the truth.

Also, why did Neanderthals get such a bad reputation for being sub humans and dumb. They were actually smarter. Propaganda?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15611031/

maybe that's why it's so succesfull...

yes cro-magnon versus neanderthal.......see beowulf, or if you want an easier version see the movie the 13th warrior or for a book try eaters of the dead.
by michael crichton.

it is a clasic debate steeped in mythology and folklore, tradition and legend and it is an analogy as to the evolution and development of the different stages of mankind.

I recently watched Beowulf. It's on my reading list. Politicians in bed with demons? Hmm...sounds familiar...

I've always felt a kinship with wolves too and I've recently learned that so did the Neanderthal. Werewolf myth?
Wolves have a social structure that mimics the Neanderthals. I wonder how cultural evolution affects are genes and vice versa.
Wolves were often portrayed as villains in fairy tales. I have too many questions circulating in my head now, lots of theories, assumptions, and intuitions. Is it so necessary to believe what they can only prove and disregard our own thoughts and imagination? Anyways...

I have a soft spot for the underdogs and have a deep desire to get to the truth and see justice served. It's too bad we will never really know what happened. In my gut I think they fought and the good guys lost. Now we are left with original sin.

First, I don't think the idea of Neanderthal contributing DNA to modern humans is "debunked". Secondly, the final version of Aspie-quiz have now found new evidence for the link between factors and human evolution.

Below is the results from factor-anaylsis of explained variance (in %) for different ancestral groups for factor 1 (neurodiversity/Aspie), factor 2 (neurotypical) and factor 3 (g-factor):

Australian aboriginial, N = 98
factor 1: 61.416
factor 2: 4.715
factor 3: 1.590

factor 1 / factor 2: 13.03
factor 2 / factor 3: 2.97

Asians, N = 1384
factor 1: 62,112
factor 2: 4.032
factor 3: 1.261

factor 1 / factor 2: 15.40
factor 2 / factor 3: 3.20

American indians, N = 398
factor 1: 66.124
factor 2: 3.919
factor 3: 1.132

factor 1 / factor 2: 16.87
factor 2 / factor 3: 3.46

Arab, N = 194
factor 1: 65.911
factor 2: 4.034
factor 3: 1.158

factor 1 / factor 2: 16.34
factor 2 / factor 3: 3.48

Africans (including afroamericans), N = 542
factor 1: 65.921
factor 2: 4.295
factor 3: 1.193

factor 1 / factor 2: 15.35
factor 2 / factor 3: 3.60

Caucasians without arabs, N = 22722
factor 1: 64.131
factor 2: 4.408
factor 3: 1.125

factor 1 / factor 2: 14.54
factor 2 / factor 3: 3.92

Assuming that explained variance is proportional to time it would take to evolve the diversity, one can estimate the age of the factors. Because factor 2 corresponds to social traits of modern humans, this factor must be related to the emergence of modern humans, using this factor as a calibration point
makes the most sense. I will use 125,000 years BP for this, because this is the time of the last interglacial. This choice will be justified later.

Factor 1 is the neurodiversity factor, and can explain virtually all human diversity. It becomes about 1.8 million years old, and thus match the first evidence of Homo erectus.

Factor 3 is related to IQ-tests, and due to its age can be assumed to be related to hybridization between modern humans and Eurasian populations. The resulted time since hybridization for the above populations then becomes:

Australian aboriginial: 42,000 years
Asian: 39,000 years
American Indian: 36,000 years
Arab: 36,000 years
Africans: 35,000 years
Europeans: 32,000 years

These values are well in accordance with modern research about the migration routes of modern humans. They first existed in South Asia and Australia, later moved to Central Asia and lastly to Europe. There is a clear trend for the earliest hybridization in Australia and the last in Europe.

The second factor must also be related to hybridization, because if it was a result of internal
speciation of a population, like OoA proposes, we would see no factors associated with this
event, which we in fact do see.

The similarity between the Caucasian / Arab / African values should be viewed in light of the 1/6 of
prevalence of the neurodiversity traits in African Americans compared to Caucasian Americans. It therefore
makes the most sense to assume the similarity between Africa and Europe is because africans never
participated in hybridization, and the minimal african diversity is related to modern humans and Caucasian
migrating into Africa from Middle East. Paradoxally, such migration into Africa makes people believe
humans originated there (OoA), when in reality africa had no role at all in the emergence of modern humans.

The best model is that there existed two different populations of Homo erectus. One cold adapted
that lived in Europe and possibly central - north eastern Asia and a warm adapted population
that lived in southern Asia and Africa. These diverged through isolation barriers that ice-ages
created. The only time these populations could potentially mix was during interglacials. The
hybridization that created modern humans therefore occured in Asia during the last interglacial
about 125,000 years ago. When the ice-age returned, modern humans had to retreat into
refugee areas in Africa and southern Asia.

It is also notable that explained variance for second factor related to the emergence of modern
humans is considerably smaller when analysed population-by-population than when analysed
as a whole. This indicates that there exists considerable diversity in these traits within Eurasia.
This also speaks against the simple migration model of OoA, which proposes a small population that "took over the world", and for the Asian origin of modern humans.

The chance for finding these relations between factors in Aspie-quiz and human evolution are pretty small if there is not relationship between the two.

Introgression works between species.



Not a chance. The divergence between Neanderthal and Hss was not on the level of biological incompability. We see many examples of hybridization between populations that have diverged many generations longer, like lion and tiger with about 5 milion years of divergence.



There is not an "aspie gene". Almost all of human diversity is related to the Aspie-NT aspect. That means that many genes are involved.

Could you be a little more specific? Why is it impossible?

i think i said this from the start. the scandinavians love thsi debate, it seems to be in their folklore.

do they teach you this at school?

Latest Scientist findings assure interbreed happened in small amount:

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/in ... 351AAA6dpE

That is true that Near. did not survive so long, last survivors at Gibraltar about 24.000 years.

Out of probing this question:
The big difference between Nearthental and modern humans, was that the Neart. moved in small groups and did not socialize.

They were more experts and a much bigger brain, even survived more thousands of years, they had better skills and much stronger bodies than Modern Humans. Smarter Nearthental did not survive. Or maybe they mixed in small porcentage.

AS far I readm, I think that Modern human defeated Neart. in the competition of limited resources (as Modern populations grew), as they could manage to socialize into bigger tribal groups.


Jumping a big GAP, It is similar to a globalized society where the individual AS, has a smaller role, as ideas flow round the world, Many-ASers keep alive involving in its own egoism.

Also, it is important the brain size of modern humans is getting smaller after thousand of years. And this video where they say that human are getting less skilled, and less intelligent after the years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ON13a5OwD8

Maybe we move into more "brilliant",INTEligent society but a less-brained social man.

That are bad news for traditional-AS Homo survival, in general. Bad any case is different, maybe you are luckier. May be an non-traditional but modern-AS will come?

All what I see are general Hypotesis that could be probed or not.
Thanks
Edit:
"Detailed comparison of Neanderthal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual, or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans."
Erik Trinkaus, "Hard Times Among the Neanderthals,"
Natural History, 87:10, p. 58
Not talking of social issues?

Last edited by MathThinkerSpain on 22 Sep 2008, 3:17 pm, edited 4 times in total.

No, we are taught that everybody come from Africa.

Smarter does not mean they would survive. After all, Aspies being smart often doesn't lead to success in the reproduction area, which is what leads to survivial in the long run.



Also remember that Hs came from the south and relied on opportunism. They didn't live in symbiosis with their environment, but rather were involved in crash-and-recover scenarios. This was why many Eurasian mammals that had survived with Neanderthal went extinct with Hs. This kind of over-exploitation of natural resources is still our main problem as a species. We simply cannot handle this in a sustainable way.



Exactly.

I wish you'd stop saying that. You're really killing the mood, here.

Good thing I don't have any of that.

When you get there, can I adopt one? They look so cuddly.

Just curious -- would today's knowledge actually allow the resurrection of recently
extinct species? How about the dodo and the bird of paradise?

It is. It's that herd-instinct that allows people to kill, just because some authority figure said so. They say that 70% of our own military disapproves of what's going on. So why don't they mutiny? What's wrong with them? Why do normal humans find it so hard to say "NO"? And why is the congress such a coward? Impeachment would be a slam-dunk. Why do good people just sit back and let stuff happen?

Stage whisper: Osama's been dead for about five years.
But don't tell anyone. It's a deep, dark secret.

Last edited by Tahitiii on 22 Sep 2008, 7:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No, no!--I'm not talking about racial profiling, just physical characteristics--the equivalent of the Asian eyelid or the Caucasian nose, only in the skeleton. Of course it's not an exact science; but you can often tell what region a skeleton comes from, by ancestry, especially before the jet age, when people groups were more isolated. I think the Neanderthals may have been a race, rather than a subspecies (that is, they're like Siamese to Persian cats, rather than ocelot to domestic cat), with physical characteristics adapted to their environments, rather like people living in Equatorial countries will tend towards more melanin.

What I mean is that since there are differences in the bones of Asians and Europeans, there's precedent for the bones of human races being distinguishable; and because there's a relatively small difference between Neanderthal and modern human, they may have been a race rather than a subspecies.

I don't know what that has to do with autism. Probably nothing... many subspecies can produce viable and fertile offspring (check out the Bengal cat--it's a breed of domestic cat with Asian leopard cat in its bloodline); so it doesn't say anything about the neanderthal/autism theory either way.

There shape of the skull in homo sapiens is fundamentally the same. The shape of the skull in Neanderthal is fundamentally different. Yes they look similar straight on, but you only have to view the side to see the difference. Then there is the rest of their skeleton which is very different.