Neanderthal theory of Autism and occipital bun

Page 2 of 3 [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

y-pod
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,716
Location: Canada

30 Jan 2012, 9:17 pm

Nobody in my family have any of those bumps, and we have 4 - 5 aspies. I actually have a slight dent there. I do like to wear my long hair twisted into a bun over there. :D We also have rather light bones and slender build. So, nothing like neanderthal at all.


_________________
AQ score: 44
Aspie mom to two autistic sons (21 & 20 )


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

30 Jan 2012, 10:25 pm

emtyeye wrote:
I got one, too.

There could be other reasons for it other than the Neanderthal interbreeding hypothesis.
I mean, come on, every skull that existed in the past has not been discovered. No one can make any claim about it being exclusive to Neanderthal except to say that is the only place it has been seen so far in the fossil record. But clearly, given what is said in this thread, nobody is looking at the backs of our heads.


Yes -some folks have long skulls and some have short. The long headedness of long headed modern people really isnt really related to that of the neanderthals because the Neanderthals needed the bulge at the back of the skull to balance thier heavier jaws.



Dan_Undiagnosed
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 645

31 Jan 2012, 1:33 am

Autism appears amongst African populations even in Africa just as it appears anywhere else. Since modern Africans are the only people who never mixed with Neanderthals autism can't have been a special feature unique to Homo neanderthalensis who evolved outside Africa. Instead if there is a link between Homo neanderthalensis and autism then it was still something that left Africa anyway with an earlier hominid and was passed on until it reached neanderthalensis through intermediate forms.
Given that primatologists think they've spotted autism in Teco the bonobo there may be cause to support the idea that autism has long been around in Africa amongst primates including us.



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,096
Location: Sweden

31 Jan 2012, 2:25 am

naturalplastic wrote:
Yes -some folks have long skulls and some have short. The long headedness of long headed modern people really isnt really related to that of the neanderthals because the Neanderthals needed the bulge at the back of the skull to balance thier heavier jaws.


That's the most stupid suggestion I've ever heard. :roll:

The Neanderthals naturally had the bulge because they had some over-developped brain function in that area, which is the visual processing area. It tells us that Neanderthals had a more advanced visual processing system than us.



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,096
Location: Sweden

31 Jan 2012, 2:27 am

Dan_Undiagnosed wrote:
Autism appears amongst African populations even in Africa just as it appears anywhere else.


That hasn't been proved. There are many indications to the contrary.

Dan_Undiagnosed wrote:
Since modern Africans are the only people who never mixed with Neanderthals autism can't have been a special feature unique to Homo neanderthalensis who evolved outside Africa. Instead if there is a link between Homo neanderthalensis and autism then it was still something that left Africa anyway with an earlier hominid and was passed on until it reached neanderthalensis through intermediate forms.
Given that primatologists think they've spotted autism in Teco the bonobo there may be cause to support the idea that autism has long been around in Africa amongst primates including us.


Autism cannot exist in Bonobo, since Autism basically is an inability to understand neurotypical humans.



BuyerBeware
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,476
Location: PA, USA

31 Jan 2012, 9:34 am

naturalplastic wrote:
Burzum wrote:
BuyerBeware wrote:
Oh, so now we're less evolved human beings??

No one said that. And there is no such thing as being "less evolved". By what measurement are you determining what constitutes "less evolved"?

BuyerBeware wrote:
H. sapiens neanderthalensis

There is no such species as "Homo sapiens neanderthalensis". It is just "Homo neanderthalensis".


"Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis" WAS the nomenclature until some years ago: homo sapiens neanderthalis, and homo sapiens sapiens. Different subspecies of the same species. As opposed to the earlier homo erectus, and homo heidelburgenisis- who were different species within the same genus.

What the labels "species" and "genus" mean in general and how they apply to fossil homids specifically changes from decade to decade.

Neanderthals are now considered a different species.But older books use the above nomenclature that he was using.


That explains where I got it. My anthro classes were definitely "some years ago." Like, last century. Whether I'm part Neanderthal or not, I'm definitely practically a fossil.

Imagine how wise I'll feel when I'm a gray-headed old woman telling the grandkids stories about "back in the winter of '09..."

Uphill, both ways, in the snow...

...when the Neanderthals roamed...

...oh my Gods I'm laughing so hard I can't type.

Objectively subhuman?? No, of course not. Duh.

Can I pretty much guarantee that some f***head will trot it out as a reason we ought to be in the zoo instead of on the street?? And that I'll take it to heart and get all pissed off about it??

Suffice it to say that I can read the petroglyphs on the wall. :evil: 8O :roll: :lol:


_________________
"Alas, our dried voices when we whisper together are quiet and meaningless, as wind in dry grass, or rats' feet over broken glass in our dry cellar." --TS Eliot, "The Hollow Men"


CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

31 Jan 2012, 9:50 am

BuyerBeware wrote:
(although, from a taxonomic perspective, "Homo sapiens neanderthalensis" would necessarily imply "human")


Although Burzum is correct that the scientific name for Neanderthals is simply "Homo neanderthalensis" today (Homo sapiens sapiens is also no longer correct, it is only one sapiens now), Neanderthals are still human. A human being is a member of the genus Homo, not necessarily a Homo sapiens.



CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

31 Jan 2012, 9:59 am

There is no reason to assume that Neanderthals were less advanced than our sapiens ancestors 40,000 years ago. If we interbred with them, this might be the reason that they are no longer around. In that case, they didn't become extinct because we were the more advanced species or they couldn't cope with environmental changes. They only died out in the same sense that Cro-Magnon humans died out, namely by being replaced by their hybrid descendants. I don't see why our Neanderthal ancestry should be any worse or more embarrassing than our H. sapiens ancestry.

PS: Neanderthals are not the only extinct human species that contributed some DNA to modern day humans. We are all mutts and mongrels:
http://www.livescience.com/16171-deniso ... -asia.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14947363



BuyerBeware
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,476
Location: PA, USA

31 Jan 2012, 10:13 am

CrazyCatLord wrote:
BuyerBeware wrote:
(although, from a taxonomic perspective, "Homo sapiens neanderthalensis" would necessarily imply "human")


Although Burzum is correct that the scientific name for Neanderthals is simply "Homo neanderthalensis" today (Homo sapiens sapiens is also no longer correct, it is only one sapiens now), Neanderthals are still human. A human being is a member of the genus Homo, not necessarily a Homo sapiens.


Yes, same difference.

I guess we decided that we DIDN'T merit two "sapiens." :lol: I'd have to concur.

Frankly, given the way some of us act, I'm more embarrassed to count myself an anatomically modern human being. Some days I think I'd prefer to be a chimpanzee (or just about anything more complex than, say, protozoa). My housecats decidedly comport themselves better than some humans do.


_________________
"Alas, our dried voices when we whisper together are quiet and meaningless, as wind in dry grass, or rats' feet over broken glass in our dry cellar." --TS Eliot, "The Hollow Men"


CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

31 Jan 2012, 11:30 am

Chimpanzees aren't much better than humans, imho :) They are very aggressive and territorial, wage war on neighboring chimp populations and sometimes kill one another, and hunt their smaller simian relatives for food. Some biologists argue that they are in fact human and should be reclassified as Homo troglodytes.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... nzees.html



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

31 Jan 2012, 2:20 pm

This reminds me of dogs and the lumps some possess on the top of their heads...Can we tie this phenomena to any canine behaviors or is it simply a lump on the top of doggy head? Skulls have bumps, whether human or canine.



Ambivalence
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,613
Location: Peterlee (for Industry)

31 Jan 2012, 4:19 pm

Burzum wrote:
BuyerBeware wrote:
Oh, so now we're less evolved human beings??

No one said that. And there is no such thing as being "less evolved".


It's reasonable enough to call something from a (significantly) earlier time "less evolved" (in general - some things hit their niche and stay there.) The distinction that needs to be made is between progress accrued from evolution over time - which has fairly incontrovertibly been a forward movement as the critters of today have a whole bunch of nifty features their remote ancestors didn't - and the directionless nature of the evolutionary process itself.

Also, where can I get some occipital chips for my bun?


_________________
No one has gone missing or died.

The year is still young.


Kon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 728
Location: Toronto, Canada

31 Jan 2012, 4:53 pm

There is some archeological evidence that Neanderthals may have been food for modern humans:

Quote:
Recent finds from the Les Rois cave site in France, dated to approximately 30,000 years, reveal an interesting picture. Rozzi et al.
(2009) have excavated this site and found remains of both modern humans and Neandertals. The tools are Aurignacian and therefore attributed to modern humans (Homo sapiens). This site shows clear evidence that modern humans were interacting with Neandertals, but cutmarks on the bones of juvenile Neandertals indicate to Rozzi et al. (2009) that humans may have seen Neandertals as just an edible resource. They suggest that this find may throw light on how the two species were interacting, and surmise that this contact most probably contributed to the demise of the Neandertals.

http://www.lkse.net.au/PhDThesis.pdf

These author cite this paper but in that paper cited that view is only 1 possible hypothesis:

http://www.isita-org.com/jass/Contents/ ... zRozzi.pdf



nemorosa
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,121
Location: Amongst the leaves.

31 Jan 2012, 5:05 pm

Ambivalence wrote:
Burzum wrote:
BuyerBeware wrote:
Oh, so now we're less evolved human beings??

No one said that. And there is no such thing as being "less evolved".


It's reasonable enough to call something from a (significantly) earlier time "less evolved" (in general - some things hit their niche and stay there.) The distinction that needs to be made is between progress accrued from evolution over time - which has fairly incontrovertibly been a forward movement as the critters of today have a whole bunch of nifty features their remote ancestors didn't - and the directionless nature of the evolutionary process itself.

Also, where can I get some occipital chips for my bun?


In the given context it doesn't make any sense to apply the label "less evolved" to Neanderthal since they may be considered contemporaries of modern humans.

In the broader sense, I'd quibble your association of "progress" with "evolved" or "forward movement". Consider the environment on earth in the next few hundred million years when all the earths oceans will have boiled away due to incresing energy output from the sun. Life, if it still exists will likely have simplified to far less complicated forms and survive as it can under the surface (like Desulforudis audaxviator). Life will have evolved yet have lost all those nifty features you speak of.



CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

31 Jan 2012, 10:39 pm

Kon wrote:
There is some archeological evidence that Neanderthals may have been food for modern humans:
Quote:
Recent finds from the Les Rois cave site in France, dated to approximately 30,000 years, reveal an interesting picture. Rozzi et al.
(2009) have excavated this site and found remains of both modern humans and Neandertals. The tools are Aurignacian and therefore attributed to modern humans (Homo sapiens). This site shows clear evidence that modern humans were interacting with Neandertals, but cutmarks on the bones of juvenile Neandertals indicate to Rozzi et al. (2009) that humans may have seen Neandertals as just an edible resource. They suggest that this find may throw light on how the two species were interacting, and surmise that this contact most probably contributed to the demise of the Neandertals.

http://www.lkse.net.au/PhDThesis.pdf

These author cite this paper but in that paper cited that view is only 1 possible hypothesis:

http://www.isita-org.com/jass/Contents/ ... zRozzi.pdf


At the same time, Neanderthals may have hunted and eaten H. sapiens:
http://weinterrupt.com/2009/09/independ ... rthal-man/

Quote:
Vendramini suggests that the Neanderthal spent 50,000 years at the top of the food chain eating a diet that isytopic bone collagen analysis has suggests was 97% meat. "Their daily diet was nearly 2kg of meat – and it included human meat."

He suggests that bone relics at a number of European sites where human bones were neatly-dissected and lying among the bones of other animals provides evidence of their consumption of humans.

Vendramini speculates that “Neanderthal predation” almost resulted in the extinction of early humans the Mediterranean levant.


I think both species had to hunt and eat whatever they could get during the last ice age. But I also think that different groups of of each species have interacted on completely different terms with one another. I mean, Neanderthals and modern humans coexisted for 5 - 7000 years. A lot can happen during such a time span. And there is evidence for technology exchange between Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons, so at least some groups must have gotten along on peaceful terms.



Last edited by CrazyCatLord on 31 Jan 2012, 10:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

31 Jan 2012, 10:50 pm

Ambivalence wrote:
Burzum wrote:
BuyerBeware wrote:
Oh, so now we're less evolved human beings??

No one said that. And there is no such thing as being "less evolved".


It's reasonable enough to call something from a (significantly) earlier time "less evolved" (in general - some things hit their niche and stay there.) The distinction that needs to be made is between progress accrued from evolution over time - which has fairly incontrovertibly been a forward movement as the critters of today have a whole bunch of nifty features their remote ancestors didn't - and the directionless nature of the evolutionary process itself.

Also, where can I get some occipital chips for my bun?


There is no such thing as a higher evolved species. There are more advanced species with more advanced cultures and technology, but those are a very anthropocentric criteria. In terms of evolution, there are only sufficiently adapted species that possess different degrees of evolutionary fitness (which is measured in the number of offspring produced). Cyanobacteria are just as well-adapted and evolutionary fit as humans, even though they haven't changed for billions of years.