Neanderthal really less advanced than H. Sapiens?

Post Reply New Topic

All this discussion of Neanderthal DNA having part in autism has created quite a lot of ideas. Here's one I haven't seen, but I'm new here so maybe I missed it.

Neanderthals supposedly evolved around what, 2 million years ago and modern H. sapiens around 250,000 years ago. If they were nearly identical to H. sapiens and had larger cranial capacities, then it would make sense that in all that time Neanderthal people had opportunity to create great advances in technology, art, and society.

Go back 200,000 years ago. Neaderthals had 1.8 million years to advance as a people while modern Hs had only 50,000 years. How primitive would those modern Hs have been?

Besides, here's another thing to consider: Who says that every new species is an improvement over the last? Maybe Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon were actually much more advanced than we give them credit. It makes little sense that 'primitive' Neanderthal genetics plays a role in creating brilliant, gifted, creative minds. It is more logical then that Neanderthal, having more brain capacity and a 1.75 million head start on society were, in fact, the progenitors of the relatively primitive modern species adaptation of civilization.

Neanderthals evolved between 60,000 and 150,000 years ago, roughly at the same time as Homo sapiens sapiens. One specie beat the other in a harsh competition.

I dunno
therefore, aliens

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/ ... -paintings
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... iners.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/ ... n-invasion
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/ ... intcmp=239

The last one is especially interesting as the neanderthals physiology would have made using a spear thrower difficult, it could be that they interbred and there was a gradual selective pressure against some neanderthal traits. Also for some reason I can't see the neanderthals who lived on the edges of the edge of retreating ice age living in rags, not when skins are available, just because they didn't have needles (if they didn't (like the Aztecs and the wheel).

As to the more advanced always winning look at the Huns and Mongols.

Wow, I'm getting rusty with my fact checking.

Anyways, the point was our ancestors were not much different than us and certainly no less intelligent or advanced. People get offended if someone suggests the origin of their nature is archaic human DNA, I'm no caveman!

IIRC from my Human Evolution course, Anthropology has not concluded that we actually "defeated" the Neanderthals, all that is known is that our species overlapped, and we survived, although the behavior and brow ridge of some people lead me to think otherwise.

I have a theory that is consistent with how several plagues and viruses began in modern times, which is that the cohabitation of multiple species of primates may have caused the perfect strain or mutation for a viral outbreak that wipes out the Neanderthals without our effort. IIRC our numbers were extremely low at or around the time the Neanderthals we extinct. Besides, when it comes down to it, how different are we really, both at the micro and macro levels, from the behavior we mock and and ridicule as Neanderthal behavior? Humanity has always known war, senseless acts of violence, selfishness, etc. As alluded to earlier, it may not have been the result of our merit. For all we know, just as some populations of human beings have evolved to deal with extreme food shortages, ie. pygmies, maybe being more gracile in nature we were better equipped to deal with a severe food/fresh water shortage?

How about planet of the apes for a metaphoric movie with Homos being the Apes. Perhaps neanderthals created Atlantis

surely a single cell organism is more advanced than a multicelled one since it functions more concisely

I have spent the last few hours going over this research featured on rdos.net and while i find a few of the more off hand suggestions quite naive, improbable and amusing, I have to say that I am willing to give it some credence. It certainly seems likely that Aspies have genetic traits derived from human diversity and cross breeding. I also have an occipital bun, a bump at the middle center of my skull which i am informed is a sign of intelligence. It is quite rare I am told.. I wonder how many other Aspies have this.

Every thing that is alive on this planet has been evolving for an equal amount of time since all life presumably has common ancestry. Any other way of looking at it is subjective and pragmatic.

I recommend reading the research.

Maybe they were practically poor but theoretically more advanced, like Aspies often are.

In Minecraft I was always the architect and designer of my team because the others didn't have sufficient imagination, but after a while one of them reminded that I could dig sand with a stone shovel instead of a wooden one

Well.. I have a degree in biological anthropology, huma evolution is a special interest of mine.

I'll keep it short.

I personally think there might be something "to" the whole neanderthal DNA = aspergers thing.

The thought is that Humans beat out neanderthals because although the individual neanderthal is thought to have been more intelligent than an individual human, it is theorized that neanderthals as a group did not communicate with each other well or pass along information very effectively. They were less of a pack animal so to speak than H sapiens. As a result humans as a group were smarter and therefore able to out strategize and out comete neanderthals (while, uh, absorbing some genes) in the process. The reasons (well some of them) that it is thought that neanderthals were more "individual" and less "group" is the lack of artwork attributable to neanderthals and the lack of creativity in general among the implements found that are attributed to neanderthals. Very few creative works (like jewelry) are attributed to them and those that are are "knock offs" of similar h. sapien creations. This indicates "less" communication and socialization among a group of neanderthals because, afterall, what would jewelry and artwork been for at that point in time? what is the purpose? To tell a story or display social status. Religious and spiritual reasons as well. The lack of it by a species that it otherwise very intelligent, speaks volumes. The things they find at neanderthal sites are very functional and very well done.

My honest opinion on what really happened is that there was no great neanderthal slaughter. I think there was a little slaughter on either side, but that ultimately they just merged. Neanderthals would not have looked THAT different from humans and an offspring between the two certainly would have just looked like a slightly burly human. Do some more cross breeding over a few generations and really you've got something indistiguishable from h. sapiens especially if there were more h. sapiens to begin with...