Neanderthal theory.... many clues

Post Reply New Topic

What you say is very speculative and there is little evidence to support your point. However it would make a fine premise for a science fiction fictional history of our species.

The human race got very smart after Toba blew up about 75,000 ybp.

ruveyn

*Completly ignores this thread after reading that.*

Paleoanthropological evidence suggests that one major difference between Neanderthals (Homo neandertalensis. or if you prefer Homo sapiens neandertalensis) and Cro-Magnons (Homo sapiens or Homo sapiens sapiens, depending) was that Cro-Magnons were more inventive, and readier to adapt new technologies. For instance, in one valley where the two groups lived side-by-side for some centuries, the Cro-Magnon camps show evidence of a certain flint-knapping technique used on spearheads, which became endemic to all the camps within a matter of years. However, the Neanderthals in the valley did not adapt this new technique for over a century, and it spread through their people slowly.

Speaking of Neanderthals as "a cold-adapted version of Homo erectus" is similar to speaking of the modern horse as a "saddle-adapted version" of Hyracotherium. One is ancestor to the other - but they are different species. Neanderthals were of course "cold-adapted" - all surviving species of the Wurm Glaciation were cold-adapted, as the ice caps covered rather a large fraction of the planet - but this did not mean they lived in "the North" exclusively. (In fact, the evidence I cited above came from a dig in modern-day Israel.)

"Racial" differences in modern humans are difficult to detect from skeletal remains, and in fact are all but undetectable at the genetic level. (There are certain mutations that can tell you that someone has ancestors from, say, the Mediterranean region - but that still covers at least three "races" [Caucasians in Italy, Semites in the east, blacks to the south].)

This doesn't tell us that Cro-Magnon were more inventive. It tells us that Cro-Magnon had large, overlapping social networks, which we already know, but nothing about their inventiveness. It also tells us that Neanderthals did NOT have large social networks. This issue is exactly the issue with Aspies. Aspies do not naturally form large social networks, and spread inventions, rather the contrary, since Aspies like to figure things out themselves and dislike socializing with strangers. These evidences only support the Neanderthal theory.

Another thing you miss is that Neanderthals had lived in this climate for 100,000s of years, and thus didn't need the inventions of Cro-Magnon. They did not need atlats (spear-throwers) as they didn't do distance hunting, they did not need cloth, shelter or central heating as they had physiological adaptation to cold (like any other ice-age animal). They also had no reason to make beads and other status symbols as this was not their way of living either.

That cost them dearly when the climate changed.

ruveyn

Of course, but during ice-ages this is the most efficient adaptation. Relying on fire-wood and articifical heating and needing more energy throughout the year is not an optimal adaptation to ice-age Europe.

In the paleoantropology literature it is also evident that modern humans could colonize areas where Neanderthals couldn't survive. This is more likely the result of cultural adaptation in Hs and physical in Hn than anything else, because if Hn also had relied on cultural adaptations to climate, they naturally would have come up with the solutions long before Hs entered their habitat. And Hs, being warm-adapted, originally didn't need central heating and cloth. This need arose as they moved to colder habitats. Therefore, this move had potential for technology advancement and cultural adaptation.

RIGHT, and I bet their characteristics aren't distinct.



I DID say ORIGINALLY! HECK, I even referred to how abraham broke those rules. And he died long before the people that started the US were even born. STILL, such a law DOES illustrate my main point.



Yep, and some married one another to settle wars, etc... That is one of the reasons why certain characteristics don't have a clear origin, even when they seem to be more prevalent ask you approach a given area.



Take out the word READILY, and we can agree. The fact is that they DIDN'T readily interbreed! EVEN abraham seriously weighed things. You spoke earlier of laws, etc.... Readily? NO WAY!





I meant conflicting like black and white. Like broad and narrow nose, etc... If one person marries one from another group, that feature may stand out for a few generations.



Yeah, you describe what I thought it was. Given that people have moved to such areas hundreds of years ago, and possibly longer, and have not become more black without intermarrying, and blacks have moved to areas where whites were and have not become more caucasion without intermarrying, why do you think it would have happened in a few thousand years?




I KNEW about melanin, but heard at one time that it was a bit different with blacks. Blacks ARE born black. And tans DO fade.


Impairment in social abilities in people with clinical AS are not simply a preference for smaller group social interactions.



Like that for the african model?




STILL, most parasites won't affect 100% of the population, REGARDLESS of immunity.




HOW DO YOU FIGURE!?!?!? I could name some variants, like hair color, pigmentation reaction, and eye color, that ONLY happen with CAUCASIANS! The few rare blood types that only seem to happen in africa are SO rare that they aren't generally considered! ALSO, there are some diseases that are almost like they are a different species, but they aren't that viable. Similar things happen with some Jewish people, mediteranian people that AREN'T black, and ahmish(because of interbreeding).

And how come only caucasions have non brown eyes

Well, you DID say indo-EUROPEAN, but I haven't seen any. A chinese friend even told me that tiwan, and I think he said china as well, doesn't even consider haircolor and eyecolor because there is no difference.

One thing is for sure. If you are right there, it is RARE!

Well, I am NOT mixing culture with race. RACISTS do that. I mentioned TRIBES of indians and blacks. WHY?????? Different CULTURES! I mentioned that west europe was different from east europe with regard to some autistic tendencies, IN THE CULTURES! And YEAH, I KNOW that there are LOTS of different cultures in western europe and EVEN after a lot of common influence, different ones in eastern europe. HECK, there are in the U.S.! Look at louisiana, Georgia, Southern CA, Northern CA, and New York. Different cultures, and they used to even have very different accents. EVEN INDIA has TONS of different cultures.

Still, you see differences in each race and differences in culture, and race is MORE than skin color. or even eye or hair color. If you don't realize that, I guess you haven't paid much attention.

And no, they found characteristics that used to be common to alll in a race, and grouped them accordingly. Officially, they grouped them into 3, or maybe 4, groups. I don't know why there was debate on the fourth. Personally, I would have added about 2 others but, even today, one has spread so much that it isn't distinct, and another is not very prevalent at this point. Others have been tracked to intermingling, etc.... Take the philipinos, for example.

No, the primary "deficeit" in AS is the inability to read and express neurotypical nonverbal communication. This leads to all the "impairment in social abilities" too, because to socialize with NTs you need to use & understand their nonverbal communication.

And guess what, only NTs can read and express neurotypical nonverbal communication, so basically every species except neurotypical humans have this deficeit, which naturally include Neanderthals.

This is what I hate about quoting. I wasn't the one that said that. 8-( Still, I do agree that the deficit is more than a preference for small groups. And, ironically, I DO agree with YOU RDOS!

The word Species, means a group that can breed, and all the hairless ground apes can.

Erectus continued for over 100,000 years after Moderns appear, so moderns are the same species, and as that goes back to Neanderthal splitting off and going north, they too are the same Species.

If I were to guess, all hairless ground apes are the same Species going back to where the fur covered rejected them. When that was is unknown, for it is a strange mutation, loosing one's fur, except on top of the head and the pits. I know of no other creature that did so.

Genetics shows that the entire line was reduced to between 5,000 and 10,000 in three bottlenecks, so the survivors could not be far apart.

First hairless, then reduced three times to a small population, we all have the same ancestors. This happened before leaving Africa. And Modern traits bred back into Africa bring the whole closer together, as it was a recent event.

Even hairless is not total, for some modern humans have a good deal of fur.

I do not think we have ever gotten far enough apart to form another Species in the last 500,000 years.

My Race is Hairless Ape.

The whole world of dogs started with a wolf 40,000 years ago, and besides showing more variation of size and coat, some do have blue eyes, as do some Koi, and here in the zoo, we have a group of yellow/pink skinned alligators with blue eyes, that were found in the wild.

Blue eyes, a group in Eastern Europe with yellow eyes, are normal mutations in other Species, but I note with interest that in report of the hairy man of the wild, from all over, say a fur of red, like Urangutangs, and yellow eyes.

Green and Hazel eyes are not a mutation in any species, they are caused by a mix of yellow and blue.
Red hair, green eyes, run together. This is a strong indication of there being a red haired, yellow eyed line, that is now mixed with the main line.

As the blue eyed mutation starts north of the Black Sea, and green and Hazel are subsets of blue, we have some yellow eyed ancestors. So do the Brown eyed, but being dominant, it masks them.

Looks count for little in humans, but there are brain differances, and they do group strongly, there are several models, with different thought processes.

One is the nose to the grindstone tech worker, lives in isolation, lacks social and bathing skills, but can make Bronze, so all is forgiven.

The Industrial Revolution brought them together, Smiths, Tinkers, Builders, and their children married. It produced more tech, finally computers, and there is a type attracted to the work, commonly called Geeks. They still lack social and grooming skills.

No matter what they say, Geeks are still the same Species.

Well, I have hazel eyes, but I have two cats, one with blue eyes whom my wife refers to as my "blue eyed girlfriend", and a male with yellow. Do you suppose they are aspies?

I have to admit this discussion confuses me more than a bit.

I thought that research into neanderthal genetics had established that neanderthals and homo sapiens were distinct and could not interbreed.

also, we have no idea what color people were when all these migrations were happening. they were most certainly not pale from what I've absorbed regarding the genetics of pigmentation, but assuming they were "black" because they came out of africa seems like a faulty assumption. maybe they were brown, or caramel.

Skin deep means little, the bones are all the same, only the teeth mark Moderns, and the tools found with them.

The classic Neanderthal head, brow ridges, occipital bun, are still found in modern humans, and through Africa in the past.

DNA studies have shown that the Neanderthal mother line, M DNA, is not in moderns, but there is no way to tell if males bred into the Modern line.

The best field work has been done in Israel, where Erectus, Neanderthal, and Moderns have been found living very close, and there is a lot of intermediate skulls that suggest interbreeding.

The last mutation was round heads being replaced by long heads in the Modern line. Long heads seem to be easier to give birth to larger skull babies.

Even more recent, skulls have gotten thinner, more plastic, all of which allows for larger brains being born, then growing rapidly after birth.

ASDs are said to produce larger heads, with faster brain growth in youth. Autism could be, "Tight Skull Syndrome". The brain starts to develop to a larger pattern, then runs out of space.

Which came first, larger brains, a long term trait of humans, or larger skulls, another long term trait?

Some skull models, round heads, thick skull walls, were not adaptable to larger brain development, others, long head, thin walls, were.

The very thing that drove long head development, would have most likely been fatal in Neanderthal. Modern father, Neanderthal mother, the children would have a thick round skull, and a pattern to develop a larger brain. Modern mother, Neanderthal father, would work.

The evidence is, Moderns that went north had a sudden growth spurt. Neanderthal had a larger brain, but when the two lines met, Cro Magnon suddenly appears. Males over two meters tall with a 1600 cc brain. That is 25% larger than current brains. It was a short lived peak, for brain size decreased afterward.

The line shows the sexual dimorphisn of humans, smaller women, so there might have been problems giving birth. Cro Magnon women who bred with smaller head males lived, as did their children. Even a 1% higher death rate in birth would account for large Cro Magon males being gone after a thousand years.

After they were gone, so were Neanderthal, Erectus, and only Moderns survived.

It is all one Species, one line, with some variations tried. Nature's way is to try lots of things, they all die, but some continue. It is not random, for small grass seed eating humans, us, are still developing Technology, Science, Intelligence, which after survival, is the main goal of our development.

The natural goal of our Species is to host the larger more developed brain. It is the one thing that has continued to develop over millions of years.

interesting hyphothesis.

it'll also be interesting to see what the next few years of research into the neanderthal genome finds. at this point there really is no genetic evidence of interbreeding, but also no hard genetic evidence against it.

however, this interview with Svante Pääbo introduces a level of doubt that I find appealing when he talks about genetic similarities between populations living within and populations established outside of africa:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paabo09 ... index.html

however, I won't commit myself to any particular belief until more work is done.