Page 3 of 5 [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

04 Aug 2017, 8:07 am

When I was talking about "sensory overload," I was talking mostly about what occurred in the hunt. There was lots of excitement during these sorties after prey. One also had to be able to do "two or more things at once," and to "think on one's feet." One cannot deny that!

When one is in a cave or shelter, one could experience sensory overload.

In the cave, it's because of the acoustics. In the shelters, it's because people lived in "close quarters."



rick sanchez
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 185

04 Aug 2017, 8:49 am

naturalplastic wrote:
The point is that Neanderthals were a side branch that came to a dead end.

The branch apparently did not go SO far sideways that they could no longer interbreed with modern type humans. But as a recognizable phenotype they died out. And died out relatively suddenly.



I have 3% Neandethal DNA, so obviously it did not go to a dead end.


_________________
Peace among worlds!


rick sanchez
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 185

04 Aug 2017, 8:59 am

naturalplastic wrote:
rick sanchez wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
rick sanchez wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
rick sanchez wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Neanderthals were well adapated to Ice Age Europe, and survived a long time, but then the anatomical moderns invaded Europe from the east and drove the Neanderthals to extinction, but not before doing some interbreeding with the Neanderthals...

...But on the other hand I doubt that the normal behavior of the typical Neanderthal could have been like that of modern day hard core low functioning autistics.



According to the biological species concept, if two taxa can produce viable offspring then they are not separate species.

If there are descendants of Neanderthals, then they have NOT gone extinct.

All you have are populations that diverged over time and then came back into contact.

Why would you say low functioning? There is nothing to indicate low functioning, just different. They were very high functioning for their environment.


All modern birds are descended from Archteopteryx (however its spelled). But Archeopteryx is still extinct. Even if you can say (by taking a certain poetic license) that archeoperyx still "lives on" in the thousands of species of living birds today.

People who are classifiable as anatomical Neanderthals don't stand in the checkout line of your grocery store today.

The bones of folks with heavy limb bones, no chins, forward jutting jaws, beetle brows, and other traits that go with being a classic anatomical Neanderthal thrived for a 100 thousand years in Ice Age Europe. But they (and their distinctive tool culture) both abruptly vanish from European caves around 35 thousand years ago, and were just as abruptly replaced by the anatomically modern Cro Magnon folks at that time. So humans classifiable as Neanderthal are indeed "extinct". The fact that some of us today have one, or two, percent, Neanderthal DNA doesn't change that.

You kinda lost me about "low functioning". The normal Neanderthal may have had a bio-psychology that we would consider other than normal today, but it would have been both normal and functional for them. I was guessing that that biopsychology may have been like modern high functioning autistics or aspies. But even Neanderthals needed better social skills than those possessed by some extreme low functioning autistics of today to survive.



I don' think that Extinct is an accurate classification for this. "Species" are only a snapshot in time for an evolutionary process that represents a continuum. Species are not actually real things.


Nonsense.

Whether Neanderthals were a separate species from us, or not, is a running debate. The pendulum goes back and forth over the decades between calling them "Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis" ( a separate subspecies, but the same species as us), or whether to call them "Homo Neanderthalis" (a whole separate species from us).

But it pretty much proven that Neanderthals did not evolve into anatomical moderns. Anatomical moderns and Neanderthals lived at the same time. And then Neanderthals came to a dead end.

But either way- they were once here, and now........they aint here. Theyre gone. So regardless of whether they were a species or just a subspecies they are "extinct" and not "extant". Extinction is the proper word. Doesn't matter if they left DNA in our genome or not. The American Indians had dog breeds that are now said to be "extinct" even though dogs as a species are not extinct. The Mandan Indian tribe (of humans), and the aboriginies of Tasmania are also said to be "extinct" because no members of either group is around any more.



"Nonesense" what a wonderful way to dismiss an arguement without using facts :)

A particular combination of genes within a population or a "species" may not exist anymore, but by the definition of a species, if it's genes still exist descendant it has not gone extinct, it has just changed over time.

If Neanderthals could produce viable offspring with "wise" man, then they are the same species and all you have is a change in the frequency of alleles.

Dogs still exist, but the particular combination of genes that occured in NA prior to European invasion does not exist anymore.

The branch of pigeons that was represented by Dodos is extinct, there are no existing descendants of that branch, none of the genes exclusive to that branch occur on the planet.


I guess you cant read.

AFTER I said "nonsense" I backed it by giving facts.

You counter my facts with irrelevant points.

I never said that Neanderthals were even a separate species from Homo Sapiens. But whether they are a separate species, or just a subspecies of the same species they are still...not around anymore.

So I use the common parlance (the parlance used by scientists as well as by regular folks) for "no longer exist" which is "extinct". The same term is used whether its a species, subspecies, breed, or even just an ethnic group. The Mandan Indian tribe no longer exists, and is said to be extinct. And the term "extinct" pre dated both Watson and Crick's discovery of DNA, and even predated Gregor Mendel, and was used in the 19th Century for fossil dinosaurs they began to find in the ground.

If you're claiming that Neanderthals are not extinct then show me a snapshots of these Neanderthal neighbors of yours who look like fossil Neanderthals of Middle Paleolithic Europe. And I don't mean the guys in that Geico commercial.


Why do you feel the need to be abusive and this?

Yes, you gave some information after you made your nonesense claim, but you main claim was "nonesense".


So lets take this slowly.

1- if two organisms can produce viable offspring, then they are the same species.

2- we know sapien and neanderthal could breed, because neanderthal DNA can be found in people living today.

3- H sapiens still exists, so neanderthal by definition cant have gone extinct.

4- the particular combination of genes the produced the population of H sapiens that we call neaderthals does not exist


_________________
Peace among worlds!


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

04 Aug 2017, 9:00 am

The species/subspecies known as Homo neanderthalensis/Homo sapiens neanderthalensis certainly went extinct. There are no modern humans with close to the peculiar adaptive anatomy of the Neanderthals.

They almost certainly interbred with "anatomically modern" humans. Europeans have Neanderthal lineage.

In Africa, it is a certainty that there are people with autism (or autistic-like symptoms). I know a place which houses a few of them. It's located in the northern part of Ghana. It is funded by the Hand in Hand Ministries. None of the clients have any "European" descent.



rick sanchez
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 185

04 Aug 2017, 9:10 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
The species/subspecies known as Homo neanderthalensis/Homo sapiens neanderthalensis certainly went extinct. There are no modern humans with close to the peculiar adaptive anatomy of the Neanderthals.

They almost certainly interbred with "anatomically modern" humans. Europeans have Neanderthal lineage.

In Africa, it is a certainty that there are people with autism (or autistic-like symptoms). I know a place which houses a few of them. It's located in the northern part of Ghana. It is funded by the Hand in Hand Ministries. None of the clients have any "European" descent.


That is one of the issues with the theory, if you have autism in Africa is it because it occurs in every population or was it brought in with European colonialism.

We have a limited understanding of what neanderthals were like, so it is tough to make any solid claims about similarities.

As I said, the combination/frequency of alleles of specific genes that produced the population of H sapiens we call neanderthals is no longer in existence, but they did not "die out", and we can determine this because there descendants are still in existence.


_________________
Peace among worlds!


BuyerBeware
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

04 Aug 2017, 9:16 am

Some of what I "know" about Neanderthals is recollected from college anthropology classes (almost 20 years ago now) and the rest is gleaned from Clan of the Cave Bear, subsequent sequels, and very limited access to a small portion of the resources mentioned therein or in similar works. So basically my "knowledge" is inadmissible.

AFAIK, Neanderthals relied a lot less on verbal communication and a lot more on nonverbal communication than H. sapiens. That would seem to make a link between H. neanderthalis and autism unlikely...

...unless the nonverbal communication were much more intentional and formalized than the nonverbal communication of H. sapiens. We're pretty good at memorizing large volumes of rote information, adhering to rigid rules systems, and following patterns.

Speaking of finding and following patterns... I can see how that, and an absorbing attention to detail, could be major assets in survival for a species of hunter-gatherers. Particularly on the gathering side. The more edible plants you can identify, the more likely you are to be sufficiently nourished (and thus survive to reproduce and have your offspring survive). The more detail-oriented you are, the more likely you are to distinguish between edible plants and their poisonous look-alikes (and it only takes one error). People say it's hard to differentiate between Queen Anne's lace and poison hemlock-- it's a little trickier in the early spring, but not THAT hard (at least for my autistic eyes). Differentiating between wild parsnip and poison hemlock when they're not in flower-- now THAT takes an excellent rote memory and an eye for details (even WITH an excellent field guide).

The PATTERNS, though, would be the big scale-tipper for a nomadic species. If you know the TRAITS of edible plants (and the traits of poisonous ones), you're going to be more likely to be able to identify food when you enter an unfamiliar environment, or when the climate changes and changes the flora with it.

As for the reasons for extinction... H. sapiens consistently says that H. sapiens survived where H. neanderthalis and every other hominid species didn't because H. sapiens was smarter, more social, and more adaptable.

I sometimes wonder if H. sapiens didn't emerge the victor because H. sapiens was simply that much more AGGRESSIVE than all the others.


_________________
"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"


rick sanchez
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 185

04 Aug 2017, 10:08 am

BuyerBeware wrote:
Some of what I "know" about Neanderthals is recollected from college anthropology classes (almost 20 years ago now) and the rest is gleaned from Clan of the Cave Bear, subsequent sequels, and very limited access to a small portion of the resources mentioned therein or in similar works. So basically my "knowledge" is inadmissible.

AFAIK, Neanderthals relied a lot less on verbal communication and a lot more on nonverbal communication than H. sapiens. That would seem to make a link between H. neanderthalis and autism unlikely...

...unless the nonverbal communication were much more intentional and formalized than the nonverbal communication of H. sapiens. We're pretty good at memorizing large volumes of rote information, adhering to rigid rules systems, and following patterns.

Speaking of finding and following patterns... I can see how that, and an absorbing attention to detail, could be major assets in survival for a species of hunter-gatherers. Particularly on the gathering side. The more edible plants you can identify, the more likely you are to be sufficiently nourished (and thus survive to reproduce and have your offspring survive). The more detail-oriented you are, the more likely you are to distinguish between edible plants and their poisonous look-alikes (and it only takes one error). People say it's hard to differentiate between Queen Anne's lace and poison hemlock-- it's a little trickier in the early spring, but not THAT hard (at least for my autistic eyes). Differentiating between wild parsnip and poison hemlock when they're not in flower-- now THAT takes an excellent rote memory and an eye for details (even WITH an excellent field guide).

The PATTERNS, though, would be the big scale-tipper for a nomadic species. If you know the TRAITS of edible plants (and the traits of poisonous ones), you're going to be more likely to be able to identify food when you enter an unfamiliar environment, or when the climate changes and changes the flora with it.

As for the reasons for extinction... H. sapiens consistently says that H. sapiens survived where H. neanderthalis and every other hominid species didn't because H. sapiens was smarter, more social, and more adaptable.

I sometimes wonder if H. sapiens didn't emerge the victor because H. sapiens was simply that much more AGGRESSIVE than all the others.



The difference between queen annes lace and poisin hemlock and water hemlock is very easy for me, but I wrote the treatment for one of those for the flora of north america.

I guess I am done discussing this issue. It doesnt seem that anyone wants to actually explore the issue, they just want to say neanderthals are extinct and that they are right. If you want to make claims about evolutionary biology, I suggest you read up on the subject and on the biological species concept.

:(


_________________
Peace among worlds!


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,143
Location: temperate zone

04 Aug 2017, 11:27 am

rick sanchez wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
The point is that Neanderthals were a side branch that came to a dead end.

The branch apparently did not go SO far sideways that they could no longer interbreed with modern type humans. But as a recognizable phenotype they died out. And died out relatively suddenly.



I have 3% Neandethal DNA, so obviously it did not go to a dead end.

The fact that you have 3 percent Neanderthal DNA obviously has nothing to do with the fact that Neanderthals were a dead end.

Why are you behaving so bizarrely with this petty game of semantics?

There is no breeding population of people who have the phenotype- the physical attributes of Neanderthals- alive and kicking today.

So people of that description are "no longer extant". So what word would you use for "no longer extant"? You could use "extinct", or you could use some other word that means the same darn thing as "extinct". So why not just go with extinct?



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,143
Location: temperate zone

04 Aug 2017, 11:33 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
The species/subspecies known as Homo neanderthalensis/Homo sapiens neanderthalensis certainly went extinct. There are no modern humans with close to the peculiar adaptive anatomy of the Neanderthals.

They almost certainly interbred with "anatomically modern" humans. Europeans have Neanderthal lineage.

In Africa, it is a certainty that there are people with autism (or autistic-like symptoms). I know a place which houses a few of them. It's located in the northern part of Ghana. It is funded by the Hand in Hand Ministries. None of the clients have any "European" descent.


Yes. Countries with people of color get less medical attention, and less mental health attention than folks in White countries. And nonwhite minority people within rich White countries tend to get less attention for the mental health community. But there obviously are autistic , or autistic like, people in Black sub-Saharan Africa. And there is less Neanderthal DNA in sub-Saharan Africa. So if autism rates turned out to be similar in Black Africa to those in Europe and among White Americans then that would argue against the Neanderthal theory of the origin of autism.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,143
Location: temperate zone

04 Aug 2017, 11:44 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
When I was talking about "sensory overload," I was talking mostly about what occurred in the hunt. There was lots of excitement during these sorties after prey. One also had to be able to do "two or more things at once," and to "think on one's feet." One cannot deny that!

When one is in a cave or shelter, one could experience sensory overload.

In the cave, it's because of the acoustics. In the shelters, it's because people lived in "close quarters."


Actually, some modern tribal hunter gathering live in communities with little privacy between households. Their villages can have a lot of noise and cacophony that one could imagine would be overwhelming to an autistic. Unless maybe the autistic person just got used to it because the din is there all of the time.



Dear_one
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Feb 2008
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,717
Location: Where the Great Plains meet the Northern Pines

04 Aug 2017, 2:54 pm

naturalplastic wrote:

Actually, some modern tribal hunter gathering live in communities with little privacy between households. Their villages can have a lot of noise and cacophony that one could imagine would be overwhelming to an autistic. Unless maybe the autistic person just got used to it because the din is there all of the time.


My noise sensitivity only arrived after I learned to associate it with danger, at age 57. Before that, I slept better during the day with other people around.

I am often amused by the musings of modern men, often quite learned ones, trying to imagine life in the Stone Age. They tell us how they would react to moving there themselves as pioneers, not growing up in a family with long history on the land, many traditions and an established technology. They could just go visit a stone-age community. Authentic SA music is still played at Pow-Wows around here, although the costumes are day-glo. It seems to be heavily influenced by the singing of wolves. There was also an experiment with using bronze to work stone, but the bronze was handled as if it were a ferrous metal - a completely different discipline.

In societies without science, cultural taboos were often very powerful. The Viking colonies in Greenland starved to death because their chiefs insisted on eating beef, which required exotic-animal grade care there, and nobody would eat the abundant fish at all. When the seals had a bad ice year, the last men died.

In Nova Scotia, lobster used to be considered an insect, and used as potato fertilizer, two per plant, and if kids found lobster sandwiches in their lunch bag, they'd throw them away rather than endure the teasing. Then somebody had the bright idea of selling them in New York.

Even established technologies seem vulnerable to new superstitions or some other problem. The populations of Tierra Del Fuego and Tasmania were both cut off by sea level rise after the last ice age, and both lost some of their most useful cold-weather techniques, fire and warm clothing, despite the continuing cold winters. You can teach an NT to fish, but you might have to teach his grandkid, too. <sigh>



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,143
Location: temperate zone

04 Aug 2017, 5:27 pm

The Neanderthals seemed to be less sociable than anatomical moderns. If that was because they lacked spoken language and had to communicate through nonverbal means then that would argue against the Neanderthal theory of the origin of ASDs because autistics are worse, and not better than NTs at nonverbal communication.



Dear_one
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Feb 2008
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,717
Location: Where the Great Plains meet the Northern Pines

04 Aug 2017, 5:32 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
The Neanderthals seemed to be less sociable than anatomical moderns. If that was because they lacked spoken language and had to communicate through nonverbal means then that would argue against the Neanderthal theory of the origin of ASDs because autistics are worse, and not better than NTs at nonverbal communication.


Is there any indication that Neanderthals lacked language?



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

04 Aug 2017, 5:35 pm

There are indications that Neanderthals HAD language.

The position of the hyoid bone in Neanderthals is almost identical to anatomically-modern humans; hence, it has been stated that Neanderthals could intone most of the phonemes which anatomically-modern humans could intone.

Have you heard the theory that the first language was rendered in song?



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,143
Location: temperate zone

04 Aug 2017, 5:55 pm

Have heard something like that. Read the book "the singing Neanderthals" about how Neanderthals might have communicated through song.



rick sanchez
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 185

04 Aug 2017, 7:01 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
rick sanchez wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
The point is that Neanderthals were a side branch that came to a dead end.

The branch apparently did not go SO far sideways that they could no longer interbreed with modern type humans. But as a recognizable phenotype they died out. And died out relatively suddenly.



I have 3% Neandethal DNA, so obviously it did not go to a dead end.

The fact that you have 3 percent Neanderthal DNA obviously has nothing to do with the fact that Neanderthals were a dead end.

Why are you behaving so bizarrely with this petty game of semantics?

There is no breeding population of people who have the phenotype- the physical attributes of Neanderthals- alive and kicking today.

So people of that description are "no longer extant". So what word would you use for "no longer extant"? You could use "extinct", or you could use some other word that means the same darn thing as "extinct". So why not just go with extinct?


I am sorry, please forgive for stating a few facts and connecting them with a logical chain of reasoning that contradicts your preconcieved ideas.


_________________
Peace among worlds!