Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Natural Environment
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Natural Environment How Human History has been impacted by the environment, science, nature, geography, weather, and natural phenomena


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 5th, 2017, 11:29 AM   #21
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jan 2016
From: Ohio
Posts: 280

I guess we will never really know until we find more evidence. It gets confusing cause there are so many damn sub species. Homo Erectus broke into two groups. Then those groups broke into more, etc etc, then you have the neanderthals and homosapiens?
TheMusicMan is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 5th, 2017, 11:50 AM   #22
Scholar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Posts: 833

Quote:
Originally Posted by sparky View Post
.For starter
the usual marker for a specie is if it can interbreed and produce fertile offspring
since there is some evidence for interbreeding one can assume that Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon people were of the same homo Sapiens specie
Only in abstract theoretical discussions - in practice no taxonomist actually uses this as the criteria for defining species. Geladas regularly interbreed with baboons, and yet are classified in different genera.

Quote:
while tools change , behavior do not , Homo sapiens Sapiens has a solid track record as killer
while it's expansion was quire slow at first in the Middle East , the European expansion was brutal and fast , indicating to my eyes a conflictual encounter ,
it should be noted than the Western Neanderthal were quite extreme in their morphology and would have been seen as very different to the Cro- Magnon
How are you defining 'fast'? By the longest estimates, it took more than 10,000 years for modern humans to spread across Europe, longer than human civilisation. Although the dates for younger Neanderthals have been questioned; radiocarbon dates carry error bars too large for us to rule out it taking a few millenia. And we know it wasn't all violent - since we have fossils (from Oase, Romania), that not only look like they show a mix of Neanderthal and modern traits, but have been confirmed as the results of recent hybridisation by DNA analysis.

If this was a violent process, there was sex involved, nevertheless. These Neanderthals did not look different enough to turn everyone off.
Kaficek is offline  
Old December 5th, 2017, 03:03 PM   #23

Jake10's Avatar
Guardian Knight
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Canada
Posts: 11,954
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaficek View Post
This is in no sense 'far more likely'. For starters, it's quite a specific scenario, and any specific scenario is a priori unlikely. Modern human-Neanderthal interaction was not a one-off event; and it did not happen over a short time period. The pattern of Neanderthal genes in todays humans (which are different in different parts of the world) suggest at least three major episodes of interbreeding. In the Middle East, we have remains from Skhul and Qafzeh which are generally interpreted as modern human from about 100,000 years ago; and then we have remains from the same area 70,000 years ago usually classed as Neanderthals. We should perhaps be careful about how easy it is to assign skulls to one population or the other - especially now we know that they interbred - but any explanation which is taking place on a human-like timescale is not an explanation. Neanderthals and modern humans shared the world for tens of thousands of years.

There's no reason to think that modern humans carried viruses the Neanderthals couldn't deal with. It's possible, of course, but it's totally unevidenced. We do know, however, that Neanderthals did not simply die after breeding with modern humans. What we're trying to explain is not just the presence of Neanderthal genes in our genome; since the genome of a Neanderthal woman who died in Siberia 50,000 years ago shows that modern human genes passed the other way.
There is evidence, even if small:

Quote:
Dr Charlotte Houldcroft, from Cambridge’s Division of Biological Anthropology, says that many of the infections likely to have passed from humans to Neanderthals – such as tapeworm, tuberculosis, stomach ulcers and types of herpes – are chronic diseases that would have weakened the hunter-gathering Neanderthals, making them less fit and able to find food, which could have catalysed extinction of the species.
“Humans migrating out of Africa would have been a significant reservoir of tropical diseases,” says Houldcroft. “For the Neanderthal population of Eurasia, adapted to that geographical infectious disease environment, exposure to new pathogens carried out of Africa may have been catastrophic.”

“However, it is unlikely to have been similar to Columbus bringing disease into America and decimating native populations. It’s more likely that small bands of Neanderthals each had their own infection disasters, weakening the group and tipping the balance against survival,” says Houldcroft.
Neanderthals may have been infected by diseases carried out of Africa by humans, say researchers | University of Cambridge

This, of course, is not proof, but it would explain why only the offspring of mixed mating survived. We need to keep in mind that Neanderthals lived in small groups, so infections would have traveled slowly from group to group, and that not all humans migrating out of Africa would have carried illnesses harmful to them.

We also have to keep in mind that human migrations at the time would have been slow and based on survival, as would have been the spread of diseases.

Last edited by Jake10; December 5th, 2017 at 03:19 PM.
Jake10 is offline  
Old December 5th, 2017, 07:15 PM   #24
Scholar
 
Joined: May 2016
From: Vatican occupied America
Posts: 811
Blog Entries: 1

Neanderthals were not humans.

Human skullcaps

Click the image to open in full size.

Neanderthal skullcap

Click the image to open in full size.


Neanderthal skull

Click the image to open in full size.
Gorilla skull
Click the image to open in full size.

Neanderthal teeth

Click the image to open in full size.
Human teeth
Click the image to open in full size.

They're much closer to a gorilla than us. In stature they're smaller than humans excluding alpinids. Alpinids are usually 4 foot something and are the shortest humans not of dwarf/midget/pygmy/little people size.
Alpinids you already know
Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.

Neanderthals would have revolted humans rather than attracted them. Cats and dogs are about the same as humans and Neanderthals and living in the same ranges we would of actively been completing with them for food.

Neanderthal skeleton with all Neanderthal bones next to a human

Click the image to open in full size.

Other Mousterian (Neanderthal) Sites and Artefacts
Disciple of Sophia is offline  
Old December 5th, 2017, 09:44 PM   #25

Dreamhunter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Malaysia
Posts: 5,706
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Disciple of Sophia View Post
Neanderthals were not humans.
They are/were. Otherwise modern Europeans wud carry zero lineage from Neanderthals, and modern Asians wud carry zero lineage from Denisovans, which is certainly not the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Disciple of Sophia View Post
Neanderthals would have revolted humans rather than attracted them.
First, this thing about 'revolting' is more of a current idea or concept. What people wud hv felt about a potential breeding partner 100,000 years ago in that regard is of very little similarity to what they might feel today. Otherwise modern Europeans wud carry zero lineage from Neanderthals, and modern Asians wud carry zero lineage from Denisovans, which is certainly not the case.

Apart from that, a male of that time, whether he was a Neanderthal, a Cro-Magnon, a Denisovan, or a Homo sapiens, did not hv to worry about being kind, being funny, coming across as being intelligent, having to charm a female, make her like him, make her laugh, win her heart blah blah blah. Whether she was a Neanderthal, a Cro-Magnon, a Denisovan, or a Homo sapiens. It was just stuff like biological urge & brute physical strength that carried the day. Okay, he might hv had to learn & cultivate some patience in some situations, kind of play a waiting game, perhaps a bit like a tomcat does when trying to court & woo a pussycat, but that was about it.

I wud say, they were not even like tigers & lions, which are not really that close, but more like tigers & leopards, tigers & pumas, tigers & jaguars, or tigers & leopards/panthers.

BTW, for a rather long time, folks thought that the spotted leopard & the black panther were two different species, but eventually they had to accept that the two were the same one species.

Last edited by Dreamhunter; December 5th, 2017 at 10:13 PM.
Dreamhunter is offline  
Old December 6th, 2017, 01:12 AM   #26
Scholar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Posts: 833

Quote:
Originally Posted by Disciple of Sophia View Post
They're much closer to a gorilla than us. In stature they're smaller than humans excluding alpinids. Alpinids are usually 4 foot something and are the shortest humans not of dwarf/midget/pygmy/little people size.
Nonsense. Even on the pictures you posted it's plain to see that Neanderthals are much closer to us in morphology - even with the way the Neanderthal skull is tilted to try and create the illusion that the lower jaw protrudes more than it does.

Most confusing is why you've put the pictures of modern human and Neanderthal teeth, showing how similar they appear, as if this demonstrates something, but there's no picture showing how drastically different a gorilla's teeth are. I can't find a good photo of a gorilla's tooth row, but the differences are not subtle:

Click the image to open in full size.

That's a modern human flanked by gorillas; here for comparison is a modern and Neanderthal skull side-by-side

Click the image to open in full size.

Maybe look at some pelves if you need more convincing. You have been misled by creationists.
Kaficek is offline  
Old December 6th, 2017, 01:28 AM   #27
Scholar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Posts: 833

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamhunter View Post
Apart from that, a male of that time, whether he was a Neanderthal, a Cro-Magnon, a Denisovan, or a Homo sapiens, did not hv to worry about being kind, being funny, coming across as being intelligent, having to charm a female, make her like him, make her laugh, win her heart blah blah blah. Whether she was a Neanderthal, a Cro-Magnon, a Denisovan, or a Homo sapiens. It was just stuff like biological urge & brute physical strength that carried the day. Okay, he might hv had to learn & cultivate some patience in some situations, kind of play a waiting game, perhaps a bit like a tomcat does when trying to court & woo a pussycat, but that was about it.
I'm not sure why you think the idea of trying to charm a woman, make her laugh and win her heart is a modern thing. It's not like modern people living in hunter-gatherer bands just go around raping each other all day long - they have marriages, courtships, affairs. I'm not sure why you expect this to be so different in the Pleistocene.
Kaficek is offline  
Old December 6th, 2017, 06:54 AM   #28

Jake10's Avatar
Guardian Knight
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Canada
Posts: 11,954
Blog Entries: 5

Even monkeys need to charm females for sex. In fact, monkeys can understand the concept of prostitution.

Quote:
The idea is that you can use money as a form of currency to exchange for goods or services, as in not just food. Well, one of the researchers, during the chaos event, observed how one of the monkeys exchanged money to another for sex. After the act was over, the monkey which was paid immediately used it to buy a grape…
https://www.zmescience.com/research/...nkey-appeared/

So, in the case of humans and Neanderthals, there may have been some bigotry, but even in cases of extreme bigotry men are still attracted to foreign women and they charm, rape or pay them for sex. That is why it is so common to read about men who had children with women who were their slaves. It must have been the same way with humans and Neanderthals.
Jake10 is offline  
Old December 6th, 2017, 09:56 AM   #29

sparky's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Sydney
Posts: 2,016

.
Neanderthal grave sites demonstrated their care for each other and respect for the deceased
there is some good evidence for some form of Bear worship ,
to see them as brutes is deeply wrong , they probably loved and grieved as much as we do

P.S on the specie and breeding thing ,I'm quite aware than horses and donkeys can breed , lion and tigers too but those offspring are sterile
the genetic distance is too wide ,on the Homo Sapiens , the official terminology is quite formal
it recognize the Sapiens sapiens and the Sapiens neanderthal .
sparky is offline  
Old December 6th, 2017, 04:39 PM   #30

Dreamhunter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Malaysia
Posts: 5,706
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaficek View Post
I'm not sure why you think the idea of trying to charm a woman, make her laugh and win her heart is a modern thing. It's not like modern people living in hunter-gatherer bands just go around raping each other all day long - they have marriages, courtships, affairs. I'm not sure why you expect this to be so different in the Pleistocene.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake10 View Post
Even monkeys need to charm females for sex.
Really? Apparently, you guys hv not heard of that gorilla who kind of took a liking to a human female researcher. He just went up to her, carried her up, took her to his lair, and then, well, basically had his way with her. Not much different to what might hv happened when a Neanderthal, Denisovan or Cro-Magnon male took a shine to a Homo sapiens female he saw, or vice versa. Cud call it charm, I guess.

And if it was like 100,000 years ago, we'd be talking about guys who wore absolutely nothing on their skin, essentially went by the dictates of their glands & hormones, and basically lived for food, some leisure, play & recreation when the environment was safe & secure, and lots of breeding.

Last edited by Dreamhunter; December 6th, 2017 at 06:15 PM.
Dreamhunter is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Natural Environment

Tags
humans, left



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Science is done by humans, humans are subjective beings, ergo science is subjective? lokariototal Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 40 October 12th, 2016 06:36 AM
Modern humans interbred with more archaic hominins before they left Africa Shaddam IV Natural Environment 3 September 8th, 2011 02:50 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.