Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by SLAYER69
I suppose saying they contributed to European DNA does make them a kind of contributing "missing link", even if it means we didn't slowly
evolve from them.
Not just "European DNA" but all others who are not of Sub Saharan African/Australian aboriginal descent carry either Neanderthal or Denisovian DNA. We
might want to dispel with the sole "Euro-centric" view of mankind's history and recognize the rest of the planet and their individual and as well as
their collective histories.
This isn't a discussion of a "Missing link" I believe that supposed issue from my perspective happened eons previously at a much earlier period than
we are discussing. I believe this is a major stumbling block for some when discussing the topic [Not saying this is the case with you]
I'd say the "brutish ape" view came from a time when Neanderthals were considered a separate line from Homo Heidelbergensis, and they were
considered neither our ancestors by evolution or interbreeding. They were a distant cousin and evolutionary dead-end.
A dead end only as far as "they living the way they had" however, They technically are not extinct. They are us, we are them. For locked away in most
of the worlds populations genetic makeup can be found their contribution to who we are. Some people speak of or defend either Creationism or
Darwinism, each seemingly adhering to very "strict beliefs" and "Opinion" on many individual aspects of these long held beliefs.
This is a newer version of events.
I and many others are fully aware that there will be resistance to this newer theory from all sides for varying reasons.
It seems the recent scramble to absolutely humanize these hominids came with the realization that they may have contributed to European
ancestry, and no matter how long ago in prehistory, Europeans can only come from a well-dressed, spiritual artist (hilarious really)!
Again, it might help if we dispel with the "Euro-centric" point of view and think Globally. Besides, it was mostly the early "European Scientific"
community who got the whole Neanderthal-Brutish-Ape scenario wrong in the first place. If anything they could be "Scrambling" to correct one of their
most glaring collective scientific blunders.
A creature doesn't have to look like us to be intelligent. Other animals seem to show signs of grieving for their dead.
How many of those "Other Animals" bury their dead in a prepared grave site and further, how many of those "other Animals" bury their dead with
We don't have to push a species into a "primitive man" mold to say they could have done these things. We know they were intelligent hominids
who made stone tools and had some use of fire.
Let me ask you a question here....
How many other species on the planet routinely make use of fire other than man?
They were top-level predators in a very challenging environment, and just like much of the Ice Age fauna they evolved physical adaptations to
I have no issues with this belief. They were some very Tough SOBs.
Interesting perspective... How strong would a Neanderthal be compared to a
"Try these physical characteristics on for size:
• For starters, massive, broad shoulders are indicated by a scapular breadth that is about 8% larger than their modern human contemporaries.
(Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans did live side by side for several millennia.)
• Muscle attachments for the pecs were enormous, up to twice the size of today’s average.
• Neanderthals had shorter, wider humeri (upper arms), which combined with the shoulders, suggests substantial rotator cuff muscularity. And, get
this; the bones in their forearms were actually bowed from muscles that must have powered a grip that could crush stone.
• All of this upper body musculature was anchored on a solid foundation of massive quads that specialized in explosive power and side-to-side
"This would have made Neanderthal fingers and thumbs upwards of twice the strength of modern humans" Lumely-Woodyear 1973;
"Thus Neanderthals were probably better at throwing (Debenath and Tournepiche 1992) than their modern contemporaries"
One fails to see any of those adaptions in the popular reconstructions (and even the artists and paleontologists would acknowledge that these
are highly speculative, but popular culture often accepts such artistry at face value).
We should instead rely on an archaic earlier flawed academic view of them? After all, they were
the origins of the idea that Neanderthal was
simply a primitive hominid rather than a closely related cousin whose line migrated out of Africa from a much earlier period than Homo Sapians. You
earlier mentioned the Mega fauna they were confronted with.
Supposition here: To me this seems proof of their intelligence not a detraction of this new theory. They had to not only survive but hunt and out
think the game of their locals. Not just Europe but ALL of the Ice age world. When we broaden our perspective to include the entire Eurasian Continent
it starts to show us a much broader spectrum of events on a much larger canvas.
Of course it's all highly speculative, and that's why it will be good to have two views because it will challenge the scientists to provide
concrete evidence for their interpretations.
AGAIN all based on their earlier flawed Scientific view [Recognized or not] that Neanderthal was a primitive brute?
But hey, I've already seen pictures of Denisovans and their clothes, and all that based on a finger and tooth discovered in 2010!
Their DNA contribution shows up in modern man.
Ultimately they are extinct and we survived, so somewhere along the line we proved the most "brutish ape" of all, and that's a central point
of the predation theory.
As I stated earlier I can see a Grey area and wont be boxed in by any one theory or perspective on the subject. I feel all too many hold to either
black or white view only of the subject and do not consider demonstrating a flexibility in the evolving story of man which we are slowly piecing
together from new evidence as it comes to light.
It seems that the Neanderthal "researchers" are so intent on their humanized construction of Neanderthals that it took an outsider (a
film-maker) to rock the boat
It's all theory and conjecture based on physical archeological evidence coupled with biological evidence [Our DNA] which is showing us an entirely
different possibility of our collective history [Not just a Euro-centric] view.
Also, I'm not aware of which Film or Film maker you're referring to?
edit on 20-7-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)