posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 09:37 AM
I think people have to realise how similar cro magnon man and neandertal would have actaully been. The difference would have not been much greater
than the difference between to different races of modern man. In the animal world any to organisms that can breed and produce fertile offspring are
one and the same species. It is only due to the fact evolutionary anthropologists want to make a name for themselves that we have so many subdiviosns
of the human species.
Neantherthals were more robust, stronger and slower whereas cro magnon man was gracile, not as strong, but faster and probably needed much less
resources to survive. I'm sure there would have been a a large number of wars but I'd say on the whole the Neanthal were simply bred out. I'd
hazard a guess that due to the hasher European environment there would have been far less nanderthal than cro magnons , and over time their distinct
genetic heritage just slowly became watered down. I favor this theory over anything to do with fertility rates as it makes more sense. If you look at
early man in Europe the popultions were always fairly low until they were invaded and became 'civilised'. The high fertility rates in sub-Saharan
Africa probably has a lot more to do with the amount of unprotected sex that goes on, the fact that their culture on the whole is a lot less
'prudish', and the fact that they are probably exposed to a lot less chemicals and carcinogens than people living in 1st world countries.
Civilization only arises out of need. Note that many of the greatest early civilisations sprung initially from the deserts of the Middle East and then
spread to the colder climes of Europe. Humans in such places simply needed to become more organised to survive in any great numbers.
Culture as associated with race generally spreads laterally across the globe following areas of similar climatic environment. This is why there are
Caucasians all the way from Ireland to Siberia. But below the Caucasian domain there are Arabs, Indians and Asians. This is because what worked in the
UK also works in Russia. Similar cultural ideas (especially regarding survival) would not work however in the Arabian deserts, India, or the tropics
The point of what I said in the last two paragraphs is that Africans (and this also fits with other cultures that were once deemed 'primitive' e.g
the Americas or Australia) did not form civilisations simply cos there was no need, and the areas they lived in did not allow for culture to spread
laterally as Africa, Australia and the Americas are isolated entities.
As for skin colour, there are 3 main ways that a species can change, or evolve:
*Natural Selection, where a species develops a trait that is beneficial to its survival.
*Sexual selection, where a species develops a trait which gives it a higher chance of successfully scoring a mate. This is most prominantly seen in
birds e.g peacocks
*Parental Selection, where offspring are born with trait which encourages its parents to look after more than other offspring. This is now the leading
theory of how humans became hairless.
It is believed when humans migrated to the northern hemishere the last 2 were the main causal factors for humans becoming lighter skinned. Vitamin D
may play a minor role but keep in mind by the time humans reached Europe they were covered in skins and furs to keep warm, so this sort of discounts
this theory. Not at all trying to be racist, but many leading evolutionary anthropologist now believe that early Europeans for whatever reason
favoured lighter skin. Obviously this wasn't the case in Africa or Asia as there's nothing attractive about a sunburnt whitey.
Finally I highly doubt any comparison study between Caucasians, Asians and Africans would shed any useful info regarding Neanderthals. Any
discernible culture they may have had would long since have been lost as culture changes so quickly - better to look at the archaeological evidence.
Mental ability is a product of both nature and nurture, and varies highly even amongst individuals with very similar physical and cultural
backgrounds. Physical characteristics maybe, but most of it has long since been watered down. One would probably glean far more information from from
studying their physical remains and their genetic code.