Neanderthals were more advanced than us. THEY were one of the megalithic cultures of the remote past

reply to post by Hijinx


Maybe they functioned differently than we.
We always try to base everything off of how we do things because it's all we know.

How do we know they even communicated with speech at all?
Maybe they communicated with complex hand signals like helen keller, telepathy, or clicks and pops.

Their larger brain sizes could have served a multitude of purposes like enhanced vision, hearing and sense of smell...you know, things that modern man depends less and less upon as this thing we call "technology" makes us "better", or better yet replaces our own brains.

I still can't even say there is a legitimate connection here between us and them, but I can say that modern man is not improving. He's devolving back into a tadpole...a tadpole with a smartphone.

great thread BTW, I really enjoyed reading it.
There is so much more to learn and if I can add anything we need to broaden our thinking a bit and stop assuming that what we're dealing with had ANY similarities to what we are today. It's quite possible the only thing similar to us is merely skeletal.

Just some thought. Thanks.

reply to post by zedVSzardoz


Neanderthal did not fish, they did not use the bow, , in fact their shoulder structure precluded any throwing weapons. Their tool making technologies did not improve in 400,000 years.
I feel that their social structure likely had a great deal to do their final demise. When I've read up on some of the injuries that neanderthal aquired, some of the injuries look an awful lot like injuries one gets when fighting with each other, like fractured facial bones and fractures of the arms and shoulder injuries.
One can't help but wonder if some from of social structures were in part responsible for their not being able to compete. It has been postulated they had a matriarchal social structure, if so maybe males had to fight fight for the opportunity to mate with the mating female, and if so maybe there wasnt any free mating amongst the groups, and only the strongest male got to mate with alpha female. If this situation , that has parallels in other mammals, was the case then they would have been a a serious disadvantage compared to culturally modern humans.
It has been theorized that the robust brow ridges in archaic homonins is mating based structure that emphasizes the ' angry glare" that is common among competative male primates. This feature is positively selected in free breeding primates.
On the other hand , the real turning point in the development in culturally modern humans, is cooperative breeding and pair bonding, which allow for faster population growth and a more diverse and adaptive gene pool.

reply to post by zedVSzardoz


That article has some VERY convincing arguments. Amazing find.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

A blue whale also has larger brain than us, so i presume it must be way more intelligent!

Excellent points regarding the brain size and intellect concept. I suppose if what you're saying is true, then naturally that type of belief, that some neanderthals were more advanced would have to be hidden.

We certainly can't have that, now can we?

Originally posted by NeverBackDown
A blue whale also has larger brain than us, so i presume it must be way more intelligent!

One thing's for sure, they can navigate WAY better than I can, so, maybe.

humm!
I said that in That other post.
did you get the idea from me?
good!

The sources you do list for Neanderthals being smarter than humans is TERRIBLE. It just makes the claim, without ANY evidence or sources for their claims.

In fact, the first comment has more sources than the actual article.

This article is ridiculous for many reasons, but the most striking reason is the assertion that Neanderthal could have possibly been smarter than Homo sapien sapiens. There is no evidence of this anywhere in the fossil record. Neanderthal may have had a bigger brain, but their brains were smaller relative to their body proportions (Ruff et al, 1997). Moreover, brainsize has little to do with overall intelligence; brain structure is the key factor, here. Evidence shows that Neanderthals frontal brain was not as advanced as modern humans. While selective pressure in favor of smaller brain volume might seem counterintuitive, it should be noted that the fossil records suggest that brain size in humans, particularly �Europeans,� has decreased over the past 35,000 years | note: Neanderthals are believed to have died out 35, 000 years ago (Mellars and Ramsey, 2005) | and on through the Neolithic period (Frayer, 1984; Ruff et al, 1997; Woods, et al, 2006). These archaeological changes in brain size are paralleled by changes in body size (Ruff et al, 1997; Ruff, 2002), and it is possible that decreases in brain size may have exerted selective pressure for corresponding decreases in body size, particularly in Europeans (Ruff et al, 1997; Frayer, 1984; see also, Woods et al., 2006). Referenced: Evan P., Mekel-Bobrov N., Vallender E., Hudson R., Lahn B., (2006). Evidence that the adaptive allele of the brain size gene microcephalin introgressed into Homo sapiens from an archaic Homo lineage. 18178�18183, PNAS November 28, 2006, vol. 103, no. 48 Frayer, D.W. (1984). In The Origins of Modern Humans: A world survey of the Fossil Evidence (eds Smith, F.H. & Spencer, f.) 211-250 (Liss, New York, 1984) Ruff C.B., Trinkaus E., and Holliday T.W. (1997). Body mass and encephalization in Pleistocene Homo. Nature Vol. 387, 8 May 1997 Woods R., Freimer N., Young J., Fears S, Sicotte N., Service S., Valentino D., Toga A., Mazziotta J. (2006). Normal Variants of Microcephalin and ASPM Do Not Account for Brain Size Variability. Human Molecular Genetics, Volume 15, Number 12, 15 June 2006, pp. 2025-2029(5)

Why the F should we believe you, over the countless scientists who devote their lives to this topic. and especially with a comment like:

as far as the rest. PROOF? are you kidding me? From the comfort of my PC I am going to dig up evidence of this theory and then PROVE it? sorry, you are just asking WAY too much. What i can do is continue to argue my THEORY and mitigate any questions we may have as best as I can.

In other words, you're just making outrageous claims with no proof, but you'll continue to BS people, and say play off what you say as "fact."

I can't believe this thread is getting so much attention.

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
So I was looking at THIS thread about bringing back Neanderthals when I came to the conclusion that they HAD to be superior, from a racist eugenics point of view....I know. But hear me out...

Defining "more advanced" is subjective.

Sperm whales FTW!

reply to post by zedVSzardoz


Who says we didnt kill them off?

So a much more advanced species.. used much much more primitive tools? Why would they do that?

When humans evolved, we used tools to make our lives easier, safer, better. Why would a more advanced species choose to forgo these luxuries, and use crudely hewn stone tools to hunt, cut, build etc. It makes no sense at all. Other than the "they had big brains" idea, I don't see any actual proof that they were more advanced than they were.

Originally posted by Ghost375
Why the F should we believe you, over the countless scientists who devote their lives to this topic. and especially with a comment like:

as far as the rest. PROOF? are you kidding me? From the comfort of my PC I am going to dig up evidence of this theory and then PROVE it? sorry, you are just asking WAY too much. What i can do is continue to argue my THEORY and mitigate any questions we may have as best as I can.

In other words, you're just making outrageous claims with no proof, but you'll continue to BS people, and say play off what you say as "fact."

I can't believe this thread is getting so much attention.

Yes Ghost375. And moreover, how can he objectively define "more smart"?


Plus, if we use brain size as a benchmark for "smartness" then an elephant is marginally smarter than humans.

Well if Neanderthals were smarter and better than us, is this smart?

Wanted: 'Adventurous woman' to give birth to Neanderthal man - Harvard professor seeks mother for cloned cave baby

Professor George Church of Harvard Medical School believes he can reconstruct Neanderthal DNA
His ambitious plan requires a human volunteer willing to allow the DNA to be put into stem cells, then a human embryo


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

Hi! Newbie here.

I just wanna say that ever since reading "Clan of the Cave Bear" by Jean M. Auel, I have had a keen interest in those times. I understand that some people want to keep those neanderthals in their place as silly animals that knew how to make fire and were lucky that they didn't singe off their eyebrows, but the truth is they were somewhat intelligent. They had to be to survive for as long as they did in the conditions they did.

However, I do not think they were more intelligent than us simply because their craniums were bigger. In fact, without being able to see the actual brain layout of a neanderthal it would be hard to establish intelligence because intelligence is actually microscopic. Synapses fire, neurons collect and relay messages throughout a body in an instant, and hormones help to regulate it all. Even as intelligent as we are we still don't know all the workings of the human brain...but we're getting there. Check out this article on how grid-like the brain looked when they mapped the neurons doing their thing.: www.extremetech.com...

As for neanderthal man being Nephilim...I don't think so. In many instances neanderthal men and women averaged a size of 5.4. Most humans today are averaging 5.6 and as each generation passes the average goes up. Nephilim were said to be twice that at least so it's hard for me to believe that neanderthal man WAS Nephilim. However, Nephilim could have spawned neanderthal man AND the elusive bigfoot-type creatures people claim to see today.

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

but that's he definition of science it's why it's polar opposite of religion

Science = believe nothing without proof
Religion = believe everything without proof

Problem is now people have a dogma about science they don't like it being wrong cuz they use it as a pseudo religion and that mean it can't change based of facts, problem is Science is all guess work till they can convince enough people to believe it...which then it's the same as religion, just made up and hard to prove wrong

Currently the neanderthal would throw a huge wrench into both religion and science so most people choose to believe the easy route

people Beliefs do not equal facts either way

reply to post by fleabit


well let's say they were smart as us, not smarter but same level, just as a reference now.
now let fast forward let take 5% of Americas population, kill the rest, still just example,
do you think that 5% could do the following, Make nuclear weapons/power, design cellphone towers, global communication tools and satellite, rockets, computers? no well maybe that too hard, what about easier technology
like Refrigeration, Electricity, Water collection and distribution systems?almost all critical to daily life, yet still step further, now how many of those people can do even the most basic technologies? how many can make cordage,clothes, working metals, wood ,leather, or glass, even something is simple as finding food, wether it ben hunting and gathering, or basic animal husbandry and growing crops. making fire is lost to most people which is sad cause at the moment the world still runs on combustion

so now the great America is nothing it crumbles and it's people that once had a great nation, know nothing have nothing,
Survivals a group effort and so is technology we advance so far passed the basics that people don't know them

So back to neanderthals what if something catastrophic happen, as mentioned in just about every ancient document that tells of a smarter better race, in fact there is more mention of a smarter race then a dumber one everywhere you look in history. now imagine that scenario on them but even their tech made ours look like stick and stones, imagine how they would survive, well they have to go back to the basic and oh look a "dumber" human just happen to have what they need the basics.that's all ya need to survive. probably assimilated the reduced population into various human tribe and then got bred out over 30k years.

but that's just my 2 cents i really have nothing to prove or disprove it but neither does anyone else, it would only take around 400+ years for all sign of current civilization to disappear from the world.

Originally posted by CrimsonMoon
reply to post by zedVSzardoz

 

Maybe they had bigger brains and were a lot stronger. So what?

Our women are WAY better looking than theirs

Bah ha. That was awesome.

reply to post by zedVSzardoz


We know that the Neanderthals lived from some 600,000 years ago right up to around 24,000 years ago and that the first modern Humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) cropped up around 200,000 years ago.
DNA evidence states that we, modern Humans, originated in Africa and that we only started migrating out of Africa en-mass around 100,000 years ago.
Clearly there was a very long period of time where we lived right alongside Neanderthals.
It is known that Cro-Magnon man, the direct precurser to modern humans, at least in Europe, inter-bred with them.
Whether this was through peacefull cooperation between the two species or through rape and violence is unclear.
Neanderthals were certainly far stronger than Cro-Magnon man, so its not unreasonable to think that randy Neanderthals would have had no trouble forcing themselves on any weaker Cro-Magnon females they fancied, given the opportunity.
Warfare between the two species may have been common early on, at least for the first few generations, but despite their greater strength Neanderthals would have been no match for Cro-Magnon mans far more advanced weapon technology, such as powerfull wooden bows and arrows tipped with razor sharp, intricately worked flint arrowheads, that would have allowed Cro-Magnon man to kill any Neanderthals they came across from a safe distance. Neanderthals used stone tipped spears, which they repeatedly thrust outwards with their powerfull arms to kill their prey. However they didn't throw their spears at their prey like Cro-Magnon man did, meaning they had to get very close to their prey to actually make a kill. This may explain why so many Neanderthal skeletons show signs of broken bones!
Eventually though it seems that at least some of both species must have put their differences aside to get on with inter-breeding.
Natural selection had ample time to adapt the bodies of Neanderthals for the freezing cold ice-age climate in Europe. Their adaptions to the climate were primarly: large noses (to help preheat the cold hair that they breathed in), thin lips (to limit the amount of delicate lip area exposed to cold air), a short stature (to help retain body heat), long, thick hair on their head (to limit heat loss from their heads) and they probably had pale skin too to let more sunlight get to the cells in their skin that produced Vitamin D. (The sunshine vitamin).
Cro-Magnon man was certainly less adapted to the ice-age climate but they may have had better clothing technology than the Neanderthals and this would have enabled them to keep even warmer and hunt in colder areas than the Neanderthals could reach.
But what skin colour did the Cro-Magnons have? Does this even matter? Well yes, it does as it would help prove the theory that Cro-Magnon man descended from largely Albino Negroid tribes that left Africa during the first waves of human migration from 100,000 years ago onwards. DNA evidence proves that we all originated in Africa, but when did the white Caucasion race actually start?
Even today, 1 in 35 of all Negroids in the world carry the "white gene". This only has a chance of producing an Albino Negroid offspring if both parents carry the gene. But this isn't a certainty because it can also skip generations.
Probably due to frequent violent episodes of racial/religious distrimination/intolerance the parents of any such "Albinoids" would have segregated themselves off from the rest of the majority black population.
Over time a tribe of Albinoids, consisting of mostly of Albino Negroids but also some black negroids, would have left Africa for the colder climes of Europe.
Natural selection would have favoured the lighter skinned Albinoids who were better adapted for the cold climate than their black skinned relatives and over the span of a few generations most, if not all, of the black Negroids in the tribe would have died out.
Now the next part of the theory states that natural selection again came into play and over many generations their noses between larger, their lips became thinner, their hair became longer and straighter and thus they came to look more and more like modern white Caucasians. I am not so sure that natural selection alone would have had enough time to produce these changes However inter-breeding with Neanderthals, who already had all these traits in their DNA, would have greatly accelerated this change and this is likely to be where the white Caucasian race originated. How long ago this process ended we may never know, but carefull analysis of several skulls of Cro-Magnon man shows them to be white Caucasian in origin rather than Negroid. This may point to a much earlier date than previously thought.
It is therefore entirely possible that "fully formed" modern white Caucasians could have already been living in Europe as far back as as 40-50,000 years ago!