Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Neanderthal--a comprehensive introduction to the fossil record

page: 5
62
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by HomoSapiensSapiens
reply to post by NarcolepticBuddha
 


Look, I'm as much interested in all of these excellent matters as you are - and I am sure that many thousands of years ago, Homo Sapiens Sapiens was not the only intelligent human. However, I do maintain that, right now, Homo Sapiens Sapiens is the sole dominant and intelligent species.
).




www.bbc.co.uk...

This is a supposed accurate reconstruction of a neanderthal male he looks very similar to many people alive today.

I think homo sapien is more a sociological term - if the above man was alive today he would very much be considered a homo sapien.

The supposed homo sapiens alive in his day were no more advanced then he was, they both used tools, both used art, both buried their dead.

Modern man is not advanced and i have no idea why you think so.

edit on 3-3-2013 by HelenConway because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by HelenConway
 


He'd look pretty noticeable.

But modern man is advanced. Through progression in time and with an increase in knowledge and more skills, the frontal lobe is clearly more advanced than many thousands of years ago. If mankind is not at all advanced than before, then we should have had cars, trains, ships, planes and probes 40K years ago. We should have understood about the universe 50K years ago and known about gravity and understood complex mechanics and figured out that the Earth revolves around the sun.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by HomoSapiensSapiens
reply to post by HelenConway
 


He'd look pretty noticeable.

But modern man is advanced. Through progression in time and with an increase in knowledge and more skills, the frontal lobe is clearly more advanced than many thousands of years ago. If mankind is not at all advanced than before, then we should have had cars, trains, ships, planes and probes 40K years ago. We should have understood about the universe 50K years ago and known about gravity and understood complex mechanics and figured out that the Earth revolves around the sun.


Please provide a source for this. It is my understanding that the so-called "anatomically modern human" was in absolutely no way different physically, or mentally 50Kya. The progression comes with diffusion and sharing of knowledge. There were also some innovators at play. Put a human from 50Kya ago in the same environment since birth with a human from today. I bet no one would be able to tell the difference. Learning largely consists of environment. Humans 50Kya lived in a different environment, had different goals etc.

I really would like to see a source for this one.
edit on 3-3-2013 by NarcolepticBuddha because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by HomoSapiensSapiens
reply to post by HelenConway
 


He'd look pretty noticeable.

But modern man is advanced. Through progression in time and with an increase in knowledge and more skills, the frontal lobe is clearly more advanced than many thousands of years ago. If mankind is not at all advanced than before, then we should have had cars, trains, ships, planes and probes 40K years ago. We should have understood about the universe 50K years ago and known about gravity and understood complex mechanics and figured out that the Earth revolves around the sun.


This will be the last time I respond to you on this matter because I am and you are repeating ..
Most modern men made absolutely no contribution to the inventions and progression of knowledge.

A small section of very clever people invented things that were then used by others who would not have had the intellect or ability to invent these things in a million years.

If the neaderthals were alive today they would also use air craft and cars - just as I do but I in no way claim reflected glory for inventing them... nor should you.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Please Read!!



This is the thread title:

The Neanderthal--a comprehensive introduction to the fossil record




Please stay on topic.
--Off Topic, One Liners and General Back Scratching Posts--

Further thread derailments will have consequences.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by HelenConway
 


You really think history is only made my a small handful of people. I already made clear - it is not only the direct inventors that contribute to the advancement and sophistication of societies. Many complex factors come into play - from even the parents and grandparents of the so-called inventor to the wider population.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by HelenConway
 


You really think history is only made my a small handful of people. I already made clear - it is not only the direct inventors that contribute to the advancement and sophistication of societies. Many complex factors come into play - from even the parents and grandparents of the so-called inventor to the wider population.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by HomoSapiensSapiens
reply to post by NarcolepticBuddha
 


Look, I'm as much interested in all of these excellent matters as you are - and I am sure that many thousands of years ago, Homo Sapiens Sapiens was not the only intelligent human. However, I do maintain that, right now, Homo Sapiens Sapiens is the sole dominant and intelligent species.

The thing is, I just got the vibe that many here were belittling their own species and were glorifying the Neanderthals a bit - the fact of the matter is, as a human being (Homo Sapiens Sapiens), you have more in favour with your fellow humans, than a Neanderthal (who, BTW is extinct, apart from some trace DNA in some ethnic groups of Homo Sapiens Sapiens).


If I'm not mistaken there are several published theories out that hypothesize that neanderthals were completely absorbed into modern homo sapiens in the ancient past.. There are also several theories out which explain their extinction. It had nothing to do with us being "superior." Frankly, that idea is stupid.




Possible scenarios for the extinction of the Neanderthals are: Neanderthals were a separate species from modern humans, and became extinct (due to climate change or interaction with humans) and were replaced by modern humans moving into their habitat beginning around 80,000 years ago.[74] Competition with humans probably contributed to Neanderthal extinction.[75][76] Jared Diamond has suggested a scenario of violent conflict and displacement.[77] Neanderthals were a contemporary subspecies that bred with modern humans and disappeared through absorption (interbreeding theory). A Campanian ignimbrite volcanic super-eruption around 40,000 years ago, followed by a second one a few thousand years later, has been hypothesised as having contributed to the demise of the Neanderthal, based on evidence from Mezmaiskaya cave in the Caucasus Mountains of southern Russia [78][79] Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis of a specimen from Mezmaiskaya Cave is radiocarbon dated to be about 29,000 years BP and therefore from one of the latest living Neanderthal individuals. The sequence shows 3.48% divergence from the Feldhofer Neanderthal. Phylogenetic analysis places the two Neanderthals from the Caucasus and western Germany together in a clade that is distinct from modern humans, suggesting that their mtDNA types have not contributed to the modern human mtDNA pool.[35]


It's pretty much completely up in the air at this point. Stop loud-mouthing your personal opinions as fact.
edit on 3-3-2013 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   
There is no evidence I know of that Neanderthal went extinct because of Cro Magnon killing them off. There is massive DNA evidence that Homo sapiens sapiens and Neanderthal inter-bred. It's no longer a theory; it's a fact. This calls into question the very idea that they are considered a "different" species. In order for all of us to have Neanderthal DNA this interbreeding had to have taken place repeatedly.

We also know that the variations exhibited by Neanderthal were because of the harsh climate. They were more robust and tolerated cold. We have the same thing today. Eskimos tend to be shorter and fatter to retain heat. Africans tend to be tall and skinny to dissipate it. Looking at them side by side it would be easy to claim they are different species, but they are not. This leads to the conclusion that Neanderthal also was NOT a different species, but simply a racial variation caused by climate. There's also no real evidence that "they" went extinct. Given a small population to begin with, they could very well have simply been absorbed into the Homo sapiens sapiens line. As climate changed to warmer the variations in Neanderthal would have had less survival value and simply been washed out of the species by natural and sexual selection.

It's the same with redheads today. Because of a vastly more competent transportation system, the small number of redheads is being absorbed into the larger gene pool. Here's the basic idea. National Geographic gives them 100 years before they are extinct. Ironically, it is some of the same factors as Neanderthals that is causing this. Redheadedness (and color blindness) are products of northern climes and harsher weather. The larger population will absorb them to extinction.

If someone insisted on calling redheads a different species, we have the Neanderthal situation all over again. We'd have people telling uds redheads went extinct becaus ethey couldn't hack it. After all, they sunbrun more easily, and that OUR species, Homo sapiens sapiens, is more successful than Homo redhead, or, if you prefer, Homo sapiens redhead.

You see the same sort of situation happening worldwide. There are places in California and the West Coast of the US, for example, where asian and caucasian are so mixed that there is no effective difference. It is considered socially perfectly appropriate and we're into our fourth or even fifth generation of "interbreeding." The kids are mixed-race and they are marrying other mixed-race kids. In those areas there are pockets of population where the "original" races effectively no longer exist.

We pick on Neanderthal's "robustness" today because the skeletons are about all we have. We have this visceral reaction that they MUST have been "more primitive" when there is little evidence that this is so. Indeed, the first skeleton that was found had a stooped posture because the poor guy had rickets, artritis, and osteoporosis, but his portrayal has never left the public imagination. Given that DNA proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was extensive intimate connections between the two population groups, it would seem silly to keep claiming we are dealing with two different species. It's time to enter the 21st century here and stop picking on poor Uncle Neanderthal, who was at best, probably your fiftieth cousin.

Of course, I'm married to a redhead, so maybe.....



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


Who said they weren't wiped out by disease? Diseases may not always leave a fossil record...



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by HelenConway

Originally posted by HomoSapiensSapiens
reply to post by NarcolepticBuddha
 


Look, I'm as much interested in all of these excellent matters as you are - and I am sure that many thousands of years ago, Homo Sapiens Sapiens was not the only intelligent human. However, I do maintain that, right now, Homo Sapiens Sapiens is the sole dominant and intelligent species.
).





Looks Like Chuck Norris!!!
www.bbc.co.uk...

This is a supposed accurate reconstruction of a neanderthal male he looks very similar to many people alive today.

I think homo sapien is more a sociological term - if the above man was alive today he would very much be considered a homo sapien.

The supposed homo sapiens alive in his day were no more advanced then he was, they both used tools, both used art, both buried their dead.

Modern man is not advanced and i have no idea why you think so.

edit on 3-3-2013 by HelenConway because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Good thread, I like it.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest



The fossil evidence shows that they were skillful, innovative, adaptive, and creative.


Apparently not enough to beat out the homosapiens. Survival of the fittest in nature is the rule.


Actually there is now some evidence there may have been no overlap between sapiens and neanderthals viz

www.3news.co.nz...



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by HomoSapiensSapiens
reply to post by HelenConway
 


I take pride in my humanity. I take pride that I am Homo Sapiens Sapiens. I take pride in what we have built and feel that we should advance faster and greater. I relish learning about discoveries and history and everything (even about past species of men). But if I were a monkey, could I sit quietly and read Nietzsche and ponder upon his writings? Could I recite Shakespeare and act out his plays? Could sit upon my chair and imagine myself travelling through space and time?

Many humans today cannot take time, or are inhibited, in exploring this great brain of ours. I do not take pride in my parentage - I take pride in my species, regardless of the "evil" that goes on and has gone on and will go on.


Don't take this the wrong way, but you seem to sound very much a Sapien - Supremacist, much like some Humans tend to be racial supremacist. Nothing wrong with that, do what you want to do. However, I should like to point out to you that just like racial supremacists decry other races, those same "supremacists" in fact have the gene's and ancestry of "those inferior races" coursing in their veins. Quite the self-loathing picture there. It's is proven scientifically that Neanders and Sapiens co-existed for a certain time frame and that in certain Sapien populations we have upwards to roughly 5% of Neander or Denisova Genetic lineage. The species or branches mated with each other.

Like it or not Mr HSS, you have Neander and Denisova skeletons in your closet. You aren't as pure Sapien as you would like to be.

Your MOMMA or great great great.........great Grandma, was a Neander..... oh the shame. Did you get teased about it at school?. Do a Mitochondrial DNA/RNA test and tell us how "pure" you are?

The wise man saw the need to have genetic diversity, perhaps DEVO is right..

Just saying,....



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
Similarly, I believe the assimilation factor myself over dying out from competition. Our red hair gene is found to be different from the Neanderthal gene.


The specific MCR1 mutation in Neanderthals has not found in modern humans (or occurs extremely rarely in modern humans). This indicates that the two mutations for red hair and pale skin occurred independently and does not support the idea of gene flow between Neanderthals and modern humans.
Source



However, I do believe the robust features are directly related.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by IEtherianSoul9
Regarding the OP's thread, nice job on this introductory excursion into the past life of Homo neanderthalensis! However, based off of reconstructions of the Neanderthal vocal tract, it's likely that they could not have produced the full range of sounds necessary for modern speech - a capacity for language was much more restricted in Neanderthals because their basicrania has a less humped profile. They probably did not have the capacity to convey meaning through a complex language system similar to ours.

I've heard that homo sapiens won the race because of their propensity for meat eating which resulted in a jaw and neck structure more conducive to vocal chord use and thus to meaningful language which then served to more effectively codify knowledge passed along from generation to generation, thus ensuring greater success, and leading to bigger brain structure.

Meat - the secret to the success of homo sapiens, not because of it's superior nutritional value, but because of what it meant for the evolution of the jaw line allowing for a greater vocal range.

I'd be interested in what the OP thinks and knows about this idea.

edit on 3-3-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by NarcolepticBuddha

Originally posted by Hopechest



The fossil evidence shows that they were skillful, innovative, adaptive, and creative.


Apparently not enough to beat out the homosapiens. Survival of the fittest in nature is the rule.


Read my thesis again. In fact, read the thread while you're at it.
It's pretty obvious that Homo sapiens is here and that Homo neandertalensis isn't. All I did was give a brief introduction to the fossil record demonstrating that they weren't the morons some people assume they were.

The ability to wipe out an entire species is certainly a human trademark, but it in no way reflects our intelligence and capability as a species.

Thanks for your one-line post that contributes nothing to my thread.
edit on 3-3-2013 by NarcolepticBuddha because: (no reason given)


They weren't that intelligent according to fossil records because they obviously weren't wiped out by disease they were wiped out by limited access to resources.

They couldn't adapt.

Homosapien took over their territory and they behaved like sheep, there is very limited evidence of warfare, basically they were never meant to progress as the other early species of humans weren't.

Natural selection.

It is akin to comparing us to apes.
edit on 3-3-2013 by Hopechest because: (no reason given)


If we were to use those like you as an example, then we could easily surmise that "survival of the fittest is completely wrong. Neanderthals survived longer than modern homosapiens have existed, and experienced much greater swings in climate than homo sapiens, so you're really showing your ignorance.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by HomoSapiensSapiens
 


Not all of them were wiped out, there are people around today that have traits very similar to what Neanderthal's had. After all they were around at the same time and lived in the same regions so there is the possibility that they breed together.

History has also shown us that extinct species have a tendency to sometimes beat the odds instead of being dead, like the pygmy right whale and the coelacanth. There are more but I cannot remember them at the moment.

reply to post by IEtherianSoul9
 


I get what your saying about language but what exactly would or could be considered "complex"? There are some cultures that use clicking sounds for words which I do not believe would require the same vocal capabilities for language that our societies might be accustom to.

Tongue Clicking Languages

Just a few examples here:







Whether or not the Neanderthal's were able to do this, well that is just speculation, but by using the tongue that would remove some of the burden of using the vocal cords and such.






top topics



 
62
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join