The Neanderthal--a comprehensive introduction to the fossil record

reply to post by penninja


Your post made as much sense as a monkey trying to speak German.

Originally posted by HomoSapiensSapiens
reply to post by NarcolepticBuddha

 

it almost seemed like a number of you were almost "fighting for the Neanderthal cause" almost as if you were Neanderthals yourselves and had a direct interest

Right, we do have a direct interest. I do anyway, I can't speak for the others. I was a student of anthropology, but never got to specialize in a specific area of study. I am still interested in the discipline, and if I come into some money in the future--hopefully will be going back to school to continue my education.

I think the Neandertal "cause" is just your imagination. OR, consider it way that I do. Some people are still convinced that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that this H. sapiens sapiens was the sole intelligent creature on the planet for all that time.

But whoa! turns out that what went on this planet 50,000-100,000 years ago etc. was some pretty interesting stuff. That is our direct interest. And if there were other intelligent hominids, then it can't help but be asked: what were they like? How were they alike and unalike from our ancestors? from us today? What were their interactions like?

You see where I'm going here? We're curious ATS members. So, why rain on our parade?

it almost seemed like a number of you were almost "fighting for the Neanderthal cause" almost as if you were Neanderthals yourselves and had a direct interest.

You're right. we ARE Neanderthals. Does that bother you? Recent DNA studies have shown that most all Europeans (but not Africans) have some Neanderthal DNA and that this might account for a more robust immune system. The National Geographic genome study, for example, pegs my DNA as 2.1% Neanderthal and 4.4% Denisovan. So given what has been said about the fallacies of species, this is yet another example. Neanderthal were close enough to mate with Homo sapiens sapiens, therefore were they really a different species? We're not talking horses and donkeys breeding infertile mules here. The descendents of Neanderthal/Human were MORE robust (in terms of survival, not bulk) than their forbearers.

So could we not think if Neanderthals as simply an earlier, perhaps slightly more archaic group if Homo sapiens who migrated out of Africa in an earlier wave, changed a very tiny bit to adapt to the harsher northern climate, and greeted their slightly more gracial cousins when the decendents of Mitochondrial Eve had their chance to leave Africa? It may not be so much that Neanderthal was "hunted to extinction by Modern Man," but that they merged, and we are the result. This point of view does not change the data; it just empahasizes the similarities rather than the differences.

In terms of "causes" what I don't understand is this seeming need to keep Neanderthals "in their place" as a primitive species of "cave man" that went extinct because of us, a 19th century point of view that simply does not hold up to modern scholarship. DNA doesn't lie. Deal with it.

Originally posted by HomoSapiensSapiens
reply to post by tadaman

 

Did you also know that (for example) Einstein's brain was smaller than average?

You're not taking into account the extraordinary amount of surface area his brain had because of the contoured sulci. Surface area of the neocortex is the key, and his was a relatively atypical sample. So, smaller than average doesn't mean much if it has more surface area where it counts.

Originally posted by HomoSapiensSapiens
reply to post by penninja

 

Your post made as much sense as a monkey trying to speak German.

Okay, look, I think you're being a little unfair and belligerent here. Can you please state your position regarding the subject matter of the thread in one direct, concise post instead of picking it apart piecemeal, member-by-member.

Regarding the slightly increased brain size of Neanderthal compared to modern human, I was taught that this might simply be a metter of statistics. We don't have a whole lot of Neanderthal skulls to measure. In fact, perhaps not enough to represent a valid statistical sample. Of course, we have plenty of human skulls to have achieved a statistical certainity. The idea is that had we a sufficient number of skulls, this "difference" could very well disappear.

It's also worth noting that Leonardo da Vinci's brain size was 900cc. Skull size is certainly a factor in overall intelligence between species, but within? Maybe not so much.

reply to post by schuyler


Yes, statistics are always a tricky game as they can be so easily skewed depending on the sample. The samples we do have of Neandertal tend to measure larger than the averages of H. sapiens, but they even match the high end of the range for H. sapiens. This leads me to believe that they were at least similar in terms of intelligence--mostly because they showed some of the same behaviors (if not similar cranial volumes; but they do share similar cranial volumes anyway.)

Even if all those 1,500+cubic cm craniums were on the high end of the scale, it would still seem to suggest that they were similar in terms of intelligence because it matches the high end of the H. sapiens range. Refer back to the third chart towards the end of the OP. It is pretty helpful.

But remember, this is just a general rule in primatology. Bigger primate brain=bigger primate intelligence. Does this mean they were outfoxing us like Spielberg's velociraptors? Probably not, but I'm sure they knew a thing or two about a thing or two.

Originally posted by HomoSapiensSapiens
reply to post by HelenConway

 

Regardless of mankind's ape lineage - there is no question that modern mankind is in a category of its own; so much so, that really, we are set apart from even the great apes themselves.

!

edit on 3/3/2013 by HomoSapiensSapiens because: (no reason given)

This is rubbish actually.

Biologists say there are 5 species of great ape, bonobo's. chimpanzee. gorilla, orangutang and humans.
That is a fact,

What you are saying is inaccurate.

Originally posted by HomoSapiensSapiens
reply to post by IEtherianSoul9

 

Regardless - the Neanderthal is extinct. Homo Sapiens Sapiens, the last species of man, is therefore dominant having gotten this far. The Neanderthal is no more.

If neanderthals were alive today they would not be classified as a different species, they would be referred to as a different race. Also neaderthal DNA is alive and well in the peoples of Europe and Asia.

We are not and were NOT a superior species - you sound like you have a very intolerant position.

Homosapiens - this umbrella term would also include neaderthals if they were alive today. Have no doubt about that.

reply to post by HelenConway


No. Neanderthals are Homo Neanderthalensis. All humans today, whether black or white, are Homo Sapiens Sapiens, regardless of minor ethnic variations.

The Neanderthal would be greatly distinct - and he wouldn't (and doesn't!) exist now alongside us anyway.

Originally posted by HomoSapiensSapiens
reply to post by HelenConway

 

No. Neanderthals are Homo Neanderthalensis. All humans today, whether black or white, are Homo Sapiens Sapiens, regardless of minor ethnic variations.

The Neanderthal would be greatly distinct - and he wouldn't (and doesn't!) exist now alongside us anyway.

actually no they are: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis

Originally posted by HelenConway

Originally posted by HomoSapiensSapiens
reply to post by HelenConway

 

No. Neanderthals are Homo Neanderthalensis. All humans today, whether black or white, are Homo Sapiens Sapiens, regardless of minor ethnic variations.

The Neanderthal would be greatly distinct - and he wouldn't (and doesn't!) exist now alongside us anyway.

actually no they are: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis

You're absolutely right. Essentially, they are just a different human species Isn't that something? And here we thought we were special.

reply to post by HelenConway


Can you not see the massive difference between mankind (the superior being) and the other apes?

Maybe you should refer to my soliloquy above where I note only some of the things that mankind can do as opposed to a chimpanzee or a bonobo. Has the chimp launched probes? Have the chimps built airports? Aeroplanes? Do the chimps chat excitedly on BBM? Can the chimp register on ATS and converse on the forums?

reply to post by HelenConway


Actually, this is disputed. They are classed either as a subspecies of Homo Sapiens (Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis) or as a separate species of the same genus (Homo Neanderthalensis).

The fact of the matter is that they do not exist now - why? Clearly they couldn't handle it. Life is survival of the fittest - the Neanderthal failed and was absorbed into the great Homo Sapiens Sapiens (albeit Europeans and Asians - apparently).

Long live Homo Sapiens Sapiens!

reply to post by NarcolepticBuddha


Special? Of course we're bl00dy special! Is Homo Sapiens Sapiens extinct and Homo Neanderthalensis thriving and progressing? Clearly not!

Originally posted by HomoSapiensSapiens
reply to post by HelenConway

 

Can you not see the massive difference between mankind (the superior being) and the other apes?

Maybe you should refer to my soliloquy above where I note only some of the things that mankind can do as opposed to a chimpanzee or a bonobo. Has the chimp launched probes? Have the chimps built airports? Aeroplanes? Do the chimps chat excitedly on BBM? Can the chimp register on ATS and converse on the forums?

This is a false comparison. Only a small number of very clever humans invented such things.
The majority of the human race - do not have such an IQ. So there are some clever people - true, their inventions do affect all of us - true.

But just because they are clever does not mean we are all clever.

Humans are deluded, destructive, impulsive violent creatures in the main - or way too many of them are.
So you are proud of that ?

reply to post by NarcolepticBuddha


But if that were the case, Einstein, whose brain size was smaller than average, should have been dim right?

Originally posted by HomoSapiensSapiens
reply to post by NarcolepticBuddha

 

Special? Of course we're bl00dy special! Is Homo Sapiens Sapiens extinct and Homo Neanderthalensis thriving and progressing? Clearly not!

this is a ridiculous comparison. The most successful species on this planet EVER were the dinosaurs.
They were killed probably due to enviromental changes. Does this make them inferior - NO.

The most successful species today are who ? Humans ? I don't think so - we are on a fast track to destruction.

reply to post by HelenConway


It does not take one human to build an aeroplane, let alone invent it. Human invention is not only limited to one individual - the great thing about human progress is that it is a result of great collaboration.

And for every bad thing about humans, there is a good thing alongside it.

The fact of the matter is that, many do not realise that they are Homo Sapiens Sapiens and are in fact very intelligent - but lots of factors would encroach upon our higher powers for example, environmental, malnutrition, poor diet, passivity and whatnot. Moreover, the potential of every human is great but things always stifle it.

Originally posted by HomoSapiensSapiens
reply to post by HelenConway

 

Actually, this is disputed. They are classed either as a subspecies of Homo Sapiens (Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis) or as a separate species of the same genus (Homo Neanderthalensis).

The fact of the matter is that they do not exist now - why? Clearly they couldn't handle it. Life is survival of the fittest - the Neanderthal failed and was absorbed into the great Homo Sapiens Sapiens (albeit Europeans and Asians - apparently).

Long live Homo Sapiens Sapiens!

You know you somehow come across as someone who thinks he is superior by virtue of your parentage - why ?
You are not superior - humans are not superior.

Neaderthals were homosapiens - sorry if you don't like that but it is true. They even looked like modern man. They were pale skinned and ginger and stocky - like many europeans today,