thoughts on being Human

[juvenissun]

Not necessarily. A highly specialised population that became too dense for comfort in one area might try to spread out to relieve the pressure and find conditions in the new area(s) unsuitable, causing a significant thinning of the migrating population. But on the whole, I would expect that a highly adaptable species, such as intelligent bipedal apes, would generally be able cope with all but the most extreme environments, so I would expect them to increase in number.
They were adapted for and are found at relatively high latitudes, so it's unlikely that they spread to all places on Earth, but they were successful enough to achieve quite a wide range; so yes, that seems likely.
Your Google-foo is weak. In a few seconds, 'size of neanderthal population' produced a slew of informative results, for example, Wikipedia.

I'm not an expert in Neanderthal populations, nor am I a Google front-end.

Why would Neanderthals want to migrate if there were no population pressure? I don't think any animal would want to do that. Population of 70,000 could be comfortably accommodated by a land like the Iraq. Why do they want to run to any uncomfortable place?

Yes, you do not know and I do not know. Until it is reasonably explained, I won't consider the idea of human evolution

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Why would Neanderthals want to migrate if there were no population pressure?

Creatures migrate for many reasons; to get away from unpleasant environments, to ease population pressures, to find new resources, to get away from rival groups, out of curiosity, etc.

I don't think any animal would want to do that.

Fortunately, your opinion has no effect on migrations, current or historic.

Population of 70,000 could be comfortably accommodated by a land like the Iraq. Why do they want to run to any uncomfortable place?

It would be more reasonable to suppose they wanted to move to a better place. Perhaps they were nomadic, perhaps they were moving away from flood, or drought, or disease, etc.

...you do not know and I do not know. Until it is reasonably explained, I won't consider the idea of human evolution

It's your prerogative to reject, on the basis of a superficial skim over the subject, the provisional consensus of generations of experts in the field who have actually studied the accumulated evidence. But if you take the same approach with other areas of knowledge, you may find the real world directly contradicting you

 

[smaneck]

Why would Neanderthals want to migrate if there were no population pressure? I don't think any animal would want to do that. Population of 70,000 could be comfortably accommodated by a land like the Iraq. Why do they want to run to any uncomfortable place?

You realize they were hunters and gatherers, not farmers? Hunters and gatherers are almost always on the move. But their range seems to be limited to N. Africa, West Asia and Europe.

 

[smaneck]

It would be more reasonable to suppose they wanted to move to a better place. Perhaps they were nomadic, perhaps they were moving away from flood, or drought, or disease, etc.

Disease was probably not a problem. Most of our diseases come from domesticated animals and Neanderthals didn't have any.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Disease was probably not a problem. Most of our diseases come from domesticated animals and Neanderthals didn't have any.

You may well be right - although Cennathis suggests, on genetic evidence, that transfer of pathogens between human species may have played a role in the extinction of Neanderthals, so the jury is still out.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Why would Neanderthals want to migrate if there were no population pressure? I don't think any animal would want to do that. Population of 70,000 could be comfortably accommodated by a land like the Iraq. Why do they want to run to any uncomfortable place?

Yes, you do not know and I do not know. Until it is reasonably explained, I won't consider the idea of human evolution

We are the reason they went extinct. In case you haven't noticed, Neanderthal DNA is not seen universally in all human populations, only ones in specific areas. What happened was, when ancient humans began travelling out of Africa, they ended up competing for food with a lot of other similar species, such as Neanderthals. There used to be as many as 5 different species like us around. We killed them all through competition and conflict.

 

[smaneck]

We are the reason they went extinct. In case you haven't noticed, Neanderthal DNA is not seen universally in all human populations, only ones in specific areas. What happened was, when ancient humans began travelling out of Africa, they ended up competing for food with a lot of other similar species, such as Neanderthals. There used to be as many as 5 different species like us around. We killed them all through competition and conflict.

We don't really know if that was the case. Keep in mind that the Neanderthals were three times as strong as Homo Sapien Sapiens. Probably Homo Flavius were eliminated that way since they were the last known hominid to survive other than us, and they disappear only when humans arrive on their island. But these were little people, no match for homo sapiens. There is no evidence of interbreeding with them.

 

[smaneck]

You may well be right - although Cennathis suggests, on genetic evidence, that transfer of pathogens between human species may have played a role in the extinction of Neanderthals, so the jury is still out.

That's an interesting thesis.

 

[juvenissun]

We are the reason they went extinct. In case you haven't noticed, Neanderthal DNA is not seen universally in all human populations, only ones in specific areas. What happened was, when ancient humans began travelling out of Africa, they ended up competing for food with a lot of other similar species, such as Neanderthals. There used to be as many as 5 different species like us around. We killed them all through competition and conflict.

What made us win the war?

 

[juvenissun]

You realize they were hunters and gatherers, not farmers? Hunters and gatherers are almost always on the move. But their range seems to be limited to N. Africa, West Asia and Europe.

Did they live together in a village-like society?

 

[smaneck]

Did they live together in a village-like society?

Not in any permanent sense, although during the Upper Paleolithic period (40,000-10,000 years ago) they engaged in more limited migrations often moving between two different spots. So they would have a summer camps and winter camps. But other hominids are gone by this time except in isolated areas like the isle of Flores (which I mistakenly called Flavius earlier.)

 

[juvenissun]

Not in any permanent sense, although during the Upper Paleolithic period (40,000-10,000 years ago) they engaged in more limited migrations often moving between two different spots. So they would have a summer camps and winter camps. But other hominids are gone by this time except in isolated areas like the isle of Flores (which I mistakenly called Flavius earlier.)

What made them want to migrate to farther places? I really don't see any reason for doing that.

 

[smaneck]

What made them want to migrate to farther places? I really don't see any reason for doing that.

Anytime a group got too large (over about forty people) they would break off and move somewhere else. The reason for this is that otherwise there would not be enough food to hunt and gather.

 

[juvenissun]

Anytime a group got too large (over about forty people) they would break off and move somewhere else. The reason for this is that otherwise there would not be enough food to hunt and gather.

Of course. But how many is too large?
How far are the villages or camps separated?
The key estimation, which could be used to trace backward, is how much was their total population.
The speculation is that I don't think they NEEDED to spread out into the large region where we found them today.

 

[PsychoSarah]

What made us win the war?

hard to say, exactly. we seem to have had better weapons than the other bipeds, so that probably contributed to it.

 

[juvenissun]

hard to say, exactly. we seem to have had better weapons than the other bipeds, so that probably contributed to it.

It would be interested to know. Rock vs. rock. What advantage could one side have?
I think it should be the population rather than the weapon. Fewer nomads against a village of more people.
If so, that would give excellent reasons to stop migration.

 

[pshun2404]

Denisovan fossils have only been found in a single cave in Siberia. Neanderthals have been found across Europe and the Middle East.

Yes but remnants of their DNA have been found in abundance in south east Asia and Polynesia and even show traces in Native Americans

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes but remnants of their DNA have been found in abundance in south east Asia and Polynesia and even show traces in Native Americans

OK.

 

[Derek Meyer]

Yes but remnants of their DNA have been found in abundance in south east Asia and Polynesia and even show traces in Native Americans

Yes, exactly. That supports the fact that modern humans migrated through Asia, then across the Bearing Straight, towards the America.

 

[pshun2404]

Now consider the beautifully crafted chlorite bracelet also found in the Denisova cave....expertly crafted using a hand made boring tool and polished...over 40,000 years old and a lovely ring carved out of solid marble...

Tim White (who I admire by the way and followed for years), and hosts of others, still state "homo sapiens" first migrated out of Africa around 40,000 years ago ("Pleistocene Homo Sapiens from MIddle Awash, Ethiopia" Nature, 423 (6491)) but now we see the gene pool interaction between these three varieties of human people (not "different species") so very far from there and they already have very sophisticated intelligence and skill....surely you must admit this throws a monkey wrench into the mix...

I would not say the primary first humans did not come from the area we would now call Africa...but the time thing is way off in light of all these forthcoming evidences.

Ernst Mayr and others describe a species, as a group or classification in which there is gene flow between individuals "within" A species (not among species, plural)...not between species...according to all the definitions there seems to be one thing in common and that is that "a species" (as opposed to differing species) consists of individuals capable of genetic exchange and interbreeding producing fertile offspring...the so called sapien sapiens, the neanderthals, and the devisovans, are by definition all one species (fully functional human beings...though demonstrating anatomical variation)....They are not "different species" that "humans" mated with (thats absurd hypothesis based conclusionism)