What happened to neanderthal man?

[Halbhh]

There is a lot of information about neanderthal man. I would like to look at the artifacts: "an object made by a human being". Around 40,000 years ago we find sowing needles, fishing hooks and fishing nets. This is when man first came up out of Africa because they were now able to adapt to a colder ecosystem. One of the great mysteries of early human evolution is what happened to extinct hominin groups like the Neanderthals and Denisovans. These were human groups who lived in Europe and Asia for hundreds of thousands of years before Homo sapiens started streaming out of Africa and taking over the world.

This is a clear example of a species leaving one eco system and adapting to become a part of another biodiverse eco system.

Genesis 1:28 "God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

One useful thing I saw a few years ago is that hypothesis that the Neanderthals genetic traits, which included strength superior to ours, and intelligence similar to ours, did not have our social cooperation.

So....it's like how a lone wolf, even a mighty wolf of great strength and experience and agility, would be no match, easily defeated, by band of lesser wolves.

So, our own ancestors easily defeated the Neanderthals in most any battle, by cooperation.

In different words, we are better killers than they were.

So, we slaughtered them, enslaved them, interbred some, but mostly just wiped them out, pushed them out of good territories, probably at times murdered them en masse, genocides occasionally (just a guess).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

God does not change. He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. The point I was making is that if you want to replace one species with another in a bio-diverse ecology - that transition is going to be somewhat gradual. (punctuated equilibrium vs gradualism)

But that has nothing to do with the fact that the Neanderthals went extinct because of a change in their environment.

 

[joshua 1 9]

But that has nothing to do with the fact that the Neanderthals went extinct because of a change in their environment.

Do you have any evidence for your theory? Just what change took place at this point in time?

 

[Goatee]

Do you have any evidence for your theory? Just what change took place at this point in time?

They started to eat big Macs and fries!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Do you have any evidence for your theory? Just what change took place at this point in time?

"A survey of early sites of modern humans and Neanderthals with faunal remains across Spain, Portugal and France provided an overview of what modern humans and Neanderthals ate.[29] Rabbit became more frequent, while large mammals – mainly eaten by the Neanderthals – became increasingly rare."

 

[Halbhh]

But that has nothing to do with the fact that the Neanderthals went extinct because of a change in their environment.

Check on this hypothesis, about whether it is strongly supported -- shouldn't the perfectly mobile Neanderthals merely have moved on foot to other areas? Unless you mean the "change in their environment" meaning the deadly new competition in any area they went, or soon to follow them there -- us.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Check on this hypothesis, about whether it is strongly supported -- shouldn't the perfectly mobile Neanderthals merely have moved on foot to other areas? Unless you mean the "change in their environment" meaning the deadly new competition in any area they went, or soon to follow them there -- us.

I think it would be a mixed bag of what impact Homo Sapiens did to Neanderthals and I also think the extent of the Continental ice sheet would have limited the migration of Neanderthals.
Although that's about the extent of my knowledge on the subject since my historical knowledge is more recent and military focused.

 

[Halbhh]

"A survey of early sites of modern humans and Neanderthals with faunal remains across Spain, Portugal and France provided an overview of what modern humans and Neanderthals ate.[29] Rabbit became more frequent, while large mammals – mainly eaten by the Neanderthals – became increasingly rare."

It seems a stretch to think they could not have managed a sling or traps, given their brain size. Most any theory about them is really a hypothesis though, as we have to guess at a lot. Here's something not a guess -- the abundant instances of remains that show such things as skulls bashed in or bone marks such as from blunt impact, etc., sometimes something smaller --
430,000-year-old skull suggests murder is an 'ancient human behavior'

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It seems a stretch to think they could not have managed a sling or traps, given their brain size. Most any theory about them is really a hypothesis though, as we have to guess at a lot. Here's something not a guess -- the abundant instances of remains that show such things as skulls bashed in or bone marks such as from blunt impact, etc.

A small stone is not going to do much to a mammoth.
I will agree that that sort of thing is more of a hypothesis than an actual theory, and I just really was more focused on the more... natural side of the extinction (although would Homo Sapiens fighting with Neanderthals be considered natural?).

 

[Halbhh]

A small stone is not going to do much to a mammoth.
I will agree that that sort of thing is more of a hypothesis than an actual theory, and I just really was more focused on the more... natural side of the extinction (although would Homo Sapiens fighting with Neanderthals be considered natural?).

430,000-year-old skull suggests murder is an 'ancient human behavior'

All varieties of the homo genus I bet.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

430,000-year-old skull suggests murder is an 'ancient human behavior'

All varieties of the homo genus I bet.

One skull does not an extinction theory make.

 

[Halbhh]

One skull does not an extinction theory make.

Quite right. I would never have supposed 1 piece of evidence proves anything. Right? So..... you'd have to look further to learn more, right? You should be able to learn that quite a variety of bones dug up show violent deaths. Just the same, even knowing as fact a lot of bones show violence, I don't jump to the conclusion it's a sure thing they mostly killed in wars, or even a combination of disease and war like some Native American tribes that got it worse than others. Not that, necessarily, but it's plausible.

Here's one of many dozens of articles I've seen, but it doesn't prove anything, but is instead suggestive.



Prior research has shown that populations of Neanderthal were living unfettered in Europe for hundreds of thousands of years, but then, approximately 45 thousand years ago, modern humans arrived in the area after migrating out of Africa—five thousand years later, the Neanderthal were gone. Scientists have offered a variety of ideas regarding what happened—modern humans carried with them diseases that were deadly to Neanderthal, our early ancestors simply killed all the Neanderthals, or Neanderthals were not able to adapt to a changing climate, are the leading explanations that have been offered. In this new effort, the researchers report that a model they built suggests it was possible that Neanderthals went extinct because human cultural advantages were so great that it made survival for the less culturally advanced group impossible.
...(continues)
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-02-neanderthal-extinction-due-human-cultural.html#jCp

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Quite right. I would never have supposed 1 piece of evidence proves anything. Right? So..... you'd have to look further to learn more, right? You should be able to learn that quite a variety of bones dug up show violent deaths. Just the same, even knowing as fact a lot of bones show violence, I don't jump to the conclusion it's a sure thing they were merely all killed in wars.

Here's one of many dozens of articles I've seen, but it doesn't prove anything, but is instead suggestive.



Prior research has shown that populations of Neanderthal were living unfettered in Europe for hundreds of thousands of years, but then, approximately 45 thousand years ago, modern humans arrived in the area after migrating out of Africa—five thousand years later, the Neanderthal were gone. Scientists have offered a variety of ideas regarding what happened—modern humans carried with them diseases that were deadly to Neanderthal, our early ancestors simply killed all the Neanderthals, or Neanderthals were not able to adapt to a changing climate, are the leading explanations that have been offered. In this new effort, the researchers report that a model they built suggests it was possible that Neanderthals went extinct because human cultural advantages were so great that it made survival for the less culturally advanced group impossible.
...(continues)
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-02-neanderthal-extinction-due-human-cultural.html#jCp

And yet, even from that abstract alone, the paper supports my claim that Neanderthals went extinct because they couldn't adapt to a changing environment which was brought on by early Homo Sapiens more than it does yours that the early Homo Sapiens just wiped them out. 5,000 years is a LONG TIME to carry out... well, anything.

 

[Halbhh]

And yet, even from that abstract alone, the paper supports my claim that Neanderthals went extinct because they couldn't adapt to a changing environment which was brought on by early Homo Sapiens more than it does yours that the early Homo Sapiens just wiped them out. 5,000 years is a LONG TIME to carry out... well, anything.

Since the arrival of homo sapiens of course changes the environment, it seems we simply have much the same view (if you take us as part of their environment). But, as I added in an edit -- I don't presume a theory actually, but instead merely see more evidence for violence as a big factor, not a minor one. No doubt there absolutely must have been more than one factor, and it's guessing to some extent to say which is the most important. But I know enough about us modern humans to expect a lot of violence as part of our normal behavior.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Since the arrival of homo sapiens of course changes the environment, it seems we simply have much the same view (if you take us as part of their environment). But, as I added in an edit -- I don't presume a theory actually, but instead merely see more evidence for violence as a big factor, not a minor one.

Except you didn't. The main thing that defeats your claim is the time. It took five thousand years from the first Cro-Magnon Homo Sapiens entering in to territories with Neanderthals to the Neanderthals becoming extinct. Five thousand years is a long time. And you seem to be inherently stuck on this hypothesis you have that early humans were just barbaric SOLELY BECAUSE of one skull.

 

[AV1611VET]

They started to eat big Macs and fries!

Go to McDonald's and order some Freedom Fries and see what happens!

 

[Halbhh]

Except you didn't. The main thing that defeats your claim is the time. It took five thousand years from the first Cro-Magnon Homo Sapiens entering in to territories with Neanderthals to the Neanderthals becoming extinct. Five thousand years is a long time. And you seem to be inherently stuck on this hypothesis you have that early humans were just barbaric SOLELY BECAUSE of one skull.

Well, I could be just wrong that violence was a major factor, but I do know that we homo sapiens have a lot of evidence of our own violent tendencies, with routine warfare. About the 5,000 years, to me that seems quick actually.

I would have guessed it took longer for such a big area as Europe. But I am happy to tell you I'm not 'stuck' on the hypothesis, though.

I'm very agnostic towards my many various hypotheses about things in the distant past of Earth actually.

If you can give more proof for a better hypothesis, I'm telling you the truth is that I'd be delighted. I love learning more all the time, whenever I can.

 

[Halbhh]

Except you didn't. The main thing that defeats your claim is the time. It took five thousand years from the first Cro-Magnon Homo Sapiens entering in to territories with Neanderthals to the Neanderthals becoming extinct. Five thousand years is a long time. And you seem to be inherently stuck on this hypothesis you have that early humans were just barbaric SOLELY BECAUSE of one skull.

Did I make it seem like there is only one or just a few skulls showing murder or war?
My fault if you got that impression! There are more than a few if you count all the varieties of humans involved.

I try to be clear, but sometimes I fail to add all the needed details. It seems like I've read about 25 or so articles about new finds showing violent deaths over the years, and of course only some of those are Neanderthals, but there is a reasonable hypothesis that flows from this, even if it is not the main factor.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well, I could be just wrong that violence was a major factor, but I do know that we homo sapiens have a lot of evidence of our own violent tendencies, with routine warfare. About the 5,000 years, to me that seems quick actually.

I would have guessed it took longer for such a big area as Europe. But I am happy to tell you I'm not 'stuck' on the hypothesis, though.

I'm very agnostic towards my many various hypotheses about things in the distant past of Earth actually.

If you can give more proof for a better hypothesis, I'm telling you the truth is that I'd be delighted. I love learning more all the time, whenever I can.

I'm not saying that Homo Sapiens violence didn't play a part in it. We're animals, territorial ones too, so the idea of some Cro-Magnon... let's go with tribes since that fits the bill better, would have classed with Neanderthal tribes while others got on peacefully enough to interbreed would them is something that would have happened. But I do think that you are putting too much emphasis on the violence part.

And I think that using the term 'warfare' is a bit of a stretch of the evidence. Some raids for food would have probably happened, maybe some punitive raids by one side of the other in response would have happened too.

Let's just agree that the evidence is a bit up in the air at the moment. 'Kay?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Did I make it seem like there is only one or just a few skulls showing murder or war?
My fault if you got that impression! There are more than a few if you count all the varieties of humans involved.

I try to be clear, but sometimes I fail to add all the needed details. It seems like I've read about 25 or so articles about new finds showing violent deaths over the years, and of course only some of those are Neanderthals, but there is a reasonable hypothesis that flows from this, even if it is not the main factor.

Again, I'm not saying that there weren't violent classes, but I don't think there is enough evidence at the moment to solely support your idea that Cro-Magnon violence was the main cause for the Neanderthal extinction.