What happened to neanderthal man?

Hieronymus · Sep 20, 2017

I think the Neanderthals were homo sapiens just like us.
Apparently their genetic make up was the same, some say we interbred.
others say these are pre-flood humans who got very old, this would explain the big brows, because the brows apparently don't stop growing.
The naturalistic models use them as an example of an ancestor or a branch that died out, in line with their beliefs.

Halbhh · Sep 20, 2017

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Now that last one is really just a groundless and frankly ridiculous idea. Where did you get that idea from?

More bits of evidence about the (ridiculously?) violent heritage of the homo genus, which raises an interesting new question just now to me. First just a few instances of finds --

Prehistoric 10,000-year-old mass murder site discovered by Kenyan lake

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

The new question -- surely there are both bones showing violent deaths, and bones that don't show violent deaths (but malnourishment, or lost teeth, etc.).... So, now I want to try to learn, over time, roughly what % of remains more than 4,000 years old show violent deaths.

Today, in 2017, only a small percentage of humans die of violence.

But what percentage of bones say in the range of 4,000 to 10,000 years old show violent deaths? I'd love to compare that to modern statistics.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Sep 20, 2017

Halbhh said:
More bits of evidence about the (ridiculously?) violent heritage of the homo genus, which raises an interesting new question just now to me. First just a few instances of finds --

Prehistoric 10,000-year-old mass murder site discovered by Kenyan lake

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

The new question -- surely there are both bones showing violent deaths, and bones that don't show violent deaths (but malnourishment, or lost teeth, etc.).... So, now I want to try to learn, over time, roughly what % of remains more than 4,000 years old show violent deaths.

Today, in 2017, only a small percentage of humans die of violence.

But what percentage of bones say in the range of 4,000 to 10,000 years old show violent deaths? I'd love to compare that to modern statistics.

You'll probably find it's a lot less. And two pieces of evidence are a horrible way to form a hypothesis on this subject.
What about the evidence of Neanderthal/Homo Sapiens interbreeding? Is that just a no-never-mind subject to you?

Hieronymus · Sep 20, 2017

Don't be surprised.
The first brother killed his brother.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Sep 20, 2017

Hieronymus said:
Don't be surprised.
The first brother killed his brother.

That's a story with absolutely zero evidence for it.

AV1611VET · Sep 20, 2017

Neanderthals of today are people who live in the Neandertal region of Germany; much like Californians are people who live in the California state of the United States.

Neanderthals, as a sub-species of Homo sapiens, are a figment of some scientist's imagination.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Sep 20, 2017

AV1611VET said:
Neanderthals of today are people who live in the Neandertal region of Germany; much like Californians are people who live in the California state of the United States.

Neanderthals, as a sub-species of Homo sapiens, are a figment of some scientist's imagination.

That's... not only is that not how German naming convention works, since Neandertal is a change from the original Neanderthal which means Neander's Valley which changed from Neandershohle, that's just flat out wrong.

Halbhh · Sep 20, 2017

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
You'll probably find it's a lot less. And two pieces of evidence are a horrible way to form a hypothesis on this subject.
What about the evidence of Neanderthal/Homo Sapiens interbreeding? Is that just a no-never-mind subject to you?

2?

Try something over 15 finds, or over 20 and you'd at least be close to the right order of magnitude there, for stuff over 3,000 years old showing violent death not from any natural causes.

But to find something, you'd have to be willing to look. And I wasn't even trying to find that kind of article, but just reading random science news of any and all kinds.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Sep 20, 2017

Halbhh said:
2?

Try something over 15, or over 20 and you'd at least be close to the right order of magnitude there.

That's still a very small number, and again, what about the evidence of Homo Sapiens/Neanderthals interbreeding? Is that just a no-never-mind subject to you?

Halbhh · Sep 20, 2017

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
That's still a very small number, and again, what about the evidence of Homo Sapiens/Neanderthals interbreeding? Is that just a no-never-mind subject to you?

Right! Can you hear me? You are right. I'm agreeing with you over and over, that it is not enough evidence, but only suggestive of a need for more data.

For interbreeding, I think I've read about 15 articles over the last decade or so. Why do you ask about that?

Now, as above, I'm curious though, about the percentage of old bones that show violent death. Is it 5%, 15%? 50%? I'm curious now. For the first time I think I will begin to actively search for information in this field, instead of just random articles by chance occasionally.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Sep 20, 2017

Halbhh said:
Right! Can you hear me? You are right. I'm agreeing with you over and over, that it is not enough evidence, but only suggestive of a need for more data.

Now, as above, I'm curious though, about the percentage of old bones that show violent death. Is it 5%, 15%? 50%? I'm curious now. For the first time I think I will begin to actively search for information in this field, instead of just random articles by chance occasionally.

But why is the evidence of Homo Sapiens/Neanderthal interbreeding somehow not enough, even though the Neanderthal Genome Project shows that 99.7% of the Neanderthal DNA and Homo Sapiens DNA are identical?

To sort it would be difficult since you'd obviously have to sort out which deaths are the result of wild animal attacks, which ones are blunt force trauma from falling injuries and which ones really are the result of actual Homo Sapiens on Homo Sapiens/other Homo species conflict.

Halbhh · Sep 20, 2017

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
But why is the evidence of Homo Sapiens/Neanderthal interbreeding somehow not enough, even though the Neanderthal Genome Project shows that 99.7% of the Neanderthal DNA and Homo Sapiens DNA are identical?

To sort it would be difficult since you'd obviously have to sort out which deaths are the result of wild animal attacks, which ones are blunt force trauma from falling injuries and which ones really are the result of actual Homo Sapiens on Homo Sapiens/other Homo species conflict.

Sorry, don't know what you are getting at regarding the the interbreeding? What implication do you have in mind? I've only read popular science level articles about that over the years, some with some speculation. Are you fishing for what I know of it? Not a lot, of course. I do know all the various hominids have very high genetic similarity. What are you focusing on there? Think I remember vaguely we have something like 4 to 6% Neanderthal.

About forensic anthropology, it's a field, and ancient remains are studied in detail. Think I saw some of that work a time or 3 on NOVA. Again, only a modest bit of info. I usually am more focused just on astrophysics/cosmology and fundamental physics. I only have casual reading in anthropology, with a smattering of better articles like from Scientific American, but it's not a field I have deep knowledge in. You?

Warden_of_the_Storm · Sep 20, 2017

Halbhh said:
Sorry, don't know what you are getting at regarding the the interbreeding? What implication do you have in mind? I've only read popular science level articles about that over the years, some with some speculation. Are you fishing for what I know of it? Not a lot, of course. I do know all the various hominids have very high genetic similarity. What are you focusing on there? Think I remember vaguely we have something like 4 to 6% Neanderthal.

About forensic anthropology, it's a field, and ancient remains are studied in detail. Think I saw some of that work a time or 3 on NOVA. Again, only a modest bit of info. I usually am more focused just on astrophysics/cosmology and fundamental physics. I only have casual reading in anthropology, with a smattering of better articles like from Scientific American, but it's not a field I have deep knowledge in. You?

What I'm getting at is that the interbreeding for Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals led to a shift in the environment since the resultant offspring was better suited to the post-Ice Age environment than either the Neanderthals or the Cro-Magnon Homo Sapiens, leading to their extinction due to the inability to adapt to the environment. Human DNA does contain about 2 to 4% of Neanderthal DNA depending on geographical location, but that still obviously shows more conclusively that Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals interbred.

My main field of knowledge, which isn't professional, largely amateur, is history, but mainly in the military history from the Medieval period to the end of the 19th century.

AV1611VET · Sep 20, 2017

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
That's... not only is that not how German naming convention works, since Neandertal is a change from the original Neanderthal which means Neander's Valley which changed from Neandershohle, that's just flat out wrong.

Either that, or it's right.

Neanderthals, or more rarely Neandertals, (named for the Neandertal region in Germany) were a species or subspecies of archaic humans in the genus Homo that became extinct about 40,000 years ago.

SOURCE

Warden_of_the_Storm · Sep 21, 2017

AV1611VET said:
Either that, or it's right.

SOURCE

You're wrong.

AV1611VET · Sep 21, 2017

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
You're wrong.

Is Wikipedia wrong as well?

Warden_of_the_Storm · Sep 21, 2017

AV1611VET said:
Is Wikipedia wrong as well?

No, just you since you don't understand naming conventions in German.
Especially if you actually look at the wikipedia entry for the Neandertal valley:

"During the 19th century the valley was called Neandershöhle (Neander's Hollow), and, after 1850, Neanderthal."

AV1611VET · Sep 21, 2017

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
"During the 19th century the valley was called Neandershöhle (Neander's Hollow), and, after 1850, Neanderthal."

Then what are these people called today, if not "Neanderthals" or "Neandertals"?

Warden_of_the_Storm · Sep 21, 2017

AV1611VET said:
Then what are these people called today, if not "Neanderthals" or "Neandertals"?

They're either called Erkarthians or Metmanns since those are the towns that the valley lies in the limit of. You're reaching far too hard to try and say that you're right.

AV1611VET · Sep 21, 2017

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
They're either called Erkarthians or Metmanns since those are the towns that the valley lies in the limit of. You're reaching far too hard to try and say that you're right.

So "Neanderthal" has been split up into: "Erkarthian" and "Metmann"?

Erkarthian + Metmann = Neanderthal?

Isn't that like splitting up Californians into "Norcals" and "Socals"?

What happened to neanderthal man?

Well-Known Member

Everything You say is Life to me

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Everything You say is Life to me

Well-Known Member

Everything You say is Life to me

Well-Known Member

Everything You say is Life to me

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency