Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 15,334
- 7,529
- 31
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
No. No it's not. Now I really think that you're just being needlessly idiotic.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So "Neanderthal" has been split up into: "Erkarthian" and "Metmann"?
Erkarthian + Metmann = Neanderthal?
Isn't that like splitting up Californians into "Norcals" and "Socals"?
Fair enough.No. No it's not. Now I really think that you're just being needlessly idiotic.
Fair enough.
Until you have something more concrete than insults ... like answers ... I'll take your comments with a grain of cheap salt.
So they were a pack animal
and the weak members of the pack got to eat the leftovers that the strong hunters did not want.
That's not what DogmaHunter said at all.
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.
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%?
Ok. Wonder if you have seen details as I pasted into posts #70 and #71 above? The main stuff I'm considering isn't just these though, but also a lot of news articles over the years showing ancient human genus bones found with evidence of death by violence.
Perhaps by now you notice I'm anything but dogmatic, but my viewpoint is I think it unlikely we became violent more often (frequency) in times after we began to have more advanced weapons like bows (I'd guess or bet the frequency decreased, even while more deaths occurred during fights), but instead merely that we amplified our ability to kill more efficiently, only. My expectation is that before bows and larger armies we were typically violent in an average season or year, rarely a year of peace, often driving out competition with beatings that would result in deaths of some.
The Gombe Chimpanzee War with the excerpt in #71 above is a good model of how we acted is my guess.
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.
I'm guessing.... because it flies in the face of your claims about "war" and genocide between both species.
I'm guessing it would be high... Considering that back in those days, a "peaceful death of old age / natural causes" was most likely only for the privileged few - and maybe not even then.
Just like other animals "in the wild", uncivilised humanoids would've most likely died from either a violent death or some desease or similar.
Ah, I see, you have a plausible hypothesis the hybrid was more suited to changing environment, but you are additionally leaning heavily on another hypothesis that Neanderthals would be unable themselves to adapt well....even in spite of their intelligence. I think this 2nd hypothesis is chancy, unlikely. I wouldn't buy for instance a hypothesis that Neanderthals were only able to hunt large game, for example, unless there is really strong support for it. The mere fact/evidence that they did hunt large game is not an indication that they could only hunt large game, of course. But, if you have strong support for the idea that they were incapable of trapping, fishing, etc., etc., that would be surprising and interesting to look at. What makes you think them incapable, in your view?
An inability to adapt to a changing environment does not solely rely on intelligence. For example the idea that Neanderthals were dying out from interaction because of diseases unknowingly brought from Africa by arriving Homo Sapiens is a change in environment and one that the intelligence of the Neanderthals has no bearing on.
We can certainly expect large scale mortality from imported diseases. That happened to Native Americans also. It's very plausible even to go further and hypothesize they could be largely wiped out by some imported disease, but only a hypothesis of course, until a lot of evidence for it is gained (if ever). I wouldn't rule that out at all.
I bet there are at least a dozen highly plausible hypotheses for major causes of sharp mortality among Neanderthals.
If disease didn't kill them, I'm imagine (as you know) that at times (not necessarily all the time, but now and then) my own ancestors would help them along into the great beyond, those they didn't enslave.
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?
Now you're adding enslaving to the mix?
You may want to read up more on practices of war and subsequent slavery in ancient times.
We agree right that we both already know Neanderthals died in many diverse ways? I certainly take it that you think they died from disease, murder, starvation, accidents, animal attacks, and even raids from other groups (even that!). I take it you think all of those happened plenty. I do also.
About the fact of diverse causes of death, I think each and all of us agree to that. The only contention we seem to have I'm aware of is whether our Sapien ancestors routinely killed Neanderthals (and regardless of whether that was individual murders, group on group attacks, or even organized campaigns under a leader, any of these).
I'm guessing obviously without extensive evidence that they did, and you that they did not. Right?
The reason I favor the hypothesis our ancestors routinely killed Neanderthals is that we did it to Native Americans, and to wolves, etc., etc.. And before that, to each other in Europe extensively and nearly continuously for centuries at a time until the recent Pax Americana.
I'm thinking our ancestors were much the same species 45,000 years ago as we were 3,500 years ago, and we know that constant war for territory is only historically normal 3,500 years ago.
Only broad alliances and the recent spread of the "rule of law" idea and the United Nations have tamped down war to a degree, slowing that chronic tendency to war down somewhat into a quieter equilibrium....or at least for a while. Could change.
And yet we see NONE of that from era that Homo Sapiens met with Neanderthals.
? Are you saying you have evidence there was no slavery? That would be quite dramatic, and difficult to prove of course, but even slightly suggestive indications, even just that would be very interesting! It would suggest to me that somehow Neanderthals made very poor slaves, in particular. If they made perfectly good slaves I can't imagine we would not routinely enslave them just like we routinely enslaved each other, unless there was some other factor like an intense hatred and desire to simply kill them all, etc.
So you're a pessimist.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?