What happened to neanderthal man?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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

Erkarthian + Metmann = Neanderthal?

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

No. No it's not. Now I really think that you're just being needlessly idiotic.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Fair enough.

Until you have something more concrete than insults ... like answers ... I'll take your comments with a grain of cheap salt.

I HAVE been giving you answers. Neanderthal is not what you call someone from the Neandertal valley! You are just being deliberately obtuse about the whole thing, as per your usual schtick.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So they were a pack animal

Social animal.

and the weak members of the pack got to eat the leftovers that the strong hunters did not want.

Not sure how you concluded that.
Then again, I'm not sure how you conclude lots of things.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's not what DogmaHunter said at all.

In his defence... I don't think he cares.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think the Neanderthals were homo sapiens just like us.

No, neanderthals definatly aren't homo sapiens.

Apparently their genetic make up was the same, some say we interbred.

Just because we could interbreed, does not make the genetic make up the same.
Lions and tigers can also interbreed. You wouldn't say that lions and tigers are the same, right?

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.

There was no such flood and neither did neanderthals live exceptionally long lives or anything.

The naturalistic models use them as an example of an ancestor or a branch that died out, in line with their beliefs.

No, you got that backwards.
People didn't already know about neanderthals before they were discovered.
The "beliefs" (it's actually knowledge, but whatever) concerning neanderthals has been shaped by the remains of neanderthals.

Nobody decided in advanced that such a species once existed.

It's not like in religion, where you start with the answers and then, with bias, work your way back to the questions - tailored specifically to get the answers you already believe to be holding.

Science works in the other direction. In science, beliefs are shaped by evidence. And if new evidence contradicts beliefs - the beliefs are dropped (not the evidence).

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

I'm guessing.... because it flies in the face of your claims about "war" and genocide between both species.

Now, as above, I'm curious though, about the percentage of old bones that show violent death. Is it 5%, 15%? 50%?

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.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Obviously it would have been a violent time.
Our ancestors back then would have been living in the "wild" by most measures. "wild humans" if you wish. This is all before civilisation, you know?

Noboy here is claiming that homo sapiens back then were champions of universal human rights and trying to be loving and friendly to all sentient beings like some kind of hippies-avant-la-lettre....

By any and all means, I'ld guess the default response to encountering anyone or anything that might even remotely be hostile and not from the tribe, would have been quite aggressive / defensive / violent.

I have no reason to assume otherwise either.

But to then go the extra mile and concluded based on only that, that neanderthals were wiped out in some kind of epicly massive genocide carried out by homo sapiens... It's rather ridiculous.

Obviously some would have been killed by them, just like some homo sapiens will have been killed by neanderthals as well. But the idea that neanderthals are extinct as a direct result of such a "witch hunt"... not very likely.

 

[Halbhh]

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.

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?

 

[Halbhh]

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.

How does interbreeding fly in the face of war between genetic groups?

After all, I imagine you've read about (or have you?) that when wars happen women get pregnant from the other sides soldiers, right? If not, some reading will fill that in for you.

War causes mixing. Like an accelerant.

About the fact of diverse causes of death, I think each and all of us agree to that. The only discussion I'm in that I know of is discussion with people that think Sapiens did not routinely kill Neanderthals, and trying to understand why they would think that. I don't try to claim it's proven that Sapiens routinely killed Neanderthals like we long did to wolves in the U.S. for example, but it seems strongly likely we did a lot of violence to them because we are 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 to us Sapiens. 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.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.

 

[Halbhh]

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.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.

Now you're adding enslaving to the mix?

 

[Halbhh]

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?

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.

 

[Halbhh]

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.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You may want to read up more on practices of war and subsequent slavery in ancient times.

And yet we see NONE of that from era that Homo Sapiens met with Neanderthals.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.

So you're a pessimist.

 

[Halbhh]

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.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

? 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.

Do you have any evidence to support this idea, because it really begins to seem to me that you're parroting pulp-era science-fiction.

 

[Halbhh]

So you're a pessimist.

About whether humanity can easily descend back into widespread war? Yep. Sure am. I'm also very optimistic though. We have the powerful ideal of the "Rule of Law", and some partial (incomplete) application of it even in our "UN" organization, at least to the level of rhetoric, even when the rhetoric is hypocritical. That's significant also. Even hypocritically appealing to the ideal of the "Rule of Law", even while betraying it at times, even just that appeal, is a hopeful sign that more progress is possible. Not a given. Just possible.

Civilization itself, that is the largely peaceful activities we have, like medicine, science, engineering, law, etc. -- their predominance relies actually on the proportion of the population that is trying to often do (even just often and not always), the rule Christ gave --

"So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you."

To the extent more of humanity is trying/attempting to do what He said to do, to that extent, only, and not more, we have real hope for humanity and peace and civilization continuing without collapsing. Just to that extent, exactly.