Neandertal extinction explained
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-10-2012, 10:19 AM (This post was last modified: 31-10-2012 12:22 AM by Janus.)
Neandertal extinction explained
Neandertals had squeeky high-pitched voices. So they died of shame when they met homo sapiens! Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Janus's post
30-10-2012, 11:07 AM
RE: Neandertal extinction explained




Sorry, didn't want to derail a serious thread... I've heard that homo sapiens 'success' might have had something to do with cooperation - they did it more than the other species which obviously gave them the upper hand...

Maybe completely off on this, though...

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2012, 05:18 PM
RE: Neandertal extinction explained
Isn't the general consensus that the Homosapiens a. displaced the Neanderthals driving them to famine, and/or 2. slaughtering them, with the 3. remaining population interbreeding?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2012, 06:35 PM (This post was last modified: 30-10-2012 07:59 PM by Janus.)
RE: Neandertal extinction explained
(30-10-2012 05:18 PM)poolboyg88 Wrote:  Isn't the general consensus that the Homosapiens a. displaced the Neanderthals driving them to famine, and/or 2. slaughtering them, with the 3. remaining population interbreeding?

All of the above. But the overriding factor seems to have been better communication leading to better social skills, and consequently better, more effective, cooperation (among their own kind).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2012, 07:39 AM
RE: Neandertal extinction explained
My understanding is that Neanderthal hunted in groups and fought animals at close range while Sapiens were essentially lone hunters, running down their prey. I'm not aware of sapiens being known to be better at cooperation than Neanderthal - I would have thought the opposite would likely be true given their hunting styles. They apparently had FOXP2 and some theories have it that our language ability came from interbreeding with them rather than having it already in place in the first migrations out of Africa. I believe Sapien was known to have better ranged weapons at the time of contact, so if violence was a factor that might have been a reason for Sapien to come out on top... but in the end it would have only taken a few percentage points differential birth and survival rates to lead to Neanderthal extinction through inbreeding and other factors. It may simply have been that Sapien had fewer deaths due to their different hunting styles.

See also: [2]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genome_project
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal...hypotheses

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2012, 07:57 AM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2012 07:49 PM by Janus.)
RE: Neandertal extinction explained
(31-10-2012 07:39 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  My understanding is that Neanderthal hunted in groups and fought animals at close range while Sapiens were essentially lone hunters, running down their prey.

...using their brains to outsmart, corner, trap, and overcome their prey. But not alone, but rather like a wolf pack, applying pack hunting strategies, which requires fine-tuned communication. While hunting HN used brute force.

DEMO: using your head and perfect attuning with your mates instead of raw uncoordinated violence yields much more result with much less physical risk. You don't even need weapons! Just bluff! Projected dominance!



Quote:I'm not aware of sapiens being known to be better at cooperation than Neanderthal - I would have thought the opposite would likely be true given their hunting styles. They apparently had FOXP2

Pardon? "FOXP2"? This site is read by minors too, you know! Big Grin

Quote:and some theories have it that our language ability came from interbreeding with them rather than having it already in place in the first migrations out of Africa. I believe Sapien was known to have better ranged weapons at the time of contact

HSS main hunting weapon was the atlatl, so he could maintain a 'safe' distance from his prey. HN used thrusting lances, which required him to get close to his prey in its death throes. Consequently HN suffered many physical injuries. And got killed more often during or as a result of hunting than h. sapiens sapiens.

Quote:so if violence was a factor that might have been a reason for Sapien to come out on top... but in the end it would have only taken a few percentage points differential birth and survival rates to lead to Neanderthal extinction through inbreeding and other factors. It may simply have been that Sapien had fewer deaths due to their different hunting styles.

See also: [2]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genome_project
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal...hypotheses

The numbers were also a factor. Current hypotheses hold that even at the height of their existence there probably never were more than 10K HN individuals at the same time. Spread out over all of Europe from the Urals to Gibraltar. And there weren't any highways, airline systems, or bicycles then... Big Grin Those conditions by themselves made it extremely difficult and rare to simply find good (genetically speaking) mates. So homo neandertalensis as a species already was a very precarious proposition even without homo sapiens sapiens thrown into the mix! Chances are consequently that inbreeding played a large part in HN's extinction. Increasingly so as more and larger roaming bands of HSS made contact between isolated HN groups ever more difficult. Neandertals had to cross large hostile and dangerous lands, filled with HSS enemies (they were competitors for food; you kill competitors; maybe you can even eat them...) to get to their brethren for a decent fuck! So more and more they couldn't and didn't anymore. So they had to settle for what was available. Ipso facto: inbreeding.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2012, 04:40 PM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2012 07:27 PM by Diablo666.)
RE: Neandertal extinction explained
Who says inbreeding isn't a decent fuck? Animals don't share our morals and ethics, especially not in that regard.
I can assure you that running across the continent to have sex was never even a thought in the HN or HSS mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2012, 06:39 PM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2012 07:21 PM by Janus.)
RE: Neandertal extinction explained
(01-11-2012 04:40 PM)Diablo666 Wrote:  Who says inbreeding isn't a decent fuck?

I respectfully defer to your expertise on the subject, sir. Apparently you know what you're talking about...

Quote:Animals don't share out morals and ethics, especially not in that regard.

Excuse me?
1) Who said anything about (other) animals? This thread is about humans, Neandertals. It's in the title, you know.
2) And who said anything about 'morals and ethics'? How did that angle pop up all of a sudden?

Quote:I can assure you that running across the continent to have sex was never even a thought in the HN or HSS mind.

Interesting! Based on what exactly is it that you "can assure" me that?

I think you ignore the third strongest motivator/drive of all mammals' behavior: sex. After survival/protection and sustenance.
And I can assure you HN had to run across a continent to have sex with a fresh gene pool, my friend. Because there was no alternative. You see, they didn't have mail-order brides or XXX movies they could jerk off to...
Hell, they didn't even have sheep, goats or donkeys, the poor fellows!
After they were cut off from their brethren bands in far lands to fuck with they only had ... each other left! And yes, that probably also means that a LOT of heterosexual sex was substituted by homosexual sex.
But, whichever way you look at that situation one thing is for damn sure: it doesn't produce a lot of healthy offspring! Not a lot. And not healthy. And that kills your species off real fast, as HN demonstrated.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2012, 07:28 PM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2012 07:36 PM by Diablo666.)
RE: Neandertal extinction explained
(01-11-2012 06:39 PM)Janus Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 04:40 PM)Diablo666 Wrote:  Who says inbreeding isn't a decent fuck?

I respectfully defer to your expertise on the subject, sir. Apparently you know what you're talking about...

Quote:Animals don't share out morals and ethics, especially not in that regard.

Excuse me?
1) Who said anything about (other) animals? This thread is about humans, Neandertals. It's in the title, you know.
2) And who said anything about 'morals and ethics'? How did that angle pop up all of a sudden?

Quote:I can assure you that running across the continent to have sex was never even a thought in the HN or HSS mind.

Interesting! Based on what exactly is it that you "can assure" me that?

I think you ignore the third strongest motivator/drive of all mammals' behavior: sex. After survival/protection and sustenance.
And I can assure you HN had to run across a continent to have sex with a fresh gene pool, my friend. Because there was no alternative. You see, they didn't have mail-order brides or XXX movies they could jerk off to...
Hell, they didn't even have sheep, goats or donkeys, the poor fellows!
After they were cut off from their brethren bands in far lands to fuck with they only had ... each other left! And yes, that probably also means that a LOT of heterosexual sex was substituted by homosexual sex.
But, whichever way you look at that situation one thing is for damn sure: it doesn't produce a lot of healthy offspring! Not a lot. And not healthy. And that kills your species off real fast, as HN demonstrated.

Socially speaking they were just barely more evolved than a pack of wolves. See if your dog has any qualms with incest and inbreeding in general, and then come back and talk.
Inbreeding is just part of nature, just like being gay. We only abstain from inbreeding due to social norms that have developed over time. Hell, it wasn't long ago that these social norms didn't even exist....we are talking well within recorded history here. Never mind 30,000 years ago!

Because the premise that they wanted to travel across the country to have sex is retarded.
They were hunter gatherers, who lived in groups. They moved where they thought the resources were. The only way they would run into another group is by chance. Also, why would you assume that the other group would be receptive of this new intruding group? You actually said the exact opposite in your post, though I am assuming you had just as little evidence to go on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2012, 08:38 PM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2012 09:27 PM by Janus.)
RE: Neandertal extinction explained
(01-11-2012 07:28 PM)Diablo666 Wrote:  Socially speaking they were just barely more evolved than a pack of wolves.

There you go, Q.E.D.

Quote:See if your dog has any qualms with incest and inbreeding in general, and then come back and talk.

Funny you should pick the most inbred species of all for your argument! Big Grin

Quote:Inbreeding is just part of nature, just like being gay.

Who said it wasn't?
But some parts of nature have a negative influence on the genetic, and consequently physical health of a species. Those two you mention are some of those parts. They are inversely conducive to the long term viability of a species.
Purely an objective, scientific, statistical observation. Amoral. Not immoral. Without the ballast of ethics or taste.

Quote:We only abstain from inbreeding due to social norms that have developed over time.

Speak for yourself. Don't project your desired ethical persona on the rest of humanity.

Quote:Hell, it wasn't long ago that these social norms didn't even exist....we are talking well within recorded history here. Never mind 30,000 years ago!

Congratulations! That proves we learned. We evolved.
And I can assure you that a bit of visible evidence makes a deep impression. Just visit some of the Aegaean islands or a couple of the isolated high Alpine villages (the ones without access by road) and you will know what inbreeding does.

Quote:Because the premise that they wanted to travel across the country to have sex is retarded.

How eloquent.

Quote:They were hunter gatherers, who lived in groups. They moved where they thought the resources were.

And the least risk to get at them.

Quote:The only way they would run into another group is by chance.

No.
They had territories, which they patrolled. And they had seasonal migratory routes, which they travelled every year. Like many big mammals and predators. They knew where the dangers and the opportunities were and TOLD each other, and especially their young. They had 'maps'. Mental maps. Oral maps. Daily updated maps! From experience. And you may safely assume they knew them fucking well! Because their life depended on that knowledge!
So they also knew, at a minimum roughly, where their great enemies lived and hunted. And tried to avoid them.

And like many other mammals the adolescent males were kicked out of the family clan to go find their own territories and mates. So those guys teamed up and formed roving bands who didn't respect other groups' territories, stole their prey, and their women. But after those wild years would more or less settle down to a set pattern of patrolling their seasonal hunting territories and trekking between them.
Sound familiar, doesn't it? Big Grin

Quote:Also, why would you assume that the other group would be receptive of this new intruding group?

Again, why do you assume that I assume that the other group would be receptive of this new intruding group?
Maybe they would be if the new group was bearing gifts or valuable trading goods like skins or spear points. Or WOMEN! Big Grin Or the new guys could help fighting an encroaching HSS band. And get rewarded with WOMEN! Big Grin
Or maybe they wouldn't be receptive of this new intruding group and tribal war would ensue and the winner would get male work slaves and female sex slaves. Big Grin
Both scenarios are good for genetic diversity! So I don't care which it was. In fact I'll bet you a case of good scotch it was both. But it's unimportant which in the grand scheme of things.

[Image: stock-illustration-9528065-caveman-dragg...-woman.jpg]

Because all that stopped for Neandertals when HSS cut them off of reaching their own kind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: