Neandertal extinction explained
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-11-2012, 09:24 PM
RE: Neandertal extinction explained
You are apparently confusing the Flintstones and actual HN and HSS history.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2012, 09:33 PM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2012 09:57 PM by Janus.)
RE: Neandertal extinction explained
(01-11-2012 09:24 PM)Diablo666 Wrote:  You are apparently confusing the Flintstones and actual HN and HSS history.

You are apparently confusing a 'funny' remark with a substantial argument. Big Grin

And FYI: neither species wrote anything down for us to read about their life, 30 to 50 KYA. So it wasn't 'history'. It was before written history. A.k.a. 'pre-history'. Or, in this case, the middle pleistocene, more precisely.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2012, 10:26 PM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2012 10:30 PM by Diablo666.)
RE: Neandertal extinction explained
How in the hell is that fairy tale you wrote an argument?
Where is the evidence for any of that shit?


Stick the semantics bullshit up your ass. You aren't impressing anyone but yourself!

his·to·ry/ˈhist(ə)rē/
Noun:
The study of past events, particularly in human affairs.
The past considered as a whole.

Who said anything about written history?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2012, 10:50 PM
RE: Neandertal extinction explained
Biggest mouth wins. That's evolution for ya! Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2012, 06:29 AM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2012 06:32 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: Neandertal extinction explained
I think humans have a history of believing themselves to be superior to people who they are not superior to. This includes perceived superiority of one "race" over another, as well as perceived superiority over other Homo species. "Cave men" have long been portrayed and regarded as little more than apes. It seems to me that when we have made these assumptions in the past that those assumptions have been unwarranted, and I'm sceptical of broad claims of modern humans being superior, especially mentally superior to close relatives such as Neanderthal. It's possible that we were, but it seems likely that other factors were more important. Certainly we do not find genes associated with intelligence being amongst the most preserved sections of DNA in our species. We're all basically intelligent enough to get by, and I would not be surprised to find that Neanderthal exceeded Sapien capabilities at the time of contact in some respects.

Differences in hunting styles, range, and distribution are all documented and seem sufficient to explain the required differential survival rates without referring to unconfirmed assumptions about differential intelligence or other characters that we might like to think are exclusively gifted to our own species. These differences may exist, but I would hesitate to rely on their existence without strong confirming evidence both of the supposed difference and some link between that difference and the resulting differential survival rates.

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
03-11-2012, 09:25 AM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2012 10:14 AM by Janus.)
RE: Neandertal extinction explained
(03-11-2012 06:29 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  I think humans have a history of believing themselves to be superior to people who they are not superior to. This includes perceived superiority of one "race" over another, as well as perceived superiority over other Homo species. "Cave men" have long been portrayed and regarded as little more than apes. It seems to me that when we have made these assumptions in the past that those assumptions have been unwarranted, and I'm sceptical of broad claims of modern humans being superior, especially mentally superior to close relatives such as Neanderthal. It's possible that we were, but it seems likely that other factors were more important. Certainly we do not find genes associated with intelligence being amongst the most preserved sections of DNA in our species. We're all basically intelligent enough to get by, and I would not be surprised to find that Neanderthal exceeded Sapien capabilities at the time of contact in some respects.

Differences in hunting styles, range, and distribution are all documented and seem sufficient to explain the required differential survival rates without referring to unconfirmed assumptions about differential intelligence or other characters that we might like to think are exclusively gifted to our own species. These differences may exist, but I would hesitate to rely on their existence without strong confirming evidence both of the supposed difference and some link between that difference and the resulting differential survival rates.

I don't think perceived superiority of (the average intelligence of) one species over another was an argument in this thread until you brought it up. Because we simply don't know what HN's average intelligence was. And consequently we haven't a clue how it would have affected their extinction, IF it did.

Who knows: maybe Neandertals were the greatest philosophers the world ever saw. Before or since! But it certainly didn't ward off their extinction!

Some think HN individual's intelligence may have exceeded homo sapiens' because HN's average brain size was slightly bigger than our own. But that's of course BS, because if that 'logic' were true elephants and whales would be ruling the earth instead of people, and homo floresiensis would have been at the level of chimps, max. Yet we classify them clearly as homo*! Not apes!

But since we don't know about our and their (HN's) relative intelligence – we really haven't the foggiest; anything said about it is pure, baseless conjecture – I suggest we leave it out of the discussion about why/how HN went extinct until we do know something about it.

*We may yet have to reconsider that classification of the hobbit as homo floresiensis, though. There are still debates raging about its morphology which seems to bear more than a passing resemblance to australopithecines' morphology. Yet there's a temporal gap of at least 1,5 to 2,5 million years separating them! (Not to mention an ocean or a 20,000 mile overland trek!) So we don't really understand anything about the hobbit yet!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: