The neanderthals... we killed them all

[IGBT]

Red heads have special powers..larger cranial vault. Can beat all you's in arm wrestling..

Red hair, often associated with a fiery temper, not to mention the bad behaviour of media millionaire Chris Evans, may be the legacy of Neanderthal man.

Oxford University scientists think the 'ginger gene', which is responsible for red hair, fair skin and freckles, could be up to 100,000 years old.

They say their discovery points to the gene having originated in Neanderthal man, who lived in Europe for 260,000 years before the ancestors of modern man arrived from Africa about 40,000 years ago.

Research leader Dr Rosalind Harding said: 'It is certainly possible that red hair comes from the Neanderthals.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-38826/The-ginger-gene-revealed.html

 

[zinfamous]

Welcome to modern science.

-KeithP

--benefits from a modern world and all that science has given it
--doubts the benefits of science
--> true American neanderthal.

 

[zinfamous]

Not me. I was home that day, you can ask my wife. I never had a thing against Neanderthals. Some of my best friends were Neanderthals! Well, maybe not my best friends, but I knew them.

 

[Muse]

I've always thought so as well. I mean it's the only other species capable of rational thought that we know of in the universe, and they are fucking dead, partially due to our hand for sure. You can debate it I guess, but I highly doubt that we weren't killing the fuck out of them.

We know of no other intelligent life capable of creating complex societal structures, language, art, etc. Neanderthals existing is sort of the same ballpark of proof of aliens and contact with them. Certainly not that level because they were terrestrial, but the same sort of spectrum. Imagine if pockets of them survived into modern times. Human history and society could potentially be radically different.

I guess not really important though until enough dipshits care enough for Michael Bay to make a movie about it or something.

What do you know about the neanderthals? Obviously next to nothing. Read The Sixth Extinction.

 

[Muse]

Recent evidence shows this is wrong. Most researchers reject the idea they were less social or intelligent than our ancestors. That is a myth that festers among the layman.

Their tools didn't progress over a period of 100,000 years. How intelligent could they have been?

 

[norseamd]

The author of the reviewed book makes the case that we teamed up with canines and that gave us a hunting advantage, which we used to eradicate the neanderthals. It's an interesting idea, although the reviewer gets all mopey over her refusal to call it a genocide, which is just stupid.

You know what kinda is pissing me off? That I actually came up with that hypothesis on my own like at least a year ago. I honestly think the lots of scientists are very closeminded and they are constantly going for the youngest prediction dates possible as if to say that the old ancestors were as dumb as possible. Honestly I have made more than a few predictions about biological history that have come out as true including the close relations between Northern Europeans and Native Americans and also the close relations between the same Northern Europeans and East Asiatics. Basically when you look at the Neolithic demographic history you can tell that Europeans were drifted away from Eurasian genetics from massive migrations from the near east. I think there might also be lots of genetic relations between those Near Eastern farmers and East Africans.

 

[norseamd]

Now this is reminding me of the time when I was thinking about Neanderthal ancestry and was watching Eastenders for a short while and had a eureka type understanding. You know that main black character on there he had similar bone structure in some ways to Northern Eurasians. This was a while ago but there has been discussion about possible Archaic genetic relations between Europeans and West Africans. Even as recently as 10000 years ago or less the humans in West Africa were much more heavy and archaic in bone structure.

 

[norseamd]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Trueman

 

[stormkroe]

Those are myths which have been disproven.

Neanderthals were more than capable of speech, the idea they could only make animalistic calls was based on incorrectly constructed hyoid bone. There is no proof they were any less intelligent, or any less social than humans of the same period. These are all myths that have been debunked.

Perhaps drop some links, as the last thing I remember reading about them (possibly months/over a year ago so not claiming to be an authority) was exactly the opposite of what you are saying, that all the expressive things (art, jewelry, etc) have actually been disproven, and that they were in fact nit much smarter than modern primates. Since there's no proving a negative, it's on those claiming that neandertals were near-human socially/intellectually/expressively to show evidence. I could easily say there's no proof they were any less entertained by their own version of 'planking' than we are so they must have really been into it.

 

[norseamd]

Perhaps drop some links, as the last thing I remember reading about them (possibly months/over a year ago so not claiming to be an authority) was exactly the opposite of what you are saying, that all the expressive things (art, jewelry, etc) have actually been disproven, and that they were in fact nit much smarter than modern primates. Since there's no proving a negative, it's on those claiming that neandertals were near-human socially/intellectually/expressively to show evidence. I could easily say there's no proof they were any less entertained by their own version of 'planking' than we are so they must have really been into it.

Do you ever consider using natural reasoning? How smart to you think Neanderthals actually were? Let me highlight the above sentence which basically is just the same basic fallacy that "skeptics" spew as their bullshit.

 

[norseamd]

Yes as far as we can tell it seems like they were. Though both Neandrathals and Denisovans were much closer to each other than modern Humans.

True although Denisovans are somewhat complicated. They are possibly descended of hybridization between Neanderthal like ancestors and Homo Erectus. Although any population of life is descended from various populations so not actually that complicated.

 

[norseamd]

Caucasian and Mongoloid people exhibit about 3-8% Neanderthal DNA, which adds support to the breeding out hypothesis. Sub-Saharan Africans don't have those DNA markers. Which makes sense considering Neanderthals didn't venture that far south.

Not true. We have no pure unneanderthal population to measure against so we have to use Africans since they are probably the most unneaderthal population there is but they probably have some Neanderthal ancestry through back migrations over time. And you know those Khoi-San who we were told time and again despite them like Europeans or Asiatics they had no relations to Europeans? Turns out they actually do have Caucasian ancestry through an ancient although not that old migration from the Mediterranean or Near East in the last few thousand years or something.

 

[stormkroe]

Do you ever consider using natural reasoning? How smart to you think Neanderthals actually were? Let me highlight the above sentence which basically is just the same basic fallacy that "skeptics" spew as their bullshit.

I'm not 'spewing' anything. I asked for a few links (I thought that's how we did things as grown ups?) showing recent support for statements. You suggest 'natural reasoning'? I prefer science, thanks.
I don't have a dog in this race, but too often I see people her saying things like 'it's been proven/debunked', 'all of science lolomgeverbodyknowsit'strue', without backing it up.
To answer your question, I don't think neanderthals were much smarter than chimps (as compared to us). I'm not using 'natural reasoning', because NO ONE knows enough about them to claim suppositions as fact, but rather information I've read in the past.
So some questions for you, since you seem to take this topic deeply to heart.
When do you think they went extinct?
How smart do you think they were?
What proofs have you read that supports a spoken language, artistic expression, or significantly super-ape intelligence?

 

[norseamd]

When do you think they went extinct?

22000 BC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthals_of_Gibraltar

How smart do you think they were?

They would have had basic human like intelligence. They probably would not have had socialite-like understanding of socializing and politics but they would seem human as far as character. Do you know that lots of what we consider archaic human characteristics actually fall in current human diversity?

One more thing to keep in mind is that brain size has decreased for much of humanity for the last 50000 years or so. Although that was probably only looking at Mediterranean or Caucasian phenotypes. This is probably due to the rise of civilization which means that although selection on socializing is going to increase the general brain power and need for wise decisions is going to decrease which probably explains why humanity does so much bad shit when they know it is just bad.

 

[norseamd]

Recent findings suggest there may be even more Neanderthal genes in non-African humans than previously expected: approximately 20% of the Neanderthal gene pool was present in a broad sampling of non-African individuals, though each individual's genome was on average only 2% Neanderthal.

 

[MongGrel]

Last Week Tonight With John Oliver - Rat Apology

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-XWdfZBdw0

 

[norseamd]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-XWdfZBdw0

Do you know how terrible infrastructure is in America?

 

[MongGrel]

Oh sure.

 

[stormkroe]

22000 BC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthals_of_Gibraltar

snip

So you disagree with more recent dating of those sites that places them much further back?

What study are you citing for the basic-human intelligence?

Recent findings suggest there may be even more Neanderthal genes in non-African humans than previously expected: approximately 20% of the Neanderthal gene pool was present in a broad sampling of non-African individuals, though each individual's genome was on average only 2% Neanderthal.

This is quite unsurprising if the 1-2% presence is actually from interbreeding and not from a more mundane explanation. What was the accepted spectrum showing before it was increased to 20%? I can't find the old number.
Thanks for answering.

 

[Markbnj]

How smart do you think they were?

That's of course very hard to say, and we could debate it for days. We couldn't even say how 'smart' the homo sapiens of the time were. We'd inevitably try to understand it in our frame of reference, and that's virtually impossible. For my part, and for the purposes of this thread, I think it's sufficient to know that they created art, and memorialized their dead. They were far more human than not.

 

[norseamd]

What study are you citing for the basic-human intelligence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crow_and_the_Pitcher

 

[norseamd]

So you disagree with more recent dating of those sites that places them much further back?

Do you know how many studies in science are conflicting? You realize that the presence of fossils only means that they were there at that particular time. There is nothing to prove they were not there at any other particular time in history. you have to realize that just because you can not prove something does not mean the opposite is true.

 

[norseamd]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130319093639.htm

 

[stormkroe]

That's of course very hard to say, and we could debate it for days. We couldn't even say how 'smart' the homo sapiens of the time were. We'd inevitably try to understand it in our frame of reference, and that's virtually impossible. For my part, and for the purposes of this thread, I think it's sufficient to know that they created art, and memorialized their dead. They were far more human than not.

I agree totally with your assumption, but it hinges on the validity of the art and memorialization. There's recent evidence (see above post) that neanderthal was extinct from Iberia well over 40,000 years ago, which calls into question their availability to create hatch marks 39k years ago in Gorham’s Cave. Both dates, Iberia and the Mezmaiskaya Cave site have been redated to get this number.
The burial thing is quite intriguing, if it holds up to similar scrutiny, that's a huge finding.
The only way to put this to bed (no pun intended) is for an ATOTer to volunteer for jurasic park style lovin'* and bring one back to life.

*I haven't seen that movie in a long time, might be remembering it wrong.

 

[zinfamous]

I agree totally with your assumption, but it hinges on the validity of the art and memorialization. There's recent evidence (see above post) that neanderthal was extinct from Iberia well over 40,000 years ago, which calls into question their availability to create hatch marks 39k years ago in Gorham’s Cave. Both dates, Iberia and the Mezmaiskaya Cave site have been redated to get this number.
The burial thing is quite intriguing, if it holds up to similar scrutiny, that's a huge finding.
The only way to put this to bed (no pun intended) is for an ATOTer to volunteer for jurasic park style lovin'* and bring one back to life.

*I haven't seen that movie in a long time, might be remembering it wrong.

....yeah, there wouldn't be much loving. The volunteering would be to agree to donate a fertilized embryo as a vessel for a recovered, and likely highly-synthesized neanderthal DNA template or some such.

The real loving would occur in a 60mm plastic dish, between an embryo and microinjection capillary prick.