Neanderthal!!!???!!!

[Moontanman]

Is this what a neanderthal really looked like?

 

 

What has to be the most unique representation of what neanderthals looked like! I ran across this last night. Basically what this guy is saying is that neanderthals are being misrepresented because we always reconstruct them using human paradigms and in reality they are better represented as more apelike.

 

Neanderthal super predators:

 

 

Evidently according to this guy the neanderthals shaped our evolution by preying on us! His video it like a horror movie but he does have some points. The idea that neanderthals looked like us is based un.. us! He reconstructs them using ape parameters instead of human.

 

I would like to see a gorilla or a chimp reconstructed using human parameters to see if this is plausible in any way.

 

This is his short video.

 

 

He misses the mark in several places in my estimation, not the least of which is his idea that trauma induced by neanderthals could be the bases of legends of predatory human like monsters. Hard to believe that legends could persist over 40,000 years...

[sethoflagos]

No neanderthals in Africa.

 

Small point, but I think an important one as regards evolution of the moderns.

[Moontanman]

No neanderthals in Africa.

 

Small point, but I think an important one as regards evolution of the moderns.

 

 

Can you elaborate, I don't think I understand your point...

[Strange]

Basically what this guy is saying is that neanderthals are being misrepresented because we always reconstruct them using human paradigms

 

 

What does that mean? I assume they are reconstructed based on the size and shape of bones, etc. What are these human (or ape) paradigms and how are they used?

 

What is his expertise in the field? Why should we trust his reconstructions? Where has his work been published? Or is he just another RGOTI?

[Moontanman]

 

 

What does that mean? I assume they are reconstructed based on the size and shape of bones, etc. What are these human (or ape) paradigms and how are they used?

 

What is his expertise in the field? Why should we trust his reconstructions? Where has his work been published? Or is he just another RGOTI?

 

 

When they reconstruct, according to this guy, a neanderthals skull they use a human template. he thinks that an ape template is more accurate. He does make some points but I would like to see quite a bit more. Seeing what a gorilla skull looks like when you use human parameters would be interesting...

I have found some debunking of this idea:

 

http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/bioblog/2010/10/killer-neandertals-does-this-o.shtml

 

 

By the way, there's an interesting paper by Julia Drell (2000: Neandertals: a history of interpretation) that looks at how portrayals of Neandertal have changed over time, as more evidence has become available - and also as societal attitudes have changed. (NB this may well not be open-access.) Drell also notes that suggestions of cannibalism by Neandertals aren't new, first appearing in the 1860s. She cites an earlier author as saying that "there is no more universally common way of distancing oneself from other people than to call them cannibals."

In fact, there's not a lot of evidence of cannibalism in Neandertals - the remains of about 15 individuals that may have been eaten by their conspecifics. And that over the total span of their existence. (I do wonder why they'd turn to cannibalism anyway, given that they were extremely successful hunters of large game going by the butchered remains associated with neandertalensis living sites.) There is no published evidence that supports the contention that Neandertals ever ate non-Neandertal hominins, let alone on the scale that Vendramini suggests. On the other hand, there is evidence of Neolithic sapiens eating each other.

To be sure this guy is speculating but it does bring up the question of how do the other people who make all sorts of rather specific claims about neanderthals do so with a little to no more factual basis...

[Strange]

To be sure this guy is speculating but it does bring up the question of how do the other people who make all sorts of rather specific claims about neanderthals do so with a little to no more factual basis...

 

 

It is not an area I know anything much about, but I suspect the difference is that he is making stuff up whereas the traditional view is based on a detailed knowledge of anatomy, biomechanics, forensic science, pathology, and uses tools such as X-rays, CAT scans, analysis of fractures, breakages and other injuries, as well as a whole range of other tools and expertise.

 

But I may be wrong.

[sethoflagos]

 

 

Can you elaborate, I don't think I understand your point...

 

He's claiming that the evolution of modern Homo sapiens was effected by conflict with the neanderthals.

 

As we understand the moderns to have evolved in Africa, at a time when the neanderthals were in Europe (plus a few points east), it seems unlikely. As in evidence, not one shred.

[Moontanman]

 

 

It is not an area I know anything much about, but I suspect the difference is that he is making stuff up whereas the traditional view is based on a detailed knowledge of anatomy, biomechanics, forensic science, pathology, and uses tools such as X-rays, CAT scans, analysis of fractures, breakages and other injuries, as well as a whole range of other tools and expertise.

 

But I may be wrong.

 

 

You are probably correct but as I said he does make a few points that make you wonder. He draws on the same X-rays and such but his assertions have not been questioned as much as the standard if i understand it correctly. As i said, the reconstruction of a gorilla skull to human parameters and the result would give a bit more visual clues as to his ideas being simply BS or interesting...

[Strange]

Also there is evidence of significant interbreeding between H sapiens and Neanderthals. I'm not sure that happens often between predator and prey species....

[Moontanman]

Also there is evidence of significant interbreeding between H sapiens and Neanderthals. I'm not sure that happens often between predator and prey species....

 

 

this is true but the inbreeding is part of his assertion. As i said his ideas need some support but my main concern is the reconstruction of neanderthals, did they look human or ape like? If the later then cross breeding seems unlikely but humans do have sex with orangutans even though no cross breeding can take place... I know ewww...

The possible difference in appearance is what caught my eye, behavioral differences seem unlikely to be decided by fossils on that fine a scale...

[Strange]

He draws on the same X-rays and such but his assertions have not been questioned as much as the standard if i understand it correctly.

 

 

If he presented his work in a journal rather than on Youtube, it might get the expert criticism it deserves.

 

 

 

As i said, the reconstruction of a gorilla skull to human parameters

 

As I say, this is not a subject I know much about but I can't even begin to imagine what "to human parameters" means in this context. I assume that the bones of the limbs and the skull tell you all you need to know about the size and types of muscle attachments etc.

 

I would love someone who knows how these reconstructions are done to confirm or deny that some sort of "human template" is required. (I can't see why it would be.)

 

Actually, I have now read the article linked above and am convinced that his "theory" is complete nonsense.

[Moontanman]

 

 

If he presented his work in a journal rather than on Youtube, it might get the expert criticism it deserves.

 

 

As I say, this is not a subject I know much about but I can't even begin to imagine what "to human parameters" means in this context. I assume that the bones of the limbs and the skull tell you all you need to know about the size and types of muscle attachments etc.

 

I would love someone who knows how these reconstructions are done to confirm or deny that some sort of "human template" is required. (I can't see why it would be.)

 

Actually, I have now read the article linked above and am convinced that his "theory" is complete nonsense.

 

 

I would say the he really has no "theory" speculations at best and sensational speculations at that. I've always had my doubts about behaviors being asserted from fossils and such outrageous ones really need a considerable amount of support other than legends transmitted over 40,000 years.

 

My main interest is the appearence, do we really have reason to assume Neanderthal flesh and muscles match ours as opposed to more ape like primates? Would our ape relatives look human if we reconstructed them using human flesh and muscles? I think it's an interesting line of inquiry...

[Strange]

My main interest is the appearence, do we really have reason to assume Neanderthal flesh and muscles match ours as opposed to more ape like primates? Would our ape relatives look human if we reconstructed them using human flesh and muscles? I think it's an interesting line of inquiry...

 

 

My understanding is that the muscles are reconstructed based on the physiology of the bones, not an assumption that they must be "human-like" or "ape-like".

[Danijel Gorupec]

I would love to have such a large hands! Twice the size than human... if I slap someone... I wonder if there is skeletal evidence that Neanderthals had such large hands. (But I am afraid that the depicted Neanderthal has somewhat 'romanticized' proportions).

 

Wide hips do not seem good for walking. Knuckle-walking? With such short hands they would need to keep their asses high in the air when knuckle-walking. No wonder homo sapiens used to jump on their women. (Maybe this wide-hipped neanderthal really is a female, I just cannot tell by examining the crotch. If this is a penis then no, I would not like to trade my hands for that price.)

 

Black skin... hard to tell, but I was explained that people living farther north have lighter skin to aid with D vitamin production. Not that Neanderthals lived that much north. And they certainly died out (because of D vitamin deficiency?).

 

Well, this is a gorilla. My instinctive move would be to compare neanderthal skeleton to gorilla skeleton and neanderthal skeleton to human skeleton. Looking to which one is more similar.

 

Two things still impress me... the first one is not having white eyes. Is there any reason to suspect Neanderthals had white eyes? The second thing is how nicely are these pictures rendered.

 

(P.S. Moontanman, you should really insert some '1' or '2' when you use multiple exclamation marks. That is what young people like us do.)

Edited January 1, 2017 by Danijel Gorupec

[michel123456]

5 things:

_the red reptilian eyes are not necessary. The author is looking for sensational.

_the Homo Sapiens Sapiens is emasculated.

_the penis of the supposed Neanderthal is too small, IMHO. But the fact that the penis is exposed support the idea that the supposed Neanderthal is an animal, not a human and as such the interdiction of showing a penis does not count.

_the supposed Neanderthal is obviously speaking american english, that is the reason why his mouth is askew. I am joking and not.

 

 

 

found this about the author

http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/origin-of-a-big-idea/2006/01/02/1136050390209.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2

[Danijel Gorupec]

_the supposed Neanderthal is obviously speaking american english, that is the reason why his mouth is askew. I am joking and not.

Yes, I think you are right. You have a good eye... I was deceived because the creature is not depicted wearing a hat and a revolver belt.

[Moontanman]

So far I see little debunking of this going on. Probably because it is so crazy to assume such sensational behaviors from the scant evidence we have. I am still intrigued by the facial reconstruction aspect.

 

 

(P.S. Moontanman, you should really insert some '1' or '2' when you use multiple exclamation marks. That is what young people like us do.)

Hmmm... Young whipper snapper!

 

 

My understanding is that the muscles are reconstructed based on the physiology of the bones, not an assumption that they must be "human-like" or "ape-like".

 

 

I am not sure facial reconstruction is done that way. I know they do use the flesh and muscle thicknesses of the human face as a guide. This guys reconstruction is supposed to be using an apes scull flesh and muscles as a template. I would like to see more about that but so far it's no joy on the net.

 

If his contentions are true then it would call into question facial reconstruction of many hominids.

Edited January 1, 2017 by Moontanman

[EvanF]

I remember coming across that video about a year ago....

 

While his reconstruction is quite fantastic and silly, he brings up a few somewhat valid points that aren't usually brought up.

 

One valid thing he brings up in the video is that reconstructions get the eye proportions wrong.

 

Neanderthal skulls have huge eye sockets.

Compare this neanderthal skull to Cromagnon 1, Cro magnon man himself having larger eye sockets than modern day humans.

Neanderthals had massive eyes, which is something you don't see in so called facial reconstructions.

They also had HUGE long faces....many reconstructions make their faces look way too much like short modern human facial proportions.

(Neanderthal's teeth are also quite strange.)

 

 

He theorizes that neanderthals were like 'monsters'...Here's the thing...Neanderthals were inbred cannibals who were very 'archaic' in appearance, so for all practical purposes I suppose the word "monster" could apply? Perhaps like the 'orcs' of archaic Europe? They did have large eyes which presumably evolved because they were more nocturnal than modern humans...which could likely be because they were more carnivorous/predatory than our omnivorous hunter gatherer ancestors.

And since he kind of delves into fantasy with his 'monster' reconstruction with the neanderthal having black skin and reptilian eyes, I think the neanderthal would have been more similar to the servants of Necron in the 1980's animation Fire and Ice. (jump to 7:47) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENy82ESS2t4

 

 

It's been figured that Neanderthal's went extinct around 40,000 years ago.

Is it because they were simply too dumb to survive/find new resources? I don't think that's the case.

I think their 'extinction' was directly related to early modern humans (Cro magnons) moving through Europe...I think the very fact that Early humans possibly 'wiped out' the neanderthals to such a complete extent makes me think that they WERE seen as 'monstrous' by Early Humans.

Early humans would have to have had some kind of reason for wanting to be that extreme in exterminating the neanderthals.

Edited January 2, 2017 by EvanF

[YHWH Allah]

Also there is evidence of significant interbreeding between H sapiens and Neanderthals.

I'm not sure that happens often between predator and prey species....

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/01/04/507543208/dust-to-dust-scientists-find-dna-of-human-ancestors-in-cave-floor-dirt

There once were Neanderthal men,

Chasing beautiful Homo sapien,

Ancient women got flirty,

Caved in down dirty,

Now peepers Stalking all them.

YHWH Allah

[EvanF]

 

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/01/04/507543208/dust-to-dust-scientists-find-dna-of-human-ancestors-in-cave-floor-dirt

There once were Neanderthal men,

Chasing beautiful Homo sapien,

Ancient women got flirty,

Caved in down dirty,

Now peepers Stalking all them.

YHWH Allah

 

Interesting poetry...

[Arete]

found this about the author

http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/origin-of-a-big-idea/2006/01/02/1136050390209.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2

 

So, what he's naively explaining here is epigenetics - exposure to a particular environmental stressor - be it an emotion, hormone, chemical etc. can alter the regulation of gene expression thus leading to phenotypic changes in the organism. However the changes generally happen in somatic rather than germline cells, so the regulatory alterations are generally not passed on to offspring. He has nothing but hand waving between emotion and inherited mutation rather than any kind of new mechanism, thus rendering the whole idea something of a bar stool conversation rather than Nobel prize material.

 

That's not to dismiss the gravity of coming up with this on your own with no education on the subject - which demonstrates some serious thought and brilliance on the subject. But there are many brilliant people and even more brilliant ideas, and what separates them in the scientific mainstream is experimentation and empirical data - which there is none for this concept. I've heard and read lots of good ideas in science and seen most of them left on the cutting room floor, unfortunately.

 

As for the neanderthal visualization issue, I would defer to phylogeny. 1) Humans are a type of ape, as are neandertals. 2) Humans and neandertals are more closely related than either are to other apes. 3) It stands to reason that they share more inherited features than either do to other apes.

 

[YHWH Allah]

Interesting poetry...

 

Limerick actually. Cheers

[Zinalu]

Of course theres hard to know what extinct beings actually looked like and behaved, but I have a hard time to believe this video, one thing he said is that they ate 99% meat but still they have teeth more of an omnivore, which means they ate both vegetation and meat, to eat vegetation you need flatter teeth to grind the food and sharp for eating meat, I also read that some of todays humans have neanderthal DNA in their genes, which means we mated with them ( not where I read it but I find this still to be a reliable and interesting article to link here http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140129-neanderthal-genes-genetics-migration-africa-eurasian-science/ )

I'm not dismissing his theory about how a neanderthal looks, but I feel it's to much shockvalue into it and there is something called convergent evolution ( if I remember the name correctly ), which means that two unrelated lineages evolve the same thing, for example insects and birds flight, both have wings but very different type of wings that they both happened to need, maybe humans and neanderthals went through convergent evolution and they in fact looked very human like, tough much rougher in a way, seems they relied more on muscle while the human relied more on intellect, and thus a bigger brain.

[DrP]

This may be naïve, but I am not sure about the depiction of Neanderthals as they are proposed in the OP.... simply because there is plenty of evidence now that shows that Neanderthals and humans interbred... and I can see no way that any human would want to get jiggy with the depictions in the OP. lol. So - I would assume (maybe wrongly) that they actually looked a little more human than ape.

[Moontanman]

Of course theres hard to know what extinct beings actually looked like and behaved, but I have a hard time to believe this video, one thing he said is that they ate 99% meat but still they have teeth more of an omnivore, which means they ate both vegetation and meat, to eat vegetation you need flatter teeth to grind the food and sharp for eating meat, I also read that some of todays humans have neanderthal DNA in their genes, which means we mated with them ( not where I read it but I find this still to be a reliable and interesting article to link here http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140129-neanderthal-genes-genetics-migration-africa-eurasian-science/ )

I'm not dismissing his theory about how a neanderthal looks, but I feel it's to much shockvalue into it and there is something called convergent evolution ( if I remember the name correctly ), which means that two unrelated lineages evolve the same thing, for example insects and birds flight, both have wings but very different type of wings that they both happened to need, maybe humans and neanderthals went through convergent evolution and they in fact looked very human like, tough much rougher in a way, seems they relied more on muscle while the human relied more on intellect, and thus a bigger brain.

 

 

I understand what you are saying except for the neanderthals brains, they were bigger.