Neanderthal!!!???!!!

[EvanF]

 

 

First of all I was actually hoping for more evidence based material. Here is a link to a scholarly article, and a quote from it that pretty well refutes your opinions, though I wasn't disappointed to hear your opinions at all so don't take it the wrong way.

 

http://crcooper01.people.ysu.edu/trikhaus%202005.pdf

 

"The earliest modern humans outside of the core area of eastern Africa can be understood only if a variable degree of admixture with regional groups of late archaic humans occurred. "

 

This is something along the lines of what I had read earlier and it seems to make sense. The erectus that had been living outside of Africa for a period of some 1.5 million years would have had plenty of time to develop into the distinctive regional appearances we call races. Then in one region the transition to early modern occurs over a period of say any where from 2000 to 20,000 years, leaking DNA constantly to the other regions, but that DNA being absorbed into the local appearances as it moves. So to symplify, it would mean that the first early modern to reach Cambodia did not look like the African early modern, he looked like an east Indian early modern because that's where he came from, not Africa.

 

What you suggest, that the early moderns "wiped out" the others and then went on to diversify to such an extant, holds less water to me because they didn't have time nor reason. You only give early moderns 60.000 years to achieve something erectus couldn't do in 1.5 million ?!? The groups had not beed separated for long enough to become sexually incompatible so the DNA was good.

 

To my understanding all Eurasians carry some Neanderthal DNA. Your idea that the sex that led to that was nonconsensual is not in keeping with the behaviour of the species. Not only do the Bonobo chimps, our closest living relatives, enjoy all manner of sex (except incest), including as often as not gang bang, but modern humans enjoy all different kinds as well, need I make a list. The point being that for other species sex is something that gives them satisfaction, so much satisfaction that they will compete to the death at times for some, but they don't enjoy it the way we do. We've got all the bells and whistles, women's nipples get hard and so on, we'll spend all night at it. Neanderthals and early moderns were sexually compatible, intelligent, good looking creatures who absolutely loved having sex. What possible reason could you suggest for them to not consent?

 

​Maybe the reason the Europeans made the flute is because they had such bad singing voices. Just watch youtube for plenty of examples of people who play instruments but can't sing. Plus from what I can see, Africans can sing anything the Eurasians can, plus Rap, which Eurasians frankly suck at. Africans have some serious breath control and I wonder if avoiding the Neanderthal DNA had something to do with that.

 

That Neanderthals were able to address the "basic/practical reasons why you would bury a body" at a time in our history when early moderns could not, imdicates to me at least that they were more culturally advanced then early moderns at that time. Neanderthals had a larger brain then any primate that ever lived. The early moderns that first made contact with them could well have had a better organized/shaped brain, but Neanderthals must have had some knowledge to go along with the big brain that the early modern could use, and cultural knowledge such as burial practices is what the evidence tells us they had.

 

When you say early moderns "wiped out" archaics do you mean with violence? I don't really think much of that was going on. For one thing with the advent of spears and use of fire our territory was huge, we could eat almost anything and resources were plentiful. On the other hand technology and knowledge were in short supply and high demand. When two troops met, to me it seems more likely that they would be more interested in trading knowledge and DNA then in making war. Threats yes, we have a long and illustrious past of making threats. The australopithecine we evolved from could open its' mouth wider then any other primate that ever lived. In becoming human he just moved the weapon out of his mouth and into his hand, but how does he use it? Humans are after all an extremely fragile species. A scratch could get infected and kill you so if you do go to war it has to be for an awfully good reason, there will be heavy losses on both sides.

 

 

In terms of 'evidence based' material on the origin of races...you're not going to find much.

We can only theorize and speculate as to why humans apparently evolved into diverse groups.

 

But the typical explanation is that around 70,000-50,000 years ago, modern humans started to migrate out of Africa, and the different climates they migrated into 'shaped' them into the different races....for example, Europeans evolved white skin to adapt to the forested cloudy environment of Europe...(but of course that still leaves a whole lot left to be explained.)

 

Recent research also suggests that almost all modern humans genetically descend from a single population (presumably coming out of 'Africa') roughly around 50,000 years ago.https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/22/science/ancient-dna-human-history.html?_r=0 This further supports my Cro magnon theory(s), but I won't go into that too much more for this thread.

 

 

 

All the different groups of homo erectus/archaics around the world didn't ALL just happen to evolve into modern humans and different races independently.

Rather it was a small distinct group that rapidly evolved and surpassed the archaic groups and became the 'ancestors' of our modern species, then they spread out into the world.

Homo S. sapiens are a divergent line apart from most of the archaic groups.

That's for example why there are Homo erectus remains that date to as late as 70,000 years ago.

100% of archaics didn't just universally evolve into modern humans, in fact, most of them did not evolve much past homo erectus.

 

 

It is presumed through some research that many Europeans and Asians have a small amount of Neanderthal DNA. Though it's probably incorrect to assume that literally "ALL" Eurasians carry neanderthal DNA.

 

You are assuming neanderthals were "good looking"...which is not likely. They were quite different looking than us. Just look at the comparison picture I posted of a neanderthal and modern human skull on page 1.

 

Neanderthals likely could not talk or express/socialize in the same way that modern humans could...So the idea that neanderthals and modern humans just went around romantically mingling together consensually seems quite silly and unlikely.

 

Neanderthals were not more culturally advanced than the European modern humans at the time (40,000 BP)...In fact, that is most likely the reason that neanderthals went extinct, because they could not compete with the technology of the Cromagnons/modern humans, who had ranged weaponry like advanced throwing spears and atlatls.

Edited February 21, 2017 by EvanF

[Perfict_Lightning]

Great points. You could be absolutely correct or you could be totally wrong on every one. Who knows? Paleoanthropology is so full of guess work, and here we are trying to pass our guesses off as hard cold facts. I think it's a lot of fun really. I would guess Neanderthals eyes were huge, and you could see the whites.

 

Cheers