Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 1 votes

Neanderthals vanished due to own success


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1    Still Waters

Still Waters

    Deeply Mysterious

  • 39,850 posts
  • Joined:01 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • "Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better." - Albert Einstein

Posted 20 November 2011 - 02:08 PM

popular-archaeology.com said:

Using data obtained from the archaeological record, a team of researchers at Arizona State University and the University of Colorado, Denver, conducted experiments using complex computer modeling to analyze evidence of how human hunter-gatherers responded culturally and biologically to the dramatic changes that took place during the last Ice Age.The results showed, among other things, that the Neanderthals, thought by many scientists to have become extinct at least in part because of their inadaptability and inability to compete with the expanding presence of modern humans, may have actually been victims of their own success.

Posted Image Read more...


Posted Image

#2    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 36,264 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 20 November 2011 - 03:39 PM

They probably were, even if only due to the very good adaptation to a certain environment.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#3    Erikl

Erikl

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,524 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 21 November 2011 - 11:18 AM

It has been already established that all non-sub-Saharan (aka Black african) people carry few percentage of Neanderthal DNA.


#4    angi chiesa

angi chiesa

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined:06 Jan 2011

Posted 21 November 2011 - 12:59 PM

Wow I am so pleased with this article. I have written many times that the Neanderthals were not killed off but mated with homo sapiens..I see many examples of people that are short and stocky .To me it proves integration. It takes all sorts to make the modern human being.


#5    diablo_04

diablo_04

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 572 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Skopje, Macedonia

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own

Posted 21 November 2011 - 01:01 PM

View PostErikl, on 21 November 2011 - 11:18 AM, said:

It has been already established that all non-sub-Saharan (aka Black african) people carry few percentage of Neanderthal DNA.

How i know the Neanderthals habitat was in Europe and Central Asia, its not possible they mixed with Black Africans.

Posted Image

Posted Image

I reject your reality and substitute my own

My site :D Workout tips


#6    FlyingAngel

FlyingAngel

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,426 posts
  • Joined:29 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 November 2011 - 01:13 PM

View Postdiablo_04_12, on 21 November 2011 - 01:01 PM, said:

How i know the Neanderthals habitat was in Europe and Central Asia, its not possible they mixed with Black Africans.

Posted Image

What if they traveled and married in Africa, lol?


#7    Sixth

Sixth

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,311 posts
  • Joined:18 May 2008
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Twin Peaks

  • Scientists get funky about having their research poached

Posted 21 November 2011 - 01:18 PM

Yep - once they left, there was no saying they couldn't go back.

do your palms ever itch?

#8    Mr Right Wing

Mr Right Wing

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined:16 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 November 2011 - 01:28 PM

View PostErikl, on 21 November 2011 - 11:18 AM, said:

It has been already established that all non-sub-Saharan (aka Black african) people carry few percentage of Neanderthal DNA.

4% to 6% on average although I bet theres a few higher and lower by chance.

I wish to contribute Biblical accounts of people living to several thousand years old. Also I wish to point out European folklore about trolls living under bridges and in caves.

A longer lifespan may have meant a much lower birth rate per year allowing them be absorbed into the population. I would also be interested in finding out if the places where advanced civilization appeared - Europe, Babylon, Persia, Eygpt, India, China, Central America have more than the average 4% to 6% neanderthal dna.


#9    Erikl

Erikl

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,524 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 21 November 2011 - 01:41 PM

It might also explain many white and asian phenotypes - these specific traits would be favours by nature in these regions, which is why the facial features and skin colour is so different between Euroasians and Africans - these might have been inherited from our Neanderthal (now you can call them) ancestors.


#10    AsatroGubbe

AsatroGubbe

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  • Joined:14 Oct 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere in the Sonoran Desert

  • Klein aber mein.

Posted 21 November 2011 - 02:03 PM

one observation i must make regarding the neanderthal skulls i have seen is that many have a "trademark" wear on the molars.  as if they used their teeth to strip bark or leather or ???.  another observation is that compared to homosapiens they seem to have retained most if not all of their teeth until they died.  curious.


#11    Erikl

Erikl

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,524 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 21 November 2011 - 02:26 PM

View PostMr Right Wing, on 21 November 2011 - 01:28 PM, said:

4% to 6% on average although I bet theres a few higher and lower by chance.

I wish to contribute Biblical accounts of people living to several thousand years old. Also I wish to point out European folklore about trolls living under bridges and in caves.

A longer lifespan may have meant a much lower birth rate per year allowing them be absorbed into the population. I would also be interested in finding out if the places where advanced civilization appeared - Europe, Babylon, Persia, Eygpt, India, China, Central America have more than the average 4% to 6% neanderthal dna.

And I would refer you the excellent book called "Gun, Germs and Steel", which explains exactly why civilizations evolved in certain areas while in others they didn't. One of the things I do not except, though, is that the Maya people lived in conditions as the Africans did, that is - thick tropical forests of Meso-America, however they did develop a very advance civilization. My take, is that the people that left Africa had to go through very harsh conditions to adapt to the alien territory they arrived, couple that with intermixing with well adapted people that lived there for hundreds of thousands of years, while passing through Asia one their way to the Americas.

Posted Image

"We live in a world where when Christians kill Muslims, it's a crusade; When Jews kill Muslims, it's a massacre; When Muslims kill Muslims, it's the weather channel. Nobody cares"

#12    Erikl

Erikl

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,524 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 21 November 2011 - 02:33 PM

From wikipedia, about the book Guns, Germs and Steel:

Quote

Although agriculture arose in several parts of the world, Eurasia gained an early advantage due to the greater availability of suitable plant and animal species for domestication. In particular, Eurasia had the best collection of plants and animals suitable for domestication barley, two varieties of wheat and three protein-rich pulses for food; flax for textiles; goats, sheep and cattle provided meat, leather, glue (by boiling the hooves and bones) and, in the case of sheep, wool. As early Middle Eastern civilizations began to trade, they found additional useful animals in adjacent territories, most notably horses and donkeys for use in transport.
In contrast, Native American farmers had to struggle to develop maize as a useful food from its probable wild ancestor, teosinte, but it provides few nutrients and must be planted one by one an extremely cumbersome task. It should be noted that as they grew agricultural surpluses in (for example) the Mississippian culture about 1000 AD, they created more dense and specialized settlements. Eurasians had wheat and barley, which are high in fiber and nutrients and can be sown en masse with just a toss of the hand. They generated food surpluses which supported greater population growth. Such growth led to larger workforces and more inventors, artisans, etc. Grains can also be stored for longer periods of time unlike tropical crops such as bananas.
Eurasia as a whole domesticated 13 species of large animals (over 100 lb / 44 kg); South America just one (counting the llama and alpaca as breeds within the same species); the rest of the world none at all. Diamond describes the small number of domesticated species (14 out of 148 "candidates") as an instance of the Anna Karenina principle: many promising species have just one of several significant difficulties that prevent domestication.
Sub-Saharan Africans had mostly wild mammals, whereas Eurasians chanced to have the most docile large animals on the planet: horses and camels that are easily tamed for human transport; but their biological relatives zebras and onagers are untameable; and although Asian elephants can be tamed, it is very difficult to breed them in captivity;[3][4] goats and sheep for hides, clothing, and cheese; cows for milk; bullocks for tilling fields and transport; and benign animals such as pigs and chickens. Africans, developing alongside large mammals, had available lions, leopards etc. Diamond points out that the only animals useful for human survival and purposes in New Guinea came from the East Asian mainland when they were transplanted during the Austronesian settlement some 4,0005,000 years ago.
Eurasia's large landmass and long east-west distance increased these advantages. Its large area provided it with more plant and animal species suitable for domestication, and allowed its people to exchange both innovations and diseases. Its East-West orientation allowed breeds domesticated in one part of the continent to be used elsewhere through similarities in climate and the cycle of seasons. In contrast, Australia suffered from a lack of useful animals due to extinction, probably by human hunting, shortly after the end of the Pleistocene. The Americas had difficulty adapting crops domesticated at one latitude for use at other latitudes (and, in North America, adapting crops from one side of the Rocky Mountains to the other). Africa was fragmented by its extreme variations in climate from North to South: plants and animals that flourished in one area never reached other areas where they could have flourished, because they could not survive the intervening environment. Europe was the ultimate beneficiary of Eurasia's East-West orientation: in the first millennium BC, the Mediterranean areas of Europe adopted the Middle East's animals, plants, and agricultural techniques; in the first millennium AD, the rest of Europe followed suit.[3][4]


Posted Image

"We live in a world where when Christians kill Muslims, it's a crusade; When Jews kill Muslims, it's a massacre; When Muslims kill Muslims, it's the weather channel. Nobody cares"

#13    Mr Right Wing

Mr Right Wing

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined:16 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 November 2011 - 02:48 PM

View PostErikl, on 21 November 2011 - 02:26 PM, said:

And I would refer you the excellent book called "Gun, Germs and Steel", which explains exactly why civilizations evolved in certain areas while in others they didn't. One of the things I do not except, though, is that the Maya people lived in conditions as the Africans did, that is - thick tropical forests of Meso-America, however they did develop a very advance civilization. My take, is that the people that left Africa had to go through very harsh conditions to adapt to the alien territory they arrived, couple that with intermixing with well adapted people that lived there for hundreds of thousands of years, while passing through Asia one their way to the Americas.

Has the book been peer reviewed?

The only advanced civilization to appear in Africa was the Eygptians. If you look at the picutres of their people on their temples many of them are pale skiined.

Now this isnt about racism but I'm suggesting Homosapiens are the inferior species compared to Neanderthals. Neanderthal dna leads to civilization and those regions with the most Neanderthal DNA created the most impressive civilizations. In those regions where there is none (Central and Southern Africa) there is no civilization just tribal peoples until the Europeans arrived and setup their states.


#14    Erikl

Erikl

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,524 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 21 November 2011 - 03:31 PM

View PostMr Right Wing, on 21 November 2011 - 02:48 PM, said:

Has the book been peer reviewed?

The only advanced civilization to appear in Africa was the Eygptians. If you look at the picutres of their people on their temples many of them are pale skiined.

Now this isnt about racism but I'm suggesting Homosapiens are the inferior species compared to Neanderthals. Neanderthal dna leads to civilization and those regions with the most Neanderthal DNA created the most impressive civilizations. In those regions where there is none (Central and Southern Africa) there is no civilization just tribal peoples until the Europeans arrived and setup their states.

Look, I suggested the same, but after reading the book I must say it has some strong points.

Also I lived in Africa (Congo) for a year and a half, and have seen the people there, and I think it's a classic case of "Resource curse" - Africa, especially tropical Africa and it's surrounding, is where Homo Sapiens evolved and so there were no environmental pressures or evolutionary bottleneck that favoured the most adaptable. In these regions, the climate barely change, food is everywhere, and it is extremely difficult to cultivate long lasting agricultural products.

Europe, for a bunch of hunter gatherer African nomads some 60,000 years ago, would have been very, very strange place to be. Temperature wise, food wise - everything. Same goes for Asia. Couple that with the intermixing of long lasting earlier homo species, which lived in those conditions for hundreds of thousands of years, and you get the picture.

IMO, Homo Sapiens was the more technologically advanced, as well as more adaptable specie. After all, it is him who invaded and eventually occupied Europe, rather than the Neanderthals immigrating south to Africa. IMO, the only difference is the actual process of adaptability and nature favourism for the most ingenuous. How many of our African forefathers survived the first Middle Eastern summer or winter? how many of them discovered which European fruit is edible, and which is poisonous? These are very strong natural selective processes that they had to pass through, and only the most ingenuous and the most gifted survived. Then they intermixed with the more resilient ancient homo populations they encountered, which boosted their chances of survival.

On the other hand, the average African continued to live in the same climate, same environment for same time, with tropical fruits all around him, and water everywhere. The same natural selective elements didn't work the same.

Posted Image

"We live in a world where when Christians kill Muslims, it's a crusade; When Jews kill Muslims, it's a massacre; When Muslims kill Muslims, it's the weather channel. Nobody cares"

#15    Mr Right Wing

Mr Right Wing

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined:16 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 22 November 2011 - 06:35 PM

View PostErikl, on 21 November 2011 - 03:31 PM, said:

Look, I suggested the same, but after reading the book I must say it has some strong points.

Also I lived in Africa (Congo) for a year and a half, and have seen the people there, and I think it's a classic case of "Resource curse" - Africa, especially tropical Africa and it's surrounding, is where Homo Sapiens evolved and so there were no environmental pressures or evolutionary bottleneck that favoured the most adaptable. In these regions, the climate barely change, food is everywhere, and it is extremely difficult to cultivate long lasting agricultural products.

Europe, for a bunch of hunter gatherer African nomads some 60,000 years ago, would have been very, very strange place to be. Temperature wise, food wise - everything. Same goes for Asia. Couple that with the intermixing of long lasting earlier homo species, which lived in those conditions for hundreds of thousands of years, and you get the picture.

IMO, Homo Sapiens was the more technologically advanced, as well as more adaptable specie. After all, it is him who invaded and eventually occupied Europe, rather than the Neanderthals immigrating south to Africa. IMO, the only difference is the actual process of adaptability and nature favourism for the most ingenuous. How many of our African forefathers survived the first Middle Eastern summer or winter? how many of them discovered which European fruit is edible, and which is poisonous? These are very strong natural selective processes that they had to pass through, and only the most ingenuous and the most gifted survived. Then they intermixed with the more resilient ancient homo populations they encountered, which boosted their chances of survival.

On the other hand, the average African continued to live in the same climate, same environment for same time, with tropical fruits all around him, and water everywhere. The same natural selective elements didn't work the same.

I havent read about any evidence which indicates war between both species in Europe. Have you come across any reliable sources?





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users