The extinction of Neanderthals (belief, science, differences, evolutionary)

[Woodrow LI]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

One wonders how the researchers deduced that it was another band of Neanderthals that killed and ate them, and not a group of Homo sapiens.

I wonder the same thing. While cannibalism has probably occurred among all people it tpically is outsiders that end up on the table. It seems more logical the family would have been killed and eaten by outsiders. Either Homo Sapiens, Cro-Magnons or an outside Neanderthal clan. If I was a gambler I would place my bet on it being Homo Sapiens.

[dtango]

Originally Posted by Woodrow LI

I wonder the same thing. While cannibalism has probably occurred among all people it tpically is outsiders that end up on the table. It seems more logical the family would have been killed and eaten by outsiders. Either Homo Sapiens, Cro-Magnons or an outside Neanderthal clan. If I was a gambler I would place my bet on it being Homo Sapiens.

It all depends on the dating. There were no Homo sapiens sapiens in Europe 49,000 years ago but they were there by 40,000 years ago.
The following dates come from a 2006 study (Paleobiology and comparative morphology of a late Neandertal sample from El Sidrón, Asturias, Spain) of the same Neandertal remains:

Dating.
Three human specimens were 14C accelerator mass spectrometer-dated: SD-500 (tooth), 40,840 ± 1,200 14C B.P. (Beta 192065); SD-599a (bone), 37,300 ± 830 14C B.P. (Beta 192066); and SD-763a (tooth), 38,240 ± 890 14C B.P. (Beta 192067). Calibrated with CalPal, the dates become 44,310 ± 978, 42,320 ± 367, and 42,757 ± 464 cal B.P., respectively, the average calibrated age being 43,129 ± 129 cal B.P. (7).

[TimeMachine]

Could have also been from the types of tools used to cut up the "victims", I belive the bones should give some hints as the shapes of blades or cleaving tools used. This would be something to look at, maybe it has already been looked at.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by 415_s2k

It's funny... I'm half Sami/Lapp and as it would turn out:

There's plenty of circumstantial evidence to indicate that I may indeed have a higher-than-normal percentage of neanderthal DNA in me. I'd like to do a test at some point...

Originally Posted by the_windwalker

I'm thinking you have about half of the answer. But, there's more to it. Mankind has a darker side that is generally kept in check by our society. But, some 30,000 years ago, none of the restraints existed. That darker side would have flourished.

So, Neanderthal, with poorer weapons and slower, would have been hunted, and may even have been easy prey. Some may have ended up on the table, rather than around it, but others would have been absorbed, through their offspring, into society. Neanderthal would have become extinct, and we would be carrying Neanderthal traits.

Originally Posted by dtango

A study led by biologist John Fa finds that the downfall of the Neanderthals was caused in part by their inability to catch rabbits.

For a joke it is really a very imaginative one.

The accursed Homo sapiens sapiens (white race to me) hunted down Neanderthals in the mountains where they had retreated for refuge exterminating them to the last one and you want me to consider the nonsense a biologist came up with in order to have his name heard?

I suggest that you read the two posts by The_windwalker, just below your own post, and then go to the bible and read what the race favoured by the God did to the Anakim and all the rest tribes of the Canaanite Nefelim. They hunted them down in all the mountains of Canaan and those whom they did not keep as slaves they exterminated. Read the accounts of Diodorus of how the Giants were killed, read the tales of the North American Indians and finally read Norse mythology and learn about Ragnarok.

I suggest you do not consume all the scientific rubbish that has been peer reviewed by biologists expert in all branches of science.

The usual excuse used to be: the murderers are not to be blamed. They passed mortal diseases to the victims and they died to the last one (they even dared to invoke contamination of diseases in the case of the Tasmanians). Now they found the rabbits’ alibi.

How come nobody came forward with an explanation for the extinction of the Near Eastern Neanderthals?

I'm sure you'll tell us, dtdango, but meantime, you're obviously trying to take over my thread, aren't you? You also obviously didn't read my OP! Try it again, dtango: I've copied the relevant parts below. It had MORE TO DO with how non-scientists, those avid fundy Christians, automatically dismiss science, as you yourself have done!

But for your ease of getting back on the train of thought I'm the engineer of, that train you've fallen off of, I've made it easier by highlighting the important lines. To wit: It was NOT about the actual paper's conclusions, but more about how The SM operates, silly person! You know: how research is set up, and how it comes, in this case, to some conservative conclusions that SIMPLY BEAR ADDITIONAL THOUGHT.

Such additional conceptualization might then prompt additional research on the topic, such as exactly WHY fossil & remnant remains of Neanderthals, dated to near the end of their existence, were NOT piled high with the same rabbit remains like the similar cave dwelling sites of their co-existing cousins, the Cro-Magnons. You, it seems, just auto-dismissed it all in preference to your own stultified conclusions.

Result? You don't even get a passing grade in Science 001. Sorry: but please... do try again, and thanks for playing!

Originally Posted by rifleman

During the long and complex evolution of the snapshot of an organism we define as a "species", which make up the continuum of man's ascent, several of our predecessors "went" extinct. The infamous Neanderthal for example: questions have arisen as to why they rather quickly disappeared along with the woolly mammoth, whose remains littered the cave dwellings of the also clearly identified Neanderthal remains.

Questions remain as to why we then find the remains of our more modern cousins along with the remnant bones of literally tens of thousands of the increasingly abundant rabbits of the day (Lagomorphs)

When we examine both geological and detrital evaluations (which provide us with a chronology of "which fell first", and when) we are then left with an overall picture of the rise, mainstream life and finally, extinction of the Neanderthals some 30,000 years ago, at the end of their lifeline that began some 800,000 years prior.

And the coincidental rise of the far more successful h. sapiens, who did, we now find, interbreed with the Neanderthal to produce a "mongrelized" version at first, but eventually a more genetically purebred h. sapiens emerged, as we are more or less today (of course, human, and every other type of living thing's, Evolution continues as we speak.)

What's more, by the new amazingly detailed technique of DNA genome mapping, we can now accurately track changes to the overall DNA genome on a generation-by-generation basis. It's now inarguable. Just no "cats into dogs overnight!", as the less educated might insist as "proof" of what they prefer to errantly define as evolution... <sigh>)

Of course, this is measurably far outside of the über-short timetable mythically proposed by the bible's authors, who left such species out (along with the dinosaurs...) because they had no idea such predecessors had ever existed!

I have attached the paper (noted below) because it exemplifies the approach of true science, not of a fanciful novella that is built to fit a pre-determined spiritual outcome.

Thus this paper provides two key elements for the honest and open-minded reader:

Neanderthal Extinction Linked to Inability to Hunt Small Game - Outdoor Hub

This paper is valuable here. First, it provides precise and properly reviewed information in the context of how science is so maligned on these C-D threads and posts by scientifically illiterate and inexperienced laypeople, who then trumpet that science is a biased provider of highly biased and "theoretical guesswork, unsupported by the facts!".

Second, it demonstrates how science also reviews it's own. This paper is controversial, and therefore it quickly generated intense discussion within it's specialty group as to it's conclusion's possible validity and contribution.

Or, seeing it's supporting evidence, and that it was indeed A factor, but not necessarily THE factor in the extinction of Neanderthals, it thereby prompted more focused further research. And thus, it contributes significantly to the evolution (small "e" this time) of the body of knowledge on this important topic.

Of course, it also supports the undeniable: that Neanderthals surely did exist as a separate lineage of pre-modern humans, initially diverging from other hominid ascents at about 800,000 years ago. Not, as is claimed by biblical literalists, popping up out of... uhmmm... nothing... at 6036.7 yrs go. Adam and Eve as Neanderthals? Unlikely. This...

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

...is "more likely". To ignore or diminish these ongoing and ever-more-detailed findings, or to completely deny their very existence, defines "intransigence" to it's very core.

This is the way of science and scientists who will then discuss and review in more detail some key parts of this study, to look at other related phenomena in order to further our overall understanding of the ascent of modern homo sapiens sp. And so....

1) This paper demonstrates the key elements that go into any valid and complex research study, along with the level of detail of all the necessary steps and reporting requirements. In doing so, it also...

2) Provides an interesting theory (no, not an hypothesis, which is the original stated question part. The resulting theory is a statement of likely fact, still open, as this particular one is, to other, later interpretations. Nonetheless, the process and results that it produced bear honest review, and do offer a potentially valuable reason for why these key members of our hominid family may well have "fallen off the twig of life" so to speak.

As a result, this study does provide some valuable insight, and a very logical and seemingly likely explanation for why these successful hunters perished when confronted with the later and more adaptable (but of macro-game only, which their body type and construction also required. Little nibbles of mouse meat just didn't cut it with these sturdy types!) homo sapiens sapiens sp. & sub-species, leading to US!

Enjoy, and learn! YrHmblTchr: rifleman™

I'll leave the last line here for Shilo1, who hits the nail on the head.

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Leave it to dtango to make spurious connections just so he can talk of his 'great knowledge' of all things myth.

Btw, dtango; I'm now done with this thread. I be movin' on, my bro! I made my point about the difficulty non-scientists and fundy Christians, like yourself in this case, have with that process, and I appreciate that the likes of you have also clearly made my point.

I thank you for being intransigent, arrogant, stubborn.. and oh yeah, for demonstrating the amazing lack of scientific literacy we as a species still have to deal with. The end result will be the eventual extinction of your "kind". As in: We'll end up eating your intellect for breakfast!

Yum: a bit salty, and tough to chew, but we'll get through it in the end! QED, and BFN!

[dtango]

According to the report approximately 400 Mousterian (Neandertalian) stone tools were found made in situ.

Originally Posted by PNAS

The archeological assemblage recovered at the site is in secondary position, and it certainly comes from a close exterior location. Ex hypothesis, the original deposit was located outside the cavity, possibly in a doline close to the vertical of the site. A collapse of nearby fissures produced the sudden entry of the archeological material in a single event. Several taphonomic signals help to clarify the scenario. Refitting of several bone fragments and 53 stone tools indicates a limited displacement as well as synchrony of the assemblage. Preservation of osteological surfaces is excellent with very limited trampling and erosion. There are no toothmarks of large carnivores on the bones, with marginal action of rodents and a small carnivore (e.g., fox) on a few nonhuman remains. A few bones have hydraulic abrasion but no weathering. In short, the data point to a limited exposure of bones outside the cavity; a mass displacement moved the archeological deposit into the cave secondarily, with very little movement after final deposition.

IMO If the victims were actually one group of Neandertals, then the tools were theirs, made by them.
If the victims were neither the members of one group nor were they killed at the same time, then the situation appears much worse because the victims, or their corpses, were most probably brought to the site and were consumed by the site dwellers.

In any case cannibalism is not as loathsome as it appears. In the Andes incident only one woman refused to consume human flesh and died of hunger; we, males, prefer cannibalism to death.

We do not know whether the Neandertals killed the victims themselves or not. Killing infants to eat them cannot be justified under any circumstances.

[Woof]

One wonders how the researchers deduced that it was another band of Neanderthals that killed and ate them, and not a group of Homo sapiens.

Probably from the types of stone weapons left behind, sanspeur.

EDIT - oh, I see TimeMachine answered it before me.

[DC at the Ridge]

Neanderthals are supposed to have had larger nasal/sinus cavities, and larger lungs. If homo sapiens brought the common cold with them as they spread into Neanderthal territory, and the Neanderthals had no resistance to the virus, combined with the fact that Neanderthals were social and in the colder climates more likely to live in tight, close quarters which would have contributed to the spread of the virus, then the Neanderthals could have succumbed to one of the first plagues. Humans, having a different physical make-up and resistance, would not die from the common cold. And the Neanderthals that survived would have been taken integrated into the homo sapiens clans.

[Woof]

DC, the situation might have been quite the opposite. I don't know about the common cold specifically, but interbreeding improved human immunity - so I suppose Neandertals had strong systems to begin with. Though immunity is more complicated than I like to think about. http://www.livescience.com/15754-nea...st-humans.html

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by Woof

DC, the situation might have been quite the opposite. I don't know about the common cold specifically, but interbreeding improved human immunity - so I suppose Neandertals had strong systems to begin with. Though immunity is more complicated than I like to think about. Sex with Neanderthals Gave Humans Immunity Boost | Neanderthals & Denisovans | HLA Genes & Human Immune System | Out-of-Africa Theory & Human Evolution | LiveScience

Actually, the Neanderthals that survived the common cold would have had stronger immune systems than the majority of Neanderthals. In the same way that modern humans whose ancestors were exposed to bubonic plague have a better immune response to bubonic plague today than modern humans whose ancestors weren't exposed. Immunity is very complex, but to some degree what our immune systems learn from exposure to germs, viruses and bacteria does affect our DNA.

[DC at the Ridge]

This link explains how bubonic plague survivors passed on increased immunity to the plague, which has conferred additional immunity to AIDS to today's descendants.

Evolution: Library: Double Immunity

It just seems to me, that if a species, that is well-adapted to its environment, suddenly disappears, that something new to the environment has been introduced that is fatal to that species. And it homo sapiens were so aggressive as to swiftly wipe out Neanderthals, that aggression would have turned on homo sapiens itself. Given the population numbers, while some competition for resources may have happened, both species were wanderers, and if resources were unavailable, would have simply moved on to where they found the resources they needed. But if a disease were to have been introduced, then the social nature of Neanderthals would have enabled the swift spread of a disease that with little to no resistance, could have wiped out large numbers of Neanderthals in a short period of time.