13
   

What is the cause of existence?

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 07:19 am
I suspect Olive Tree here doesn't understand the basic principles underlying natural selection. If, as is suggested by the Israeli site, the Neanderthal relied too much on hunting and not enough on fish, sea food and forage foods, anything which impairs their access to game animals will impair their chances for survival. Not necessarily the survival o find individuals, but of the band. If you can't get enough to eat, your breeding success will decline. If you overhunt, and don't gather sufficient forage foods and fish and sea food, you may be obliged to move on in search of more game animals. Your early modern human neighbors can wait out the dearth of game animals because they are not overly dependent on them. Not only will their breeding opportunity not necessarily be impaired by a lack of game animals, their use of a wide variety of food sources will enhance their breeding opportunity. Spencer's "survival of the fittest" doesn't refer to individuals, it refers to species.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 07:52 am
By the way, H. neanderthal would not be the only species that sapiens hunted to extinction, by far. The arrival of our species on any continent is correlated with the extinction of many species, e.g. the large mammal extinction in North America dating some 12 thousands years ago appears to coincide with the arrival of the first humans on the continent.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 07:53 am
@Setanta,
I thought you were never reading my posts.... something changed?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 09:24 am
@Olivier5,
The "out of Africa" hypotheses has been altered into an"out of Africa and then do the deed with some Neanderthal babes'. C Reich, together with S Paabo have done some really innovative analyses of all the Dna sites in various populations. It appears that the H ss folks hve about 2.5% Neanderthl genes (as sequenced by Paabo between 1997 and 2007). There my be more but they've only been able to sequence about 98% of the NEanderthal genome. The population statistics show, from INDIGENOUS populations of European regions where folks hd remained static for severl generations, that the accumulation of NEanderthal genes does provide a newer tale of what happened to Neanderthals.
They were not very capable users of resources

Severl of the NEanderthl women were accepted by Hss and hd interbred

over a thousand generations or more, the H n's just became assumed into the growing Hss population

The fact that indigenous African DNA does NOT contain any of that from Neanderthals gives a story that H erectus or H heidelbergensis were common ancestors of both Hn and Hs (Hs was the common ancestor of Hss /H idaltu and H denisova )
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 09:30 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Why, except the progressive disappearance of Neanderthal from Europe as sapiens was marching in. Which is why the last spot where neanderthaliens were found is Gibraltar: the far end of the continent. H. heidelbergensis also disappeared from Asia, odd when you think of our ancestors dancing kumbaya with them...


There was an ongoing ice age that was pushing all animals to the south.

Furthermore, I wonder why you feel so compelled to advance the fact that homo sapien were wiping out neanderthal? So what? Furthermore, the fact that homo sapien have neanderthal dna in there heritage doesn't mean that neanderthal is extinct, it says that homo sapien have perserved neanderthal for the duration......
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 09:55 am
@BillW,
It's not a compulsion, just the most likely hypothesis, IMO. Why do you feel so compelled to reject the idea that Homo sapiens were wiping out neanderthal?

And yes, that neanderthal fellow is instinct. 1 or 2% of another species' genes does not amount to much. It's a genetic trace, that's all.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 10:09 am
@farmerman,
I agree with everything you say except:

Quote:
They were not very capable users of resources

That seems pretty wholesale, and IMO intended to hide another more likely hypothesis. Those fellows were smart and they lived in Europe for a long long time. They were probably better than incoming sapiens at using their environment. We should not shy away from H. sapiens' well recorded ability and proclivity to kill other humans. Let's not romanticize these things too much.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 10:52 am
@Olivier5,
The Neanderthal toolkit was not much beyond that of H habilis. They did develop the levalois technology to produce flint cores from pebbles. (see figure from a Wiki on levalois tech)\\

    http://www.nature.com/scitable/content/ne0000/ne0000/ne0000/ne0000/59268755/Levallois-Technology_Monnier_1_2.jpg

Several paleoanthropologists have been overwhelmed at this technology but I think they are "fanboys" of Neanderthal industry. The fact is, in several excavations that Neanderthals did utilize their "hunting" skills but not much evidence of the gathering (forget about ag) Being better adapted to a particular niche, they didn't seem to establish stable communities other than large clan groups and didn't begin construction of shelters except in one area about the Black sea. (unless , as many workers insist are really Hss sites)
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 10:57 am
@farmerman,
Still, I am wondering why the idea of armed conflict between the two species is such a modern taboo. It's like a modern version of the "good savage". Odd when you think of the HUGE number of armed conflicts within and between Homo sapiens societies since the dawn of history... We should know ourselves better than that.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 11:08 am
@Olivier5,
Its not a taboo. Its a result of Paabo and REich's genetics work.Previous hypotheses were only based upon fossils and not genetics. The mapping of the human and the Neanderthal genomes are evidence that's only been completed in 2007 (Paabo had a "partial DNA sequence" of Neanderthals bck in 1999 but that was a very limited pckage of data.

Paleoanthropologists have recently been reconstructing the genomes of humans and doing the statistics since then and the results seem to
show a "melding" of the species. Maybe some degree of Killing off either by competition or by direct conflict still may be a component of why NEanderthals went away as a homozygous species. The fact that European (and to a much smaller percentage), Asian genomes contain actual Neanderthal DNA alleles is but one more line of evidence .
Most theories aren't usually all one and none f the other. They could be a mix of many reasons.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 11:22 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Most theories aren't usually all one and none f the other. They could be a mix of many reasons.

Exactly, and ruling out armed conflict entirely from that mix seems unreasonable.
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 11:37 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

It's not a compulsion, just the most likely hypothesis, IMO. Why do you feel so compelled to reject the idea that Homo sapiens were wiping out neanderthal?

And yes, that neanderthal fellow is instinct. 1 or 2% of another species' genes does not amount to much. It's a genetic trace, that's all.


I neither reject nor accept your hypothesis. The way it is accepted is to state that neanderthal was compiled into the homo sapien through natural selection. No matter if you accept it or not, neanderthal lives on through homo sapien, no matter the percentage.

This things just are not arguable - they are facts.
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 11:42 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Most theories aren't usually all one and none f the other. They could be a mix of many reasons.

Exactly, and ruling out armed conflict entirely from that mix seems unreasonable.


For some reason you want to argue a fact that has been and will continue to be stipulated. But, continue on - you have to use you mirror someway <unk> Rolling Eyes
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 12:12 pm
@BillW,
Quote:
neanderthal lives on through homo sapien, no matter the percentage.

A few percent of him, yes... Sad, but that's the actual, non-arguable fact.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 12:13 pm
@BillW,
Quote:
For some reason you want to argue a fact that has been and will continue to be stipulated.

Does that mean you agree with me? Good.
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 12:17 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
For some reason you want to argue a fact that has been and will continue to be stipulated.

Does that mean you agree with me? Good.


You have a lack of the ability to understand the written word!

Damn, I get this vision of you now performing oral erotica on yourself. You must be a very shallow, sad human. I hope there is none of your DNA in me.

BTW, there is nothing "Sad" about a small % of DNA - it is simply a fact, nothing else. Once again, the only thing sad is you.....
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 12:25 pm
@BillW,
Have a blessed day as well.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 01:50 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
1 or 2% of another species' genes does not amount to much. It's a genetic trace
Incorrect. 1 to 2% is what separates some entire genera. We are seprated from the chimpanzee by but a few percentages of DNA (and the fusing of one chromosome.)
You should read Fairbnks book on "RELICS OF EDEN" its a wonderful assessment of DNA and the human genome as compared to the great apes
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 01:53 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:

Exactly, and ruling out armed conflict entirely from that mix seems unreasonable
Now your just making stuff up. Noone has jumped to that end member conclusion. Science has merely added an entirely big component of the story from DNA research, and the fact that African native DNA is purely Hss while European DNA has 1 to 2% Nenaderthl. Over the period

of 1000 or more generations after Neanderthals died, THATS HUGE
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jul, 2013 02:00 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
1 to 2% is what separates some entire genera.

I don't think these are percentage of the same thing though (genes as opposed to alleles).
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/26/2022 at 12:03:34