30 Jul 11
2 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecatOk, I thought you were saying Mallers' views were a bit outdated, but not it seems you're saying they are the mainstream, although many disagree. Is that correct?
I've not gone searching for references, but I think it was Eric Trinkaus who first suggested the idea back in the 80s. As I recall there were some finds from the middle-east (Kebara? Skhul? Kafzeh? can't remember, one of those) which didn't really support his theory - pelvic canal size I believe - so it fell from favour. This is unfortunate in my vie ...[text shortened]... out the biology and behaviour of Homo sapiens neanderthalensis to judge one way or the other.
I agree that a small advantage can be huge in the long-run but the small advantage must be in net population growth terms. Pelvic canal size may indicate larger fecundity but it's definitely not enough because survival rates until reproductive age may be very different. The point is that each species has advantages and disadvantages, so focusing on one and ignoring the others is a bit of a spotlight fallacy (although one extremely common among evolutionary biologists today).
30 Jul 11
Originally posted by PalynkaOk, I thought you were saying Mallers' views were a bit outdated, but not it seems you're saying they are the mainstream, although many disagree.
Ok, I thought you were saying Mallers' views were a bit outdated, but not it seems you're saying they are the mainstream, although many disagree.
I agree that a small advantage can be huge in the long-run but the small advantage must be in net population growth terms. Pelvic canal size may indicate larger fecundity but it's definitely not enough because survival rates until reproductive age may be very different.
Precisely, sorry if I didn't make that clear. The world of archaeology is, like most scientific disciplines, unremittingly conservative.
I agree that a small advantage can be huge in the long-run but the small advantage must be in net population growth terms. Pelvic canal size may indicate larger fecundity but it's definitely not enough because survival rates until reproductive age may be very different.
Granted. It is probably not possible to discern survival rates from the archaeological record for this particular case, however.
In my opinion any explanation which involves cultural or behavioural 'superiority' of one species over the other should be viewed with suspicion until sound archaeological evidence has demonstrated such, and it has not done so thus far.
01 Aug 11
Originally posted by sonhouseMy bad, I thought this was about the new budget deal.
Simple answer, they outnumbered Neanders about 10 to 1.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-strength.html
That and the more complex set of social behaviors, technology advancements, artistic development and co-operative hunting techniques,
Neanderthals were driven out of the choicest lands in the glacial cold periods and retreated to less viable lan ...[text shortened]... en in a few thousand years after modern humans came storming out of Africa, bye bye neanderthal.
01 Aug 11
Originally posted by sonhouseThey used tools or weapons first. They used huge jawbones to kill the Neanderthals, then worshiped a monolith.😕
Simple answer, they outnumbered Neanders about 10 to 1.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-strength.html
That and the more complex set of social behaviors, technology advancements, artistic development and co-operative hunting techniques,
Neanderthals were driven out of the choicest lands in the glacial cold periods and retreated to less viable lan ...[text shortened]... en in a few thousand years after modern humans came storming out of Africa, bye bye neanderthal.