Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Well, after reading about it a very little, I tend to think that Homo sap neanderthalensis as a distinctive sub species was killed off by climate change. Like the mammoth. If they could breed with homo sap sap, the remaining few would have been assimilated.
Climate was certainly a big factor. As I understand it Homo Saps moved northward with the advancing warmer weather. Neanderthals were adapted to the previous inhospitable conditions. If the conditions had not changed maybe Homo Saps would not have invaded Neanderthal territory until much later.
Interesting to speculate on what would have happened if the two species had been continently separated. Two intelligent species on one planet!
Regarding weaponry I thought the beaten up skeletons of Neanderthal demonstrated that they hunted at close quarters and had no useul projectile weapons. A decent spear is quite technologically advanced - cant see Neander man having one.
Different physiology - very small sample of neanderthal skeletons, they were certainly somewhat more robust than HSS, but dress one up in a suit and tie and you'd just think he was a thick-set ugly dude.
Effects of climate change - HSN had lived through waxing and waning of ice-sheet several times prior to extinction. They used to retreat southwards as the ice spread (see middle east fossils) and then follow it back up as it retreated. This may not have been so easy once HSS was occupying the southern lands, so it seems likely that climate change was only a factor, and somehow presence of HSS was more significant.
Weaponry - Evidence for HSN projectile spears is pretty good. The scant evidence we have does suggest that they were more likely to go for close-quarters work, but there's no reason to assume this was because they couldn't throw a spear. Maybe they wuz all macho and thought it was a bit girly to kill from a distance...
Interesting to note that for the vast majority of our development, we were just one of a number of hominid species on the planet. Our current state of being as the only intelligent species on the planet contrasts with the picture for most of our prehistory. This may well reflect badly on us - our current predilection for 'gang' ideology and innate racism could be a hang over from an evolutionary tactic which resulted in extinction of all other hominid species.
Originally posted by avalanchethecat Interesting to note that for the vast majority of our development, we were just one of a number of hominid species on the planet. Our current state of being as the only intelligent species on the planet contrasts with the picture for most of our prehistory. This may well reflect badly on us - our current predilection for 'gang' ideology and innate ...[text shortened]... ng over from an evolutionary tactic which resulted in extinction of all other hominid species.
Or not. There are also theories saying it was pure luck that singled us out to be here after all this time and the other species died out. Although, a strict definition of the word 'species' I think says interspecies mating producing viable offspring is not possible so there needs maybe to be a redefined version of that word or a change in the idea we were different species after all.
Originally posted by sonhouse Or not. There are also theories saying it was pure luck that singled us out to be here after all this time and the other species died out. Although, a strict definition of the word 'species' I think says interspecies mating producing viable offspring is not possible so there needs maybe to be a redefined version of that word or a change in the idea we were different species after all.
Sure, it could just as well come down to luck, who can say? As for definition of species, where you draw the line is always subject to argument. Consider ring species such as the Larus Gull for instance. For my money, two species become distinct when members of one group stop choosing members of the other group as potential mates.
Originally posted by avalanchethecat Response to a number of posts:
Different physiology - very small sample of neanderthal skeletons, they were certainly somewhat more robust than HSS, but dress one up in a suit and tie and you'd just think he was a thick-set ugly dude.
Effects of climate change - HSN had lived through waxing and waning of ice-sheet several times prior to extinct a spear. Maybe they wuz all macho and thought it was a bit girly to kill from a distance...
I thought there was something wrong with their shoulder joints which prevented them from making the javelin throwing motion.
However the mostly human skeletons also possessed distinct Neanderthal features; features that were not present in ancestral modern humans in Africa. These include a large bulge at the back of the skull, a more prominent projection around the elbow joint, and a narrow socket at the shoulder joint.
Further analysis of one skeleton's shoulder showed that these humans did not have the full set of anatomical adaptations for throwing projectiles, such as spears, during hunting.
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/814
"When engaged in overhead throwing activity, such as throwing a baseball, or a spear, this increases the movement arm of the muscles and gives greater strength and velocity to the throw," said Rhodes, a visiting assistant professor of anthropology at Bryn Mawr College.
She explained to Discovery News that modern athletes, like baseball pitchers and handball players, often show a characteristic backward displacement at the shoulder joint. Usually just one joint shows this, since most people have a preferred throwing arm.
The anthropologists found this telltale skeletal characteristic in the early modern European fossils, but not in the Neanderthals. The findings are published in the current issue of the Journal of Human Evolution.
"Neanderthals probably hand threw spears over short distances, but perhaps they simply never got around to inventing means of propelling spears or other projectiles long distances," said Churchill.
"Or perhaps their...short, squat body build with short and massive limbs was not conducive to using throwing-based hunting technology," he added.
Originally posted by avalanchethecat Sure, it could just as well come down to luck, who can say? As for definition of species, where you draw the line is always subject to argument. Consider ring species such as the Larus Gull for instance. For my money, two species become distinct when members of one group stop choosing members of the other group as potential mates.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung I thought there was something wrong with their shoulder joints which prevented them from making the javelin throwing motion.
However the mostly human skeletons also possessed distinct Neanderthal features; features that were not present in ancestral modern humans in Africa. These include a large bulge at the back of the skull, a more prominent p ...[text shortened]... rowing-based hunting technology," he added.
Originally posted by sonhouse Or not. There are also theories saying it was pure luck that singled us out to be here after all this time and the other species died out. Although, a strict definition of the word 'species' I think says interspecies mating producing viable offspring is not possible so there needs maybe to be a redefined version of that word or a change in the idea we were different species after all.
What about ligers and tigons?
Are you saying that lions and tigers cannot be different species if they mate?
Originally posted by wolfgang59 What about ligers and tigons?
Are you saying that lions and tigers cannot be different species if they mate?
I said 'species' needs to be redefined: If two what we now call different species can mate and produce viable offspring, then they should be the same species don't you think? Are Ligons and so forth fertile or are they like mules? There is a case where you can mate horses and donkeys, what we call 2 different species but the results are sterile.
Originally posted by sonhouse I said 'species' needs to be redefined: If two what we now call different species can mate and produce viable offspring, then they should be the same species don't you think? Are Ligons and so forth fertile or are they like mules? There is a case where you can mate horses and donkeys, what we call 2 different species but the results are sterile.
male ligers and male tigons are infertile.
female ligers and female tigons are fertile and both have successfully produced a second generation.
inter-species breeding occurs in botany too. the english countryside has the very common cross of primrose and cowslip.
i'm no biologist but i'm sure there are well justified reasons and criteria for calling a species a species.
Originally posted by wolfgang59 i'm no biologist but i'm sure there are well justified reasons and criteria for calling a species a species.
ANY BIOLOGISTS CARE TO HELP ???
I'm not a biologist but this is what Wikipedia says:
"A common definition is that of a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring of both genders, and separated from other such groups with which interbreeding does not (normally) happen."
But there are also other definitions by the same source.
Me myself thinks like this: In one hand it's easy to differ one specie from another. On the other hand there is a gray zone because of the continuum in the way one specie divides itself from other species in its evolution.
A question which shows this grayness is "Is there or is there not a first human being?". I say "No", because you cannot ever know if it is a individual in particular or if it is her mother or her daughter who is the first true human being. Yet we know that there were no human beings of our specie 10 million years ago, but there are human beings now. Our ancestor 10 million of years ago has transformed continuously from his specie to ours. No individual in particluar deserves to be called 'the first human being'.
Originally posted by sonhouse I said 'species' needs to be redefined:
What is far more important is for the current meaning and implications of 'species' to be communicated effectively to those who use it. It is a man made classification system. It in no way dictates anything to those classified by it.
If we chose to classify dark skinned people as a different species from white skinned people it should have absolutely no impact on our social interactions.
If we choose to call Neanderthals a different species or a subspecies it should have exactly zero impact only anything except the classification system.
When a mislead Christian announces that one species can never evolve into another species he is displaying ignorance.
Life is a continuous spectrum with no hard edges. Get used to it.
Why did the Neanderthals go extinct?
01 May '10 07:34
Back to Top