My theory about the Neanderthal-Cro-Magnon link has something to do with their diets. The Neanderthals were basically vegetarians: they ate roots, berries, leaves and other plants. As they evolved over some 120,000 years, they may have included raw meat in their diets, but generally they did not eat much protein. When the more advanced species came along,they hunted, cooked and ate a lot of protein in their diet. I think the Neanderthals became extinct when they included protein in their diet. They were unable to metabolize the protein and it essentially caused their immune system to fail--thus, their extinction. Recently research has been made known to prove that cooking one's food may cause immunological breakdown! The diets of the human race evolved just like we did--vegetarians in the savannas of Africa eventually moved upward and outward across the globe to become the meat and blubber eaters of the glacier areas. Remember, food is our original medicine. Secondarily, a higher intelligence inbred with the Neanderthals at the same time, or taught them how to cook their wild kills, and this, too, may have set-off the start of their immunological breakdown. In any event, the addition of protein in their diets could have also increased their brain capacity. Aren't we all programmed to 'self-destruct' anyway? Could evolution be doing the same thing with us today with AIDS? It will always be survival of the fittest.
Early humans benefited from protein.. It is a far richer source of energy then a vegetarian diet. It is thought that the increased consumption of protein allowed us to have bigger brains. Neanderthal-Cro-Magnon was simply out competed by man, who had a much better supply of energy. Neanderthal-Cro-Magnon did not evolve much in terms of culture.. They used the same tools at the end of there time as at the start. It is unlikely they learnt anything from man let alone change there culture to the extent of extinction. We are not self destructive.. And yes it will always be survival of the fittest. What it is to be the fittest is unknown.
Neanderthals gone bye-bye Good point. You speak of 'man' in the third person as if 'man' was not part of Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon. Or maybe you meant 'man' as a more recent version of the Cro-Magnon. About our 'self-destructing'. If we didn't self-destruct, we would be immortal. If we are not "busy being born," then we are "busy dying." I'm not a fatalist or anything. I use the term 'self-destruct' more in evolutionary terms rather than in fatalistic terms. The human race hasn't self-destructed yet... but, then again, we're not big hairy dumb half-erect humanoids, are we? (I retract that last statement. Come to think of it, I've known a few.) My question to you is this: Why do some civilizations disappear while others are evolving?
Modern man entered Europe while Cro-Magnon was doing well.. Man and Cro-Magnon where different species, this meant that man / magnon cross would be infertile. It was impossible to combine the two cultures. If two species compete for resources then at times of hardship the weaker will not survive. I am not sure how long Cor-Magnon hung around for but in the end there just wasn't any room for them. There are a few who say that some human/magnon crosses where fertile and that we all carry a little magnon in us. (could explain a few big hairy dumb guy's i know. Just joking) Civilizations most often disappear via assimilation. Well not disappear but change. There is also the occasional natural disaster. "'self-destruct' more in evolutionary terms" Evolution is a way to protect life from destruction. In the future there will be no more humans like us but not because we self destructed but because we would have changed via evolution. Into what is impossible to predict.
Cro-Magnon vs. Man Blindman, If, as currently hypothesized, Cro-Magnons interbred with the Neanderthals, and the Neanderthals became assimilated into the breed, why would the interbreeding between Cro-Magnons and 'Man' result in infertility? This is a twist that I've never read of. Secondly, I would appreciate your explanation of how Cro-Magnon and Man are different, where 'Man' came from, (assuming Cro-Magnon 'evolved', and why interbreeding was an evolutionary mistake. You present some interesting theories here. I would like to hear more. Thanks, Medicine*Woman
Re: Cro-Magnon vs. Man Man as in modern human. The Neanderthal and modern humans (or man) were different and the fact that some breeding appears to have occured between them simply means that there may be slight primitive traits strewed through the vast population of modern humans. Not enough that we need to worry over, I wouldn't say that it was an evolutionary mistake. You can't really say that mistakes happen in evolution; evolution occurs because of the surrounding environment. It;s not a 'mistake' that we are here today, it just happened. One theory that I of know of about the Neanderthals extinction is to do with the way they lived. The Neanderthals stayed in small groups and lived in a distinct locations whereas the modern humans spread throughout the country, lived in larger groups, and had frequent contact with other modern human groups. When great change came to the land this gave the modern humans the advantage of survival. Living in small groups doesn't give great ability to adapt to change as the gene pool in the population is more restricted (as can be seen with inbreeding). The Neanderthal groups slowly died out and the modern humans had survived the tough times.
AFAIK, Neandertal burials has had spears, animal bones, and other food items in them. Note the word "burial". the earliest signs of religious burial come from neandertal sites. While there is some new evidence supporting interbreeding, most evidence suggests that this did not happen often. (metochondrial DNA comperisons, etc). Up until the past 5 years or so, the general consensus was that neandertal simply died out as a species. As for the idea of interbreeding leading to infertility...it depends on if Neandertal and homo erectus(I think they were the co-existing group?**edit** it seems I was incorrect, you were right. cro-magnon) were truely different species or not. if they were different species, then by definition, their offspring would be infertile. if they were different in subspecies only, then fertility would not be a problem. ' And human ancestors were not vegetarian coming out of the forest onto the savana. Genetically, we are related to chimpanzes, one of the most violent, meat-eating, group of primates in the world. We did not (according to current theory) evolve from gorillas or from chimps, but from a common tree-dwelling ancestor. Chimps are closer to us than gorillas, genetically (suggesting we diverged from gorillas first. chimps are our cousins, and the gorillas are the guy down the street with the same last name) http://www-geology.ucdavis.edu/~gel3/NeanderthalDNA.html http://biology.fullerton.edu/biol409/ch/ch17.html
Re: Neanderthals gone bye-bye Most of the current evidence seems to point to the fact that the Neandertal simply went extinct, without interbreeding with other hominid species. Mitachondrial DNA samples are used to determine this from bones found so far. However, there could, one day, be found a set of bones that could disprove that hypothesis. There also seems to be (I'll have to dig a little through my notes for a reference if anyone wants it) some evidence linking Cro-Magnon man with modern humans. Mungo Man in Australia is the true wild card... the M-DNA matches nothing else on the planet outside of Australia so far!
If deprived, men would root anything that was close .. tell me they wouldnt have interbred and I'll think you're a woman Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It's not a matter of whether or not they got it on, it's a matter of whether or not the DNA is compatible. N and CM were different species. Species is generally defined as not being able to produce fertile off spring. Such as in the case of the mule. Mules do not give birth, even though their parents, the horse and the donkey, are very closely related in the animal kingdom.
Has anyone seen that new documentary series "walking with cavemen" ? Talk about dissappointing, the acting in the reenactments was hilariously pathetic but worst of all the science was fucking terrible. A complete lack of science is the best way to describe it, they don't explain what caused the evolutionary changes they just say "it was hot so they had smooth skin" and "they developed large brains because ....ahhh , well anyway they had big brains" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! so lame. I swear I could have done a much better job. Its all still assumptions but their assumptions were really really poor and not only not backed by science but not even backed by logic or common sense. I did learn one thing, something someone here has mentioned, "gigantolipicus"(sp) or something, a giant homonid, real life king kong, I've never even heard of that guy. Its funny, you hear all about dinosaurs and a little about the ice age but nobody fills the gaps in between. "gigantolipicus" sounds pretty cool does anyone know any more about them?
Walking with Cavemen It's a wonder any of us evolved. Did you see the way they were throwing that baby around?
Yeah, that was the least of my problems though. Did you see how they'd fight? I doubt ancient wild homonids were gigantic pansiesPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Anyway, I don't doubt they have the ansectral line correct I just think the assumptions they made about the different species' behaviours and causes for physical changes were WAY off. WAY WAY WAY WAY!! offPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Very dissapointing, I hope someone comes along and steals the concept of that series but does the concept justice.
Walking with Cavemen Did you notice the costumes they had on? Their butts were so flat and their cracks were sewn together. This was supposed to be an educational program. The unfortunate thing is that they geared it to the general population which is now about 6th grade level.
Neanderthal-Cro-Magnon did not evolve much in terms of culture.. They used the same tools at the end of there time as at the start. It is unlikely they learnt anything from man let alone change there culture to the extent of extinction. Actually there have been gravesites found with Neanderthal remains and tools as advanced as those of Cro-Magnons of the same time period. There is evidence of cultural evolution throughout the entirety of Neanderthal existence, not only in terms of their tools but also in gravegoods and evidence of ritual beliefs. There is also evidence that they did interact and learn from more modern humans where both co-existed. All of this I've gotten from various articles over the years so I can't give any links or direct quotes at the moment. Ask if you want me to look for any.
