Neanderthals were very closely related to humans, their DNA differs by mere 0.3 or 0.4%, and it is believed that there was interbreeding between modern human and neanderthal. intelligence is a very hard subject to determine, there is evidence that they had stone tools, pack hunted, were artistic (see cave paintings) and i read recently that there is a good possibility that they were able to talk like you and I, but it's believed they lacked a brain as complex as ours and were very instinctive race. They most likely died out due to humans being smarter and being able to outhunt them for prey, or humans could have killed them also, as you know how humans are, we meet a new race, we kill them usually.
You only have study certain rugby players to be sure that Neanderthal genes persist in the human race.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, partly, but not predominantly. The probable reason for this is their small numbers and low birth-rate, rather than conflict with other hominids. Since the average brain-pan size of Neanderthal is about half way between that of Erectus and Sapiens, yes, quite a lot. Of course we don't know the degree of surface convolution or neuron concentration in their brain, we can't say exactly how intelligent, but they must have been as smart, or slightly smarter than their nearest contemporaries. Yes, and forage and migrate. No, because that requires permanent settlement in a landscape that's both abundant and easy to defend. Such places are scarce, especially for a small band. But it's quite probable that various bands followed a seasonal route and returned to where they had previously known a good harvest of berries, bird eggs, mushrooms or nuts. Yes, for cooking, warmth and protection. Also stone and wood tools, weapons and containers.
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Blo...s-inbreeding-and-interbreeding/3431387492164/ One type of early human hasn't been found yet. Number two on the right of the tree talks about the Neanderthal in us being susceptible to diabetes.
not without the help of science, and I won't go into why I think that, that would be a whole different discussion.
Human evolution has not been a completely natural process. When our ancestors discovered how to make sharp tools out of flint rocks, they used those tools to scavenge the shreds of meat leftover on skeletons from lions or other predators, who couldn't scrape it clean with their teeth. Brain tissue requires a tremendous daily amount of protein for maintenance, which is primarily found in meat. So the increase in protein from the scavenged meat allowed our ancestors to grow larger brains. Each successive species had a larger brain than its predecessor. The intelligence of the larger brain allowed the subsequent species to be even more clever in the invention of tools and weapons. Attaching a flint blade to the end of a stick creates a primitive spear. They used these spears to hunt their own prey. Suddenly humans, who were previously herbivores like almost all other primates, became predators. Their diet became even richer in protein so their brains continued to expand with each descendant species. Our bloodline separated from the chimpanzee bloodline about 7 million years ago. Today our species has a forebrain about 4x as big as a chimpanzee forebrain--in proportion to body size. (The forebrain is the top layer of brain tissue that processes consciousness and intelligence.) This would not have happened if those more primitive hominids had not discovered the process for knapping flint to make knives and other tools and weapons. Our ancestors played a role in our evolution, which has not been entirely natural. Humans are not the only species whose evolution is not 100% natural. About 12,000 years ago (some new evidence suggests that it may have been as long as 30,000 years) we welcomed some lazy, curious wolves into our camps, who were happy to eat our garbage instead of our children. Over the millennia we have bred only the ones who were easy to get along with, and today the dog is a separate subspecies of wolf: Canis lupus familiaris instead of C. lupus lupus. Dogs have different digestion and can eat grains, which is not easy for wolves. Their instincts have changed so they're happy to allow a human to be the leader of their "pack." They're more playful, more gregarious and more peaceful than wolves, making them welcome in our cities and our homes. But oddly, since the transition from a hunter's diet to a scavenger's diet reduced their consumption of protein, their brains grew smaller. The dog is actually slightly less intelligent than his ancestor. But he doesn't need to be smart. By being brave, friendly and loyal, he can live among us and let us do all the thinking.
Unlikely, unless a large enough colony is established on a different planet, where survival is difficult but not quite impossible. Perhaps, here, if the remnant after climate change is complete scatters and small bands lose contact with one another for a few hundred thousand years.
If someday aliens from other planets came here and they are more advanced than us, more aggressive too , they want to take over this planet and kill all of us who are of "lower class " than them , same as we kill other species , are we going to accept this fate ? This is natural selection , right ?
Excellent post. I would also add the controlled use of fire, for protection and allowing the use of caves, but cooking as well, since it releases more nutrients, takes less energy to digest and is easier to eat, all of which helps to feed that grey matter.
Evolution did! It is not called Mickey Mouse, or Rickey Rat, it is called us! - from : http://www.newscientist.com/article...t-common-mammalian-ancestor.html#.Ur61u-GHlEI "Meet our last common mammalian ancestor" 19:00 07 February 2013 by Jeff Hecht For similar stories, visit the Dinosaurs , Evolution and Human Evolution Topic Guides "Say hello to your greatest grandparent. Cute, furry, long-tailed and with a penchant for insects – it sounds like something we would keep as a pet rather than be related to. But it seems that such a creature was the last shared ancestor of placental mammals – a group including all living mammals apart from marsupials and those that lay eggs."
While slightly true you neglect the more important factor: cooking. If eating raw meat made for bigger brains (and smaller gut) then lions and other carnivores, would become quite intelligent long be for man evolved. In fact, unless our ancestors flesh has a realy bad taste to them, these intelligent carnivores would have eaten all our evolving ancestors! SUMMARY: Invention of cooking, not switching to meat eating, made us smart with much smaller guts, and time to spare. - I.e. develop complex cultures, with writing so knowledge gained in one generation could pass on the next. As Newton said (not exact quote) "if I have seen farther, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants." (I think he was referring to the ancient Greek scholars, which he could, and did, read in the original.) BTW while our ancestors could scrape residual meat from bones that the teeth of lions, etc. were not able to take, they rarely got the chance. After the jackals and vultures left, the bones were well cleaned of surface meat; however the marrow inside the major bones remained. The bone residues, all fractured and not by sharp edged tools, found in some (most?) of their caves is almost entirely from the long bones - those that had marrow the other animals could not access. Also your assertion that the brain "requires a tremendous daily amount of protein for maintenance" is obviously false. I think I have read that vegetarians on average have above average IQs. That could be due to other factors, but clearly they are not all idiots as your statement implies.
Source please, as this conflicts with all I have read. For example: Note the smallest adult Neanderthal brain volume is as large as the largest human's and we have thousand more human skulls measured to find that “largest.” Perhaps the largest Neandertha's skull cavity was nearly 25% greater than the largest human skull cavity. As our immediate ancestors were in direct competition with the Neanderthals, who were BOTH bigger brained and much stronger, it is quite a mystery why Earth is populated with humans instead of Neanderthals. I have an answer. It is one of several dozen facts I use to support my “crackpot” theory about how perception occurs. “Crackpot” as it strongly conflicts with the POV accepted by almost all cognitive scientists, which is: Our transducers of environmental information, such as the retina for light, send neural signals to the brain where they are combined and “computationally transformed” thru many stages until perception “emerges.” Not one word about the mechanisms of this “emergence” so this is ONLY "hand waving” - explains nothing. They and I agree that the first stages of the computational transforms are “deconstructions.” For example, the retinal signals contain information about object's shape, size, color, location, motion (both speed and ditrection) which they and I call “characteristics.” We also agree that these characteristics are sent to physically separate parts of the brain. For example, motion characteristists go to a region called M5 and “color” goes to M4, where it is tranformed into a new coordinate system (not the initial red, green & blue of the retinal sensors) but a “red green” axis, a “blue yellow" axis and a black white or intensity axis. A high rate of discharge of some of the up/down neurons in M5 may tell you the object is moving up (and lower rate of the same up/down axis neurons that it is moving down). Thus if you stare at falling water (the Greeks discovered) for some minutes then at a stationary object, it will seem to be moving up as the “down neurons” are slightly fatigued and not with the balancing rate of discharge to offset the discharges the “up neurons” are making. (Neuron discharge all the time so the information is in the changes of firing rates.) It is very strange feeling as your “location neurons” keep reporting their is no change in location yet the object now viewed seems to be steadily rising for the first few seconds. You probably are more familiar with the color after effect than this still called "water fall effect.” Stare at red spot (any shape) then look at white wall see the same shape in green, until the fatigued “red neurons” of the red green axis recover. Same can be done with the blue green axis – proof that the coordinate system has been “computationally transformed” from that the retina uses. I'm sure if you search, Wiki etc. you can see good examples of both the "water fall" and "color after effects". What is in total conflict with the accepted POV about perception is all these deconstructed characteristic are processed in physically separate parts of the brain, and NEVER are sent to the same part of the brain YET perception is unified. For example, if the stimulus is a red circle and a blue square on a white wall, how is it the perception of them is correct, instead of a blue circle and a red square? This is an ADMITED defect of the standard POV.- Only one of many dozens. To mention just one more: You have visual dreams or can “see” your house, etc. even when there is no such image on your retina for these perception to emerge from! My POV is that ALL perceptions are internally generated (in parietal brain tissue) in what I call the “Real Time Simulation” RTS. * The RTS is made by very slightly projecting ahead in time the smoothly changing environmental stimulations of our neural transducers so that we have a “real time” understanding of the enviroment. I claim a relatively small tribe in Africa, about 50,000 year ago, evolved the RTS, while all other humanoids, including the Neanderthals, did precieve their enviroment as modern cognitive scintist claim. I.e. Their perception “emerged” after up to 0.2 seconds delay for many stages of “neural calculation transforms.” This small tribe “exploded out of Africa” killing off all others as in battle they percieved the thrown rock or spear where it really was, not where it was ~0.1 seconds earlier. They could better duck, and not only in battle but when the hidden lion sprang up out of the grass. Having a real time understanding of your enviroment, is a huge survival advantage.- Far more important than a bigger brain and stronger body that the Neanderthals had. Once evolution stumbled on even a crude form, it was refined and modern humans ALL have it, but very few know that. The completely in conflict with many facts POV of "learned" cognitive scientists prevails! * For more details, and evidence supporting my RTS view of how perception, experiences and qualia and "yourself" arise within the RTS, see: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=905778&postcount=66 But this post is focused on how genuine free will might be possible despite the firing of every nerve being deterministically controlled by the laws of neuro-chemistry and physics.
