The Highbrow Neanderthal
growbyginkgo.com
The Highbrow Neanderthal
1–10 of 28 posts
Re: The Highbrow Neanderthal
#2I taught this stuff for years and never came across this. Excellent post.
Re: The Highbrow Neanderthal
#3Absolutely fascinating. I love hearing about Neanderthals and Denisovans and look forward to scientists learning even more in the future. It's mind boggling to think of other sentient species like our own that we could actually interbreed with.
Re: The Highbrow Neanderthal
#4Absolutely fascinating. I love hearing about Neanderthals and Denisovans and look forward to scientists learning even more in the future. It's mind boggling to think of other sentient species like our own that we could actually interbreed with.
What does it tell us that none of the other hominid lineages survived?
Re: The Highbrow Neanderthal
#5Absolutely fascinating. I love hearing about Neanderthals and Denisovans and look forward to scientists learning even more in the future. It's mind boggling to think of other sentient species like our own that we could actually interbreed with.
What does it tell us that none of the other hominid lineages survived?
That homo sapiens sapiens most likely displaced them, but that doesn't really mean as much as your comment might intend to insinuate.
Neanderthals lasted half a million years, and the more we learn the more we appraise them as sophisticated. That said, they seem to have faced a caloric challenge in a world with sparse mega fauna.
Based on everything I've read, modern humans pre-language excelled at one specific thing: walking very long distances without exhaustion on less calories. Ends up that's pretty dang useful in spreading across the globe.
Re: The Highbrow Neanderthal
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does it tell us that none of the other hominid lineages survived?
That homo sapiens sapiens most likely displaced them, but that doesn't really mean as much as your comment might intend to insinuate. Neanderthals lasted half a million years, and the more we learn the more we appraise them as sophisticated. That said, they seem to have faced a caloric challenge in a world with sparse mega fauna. Based on everything I've read, modern humans pre-language excelled at one specific thing…
That's a pretty brutal selection mechanism. How fast and far can you go while slowly starving with your tribe in tow...
Re: The Highbrow Neanderthal
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does it tell us that none of the other hominid lineages survived?
That homo sapiens sapiens most likely displaced them, but that doesn't really mean as much as your comment might intend to insinuate. Neanderthals lasted half a million years, and the more we learn the more we appraise them as sophisticated. That said, they seem to have faced a caloric challenge in a world with sparse mega fauna. Based on everything I've read, modern humans pre-language excelled at one specific thing…
> that doesn't really mean as much as your comment might intend to insinuate.
Mine was an open question. Your speculation about what I might intend to insinuate is perhaps a projection from your own psyche, which you haven't actually articulated, so I can't comment further on it.
If you imagine I was saying something like modern humans were superior to other hominids because they defeated them - I wasn't. In fact, it isn't even true to say species X was defeated by species Y, because the outcome was a merger of (at least) 2 species, not an outright conquest. And as you seem to be saying in your comment, the survival of species is as much about the environment as it is about the qualities of a species.
Your point about modern humans walking long distances efficiently is an interesting one, though I'm not sure how it explains how the world was colonised. Are you picturing some kind of a race to see which species could travel the furthest out of Africa in the shortest time, to plant a flag on America or Asia and claim it for the species?
Wouldn't colonisation have taken place more gradually?
Assuming humans have to exist socially, in contiguous communities rather than solo, generation by generation, human populations would have progressively acquired more land (along the coast, say) by acquiring territory adjacent to their base. This equates to travel in the order of say 100 metres per generation - enough to support new housing and food supply for a population increase of a few percent. The success of this endeavour might depend on inter species competitiveness to a degree, and it would also be limited by genetic adaptability to climate variation as the distances added up over millennia, particularly latitudinally.
Re: The Highbrow Neanderthal
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
That homo sapiens sapiens most likely displaced them, but that doesn't really mean as much as your comment might intend to insinuate. Neanderthals lasted half a million years, and the more we learn the more we appraise them as sophisticated. That said, they seem to have faced a caloric challenge in a world with sparse mega fauna. Based on everything I've read, modern humans pre-language excelled at one specific thing…
> that doesn't really mean as much as your comment might intend to insinuate. Mine was an open question. Your speculation about what I might intend to insinuate is perhaps a projection from your own psyche, which you haven't actually articulated, so I can't comment further on it. If you imagine I was saying something like modern humans were superior to other hominids because they defeated them - I wasn't. In fact, it…
I interpreted your comment in the way GP did. Perhaps you might not be communicating exactly as you thought?
Re: The Highbrow Neanderthal
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
> that doesn't really mean as much as your comment might intend to insinuate. Mine was an open question. Your speculation about what I might intend to insinuate is perhaps a projection from your own psyche, which you haven't actually articulated, so I can't comment further on it. If you imagine I was saying something like modern humans were superior to other hominids because they defeated them - I wasn't. In fact, it…
I interpreted your comment in the way GP did. Perhaps you might not be communicating exactly as you thought?
> Perhaps you might not be communicating exactly as you thought?
Could be! I'm never sure how I'm communicating, and only marginally more sure about what I think.
Re: The Highbrow Neanderthal
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
> that doesn't really mean as much as your comment might intend to insinuate. Mine was an open question. Your speculation about what I might intend to insinuate is perhaps a projection from your own psyche, which you haven't actually articulated, so I can't comment further on it. If you imagine I was saying something like modern humans were superior to other hominids because they defeated them - I wasn't. In fact, it…
I interpreted your comment in the way GP did. Perhaps you might not be communicating exactly as you thought?
I did not interpret the open question by /u/wombatmobile the way you and the other poster did. It is not clear from the text that one should do so.
It is not conductive to a discussion to err on the side of malice when in doubt. It is better to clarify and/or to assume the other poster wants to foster discussion.