Slashdot Mirror
Modern Humans, Neanderthals Shared Earth for 1,000 Years
joffley writes "ABC News is reporting on new evidence that has emerged suggesting Neanderthals co-existed with anatomically modern humans for at least 1,000 years in central France, before gradually disappearing about 28,000 to 30,000 years ago. But why did they disappear?"
From TFA: In short, the indicators point to the likelihood that Homo sapiens crushed or ousted the Neanderthals in the fight to survive. Why do we always need to reduce the possibilities to just these two? Isn't it equally likely that in the ebb and flow of occupation of the area humans eventually exhausted the resources that the Neanderthal relied upon, while being able to exploit other resources that the Neanderthal couldn't? Since 1,000 years is the overlap epoch it doesn't appear that a policy of active antipathy is at work.
I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
Thats not offtopic, thats a reference to a bad sci-fi series. What could be more on-topic at Slashdot?
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
There are two central issues. One is that the "Aurignacian" industry, which is proposed to have been made by modern humans, may not actually have been a single industry across Europe. In the current study, the "interleaving" of the two kinds of tools is documented by around 10 artifacts, out of 750 total.
The other issue is that no fossil remains of modern humans have yet been found associated with early "Aurignacian" tools. We simply don't know who made them. Since they are not technically very different from the Neandertal-associated Chatelperronian, it is hard to say that there is a real cognitive difference represented by those tools, whoever made them.
I have some pictures of the tools on my weblog post (John Hawks Anthropology Weblog), and conclude this:
--John
Don't you know it's not the brainmass that counts, but the interconnectedness of neurons? A kitty-cat has a pretty small brain compared to a cow, but you can't say it's proportionally more stupid. It's similar with people, CPU's, etc.. the visible macroscopic size is not what counts, but the microscopic stuff inside that makes it tick. As far as genetic fitness goes, it's amazing just how much doesn't depend on genetics, but it's learned, educated. See feral children.
"Theory of intelligent design" is an oxymoron.
Merriam Webster's defines a theory as "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." Intelligent design doesn't qualify- it hasn't been tested (it's arguable whether it's even testable at all), it isn't accepted, and it explains absolutely nothing. It doesn't explain who the designer is or how the designer designed things, how the design was implemented, why, or when. It's the complete and total absence of a theory.
Which is the beauty of it. Creationists learned from the Young Earth Creationism disaster- as soon as you start making testable statements like "the earth is 6000 years old" scientists will disprove you and show what a bunch of idiots you are. So you avoid making testable statements at all costs.
I love how every time something is posted on Slashdot as to what makes humans unique, everyone states some random idea as if it has more credibility than the others. The fact is that there is likely no simple reason why humans outcompeted Neanderthals, but was problem several factors working synergistically.
Furthermore, mitochondrial DNA contradicts your argument. Mitochondrial DNA is passed down only from mother to child. The evidence stongly points to the fact that modern humans do not have Neanderthal mtDNA. For your scenario to work, all humans would have Neanderthal DNA.
First you animate. Then you SUSPEND!!!
This information is obviously vital, and should no doubt be covered in Biology class!.
Heh, one should think so. But there are soooo many non-believers out there.
I told my local school district a couple of years back that if they continued to insist that prayer be not only allowed in school, but lead by a teacher, that I would first convert my children to their grandma's religion (she was of the Blackfoot tribe), and then sue under federal law to force the district to accomodate their worship in the school. Since they would have to accomodate my children during "prayer time", I knew that having a bunch of whooping, dancing students in the classroom would be too much for them to take.
They dropped their proposal because they eventually realized that in order to stay neutral with regard to the Establishment Clause they would have to accomodate every religious belief to avoid having their policy ruled unconstitutional.
Intelligent Design will have the same fate when every religion in the world demands equal time in the science classroom.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Because this is a democracy, where majority rules.
Pardon my french, but that is pure bullshit. Majority doesn't have anything to do with what is science or not. A huge portion of the population also believes in Astrology, should that be included in science class? Of course not.
ID and Creationism are religious ideas. They have nothing to do with science. If they are to be taught in schools they should be taught where they belong, along side of Buddhism, Islam, Astrology and all the other superstition. Science class is for scientific theory, and ID, all though a theory, doesn't qualify as a scientific theory. If you do not know what a scientific theory is, and why ID and Creationism doesn't qualify, I suggest you read up on the subject. It isn't all that hard.
The thing is that most science comes down to one thing. Where we came from. If you replace that you have to throw away, physics, chemistry, astronomy, cosmology, geology, biology, anthropology...
How's that?
If physics, chemistry, etc. still all work as expected, how is origin so critical?
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
"A good proof for the christian anti-darwinists that it is not always the fittest that survive..."
Actually you misunderstand the meaningof that term. The word fittest is termed as something that is "the best at surviving.", not necessarily the best at something like strength, eating, building, etc. So in the real world those species that are best at learning, or adapting to their environment (read as: able to survive in their environment), are those that evolve and thus "survive".
So the fittest always do servive, because they are the best at surviving.
--
Does anyone remember