If you enjoy factual take downs of poorly thought-out evolutionary biology theories you'll like this video that takes apart a fringe theory about neanderthals being some kind of evil ape super-predators.
-
If you enjoy factual take downs of poorly thought-out evolutionary biology theories you'll like this video that takes apart a fringe theory about neanderthals being some kind of evil ape super-predators.
I think it's really sad that neanderthals aren't around anymore, I think we could learn a lot by interacting with humans who were more significantly different from anyone who is alive today.
@futurebird wait, aren't we partially neanderthals too? It's just that instead of two separate groups only one mixed group exists now?
-
If I'm honest I just want to meet some real neanderthals. And not some genetic reconstruction ... Creatures are more than their genome. You couldn't "meet" a neanderthal without the context of their culture and history.
Maybe they would be scary, maybe impossible to really communicate with, maybe they would just be like the person next door. Probably a mix of all of these things.
I do think one book comes close: The Terraformers by Annalee Newitz who is on here I think @annaleen
I read the book last year and enjoyed it a lot. The neanderthals are more on the "just like us" end of things, but they do have some very different emotional and moral landscapes. I especially enjoyed the neanderthal who got exhausted from how much the sapiens sapiens would keep running their mouths. It hinted at a different pace of thinking, more considered and deliberate. But, also just slower and less excitable and bold.
-
@futurebird wait, aren't we partially neanderthals too? It's just that instead of two separate groups only one mixed group exists now?
Some but not all humans have a small part of more recent neanderthal ancestry. 700,000 years back we all have some common ancestor.
When sapiens sapiens moved out of Africa they encountered humans (neanderthals and others) who left before and blended but mostly replaced them. We don't know how this went down exactly.
But, it's not like anyone has more than the equivalent of one or two great-great-great-great ancestors who would be neanderthals.
That's my understanding?
-
@futurebird It has been forever since I read about that scientist who lived among apes for some years, but I think somewhat was actually said to the effect of what you just said: the apes felt the human was kind of bad at being an ape.
I think you have a good point besides. It's a bit of the uncanny valley effect perhaps. If we were bug beings then we might find our evolutionary similar cousins to be unpleasant and might like apes more.
Never try to wrestle a chimpanzee.
-
Never try to wrestle a chimpanzee.
@michael_w_busch @futurebird Apes have significantly more muscle strength to body weight ratio than we do. It's part of the cost of so many of our calories going to our brains instead of our muscles from what I've read.
-
@michael_w_busch @futurebird Apes have significantly more muscle strength to body weight ratio than we do. It's part of the cost of so many of our calories going to our brains instead of our muscles from what I've read.
Chimps win at strength contests.
Humans win at distance running.
Consequence of us having evolved to run around throwing things at stuff.
-
Chimps win at strength contests.
Humans win at distance running.
Consequence of us having evolved to run around throwing things at stuff.
@michael_w_busch @futurebird We're not going to beat most animals at running either, but when you pick them specifically, yeah, chimps definitely don't have the legs that we do. But then there are some apes like patas monkeys which apparently are faster than humans. Apparently even gorillas still are going to beat out many of those of us who aren't athletes. (Even assuming they aren't swinging from trees which can go even faster still.)
But then if you look at animals built for running, even if you limit to two legs, most are still going to beat humans. For example, I doubt even the best athletes will beat out the average ostrich.
We're built to use our brains more than our muscles. Which is why it's so ironic that humanity seems not to want to do that very thing these days...
-
@michael_w_busch @futurebird We're not going to beat most animals at running either, but when you pick them specifically, yeah, chimps definitely don't have the legs that we do. But then there are some apes like patas monkeys which apparently are faster than humans. Apparently even gorillas still are going to beat out many of those of us who aren't athletes. (Even assuming they aren't swinging from trees which can go even faster still.)
But then if you look at animals built for running, even if you limit to two legs, most are still going to beat humans. For example, I doubt even the best athletes will beat out the average ostrich.
We're built to use our brains more than our muscles. Which is why it's so ironic that humanity seems not to want to do that very thing these days...
@nazokiyoubinbou @michael_w_busch
Can an ostrich run for ten miles?
-
@nazokiyoubinbou @michael_w_busch
Can an ostrich run for ten miles?
@futurebird @michael_w_busch Apparently yes. Supposedly with taking breaks they could go something like 180 miles in a day running a bit at a time.
However, one key thing to pause and take note of here is an ostrich wouldn't. They're also tuned not to waste those calories, so they generally only run to escape from danger.
-
@futurebird @michael_w_busch Apparently yes. Supposedly with taking breaks they could go something like 180 miles in a day running a bit at a time.
However, one key thing to pause and take note of here is an ostrich wouldn't. They're also tuned not to waste those calories, so they generally only run to escape from danger.
@nazokiyoubinbou @michael_w_busch
I know I keep bringing this up but humans are kind of big as far as animals go. (so are ostriches) are we really THAT physically mid, or even... just not great at all.
I guess throwing things is cool. Not many animals can do that!
*gets smacked in the head by a sharp shooter fish, a trap jaw ant and some kind of hoverfly egg in quick succession.*
-
@michael_w_busch @futurebird Apes have significantly more muscle strength to body weight ratio than we do. It's part of the cost of so many of our calories going to our brains instead of our muscles from what I've read.
@nazokiyoubinbou @michael_w_busch @futurebird I've also seen the suggestion that we wouldn't have the fine motor skills in our hands if we were as strong as chimpansees
(Also, while our brains require a lot of calories, apparently Neanderthals managed to evolve both brains and muscle mass to the point of requiring over twice as many calories a day as we do, which worked just fine for a while. Until that became a selection pressure against them. There's a pbs eons episode about it on YT)
-
@nazokiyoubinbou @michael_w_busch @futurebird I've also seen the suggestion that we wouldn't have the fine motor skills in our hands if we were as strong as chimpansees
(Also, while our brains require a lot of calories, apparently Neanderthals managed to evolve both brains and muscle mass to the point of requiring over twice as many calories a day as we do, which worked just fine for a while. Until that became a selection pressure against them. There's a pbs eons episode about it on YT)
@vanderZwan @michael_w_busch @futurebird That would explain why neanderthals were so much fewer and swallowed up into our own subspecies so quickly. It would have been a lot harder to truly sustain those requirements.
It's popular to act like neanderthals were dumb because they were "cave men" but, in fact, they were quite intelligent (supposedly they taught our subspecies a lot of ways to make better tools and hunt better.) Of course, people confuse knowledge and intelligence for being the same thing when they aren't. (By that same token, humans 10,000 years from now -- if our species lives that long -- will think we were ignoramuses for not knowing how to create such super simple exotic energy sources as they've been using forever and bending spacetime or something, lol.)
-
@vanderZwan @michael_w_busch @futurebird That would explain why neanderthals were so much fewer and swallowed up into our own subspecies so quickly. It would have been a lot harder to truly sustain those requirements.
It's popular to act like neanderthals were dumb because they were "cave men" but, in fact, they were quite intelligent (supposedly they taught our subspecies a lot of ways to make better tools and hunt better.) Of course, people confuse knowledge and intelligence for being the same thing when they aren't. (By that same token, humans 10,000 years from now -- if our species lives that long -- will think we were ignoramuses for not knowing how to create such super simple exotic energy sources as they've been using forever and bending spacetime or something, lol.)
@nazokiyoubinbou @vanderZwan @michael_w_busch
Well, if other people are projecting their philosophical ideals on to this question of neanderthals vs. sapiens sapiens I'll mention my pet notion:
sapiens sapiens could figure out how to live in much larger groups than neanderthals, something, maybe reproductive speed, maybe all those calories, maybe a commitment to living in small groups on vast tracts of land limited neanderthals.
They couldn't get into the 100s, let alone the 1000s
-
@nazokiyoubinbou @vanderZwan @michael_w_busch
Well, if other people are projecting their philosophical ideals on to this question of neanderthals vs. sapiens sapiens I'll mention my pet notion:
sapiens sapiens could figure out how to live in much larger groups than neanderthals, something, maybe reproductive speed, maybe all those calories, maybe a commitment to living in small groups on vast tracts of land limited neanderthals.
They couldn't get into the 100s, let alone the 1000s
@nazokiyoubinbou @vanderZwan @michael_w_busch
Contemporary humans, even deeply anti-social ones know dozens of people well, and a hundred or two as acquaintances. But even more important I don't *need* to "know" someone to work with them, to ride in their cab, or help them with a math problem, or help them find the Library.
Maybe neanderthals needed to know people to work with them? Then all these little gregarious people show up and they have less and less space.
Just a speculation.
-
@nazokiyoubinbou @vanderZwan @michael_w_busch
Well, if other people are projecting their philosophical ideals on to this question of neanderthals vs. sapiens sapiens I'll mention my pet notion:
sapiens sapiens could figure out how to live in much larger groups than neanderthals, something, maybe reproductive speed, maybe all those calories, maybe a commitment to living in small groups on vast tracts of land limited neanderthals.
They couldn't get into the 100s, let alone the 1000s
@futurebird @vanderZwan @michael_w_busch Yeah, it was just striking me that with those higher requirements it might also explain why neanderthals apparently taught us a lot in regards to tools and such. We were able to utilize our higher numbers to simplify things more. A group of ten warriors with worse spears can still take out a wild boar or something a whole lot better than a group of three with better weapons just from sheer numbers. So they were less driven to find ways to make those better tools perhaps, whereas the neanderthals simply had to just to survive.
-
@futurebird @vanderZwan @michael_w_busch Yeah, it was just striking me that with those higher requirements it might also explain why neanderthals apparently taught us a lot in regards to tools and such. We were able to utilize our higher numbers to simplify things more. A group of ten warriors with worse spears can still take out a wild boar or something a whole lot better than a group of three with better weapons just from sheer numbers. So they were less driven to find ways to make those better tools perhaps, whereas the neanderthals simply had to just to survive.
@nazokiyoubinbou @vanderZwan @michael_w_busch
People do not think enough about the berries and insects part of the diet back then. We know both groups of people were omnivores from their teeth.
Oh and all those shellfish.
-
@nazokiyoubinbou @vanderZwan @michael_w_busch
Well, if other people are projecting their philosophical ideals on to this question of neanderthals vs. sapiens sapiens I'll mention my pet notion:
sapiens sapiens could figure out how to live in much larger groups than neanderthals, something, maybe reproductive speed, maybe all those calories, maybe a commitment to living in small groups on vast tracts of land limited neanderthals.
They couldn't get into the 100s, let alone the 1000s
@futurebird
I’ve read several books about Neanderthals and their lives, but I don’t recall much about their vocal abilities. They could definitely vocalize but it’s not clear they had language as we think of it now. This lack would limit their abilities to pass on lore and learning. They had tools, and glue, and string, probably fur/skin clothing. But could they teach skills other than by showing? -
@futurebird
I’ve read several books about Neanderthals and their lives, but I don’t recall much about their vocal abilities. They could definitely vocalize but it’s not clear they had language as we think of it now. This lack would limit their abilities to pass on lore and learning. They had tools, and glue, and string, probably fur/skin clothing. But could they teach skills other than by showing?@qurlyjoe @nazokiyoubinbou @vanderZwan @michael_w_busch
They had to teach each other. They also had awls which means they were punching holes for sewing.
-
@nazokiyoubinbou @vanderZwan @michael_w_busch
Contemporary humans, even deeply anti-social ones know dozens of people well, and a hundred or two as acquaintances. But even more important I don't *need* to "know" someone to work with them, to ride in their cab, or help them with a math problem, or help them find the Library.
Maybe neanderthals needed to know people to work with them? Then all these little gregarious people show up and they have less and less space.
Just a speculation.
@futurebird @nazokiyoubinbou @michael_w_busch if the calories do turn out to be a major factor for filtering out most of the "Neanderthal features" in our DNA¹, then aren't we basically describing the 80/20 but applied to evolution?
¹as @michael_w_busch pointed out: Neanderthals and sapiens sapiens interbred. So arguably the discussion should be framed as which genetic features were selected for within the hominid lineage, rather than as two truly different species of which one went extinct.
-
@futurebird @nazokiyoubinbou @michael_w_busch if the calories do turn out to be a major factor for filtering out most of the "Neanderthal features" in our DNA¹, then aren't we basically describing the 80/20 but applied to evolution?
¹as @michael_w_busch pointed out: Neanderthals and sapiens sapiens interbred. So arguably the discussion should be framed as which genetic features were selected for within the hominid lineage, rather than as two truly different species of which one went extinct.
@vanderZwan @nazokiyoubinbou @michael_w_busch
Things like basic disease resistance, or allergies could be huge.
