Notices
Results 1 to 38 of 38
Like Tree20Likes
  • 1 Post By Headdresser
  • 3 Post By kojax
  • 1 Post By marnixR
  • 1 Post By icewendigo
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By icewendigo
  • 1 Post By marnixR
  • 1 Post By skeptic
  • 2 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By sculptor
  • 1 Post By chad
  • 1 Post By sculptor
  • 1 Post By Write4U
  • 1 Post By Write4U
  • 1 Post By chad
  • 1 Post By chad
  • 1 Post By kojax

Thread: Why is Homo sapiens the only humanoid that survived?

  1. #1 Why is Homo sapiens the only humanoid that survived? 
    Forum Freshman Headdresser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Germany
    Posts
    70
    Most successful species (at least the ones I heard of) show a big diversity. For example...Ants are one of natures most successful models...so there are many kind of ants. The same with sharks, snakes, bears...etc. etc. We find early stages of evolution, newer versions, small, big, specialized.
    But what about humans? From all the different kinds of humanoids (I talk about those creature that lived after the humanoids and apes went down different roads) and according to the fossil record there have been many kinds small ones, giant big-footlike ones...some that almost looked like us. Most had been much more advanced than usual apes...but apes survived...they dont. The Neanderthals for example have been smart, they buried dead people, had tools, culture...and so on.
    It's like..there is a design that brings a company shitloads of money but it is never copied. Isn't that strange?
    So my question is:
    Why is there only ONE kind of such a "successful"* life-form?
    Why have all humanoid forms (except us) died out?
    I dont focus on the magic factor that made us better than the others...I think it have not been found yet...but I wonder why all the other attributes like walking on two feed, having hands, being smart, being able to adapt very easy...we share with other humanoids (even with the human-apes) wasn't able to let at least ONE more humanoid kind survive?



    *
    Before some people complain...
    I don't think humans will be successful in a long term, but we managed to spread to every single place on the planet, got on top of the food chain, and (without using moral) having killed countless other species and overtake there habitat or prey must be called at least somehow "successful" from an evolutionary viewpoint.


    jrmonroe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Humans are the only great ape fully adapted to living away from trees. Chimps, bonobos, gorillas and orangutan all live in forests and climb trees at need. They are much better at tree climbing that we are. That probably explains why they survived. Until the invention of guns, those animals were at an advantage over humans in the forest.

    However, the second question is why humans are the only hominin to survive. The obvious answer (which does not necessarily make it correct) is that humans are the best adapted to our way of life, away from the trees, and the other hominins died out due to competition and direct aggression. That is a best guess. We do not truly know for sure.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Why is there only ONE kind of such a "successful"* life-form?
    Why have all humanoid forms (except us) died out?
    Because we don't need any ecological 'niche' to continue living and reproducing. We don't need to change biologically to cope with new circumstances, we work out a way to cope or we move on.

    We wear some clothes or none at all. We wear furs and leathers if it's really tough going. We build shelters to protect ourselves from the worst weather. We train other animals to work for us - camels, donkeys, dogs, horses, llamas, cattle as pack animals or as guards or as sources of milk, even blood, to supplement our diet.

    We will eat anything and everything that's not actually poisonous. Fish, insects, rats, wombats, lizards and any other protein. Or we eat non-animal foods entirely and live off grains, nuts, fruits, roots and other vegetables. We're capable of deliberately moving to find better places to live, eat or have access to water.

    Most importantly of all, we are intelligent. Not only that, we don't leave each generation to their own devices to learn unaided essential skills like finding food, we teach them from infancy onwards the skills they will need to provide for themselves.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    It's quite possible that maybe all the various hominids did survive. They just all bred together into one race. Gonzales is always going on about that possibility. Where I disagree with him is the idea that the mixing created homo-sapiens. What I think is more likely is that a sapiens predecessor emerged somewhere, and then spread out across the world, intermarrying with the hominids. However, the sapien trait was so strongly selected for that it gradually replaced their other traits.

    That's one possibility anyway.

    Another, perhaps stronger, possibility is that homo-sapiens deliberately wiped all the other hominids out. Modern humans have shown quite a capacity for racism even when the only difference is a skin tone, or known genealogy. Imagine how racist our ancestors must have been when they were faced with hominids that were actually different enough to deserve a separate classification.

    Tolkein fantasy stories have humans battling against the orcs. I wonder how different a neanderthal would look from an orc?
    jrmonroe, sculptor and Headdresser like this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    it's a well-known fact in ecological theory that competing sibling species either divide the ecological space so that they can live alongside one another, or if that is not possible, one of them gets driven out - either geographically to another region or to extinction

    the fact that we can outcompete specialists in many different niches + the fact that we're spread across the globe means that there's no longer any room for competing species to find either another niche or a different geographical area
    the species that were closest to us have felt this selection pressure first
    Headdresser likes this.
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    8
    A better question is how come out of all the primates we are the ones who have evolved quicker than the rest? We were a different species of ape entirely even to begin with seemingly not differentiating at the same time we are just as old a species and yet it seems we were the first to evolve the way we did.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    Indeed our apparent versatility is quite impressive, considering you have humans living in extremely harsh arctic conditions with nothing but meat to eat for parts of the year and very dangerous predators (Polar bear) roaming about, while other humans live in deserts, in tropical jungles. I can more easily understand how vulnerable ancestors with spears could survive, but have a harder time figuring out how they survived before they started using the spear or clubs, unless they are in a regional environment without many large enough predators.

    (and as to why "one", versatility and spreading to various environments is an advantage over another group that are more adapted to a specific region because if that one encounters a game changer in their specific ecology they are threatened, while a group spread across many regions and enviroments can survive if some of them in a specific region are wiped out)

    If our ancestors had armored skin with porcupine quills we might now be as dumb as door knobs. Our relative intelligence and relative vulnerability, may have created a feedback loop, where the more intelligent we were the less relative vulnerability(or lack of pure biological adaptation) was a problem so presumably more vulnerable individuals survived, and the more vulnerable the population was the greater the pressure of not being intelligent may have been.

    I think that the unusual duration of (comparative) ineptitude and vulnerability of human infants provides a clue we should not overlook.

    A baby is unable to walk at an adult's pace, or survive on its own, for years. What can be extrapolated from this clue?
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    What can be extrapolated from this clue?
    That our extreme brain size prohibits being born fully developed from a mother whose pelvis size is extremely limited compared to other primates. That leads to the idea that our social, intelligent way of interacting was promoted by the survival of post-menopausal grandmothers to help both mothers and infants survive during this extended period of helplessness.
    westwind likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    how they survived before they started using the spear or clubs,
    My view is that the 'spear and the club' are what made the hominin line special.
    About 8 to 10 million years ago, the pre-human lineage separated from the chimp lineage. The earliest fossil hominin with sufficient skeletal remains to support an image of what it was like was Ardipithecus. Ardi was an upright ape 6 million years ago.

    I interpret this to mean that our ancestors 6 million years ago, and likely earlier, already had forelimbs freed to wield tools and weapons. They did not leave the safety of the trees until those weapons were available. Add in a strong social organisation, and you have a recipe for success. Bands of pre-humans ranging the savannah with weapons, and working together to drive predators off their kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    That our extreme brain size prohibits being born fully developed from a mother whose pelvis size is extremely limited compared to other primates.

    Quite interesting.

    promoted by the survival of post-menopausal grandmothers to help both mothers and infants survive
    Why? Can a tribe with other (non-post menopausal) females such as other mothers or teenage daughters help the new mother instead?
    What about fathers and other males, couldnt they help in their own way?
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    Can a tribe with other (non-post menopausal) females such as other mothers or teenage daughters help the new mother instead?
    I read a relevant article a while back. Anthropologists studying 'primitive' societies found that the odds of survival of a young child was greatly increased if a grandmother still lived to assist with parenting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    Anthropologists studying 'primitive' societies found that the odds of survival of a young child was greatly increased if a grandmother still lived to assist with parenting.
    why? How do we know its an actual cause as opposed to a correlation? (if the situation [famine, disease, harsh weather, predators, etc] is so dire that the grand mother is more likely to die, maybe infants will also have a harder time surviving for those same reasons, than if he situation is fine and dandy)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    i read somewhere in one of Jared Diamond's books that in the days before writing old people were the folk memory of the tribe, and could remember how to deal with a once-in-a-lifetime disaster
    westwind likes this.
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    To icewendigo

    I cannot fully answer your question, but I know they found no correlation with grandfathers surviving. This would tend to suggest that it is the grandmother, not some external circumstance, that makes the difference.
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    What can be extrapolated from this clue?
    That our extreme brain size prohibits being born fully developed from a mother whose pelvis size is extremely limited compared to other primates.
    I like the observation that humans have a gestation period of three years, only nine months of which are spent within the womb.
    westwind and sculptor like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    My grand daughter is currently in the terrible twos
    so this is a second birth?

    I wonder at the neurological changes that she is going through.
    Just before she goes crazy ballistic, she stands there looking confused
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Just before she goes crazy ballistic, she stands there looking confused
    Neither of mine had a 'terrible twos' period, but many do. I like the description I read somewhere that talked about the acquisition of new skills in a child, say walking, talking, reasoning, means that while that is happening they have less attention to spare for their previously (fairly recently) acquired skills. So new physical skills often means more clumsiness rather than less for a while until the new skills are integrated into a bigger, coherent set.

    For two year olds, they're quickly absorbing vocabulary and ideas and language skills all in a rush. It's not really surprising that some of them get all tangled up in emotional frustration and confusion which comes out as tantrums and anger. Though this is fairly strongly culture dependent if memory serves me correctly. It certainly isn't universal.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    If/when i am babysitting, and she starts with the screaming tantrum thing, I find a pitch and harmonize
    which diverts her attention so we can get back to communicating

    she is being raised trilingual, which may present some adjustments that most of us didn't have to go through.

    she seems most contented around me when we mostly communicate non-verbally

    my only children were twin boys, and she is an interesting twist to what it is that i thought I knew.
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Headdresser View Post
    Most successful species (at least the ones I heard of) show a big diversity. For example...Ants are one of natures most successful models...so there are many kind of ants. The same with sharks, snakes, bears...etc. etc. We find early stages of evolution, newer versions, small, big, specialized.
    But what about humans? From all the different kinds of humanoids (I talk about those creature that lived after the humanoids and apes went down different roads) and according to the fossil record there have been many kinds small ones, giant big-footlike ones...some that almost looked like us. Most had been much more advanced than usual apes...but apes survived...they dont. The Neanderthals for example have been smart, they buried dead people, had tools, culture...and so on.
    It's like..there is a design that brings a company shitloads of money but it is never copied. Isn't that strange?
    So my question is:
    Why is there only ONE kind of such a "successful"* life-form?
    Why have all humanoid forms (except us) died out?
    I dont focus on the magic factor that made us better than the others...I think it have not been found yet...but I wonder why all the other attributes like walking on two feed, having hands, being smart, being able to adapt very easy...we share with other humanoids (even with the human-apes) wasn't able to let at least ONE more humanoid kind survive?



    *
    Before some people complain...
    I don't think humans will be successful in a long term, but we managed to spread to every single place on the planet, got on top of the food chain, and (without using moral) having killed countless other species and overtake there habitat or prey must be called at least somehow "successful" from an evolutionary viewpoint.


    I believe many scientists would say, (modern) homo genus species, have killed and taken away resources, from (other) homo genus species, causing them to go extinct.

    Many scientists believe that homo sapiens caused/played a large role, in homo neanderthalensis going extinct in Europe.
    Homo neanderthalensis - extinct from competition
    Neanderthal extinction hypotheses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I believe one could argue, that the above theories are un-true.
    But (my) gut feeling is, humans played a large role, in the extinction of homo neanderthalensis in Europe.


    I remember looking at old science books, about pre-human history in Africa. The books showed pictures, of (separate) species of humanoids, fighting each other. Many scientists would say, (separate) species of humanoids, have been fighting each other, for millions of years.

    I believe/assume their was a time in African history, were many (separate) species of humanoids, were living together at the same time. And this time period, would be a time like you described, were many separate species of humanoids, were living together at the same time.



    Those (early) humanoids living together at the same time, fought with crude tools, and by throwing rocks. Perhaps their low intelligence, and simple weapons, made it hard for them to cause/help, the extinction of other similar species?

    As homo genus animals evolved, they became smarter, and their weapons and war strategies, became (highly) deadly.


    Early homo genus animals could throw a rock at you, if you came around their food/offspring. But a modern human like animal, could hit you from a great distance with a deadly spear, poison you, burn down your territory, or make noises like a harmless animal, and sneak up on you at night and attack. ex.ex.ex.

    Perhaps when an animal species, gets as deadly as a homo sapiens. It is unnatural for other (similar) species, to live in the same area. The conflicts would be too deadly, and the great intelligence would cause a war strategy, that would cause one side to be decimated with time.

    And since all homo genus animals, will have similar running speeds, similar food and habitat needs, and similar senses. It may be hard to run, hide, and avoid each other.


    Modern day humans, do not regularly exterminate other groups of humans, or perhaps they do??
    But my point is, an animal species, will/may have some kind of respect, for all members of their own species, even those groups they fight.
    Their instincts will/may tell them, that these other groups, supply new sexual mates, and fresh DNA needed to keep the species healthy. ex.ex.

    But perhaps humans, do (not) give this respect, to a species like homo neand.
    On a survival, or evolutionary view point. What does a human need, other similar humanoid species for?
    Humans can not mate with these species, and these similar species take and use resources desired by humans.

    Look at the way humans fight/kill, other humans that live around them.
    I would think humans would treat animals like homo neanderthalensis, (much) worse than they do other humans.


    As already stated, Perhaps when an animal species, gets as deadly as a homo sapiens. It is unnatural for other (similar) species, to live in the same area. The conflicts would be too deadly, and their great intelligence would cause a war strategy, that would cause one side to be decimated with time?


    This is a very interesting thread,
    Chad.
    Last edited by chad; December 9th, 2012 at 04:35 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    Anthropologists studying 'primitive' societies found that the odds of survival of a young child was greatly increased if a grandmother still lived to assist with parenting.
    why? How do we know its an actual cause as opposed to a correlation? (if the situation [famine, disease, harsh weather, predators, etc] is so dire that the grand mother is more likely to die, maybe infants will also have a harder time surviving for those same reasons, than if he situation is fine and dandy)

    I remember hearing that children (today), that have grandparents living with them, do better than children, without grandparents living with them.


    The grandchild-grandparent bond - ABC 12

    Uncommon Childhood How Living With Grandparents Can Benefit the Family

    The Benefits of Living With Grandparents | Asian Lifestyle Design
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman Headdresser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Germany
    Posts
    70
    Yes...I agree with everything you said...but wouldn't everything you said, as well fit to the Neanderthaler and other human-like groups?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman Headdresser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Germany
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoolio View Post
    A better question is how come out of all the primates we are the ones who have evolved quicker than the rest? We were a different species of ape entirely even to begin with seemingly not differentiating at the same time we are just as old a species and yet it seems we were the first to evolve the way we did.
    I think the answer for that is as easy as it is unsatisfying: We were lucky.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman Headdresser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Germany
    Posts
    70
    @Chad
    -
    I agree, assuming that the homo sapiens have been the most aggressive, most ruthless most racist ones makes sense. And maybe I just try to find other solutions because I don't want to look on humans that way...but on the other hand there is more than enough space on the planet. Means...even IF Homo Sapiens used to kill Neanderthals..(I think) they could't have wiped them out. The chance of one human group meeting another must have been quiet small plus...even if we tryed to wipe them out...why should we be victorious in most of the few times we met? The Neanderthaler was tougher and had equal weapons. There is no prove that we have been smarter in any way. I personally think that an aggressive species would have had another problem. Even in the early ages of mankind trade was very important. A group of Nazi-caveman killing everyone they found would have been excluded from trade and therefore from new products. And I guess this group would have fought another group because they compete for food or living space...not because they don't look like them. Plus violence is not much observed in the fossile record. The earliest human that died by an other humans force I ever heard of lived in the bronze age.
    BUT...
    what really supports your thesis is that people are telling myth about gnomes and giants almost anywhere on the earth...and that those creatures normally get asskicked by human gods or heroes. And yes...we have shown the potential the extinct others (even our own kind). But I hope that this was much more unintentionally.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    I believe many scientists would say, (modern) homo genus species, have killed and taken away resources, from (other) homo genus species, causing them to go extinct.

    Chad.
    Hi Chad
    coupla things
    archaeology/anthropology has always suffered from projecting modern "norms" into the past
    because we have exceeded the natural carrying capacity of the earth, we are prone to conflict.

    I suspect that when modern humans entered Europe, both we, and homo sapiens neanderthalensis were small in numbers, and nowhere near reaching the carrying capacity of the land.

    (There is some evidence that during the homosapiens sapiens die-off circa 70,000ybp neanderthalensis suffered the same fate, and coming out of that the neanderthals who were more gracile, and taller, seem to have departed the archaeological record, leaving only the more robust and shorter cousins in refuge pockets.)

    There was no need for conflict.

    Added onto this, as a youth, I used to sit and listen to the old folks talk about their youths.
    One thing that stood out, was that when there were fewer of them(rural Illinois and Wisconsin), they really enjoyed meeting and greeting strangers, and (as/re their comments) everyone was therefore more polite.

    Now, if we take these bits of information, and extrapolate back to europe circa 40,000 - 70,000 ybp,
    We would not see murder as a tool which removed the other hominids.
    So where else do we look?

    Perhaps the fate of the Amer-indians whose numbers were diminished(some tribes dieing off altogether) being exposed to diseases for which they had no immunity.

    So, we could as easily extrapolate backward to europe, and postulate that what finally killed of the neanderthals was a hug.

    (ok, as in all archaeological extrapolations, that too was a guess.)
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Headdresser View Post
    @Chad
    -
    I agree, assuming that the homo sapiens have been the most aggressive, most ruthless most racist ones makes sense. And maybe I just try to find other solutions because I don't want to look on humans that way...but on the other hand there is more than enough space on the planet. Means...even IF Homo Sapiens used to kill Neanderthals..(I think) they could't have wiped them out. The chance of one human group meeting another must have been quiet small plus...even if we tryed to wipe them out...why should we be victorious in most of the few times we met? The Neanderthaler was tougher and had equal weapons. There is no prove that we have been smarter in any way. I personally think that an aggressive species would have had another problem. Even in the early ages of mankind trade was very important. A group of Nazi-caveman killing everyone they found would have been excluded from trade and therefore from new products. And I guess this group would have fought another group because they compete for food or living space...not because they don't look like them. Plus violence is not much observed in the fossile record. The earliest human that died by an other humans force I ever heard of lived in the bronze age.
    BUT...
    what really supports your thesis is that people are telling myth about gnomes and giants almost anywhere on the earth...and that those creatures normally get asskicked by human gods or heroes. And yes...we have shown the potential the extinct others (even our own kind). But I hope that this was much more unintentionally.

    This is one of my favorite subjects, almost everything about it can be debated.

    Humans did not wipe out, (or help to wipe out) Homo neand. overnight, it would have happened over 1,000's of years.
    Scientists speak of something called the human spark. Its something inside of us, that made us creative, made us paint, make jewelry, ex.ex. Scientists have noticed that h. neand. did not have this human spark.

    I (believe) scientists say that h. neand. did not evolve like humans. H. neand. spent a huge amount of time in Europe, and never changed technology.
    Point is humans had the "human spark", and the traits to evolve and upgrade technology. Both traits that would give humans the advantage in the strategy of war.

    There's a very good chance, h. neand. could beat up a human, in a fist/hand fight. (And this is another great intensive for humans, to create weapons to defeat them.)

    Humans could throw projectiles better than h. neand., and humans could run faster than h. neand. And they had the human spark.
    When you are smarter, can throw a spear better, and can run faster, how can you loose a fight?

    Were Neanderthals stoned to death by modern humans? - life - 20 November 2008 - New Scientist


    As far as humans rarely seeing h. neand., perhaps that could be true to (some) extent. But both humans and h. neand. ate the same large game. And H. neand. would have picked the best large game areas to live, and humans would have wanted those areas. It would seem that human animal instincts, would have caused humans to drive away h. neand., from the best hunting areas. And with time and human population growth, humans would have been pushed h. neand. into poor hunting areas. A situation that would help their extinction.


    My personal beliefs are when humans group's first met homo neand., each human group would have a different response to h. neand.
    Some groups would have respected h. neand.
    Some groups would have chased them off.
    And some groups would have went to war with them.

    I have seen facial reconstruction pictures, of h. neand. females, and I speculate humans tried to mate with them.
    I speculate that human males, have brought gifts to female h. neand. Like a gift of food.

    Perhaps there were some locations were humans and h. neand., had some form of communication, friendship, and respect.

    But with time human animal instincts, would have forced h. neand., away from the best hunting grounds.
    And with time (some) groups of racist like humans, would have killed/hunted h. neand..


    Humans and h. neand. were two very similar species. They were both humanoids.
    And they both desired the same hunting grounds.

    Can you list 2 separate human groups, that wanted the same resources, and lived in the same area for 1,000's of years, that (never) went to war with each other?

    If you can not list the above groups, that would suggest that peace between humans and h. neand., was (highly) unlikely.

    But as I said, this topic is debatable on all sides. You could show evidence to discredit much of what I said. And I could show evidence to discredit much of what you said.


    On a personal note, I hate and despise war. I believe humans have the ability to solve conflicts, with communication and compromise.
    But human history does not show the above happening.

    This is a fantastic thread you started here,
    Chad.
    Last edited by chad; December 10th, 2012 at 04:42 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    I wonder if the matriarchal power in raising children does not have a positive effect on the civilization of male children.
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Couple of things.

    First. Homo sapiens did not evolve faster than other hominins. The fossil record shows a steady rate of evolution from when the hominin line left the chimp line 8 to 10 million years ago.

    Second : We do not know why neanderthal went extinct. The two probable causes are competition from Homo sapiens sapiens, and actual killing of neanderthals by modern man. Anyone who believes primitive humans were peaceful pacifists needs to read more anthropology! We know from studies of recent hunter/gatherer tribal societies that they tend to be warlike and engage in killing their neighbours.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Couple of things.

    First. Homo sapiens did not evolve faster than other hominins. The fossil record shows a steady rate of evolution from when the hominin line left the chimp line 8 to 10 million years ago.

    Second : We do not know why neanderthal went extinct. The two probable causes are competition from Homo sapiens sapiens, and actual killing of neanderthals by modern man. Anyone who believes primitive humans were peaceful pacifists needs to read more anthropology! We know from studies of recent hunter/gatherer tribal societies that they tend to be warlike and engage in killing their neighbours.
    I agree completely, and the evidence lies in the behavior of our cousins the chimps. Apparently our more sophisticated brains have not yet solved the riddle of peaceful coexistence.
    However, one of the most interesting hominids is the Bonobo chimpanzee, which may well be the most peaceful species of hominid on earth. Where did they come from? I should love to know the evolutionary path of the Bonobo.
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Couple of things.

    First. Homo sapiens did not evolve faster than other hominins. The fossil record shows a steady rate of evolution from when the hominin line left the chimp line 8 to 10 million years ago.

    Second : We do not know why neanderthal went extinct. The two probable causes are competition from Homo sapiens sapiens, and actual killing of neanderthals by modern man. Anyone who believes primitive humans were peaceful pacifists needs to read more anthropology! We know from studies of recent hunter/gatherer tribal societies that they tend to be warlike and engage in killing their neighbours.
    I agree completely, and the evidence lies in the behavior of our cousins the chimps. Apparently our more sophisticated brains have not yet solved the riddle of peaceful coexistence.
    However, one of the most interesting hominids is the Bonobo chimpanzee, which may well be the most peaceful species of hominid on earth. Where did they come from? I should love to know the evolutionary path of the Bonobo.
    In bonobo society males are (not) the supreme leaders.
    Many claim females are the bonobo's supreme leaders.
    While some claim males and females share power.

    I heard that in bonobo society, when ever a fight happens, a large number of females, always show up to the fight.
    So when fights happen, females always outnumber the males, and females always win the fights.

    Wonderful animals: The Bonobo lifestyle



    You said/asked, The Bonobo chimpanzee, may well be the most peaceful species of hominid on earth. Where did they come from?

    Perhaps the following link tries to answer your question.

    What Would Happen If Women Ruled the World? Bonobo Society Gives Hints - Animal News: Animal Planet
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    I believe many scientists would say, (modern) homo genus species, have killed and taken away resources, from (other) homo genus species, causing them to go extinct.

    Chad.
    Hi Chad
    coupla things
    archaeology/anthropology has always suffered from projecting modern "norms" into the past
    because we have exceeded the natural carrying capacity of the earth, we are prone to conflict.

    I suspect that when modern humans entered Europe, both we, and homo sapiens neanderthalensis were small in numbers, and nowhere near reaching the carrying capacity of the land.

    (There is some evidence that during the homosapiens sapiens die-off circa 70,000ybp neanderthalensis suffered the same fate, and coming out of that the neanderthals who were more gracile, and taller, seem to have departed the archaeological record, leaving only the more robust and shorter cousins in refuge pockets.)

    There was no need for conflict.

    Added onto this, as a youth, I used to sit and listen to the old folks talk about their youths.
    One thing that stood out, was that when there were fewer of them(rural Illinois and Wisconsin), they really enjoyed meeting and greeting strangers, and (as/re their comments) everyone was therefore more polite.

    Now, if we take these bits of information, and extrapolate back to europe circa 40,000 - 70,000 ybp,
    We would not see murder as a tool which removed the other hominids.
    So where else do we look?

    Perhaps the fate of the Amer-indians whose numbers were diminished(some tribes dieing off altogether) being exposed to diseases for which they had no immunity.

    So, we could as easily extrapolate backward to europe, and postulate that what finally killed of the neanderthals was a hug.

    (ok, as in all archaeological extrapolations, that too was a guess.)


    Interesting theories Sculptor.

    I believe that there is a good chance, that the ideas above, had a part in human and H. neand. relations.
    So instead of debating them, I will let them stand untouched.


    On a personal note,

    I have always liked you Sculptor. Perhaps because of your (often) rational political views, and because you don't appear to be a racist.
    I have also noticed that you always seem to forgive me, after I say things to you, that would appear to me, to make you dislike me.

    I regret things I have said about (you).

    Chad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Headdresser View Post
    @Chad
    -
    I agree, assuming that the homo sapiens have been the most aggressive, most ruthless most racist ones makes sense. And maybe I just try to find other solutions because I don't want to look on humans that way...but on the other hand there is more than enough space on the planet. Means...even IF Homo Sapiens used to kill Neanderthals..(I think) they could't have wiped them out. The chance of one human group meeting another must have been quiet small plus...even if we tryed to wipe them out...why should we be victorious in most of the few times we met? The Neanderthaler was tougher and had equal weapons. There is no prove that we have been smarter in any way. I personally think that an aggressive species would have had another problem. Even in the early ages of mankind trade was very important. A group of Nazi-caveman killing everyone they found would have been excluded from trade and therefore from new products. And I guess this group would have fought another group because they compete for food or living space...not because they don't look like them. Plus violence is not much observed in the fossile record. The earliest human that died by an other humans force I ever heard of lived in the bronze age.
    BUT...
    what really supports your thesis is that people are telling myth about gnomes and giants almost anywhere on the earth...and that those creatures normally get asskicked by human gods or heroes. And yes...we have shown the potential the extinct others (even our own kind). But I hope that this was much more unintentionally.

    I also concede that many of your above ideas, have a good chance of accurately describing, cause/effect relations between humans and h. neand.

    The things we are talking about, happened many 1,000's of years ago, so how could any of us, know what 100% actually happened

    Since we are human, I believe all/most of our views, had a part in the subject we are talking about.

    I also hope (those things) are much more unintentionally,
    Chad.
    Headdresser likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman Headdresser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Germany
    Posts
    70
    @Hoolio

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoolio View Post
    A better question is how come out of all the primates we are the ones who have evolved quicker than the rest? We were a different species of ape entirely even to begin with seemingly not differentiating at the same time we are just as old a species and yet it seems we were the first to evolve the way we did.
    I think this is not so hard to answer. OUR (the ape-likes who lived in a valley in east-africa on a special today unknown place) apes had to cope with a the changes in the environment that others had not to.
    I think this is the most common explanation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman Headdresser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Germany
    Posts
    70
    @Chad

    I think in my next live I'll lead a Bonobo mans-right organization. Looks like there is really a need for that.
    But I think our Sexhungry relatives could be really helpful for our question as well.
    maybe if we want to know why there are so another question about them...what happens (if that happens) if a group of Bonobos meet a group of Chimpanzees?
    Do they massacre them? (Because I think compared with Bonobos other Chimps ARE aggressive)
    If our answer to the question is--humans outlived all the other hominids because they have been more aggressive or intelligent or another attitude we musn't forget the question that all this attitudes are found in the ape-kingdom as well and that no ape managed to get rid of all the other apekinds.
    So my question to you is..what kind of apes tend to displace other ape kinds...is there such an ape kind
    Maybe if we find who at least done a little what we done much...we get closer to the answer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Headdresser View Post
    @Chad

    I think in my next live I'll lead a Bonobo mans-right organization. Looks like there is really a need for that.
    But I think our Sexhungry relatives could be really helpful for our question as well.
    maybe if we want to know why there are so another question about them...what happens (if that happens) if a group of Bonobos meet a group of Chimpanzees? Do they massacre them? (Because I think compared with Bonobos other Chimps ARE aggressive)
    This is really heartwarming, Unlike regular Chimps, Bonobos welcome other Bonobo families into their midst and greet them with food sharing and love making. When food is plentiful, Bonobos will tolerate a variety of other species (even monkeys) to browse or graze with them.
    One of the researchers commented that the Bonobo was the only chimp who could go to sleep, assured that he would greet the morning safe and sound. But their very symbiotic lifestyle also limits territory and thus Bonobos cannot expand too much as they would need a different lifestyle to accomplish that.
    If our answer to the question is--humans outlived all the other hominids because they have been more aggressive or intelligent or another attitude we musn't forget the question that all this attitudes are found in the ape-kingdom as well and that no ape managed to get rid of all the other apekinds.
    So my question to you is..what kind of apes tend to displace other ape kinds...is there such an ape kind
    Maybe if we find who at least done a little what we done much...we get closer to the answer.
    IMO, the more aggressive kinds tend to displace more gentle species for a period of time, but aggression is self limiting, the prey adapts or the predator runs out of prey.
    The problem seems that every possible natural relationship seems to bring a measure of succes for awhile, then stabilizes into a sustainable survival rate as Omnivores, Carnivores, Herbivores, and other Symbiotic relationships.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Headdresser View Post
    @Chad

    I think in my next live I'll lead a Bonobo mans-right organization. Looks like there is really a need for that.
    But I think our Sexhungry relatives could be really helpful for our question as well.
    maybe if we want to know why there are so another question about them...what happens (if that happens) if a group of Bonobos meet a group of Chimpanzees?
    Do they massacre them? (Because I think compared with Bonobos other Chimps ARE aggressive)
    If our answer to the question is--humans outlived all the other hominids because they have been more aggressive or intelligent or another attitude we musn't forget the question that all this attitudes are found in the ape-kingdom as well and that no ape managed to get rid of all the other apekinds.
    So my question to you is..what kind of apes tend to displace other ape kinds...is there such an ape kind
    Maybe if we find who at least done a little what we done much...we get closer to the answer.
    It appears Bonobo's and common chimps, have been separated by a large river, for 1.5 - 2 million years.
    Bonobo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    You asked, what kind of apes tend to displace other ape kinds...is there such an ape kind? I don't know.
    But I know many different kinds of primates, can live in the same area.

    I ask this, is it common for 2 separate species of primates, who are the same size and speed, who move through the forest the same way, and eat the same foods, to live in the same area?

    Perhaps the gorilla is a huge forest ground dwelling species, is there another large primate ground dwelling species, living in the same area?
    Perhaps the baboon is large plain dwelling species, is there another similar species living in the same area?

    I am just thinking that when 2 different primate species, have the same size, the same running and climbing abilities, the same senses, the same desired foods, and live in the same area. There could just be huge problems.

    Do smaller sized primates, who are the same size and speed, and who desire the same foods, do 2 separate species ever live in the same area?


    Is it common for other species of animals, besides primates, to be the same size, same speed, and desire the same food, to live in the same area?
    Perhaps, but maybe they also fight a lot, and/or have evolved tactics to protect themselves from each other.



    But perhaps aggression and lethal force could have something to do with it.
    Humans and chimps, are 2 of the (few) species of animals, that commonly kill each other.

    I believe in most species of animals, when the same species fights each other. The individuals involved in the fight, are not commonly seriously injured.
    But when chimps fight other chimps, and humans fight other humans, they commonly kill each other.
    Last edited by chad; December 23rd, 2012 at 09:48 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Headdresser, this is a most excellent topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Another, perhaps stronger, possibility is that homo-sapiens deliberately wiped all the other hominids out. Modern humans have shown quite a capacity for racism even when the only difference is a skin tone, or known genealogy. Imagine how racist our ancestors must have been when they were faced with hominids that were actually different enough to deserve a separate classification.
    In a word, aggression, which is something that modern civility tries constantly and unsuccessfully to eradicate at all levels. Chimps, gorillas and other great apes weren't much of a threat, so humans pretty much didn't pursue them.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    There are plenty examples of "conquerors" basically exterminating other races or enslave them. I do find it interesting to see that after all the stories have been written, that all human races are well represented and seem to be working toward more symbiotic relationships.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Neanderthal's main advantage over H.Sapiens was pure strength. Studies of their bones show testosterone levels consistent with intensive steroid abuse. Their right arms were bigger and thicker than their left arms.

    Their main disadvantage was that they needed to consume a lot of food to keep their metabolism running.

    H. Sapiens biggest advantage was group size. Neanderthals were usually found in small groups maybe up to 20 at the most. H.Sapiens could organize into much larger tribes. When the time for battle came, H. Sapiens could summon an army together, but H.Neanderthalis could only get a small team together.

    So even if the total number of Neanderthals had been equal to the total number of H.Sapiens, each battle would still be something like 50 H. Sapiens vs. 10 Neanderthals. The poor Neanderthals would have fallen like so many dominos, one by one.




    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Headdresser, this is a most excellent topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Another, perhaps stronger, possibility is that homo-sapiens deliberately wiped all the other hominids out. Modern humans have shown quite a capacity for racism even when the only difference is a skin tone, or known genealogy. Imagine how racist our ancestors must have been when they were faced with hominids that were actually different enough to deserve a separate classification.
    In a word, aggression, which is something that modern civility tries constantly and unsuccessfully to eradicate at all levels. Chimps, gorillas and other great apes weren't much of a threat, so humans pretty much didn't pursue them.
    Consider why it's so hard for us to eradicate aggression. The instinct must be very strong in our genes.
    Headdresser likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 57
    Last Post: August 21st, 2012, 11:05 AM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: April 4th, 2012, 03:19 AM
  3. Homo Sapiens vs Natural Selection
    By TalkingMonkey in forum Biology
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: June 24th, 2010, 07:58 AM
  4. Replies: 14
    Last Post: February 17th, 2010, 07:03 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •