Thread: The Neanderthal Predation Theory

Them and Us: How Neanderthal predation created modern humans - new book and theory of human origins





Now tribal reaction will go:


1) Oh! Look at the gaudy pictures of… ! This obviously is meant to…


2) This guy is not a Scientist.


3) I Haven’t Heard this before.



I’ve read the book. I was sceptical about a bit or two, but that didn’t stop it being the best thing in it’s field I’ve read in ten years.

Why?


Mostly because I hadn’t heard it before.


Also because it was a re-synthesis of existing data that is not new, and is largely plausible (except for those bits).

But - every theory of human evolution has those bits.


So.

Im sorry, what is the point you would like to discuss?

A few observations.
1. Every crackpot theory seems to be preceded by a reference to Alfred Wegener, so that raises a red flag in my mind.
2. They make reference to a recent study which shows that Neanderthals disappeared almost immediately after contact with homo sapiens. This is supposed to support a theory where the Neanderthals almost wiped out homo sapiens.
3. The homo sapiens in the Levant who had the contact with Neanderthals are supposed to be the ancestors of all modern humans. What happened to the other humans who did not have contact with Neanderthals?

>> Every crackpot theory seems to be preceded by a reference to Alfred Wegener, so that raises a red flag in my mind. >>> 1. Every crackpot theory seems to be preceded by a reference to Alfred Wegener, so that raises a red flag

The fact that " Alfred Wegener" wasn't raised at all raises a red flag.

Originally Posted by Vexer

>> Every crackpot theory seems to be preceded by a reference to Alfred Wegener, so that raises a red flag in my mind. >>> 1. Every crackpot theory seems to be preceded by a reference to Alfred Wegener, so that raises a red flag

The fact that " Alfred Wegener" wasn't raised at all raises a red flag.

This is from the web site advertising the book:

"In reading this book, I could not help but think of Alfred Wegener's hypothesis of Continental Drift, put forward in 1915. Wegener's hypothesis was scorned by many at the time .."

Do you have any comments on my other points?

>>>3. The homo sapiens in the Levant who had the contact with Neanderthals are supposed to be the ancestors of all modern humans. What happened to the other humans who did not have contact with Neanderthals? >>

They were out-competed by the post Neanderthals-mix. Evolution



>> Do you have any comments on my other points?

My close reading of what you wrote, the above was your only "point".

So the Australian migration was of people who had wiped out the Neandertals? The San and Bantu of southern Africa are the descendants of Neandertal exterminators?

The genetic diversity of Africa must have happened in a hurry, then - and the lack of similar diversity on the very location of the Neandertal's demise, the source and longest habitation of modern humans, is a bit of a puzzle.

>> So the Australian migration was of people who had wiped out the Neandertals?

Not sure what you mean. Australia? Humans arrived in Australia much later than the period being discussed.


>> The San and Bantu of southern Africa are the descendants of Neanderthal exterminators?<<

If you’d understood the concept, you wouldn’t have used the term “exterminators”. I can only recommend you read something about which you are commenting on.

This is from the Them and Us website that is promoting the book:

This Levantine group became the founding population of all humans living today.

It appears Neanderthals died out earlier than thought – roughly around the same time they came into contact with modern humans.

That means a big, hairy, prehistoric finger could be pointing squarely at our ancestors..."

Hence, the claim is being made, at least on the web site, that the humans who came in contact with Neanderthals caused their extinction, and then became the founding population of all humans, including Australians and Southern Africans. Are you saying the promotional material does not accurately describe the contents of the book?

>>Are you saying the promotional material does not accurately describe the contents of the book? <<

The text you almost-quoted, certainly.

No one really knows the reason for the Neanderthal's disappearance or the relationship between homo sapiens and Nenderthals. For all we know is that the Neanderthals may have interbreeding with homo sapiens and there genetic pool blended in with our massive gene pool, one theory. Do we have DNA from our ancestor homo sapiens to determine if our genetics really was the same? The answer is no so everything is merely speculative.

For all we know is that the Neanderthals may have interbreeding with homo sapiens and there genetic pool blended in with our massive gene pool, one theory.

That one is pretty much proven; Europeans share genes only found in Neanderthal and no other humans.

The claim that groups like the South African Khoesan were descendent's of the Levantine group seems pretty far fetched considering they have more divergent genes which suggest they are much older than the Levantine descendant populations such as the European or Asian populations.

Then you find out he's not published his work in a peer-review journal, or apparently even tried. He's a movie maker though and knows how to tug at people psyche with the imagery of the evil monsters that go all the way back to the Victorian age with depiction of a brutish, evil, cannibalistic, raping monster people---(there's actually more evidence of Sapians eating each other).

It appears to be money motivated junk science of the type we see all too often slung to the uncritical masses--a modern carnie (shrugs)

Sounds like one of those "nondisprovable - therefore true!!!" stories. The abduction of mates thing isn't unlikely. Primitive human cultures, like the Mongols practiced that into the Middle ages. Ghengis Khan's mother was one such victim, and his whole career as a raider began when people from a neighboring tribe abducted his wife and he had to fight to get her back. It wouldn't be a "difference" between Neanderthals and us. However, it leads to the question: why would Neanderthal males be attracted to human (or homo-erectus) females rather than their own females?

Also, why would they eat a species that's similar enough to them to be sexually compatible? I could understand it as a ritual cannibalism thing, but not as a primary source of nutrition.

I am not sure past or even current genetic diversity studies, combined with our understanding of how rapid genetic diversity can expand or retract within human populations, can, with any reliability, be used as a measuring stick to determine the chronological order of human populations or the geographical origins of those populations.

The data and methods which have been used and are being used to determine/calculate genetic diversity within human populations yields results that are in stark contrast with the new results being publish by the Neandertal genome project and the Denisovan genome results.

It just seems completely impossible that Africans can be absolutely void of at least 1-10% (reported thus far) of the genetic material found throughout the rest of the worlds populations, according to the Neandertal Genome Project and the Denisovan genome results, and yet still be the most genetically diverse population on the earth. It does not matter how all non-Africans gained or retained at least 1-10% of this ancient DNA, the fact remains that all Non Africans did not gain it or retain it from Africans and the studies done on the genetic diversity of human populations have been, at best, misguided in their approach and/or conclusions.

A recent study done shows that more than half (reported thus far) of the HLA alleles in non-African Immune Systems were also gained or retained by non-African populations through their ancestors (Non-African Archaic Humans) who evolved and were evolving outside of Africa long before Modern African Humans existed. Again though, it does not matter how all non-Africans gained or retained over 50% of these HLA alleles from their Archaic Human Ancestors who evolved outside of Africa, the fact remains that all Non Africans did not gain it or retain it from Africans.

Double post.. Sorry.

>>Sounds like one of those "nondisprovable - therefore true!!!"

How is it different from any other theory of human origns, in that regard? Not at all?

Originally Posted by Vexer

>>Sounds like one of those "nondisprovable - therefore true!!!"

How is it different from any other theory of human origns, in that regard? Not at all?

Multi-Regional human evolution actually has solid DNA evidence to support it, and no other human evolution/origin theory does.