”Given the ongoing revelations of Neanderthal art and technology, it is difficult to see how we can regard Neanderthals as anything other than the cognitive equals of modern humans," the study said.
I don’t keep a finger on the pulse, but seeming advances in the study of Neanderthals have been noticeable from browsing HN alone this past decade.
Are there any books or resources that look to bring a layman up to speed on the changes to and current state of the field, similar to what Mann’s 1491 did for pre-Columbian studies back in the day?
I’ve turned up Pääbo’s Neanderthal Man before, but it was focused on genetics, and could be quite technical.
It is difficult to see how we can regard Neanderthals as anything other than "the same as today just many years ago"
At the risk of being disdained by "science", I never bought the idea of pre-historic human subspecies.
The reason being is that I cannot fathom the evolutionary event that would cause our brain to develop in such a way that we evolved from "smart enough to outsmart all predators" to "completely dominate the earth and the elements".
There hasn't seemed to exist any such predator or environment where such a huge jump in brain capacity would be required.
I think that depends on how you look at it. If we're going by pure numbers, bacteria win by a landslide. Then we've got fungi which come pretty close to competing with bacteria for most numerous and widespread.
Ants probably have us beat too along with a few other insects.
But to address the point you were making. It didn't happen all at once. It was a long gradual process that occurred with huge overlap between different hominid species. The 'jump' in brain power wasn't a jump, but a slow process of selection where smarter individuals would outcompete the less intelligent ones.
For example, they would possibly hunt more efficiently, using tools and having a better memory for migration routes, they would have a better memory for dangers etc. Over time individuals better suited to this would mate and breed with others, this in turn would pass those traits on to offspring while individuals who couldn't compete would be left out and over millions of years of this and constant adaptations acquired because of this, humanity got smarter.
You haven't mentioned what to me is a much more important evolutionary pressure: other humans. Politics is a feature of the ancestral environment. Humans aren't smart because they need to out-compete other species, or a harsh environment. Other animals do this as well, and none of those are as smart (sorry octopi, elephants, dolphins and crows). Humans are so intelligent because they had to out-compete each other, in a positive feedback loop that produced where we are at today
> they would possibly hunt more efficiently, using tools and having a better memory for migration routes, they would have a better memory for dangers etc.
Sure, but those reasons aren't enough. The world has to change often enough to make that 0.001% smarter brain have an actual advantage. And slow enough that there is no extinction event. Judging by what we see nowadays, 13.8 billion years don't seem enough for those odds.
Unless the intelligence increases where such big leaps, and became the strongest dominant genes, that it didn't really matter how much time passed or how the world changed?
David Reich's "Who We Are And How We Got Here: ancient DNA and the new science of human past" covers it a bit, but only for the first couple of chapters. It's focused on genetics as well, and is a little technical but he looks at migration patterns of ancient human beings as a way to figure out where they lived and how they interacted with other human sub-species. Still a good read though!
Hardy, B. L., Moncel M.-H., Kerfant C., Lebon, Bellot-Gurlet M. L., & Mélard N. (2020). "Direct evidence of Neanderthal fibre technology and its cognitive and behavioral implications." Scientific Reports. 10(4889).
> Three groups of fibres were separated and twisted clockwise in an "S-twist". Once twisted, the strands were twined anti-clockwise in "Z-twist" to form a cord.
And hardly could they imagine the academic language used in analysing their handy work.
This seems a stretch. The art, craft and social structures of Neanderthal can only be seen as 'very primitive' compared to modern humans. This PC insistence on making them seem 'as smart as us' does no service to science.
They are similar in kind to us, in that they could master (simple) crafts. But evidence shows they often learned it from Homo Sapiens, and imperfectly at that.
I have friend who does genetic testing and had person who wasn't matching sapiens genome and compared to Neanderthal with much better match. Out of curiosity found Facebook profile and they look like Neanderthal. Is it possible that they aren't exinct?
IANAGeneticist but afaik it is known that there was interbreeding between modern humans and neanderthals and there are populations in Europe and Middle East with genetically discernible neanderthal ancestry, still your observation that they "look like a Neanderthal" is probably affected by confirmation bias.
Actually all that is known is that there is shared genetic sequences that indicate interbreeding as one possible scenario. I've heard others make the claim that the same phenomenon could have been caused by populations of sapiens that had archaic genetic features (that is shared by both sapiens and neanderthal) from much further back.
I expect the genetic picture is far more complicated than we thought or think, and "interbreeding" is a simplistic way of talking about populations. Species are, after all, a taxonomical concept we invented, not an actual thing in nature. The lines are far more blurry.
No disagreement there, just pointing that interbreeding is a natural default hypotheses given that we know that at some point their living areas began to overlap and the Neanderthals eventually disappeared as a distinct species by that taxonomy - the debates afaik are about the scale of the phenomena that is whether they were mostly absorbed by modern humans or mostly driven to extinction or even killed by them.
I think it's fairly obvious there was a giant blood war between the neanderthal and homo sapiens early on. And a mass extinction of neanderthals. Simply because they were different. If anyone has more information about it, I'd love to hear more.
A sizeable chunk (like 1-4%) of our DNA comes from Neanderthals, and there's recent evidence that they produced offspring with humans. The two coexisted and interbred for many years.
31 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 80.1 ms ] threadI don’t keep a finger on the pulse, but seeming advances in the study of Neanderthals have been noticeable from browsing HN alone this past decade.
Are there any books or resources that look to bring a layman up to speed on the changes to and current state of the field, similar to what Mann’s 1491 did for pre-Columbian studies back in the day?
I’ve turned up Pääbo’s Neanderthal Man before, but it was focused on genetics, and could be quite technical.
At the risk of being disdained by "science", I never bought the idea of pre-historic human subspecies.
The reason being is that I cannot fathom the evolutionary event that would cause our brain to develop in such a way that we evolved from "smart enough to outsmart all predators" to "completely dominate the earth and the elements".
There hasn't seemed to exist any such predator or environment where such a huge jump in brain capacity would be required.
I think that depends on how you look at it. If we're going by pure numbers, bacteria win by a landslide. Then we've got fungi which come pretty close to competing with bacteria for most numerous and widespread.
Ants probably have us beat too along with a few other insects.
But to address the point you were making. It didn't happen all at once. It was a long gradual process that occurred with huge overlap between different hominid species. The 'jump' in brain power wasn't a jump, but a slow process of selection where smarter individuals would outcompete the less intelligent ones.
For example, they would possibly hunt more efficiently, using tools and having a better memory for migration routes, they would have a better memory for dangers etc. Over time individuals better suited to this would mate and breed with others, this in turn would pass those traits on to offspring while individuals who couldn't compete would be left out and over millions of years of this and constant adaptations acquired because of this, humanity got smarter.
Sure, but those reasons aren't enough. The world has to change often enough to make that 0.001% smarter brain have an actual advantage. And slow enough that there is no extinction event. Judging by what we see nowadays, 13.8 billion years don't seem enough for those odds.
Unless the intelligence increases where such big leaps, and became the strongest dominant genes, that it didn't really matter how much time passed or how the world changed?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-61839-w
Hardy, B. L., Moncel M.-H., Kerfant C., Lebon, Bellot-Gurlet M. L., & Mélard N. (2020). "Direct evidence of Neanderthal fibre technology and its cognitive and behavioral implications." Scientific Reports. 10(4889).
And hardly could they imagine the academic language used in analysing their handy work.
They are similar in kind to us, in that they could master (simple) crafts. But evidence shows they often learned it from Homo Sapiens, and imperfectly at that.
I expect the genetic picture is far more complicated than we thought or think, and "interbreeding" is a simplistic way of talking about populations. Species are, after all, a taxonomical concept we invented, not an actual thing in nature. The lines are far more blurry.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interbreeding_between_archai...