Interbreeding in early hominins

[Weizguy]

I just wrote this, thanks for the inspiration.

Off-topic, but when you say/type 'muted', I assume you mean mooted, proposed, suggested. Yeah, my boss used to use the word 'muted' in the wrong context as well

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Mmm....the creationalists wont like this thread.

 

[manticle]

Enough of the ad hominem attacks.

Couldn't help myself.

 

[Greg.L]

Levels of intelligence have been inferred from the the degree of tool complexity associated with the the remains of different species.
Sites with **** sapien remains showed associated tools of greater complexity than those from sites from an equivalent period of time associated with Neanderthal remains.
There were also archaeological sites where there were remains from both **** sapiens and Neanderthal found. In these sites there seemed to be an increas in the tool complexity when compared with a Neanderthal exclusive site. I vaguely recall that remains were discovered that blurred the lines between the two different species, suggesting the possibility of being the offspring of a mating between a sapiens and an neanderthal.

DISCLAIMER: This is half remembered from an archaeology subject I studied at uni 10 years ago.

I'm never comfortable ranking people according to their intelligence, whether modern humans or extinct species. The **** erectus were the first to really develop stone tools and fire. We have no evidence of their use of wooden tools, they just don't last so long. There were humans in Indonesia a million years ago, it isn't hard to imagine them reaching Australia around that time, even though there isn't any evidence. Human technological development is an incremental process, we wouldn't have got anywhere without those first tool users a couple of million years ago.

 

[Liam_snorkel]

The development of tools, cultivation, language etc are all direct consequences of population pressure.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

Mmm....the creationalists wont like this thread.

Don't suppose they will like this either.

http://rt.com/news/167044-uk-bans-teaching-creationism/

 

[TimT]

Off-topic, but when you say/type 'muted', I assume you mean mooted, proposed, suggested.

Nah Les I really did mean for 'muted' to be used in that context.... that is, to the extent that I meant *anything* in that blog post, which is, not much.

 

[MaltyHops]

There were also archaeological sites where there were remains from both **** sapiens and Neanderthal found. In these sites there seemed to be an increas in the tool complexity when compared with a Neanderthal exclusive site.

So did Sapiens show the Neanderthals how to move from K'n'K to AG? That's what I wanna know

 

[bullsneck]

What species came before airlock kittens?

 

[wereprawn]

What species came before airlock kittens?

Proto-airlock kittens.

 

[booargy]

So how much chimp does our wingnut leader have?

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

He is ****-fuckwittious-maximus

 

[booargy]

Or is that something else in him http://m.youtube.com/?reload=2&rdm=15gmrlbq#/watch?v=n6gdhm7GSzA

 

[surly]

I'm never comfortable ranking people according to their intelligence, whether modern humans or extinct species. The **** erectus were the first to really develop stone tools and fire. We have no evidence of their use of wooden tools, they just don't last so long. There were humans in Indonesia a million years ago, it isn't hard to imagine them reaching Australia around that time, even though there isn't any evidence. Human technological development is an incremental process, we wouldn't have got anywhere without those first tool users a couple of million years ago.

It is a tricky one Greg, it comes down to where you draw the line between people and not quite people. Neanderthal were not human, but were they people? Clearly they were much more like us than any of the current apes
I personally am not making judgement calls on intelligence or worth. Just trying to regurgitate stuff I hopefully remembered correctly.

You make an interesting point about the wood tools. There is very little evidence of stone tools from those days in China. It is thought that the prevalence of bamboo might be the case. It was too easy and convenient to make tools out of that. These did not last so we can't know what level of sophistication was achieved. The same theory might apply to the other hominids. Did neanderthals make more wood or bone tools? They were bigger and stronger than modern man, maybe our tools were developed to give us more of an edge? Who knows, but it's fun to speculate

 

[surly]

So did Sapiens show the Neanderthals how to move from K'n'K to AG? That's what I wanna know

Reckon they were steeping grains and adding hops at least

 

[manticle]

It is a tricky one Greg, it comes down to where you draw the line between people and not quite people. Neanderthal were not human, but were they people? Clearly they were much more like us than any of the current apes
I personally am not making judgement calls on intelligence or worth. Just trying to regurgitate stuff I hopefully remembered correctly.
You make an interesting point about the wood tools. There is very little evidence of stone tools from those days in China. It is thought that the prevalence of bamboo might be the case. It was too easy and convenient to make tools out of that. These did not last so we can't know what level of sophistication was achieved. The same theory might apply to the other hominids. Did neanderthals make more wood or bone tools? They were bigger and stronger than modern man, maybe our tools were developed to give us more of an edge? Who knows, but it's fun to speculate

Even judging a culture based on technology is suss. Look at Australian indigenous - people try and compare europeans building large structures and composing operas as a sign of evolutionary progression but the definition of evolutuonary success is survival and AU indigenous are the oldest living culture on the planet.
As Steve hughes once said 'Australia is hot as ******* ****. Europeans ask why the aboriginals didn't build anything....m
Because it's hot as ******* ****. You wanna build a castle?
**** that, let's go to the beach'.

 

[surly]

I think the main difference between Europe and Australia is population levels.
Australia is an arid, harsh environment. It is not capable of supporting anywhere near the population levels as Europe. This means there are fewer people and they are all further away from each other. This greatly restricts the potential for good ideas to occur AND then be passed on.
Something that has been studied in Europe is the spread of new technologies and ideas across the continent. This has been correlated against genetic trends to determine if, for instance, farming spread because the farmers were successful, thereby they and their offspring took over, or, the idea and technology spread across peoples. It looks more like the latter was true.
The more people and the more interactions between them allows for a much more rapid technological advancement.

 

[manticle]

Yes but why is evidence of technology evidence of evolutionary superiority?

 

[pk.sax]

If technology = interaction = population pressure

(As inferred from above)

Then an evolutionarily successful species would have good genetics to procreate and also good communication capability (interaction). Which, if you compare species must be better than the other species because they have outlasted them. So, more technology indirectly points to better genetic pre-disposition.

 

[jyo]

This is a very cool resource on our journey out of Africa.

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/