We have lots of evidence that about 230,000 years ago, colonies of Neandertals began to settle on the continent of Europe.  They were alone there, from what we know, until about 30,000 years ago at which time our own ancestors began to colonize Europe as well.  It has been a pretty widely accepted theory that Homo Sapiens came in and outwitted the Neandertals and managed to wipe them out by out-surviving them.  More recent evidence and evidence analysis has shown that theory is likely to be largely false.

    To begin with, Neandertal skeletons have been observed to have a larger brain case than that of the Homo Sapiens.  In general, the larger the brain in comparison to the body it's in, the smarter the creature it belongs to. Was this definitely the case with the Neandertals, we can never know, but it's a pretty well-evidenced idea in nature.

    Neandertals had been in Europe, a cold climate, particularly so for a species coming from the very warm climate of Africa, for about 200,000 years and had lots of time to adapt to their environment.  This gave them another advantage over the "invading" Homo Sapiens.  Their bone structure also suggests that they were more stocky and muscular than our ancestors probably giving them an edge when hunting.

    Perhaps the Homo Sapiens had better tools?  A year-long study done by two archaeologists on the Homo Sapiens and Neandertal tools trying to understand what it was that led to the demise of the Neandertal species.  They found that not only did the Neandertal method for making tools produce a larger cutting edge than those of Homo Sapiens, but it also wasted less material allowing them to make more tools.

    So what was it that gave us an edge over our "superior" cousins?  The first evidence we can find that gives us a clue is a flute made of mammoth ivory found in Germany.  It is the earliest archaeological evidence we have of a group of humans making music.  Why is this important?  Community.  It is music that brings creatures of all species together.  Of all of the creatures that communicate with each other within their species, most of them communicate with sound.

    Imagine, if you will, Bonobos hanging out in the forest in their family group.  These are our closest relatives in the animal kingdom and they are, like most primate species, very vocal.  As we evolved, our need to communicate with each other would not have left us, but rather, became more important.  Compared to the other hunters in our early evolutionary history, we were in no way equipped to compete as individuals.  We had no claws or large teeth to bite with and our ability to run fast enough to outrun a competing species went out when we started standing more upright.  (Four-legged animals are faster that two-legged ones.)  It was necessary for our early ancestors to remain in a group, thus outnumbering their competitors and swinging the pendulum back in our favor.  As the earliest humans evolved, so did their method of communication.

    It takes imagination to invent, which our ancestors were obviously pretty good at.  If you have imagination, it stands to reason that there would be some form of artistic products as a result.  They moved from grunts and screeches and all manner of "animal" noises to perhaps imitating the sounds of the birds they heard.  And things snowballed from there.  It is, I'm pretty sure, ingrained in us to react to music.  Different music will incite different reactions.  I can almost imagine our early ancestors encircling a fire and stomping and "singing" as they prepared for a hunt, for example.  Our sense of community was a huge advantage for us compared to Neandertals.  This also suggests inter-colony communication among the Homo Sapiens.  If the flute isn't convincing enough, how 'bout this?

    Artifacts of art have been found not just in one colony, but in almost all of them and they are all almost exactly, if not exactly, the same.  What archaeologists suspect to be fertility idols have been found all over Europe from the same period in the fossil records.  There are three conclusions you can come to with this information: 1. The different colonies of Homo Sapiens were perhaps trading with each other. 2. The different colonies were sharing information with each other on how to make them. 3. Each of the colonies happen to make the same art at the same time of their own imaginations.  That last one would be a pretty big coincidence.

    The fact that we were communicating with other groups of Homo Sapiens not only gives us the possibility that they were aiding each other with food or weapons perhaps, but it also opens the door to mixing gene pools providing for greater genetic variation, thereby increasing the chances that the processes of natural selection and evolution would make our species flourish.  The fact that there is no evidence suggesting any interbreeding between Homo Sapiens and Neandertals (DNA tests have been done and have never once come up with genetic markers exclusive to Neandertals) suggests that the Neandertals did not share this sense of community.  If Neandertals were the "traveling to look for a new mate" kind, there surely would have been some evidence of interbreeding.  I do concede, however, that this does not make it a fact, but I think it's a pretty good theory.  If Neandertals did not commute to other colonies, then it stands to reason that if the colony faced a hardship, there is a low chance of survival of the colony without help.  It also makes sense that incest would have HAD to take place among them making their gene pool highly susceptible to multiplied bad genetic mutations causing all kinds of problems for them, hindering their chances of survival.

    This idea is further evidenced by a recent study I found on the BBC News website.  It suggests that the Neandertals may have lost large portions of their numbers long before our ancestors arrived, approximately 10,000-20,000 years before.  The study looked at genetic variations in both Homo Sapiens and Neandertals to draw this conclusion.  The genetic variation in Neandertals was found to be about the same as that of modern humans, which is not very much for so early a time.

    The conclusion I've come to is that it's our sense of community that we should focus on.  Genetic variation is only a small reason I say that, though.  I'm just trying to point out how important it's been in our evolutionary past.  When we separate ourselves, we have a reason to find differences between our group and "the others".  If we find differences, that gives us a stage to pick out why our group is better.  Do you see where I'm going with this?

   Morgan Freeman, when asked what he thought of Black History Month, said it was "ridiculous".  He went on to say that Black History is American History and shouldn't be thought about one month out of the year.  He says to end racism, all we have to do is stop talking about it.  I think there's a lot of truth in that.  He said to Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes:  "I am going to stop calling you a white man and I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man." This is what we all need to do to make things better for everyone. Let's stop using labels and focus on our species as a species and look at what makes us the same instead of what makes us different. Without that, I don't think we'll be going anywhere.  I know I'm probably preaching to the choir in this forum, but I would imagine there are prejudice people in our community as well, however unlikely.

Views: 68


You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Nontheist Central on April 1, 2012 at 11:40am

Keep giving us interesting things to think about. You have a lot of good things to say.

Thanks for the kind words, Jonathan!  I enjoyed reading your thoughts as well and I agree, again, with your last post.  That is something I never really thought about before.  Not sure why...

Comment by Nontheist Central on March 31, 2012 at 6:41pm

I totally agree, Jonathan!  If we could see ourselves as one in that way, granted I don't think that would happen anytime soon, if ever, living on Earth could be so much more pleasant.  It's a good answer to a lot of the world's problems, but the chances of that happening are about as good as that of a god existing.  lol

Comment by Nontheist Central on March 29, 2012 at 12:09pm

I cant imagine Neanderthals lacked sense of community.

I'm not saying they lacked a sense of community completely, however evidence shows (from Alice Roberts) that it was much stronger in the Homo Sapiens and she uses that to form her hypothesis.  From what she showed, it seemed quite likely.

I was just looking at the BBC site to source my statement that we have evidence that the Neandertals were on a huge decline and found this.  It's a study done about 2 years ago.  Not sure how I missed this when I got the other source from the same site.  I missed on it Google too, apparently.  Looks like you were right!  A small percentage of the Eurasian human genome was found to have Neandertal DNA markers!  Looks like I'll have to edit my conclusion.

Comment by Richard ∑wald on March 28, 2012 at 4:03pm

"I have a memory of reading how neanderthal and sapiens mixed. Cant recall source."

This topic is being discussed here

Comment by Frankie Dapper on March 28, 2012 at 10:36am

NC, I have a memory of reading how neanderthal and sapiens mixed. Cant recall source. I cant imagine Neanderthals lacked sense of community. I am sure they had their cultural tags and rituals too.

The problem with community is that it enhances the sense of identity among us and emphasizes the sense that outsiders are barbarians. Even in our so called melting pot we have taken so long to reduce racism. The loathsome perpetrators of racism in the hate groups have the greatest sense of community. We cant all be in a cultural unity without losing community.

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service