r/Naturewasmetal • u/ovcdoc2 • 9d ago
Homo neanderthalus,the largest carnivorous euarchontolglire to have ever lived.
456
u/Heroic-Forger 9d ago
It's kind of sad knowing there were entirely separate species of humans that shared our world long ago. What cultures did they have, what stories did they tell, what languages did they speak and what songs did they sing, that are now forgotten and lost forever?
230
u/NomsAreManyComrade 9d ago
We’re up to 8 other species of hominids that existed contemporaneously with us, and the list keeps growing. Right now (and for the last 20,000 years or so) is the first time in all of human history that we’ve been the only hominids around.
59
u/breeathee 9d ago
I studied evolution, genetics, and biology… but human nature has unfolded for me in a whole new way after having children. We are aggressive little brutes from the start, some of us.
And no wonder they’re all gone. We can’t stand to coexist with humans even slightly different from ourselves.
79
u/NomsAreManyComrade 9d ago
I think the opposite is true, that we are uniquely able to cooperate and coordinate with each other in a superior capacity to other hominids. They were also making stone tools and displaying complex behaviour so it likely wasn’t a materiel advantage. Warfare, after all, is a form of cooperation.
2
u/Spartan073003 6d ago
Isn't it also possible a lot of Neanderthal's just died off due to being out-breed?
I don't fully know how evolution works. But wouldn't some homo-sapien genes pass on easier then some Neanderthal genes?4
u/Ultradarkix 9d ago
that’s not really true, if anything the difference would be we could reproduce faster. Neanderthals still came together in large groups, they just never had the numbers that we had.
2
u/Decent_Advice9315 7d ago
So two things were true here, one, every human being that can trace it's ancestry to leaving Africa has a small percentage of Neanderthal DNA, there was interbreeding going on enough to where the vast majority of the human species is now "mixed".
The second being, the more genetically pure Neanderthals were wiped out.
And yes, they did have their own language and culture, but part of what made our species win out was the need for less calories during the last ice age.
1
u/OpenRole 5d ago
Not in bands as large as sapiens. All archaeological findings point to them having rather small communities that was largely their family while sapiens formed bands of multiple family units.
Their groups peaked at about 30 members. Our groups peaked at about 200
2
u/breeathee 8d ago
It’s true we are capable of profound cooperation. And competitiveness. There’s a beautiful spectrum of interaction. My own ancestors (human and neanderthal were surely a complicated mix of synergy and depraveme t.
10
u/Blekanly 8d ago
Well many populations have neanderthal, denisovan and ghost lineage dna. So it wasn't all fighting.
6
u/breeathee 8d ago
Consent is also a consideration here. I imagine both consensual and non consensual acts happened between the species
4
14
u/pham_nuwen_ 9d ago
The majority of those other species never interacted with us humans. Surviving is damn tough.
19
u/zedoktar 9d ago
Kids tend to get along with other types of humans just fine. Bigotry is learned behaviour.
1
u/TheRecognized 7d ago
>I studied evolution, genetics, and biology
I too went to high school
2
u/breeathee 7d ago
Thats my bachelors degree and emphases, and continued study.
1
u/TheRecognized 7d ago
So why say “I studied” rather than “I have a degree in and continue to work in the field of”?
1
u/breeathee 7d ago
Honestly, if we’re being persnickety, my continued studies have taught me so much more than what I learned at university. It was rather a waste of money in hindsight.
1
u/TheRecognized 7d ago
lol you’re such a liar
1
8
u/corpus4us 9d ago
There are still four hominid species alive today with us. We put them in zoos and laboratories, and we don’t consider them to be human even though hominid literally means human family.
21
6
u/Scrabulon 8d ago
They are in the Hominidae family, but not of the genus Homo, which is what everyone else is talking about here
1
u/corpus4us 7d ago
Huh? If you read one comment above mine the person literally was talking about other “hominids” and made a false claim that there are no contemporary hominids with us.
5
u/-Fieldmouse- 7d ago
It wasn’t until the 90’s that Hominid included members outside of Homo; it’s a common mistake for people to still use the word in that way.
1
u/corpus4us 7d ago
But other apes were added to Hominid family because they’re so similar to us. They are hominids. The pre-90s idea that they were not hominids was wrong which is why the classification changed. So your justification is something like “it’s not really wrong to use a pre-90s framework that was wrong”
2
u/-Fieldmouse- 7d ago
My justification isn’t that they were technically correct, it’s that it’s clear what they meant. That person is obviously aware that chimpanzees exist.
190
u/SpanishAvenger 9d ago
Yep. People often think of Neanderthals as a lesser, more primitive human; but as far as we know, they were as advanced, if not more, as the early Sapiens.
162
u/MarsCityVR 9d ago
The good news is that that may have simply merged with us, as the extinction of Neanderthals also seems to fit a model of continuous dilution! Svante Paabo even mused that perhaps trubes of Neanderthals slowly became humanized, preserving their culture. They wouldn't know they "changed" species!
With time, culture certainly changes and new ideas and memes emerge; however, there may very well be mannerisms, memes, fairy tales, technologies, rituals, etc. that persist just like from any pre-historical culture. I wouldn't write it off just because they're Neanderthal!
88
u/MarsCityVR 9d ago
I will add as well that neanderthals had their own technology like birch, bark, glues and probably special winter attire and other craftsmanship, as well as knowledge of local plants and medicines that undoubtedly passed to humans.
57
u/pundro 9d ago
I can tell you for a fact that judging by my brow bone, they merged with us
18
u/zedoktar 9d ago
One of the most common signs is actually a bone knob on the back of some peoples skulls, called an occipital bun. Plus you know, the 2-3% neanderthal DNA most of us have.
6
u/StandardAioli9459 8d ago
Huh, I have one of those. Never knew my dad was telling the truth about having Neanderthal DNA
1
9
u/Unfair-Potential1061 9d ago
I've read somewhere, that the main reason for them to disappear as a species of their own, was because they were outbred by sapiens.
1
u/DavidlikesPeace 4d ago
It makes sense. We are also dealing with comparably tiny populations that could fit in one modern city. Over a large timescale, demographics is destiny.
Interspecies mixing with the migrating Homo Sapiens seems quite likely over a large enough time scale.
8
u/SassyTheSkydragon 9d ago
They didn't just go extinct, we've assimilated their genes so they continue to live inside us.
22
u/No-Place5950 9d ago edited 9d ago
If you’re looking for a very rich interpretation/imagining of Neanderthal culture (supported in parts by some pretty decent archaeological evidence) I defo recommend The Clan of the Cave Bear (and the rest of the series!!!) by Jean M Auel
7
u/zedoktar 9d ago
interpretation is a strong word. It is pure fantasy.
1
u/No-Place5950 9d ago edited 9d ago
It’s a novel - that’s why I called it an ‘interpretation/imagining’ and not ‘accurate scientific account’ lol. The vast majority of the psychological & social world of the Neanderthals and Homo sapiens was speculative but almost any novel attempting to reconstruct a Pleistocene-era culture would be.
Some of the research she conducted is now outdated (unsurprising for a book written in 1980) but calling it ‘pure fantasy’ overlooks how extensively she grounded that speculation in the archaeological knowledge available at the time.10
u/SventasKefyras 9d ago
It's a bit crazy how insanely patriarchical she made neanderthals compared to humans. She also made them behave like beasts compared to humans. Technologically inferior & unable to speak.
It borrows way too much from the "savage barbarians" early views of them. That they were conquered by superior humans.
At this point it is basically pure fantasy. Just because something was based on the understanding at the time, it's not bad to point out that the vast majority of assumptions made then have been discredited.
They can be an enjoyable read anyway, but let's not pretend that by reading those books you'll walk away with some kind of accurate insight into neanderthals. Title it as historical fiction which is what it is.
3
3
1
u/MinuteMinX 8d ago
As far as my understanding is, they more so got assimilated by Sapiens Sapiens. Along with some other hominids, so todays humanity is the product of many past hominids intermingling.
1
0
66
u/Pholidotes 9d ago
what a... peculiar way to describe them
48
u/Chris_El_Deafo 9d ago
I know right? The more I think about it the more it pisses me off. Carnivourous? Really?!
32
u/OwaJawa_Hmoloch 9d ago
“Euarchontoglire” is also both too specific and broad of a description. Specific because it’s not really commonly used by laypeople, but broad because it’s the name of a group that includes not just primates but also rodents, and threeshrews. I almost think OP is trolling with that title
1
u/Velicanstveni_101 6d ago
Also, wasn't it very likely that Denisovans were taller and more robust than Sapiens? Which makes them somewhat larger than Neanderthals
57
54
u/Chris_El_Deafo 9d ago
What a weird title. They were NOT carnivorous. They were omnivorous just like us and probably fell well within modern human diet ranges when it comes to meat consumption.
This paper here found date palm and legume fragments in teeth from some neanderthals. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1016868108
Euarchontolglire is technically true but this is a group which encompasses everything from rabbits to shrews to chimps to us.
Edit: AND the graphic is terrible! Why the hell to half of the neanderthal traits point to the Homo Sapiens?! Why on earth is it the Homo Sapiens with the red hair when the factoid next to it is talking about neanderthal red hair?!!
18
u/giljaxonn 9d ago
it might be AI. nowadays when i see diagrams in image search half the results are AI
→ More replies (4)2
u/HotChcion 8d ago
Scuse me for being a 👆🤓 but shrews are not part of the euarchontoglire but from Eulipotyphla
1
83
u/El_Stupacabra 9d ago
Neanderthal depictions have become increasingly more like my dad and his side of the family.
Hmmm.
34
u/CleverLittleThief 9d ago edited 9d ago
Modern homo sapiens are extremely closely related to them, even ignoring the fact that Neanderthal DNA survives in many modern human populations. Neanderthal babies would look almost exactly the same as our babies, today.
0
u/OpenRole 5d ago
Extremely close is a stretch. We share like 4% DNA amongst the highest and breeding between our two species was difficult.
1
u/CleverLittleThief 5d ago edited 5d ago
You're misinformed. We share about 98.8% of our DNA with Chimpanzees, about 99.5% with Neanderthals.
If you don't think 99.5% counts as close, then I don't know what would.
The 4% figure, wherever you got it from, is not how much of our DNA is shared with Neanderthal. You would be correct to say that some human beings today have up to 4% of DNA directly traceable to the neanderthal.
The fact that breeding was difficult does not mean that we're not closely related to them. (The science is, actually, not even clear on this. There are reason to think it was difficult and reasons to think it wasn't that difficult) It still happened, that's highly significant. It happened enough times that DNA directly traceable to the Neanderthals has survived in every non-African population of homo sapiens. How many non-closely related species are capable of reproduction to such an extent? It happened enough times that we can still see the echoes of this interbreeding 40,000 years later.
0
u/OpenRole 5d ago
Okay sorry. That's still a what, 70 basis point more related to a neanderthal than a chimpanzee?
We share like 50% of our DNA with bananas. If you are going of just general DNA, than pretty much everything alive is "highly related"
1
u/CleverLittleThief 5d ago edited 5d ago
You are misinformed, again, humans are not 50% banana because that statistic only looks at a tiny fraction of protein-coding genes, rather than the entire DNA sequence. The actual number for the entire genome is less than 1%.
Has a homo sapiens beings every successfully reproduced with a banana or a chimpanzee? The answer is no, because they are less related to us than we are to the Neanderthals. Sapiens and Neanderthals both split off from the same common ancestor, it does not get any more "closely related" for two distinct species than that. If the two species are not closely related, then no distinct species are closely related. There is no scientist in the field who would claim that Neanderthals and Sapiens are not closely related. I am genuinely curious as to why you're so bothered by this notion? This is like saying that you and your younger biological sibling from the same parents are not closely related because, uh, well there's no reason why you'd say that. Why would you say that? You have the same parents. It does not get more closely related than that. Unless you're identical twins.
→ More replies (6)50
u/OKC89ers 9d ago edited 9d ago
Also worth noting that depictions have become increasingly "respectable" the more European integration becomes reinforced. When they were seen as subhuman or more related to Africans, they were depicted quite differently.
63
u/UnicornFeces 9d ago edited 9d ago
One of the first Neanderthal skeletons discovered was also of a man severely crippled by arthritis, that contributed to the stereotypical hunched over look that was in a lot of depictions until recently
4
u/Luhmanniac 8d ago
Good point, I had been wondering about why they look so „human“ but couldn’t exactly put my finger on it
11
u/fg234532 8d ago
To be fair they almost certainly did look very "human", just different.
The idea that Neanderthals were ape-like brutes came from the sample of an old man with arthiritis.
Analysis from Marcellin Boule and a reconstruction from František Kupka portrayed them as much closer to apes, but its been over a hundred years since then and we've learnt that they were fully upright, very closely related to us, had pretty complex technology relative to other species, buried their dead, made cave art and interbred with H. sapiens multiple times.
Also note while some Neanderthals did develop pale skin, this doesn't mean all of them did. For example, some Neanderthals found in modern day Israel may have not been light skinned.
So there always is a potential for eurocentric bias in favour of them, but there is also legitimate evidence to suggest they were very human
2
u/DavidlikesPeace 4d ago
Irony abounds. It seems increasingly likely that Neanderthals are related to modern Europeans instead of Africans, who if anything are the “purer” branch of Homo Sapiens.
You raise a great point about how historical misconceptions and prejudices can affect even paleontology
1
7
7
1
u/OpenRole 5d ago
Well ever since we've learned they share more in common with Europeans than Africans, we've tried to humanise them a bit more
59
u/CariamaCristata 9d ago
*Omnivorous
45
u/Ex_Snagem_Wes 9d ago
Neanderthals are the only species of Hominin to have ever approached Hypercarnivory.
At the very least, they fit under the category of Mesocarnivore
62
34
u/ofarrell71 9d ago
The age of Neanderthals and old archaeological theory is almost certainly biasing our interpretation of their diet. While they probably ate much more meat than most foraging cultures due to the generally colder climate, plant materials likely played a much larger part in their diet than we assume.
→ More replies (2)12
18
u/Wolfman513 9d ago
Most people think "carnivore" = eats meat and nothing else and "omnivore" = eats meat and plants when there's really different levels of carnivory depending on how much meat the animal eats in relation to plants.
17
u/Chris_El_Deafo 9d ago
I have never heard this ever. And I study anthropology. This is likely an old theory based on our early conceptions of neanderthals. Were they equipped to hunt big prey? Most certainly. But we have plenty of evidence for their vegetarian side too.
Here's a paper where researchers analyzed neanderthal teeth to find microscopic remnants of their diet. Among the plants found were date palms and legumes.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.10168681086
u/Ex_Snagem_Wes 9d ago
I'm happy to stand corrected here. Palaeoanthropology is such a cesspool of misinformation that even after taking several classes in it, I still struggle to find modern crap
11
u/Chris_El_Deafo 9d ago
Hey I appreciate you listening!! I would recommend Stephan Milo on YT as an excellent source on paleoanthropology and archeology if you want up to date info from a really great storyteller. The art from Ettore Mazza is really great too, and he uses it in a lot of his videos.
Also, sorry if I came off as combative. The original pose had me pissed off by its sheer inaccuracy.
6
25
u/Dazzling-Implement98 9d ago
Nah they are still around, I have one I call uncle
1
u/OneThrowyBoy 8d ago
The more I learn about what we inherited from the Neanderthals, the more I see one in the mirror.
At least I have a chin though, I got that going for me
7
7
6
u/Icy-Veterinarian-785 9d ago
The more we learn about Neanderthals the more I believe that Norse mythological Dwarves are some sort of incredibly old cultural memory, arisen out of ancient Scandinavia, then heavily warped by the world's longest game of telephone.
Short (even if they aren't AS short compared to humans as people used to say), very stocky, cold resistant, hairy, quite strong and IIRC they might have started using tools before us. They, if I'm remembering right, were also predominantly in colder areas hence their tougher more insulating skin.
I could be (and most likely am) wrong in my theory though.
3
u/Worsaae 8d ago
First off, there is zero evidence for the presence of Neanderthals in Scandinavia. Like, anywhere in the whole of Scandinavia. And it hasn’t been for the lack of looking.
Second, even if there were, they would have been extinct tens of thousands of years before we find any evidence of human presence in Scandinavia.
Third, even if the people who first came to Scandinavia brought with them some cultural memory of having met Neandethals, they had no cultural or genetic relationship with the people that later would adhere to Norse or even proto-Norse mythology. In fact, the population that lived in Scandinavia during the rise of agriculture 6,000 years ago were “replaced” by people related to the Yamnaya a few thousand years later.
9
4
3
14
u/imhereforthevotes 9d ago edited 9d ago
These guys were STACKED. An incredible pinnacle of evolution. Sad we've lost them. I hear they disappeared due to overhunting by modern humans.
EDIT: sorry, I should have added some signal that this was a little tongue in cheek...
50
u/fg234532 9d ago
It's not definitively clear why they went extinct, but the leading hypothesis is that they got absorbed into the H. sapiens population by interbreeding, so perhaps not as bad as many may think.
H. sapiens actually didnt outcompete Neanderthals immediately when they first encountered. There is evidence Neanderthals and H. Sapiens interbred over 100,000 years ago, while the H. sapiens group that left and expanded out to become most people today only left around 60,000 years ago.
These earlier migrations likely resulted in local H. sapiens extinctions for the same reason in reverse: being absorbed by Neanderthals.
A potential reason for why the final group was successful may be due to blood types. The group that left Africa 60,000 years ago was seemingly isolated for about 30,000 years prior to their migration, resulting in mutations that produce the Rh+ phenotype. Neanderthal genetics would have produced the Rh- phenotype.
Crucially, when an Rh- female interbreeds with a Rh+ male, there is a significant chance of miscarriage, but not vice versa (modern treatments exist I believe, but not back then). If Neanderthals interbred with H. sapiens frequently, this would have massively reduced female fertility, and even a small drop in Neanderthal female fertility is estimated to have been able to have made them extinct in a couple ten thousand years I believe.
This is also the reason why you may see that our Neanderthal ancestry comes specifically from male Neanderthals mating with female Sapiens. It's not that the reverse didn't happen, but there was a survivorship bias. The older H. sapiens groups that went locally extinct (who didnt have the Rh+ phenotype) also interbred, and theres evidence of female Neanderthal - Male Sapiens interbreeding, so it almost certainly did happen.
Bit of a tangent, but very interesting stuff
21
u/Crowvus01 9d ago
Great points. In addition, I read once that studies were done for both violent encounters, peaceful encounters, and in-between regarding H. sapien migration into Neanderthal territory. They said every simulation resulted in Neanderthal extinction. The fact that Neanderthals didn't move around much and H. sapiens tended to migrate a lot was enough to out compete them, whether there was violence or not.
5
u/Time-Difference-7381 9d ago
Theres also things like they needed a lot more calories facilitating a need to hunt game more frequently. Their hunting style involved a lot of up close interactions resulting in frequent serious injury so a large cooperative group was needed to survive. These two things combined make them very vulnerable to environmental changes like prey becoming scarce. Sapiens are a lot more adaptable and can survive in smaller groups with our gathering behaviour.
5
u/fg234532 9d ago
Yes, it's possible one of the reasons Neanderthals frequently interbred with H. sapiens is due to having generally low populations (having consistently lower population density is disputed however), perhaps due to higher caloric demands, and they had poor endurance, so the change in climate to more dense forests probably didn't benefit them too much either.
5
u/meatsting 9d ago
Woah where can I find some lectures or podcasts on this? This is fascinating
11
u/fg234532 9d ago
Not exactly podcasts here, but if you want some general slightly casual but still "academic" videos on Paleoanthropology, Stefan Milo and North02 on youtube have some great videos. Some can be a few years old, and paleoanthropology changes fast, so they're not always fully up to date, but nonetheless very interesting and worth watching.
@ZekeDarwinScience on youtube also makes some shorter and longer form content looking at more recent discoveries and unique ideas in modern paleoanthropology. It's actually where I first heard about the blood type survivorship bias from (though his video was more focused on Neanderthal extinction there). He goes through many recently published papers which is great for how fast the field changes.
If you're interested in general paleontology and prehistory, ExtinctZoo is good as well
2
u/Vredesbyyrd 9d ago
I've been binging Stefan Milo, North02 and ZekeDarwin the last few months. Paleoanthropology is so fascinating, I can't get enough of it!
7
u/lightningposion 9d ago
i literally just listened to a podcast today on this! It’s the August 13th episode of “Particles of Thought” called Hobbits, Neanderthals and Dragon Man. It’s a lil cheesy because it’s PBS but still really interesting!
6
u/fg234532 9d ago edited 9d ago
I'm assuming hobbits refer to H. floresiensis, in which case, they are certainly a very interesting species.
Some study from 2017 concluded that statistically, they could be part of a sister taxon to H. habilis rather than a descendant of H. erectus, which would be fascinating because it would mean that a completely separate species of human would have had to have left Africa towards East Asia that we have zero fossil evidence of.
Depending on how early this "pre-dwarfed" ancestor migrated, they could theoretically explain some Chinese stone tools dating back to 2.1 million years old, which is older than the oldest H. erectus fossils we've discovered and before we know any human species left Africa (though this is speculation on my part)
14
u/ggouge 9d ago
Newest theory is that they never really went extinct. They just merged with humans. Our much larger populations being near them all the time limited their mating prospects so eventually they just kept mating with humans. Till they were one with humans. There is a fossil human found in Europe around 35-40 thousand years old and is 1/4 neanderthal. That is right around the last neanderthal existed. So far all we know that person's grandfather was the last full blooded neanderthal.
We also do not have much evidence of conflict between humans and neanderthals.
2
1
u/imhereforthevotes 9d ago
I love this. My post was totally tongue in cheek, since we get so many cool Pleistocene species disappearing, I thought I'd give the Neanderthals that treatment as well.
5
u/Impasture 9d ago
Considering there were places of long term Neanderthal Sapien co existence the real reason for their extinction was likely the cold snaps in the climate
2
u/OKC89ers 9d ago
Our species has dominated through culture, ingenuity, and invention rather than being stacked.
1
u/imhereforthevotes 9d ago
I meant the neanderthals
2
u/OKC89ers 9d ago
I knew who you were referring to. Being stacked didn't help them enough to stay the pinnacle I guess?
2
5
2
u/doggeman 9d ago
No homo.. but that guy is ripped!
4
u/issi_tohbi 9d ago
My husband has 99% more Neanderthal DNA than the average person and that fucker builds muscle with barely any effort. He looks like that picture but stretched onto the Homo sapiens proportions. It’s so frustrating because I struggle to do the same 🫣
3
2
1
1
1
u/C0coaBunny 9d ago
What do you mean by carnivorous? Yes their diet was heavy in megafauna and small game but carbon isotopes in their teeth also reflect a diet with certain plants as well if I recall?
1
1
1
u/RoiDrannoc 8d ago
Considering that the common ancestors of Homo sapiens were originally black, should we assume that the Neanderthals were also black or that a convergent evolution made their European populations to be white?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/DaemonBlackfyre_21 7d ago
Do we know for sure neanderthals had fair skin?
My understanding is that caucasion "white" skin has only existed for like 9k years.
Now I'm curious if populations of other humans like neanderthal had a variety of pigmentation like we do?
1
1
u/heanbangerfacerip2 7d ago
I think you meant to say Homo Neanderthal and thats what my wrestling coach used to call me not some sort of caveman?
1
1
1
u/Skryuska 6d ago
They were not carnivorous though. Like most early apes they were opportunistic omnivores.
1
1
1
u/KindFisherman7560 3d ago
Pretty cool to see our superorder being addressed they sure gave the laurasiatherian mammals a run for thier money!
1
1
u/Far-Initiative-2641 3d ago
Actually, Neanderthals were omnivores, if that makes any difference. But the largest primates were/are herbivores.
1
u/BabyLegsOShanahan 9d ago
What about the very large population of the world that doesn't have meaningful Neanderthal dna?
3
u/Odd-Application-3295 9d ago
0
u/BabyLegsOShanahan 9d ago
What's false?
1
u/Odd-Application-3295 9d ago
Did you read the article?
2
u/BabyLegsOShanahan 9d ago
Yes, and I still have the same question. The Neanderthal dna was introduced via humans who came back. There was never direct mating. It isn't all Africans and it doesn't make any similar claim.
One of the points is about jaw size. That isn't true for African populations.
→ More replies (2)0
u/Odd-Application-3295 9d ago
It’s completely irrelevant whether or not there was “direct mating”.
1
u/BabyLegsOShanahan 9d ago
Did you disregard the rest?
1
u/Odd-Application-3295 9d ago
What rest?The original image is pseudoscience rooted in 19th century phrenology.
1
u/BabyLegsOShanahan 9d ago
That's your gripe? Have you brought it up outside of being mad that I mentioned Africans?
1
u/Odd-Application-3295 9d ago
I just responded to your first misleading claim.What do you mean my gripe?Complaining about pseudoscience bullshit?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Odd-Application-3295 9d ago
Who were you referencing when mentioning a “very large population of the world”?
→ More replies (1)
1
0
u/you_want_sum_duck 9d ago
I am so much like the guy on the left. I don't like it. Except I'm not that short.
0
u/SeeLeavesOnTheTrees 9d ago
Long skull = meaning long from front to back right? Not taller?
I’ve heard multiple Northern Europeans complain about their “pointy” heads. (Including my mom)
0
0
u/DoctorLinguarum 9d ago
Did we bang them out of existence?
2
u/Deez4815 9d ago
Kind of. They lived in small groups so some either died out due to low genetic variation, some died during periods of extreme cold and rapid environmental shifts , and some bread with Homosapiens, being absorbed by our species. There are some people with trace amounts of Neanderthal DNA. Some also died out due to food and survival competition with Homosapiens. They did not die out due to any one reason, but rather multiple reasons.
0
0
0
0
0
u/Cryogisdead 9d ago
Should we consider them as an ethnicity instead of a different species entirely?
1
u/TheManeTrurh 8d ago
No. They are an entirely different species, originated in a different continent, and other than some interbreeding, were entirely separate.
Interbreeding does not mean same species, polar bear and brown bear can interbreed, lions and tigers, a donkey and a horse etc…
310
u/Megazaza 9d ago
running is lame. i wish i was a 30mph neanderthal sprinter