Jump to content

Homo Sapiens eyes - Dogs - Extinction of Neanderthal


Recommended Posts

norseman
BFF Donor

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/world-s-oldest-homo-sapiens-fossils-found-morocco

 

Our species is much older than 45,000 years old. 
 

And was in Europe 42,000 years ago.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
BlackRockBigfoot
BFF Donor

Neanderthal women also had a differently shaped birth canal and were giving birth to babies with a more robust, i.e. less flexible skeleton.

 

I am like Norse... I don't know what sort of point you are trying to make.  You are shotgun blasting out information (some of it ten years out of date) mixed with conjecture.  

 

"Pure Neanderthals were long gone before dog domestication."  Dogs were domesticated up to 40,000 years ago...around the same time that Neanderthals went extinct.  You are using numbers which have been out of favor for quite awhile.

 

"There is no technical edge sapiens had over Neanderthal."  You then go on about how sapiens used needles to adapt and flourish...which (as far as we know right now) Neanderthals did not.  Which kind of proves Norse's point of technological advantage aiding in homo sapiens' survival over Neanderthal...the point which you were trying to disprove.  The use of technology gives an advantage.  If opposing sides both have the possibility of developing the same technology, but only one side is able to develop and use it...that side had a technological advantage.  The Nazis COULD have developed an atomic bomb first...the possibility of developing the technology was there.  But, they didn't.  Therefore the Allies had a technological advantage.  

 

"Neanderthal women who would have come into heat once a year following the pattern of northern mammals."  I am still confused by this.  There is a theory that a slight drop in fertility rates (due to scarcity of food caused by change in climate) could have led to their extinction given their overall low numbers.  But, you are saying that Neanderthal women only had the physical ability to ovulate once every twelve month cycle.  You tie this somehow into the frequency which a wolf goes into heat compared to a domesticated dog.   Where are you getting this information that Neanderthals were only fertile for a short window of time only once every year?  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Henry Stevens
On 2/18/2021 at 3:31 PM, hiflier said:

 

I think this is what I'm not understanding all that well.

 

This is not a trick answer.  Wolves come into heat ONCE a year as do most northern animals (if not all).  So reindeer, elk, buffalo, bears, mountain lions, for example, are all only fertile once a year.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

 

1 hour ago, Henry Stevens said:

Wolves come into heat ONCE a year as do most northern animals (if not all)

 

For the most part with exceptions, so not all. But you made the inference to include Neanderthals which is what I meant by not understanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBorn
Moderator
On 2/18/2021 at 6:51 PM, BlackRockBigfoot said:

There is no technical edge sapiens had over Neanderthal."  You then go on about how sapiens used needles to adapt and flourish...which (as far as we know right now) Neanderthals did not.  Which kind of proves Norse's point of technological advantage aiding in homo sapiens' survival over Neanderthal...the point which you were trying to disprove.  The use of technology gives an advantage.  If opposing sides both have the possibility of developing the same technology, but only one side is able to develop and use it...that side had a technological advantage.  The Nazis COULD have developed an atomic bomb first...the possibility of developing the technology was there.  But, they didn't.  Therefore the Allies had a technological advantage.

My question to this whole thing is? How did we all develop how we learned to sow. How did we get to where we are at now from where we were once. To not knowing nothing to start knowing what we know now.

 

Some thing had to teach our ancestral bodies of the past. Just like chimps and monkeys. They learned by watching. So we must have learned from some other ancestral beings.

 

We all have some percentage of Neanderthal in our DNA in us. So it is not like they just faded away. Our DNA proves that. Yes, I agree that they were not a strong otherwise they would still be around. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

The capacity to invent. It didn't happen over night but for Homo the important thing is it that did happen. otherwise we'd still be living in trees. It only took a couple of million years, and in the case of Modern Humans, a couple of hundred thousand for us to be far, far away from that. Changes to the brain, according to scientists, came through gene copying and was key for us to have the capability to invent new things and new ways of dealing with nature and each other. Couple the capacity to invent with language and progress became exponentially faster and more widespread. Today we have universities to get even more information to even more people.

 

But not just the ability to invent, because that took, and takes, imagination and forethought. I mean, how many times have I said to my self, "Now why didn't I think of that?!!" If it wasn't for communication I wouldn't know about all of the things I know about- even when it comes to Bigfoot. Knowledge is one thing- the ability to spread that knowledge and absorb it is the critical part. None of this progress AFAIK happened like turning on a light switch but Homo's new capacity to invent may have been like that. As an analogy? Nature built the room, and Homo painted it, hung the drapes, and furnished it. And then told others how to follow suit. And one probably shouldn't overlook the creation of ego and pride as two of the new driving forces. I think the two also made for ancient trend setting almost as much as they do today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Henry Stevens
On 2/18/2021 at 3:31 PM, hiflier said:

 

I think this is what I'm not understanding all that well.

You have to read the whole paragraph.

 

In the same way, during Upper Paleolithic times, humans, both sapiens and Neanderthals, were preserving food better and making survival a bit easier.  With these relaxed conditions, this new environment, sapiens' reproductive ability actually meant that sometimes humans could breed and raise children any time of the year.  But if you are only fertile once a year, this means nothing.  So sapiens took advantage of better technology while Neanderthals could not.

 

Sapiens was able to use improved cultural technology for improved reproduction and Neanderthals were not able to do this since (in my view) they were biologically limited to reproducing once a year.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
On 2/24/2021 at 10:45 AM, Henry Stevens said:

You have to read the whole paragraph.

 

In the same way, during Upper Paleolithic times, humans, both sapiens and Neanderthals, were preserving food better and making survival a bit easier.  With these relaxed conditions, this new environment, sapiens' reproductive ability actually meant that sometimes humans could breed and raise children any time of the year.  But if you are only fertile once a year, this means nothing.  So sapiens took advantage of better technology while Neanderthals could not.

 

Sapiens was able to use improved cultural technology for improved reproduction and Neanderthals were not able to do this since (in my view) they were biologically limited to reproducing once a year.


Can you show me a peer reviewed article that states the downfall of Neanderthals was based on their reproductive systems? Namely adult females only go into heat once a year?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
BlackRockBigfoot
BFF Donor
22 minutes ago, norseman said:


Can you show me a peer reviewed article that states the downfall of Neanderthals was based on their reproductive systems? Namely adult females only go into heat once a year?

In to see if you can get a straight answer.  I couldn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Henry Stevens
15 hours ago, norseman said:


Can you show me a peer reviewed article that states the downfall of Neanderthals was based on their reproductive systems? Namely adult females only go into heat once a year?

 

Bingo!  Finally a good objection.  No, there is none to answer your question, this is just my theory based on all other northern species vs. domestic and southern species.  I mention it because it is a theory which can be tested and researched.  We have the sapiers and Neanderthal genomes.  I would do it this way.  The Neanderthal condition should still be present but only in very, very low frequency.  Women suffering from infertility could be tested and an effort to find a genetic basis found (of course there are many causes so the group would have to be large).  Then this basis could be compared with the Neanderthal genome to see if there is a match.  

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
1 hour ago, Henry Stevens said:

 

Bingo!  Finally a good objection.  No, there is none to answer your question, this is just my theory based on all other northern species vs. domestic and southern species.  I mention it because it is a theory which can be tested and researched.  We have the sapiers and Neanderthal genomes.  I would do it this way.  The Neanderthal condition should still be present but only in very, very low frequency.  Women suffering from infertility could be tested and an effort to find a genetic basis found (of course there are many causes so the group would have to be large).  Then this basis could be compared with the Neanderthal genome to see if there is a match.  


Do you know how often a Dingo goes into heat? Once a year. Same as Wolves.

 

Do you know what the reproductive differences are between a Patagonia Puma and a Montana Cougar? Nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada.

 

Im going to kindly ask that you take your theory and start your own thread about it. I’m done discussing it here.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Henry Stevens

Norseman, I mentioned my theory in passing only.  You and some others couldn't understand something very simple and began asking me about it.   And you still come back with "Patagonian Puma vs. Montana Cougar" and questions about wild dogs.  Do you understand what a species is???????  How can you miss the point over and over and over?  But let's drop this lesson and move on to yours.

 

Do you have any, just one scrap, one hint of proof that these three Paleolithic dogs either contributed to the genome of the modern dog or contributed to the extinction of the Neanderthals in any way at all?

  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
2 minutes ago, Henry Stevens said:

Norseman, I mentioned my theory in passing only.  You and some others couldn't understand something very simple and began asking me about it.   And you still come back with "Patagonian Puma vs. Montana Cougar" and questions about wild dogs.  Do you understand what a species is???????  How can you miss the point over and over and over?  But let's drop this lesson and move on to yours.

 

Do you have any, just one scrap, one hint of proof that these three Paleolithic dogs either contributed to the genome of the modern dog or contributed to the extinction of the Neanderthals in any way at all?


Its your point that Southern cousins can reproduce at faster rates than northern cousins. Which by the way is completely wrong in the genus Homo. And looks to be wrong in canids and felines as well. So I have given you examples of Dingos vs Wolves which are closely related and South American cougars and North American cougars which are the same species.

 

They have the same reproductive rates!

 

What does Paleo dogs have to do with modern dogs? The domestication of the Wolf could have happened many times in many places. The family of paleo dogs that helped humans out hunt thals? Could have also gone extinct.

 

Either way it’s a theory that has a lot more weight than your theory that humans just had more babies than thals did because they came from the south. Humans it appears domesticated dogs at one point around the same time as thal populations were collapsing. Dogs could represent the technology niche that thals simply could not cope with.

 

Again I suggest that if want to explore your theory about southern vs northern reproduction rates? Go start your own thread to discuss it.

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBorn
Moderator
On 2/7/2021 at 12:41 AM, norseman said:

What do they have in common?

 

https://www.americanscientist.org/article/do-the-eyes-have-it

 

So if this is true? This would be a uniquely Homo Sapiens trait. That not even other species of Homo would have shared with us wide scale.

 

Does Sasquatch exhibit white around the pupils? I’ve never read that they do.

May ask everyone to please stay on topic that was posted at the beginning of this thread.

Thank you

Shadowborn 

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...