The Neanderthal theory, your thoughts?

Post Reply New Topic

DemocraticSocialistHun,

Your model if valid with 2 relatively competitive “tribes/species” The models I have heard about were where I “tribe/species” had been “defeated” either by conflict or environmental factors and isolated “stragglers” remain giving the “victorious” Tribe/species dominance due to the survival needs of the “defeated” tribe/species individuals. There are certainly examples of homo sapien “tribes” accepting females into their “society” from other defeated “tribes” albeit typically at a much lower social level. Acceptance of males seems to occur only on a highly segregated basis for specific usages with little or no chance of reproduction.

I also find the theory of the dominance of Neanderthal females to certainly be far from “proven” as is almost everything from this era (note the usage of “likely” in your qualifier to a time/genetic/intellectually regressive analysis to bonobos.

I guess it depends if you think the potential blending occurred over a time at when there was relative “equivalence” as the more “classic” theory postulates or at a time of near to individual/species extinction.

I am certainly not a “specialist” in this area; this does give me the advantage of considering all available theories, hypothesis and facts without prior discriminatory biases.

It really does not mater to me either way from a personal current societal basis.
I just find it to be an interesting intellectual discussion.

Like I say, we will know when gene mapping gets more complete and we have some real hard scientific evidence from that.

bookwormde

I want to clear out some topics.


A RACE is any inbreeding group. A SUBESPECIES is a taxonomic group which is less distinct than the primary stock or species from which it originates.

That doesn't mean there's a perfect human genetic composition. Quite the contrary, biodiversity ensures life support.

HUMAN SUBESPECIES DO EXIST. HERE AND NOW.

THERE'S A CLEAR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RACE AND DISCRIMINATION.

Discrimination= Man made form of "SOCIOPOLITICAL" opression.

We are MONKEYS! O.K?

There's no need for history, religion, politics, sociology...

MONKEY'S DO INTERBREED.

It does not matter if some people wants to see the "MISSING LINK" everywhere.

We have genes that RATS have!

So why is it so hard to believe some humans have Neanderthal or Australopithecus genes.
We are 99.4 alike CHIMPANZEES! That threats moral even MORE?

Hypotheses do not, as the term is generally used, become theories. Hypotheses are predictions. Theories are explanations of the data, including explanations of how certain hypotheses are supported (or not). Darwin's "origin of species" was, from the beginning, a theory, even if, when it started, a relatively weak one. It became much more cogent with the introduction of genetic evidence (neo-Darwinism). However, what I see in the Neanderthal model is more prediction (hypothesis) than explanation (theory).

Nominalist,

You should go back and read some of the papers from Darwins contemporaries after his first “publishing”. The words might be quite familiar. If my memory serves me correctly Darwin did have a hypothesis before his journey (probably had several) but with the application of the discovered “facts” he was able to refine, test and gain acceptance for his then fact based theory.

Of course there is still significant portion of the population that does not accept Darwin’s theories due to his assumptions, go figure. I guess they would consider them just hypothesis too.

Theories typically are developed from hypothesis, which has been evaluated, based on available “facts” and still has some merit. That does not mean that there are not “strong” theories (supported by a large body of undisputed facts and “week” theories those only minimally supported from a limited quantity of facts, which may be suspect due to there underlying assumptions, but they are still both theories because they have been evaluated using the available “facts”.

bookwormde

The usual distinction between theory and hypothesis is that of explanation and prediction. As I already suggested, Darwin's initial theory was relatively weak and was strengthened later through genetics (neo-Darwinism) and, more recently, by the New Synthesis and our increased understanding of the human genome.



I am not sure what you mean by "just hypothesis." I called the Neanderthal model a hypothesis not to criticize it, but to identify it. My criticism of the hypothesis was entirely unrelated and had to do with proposing a racially sensitive hypothesis before it has been tested (or is even capable of being tested), i.e., without sufficient grounding.



As I use those terms, I would say that theories develop through hypothesis testing, not that theories develop from hypotheses. They are, critically, two different levels of analysis.



Theories can be weak (ungrounded) or strong (grounded). However, I don't see how that relates to my points about the Neanderthal hypothesis.

MODERN HUMAN
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
Subspecies: H. s. sapiens

NEANDERTHAL
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: H. neanderthalensis

CHIMPANZEE
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Subtribe: Panina
Genus: Pan

DO WE ACTUALLY NEED THE MISSINK LINK?

Just a comment on what I saw as a narrow definition of what a theory is

The book I was taught from made the distinction of “testing” with available facts and “merit” for the transition. Of course that was decades ago.

bookwormde

Neanderthals and Sapiens clearly had interbreed capabilities

Now either you prove no homo neaderthals shared the most basic instinct with a homo sapiens or you go grab a neanderthal's bone in the museum to make a full dna comparisson.

Did you know all species of the genus Canis can mate and produce fertile offspring?

When we talk about modern man everyone gets so touchy. It seems like "beautiful" people were made by rays of lights and everyone else belongs to the animal kingdom.

Or simply irrelevant.



Can't be 100% sure or anything, but the Neanderthal "Theory" sounds pretty good to me.



Promiscuous, yes. Bisexual and female-dominated, hardly. Chimps are a violent, male-dominated species, like H.s.s.

You need both observations and a theory/hypothesis to get anywhere. The medical establishment made the observations, but can't think of a coherent theory that explains the observations, so they simply pathologize. The only weak point is that some assumptions have to be made about Neanderthals which may seem probable but can't be proven. Remains will probably always remain too sparse.

What observations do you find lacking?

Except that it is largely accepted that autism spectrum "disorders," homosexuality (officially a disorder in America until 1980, I think), etc. are genetic and there is already a racial war against those who are different. Instead of calling it bigotry it is called finding the cure for mental "disorders" -- a neo-eugenics policy of the Globalist Fourth Reich.

The Neanderthal Hypothesis assumes a very low, non-zero level of interbreeding to begin with. So "little chance" in H.s.s. tribes may have been enough.

What the devil does this have to do with anything?


No. This is not accepted and may very well be false.


Those DNA comparisons that have been carried out have not been favorable to the idea that there was interbreeding, to my knowledge.
.
Neandertal DNA Sequences and the Origin of Modern Humans, Cell, Volume 90, Matthias Krings1, Anne Stone2, Ralf W. Schmitz3, Heike Krainitzki4, Mark Stoneking2 and Svante Pääbo

There are multiple other articles at my finger tips which come to similar conclusions on the mtDNA, and this has been taken as evidence against interbreeding/meaningful contribution of genetic material to H. sapiens. There is to my knowledge no evidence of interbreeding beyond some suspicious skulls that have been found (i.e. H. sapiens with occipital buns or some such). While there seems to be some disagreement, I wouldn't say it is obvious at all or even well supported that there even could have been interbreeding.

a. spurious doesn't mean irrelevant
b. it is not irrelevant because it is an example of how a diverging pair doesn't necessarily converge, even if it is feasible.
c. the original quote was spurious because there is nothing concrete to suggest that Neanderthals were matriarchal. It is just something that happens to fit in with his idea of Neanderthal.


That is close enough to saying it, but to quote merle 'your mileage may vary'.

If you take time to read my posts again you'll see I'm actually being objective. I have no problem what so ever with Neanderthal theory as a theory. I believe it is feasible. However what is extremely fakey is the loose chain of assumption used to connect this to ASD. I believe this is what nominalist is talking about, unless I am mistaken.

one of the things that is interesting is you can't take behavior to be constant, not even 'primal'. Our behavior is a great deal different that when we were cavemen. Bonobos and chimps probably had different behavior.

Some sumary comments:

1. Testability. It is claimed by some people that the theory is not testable, and that most of the propositions of testability in the theory are not testable now (if you have access to the labs to do it)
a) Age of autism genes is testable. We have a huge AGRE database of autistic genes
b) Population distribution of autism genes. Definitely testable
c) Prevalence. Have already been tested. Blacks are 1/6 the Caucasian and Asian rates.
d) Faceblindness is testable

Add that Valerius Geists hunting predictions fitted perfectly into the Aspie hunting group. Explained variances from Aspie-quz fits the start of Homo (the Neanderthal theory really propooses that we have the entire evolution of Homo in Eurasia, not just the last 250,000 years or so), Hss, and the hybiridization. An additional prediction is that Asians are higher on explained variance for g-factor, which also turned out to be the case.

2. The theory promotes racism. Not true. The theory was not well received on the white supremacist board, mainly because these people are also viewing autism as inferior. The explaination that autism explains the higher IQs in Caucasians and Asians is not appreachiated by these people.

In fact, the best evidence currently is for Aspies being a (sub)species, as there are lots and lots of evidence for this in Aspie-quiz. The weak part is the connection with neanderthal. However, how many species are there in recent Homo evolution? Only two, in fact, if we discount florensis.