jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (157 posts)

Were Neanderthals a practice species?

  1. lizzieBoo profile image77
    lizzieBooposted 5 years ago

    seriously though, 50,000 years and nothing to show for it. No great buildings, no books not even the wheel for crying out loud. Did they have souls like us, or were they just a prototype, a practice species? Just a thought.

    1. Druid Dude profile image62
      Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No. At one time, they were the teachers, we the students. We outdid our teachers. Neanderthal burials have been found, (They buried their dead) with flowers, shells and bits of pretty stones. As for Cag having a soul. Yeah, him too. He can't prove he doesn't. NOW THATS TOO FUNNY!

      1. Cagsil profile image61
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Oh yeah, this statement coming from a mystic. Got to love it. lol

      2. profile image0
        Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this
        1. recommend1 profile image70
          recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Many animals mourn their dead - including elephants who will re-visit the bones of their lost family members.

          The thing about Neanderthal is that they buried their dead and it is that this is accompanied by ritual which is a number one pointer for civilized societies.  This evidence comes from grave goods etc.

          1. profile image0
            Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            well as civilised as living in a cave can be.  Even the biblical 'modern' humans were pretty primitive

            1. lizzieBoo profile image77
              lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              What the Egyptians? or the Romans?

              1. profile image0
                Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                the Egyptians were rather advanced for their time.
                Back to bible - the thinking of that time was to kill people for not being virgins & to send women out of the camp when menstruating - things like that

                1. lizzieBoo profile image77
                  lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, they were clever, but seriously unenlightened.

                  1. profile image0
                    Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    the Egyptians?  They were alchemists

            2. recommend1 profile image70
              recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Civilised is nothing to do with living conditions, it is a condition of thinking advancement. 

              The grave goods just indicate that the people felt general grief and responded to it with ritual, also the discovery of Neanderthal cave art is about their level of metaphysical thinking ability not the quality of the work.

              Many modern people display regressive thinking characteristics that make them less civilised than stone age man and Neanderthal man - which is why some people claim we are becoming 'less pure' and in a degenerated state from the 'original' pure man.

              1. lizzieBoo profile image77
                lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I think that's very possible. Why do you think that might be?

    2. profile image61
      tajiatalposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That would imply someone was practicing. Which of the mass delusions we call religion are we asking about?

      1. lizzieBoo profile image77
        lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You're right, God wouldn't need to practice.

        1. profile image61
          tajiatalposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Exactly. If there were a supreme being capable of creating everything, who is omniscient and omnipotent, there would be no need for this question.

    3. profile image0
      Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Liz,
      weird you posted this as I just finished viewing an in depth documentary regarding 'Big Foot' where they have found three species of cryptid apes, that people believe are humanoid prototypes.

      The largest clusters were in Tibet, China and modern day British Columbia. they even have reports, as far south as Indonesia. Mystically they have many names, commonly Yeti (or Japanese meti for Bear).

      anyway, as for proof of humans being 50k --or in some circles 250k years old--- with no evidence, apart from the last 300 years of heavy industrialization, it is hard to believe the stories.

      Granted, bones have been found of humans from various regions, climatic conditions, etc. I would think a species living in Tibet's snow region and Malaysia or Africa would have slight variations of body type and bone structure.

      The carbon dating issue is the problem. Even still, I am with you: why would it take 50k or 250k years for humans to reach this industrialized point of existence? Humans seen to be the only creatures on earth with this ability and intellect. Else, the monkeys would have been ruling us long before we could say, iPad.

      James.

      1. lizzieBoo profile image77
        lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        james
        what a coincidence! 3000 miles away too.
        Thanks for the info. So the neanderthal may or may not have been an animal? Did you hear the story from the late Georgian period where a chimpanzee was arrested for treason, or some such thing, put on trial and hanged? We were at war with the French at the time and there was much paranoia about terrorists. Apparently they mistook the chimp for a French man, dressed in clothes as he was, and not able to speak English, probably from the circus. Poor thing didn't stand a chance.

        1. recommend1 profile image70
          recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You are right - and people from the northern England city who did this still have the nick-name of monkey-hangers even now !  big_smile

          1. lizzieBoo profile image77
            lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I didn't know that. Doesn't paint a good picture of them does it.

        2. recommend1 profile image70
          recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          James is confusing the various extinct apes - that may or may not have been humanoid - with the well established evidence of Neanderthal man.  The distinctive characteristics of the remains of these people is very clear and the record show that they made homes, used tools and formed social groups that buried their dead - all the attributes of civilization.

          Some people deny the existence of 'other' kinds of human as it poses problems for religious trains of thought, or lack of thinking, whichever side of that fence you are on.

        3. profile image0
          Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It is highly speculative. This creature resembles most mammalian types. But, there is nothing to prove they are humanoid. They migrated across the temporal land mass between Russian and Canada, (now reduced to just the Bering Straight) which explains their concentration in B.C. from Asia. From what they have gathered: (bones, prints, etc) it leans heavily toward this Tibetan Yeti.

          Now, here is the very weird part. In the last 150 years, many claim they saw them, but what is odd, on a large scale no one has. I mean with advanced geothermal satellite technology, communications and social movement, there is really no where they could hide long enough, that more an one random person would encounter them.

          Second, how -if they are Neanderthal or descendants of- did they survive, without evolving into a human of today --if not more advanced. Why didn't they die off? I mean science is claiming they existed in this supposed Ice Age, some 1 million years ago. That is a long, long, long time. Considering the average human lives a meager 80 years and each generation gets progressively  more intelligent, in less than 50 generations (4,000 years), these Neanderthals would have been "Einsteins". The time lines do not fit, nor does the evolutionary process.

          But it is a cool story smile

          James

      2. profile image0
        Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        humans don't rule monkeys & other animals.

        If you look at the baboons breaking into houses & cars to steal food in South Africa (and terrifying humans), I'd say the baboons have the upper hand.

    4. aguasilver profile image87
      aguasilverposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Derek Prince, who I have always respected greatly, held the theory (which he clearly marked as just that, a theory) that there possibly were an 'earlier version'of humanity, created by Lucifer/Satan or whatever one would wish to call him, maybe 'The Fallen Arch Angel' would suffice?

      Anyhow the theory was that he (The Fallen Arch Angel)could create humanoids, but was unable to infill them with a spirit, hence they would be reactive and instinctive, rather than considered and inspired.

      From that comes the reasoning that God created humans, and filled them with a spirit (albeit unenlivened until they reached a point where they could commune with God)which made the difference.

      Just a thought....

      John

      1. Beelzedad profile image60
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        By definition, that would be an "assertion" not a theory. smile

        1. aguasilver profile image87
          aguasilverposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yep, you are right... assertion, concept, idea, something he pondered without any serious intent that it may be truth, but nevertheless a possible actuality that could explain certain aspects of the history of humanity.

          1. Beelzedad profile image60
            Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Not a chance, the laws of physics prohibits angels and spirits. A theory would require an observation and a completed experiment with results of those things.  smile

      2. profile image0
        Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        99.5% similar DNA - seems like god liked satan's creation to plagarise it

        1. aguasilver profile image87
          aguasilverposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Or that Satan was just not capable of doing EVERYTHING that God can, it's a common mistake folk make, thinking they can be equal to God.

          1. Beelzedad profile image60
            Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You mean Satan can't create a rock he can't lift, or he can created it, but just can't lift it?

            "equal to God"  lol

          2. profile image0
            Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            yet, satan must have created something rather good if god decided to copy it - near identical DNA and all

            1. earnestshub profile image88
              earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Apparently both mythical entities couldn't build a decent DNA if their life depended on it.
              Scientists are needing to repair great lumps of code that god and satan both got wrong it seems.
              Worse, it is claimed by some learned people that the DNA we have is happy to kill us in order to survive itself.
              Nasty little DNA! lol

              1. aguasilver profile image87
                aguasilverposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Earnest, that must be the most nonsensical reply I have seen you make, one where you try to blame entities you deny exist for mistakes that only your worshipped scientists can correct.

                Amazing convolutions of faith you need to twist through to maintain your eccentric secular stance.

                BB, nice twist also, even if you deliberately got the pecking order wrong again.

                God runs things whether you approve or not, and your petulant replies make not one jot of difference to that.

                1. profile image0
                  Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  petulant?  Hark who's talking.  I merely pointed out how silly Derek Prince's assertion is & I'm surprised you can't see it

                2. earnestshub profile image88
                  earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  This god thing only occupies your head space, not mine, you would do well to research DNA and keep your god where it belongs in your fantasy. smile

                  1. aguasilver profile image87
                    aguasilverposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Whether God occupies your head space makes no difference to the fact that you occupy His space, with His Blessing and under His control.

                    Wow, you're tetchy today, all I was doing is passing through, and found my favourite secularists expounding, so made a comment, gotta go, got a life to live! smile

                3. profile image0
                  Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  pecking order on invisible mythical beings....hmmmm

                  1. recommend1 profile image70
                    recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I think it is more about  my myth is bigger than yours  na na ne na na big_smile

                4. Beelzedad profile image60
                  Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  That is correct Earnest, we better give our heads a shake as tens of thousands of children starve to death every day, because "God runs things whether you approve or not"

                  lol

                  1. aguasilver profile image87
                    aguasilverposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Boring repetition of an already addressed subject.

              2. profile image0
                Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                you had to have some of this nasty DNA destroyed by doctors, didn't you Earnest?

                1. earnestshub profile image88
                  earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Yep! Some of it ran wild. smile

                  1. lizzieBoo profile image77
                    lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    you know that a cabbage has more genes than a human. how crazy is that!!

  2. Cagsil profile image61
    Cagsilposted 5 years ago

    A practice species? lol lol lol That's too funny! lol lol

    As for having soul? You cannot prove YOU have one. lol lol

    1. lizzieBoo profile image77
      lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So what was it made them so different from us?

      1. Cagsil profile image61
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Conscious awareness...the level and the capacity of brain usage. Nothing more.

        1. lizzieBoo profile image77
          lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          So they were a sort of practice species really. They weren't going anywhere so they faded away and a better species emerged. Slightly unscientific version, I know.

          1. Cagsil profile image61
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No they would not be. A practice species, means that they were created as an experiment and there is nothing to suggest that to be the case.
            They were not evolved enough, which is why they faded.

            1. lizzieBoo profile image77
              lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Is 150,000 years not a successful length of time to exist? Do you not think they simply faded because they were without purpose? I am being a little facetious when I talk about a practice species, but our success is due in large part, to our determination to continue for ever.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                They likely did not "fade away".  More likely our direct ancestors removed them, either by killing or starving them out.  Neanderthal could not compete.

                They were an experiment in the same sense that every living species has been.  They exist until something better comes along. 

                150,000 is not a very long time in evolutionary terms.  They were not very successful.

              2. Cagsil profile image61
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Successful? Subjective. It doesn't actually matter.
                No. Adaptability and mental capacity was their problem. wink

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Interestingly, I've also read that they did not have the physical apparatus for speech.  They were not able to produce the fine nuances for real communication, and without that ability they are not likely to invent language at all.  Grunts, pointing, screams yes, but not complex communication.

                  I've also seen biologists that discount this idea and claim that they could.  Who knows?

                  Diet probably played a part as well; although Neanderthal apparently hunted their primary diet consisted of roots which is probably not a real good thing in an ice age.

                  1. Cagsil profile image61
                    Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Hey Wilderness....what you said is different than what I said? lol

                    Adaptability? Lack communication skills or ability to form complex communication, would qualify as being unable to adapt...no?

                  2. lizzieBoo profile image77
                    lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    The language thing IS interesting yes. The very act of conversing and being understood is intensely formative. I also think that fear makes you stupid. If your predominant emotion is fear then it leaves little room for self-reflection and learning. These fellows lived in dangerous times and subsequently in fear and ignorance.
                    I rather like Eddie Izzard's sketch on the subject: "The Neanderthals lived for 150,000 years. So after 50,000 years they said um? another 50,000 and they said err? another 50,000 and oh? And that was it really"

            2. profile image0
              Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              agree - calling them a 'practise species' means they were created as a 'stuff-up'

          2. CMHypno profile image88
            CMHypnoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            When we Homo Sapiens have been around for as long as the Neanderthals survived, then maybe we can start dissing their survival skills - only about another 100,000 years before we start crowing!

      2. Disturbia profile image60
        Disturbiaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Alien genetic experimentation and DNA splicing.

      3. Druid Dude profile image62
        Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Not a heck of alot. Conscious awareness? It is indicated that they were consciously aware. They were compassionate, as indicated by neanderthal remains showing old, crippling injuries, which would have been fatal had the creature not had someone hunting for it. This wasn't an acception. This seems to have been regular practice. Tools to acheive specific, specialized objectives. They were inquisitive, intrepid explorers, and excellent hunters and gatherers. I think their conscious awareness isn't in question here.

      4. thisisoli profile image56
        thisisoliposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Try and build an engine by yourself, or tell me how to create plastic?

        Lets go to the wheel example, how would you warp wood to a circular shape, how would you create spokes without a lathe? I know I couldn't do it.

        1. lizzieBoo profile image77
          lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          in 150,000 years one of us might have had a bash.

          1. recommend1 profile image70
            recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I don't think so.  Without any pre-taught skill or information to go look up I doubt if you could get oil from a peanut, make simple soap, grow anything worth eating and how you would be able to run and catch an animal (let alone try and tame it) in that tight frock I have no idea !

            1. lizzieBoo profile image77
              lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              But we did do it,  that's the point. Early man got stuck right in making this and that...clothes, shoes, fire, eating utensils and stuff. We've been utilising animals and wheels for thousands of years, for donkeys years even.

              1. profile image0
                Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I recently wrote a hub about the history of dyes.  Textiles haven't been around all that long - only 5000-odd years, I think.  I expect wheels & shoes wouldn't have been around much before then also.

  3. DoubleScorpion profile image87
    DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago

    They had no need for buildings...They were nomadic..Followed the food sources...No books...but we do have some artwork...They were just like us...minus the technology...LOL.. there are people today that would fall apart if you took away their Cell phones and Laptops...

    1. lizzieBoo profile image77
      lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry when I said 50, 000 I meant to say 150,000 years. Nothing to show for 150, 000 years! Ok some cave paintings.

      1. DoubleScorpion profile image87
        DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Cags is right...Humanoids were still developing during that time frame...They were simply still evolving...If humans have souls then, it would serve to say that all humans have souls...not just the Homo Saphiens of today...

        Which begs a question...If man was created in "god's image" which human form is the correct one for that statement...?

        1. lizzieBoo profile image77
          lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The theological belief that we are made in God's image refers to our souls. Our souls are made in God's image. If the Neanderthals didn't have souls, it would explain why they had no spiritual yearning, which is after all, the driving force behind our creativity and ambition.

          1. lizzieBoo profile image77
            lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            ...that and reproduction of course.

            1. DoubleScorpion profile image87
              DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Spiritual yearning is why we are creative and ambitious?

              I thought is was more because we are easily bored and require stimuli to keep us entertained.

              Not to mention we are now inherently lazy and looking for ways to make life easier. big_smile

              1. lizzieBoo profile image77
                lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                That's a very cynical view of the species.

                1. DoubleScorpion profile image87
                  DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  how so? I was just giving a different view as to why we are creative and ambitious.

                  1. lizzieBoo profile image77
                    lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes we are inherently lazy, among many other flaws, but surely our drive comes from a desire to improve, to expand to be better. Our spiritual yearning is notable by our egocentric view of the world: that part of ourselves which makes us who we are, call it what you will, has a desire to live on and be remembered even when we are gone.

      2. Disturbia profile image60
        Disturbiaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Don't dis the cave paintings, they are amazing works of art and they are  still here with us today.  Ancient peoples wrote their stories in stone.  Who will know our story when the books have all rotted and the power goes out?  We're not smart enough to carve it on the sides of our buildings.

        1. lizzieBoo profile image77
          lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I agree cave paintings are amazing. I think we've made some pretty nice stuff too.

      3. Druid Dude profile image62
        Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        And a massive ice-age that wiped out all evidence that even our species existed before it except for a few bones. Our presence has been pushed back to 140,000 yrs. and we only started officially advancing in the last ten thousand, and that number is also starting to be pushed back.

        1. Druid Dude profile image62
          Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Soul is the breath of life. I know it was new to Cag, but it's in Genesis.

          1. Cagsil profile image61
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            New to me. WOW! What a joke! Just another mystics practicing mysticism to deceive others. You must be very proud of yourself.

            However, don't worry, the dishonesty was made available to those who actually do choose to learn about mysticism. But, again, nice try to support it. Too bad, you're a few decades too late.

      4. kerryg profile image87
        kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Humans didn't have anything to show for our first 150,000 years either. We only managed to invent agriculture about 10-12,000 years ago, and we've been around for nearly 200,000. Advanced societies didn't start showing up until about 6,000 years ago.

    2. Bard of Ely profile image89
      Bard of Elyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What Double Scorpion says makes sense to me!

  4. Hugh Williamson profile image87
    Hugh Williamsonposted 5 years ago

    Neanderthals were well-adapted to the ice age but didn't fare so well in competition with what we consider more modern humans. Their brain case was comparable to ours (maybe even larger) but no one knows how their thought process actually worked.

    Late in their existence they seem to be adopting the innovations of Cro Magnon, so maybe they were smart but not too creative. Who knows?

    Their DNA is nearly the same as ours, but as for their having or not having a soul, that's a religious issue. I think most would say if we have one, they did too.

    Good thread.

    1. lizzieBoo profile image77
      lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you

    2. lizzieBoo profile image77
      lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It's true, we don't know because they weren't interested  in posterity. A life beyond their own was perhaps inconceivable.
      I suppose my interest is more religious than scientific. I would say that humans are defined by having souls which make us ambitious, covetous, aggressive, spiritual, inquisitive, selfish and changeable. It can't just be about intelligence. I've met men in whom the missing link is all too apparent. Kidding.
      But the definition of the soul is that it is self-knowing. Were they self-knowing, and if not, were they human?

  5. Hugh Williamson profile image87
    Hugh Williamsonposted 5 years ago

    lizzieBoo wrote:

        So they were a sort of practice species really.



    If we last another 120,000 years, we will be able to say that we were as successful as the Neanderthals.

    Maybe we're the practice species.

    1. lizzieBoo profile image77
      lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Now that's an interesting question! That's a very interesting question...maybe we're the practice species.

  6. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "it would explain why they had no spiritual yearning, which is after all, the driving force behind our creativity and ambition" How do you know that?

    1. lizzieBoo profile image77
      lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well that's an opinion based on the fact that there isn't much evidence of them searching beyond the present for meanings in things. Perhaps this is an indication of extreme satisfaction will their lot; something us homo-saps don't experience a great deal and isn't to be sniffed at as such.

  7. Disturbia profile image60
    Disturbiaposted 5 years ago

    So, were the dinosaurs just a practice species for birds and lizards?

    1. Druid Dude profile image62
      Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      OK, so I know where the book of Genesis is and what it says. pretty durned mystical...woooooo. SPOOKY. Neanderthals, yes, fell from popularity when it was discovered, too late, that the radiator installed be Toyota wasn't efficient enough for the temperature rise leading to our age. I saw it in my crystal ball. Actually, I read it in science publications instead of making my answer up. Like Cag. I saw that in the stars! LOL

      1. Druid Dude profile image62
        Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That's like saying that the Model T was a practice for the Maseratti. Besides...who was practicing?

        1. Druid Dude profile image62
          Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Reading must be "mystical", but only a neanderthal would think so.

      2. Cagsil profile image61
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yet, another meaningless post. And, a piss poor attempt at mocking or making fun of me. Not surprising in the least from a mystic.

    2. lizzieBoo profile image77
      lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe.

  8. Alice DeWonder profile image60
    Alice DeWonderposted 5 years ago

    Just a suggestion: READ! Do your homework. 1st book on your list should be FORBIDDEN ARCHEOLOGY. In the words of A. Lincoln, "It is best to remain silent and appear ignorant than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

    1. lizzieBoo profile image77
      lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well thanks for that. Are we all to be forbidden from conversation until we know everything? Discussion takes me into places I wouldn't otherwise go. I am humble enough to accept that I have more curiosity than knowledge. This thread has been interesting for me.

  9. Hugh Williamson profile image87
    Hugh Williamsonposted 5 years ago

    Question:

    If someone living today in what is called a "primitive society" is removed to "civilization" they usually will readily adapt to the modern world and modern technology.

    If a Neanderthal were moved through time to today, would they be able to likewise adapt? If so, they're mentally no different from modern man. Unfortunately, there's no way to know if they were really wired differently from us (in their thought process or lack thereof).

    Were they mentally limited or just socially limited?

    1. Druid Dude profile image62
      Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Look up Neanderthal burial practices. Look up Neanderthal inability to cool properly. Check out those cave art thingies that non-mystic mentioned above. Cag...everyone is right. You are HILARIOUS!

    2. lizzieBoo profile image77
      lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It's a good question. There is a dispute on this thread, however, what extent the neanderthals even existed. I'm intrigued.

      1. maven101 profile image79
        maven101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        They not only existed, they merged with the cro-magnon, eventually disappearing as a separate race of humans...many humans still carry physical Neanderthal characteristics...Their genes are still alive and well in the 21st century...

        1. profile image0
          Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Present genetic data negates this and, unfortunately, the theories are too many to sort out. no proof exists that humans 'evolved' as most theories suggest. They may have had variable bone structures, depending on where they lived, what they ate and such. My biggest complaint is the time lines used. None of them are fully rational.

          James.

  10. Hugh Williamson profile image87
    Hugh Williamsonposted 5 years ago

    There is some evidence of Neanderthal art but it's crude and each piece seems to be a one-off. IAW there's no continuity to indicate that art was a normal thing for them.

    I am aware of no record of Neanderthals doing cave painting. The examples that we have were done by early modern man.

    1. Druid Dude profile image62
      Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I wasn't aware of them being signed. No matter. I just threw that in to see if a "non-mystical" claim would be accepted. I stand by my burials claim AND the tools thing. Cag said they weren't consciously aware. Conscious awareness can come on different levels. A fly is consciously aware of our presence, yet not consciously aware of it's own mortality. (or so we are told. Personally, I've never discussed it with them.

      1. lizzieBoo profile image77
        lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I like how you are open to anything being possible. The neanderthals existence is very obscure to us, but even if they did all sorts of clever things, why was there no signs of progress in all that time? Were they self aware like the homo sapien?

        1. Druid Dude profile image62
          Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          burial practices suggest very heavily so. Also, our kind co-existed w/ Neanders for some thousands of years, even in the same caves. The ice-age wipes away everything.

          1. lizzieBoo profile image77
            lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            good point.

  11. recommend1 profile image70
    recommend1posted 5 years ago

    Neanderthals were a very successful and widespread species that dissapeared along with sabre tooth tigers and mammoths at the same time that hunter-gatherer stone age man spread all around the world with his new weapons of mass destruction.  Most theories are that we out-thought them to become the dominant species, this might be a little self-congratulatory as it is just as possible that we, as the physically smaller and weaker species were just more aggressive and murderous, just as we are today.

    Their dissapearance also coincides with the 10,000 year period when the ice age receded (in steps) allowing people to migrate to new areas, and we all know what man has done to the aboriginal peoples in memory, no reason to think anything different of our relatively recent ancestors.

    1. profile image0
      Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      recommend1, could you provide us with proof of this, not theory, please. It is something of a hobby for me to learn impressive things like this.

      There is no proof, to my knowledge, that 'Neanderthals' actually existed. Sure, there are various human types, from various locations, but my friend who is a geneticist at Columbia University can prove they never existed the way people believe they did, according to genetic recording, not carbon dating. The story of Neanderthals coincides with the Yeti story of migration. As said, Yeti (typical Neanderthal) is the Northern Caucus word for a snow ape.

      James.

      1. recommend1 profile image70
        recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The existence of this human type is well documented in the archaelogical record, well researched in easily accessible places that you can Google.  The first discovery of their remains was in the Neander valley in Germany which gave the name.  Genetecists recently concluded that specifically Neanderthal DNA is also present in non-African humans today.  Like any exploration of remains and traces we are left with only theories, but the current theories generally hold up pretty well and I suspect your friend would have some exterior and unrelated motive for claiming they never existed.

        1. profile image0
          Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No, none what-so-ever. He is, as the saying goes, a 'die hard realist' and quite learned I might add. He does not accept theory as proof, but as possibility via speculation.

          1. recommend1 profile image70
            recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Possibility via speculation is theory - what is the issue with this ?

            The best fit possibility with available evidence is the best we can ever do - and the best theory changes as more evidence is accumulated and tested against what we already know.

            As the archaeological record clearly shows the existence in our past of the Neanderthal type - how does you realist friend dispute this ?

            1. profile image0
              Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Exactly, it is NOT proof, it is theory - all of it. Even with the Lovely Bones Archives is still just hypothetical. Just like the other side of the house, religion.

              The notion that it took 245,000 years to learn how to make cities and tools is ridiculous. Especially since science claims humans have existed since the Ice Age --a million years ago. Gotta love all those big numbers. In less than 300 years, they thoroughly industrialize the planet, etc. Ludicrous!

              As far as a verity of human species, just look at humans today. Men in Africa differ in body type and bone structure slightly to those living in Sweden; they differ from those in the dense rain forests of Brazil; they differ from those in the Highlands. In a mere 400 years of history, the human has changed dramatically.

              As for cave drawings, why do people assume it was an Adult Neanderthal? My 2 1/2 year old, along with his preschool pals draw stuff like that all the time. A child with autism draw the entire NYC subway map -with colors- in less than 30 minutes, from memory. Talk about the coolest cave drawing ever!

              Science, just more indoctrination.

              James

              1. lizzieBoo profile image77
                lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                It's true James. People often forget that science is theory not fact. It is closer to philosophy than maths really. Who we are and where we came from is still shrouded in mystery for us.
                It is unfathomable the depth of some peoples powers of creativity or deduction alive today , but to remind ourselves that equally great minds existed 5000 years ago is wild.
                As for cave paintings, I would be more likely to keep them than some of the paintings my kiddies bring home, but no they're not quite da Vinci.

                1. profile image0
                  Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  science is based on observable evidence and is updated with new evidence.  A scientific theory is not wishful thinking but is an explanation to fit lots of observable evidence & facts. 
                  I don't see how this is indoctrination nor philosophy.

  12. dutchman1951 profile image60
    dutchman1951posted 5 years ago

    To say they were a Practice Species implys that they were created for that purpose?????

    are we talking evolution, ot God theory?

    to me they seemed to be a developing species, a stepping stone for an evolving species. Learning and advancing, and passing on.

    if it was a God or creator that was there then why would a God need to practice?

    either way  Godhead, or Evolvement, we have a delima it seems.

    1. lizzieBoo profile image77
      lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You're right, God would not need to practice. I was being facetious for the sake of argument there, but in terms of evolution, there is no proven link between the neanderthal and homo-sap as yet. We may think we see the link eating in Macdonalds from time to time but we would be wrong.

  13. Hugh Williamson profile image87
    Hugh Williamsonposted 5 years ago

    The Neanderthal genome was drafted 2 years ago in Germany. It has not been fully analyzed yet but a Dr. Church of Harvard says it's now possible to take a chimp egg, add bits of Neanderthal DNA to certain critical areas and incubate the Neander-human in a chimp. Wait 9 mos. and voila! Cave Baby.

    That's very oversimplified but the details are here.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/scien … mp;emc=rss

    Were Neanderthals a practice species?

    Maybe we'll ask them in person.

    1. profile image0
      Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      A percentage of modern humans have neanderthal DNA
      http://news.discovery.com/human/neander … d-dna.html

      Neanderthals had hyoid bone required for speech
      http://www.earthfacts.net/evolution/neanderthals/

      1. Hugh Williamson profile image87
        Hugh Williamsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        These are good references and both give great food for thought.

        When I was in school, Neanderthals were considered ignorant brutes. When I got to College, that had changed and they were then considered a primitive type of human or hominid.

        Now they have evolved into a probable human in most scientific circles and now, with their DNA mapped, I think we'll eventually find out what they were capable of.

        The DNA will tell the story - which brain areas were well-developed, did they rely more on smell or hearing and a lot more.

        As far as cloning one, I think we can be sure it'll never happen, at least not in the near run. Mastodons maybe but Neans, no way.

        1. profile image0
          Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I haven't read a lot about them.  The current view is they are an extinct human species?

          1. Hugh Williamson profile image87
            Hugh Williamsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Neanderthals are classified either as a subspecies of modern humans or as a separate human species, but modern anthropology seems to have no doubt that they were human. Of course, as we can tell by this thread, not everybody agrees. smile

            1. profile image0
              Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              maybe as closely related as horses are to donkeys? They can interbreed too

              1. recommend1 profile image70
                recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                They were most likely a parallel human species from a recently common human ancestor - there is evidence that non-African humans carry their genes.

                They existed at the same time as stone age man and became extinct at the same time that humans became much more prolific and migrated to most of the places we are found today, including the American continent.

                1. profile image0
                  Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  donkeys & horses are a parallel equine species?

                  1. recommend1 profile image70
                    recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    They are I believe, but Neanderthal and us were more similar I think.  BTW The reason the question of them being animal or human keeps coming up is that it is problematic for the religious types - in his own image etc., also were there two Adam and Eves etc.

                  2. lizzieBoo profile image77
                    lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    if you breed a donkey and a horse you get a mule. mules are very strong but can't breed. a really curious thing I think.

    2. lizzieBoo profile image77
      lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      OMG it's like The Isalnd of D Moreau!

  14. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago

    "Necessity is the mother of invention"  is a fair statement in my opinion.  Neanderthals were not much different than cro-magnon other than slight body differences. 

    They were in competition with the intrusive new human species and were therefore destroyed by the newcomers.  Perhaps it wasn't intentional but it happened just the same.

    When the first Europeans stepped foot in the New World they also brought with them many diseases the Native Americans had no resistance to.  Measles, mumps, even the common cold had the effect of wiping out perhaps 80% of the indigenous natives.

    The rest were considered savages and not worthy to compare with the immigrants coveting their lands.  Similar to the Africans imported to serve the "chosen ones" as slaves.  The earliest Spanish explores killed the Florida natives at will while stealing their corn supplies.  They even fed old women to the dogs for entertainment. God stepped foot in America! 

    With our known documented history of such racism and prejudice against those who appear different from us, or who don't worship the correct deity, imagine how much worse primitive humans would have dealt with "those savages."  Especially with there being no laws to prohibit cro magnon man from killing Neanderthals at will.

    Unless of course, one thinks our ancient ancestors were more ethical or non-prejudicial than we are today.  Good luck with that!  smile

    1. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I knew you were in to history, but this is a bit off the usual path and very interesting stuff to learn about as a "foreigner" smile Thanks Randy, nice post. smile

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks Earnest!  Not many "Americans" learn about the abject cruelty and horror inflicted upon the Native Americans by the very first Spanish explorers. 

        Landing around Tampa Bay, they proceeded to steal and murder their way along the gulf coast until all but 2 of them were either killed by the natives or by their own stupidity. 

        The diseases they brought with them did most of the damage, perhaps it was "god's will."  Later explorations found many abandoned villages those diseases decimated.

        Cabo De Vaca and a single black slave were the only survivors of that ill-fated expedition.  After being held as slaves by the "heathens"  themselves, they eventually made their way back to Mexico after many years to relate their almost unbelievable tale of survival.


                                 

        God must have really disliked the native people.

        1. earnestshub profile image88
          earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks for that, very similar to what the native Australians suffered. We almost wiped out our aboriginal people, then stole their children from them.

    2. lizzieBoo profile image77
      lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That is very interesting, and true. My, this whole thread is starting to remind me of Gullivers Travels.

  15. profile image0
    Muldanianmanposted 5 years ago

    Modern man lived alongside Neanderthals for some time. Neanderthals were not the primitive big brow creatures that they have been painted.  They were as advanced, with religion and some kind of society.  The traditional image that we have of them was the creation of atists who tried to imagine how a so-called primitive man could look.  History is always written by those who have replaced older native races.  Native Americans were once portrayed as primitive, as were Africans by European colonialists.

    1. recommend1 profile image70
      recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I seem to remember that the cave painting attributed to Neanderthal is more 'primitive' than the corresponding art from Homo sapiens and the general picture is of homo sapiens rapidly developing faster than the Neanderthal.

      However, the point about how they were literally 'painted' is valid, old drawn pictures of native American indians, Australian aborigenes and other 'tribespeople' almost always show them with a forehead sloping deeply backward - not apparent in the early photographs and so almost certainly a projection of the artist's perceived racial mental superiority ?

 
working