Neanderthals and ‘us’

It’s so interesting this debate over my lifetime.

What precipitates this thread is that this week, Nature published a paper by the Max Planck Institute - so no small time outfit - that essentially promotes the idea that early human lines died out in Europe and the ones that interbred with Neanderthals (Neandertals) persisted beyond the 40,000 year ago timeline.

I see even our friend Neil deGrasse (Tyson) has a YouTube short on the main premise of European preeminence , that summarises it so well. Growing up, Neanderthals were ‘cavemen’, strong yet dumb, and so helpless that they died out offering nothing to the future of mankind. The association between these backward cavemen and those who the Europeans considered savages and less evolved was obvious, loud and much circulated.

Then came DNA sequencing and genome mapping. Suddenly, it was the Europeans that had between 1-3% Neanderthal DNA, bringing with it an association with Crohne’s disease, Type II diabetes, lupus, and increased susceptibility to feeling pain. There were also advantages such as better clotting mechanisms.

The narrative has changed in the past 15 years or so. Neanderthals aren’t any longer blockheaded idiots that drag women around by the long hair. They were smarter than the average caveman, had evolutionary advantages and non-African human lines should all be proud to carry this echo of the past.

The victors surely get to write history. And to revise it as well.

Oh well

Keep any replies brief please (you know who you are!)

In reply to Halliwell
Funny I was listening to this crap last night. Now it’s the Neanderthals who saved di rest of us.

History written by Neanderthals will glorify themselves.

In reply to Halliwell

Fascinating topic indeed! The research published by the Max Planck Institute presents a compelling argument about the interbreeding between early human populations and Neanderthals in Europe. It is true that the perception of Neanderthals has evolved over time, from being seen as primitive beings to now being recognized for their intelligence and genetic contributions to modern humans.

The discovery of Neanderthal DNA in non-African human populations has reshaped our understanding of human evolution and the interconnectedness of different hominid species. The genetic legacy left by Neanderthals has not only shed light on our shared ancestry but also provided insights into the genetic factors influencing certain diseases and physiological traits.

It is indeed a testament to the complexity of our evolutionary history and the ongoing discoveries in the field of genetics and paleoanthropology. The narrative of human evolution continues to be refined and expanded as new evidence comes to light, challenging previous assumptions and broadening our perspectives on our ancient relatives, such as the Neanderthals.

It explains VIX.

In reply to sgtdjones

That long ass post added nothing dey Naps man. I want your opinion, not dropping the bombshell that it is an exciting or intriguing topic

In reply to Halliwell

VIX and you are buddies, ask him...

Its like talking to a Neanderthal; VIX posts the same thing daily.
One of the traits of such species.

ah fergats ..ah is a busy man...

ps You should be happy a former professor gave her expertise in one line...

In reply to Halliwell

So you want lil ole me to give an opinion and you research such fields...huh?

Will post one later, busy with two engineering proposals.

Enjoy your Yorkshire pudding at the cafeteria.

tata

In reply to sgtdjones

You start back signing you posts, nice.

I am ‘intrigued’ how this story is spun to ignore the negative traits and promote the few ambiguously positive ones. Even claiming now an evolutionary advantage to those lines coming out of Africa! I guess the argumentative lines had converge on the well trodden paths.

We have seen Africans ripped out of Africa and adapt to the New World. In a few hundred years - not the ‘000s that scientists insist on for every similar theory- Africans became the fastest in the Olympics. The Europeans went to the new world and were caught by yellow fever and malaria. They exchanged that for small pox and the like in turn decimating the South Americans.

But yeah, evolutionary advantage in isolation. Good theory to believe if your eyes are closed. Not me.

That was in relation to the post above
Sheesh

In reply to Halliwell

You have raised some interesting points

Indeed, the research into the gene flow from Neanderthals and Denisovans contributing to the genetic diversity of modern humans is a compelling and interesting area of study.
Studies have indicated that these ancient hominin populations interbred with early modern humans, resulting in the transfer of genetic material that has persisted in our genomes to this day. 
One intriguing aspect of this genetic admixture is the potential for increased immunity to new diseases.
 
By incorporating genetic variants from Neanderthals and Denisovans, modern humans may have acquired a broader immune response toolkit that could have provided advantages in combating novel pathogens encountered during human migration and settlement in new environments.
Further investigation into the specific genetic components involved in immunity and disease resistance inherited from our ancient relatives could offer valuable insights into the evolutionary mechanisms that have shaped the immune systems of modern humans.
This line of research opens up a window to the past, illuminating how genetic exchanges with other hominin species have influenced our biological makeup and contributed to the diverse array of traits that define us as a species.

Your perspective on the narrative surrounding genetic admixture and its supposed benefits is interesting.
It is indeed crucial to critically examine and question the stories that are constructed around scientific theories , especially when they may overlook negative aspects or emphasize only certain positive traits.
The historical realities of human migrations, interactions, and adaptations are complex and multifaceted, and it is essential to consider the full spectrum of experiences and outcomes that have shaped our evolutionary journey.

The example you provided of Africans adapting to the New World and excelling in the Olympics within a relatively short timeframe highlights the resilience and adaptability of human populations in response to changing environments and challenges. Similarly, the devastating impact of diseases such as smallpox and malaria on different populations throughout history underscores the harsh realities of biological encounters and the unequal distribution of health outcomes. Novel pathogens are also advancing and mutating; is nature making life more interesting?

By acknowledging the complexities and nuances of human history, we can move beyond simplistic narratives and engage in a more nuanced understanding of how genetic admixture, environmental pressures, and cultural factors have influenced the evolution of modern humans. It is through critical reflection and open dialogue that we can strive to uncover the full richness of our shared genetic heritage and the diverse paths that have led us to where we are today.

Busy day today didn't have much time. What do you think of the above?

I remember seeing a docu a few yrs ago on what The Planck Inst published just now. They even simulated the "foreplay' between Neanders and Human. I did chuckle a couple weeks ago when I saw DeGrasse explain how dem men who promoted Eugenics switched the facts and narrative. Wish I knew enough to contribute to the discussion

In reply to Brerzerk

This discussion is hopefully for everyone, and not just to bring facts. It’s for me about opinions on the narrative, and associate motives, in 2025 no less!!!
How is this still happening?
I mean it’s happening concerning Israel isn’t it. Imagine a preemptive strike against another country’s navy!

What manner of insecurity would necessitate a whole multinational academic machinery to be brought into play to perform damage control on human evolutionary lines????

In reply to sgtdjones


Still awaiting your opinion boss man . Not a summary of what I wrote and how it’s ’indeed interesting’ and ‘raises complex questions about the multifaceted’… chooops

In reply to Halliwell

Rewriting history has always been about preserving power. " A people without knowledge of their past is like a tree without its roots" Marcus Mosiah

In reply to Halliwell




You were willing to accept that Africa was the cradle of humanity; now that could be in discussions, you are perplexed.

The above tells of your opinion...


​Are you engaging deeply with the complexities of how narratives are shaped and interpreted? I​f I mirror that tone and delve into the nuances as well​, it tells of my position.

It seems there’s a tension between the need for clarity and the inherent messiness of reality. When we talk about framing, especially in contexts like evolution or history, the lens through which we view the subject matters as much as the subject itself. Narratives are rarely neutral; they’re shaped by the storyteller’s intentions, the audience’s expectations, and the cultural or ideological backdrop against which they’re told. This framing doesn’t necessarily invalidate the narrative but does demand scrutiny.

Take, for example, the concept of evolutionary "advantages." The term itself is loaded—it implies progress, improvement, or something inherently "better." But as you pointed out, these traits are only advantageous under certain conditions. The same trait that ensures survival in one context might lead to vulnerability in another. To view such phenomena through a purely positive or negative lens is to miss the intricate interplay of factors that define them. And, as you suggest, sometimes the "why" of a narrative’s framing is as telling as the "what."

Your observation about familiar argumentative paths is particularly striking. There’s a comfort in well-trodden ground, in using familiar metaphors or archetypes to make sense of complexity. But this comfort can come at a cost: oversimplification, reductionism, and the exclusion of perspectives that don’t fit neatly within the chosen framework. When a narrative leans too heavily on glorification or vilification, it risks becoming propaganda rather than a tool for understanding.

So, does it matter what any opinion is? I think it does—but only if we approach opinions as starting points rather than conclusions. The value lies in their ability to provoke thought, to challenge assumptions, and to open doors to deeper inquiry. Opinions aren’t truths; they’re lenses. And the more lenses we’re willing to consider, the closer we might come to seeing the full picture.

In the end, intellectual honesty, as you rightly emphasize, is the cornerstone of meaningful discourse. It requires a willingness to sit with discomfort, to acknowledge contradictions, and to resist the urge to simplify. This kind of engagement doesn’t just enrich our understanding of specific topics; it fosters the kind of critical thinking that allows us to navigate a world full of competing narratives and agendas. And isn’t that, in itself, an evolutionary advantage of sorts? Not in the biological sense, but in the cultural and intellectual sense—our ability to question, to balance, to adapt our understanding as new perspectives come to light.

Busy day tomorrow...

I had planned a ski vacation in Quebec over the holidays; now I must cancel. I have some problems with heat transfer on a couple of projects.

One thing struck me from the above post upon 1st reading

You are saying we should question Africa as the cradle of civilisation

Based on what? Because the genetic evidence is clear.

The Mesopotamian record?

In reply to Halliwell

It sounds like you're reflecting on the nature of scientific research and its implications. The work of institutions like the Max Planck Institute often pushes the boundaries of our understanding, which can be both exciting and unsettling. It's entirely valid to approach new discoveries with curiosity and skepticism until you can fully grasp their significance. Engaging with research critically is a vital part of scientific inquiry. You are involved in such daily.

The genetic and historical evidence highlights an essential clarity in human history: Africa as the biological cradle of humanity and Mesopotamia as a cultural and societal milestone in the story of civilizations. The distinction is not only logical but necessary for understanding the nuanced tapestry of human evolution and societal development.

Africa's role as the origin of humanity is supported by robust genetic evidence, particularly mitochondrial DNA studies. The unparalleled genetic diversity found in African populations underscores their position as the root from which the rest of humanity branched out. The "Out of Africa" theory, backed by both fossil records and genetic analysis, is one of the cornerstones of modern anthropology, tracing the migration of Homo sapiens out of Africa to populate the rest of the world.

On the other hand, Mesopotamia's title as the "cradle of civilization" refers to a different aspect of human history—our transition from nomadic lifestyles to settled, complex societies. The advancements in agriculture, writing systems like cuneiform, and urbanization in Mesopotamia marked humanity's leap into organized societal structures. However, the achievements of ancient Egyptian civilization in the Nile Valley are equally significant, demonstrating that Africa was not only humanity's birthplace but also a hub of early cultural and technological innovation.

The narrative of human history, therefore, is not a competition between regions but a mosaic of contributions. Africa's foundational role in human origins complements the cultural and societal strides made in places like Mesopotamia and the Nile Valley. Together, they form a cohesive story of human progress, diversity, and ingenuity.

ta ta

In reply to Halliwell

Now you are in your binary thinking mode ...okkkkkk

In reply to Halliwell

This is how I would have promoted or dissected the research study...

The article from the Max Planck Institute indeed brings to light some profound and thought-provoking questions about early human evolution and the complex relationships between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals.

What specific advantages did interbreeding with Neanderthals confer to early modern humans?
How did environmental factors influence the interactions between early humans and Neanderthals?
What were the demographic dynamics of early human populations in Europe?
How did cultural exchanges between Neanderthals and early humans impact their respective societies?
What role did competition with other hominin species play in the survival of interbred lineages?
How should we redefine our understanding of "human" in light of these findings?
What further evidence is needed to support or refute these claims?

Genomic studies: Expanding the analysis of ancient DNA to include more individuals and regions could refine our understanding of interbreeding events and their timing.
Archaeological evidence: Unearthing more sites that show direct interactions, such as shared tool use or cohabitation, could provide context for genetic findings.
Environmental reconstructions: High-resolution climate models and ecological studies could help clarify the environmental conditions that shaped these interactions.
Experimental archaeology: Recreating tools or behaviours based on archaeological findings could offer insights into the cultural exchanges between these groups.

The questions raised by the Max Planck Institute highlight the intricate interplay of genetics, culture, and environment in shaping the story of human evolution.
By studying the deep connections between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals, we move closer to understanding what it means to be human—not as a singular, isolated species, but as a complex lineage shaped by countless interactions over millennia.
These findings remind us that our shared history is one of connection, adaptation, and resilience.

Then again, I am a low-value poster as classified by Arawak.

Sarge

Can any learned one tell me where Adam and Eve fit into all of this?

An inquiring mind would like to know.

Were they Neanderthals or Homo Sapiens?

In reply to Casper

Regretfully, the black book of fables is not something I believe in.

They were as your handle, a friendly ghost, and a vivid imagination.

They didn't exist. Unless you have DNA evidence.

Unfortunately, some would even say, fortunately, that “ black book of fables”, as you describe it, continues to drive the agenda in too numerous ways, partially in the election of Donald Trump and in what’s currently occurring in the Middle East.

In reply to Casper

Be careful dat fellow.

The guy who needs DNA evidence for Adam and Eve does not need ‘such’ for extra terrestrial intelligent life! You heard it here first!!!!

In reply to Halliwell

Maybe Sgt is Isa Guha in disguise