[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

I have an interesting question. Neanderthals used the same style of stone tools for half a million years. They didn't change. What if the group of modern humans who are deathly opposed to change carry a particular Neanderthal gene?

[removed]

[removed]

Both species engaged in ritual behavior of some sort. This may not constitute what we think of as "religion". But the root word in Latin means "that which binds", with the sense of bringing/keeping a community closer together. In this context, we can certainly put H. neandertalensis, as well as H. sapiens, ritual behaviors into the category of religion. They didn't necessarily believe in supernatural beings, but they pretty clearly believed in something beyond their tangible experience.

[removed]

[removed]

Understanding that most timelines are guessing is a great place to start and don't get me started on radio carbon dating

Exactly what I am thinking. If we take a skeleton of an native australian and an european human, they look a bit different. But they are both humans, that could interbreed.

[removed]

This is the only way I've ever learned about this. The homosapien genetics essentially 'won' over time.

[removed]

Well understanding where you fail to understand is a good place to start.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Did we eat/they eat us? Could you give me some more information please? that seems fascinating

It's not the same, but somewhat similar. While they were not entirely sterile, it's likely that 1st generation neanderthal+sapiens had trouble making (male) babies as well:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/humans-and-neanderthals-may-have-had-trouble-making-male-babies-180958701/

[removed]

To people within the anth world this has a commonly known understood and accepted fact/theory for the past 50, it’s just all the non scientific people who doubt it, a certain group of people love to stifle or research and progress, hell we’re just sort of reaching the point where evolution is a commonly held belief

Yes, they should fix it. It seems misleading to claim that Neanderthals were a separate species, rather than merely a somewhat different looking group of people.

Right. Hence any discussion of human ‘species’ like Neanderthals sounding very Victorian and eugenicy. ‘They had broad chests and survived well in the cold’ or ‘they had heavier brow ridges’ seems like ridiculous concepts to determine a different species. You can easily make the same kind of list about Northern Europeans vs SE Asians for example (the Homo Scandanavianus species is defined by its great height and broad frame, high nose bridge, facial hair and and exotic coloration in eye and hair color). It is considered preposterous and racist to categorize modern humans into separate species yet it seems to be the method we categorize other genuses of ‘Homo’ and even all species are just separated by looking kinda different. It seems very archaic and pre-science.

[removed]