D.O.B. 14/32/3007B.C. (We had more months and days back then)
Turn ons: Time Travel, Duck with Mango Salsa.
Turn Offs: Insensitive Auto Insurance Ads.
Caveman, when you see a girl, you gotta knock her on the head,
Take her by her curly locks and drag her off to bed
Caveman, gotta find the old, blind dudes hiding in the dark,
Caveman, gotta toss them out, let them munch on dry, tasteless bark.
You gotta pull your weight, Burn that meat, you know it tastes great.
Hordes of bison, arrowheads, and deer
There goes caveman and he’s drawing on the wall again
He’s drawing so high, high, drawing so high…
[Moderator Note]
Hershon4, political jabs like this are not permitted in General Questions. No warning issued, since you are new here, but please refrain from these kinds of comments in the future.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
"Okay - just for some background -
- How old are you?
- What is the extent of your education?
- You are asking this question with the intent of potentially sharing content on a blog - what is the purpose of the blog and what points would you be making where you would use the input you get here?"
I’m in my early 50’s with a Masters Degree. I never took any anthropology courses and I always assumed erroneously from watching different movies and TV shows (not the Flintstones) that the cavemen (Prehistoric Man) lived at the same time as the Dinosaurs! It never came up in conversations so I always assumed this till now.
My Blog is a general interest blog with about 175,000 different readers a month (they usually find the blog posts via Google by looking up subjects). I write about anything that sounds interesting and is what I consider a good read, whether or not someone agrees with the post or not, like for instance: Aruba Wanting Joran Van Der Sloot Dead Before He Can Talk and occasional interviews like with former Dallas Cowboys QB and former NFL Offensive Coordinator Jerry Rhome. I just wanted to give a heads up in case I decided to use something someone uniquely said (for which I’d credit their screen name). In the questions I posted, I won’t be writing a blog on because the answers while good were too diverse and not meaty enough for me. That’s not meant as criticism but they’re not what I was looking for in using as a rough focal point. I didn’t have any great knowledge on the subject but had interest in the possible answer(s) to the question which is how I roll!
There are some really good questions on this Site which I find a good read.
I’ve often wondered that if the cause of this change was genetic then whilst this gene spread there would in effect be two types of homo sapiens. And, I assume, that it would take thousands of years for this mutation to spread from its origin to the furthermost outreaches of humanity. So wouldn’t there be a detectable difference in technology improvement centred on the origin left in the archaeological record?
What were you looking for? I don’t know if the answers were meaty, but they were correct.
You should return for advice if you want to post anything science-related. There is an expert on just about everything around here.
If we had known that we would have tried to be more entertaining.
I’m doing the best I can.
Oh, by the way Hershon4, welcome to the Dope.
Seconded. There’s no better place on the planet for people seeking wisdom from other smart, funny, well-informed people.
So the blog is Gifts and Free Advice?
I am still trying to process the concept of someone not realizing that dinosaurs died out (with some notable exceptions like modern-day birds) millions of years before homo sapiens evolved but thinking that the responses posted to this thread are not “meaty enough.” Meaty enough along what lines? Sounds like you have an angle you are looking for that you haven’t found here on this message board…
Dinosaur meat, like in the opening of The Flintstones, where the car tips over from the rack of ribs that the car hop brings out.
Don’t be too sure of that. Lots of people are very uninformed on evolutionary topics.
Not sure if this was mentioned or not, but there is a debate among anthropologists as to whether there was a significant cognitive evolution in our species since we first appeared-- roughly 200k years ago. Some even think that we did not have “fully articulate” language until about 60k years ago. So, it’s possible a 100k year old child who looked like a modern human might not have the same cognitive ability. You will sometimes hear the term “anatomically modern humans” to describe humans of our species before this ~60k year threshold. IOW, they looked like us, but didn’t have our brainpower.
There is evidence in the genetic record of a major population bottleneck about 75,000 years ago, likely caused by the Lake Toba supervolcano eruption, which wiped out a large part of the human population, especially outside of Africa. This would have significantly reduced the size of the population in which the gene needed to spread, reducing the time needed to promulgate the change. If the mutation occured in Africa, then subsequent outmigration would have carried it to the few remaining pockets of humans elsewhere (and even Africa would likely not yet have been that widely settled).
There kinda was - H. Sapiens Idaltu - a subspecies of H. Sapiens that lived ~ 160,000 years ago in Africa (we’re H. Sapiens Sapiens). Neanderthals are also sometimes classed as a subspecies of H. Sapiens.
Keep in mind that there is not a consensus in the scientific community on this. Many scientist go by the “absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence” maxim. And we keep finding older and older evidence of symbolic art. Currently, some of the oldest is some beaded shells that appear to be about 75k years old.
There is even some evidence that Neanderthals created symbolic objects (ie, art).
There is definitely a debate still going on, and the recent discovery that some groups of humans appear to have some Neanderthal heritage keeps the door open that our capacity for language and symbolic thought goes back longer than the 60k year mark that some scientist insist was the beginning of truly modern humans.
Or more precisely, they looked like us, but we don’t know whether or not they had our brainpower. It’s hard enough to get fossils of things like bone, much less fossils of thought.
Not really. That wasn’t a different branch of the human lineage, but the same branch we’re on. Your cite states that they are thought to be the ancestors of what are sometimes called H. sapiens sapiens.
True, but not so much today. You saw that more about 30 or 40 years ago. It’s generally just H. neanderthalensis today.
Keep in mind, too, that using the species definition for ancient populations is problematic. It’s a matter of convention, to a certain degree, and not really like the process of assigning species names to extant populations.
That would be my take on it, but there are scientist who propose that those humans were not the same as us mentally. Those scientists are making a claim, based on evidence (or lack thereof), and are not being agnostic on the issue. This isn’t a fringe view, like the Multiregional Hypothesis pushed by Wolpoff (and just about no one else these days).
That’s what I was trying to say, a subspecies of the archaic H. Sapiens, just as we are…depends how split off you want to get, I guess. The wiki says that they “…were argued to represent the direct ancestors of modern Homo sapiens sapiens,” so make of that what you will. The article on H. sapiens probably explains it better: ““Modern humans” are defined as the Homo sapiens species, of which the only extant subspecies is known as Homo sapiens sapiens. Homo sapiens idaltu (roughly translated as “elder wise human”), the other known subspecies, is now extinct.[10]”
Indeed, more research/discoveries will probably be needed to fit the Neanderthals in their proper taxonomic place, I found this an interesting read on the topic, as it rightly points out that their classification is more than just semantics.