[QUOTE=John Mace]
BTW, Cecil had something to say about chimp strength. Doesn’t sound like that could come from leverage alone.
[/QUOTE]
If anyone happens to have access to the Journal of Mammology, this paper should be relevant.
[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
In case you didn’t notice, I provided my source, which you are free to evaluate for anything it’s worth. If you want to get pissy and snarky, take it to the pit. I dont have time to debate your 'tude here.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
In case you didn’t notice, I provided my source, which you are free to evaluate for anything it’s worth. If you want to get pissy and snarky, take it to the pit. I dont have time to debate your 'tude here.
[/QUOTE]
**Warning **
Enough already smiling bandit. Knock off the name-calling. This is an official warning. And while not prohibited, friend-of-a-friend cites are disfavored in General Questions.
Gfactor
General Questions Moderator
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I’ve read a number of papers by Trinkaus, Stringer and Tattersal (can’t cite them here) that indicate the Neanderthals were stronger in pretty much every part of their bodies, down to their fingers and thumbs. Those guys are pretty much the experts on Neanderthal anatomy, so I’m going with their conclusions.
[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. My point–and I don’t think I did a very suitable job of it–is that we don’t have any direct emprical data or an authoritative estimate of the strength of H. neanderthalensis, nor do we have a universally accepted view of their evolutionary lineage, so using it as a data point in comparison to the relative strength of human and chimpanzee or other great apes tends to add confusion rather than clarify. I agree that they were likely somewhat stronger (and note that Lemur866 qualified his statements to avoid the hyperbole of super-mutant-strength Neaderthals that are often claimed) so…I now feel kind of stupid out of having made an issue of it at all.
Stranger
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Probably not. Chimps are, in an absolute sense, stronger than humans by a factor of at least 3 and possibly as high as 6. In addition, they have long canine teeth that can do a lot of damage. Now, there is a variation in strength among humans, and it is possible that a trained fighter might subdue a chimp, but you average Joe against your average “Cheeta” doesn’t stand a chance.
[/QUOTE]
I stand corrected…
[QUOTE=John Mace]
That is not the way evolution works.
[/QUOTE]
That wasn’t a helpful comment. Could you make it helpful, please?
-FrL-
Possibly the difference in strength might be from evolutionary adaptations to fine motor control and endurance over brute muscle power? My understanding is that there is a tradeoff involved, with different muscle attachment leverage points and even different muscle fibres (long v.s. short fibre) involved. The endurance requirements of a cursorial hunting lifestyle and the fine control and repetitive movement requirements of tool-making and -using may have led to selection away from muscular strength.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Probably not. Chimps are, in an absolute sense, stronger than humans by a factor of at least 3 and possibly as high as 6. In addition, they have long canine teeth that can do a lot of damage. Now, there is a variation in strength among humans, and it is possible that a trained fighter might subdue a chimp, but you average Joe against your average “Cheeta” doesn’t stand a chance.
[/QUOTE]
And chimps fight dirty, too. Look at that link Lemur866 posted: “The chimps chewed off St. James Davis’ nose and severely mauled his genitals and limbs…”
That was back in March 2005. I wonder how well that guy came through the incident.
ETA: Found a 5-page story on the incident at the Washington Post.
[QUOTE=chorpler]
And chimps fight dirty, too. Look at that link Lemur866 posted: “The chimps chewed off St. James Davis’ nose and severely mauled his genitals and limbs…”
That was back in March 2005. I wonder how well that guy came through the incident.
ETA: Found a 5-page story on the incident at the Washington Post.
[/QUOTE]
That is S.O.P. for chimps. They do it to other chimps, and they do it to us hoo-mans, too. Fingers, genitals, toes… biting out chunks of flesh. Not something you want to have as a pet.
[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train]
The notion that Neanderthals were stronger or more brutish than modern humans of the same era is an outdated notion that stems from 19th century phrenological assessments as has no basis in modern understanding.
[/QUOTE]
Well, considerably greater bone density in Neanderthals, and other extinct hominids is well documented, and does indicate greater strength. Alan Walker and Pat Shipman made much of that in The Wisdom Of The Bones (1996), which discussed a two million year old Homo Erectus fossil (the “Turkana Boy”). Based on what they could conclude about the bones from the fossils, they thought the individual must have been far stronger than any living human. OTOH, some of that could be due to lifestyle; presumably if a group of humans were forced to live for a few generations under completely primitive conditions, they would regain some “monkey strength”.