|
Icarys -> RE: Genes Say Some Are Part Neanderthal (5/7/2010 4:34:41 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Caius
I'm inclined to go with MM on this one, at least insofar as the particulars of that second article do not have sufficient empirical evidence to elevate them far above the level of conjecture. To be perfectly fair I haven't reviewed the proponents research as yet (since he hasn't published any), but I feel confident making some points just based on the abstract alone, having a firm background in evolutionary theory (especially as regards cognitive science and evolutionary psychology). And yes, for any who notice, that's the second time I've said that about a subject matter on these boards today but can I help it if the forum is pitching them straight into my zone?
It's important to remember first off that regarding the seeming (there is still some controversy) confirmations of the last few years of Neanderthal DNA surviving within many of us were largely met with a collective "Duh." from the scientific community of geneticists, evolutionary biologists/physiologists, paleontologists and so forth, many of whom had for some time been working under the assumption that this was probably true, for a variety of reasons. There's nothing new there. But a hypothesis entitled "The Neanderthal Predation Theory" sends up red flags instantly. That Neanderthals and 'modern' man (Homo sapiens sapien and their immediate predecessors) competed, often violently, for resources throughout significant stretches of prehistoric Europe if fairly well-established theory. That interbreeding probably took place was assumed, and for the present purposes we'll say now confirmed and that was probably a very brutish affair, even by prehistoric standards. All given. But these convoluted theories about how Neanderthal pushed Homo sapiens to the brink until there was only 50 members remaining (what an oddly specific number to arrive at in these circumstances) who then bounced like the hominid equivalent antibiotic-resistant super-bacteria, stronger and more vicious than ever just doesn't seem to fit with the picture of what we do know of the era and the spread of these peoples. For one, there's little evidence that the Neanderthals did much more than get their asses regularly kicked up on side of Europe and down the other in terms of the evolutionary struggle.
Yes, Neanderthal were marginally larger and stronger, but Homo sapiens were smarter, better organized, better-equipped and armed. They were more effective hunters and gatherers with a broader range of food, they lived longer, they produced in larger numbers and more frequently, and had correspondingly much larger populations which gathered in larger groups. To say nothing of apparent physiological and metabolic advantages). The theory here seems to be that this work and the impressive paleontological record to support these features all concerns Cro-Magnons (early homo sapiens) who were descendants of a weaker, less aggressive iteration of humanity and if only not for those damn dirty ape-men we'd all be a lot more enlightened and peaceful by nature. Interesting theory. Is it viable? Roughly. But it does something most good empirical theories don't do -- it starts out by supplying an unnecessary part in the framework. It's not inspired by any new evidence that has caused us to re-evaluate our model of how something happened, it just adds a twist to a familiar theory that can't be confirmed or denied. Without hard evidence it's just one of any number of tales that we might spin about the early prehistory of man as a distinct species. Add to the fact that the originator of the theory is an 'independent researcher' writing a book, as opposed to a scholar working in a structured research context and submitting his work to peer-reviewed journals and you can surely color me dubious.
How much of this is actually proven with hard scientific facts outside of bones, tools and dna?
I'm legitimately curious here
~George
|
|
|
|
