Were neanderthals peaceful creatures?

[The Two Jerseys]

Why don't you try asking a neanderthal the next time you see one?

[Purpelia]

Why don't you try asking a neanderthal the next time you see one?

I would. But apparently we Europeans literally fucked them all to death. So yeah.

[Electic]

Why don't you try asking a neanderthal the next time you see one?

I would. But apparently we Europeans literally fucked them all to death. So yeah.

Virgin Neanderthal vs Chad Indo-Europeans?

[Risottia]

Humans have only ever existed in their current form. Neanderthals (as well as other bones of the Homo nomenclature, and dinosaurs) are just misidentified skeletons. This misidentification is not always deliberate, but can be attributed to the belief in the theory of evolution (along with the big bang), itself a proponent of Scientism. What is deliberate is the propagation of these atheistic falsities by the Masonic global cabal.

1/10. Try harder. You need at least a reference to the Bilderberg and something questioning the shape of Earth.

[Seangoli]

Neanderthals were intelligent creatures that evolved parallel to homosapiens

Er, not quite.
"Neanderthals" were a different subspecies of Homo Sapiens, whose trinomial name is H.S.Neanderthalensis. They were NOT a separate species, as proven by the admixture of Neanderthal DNA in contemporary H.S.Sapiens. They evolved in parallel to Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

until they were wiped out and assimilated by the homosapiens.

Source for this claim?

Studies showed that they were tool users, had art and were capable of speech. Humans being inherently violent creatures,

Every Homo Sapiens subspecies is tool-using and produces art. As for the speech claim, we have hints, no proof.
Every Homo Sapiens subspecies is "inherently violent", as proven by our ability to survive competition from other predators, our ability to become apex predators, and our art depicting hunting scenes.

I can see that we won by killing and taking neanderthal women despite being physically weaker

Again: proof?

and possibly at the same intellectual level. Was it because neanderthals were peaceful relative to the homosapiens? What say you NSG?

More likely because the coming of the interglacial favoured the H.S.S. (a subspecies more fit for hotter climates) than the H.S.N. (more fit for colder climates). Also, H.S.S. are likely better runners than the H.S.N. were.

Look at our closest non-human relatives, Pan Troglodytes (the chimpanzee). They are extremely violent tool-users, and practice organised violence. There's no such thing as a peaceful Hominin, because the environment would make them extinct quite soon. H.S.Neanderthal lasted AT LEAST 360,000 years ; they didn't last by being nice to competitors such as Australopitecines and other humans, or to preys and predators.

Neanderthals weren't necessarily just a subspecies of Homo sapiens, amd there is still considerable debate on their taxanomy. There really isn't a complete consensus on whether or not they should be classified as a seperate species or subspecies. There is compelling evidence and arguments for both sides, and there have been some seperate species that can produce viable offspring in the modern day with closely related seperate species.

This argument also goes deeper into our ancestry as well, with some researchers arguing that H. erectus may in fact be a subspecies of H. sapiens. Its a murky mess amd pretty complicated.

Equally, Neanderthals didn't compete with Australopithecus. The latter predated the former by millions of years. In reality, the Neanderthal line largely likely didn't directly compete with many hominids at all; rather, they adapted to climates and environments thay were largely devoid of other hominids, begin in the Levant region and slowly migrating through Europe. Gramted, their earlier ancestors in the Heidelbergensis ine possibly did, however its difficult to parse what their relationship to other hominids was as this line moved into previously uninhabited regions and became Neanderthals.

[Seangoli]

Sure, there were skirmishes and incidents but it was by and large a peaceful coexistence, which is why interbreeding was so common. And not just male Sapien female Neanderthal, either, the reverse was also true.

Male Neanderthal, female s.sapiens, is the form there is evidence for - Neanderthal genes in some populations of modern humans. Mitochondrial DNA though, shows no Neanderthal ancestry, which suggests that a male s.sapiens & female Neanderthal couple was not fertile for whatever reason.

Some people mentioned that Neanderthals didn't use throwing weapons - spears etc. because of anatomy ? They couldn't throw a spear ? Why not ?


Had an opportunity a while back to handle an artifact - a hand-axe - a stone shaped into a cutting implement, made by Neanderthals. It was a profound experience. You could feel that the axe geometry was a bit different to the geometry of hand-axes made by same-era s.sapiens humans. Possibly closest thing you can get to handling an alien artifact.

The reason they possibly couldn't throw a spear is because they potentially didn't have the same shoulder rotation as anatomically modern humans. They actually couldn't move their arms in a manner capable of throwing a spear.

They also likely couldn't run as well either, due to the morphology of their hips and legs. Great endurance walkers, piss-poor runners.

[Nazi Juggalos]

Humans have only ever existed in their current form. Neanderthals (as well as other bones of the Homo nomenclature, and dinosaurs) are just misidentified skeletons. This misidentification is not always deliberate, but can be attributed to the belief in the theory of evolution (along with the big bang), itself a proponent of Scientism. What is deliberate is the propagation of these atheistic falsities by the Masonic global cabal.

What are you smoking and where I can get some?

[Risottia]

Er, not quite.
"Neanderthals" were a different subspecies of Homo Sapiens, whose trinomial name is H.S.Neanderthalensis. They were NOT a separate species, as proven by the admixture of Neanderthal DNA in contemporary H.S.Sapiens. They evolved in parallel to Homo Sapiens Sapiens.


Source for this claim?


Every Homo Sapiens subspecies is tool-using and produces art. As for the speech claim, we have hints, no proof.
Every Homo Sapiens subspecies is "inherently violent", as proven by our ability to survive competition from other predators, our ability to become apex predators, and our art depicting hunting scenes.


Again: proof?


More likely because the coming of the interglacial favoured the H.S.S. (a subspecies more fit for hotter climates) than the H.S.N. (more fit for colder climates). Also, H.S.S. are likely better runners than the H.S.N. were.

Look at our closest non-human relatives, Pan Troglodytes (the chimpanzee). They are extremely violent tool-users, and practice organised violence. There's no such thing as a peaceful Hominin, because the environment would make them extinct quite soon. H.S.Neanderthal lasted AT LEAST 360,000 years ; they didn't last by being nice to competitors such as Australopitecines and other humans, or to preys and predators.

Neanderthals weren't necessarily just a subspecies of Homo sapiens, amd there is still considerable debate on their taxanomy. There really isn't a complete consensus on whether or not they should be classified as a seperate species or subspecies. There is compelling evidence and arguments for both sides, and there have been some seperate species that can produce viable offspring in the modern day with closely related seperate species.

Considering how "separate species" would require inability to mate producing fertile offspring, and that we have HSS with HSN genetic material, I'd say that the case for HSS and Neanderthals being separate species is rather hopeless.

[Risottia]

Why don't you try asking a neanderthal the next time you see one?

I would. But apparently we Europeans literally fucked them all to death. So yeah.

Phear our phallus.

[Aureumterra]

Neanderthals weren't necessarily just a subspecies of Homo sapiens, amd there is still considerable debate on their taxanomy. There really isn't a complete consensus on whether or not they should be classified as a seperate species or subspecies. There is compelling evidence and arguments for both sides, and there have been some seperate species that can produce viable offspring in the modern day with closely related seperate species.

Considering how "separate species" would require inability to mate producing fertile offspring, and that we have HSS with HSN genetic material, I'd say that the case for HSS and Neanderthals being separate species is rather hopeless.

Neanderthals were pretty much an extremely different race rather than a separate species. Human races, I consider to be similar to animal breeds in a biological sense

[Seangoli]

Neanderthals weren't necessarily just a subspecies of Homo sapiens, amd there is still considerable debate on their taxanomy. There really isn't a complete consensus on whether or not they should be classified as a seperate species or subspecies. There is compelling evidence and arguments for both sides, and there have been some seperate species that can produce viable offspring in the modern day with closely related seperate species.

Considering how "separate species" would require inability to mate producing fertile offspring, and that we have HSS with HSN genetic material, I'd say that the case for HSS and Neanderthals being separate species is rather hopeless.

The real world doesn't like to play as nicely as taxonomic systems would have you believe. We have certain closely related seperate species that can, in fact, produce viable offspring that are fertile amd we have full-fledged species that cannot mate with other members of their own species depending on location (eg. ring species, wherein an individual from a population can only mate with members of the closest other population, but not other populations).

There are a whole host of problems with considering Neanderthals a subspecies, largely stemming from the fact that you rarely see such biological variation in most subspecies. There are very pronounced, very specific adaptations existing in Neanderthal anatomy that are only possible by a very specific sort of evolutionary path that you wouldn't expect out of typical subspecies.

There is also an argument that if Neanderthals should be a subspecies, then we should probably go back even further; as I said, there is an argument to be made that H. erectus is a subspecies itself, as there are regional traits that specifically arise in certain modern populations shared with regional traits dating thay far back, but not shared elsewhere. Indicating the human line is ludicrously complex, and typcial notions of taxonomy are just not adequate to explain this variation.

[Neutraligon]

When people mention our closest relatives, why do they seem to forget the bonobo?

[Farnhamia]

When people mention our closest relatives, why do they seem to forget the bonobo?

Because bonobos are like those reclusive relatives you always forget about until one of them leaves you a little something in their will and then you're all, "Oh, man, I should have been nice to them" but it's too late and you cash the check anyway.

[Valrifell]

Male Neanderthal, female s.sapiens, is the form there is evidence for - Neanderthal genes in some populations of modern humans. Mitochondrial DNA though, shows no Neanderthal ancestry, which suggests that a male s.sapiens & female Neanderthal couple was not fertile for whatever reason.

Some people mentioned that Neanderthals didn't use throwing weapons - spears etc. because of anatomy ? They couldn't throw a spear ? Why not ?


Had an opportunity a while back to handle an artifact - a hand-axe - a stone shaped into a cutting implement, made by Neanderthals. It was a profound experience. You could feel that the axe geometry was a bit different to the geometry of hand-axes made by same-era s.sapiens humans. Possibly closest thing you can get to handling an alien artifact.

The reason they possibly couldn't throw a spear is because they potentially didn't have the same shoulder rotation as anatomically modern humans. They actually couldn't move their arms in a manner capable of throwing a spear.

They also likely couldn't run as well either, due to the morphology of their hips and legs. Great endurance walkers, piss-poor runners.

The morphology of our hips and legs is also what helps us throw things better (farther and with more accuracy) than most other primates.

[Farnhamia]

The reason they possibly couldn't throw a spear is because they potentially didn't have the same shoulder rotation as anatomically modern humans. They actually couldn't move their arms in a manner capable of throwing a spear.

They also likely couldn't run as well either, due to the morphology of their hips and legs. Great endurance walkers, piss-poor runners.

The morphology of our hips and legs is also what helps us throw things better (farther and with more accuracy) than most other primates.

So ... Neanderthals died out because they had crappy pitching?

[Valrifell]

The morphology of our hips and legs is also what helps us throw things better (farther and with more accuracy) than most other primates.

So ... Neanderthals died out because they had crappy pitching?

Neanderthals died out for a lot of reasons.

But, yeah, they went extinct cuz they couldn't yeet hard enough.

[Farnhamia]

So ... Neanderthals died out because they had crappy pitching?

Neanderthals died out for a lot of reasons.

But, yeah, they went extinct cuz they couldn't yeet hard enough.

I bet they had great hitting, though.

[Valrifell]

Neanderthals died out for a lot of reasons.

But, yeah, they went extinct cuz they couldn't yeet hard enough.

I bet they had great hitting, though.

How else do you think baseball got invented?

[Farnhamia]

They were just another breed of human. SO no, they were not peaceful. Not by a long shot. And if you need proof consider that Europeans have a non insignificant percentage of Neanderthal DNA. And we just love our wars.

The only reason most of African history isn't as bloody is simply because they didn't have the weapons to commit the atrocities Europe did. The urge to commit violence is as strong in Congo as it is in russia, the only difference being the means of murder

And I won't even speak on east asia. The an lushan rebellion alone killed more people than hitler did and that was the equivalent of a low level war

Historians such as Charles Patrick Fitzgerald argue that a claim of 36 million deaths is incompatible with contemporary accounts of the war.[23] They point out that the numbers recorded on the postwar registers reflect not only population loss, but also a breakdown of the census system as well as the removal from the census figures of various classes of untaxed persons, such as those in religious orders, foreigners and merchants.[24] For these reasons, census numbers for the post-rebellion Tang are considered unreliable.[19]

[Farnhamia]

I bet they had great hitting, though.

How else do you think baseball got invented?

I thought it was a mediocre Union general who didn't invent the game.

[The Two Jerseys]

Neanderthals died out for a lot of reasons.

But, yeah, they went extinct cuz they couldn't yeet hard enough.

I bet they had great hitting, though.

That's why they went extinct: they were all first basemen.

[Farnhamia]

I bet they had great hitting, though.

That's why they went extinct: they were all first basemen.

And designated hitters, but we digress.

[Neanderthaland]

Why don't you try asking a neanderthal the next time you see one?

I would. But apparently we Europeans literally fucked them all to death. So yeah.

Excuse me? No.

We fucked Homo Sapiens to suicide. Get it right.

[Neanderthaland]

Excuse me? No.

We fucked Homo Sapiens to suicide. Get it right.

....How are you here then?

Blue balled by a glacier.

[Farnhamia]

Excuse me? No.

We fucked Homo Sapiens to suicide. Get it right.

....How are you here then?

Okay, so when a Mommy and a Daddy love each a whole lot ...