What if... Prehistoric edition! =D

TheLastOne36

Deity
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
14,045
What if the Neanderthals never became extinct? What would happen? How would they evolve and develop? How would they live with humans? How would Humans and Neanderthals cooperate/destroy each other? Would speaking be a factor because Neanderthal bodies were designed differently (and iirc prohibited them from making certein sounds or something) Today, would we still be able to reproduce with each species? Today would one of the species wipe out the other one? If the Neanderthals kept a stronghold in Europe, how would the modern world look without the European homo sapiens?
 
What if the Neanderthals never became extinct? What would happen? How would they evolve and develop? How would they live with humans? How would Humans and Neanderthals cooperate/destroy each other? Would speaking be a factor because Neanderthal bodies were designed differently (and iirc prohibited them from making certein sounds or something) Today, would we still be able to reproduce with each species? Today would one of the species wipe out the other one? If the Neanderthals kept a stronghold in Europe, how would the modern world look without the European homo sapiens?

explan how exactly would neanderthals keep ther stronghold?

I mean, compared to modern human they weren't especially smart. All land they took were continental and easily accesible, so no isolate islands... Modern human came and killed them all (faster technology inovation, superior technology, social and military (hunting) organisation).

Only way I could see it happen is that modern humans never came to be?
 
Again, if Prehistory refers to a time before recorded history, then would this not be counted as history and therefore, in the wrong forum?
 
Perhaps the Neanderthals hung on, undergoing a sort of "accelerated evolution" until they achieved humanlike intelligence while retaining their physical power. If so, I can see them lingering on in mountainous and heavily forested areas, establishing some limited contact with their taller, lankier cousins. Perhaps they would adopt human technology, mining and chopping lumber to trade for humans in return for food and other goods. They may gradually develop their own abilities, increasingly producing their own goods rather than relying on humans, becoming a sort of proto-industrial society, devoting a great amount of time to production in exchange for food supplies from humans traders. Their cultural emphasis on the production of goods could lead to them becoming highly skilled traders and metalsmiths. Maybe they would expand their "caves" and construct elaborate, partially-subterranean troglodyte dwellings, entire towns and even cities carved into mountainsides? Their limited numbers could, in the safety of their mountain homes, allow them to grow into a significant, if relatively small, population of craftsmen.

In short, I imagine dwarves.
 
Perhaps the Neanderthals hung on, undergoing a sort of "accelerated evolution" until they achieved humanlike intelligence while retaining their physical power. If so, I can see them lingering on in mountainous and heavily forested areas, establishing some limited contact with their taller, lankier cousins. Perhaps they would adopt human technology, mining and chopping lumber to trade for humans in return for food and other goods. They may gradually develop their own abilities, increasingly producing their own goods rather than relying on humans, becoming a sort of proto-industrial society, devoting a great amount of time to production in exchange for food supplies from humans traders. Their cultural emphasis on the production of goods could lead to them becoming highly skilled traders and metalsmiths. Maybe they would expand their "caves" and construct elaborate, partially-subterranean troglodyte dwellings, entire towns and even cities carved into mountainsides? Their limited numbers could, in the safety of their mountain homes, allow them to grow into a significant, if relatively small, population of craftsmen.

In short, I imagine dwarves.

Tall dwarves? interesting. :p
 
I heard (yes, heard, I forgot where) that the Neanderthals had bigger brains but disorganized brain "wiring." Maybe they'll evolve into above-average-intelligence pseudo-humans (because the guys with bad brain organization will be killed off and those with mutant good-organized-brains will be left because they will be the only ones to develop lasors against the Neanderthals' enemies).
 
Who said they are extinct?!
nikolai_valuev_nyikolaj_valujev_584200703123080717.jpg


aa3e0ca3-0ddc-449f-9b3e-66187dd5035f.jpg
 
^it is generally believed that some humans interbreeded with the neanderthals. Their ancestors might've and when they were born, the neanderthal genes came out.
 
Can I point out that, first, Neanderthals were human, so you shouldn't contrast Neanderthals on the one hand with humans on the other; and second, no-one knows what their intelligence/thought patterns/general personality was like. There's certainly no reason to suppose that they were stupider than us. In fact I'm not sure I can even imagine that...
 
They were certainly different, although as I understand it, there is disagreement over whether they should be considered a distinct species from Homo sapiens or merely a sub-species. But my point was that whether they were a distinct species or not, they were in the genus Homo. Why should only Homo sapiens be considered "human"?
 
Mostly because when the word "human" was first coined, the only species of Homo around was H. sapiens.

(I actually don't think one usage is better than the other, as long as it is clear which one is being used.)
 
They were certainly different, although as I understand it, there is disagreement over whether they should be considered a distinct species from Homo sapiens or merely a sub-species. But my point was that whether they were a distinct species or not, they were in the genus Homo. Why should only Homo sapiens be considered "human"?

They were definitively not-human, because human is a term relative to "human species". They weren't inferior to us, just different.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7582912.stm
 
They were definitively not-human, because human is a term relative to "human species". They weren't inferior to us, just different.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7582912.stm

But Neanderthals were a "human species", just not the same human species as us, probably. "Human" normally refers to the Homo genus, not the sapiens species. You'll notice that the story you link to consistently refers to Homo sapiens as "modern humans", not "humans" simpliciter, because the latter term could refer to Neanderthals as well. That's the usual practice in scientific writing on this subject.

I know that this is just a matter of terminology, but there's a good case for saying that restricting the term "human" to Homo sapiens, contrary to the usual practice, is itself rather prejudicial against other Homo species.
 
There is one science fiction book (Glory Lane by Alan Dean Foster) that has a (light-hearted) theory that the Neanderthals did not go extinct, but rather avoided the Cro-Magnons by leaving Earth in the spaceships that their larger brains allowed them to develop.

That is one answer to the proposed what-if.
 
Neanderthals are generally considered to be a seperate sub-species of Homo Sapiens. They most certainly were human, and there is fairly extensive evidence of crossbreeding between subspecies.

Based on their skulls their brains were probably larger, especially in the parts dealing with vision and physical coordination. We don't really have much evidence to determine the brain wiring, or their relative intelligence. There is evidence that they had surprisingly advanced medicine, including successful open heart surgery in which the patients survived long enough for their ribs to heal.


Those photos don't look very neanderthal-like to me. One distinctive characteristic of neanderthals is a less prominent chin.
 
But Neanderthals were a "human species", just not the same human species as us, probably. "Human" normally refers to the Homo genus, not the sapiens species. You'll notice that the story you link to consistently refers to Homo sapiens as "modern humans", not "humans" simpliciter, because the latter term could refer to Neanderthals as well. That's the usual practice in scientific writing on this subject.

I know that this is just a matter of terminology, but there's a good case for saying that restricting the term "human" to Homo sapiens, contrary to the usual practice, is itself rather prejudicial against other Homo species.

Aren't they just humanoids? Either way, seeing as they're all extinct, it doesn't make much a difference. Unless they somehow come back, and realize that under law, they are entitled to all our rights as well. Is there another term we could use exclusivley for us?
 
i have read about a kind of humanoid species around indonesia that was nicknamed "the hobbit" becuase of it's short length (1m30) recent studies would indicate that tribes may have intermixed with them.

found an article on them:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6311619.stm
'Hobbit' human 'is a new species'

The study suggests LB1 is a creature new to science


Enlarge Image

The tiny skeletal remains of human "Hobbits" found on an Indonesian island belong to a completely new branch of our family tree, a study has found.
The finds caused a sensation when they were announced to the world in 2004.

But some researchers argued the bones belonged to a modern human with a combination of small stature and a brain disorder called microcephaly.

That claim is rejected by the latest study, which compares the tiny people with modern microcephalics.

LB1 has a highly evolved brain. It didn't get bigger, it got rewired and reorganised, and that's very interesting

Dean Falk
Florida State University
Microcephaly is a rare pathological condition in humans characterised by a small brain and cognitive impairment.

In the new study, Dean Falk, of Florida State University, and her colleagues say the remains are those of a completely separate human species: Homo floresiensis.

They have published their findings in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The remains at the centre of the Hobbit controversy were discovered at Liang Bua, a limestone cave on the Indonesian island of Flores, in 2003.

Researchers found one near-complete skeleton, which they named LB1, along with the remains of at least eight other individuals.

The specimens were nicknamed Hobbits after the tiny creatures in JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Computer model

The researchers believe the 1m-tall (3ft) people evolved from an unknown small-bodied, small-brained ancestor, which they think became small in stature to cope with the limited supply of food on the island.

The little humans are thought to have survived until about 12,000 years ago, when a volcanic eruption devastated the region.


The Hobbit has forced a re-think of human evolution
LB1 possessed a brain size of around 400 cubic cm (24 cu inches) - about the same as that of a chimp.

Long arms, a sloping chin and other primitive features suggested affinities to ancient human species such as Homo habilis.

Professor Falk's analysis used the skulls of 10 normal humans, nine microcephalics, one dwarf and the Hobbit.

The brain leaves a mirror image imprinted onto the skull, from which anatomists can reconstruct its shape. The resulting brain cast is called an endocast.

Professor Falk's team scanned all 21 skulls into a computer and then created a "virtual endocast" using specialist software.

Then, they used statistical techniques to study shape differences between the brain casts and to classify them into two different groups: one microcephalic, the other normal.

Advanced tools

The dwarf's brain fell into the microcephalic category, while the Hobbit brain fell into the normal group - despite its small size.

In other ways, however, the Hobbit brain is unique, which is consistent with its attribution to a new species.


Archaeologists had found sophisticated tools and evidence of a fire near the remains of the 1m-tall adult female.

"People refused to believe that someone with that small of a brain could make the tools," said Professor Falk.

She said the Hobbit brain was nothing like that of a microcephalic and was advanced in a way that is different from living humans.

A previous study of LB1's endocast revealed that large parts of the frontal lobe and other anatomical features were consistent with higher cognitive processes.

"LB1 has a highly evolved brain," said Professor Falk. "It didn't get bigger, it got rewired and reorganised, and that's very interesting."

This apparently contrasts with LB1's other "primitive" anatomical features.

In September last year, Professor Teuku Jacob and colleagues published a scientific study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences which claimed the Hobbit showed similarities to living pygmies and to microcephalics.

However, a different analysis by Australian researchers, published last year in the Journal of Human Evolution, supported the idea that LB1 was a creature new to science.
 
That was big news at the time, mainly because of the cutesy "hobbit" nickname. As the article you quote makes clear, scientists still disagree over whether it was really a distinct species or simply some people with growth defects. 12,000 years ago is also incredibly recent for another hominid species to have been running around - Neanderthals, by contrast, disappeared about 30,000 years ago, which is itself pretty recent by the standards of human evolution.
 
Back
Top Bottom