Addendum: What if the mythic "thunderbolt" wielded by gods like Zeus against the Titans is a memory of the invention of the bow? Is this why the most ancient Hindu heroes are depicted fighting with bow?
This guys theory is straight up incorrect. To prove my point am going to show you the message i left him: "What your saying doesn't make any sense. All members of the homo genus are characterized from not having fur unlike the other great apes. And Neanderthals clearly made cloths using animal skin and fur, here's the evidence:http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes. And as for the war thing, Humans possibly caused the extinction of Neanderthal's by competing with resources or took genetical diversity from them through interbreeding. But war clearly was not. Some species of Neanderthal and Human gangs possibly engaged in conflict. But a war between both species as a whole is certainty unlikely. Not to mention that humans are a social species, so teaming up, sharing resources, and interbedding with another fellow member of the Homo genus clearly was not far from the truth. And respect to the "NEANDERTHALS ATTACKED AT NIGHTIME". Most members of the Homo genus where diurnal, and Neanderthals where no exception so an attack from nighttime was unlikely. And as for the chimps waging war. You have to remember that Chimps wage war with other Chimps, not other members of the Pan genus. And no, humans where never and still aren't apex predators due to the fact that they can still get eaten by other animals if they ever get caught of guard. Don't belief me? Ask people who survived crocodile attacks. Look, Neanderthals where not monsters, they where just like us."
You are clearly guilty of 'presentism'. Human kind is characterized not by its willingness or desire to get along or socialize, but to establish dominance and rul e. You are literally 180° backwards.
Most of the articles/info I can find suggest that neanderthals wore animal fur but that sewing was a cro-magnon innovation, if I'm reading it right. I'm afraid that link is dead- can you provide the original source?
"humans where never and still aren't apex predators due to the fact that they can still get eaten by other animals"
So can lions (by hyenas) and jaguars (by alligators) if they happen to have a bad day. Being an apex predator doesn't mean you're invincible.
"Look, Neanderthals were not monsters, they were just like us"
Right. Terrifying apex predators who murder, rape and cannibalise their enemies.
Indeed. Why did all the ancients worship the Sun with royal power said to have come from the Sun itself as in the Emperors of Japan, the ancient pharaohs, Mayans and such?
Movie is bad and your essay is awful just as your IQ. To prove my point am going to show you the message: "What your saying doesn't make any sense. All members of the homo genus are characterized from not having fur unlike the other great apes. And Neanderthals clearly made cloths using animal skin and fur, here's the evidence:http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes. And as for the war thing, Humans possibly caused the extinction of Neanderthal's by competing with resources or took genetical diversity from them through interbreeding. But war clearly was not. Some species of Neanderthal and Human gangs possibly engaged in conflict. But a war between both species as a whole is certainty unlikely. Not to mention that humans are a social species, so teaming up, sharing resources, and interbedding with another fellow member of the Homo genus clearly was not far from the truth. And respect to the "NEANDERTHALS ATTACKED AT NIGHTIME". Most members of the Homo genus where diurnal, and Neanderthals where no exception so an attack from nighttime was unlikely. And as for the chimps waging war. You have to remember that Chimps wage war with other Chimps, not other members of the Pan genus. And no, humans where never and still aren't apex predators due to the fact that they can still get eaten by other animals if they ever get caught of guard. Don't belief me? Ask people who survived crocodile attacks. Look, Neanderthals where not monsters, they where just like us."
Stop putting your imagination of scientific research. And it looks liek you don't know the difference between fur and hair. Just as how you don't know the difference between facts and opinions.
i think it means what it what and will always mean, electric power. the bagdad battery is 2000 years old, thousands of batteries from india date at 5,000. some shivalinga shrines are still electrically powered at low levels, so that if you put your hands in the water that runs off the shivalingah, (and chant the suggested mantras) you get a mild electrical pain treatment.
Movie is bad and your essay is awful just as your IQ. To prove my point am going to show you the message: "What your saying doesn't make any sense. All members of the homo genus are characterized from not having fur unlike the other great apes. And Neanderthals clearly made cloths using animal skin and fur, here's the evidence:http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes. And as for the war thing, Humans possibly caused the extinction of Neanderthal's by competing with resources or took genetical diversity from them through interbreeding. But war clearly was not. Some species of Neanderthal and Human gangs possibly engaged in conflict. But a war between both species as a whole is certainty unlikely. Not to mention that humans are a social species, so teaming up, sharing resources, and interbedding with another fellow member of the Homo genus clearly was not far from the truth. And respect to the "NEANDERTHALS ATTACKED AT NIGHTIME". Most members of the Homo genus where diurnal, and Neanderthals where no exception so an attack from nighttime was unlikely. And as for the chimps waging war. You have to remember that Chimps wage war with other Chimps, not other members of the Pan genus. And no, humans where never and still aren't apex predators due to the fact that they can still get eaten by other animals if they ever get caught of guard. Don't belief me? Ask people who survived crocodile attacks. Look, Neanderthals where not monsters, they where just like us."
Dear Osiris: Don’t bother with someone searching for excuses to justify a lifetime wasted on a useless education to make himself feel superior to everyone. Your precious time is much more valuable than you know.
This was the thesis of Crichton's novel "Eaters of the Dead" - pockets of Neanderthals lived isolated in parts of Northern Europe periodically terrorizing, and being terrorized by, the locals. An excellent read, the movie wasn't bad either.
Movie is bad and your essay is awful just as your IQ. To prove my point am going to show you the message: "What your saying doesn't make any sense. All members of the homo genus are characterized from not having fur unlike the other great apes. And Neanderthals clearly made cloths using animal skin and fur, here's the evidence:http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes. And as for the war thing, Humans possibly caused the extinction of Neanderthal's by competing with resources or took genetical diversity from them through interbreeding. But war clearly was not. Some species of Neanderthal and Human gangs possibly engaged in conflict. But a war between both species as a whole is certainty unlikely. Not to mention that humans are a social species, so teaming up, sharing resources, and interbedding with another fellow member of the Homo genus clearly was not far from the truth. And respect to the "NEANDERTHALS ATTACKED AT NIGHTIME". Most members of the Homo genus where diurnal, and Neanderthals where no exception so an attack from nighttime was unlikely. And as for the chimps waging war. You have to remember that Chimps wage war with other Chimps, not other members of the Pan genus. And no, humans where never and still aren't apex predators due to the fact that they can still get eaten by other animals if they ever get caught of guard. Don't belief me? Ask people who survived crocodile attacks. Look, Neanderthals where not monsters, they where just like us."
Movie is bad and your essay is awful just as your IQ. To prove my point am going to show you the message: "What your saying doesn't make any sense. All members of the homo genus are characterized from not having fur unlike the other great apes. And Neanderthals clearly made cloths using animal skin and fur, here's the evidence:http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes. And as for the war thing, Humans possibly caused the extinction of Neanderthal's by competing with resources or took genetical diversity from them through interbreeding. But war clearly was not. Some species of Neanderthal and Human gangs possibly engaged in conflict. But a war between both species as a whole is certainty unlikely. Not to mention that humans are a social species, so teaming up, sharing resources, and interbedding with another fellow member of the Homo genus clearly was not far from the truth. And respect to the "NEANDERTHALS ATTACKED AT NIGHTIME". Most members of the Homo genus where diurnal, and Neanderthals where no exception so an attack from nighttime was unlikely. And as for the chimps waging war. You have to remember that Chimps wage war with other Chimps, not other members of the Pan genus. And no, humans where never and still aren't apex predators due to the fact that they can still get eaten by other animals if they ever get caught of guard. Don't belief me? Ask people who survived crocodile attacks. Look, Neanderthals where not monsters, they where just like us."
I agree that Neanderthals, just like humans are today, were most likely apex predators, and while I find the thesis interesting, I must disagree on some key points:
To start with the fur assertion. Neanderthals are more closely related to Denisovans than they are to anatomically modern humans. Needles have been discovered in Denisova cave, which WAS occupied by both Denisovans and Neanderthals (and cross breeds). This suggests that Denisovans, at least, were tailoring clothes, and probably didn't have fur. Given that Denisovans are more distantly related to anatomically modern humans than Neanderthals are, when we apply phylogenetic bracketing, it is more likely than not that Neanderthals were themselves furless, and we just haven't yet had the good luck to find one of those particular needles in the haystack of Neanderthal dig sites.
Then the vertical slit pupil... This assertion is quite unlikely. No other great ape has vertical slit pupils, and my own personal suspicion is that, if their eyes were sufficiently sensitive that they needed something to keep themselves from getting snow blindness, something conceptually similar to Inuit snow goggles, albeit probably cruder, would have been more likely.
Next, the "Neanderthal snout". It's probably not for scent hunting. One of the key features of apes is a reduced olfactory ability. Neanderthals getting greater olfactory ability would make them the odd apes out.
Next, the cannibalism. It is absolutely true that early humans - Neanderthals included - engaged in cannibalism. But I doubt it would have set the Neanderthals apart, given that anatomically modern humans were just as willing to go full Donner party as the Neanderthals were.
Neanderthals certainly would have been a terrifying sight, and one could certainly make a good argument for them being the basis for some mythological creatures, but the chances that they were as alien as Vendramini supposes are quite small indeed.
I also disagree that it was Neanderthals that caused the Human genetic bottleneck. Neanderthals never got into Africa... the cradle of anatomically modern humans. The closest they get is the Levant.
There is no evidence of Neanderthal or Denisovan genetics in sub-Saharan African populations, but European and Asian populations both have significant amounts of both. Whatever the cause of the Human genetic bottleneck, it probably wasn't Neanderthals.
This guys theory is straight up incorrect. To prove my point am going to show you the message i left him: "What your saying doesn't make any sense. All members of the homo genus are characterized from not having fur unlike the other great apes. And Neanderthals clearly made cloths using animal skin and fur, here's the evidence:http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes. And as for the war thing, Humans possibly caused the extinction of Neanderthal's by competing with resources or took genetical diversity from them through interbreeding. But war clearly was not. Some species of Neanderthal and Human gangs possibly engaged in conflict. But a war between both species as a whole is certainty unlikely. Not to mention that humans are a social species, so teaming up, sharing resources, and interbedding with another fellow member of the Homo genus clearly was not far from the truth. And respect to the "NEANDERTHALS ATTACKED AT NIGHTIME". Most members of the Homo genus where diurnal, and Neanderthals where no exception so an attack from nighttime was unlikely. And as for the chimps waging war. You have to remember that Chimps wage war with other Chimps, not other members of the Pan genus. And no, humans where never and still aren't apex predators due to the fact that they can still get eaten by other animals if they ever get caught of guard. Don't belief me? Ask people who survived crocodile attacks. Look, Neanderthals where not monsters, they where just like us."
Europeans never defeated other people's by superior numbers. This has been a repeated them throughout history. The won by technology and tactics. The 300 at the Battle of Thermopylae is a paradigmatic example of this.
his guys theory is straight up incorrect. To prove my point am going to show you the message i left him: "What your saying doesn't make any sense. All members of the homo genus are characterized from not having fur unlike the other great apes. And Neanderthals clearly made cloths using animal skin and fur, here's the evidence:http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes. And as for the war thing, Humans possibly caused the extinction of Neanderthal's by competing with resources or took genetical diversity from them through interbreeding. But war clearly was not. Some species of Neanderthal and Human gangs possibly engaged in conflict. But a war between both species as a whole is certainty unlikely. Not to mention that humans are a social species, so teaming up, sharing resources, and interbedding with another fellow member of the Homo genus clearly was not far from the truth. And respect to the "NEANDERTHALS ATTACKED AT NIGHTIME". Most members of the Homo genus where diurnal, and Neanderthals where no exception so an attack from nighttime was unlikely. And as for the chimps waging war. You have to remember that Chimps wage war with other Chimps, not other members of the Pan genus. And no, humans where never and still aren't apex predators due to the fact that they can still get eaten by other animals if they ever get caught of guard. Don't belief me? Ask people who survived crocodile attacks. Look, Neanderthals where not monsters, they where just like us."
You are an obsessive loser, spamming the same comment under every reply. If I ever meet you I'm gonna go full neanderthal on you, faggot. I'm going to crack your bones open and suck out your marrow.
I agree KiIller Bean is spamming and I think ToW would be within his rights to delete most of his comments or even ban him, but.... sheesh. "I'm going to crack your bones open and suck out your marrow"?
Movie is bad and your essay is awful just as your IQ. To prove my point am going to show you the message: "What your saying doesn't make any sense. All members of the homo genus are characterized from not having fur unlike the other great apes. And Neanderthals clearly made cloths using animal skin and fur, here's the evidence:http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes. And as for the war thing, Humans possibly caused the extinction of Neanderthal's by competing with resources or took genetical diversity from them through interbreeding. But war clearly was not. Some species of Neanderthal and Human gangs possibly engaged in conflict. But a war between both species as a whole is certainty unlikely. Not to mention that humans are a social species, so teaming up, sharing resources, and interbedding with another fellow member of the Homo genus clearly was not far from the truth. And respect to the "NEANDERTHALS ATTACKED AT NIGHTIME". Most members of the Homo genus where diurnal, and Neanderthals where no exception so an attack from nighttime was unlikely. And as for the chimps waging war. You have to remember that Chimps wage war with other Chimps, not other members of the Pan genus. And no, humans where never and still aren't apex predators due to the fact that they can still get eaten by other animals if they ever get caught of guard. Don't belief me? Ask people who survived crocodile attacks. Look, Neanderthals where not monsters, they where just like us."
his guys theory is straight up incorrect. To prove my point am going to show you the message i left him: "What your saying doesn't make any sense. All members of the homo genus are characterized from not having fur unlike the other great apes. And Neanderthals clearly made cloths using animal skin and fur, here's the evidence:http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes. And as for the war thing, Humans possibly caused the extinction of Neanderthal's by competing with resources or took genetical diversity from them through interbreeding. But war clearly was not. Some species of Neanderthal and Human gangs possibly engaged in conflict. But a war between both species as a whole is certainty unlikely. Not to mention that humans are a social species, so teaming up, sharing resources, and interbedding with another fellow member of the Homo genus clearly was not far from the truth. And respect to the "NEANDERTHALS ATTACKED AT NIGHTIME". Most members of the Homo genus where diurnal, and Neanderthals where no exception so an attack from nighttime was unlikely. And as for the chimps waging war. You have to remember that Chimps wage war with other Chimps, not other members of the Pan genus. And no, humans where never and still aren't apex predators due to the fact that they can still get eaten by other animals if they ever get caught of guard. Don't belief me? Ask people who survived crocodile attacks. Look, Neanderthals where not monsters, they where just like us."
his guys theory is straight up incorrect. To prove my point am going to show you the message i left him: "What your saying doesn't make any sense. All members of the homo genus are characterized from not having fur unlike the other great apes. And Neanderthals clearly made cloths using animal skin and fur, here's the evidence:http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes. And as for the war thing, Humans possibly caused the extinction of Neanderthal's by competing with resources or took genetical diversity from them through interbreeding. But war clearly was not. Some species of Neanderthal and Human gangs possibly engaged in conflict. But a war between both species as a whole is certainty unlikely. Not to mention that humans are a social species, so teaming up, sharing resources, and interbedding with another fellow member of the Homo genus clearly was not far from the truth. And respect to the "NEANDERTHALS ATTACKED AT NIGHTIME". Most members of the Homo genus where diurnal, and Neanderthals where no exception so an attack from nighttime was unlikely. And as for the chimps waging war. You have to remember that Chimps wage war with other Chimps, not other members of the Pan genus. And no, humans where never and still aren't apex predators due to the fact that they can still get eaten by other animals if they ever get caught of guard. Don't belief me? Ask people who survived crocodile attacks. Look, Neanderthals where not monsters, they where just like us."
Why do you come back and spam the same comment under every reply over the course of months? What kind of worthless subhuman does that? I'd like to use an atlatl to throw an obsidian javelin through your dumb faggot face
Our tendency to "fear and hate the other" still remains to this day. We easily create an "othergroup" and then discriminate, hate and fear them. And if we eliminate them (which we are very capable of), then we create another "othergroup" and the cycle starts again. Unfortunately this means that we are not very good at cooperating with those that we perceive as "different from us", and that makes us ill equipped for resolving truly global issues, like climate change. If we don't overcome this primal urge, our tribe will die, once the ecosystem sustaining us collapses.
It's ironic. We might have won the war, but the Neanderthal could still have the last laugh.
his guys theory is straight up incorrect. To prove my point am going to show you the message i left him: "What your saying doesn't make any sense. All members of the homo genus are characterized from not having fur unlike the other great apes. And Neanderthals clearly made cloths using animal skin and fur, here's the evidence:http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes. And as for the war thing, Humans possibly caused the extinction of Neanderthal's by competing with resources or took genetical diversity from them through interbreeding. But war clearly was not. Some species of Neanderthal and Human gangs possibly engaged in conflict. But a war between both species as a whole is certainty unlikely. Not to mention that humans are a social species, so teaming up, sharing resources, and interbedding with another fellow member of the Homo genus clearly was not far from the truth. And respect to the "NEANDERTHALS ATTACKED AT NIGHTIME". Most members of the Homo genus where diurnal, and Neanderthals where no exception so an attack from nighttime was unlikely. And as for the chimps waging war. You have to remember that Chimps wage war with other Chimps, not other members of the Pan genus. And no, humans where never and still aren't apex predators due to the fact that they can still get eaten by other animals if they ever get caught of guard. Don't belief me? Ask people who survived crocodile attacks. Look, Neanderthals where not monsters, they where just like us."
You presume that since YOU, mr bean, are not an Apex Predator, that no one else is nor can they be. That no one else is your better. I assure you man, this is not the case.
I have killed reptilians several times my body weight. On purpose. More than once.
Ironic considering that you said you kill creatures that are not real. Also not being an Apex Predator does not make you weak. Hippos are not even predators yet they cans kill lions. Also biologically no, humans aren't apex predators. Being omnivores makes them stand in the middle.
Ironic? What, that I hunt alligators? They are fucking dinosaurs, my friend.
Humans are the only animals that adorn ourselves in the skins of what we have killed. We literally kill things and use their skin to make my shoes and hold up my pants.
If that doesnt say 'Apex Predator' than nothing does.
Hippos are not Apex predators yet they can kill crocodiles. Also, killing is killing, it does not matter what you do with the left overs. Also crocodiles are not dinosaurs as they are not part of the clade dinosauria. Not to mention that there are non avina dinosaurs that where weak like protoceratops. And no, wearing dead skin does not make you apex predator.
Guy, what defines a predator is not its ability to kill, but for what purpose it kills. Predation is to kill and consume. Youre like arguing with a vegan female.
Yes, wearing the dead as adornment sure as fuck makes you an Apex Predator. Youre just jelly because youre a weak bitch and your girl friend knows it.
Really good summary of a compelling theory. Sure, it's rather radical, but many other radical theories were rejected and ridiculed before becoming accepted by science, eg plate tectonics, relativity, evolution, upper atmosphere lightning (sprites), and so on. We often assume that other homo species were as similar to us as their bones allow, and it's worth exploring the antithesis: what if they were as different as possible? Moreover, he presents a good case with plenty of evidence that fits together.
I'd like to mention one detail you glossed over here: based on his description of Neanderthals, we would've first seem them as glowing red eyes in the dark, which to this day still symbolizes evil and triggers a threat response. Yet another point of interest!
What's interesting to me is the fanatical, incoherent rejection of this theory (eg the spammer in this comment section), coupled with the aforementioned insistence upon humanizing other homo species. There's no rational/scientific reason for any of this, so I think it links to more deeply-held, irrational beliefs. Essentially, many of us are reading Liberal/Enlightenment ideology into the deep past. We insist on the neanderthals being a bulkier version of us because of the core belief in Equality, that we're all the same, that differences in race/gender/etc don't matter; this gets extended to other homo species, despite the fact that we know little about them for sure, and only have bones and DNA to go on (which Vendramini utilizes).
This explains the absurd arguments made against this. They insist the homo genus doesn't have fur, when we have no other samples to go on (and it fits the cold climate + other primates). They insist humans must be diurnal, even though we're perfectly capable of staying up at night, and our sleep cycles likely drifted around more in prehistory. They point out that apex predators can be attacked/mobbed by prey, as if that's a contradiction? And the spammer emphasizes that we're a social, cooperative species, while leaving out our warlike, genocidal tendencies which are quite evident in history.
There are better arguments too, which still fall short. Like quibbling over the bottleneck, ignoring that it doesn't have to be as low as 50, and it's possible that the "killer humans" who emerged swamped the DNA of humans elsewhere in the world. Others argue that if Neanderthals were orcs, how did we interbreed? Ignoring the point that we simply don't know the limits of breeding between different homo species.
With such fragmentary evidence of prehistory, we need to consider multiple possibilities.
The Neanderthals interbred with Homo Sapiens sapiens. About 1-4% of the genome of modern Eurasians, North African, Melanesians, and Native Americans comes from Neanderthals. They assimilated rather than go truly extinct. The gene associated with red hair, for example, is a Neanderthal gene. Considering a four generation separation from interbreeding would leave a 7.5% homology, the interbreeding had to be fairly widespread.
Contrary to the heterodox opinion, they certainly had speech - the known social complexity observed from Neanderthal sites pretty much proves that. Archeological evidence of several types (dental tarter, site remains of meals, preserved feces) shows that while they were more predatory than modern humans, they did have a significant plant component to their diet - figs, legumes, acorns, pine nuts, mushrooms, etc. One site in Israel provided clear evidence that they cooked this food. A fossil from Spain shows a dental abscess being treated with aspirin-containing poplar bark and penicillium mold, a treatment more advanced than Homo sapiens used until the 1940s.
This guys theory is straight up incorrect. To prove my point am going to show you the message i left him: "What your saying doesn't make any sense. All members of the homo genus are characterized from not having fur unlike the other great apes. And Neanderthals clearly made cloths using animal skin and fur, here's the evidence:http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes. And as for the war thing, Humans possibly caused the extinction of Neanderthal's by competing with resources or took genetical diversity from them through interbreeding. But war clearly was not. Some species of Neanderthal and Human gangs possibly engaged in conflict. But a war between both species as a whole is certainty unlikely. Not to mention that humans are a social species, so teaming up, sharing resources, and interbedding with another fellow member of the Homo genus clearly was not far from the truth. And respect to the "NEANDERTHALS ATTACKED AT NIGHTIME". Most members of the Homo genus where diurnal, and Neanderthals where no exception so an attack from nighttime was unlikely. And as for the chimps waging war. You have to remember that Chimps wage war with other Chimps, not other members of the Pan genus. And no, humans where never and still aren't apex predators due to the fact that they can still get eaten by other animals if they ever get caught of guard. Don't belief me? Ask people who survived crocodile attacks. Look, Neanderthals where not monsters, they where just like us."
If neanderthals looked so different and spooky, would they want to mate with homo sapiens?
Today, do Gorillas, Chimps, Bonobos or Orangutans try to mate with humans -- in the wild or in zoos among keepers? Also, do today's non-human great apes try to mate with each other?
If neanderthals were so different from coeval humans, I doubt male neanderthals or humans would be interested in each others' females by force or seduction.
On an appearance scale of 1 to 100, with 1 representing human appearance 40,000 years ago and 100 representing this article's rendition of neanderthal appearance, I tend toward neanderthals looking enough like humans to trigger lust, so maybe 20-40.
Also, the reason humans mated with Neanderthals is because both are part of the homo genus. And no, no species of great ape today tries to mate with humans and you have no evidence to proof it.
What your saying doesn't make any sense. All members of the homo genus are characterized from not having fur unlike the other great apes. And Neanderthals clearly made cloths using animal skin and fur, here's the evidence:http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes. And as for the war thing, Humans possibly caused the extinction of Neanderthal's by competing with resources or took genetical diversity from them through interbreeding. But war clearly was not. Some species of Neanderthal and Human gangs possibly engaged in conflict. But a war between both species as a whole is certainty unlikely. Not to mention that humans are a social species, so teaming up, sharing resources, and interbedding with another fellow member of the Homo genus clearly was not far from the truth. And respect to the "NEANDERTHALS ATTACKED AT NIGHTIME". Most members of the Homo genus where diurnal, and Neanderthals where no exception so an attack from nighttime was unlikely. And as for the chimps waging war. You have to remember that Chimps wage war with other Chimps, not other members of the Pan genus. And no, humans where never and still aren't apex predators due to the fact that they can still get eaten by other animals if they ever get caught of guard. Don't belief me? Ask people who survived crocodile attacks. Look, Neanderthals where not monsters, they where just like us.
The comments on this article I'm linking below go on for ten years. This is not a new theory, and it is not widely accepted in part because we know a lot more about neanderthals than we did in 2010. They were very much human like us. https://blog.waikato.ac.nz/bioblog/2010/10/killer-neandertals-does-this-o/
Hey Clarence -- I read that discussion but I didn't find the author's rebuttal of D.V.'s case very persuasive at all, at least with regards to those portions of D.V.'s book that I discussed. (D.V. made a large number of other claims regarding *human* evolution in response to Neanderthal predation that I did not discuss because I didn't find them as meritable.)
The Waikato page makes much hullabaloo about one article from 2009 suggesting that Neanderthals made clothes like we do. More recent papers have concluded the opposite, see this paper from 2016:
"Thus, these findings are most consistent with the hypothesis that Neanderthals employed only cape-like clothing while early modern humans used specialized cold weather clothing."
There is no way that Neanderthals survived in Ice Age Europe wearing capes without having cold-weather adaptations such as fur.
This paper reaches this conclusion: "It is argued here that pre-existing biological cold adaptations delayed the development of such technological capacities among Neanderthals"
The Waikato author criticizes D.V. for suggesting fur without evidence, but he offers plenty of evidence - inferential evidence based on climate, other mammals, and other primates. Same goes for the eyes, nose, etc.
Anyway, absent a time travel machine, we can only conjecture. D.V.'s theory is not accepted by the mainstream, as I said in my article. But it has the virtue of explaining a lot of interesting mythology... and the mainstream is often wrong.
Thanks for replying. I still don't see how you get past the red hair genes(https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/dna-genotypes-and-phenotypes), the fact that even that article you linked to would agree that Neanderthals made and wore clothing , the fact that D.V. gets the neanderthal skull shape and where it attaches to the neck so wrong that he is either very stupid or dishonest, and some of the arguments made by others in that thread such as the fact that despite the fact we supposedly had to fear this super predator for thousands of years, human society showed no signs of adaptation in either technology or organization. To me, this last argument all but kills the Neanderthal Super Predator Theory by itself. Let's not forget the very limited (much more so for humans ironically) evidence of neanderthal cannibalism : apparently they were very good at hunting that big game, and probably (in my opinion) had to resort to cannibalism less than the more numerous and less skilled human population. Of course you'll note I said "had to" because I do not assume that either our ancient human ancestors NOR Neanderthals wanted to eat others of their own kind or that looked (and probably tasted) disturbingly close for that matter. To the larger point, I don't see why we need to explain ancient myths as having any kind of 'real' component anyway. And if we do, why only the fearsome/scary ones? The Neanderthals could just as easily be the DWARVES of legend (smaller than modern humans yet stronger and tending to live deep in caves. Maybe they even liked collecting shiny things like gold? ) or perhaps it was the 'hobbit' group of hominids that led to those legends.
This theory specifically reminds me of the theory proposed by anthropologist David E. Jones in his book, "An Instinct for Dragons," in that Dragons were a combination of predatorial animals (big cats, raptor birds, and snakes) that preyed on our ancient ancestors. That the instinct to fear these animals became encoded into our DNA. This fear then became the basis of the mythology of dragons, which is almost universal to all human cultures. Even cultures like the Inuit who have never seen reptiles. It has been shown that fear, anxiety, and stress can change a person's DNA and can be passed down to future generations.
I think it's at least plausible and both explanations may be true. There might have been a period of time when Neanderthals hunted humans to near extinction and there may also have been a time when they lived in relative harmony with us and interbred with our ancestors.
This guys theory is straight up incorrect. To prove my point am going to show you the message i left him: "What your saying doesn't make any sense. All members of the homo genus are characterized from not having fur unlike the other great apes. And Neanderthals clearly made cloths using animal skin and fur, here's the evidence:http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes. And as for the war thing, Humans possibly caused the extinction of Neanderthal's by competing with resources or took genetical diversity from them through interbreeding. But war clearly was not. Some species of Neanderthal and Human gangs possibly engaged in conflict. But a war between both species as a whole is certainty unlikely. Not to mention that humans are a social species, so teaming up, sharing resources, and interbedding with another fellow member of the Homo genus clearly was not far from the truth. And respect to the "NEANDERTHALS ATTACKED AT NIGHTIME". Most members of the Homo genus where diurnal, and Neanderthals where no exception so an attack from nighttime was unlikely. And as for the chimps waging war. You have to remember that Chimps wage war with other Chimps, not other members of the Pan genus. And no, humans where never and still aren't apex predators due to the fact that they can still get eaten by other animals if they ever get caught of guard. Don't belief me? Ask people who survived crocodile attacks. Look, Neanderthals where not monsters, they where just like us."
This guys theory is straight up incorrect. To prove my point am going to show you the message i left him: "What your saying doesn't make any sense. All members of the homo genus are characterized from not having fur unlike the other great apes. And Neanderthals clearly made cloths using animal skin and fur, here's the evidence:http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes. And as for the war thing, Humans possibly caused the extinction of Neanderthal's by competing with resources or took genetical diversity from them through interbreeding. But war clearly was not. Some species of Neanderthal and Human gangs possibly engaged in conflict. But a war between both species as a whole is certainty unlikely. Not to mention that humans are a social species, so teaming up, sharing resources, and interbedding with another fellow member of the Homo genus clearly was not far from the truth. And respect to the "NEANDERTHALS ATTACKED AT NIGHTIME". Most members of the Homo genus where diurnal, and Neanderthals where no exception so an attack from nighttime was unlikely. And as for the chimps waging war. You have to remember that Chimps wage war with other Chimps, not other members of the Pan genus. And no, humans where never and still aren't apex predators due to the fact that they can still get eaten by other animals if they ever get caught of guard. Don't belief me? Ask people who survived crocodile attacks. Look, Neanderthals where not monsters, they where just like us."
Matter of fact, now that I think of it, DNA should soon (if not already , not sure how much neanderthal DNA we have sequenced) prove whether neanderthals had fur or not. They can't have fur for instance if they don't have the genes for it.
"fur" - Humans have genes for fur already, they simply aren't expressed. And all our closest living species have fur. I think the fur is, by far, the most likely of his arguments and I'm surprised you find that one the hardest to believe!
"we supposedly had to fear this super predator for thousands of years, human society showed no signs of adaptation in either technology or organization." --
D.V. provides many, many arguments in his book to explain how humans adapted to Neanderthal predation - in fact, that's the thesis of his book. I just didn't go into it because I found it less interesting.
"dwarves and hobbits" -- I personally *do* think that some of our legends will have come from other species in the same way. And it's worth noting that in mythology, the line between "dwarf" and "monster" and "hobbit" and "kobold" is much less clear than in D&D.
Anyway, to avoid endless further debate, I know it's a heterodox hypothesis. I find it plausible that Neanderthals were much more monstrous than the mainstream admits, and that they became the basis of many myths and legends. If you don't find it plausible then that means that most scientists agree with you. In the 1980s, everyone said dinosaurs had scales; now they say feathers. I've seen views go from "crazy and unproven" to "obvious" many times in my life.
So I'm happy to have a gentlemen's bet to come back in 20 years to see what the mainstream thinks Neanderthals looked and acted like. Loser has to dress up like a caveman and type ME WRONG on whatever passes for Twitter by then.
I'll take that bet. I'll probably still be here in 20 years assuming no mass disasters or a bloody type of civil war. Make it 30 and then the odds drop.
This guys theory is straight up incorrect. To prove my point am going to show you the message i left him: "What your saying doesn't make any sense. All members of the homo genus are characterized from not having fur unlike the other great apes. And Neanderthals clearly made cloths using animal skin and fur, here's the evidence:http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes. And as for the war thing, Humans possibly caused the extinction of Neanderthal's by competing with resources or took genetical diversity from them through interbreeding. But war clearly was not. Some species of Neanderthal and Human gangs possibly engaged in conflict. But a war between both species as a whole is certainty unlikely. Not to mention that humans are a social species, so teaming up, sharing resources, and interbedding with another fellow member of the Homo genus clearly was not far from the truth. And respect to the "NEANDERTHALS ATTACKED AT NIGHTIME". Most members of the Homo genus where diurnal, and Neanderthals where no exception so an attack from nighttime was unlikely. And as for the chimps waging war. You have to remember that Chimps wage war with other Chimps, not other members of the Pan genus. And no, humans where never and still aren't apex predators due to the fact that they can still get eaten by other animals if they ever get caught of guard. Don't belief me? Ask people who survived crocodile attacks. Look, Neanderthals where not monsters, they where just like us."
Thanks so much, the article and the one you showed us are all very interesting. I really want to get that book as well. This is such an awesome subject, totally
I don't personally find Vendramini's neanderthal reconstructions especially compelling. (The hunched posture doesn't match the position of the foramen magnum, and humans and neanderthals would have had to be reasonably genetically similar in order for interbreeding to occur at all.)
This doesn't rule out the possibility that human-neanderthal competition was extremely brutal, of course- our own species has been savage enough in dealing with close relations, so it would be naive to assume neanderthals were any more pacifist, and one can easily imagine that murder, rape and cannibalism were not-uncommon occurrences. But that's just par-for-the-course prehistory.
Nah... he's just got OCD and knows how CTRL-V works.
Any half-decent bot would generate a more-persuasive wall of text, not something that sounds like it was prepared by someone with an IQ of 80 who was experiencing common abreactions to chronic use of anti-anxiety medication.
Not sure if you realized this when you wrote it, but you've basically described the creatures in 'bigfoot' sightings. Large bipedal upright hominid, very strong, intelligent nocturnal, large eyes with eyeshine at night. Interestingly most hair samples collected are dismissed because there is too much homo sapien DNA.
Jews, arabs, indians, and some eurasians have the highest amount of neanderthal DNA.
Also, the human race just means Europeans. The asians are mostly from denisovan, blacks are from various negroids, and south asians have their own thing going on tied to the abbos. We do not have the same origins.
A problem I see with the near-extinction hypothesis is that modern humans seem to have been widespread throughout Africa for around 200,000 years, indeed the Khoi-San in South Africa may have been in pretty much the same area for that long. It certainly seems likely that Neanderthals drove modern humans back from the Levant into Africa, but there is no evidence of Neanderthals in Africa. I've also read that humans are not really all that genetically bottlenecked, depending on the source, much less than eg cheetahs. The Toba eruption seems to be a popular candidate for a bottleneck ca 75,000-70,000 ya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory
Leaving aside that though, the general idea that Neanderthals were powerful hostile eaters-of-humans certainly seems plausible.
I think it's entirely possible that human-neanderthal competition was exceedingly violent simply because human-human competition has often been exceedingly violent, but that doesn't make Vendramini's physical reconstruction of neanderthal anatomy especially plausible.
Addendum: What if the mythic "thunderbolt" wielded by gods like Zeus against the Titans is a memory of the invention of the bow? Is this why the most ancient Hindu heroes are depicted fighting with bow?
More likely a spear-thrower device, like the amentum or atlatl.
That makes good sense.
No it does not. Liar
This guys theory is straight up incorrect. To prove my point am going to show you the message i left him: "What your saying doesn't make any sense. All members of the homo genus are characterized from not having fur unlike the other great apes. And Neanderthals clearly made cloths using animal skin and fur, here's the evidence:http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes. And as for the war thing, Humans possibly caused the extinction of Neanderthal's by competing with resources or took genetical diversity from them through interbreeding. But war clearly was not. Some species of Neanderthal and Human gangs possibly engaged in conflict. But a war between both species as a whole is certainty unlikely. Not to mention that humans are a social species, so teaming up, sharing resources, and interbedding with another fellow member of the Homo genus clearly was not far from the truth. And respect to the "NEANDERTHALS ATTACKED AT NIGHTIME". Most members of the Homo genus where diurnal, and Neanderthals where no exception so an attack from nighttime was unlikely. And as for the chimps waging war. You have to remember that Chimps wage war with other Chimps, not other members of the Pan genus. And no, humans where never and still aren't apex predators due to the fact that they can still get eaten by other animals if they ever get caught of guard. Don't belief me? Ask people who survived crocodile attacks. Look, Neanderthals where not monsters, they where just like us."
"Neanderthals where not monsters, they where just like us" You could equally say "Neanderthals were monsters - they were just like us".
You are clearly guilty of 'presentism'. Human kind is characterized not by its willingness or desire to get along or socialize, but to establish dominance and rul e. You are literally 180° backwards.
Having a desire does not mean you will accomplish it and does not change the fact that this is nothing but fake. You are the one who is backwards.
Most of the articles/info I can find suggest that neanderthals wore animal fur but that sewing was a cro-magnon innovation, if I'm reading it right. I'm afraid that link is dead- can you provide the original source?
"humans where never and still aren't apex predators due to the fact that they can still get eaten by other animals"
So can lions (by hyenas) and jaguars (by alligators) if they happen to have a bad day. Being an apex predator doesn't mean you're invincible.
"Look, Neanderthals were not monsters, they were just like us"
Right. Terrifying apex predators who murder, rape and cannibalise their enemies.
Dead link lol. Get your facts from something other than entertainment sources.
Yes, BBC are biggest liars in the world
Indeed. Why did all the ancients worship the Sun with royal power said to have come from the Sun itself as in the Emperors of Japan, the ancient pharaohs, Mayans and such?
Movie is bad and your essay is awful just as your IQ. To prove my point am going to show you the message: "What your saying doesn't make any sense. All members of the homo genus are characterized from not having fur unlike the other great apes. And Neanderthals clearly made cloths using animal skin and fur, here's the evidence:http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes. And as for the war thing, Humans possibly caused the extinction of Neanderthal's by competing with resources or took genetical diversity from them through interbreeding. But war clearly was not. Some species of Neanderthal and Human gangs possibly engaged in conflict. But a war between both species as a whole is certainty unlikely. Not to mention that humans are a social species, so teaming up, sharing resources, and interbedding with another fellow member of the Homo genus clearly was not far from the truth. And respect to the "NEANDERTHALS ATTACKED AT NIGHTIME". Most members of the Homo genus where diurnal, and Neanderthals where no exception so an attack from nighttime was unlikely. And as for the chimps waging war. You have to remember that Chimps wage war with other Chimps, not other members of the Pan genus. And no, humans where never and still aren't apex predators due to the fact that they can still get eaten by other animals if they ever get caught of guard. Don't belief me? Ask people who survived crocodile attacks. Look, Neanderthals where not monsters, they where just like us."
Stop putting your imagination of scientific research. And it looks liek you don't know the difference between fur and hair. Just as how you don't know the difference between facts and opinions.
i think it means what it what and will always mean, electric power. the bagdad battery is 2000 years old, thousands of batteries from india date at 5,000. some shivalinga shrines are still electrically powered at low levels, so that if you put your hands in the water that runs off the shivalingah, (and chant the suggested mantras) you get a mild electrical pain treatment.
Movie is bad and your essay is awful just as your IQ. To prove my point am going to show you the message: "What your saying doesn't make any sense. All members of the homo genus are characterized from not having fur unlike the other great apes. And Neanderthals clearly made cloths using animal skin and fur, here's the evidence:http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes. And as for the war thing, Humans possibly caused the extinction of Neanderthal's by competing with resources or took genetical diversity from them through interbreeding. But war clearly was not. Some species of Neanderthal and Human gangs possibly engaged in conflict. But a war between both species as a whole is certainty unlikely. Not to mention that humans are a social species, so teaming up, sharing resources, and interbedding with another fellow member of the Homo genus clearly was not far from the truth. And respect to the "NEANDERTHALS ATTACKED AT NIGHTIME". Most members of the Homo genus where diurnal, and Neanderthals where no exception so an attack from nighttime was unlikely. And as for the chimps waging war. You have to remember that Chimps wage war with other Chimps, not other members of the Pan genus. And no, humans where never and still aren't apex predators due to the fact that they can still get eaten by other animals if they ever get caught of guard. Don't belief me? Ask people who survived crocodile attacks. Look, Neanderthals where not monsters, they where just like us."
Dear Osiris: Don’t bother with someone searching for excuses to justify a lifetime wasted on a useless education to make himself feel superior to everyone. Your precious time is much more valuable than you know.
Oh, Osiris, on a side note, I admire your use of the word, “unhinged”. I was searching for a word less admirable when I read it.
This was the thesis of Crichton's novel "Eaters of the Dead" - pockets of Neanderthals lived isolated in parts of Northern Europe periodically terrorizing, and being terrorized by, the locals. An excellent read, the movie wasn't bad either.
An excellent book and movie! I should have mentioned them in this essay.
Movie is bad and your essay is awful just as your IQ. To prove my point am going to show you the message: "What your saying doesn't make any sense. All members of the homo genus are characterized from not having fur unlike the other great apes. And Neanderthals clearly made cloths using animal skin and fur, here's the evidence:http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes. And as for the war thing, Humans possibly caused the extinction of Neanderthal's by competing with resources or took genetical diversity from them through interbreeding. But war clearly was not. Some species of Neanderthal and Human gangs possibly engaged in conflict. But a war between both species as a whole is certainty unlikely. Not to mention that humans are a social species, so teaming up, sharing resources, and interbedding with another fellow member of the Homo genus clearly was not far from the truth. And respect to the "NEANDERTHALS ATTACKED AT NIGHTIME". Most members of the Homo genus where diurnal, and Neanderthals where no exception so an attack from nighttime was unlikely. And as for the chimps waging war. You have to remember that Chimps wage war with other Chimps, not other members of the Pan genus. And no, humans where never and still aren't apex predators due to the fact that they can still get eaten by other animals if they ever get caught of guard. Don't belief me? Ask people who survived crocodile attacks. Look, Neanderthals where not monsters, they where just like us."
Ur a faggot
Bottom text
i have not hear of thos...thanks!
do you know, that might be why people started to bury their dead in the first place. besides sky burial, i mean.
Movie is bad and your essay is awful just as your IQ. To prove my point am going to show you the message: "What your saying doesn't make any sense. All members of the homo genus are characterized from not having fur unlike the other great apes. And Neanderthals clearly made cloths using animal skin and fur, here's the evidence:http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes. And as for the war thing, Humans possibly caused the extinction of Neanderthal's by competing with resources or took genetical diversity from them through interbreeding. But war clearly was not. Some species of Neanderthal and Human gangs possibly engaged in conflict. But a war between both species as a whole is certainty unlikely. Not to mention that humans are a social species, so teaming up, sharing resources, and interbedding with another fellow member of the Homo genus clearly was not far from the truth. And respect to the "NEANDERTHALS ATTACKED AT NIGHTIME". Most members of the Homo genus where diurnal, and Neanderthals where no exception so an attack from nighttime was unlikely. And as for the chimps waging war. You have to remember that Chimps wage war with other Chimps, not other members of the Pan genus. And no, humans where never and still aren't apex predators due to the fact that they can still get eaten by other animals if they ever get caught of guard. Don't belief me? Ask people who survived crocodile attacks. Look, Neanderthals where not monsters, they where just like us."
reposting comments is bad form so you deserve the reposted reply:
Ur a faggot
Bottom text
You got a follow.
I love a real man using a word the government is afraid of, and tells us we cannot use.
Good for you.
I got kicked off of Twitter for that and saying tranny Ridiculous
I agree that Neanderthals, just like humans are today, were most likely apex predators, and while I find the thesis interesting, I must disagree on some key points:
To start with the fur assertion. Neanderthals are more closely related to Denisovans than they are to anatomically modern humans. Needles have been discovered in Denisova cave, which WAS occupied by both Denisovans and Neanderthals (and cross breeds). This suggests that Denisovans, at least, were tailoring clothes, and probably didn't have fur. Given that Denisovans are more distantly related to anatomically modern humans than Neanderthals are, when we apply phylogenetic bracketing, it is more likely than not that Neanderthals were themselves furless, and we just haven't yet had the good luck to find one of those particular needles in the haystack of Neanderthal dig sites.
Then the vertical slit pupil... This assertion is quite unlikely. No other great ape has vertical slit pupils, and my own personal suspicion is that, if their eyes were sufficiently sensitive that they needed something to keep themselves from getting snow blindness, something conceptually similar to Inuit snow goggles, albeit probably cruder, would have been more likely.
Next, the "Neanderthal snout". It's probably not for scent hunting. One of the key features of apes is a reduced olfactory ability. Neanderthals getting greater olfactory ability would make them the odd apes out.
Next, the cannibalism. It is absolutely true that early humans - Neanderthals included - engaged in cannibalism. But I doubt it would have set the Neanderthals apart, given that anatomically modern humans were just as willing to go full Donner party as the Neanderthals were.
Neanderthals certainly would have been a terrifying sight, and one could certainly make a good argument for them being the basis for some mythological creatures, but the chances that they were as alien as Vendramini supposes are quite small indeed.
I also disagree that it was Neanderthals that caused the Human genetic bottleneck. Neanderthals never got into Africa... the cradle of anatomically modern humans. The closest they get is the Levant.
There is no evidence of Neanderthal or Denisovan genetics in sub-Saharan African populations, but European and Asian populations both have significant amounts of both. Whatever the cause of the Human genetic bottleneck, it probably wasn't Neanderthals.
This guys theory is straight up incorrect. To prove my point am going to show you the message i left him: "What your saying doesn't make any sense. All members of the homo genus are characterized from not having fur unlike the other great apes. And Neanderthals clearly made cloths using animal skin and fur, here's the evidence:http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes. And as for the war thing, Humans possibly caused the extinction of Neanderthal's by competing with resources or took genetical diversity from them through interbreeding. But war clearly was not. Some species of Neanderthal and Human gangs possibly engaged in conflict. But a war between both species as a whole is certainty unlikely. Not to mention that humans are a social species, so teaming up, sharing resources, and interbedding with another fellow member of the Homo genus clearly was not far from the truth. And respect to the "NEANDERTHALS ATTACKED AT NIGHTIME". Most members of the Homo genus where diurnal, and Neanderthals where no exception so an attack from nighttime was unlikely. And as for the chimps waging war. You have to remember that Chimps wage war with other Chimps, not other members of the Pan genus. And no, humans where never and still aren't apex predators due to the fact that they can still get eaten by other animals if they ever get caught of guard. Don't belief me? Ask people who survived crocodile attacks. Look, Neanderthals where not monsters, they where just like us."
Europeans never defeated other people's by superior numbers. This has been a repeated them throughout history. The won by technology and tactics. The 300 at the Battle of Thermopylae is a paradigmatic example of this.
The face is so disturbing. Physiognomy is real!
We sometimes defeat people by superior numbers, it's just the people we defeat are other Europeans Just ask Napoleon at Leipzig. :-D
Agreed on the face.
At Thermopylae there were 300 Spartans... and a few thousand other Greeks. And they lost.
his guys theory is straight up incorrect. To prove my point am going to show you the message i left him: "What your saying doesn't make any sense. All members of the homo genus are characterized from not having fur unlike the other great apes. And Neanderthals clearly made cloths using animal skin and fur, here's the evidence:http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes. And as for the war thing, Humans possibly caused the extinction of Neanderthal's by competing with resources or took genetical diversity from them through interbreeding. But war clearly was not. Some species of Neanderthal and Human gangs possibly engaged in conflict. But a war between both species as a whole is certainty unlikely. Not to mention that humans are a social species, so teaming up, sharing resources, and interbedding with another fellow member of the Homo genus clearly was not far from the truth. And respect to the "NEANDERTHALS ATTACKED AT NIGHTIME". Most members of the Homo genus where diurnal, and Neanderthals where no exception so an attack from nighttime was unlikely. And as for the chimps waging war. You have to remember that Chimps wage war with other Chimps, not other members of the Pan genus. And no, humans where never and still aren't apex predators due to the fact that they can still get eaten by other animals if they ever get caught of guard. Don't belief me? Ask people who survived crocodile attacks. Look, Neanderthals where not monsters, they where just like us."
You are an obsessive loser, spamming the same comment under every reply. If I ever meet you I'm gonna go full neanderthal on you, faggot. I'm going to crack your bones open and suck out your marrow.
Clearly, some people have issues when they are confident that they perceive things better than their peers.
You got a follow from me! I love it when real men use words the government is frightened of and says that you cannot say. Good job, man.
I agree KiIller Bean is spamming and I think ToW would be within his rights to delete most of his comments or even ban him, but.... sheesh. "I'm going to crack your bones open and suck out your marrow"?
It's a post about man eating Orcs, get the stick out of your ass
Personally, I thought it was creative and just went with the article.
Sioux Wars
Chechen War
WW2 in the Pacific
Cherokee removal
Seminole Wars
Apache Wars
Catherine the Great's Annexation of Crimea
Pyrrhic Wars
Dacian War
Jewish Revolts
Comoros
São Tomé and Príncipe
Yes, beady eyes and strong jaw mean higher testosterone and a lot of other things like that. Physiognomy, It is a thing.
Movie is bad and your essay is awful just as your IQ. To prove my point am going to show you the message: "What your saying doesn't make any sense. All members of the homo genus are characterized from not having fur unlike the other great apes. And Neanderthals clearly made cloths using animal skin and fur, here's the evidence:http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes. And as for the war thing, Humans possibly caused the extinction of Neanderthal's by competing with resources or took genetical diversity from them through interbreeding. But war clearly was not. Some species of Neanderthal and Human gangs possibly engaged in conflict. But a war between both species as a whole is certainty unlikely. Not to mention that humans are a social species, so teaming up, sharing resources, and interbedding with another fellow member of the Homo genus clearly was not far from the truth. And respect to the "NEANDERTHALS ATTACKED AT NIGHTIME". Most members of the Homo genus where diurnal, and Neanderthals where no exception so an attack from nighttime was unlikely. And as for the chimps waging war. You have to remember that Chimps wage war with other Chimps, not other members of the Pan genus. And no, humans where never and still aren't apex predators due to the fact that they can still get eaten by other animals if they ever get caught of guard. Don't belief me? Ask people who survived crocodile attacks. Look, Neanderthals where not monsters, they where just like us."
his guys theory is straight up incorrect. To prove my point am going to show you the message i left him: "What your saying doesn't make any sense. All members of the homo genus are characterized from not having fur unlike the other great apes. And Neanderthals clearly made cloths using animal skin and fur, here's the evidence:http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes. And as for the war thing, Humans possibly caused the extinction of Neanderthal's by competing with resources or took genetical diversity from them through interbreeding. But war clearly was not. Some species of Neanderthal and Human gangs possibly engaged in conflict. But a war between both species as a whole is certainty unlikely. Not to mention that humans are a social species, so teaming up, sharing resources, and interbedding with another fellow member of the Homo genus clearly was not far from the truth. And respect to the "NEANDERTHALS ATTACKED AT NIGHTIME". Most members of the Homo genus where diurnal, and Neanderthals where no exception so an attack from nighttime was unlikely. And as for the chimps waging war. You have to remember that Chimps wage war with other Chimps, not other members of the Pan genus. And no, humans where never and still aren't apex predators due to the fact that they can still get eaten by other animals if they ever get caught of guard. Don't belief me? Ask people who survived crocodile attacks. Look, Neanderthals where not monsters, they where just like us."
An interesting and plausible hypothesis.
his guys theory is straight up incorrect. To prove my point am going to show you the message i left him: "What your saying doesn't make any sense. All members of the homo genus are characterized from not having fur unlike the other great apes. And Neanderthals clearly made cloths using animal skin and fur, here's the evidence:http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes. And as for the war thing, Humans possibly caused the extinction of Neanderthal's by competing with resources or took genetical diversity from them through interbreeding. But war clearly was not. Some species of Neanderthal and Human gangs possibly engaged in conflict. But a war between both species as a whole is certainty unlikely. Not to mention that humans are a social species, so teaming up, sharing resources, and interbedding with another fellow member of the Homo genus clearly was not far from the truth. And respect to the "NEANDERTHALS ATTACKED AT NIGHTIME". Most members of the Homo genus where diurnal, and Neanderthals where no exception so an attack from nighttime was unlikely. And as for the chimps waging war. You have to remember that Chimps wage war with other Chimps, not other members of the Pan genus. And no, humans where never and still aren't apex predators due to the fact that they can still get eaten by other animals if they ever get caught of guard. Don't belief me? Ask people who survived crocodile attacks. Look, Neanderthals where not monsters, they where just like us."
Why do you come back and spam the same comment under every reply over the course of months? What kind of worthless subhuman does that? I'd like to use an atlatl to throw an obsidian javelin through your dumb faggot face
😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣😍
Our tendency to "fear and hate the other" still remains to this day. We easily create an "othergroup" and then discriminate, hate and fear them. And if we eliminate them (which we are very capable of), then we create another "othergroup" and the cycle starts again. Unfortunately this means that we are not very good at cooperating with those that we perceive as "different from us", and that makes us ill equipped for resolving truly global issues, like climate change. If we don't overcome this primal urge, our tribe will die, once the ecosystem sustaining us collapses.
It's ironic. We might have won the war, but the Neanderthal could still have the last laugh.
his guys theory is straight up incorrect. To prove my point am going to show you the message i left him: "What your saying doesn't make any sense. All members of the homo genus are characterized from not having fur unlike the other great apes. And Neanderthals clearly made cloths using animal skin and fur, here's the evidence:http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes. And as for the war thing, Humans possibly caused the extinction of Neanderthal's by competing with resources or took genetical diversity from them through interbreeding. But war clearly was not. Some species of Neanderthal and Human gangs possibly engaged in conflict. But a war between both species as a whole is certainty unlikely. Not to mention that humans are a social species, so teaming up, sharing resources, and interbedding with another fellow member of the Homo genus clearly was not far from the truth. And respect to the "NEANDERTHALS ATTACKED AT NIGHTIME". Most members of the Homo genus where diurnal, and Neanderthals where no exception so an attack from nighttime was unlikely. And as for the chimps waging war. You have to remember that Chimps wage war with other Chimps, not other members of the Pan genus. And no, humans where never and still aren't apex predators due to the fact that they can still get eaten by other animals if they ever get caught of guard. Don't belief me? Ask people who survived crocodile attacks. Look, Neanderthals where not monsters, they where just like us."
You presume that since YOU, mr bean, are not an Apex Predator, that no one else is nor can they be. That no one else is your better. I assure you man, this is not the case.
I have killed reptilians several times my body weight. On purpose. More than once.
Your theories are built upon the sand, my friend.
Woooooooo! You go, Ryan!!
Ironic considering that you said you kill creatures that are not real. Also not being an Apex Predator does not make you weak. Hippos are not even predators yet they cans kill lions. Also biologically no, humans aren't apex predators. Being omnivores makes them stand in the middle.
Ironic? What, that I hunt alligators? They are fucking dinosaurs, my friend.
Humans are the only animals that adorn ourselves in the skins of what we have killed. We literally kill things and use their skin to make my shoes and hold up my pants.
If that doesnt say 'Apex Predator' than nothing does.
Hippos are not Apex predators yet they can kill crocodiles. Also, killing is killing, it does not matter what you do with the left overs. Also crocodiles are not dinosaurs as they are not part of the clade dinosauria. Not to mention that there are non avina dinosaurs that where weak like protoceratops. And no, wearing dead skin does not make you apex predator.
Guy, what defines a predator is not its ability to kill, but for what purpose it kills. Predation is to kill and consume. Youre like arguing with a vegan female.
Yes, wearing the dead as adornment sure as fuck makes you an Apex Predator. Youre just jelly because youre a weak bitch and your girl friend knows it.
Really good summary of a compelling theory. Sure, it's rather radical, but many other radical theories were rejected and ridiculed before becoming accepted by science, eg plate tectonics, relativity, evolution, upper atmosphere lightning (sprites), and so on. We often assume that other homo species were as similar to us as their bones allow, and it's worth exploring the antithesis: what if they were as different as possible? Moreover, he presents a good case with plenty of evidence that fits together.
I'd like to mention one detail you glossed over here: based on his description of Neanderthals, we would've first seem them as glowing red eyes in the dark, which to this day still symbolizes evil and triggers a threat response. Yet another point of interest!
What's interesting to me is the fanatical, incoherent rejection of this theory (eg the spammer in this comment section), coupled with the aforementioned insistence upon humanizing other homo species. There's no rational/scientific reason for any of this, so I think it links to more deeply-held, irrational beliefs. Essentially, many of us are reading Liberal/Enlightenment ideology into the deep past. We insist on the neanderthals being a bulkier version of us because of the core belief in Equality, that we're all the same, that differences in race/gender/etc don't matter; this gets extended to other homo species, despite the fact that we know little about them for sure, and only have bones and DNA to go on (which Vendramini utilizes).
This explains the absurd arguments made against this. They insist the homo genus doesn't have fur, when we have no other samples to go on (and it fits the cold climate + other primates). They insist humans must be diurnal, even though we're perfectly capable of staying up at night, and our sleep cycles likely drifted around more in prehistory. They point out that apex predators can be attacked/mobbed by prey, as if that's a contradiction? And the spammer emphasizes that we're a social, cooperative species, while leaving out our warlike, genocidal tendencies which are quite evident in history.
There are better arguments too, which still fall short. Like quibbling over the bottleneck, ignoring that it doesn't have to be as low as 50, and it's possible that the "killer humans" who emerged swamped the DNA of humans elsewhere in the world. Others argue that if Neanderthals were orcs, how did we interbreed? Ignoring the point that we simply don't know the limits of breeding between different homo species.
With such fragmentary evidence of prehistory, we need to consider multiple possibilities.
Thanks for the kind words and restack!
The Neanderthals interbred with Homo Sapiens sapiens. About 1-4% of the genome of modern Eurasians, North African, Melanesians, and Native Americans comes from Neanderthals. They assimilated rather than go truly extinct. The gene associated with red hair, for example, is a Neanderthal gene. Considering a four generation separation from interbreeding would leave a 7.5% homology, the interbreeding had to be fairly widespread.
Contrary to the heterodox opinion, they certainly had speech - the known social complexity observed from Neanderthal sites pretty much proves that. Archeological evidence of several types (dental tarter, site remains of meals, preserved feces) shows that while they were more predatory than modern humans, they did have a significant plant component to their diet - figs, legumes, acorns, pine nuts, mushrooms, etc. One site in Israel provided clear evidence that they cooked this food. A fossil from Spain shows a dental abscess being treated with aspirin-containing poplar bark and penicillium mold, a treatment more advanced than Homo sapiens used until the 1940s.
This guys theory is straight up incorrect. To prove my point am going to show you the message i left him: "What your saying doesn't make any sense. All members of the homo genus are characterized from not having fur unlike the other great apes. And Neanderthals clearly made cloths using animal skin and fur, here's the evidence:http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes. And as for the war thing, Humans possibly caused the extinction of Neanderthal's by competing with resources or took genetical diversity from them through interbreeding. But war clearly was not. Some species of Neanderthal and Human gangs possibly engaged in conflict. But a war between both species as a whole is certainty unlikely. Not to mention that humans are a social species, so teaming up, sharing resources, and interbedding with another fellow member of the Homo genus clearly was not far from the truth. And respect to the "NEANDERTHALS ATTACKED AT NIGHTIME". Most members of the Homo genus where diurnal, and Neanderthals where no exception so an attack from nighttime was unlikely. And as for the chimps waging war. You have to remember that Chimps wage war with other Chimps, not other members of the Pan genus. And no, humans where never and still aren't apex predators due to the fact that they can still get eaten by other animals if they ever get caught of guard. Don't belief me? Ask people who survived crocodile attacks. Look, Neanderthals where not monsters, they where just like us."
If neanderthals looked so different and spooky, would they want to mate with homo sapiens?
Today, do Gorillas, Chimps, Bonobos or Orangutans try to mate with humans -- in the wild or in zoos among keepers? Also, do today's non-human great apes try to mate with each other?
If neanderthals were so different from coeval humans, I doubt male neanderthals or humans would be interested in each others' females by force or seduction.
On an appearance scale of 1 to 100, with 1 representing human appearance 40,000 years ago and 100 representing this article's rendition of neanderthal appearance, I tend toward neanderthals looking enough like humans to trigger lust, so maybe 20-40.
I base my views on extensive deep ignorance.
What I read is that they raped women, so that may be the case as well.
Also, the reason humans mated with Neanderthals is because both are part of the homo genus. And no, no species of great ape today tries to mate with humans and you have no evidence to proof it.
What your saying doesn't make any sense. All members of the homo genus are characterized from not having fur unlike the other great apes. And Neanderthals clearly made cloths using animal skin and fur, here's the evidence:http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes. And as for the war thing, Humans possibly caused the extinction of Neanderthal's by competing with resources or took genetical diversity from them through interbreeding. But war clearly was not. Some species of Neanderthal and Human gangs possibly engaged in conflict. But a war between both species as a whole is certainty unlikely. Not to mention that humans are a social species, so teaming up, sharing resources, and interbedding with another fellow member of the Homo genus clearly was not far from the truth. And respect to the "NEANDERTHALS ATTACKED AT NIGHTIME". Most members of the Homo genus where diurnal, and Neanderthals where no exception so an attack from nighttime was unlikely. And as for the chimps waging war. You have to remember that Chimps wage war with other Chimps, not other members of the Pan genus. And no, humans where never and still aren't apex predators due to the fact that they can still get eaten by other animals if they ever get caught of guard. Don't belief me? Ask people who survived crocodile attacks. Look, Neanderthals where not monsters, they where just like us.
The comments on this article I'm linking below go on for ten years. This is not a new theory, and it is not widely accepted in part because we know a lot more about neanderthals than we did in 2010. They were very much human like us. https://blog.waikato.ac.nz/bioblog/2010/10/killer-neandertals-does-this-o/
Hey Clarence -- I read that discussion but I didn't find the author's rebuttal of D.V.'s case very persuasive at all, at least with regards to those portions of D.V.'s book that I discussed. (D.V. made a large number of other claims regarding *human* evolution in response to Neanderthal predation that I did not discuss because I didn't find them as meritable.)
The Waikato page makes much hullabaloo about one article from 2009 suggesting that Neanderthals made clothes like we do. More recent papers have concluded the opposite, see this paper from 2016:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0278416516300757
"Thus, these findings are most consistent with the hypothesis that Neanderthals employed only cape-like clothing while early modern humans used specialized cold weather clothing."
There is no way that Neanderthals survived in Ice Age Europe wearing capes without having cold-weather adaptations such as fur.
This paper reaches this conclusion: "It is argued here that pre-existing biological cold adaptations delayed the development of such technological capacities among Neanderthals"
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00438240701680492
The Waikato author criticizes D.V. for suggesting fur without evidence, but he offers plenty of evidence - inferential evidence based on climate, other mammals, and other primates. Same goes for the eyes, nose, etc.
Anyway, absent a time travel machine, we can only conjecture. D.V.'s theory is not accepted by the mainstream, as I said in my article. But it has the virtue of explaining a lot of interesting mythology... and the mainstream is often wrong.
Thanks for replying. I still don't see how you get past the red hair genes(https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/dna-genotypes-and-phenotypes), the fact that even that article you linked to would agree that Neanderthals made and wore clothing , the fact that D.V. gets the neanderthal skull shape and where it attaches to the neck so wrong that he is either very stupid or dishonest, and some of the arguments made by others in that thread such as the fact that despite the fact we supposedly had to fear this super predator for thousands of years, human society showed no signs of adaptation in either technology or organization. To me, this last argument all but kills the Neanderthal Super Predator Theory by itself. Let's not forget the very limited (much more so for humans ironically) evidence of neanderthal cannibalism : apparently they were very good at hunting that big game, and probably (in my opinion) had to resort to cannibalism less than the more numerous and less skilled human population. Of course you'll note I said "had to" because I do not assume that either our ancient human ancestors NOR Neanderthals wanted to eat others of their own kind or that looked (and probably tasted) disturbingly close for that matter. To the larger point, I don't see why we need to explain ancient myths as having any kind of 'real' component anyway. And if we do, why only the fearsome/scary ones? The Neanderthals could just as easily be the DWARVES of legend (smaller than modern humans yet stronger and tending to live deep in caves. Maybe they even liked collecting shiny things like gold? ) or perhaps it was the 'hobbit' group of hominids that led to those legends.
This theory specifically reminds me of the theory proposed by anthropologist David E. Jones in his book, "An Instinct for Dragons," in that Dragons were a combination of predatorial animals (big cats, raptor birds, and snakes) that preyed on our ancient ancestors. That the instinct to fear these animals became encoded into our DNA. This fear then became the basis of the mythology of dragons, which is almost universal to all human cultures. Even cultures like the Inuit who have never seen reptiles. It has been shown that fear, anxiety, and stress can change a person's DNA and can be passed down to future generations.
I think it's at least plausible and both explanations may be true. There might have been a period of time when Neanderthals hunted humans to near extinction and there may also have been a time when they lived in relative harmony with us and interbred with our ancestors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Instinct_for_Dragons
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/10/chronic-stress
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/stress-hormone-causes-epigenetic-changes
This guys theory is straight up incorrect. To prove my point am going to show you the message i left him: "What your saying doesn't make any sense. All members of the homo genus are characterized from not having fur unlike the other great apes. And Neanderthals clearly made cloths using animal skin and fur, here's the evidence:http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes. And as for the war thing, Humans possibly caused the extinction of Neanderthal's by competing with resources or took genetical diversity from them through interbreeding. But war clearly was not. Some species of Neanderthal and Human gangs possibly engaged in conflict. But a war between both species as a whole is certainty unlikely. Not to mention that humans are a social species, so teaming up, sharing resources, and interbedding with another fellow member of the Homo genus clearly was not far from the truth. And respect to the "NEANDERTHALS ATTACKED AT NIGHTIME". Most members of the Homo genus where diurnal, and Neanderthals where no exception so an attack from nighttime was unlikely. And as for the chimps waging war. You have to remember that Chimps wage war with other Chimps, not other members of the Pan genus. And no, humans where never and still aren't apex predators due to the fact that they can still get eaten by other animals if they ever get caught of guard. Don't belief me? Ask people who survived crocodile attacks. Look, Neanderthals where not monsters, they where just like us."
1ReplyDelete
This guys theory is straight up incorrect. To prove my point am going to show you the message i left him: "What your saying doesn't make any sense. All members of the homo genus are characterized from not having fur unlike the other great apes. And Neanderthals clearly made cloths using animal skin and fur, here's the evidence:http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes. And as for the war thing, Humans possibly caused the extinction of Neanderthal's by competing with resources or took genetical diversity from them through interbreeding. But war clearly was not. Some species of Neanderthal and Human gangs possibly engaged in conflict. But a war between both species as a whole is certainty unlikely. Not to mention that humans are a social species, so teaming up, sharing resources, and interbedding with another fellow member of the Homo genus clearly was not far from the truth. And respect to the "NEANDERTHALS ATTACKED AT NIGHTIME". Most members of the Homo genus where diurnal, and Neanderthals where no exception so an attack from nighttime was unlikely. And as for the chimps waging war. You have to remember that Chimps wage war with other Chimps, not other members of the Pan genus. And no, humans where never and still aren't apex predators due to the fact that they can still get eaten by other animals if they ever get caught of guard. Don't belief me? Ask people who survived crocodile attacks. Look, Neanderthals where not monsters, they where just like us."
1ReplyDelete
Matter of fact, now that I think of it, DNA should soon (if not already , not sure how much neanderthal DNA we have sequenced) prove whether neanderthals had fur or not. They can't have fur for instance if they don't have the genes for it.
"fur" - Humans have genes for fur already, they simply aren't expressed. And all our closest living species have fur. I think the fur is, by far, the most likely of his arguments and I'm surprised you find that one the hardest to believe!
"we supposedly had to fear this super predator for thousands of years, human society showed no signs of adaptation in either technology or organization." --
D.V. provides many, many arguments in his book to explain how humans adapted to Neanderthal predation - in fact, that's the thesis of his book. I just didn't go into it because I found it less interesting.
"dwarves and hobbits" -- I personally *do* think that some of our legends will have come from other species in the same way. And it's worth noting that in mythology, the line between "dwarf" and "monster" and "hobbit" and "kobold" is much less clear than in D&D.
Anyway, to avoid endless further debate, I know it's a heterodox hypothesis. I find it plausible that Neanderthals were much more monstrous than the mainstream admits, and that they became the basis of many myths and legends. If you don't find it plausible then that means that most scientists agree with you. In the 1980s, everyone said dinosaurs had scales; now they say feathers. I've seen views go from "crazy and unproven" to "obvious" many times in my life.
So I'm happy to have a gentlemen's bet to come back in 20 years to see what the mainstream thinks Neanderthals looked and acted like. Loser has to dress up like a caveman and type ME WRONG on whatever passes for Twitter by then.
I'll take that bet. I'll probably still be here in 20 years assuming no mass disasters or a bloody type of civil war. Make it 30 and then the odds drop.
This guys theory is straight up incorrect. To prove my point am going to show you the message i left him: "What your saying doesn't make any sense. All members of the homo genus are characterized from not having fur unlike the other great apes. And Neanderthals clearly made cloths using animal skin and fur, here's the evidence:http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes. And as for the war thing, Humans possibly caused the extinction of Neanderthal's by competing with resources or took genetical diversity from them through interbreeding. But war clearly was not. Some species of Neanderthal and Human gangs possibly engaged in conflict. But a war between both species as a whole is certainty unlikely. Not to mention that humans are a social species, so teaming up, sharing resources, and interbedding with another fellow member of the Homo genus clearly was not far from the truth. And respect to the "NEANDERTHALS ATTACKED AT NIGHTIME". Most members of the Homo genus where diurnal, and Neanderthals where no exception so an attack from nighttime was unlikely. And as for the chimps waging war. You have to remember that Chimps wage war with other Chimps, not other members of the Pan genus. And no, humans where never and still aren't apex predators due to the fact that they can still get eaten by other animals if they ever get caught of guard. Don't belief me? Ask people who survived crocodile attacks. Look, Neanderthals where not monsters, they where just like us."
1ReplyDelete
Thanks so much, the article and the one you showed us are all very interesting. I really want to get that book as well. This is such an awesome subject, totally
Hi tree of woe.
This is an incredible essay. Would you mind if I translate it into Spanish?
Hi, tree. Did you see my comment?
Go for it!
https://litoschmitt.substack.com/p/cuando-los-orcos-eran-reales?r=1dkgfo&s=w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Done! Thank you, Tree!
Thx!
I don't personally find Vendramini's neanderthal reconstructions especially compelling. (The hunched posture doesn't match the position of the foramen magnum, and humans and neanderthals would have had to be reasonably genetically similar in order for interbreeding to occur at all.)
https://youtu.be/3UwuUuq5LA4?t=161
This doesn't rule out the possibility that human-neanderthal competition was extremely brutal, of course- our own species has been savage enough in dealing with close relations, so it would be naive to assume neanderthals were any more pacifist, and one can easily imagine that murder, rape and cannibalism were not-uncommon occurrences. But that's just par-for-the-course prehistory.
To those who haven't figured it out yet, K i l l e r B e a n is most likely a bot.
Nah... he's just got OCD and knows how CTRL-V works.
Any half-decent bot would generate a more-persuasive wall of text, not something that sounds like it was prepared by someone with an IQ of 80 who was experiencing common abreactions to chronic use of anti-anxiety medication.
Not sure if you realized this when you wrote it, but you've basically described the creatures in 'bigfoot' sightings. Large bipedal upright hominid, very strong, intelligent nocturnal, large eyes with eyeshine at night. Interestingly most hair samples collected are dismissed because there is too much homo sapien DNA.
Jews, arabs, indians, and some eurasians have the highest amount of neanderthal DNA.
Also, the human race just means Europeans. The asians are mostly from denisovan, blacks are from various negroids, and south asians have their own thing going on tied to the abbos. We do not have the same origins.
A problem I see with the near-extinction hypothesis is that modern humans seem to have been widespread throughout Africa for around 200,000 years, indeed the Khoi-San in South Africa may have been in pretty much the same area for that long. It certainly seems likely that Neanderthals drove modern humans back from the Levant into Africa, but there is no evidence of Neanderthals in Africa. I've also read that humans are not really all that genetically bottlenecked, depending on the source, much less than eg cheetahs. The Toba eruption seems to be a popular candidate for a bottleneck ca 75,000-70,000 ya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory
Leaving aside that though, the general idea that Neanderthals were powerful hostile eaters-of-humans certainly seems plausible.
I think it's entirely possible that human-neanderthal competition was exceedingly violent simply because human-human competition has often been exceedingly violent, but that doesn't make Vendramini's physical reconstruction of neanderthal anatomy especially plausible.