Why did modern humans take so long to settle in Europe?(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Why did modern humans take so long to settle in Europe?
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/nov/14/try-try-and-try-again-why-did-modern-humans-take-so-long-to-settle-in-europe
81 comments
Joseph Jordania theorizes that human intelligence preceded articulated speech, which he suggests may have arisen as a simple neurological mutation in East Asia about 40k years ago and quickly migrated back toward Europe and Africa.
Jordania is an ethnomusicologist and believes that human vocal chords evolved for polyphonic singing, part of an adaptation (along with dance) permitting humans to act in tight unison for, e.g., defense and intimidation. This social mimicry permitted them to create an ecological niche into which both intelligence and altruism could grow, with articulated speech (i.e. language as we know it today) being the very last and quite recent step, and perhaps the most important distinguishing characteristic--IOW, presumably closely related hominids were nearly as or similarly intelligent and social, just lacking the ability for complex, individual speech with its concomitant benefits (greater specialization and more sophisticated culture?).
AFAIU, this is in stark contrast to most anthropologists, who generally believe things happened in the reverse order, with simple language (e.g. sign language) providing the impetus for vocal chord development and articulated speech, which in turn laid the foundation for rapid coevolution of greater intelligence.
Jordania is an ethnomusicologist and believes that human vocal chords evolved for polyphonic singing, part of an adaptation (along with dance) permitting humans to act in tight unison for, e.g., defense and intimidation. This social mimicry permitted them to create an ecological niche into which both intelligence and altruism could grow, with articulated speech (i.e. language as we know it today) being the very last and quite recent step, and perhaps the most important distinguishing characteristic--IOW, presumably closely related hominids were nearly as or similarly intelligent and social, just lacking the ability for complex, individual speech with its concomitant benefits (greater specialization and more sophisticated culture?).
AFAIU, this is in stark contrast to most anthropologists, who generally believe things happened in the reverse order, with simple language (e.g. sign language) providing the impetus for vocal chord development and articulated speech, which in turn laid the foundation for rapid coevolution of greater intelligence.
Hmmm.
I think there's been a lot of speculation about human musical tendencies and the relationship to speech and intelligence.
Idk if it's wise to hypothesise that "intelligence" arises at any point. We don't have very good definitions of intelligence. Also, brain size of all homo species is massive relative to ancestral species and that seems likely to be related.
Certain types of human intelligence abilities are pretty tightly coupled with speech, articulated or otherwise. Also, most primates vocalize communication and even have some vocabulary of semantic words. So, it didn't arise suddenly out of nowhere.
All interesting stuff. I'll check out Jordania.
I think there's been a lot of speculation about human musical tendencies and the relationship to speech and intelligence.
Idk if it's wise to hypothesise that "intelligence" arises at any point. We don't have very good definitions of intelligence. Also, brain size of all homo species is massive relative to ancestral species and that seems likely to be related.
Certain types of human intelligence abilities are pretty tightly coupled with speech, articulated or otherwise. Also, most primates vocalize communication and even have some vocabulary of semantic words. So, it didn't arise suddenly out of nowhere.
All interesting stuff. I'll check out Jordania.
What most intrigued me about Jordania's theory is that it's one of the first and few I've encountered that provides a comprehensive model for the emergence and maintenance of strong, non-kin altruism within a classical genetic evolutionary model.
Jordania's complex, unified group singing and dancing displays operate to exclude free riders. If you don't strongly share both the ability to perform the display and to spontaneously exhibit the display in unison, you get eaten. (IOW, no group selection required--just basic selfish gene theory filtering out the non-cooperators.) Furthermore, the neurological mutations that developed to promote these displays would be fundamental to enhanced empathy and, in particular, the capacity and predisposition to strongly conflate group identity with individual identity--again, all with selfish gene theory.
Another way of putting it is that strong socialization evolved first and drove intelligence, rather than intelligence driving stronger socialization. This explains how the trajectory of hominin intelligence broke away from other apes and mammals--nature first had to overcome the altruism barrier, which is fundamentally limited by basic sexual fitness and kinship. (Closest examples of pervasive altruism elsewhere in nature tend to revolve around kin matriarchies--bonobos, naked mole rats, and of course colony insects--and are simply modulated by genetic relatedness as would be expected by selfish gene theory.)
I have no clue how probable is Jordania's theory, but it's relatively unique in comprehensively providing a plausible and distinguishable (i.e. exactly why it was serendipitous without being a miracle) pathway for the development of human altruism. And I tend to believe that strong altruism is the prerequisite for human-level intelligence. If it weren't, I fail to see how human-level intelligence wouldn't have quickly arisen many times over long before hominins. Strong, non-kin altruism and its capacity for socialization provides a unique ecological niche unto itself into which ever greater intelligence provides the enhanced degree of sexual fitness that it couldn't (and hasn't) otherwise.
Jordania's complex, unified group singing and dancing displays operate to exclude free riders. If you don't strongly share both the ability to perform the display and to spontaneously exhibit the display in unison, you get eaten. (IOW, no group selection required--just basic selfish gene theory filtering out the non-cooperators.) Furthermore, the neurological mutations that developed to promote these displays would be fundamental to enhanced empathy and, in particular, the capacity and predisposition to strongly conflate group identity with individual identity--again, all with selfish gene theory.
Another way of putting it is that strong socialization evolved first and drove intelligence, rather than intelligence driving stronger socialization. This explains how the trajectory of hominin intelligence broke away from other apes and mammals--nature first had to overcome the altruism barrier, which is fundamentally limited by basic sexual fitness and kinship. (Closest examples of pervasive altruism elsewhere in nature tend to revolve around kin matriarchies--bonobos, naked mole rats, and of course colony insects--and are simply modulated by genetic relatedness as would be expected by selfish gene theory.)
I have no clue how probable is Jordania's theory, but it's relatively unique in comprehensively providing a plausible and distinguishable (i.e. exactly why it was serendipitous without being a miracle) pathway for the development of human altruism. And I tend to believe that strong altruism is the prerequisite for human-level intelligence. If it weren't, I fail to see how human-level intelligence wouldn't have quickly arisen many times over long before hominins. Strong, non-kin altruism and its capacity for socialization provides a unique ecological niche unto itself into which ever greater intelligence provides the enhanced degree of sexual fitness that it couldn't (and hasn't) otherwise.
I'll definitely check it out. True, verifiable or not... even the most speculative theories are interesting to me. I'm even (especially) a fan of Julian Jaynes, and his strongest claims are flat wrong.
Music is certainly a wild card in the human story, and I'm interested to hear how it can be woven into our superhero origin.
Music is certainly a wild card in the human story, and I'm interested to hear how it can be woven into our superhero origin.
> Joseph Jordania theorizes that human intelligence preceded articulated speech
Somehow I find this claim difficult to reconcile with the existence of feral children.
Somehow I find this claim difficult to reconcile with the existence of feral children.
While feral children are stunted they still have human level intelligence and self awareness even with understandable quirks from very different models.
For lack of better words "institutional knowledge" occurs even in deer - transplants and their descendants had worse survival rates than those who had grown up there but eventually survivors "caught up".
Feral children are also a real fringe case not comparable to a pre "full language" humanity as they by neccessity would still have models of learning via observation at very least. They aren't very evolutionarily significant because like other vulnerable orphaned young mammals they almost always died.
For lack of better words "institutional knowledge" occurs even in deer - transplants and their descendants had worse survival rates than those who had grown up there but eventually survivors "caught up".
Feral children are also a real fringe case not comparable to a pre "full language" humanity as they by neccessity would still have models of learning via observation at very least. They aren't very evolutionarily significant because like other vulnerable orphaned young mammals they almost always died.
Humans are the only animals we know to be capable of reasoning, which is a necessary component for human intelligence. They're also the only animals we know to be capable of language. I don't believe that to be a coincidence.
> Feral children are also a real fringe case not comparable to a pre "full language" humanity as they by neccessity would still have models of learning via observation at very least.
Sure, if your definition of intelligence is broad enough, feral children might fall into it, as might many animals. Yet I suspect that this is not what wahern's "human intelligence" was about.
> Feral children are also a real fringe case not comparable to a pre "full language" humanity as they by neccessity would still have models of learning via observation at very least.
Sure, if your definition of intelligence is broad enough, feral children might fall into it, as might many animals. Yet I suspect that this is not what wahern's "human intelligence" was about.
> Humans are the only animals we know to be capable of reasoning
Definitely not. We know of multiple other species capable of displaying abstract reasonining. That was observed in monkeys in at least 1917 and has now been confirmed with rooks and crows.
> They're also the only animals we know to be capable of language.
We know of multiple marine mammals which communicate.
Definitely not. We know of multiple other species capable of displaying abstract reasonining. That was observed in monkeys in at least 1917 and has now been confirmed with rooks and crows.
> They're also the only animals we know to be capable of language.
We know of multiple marine mammals which communicate.
> We know of multiple marine mammals which communicate.
Language implies communication, but communication does not imply language. So if you've only observed some communication, it's irrelevant for language. For example, languages, as opposed to non-language-based forms of communication, are characterized by having syntactic structure.
As for those other species allegedly capable of abstract reasoning, I'm not quite sure how you'd conclusively discern the abstract nature from observed cases.
Language implies communication, but communication does not imply language. So if you've only observed some communication, it's irrelevant for language. For example, languages, as opposed to non-language-based forms of communication, are characterized by having syntactic structure.
As for those other species allegedly capable of abstract reasoning, I'm not quite sure how you'd conclusively discern the abstract nature from observed cases.
> As for those other species allegedly capable of abstract reasoning, I'm not quite sure how you'd conclusively discern the abstract nature from observed cases.
My native language has a proverb I find fitting to this situation: no one is more blind that the one who doesn’t want to see.
My native language has a proverb I find fitting to this situation: no one is more blind that the one who doesn’t want to see.
> My native language has a proverb I find fitting to this situation: no one is more blind that the one who doesn’t want to see.
I don't know where -- in which language -- that was originally coined, but nowadays it's present in many places and languages.
I don't know where -- in which language -- that was originally coined, but nowadays it's present in many places and languages.
Use of tools? Delayed gratification? Visual learning? Organized behaviour? And so on. There’s a neocortex in other animals and a lizard brain in humans and the latter is still prone to instinctual, non-rational action.
[deleted]
Inhospitable conditions when compared to temperate climates?
That's not a sufficient explanation because Neanderthals faced the same conditions but were outcompeted eventually. The question is: if Neanderthals were going to be outcompeted, why did it take so long for homo sapiens to establish themselves in Europe. What changed so that they would become the dominant humans
We do know the climate changed significantly.
Homo sapiens moving northward did coincide with the end of the last glacial period.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Period
> When the glaciation event started, Homo sapiens was confined to lower latitudes and used tools comparable to those used by Neanderthals in western and central Eurasia and by Denisovans and Homo erectus in Asia. Near the end of the event, H. sapiens migrated into Eurasia and Australia.
Homo sapiens moving northward did coincide with the end of the last glacial period.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Period
> When the glaciation event started, Homo sapiens was confined to lower latitudes and used tools comparable to those used by Neanderthals in western and central Eurasia and by Denisovans and Homo erectus in Asia. Near the end of the event, H. sapiens migrated into Eurasia and Australia.
Neanderthals were a distinct genetic group. There's no reason to suggest that they weren't simply better adapted for the contemporary European climate before arrival of initial human populations. The humans who eventually outcompeted neanderthals in Europe were probably genetically and culturally distinct from those that originally arrived, assuming it took some number of generations to adapt to the northern geography/climate.
This is what I'm thinking. Neanderthals were genetically very well adapted to the climate, but they already mostly filled the niches.
Homo Sapiens came into an already crowded land, and had to take time to develop the cultural tools and knowledge sufficient enough to give them a large advantage over the more specialized genetics of the Neanderthals.
Homo Sapiens came into an already crowded land, and had to take time to develop the cultural tools and knowledge sufficient enough to give them a large advantage over the more specialized genetics of the Neanderthals.
[deleted]
As the article says, humans interbred with Neanderthals to a degree that even today, Europeans have 2% of their genes coming from them.
It's possible that it was the "mixed" species that had the advantage over both the first human arrivals and the Neanderthals... with time, more human arrivals probably diluted the Neanderthals genes to the levels we see today.
It's possible that it was the "mixed" species that had the advantage over both the first human arrivals and the Neanderthals... with time, more human arrivals probably diluted the Neanderthals genes to the levels we see today.
Alternatively, considering the mixed species weren't able to compete with the later human arrivals, or take over the human controlled areas in Africa - humans appear to have a distinct advantage over the mixed species.
I think it is far more likely they got the treatment which homo sapiens regularly gets from other homo sapiens. Andamanese for example are genetically distinct but certainly are homo sapiens but that didn't help for their survival in the end. There probably are many cases like this.
Isn't technology the only good explanation in that case?
1. Humans without tech can't even settle there.
2. Humans develop tech (textiles, fire etc).
3. Humans suddenly don't just settle there, they out-compete neanderthals.
Step 2 took too short a time for major genetic changes. So the changes were behavioural. Seems logical to my non-anthropologist brain...
1. Humans without tech can't even settle there.
2. Humans develop tech (textiles, fire etc).
3. Humans suddenly don't just settle there, they out-compete neanderthals.
Step 2 took too short a time for major genetic changes. So the changes were behavioural. Seems logical to my non-anthropologist brain...
I could imagine another case were Neanderthals had technology or the wrong faith, were declared witches and heretics and consequently prosecuted until extinction. Age old story and a clear pattern in human history. Being out-competed sounds very unlikely because neanderthals probably were generalists too so at least some would have survived. You generally don't out-compete people by advanced technology. The opposite seems true with modern humans.
It’s a pretty big geographic space. I can’t imagine a religion that would span the entire continent and be responsible for genocide.
Seems like there would be many different religions between both Neanderthals and Homo sapiens.
Even in the Middle Ages not all of Europe was a single religion.
Seems like there would be many different religions between both Neanderthals and Homo sapiens.
Even in the Middle Ages not all of Europe was a single religion.
> Being out-competed sounds very unlikely because neanderthals probably were generalists too so at least some would have survived.
SF author Philip José Farmer wrote at least one novel, I think a series of novels, where they did, and still live among us. Discreetly, on the fringes of society.
SF author Philip José Farmer wrote at least one novel, I think a series of novels, where they did, and still live among us. Discreetly, on the fringes of society.
>That's not a sufficient explanation because Neanderthals faced the same conditions but were outcompeted eventually.
How do we know that Neanderthals were outcompeted? Genetic studies show that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens interbred and modern humans have inherited genes from Neanderthals.
How do we know that Neanderthals were outcompeted? Genetic studies show that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens interbred and modern humans have inherited genes from Neanderthals.
Well, as after the interbreeding the survivors have 1-2% of Neanderthals and 98-99% of humans, and none with the opposite proportion have survived, that counts as outcompeting and very one-sided assimilation.
Is this just a measurement thing though? like "dark matter" is the stuff that's left over after we account for everything else.
Similarly, saying modern humans have 98% modern human DNA seems a bit circular. And how is that 98% calculated? Don't we share 98% DNA with chimpanzees and bananas or whatever? Is it 99% of that final 1%?
A more relevant example: the diversity of genetics in Africa could be counted as like 20 "races" if races were based on genetics, but instead we generally lump them mostly into 1 of 4-5 vague historical socioeconomic groupings. So you have one "white" parent and you're mixed race, but you could have two more genetically different African parents and not be considered mixed. It's nostly about where you draw subjective lines.
Similarly, saying modern humans have 98% modern human DNA seems a bit circular. And how is that 98% calculated? Don't we share 98% DNA with chimpanzees and bananas or whatever? Is it 99% of that final 1%?
A more relevant example: the diversity of genetics in Africa could be counted as like 20 "races" if races were based on genetics, but instead we generally lump them mostly into 1 of 4-5 vague historical socioeconomic groupings. So you have one "white" parent and you're mixed race, but you could have two more genetically different African parents and not be considered mixed. It's nostly about where you draw subjective lines.
You're mixing two different ways of measuring difference. When we say we share a large portion of DNA with other species it's about the whole genome and it is mostly a statement of how similar the proteins that make life work are.
When we say we have 2% Neanderthal DNA (in Europe, less elsewhere), this is usually done with SNPs [0] which are used as a way to quickly differentiate between populations without sequencing the whole genome. In practice when companies like 23 and me tell you that you are 20% Pacific Islander it means that they have detected a number of single base-pair variations that is statistically compatible with that result, but it doesn't mean that Pacific Islanders and Scandinavians are not largely the same genetically, just that we know some easy places to look to tell them apart.
I should probably also mention that one interesting and politically relevant result of these population studies is that the concept of race doesn't really have a solid statistical base, because we have found the variation inside the group to be so large compared to the variation across groups, that there is no unambiguous way to cluster the human population.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-nucleotide_polymorphism
When we say we have 2% Neanderthal DNA (in Europe, less elsewhere), this is usually done with SNPs [0] which are used as a way to quickly differentiate between populations without sequencing the whole genome. In practice when companies like 23 and me tell you that you are 20% Pacific Islander it means that they have detected a number of single base-pair variations that is statistically compatible with that result, but it doesn't mean that Pacific Islanders and Scandinavians are not largely the same genetically, just that we know some easy places to look to tell them apart.
I should probably also mention that one interesting and politically relevant result of these population studies is that the concept of race doesn't really have a solid statistical base, because we have found the variation inside the group to be so large compared to the variation across groups, that there is no unambiguous way to cluster the human population.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-nucleotide_polymorphism
>I should probably also mention that one interesting and politically relevant result of these population studies is that the concept of race doesn't really have a solid statistical base, because we have found the variation inside the group to be so large compared to the variation across groups, that there is no unambiguous way to cluster the human population.
If you concentrate on a large pool of genes, yes. But then you might come to the same findings when studying dogs or cats and conclude that breeds don't have a solid statistical base.
With statistics everything is provable, given carefully selection of samples and traits.
If you concentrate on a large pool of genes, yes. But then you might come to the same findings when studying dogs or cats and conclude that breeds don't have a solid statistical base.
With statistics everything is provable, given carefully selection of samples and traits.
The whole thing is further complicated, by significant differences, being- unimportant. As in- differences of the sweat glands do not make for real differentiation. Different coloured skin is a superficial- unimportant difference.
What would be a differentiator - aka different brain-chemistrys and neuro-types - are non-existent or omnipresent.
Taking neuro-types as adapted to circumstances, the characteristika usually fielded by racists, are almost always a expression of "percentages" of neuro-types thriving due to different historic circumstances.
If you spend several generations enslaved and waged war upon, those neuro-typus adapted to the circumstances - will make up a large part of the surviving population.
Racism causes history, and history causes perceivable "Race" because humanity adapts to whatever it goes through. Given enough "good time" generations, the "adapted survivors" retreat percentage wise and are replaced once again with peaceful neuro-types. Unless, the stressful conditions are artificially prolonged.
What would be a differentiator - aka different brain-chemistrys and neuro-types - are non-existent or omnipresent.
Taking neuro-types as adapted to circumstances, the characteristika usually fielded by racists, are almost always a expression of "percentages" of neuro-types thriving due to different historic circumstances.
If you spend several generations enslaved and waged war upon, those neuro-typus adapted to the circumstances - will make up a large part of the surviving population.
Racism causes history, and history causes perceivable "Race" because humanity adapts to whatever it goes through. Given enough "good time" generations, the "adapted survivors" retreat percentage wise and are replaced once again with peaceful neuro-types. Unless, the stressful conditions are artificially prolonged.
> that counts as outcompeting
Consider Neanderthals had more sparse populations due to being adapted to colder climates.
In periods over the millenia, mixed groups could have lived without being aware of being mixed at all. Groups with 50% heritage or more could have been small compared to the growth of modern human populations elsewhere, which would eventually blend.
Over 100 generations, this 2% heritage could be accounted for by a growth-rate difference of only around 5% vs 9-10%, which is just above replacement level and this difference wouldn't have been noticeable to each generation.
If one population had growth spurts and doubled over a generation, then much faster.
Consider Neanderthals had more sparse populations due to being adapted to colder climates.
In periods over the millenia, mixed groups could have lived without being aware of being mixed at all. Groups with 50% heritage or more could have been small compared to the growth of modern human populations elsewhere, which would eventually blend.
Over 100 generations, this 2% heritage could be accounted for by a growth-rate difference of only around 5% vs 9-10%, which is just above replacement level and this difference wouldn't have been noticeable to each generation.
If one population had growth spurts and doubled over a generation, then much faster.
This would be valid if there were still populations with significant Neanderthal dna. But there aren’t.
Also, population growth also counts as outcompeting. If after thousands of years there’s only Homo sapiens and no Neanderthals, then that makes the point. Homo sapien genes won out.
Also, population growth also counts as outcompeting. If after thousands of years there’s only Homo sapiens and no Neanderthals, then that makes the point. Homo sapien genes won out.
If newcomers were 50x the number of Neanderthals, then 2% is normal.
It's just a matter of maths. If sapiens were migrating from a warmer climate, they were probably also more numerous due to having evolved in a more advantageous climate. Obviously Neanderthals were more suited to a glacial period, as evidenced by their lack of competition during that era.
> outcompeted
What would they have competed for? There were few humans altogether in Europe, maybe on the order of thousands to tens of thousands across Europe (I assume, this is not known). They wouldn't need to ever meet.
What would they have competed for? There were few humans altogether in Europe, maybe on the order of thousands to tens of thousands across Europe (I assume, this is not known). They wouldn't need to ever meet.
We don’t really know very well how many humans (including Neanderthals) lived in Europe. We have pretty good estimates of effective population sizes from genetic data, but these don’t tell us much about actual population sizes beyond giving us lower bounds.
What we do know, though, is that hunter-gatherer peoples have very low population densities, and that these low population densities are a result of resource scarcity, and violent inter-group competition for these scarce resources. Other hunter-gatherer groups impact you even if they are miles from you.
Oh, and we do know that anatomically modern humans met Neanderthals, at the very least because they interbred.
What we do know, though, is that hunter-gatherer peoples have very low population densities, and that these low population densities are a result of resource scarcity, and violent inter-group competition for these scarce resources. Other hunter-gatherer groups impact you even if they are miles from you.
Oh, and we do know that anatomically modern humans met Neanderthals, at the very least because they interbred.
This is meant in the context of genetic survival. Homo sapiens were, eventually, better equipped to reproduce and survive. And if you read the article, it mentions at the bottom that part of the Neanderthal genes have been... essentially assimilated into the Homo Sapiens gene pool. Hence why Neanderthals seized to exist, and other species that live in a vaccuum (island) did survive. Many Homo Sapiens today are also part Neanderthal.
Is there any good estimate of the number of modern humans in Europe c. 40-50 ka ago?
According to this chart, the first anatomically modern human, homo sapian sapian, dates back to 46,000 years ago
https://www.southampton.ac.uk/~cpd/history.html
https://www.southampton.ac.uk/~cpd/history.html
Earlier groups of humans could have also been genocided by the later migration waves which would explain why they left no trace in modern populations. Although this is less likely for women.
Low populations increased the likelihood that new wave n brought a disease that wiped out new wave n-1. We saw that with European arrival into the Americas.
And 2% Neanderthal dna might be all that is noticeable as humans are 98-99% similar to chimps.
And 2% Neanderthal dna might be all that is noticeable as humans are 98-99% similar to chimps.
[flagged]
We've banned this account for repeatedly posting unsubstantive comments. That's not what this site is for.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Nobody knows why neanderthals died. There was considerable amount of crossbreeding - modern europeans may carry genes inherited from neanderthals - so it's far from obvious what exactly happened.
Considering modern Europeans all have Neanderthal genes, they could have simply just been bred out of existence.
I imagine all human migrations resulted in genocide - everywhere they happened. This isn't Europe specific.
...it's not even human specific as other animals do the same thing.
...it's not even human specific as other animals do the same thing.
If wonder if Neanderthals discussed an idea akin to the great replacement and if most of them thought/argued that was a conspiracy theory.
>if most of them thought/argued that was a conspiracy theory.
about 42K years ago the Earth poles flipped and as a result there was a 1K years period of high UV which, especially without change in visible light to trigger pupil response, would have caused a lot of early cataracts and other issues to the large light colored Neanderthals' eyes with them not having any idea what is happening to them while African originated Cro-Magnon with smaller darker eyes used to stronger African Sun would have fared much better in Europe in that period.
about 42K years ago the Earth poles flipped and as a result there was a 1K years period of high UV which, especially without change in visible light to trigger pupil response, would have caused a lot of early cataracts and other issues to the large light colored Neanderthals' eyes with them not having any idea what is happening to them while African originated Cro-Magnon with smaller darker eyes used to stronger African Sun would have fared much better in Europe in that period.
Are your genes inferior? Then evolution will replace you over time. That's how it works.
Concept of inferior/superior is rather naive applied to modern humans.
For example, exposing a particular population to a specific challenge will select for particular traits which might cause slower population growth. For example, alcoholism might be the side effect some genetics that enable survival in certain situations that might seem irrelevant until they occur.
And modern humans let culture/politics be deciding factors for reproduction. This is causing particular selection pressures that are not understood and can not be evaluated until far in the future.
For example, exposing a particular population to a specific challenge will select for particular traits which might cause slower population growth. For example, alcoholism might be the side effect some genetics that enable survival in certain situations that might seem irrelevant until they occur.
And modern humans let culture/politics be deciding factors for reproduction. This is causing particular selection pressures that are not understood and can not be evaluated until far in the future.
Yes, calling them inferior or superior is merely another way of describing survival. Why are the genes inferior? Because they don't survive. Why don't they survive? Because ...
Sometimes supposedly inferior genes work better in a specific environment as is the case with sickle cell anaemia where mutation resulting in under-performing haemoglobin confers some resistance to malaria.
Sometimes supposedly inferior genes work better in a specific environment as is the case with sickle cell anaemia where mutation resulting in under-performing haemoglobin confers some resistance to malaria.
>Yes, calling them inferior or superior is merely another way of describing survival.
Genes survived either because some populations were aided by geography, as in they weren't challenged by foreign populations or because the individuals were smarter.
The modern humans are trying to reverse how nature worked until the recent past but I'm not sure it will work. Competition will always win.
Genes survived either because some populations were aided by geography, as in they weren't challenged by foreign populations or because the individuals were smarter.
The modern humans are trying to reverse how nature worked until the recent past but I'm not sure it will work. Competition will always win.
>Are your genes inferior?
What do you mean by inferior genes? Not being adapted to the climate? Being predisposed to some diseases? Having a low IQ? Not enough physical strength?
What do you mean by inferior genes? Not being adapted to the climate? Being predisposed to some diseases? Having a low IQ? Not enough physical strength?
Less adapted to the environment, which of course can include all of the above.
None, all the other hypothesis are second order effects. Weak genes are genes that do not reproduce.
And yet humans have left natural selection behind on many issues. Not only by warning labels on bleach.
Natural selection is still very much alive, in various forms. Economic reasons (can you afford a car with 3 children's seats?), sexual selection, etc.
It still exists of course. But in that case education is by numbers quite a negative trait for example. Being rich too maybe.
Sexual selection is probably not even a significant factor because you mostly always find an idiot to team up with.
Sexual selection is probably not even a significant factor because you mostly always find an idiot to team up with.
> education is by numbers quite a negative trait
So much so that education of women is considered a solution to overpopulation in underdeveloped countries.
So much so that education of women is considered a solution to overpopulation in underdeveloped countries.
For those lacking context - Great Replacement[1] is a conspiracy theory about how white people are being replaced by non-white people on purpose as a form or "long-term genocide". It is very popular with alt-right and neo-nazis and in most variants, "the Jews" are the ones behind it.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement
> is a conspiracy theory about how
You mean a conspiracy theory about why. Though the article does not dispute that demographic changes are taking place, or even that they are the result of deliberate changes of immigration policy, it does go to great lengths to avoid mentioning them. This is not by accident - there is a lively debate on its talk page about including (more) demographic statistics*, to which the editors are highly resistant.
For example, there is not a single graph found in the entire article similar to that at the beginning of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_France
Like refusing to mention JFK is dead on JFK assassination conspiracy articles.
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Great_Replacement#Lack_of... among others
You mean a conspiracy theory about why. Though the article does not dispute that demographic changes are taking place, or even that they are the result of deliberate changes of immigration policy, it does go to great lengths to avoid mentioning them. This is not by accident - there is a lively debate on its talk page about including (more) demographic statistics*, to which the editors are highly resistant.
For example, there is not a single graph found in the entire article similar to that at the beginning of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_France
Like refusing to mention JFK is dead on JFK assassination conspiracy articles.
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Great_Replacement#Lack_of... among others
No, it is still nonsense.
The whole idea of "our people" being replaced by "those other people" assumes there are "our people" and "those other people" and skin color (or more broadly ethnicity of their ancestors) is the way you recognize which is which.
It assumes that culture is unchanging and tied to skin color. It assumes that birth rates are unchaining in time and tied to skin color. It assumes that demographics of birth rate are relevant in less than hundreds of years - during which culture can completely change (see US or Russia or China in 1821, 1921 and 2021).
The whole idea is based on stupid, racist thinking.
The whole idea of "our people" being replaced by "those other people" assumes there are "our people" and "those other people" and skin color (or more broadly ethnicity of their ancestors) is the way you recognize which is which.
It assumes that culture is unchanging and tied to skin color. It assumes that birth rates are unchaining in time and tied to skin color. It assumes that demographics of birth rate are relevant in less than hundreds of years - during which culture can completely change (see US or Russia or China in 1821, 1921 and 2021).
The whole idea is based on stupid, racist thinking.
It seems to me all it needs to assume is that genetic* ancestry/ethnicity matters - i.e. it has some effect beyond just appearance (if you think caring about appearance is illegitimate). Could you explain why all those other strict assumptions are necessary?
Edit: Actually, I've just noticed this question shifts us from "it's not happening" to "it's happening but it doesn't matter". Is that your claim now, and you're conceding that it is happening? Or would "it's not happening but if it did it wouldn't matter" be closer to your opinion?
*'Genetic' to separate it from the culture and customs that are also passed down through ancestry.
Edit: Actually, I've just noticed this question shifts us from "it's not happening" to "it's happening but it doesn't matter". Is that your claim now, and you're conceding that it is happening? Or would "it's not happening but if it did it wouldn't matter" be closer to your opinion?
*'Genetic' to separate it from the culture and customs that are also passed down through ancestry.
Well, if life started from Africa then let's face it guys: Europe is not for humans unless you like hair because being naked in Europe your hair will grow back all around you body!
We inhabited a different geography and evidently had a preference for different ecosystems than neanderthals. Skeletal injuries suggest different hunting and/or warfare methods. But, no signs of more sophisticated tool use or such.
That changes circa 40kya. I think the answer to the question in this article is the same (unknown) answer to many questions.
YNH's hypothesis is that it was language sophistication. Language got to the point where it allowed for different types of culture including cooperation in large groups to emerge.
If the neanderthal replacement story is a conflict story, cooperation in large groups, the ability to form alliances and such is a pretty straightforward explanation.
Who knows though. A lot appears to have changes in this period. Wolves were domesticated, for example. Wolf husbandry alone might be enough to explain sapien expansion into large game rich territory.