This is why we’re much weaker than other apes, but number two. What this primarily allows us to do is conserve energy energy that can then be used by our brains, neanderthals and by extension. Denisovans have often been categorized as being generally stronger and more robust than anatomically. Modern humans, could it then be that they did not possess this gene and that, as most of their diet consisted of megafauna, that was in the process of extinction? They were not able to maintain the calories required to survive. Does this mean that the human race’s strongest trait has simply been that we’re hard to kill let’s talk about what the strength and intelligence of neanderthals says about us? Neanderthals had bigger brains, but humans won. This is the only bit of evidence for why they would have been less intelligent than we are. I think smithsonian magazine puts it best. Neanderthals were once believed to be scavengers, who made primitive tools and were incapable of language or symbolic thought. However, now we believe that neanderthals were highly intelligent, able to adapt to a wide variety of ecological zones and capable of developing highly functional tools to help them do so. There is no evidence that suggests that their brains, wouldn’t, have been more complex than ours. I think this is a major pitfall in our understanding of the neanderthal. Neanderthals we now know would have shared a very similar level of technology to humans and denisovans of the time.

You can actually see this in my recent video on denisovan technology. They were far more complex based on the technological finds that we have discovered than we give them credit for in our initial conceptions. What this means is that they were at least on par with humans in intelligence. It could be many different things that led to neanderthals being out competed by humans that did not directly correlate with a lack of competence in their general intelligence, and if you play multiplayer games, you know that this is generally true. In other words, just because you lose to somebody doesn’t mean they’re, smarter than you, it could be a variety of different factors and again in this regard, we’re referring to biological intelligence. When you understand the complexity of the mind of man, it becomes very clear that, just because one particular group of us is incredibly smart, that doesn’t mean the group next door will share that level of intelligence. In fact, they could be significantly stupider by every metric imaginable, and yet they would still be human. Therefore, if you were to judge neanderthals losing the humans based on biological intelligence based again entirely on what would have been hundreds of individual, isolated events between man and neanderthal, i think that would be horribly misguided and not doing our interactions with neanderthals any justice. So let’s take a look at some examples of why neanderthals are gone and humans are still here number one. Homo sapiens could have outcompeted neanderthals for resources, and this is a generally accepted idea for why there are no more neanderthals, but there are humans.

The idea would have to have been that humans, something about us, allowed us to acquire resources and that would include hunting for animals in a more efficient way than neanderthals. Also, as a quick side note, i’ve noticed in all of these images of paleolithic man. They depict all of the humans as being basically modern day europeans, but in furs and using primitive technology. But the fact of the matter is there’s no way that the first migratory humans would have looked like that. They may have resembled something more to the modern day. Semitic or arabic, individual, but even then there’s no actual way to correlate the modern ethnicities with what a human may have looked like back then would they have looked like the modern day, sub saharan or east african individual i’m? Not exactly sure, i would say most likely, not, of course this does depend entirely on what part of the paleolithic they’re depicting but uh for the most part, i don’t think we had modern day europeans roughly 50 000 years ago. My evidence for this would have to be the fact that if you look at isolated places of the world where humans who had migrated according to the out of africa theory retained their original look due to not having any selective environmental pressures or outside influence. That fundamentally change their gene pool. They do look like an australian aboriginal or in some cases like a modern day, sub saharan african. But anyway, i digress back to some reasons why neanderthals are gone and humans are still here or two homo sapiens could have outnumbered neanderthals by some kind of insurmountable amount, and what this could mean is that either number one they interbred into non existence or number two.

They were killed off due to again lack of numbers, but really it could have been both. I think, in both cases, what this ultimately says is that homo sapiens were most likely using a technology that contributed to either number one or number two that ultimately dwarfed the technology of the neanderthal. This does not mean that the neanderthals could not have been taught how to use the human technology and does not mean that, if taught the neanderthals could not have expanded upon it. We know that many cultures in the world have been conquered by more quote: unquote, advanced cultures, only to take the technology of the advanced and reverse engineer it and then use it themselves. It is also not unheard of for those same people to expand upon the technology that they themselves did not originally create. This supports my theory that we can’t judge the intelligence of the neanderthal based solely on them, losing the evolutionary arms race to humans and that, based on all other evidence, they would have been at least as biologically intelligent, as we were. Of course, this technology would have probably been some form of ranged projectile, as the human form is generally more well supported for, throwing, according to studies and the neanderthals general form seemed to have been better supported from melee combat. This is because they were shorter, more robust and stalkier with a lower center of gravity, and it kind of reminds me of how a tolkien dwarf would be better off using some form of pole axe or something due to their low center of gravity and they’re.

Going to be able to put a lot of force on that general swing with that type of weapon. So in this case we would say a spear with the neanderthal was most likely the weapon of choice. The neanderthal skeleton often shows wounds that imply they were often in melee range of their prey as well, such as mammoths, where you can clearly see neanderthals having chips in their bones or broken bones in places where they would have been attacked by the animal while they Were perhaps on the hunt, so i have two guesses. The first one would be that humans could have acquired the bow and arrow which we have evidence of as early as 70 000 years ago in africa. Now this would have been right in the middle of those migration periods, which i find very interesting now, while we do not see evidence of the bow and arrow in eurasia until roughly 20 000 years ago. It is incredibly important to keep in mind that we’re talking about the same types of people who would have migrated from a place where the bowen era was created and they are the same species as those people right. So they have the same capability for creation and innovation as their cousins do back home in africa. However, it’s important to keep in mind that bows are made out of wood and arrows can be made without stone tips and most certainly would have been. So. The idea is that much of this era is taken up by the ice age and just a generally colder climate and locations that would have had significantly fewer trees and plant life in general would have been less effective for the creation of bows and arrows and mass.

In the eurasian tundra, you can imagine that it wouldn’t be difficult when you’re trying to travel over so much snow and so few bits of plants that you’re gon na find exactly what you need to create some kind of complex bow. That is also somehow supposed to shoot at a mammoth or some form of giant deer and actually kill it in an effective way again in a place where it’s far colder and i’ve drawn a bow. I definitely wouldn’t want to do it wearing a ridiculous amount of fur in a super cold climate, but even if they were made once again, they could have easily rotted and just simply not stood the test of time. But it also could have been a conscious choice. Not to use the bow due to a lack of practicality again, because the resources could have simply been scarce, especially when they were watching. Neanderthals hunt mammoths with relative ease in melee combat, and i say with relative ease because it’s important to keep in mind that if neanderthals were not successful in what they were literally biologically conditioned for, they wouldn’t have lasted as long as they did, even though they didn’t. Last forever, they certainly lasted a really long time, and i think that we can say that neanderthals were definitely a successful species overall. But if it’s not the bow, then my best guess would be that humans threw their spears at the hairy elephants and that humans died significantly less often than neanderthals did.

While on the hunt because of their projectile weapons. Remember the neanderthal would be running at the mammoth and stabbing it or attempting to make it to run off a cliff or something like that, but it’s going to be in melee range, far more often and again, their skeletons directly support that, interestingly enough, if the two Groups were to fight neanderthals and humans. The group that knew how to lob projectiles at the other group would win probably every time, but we can say just simply almost every time and even if neanderthals caught on and began to lob their own projectiles, their frames were generally smaller and less adept at throwing Compared to humans, and there would have been a skill gap in the ability to actually throw accurately simply due to a lack of experience. I don’t know about you, but the 50 guys who know what they’re doing are throwing sticks at me. That can kill me and i decide i think i’m gon na pick one up and throw it back. I think that most of you would say that’s really stupid. You should probably run away and just get out of the way, because there’s no way that number one. I can guarantee i’m gon na make it to their weapon to throw back number two, that i’m even generally strong enough and have the right muscle in the right places to throw it right to throw it hard enough and accurately enough, so that it actually kills.

One of them before i die and three: if you think why don’t they just throw the spears they made, you have to make your weapon specifically to be thrown. You can’t just pick up a spear made from melee combat and toss it and think that it’s going to be effective, but even so, even though we know that neanderthals would have thrown their weapons at times it doesn’t necessarily mean they were crafting their spears in a Way that would have been effective for man vs man combat, i mean it’s a lot different to throw your spear at a giant mammoth where you almost can’t, miss and throwing your spear at a pretty highly mobile target. Who is also trying to kill you too what’s important to keep in mind here once again is that humans should have won every single time, with very few exceptions when they did encounter their non projectile using cousins. It’S probably the case that neanderthal culture simply didn’t support the acquisition of the projectile weapon in a quick enough way, but it does not support that they could not have done so if they had better leadership and perhaps any type of foresight which of course, hindsight is 2020, so we can’t expect the foresight there, but nonetheless who’s to say that if neanderthals were to have lived as an isolated population today that one of them couldn’t have gone to a human college and learned human languages and been perhaps even far smarter than we are.

But because of the incompetence of their ancestors will never know, but again this doesn’t say that they were biologically inferior. It could possibly be that humans have some innate sense to innovate. I think that makes a lot of sense, considering the fact that we always mark human evolution based on literal innovations, whether it was the usage of fire or learning how to cook something learning, how to throw things or then creating some kind of object. It’S, always categorized. Even in the modern history books by us creating brand new things solely for the purpose of making our lives better. If we go back on the subject of the complexity of the human mind, what comes with this complexity of the mind is a complexity of the social interactions in society as a whole of the individual. With that mind, neanderthals would have had their own culture and society. Although primitive and what history tells us is that there will always be conservatives, because conservatism is a natural human instinct, in other words, keep what works in order to ensure survival, be wary of change, because it could literally kill you, that is to be conservative, so it’s. The most basic way for a person to think about the world and the most natural neanderthals as a result, would most likely share this and think in a very similar fashion. It’S simply self preservation, however: it’s possible neanderthals didn’t adopt similar forms of fighting and hunting techniques, because their leaders did not believe it was worth doing.

They could have looked down on homo sapiens and possibly underestimated them only for it to bite them in the ass. I don’t know, but it does sound plausible it’s possible that humans, who had migrated into neanderthal territory, were more progressive minded and possibly had created strategies and technology that gave them an edge over neanderthals. This is the most probable cause i think, for the extinction of the species. It is possible the case that all of the different ideas for why neanderthals do not exist are equally true as the scope of human vs. Neanderthal interaction is pretty large and would have happened over many different, completely isolated events, but i believe that none of it proves that neanderthals were biologically inferior as much as it proves that they were culturally inferior to anatomically modern humans at the time, but they most likely Could have used their brain to the same extent as we could, if given the opportunity, and they most likely did before dying out as they interbred with human populations and combined their cultures. I think one often underlooked aspect of why humans are so unique compared to other animals, is that our brains have reached a point where each of our individual thoughts are more responsible for dramatic differences in our behavior than our biology is. If you ask me, it is a generally racist mindset to believe neanderthals were less intelligent because we are literally applying the same logic to them and our assumptions as 15th century europeans did to natives.

They encountered due to the lack of technology that those natives had and their performance against europeans, and it is ultimately what helped justify the african slave trade and we have even less knowledge on neanderthals, biologically speaking than europeans, would have had on natives at the time. So make that make sense, but again our individual thoughts, thoughts that we are all somehow capable of having, but none of us are given by default, can shape us in such dramatic ways from our peers as to make us seem intelligible from them. And yet we are still capable of the same things. It is just one man’s culmination of experiences that led to innovation, lessons of morality and ethics by encouraging peers or traditions passed down by successful ancestors that ultimately shape everything about who they and who we become. At that point, you have to leave it all down. To luck, so i think this says a lot about humans today. First of all, it implies that we are incredibly competitive, as we are the only remaining version of ourselves left on the planet, and this, i think, is obviously supported through the many wars that we have had throughout history, as well as more modern things such as corporations Or business culture, or even the advent of capitalism and the free market or the concept of a free market. Next, i think this says that competition in humans led to more innovation, even as far back as the paleolithic.

This competition could have led humans to purposefully going out of their way to exterminate neanderthals, either through purposefully out competing them for resources or by force. This is heavily supported as well, due to again all of the wars for territory that have happened in history solely for the purpose of getting more land and nothing else. It wasn’t required. They didn’t need it. These greedy leaders of the past wanted it. I mean it’s genuinely absurd when you think about it, but it’s, obviously innate as it is found in every culture all over the world and is constantly supported throughout events and history itself. It is possible that neanderthals were less competitive as evidence shows that, based on their migratory patterns, neanderthals would have been more conditioned to work together for things such as mammoth hunts, rather than killing each other. What i find very funny is that people tend to think that humans are biologically conditioned to work together, but that’s actually completely not true. We are biologically conditioned to work together within a group there’s, a stipulation but it’s. Your group and i do think we are biologically conditioned to not want to participate with other groups to compete against other groups and i think that’s why people have that inherent draw towards tribalism, which ultimately causes them to make horrendous mistakes for the sake of their sports Team or their college alma, mater or even their country, whereas neanderthals may not have had anything like this at all.

Whereas humans were into group v group competition, it seemed based on migratory patterns that the neanderthals were more into group v. Group cooperation. Humans are definitely not about that even to this day, it’s hell getting humans in groups to work with other groups. This is due to their harsh climate, which homo sapiens would have had less experience with upon first contact. In fact, neanderthals would have not had any reference for what a less harsh climate would look like, and homo sapiens, who were first migrating into neanderthal territory. Would this alone could have spurred the technological disparity as humans would be trying to constantly make their lives better, as they wouldn’t be used to such a harsh climate? But neanderthals would be born into a harsh climate, assuming that that was just how life was forming a sort of technological complacency that, in and of itself may be my best take on it in the entire video. If that doesn’t already exist, as a theory, i’m gon na coin, it right now as the complacency theory anyway. What do you guys think? Let me know in the comment section below what you think about neanderthals and their interactions with our ancestors and what we can learn from neanderthals about ourselves. But with that being said, i hope you guys enjoy the video like and subscribe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HihoabEMbY