Were neanderthal's super predators?

You mean
>a species that was on average taller than early humans
Which isn't much--even little kids are taller than full grown early humans. A full grown Neanderthal male averaged a little over 5 foot, pham.

I don't really know what to think. He brings up stuff that I can't feel too strongly about when he presents another fact or theory. The end does trip me up though. He gives an impression that Neanderthal's are drastically different from modern humans or Homo Sapiens but claims that Neanderthal's migrated to the the Levent and interbred with humans there. That shouldn't make sense considering Humans in Eurasia or outside of Sub-Saharan Africa all retain some Neanderthal dna which would conflict with his speciation hypothesis on such a scale. Also I can't help but find the depiction of Neanderthal's somewhat unsettling and so inhuman. Maybe it's because it's commonly accepted Neanderthal's in Europe interbred with Homo Sapiens, forming the modern people of Europe which is where my family is from.

>Were neanderthal's super predators?
Aren't modern humans that too?

>I'm not an expert on biology.
And neither is the guy making these claims. He's literally a professional artist with no background in this. That should tell you all you need to know.

Even manlet early Sapiens were taller than Neanderthals.

Yeah, technically we are the apex predators of the entire planet.

It's almost like people and animals are capable of surviving in Europe with dark skin.

I mean, they'll survive, but they'll get a metric fuckton of rickets.

Only if they don't get the right nutrients in their diet. The Inuit do just fine living around the Arctic circle with darker skin, because they get the vitamins they need from what they eat.

After a short search, it looks like we're both kinda wrong on this.
>A full grown Neanderthal male averaged a little over 5 foot, pham.
Yep, the males apparently averaged 5'4", definitely manlet tier. Point conceded.
>even little kids are taller than full grown early humans
Here's the fun part: apparently cro-magnons (the earliest example of homo sapiens in europe, that was around at the same time as neanderthals) Were about 5'9" on average.
So it looks like humans were the taller ones.
As for little kids being taller than them, are you sure you're not thinking of Australopithecus? They were pretty tiny.

Seems like sensationalist bullshit to me. Europe wasn't a frozen wasteland for the most part, Neanderthals ususally didn't hunt the "most dangerous animals on the planet" but more like deer and shit and recent studies have found that their diet wasn't as reliant on meat as people used to think.
He also makes dubious claims without ever expanding on them or uses suggestive phrasing and imagery to support his theories (e.g. he emphasizes that Neanderthals were primates, as if modern humans aren't). He may make it sound like Neanderthals are closer to apes than to humans and his reconstruction reflects that, but the simple truth is that they were the same genus or even species as us.

Dude, Europeans average 2 or 3% Neanderthal DNA at most and it's theorized that Neanderthal differed from humans genetically by very little. It sounds really stupid to say they formed the modern people of Europe. Neanderthal added a needle into a genetic haystack.

Then how do you explain modern Europe?

Yes, but that's because their diets consist primarily of fish, which is rich in vitamin D. An early human in central Europe, who would be more dependent on terrestrial game, might have a harder time getting that much vitamin D from diet alone.

Uh...maybe because of white skin that absorbs dat dere UVs better than darker skin (which is meant to block out UVs), and consequently produces more Vit. D, you imbecile?

I remember reading somewhere that blacks born in Finland or some shit were getting autism at a crazy rate because they just don't get the sun they need

They're first-generation pham, they came from areas where more sun exposure selects for a tan.
Plus any vitamin deficiencies that could be caused by their skin tone can now be compensated for with nutritional supplements. This removes the selective bias for light skin.
At the same time, the selective bias for dark skin in warmer areas is being removed as well due to the prevalence of sunscreen.

They get rickets at a higher rate too. It's not just blacks in Finland either; it's estimated that 80% of blacks in the US are vitamin D deficient. Luckily for them, cereal companies like general mills have begun to fortify cereal with vital nutrients like calcium and vitamin D primarily for this reason. Kids these days (and neckbeards) never go outside and have trouble getting sufficient levels of vitamin D from their diets alone.

Satan trips confirm

Neither is he. He's made wild claims that neanderthals are radically different from the scientific consensus, which has gained him a lot of popularity amongst the conspiracy and reactionary crowd. But he has no evidence, just empty theories.

What's rickets?

This page blows the video out of the sky

outwardbounder.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/why-bug-eyed-furry-neanderthals-are-stupid/

A leg deformity caused by a chronic deficiency of vitamin D during developmental years.

It's a condition where you have weak and extremely brittle bones due to a lack of vitamin D, which is used by the body to process calcium.

xD

they also get depressed at a massively inflated rate even compared to native Finns

2-3% in total.

Could be more than that in coding alleles, could be less than that.

We could be effectively 0.01% neanderthal, or effectively 15% neanderthal.

We all know that coding alleles can spread through a population independently.

Hunter-gatherers get enough vitamin D in their diet, and their skin tends to be darker.

Farmers don't, and their skin tends to be lighter.

Tasmania is at about the same latitude as England, but the natives are far darker. The difference is that in England they have been farming for thousands of years, in Tasmania they never farmed (intensively).

Kek, saved.

White humans are domesticad version of humans.
Kinda like soviets tried(withsucess) domesticate foxes and the new human friedly foxes(seleced for breeding based on behavior) showed morphology changes. Skull and 'face' changes, fur color changes especialy on head, even mating behaviour changes.

>Calling a subspecies that evolved naturally domesticated

wew lad

All humans are, really. Archaic homo-sapiens look nothing like modern homo-sapiens. Not sure, but I'm pretty sure that's why all humans today are called homo-sapiens sapiens instead of just homo-sapiens.

>subspecies

Ohmagawd, take your cancerous notions back to your containment board.

>being this triggered by terminology

>implying that they 'evolved' naturally
Jokes aside.
The fox domestification showed that changes can happen in really short time(4 generations of foxes) and it could happen under heavy stress presure(as domesticated foxes were the ones tht were more adapted to deal with stress caused by humans and cages).

So what you want call them, races?

No.

'Demons' from mythology are other humans. Not one specific sub-species, just other humans. Certainly some myths are based on non-homo sapiens who survived through oral transmission, most are based on homo sapiens remembered as demons.

You didn't apply the terminology correctly, so yes, triggered.

Homo-sapiens Idatu is our only discovered sub-species, and he's believed to have diverged from modern humans around 100,000 to 195,000 years ago.

Well, that word's there for a taxonomical reason.

Or aliens.

Not even aliens can penetrate the firmament.

**taxonomic

What if aliens are justmore advanced humans from preflood human civilization?(or even beyond time).

That actually makes sense. Maybe the remaining ones hid underground with all of the technology the managed save. Maybe our mythical figures like Prometheus and Lucifer--and their banishments and punishments--are these advanced pre-flood humans.

he says that they would have to have not looked like humans but, that makes no sense because there is still neandertal genetics in modern humans so they must have resembled us enough for there to have been no reproductive isolation and for humans so actually mate with them. Telling from the pic related and the reconstructions shown in the vid, I don't think any human would have wanted to mate with that thing.

>Homo Neanderthalensis
> The ancestor of homo sapiens
They are as much our ancestor as chimps are

>They are as much our ancestor as chimps are
DELETE THIS

Holy shit I want a Neanderthal shota.

No.

>Implying consensual interbreeding
>implying they had to have looked the same as us to have been able to interbreed with us

He theorizes that our inherited Neanderthal genetics are from rape, brah. Watch the entire video.

These ragged furs on them.
>implying that all of them shouldn't be eitheir completly naked and hairy or having nice well cut clothes from soft leather
What if these flood events were actually not long ago and not only crushed civilization but also put enough stress on humans to cause changes in morpholgy?

This does raise another question tho :

If neanderthals looked like literal monsters as he compares them in the end to vampires trolls etc
Then the rape babies surely looked like monsters too ?
How come humans kept baby monsters around instead of genociding all of them ?

So what happened to these superior hnters and thei rape harems?
What happned to the rape babies? Killed or exiled?
What if they get exiled and then move deeper into human teritories at the point where their blood were dilluted enough and some ofthem lead humans back?
Mixing wih lessser races is bad.

Rape babbies kept breeding with homo sapiens and other rape babbies, so "monster genes" got lesser and lesser.

>What if these flood events were actually not long ago and not only crushed civilization but also put enough stress on humans to cause changes in morpholgy?
What do you mean ?
This is a very interesting subject t b h but i don't know where to go read about it

Either females get abducted and have no choice but care about thei spawn or maybe
>martiarchy
it was female neanderthals who were hunters and abduct male humans for fun and as food rations.
Partiarchy was a face of humans who fight againts gencociding and ensaving martiarchy of neanderthals

>cannibalism is bad
user Europe is the most terrible place to be a hunter gatherer since there is hardly any game meaning you need brains to track down and analyze the feeding behavior of all the species or you die hence why you see no blacks in Europe, however logically speaking it makes more sense to hunt something that has alot of mass like another neanderthal for example because its the best bet against starvation.

>neanderthal intensifies

haaretz.com/jewish/this-day-in-jewish-history/.premium-1.634009

Worlds in Collision E. Velikovsky
or you can look at Electric Universe
Some of this is kinda silly(like that Earth and some other planets were initially Saturn satelities) but I like the idea of planetary electrical scarring or idea of dynamic solar system.
It could well explain Fermi paradox - the solar system are more dynamic and changes in body realtions and solar activity just wipe out or break down civilizations before they can leave their own planets or systems.

>Matriarchy
Neanderthal's apelike appearance compared to us is because of their higher testosterone levels so there is no way in hell a neanderthal male would ever obey a female at all.

How does that follow?

You know that neanderthal brains reacted like that to testosterone?

Exactly. So martiarchy would be abducting weaker humans to keep them as fuck slaves.
Trolls and vampires - neanderthal females on pms.
Neanderthals going their own way. And they domesticated some humans and keep human waifus.

Nice fantasy but there is no neanderthal mitochondrial DNA. They were the bulls.

Look here for explanation.
of course martiarchy fall.
On the other hand male Neanderthals domesticated humans and you get whites.

Post your fetish fan fiction somewhere else.

Actually it could sell pretty well.
Just need some women who will use their name and face.

...

...

no. they are time-travelling historians and other scientists from future.

>the relationship between Veeky Forums and Reddit in a nutshell

fail logic huh?

>our ancestors
WE

But were neanderthal chicks THICC?

Pic unrelated, it's a skinny cro-magno

Yes.

>tfw you will never partake in a gangrape of newly captured human wimmin

>that ending

waht a twist

Anyone remember in that movie Evolution when the aliens evolve into Apes? That's what these Neanderthals remind me of. Shit used to creep me out when I was younger.

Even to this day black people get vitamin D deficiencies during the winter in Europe.

Yeah you never hear about it because it makes liberal retards feel uncomfortable. But google it.

humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/sequencing-neanderthal-dna

"Neanderthals have contributed approximately 1% to 4% to the genomes of non-African modern humans. "

Inuit tan well. This is because they are exposed to plenty of sunlight - snow and ice are very reflective surfaces. It's why people who ski a lot become tan - because of the albedo. Ice Age Europe would've been though on naked full whiteys.

Do you think their males bred with our women or did our males breed with their women?
Since we are allegedly more African I would say the latter is more likely.
>tfw neanderthals were raped out of existence

Scary.

It's more likely that we are afraid of the dark because of big cats, though. Those may still hunt humans up to this day and are just about the most dangerous megafauna (apart from other humans) if you go by humans killed.

Hey, big noses are useful in cold climates!

That's because they are living in Finland.

>and are just about the most dangerous megafauna
Don't hippos kill way more people than big cats?

Guess you are right. I was thinking of an info graphic I had with top 4 dangerous animals but I can't find it.

That's not what they looked like at all. The guy that wrote that book and makes those videos is a quack.

Neanderthals were shorter and more stalky than homosapians at the time. That guys trying to sell them as some giant nightmarish creature. They simply weren't. Homo sapiens were more intelligent, larger, more organized and more dangerous.

afraid of the dark because we can't see, and we're visual creatures mostly.

There's any number of reasons we'd be afraid of limited vision when living in the wild. The cats, spiders, all sorts of nocturnal hunters, bears, or even just fear of stepping on a sleeping stag or something.

this video is complete crap. not the least bit scientific

to be fair big cats are among our most dangerous predators.
Hippos kill people, but they don't really hunt them. Yet.

>All humans are, really. Archaic homo-sapiens look nothing like modern homo-sapiens. Not sure, but I'm pretty sure that's why all humans today are called homo-sapiens sapiens instead of just homo-sapiens.

Just look at Australian aboriginals, they are supposed to be Homo sapiens sapiens, yet they look nothing like us. They should be very close to archaic H. sapiens.

>They should be very close to archaic H. sapiens.

They are more distant from niggers than we are and we know niggers are closer to unevolved monkeys than us, so no, they souldn't be closer to archaic H.Sapiens.

Homo sapiens was taller but more delicately built.

I think it was the other way around. They cucked us, but they felt the impact of their actions.

...