Neanderthals Were Orcs

> Elephants have a ginormous body though, neanderthals have a body size on par with homo sapiens.

A slightly larger brain doesn’t automatically equal higher intelligence, it’s displayed by developing better tools and weapons, art, social structure, etc., all of which Humans surpass Neanderthals.

It’s also believed that Neanderthals probably had more limited speech capability then Humans, which would have been a disadvantage when it came to explaining detailed plans to each other and more importantly, raising kids.

> The opposite. Artistically talented people are almost universally stupid (see Dali, Picasso, van Gogh etc).

Leonardo da Vinci…

But we ought to be asking why (according to modern academics) would an intelligent almost exclusively carnivorous and very strong hominid living in a brutal kill-or-be-killed ice age environment, be friendly towards another hominid species?

Because Humans sure as fuck ain’t friendly; we wiped out Homo Erectus, Neanderthals, Denisovans, even the cute little hobbits of Flores Island and we happily continue to kill each other to this very day.

>Dali, Picasso, van Gogh
>stupid
ITT: proof neanderthals aren't extinct and can use computers

The guy sounds like a fag but he did have a link to the author’s website;

themandus.org

>hurr durr uruk hai aren't orcs!
that translates to fighting orc in the black tongue you fucking dunlander

neanderthals were just a sort of "subrace" or "race" of people who were basically pre-historic autistic manlets/womynlets.

they got SAPIEN'D (or rather sapiens were neanderthal'd) at the end of the ice age as Neanderthal dick is the same size as sapien dick but looks bigger when put on a smaller body..

...

...

>A larger brain doesnt automatically mean higher intelligence (elephants for example have larger brains than humans)

>A wider wings doesn't automatically mean better flying (ostriches for example have wider wings than pigeons)

>red reptile eyes
>please buy my book
you are better than this, Veeky Forums

Neanderthals were less intelligent then humans, this isn't up for debate.

>all Uruk Hai are orcs
>all orcs are not Uruk Hai

>Neanderthals were less intelligent then humans

>implying neanderthals aren't humans

>Hominids = humans

Questionable.

Neanderthals are not Homo Sapiens Sapiens (humans).

>its displayed by developing better tools and weapons, art, social structure, etc., all of which Humans surpass Neanderthals.
I'm probably wrong, but weren't Neanderthals ahead of humans in the development of tools and weapons?

> > its displayed by developing better tools and weapons, art, social structure, etc., all of which Humans surpass Neanderthals.
> I'm probably wrong, but weren't Neanderthals ahead of humans in the development of tools and weapons?

I seem to remember reading somewhere that Neanderthal spear points at least were of a slightly more efficient design but that would be explained by their 90% meat diet encouraging greater efforts in this regard, whereas the much more omnivorous Humans got by with their still effective if less efficient designs, until they encountered the apex predator Neanderthals.

Wow. That's kind of what I always imagined. All those mythological stories about human like creatures and monsters being based on primordial human experience of sharing space with other human species and large fauna beasts.

Didn't Neanderthals also develop that special glue shit that they used on their spears? And I know that there's evidence of Neanderthals practicing some form of spiritual treatment of the dead as well as body painting.

I think over time we will continue to find that Neanderthals were at least on par with humans intellectually.

this reeks of pseudoscientific bullshit

>draws Neanderthal with a gorilla-esque nose, based on a Neanderthal skull that's missing a nasal bone fragment
>doesn't realise that Neanderthal noses were projecting like human noses

>Neanderthals Were Orcs
It was about time for a Flat Earth tier meme. Good job!

>A larger brain doesnt automatically mean higher intelligence (elephants for example have larger brains)

in primates you retard.

>in primates you retard.
It doesnt automatically mean higher intelligence in primates either

It's almost as if I'm on /x/

>lack of art
They had jewels and did cavepainting, just like homo sapiens.

Nigers were orcs

Neanderthals were dwarfs.
Avarage male height was 164-168 cm.

Yeah I remember first seeing these videos. The idea sounded ludicrous but fun to me so my friend and I started calling these Orc Neanderthals "Niggerthals".

And what was tha average height of homo sapiens?

> Didn't Neanderthals also develop that special glue shit that they used on their spears?

I never heard of that.

> And I know that there's evidence of Neanderthals practicing some form of spiritual treatment of the dead as well as body painting.

Sure, they buried their dead (though they also ate them) and took care of injured members of the tribe who weren’t much use in hunting.

> I think over time we will continue to find that Neanderthals were at least on par with humans intellectually.

Nobody is suggesting Neanderthal were ignorant animals, in fact it was their intelligence that made them such dangerous apex predators.

Homo sapiens sapiens 170 cm

>did cavepainting

No, even the simplistic silhouettes of hands were done by humans.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_painting

Not really much taller than neanderthal then.
(also it's "homo sapiens" and not "homo sapiens sapiens", since many years my old friend)

I think it’s interesting that the civilization arose (Egypt, Mesopotamia and the Indus) in the interaction zone between Neanderthals and Humans.

>since many years
What are you talking about?
Modern humans are considered a subspecies of homo sapiens, we are homo sapiens sapiens. In fact neanderthals are also homo sapiens but they belong to the subspecies homo sapiens neanderthalenssis.

No, there are some stuff credited to neanderthal. Also most if not all of their sites have been occupied by homo sapiens later...

Not since 2003.

Any sauce?
What is the criteria they used to determinate that neanderthals are not a subspecies, but a different species?

Well that's what I was taught at school, and I thought it was "common knowledge". Wiki confirms, here is the source (I don't understand a single word, but the result is that know homo neanderthalensis and homo sapiens are 2 different species)
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC164492/

>"common knowledge"
Not to me, also the wikipedia article does say that it's still in discussion.
The most incredible thing to me about this, is that since modern humans (at least europeans and asians) have from 2 to 4% of neanderthal dna, this would sudgest that 2 different species can successfully reproduce. Wich would break the defenition of species, as a genetic population capable of interbreeding.

Also your sauce doesn't seem to say that modern humans and neanderthals are different species.
>More recent versions of the multiregional model (3–5) suggest that Neandertals and early a.m.h. were regional populations of the same evolving species connected by gene flow, and both archaic and modern forms contributed, possibly in different proportions, to the present day human gene pool. Under this updated multiregional model, the absence of Neandertal mtDNA lineages in living humans is regarded as a consequence of a random drift or a selection process of lineage extinction since the disappearance of Neandertals.
So i don't were did you get to that conclusion user.

>Not to me, also the wikipedia article does say that it's still in discussion.

This is a minor academic quibble. There is no doubt that Neanderthals were physically different then Humans, so there's no reason to insist that their culture would be exactly the same as Humans.

Especially when you're considering environmental factors, like diet, climatic conditions and so on.

>Neanderthals were physically different then Humans
Subsaharan africans are phisically different to Europeans, they also don't jave the same culture, diet and climatic conditions. But they are still part of the same species because they can create a fertile offspring, neanderthals and sapiens created a fertile offspring, we know that because modern humans do have neanderthal dna in them.

>So i don't were did you get to that conclusion user.
It's not "my" conclusion, it's the official taxonomy since 2003, I'm not a scientist, I just repeat what they say.
>...Homo sapiens neanderthalensis was therefore renamed Homo neanderthalensis, and Homo sapiens sapiens became Homo sapiens.

They were men who lived longer than we do; men of old, men before the Flood. As men age, their brows become heavier, their ears larger, their skulls thicker.

If you take a normal age regression machine on a normal person, and age them to 80, then 100, then 200, then 500, you'll see the features of the "Neanderthal" come out.

They were just men. Intelligent men, men who used tools, men who studied the stars.

Do yourself a favor and forget everything any evolutionist ever told you. All of it.

>this would sudgest that 2 different species can successfully reproduce.
Lions and tigers can, for example. I suppose when 2 species are close enough it's possible.

Homo means man in Latin you fuckwad. Everything from erectus onward can be considered human.

Homo means gay, this is why homophobic means someone who hates gays, and not someone who hates people. Homo sapiens means "wise gay" as to other genera of apes which don't exhibit homosexual behavior.

>90% meat diet
This is false though, other findings show Neanderthals having a plant based diet. They spread out over a huge area, different groups probably had a different lifestyle, just as modern humans did. Calling them all a species of superpredators is misleading.

>lived in a very harsh environment
Pic related. People tend to overestimate how harsh the Ice Age was. Actually just a small portion of Earth got covered in permafrost. Most of Europe had either tundra or temperate climate, it wasn't all a "frozen wasteland" as Vendramini claims. Keep in mind that all of Europe and most of the Middle East used to be Neanderthals territory, most of which had a mild climate during the last glacial period.

>hunted with stabbing spears, (no bows or atlatls)
How does that show that they were “super predators"? If anything, it shows that they were less efficient at hunting then Sapiens. One could argue that the lack of more efficient hunting tools suggest that they relied more on foraging.

The main difference between Sapiens' and Neanderthals was probably that Sapiens were better at cooperating in large groups, so their strategy was more strength in numbers, therefore they didn't need to evolve for individual strength as much, unlike Neanderthals.

Kek homo means man, you fucking faggot.
Homosexual means being attracted to man.
Homo sapiens means wise man.
Homophobic means to fear faggots, because in this case homo stands for an abreviation of homosexual.
Kys

While Vendramini is wrong, I am very certain that there actually was some very serious conflict between early human species. A good proof of this is the uncanny valley effect. For some reason we are more frightened by something that looks similar to us but is just off in some way, moves and looks slightly differently from us. It could be an evolutionary heritage from a time when our ancestors had to compete against rival human species and evolved to be afraid of people who are very similar to us just somehow weird (in that case Neanderthals probably didn't look like gorillas, but slightly different from us).

>it shows that they were less efficient at hunting then Sapiens.
Isn't it the other way around? They managed to hunt large preys without sofisticated weapons, it shows they were fucking good hunters imo.

Other genera of apes don't have same-sex sexual relations. Only the genus Homo does, which is why they're called Homos. This is high school biology my friend.

Their offspring is not capable of reproducing. When someone does say fertile offspring, they mean an offspring capable of reproducing.

>Other genera of apes don't have same-sex sexual relations. Only the genus Homo does, which is why they're called Homos. This is high school biology my friend.
Fucking wow, are you this retarded or just an autistic troll.
What is the high school that you studied in again?

>The Latin noun homō (genitive hominis) means "human being" or "man" in the generic sense of "human being, mankind".

>Wich would break the defenition of species, as a genetic population capable of interbreeding.
The definition of species/subspecies/races has always been a fuzzy subject, since you have groups that are different species that create offspring, the reverse, and ring species.

Like I said, it could be either way. Tbh hominids were usually more successful when they had better technology. If I had to guess, Sapiens were probably more efficient hunters because they could use more advanced tools and get more hunters to join a hunt. And because, you know, they survived and Neanderthals didn't.

Nigers look quite different from us, in fact i do feel the uncanny valley effect when i see them.

Not entirely true, the females can reproduce. I don't think there's an immutable rule concerning hybrids fertility.

>homō m (genitive hominis); third declension
>a person or an animal sexually attracted primarily to other members of the same sex. Being either a male androphile or a female gynephile. (Sometimes used in the sense of sole/exclusive attraction.)

>Other genera of apes don't have same-sex sexual relations.
>he doesn't know the based Bonobo

Blacks look like caricatures of human beings. Like someone depicted a human with comically exaggerated and disproportional features

>believes gay propaganda from (((Jane Goodall))

> we know that because modern humans do have neanderthal dna in them.

Nobody is debating a genetic connection, the issue is the behavioral and technological differences and similarities between Neanderthals and Humans and how they interacted with each other.

I don’t accept the theory that Humans and Neanderthals were almost the same both physically and culturally and willingly and peacefully interacted with each other, I think it’s wishful thinking based more on modern notions of political correctness, then archeological evidence and simple hominid behavior.

It’s far more likely that interaction was violent right off the bat and given the initial physical advantages Neanderthals had, they scored early in the game but this pressure naturally selected for and encouraged smarter and more aggressive Humans, who then turned the table on them in the 2nd half and genocided the Neanderthals (and every other hominid) out of existence.

I think they are not even part of the homo sapiens species.
But the (((scientist))) are not going to say that.

>Humans, who then turned the table on them in the 2nd half and genocided the Neanderthals (and every other hominid) out of existence.
But nigers are still here.

> > 90% meat diet
> This is false though, other findings show Neanderthals having a plant based diet.

Feel free to post a cite, but I’m going with actual testing of their teeth, not speculation.

> > lived in a very harsh environment
> Pic related.

It’s not just climatic conditions, it’s living in the wild, in caves and hunting game everyday, etc.

> > hunted with stabbing spears, (no bows or atlatls)
> How does that show that they were “super predators"?

Achieving a 90% meat diet (or even a 50% meat diet) with only sharpened sticks in the midst of the ice age, pretty much confirms you’re a super predator.

> The main difference between Sapiens' and Neanderthals was probably that Sapiens were better at cooperating in large groups

Neanderthals weren’t stupid, they were highly dangerous super predators _because_ they were intelligent.

>cunning
dey just needed sum proppa sneaky dakka

>tfw done a test and it says I'm nearly 12% neanderthal
what does it mean? we wuz some sort of nephelem and shiet?

>nephelem
>relating real world archaic humans to some faggot jewish fanfiction

>thinking species classification is based on looks
A chihuahua and a St. Bernard's dog are not only the same species but even the same subspecies.

>12% neanderthal
Fucking subhuman monkey.
But on a serious note, avarage europeans and asians have from 2 to 4% neanderthal dna. If what you are saying was true, you would be on a science jurnal or even tv.
What kind of test did you do?

>he hasn't seen the varg neanderthal larp video

Of course I haven't, why would I watch that?
>Fucking subhuman monkey
Neanderthals > niggers.

>chihuahua and a St. Bernard's dog
Kek dogs are an artificially bread subspecies of wolfs, they are not natural, and should not be used as an example for the classification of natural species and subspecies.
t. kys

>2 to 4%
oh my mistake I thought it was like 6-8% for caucasian people. I did it a few years ago and I only remember that I was basically double the average neanderthal admixture so more like 5% I guess. maybe where I'm from has more genetically neanderthal DNA.
tbqh I never thought it about until a few months ago when people started posting about how neanderthals were smarter and shit.

>t. kys
Well you should.

> But on a serious note, avarage europeans and asians have from 2 to 4% neanderthal dna.

Indeed and in fact, only Africans lack Neanderthal DNA in their family tree, implying the success of Homo Sapiens may also be related to Neanderthal genes.

In the end, the Neanderthal’s raping of Homo Sapien women contributed to their demise at the hands of now bigger, stronger and far more aggressive Humans who finished off the Neanderthals for good and went on to conquer the planet.

>white people became dominant thanks to race mixing
Really makes you think.

Except if you follow that logic, if neanderthals never went extinct we would have colonies on mars before 1000 AD

>race mixing
species mixing faggot

Isn't strong brow ridge and sloping forehead the proof of neanderthal ancestry? Blacks almost completely lack these traits.

that guy's fucked

I will consider that option.
But user you don't seem to have any counter argument. Don't you?

Well my point is that species categorization is not based on looks. Plenty of species that "looked similar" got reclassified because of genetic evidence.

>forgotten.

I like that the European, the Asian, and the African are all pretty, while the Abo is hideous.

>Plenty of species that "looked similar" got reclassified because of genetic evidence.
Yes, but humans are not going to be classified based on genetic evidence, because we all know that this would not be considered ethical. There is an enormous bias, in this regards in our modern science.
Also forensic antropologist are able to identify the race or subspecies or (how they force us to call it now) ethnic origin of a human based on it bones with something like 90% of accuracy. Because the skeletal differences are quite remarcable.

We have nationalities and ethnicites for broad strokes, and haplogroups (and other genetic categories I don't feel like getting into) for more specific genetic mixture. Subspecies (usually) are used to used to refer to distinct populations, which is why ethnicity and nationality are sufficient.

Categorizing humans as subspecies has several problems:
1) Unlike finches on some isolated islands, people move around A LOT, have migrated more recently than almost all species on the planet
2) Phenotype != genotype
Take dog breeds for instance, or petunia cultivars. Two specimens can look more different than two separate species, but they're the same species. Why? Because their genetic distance is virtually identical. Appearences don't count for much in the age of genetics
3) The real reason:
Demagogues use it as a divisive tool to say one race is superior to another inferior race. They use science to justify their unscientific views, and I guess scientists collectively don't want a part in it. We tried it in the second half of the 19th/first half of the 20th century, and some very nasty things came out of it. As you well know.

TL;DR people aren't subspecies because their genetic distance is pretty low, but even when it isn't we can't have nice things because the legacy of social Darwinism. Could we classify ethnicites as subspecies? Maybe. Should we? No, we have plenty of ways to divide up people without such an undertaking
>t. microbiologist

>African pretty
What are you user? Are you even human?

Sanity from Veeky Forums, wow