Yes but even at their most prolific in western europe, their numbers were about 15,000. There was not alot of genetic diversity. About 400 complete skeletons have been excavated. They were in the Middle East, Asia and Europe
The topic of my Master's thesis was on the biological evolution of language. With regards to Neanderthals, what I uncovered was that, while Neanderthals most likely had some form of language, or at least vocal communication, it evolved independent of the development of language in Homo Sapiens. The two species lineages diverted from each other about 600,000 years ago. Nobody who is involved in this topic believes that true language was spoken by the genus Homo back then. What most likely existed, even during the time of Homo Erectus, who first emerged about 2 million years ago, was a system of calls, which exist in many other animal species. Calls can have specific meaning, but they are fixed in their content and aren't commingled with other calls to produce more complex meanings, for example, in animals that use call systems. But they can be "stacked" as a way of carrying more meaning. The point at which true human language first emerged has been hotly debated. There are some -- a gradually shrinking number -- who believe that language is a fairly recent phenomenon, and there are others who believe that language first emerged as far back as 300,000 years ago. I'm a member of the latter group, and the reason why is because of the shape of the human vocal tract. Because of the choking hazard involved with the vocal tract, there must have been very powerful evolutionary pressures to cause it to take on its current shape. And the only pressure I can think of that is sufficiently powerful is the emergence of language. It takes thousands of generations for an adaptation such as our vocal tract to form, which is why I believe that human language has been around a loooong time. The vocal tract's shape could have begun to develop due to pressures other than language, however. If we compare the vocal tract of Homo Erectus to Neanderthal's, we see that HE's tract is not as well articulated as Neanderthal's, which means HE's speech capabilities were quite limited. But a growing system of calls could have been set into motion, a system that gradually became more and more complex, where perhaps an HE individual may have assimilated the sounds and meanings of hundreds, if not thousands, of calls. Carrying around such a large inventory requires a lot of brain power, even if it isn't a true spoken language. So the encephalization we see that occurred through HE's evolution and which continued with later forms of the genus with larger brain capacities could likely have been caused by the need to catalog and understand a large inventory of calls. Then at some point, true language emerged, in which calls became words, more or less, and an emergent grammar allowed them to be used much more concisely and with clearer meaning. I find it to be a bit ironic that it is likely that the emergence of language actually took some load off the brain. As for Neanderthal, I believe that, as our understanding of that species continues to grow, we will realize that Neanderthal did have its own form of language, which evolved independent from our own. But because of the shape of Neanderthal's vocal tract, its vowel inventory would have been limited. But I think it is safe to say that Neanderthal's consonant inventory isn't limited like its vowel inventory is. Thus, articulate speech is possible. Even if Neanderthal were restricted to a single vowel sound, language would still be possible. How do I know this? Simple. Read the following out loud and see if you can or can't understand it. Pronounce the /e/ as the 'e' found in "bet." Et desn't metter ef enle en vewel es evelebl fer spech, beces e persen spekeng thes weh cen stell be clerle endersted. So, it seems obvious to me that Neanderthal could still have developed speech and full blown language. There's also another point in Neanderthal's favor. There was a Neanderthal skeleton that was unearthed in Israel about 15 years ago, which had an intact hyoid bone that looked almost identical to that found in modern humans. The hyoid plays a crucial role in maintaining the shape of the articulators in the throat, and because that Neanderthal's hyoid looks like a modern human's, this means that Neanderthal was most likely able to form a sufficient number of consonants such that he and she were able to to express themselves fully.
A lot of good stuff here. I will likely always challenge the notion that a variety of convergent proto-human languages did not DOMINATE the species or more specifically "archaic" h. sapiens of the Middle Pleistocene all across the vast Eurasian/African range. Don't tell me the likes of Jinniushan, Dali, Maba Fossils etc. etc. shared a language with the Middle Pleistocene archaic h. sapiens of Europe, Africa, and West Asia. Heck, they (EAST ASIA archaic h. sapiens) likely developed language separate of each other as well.
Not buying that the hyoid bone was crucial in making consonants. The hyoid bone keeps the throat open while swallowing. Consonants take lips, mainly the lower lip. The lower lip has to have fine muscle attachments to a chin for detailed motor control. The evolution of the chin would come about after language started to develop, to make the consonants clearer. Neanderthal had no chin, thus no fine control of the lower lip. Their language was grunts. Try talking with your index finger placed across your lower lip so it can't move. About 5 or 10 consonants are affected, you can't say c, f, h, p, s or x and maybe some others more or less. Now try your upper lip....no problem. Upper lips do little, it's the lower lip that produces many consonants, which requires a chin.
Did they have Broca’s, Wenicke’s, and the connection areas like modern humans? I’m not sure Neanderthals didn’t have art. Many of the oldest human art is in areas Neanderthals also were. I’ve always felt that modern humans were more adapted to warm areas producing many more offspring per individual. Once humans learned to survive in cold environments their tribes/families having more individuals determined the outcome. I think one on one sapiens lose much more often than not, but it was never one versus one. It was sixteen or thirty six or twelve versus four or seven or three. I think they stay away from this hypothesis cause it gives one feelings of racism and can easily be misconstrued as racist. Thing is facts can’t be racist even if they are used to support a conclusion that also seems or is racist. Or in this case speciests. Just like it took Avi Loeb to champion a possibility cause other scientists were scared of being outcasts it will take a scientist with enough clot to make such a hypothesis before anyone will consider the “white” skinned Neanderthals being more competent per individual than the “dark” skinned sapiens and the sapiens only winning cause they lived and fought like a pack of chimps instead of modern first world people. Of course, you can find an analogue to those ancient sapiens simply by visiting Somalia, Sudan, etc. And hell why are we at it you can find a modern Neanderthal analogue by visiting a traditional Norwegian or Swedish finish family. Which group is more educated and well-off? Which group will prevail if they are all locked in a room with one bucket if water and one goat? It is as simple as that. No need to come up with their sapiens could pronounce their vowels better so they outcompeted the Neanderthals. Grasping as us h straws indicates to any scientist worth her salt that they are in the wrong path. As far as imagination and intelligent goes I basically have no imagination or art. I’d say I have imagination but it is an imagination that fills in a missing piece of a puzzle letting me understand things as a whole that others think as separate. Yet I have always been the smartest in a room full of people who are also always the smartest people in the room. So much so that the two times I’ve had people whose opinion I trusted indicate a certain individual is easy to recognize as being smarter than I, I made it a point to meet and spend time with those two individuals. It made me realize how truly rare very intelligent people that don’t come across as total weirdos are. Few are Dirac’s and a magnitude or two less are Feynman’s. Or take neumann for example. You could put the twenty other genius’s up against him and he could put class them all in sheer memory, speed of thought, etc. Yet plenty of solutions did not occur to him that occurred to others. With me I’m the type that knows the answer before the question and ask well then what happens when one shines light in a reflective sphere? And the professor or teacher with a gleam in their eye says funny you should ask that cause someone else wondered the same thing except they had a Ph.D and was a leading experimental physicist who based on that idea developed the first lasers. The teacher or professors then swap stories with each other about me based on such things. Meanwhile I’m like dammit cause I’ve had all these brilliant insights only to learn some other genius had this or that same insight and went on to be someone you read about in textbooks or whose name is in one or more processes, theorems, or inventions and I think nothing new happens under the sun and get halfway jealous of the people who lived long ago who noticed that when you let go of something it drops or when you add an object to a container of water it rises by a certain amount and here we are remembering their name as genius ten plus centuries later. Well you know what I discovered it hurts when one smashed one’s thumb with a hammer by accident or on purpose so do I get some smashed thumb equivalency principle named after me? Nope. Just like I came up with the anytime Nazis or Hitler is used in an argument the argument is over. I’d actually make revenant Nazi comparisons in almost every argument just to end it cause I found such discussions a waste of time anyways then some Wikipedia guy a hacker friend of mine knew gets that theory named after them. I’m like yeah well that’s the kind of thing they did in 1936 Berlin…. Lol.
@@211212112 Not sure Neanderthals had white skin. No clothing has ever been found associated with Neanderthals and they lived in Europe during different ice ages and even in Siberia, without clothing, or animal skins cut to fit them, so it's obvious they were heavily furred like chimps. They evolved from Heidlebergensis which evolved from Homo Erectus, all of which lived in cold places during the ice ages and none of which had clothing and so all of which were furry like apes. Use your head.
Neandertol painted caves before humans existed , and the also had tools, technology, ritual and buriel ceremonies. Take that ! Humans first ceremonies, rituals , tools and painting was a direct copy of the Neandertol style leading some to believe that we learned these things from Neandertol ....
i hear crows have the intelligence of a 7 year old child, and corvids in general are incredibly intelligent. Chances are he prolly was smarter than ur dog lol
The books "Earth's Children" by Jean M Auel describes the differences between Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons in a fascinating and educational way. Due to the shorter larynx, Neanderthals couldn't speak like Cro-Magnons, but most likely they could make shorter and guttural sounds (just like in the books).
@Leona Long this makes no sense information is either accurate or inaccurate. What does accurate for the time it was written even mean? And how did it become inaccurate if it was accurate?
Scientists now know that Neanderthals had the same foxp2 as us so they might not have been able to make the same range of sounds but definitely spoke somehow.
I think the reason we outcompeted Neanderthals is our social skills. Archeological finds have shown human groups were much larger and traveled further than Neanderthals. Neanderthals were by no means stuipid and actually pretty intelligent and had culture, music etc, but I think compared to us they didnt match up. It is true recent studies show Neanderthals were likely able to speak, but i am not sure how their speech compared to ours. The fact our hyoid bone is lower means we are able to have a higher range of sounds meaning we can atleast vocally, convey more ideas. Neanderthals were more robust and adapted to ice age eurasia which made them hardy. They adapted to cold climate. Our ancestors lived in warmer climates making us skinnier and slightly taller meaning we had to work together more and develop different ways of hunting. Us being taller may also be a plus because it may mean we had better endurance as the longer limbs longer strides. Because of the Neanderthal anatomical structure they developed their hunting skills off of hunting packs that involved stabbing prey because they had the build to do so. Homo sapiens are slightly more fragile and we developed bows and arrows and long distance throwing spears. This means more humans would have likely survived hunting expeditions as well as been more succesful as you dont have to run up on an animal to kill it. If homo sapiens and neanderthals ever fought its likely our weapons outcompeted them. If you can kill something before it reaches you it reduces casualties. Neanderthals also had larger occipital lobes which is responsible for vision which must have developed for being able to see in ice age europe which had less light. Our brains were and are more focused in the frontal lobe which is responsible for fine motor movement, social skills and creativity. This may be why we had larger and more succesful social groups. Its funny how our innate lack of physical defense or offense actual lead to forcing us ti have to work together which made us OP.
Thank you goes to the narrator for being so clearly understood! With this info, we need expression. I think I picked up some great info that I never knew.
This clip is taken from a documentary titled: "Survival of the Fittest" which is episode #5 of the miniseries "Miracle Planet", produced by NHK Japan and Discovery Channel Canada.
So perhaps, as in Jean Aul's books, the Neanderthals had a language of gestures and hand language. Their brain size suggested they had the intelligence and a language of gestures is quite an advantage for a people who are both predator and prey.
Possible. But in the end she is writing fiction. Her characters tend to sound more like modern day surfer dudes and dudettes coming off the beach at Malibu. She has to assume some things and/or invent them or her dialogs would read like gibberish to her readers. Try getting your info from science media vs, OK novels and a bad movie.
Perhaps their Language was as fluent as ours. At the time we were both living on the planet together we were interbreeding and living together so they would have needed to communicate efficiently. Neanderthals also have a big part of brain cavity for vision as well as bigger eyes so they probably had much better vision than us.
All this shit is a lie, people were smarter and stronger and have always been humans! Energy or intelligence all move from a higher state to a lower, not the other way around
@keith cunningham this is very incorrect. Homo sapiens actually had way more sophisticated tools than Neanderthals. The weird thing about neanderthals is that they didn't even have more advanced tools in regards to early hominids. They never developed beyond very basic tools even though they resided in Europe for million years. Just look at what humans achieved in the 60k years we've left Africa
Exactly as the person below said, Neanderthal did have a larger brain than we do. I am a totally blind woman. For me, complex verbal communication is very important. But what if instead of being blind, I was deaf? I’ve got many deaf friends, who either primarily or Soli communicate, other than in writing, of course, by using American sign language. There is no reason for us to believe, that Neanderthal did not use sign language! Almost certainly, they did! I would love to hear the perspectives of people who are deaf, who do not verbally communicate, but do communicate via sign language. I think that would be very important and and lightning. Among my group of friends, blind, deaf, or otherwise, I am the one with a passion for learning about these things. My friends don’t care! So, I hope a deaf person who does care, chimes in. Tammi
This doc is interesting in large part because it's dated and presents a good picture of thought on the subject up to its time. There is much good stuff in it .Thank you.
Doesn't mean they were smart, they actually were considered barbaric and low on intellect. Take Albert Einstein for example his brain was smaller than the average human.
A sperm whale's brain is 6x larger than ours.... still wouldn't have him help me do my taxes. Sorry you can't comprehend the difference between size and intelligence.....
The part about the larynx placement in Neanderthal seems outdated. This was published on RU-vid fairly recently, (1/16) but, I wonder when the doc was made.
Research and speculation as to the placement of the larynx in Neanderthals dates back to the 1970s. But the basic premise that Neanderthal's larynx was positioned higher than H Sapiens' is still the current view. Based on Neanderthal anatomy and morphology. It should be noted, however, that just because Neanderthal's larynx was likely located higher than ours, other than a restricted vowel inventory -- which ultimately doesn't matter -- this in no way is suggestive of any limitations in Neanderthal's ability to create and use language.
Neanderthals were around well before homo sapiens. Used fire before them. Extracted asprin from trees. And made the first cave drawings. Survived in a more harsh enviorment. And homo sapiens mated with them while showing up in higher numbers.
@@salahali2710 They were humans not animals. They buried their dead, cared for their sick ones and could draw made tools to hunt. All things humans do and not animals. Go spread your nonsens on religious channels please and not on scientific channels.
Even if their ability for complex speech was limited, they could have done what deaf people do today, develop sign language to convey ideas or feelings.
You shouldn't publish old material as recent specially when today is known wrong. In any case indicate it on the title and description. Neanderthal's DNA finally decoded in 2010 has revealed in recent years that they had all necessary to be winners. In fact skin and hair in Asians are Denisovan's and in Europeans are Neanderthal's and not Sapiens. Similar for the immunity system. And if those genes are there is because they gave an evolutive then reproductive advantage over all of those that didn't get them. What happened to Neanderthals then? Many think they suffered an apocalypses that reduced their number dramatically. Unfortunately this could be one of those cases where politics interfere with science so we don't hear media saying this because stimulates racism. Saying that Asian and European skin color and hair come from species that did not evolve in Africa is not politically correct.
This is a good lesson for other sciences - archeological and anthropological inferences are constantly being challenged and upended. This is an area where skepticism thrives, yet the other sciences treat skepticism as vulgar, even insane. This short is almost comedic in its assumptions, its methodologies, and the conclusions it makes (they are quite wrong). And that's after only a couple years. Imagine the progress if all the sciences were received with equal skepticism (not a skepticism that is combative, just accepting we are always wrong to some degree...i.e., science as science). Perhaps that's insanity though...
Daniel Almquist still doesnt mean anything. Most whites and Asians dont use that "5 to 6%" on anything intellectual. Culture is the reason why some races do better than others. When I was in highschool, we had these group of Asians who were at the top of the class. It wasnt because they were so much "smarter". Its because they worked their asses off. Something instilled in them by their parents. Then their were asians in my school who were just like everyone else.
I believe that Neanderthal were bread out of existence by waves of migration out of Africa. The first wave inter bread with Neanderthals, making a half human, half Neanderthal. The next wave of humans made a 3/4 human, 1/4 Neanderthal. Eventually, Neanderthal DNA was diluting down to a very small amount.
@@djibrila.2066 bullshit you re french. Where are you from. Alabama. Dit moi quelque chose en francais This show is about science and evolution. Two of many subjects you yankees know nothing about. Watch your dad s biography. Instead It s called dumb and dumber
While some people in the comments state that there’s conclusive evidence showing Neanderthals having language, art etc., there’s actually no conclusive evidence as of yet and all claims of that are considered highly controversial. The problem of knowing if the Neanderthals had language like we do are immensely hard. Especially since we don’t really now how or why we ourselves have this possibility. So all statements pretending as if it’s a known fact that they had language like us are just false because it’s NOT known yet. This doesn’t mean they didn’t either, it just means it’s known as of yet.
Ancient written languages did not have vowels, since not all humans could pronounce them. On isolated islands, the far north, etc. language tends to evolve using vowels to effect meaning, not just consonants as older language variants did.
That just blew my fucking mind! So this innate force of evolution for the survival and thriving of our species essentially understood that it was worth the off chance of you dying from choking on food or other objects if it meant you could develop a voice box/larynx capable of complex language in order to exchange ideas, thoughts, perceptions, emotions, ... which essentially is what led us to win the evolution race. damn
It seems currently, there are competing new theories on whether or how Neanderthals could speak. It would be super exciting to know the truth. If they had some speech language ability though, it makes them much more human than less.
The vowel sounds are made by the mouth, not the throat. The throat makes the voice louder by adding another resonance, what we might refer to as timbre. The throat adds another layer to communication. Lower your voice box and it sounds like you are sad or happy
@@davidrohrer7423 There are common ways of producing vowels, and there are more interesting ways of making the sound.The human voice comprises 3 main parts - mouth, throat, and the combination of mouth and throat. Pitch, timbre and vowel combine to create the diversity of our capacity to express ourselves in language
@@davidrohrer7423 Someone once asked me what harmonic singing would be if I stopped using the voice. Whistling. We use vowels as part of our vocal language code, but the evolution of the voice occurred concurrent with our ancestors enlarging brain. One of my party tricks is to sing songs in monotone, but modify the vowel to make the tune. Each consonant has an accent which is the musical note in the well known song. Only half the audience can hear the tune. The rest have brains that are unable to process the song.
@@davidrohrer7423 Mine is a practical knowledge based on anatomy and the physics of sound. I spent a couple of years in the mid '80s taking cross sectional xrays of voice boxes relaxed and when making noise. In this video I use the vowel of different laughter to make the tune 'amazing grace' ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-FFPWQX9GlvQ.html
@@davidrohrer7423 Here is another youtube I made where I use the mouth and/or throat to create music using the system that we recognize as vowels. I can also sing the same tune in monotone but incorporated the tune into the pronunciation. I can do it singing the same pitch but alter the system of pronunciation so it can be in 3 different keys. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vZOXLA2ZrbY.html
The fact that the only group to have never mated with Neanderthal’s was the African group.Thats the difference in the intelligence quotient test that offends everyone.Proving that the Neanderthal’s were indeed smarter but outnumbered tremendously.
So we have learned a lot since this video. I remember watching it in middle school school and being blown away lol. Now I'm amazed at how much we've grown since then. I could go look for citations but I'm too lazy, so I'll speak in indefinites. I think I heard from somewhere that Fox P2 was found in both genomes. I also think I've heard they had slightly bigger brains that were flatter. Neanderthal Symbology is still hotly debated as well.
The origin of domesticated animals are largely along the borders of neanderthal habitat, - so to assume that africans were the first to do it is a bit egotistical.
another teory i've heard as to why they went extinct is that because they were more robust than us, they always hunted in melee, and had to use a lot more energy and risk themselves way more in order to find food in the ice age, unlike us humans, that used throwing spears to hunt
Noam Chomsky??? Why? Interesting but whoever produced this blew it by going off point with climate change and introducing social engineer Noam Chomsky into anthropological topic. Why?
Noam chomsky is a linguist. He made great contributions to the field of linguistics and to the study of language. I would have been surprise if language was discussed and the man was not invited. The part about climate change, i think is relevant. After all we brought dramatic changes to the planet
Title of the video includes:"evolution of language". Academically, Chomsky is an eminent linguist but he does occasionionally appear to go "off topic", doesn't he? He always does that. Try to follow one of his lectures and you are off and runnning to ? Brilliant guy + VERY POLITICAL
Einstein was Jewish, a Sephardic Jew which means he was basically Middle Eastern. Sephardics were the Jews who left the Middle East during the Roman expansion into Israel and went into Spain, Portugal, Morocco and West Africa.
We’ve probably still only scratched the surface of our discoveries regarding Neanderthal...what we know and what is to be discovered may be drastically different. Even in the last decade our thinking about Neanderthal has changed.
How old is this documentary? Neanderthals were shorter & had slightly bigger brains than we do. Although their sloping forehead meant frontal lobes may have been smaller - but we don't know that for sure b/c we don't know exactly how the parts of their brains were arranged internally. For example, some people in South America used to wrap up their babies' heads to make them grow in an odd shape that they believed looked like their gods. And the human brain is so malleable it just grew in a different shape without losing any intelligence. I'm not saying Neanderthals practiced head binding. I"m just saying if they had exactly the same brain structures we do, but their skulls naturally grew in a different shape, the brain could have grown into that shape without losing any intelligence. --- But we don't know if their brains had exactly the same structures we do or not. Even though we have sequenced the entire Neanderthal genome, our genetics is not yet good enough to predict exactly what inner structures of their brains were like just from the A, T, G, C base pairs.
Neandethakls have Foxp2 and deaf/mute Nicaraguans have shown thatlanguage is innate. Voice box not required. Humans were probably better atreplicating small animals sounds that helped in hunting only.
Probably. Want you to hear the christian version. It's going to be hard to hear but.. no god or gods exist!!! The Atheist Experience on you tube and tv prove in debates that it is mythology. Like the 10th man made religion. Break free! Be free!!
This looks like a great documentary? Anybody know where to find the whole thing? Yes, some of the theories about neanderthal are a bit outdated, but as a whole, this is good
Man I’m 8 mins in and I gotta say, can you imagine a homosapien and a Neanderthal gettin down and all ya hear from the Neanderthal are cut off growl noises😂
Xander, here's a few more synonyms that could be used; I have no problem at all with using any one of them. hypothesize, postulate, presuppose, presume, conceive, conclude, conjecture, consider, deem, dream, expect, fancy, feel, gather, guess, imagine, judge, premise, presume, pretend, reckon, regard, suspect, take, think, understand, view, hunch, suspicion, gospel, truth.
No Jolly, you are wrong. In science the term "Theory" has a much different meaning than any of the words you used. In Science a Theory is the highest degree of certainty there is. Theories don't graduate to become laws. In science, in order to be a theory, it must incorporate a hypothesis, evidence, and tests that can prove the hypothesis true or false. Once you have that you submit your findings to other scientists who have a vested interest in proving you wrong. If you pass this peer review process your hypothesis can graduate to be a Theory. And even after it becomes a theory, it can still be proven wrong and disregarded. All it takes is for it to fail one test and it is rejected. Evolution (in over 150 years) has never failed any of those tests.
Evolution doesn't favour what's smarter, it favours what works better. In our case bigger brain was favoured, but weaker body was the consequence. Evolution doesn't give 2 shits about what is better, it only cares about what works.
Yes, it's true. There is no sign of change in humans from when we first appeared to now. And mutations are inherited by future generations. Mutations are either neutral (not really, because they replace functional genetic material) or actively harmful. That does mean degeneration for all species.
Homo Sapiens Sapiens did start his articulated speaking 45.000 years Before our Chronicle. It was the 2nd Miracle. Sapiens and Neanderthal lived together from 70.000 to 28.000 years Before our Chronicle. Yes. ❤🎉😅
Smooth Criminal dude ikr..biblical stuff will be proved..as I can say it is coming soon...and God will be proved scientificly...I'm sure about it bro....it will happen...don't worry
Odd them showing the polar ice caps breaking up and talking climate change when the ice caps are actually growing. They just had to throw that in there.
Cannot deny the world is getting warmer. You can argue over why, but the truth is undeniable. Just check out the not her expansion of the armadillo in the United States. Plenty of other animals are also increasing their living ranges northwards and increasing their elevation ranges higher.
+Zigz Zagz Check out the total ice amounts on both antarctic and Greenland ice caps. Antarctic cap is growing. Greenland is getting smaller. Do the math,and presto! The Total amount of ice is diminishing. Stop listening to Steven Crowder. He's a fucking tool. And sea ice doesn't count in the total. Get some information from actual scientists instead of right wing bloggers.
Dr. Dawkins, just no. Language is not a superficial second genetics, nor did it give rise to "superficial genetics" (advancement). What pure bs. Gees!! The percentage of humans that actually do/have contribute(d) to technological advancement is very tiny, and it always has been. The rest of the population then learns and/or utilized the tech discovered/developed by the tiny contributing group. Again, that has always been the case, nothing "evolving" about that process. Uttering non-sense, Dawkins, is a poor use of linguistic capability.
Just Some Ordinary CHIMPANZEE I never said they were apes first of all so stop that bs..I said they have a primate skeleton and do your research..Scientists suggested that they can speak like humans..suggested without proof is not factual..
+Chris Cyphaz We didn't evolve from Neanderthals. We co-habited Modern Day 'Europe' alongside them from 128,000 to 30,000 years ago as Homo sapiens sapiens (which speciated around 200,000 years ago). Before that Homo sapiens, based upon the 'Out Of Africa' hypothesis, underwent a Northward migration out of Africa around 150,000 years ago The ice age and impact of the Mt.toba supervolcanic eruption that caused a volcanic winter drove both Neanderthal and H.sapiens southwards, where neanderthals are said to have hunted and raped H.sapiens (hence why most europeans have 1-2% Neanderthal DNA). The main reason we are thought to have survived in place of them, is in their hunting methods. Neanderthals most likely had primitive speech, as they showed a certain degree of cerebral lateralisation, however a combination of more advanced cerebral lateralisation and laryngeal placement provided H.sapiens with better tactics to avoid predation and to predate. Neanderthals used their bodies more than anything to fight and kill. H.sapiens may have only attacked an animal with crafted spears from above, where they could not be reached. The increase in Neanderthal mass in comparison to H.sapiens would also have meant they required significantly more food to survive. You say that they couldn't talk, but studies of both neanderthals and H.sapiens show right-handedness, which is indicative of cerebral lateralisation, which allows development of speech centres in the brain.
