lol & testbump (nttawwt) @ last posts!
I think I’m supremely qualified at not giving a fuck. I actually have multiple degrees in that.
I’m bumping this thread due to the article below…
article teaser;
‘How modern humans have become WEAKLINGS compared with our ancient ancestors who could outrun and outlift today’s top athletes
Human leg bones have grown weaker since farming was invented
Scientists found bone structure declined after agriculture emerged
Male farmers 7,300 years ago had legs of cross-country runners
But just 3,000 years later, they had legs comparable to ‘sedentary’ students’
I forget where I read it, but with the advent of farming, people became shorter and had shorter live spans. In large part because of deteriorating dental health from the grains. On the plus side, having a stable food source made the birth rate sky rocket.
[quote]mbdix wrote:
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
@daily Mammoth hunt: I dont’t believe a paleolithic clan could sacrifice an average of two members even for an abundant supply of mammothy goodness. That’s way too many dead. [/quote]
Absolutely, plus, I don’t care how many tons of meat they got, they had no way to preserve it. Not worth losing your Dad and cousin for what was at best a few weeks worth of food.[/quote]
I would think they could preserve their meat for a few months at a time by smoking it. I would also think that they would have less issues with eating meat that modern man finds ‘expired’. [/quote]
Or if they’re far up enough North, they can just bury it in the permafrost.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Is it so hard to understand that Homo Neandertal, being a different animal than us, had a way thicker and larger boneframe.
It’s totally sciency to assume he also sported a proportionally musclemass.
To cite a paleontologist I spoke with in the N.museum in Neandertal, “an Arnold Schwarzenegger would have been the norm”.
Of course muscles aren’t only for show.
Animals usually use the fleshmass they grow naturally. And if it’s only to fend off other males.
That’s where the fractures come into play that are all over the paleontological evidence.
So they either hunted their pray with grit and spear OR maybe they bashed their limbs against trees to impress females?
You tell me.
Against that, being “homo sapiens buff” is just …homo.
Not only do we lack the bonemass to withstand being gored by wild Aurochs, other traits like aggression, regeneration and a lot of other hormonal and physiological factors probably come with the whole Neander package.
In other words, even the fittest and buffest T-Nationeer would not be able to hunt together with Neandertals.
p.s. Leopards have been observed to drag prey 3x their bodyweight up a tree. They are pound for pound the strongest cats, along with Jaguars.
[/quote]
You have no idea what you’re talking about lol.
Some random paleontologist has no concept of what it takes to be as big or strong as someone like Arnold. Ancient people weren’t like that rofl. I’m saying a decent, natty strength athlete would have no trouble besting a Neanderthal strength wise. If you’re throwing in people on gear… fucking forget about it man. If you could put a Neanderthal up against someone like Vytautas Lalas the caveman would get his shit pushed in. It’s just biology man. They didn’t have magical Krypton strength.
And no, leopards cannot do that. Possibly a smaller female could drag up a 200lb carcass which would be 3x her size, but a 200lb male leopard is grossly incapable of dragging a 600lb beast up anything. Along the ground I’m sure it could, but you show me anywhere where something larger than 300lbs has been seen or cited as being dragged up a tree by a leopard. This does not occur in nature; you are making it up lol.
I don’t know why you are so quick to believe the wildest exaggerations about these things.[/quote]
You’re flat out ignorant, 1lbs on a chimp will be potententially way more strong than on a human.
I’m not saying the Neandertaler will be stronger than the strongest, roided up humans in a bench press competition. Reread my post.
I’m saying he was genetically build to carry and smash things. While being, relatively much more muscled.
That has some serious implications.
@sardines
It is more or less academic consensus that all caucasians carry a small amount of Neandertal DNA, about 1-2%.
However, someone with pure african heritage will have zero Neandertal DNA.
Asians, I dunno, probably very little, though there were other hominids which they probably shagged to extinction (eg Homo Erectus Pekinensis).[/quote]
That’s not to say African populations didn’t have any admixture with non-HS populations. It’s just difficult to say because the conditions aren’t conducive towards the preservation of fossils much less DNA so we have nothing to compare African populations.
In Asia, you have not just Neanderthal genes, but Denivosan genes too. If fact, Melanesian populations (think Australian aborigines and certain groups of Pacific Islanders), have up to 8% of non-HS DNA.
Fucking ay at my botched quote.