|>> || 1535488721323.jpg -(94452B / 92.24KB, 1024x415) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. >>74854 |
RAO has in no way been debunked and if you're representing that as your horizon of knowledge of 'your field of study' you can't be very far through undergrad can ya?
So, a couple things about those Spanish neanderthals: 1.) We have already established that the proto-humans in Europe ca. 60,000bce were neanderthals, without the african haplogroups for another 20,000 years. The only thing that was remarkable about those findings was that they had performed cave paintings 2.) and, have you seen those 'cave paintings'? They're...really bad. If anything, they lead credence to the idea that neanderthal's grasp of the concept of art and culture was less profound than homo sapiens'.
>>it's also academics that I have to argue with weeklyI find it impossible to believe you have to argue weekly with 'academics' that the fact that some europeans don't have haplogroup A means they couldn't have come from Africa...because the whole suggestion represents such a fundamental misunderstanding of what a 'haplogroup' is that I can't believe any academic could listen to your whole question with a straight face.
Of course haplogroups mutate and change as populations migrate and interbreed in different ratios. That's precisely how we get the information about where the haplogroups originated in the first place. If you are basing all this on the possibility that Y Adam was European (which, may be the case) that doesn't change that mitochondrial Eve was certainly African and RAO has more explanatory power over the nature of human population evolution than any other theory that has attempted to explain early human origins. What is your alternate explanation for human population distribution then?
>>Nianderthals had a lot more of a spiritual aspect to their burial practice than homo-sapiens and cro-magnon, they also made better tools than us.Sources. Their tools were at best comparable to ours. Also, their paleolithic industry seemed to advance more slowly than ours. They stayed in the Mousterian in Europe for over a hundred thousand years, yet within thousands of years of anatomically modern humans arriving, progress was made to the late stone age techs. As for their rituals, yes, they had some rituals, but a lot of evidence suggests they were copying homo sapiens behavior, because of the lack of generativity of new symbols and lower use of artifacts. The first intentional burial may be of a Neanderthal woman, but all they did was put wildflowers in with her. Sure, a breakthrough, but not as significant as putting tools and artifacts in the grave as humans were doing at roughly the same time, an indication that they had begun to develop beliefs in both the afterlife and in the efficacy of ritual.
It's an undeniable fact that neanderthals were less fit for survival than humans, which is why they failed to survive other than through interbreeding. A big part of that reason is the skill with which they handled spiritual matters. They didn't have zero skill, but they clearly had less than the humans, and that ultimately proved to be all it took. Because of homo sapiens migration from Africa, they distributed roughly comparable spiritual capability throughout what would become all modern human populations. If spirituality has this power, and neanderthals had more of it as you claim, then why aren't we arguing about how other humans were subsumed into the neanderthals?
>> I did my 1st on proto-europeans in ancient history. No one is questioning PIE migration theory. It is also the prevailing anthropological theory, but most people don't realize its implications. In this case, you are on the right side -- don't conflate being right about this with being right about RAO.
This is all uncontroversial information that is considered the 'state of the art' in paleoanthropology. If you are making a specific claim about why that prevailing view should be changed, you should articulate it. Obviously, the fact that you get blow back 'not just from idiots on chans' but also from 'academics' means that you have not proven your claim with academic rigor, so acting like it's a foregone conclusion that anyone who is up on the research should be able to see is misleading, at best. I don't think anyone anywhere has made a credible argument to the effect of what you're arguing, so this falls squarely in the category of [original research.]