Neanderthals have been rehabilitated and re- imagined at hilariously breakneck speed since we found their genes in ourselves. Tiresome, like all the propaganda relentlessly shoved in our faces.
Reading about caveman films led me to the Wikipedia page of Quest For Fire (1981).
"At first, Naoh is subjected to several forms of humiliation by the Ivaka, including being forced to mate with the high-status women of the tribe, who are large and big-breasted."
My god... the savagery.... truly, mankind's past is bleaker than we could have imagined...
Anyway I need more early hominids in films. I'm a big fan of homo floresiensis, let's get some little guys in there. Early Australian mammals as well, I've never seen a CGI diprotodon and this needs to be remedied.
I just can’t fathom how subsaharan Africans supposedly morphed into white people in just 40-50,000 years. Sounds forced and not in line with what they would have you believe about how fast evolution should play out. I think there is some serious missing time and even a completely different gene flow across Eurasia. Out of Africa may be a starting point but it does not account for the variety of types and morphologies of humans with different ratios of admixture from other archaic sources. The picture that progressive academics would shove in your face does not comport to the sense I derive from just plainly looking at the evidence and looking at the variety of people across the globe. If a subsaharan African can morph onto an East Asian in 45,000 years than evolution itself should be considered an extremely accelerated process given certain pressures, yet in other instances we are led to believe there is this slow methodical plodding along with much error and natural/ sexual selection. Make it all make sense. Obviously there were many out of Africa colonizations dating back millions of years. I think for Homo sapiens there must have been a much earlier first step into the Levant which started the process of change much earlier and then led to that L3 group further branching out in different iterative steps.
Humans did not evolve from contemporary sub Saharan Africans, and the earliest humans likely didn't look anything like West Africans or their descendant populations. The oldest two branches of the human tree are the Khoisan and the Central African Pygmies, both very different looking.
That answer still does not hold water or really tell the whole story. Granted there was an earlier population that sub Saharan Africans descended from, but the Khoisan and Pygmies are even older and of a different branch. I would wager that modern groups of larger and darker subsaharan populations didn’t diverge a whole lot from their parent source 50kya. So I don’t really know what your argument is. You saying Nilodes came from pygmies or the Khoisan?
No, I was just commenting on your initial line that sub-saharan Africans morphed into Europeans, saying that SS Africans as we know them today are also highly diverged, and there's no reason to suspect that early sapiens looked like them.
I do agree though that the early story of homo sapien evolution is full of holes and confusions. The straightforward out of Africa hypothesis has been replaced with a muddled mosaic of interbreedings between different hominid groups. What does seem relatively clear is that 'anatomically modern humans' left Africa around 70,000 years ago, which produced a clear division in the gene pool - those groups in Africa and those who descended from the ones who left.
If you’re doing pop-culture prehistory media, you should check out the Würm roleplaying game from Chaosium, which seemed really well researched to my relatively ignorant eyes (it’s set in the Ice Age). I think there are a couple more similar games from other publishers, but Würm (originally written in French) is really a lovely piece of work with beautiful illustrations. Worth a gander. (Though it might be out of print.)
Agree with the sentiment: fun movie until the inevitable Hollywood swerve into preachy moralism
Neanderthals have been rehabilitated and re- imagined at hilariously breakneck speed since we found their genes in ourselves. Tiresome, like all the propaganda relentlessly shoved in our faces.
True. People forget that prior to 2012 it was academic gospel to insist Neanderthals and humans never reproduced together.
Reading about caveman films led me to the Wikipedia page of Quest For Fire (1981).
"At first, Naoh is subjected to several forms of humiliation by the Ivaka, including being forced to mate with the high-status women of the tribe, who are large and big-breasted."
My god... the savagery.... truly, mankind's past is bleaker than we could have imagined...
Anyway I need more early hominids in films. I'm a big fan of homo floresiensis, let's get some little guys in there. Early Australian mammals as well, I've never seen a CGI diprotodon and this needs to be remedied.
Lmao, yes there's an entire universe of possible humans, scenarios and stories waiting to be tapped, including high-status Venuses!
Thanks very much -- hadn't heard of the film previously.
I just can’t fathom how subsaharan Africans supposedly morphed into white people in just 40-50,000 years. Sounds forced and not in line with what they would have you believe about how fast evolution should play out. I think there is some serious missing time and even a completely different gene flow across Eurasia. Out of Africa may be a starting point but it does not account for the variety of types and morphologies of humans with different ratios of admixture from other archaic sources. The picture that progressive academics would shove in your face does not comport to the sense I derive from just plainly looking at the evidence and looking at the variety of people across the globe. If a subsaharan African can morph onto an East Asian in 45,000 years than evolution itself should be considered an extremely accelerated process given certain pressures, yet in other instances we are led to believe there is this slow methodical plodding along with much error and natural/ sexual selection. Make it all make sense. Obviously there were many out of Africa colonizations dating back millions of years. I think for Homo sapiens there must have been a much earlier first step into the Levant which started the process of change much earlier and then led to that L3 group further branching out in different iterative steps.
Humans did not evolve from contemporary sub Saharan Africans, and the earliest humans likely didn't look anything like West Africans or their descendant populations. The oldest two branches of the human tree are the Khoisan and the Central African Pygmies, both very different looking.
Are those the only true homo sapiens - lacking the Neanderthal DNA that even other Africans have in a tiny amount?
They were in a sense, but both have undergone admixture with other groups since. The San in particular with the pastoralist Khoi.
That answer still does not hold water or really tell the whole story. Granted there was an earlier population that sub Saharan Africans descended from, but the Khoisan and Pygmies are even older and of a different branch. I would wager that modern groups of larger and darker subsaharan populations didn’t diverge a whole lot from their parent source 50kya. So I don’t really know what your argument is. You saying Nilodes came from pygmies or the Khoisan?
No, I was just commenting on your initial line that sub-saharan Africans morphed into Europeans, saying that SS Africans as we know them today are also highly diverged, and there's no reason to suspect that early sapiens looked like them.
I do agree though that the early story of homo sapien evolution is full of holes and confusions. The straightforward out of Africa hypothesis has been replaced with a muddled mosaic of interbreedings between different hominid groups. What does seem relatively clear is that 'anatomically modern humans' left Africa around 70,000 years ago, which produced a clear division in the gene pool - those groups in Africa and those who descended from the ones who left.
If you’re doing pop-culture prehistory media, you should check out the Würm roleplaying game from Chaosium, which seemed really well researched to my relatively ignorant eyes (it’s set in the Ice Age). I think there are a couple more similar games from other publishers, but Würm (originally written in French) is really a lovely piece of work with beautiful illustrations. Worth a gander. (Though it might be out of print.)
Well I'm looking at a gene map of the world that shows zero neanderthal DNA in large parts of Africa. But it hasn't a date.
There must be some people.
Interesting pattern - if you look at a wealth map of Africa, and neanderthal DNA map - they correlate closely. To my Layman's eye anyway.
Also, Neanderthal DNA has been implicated in circadian clock - it makes for early risers.
Has it got gentle, peace-loving Neanderthals hunted and raped to death by Homo Sapiens - the progenitors of all evils that beset mankind?