neanderthals 'had sense of compassion'

[bcbm]

A team from the University of York examined archaeological evidence for the way emotions began to emerge in our ancestors and then developed to modern people.

One of the key findings of the research shows how, in Europe between around 500,000 and 40,000 years ago, early humans such as Homo heidelbergensis and Neanderthals developed commitments to the welfare of others illustrated by a long adolescence and a dependence on hunting together.

The injured or infirm were routinely cared for in this period, according to the findings.

Remains examined by the university's Department of Archaeology researchers revealed how a child with a congenital brain abnormality was not abandoned but lived until five or six years old and shows how a Neanderthal with a withered arm, deformed feet and blindness in one eye was cared for, perhaps for as long as 20 years.


continued:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/neanderthals-had-sense-of-compassion-2098270.html

[Ele'ill]

I heard this on NPR this morning at like 2 while I was waiting around where I work. This proves that everything is sentient *Edit and proves that veganism is revolutionary.

[GreenCommunism]

cats or dog do have this feeling too.

[Ele'ill]

Yes- dogs and cats nurse wounded and crippled neanderthals back to health- or at the very least they prolong the neanderthal individual's life.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

This isnt new, we have already clear evidence for that earlier human spicies such as homo habilis and homo erectus had strong compassion for eachother.
Example, in Georgia theive founded, in 2000, a scull of a male that didnt have any teeths, seems like he had slipped and when he hit the gound he smashed them out.
But studies of the scull shows that he have lived for many years after he lost hes teeths, so some others in the group must have chewed his food for him.

[Pavlov's House Party]

I heard this on NPR this morning at like 2 while I was waiting around where I work. This proves that everything is sentient *Edit and proves that veganism is revolutionary.

wait, how does this prove that veganism is revolutionary? i'm pretty sure neandertals hunted and killed lots of big game... they were almost exclusively carnivorous and were the apex predators.

http://www.amren.com/ar/2009/01/08b-Hunting.jpg

also, not everything is sentient. neandertals were practically human, with a cranial capacity almost the same as modern homo sapiens and a brain about as well developed. i don't see how you can make that into an argument that "everything is sentient", what does a neandertal have in common with a deer? a neandertal had a fully developed brain while a deer does not.

[bcbm]

i think you got trolled bro

[Dimentio]

I heard this on NPR this morning at like 2 while I was waiting around where I work. This proves that everything is sentient *Edit and proves that veganism is revolutionary.


Neanderthals were not animals. They had somewhat bigger brain size than us.

Moreover, we are Neanderthals to a degree, at least everyone who aren't of African descent.

[Ele'ill]

wait, how does this prove that veganism is revolutionary? i'm pretty sure neandertals hunted and killed lots of big game... they were almost exclusively carnivorous and were the apex predators.

http://www.amren.com/ar/2009/01/08b-Hunting.jpg




Clearly from the photograph you posted we can see that they are killing one of the many giant furry plants that inhabited their realm back then. They are obviously vegan- revolutionary- and there is no way to refute the fact that because they were sentient (as all life on earth evolved from them and their aquatic ancestors that had gills (as portrayed by kevin costner in the movie waterworld)) that all life on earth is sentient.

[Vanguard1917]

Neanderthals have compassion? Martin Keown disagrees:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/08/27/article-1306869-00EA62BF1000044C-640_306x423.jpg

http://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/pix/2008/11/keown-nistelnooy2-415x275.jpg

[Myrdal]

I'm pretty sure Neanderthals were animals, as are we.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

By all accounts, it seems the Neanderthals were practically human. They were certainly people. If you gave one a shave, a short back and sides and put him in a business suit he wouldn't look too different from a peculiarly ugly office worker.

[noble brown]

Neanderthals were not animals. They had somewhat bigger brain size than us.

Moreover, we are Neanderthals to a degree, at least everyone who aren't of African descent.


you serious?! they werent animals? what the hell were they then? fungus?



Moreover, we are Neanderthals to a degree, at least everyone who aren't of African descent.

what is that?! are you 2%er?! sounds like some 2%er or f.o.i. crap. id like to hear your arguments that goes with this statement.

[Amphictyonis]

continued:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/neanderthals-had-sense-of-compassion-2098270.html

Of course they did. Most mammals do (I'm not religious but this video is). The whole series comes in handy when trying to convince a Ayn Rand psycho altruism exists:


qiCN9jnhsXw

[Ovi]

what is that?! are you 2%er?! sounds like some 2%er or f.o.i. crap. id like to hear your arguments that goes with this statement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Range_of_Homo_neanderthalensis.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Range_of_Homo_neanderthalensis.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_admixture_hypothesis

[noble brown]

well... wiki is first and foremost a dubious source but aside from that very interesting hypothesis. think i saw something about this before but i get the point. i still dont think it qualifies the absolute statement he made though. but a nice save nonetheless.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

well... wiki is first and foremost a dubious source

The authority of a wiki page comes from its sources, not the fact its a wiki page.

[noble brown]

of course i understand that thats the intention but its simply not the reality, in the majority of cases anyway. unless i give a pure anthology of my sources, w no personal interpretations, it isnt just a restatement but a source of its own. and a source written by any ole body (wiki) becomes "dubious". im not sayin they're all inaccurate, just that they're dubious.