13 Answers

  1. Modern races appeared about 10 thousand years ago. Anthropologically, the modern type of people appeared no later than 40 thousand years ago. So the Neanderthals were replaced by people who were not related to the modern white or any other race.

    Intelligence is a complex and multifaceted thing, and it cannot be ruled out that a Neanderthal, if placed in modern conditions and raised in them, would show better IQ results than modern people.

    There are many reasons for the technological, cultural and social backwardness of modern Africa, but no genetic ones have yet been identified.

  2. Africa's lag is largely due to the squalid living conditions there. Half of the continent is the Sahara, while the other half has almost no water bodies. There is little land for growing anything, and milipizdrich green spots are occupied by armed groups. At the same time, not all of Africa is backward and narrow-minded. The Ethiopians participated in the Trojan War, for example, Carthage fought with Rome, but there is nothing to say about Egypt. The sweetest thing is South Africa, which was able to create nuclear weapons and is now an influential power.
    Neanderthals have just mixed with Sapiens, and today everyone has Neanderthal genes in them. It's just that there were more Sapiens. Much more

  3. The question is very correct in its direction, but the answer is both specific and relative.

    First of all, the “mind” itself is relative: there is no one ” IQ ” common to all, which would determine all the success of the individual and society. Each race is adapted to its own ecological niche, to some way of life that allows you to survive. The law of evolution states that if the environment is comfortable, then no changes are required and do not occur; if you have to overcome difficulties, then there is development, the invention of new devices; but also if the difficulties are too great, then all energy is spent on survival, and development does not occur again. We can observe such a picture in history: civilizations were created in a temperate climate zone, and in a warm climate it was easy to survive without doing anything, so there were savages there-but the northernmost peoples also remained savages, where environmental challenges were so severe that all resources were spent on self-preservation, and not on development. It's the same in very hot places. In general, you degrade when you either don't work at all, or you work too much – and the golden mean ensures progress.

    Well, that's it. We scientists rely on the facts that we were actually able to unearth – and in East Africa, we just found the most different skeletons, which already draw a fairly coherent picture of the origin and development of races over the past million or half a million years. Perhaps, in other places, remains will still be found that will make us reconsider today's model, there is still a catch that there are different conditions of preservation, and in this very east Africa, the climate is stupidly successful, but in general, the scheme is still working out. You just need to compare it with the fact that the climate was glacial: the north of Europe is generally under a glacier, the south of Europe is tundra, and in the Sahara there is quite a suitable forest steppe, and there the climate has changed dramatically several times over the past few million years – this is what made our ancestors move and evolve. There were several warmings and cold snaps during this time – and it so happened that people came out several times, settled down, then new waves cover and mix (as in history) – it is clear that they came out either from where they multiplied abundantly, or came from where it became impossible to live at all. That is, Africa and Africans now-it is not at all what it was then. Most of the modern Central African Negroes in general seem to originate from the north, and they became so black relatively recently, several thousand years ago, perhaps. And so most of the ancestors were of varying degrees of brown. Neanderthals are lighter, of course, for obvious reasons. A wild man in the jungle could not survive, Negroes began to survive there already on the basis of advanced human technologies – and in ancient times they lived best in the forest-steppe.

    Specifically, Neanderthals are really a very advanced race, and we owe our civilization to their contribution – the real culture came when Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals combined their achievements. Their minds were also at their best, they just lived in smaller groups (30 people each), were intuitive and sullen – and then suddenly there are guys who have learned to hang out in communities of 100-200. As if even if you are stronger on your own, especially without a chance. And the Cro-Magnons also studied very cheerfully and willingly, communicated, experimented and ran well. In general, it turned out as it turned out. In part, the Neanderthals found themselves in a very difficult climate at that moment – when they had to slow down, and then our people came with fresh forces and ideas, so they did not survive the last cold snap.

    Please also note that historical civilizational progress shifts the point of “climate optimum” to the north as it develops: that is, it is more difficult to survive in the cold, there you need more technologies that can be developed on the basis of other technologies that arise in a slightly warmer zone. So: ancient man lives in Africa – the first civilizations appear in India, Mesopotamia, Egypt – then comes the turn of Greece, the Americans – a little later the centers of development shift to Rome, the rise of ancient China-note that everything is getting north and north: then it comes to northern Europe: first Spain, then France, then Holland, England… then Germany and Japan-there is an increasingly cold climate-the coldest place on Earth is Russia, so the center of technological progress is now shifting there. Only space is even colder – the next stage in human development. And it is no coincidence that it was the Russians who paved the way there.

    1. It doesn't follow out of nowhere that the Cro-Magnons were smarter. I do not recall that in science it would be so formulated.
    2. Africa's lag has nothing to do with the intelligence of its inhabitants. Just as the Germans or Celts lagged behind the Romans and Greeks in their level of development, it also had nothing to do with their level of intelligence.
  4. There is such a popularizer of anthropology – Stanislav Drobyshevsky.

    In one of his lectures, he says that according to excavations, there are cases of technology transfer from Neanderthals to Sapiens, and there are no cases from Sapiens to Neanderthals.

    In other words, Sapiens could do all the same things as Neanderthals, plus their own skills, and Neanderthals could not learn so quickly and efficiently.

    As for modern Africa, an African child placed in European conditions will not differ from a European in terms of their knowledge, skills and abilities. The development of a nation does not always depend on genetics.

  5. The smartest and most talented person can easily be made the most stupid and incompetent.

    The most stupid and incompetent person can easily be made quite developed and very successful.

    History explains all this in detail.

  6. Those former homo sapiens Cro-Magnons are in the past. The name of the modern human species is homo sapiens sapiens. In no way does geographical and racial affiliation affect the brain, and therefore on mental abilities, and therefore on development.

  7. But scientists don't say that Cro-Magnons were smarter. Scientists generally believe that Cro-Magnons were more socially adapted, they communicated more, were able to organize themselves into effective groups and contact other groups, they were more active in the social world and thus won.

    While Neanderthals are often credited with being lonely, brooding, and thinking abstractly, there is even a theory that Europeans are so advanced because they still have the Neanderthal gene after mixing, which makes whites think better and more abstractly.

  8. But now Africans are not competing with Neanderthals. The distant ancestors of the Africans destroyed the Neanderthals just because they were smarter and came up with tools. Both for work and for the destruction of their own kind.

  9. Neanderthals also came from Africa, only slightly earlier than Cro-Magnons. And not the fact that Neanderthals were more stupid, at least they had a little more brains (100-200 cubes) than Cro-Magnons. Some subtle factors come into play here. Why, for example, out of two people with the same brain volume, can one be a fool and the other an intellectual? And fih knows, Comrade Major! Moreover, we cannot study the Neanderthal brain, we only see its prints on the inner surface of the brain chamber.

  10. The development of a nation depends directly on faith. Most Africans are currently pagans, which is not a modern religion, so they are less developed than they were in the past

  11. There is no clear answer to the question, as usually in evolution there is a complex of reasons, in general, the answer is that out of 2 different species in one ecological niche, only 1 always survives.

    Some of the most well-founded and common ones:

    • Culture. It was more developed in our case, so it is not a marker of intelligence, but a marker of more cognitive errors in us, that is, we were more stupid, not smarter, and due to this, we changed faster, adapted faster, made more mistakes, but these mistakes were not critical and became advantages. Neanderthals adapted too well, invented clothes, cooking food, medicinal plants, etc., and did not change well. Biologically and intellectually, we were less developed tactically, in particular, but more flexible strategically. Just make a reservation – intelligence is the ability to effectively solve problems and nothing more from a scientific point of view.
    • In terms of genetics and phenotype, Neanderthals reproduced worse, and there were problems with the birth of children. Rather, not problems, but we simply multiplied faster, which multiplied by time and gave displacement.
    • Most likely, they did not kill and eat, although such cases certainly exist, both in our country and in their country, but simply ate them.
    • Strong hybridization, it's just that hybrids did not survive to this day except for the first wave 1, plus the option of crossing only a Cro-Magnon male female Neanderthal is possible-perhaps they were just unlucky to live in Europe when there was the strongest volcanic activity in the Caucasus and Italy (it is very doubtful, since no catastrophic hypotheses in fact for the entire history of life on earth have been confirmed
    • Nutrition strategy. Neanderthals were guided by a meat diet, compared to cave lions, for example, they were more predatory purely statistically (which, by the way, speaks in favor of the need to correctly interpret statistics), by the way, they ate all cave bears. We ate everything more than they did. At the same time, any specialization is disastrous for changes. That is, the same area could feed more of our ancestors than theirs, and with any change, we survived more.
      In general, roughly speaking, all the concepts come down to the thesis that they threw hats at us, there were simply more of us.
  12. In my opinion, the two statements in the question are not related in any way.

    Apparently, the fact that Neanderthals lost the “evolutionary” struggle to Homosapiens proves that the latter were more developed. I don't know if this can be considered “smarter”.

    In the modern world, the peoples of Africa have lagged behind in development, oddly enough, due to favorable weather conditions. This is not the only reason, but one of them.�

    People multiplied and multiplied, there was still not enough space and people settled. Physically, the stronger ones occupied more favorable places (where it was warm, there was water and food), the less strong ones had to be content with worse conditions – cold, poor nutrition.�

    Harsher conditions accelerate evolutionary processes. The strongest survive. Having learned how to make fire, cook food, sew clothes, grow cereals, tame animals, people began to overtake those who could, relatively speaking, “eat pineapples and bananas from a tree” without bothering with survival.

Leave a Reply