Quote from: S'mon;866212'Outcompeted' here means 'replaced', not 'has more biomass'.

We have Neanderthal DNA and it basically disproves your points

Well if you want to play games with the meaning of outcompete, Neandrethal DNA wasn't outcompeted, since it wasn't replaced. It continues to exist alongside Cro-Magnon DNA, just like modern humans and modern human DNA continues to exist alongside cockroaches and coackroach DNA.

But setting aside word games on the exact meaning of competition, we don't know why Neanderthals were outcompeted. To presume it is due to greater intelligence of modern humans is flattering to our hubris, but intelligence is hardly the only possible competitive advantage (disease resistance and rate of procreation are two alternative explanations as are biomechanical differences in shoulders, legs, and pelvises that may have affected hunting efficiency). I'm wary of leaping to a flattering conclusion about how much smarter we are on the scanty evidence available.

Quotemodern humans are only a few % Neanderthal, and the interbreeding seems to have occurred in the Middle East ca 100,000 years ago, not when modern humans entered Europe 40,000 years ago.

How is that relevant to intelligence?

QuoteWe can't actually prove Neanderthals had less general intelligence

Which is my point.

It does indeed appear that Neanderthals created less sophisticated artifacts than did Cro-Magnon. But artifacts are not the only evidence of intelligence, just the longest lasting. We don't know what knowledge Neanderthals had of their environment, what they may have known of herbal remedies, animal habits, climate or weather, astronomy nor what stories they told each other and we never will.

Quote from: Bren;866238But setting aside word games on the exact meaning of competition, we don't know why Neanderthals were outcompeted. To presume it is due to greater intelligence of modern humans is flattering to our hubris...

All we know for sure is that modern humans were more evolutionarily fit - in an environment they had just entered - than were the Neanderthals who had been living there for half a million years or so. My gut instinct is that general intelligence probably had something to do with it, but I can imagine other factors. There is some evidence of global cooling and Neanderthals preferring the shrinking arboreal forests, with modern humans better able to survive on the tundra, but the reason for that seems likely to be intelligence = better clothing, not better physical adaptation.

BTW 'modern' here is relative, it is definitely possible from the evidence that we humans ca 2015 are on average less intelligent than the 'modern' humans of 40,000 years ago who conquered Europe. Domestication tends to lower animal intelligence, and humans have been self-domesticating since the development of farming ca 10000-12000 years ago.

I would just make them a flavor of humans with a society organized around small bands rather than larger social units.  I might give them bonuses to perception for smelling things but they would otherwise be the same as humans statistically.  Judging from reconstructions, they really weren't all that different from humans but that's about it.  There is dispute whether they were even a separate species or a subspecies of h sapiens.  It is unclear whether they really died out or just interbred with humans.  I would just make them a flavor of human and be done with it.

Quote from: yosemitemike;866301There is dispute whether they were even a separate species or a subspecies of h sapiens.

They were definitely not a separate species by any zoological definition - they would meet the subspecies rule of thumb zoologists' classification of being 90%+ distinguishable visually, but then so do the different modern human major races/population groups. Their DNA is much more divergent than modern human races are from each other, but nowhere near being a different species. They fit neatly into the D&D 'race' category IMO.

Quote from: S'mon;866304They were definitely not a separate species by any zoological definition - they would meet the subspecies rule of thumb zoologists' classification of being 90%+ distinguishable visually, but then so do the different modern human major races/population groups. Their DNA is much more divergent than modern human races are from each other, but nowhere near being a different species. They fit neatly into the D&D 'race' category IMO.

Unless something has changed recently, the classification of Neanderthals as a subspecies of h sapiens is not universally accepted.  Whether something is a subspecies or a separate species can get a bit iffy and vague.  Normally, the criteria is reproductive compatibility but not always.  Multiple species from genus Canis can interbreed but are generally classified as separate species anyway.  There is still dispute over whether the domestic dog should be classified as its own species (C familiaris) or a subspecies of wolf (C lupus familiaris).  

They don't really fit all that well into the usual D&D race structure as their own race rather than a flavor of humans.  They aren't really that distinct from humans unlike many of the other race like elves, dwarves or dragon people.  Then again, neither are half elves and half elves are arguably not a race at all in any meaningful way.  You could either way with it but I would lean toward the simpler way and make them a sort of human especially in D20 systems where humans get a floating +2 they can put wherever they want.  Making them a mechanically distinct race just seems unnecessarily complicated to me.

Quote from: yosemitemike;866308Unless something has changed recently, the classification of Neanderthals as a subspecies of h sapiens is not universally accepted.  

Indeed, but that's because we humans treat human classification differently from how we treat other animals. We have a lot more emotional investment in the issue - plus paleontologists get lauded for discovering another 'human species', so there is an incentive to 'splitism'. Differences between deceased human population groups are exaggerated.

I guess if in your campaign you see Elf Dwarf Halfling and Human as different species then it makes sense to treat Neanderthals as Human. I tend to see them as more like subspecies.

Quote from: S'mon;866314Indeed, but that's because we humans treat human classification differently from how we treat other animals. We have a lot more emotional investment in the issue - plus paleontologists get lauded for discovering another 'human species', so there is an incentive to 'splitism'. Differences between deceased human population groups are exaggerated.

I guess if in your campaign you see Elf Dwarf Halfling and Human as different species then it makes sense to treat Neanderthals as Human. I tend to see them as more like subspecies.

There's a bit more to it than that.  Scientific advances, especially cheaper, faster gene sequencing technologies from the human genome project, came in and kind of flipped over all the apple carts not that long ago.  A lot of the old classifications based on morphology turned out to be...less than accurate.  It took a lot of settled classifications and overturned them.  Things haven't really settled out yet.  The first rough draft of the neanderthal genome was only completed five or six years ago.  

There's a sharp disconnect between the real world and a typical D&D world that makes applying real world classifications like that iffy.  For the most part, D&D races were created rather than evolving.  They don't have natural histories.  They have creation accounts.  D&D races aren't really biological classifications at all.  They are mechanical classifications.  Are elves a different species?  Arguably no since they can interbreed with humans and produce fertile offspring and this happens enough that half-elves are usually a core book option.  They are mechanically different form humans though.  They have low light vision and so forth.  I am thinking more in terms of game mechanics classifications than biological ones here.

Quote from: yosemitemike;866345There's a bit more to it than that.  Scientific advances, especially cheaper, faster gene sequencing technologies from the human genome project, came in and kind of flipped over all the apple carts not that long ago.  A lot of the old classifications based on morphology turned out to be...less than accurate.  It took a lot of settled classifications and overturned them.  Things haven't really settled out yet.  

Yeah, but there was never any real reason from morphology to class Neanderthals as an entirely separate species, it just suited the Hard Out of Africa account of human origins, with zero interbreeding.

Quote from: S'mon;866366Yeah, but there was never any real reason from morphology to class Neanderthals as an entirely separate species, it just suited the Hard Out of Africa account of human origins, with zero interbreeding.

I thought genetic data had pretty much sunk that theory entirely.

Quote from: yosemitemike;866369I thought genetic data had pretty much sunk that theory entirely.

Yes, I'm not disagreeing with you!

Quote from: Bren;866238It does indeed appear that Neanderthals created less sophisticated artifacts than did Cro-Magnon. But artifacts are not the only evidence of intelligence, just the longest lasting. We don't know what knowledge Neanderthals had of their environment, what they may have known of herbal remedies, animal habits, climate or weather, astronomy nor what stories they told each other and we never will.

Because they went extinct, and we didn't. I'd say that settles the argument.

Quote from: RPGPundit;866775Because they went extinct, and we didn't. I'd say that settles the argument.

I'm not surprised you would think that. As I said, it it flattering to your hubris.

Quote from: RPGPundit;866775Because they went extinct, and we didn't. I'd say that settles the argument.

Unfortunately, no, as all "fitness" means in evolutionary terms is "survived." It could've been some aspect of intelligence, or it could've been a slight mutation that fractionally slowed birth rates. We may well never know. But the absence of a firm conclusion against superior intelligence doesn't make superior intelligence the default conclusion.

Quote from: Bobloblah;866850Unfortunately, no, as all "fitness" means in evolutionary terms is "survived." It could've been some aspect of intelligence, or it could've been a slight mutation that fractionally slowed birth rates. We may well never know. But the absence of a firm conclusion against superior intelligence doesn't make superior intelligence the default conclusion.

If you were talking about two species of insects, or canines, or even monkeys, sure.  But that classification falls apart when you talk about sentient beings, and the Neanderthals were certainly sentient.

If they had been more intelligent than the Cro-Magnons, they could have used that intelligence to figure out a way to survive.

Quote from: Bren;866837I'm not surprised you would think that. As I said, it it flattering to your hubris.

Well, I can't personally recall the period, it was a bit too long ago. So I really don't know, but I suspect I personally had nothing to do with the survival of our species.