So less a case of competitive force-out and more a case of subsummation? Makes sense; it's reasonable to assume the two populations would mix, interbreed and reproduce with some sticking/adapting to the hunter/gatherer model and eventually, accordingly moving on while others would stick/adapt to the new system of in-place agriculture.
Hunter gatherers were also the marauders who often found it easier to raid settlements for foodstuffs - and women - than to gather their own.
But farmers produced more resources and were able to sustain larger populations and growth rates.
And as their territories shrank, the outlaws were hunted just like any other wild predator. The women were reclaimed, and the lifestyle was ultimately extincted.
@TGO, TCT: you both make claims without any evidence. In TCT's case it is especially egregious, since he injects his chosen pseudoscience into a science article context, and then attack our science.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson, who made you the judge on what is pseudoscience? Is it because you pay membership to a skeptics club and think this grants you mental superpowers? Or is it because you co-authored this study? Why do you say 'our' science? Science is science. It isn't yours, ever. This comment section...is a comment section. Not an inquisition by young bullies lusting for dominance.
The Bosnian pyramids raise good questions. Even if some of the crowd are more interested in proving Tesla is a demi God, selling stuff or their personal shakra's and kundalini's -just as with the pyramids at Gizeh- the carbon dates are scientifically sound.
"... have established that Neolithic European populations were descended from Anatolian migrants who received a limited amount of admixture from resident hunter-gatherers. Many open questions remain, however, about the spatial and temporal dynamics..;" That is a good scientific point.
Dark_Solar
Nov 9, 2017