JDL Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 YES! Exactly! Very well said. BUT, it's genetically closer to us than chimps or gorillas. Close enough that it can interbreed with us. Or it thinks it can, and the stories of BF and human interbreeding are just that: stories. So, based on the behavior you have observed, they are more ape than human? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Coonbo Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) Good question. If apes are here: And homo sapiens are here: V V **** **** **** ^ ^ I'm guessing BF are about here: ^ Ha! I've edited my guess three times now.......... I'm certainly no anthropologist, so this is just my best guess and gut feeling. I think BF are just a little less than halfway between apes and humans. I worked for a while in a zoo in the mid-70's while in college and had to work in the primate area and I learned to dislike it. Those monkeys were crafty little boogers and loved to torment us. I see primate behavior in BF, but I also see characteristics and a little bit of behavior that is more human. But, I'm hampered in my analysis/guess by the fact that the only great ape that I was ever around was one lone male gorilla. I had a running war with a doo-doo throwing macaque, which I finally won when I resorted to squirting him with the wash-down hose (an inch-and-a-half fire hose). And I had another series of battles with a hair-pulling, glasses-stealing spider monkey. I actually got along pretty well with the baboons (which many that know me would not find surprising.. ) Edited June 4, 2014 by Coonbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted May 30, 2014 Moderator Share Posted May 30, 2014 Hmmmm ... I think we have a non-linear scale of perception. We set ourselves apart almost arbitrarily based on technology they simply don't need. The apparent difference between a "NYC hooman" and sasquatch might seem great. The apparent difference between a member of a pre-contact Amazonian tribe and a sasquatch might not be so great. And yet we know the difference between a "NYC hooman" and a "tribal hooman" is basically only cultural, someone born to either but raised by the other from 1 week old would be part of the culture that raised them, same intelligence, same capabilities. It seems to me we have two schools of thought, one overly anthropomorphizing bigfoot, the other going overboard in "anti-anthropomorphizing" bigfoot. The fact is we just don't know. Why is that so hard for anyone to embrace? Winning each other over to one side or the other isn't going to change the truth when it comes, it just means we'll be wrong with more company. MIB 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Hey. Nothing here for me to get too worked up over (besides casual bigotry) because I'm entirely comfortable with supporting the scientific consensus on this species (Homo neandertalensis)...Wow, autocorrect had that as homoerotic neandertalensis!..anyway, I think there is no sensible evidence to counter the hypothesis that Neanderthals were highly sophisticated humans, very much on our level and perfectly adapted to their ecological niche. They reigned supreme for tens of thousands of years prior to sapiens moving northward and eastward. They had sophisticated material goods. They were human. The OP was simply a counter to the notion that Neanderthals were anything other than human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 ^And still another species of homo technically from both the genetics and morphology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Ok, I'm back to help out. But its too late. Cat got out of the bag on t Coast to Coast last night. I don't think there would be much interbreeding with Sapien females to Neanderthal. Evidence suggest Sapien( Crow-Magnum) had larger social networks than the Neanderthals, and stealing Crow females would have provoked instantaneous retaliation. It is suggested that both groups engaged in trade, so they had some social contact, and maybe a Crow-female would have steeled away with her 'Neanderthal', there are women like that. But probably not common. But its more likely as someone else stated, that Thal females would have gone over to the Cro side, because of eventual dwindling numbers of the Thals, need to keep interbreeding down, and the 'ARTISTS'. Crows were probably like cool rock stars with all their advances culture and all. The 1-4% may have come into existence over the last few hundred years. Those wiley Neanderthals chicks live on in us today. -On Neanderthal eyes being so large, they are in comparison to humans. They are not in comparison to their face. They had 'horse-faces' in comparison to humans, but the eyes seem proportional to their faces. Their brains make them look hypo-cephalic or whatever its called. ---Although this post got blended with another(more relevant) topic on the grad-student who implied Neanderthal and Crow-Magnum were basically the same, despite ages of data and well know facts about the Thals -On Coast to Coast Linda Moulton Howe at the end of the show ADVANCED THE TRAGICALLY MISSLEADING MEME that Neanderthal created the figures at Lacoux cave in France, the horses and other animals painted on the cave walls, DESPITE MY POSTING ON THIS FORUM in large fonts!!!!!!! Coast is the largest talk radio show, so MILLIONS OF PEOPLE heard this incorrect meme. The ignoramus grad student who is the ''talk of the town'' now, apparently, did a great job misleading people on Neanderthal. Wag lost big-time here. Problem is, he never said LACOUX CAVE WAS NEANDERTHAL, he just pointed to some hand prints and a big red dot, and some painted sea-shells which may have been just trade goods (for females?) So, now the meme is out there, Neanderthal is equal to Modern man, and painted the greatest works of stone-age art. And this is not a conspiracy? HAHAHAHAHA. ITS ALREADY DONE! And no one else saw this coming? Nope, only Wag, and he got wacked for it. When your aware of the gravity of the situation, well its enough to drive you nuts! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As to evidence of De-evolution, yes there is human evidence I will go to the tar-pit if you like, can't talk about that here. Also, there is I think, evidence of animal ed-evolution, I think cave fish loosing eye-sight would be perhaps, one simplistic example, but I believe there are others, just can't recall off the top of my head. PM me and I'll give you a large scale social example maybe. Hey. Nothing here for me to get too worked up over (besides casual bigotry) because I'm entirely comfortable with supporting the scientific consensus on this species (Homo neandertalensis)...Wow, autocorrect had that as homoerotic neandertalensis!..anyway, I think there is no sensible evidence to counter the hypothesis that Neanderthals were highly sophisticated humans, very much on our level and perfectly adapted to their ecological niche. They reigned supreme for tens of thousands of years prior to sapiens moving northward and eastward. They had sophisticated material goods. They were human. The OP was simply a counter to the notion that Neanderthals were anything other than human. So, you consider a stuck in the mud cave man, the equal to people whom eventually created modern civilization. Evidence on Neanderthal is well documented. Without high art, you do not have writing, without writing, you do not have advanced civilization. What evidence to you present that Neanderthal was the equal to the human groups living at the time? Neanderthal was a product of the ice-age, a brutish thug, as has been the common perspective for a century or more. We know this by their tools and artifacts left behind. We know modern humans were more technologically advanced, and created what is to be considered writing and high art. We know this leads us, with the creation of agriculture, which was forced upon us as the glaciers retreated, to modern civilization. What evidence do you have that the huge faced freakish thugs called Neanderthal were the equal of the Crow-Magnums? None, there is none. Maybe you could email Linda Moulton Howe and get here up to speed about Lacroix cave for us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Right, and why are we so different in physical characteristics? And I mean living like an animal compared to a homo Erectus 2 million years ago...... No fire no handaxe, etc Probably, environmental factors as in why homo sapiens that moved north, into snow country, developed blue eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Good question. If apes are here: And homo sapiens are here: V V **** **** **** ^ ^ I'm guessing BF are about here: ^ Ha! I've edited my guess three times now.......... I'm certainly no anthropologist, so this is just my best guess and gut feeling. I think BF are just a little less than halfway between apes and humans. I worked for a while in a zoo in the mid-70's while in college and had to work in the primate area and I learned to dislike it. Those monkeys were crafty little boogers and loved to torment us. I see primate behavior in BF, but I also see characteristics and a little bit of behavior that is more human. But, I'm hampered in my analysis/guess by the fact that the only great ape that I was ever around was one lone male gorilla. I had a running war with a doo-doo throwing macaque, which I finally won when I resorted to squirting him with the wash-down hose (an inch-and-a-half fire hose). And I had another series of battles with a hair-pulling, glasses-stealing spider monkey. I actually got along pretty well with the baboons (which many that know me would not find surprising.. ) Interesting. In the encounters I've had, even the close ones, their behavior was indistinguishable from what I would consider normal for an aboriginal human. But I haven't had the range of encounters you've had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) Probably, environmental factors as in why homo sapiens that moved north, into snow country, developed blue eyes. Because Neanderthal probably came more or less, direct from the 'common ancestor' to the cold, Homo-Sapiens came from the common ancestor- to Africa, where long bones and different brains evolved. Although I am not sure Neanderthals were shorter than homo-sapiens. The original OP also depicts Neanderthal as a nice Germanic-looking (Danish) fellow. Them being Danish, I wonder if there might be some cultural bias there? There are plenty of other Neanderthal reconstructs on the web, showing the horse face, small braincase in comparison wiht the face, high eyes, etc. They look pretty goofy. A whole group of them would look like a Deliverance festival without the banjos, not like Uncle Schultzl-meyer, (who could lift a dead horse if he need to, being more 'robust'). Interestingly, Frazetta got the ''red-hair'' correct, in the late 50's or early 60's: Smart, cunning, intelligent? Of course, the survived in sub-zero temps and hunted Mamoths! The equal to Modern Human ancestor Crow-Magnum? Not a snowballs chance. Nor is any Anthropologist really saying they are. Not even the clown from CU Boulder. Edited May 30, 2014 by Wag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 " homoerotic neandertalensis!." Auto-correct can be so unintentionally hilarious at times! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Anyway.... ·Kennis brothers are Dutch not Danish ·Neanderthals were highly likely to be pale skinned I.e. northern latitude adapted...look this up please prof. ·Nobody said Neanderthals painted Lascaux or any other of the other myriad cathedrals of prehistory...all modern human work there. · Neanderthals were distributed across several biogeographical zones. Includes deserts so not just cold places. ·Their large nasal cavities were likely a dry weather adaptation rather than cold adaptation. ·They didn't have a horse face. ·Tom Sellick played crow Magnum I believe... Unlike you I suspect, I have actually handled Neanderthal artefacts fresh from the ground, the banks of the Jordan in fact. I have seen their handy work falling in abundance out of an eroding river bank, have handled the bones of the huge prey items they manipulated with deft skill at their butchery site. I can assure you that nothing I have seen was anything other than sophisticated. Ever tried to make a Levallois core? Dare you, Leonardo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) Some are saying Neandertal should be a subspecies Homo sapiens neandertalensis And please WAG, it is Cro Magnon not Cro Magnum. And Cro Magnon is simply a modern human. You don't need to differentiate them. Edited May 30, 2014 by Drew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) Some are saying Neandertal should be a subspecies Homo sapiens neandertalensis And please WAG, it is Cro Magnon not Cro Magnum. Oh, no no no, Some people here need to eat some CROW With my Magnum, I blow you AWAY. -The meme of Neanderthal is equal therefore created Lacroix, is already out there from Coast radio show. Already done. No comprede? I guess not. In other words my posts were Predictive of the disaster to come. And it IS a disaster. https://s3-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/sf?f=19a22eb99a91bbb61b2f5f50e7651ed3.jpg&anticache=262973 https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/sf?f=f849d7e32a75af159adfa52f407ccfad.jpg&anticache=226167 It would take a week or maybe less to learn to flint-knap a Levallois core. Not saying they couldnt make tools, PRE-NEANDERTHALS MADE SIMILAR TOOLS. Duh! Im saying intellectually, Neanderthals were dumber than Crow-Magnums. And so is everyone else. There is no debate! Is there? If so, WHERE? Clovis point is a different matter. Broke off in the beast, keep the spear shaft. Crow-Magnum, European. Can't even talk about that here. Edited May 30, 2014 by Wag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 A plus, Wag, for posting a Frazetta painting. Reminds me of all the old Burroughs books I used to read as a teenager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted May 30, 2014 Admin Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) Probably, environmental factors as in why homo sapiens that moved north, into snow country, developed blue eyes.Show me where in the fossil record of the genus homo where a species is 800 lbs.That's well beyond the range of a recent adaptation! My aunt had a spider monkey as a child. And he would lift the skirts of female guests and unplug the mixer from the wall and when my grandma would go to plug it back in? He would steal the cookie dough....... Edited May 30, 2014 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts