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. And Cro Magnon is simply a modern human. You don't need to differentiate them. I don't accept that. There has been some deviation during agricultural development of high-IQ , lower testosterone peoples, leading to Western European and Chinese civilization, which were thoroughly advanced. Even people 100 years ago had higher testosterone levels, to deal with the physical nature of the environment. Electrical power development and modern chemistry has further degraded the gene pool. It is said the Black Plague in Europe wiped out the ''high testosterone'' peoples also, improving the gene pool toward higher IQ in Europe. Edited May 30, 2014 by Wag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Why do you think they should be called Cro-Magnum? You don't believe the Cro Magnon was found at a place called Cro-Magnon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 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....... Ah, a good post (finally) The macro-evolution needed to go from say 250 lb Neanderthal to 800lb bigfoot in (30,000 years) would be staggering. But would it be possible? Why do you think they should be called Cro-Magnum? You don't believe the Cro Magnon was found at a place called Cro-Magnon? Well, I used a picture of crow in pie (eat crow) and a 357 magnum (blow you away) but they did not print. Its a play on words and concepts, picto-graphs, 'pitchurs'. Also, it may offend the French. Although given their role in the creation of America, maybe I shouldn't do that. Without them, good golly, we'd probably be Brit. VIVU LA FRENCHI'S!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker 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. Or the Gor novels, didn't he paint the covers of those too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 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. Right. All Cro-Magnon means is 'the hole of Mr Magnon' , reflecting the fact that the first bones were found in a pit belonging to the eponymous Monsieur Magnon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Show me where in the fossil record of the genus homo where a species is 800 lbs. As soon as your buddies kill one of their Wood Apes, you'll have your "fossil". 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....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 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....... Norse, spot on. Nowhere in the fossil record is there anywhere near such a sizable frame. Until relatively recently all our antecedents were pretty diminutive in physique or at least on the short stuff side of the street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Not all, these guys were over 6 feet tall... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_ergaster 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 I've considered another possibility that sapiens females in Neanderthal camps could have been favored, in which case sapiens mtDNA could have taken over. This might have resulted in separate types of hybrids in separate camps, perhaps never to re-breed again or infrequently. Why do you suppose sapiens women and their offspring would be favored? Even if favored somewhat the greater numbers of neandertals in the population would most likely swamp the sapiens mtDNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 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 Um...no. An Amazonian tribesman is not like anything I've ever heard for a bigfoot in terms of appearance or behavior. In appearance almost all descriptions sound like bipedal apes, most specifically, like bipedal gorillas. This implies bigfoot departed from our mutual branch of the family tree before we evolved our more human characteristics. Perhaps from australopithecus or paranthropus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted May 31, 2014 Admin Share Posted May 31, 2014 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 (edited) Yep, dang those beer goggles! Edited May 31, 2014 by AaronD edited for language and reposted image Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 (edited) Norse, spot on. Nowhere in the fossil record is there anywhere near such a sizable frame. Until relatively recently all our antecedents were pretty diminutive in physique or at least on the short stuff side of the street. Really? It would be highly presumptuoous to assume that there are no fossils of Homo that are from an 800 lb individual. There may be many that were that large. Some of the "erectus" and heildelbergensis are potentially that large. It isn't like there are truckloads of fossils to choose from and very few of them have postcranial (non skull) bones where the size of the body can be measured. I recall one heidelbergensis femur that was estimated to be from a larger than 7 foot tall individual. I found an article about it. This is supposedly our most recent ancestor even more closely related than Neanderthal. This guy claims they were much larger than modern humans. It wouldn't be presumptuous to assume that living in a cold climate might make it grow evem larger. Too bad it wasn't the whole femur. http://www.sydhav.no/giants/south_africa_berger.htm Many assume they were lean because they were in Africa. Some even had the hypothesis that they went extinct because they overheated from being too large. That is one reason why they aren't 800 lbs in the literature. They are making the presumption that they would overheat. Oy Vey. Some who I give even less credit apparently think they were small with giant heads because giants are in mythology and they want to sound scientific. The shape of the skull below was also very different from a modern human. I am sure someone could make a model and make even that guy in Stringer's hands look like a modern human. That doesn't mean that he actually looked anything like the model beyond the shape of the skull. He was likely closer related to us than even Neanderthals so I could excuse that presumption of looking human but that fossil was only about 15 to 20 percent of the way to early Homo going backwards in time. I included the link because it shows the skull in someone's hands to give a more proper perspective. He may have also been huge compoared to average modern humans. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/blogs/whats-new/tags/dan ______ The meganthropus are commonaly presumed to be much smaller with huge teeth because "giants" are parts of mythology and scientists must therefore poo-poo the idea so they sound scientific. If they didn't assume they were small with giant teeth some nut might even claim them as possible ancestors of bigfoot or a race of giants. How big was the owner of these teeth for example. He was a "human" by the standards many use. How big would a person be if he had teeth this large? Edited May 31, 2014 by BobZenor 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Rather like the old Merrill Lynch commercials, when BobZenor speaks, I listen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 (edited) We have remains from at least 1000 Neanderthal individuals, none of whom is anywhere close to that size. Yes, some ergaster examples suggest a taller taxa but, as a general rule, hominins have been relatively small and relatively slight of frame, not hulking beasts approaching a tonne. Again, nothing discovered thus far matching what has been ascribed to sasquatch (of the patty mould). Edited May 31, 2014 by Stan Norton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts