This Is A Neanderthal.

[Guest]

Funny posts here. Ok, here is a side by side comparison, from article about the brothers who did the sculpts. You can clearly see the huge mouth neanderthal would have in comparison, the eye-sockets are as stated, larger, these things are clearly freaks, and of course, it is too abstract a notion, but the highest neanderthal would fall well short of being equal to the average human. They diverged, were very different mentally and physically from modern humans. That would may have interbred could be interpreted as they being 'human', but that is not what is going on. There is a clear, bizzare effort to ignore evidence, and kumbaya say they were equal to modern man, without clairity, and without ANY scientific evidence, or ignoring what is already know.

 

Given the skull comparison below, they would look like a human chimp, with much larger lips than the 'experts' are showing us, for example.

 

Shameful but modern academia has so little credit it is not a surprise to see such shameful ignorance on a well researched subject.

 

Shameful.

 

Based on the skull comparisons, I would strongly disagree with the first side by side 'interpretation' of the females here. They stretched it to look human it looks like, not a neanderthal. Shameful! But they are playing it 'safe' and going with the flow of academic anthropological ignorance.

 

Edited June 12, 2014 by Wag

[Cotter]

 

 

3.  I am a West Point Graduate,

 

No worries JDL, I won't hold that against you.  ;-)

 

You aren't located in Idaho are you?

 

(Sorry for the derail)

[Guest Stan Norton]

Ah I should've known. The great global 'Neanderthals were human' conspiracy perpetuated by thousands of clever scientists over generations by publishing peer reviewed studies in publicly accessible journals. Dang they smart! Silly moi.

Stan, without criticizing you, you can't expect me to look at a Neanderthal skull side by side with a human skull and not conclude that a Neanderthal's eyes were larger (weirdness aside) and positioned higher on the face. Neanderthal's were certainly human in that they could interbreed with us, but that doesn't mean that they looked so much like us as to be unremarked. I submit that the size and positioning of the eyes alone, would have made them immediately distinguishable as different.

And I agree entirely. Neanderthal skulls were different and they looked different. But not so different and nothing like chimps, as perhaps a rambling drunk might possibly say for instance. Two closely related species can appear superficially different but be very close relatives nonetheless.

[Guest]

Yes, hundreds of peer-reviewed journals confirm they were mentally-retarded in terms of human comparison.

No one is saying they were 'equal' to modern humans. Ask Professor Poo-poddy from Cambridge next time he stops by. I'm sure he would be quite embarrassed to spout such nonsense.

 

Not sure why the emotional bibble-babble continues?

 

Sorry to inform you, but even their rib-cage is gorilla like, the  faces, though white, would look way more monkey like, the skull is clearly monkey-hominid. I'm not pushing the monkey-thal creature, but he has a good point in that Neanderthal was very monkey like. They would have larger eyes, noses and mouths larger face in general smaller cranium in comparison to the face. The face would be freakish. But yes, duh, they were our cousins, and we may have been able to interbreed, which may or may not make them classified as 'a human type'.

 

They were certainly NOT human as we know it, nor is any credible scientist claiming so.

 

If anyone is saying so, please point that out.

 

The 'history'' of Neanderthal is NOT being re-written. There is no new information stating they were ''the same'' as modern humans. That is the ''Unicorn'' element of the Anthropological community. There is a serious side to Anthropology also.

 

Obviously, yes, there is a ''conspiracy'' to, with minimal evidence, make Neanderthal THE SAME as moderns.

 

I've already pointed out, the facial comparison shown, and the skulls shown would in no way add up. The nose, lips, eyes would be larger, not to mention the forebrow. The Neanderthal mouth would extend well past the vertical line, where as in SOME modern human groups, the mouth is equal or LESSER THAN the vertical line of the skull. These tend toward more advanced societies, etc.

 

Where is all this peer reviewed by 'really smart people' (lol hahahahaha) - IE: Unicorn believers, information that shows, even in the wildest theory, Neanderthal is 'the same as modern humans''?

 

All the peer reviewed information has shown they were not.

 

Unicorns. What's next? Flying hippocampus?

 

Looking at skull comparison, which is well documented, Neanderthal has much smaller frontal lobe than modern man, even though they had 'larger brains'. Frontal lobe development is like, a huge thing.

 

But, nothing will please the Kumbaya crowd, never pointing out the possible differences, only kumbayababblin about the poor, equal to us relic hominid, navel gazing that we couldn't be friends.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Wag

[JDL]

  That's a lovely CV.  What I didn't notice you answer in your proud post was how you'd react if Stan or I would suggest that our theory on a chemical engineering problem was equally valid to yours based on some rough/crude observations.  It implies that Stan, and the rest of the scientists working on the issue have taken for granted something so basic as simple skull morphology.  Stan provided the current best science recreation of neanderthal appearance.  Skepticism is great if born from knowledge, but incredible claims require incredible evidence.  Simply stating that the methods used were incorrectly biased without providing evidence should be beneath you.  

 

As for the skull looking more chimp than human, I think your google must be broken.  Let me help.

 

The difference with my field of expertise is that we could easily set up tests to determine who is correct.  One of us would have reproducible results, the other would not, unless there were some variable in play that resulted in both of us being right, and then that could be reproducibly tested.  Any way you look at it, I wouldn't be offended, which is another way of saying that I'm puzzled that anyone would be offended by an opposing viewpoint on this.

 

For the record, I do certainly believe that due consideration of skull morphology is being trumped by wishful anthropomorphism.  Also for the record, I don't think they looked like chimps, but I do believe, based on the skull morphology, that they did look much more distinctively different from humans than shown in the OP.

 

Let me get this straight, you are saying that my assertion that it is a HUGE assumption that human facial reconstruction techniques can be applied to Neanderthal remains is "beneath me".  I think it quite reasonable to point this out, and I would think it quite reasonable for someone to consider this in context, as Stan has done below.

 

Ah I should've known. The great global 'Neanderthals were human' conspiracy perpetuated by thousands of clever scientists over generations by publishing peer reviewed studies in publicly accessible journals. Dang they smart! Silly moi.

And I agree entirely. Neanderthal skulls were different and they looked different. But not so different and nothing like chimps, as perhaps a rambling drunk might possibly say for instance. Two closely related species can appear superficially different but be very close relatives nonetheless.

 

I don't recall ever saying that they were not a species of human, just that they probably looked distinctively different from us.  They were certainly human enough to interbreed with us and shared many characteristics with us, and I completely agree with your last paragraph.  We disagree only to a matter of degree.

No worries JDL, I won't hold that against you.  ;-)

 

You aren't located in Idaho are you?

 

(Sorry for the derail)

 

Nope, not in Idaho.  Never lived there, but find much of the land there beautiful.

 

I somehow got trapped in the greater Manhattan area several years ago and haven't been able to escape yet.  I live in a small town near New York City, just small enough and far enough away to be an entirely different environment.  My offices are midway between.

[Guest]

Its not only did they look different, they BEHAVED different. They would be quicker to anger, stronger, more physical, more 'brutal', because of less abstract thought capacity. They would be VERY straight forward, no-nonsense, angry brutish morons, with an average comparable IQ in the mid 50's to mid 60's.  Less frontal lobe would be quick to anger, but because they were SUCH MORONS, and HUNTED AT CLOSE QUARTER, frontal lobe development would be an impairment to survival, and thus, also inhibit cross-cultural living. Even our brutish ancestors would not want to deal with angry moronic Neanderthal, the town brute, for very long, getting angry at everything when things don't go its way.

 

They may have imitated some modern human behavior when they put flowers in graves, or possibly painted themselves, as shown in a link, the( 'brothers' got that wrong also). They would maybe use a simple stripe or smears and smudges, not complex lines as shown on the female. Not sure if that link is here. But again, just part of the conspiracy against science that runs rampant in the Anthropological community.

 

 

-Neanderthals were shaped by their brutal environment. Close quarter killing of large, really powerful mammals. That means, they had to be quick, very strong, act decisively, which is why it is said they had better vision than us, larger lung capacity (gorilla chested). At this point, they may have had a wider 'range' of vision also with all that brain and eye area larger than ours. Not saying ultraviolet or infrared, but it may have ventured there, still undecided if occipital lobe was larger than ours, or just correlated with larger eyes. 

That is why the nose and mouth, would NOT LOOK HUMAN, as the brothers have shown, they would be LARGER, more calories, more air, these things were highly athletic, moronic brutes that needed twice the calories, were twice as strong as us, etc. This information has been available for a hundred years. Nothing new has been discovered, except the 'red hair', a possible painted circle (the sun?), maybe some flowers in one or 2 graves, (copied from MODERN MAN?)

 

I mean, really, you can google for example, 'IQ' and 'continent' and bring up billions of pages of ''verboten'' information, nothing says everyone is the same.

 

Not everyone wants to settle for Unicorns.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Wag

[Guest]

Ah, well, the larger eyes would lend to better night vision, better to ambush prey, these things are SCARY!

 

The brothers are also responsible for the 'smiling neanderthal'' that you can google up. Again, maybe but more likely, neanderthal did not have a great sense of humor with the small frontal lobe (what makes us 'human' btw) and so therefore, could have been depicted with a ''frownie-face'' just as easily as a goofy 60 IQ smile.

 

Less impulse control, basically designed to hunt large mammals well below the intelligence level of modern humans, who hunted at a distance with spear throwing devices, developed in Africa, off the same branch. Africa lengthend the body, for heat dissipation, and improved the cranial structure somehow, from same ancestor. It is a puzzle because living in a cold environment means you need to 'think ahead', way ahead to survive, but Neanderthal may have just brutalized through winters constantly hunting, not developing abstract thinking capacity but relying on, yes, brute strength which they had in abundance.

 

So, when all you Unicornies would go out to, say McDonalds and buy your Neanderthal friend and yourself a Big-Mac and a shake, Mr. Neanderthal would eat his in 2 BITES, then he would TAKE YOURS and eat it in 2 bites, that would make him laugh, and there wouldn't be a darn thing you could do about it, is there?

 

Then he would go to the counter and demand some more, and he would get it too. Free, just leave please don't dent anything.

 

Remember, they are at least 2x stronger than us, so take a WELL-MUSCLED HUMAN, and at least, DOUBLE HIS STRENGTH.

 

They are NOT 2x stronger than a wimpy average human. 2x stronger than a WELL-MUSCLED ATHLETIC HUMAN.

 

$50.00, yall need to chip in on this one.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Wag

[Incorrigible1]

They would be quicker to anger, stronger, more physical, more 'brutal', because of less abstract thought capacity. They would be VERY straight forward, no-nonsense, angry brutish morons.......

How do you know these things? Supposition, incarnate.

[Guest]

Because it only makes sense. Less frontal lobe=quicker to reflexive behavior. Less abstract (human) thought (in comparison)

They need to be this way to hunt the way they did. Zip, these things were quick.

 

Its accepted they were at least 2x stronger than humans. They needed 2x the calories, Less abstract thought = more straightforward. Ugh, me want food, me want sex, me want ugh. Ugh. Me kill big animal Ugh. 

 

When you are right next to large animals to kill them, stab them, your going to need quick reflexes to get out of the way when they swipe at you. Hence, this keeps the frontal lobes FROM developing. Just, conjecture, but its ballpark for sure.

[the parkie]

Ugh, me want food, me want sex, me want ugh. Ugh. Me kill big animal Ugh.

So, they were modern humans then?

[Guest Stan Norton]

"Ugh, me want food, me want sex, me want ugh. Ugh. Me kill big animal Ugh."

If this is a taste of life in the Wag household then I pity Mrs Wag!

Oddly, for someone so hell bent in attacking mainstream scientific consensus, the ugh ugh caveman hypothesis is so very very conventional and old hat. Nothing new or even interesting about it.

[JDL]

Maslow is Maslow. 

 

There are many modern humans focused on basic survival.

 

And perhaps there were self-actualizing Neanderthals.

[Guest]

"Ugh, me want food, me want sex, me want ugh. Ugh. Me kill big animal Ugh."

If this is a taste of life in the Wag household then I pity Mrs Wag!

Oddly, for someone so hell bent in attacking mainstream scientific consensus, the ugh ugh caveman hypothesis is so very very conventional and old hat. Nothing new or even interesting about it.

Well, you skipped the good parts there:

Less abstract thought = more straightforward. Ugh, me want food, me want sex, me want ugh. Ugh. Me kill big animal Ugh. -

 

This explains WHY neanderthals did the 'ugh' Frontal lobe development is the big difference in the brain comparison. Go slower when you read, and ask questions, I'm here to help.

 

Professor Snotgrass should be proud when you show him your new-found knowlege.

 

When you are right next to large animals to kill them, stab them, your going to need quick reflexes to get out of the way when they swipe at you. Hence, this keeps the frontal lobes FROM developing. Just, conjecture, but its ballpark for sure.

 

 

 

Correct. And I told you why pages ago. You have presented nothing to alter those facts, nor are they altered anywhere except for the misinformation by affirmative-action college professors who, when you read their articles, are saying nothing. Because, we have their skulls, their tools, their lack of cave decorum, etc. We have had it for a century. We have brain casts, we can measure frontal lobe development.

 

Yes, neanderthal were human-like, no doubt. But most of the 'human-like' behavior can also be ascribed to...chimps... helping the 'old' caring for sick, etc. NOTHING NEW.

 

The scary problem is the kumbaya crowd saying: 'Just like humans', could have done anything we did''. These people have some sort of mental issue with the inability to deal with...raw data...

 

This shows the incessant level of indoctrinated, mandated ignorance that is embraced by the cowards in the Anthro-community.

 

In comparison to modern humans, neanderthals were dumb, moronic brutes with a comparable IQ of around 55-65. They were morons, had twice our strength, short tempers, little abstract thinking ability. As stated before.

 

Not sure why, except some sort of mental-illness, that there is a constant sociopath desire to degrade the study of human types, when the 'peer reviewed'' (LOL-by what peers?) papers expunge non of the stereotypical neanderthal behavior.

 

It is this constant, incessant degradation of science that throws a bad light on the Anthro-community, and leaves it open to easy, obvious criticism, because you can be sure no one in academia is going to 'knock bad' on the affirmative action candidates paper, that says nothing.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Wag

[Guest]

bad experience with affirmative action?

[Guest Stan Norton]

bad experience with affirmative action?

 Bingo. Big chip I'm guessing.

Well, you skipped the good parts there:

Less abstract thought = more straightforward. Ugh, me want food, me want sex, me want ugh. Ugh. Me kill big animal Ugh. -

 

This explains WHY neanderthals did the 'ugh' Frontal lobe development is the big difference in the brain comparison. Go slower when you read, and ask questions, I'm here to help.

 

Professor Snotgrass should be proud when you show him your new-found knowlege.

 

When you are right next to large animals to kill them, stab them, your going to need quick reflexes to get out of the way when they swipe at you. Hence, this keeps the frontal lobes FROM developing. Just, conjecture, but its ballpark for sure.

 

 

 

Correct. And I told you why pages ago. You have presented nothing to alter those facts, nor are they altered anywhere except for the misinformation by affirmative-action college professors who, when you read their articles, are saying nothing. Because, we have their skulls, their tools, their lack of cave decorum, etc. We have had it for a century. We have brain casts, we can measure frontal lobe development.

 

Yes, neanderthal were human-like, no doubt. But most of the 'human-like' behavior can also be ascribed to...chimps... helping the 'old' caring for sick, etc. NOTHING NEW.

 

The scary problem is the kumbaya crowd saying: 'Just like humans', could have done anything we did''. These people have some sort of mental issue with the inability to deal with...raw data...

 

This shows the incessant level of indoctrinated, mandated ignorance that is embraced by the cowards in the Anthro-community.

 

In comparison to modern humans, neanderthals were dumb, moronic brutes with a comparable IQ of around 55-65. They were morons, had twice our strength, short tempers, little abstract thinking ability. As stated before.

 

Not sure why, except some sort of mental-illness, that there is a constant sociopath desire to degrade the study of human types, when the 'peer reviewed'' (LOL-by what peers?) papers expunge non of the stereotypical neanderthal behavior.

 

It is this constant, incessant degradation of science that throws a bad light on the Anthro-community, and leaves it open to easy, obvious criticism, because you can be sure no one in academia is going to 'knock bad' on the affirmative action candidates paper, that says nothing.

 

Evidence for any of this please, professor...thank you!

Edited June 13, 2014 by Stan Norton