Guest Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Actually, we can test relative IQ of Neanderthal. Their tools were thicker and heavier, and I have seen a show, cant find it now, where it was stated that in Spain, the Crow-Magnon people used standard 'high-ground' tactics to wipe out the remaining Neanderthals. They would fort-up in these hill areas, high ground, and let the stupid, thugish, brutish Neanderthals attack them, and that was it for the brutish, stupid Neanderthals. Mainly because of end of Ice-age competition. That picture does not do justice to Neanderthals, they have flat, sloped heads and what parts of the brain are larger, the occipital lobe or something, does not translate into higher intelligence, many sea-mammals have larger than human brains. This is part of the push to see Neandertals as "Just like Humans". Look at the speech laws in whatever goofy European country these clowns are comming out of. Its illegal to suggest 'modern humans' were 'different' than Neanderthal. You get put in prison for talking about illegal immigration in these countries. I would ask for a source on this...though I know you can probably find one. Same as I can find a source that says you are Esau, see how that works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 These facts that you are pointing out about Neanderthals, Wag, are they at all like the bigfoot "facts" in your signature line? LOL, you tell me. The facts in my sig are my opinions, the facts about Neanderthal are apparently well known, and have been for dozens of years +. That they were brutish and stupid in comparison to modern humans. The FACT that there is no rational Anthroplogical argument to this (fact at this point in time) seems telling. This thread was about chasing Unicorns. A fanciful flight of fancy, and nothing more. The correlation between art, writing, Egyptian hieroglyphs, (if anyone got that, doubt it) was mine. This is all very simple to me, after a while of forced abstractionation. I know reading links posted and correlating all the data can be difficult for some, and using google, is just out of the question, even when I provide what to google. That's my word also. abstractionation. Sometimes I can make things up also. But they at least make sense. I would ask for a source on this...though I know you can probably find one. Same as I can find a source that says you are Esau, see how that works. The thing is if anyone REALLY believes this...THEIR IQ must be 68. Exactly WHAT do you really know about Africa? While you're researching it you should research the history of "IQ tests" and the underlining racist intentions of it. Most black people are now aware of "IQ tests" and realize they are rubbish... Take it to the Tar Pit, I'll be happy to point you to endless sources. I've done that here in this thread though for Neanderthal, and it doesn't seem to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 There is no evidence to suggest that Neanderthal could have evolved into modern humans. That is pure speculation, and it is doubtful that even if such information could be obtained that would show a negative perspective of 'Neanderthal', it would be suppressed, just as King-Tuts genom were suppressed because it showed Caucasoid racial genes. The genome of the Thuggish Neanderthal might give clues as to weather or not they could have evolved into a high IQ society, but it is doubtful. Modern Society is built by High IQ Geeks. Our ability to drive cars came from people with an average IQ of over 140-150. This has only happened in a small part of the Globe, mainly Western Europe. China was the closest and could have evolved but did not. And it is questionable where they got some of their inventions as they have found 'Scottish' Western Europeans dating back 4000+ years ago in China. You CANNOT have accurate Scientific Inquire when the PC Nazis are threating out of sociopathic ignorance to ban you or kick you out of your job or whatever, for printing the truth about 'diversity'. We see this nonsense in the media all the time. Crow Magnon are the ones that did the CAVE ART. Neanderthal to our knowledge did not do cave art. Again, there is a sociopathic political agenda in this nonsense that Neanderthal are the same as modern humans. They are not. They were flat-headed brutes, they were stupid, they did not have the ability to do cave art. That makes them in comparison, itself, stupid brutes. If a Neanderthal family lived down the street, you would move out of your neighborhood. They would not upkeep the house, they would not drive very well, they would be very poor, and they might not use the bathroom properly. You would not like Neanderthal living in your neighborhood, much less you living amongst them by the hundreds, you being the girly-puny little chicken-boned wimpy human girly-man. You would not like it at ALL. Why would King Tuts genome be supressed in a world dominated by white supremacy? Really think about this for a moment. And to beat you to the punch...no the answer is not PC...because when has the world truly attempted to be "PC" concerning black people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 No actually. The first is not an assumption in any way. It is based upon scientific investigation over many many decades. We have bones. We have DNA. We have material culture. I do wish people would familiarise themselves with the actual reality. Neanderthals were Homo. Fact. There are molecular geneticists who argue, due to the similarity of their DNA to ours, that Pan (chimpanzees and bonobos) should be reclassified as Homo. Admittedly, there is no evidence of man ever interbreeding with chimps or bonobos, but there is evidence of man interbreeding with Neandertals -- it appears all modern humans, with the exception of sub-Saharan Africans, have DNA that is from 1-to-4% Neandertal. As a result, some consider Neandertals to be a subspecies of modern man, H. sapiens neandertalensis, but most consider them to be a separate species, H. neandertalensis. I believe there is some genetic evidence indicating that male offspring of H. sapiens • H. neandertalensis hybridization were mostly infertile, which would argue for regarding them as two separate, albeit closely related, species. Thus, applying a set of assumptions based on modern humans for a forensic reconstruction of Neandertal appearance makes more sense than using a set of chimp-based assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 If you do enough research, even listening to these antecdotal accounts, you will realize what bigfoot is. No it is not neanderthal man. I don't know how to get to the tar pit, perhaps someone can instruct me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 (edited) Stan, nobody is saying Bigfoot is a neanderthal, but to insist on the fiction that the look of a commissioned sculpture from the artists below is beyond question is silly, just as preposterous as Wag's position. Wait, I see the museum has taken down the page of the artists with their charming pic (Alfons and Adrie Kennis). :lol: It looks like mods took down their pic I posted here also. Even the google cache doesn't have the pic! they must of delivered a cease and desist order or something... wow! Wonder why? anyway, for the record, the page they took down stated: -------- The models were made by the Dutch duo, Alfons and Adrie Kennis, in their studio in the Netherlands for our next major exhibition, Britain: One Million Years of the Human Story, opening here on 13 February. The Kennis brothers specialise in creating scientifically accurate sculptures of ancient humans and animals. The specially commissioned models blend scientific and aesthetic interpretation uniquely. They pose proudly, faces full of character - and some speculation as to which famous personalities might have been the inspiration - and are sure to attract attention when they take pride of place in the exhibition gallery. No worries, there are plenty of other pics of the charming twins... kennis-kennis.jpg ahhh, they're so playful those twins, their scientific accuracy must be beyond question. Stan, I'm not entirely sure and since you (or your wife) is the expert, does DNA analysis reveal: 1) skin color 2) eye color 3) hair length / body hair coverage 4) intelligence 5) body fat Yes. As Norse says, yes. All these phenotypic traits with the exception of hair length are found within the genome or can at least be established within a set of reasoned parameters. Simple genetics. I think that because Neanderthals were so very close to us we can allow the artists a degree of freedom to speculate that the hair growth was roughly in similar places and of similar colours and form to ours. It's not like they gave them cat eyes or something... If you want to be obsessively pedantic then no, the artists cannot know exactly what any set of bones looked like perfectly. However as the museum states and as I have repeated, the model is the best result we can possibly have using the latest scientific methods. If that still not good enough then what can I say? Edited May 27, 2014 by Stan Norton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Ah yes. I had forgotten about the grand conspiracy involving academic institutions across the globe to promote Neanderthals as close relatives of humans for their own evil ends. Silly me. Have I entered The Twilight Zone perchance? Is there some plan to purposefully ignore all scientific research just because that is what wacky countercultural warriors should do? Where does this all end? Please. Tell me. So there is no push to humanize Neanderthals in response to the perception that the public will be more inclined to fund Neanderthal research, either directly or indirectly, if they perceive neanderthals to be more like them? There was no hot controversy over the last few years about whether or not Neanderthals were cannibals? Is this "settled" scientific fact? Scientists are just as prone to pander to funding and, by extension, agendas as any other profession, it's just that most scientists seem to want the public to believe that this isn't the case. If Vendramini put a million dollars in grants on the table for evidence backing up his theory, he'd have it, from someone with "impeccable" credentials. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Nonsense. The supposed push to humanize them is nothing more than us having a much better grasp of the actual evidence compared to decades ago when we thought they were brutes. We have a much better understanding than Mr Vendramini the theatre man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 I cannot argue the merits of either, or any side in the matter of Neandertal and human, I have been irked though, most of my life by the constant changing of the speculated appearance of cave men, neandertals, and especially dinosaurs. I could draw well at a young age, when I was three I could draw as well as I can now, minus the tricks I've learned since then, and like every kid I drew dinosaurs and cave men, or what our science books depicted as neandertals, and they kept changing both back and forth, Aggravating to me. I came to the conclusion that it is a cycle of new people entering the field and wishing to make a name for themselves by proving the old guys wrong kind of thing. Because to spend years and years studying and working and researching only to back up what the last guy that did years and years of studying and working and researching has got to be really boring, and not conducive to sustaining a really high level of excitement. And only exalts the original discoverer or researchers' name or ego, and not the new researchers'. So, I think there is an innate need, maybe even a necessary need to dispute the old guys' stuff. I don't think people work real hard on anything unless they can receive credit or accolades for it, and don't toil years an years to just bolster someone already better known than them. So they keep changing the pictures. feathers, no feather, brow this, brow that, frustrating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Plussed that imediately for truth Booger! But also do recognize that new evidence will always change the picture a bit while never changing the bones themselves. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 I have been irked though, most of my life by the constant changing of the speculated appearance of cave men, neandertals, and especially dinosaurs. You'd prefer science kept its old beliefs and theories that "brontosaurus" spent its time lumbering in swamps to support its great bulk, and T-Rex walked about completely upright, dragging its tail on the ground? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 All this makes one wonder if looking back, to see ahead might prove beneficial? Consider what mankind "knew" a thousand years ago and what "science" consisted of (at that time) versus what we believe to "know" today. Stonehenge, the great pyramids and a host of other archealogical places/things still defy explanation, in varying degrees. Will what we "know" tomorrow, make today's "knowledge" obselete? That appears to be somewhat of a pattern, especially over the past ~150 years. With the possibility that great knowledge has been attained and lost multiple times over the eons, will we have wisdom enough to avoid history repeating itself? IMO, this can certainly be applied to the context of the OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Obsolete? I would hope so.......otherwise it's not science! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Well the reason why we actually do know so much today is because some sensible people started ignoring the unthinking dogmas of the day and began to look at the world with a scientific eye. Hence why we now know what Neanderthals looked like to a very accurate degree. Thank goodness for the scientific method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Obsolete? I would hope so.......otherwise it's not science! Junk Science, (which is in no short supply these days) Well the reason why we actually do know so much today is because some sensible people started ignoring the unthinking dogmas of the day and began to look at the world with a scientific eye. Hence why we now know what Neanderthals looked like to a very accurate degree. Thank goodness for the scientific method. IMO, it isn't the scientific method that's faulty rather, some of the practioners methods which usually produces the aforementioned, junk science. Got affluenza? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts