Jump to content

Neanderthal thread


norseman
 Share

Recommended Posts

As time has gone on, WE finding that Neanderthal's were way more advance then science originally thought. They were able to fashion tools, they had burial rights. They were communal. If BF was of Neanderthal origins. It would be suspected that they would have Community, Fire,  some type of farming.  All this just through evaluation. They were not as dumb as we thought. 

 

As far as Black crime rate. I live in the Chicago... [Not for much longer] have all my live. The crime here is centrally located to a small area of chicago. High density, in a Impoverished area. Thier life styles there are cultural. Years and years of thinking, why work we can just get government money. Housing, Phones, internet for free. My wife works for SSA, She is always amazed how they act about thier SSI and welfare checks. Like it is thiers and it is owed to them. At least 95% of the Folks, Have never had a Job, Dont want one, they expect it. I couldnt tell you how many times she has come home pissed off, cuz someone said to her, Bitch keep working cuz I need my money.

 

Teach a man to fish, he feeds his family for life, Give a man a fish and well you all know the rest.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the point I was trying to make was that the ethnic groups with higher percentages of Neanderthal DNA tend to be more stand offish, introverted, even practice isolationism, like the Ashkenazi Jewish community who originally migrated from the Caucas mountains and have higher percentages of N. DNA up to 3-5%,  when compared to groups with no Neanderthal DNA.

 

Good social skills and lack of zenophobia would go along way in allowing a species to survive and acclimate to environmental changes. You do see some of that in the Levant where there is about a 1000 year overlap where the Sapiens coexisted to some extent with the Neanderthal. This is where we see the most inter-racial/inter species  mingling but also wars over this small area of land for 1000's of years. I personally believe it started when the Neanderthal clashed with Homo Sapiens. 

Edited by CallyCat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It probably started when apes interacted with apes millions of years ago, before Homo was ever on the planet. Animals will be animals. WE Homos are animals, too, so what is one to expect? Tribalism is natural. The real question is, will we ever grow out of it? Nope. Not as long as people keep promoting it. Millions of years of Hominid history and, very generally speaking, we haven't learned a danged thing. Today we aim missiles at each other witness genocide and ethnic cleansing. Some things never change.

 

But this is a Neanderthal thread. Staying with that topic would seem to be be best.

 

 

Edited by hiflier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, hiflier said:

.......But this is a Neanderthal thread. Staying with that topic would seem to be be best.

 

Yeah, but what is a Neanderthal? We are told:

 

1) They were human, but.........

2) They are a different species, and..........

3) They interbred with us, homo sapien, and.........

4) They inter-bred with other "humans" too, including Homo Desinovans (who differ from us in ways not outlined) as well as other "mystery humans".

 

Please describe what makes one a Neanderthal, please.

Explain to me how these two animals are different species, based on size........

E405C6BF-133B-415B-A713-A75DDC51498B.jpeg

E1C1AC7E-1AC6-4FC4-A9E9-4D9FB5BD37E8.jpeg

But these people are the same species........yet a Neanderthal is not!

E1D14DCC-0052-42BB-901F-51D2F24BE6B4.jpeg

Yet this is 98% or 99% "human"?

895B9CFE-AA61-44C6-BDD5-E818BC4407DE.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This first article is for Catcally. Autism and it’s host of similar conditions do seem to come from Neanderthals.

 

https://spaceandai.com/project/could-aspergers-really-be-a-legacy-of-the-neanderthals/

 

The second article is for Huntster.

 

The issue isn’t size it’s breeding. I can breed a Clydesdale to a Shetland and produce viable offspring. But if I breed a horse to a donkey the offspring will be sterile 99.9 percent of the time. Mules are sterile and cannot reproduce. Same with Ligers, etc. And Neanderthals and Humans had troubles as well. Not producing viable male offspring. It would seem male hybrids were sterile, like a mule.
 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/humans-and-neanderthals-may-have-had-trouble-making-male-babies-180958701/

 

16 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Yeah, but what is a Neanderthal? We are told:

 

1) They were human, but.........

2) They are a different species, and..........

3) They interbred with us, homo sapien, and.........

4) They inter-bred with other "humans" too, including Homo Desinovans (who differ from us in ways not outlined) as well as other "mystery humans".

 

Please describe what makes one a Neanderthal, please.

Explain to me how these two animals are different species, based on size........

E405C6BF-133B-415B-A713-A75DDC51498B.jpeg

E1C1AC7E-1AC6-4FC4-A9E9-4D9FB5BD37E8.jpeg

But these people are the same species........yet a Neanderthal is not!

E1D14DCC-0052-42BB-901F-51D2F24BE6B4.jpeg


The Dinka tribe are taller than Europeans. Africa truly is all over the board.

 

 

18D24F8C-BC31-4EFE-A6F2-DE73C28649A9.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

 

In biology, a species (/ˈspiːʃiːz/ (listen)) is the basic unit of classification and a taxonomic rank of an organism, as well as a unit of biodiversity. A species

is often defined as the largest group of organismsin which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction. Other ways of defining species include their karyotype, DNAsequence, morphology, behaviour or ecological niche. In addition, paleontologists use the concept of the chronospecies since fossil reproduction cannot be examined..........

 

So, creating a species can be done in many ways, and apparently is made lasting by consensus. Other than the examples I used above with various human ethnicities and the hippos, polar and brown bears can be cited (prizzlies). Even among brown bears are such sub-species as European brown bears, grizzly bears, Kodiak bears, and others. With domestic dogs, we have breeds as varied as St. Bernards and chihuahuas, all the same species despite every difference imaginable except interbreeding capabilities.

 

"Science" by consensus. 

 

So Neanderthals, now recognized as having bred with homo sapiens "in the wild", are different than homo sapiens.........well, how? Exactly?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Franco said:

As time has gone on, WE finding that Neanderthal's were way more advance then science originally thought. They were able to fashion tools, they had burial rights. They were communal. If BF was of Neanderthal origins. It would be suspected that they would have Community, Fire,  some type of farming.  All this just through evaluation. They were not as dumb as we thought. 

 

As far as Black crime rate. I live in the Chicago... [Not for much longer] have all my live. The crime here is centrally located to a small area of chicago. High density, in a Impoverished area. Thier life styles there are cultural. Years and years of thinking, why work we can just get government money. Housing, Phones, internet for free. My wife works for SSA, She is always amazed how they act about thier SSI and welfare checks. Like it is thiers and it is owed to them. At least 95% of the Folks, Have never had a Job, Dont want one, they expect it. I couldnt tell you how many times she has come home pissed off, cuz someone said to her, Bitch keep working cuz I need my money.

 

Teach a man to fish, he feeds his family for life, Give a man a fish and well you all know the rest.

 

 


Danegeld

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because of the human migration patterns out of Africa not all humans have Neanderthal DNA.      Some humans went from Africa  East into Asia and never intermingled with Neanderthols in Europe.     In my case I have markers showing my ancestors migrated into Asia but wandered back West and ended up in Western Europe where they picked up markers from Neanderthals.    Other than wanderlust which my people seemed to have,   probably climate and food resource changes drove a lot of the migrations.    My ancestors arrived in North America early (1648) because they were banished from England because of  conflicts with the Church of England.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Huntster said:

"Science" by consensus

 

True indeed. The complexities involved defining species is well known and are still debated. But Homo sapiens, sapiens have this need to tie everything up into nice neat little packages when neat little packages are not the reality. To say that the idea of "species" is more of a Human-defined  concept would be accurate. Sure, science plays an important part but the grey areas when determining species are everywhere. When categorizing living things, different criteria will define a species as similar when another criteria brought into the mix will say not similar.

 

Phylogenetic inference has led more than one scientist down the wrong path. That's the term that says that since Pandas look like bears they must be bears, when in fact, genetically they are much closer to raccoon. And on the flip side dolphins and pigs may be closer to Humans than Pandas are to raccoon. The perspective of course is Human-centric, so we are the point of reference for everything else. It starts with Human or non-Human and goes from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

Because of the human migration patterns out of Africa not all humans have Neanderthal DNA.      Some humans went from Africa  East into Asia and never intermingled with Neanderthols in Europe.     In my case I have markers showing my ancestors migrated into Asia but wandered back West and ended up in Western Europe where they picked up markers from Neanderthals.    Other than wanderlust which my people seemed to have,   probably climate and food resource changes drove a lot of the migrations.    My ancestors arrived in North America early (1648) because they were banished from England because of  conflicts with the Church of England.   


Asians have Neanderthal DNA too. Only sub Saharan Africans do not.

4 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

True indeed. The complexities involved defining species is well known and are still debated. But Homo sapiens, sapiens have this need to tie everything up into nice neat little packages when neat little packages are not the reality. To say that the idea of "species" is more of a Human-defined  concept would be accurate. Sure, science plays an important part but the grey areas when determining species are everywhere. When categorizing living things, different criteria will define a species as similar when another criteria brought into the mix will say not similar.

 

Phylogenetic inference has led more than one scientist down the wrong path. That's the term that says that since Pandas look like bears they must be bears, when in fact, genetically they are much closer to raccoon. And on the flip side dolphins and pigs may be closer to Humans than Pandas are to raccoon. The perspective of course is Human-centric, so we are the point of reference for everything else. It starts with Human or non-Human and goes from there.


I agree with morphology, but disagree with DNA. It’s not open to interpretation. Unless mistakes are made.
 

Chimps seems very close to humans at 98 percent. But a sea urchin is 70 percent..... to put it into perspective.

 

https://www.livescience.com/1103-surprise-cousin-sea-urchin.html

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, norseman said:


Asians have Neanderthal DNA too. Only sub Saharan Africans do not.


I agree with morphology, but disagree with DNA. It’s not open to interpretation. Unless mistakes are made.
 

Chimps seems very close to humans at 98 percent. But a sea urchin is 70 percent..... to put it into perspective.

 

https://www.livescience.com/1103-surprise-cousin-sea-urchin.html

 

 

 

That would explain some of the bottom feeders in our society. 

:ph34r:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, norseman said:


I agree with morphology, but disagree with DNA. It’s not open to interpretation. Unless mistakes are made.
 

Chimps seems very close to humans at 98 percent. But a sea urchin is 70 percent..... to put it into perspective.

 

https://www.livescience.com/1103-surprise-cousin-sea-urchin.html

 

 

 

Well, I can't cover all arguments in one post now can I.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, hiflier said:

........Phylogenetic inference has led more than one scientist down the wrong path. That's the term that says that since Pandas look like bears they must be bears, when in fact, genetically they are much closer to raccoon. And on the flip side dolphins and pigs may be closer to Humans than Pandas are to raccoon. The perspective of course is Human-centric, so we are the point of reference for everything else. It starts with Human or non-Human and goes from there.

 

But with Neanderthal, Denisovan, and Sapien, especially when the stark differences in current human ethnicities are concerned, are so close as to essentially be the same as you and I, no? This must clearly be concerning in that Denisovan fossils consist of no more than a partial mandible, a sliver of finger bone, and dna test results on 40,000 year old fossils.

 

Regarding African pygmy tribesmen, despite me being 47% sub-Saharan African by dna test results, I am nearly as different from them as I am from a chimp. I'm white, my hair is barely kinky, I'm tall, BIG, we speak different languages, our behaviors are as different than we look, and even our tools are vastly different. The ONLY similarities are:

 

1) We are bipedal (but so were Neanderthals and sasquatches)

2) We communicate verbally (but so did Neanderthals and sasquatches)

3) We use tools (but so did Neanderthals and sasquatches), but their type and complexities vary wildly (but so did Neanderthals and sasquatches)

4) We are spiritual as well as biological (but so were Neanderthals, it is now believed, but sasquatches?....no evidence of that at all)

5) We can interbreed (but so could Neanderthals. Sasquatches? Testimony indicates that the could! If true, ..........?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think too much emphasis is placed on skin color. There are three races in science based on skull morphology.

 

1- Negroid

2- Cacausoid 

3- Mongoloid

 

And while there are absolutely subtle differences between the three races? They pale in comparison to the difference between them and a Neanderthal. 

 

And a Neanderthal pales in comparison to a Chimp.

 

37DFE5DD-4C13-41A3-A6A2-7C4C1847D0F2.png

F010147D-F04C-4979-A443-1DF2414DB8A1.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • gigantor featured this topic
  • gigantor unfeatured this topic
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...