The Peon

Whoa' date=' slow down there fella, I didn`t present it as a "Proof" or a "Theory" etc...

simply that it might be an "IDEA" to read something about it.

it presents interesting args, some of which are factual, some are disproven, some have no evidence at all eitherway. But for a well rounded research, it`s important to look at ALL reasonable args, and then try and glean Some sort of verifiable truth from them.

 

you should keep reading that site! and then you should read the site that Swansont gave you too, between them you WILL learn something

 

and that`s what it`s ALL about isn`t it?[/quote']

 

Meh, my biggest imperfection is my inability to control my thoughts into racing into assumptions and conclusions.

On the surface, perhaps, but they don't stand up to scrutiny. Here[/url'] is a critique.

Meh, I thought I was reading proof.

<------ the stupid?

Stan Gooch wrote some interesting books on this. "The Neanderthal Question" was one, I think.

Thanks for that, I will look into that book.

it might be an idea to do some research on the Aquatic-Ape, many of the args presented as quite compelling!

http://www.aquaticape.org/ Pretty cool site I have been reading the past 10 minutes.

Embryonic as in the idea that we are naked as an embryonic chimp is? Which seems like an interesting transitional effect if we in are earlier stages are compiled with a thin layer of hair.

 

It's as if we are opposite with vocal cords' date=' a more advanced cerebro, and... very little hair. However on the down side, we don't have the strength as Grape Ape.

 

grape ape grape ape [/quote']

 

We actually have alot of hair, its just very fine and small compared to other primates.

well if you go to the highschool i used to attend you will observe several hundered supposed homosapiens that have many traits of neanderthal man(small brain, slanted forehead, prominent brow, permenantly confused look) often the language is a series of grunts and mumbles of a low frequency. since we know from fossils that neanderthal mancould not speak then this is likely a remenant of that. i am absolutely sure that these people are prime examples of neanderthal/sapien interbreeding.

Youre wrong on two accounts.

A> Neanderthals actually had larger on the average brains then Sapiens

B> The larynx tissue is not known, and was actually wider (IIRC) then Sapiens. This could produce complicated sounds like Sapiens, but at a higher pitch. Seeing that Neanderthals had weapons and culture, its hard to imagine they didnt have a complicated vocal system. (good joke though )

Wow that rocks. I can fully understand the heat difference between a bipedal homonid in the african sun, compared to a quadripedal anything. So in effect, standing up caused alot of #($% to go haywire.

Are Caucasoids slight hybrids of Homo Sapien and Homo Neanderthalis? Do the genes of Neanderthals still flourish in certain gene pools? These are shocking and taboo questions that most dont wish to face up to. In this thread, I will present one side of the scientific debate which tries to answer that question.

I will start simple. Lets take a look at Homo Sapien today, at war and in love. Written History, a good blueprint for our psychological makeup shows us that rarely would conquerers completely destroy the conquered. Instead, the individuals deemed able to assist the conquered in some way are spared and enslaved or assimilated into the dominating culture. This applies to almost all major cultures and to most minor ones. At the very least, females are spared to be used for sexual and other purposes by the conquerers. Now use your imagination..

Homo Sapien encounters Neaderthals, and clearly dominates the enviroment. More and more evidence shows why this occured, and a good part of it was enviroment and technology. Sapiens simply outcompeted them. But would Sapiens really remain totally xenophobic, or vice versa for over 10,000 yeas of living "side by side?" Surely, some love in addition to the war must have occured. By love I mean sex, and it could have occured from conquering, exchange, mutual attraction, or rape. "But the genes are pretty different after 200,000 years of being seperated" some might say. But the lack of evidence is not evidence. Just because we assume the genes to not be compatible does not mean a Hybrid couldnt have been produced.

In fact, I will quote on a skeleton found in Portugal fairly recently:

"Known as the Child of Lapedo, the skeleton shows traits of modern man,

including the jaw, teeth and spleen, and Neanderthal features like the

size of the femur and tibia, according to Zilhao.

Carbon dating shows the skeleton is about 25,000 years old, Zilhao said.

Other evidence has shown that the Neanderthals and modern man coexisted

in the area about 28,000 to 30,000 years ago.

Because the skeleton dates from 3,000 years later and displays strong

anatomical features of both origins, Zilhao concludes that hybridization

was very deep."

The Iberian peninsula is the last bastion the Neanderthals would have had against the approaching onslaught of Homo Sapien. Any sort of co-interaction would have had its last breath here, as the Neanderthals found they had there back against the "wall" so to speak, and that is why the location of the Hybrid is so important.

Now lets look at some genetic traits of the Caucasoids. Through Mitochondrial DNA we know the oldest Sapiens on Earth are in Africa, and by tracing genes and knowing climates of the past, its clear Mongoloids lived in colder enviroments long before Caucasoids came on the scene. They developed lighter skin, but retained many of the Negroid features they inherited from the past they shared with the Negroids. Flatter noses, brown eyes, and dark hair. None of the Caucasoid cold adaptations such as light colored eyes, a larger pointier nose, or light colored hair, even larger calf muscles appeared in the Mongoloid gene pool, yet the Caucasoids have them. Now using alittle logic, in the fact that Caucasoids lived in colder climates for a shorter period of time then the mongoloids, and given the fact that Neanderthals had 200,000 years to adapt to the cold, and suddenly caucasoids developed these traits, you can see what I am getting to.

Its clear most of the Sapien genetic traits are still dominant and in the forefront, especially given that the climate was warming rapidly and few of the more pronounced Neanderthal features would have been needed or were likely to persist over the more tropical adapted negroid descendants. And the evidence continues to mount:

"Red hair may be the genetic legacy of Neanderthals, according to a new study by British scientists.

Researchers at the John Radcliffe Institute of Molecular Medicine in Oxford were quoted by The Times as saying the so-called "ginger gene" which gives people red hair, fair skin and freckles could be up to 100 000 years old.

They claim that their discovery points to the gene having originated in Neanderthal man who lived in Europe for 200 000 years before Homo sapien settlers, the ancestors of modern man, arrived from Africa about 40 000 years ago.

Rosalind Harding, the research team leader, told The Times: "The gene is certainly older than 50 000 years and it could be as old as 100 000 years. "

To think Neanderthals left NONE of the legacy they forged in Europe in our genes in quite inane in my opinion. We must open up to the fact that in evolution, crazier things have happened and nothing is insulting or degrading about Caucasoids having Neaderthalic genes.

God made us that way.

 

However' date=' the natural selection theory while sexual attraction could have influenced next generation humans into which they had less and less hair. Which is a possibility. What you have to question though is if humans originally had a lot of hair. Maybe we didn't.

 

There are some animals without a lot of hair. Naked mole rat.

You could look at the wolf boys which in my idea somewhat shows a very primitive and ancestral trait which many scientists may disagree with me about.[/quote']

 

But we supposidly shared a common ancestor with primates, and they all have hair. So somewhere along the line, either 192 species of primates evolved hair from being hairless, or we became hairless from being hairy.

 

As for the wolfboy, we actually develope a thin coat of hair when we are in the womb, and oddly shed it right before birth. Some babys actually are born with this coat, much to the terror of the mother, while others never lose it, and thats the wolfboy.

Can we go to Mars and get some microbes from the ice caps to show that life happens everywhere? What will ID believers state when life is proven to be a naturally occuring part of terraforming in certain conditions?

I have been looking for weeks for a good answer to this question, and have yet to find one that makes total sense. Why are humans the only primate to lose its hair?

One of the best explanations that I read to date said that when humans were almost extinct we resorted to being fishermen, and as aquatic apes it was more beneficial to lose the hair in favor of sweat glands. Another good explanation was sexual selection.. less hair meant more skin contact which heightened sexual pleasure, and as emerging intelligent thinkers and sex machines, it was sexually selected into us. Would love to know what others think.

"Penis Friction Burn" LMAO

Im sure with some medical conditions sex might cause complications... But only severe medical conditions. Most of the physiological effects of sex are beneficial to the average human organism.

Have you ever seen the old fighter planes flown in WWII ?

--Yes.

Have you ever seen the fighter planes of today?

--Yes.

Are they similar?

--Yes, they are.

Does this prove F-15's came from the old WWII planes.

--No.

________________________________________________________

And now the factual response.

Have you ever seen the old fighter planes flown in WWII ?

--Yes.

Have you ever seen the fighter planes of today?

--Yes.

Are they similar?

--Yes, they are.

Does this prove F-15's came from the old WWII planes.

--*YES!* The same concepts which allowed a WWII plane to fly was carried over and evolved into a more advanced fighter type. Why this is even relevent in this conversation is pointless *imagines 2 korean war planes humping to produce the F15 *, given a fighter plane is a machine and only the concept evolves.

*jumps back into the discussion flailing a spear and torch around wildly while hooting, springing the ambush he preplanned at camp with his tribesman, and slays a massive kodiac bear with the aid of his partners and some nifty spearmanship*

One of Humanitys greatest strengths in my opinion: We dislike death more then any other creature. Our will to survive.

I have not recalled any dreams for about over a year now. Is that a good thing? Does that mean I am sleeping deeper? I mean, I am sure I am having dreams but I never can recall them anymore.. and I have not had a nightmare in many many years.

Have you lost your mind? Is it not possible to admire a quality about somebody and still reject his opinions? While we are on the topic of Nazis I might as well also add that I admire Hitler's leadership skills. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't murder Hitler if I had the chance to go back in time 75 years. There isn't a person in this world who doesn't have bad qualities' date=' that doesn't mean we should also ignore everybody's good qualities; we would end up hating the entire world, which I have no doubt many of us do.

 

I find it disgusting that you seem to considering yourself better than him. By doing so you are no better than him in that your are teaching people to hate an entire group of people who have similar ideas. Why is it better for you to hate than it is for him? Because you consider yourself to be superior and to be right..[/quote']

 

 

Wow, you constructed all that in your mind with a single sentence I typed? Funny how assumptions and conclusions are made without any thought to the matter.

you guys are a great example of the arrogant, anthropocentric attitude i was talking about...

Grow up. You are not so humble yourself. Im done with this discussion.

Actually, IIRC the retina has 3 color shaders in the human eye, red green and blue. These are the same for any "normal" human and thus its clear we see color the same way. Other animals have various other eye gizmos, like mirrored retinas etc, which give them added features to the eyes they have. Its not a mystery how we see colors, and can be explained scientifically.

umm it could be since i know a lot of people who wouldn't know how to start a fire to keep warm. unless they had a lighter or some matches. they also wouldn't know how to hunt. since there are a lot of people who depend on technology and don't bother learning some basic stuff if technology dissapeared they wouldn't stand much of a chance

While this is true, some would always break through and figure these things out. I find it hard to believe that out of even a pool of 10,000 humans enough would not survive to continue the species.

We are also forgetting a good point here, and that being that humans are the only species with enough courage if you will, to wield fire and not run from it. That is a huge evolutionary step, one which probobly propelled us into stardome, above all other techonological advancements. And it took courage, not technology, to reach out and harness fire (most likely from a lightning strike at first).

I admire Crook for speaking his mind (under his real name' date=' no less) even as morons whine and write essays about it. If that makes me a Nazi then so be it.

 

Nobody is force feeding his opinion to you. The ironic part is that the only people who are spreading it and giving the opinions publicity is [i']you[/i]. Nobody else cares. Why don't you understand that if you stop spamming and whining that people like this go away? I....don't....care....about....Crook. Why do you?

You admire Crook for his one ability (which isnt even well executed) and throw away all the other garbage he stated?

maybe you should not assume i say things i don't

*shrugs* You win.

did i say ALL other animals? no.

Ok this semantic gymnastics is wearing me out.

no food

no hospitals

no stores

no technology

most people wouldn't know how to make most of it

 

in the time it takes to make those' date=' people would get pwned millions of times over.

technology doesn't magically appear out of no where.

 

as for technology=us better, i'll add some font to make sure you see it this time.

OTHER ANIMALS DON'T NEED TECHNOLOGY!

 

 

and in the OP i specifically stated "without our thumbs and big brains"

Youre wrong. Some animals do and NEED techonology. I dont remember which in specific but I know of some that use stones to open nuts, and other objects to eat. Without that technology they would die.

how so?

Cause we got Nukes and bears dont.

Ugh semantics. Low.

Either way, I may not understand biology as well as you but regardless, the Alien would still be more impressed with Humans (my reasoning being an Alien which developed technology to space travel would be enigneers like us). The original point of the tread was to say humans are not impressive. And to any mind that can ask "why?" such as ours (the only species on the planet which this is obvious and proven) they would easily choose ours.