Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
During the long and complex evolution of the snapshot of an organism we define as a "species", which make up the continuum of man's ascent, several of our predecessors "went" extinct. The infamous Neanderthal for example: questions have arisen as to why they rather quickly disappeared along with the woolly mammoth, whose remains littered the cave dwellings of the also clearly identified Neanderthal remains.
Questions remain as to why we then find the remains of our more modern cousins along with the remnant bones of literally tens of thousands of the increasingly abundant rabbits of the day (Lagomorphs)
When we examine both geological and detrital evaluations (which provide us with a chronology of "which fell first", and when) we are then left with an overall picture of the rise, mainstream life and finally, extinction of the Neanderthals some 30,000 years ago, at the end of their lifeline that began some 800,000 years prior.
And the coincidental rise of the far more successful h. sapiens, who did, we now find, interbreed with the Neanderthal to produce a "mongrelized" version at first, but eventually a more genetically purebred h. sapiens emerged, as we are more or less today (of course, human, and every other type of living thing's, Evolution continues as we speak.)
What's more, by the new amazingly detailed technique of DNA genome mapping, we can now accurately track changes to the overall DNA genome on a generation-by-generation basis. It's now inarguable. Just no "cats into dogs overnight!", as the less educated might insist as "proof" of what they prefer to errantly define as evolution... <sigh>)
Of course, this is measurably far outside of the über-short timetable mythically proposed by the bible's authors, who left such species out (along with the dinosaurs...) because they had no idea such predecessors had ever existed!
I have attached the paper (noted below) because it exemplifies the approach of true science, not of a fanciful novella that is built to fit a pre-determined spiritual outcome. Thus this paper provides two key elements for the honest and open-minded reader:
This paper is valuable here. First, it provides precise and properly reviewed information in the context of how science is so maligned on these C-D threads and posts by scientifically illiterate and inexperienced laypeople, who then trumpet that science is a biased provider of highly biased and "theoretical guesswork, unsupported by the facts!".
Second, it demonstrates how science also reviews it's own. This paper is controversial, and therefore it quickly generated intense discussion within it's specialty group as to it's conclusion's possible validity and contribution. Or, seeing it's supporting evidence, and that it was indeed A factor, but not necessarily THE factor in the extinction of Neanderthals, it thereby prompted more focused further research. And thus, it contributes significantly to the evolution (small "e" this time) of the body of knowledge on this important topic.
Of course, it also supports the undeniable: that Neanderthals surely did exist as a separate lineage of pre-modern humans, initially diverging from other hominid ascents at about 800,000 years ago. Not, as is claimed by biblical literalists, popping up out of... uhmmm... nothing... at 6036.7 yrs go. Adam and Eve as Neanderthals? Unlikely. This...
...is "more likely". To ignore or diminish these ongoing and ever-more-detailed findings, or to completely deny their very existence, defines "intransigence" to it's very core.
This is the way of science and scientists who will then discuss and review in more detail some key parts of this study, to look at other related phenomena in order to further our overall understanding of the ascent of modern homo sapiens sp. And so....
1) This paper demonstrates the key elements that go into any valid and complex research study, along with the level of detail of all the necessary steps and reporting requirements. In doing so, it also...
2) Provides an interesting theory (no, not an hypothesis, which is the original stated question part. The resulting theory is a statement of likely fact, still open, as this particular one is, to other, later interpretations. Nonetheless, the process and results that it produced bear honest review, and do offer a potentially valuable reason for why these key members of our hominid family may well have "fallen off the twig of life" so to speak.
As a result, this study does provide some valuable insight, and a very logical and seemingly likely explanation for why these successful hunters perished when confronted with the later and more adaptable (but of macro-game only, which their body type and construction also required. Little nibbles of mouse meat just didn't cut it with these sturdy types!) homo sapiens sapiens sp. & sub-species, leading to US!
Another scenario I have read about is they were not very aggressive, made out of meat and the invading Homo Sapiens were meat eaters. I doubt if they had any qualms about tossing them on the BBQ grill.
Those that were not gobbled up snacks probably became interbred into extinction. I've read several theories that is the origin of red hair and blue eyes which are the most recent traits to appear in Homo sapiens.
How about if they were human? Or modern-day humans are a cross between them and another sub-species? I'd be careful to suggest that science has it all figured out, because a discovery will be made and invalidate what scientists think today.
How about if they were human? Or modern-day humans are a cross between them and another sub-species? I'd be careful to suggest that science has it all figured out, because a discovery will be made and invalidate what scientists think today.
On a personal Basis I believe they were human, except at some point had become isolated and developed along their own path. sort of like the Australian Aborigines developed different from any other people. (In spite of the out ward appearance the Australoid are not Negroid)
On a personal Basis I believe they were human, except at some point had become isolated and developed along their own path. sort of like the Australian Aborigines developed different from any other people. (In spite of the out ward appearance the Australoid are not Negroid)
I would agree with that. I think we make mistakes when we arbitrarily assign the title of "species" to ancient animals or people. I don't believe there were thousands of variants of canines at the time of creation....but now we have a huge variance between my dog, a **** tzuh, and a great dane. Likewise, I think neanderthals were a human variant.
<edit> I didn't mean to type a profanity above....apparently the dog's breed is censored </edit>
Last edited by Vizio; 03-16-2013 at 11:57 AM..
Reason: apparently my dog's breed is considered a "profanity" to be removed
I would agree with that. I think we make mistakes when we arbitrarily assign the title of "species" to ancient animals or people. I don't believe there were thousands of variants of canines at the time of creation....but now we have a huge variance between my dog, a **** tzuh, and a great dane. Likewise, I think neanderthals were a human variant.
<edit> I didn't mean to type a profanity above....apparently the dog's breed is censored </edit>
I know which dog you are speaking of. The forum automated censor filter gets a little carried away at times.
During the long and complex evolution of the snapshot of an organism we define as a "species", which make up the continuum of man's ascent, several of our predecessors "went" extinct. The infamous Neanderthal for example: questions have arisen as to why they rather quickly disappeared along with the woolly mammoth, whose remains littered the cave dwellings of the also clearly identified Neanderthal remains.
Questions remain as to why we then find the remains of our more modern cousins along with the remnant bones of literally tens of thousands of the increasingly abundant rabbits of the day (Lagomorphs)
When we examine both geological and detrital evaluations (which provide us with a chronology of "which fell first", and when) we are then left with an overall picture of the rise, mainstream life and finally, extinction of the Neanderthals some 30,000 years ago, at the end of their lifeline that began some 800,000 years prior.
And the coincidental rise of the far more successful h. sapiens, who did, we now find, interbreed with the Neanderthal to produce a "mongrelized" version at first, but eventually a more genetically purebred h. sapiens emerged, as we are more or less today (of course, human, and every other type of living thing's, Evolution continues as we speak.)
What's more, by the new amazingly detailed technique of DNA genome mapping, we can now accurately track changes to the overall DNA genome on a generation-by-generation basis. It's now inarguable. Just no "cats into dogs overnight!", as the less educated might insist as "proof" of what they prefer to errantly define as evolution... <sigh>)
Of course, this is measurably far outside of the über-short timetable mythically proposed by the bible's authors, who left such species out (along with the dinosaurs...) because they had no idea such predecessors had ever existed!
I have attached the paper (noted below) because it exemplifies the approach of true science, not of a fanciful novella that is built to fit a pre-determined spiritual outcome. Thus this paper provides two key elements for the honest and open-minded reader:
This paper is valuable here. First, it provides precise and properly reviewed information in the context of how science is so maligned on these C-D threads and posts by scientifically illiterate and inexperienced laypeople, who then trumpet that science is a biased provider of highly biased and "theoretical guesswork, unsupported by the facts!".
Second, it demonstrates how science also reviews it's own. This paper is controversial, and therefore it quickly generated intense discussion within it's specialty group as to it's conclusion's possible validity and contribution. Or, seeing it's supporting evidence, and that it was indeed A factor, but not necessarily THE factor in the extinction of Neanderthals, it thereby prompted more focused further research. And thus, it contributes significantly to the evolution (small "e" this time) of the body of knowledge on this important topic.
Of course, it also supports the undeniable: that Neanderthals surely did exist as a separate lineage of pre-modern humans, initially diverging from other hominid ascents at about 800,000 years ago. Not, as is claimed by biblical literalists, popping up out of... uhmmm... nothing... at 6036.7 yrs go. Adam and Eve as Neanderthals? Unlikely. This...
...is "more likely". To ignore or diminish these ongoing and ever-more-detailed findings, or to completely deny their very existence, defines "intransigence" to it's very core.
This is the way of science and scientists who will then discuss and review in more detail some key parts of this study, to look at other related phenomena in order to further our overall understanding of the ascent of modern homo sapiens sp. And so....
1) This paper demonstrates the key elements that go into any valid and complex research study, along with the level of detail of all the necessary steps and reporting requirements. In doing so, it also...
2) Provides an interesting theory (no, not an hypothesis, which is the original stated question part. The resulting theory is a statement of likely fact, still open, as this particular one is, to other, later interpretations. Nonetheless, the process and results that it produced bear honest review, and do offer a potentially valuable reason for why these key members of our hominid family may well have "fallen off the twig of life" so to speak.
As a result, this study does provide some valuable insight, and a very logical and seemingly likely explanation for why these successful hunters perished when confronted with the later and more adaptable (but of macro-game only, which their body type and construction also required. Little nibbles of mouse meat just didn't cut it with these sturdy types!) homo sapiens sapiens sp. & sub-species, leading to US!
Enjoy, and learn! YrHmblTchr: riflemanâ„¢
Hay rifleman, it seems as though just about the time that we think we've got it figured out, here comes another species of homo sapiens...Homo rudolfensis...Denisovans... Kind of throws a monkey wrench into a few theories about humans. It seems that our species and that of the Neanderthal and now this new one might have done quite a bit of interbreeding.... So now we're a mongrel bunch of humans and the DNA seems to bear that out.... Here some new information on that; BBC News - Ancient humans, dubbed 'Denisovans', interbred with us2
03-16-2013, 12:43 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Rifleman, As expected, the creationists overstate things - they were different yet capable of interbreeding. The diversity of their mtDNA falls outside of the range for modern humans.
'Analysis of the assembled sequence unequivocally establishes that the Neandertal mtDNA falls outside the variation of extant human mtDNAs, and allows an estimate of the divergence date between the two mtDNA lineages of 660,000 ± 140,000 years.'
'The studies of Neandertal mtDNA do not show that Neandertals did not or could not interbreed with modern humans. But the lack of diversity in Neandertal mtDNA sequences, combined with the large differences between Neandertal and modern human mtDNA, strongly suggests that Neandertals and modern humans developed separately, and did not form part of a single large interbreeding population. However Neandertals apparently remained capable of interbreeding with humans, and did so with an early population of modern humans in the Middle East about 70,000 years ago.'
Even if the above were not the case it still would not jive with the creationist's view of a young earth and modern humans being the creative peak of God.
Of course, this is measurably far outside of the über-short timetable mythically proposed by the bible's authors, who left such species out (along with the dinosaurs...) because they had no idea such predecessors had ever existed!
Dear Rifleman the above is quite unfair.
There are of course bible authors but as with all ancient and archaic texts the bible also contains traditional elements that were just recorded and are nobody’s fiction.
The fact that some Hebrew theologians managed to have their theological nonsense recorded does not render the Bible useless.
Do you want the description of a Neanderthal?
Here you have it:
[Sha]ggy with hair is his whole body,
He is endowed with head hair like a woman.
The locks of his hair sprout like Nisaba (Goddess of grain)
He knows neither people nor land;
Garbed is he like Sumuqan (God of cattle)
With the gazelles he feeds on grass,
With the wild beasts he jostles at the
Watering-place,
With the teeming creatures his heart delights in water.
(Now) a hunter, a trapping man,
Faced him at the watering-place.
[One] day, a second, and a third
He faced him at the watering-place.
When the hunter saw him his face became motionless.
He and his beasts went into his house,
[Sore a]fraid, still, without a sound,
(While) his heart [was disturbed]. Overclouded his face.
For woe had [entered] his belly;
His face was like (that of)[one who had made] a far [journey]
(I,ii,36-50)
The hunter informs his father of the incident:
The hunter opened [his mouth], and addressing [his father] said:
“My father, there is a [unique] man who has co[me to thy field] (or, who[ has come from the hills])
He is the might[iest in the land]; strength he has,
[like the essence] of Anu, so mighty [his strength]!
[Ever] he ranges over the hills,
[Ever] with the beasts [he feeds on grass]
[Ever sets he] his feet at the watering-place
[I am so frightened that] I dare not approach him!
[He filled in] the pits that I had dug,
[He tore up] my traps which I had [set]
The beasts and creatures of the steppe
[He has made slip through my hands
(And) [does not allow] me to catch the game of the steppe.
(I,iii,1-12)
That is the description of the famous Enkidu of the Gilgamesh epic.
In the bible the Neanderthals are called Anakim and they were killed by the Homo sapiens sapiens who are called God’s people i.e. the Israelites (the original conquest of Canaan happened at least some 45,000 years ago).
In the traditions of the other peoples they are called Giants.
03-16-2013, 03:14 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
Dear Rifleman the above is quite unfair.
There are of course bible authors but as with all ancient and archaic texts the bible also contains traditional elements that were just recorded and are nobody’s fiction.
The fact that some Hebrew theologians managed to have their theological nonsense recorded does not render the Bible useless.
Do you want the description of a Neanderthal?
Here you have it:
[Sha]ggy with hair is his whole body, He is endowed with head hair like a woman. The locks of his hair sprout like Nisaba (Goddess of grain) He knows neither people nor land; Garbed is he like Sumuqan (God of cattle) With the gazelles he feeds on grass, With the wild beasts he jostles at the Watering-place, With the teeming creatures his heart delights in water.
(Now) a hunter, a trapping man, Faced him at the watering-place. [One] day, a second, and a third He faced him at the watering-place. When the hunter saw him his face became motionless. He and his beasts went into his house, [Sore a]fraid, still, without a sound, (While) his heart [was disturbed]. Overclouded his face. For woe had [entered] his belly; His face was like (that of)[one who had made] a far [journey]
(I,ii,36-50)
The hunter informs his father of the incident:
The hunter opened [his mouth], and addressing [his father] said: “My father, there is a [unique] man who has co[me to thy field] (or, who[ has come from the hills]) He is the might[iest in the land]; strength he has, [like the essence] of Anu, so mighty [his strength]! [Ever] he ranges over the hills, [Ever] with the beasts [he feeds on grass] [Ever sets he] his feet at the watering-place [I am so frightened that] I dare not approach him! [He filled in] the pits that I had dug, [He tore up] my traps which I had [set] The beasts and creatures of the steppe [He has made slip through my hands (And) [does not allow] me to catch the game of the steppe.
(I,iii,1-12)
That is the description of the famous Enkidu of the Gilgamesh epic.
In the bible the Neanderthals are called Anakim and they were killed by the Homo sapiens sapiens who are called God’s people i.e. the Israelites (the original conquest of Canaan happened at least some 45,000 years ago).
In the traditions of the other peoples they are called Giants.
Leave it to dtango to make spurious connections just so he can talk of his 'great knowledge' of all things myth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know which dog you are speaking of. The forum automated censor filter gets a little carried away at times.
