Humans Vs Neanderthals

There are plenty of evil people that call themselves Christians, and plenty of righteous atheists, and everything in between.

Who you callin' a "Homo" ?

Well, I always throw a few barbs - in with the roses...

There is an estimate that we were paired down to a very few for a short period and rebounded, of course.

There are many possibilities for their extinction - we almost went, after all.

Disparate populations get ground down and simply don't catch the luck.

It wouldn't be too far a leap to think a few unfortunate disasters would leave us vulnerable. Biological wipe-out of the non-diverse Monsanto hybrid crops, drug-resistant staph runs amok, - a good asteroid mixed up with a very survival incapable, reduced or collapsed and starving few.
No more internet, no more supermarkets and no one knows what to do.

But at least it wouldn't be boring.

CZ, lets not forget that these were "Hunter/Gathers, and required much more room to survive, than the farmers/pastoral people in later years. Also, consider the fact that the animals that they hunted could have migratory patterns that could have caused conflict between various tribes as they followed the herds.

The article doesn't say anything about "war with neanderthals", in fact it says ""We're not suggesting there was a blitzkrieg, with modern humans marching across the land and executing the Neandertals [aka Neanderthals]. I want to say that loud and clear."

"The finding is scant but tantalizing evidence for a theory that modern humans helped to kill off the Neanderthals. "--- i guess i took that and extrapolated it in my head... oops

It's tantalizing because face it, the idea of a grand human/neanderthal war is pretty damn badass!

yeah...especially since we won... but im curious what the world would have looked like if they survived and we were simply isolated. That would be interesting.. to co-evolve in to 2009.. what their tech... what their gov't ... what their social structure would look like.. cuz they weren't THAT different from us and yet they were at the same time..

Dogs would be a huge advantage to the Homo Sapiens!

how does the author handle evidence of interbreeding?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/08/070802-neanderthals.html

I suspect the truth is far more complex than the simple "humans suck and are genocidal murderers" theory.

o.o I don't think women are different species sir o.o thats a odd assumption for you to make.

They act funny

"Even some people who follow science like some of those who are religious simply believe anything told them. In science however, it is a tantalizing theory, but if religious it would be called ignorant mythmaking."

I think the differences are 1. Most people who follow science don't "simply believe anything told to them" - even the article itself explains just how much evidence they have and how the scientists feel about this theory and both scientists and "science followers" know that scientific theories are open to change and 2. This particular theory is based on tangible evidence, which is why it's not "ignorant mythmaking" - they didn't just make some explanation up with no reasons of proof behind it.

Delia, I'd have to agree with Jan. Global Warming is a perfect example. I see people on this site all the time declaring that 'the discussion is over', anyone who disagrees is a 'flat earther', but that is NOT the way science works. Theories are proposed, tested, debated, and it goes on for decades. Even something as widely accepted as Evolution will see elements of the theory reassessed constantly. Case in point: the original theory was that evolution was a constant, steady and slow process. New evidence has led some scientists to believe that evolution may occur in rapid spurts. Now they will test that theory and look for evidence to disprove it.

So what is happening in the Globa Warming issue is that non scientists--politicians and 'enlightened' progressives--have glommed onto the theory and have declared that the "debate is over". These are people who "believe in science" (they accept the popularly held theory) and reject critical theories emotionally, almost as if it were a form of blasphemy to critique the theory.

"These are people who "believe in science" (they accept the popularly held theory) and reject critical theories emotionally, almost as if it were a form of blasphemy to critique the theory."

I'm not sure if you are talking about global warming or evolution here, but if someone is a true ..er, "follower of science" or "believes in science", they should expect that change and reassessment is fundamentally built in to science itself.

Yes

lol

Maybe they were big foot.
This was before the good ol' boys snuck around and wiped out the Indian villages and also before television with the Saturday hunting and fishing shows.

Yes. But just right before all that.

Kidding! Jokes.

So a magical man from the sky put you here at the snap of a finger, put one man and one women here, they fucked, had kids who fucked(they had too since there were no other people) and killed each other, and they are an exception since now when you bang your bro or sis, you'll have a flipper baby.

The most eccentric man told me of religion.

The most calm man told me about evolution.

You never see those atheist crazies in the McD's preaching to a bunch of Teenagers about Atheism, but you'll see some religious crazy do it all the time.

saying you don't believe in evolution is like saying you don't believe in gravity.

whimsical ? Thats a big word for a talking snake.

Evolutionists don't believe we came from monkeys either.

Where do you stand on heliocentrism?

Well if evolution doesn't exist then why weren't Neanderthals, Chromagens, and Dinosaurs in the Bible? I mean, how can an entire book of history be written, dating to the beginning of the creation of Earth, without mentioning the millions of large, ominous lizards? You do believe in Dinosaurs right?

If that's so, why does Leviticus go on for several pages giving a tediously detailed description of how the Arc of the Covenant was built? What could possibly be the purpose of that? You'd think we that level of endless detail, a passing mention of GIANT FUCKING LIZARDS ROAMING THE EARTH would be warranted. If God went to all that trouble creating them and subsequently massacring them into extinction, you'd think they'd serve some purpose, nay?

What's funny is that you probably fancy yourself some kind of skeptic.

How is several pages endlessly and repetitively describing the physical detail of the Arc of the Covenant not a digression? Have you read the Bible in its entirety?

No, I don't think you're a maverick. I think you suffer from cognitive dissonance. You question the authority of scientists that have all kinds of physical evidence to support their conclusions, but don't appear to second guess any of your religious doctrine that has not only no evidence whatsoever to back it up, but is contradicted entirely by all accounts outside of scripture.

Our ancestors were ape-like creatures, not monkeys.

Religion=Bullshit :/ No hard proof.

Evolution=Thousands of hard,touchable proof.

I'd call that a win,wouldn't you?

So what bible do you believe in? the Original one canonized by Constantine or the revised one sans original books by King james. what are your thoughts on the 112 apocryphal books that were omitted? what are your thoughts on Babylonianism, that predated christianity and judaism by thousands of yrs and yet still had man created to tend a garden w/ 4 rivers flowing from it.

yvesisaki, read the Origin of Species, travel the world, immerse yourself in other cultures, interview a few scientists(an anthropologist/biologist/geologist/astronomer/physicist/theologist etc.), speak to a beekeeper, then do some significant research on yours and other theistic histories.

Then, we can have some constructive, unifying, human discussions on the topic.

By the way, when scientific evidence is proven erroneous or a hoax, how do you think they reach those conclusions? With the motherfucking scientific method! That's what so amazing about it. It's open to continuous revision and peer review, whereas fundamentalist theology is not to be questioned.

hey num, right on with the Ultimate Truth argument. i think you deleted it, genius though.

I didn't delete it. Or I didn't intend to. That's really odd...

I backtracked and found it though. I said:

Who needs worldly knowledge when you've got divine inspiration.

That always baffles me though, people who have a fundamentalist faith in the Bible as the ultimate source of truth, and haven't even read the entire thing. If I knew of a single volume that contained Ultimate Truth, I'd read the fucking thing twenty times, with a second volume to highlight and make notes in. I'd study the goddamn thing on a daily basis.

The hippies that came up with what is Christianity said "There's no God or Gods, dummy! -There's one big nameless oneness. As soon as you put a name on it, you make a stupid, insipid little illusion for yourself that is not God and completely delude yourself"

There's a trillion stars in each galaxy and a trillion galaxies that stretch on forever.

YOU are so relatively unimportant. Get over yourself - while you have the brief chance to climb out of foolishness. Otherwise you'll be just one of the dummies who were one of the dummies, forever. - What a waste.

02 : please go back to grade school and try again. clearly you cannot write coherently.

I do not want to get into a Bibilical discussion, as I very interested in the chance of Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens interaction. I will make this one comment about Numinant's question on the detail of the Ark construction. In the New Testament, Jesus addresses the detailed laws and descriptions of the garments worn by the Levites and their behavior. It was done to prove to them that adherence to detail of the law was not the path to salvation. What was in their heart was more important.

Back to the Neanderthals. Amazing to think that a human related race could survive for over 200,000 years and then vanish within a few thousand years of Homo Sapiens arrival! There is a verse in Genesis that has always puzzled me, Genesis 6:1-4. Something of a cataclysmic nature must have happened to wipe out the Neanderthals; What was it?

wow its getting hot in here!
Problem: Darwin made two statements; 1. He described the process of natural selection. 2. He posited that we occured by that mechanism. The problem in so many debates is that these two are not separated.
His first statement is scientifically correct, natural selection as a process works and can be proven with as much mathematical accuracy as planetary orbits. There is nothing more to be said on that.
The second point is sadly where the problem lies. Can we attribute our occurrence to a mere equation? Well we now have terabytes of data on evolution in simple lifeforms. Lenski to name one with his work on e-coli details a populations evolution at the genetic level. As we understand and accept evolution in simple life forms we start to realize the scalable nature of the process and start to see its signature in the more complex life. We are now at a stage when evolution for most species is accepted with the exception of ourselves. Sadly I *believe* that this is down to nothing more than our arrogance.

Solution: - replicate our own evolution.
We are now at the stage of being able to run very simple evolution in computer simulations and witness it producing solutions that were not coded into it. But as fun as all that is its still VERY simple. The problem of increasing the complexity is however not to do with evolution but with the environment in which evolution is simulated. If your simulation environment has only two laws of physics then that is all evolution as to cope with. By creating a richer environment with increased complexity evolution is forced to yield more complex solutions. Given that the process of evolution can be used to solve any mathematically solvable problem; it will be able to deal with any environment which adherers to the laws of physics and chemistry. It is just a matter of time and computer speed; can we replicate our own environment in simulation and not have to wait millions of years? I'm not sure my coding skills are up for it!

To anyone who does not accept Darwin's LAW ;) - natural selection:
1. Do you understand probability with regard to context? Can you see that 1 in 6 billion is not very improbable? (if you don't believe me go an look in the mirror)
2. Do you realize that survival of the fittest is a mis-representation, un-survial of the un-fittest is more apt (less catchy).
3. Do you understand how the mechanism of mutation (which is nearly always detrimental) plays a vital role in the process?
4. Natural selection is nothing more than a dynamic search algorithm capable of traversing genomic space.

We are nothing more than the solution........

jb83: It's as clear as a bell. Apparently you don't like the message?

@yvesisaki

Please do know that Man created God, not God created Man, I would explain more in detail, but the number of comments prevents me from doing so.....

Holy Darwin I don't even know where to start coming into this one. I'll just say this:

Evolution is regarded in the scientific community as one of the MOST true theories in science with an assload of evidence to back it up spanning multiple scientific disciplines and research. Without making too broad of a generalization I would say that the majority of people who don't believe in evolution simply don't really understand it; hence we get the "I'm not from a monkey!" arguments and whatnot.

I simply don't understand why people trust science to run their cars, light their homes, fix their medical problems and progress humanity but when it comes to evolution, people get all muddled up on the god issue. How can such a conflict exist when science proves itself to you in real, tangible and practical ways that millions of people see, experience and rely on every single day?

because delia... people are desperate when they need science to cure them in the medical feel.. desperate to get those bloody oil companies different ways to get oil so they can haul there ass to work.. and pretty much everything that science does.. People need it.. (or they think they need it) and are willing to bend the rules.. Subconsciously or otherwise.

I think the main lesson the person who left the original comment needs to learn, is that the Bible is simply an amazingly intricate book telling stories that are written for one reason and one reason only- To teach morals about being a good person.
It is a book for people to learn simple things like- if you murder, you are bad.

Seriously that simple.

And yes- the Bible may be based on an original story. Just like fairy tales!

Anywho- as a lesson to yvesisaki-

Writing that statement about not believing in evolution was pretty much just asking for criticism. If you want to talk about creationism, write your thoughts elsewhere.

As long as people are taught to accept rules, and not to think, we'll have people expecting someone to tell them how to be.

But it never gets there unless people, themselves, use their own mind.

You don't have a real thought in your head, unless you were able to think it out yourself. -Thinking is the only way we get our own minds and self-knowledge. The only way we get over the long road to adulthood.

One guy on Current said something along the following: "If we didn't have the bible, how could we know to not just go out and murder?"

Obviously, he has never thought it out for himself; and obviously he is missing out on his own mature, grown-up mind because he has never had the chance to do so.

That is the negative that is indicative of the bible/church-cult crew.

And besides, since "God" (the vast expanse of reality everybody is now keenly aware of) is obviously bigger than all the screw-ball teachings in these 'old time religions', why waste your time with the utterly mundane?

I believe people who want to "get holy" are looking for an answer that will make them feel good - assuage their fears, which they fearfully hope will no longer be there because of their new-found answers.

Those pesky little fears.

The more knowledge and understanding, that you bring in, allow a greater view. The view is of God.
It is an unfortunate ignorance that people start on this path by assuming God is a man who made the Universe. -This keeps a view that there is a separate entity that is God.
Study will tell you that there is one God, God is One - God is reality, reality is God - it is the creation itself, all of creation. God is not a small little man in some corner of the Universe somewhere.

That might seem like a bubble-popper - but when you stand back from your own wishes (wishes you constructed for yourself a while back) - you see that God, everywhere you look, is bigger than all the predicates you specified for it. It isn't a separate entity, it is THE entity. "All is one" - etc. You are part of it. It is glorious. It is everything you have said of it - no it is MORE! Vastly, vastly more.

So much more, that you have to give up your very vanquishingly small ideas that you have held on to, in order to get a better grasp.

Because God is all, and your notions are extremely partial, you are not paying attention to God.

But you can start.

Exactly 02!

And yvesisaki- wouldn't you be offended by someone who wrote "Jesus was an ass" on some sort of religious blog where people were talking about how cool and awesome Jesus was?

And what gives Christians the right to say if you don't believe in their specific God you will go to Hell? What about a sweet old lady who has lived deep in the Himalayas all of her life, who no one who has ever tried to convert, who has grandchildren and a hard working family, and who has worked all of her life to be a good person. Why would the power that is everything send her to a place of eternal damnation? What kind of cruel, evil, force would do such a thing?

Wouldn't that be a sin? Sending good, gentle, people to hell?

I am not willed to be a good person by God. I try to be on my own accord because of my conscious. In the end, I will not be judged as a sinner, because although I do believe in God- I am not a religious fanatic that condemns people for disagreeing with me.

Not that you are a fanatic- BUT you did call me a sinner in your last response.

"That's going overboard to say 'if I don't believe in evolution I'm not allowed to believe in the other sciences'."

Well, I didn't say that at all. I said I don't understand how you can believe in other sciences yet dismiss one of *THE* most important and scientifically proven aspects of the world. Seriously, evolution is one of the most well respected and proven theories in any scientific field and is regarded by the scientific community as completely TRUE.

I also don't understand why if you think that things like microbiology are just "revealing god's work", why don't you think the same about evolution?

Too long to read.

:/ Science has shown proof.

:/ Religion has shown a book that has been re-written numerous times,with no proof.

Is it that hard to believe something that you can physically touch,research,something that actually makes sense,yvesisaki?

"They exist individually and were not transformed into new modified creatures just because it was convenient for survival."

Y, I don't want to offend you but I don't think you understand evolution very well. I only bring this up because if you are really interested in science and truth, you should do a little research into evolution- you'll find out for yourself that many of the things you have said are relatively common misconceptions about how evolution works and what proof scientists have that it's true. Scientists do not think we "came from monkeys" or that evolution happens out of "convenience."

Yvesisaki, How can you say that God created man, when man created God?

You must understand that humans create everything in their reflection, to have their own image....as a God...

Eh, you can still believe in this "God" of yours, but you must understand that God does not exist, and Man only created it....

Also, that threat, "rebellious against God will give you the ability to go to hell"...

Know that you live with this constant policy, its a just a moral to live by, hence, its a constant threat, created by humans...

People cannot be judged upon their past, mistakes, and other negative things, its all of what humans created....You must understand.....

Lol

lol...

or at least the dolphins will, after they leave.

lol..

well to answer your question ,silly HUMAN. Neandertals are HUMANS. Do you know what it means to be humane? It is hypothesized that Neandertals were much more humane than Homo sapiens (MODERN humans). Just because they were not "modern" does not separate them from humans. There may have been more than 30 types of humans, many of them coexisting.However only one type remains.The humane? I suggest the Humans died and left us alone.When a flock of sheep disappears and wolf tracks are found.........

Uh. no, Neanderthals were not "human" if you count "human" as = to homo sapiens. I'm not sure which basis you're using to infer that Neanderthals were human. Is it the "Homo" part?

Humane and "human" are not the same thing.

But thanks for the condescension.

The word MODERN was not an accident. It implies there were non-"MODERN" humans.I cant believe you could not infer that on your own.

You do notice the last word in " Neandertal Man"...... Im sure they meant monkey or fish?

Neandertals are just early humans.. they're part of the same genus as us.

well the chinese spear throwing lizard was not in that part of the world and the arrow shooting tortoise was out of ammo that day

Thelastwheeler:

from wikipedia - "Neanderthals are either classified as a subspecies of humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate species (Homo neanderthalensis)"

I don't view them as humans. Your view is your view, mine is not. I believe Homo sapiens is "human" while the other Homo genus's are not. It's my personal preference.

And if you read the damned article, you'll notice that it differentiates between Neanderthal and human. So I'm sorry, maybe my first question should by: how did they know the human killed the human? But that might not make sense... so I guess I'll go with the clearer question instead.

@davesarush
why couldn't a Neanderthal pick up a human weapon and use it against another?

What about the difference between smart people and dumb people?

thelastwheeler: what is your problem? Seriously, div's question had NOTHING to do with "humane", go get a dictionary if you don't know the difference. And your venemous attack on him was totally uncalled for, extremely arrogant, and inappropriate.

div, your point is well taken. I thought the same thing. They see evidence for an injury resulting from a weapon, maybe a spear. i guess it could be that they found a spear tip in him but didn't report it, if that were so you could tell the difference in technology fairly easily.

Curtis,

that's what I was thinking. You'd think they'd be very clear about whether it was definitely a human made (cough, i mean homo sapiens made) tip. I don't know, it just seems like a jump to me without them stating it explicitly.

ah, and, lol, I'm actually a female. =)

Hahahahaha
back in the day when we used to judge people by their fur.

then eventually we learned to hate other skin colors.

and now we have moved on to hating members of other political parties.

Good one