Re: Neanderthals were not stupid, just a bit anti-social


Kermit wrote:


This is still an unsettled question, but preliminary looks at European
DNA indicate ...no. We didn't incorporate neanderthal DNA into our
genepool and, knowing how we modern humans behave, we certainly tried.
Therefore we couldn't successfully reproduce.

So we know Neanderthal DNA, and where it and our DNA is not
"incorporated"? What specific DNA makes a neanderthal a neanderthal,
and a "modern" human so selectively different that we couldn't
interbreed.... Were we from a common anscestor? If so, then at SOME
point not only could we have interbreed, but we'd have been, well....
the same species!

We were living in the same area... so the theory states that we
"evolved" later than neanderthals...from what? a different "cousin" of
neanderthals? It appears that either this is another example of
"branches" with no actual forks (like evolution basically gives us 100%
of the time) or Neanderthals were as much able to breed with "modern"
humans as you'd find that current races of humans can interbreed.


So the question is: why was their technology simpler? Some
possibilites:
1. Our brains, tho smaller, are more efficient.
2. We had greater variation than they - more morons, more geniuses.
3. We were more neotonous - among other things, that means more
playful, which means more inventive.
4. They were wiser, and more satisfied with what they had.
5. Their brains were just as smart, but in other ways (which did not
lead to technology).
6. They couldn't make as many sounds as we could with their throats;
their language was simpler, and therefore it was harder to talk about
complex or subtle things.
7. This last one - they had smaller social circles. This means that
ideas spread with more difficulty, and as you probably understand,
ideas build on other ideas.

This is not an exhaustive list.

I'm sure you should reference Jean Auel for further possibilities!
Regardless, we are either their cousins within the same species "human"
or we are different animals altogether. Just because we existed doesn't
mean that we caused their extinction. Different species of pretty much
every family of animals occupy this planet. Why there is only one "homo
sapiens" should be a pretty interesting question.....

Or do you believe that different races are evolutionarily speaking
"behind"? Do you consider some races of human "more evolved" than
others??


LIke small villages - everyone marries their second cousin, yes.

What they didn't have were the ideas from the village down the road.

So they had enough "ideas" to evolve into the species they were,
survive for millions of years, but just didn't get enough "elk migrate
to river" info from other tribes to survive?


Sure, if the evidence calls for it. What's the alternative - hang on to
what we want the truth to be, whatever the evidence says?

No, admit that you do not know, when you DO NOT KNOW.

Of course, those who live in a comfortable narrowminded scientific view
have no problem forgetting that which they "believed" yesterday in
favor of whatever the today's "expert" tells them.

If scientists were narrowminded they wouldn't look at the new evidence.
Kind of like theists who won't consider that they might be wrong, even
when the handiwork of their creator indicates otherwise...

Really? It isn't a question of "looking" at new evidence, but the
question of what you are looking "FOR". I agree that someone who is
100% certain that a God exists will find an interpretation that "jives"
with their preconceptions.... but why you'd think that the opposite is
NOT the case is puzzling. A non-theist faces the same issues.



But... the current accumulated evidence *is the apex of knowledge and
discovery. What else would it be? And if further evidence indicates
that we were wrong about how some aspect of the universe works, we will
grumble and change our minds. Again.

How is this pretentious? How does this compare to those who get dragged
into the new world kicking and screaming - can you say "Galileo"?

It is pretentious because you "grumble". It compares to those "dragged"
individuals in that some are blissful in their known ignorance...while
others are blissful in their unknown ignorance. Regardless.. some don't
want to "know" and others think they "know".... but none of us "know".

Sauropods used to "live in swamps where their bulk could be supported
by the water". T-rex.... fearsome predator...or loathesome scavenger?
Warm-blooded dinosaurs?

I would be interested in hearing your alternative ways of dealing with
evidence.

Creationists, I note (not you, here), will often point to phrases
suggesting tentativeness like "the evidence indicates" or "this
suggests that" and crow that this is "proof" that we admit we don't
know what we are talking about. In the next breath they will accuse us
of hubris.

The alternative is to teach that we are always learning, searching...
that it is not a tautology to be taught, but questions still
unanswered. The problem I have with modern evolutionary theory is the
way it is PRESENTED... that of unerring, proven FACT in all facets!
There is no debate.... genetic adaptation to environmental change is a
far cry from common descent from primordial soup! To say that one
belief system is infallable IS hubris!

I will admit that much of that stems from religious fundamentalism and
misinterpretation of open minded search for truth.

The way neo-evolutionists dismiss the possibility of any supernatural
forces in the universe compared to fundamentalist creationists who
dismiss any possibility other than the KJV Genesis version is
identical!

Both are closeminded and counterproductive.


Whatever... Keep reading.... The story of Life is not written, and
there is no way to know what twists in the plot will appear. If you
think what you now believe is 100% accurate, the most probable truth is
that you are wrong.

I quite agree, as would all the scientists I've ever known. What's yer
point?

I'm glad that you admit that you are most likely wrong in what you
believe. that's a good start.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Researchers begin to decode Neanderthal genome (in the November 17, 2006 issue of Science )
    ... Scientists with the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the Joint Genome Institute have sequenced genomic DNA from fossilized Neanderthal bones. ... Their results show that the genomes of modern humans and Neanderthals are at least 99.5-percent identical, but despite this genetic similarity, and despite the two species having cohabitated the same geographic region for thousands of years, there is no evidence of any significant crossbreeding between the two. ... “In this study, we have demonstrated that Neanderthal genomic sequences can be recovered using a metagenomic library-based approach, and that specific Neanderthal sequences can be obtained from such libraries.” ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Return Stonehenge says archdruid
    ... > There is plenty of evidence for it. ... The Neanderthals were ... Suspects have ranged from the climate to humans themselves, ... the original human settlers of Europe ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • Re: Return Stonehenge says archdruid
    ... > There is plenty of evidence for it. ... The Neanderthals were ... Suspects have ranged from the climate to humans themselves, ... the original human settlers of Europe ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: SETI and the Detection of ID
    ... existence at a time and place when humans did not exist and no other ... My argument is that DNA, by itself, is a very poor artifact to use ... or any other evidence of a technological civilization. ... is not that such mechanisms don't exist, but only that, because you ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Harshman, Felsenstein & Dembski
    ... intelligence or above" created DNA above OR below the 1000fsar ... perform something is not evidence that there were ancient human-like ... observed humans creating DNA, his theory is not just merely even less ... that evolving such societies leave. ...
    (talk.origins)