So Neantherdals and "modern humans" did almost the same things ie: make musical instruments, bury their dead and so forth? If scientists found African pygmies in a million years time would they be likely to be categorized as a different species due to the obvious physical differences?
The wind is blowing cold
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
So Neantherdals and "modern humans" did almost the same things ie: make musical instruments, bury their dead and so forth? If scientists found African pygmies in a million years time would they be likely to be categorized as a different species due to the obvious physical differences?
Neandertals did similar things to humans - not the same things.
As for pygmies, they're simply humans who never hit that pubescent growth spurt - an evolutionary development, like a different skin tone or eye shape - favorable for their region. Apart from their stature, what other "physical differences" are you talking about?
Neandertals did similar things to humans - not the same things.
As for pygmies, they're simply humans who never hit that pubescent growth spurt - an evolutionary development, like a different skin tone or eye shape - favorable for their region. Apart from their stature, what other "physical differences" are you talking about?
Neandertals did all the major things we associate with humanity such as evidence of written language, burial of the their dead and making musical instruments. That they didn't do everything associated with humanity doesn't seem highly relevant in this case. I guess pygmies are a bad example, I was merely using a hypothetical scenario that pygmie fossils could be thought of as a different species due to the short stature and also their way of life, when we know they are fully human.
The wind is blowing cold
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
Neandertals did all the major things we associate with humanity such as evidence of written language, burial of the their dead and making musical instruments. That they didn't do everything associated with humanity doesn't seem highly relevant in this case. I guess pygmies are a bad example, I was merely using a hypothetical scenario that pygmie fossils could be thought of as a different species due to the short stature and also their way of life, when we know they are fully human.
Why is it unsafe to walk through the jungle between the hours of 2:00 and 4:00 in the afternoon?
Because that's when elephants swing on vines.
Why are pigmies short?
Because they walk through the jungle between the hours of 2:00 and 4:00 in the afternoon.
I know my pigmies.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Neandertals did all the major things we associate with humanity such as evidence of written language, burial of the their dead and making musical instruments. That they didn't do everything associated with humanity doesn't seem highly relevant in this case. I guess pygmies are a bad example, I was merely using a hypothetical scenario that pygmie fossils could be thought of as a different species due to the short stature and also their way of life, when we know they are fully human.
Well, they didn't do everything like we did. But pygmys would be indisginguishable from "normal" people. Their bodies are just smaller, just a regional variation. We differenciate ourselves from neanderthals and erectus because there are some subtle, yet severe anatomical differences.
"Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
-Ashley Montagu
Well, they didn't do everything like we did. But pygmys would be indisginguishable from "normal" people. Their bodies are just smaller, just a regional variation. We differenciate ourselves from neanderthals and erectus because there are some subtle, yet severe anatomical differences.
hmmmm ok well thanks for that. Unless I'm mistaken Neanderthals had larger but a lesser quality brain and therefore a lower level of intelligence? How does that work? Because intelligence and brain size are often linked......
The wind is blowing cold
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
Didn't neanderthalus also have that mohawk like bone on the top of their skull that their chewing muscles attached to? Or am I thinking of a different species?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
birds are dinosaurs. birds are related to crocodiles. bats and birds are not related. salamanders have gills and lungs. lemurs have opposable thumbs. sloths used to be huge. armadillos have large flattened distal humeri that create more surface area and expand muscle attachment. this is for digging.
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
hmmmm ok well thanks for that. Unless I'm mistaken Neanderthals had larger but a lesser quality brain and therefore a lower level of intelligence? How does that work? Because intelligence and brain size are often linked......
Often but not always. I"m no brain expert, but it seems likely that they had lots of wits, but not quite the neural connections required for really complex thought that we have. But I"m sure they were far from stupid.
But look at the "hobbits". They were very similar to Homo Erectus, physically and cultureally, but had tiny bodies, including tiny brains. Yet they were just as smart as H.E. so there ya go
"Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
-Ashley Montagu
I don't think you really understand what the ID and creationist camps actually accept. They would accept that genes do mutate and that changes do occur that lead to slightly different animals in different environments. For example if a bat lost its sight and that actually became an advantage in its environment. However neither of the two groups would accept that species evolve in an upward motion until homo sapiens came along. The difference is the creationists follow a literal reading of the bible and believe the earth is about 6000 years old, whereas the ID camp would easily accept an universe that is billions of years old. The ID camp makes more sense in my view......
Intelligent design requires that a more intelligent being must be present to guide changes in form. Why this would be necessary at all since selection can change gene frequencies is not obvious or needed. What ID represents is an updated form of creationism attempting to keep some need for a god in what fundamentalists call 'creation'. It essentially says that complex structures can not arise by chance because that would be 'too difficult' and as such is a cop-out. Since ID was proposed by a lawyer originally, has no theoretical framework, is untestable, has no evidence to support and is not recognised in the scientific community I find it hard to understand how it could be a better fit than Evolution for the patterns which are so obvious in the natural world. You are a fool if you believe it.
hmmmm ok well thanks for that. Unless I'm mistaken Neanderthals had larger but a lesser quality brain and therefore a lower level of intelligence? How does that work? Because intelligence and brain size are often linked......
Who says they weren't as intelligent as us anyway? Maybe they were. Maybe they were more intelligent. As far as I'm aware there isn't really any evidence to suggest otherwise. Is there?
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
hmmmm ok well thanks for that. Unless I'm mistaken Neanderthals had larger but a lesser quality brain and therefore a lower level of intelligence? How does that work? Because intelligence and brain size are often linked......
Often but not always. I'm not sure about Neandertal's brain size (I thought they had larger heads but slightly smaller brains), but the actual size is less important than the amount of "folds." I can't remember what they're called, but basically the folds, hills, and valleys of the brain (you know, they look lumpy) are a sign of more advanced intelligence- the more the better; and can be determined in long dead animals by looking at the ridges inside the brain cavity. For those that have seen Jurassic Park - one of the reasons scientists think velociraptors were so intelligent is because of the ridges in the brain cavity. Corny example, I know, but there you go.
Of course, I'm no neurobiologist, nor have a studied Neandertal skulls, but that is a possibility if their brains were larger. There are other differences, though. Bone structure, for example, is different than ours; particularly in the skull. I believe they had both cranial (across the top) and brow (around the front) ridges that rose out from the head. Jaw structure was different, too.
The sheer number of Neandertal fossils that have been found pretty much rules out that these were Homo sapien sapiens with deformities.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Who says they weren't as intelligent as us anyway? Maybe they were. Maybe they were more intelligent. As far as I'm aware there isn't really any evidence to suggest otherwise. Is there?
Material Culture - we can judge their intelligence based on the artifacts found in the archaeological record
They existed for a few hundred thousand years and never made any significant advances in their material culture. Its like they could only get so far and just couldn't take it to that next level. But like I said earlier, they were far from dumb.
disclaimer, I'm no neanderthal expert, my "expertise" is more onthe earlier guys.
"Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
-Ashley Montagu
Comments
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
So what are we becoming?
Where did we go wrong?
As for pygmies, they're simply humans who never hit that pubescent growth spurt - an evolutionary development, like a different skin tone or eye shape - favorable for their region. Apart from their stature, what other "physical differences" are you talking about?
yea, pretty much what i said.
Esther's here and she's sick?
hi Esther, now we are all going to be sick, thanks
Neandertals did all the major things we associate with humanity such as evidence of written language, burial of the their dead and making musical instruments. That they didn't do everything associated with humanity doesn't seem highly relevant in this case. I guess pygmies are a bad example, I was merely using a hypothetical scenario that pygmie fossils could be thought of as a different species due to the short stature and also their way of life, when we know they are fully human.
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
So what are we becoming?
Where did we go wrong?
Why is it unsafe to walk through the jungle between the hours of 2:00 and 4:00 in the afternoon?
Because that's when elephants swing on vines.
Why are pigmies short?
Because they walk through the jungle between the hours of 2:00 and 4:00 in the afternoon.
LOL
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
So what are we becoming?
Where did we go wrong?
Well, they didn't do everything like we did. But pygmys would be indisginguishable from "normal" people. Their bodies are just smaller, just a regional variation. We differenciate ourselves from neanderthals and erectus because there are some subtle, yet severe anatomical differences.
-Ashley Montagu
hmmmm ok well thanks for that. Unless I'm mistaken Neanderthals had larger but a lesser quality brain and therefore a lower level of intelligence? How does that work? Because intelligence and brain size are often linked......
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
So what are we becoming?
Where did we go wrong?
~Ron Burgundy
Often but not always. I"m no brain expert, but it seems likely that they had lots of wits, but not quite the neural connections required for really complex thought that we have. But I"m sure they were far from stupid.
But look at the "hobbits". They were very similar to Homo Erectus, physically and cultureally, but had tiny bodies, including tiny brains. Yet they were just as smart as H.E. so there ya go
-Ashley Montagu
Intelligent design requires that a more intelligent being must be present to guide changes in form. Why this would be necessary at all since selection can change gene frequencies is not obvious or needed. What ID represents is an updated form of creationism attempting to keep some need for a god in what fundamentalists call 'creation'. It essentially says that complex structures can not arise by chance because that would be 'too difficult' and as such is a cop-out. Since ID was proposed by a lawyer originally, has no theoretical framework, is untestable, has no evidence to support and is not recognised in the scientific community I find it hard to understand how it could be a better fit than Evolution for the patterns which are so obvious in the natural world. You are a fool if you believe it.
Who says they weren't as intelligent as us anyway? Maybe they were. Maybe they were more intelligent. As far as I'm aware there isn't really any evidence to suggest otherwise. Is there?
-C Addison
Of course, I'm no neurobiologist, nor have a studied Neandertal skulls, but that is a possibility if their brains were larger. There are other differences, though. Bone structure, for example, is different than ours; particularly in the skull. I believe they had both cranial (across the top) and brow (around the front) ridges that rose out from the head. Jaw structure was different, too.
The sheer number of Neandertal fossils that have been found pretty much rules out that these were Homo sapien sapiens with deformities.
http://www.coconutstudio.com/Brain%20Development_files/IC5_page12.gif
Material Culture - we can judge their intelligence based on the artifacts found in the archaeological record
They existed for a few hundred thousand years and never made any significant advances in their material culture. Its like they could only get so far and just couldn't take it to that next level. But like I said earlier, they were far from dumb.
disclaimer, I'm no neanderthal expert, my "expertise" is more onthe earlier guys.
-Ashley Montagu