Wacka Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Science is going to be hard pressed to complete the evolutionary lineage between neanderthal man and modern humans, and that's because there isn't one. Mafia union goons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Science is going to be hard pressed to complete the evolutionary lineage between neanderthal man and modern humans, and that's because there isn't one. So? Lots of species have died out at evolutionary dead ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Science is going to be hard pressed to complete the evolutionary lineage between neanderthal man and modern humans, and that's because there isn't one. The article has nothing to do with Neanderthals. It was about finding the link between Homo erectus and modern humans. And what makes you certain there is no link? Are you a credible anthropologist or just another Bible thumper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 So? Lots of species have died out at evolutionary dead ends. And others continued even though they were dead ends. Take Steely Dan for instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boom Jam Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 The article has nothing to do with Neanderthals. It was about finding the link between Homo erectus and modern humans. And what makes you certain there is no link? Are you a credible anthropologist or just another Bible thumper? Bible thumper? No, I'm one of the few around here who believes the universe is teaming with life, and intelligent life at that. I firmly believe that neanderthal man is the 'evolutionary' descendant of homo erectus. Do I believe that modern humans 'evolved' from homo erectus? No. I think it would have taken too many random cosmic rays to the gonads to go from homo erectus to us. So how did we become modern humans? I haven't the slightest clue yet, but I am positive we didn't 'evolve' from homo erectus. Something else happened along the way. What exactly happened? Your guess is as good as mine, but there are some intriguing theories out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boom Jam Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 So? Lots of species have died out at evolutionary dead ends. Haven't you ever found it interesting that neanderthal man 'died out' right at the same time that cro-magnon man started to get rolling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boom Jam Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 Mafia union goons? Obama speech writers too: "We uphold our fundamental principles and values not just because we choose to, but because we swear to -- not because they feel good, but because they help keep us safe." How EFFing delusional can one be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsWatch Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 Haven't you ever found it interesting that neanderthal man 'died out' right at the same time that cro-magnon man started to get rolling? Anthropological evidence shows some coexisting for a period before rapid drop in findings of fossils. Reminds me of American Indians in US - twp populations with one with technology advancements and a new disease other group could not handle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 Here's another Missing Link skull This one is the missing link between humans and Marshawn "Beast Mode" Lynch http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...th-picture.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 Here's another Missing Link skull This one is the missing link between humans and Marshawn "Beast Mode" Lynch http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...th-picture.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 Haven't you ever found it interesting that neanderthal man 'died out' right at the same time that cro-magnon man started to get rolling? I think they mated and merged and thats why the fossils record dribbled out. Havn't you ever seen someone every now and then who's head and eyebrows look like a neaderthal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornerville Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 The article has nothing to do with Neanderthals. It was about finding the link between Homo erectus and modern humans. And what makes you certain there is no link? Are you a credible anthropologist or just another Bible thumper? So wait, only 'Bible Thumpers' have an agenda...science does not? Ah I get it now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 Bible thumper? No, I'm one of the few around here who believes the universe is teaming with life, and intelligent life at that. I firmly believe that neanderthal man is the 'evolutionary' descendant of homo erectus. Do I believe that modern humans 'evolved' from homo erectus? No. I think it would have taken too many random cosmic rays to the gonads to go from homo erectus to us. So how did we become modern humans? I haven't the slightest clue yet, but I am positive we didn't 'evolve' from homo erectus. Something else happened along the way. What exactly happened? Your guess is as good as mine, but there are some intriguing theories out there. You gotta love arguments like this. So you have no clue what happened, yet you're positive that you're right? Brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazed and Amuzed Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 So wait, only 'Bible Thumpers' have an agenda...science does not?Ah I get it now I don't want to get started in this thread so I won't elaborate but this is the best post here. When it comes to proving their point Scientists and Bible thumpers are interchangeable, neither want to hear what the other has to say. And no I am not a bible thumper just someone who is sick of the thumpers and nerds fighting about something neither can prove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan72 Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 A little girl asked her mother: 'How did the human race appear?' The mother answered, 'God made Adam and Eve; they had children; and so was all mankind made.' Two days later the girl asked her father the same question. The father answered, 'Many years ago there were monkeys from which the human race evolved.' The confused girl returned to her mother and said, 'Mom, how is it possible that you told me the human race was created by God, and Dad said they developed from monkeys? The mother answered, 'Well, Dear, it is very simple. I told you about my side of the family, and your father told you about his.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 So wait, only 'Bible Thumpers' have an agenda...science does not?Ah I get it now Did I ever say such a thing? Of course science has an agenda (individual glory, research funding, lifetime job security, etc...), but it also has its own built-in system of "checks and balances" to make sure it's not making sh-- up as it goes along (confines of the scientific method, inductive proof, deductive logic, rigorous peer review, etc...). Comparing the two agendas is like comparing apples and oranges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 You gotta love arguments like this. So you have no clue what happened, yet you're positive that you're right? Brilliant. ??? If you lack the answer to a question, does that mean that you must/may not rule out any of the possible answers in play? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 Did I ever say such a thing? Of course science has an agenda (individual glory, research funding, lifetime job security, etc...), but it also has its own built-in system of "checks and balances" to make sure it's not making sh-- up as it goes along (confines of the scientific method, inductive proof, deductive logic, rigorous peer review, etc...). Comparing the two agendas is like comparing apples and oranges. Science doesn't have an agenda, it's a methodology. I think, at a fundamental level, the agendas of people are quite similar, i.e. intellectual and psychologial satisfaction. Once you design your framework things diverge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boom Jam Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 You gotta love arguments like this. So you have no clue what happened, yet you're positive that you're right? Brilliant. You gotta love douchebags like this. So you have no opinion on what happened, yet you're posting in this thread anyway right? Brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 ???If you lack the answer to a question, does that mean that you must/may not rule out any of the possible answers in play? You gotta love douchebags like this. So you have no opinion on what happened, yet you're posting in this thread anyway right? Brilliant. The point I was attempting to make, that apparently was missed, is quite simple. If you state that you have no clue as to what happened, how can you say that you're positive about anything? "I don't know what the answer is, but based upon this evidence or that, I think we evolved from H. erectus."; is a much more reasonable argument. As for my opinion, it's largely irrelevant. I'm not an anthropologist, nor did I sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night. So, typically I defer to the experts in the field as opposed to making an unsupported claim and assuring everyone that I'm absolutely positive that's the right answer. However, you asked for my opinion, so I'll provide it. There are currently 2 primary theories on human evolution - Modern H. sapiens evolved from small, regional populations throughout Africa, Europe and Asia and all modern humans evolved in parallel from these earlier populations. The second theory proposes that modern H. sapiens evolved from a small, isolated population in Africa. And as this population expanded it outcompeted all early hominid species. As far as I know, the fossil record and mitochondrial DNA studies best support the later theory. Hence, I would be inclined to cite that theory as most plausible, until evidence is discovered or presented to the contrary. As for the suggestion that modern H. sapiens evolved from H. erectus, well that's largely speculation at best. If you prefer the multiregional theory of parallel evolution; then I think you could make an argument that H. erectus could have evolved further. However, if the "out of Africa" theory is more accurate, then it's less likely that H. erectus further evolved into H. sapiens. Given my preference for the later theory, I'm currently of the opinion that H. erectus was an evolutionary deadend. But, again, I would argue that much still remains to be learned about human evolution and therefore much remains to be rewritten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts