Evolution answers

[turingtest]

I doubt it.

The absurdities are too patent.

Scientific investigation is pointless because 65% of studies are fraudulent?

Scientists believing only humans are intelligent?

Chimps are more intelligent than humans?

He's playing us.

It still serves some purpose, much as "the fool" does in some forms of argument.

But he is clearly playing a role.

I'm beginning to agree; in his "science fraud is common place" thread, JiT's doing "math" to prove that more scientists are committing fraud than there are scientists to begin with. I'm having a hard time believing that anybody smart enough to use a computer can't see the problem with that; but I do wonder if it's possible that he began sincerely and turned into a troll when he just couldn't let go of an argument he needed even after being shown how ridiculous it was. Weird to think of someone becoming a troll by conviction, but, there you go.

 

[The Don]

What we actually know about Neanderthals is entirely consistent with Vendramini's reconstructions and not with the standard images which corespond to the Neanderthal having become a poster child for kum-bay-ah pseudo-religion:

And yet the Wiki link you provided seems at odds with this...

A 2007 genetic study suggested some Neanderthals may have had red hair and light skin color

While the structure of the head and face were not very far removed from those of modern humans, there were still quite noticeable differences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_anatomy

 

[aggle-rithm]

Jobs didn't design anything. The Apple was designed by Wozniak.

He did interfere with the development of the Mac. That's something.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

He (Jobs) did interfere with the development of the Mac. That's something.

I think his hand can be felt in virtually every device we use today, even if he never wrote a line of code.

For nostalgia, this is hard to beat:

http://youtu.be/x7qPAY9JqE4

At least for Apple fanbois, it's clear the influence that came out of that keynote.

Credit where credit is due.

Or not.

 

[turingtest]

That was the one problem I had with the presentation (Neanderthals were really a great deal more different from us than that). This is what a Neanderthal actually looked like:


http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r53/icebear46/dvneanderx800600_zps5f095e0b.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZbmywzGAVs
courtesy www.themandus.org

According to that "themandus" theory:

NP [Neanderthal Predation] theory reveals that Eurasian Neanderthals hunted, killed and cannibalised early humans for 50,000 years in an area of the Middle East known as the Mediterranean Levant (see map, below).


Because the two species were sexually compatible, Eurasian Neanderthals also abducted and raped human females.

Them and Us cites new evidence from archaeology and genetics to demonstrate that this prolonged period of cannibalistic and sexual predation began about 100,000 years ago and that by 50,000 years ago, the human population in the Levant was reduced to as few as 50 individuals.

But, according to a theory you've advanced elsewhere (your "cosmosincollision"- http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9747582#post9747582), humans only arrived on Earth (from Ganymede) "a few thousand years ago" (the implication elsewhere being 45,000-50,000 years ago).

So, how do you resolve this discrepancy? How could Neanderthals 100,000 years ago hunt, kill, cannibalize, and rape humans that wouldn't arrive for another 50,000 or so years?

No magical thinking now; remember that science doesn't hypothesize based on "could haves." Hypotheses are supposed to explain existing evidence, not explain it away by ad-hoc invention with no evidence for it.

 

[Dinwar]

Wow. Those aren't based on actual data. That's just nonsense.

Not novel nonsense, either. This has already been addressed--icebear is simply an unsinkable rubber duck. He's also shown about as much understanding of anthropology and paleontology as a rubber duck.

 

[icebear]

You can look at a skull and tell what thoughts the brain that was in it had?

A totally carnivorous and cannibalistic creature which yet buries its own dead is a creature which sees the living world as neatly divided into two categories, i.e. its own family group and meat.

 

[Dinwar]

A totally carnivorous and cannibalistic creature which yet buries its own dead is a creature which sees the living world as neatly divided into two categories, i.e. its own family group and meat.

A pretty bold assumption, and one not born out by the data (Aztecs didn't think like that, much to their detriment). Secondly, there's no evidence that any hominin was "totally carnivorous and cannibalistic". In fact, if a Neanderthal ate anatomically modern humans, it CANNOT be cannibalistic--they're eating something else, not their own species.

 

[icebear]

According to that "themandus" theory:...

I never said that I believe all of Vendramini's claims, sorry for the confusion. Venderamini's reconstructions ARE accurate or at least totally consistent with the available evidence other than for two small details. The fur should probably be reddish and the slit eyes should not be there (it's unlikely the Neanderthal ever had to deal with bright sunlight).

I do not buy the Neanderthal Predation theory, i.e. the idea that predation from Neanderthals may have driven gracile hominids to evolve into Cro Magnon man. The evidence suggests that apes, monkeys, and hominids had been here for some time, and that Cro Magnon man CAME here or was brought here.

Cro Magnon man simply appears out of the blue with no trace of any sort of a run-up, about 40K - 45K years ago and there's no way to believe he evolved from gracile/SQ hominids. You can't go from hominids with nothing resembling artwork or complex tools at all to Cro Magnon man WITH all that stuff in a single day as it were.

 

[icebear]

Secondly, there's no evidence that any hominin was "totally carnivorous and cannibalistic".

That is in fact what we do know about Neanderthals and I'm not going to do other people's home work for them all the time, you need to start using Google a bit more on that topic.

 

[Resume]

You can't go from hominids with nothing resembling artwork or complex tools at all to Cro Magnon man WITH all that stuff in a single day as it were.

But you can go from no woman (no cry) to woman from a man's rib in one night? As it were.

 

[icebear]

But you can go from no woman (no cry) to woman from a man's rib in one night? As it were.

Can you point out a post in which I claimed to believe that literally?? If you can't, then accusing me of that is basically lying.

 

[Resume]

Can you point out a post in which I claimed to believe that literally?? If you can't, then accusing me of that is basically lying.

Are you a YEC?

Do you believe Genesis is true and correct?

 

[Dinwar]

That is in fact what we do know about Neanderthals and I'm not going to do other people's home work for them all the time, you need to start using Google a bit more on that topic.

You use Google as your source. I use the academic literature and conversations with anthropologists. Take a guess as to which is more accurate.

Neanderthal dental structures demand an omnivorous diet. I've little doubt they ate meat, and some likely engaged in cannibalism (some humans have as well, for varying reasons). However, plants played a major role in their diets as well.

But since you woos have a Google fetish:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_behavior#Diet

Recently, however, traces of fossilized plants have been extracted from Neanderthal teeth found in Belgium and Iraq, indicating they also ate plants such as grains and legumes in addition to meat.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/highlight/Neanderthal_Diet/

In addition, the majority of animal bones found in and around Neanderthal sites have tended to be from large prey, like horses and reindeer.

Then later (discussing the analysis that was the focus of that research; the above quote was a preamble establishing the general trends in the research):

According to their results, these Neanderthal individuals had been consuming a wide variety of plants. They found evidence of grass seeds like wheat and barley, legumes, and even date palm fruit.

http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/science-neanderthals-stomach-contents-01475.html

They suggest instead that the plant compounds could be from the part-digested stomach contents of hunted animals.

This source isn't as credible, but it does link to more credible research articles.

http://www.livescience.com/16338-neanderthals-diet-balanced-fish-birds.html

In addition to bones of deer, horses, cattle, rhinos and elephants, in Hardy's analysis of 182 stone artifacts found there, he also found microscopic residues of fish scales, bird feathers and starchy plants.

http://australianmuseum.net.au/Homo-neanderthalensis/

There is evidence that the Neanderthals hunted big game and chemical analysis of their fossils shows that they ate significant amounts of meat supplemented with vegetation.

The fact is, researchers are in agrement that Neanderthals ate big game (humans were not a significant part of their diet) AND PLANTS. Anatomically modern humans ate more plants, bu Neanderthals ate what they could find, just like we did back then.

You are wrong about diet, just as you are wrong about anatomy, just as you are wrong about origins--and just about everything else.

 

[Hans]

A totally carnivorous and cannibalistic creature which yet buries its own dead is a creature which sees the living world as neatly divided into two categories, i.e. its own family group and meat.

Recent study on the diet of Neanderthals

http://www.academia.edu/4628394/Having_the_stomach_for_it_a_contribution_to_Neanderthal_diets

 

[turingtest]

I never said that I believe all of Vendramini's claims, sorry for the confusion. Venderamini's reconstructions ARE accurate or at least totally consistent with the available evidence other than for two small details. The fur should probably be reddish and the slit eyes should not be there (it's unlikely the Neanderthal ever had to deal with bright sunlight).

I do not buy the Neanderthal Predation theory, i.e. the idea that predation from Neanderthals may have driven gracile hominids to evolve into Cro Magnon man. The evidence suggests that apes, monkeys, and hominids had been here for some time, and that Cro Magnon man CAME here or was brought here.

Cro Magnon man simply appears out of the blue with no trace of any sort of a run-up, about 40K - 45K years ago and there's no way to believe he evolved from gracile/SQ hominids. You can't go from hominids with nothing resembling artwork or complex tools at all to Cro Magnon man WITH all that stuff in a single day as it were.

You know, it strikes me that, in a few thousand years, an anthropologist could come up with a theory that modern man (after, say, 1950) must have come from Ganymede (or someplace); after all, using your reasoning (that seems to depend on conflating the evolution of man's technology with his biological evolution), "you can't go from a Sumerian with nothing resembling computers or atomic technology to a modern man with all that stuff in a single day (as it were)." (The "as it were" being a period of five thousand years or so)

 

[Dinwar]

Oddly no Neanderthal genes are found in humans of African descent nor have neanderthals been found in Africa which suggest some parallel evolution or convergent evolution.

No. It suggests interbreeding between humans and Neanderthals. Convergent and parallel evolution cannot produce organisms that can succesfully produce fertile offspring. Sharks and dolphins are an example of convergent evolution; they do not produce fertile offspring (I'd say they don't mate, but dolphins are pretty freaky when it comes to that sort of thing so I can't say for certain that they haven't).

 

[Hans]

It seems more likely neanderthals raped chimpanzees to produce hybrids later identified as Europeans. A closer look at human DNA reveals humans have traces of neanderthal genes and humans are also 98% DNA matched with Chimpanzees.

Oddly no Neanderthal genes are found in humans of African descent nor have neanderthals been found in Africa which suggest some parallel evolution or convergent evolution.

Really? Neanderthals also have the same percentage of chimpanzee DNA. Neanderthals came from Africa - AFAWNK - where they ancestors were earlier classified as tropical Neanderthal but now as Homo Heidelbergensis.

 

[Hans]

You know, it strikes me that, in a few thousand years, an anthropologist could come up with a theory that modern man (after, say, 1950) must have come from Ganymede (or someplace); after all, using your reasoning (that seems to depend on conflating the evolution of man's technology with his biological evolution), "you can't go from a Roman with nothing resembling computers or atomic technology to a modern man with all that stuff in a single day (as it were)." (The "as it were" being a period of five thousand years or so)

Actually that is possible especially if they (a future archaeologist) were to find HSS remains in a museum along with earlier stuff. Which is possible if their total data base on HSS was very limited....yeah with strat 'years' become thousands and then tens of thousands+ of years very quickly.

 

[bruto]

A totally carnivorous and cannibalistic creature which yet buries its own dead is a creature which sees the living world as neatly divided into two categories, i.e. its own family group and meat.

In the absence of contradictory text, the same logic could be used to prove that the ancient Israelites saw the living world as neatly divided between their own family group and slaves. In fact, even if your facts are straight, you do not know what the criteria for a group or for edibility might have been.

Why do you presume there is "chimpanzee DNA" in Neanderthals? Does our shared DNA with chimpanzees, raccoons and yeast suggest to you some bizarre sexual deviance? Have you been sneaking midnight visits to the breadbox?