Evolution answers

[aggle-rithm]

Rob Gargett ("Subversive Archaeologist") notes that even were you to draw a more human-like Neanderthal with the eyes and nose as large as the bones indicate they would have to be, what you end up with is still outlandish:

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/...oYiqWb0-t2yZhXo613uB6KrhQCxpiGsqjrJAvRus_.jpg

I agree that this poorly executed reconstruction looks outlandish, as poorly executed reconstructions are wont to do.

 

[Reality Check]

What we actually know about Neanderthals is entirely consistent with Vendramini's reconstructions

You are lying, icebear.
Vendramini's reconstructions are fantasies based on ignorance and wishful thinking. As you would know if you bothered to understand who Danny Vendramini is, icebear
Neandertals were monsters!

Danny Vendramini is a man with a vision…but absolutely no knowledge or competence. He has invented out of whole cloth a bizarre hypothesis that Neandertals were super-predators who hunted modern humans for food and sex. To support this weird contention, he builds up a tissue thin set of speculations, all biased towards this idea that Neandertals were giant, hairy brutes who looked like bipedal chimpanzees, and that were intent on raping and eating people.

If it sounds like the plot for a cheesy SyFy channel horror movie, you shouldn’t be surprised: Vendramini is not a scientist, but he is a “theatre director, TV producer and award-winning film director and scriptwriter“. He has no training in comparative anatomy, ecology, or evolutionary biology, and it shows.

He has written a book titled Them+Us. Here’s the promotional video. Prepare to simultaneously laugh and stand aghast at the abuse of science.
...
It’s all ludicrous, pseudo-scientific ********.

You need to wean yourself from ludicrous, pseudo-scientific ********, icebear. Try looking at actual skulls (see the blog entry) and how they really attach to the body rather than relying on pseudo-scientific ********.

 

[Reality Check]

A totally carnivorous and cannibalistic creature ....

A story about a totally carnivorous and cannibalistic creature can say whatever it likes, icebear. That is science fiction, not science.

 

[Dinwar]

You need to wean yourself from ludicrous, pseudo-scientific ********, icebear. Try looking at actual skulls (see the blog entry) and how they really attach to the body rather than relying on pseudo-scientific ********.

If it seems I'm being short with icebear, this is fundamentally why--I did the legwork for him in the past, showing him Neanderthal vs. anotomically modern human skulls. It has no apparent effect on him. As I said, unsinkable rubber duck.

 

[Reality Check]

IVenderamini's reconstructions ARE accurate or at least totally consistent with the available evidence other than for two small details.

Still wrong, icebear: Read Neandertals were monsters! for the total ignorance in his reconstructions.

The Neanderthal had to deal with bright sunlight for the simple reason that Europe has bright sunlight! But as you imply it is idiotic to make up slit eyes for Neanderthals.

Wow - tens of thousands of years is "sudden" to you, icebear!
And "no trace of any sort of a run-up" is ridiculous when Wikipedia exists:
Origin of the Cro-Magnon people

Anatomically modern humans (AMH) first emerged in East Africa some 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. An exodus from Africa over the Arabian Peninsula around 60,000 years ago brought modern humans to Eurasia, with one group rapidly settling coastal areas around the Indian Ocean and one group migrating north to steppes of Central Asia.[24] A mitochondrial DNA sequence of two Cro-Magnons from the Paglicci Cave, Italy, dated to 23,000 and 24,000 years old (Paglicci 52 and 12), identified the mtDNA as Haplogroup N, typical of the descendants in Central Asia.[25]

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Based on post-cranial morphology alone there is almost no difference between H. habilis and H. sapiens sapiens. All significant differences between the various Homo species are in cranial morphology. The tool kit used by H. habilis was highly specialized and sophisticated, with little change for millions of years. In fact, some papers I read in college suggest that H. habilis and H. erectus represent a long development of one species, not one species followed/replaced by another.

The Neandertal tool kit was also highly sophisticated, but like the habilis and erectus tool kits show an almost religious preference to old designs and no improvement over the timeframe used. The early H. sapiens sapiens tool kit starts with tools very much like those used by both H. erectus and H. s. neandertalensis, but rapidly undergoes improvements. Improved stone tools are still stone tools.

 

[Slowvehicle]

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

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

We also share about half our dna with bananas, which suggests proves freaky things were goin' down in The Garden before God kicked 'em out.

 

[aggle-rithm]

We also share about half our dna with bananas, which suggests proves freaky things were goin' down in The Garden before God kicked 'em out.

Of course, we HAVE been getting all GMO on bananas for the last 10,000 years or so.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Of course, we HAVE been getting all GMO on bananas for the last 10,000 years or so.

An equivocation within a joke obscured by humor?

Not sure whether I should be laughing at your supreme cleverness, or face palming at your ignorance.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

No, I think his joke was a subtle slam on the "perfect banana = goddidit" argument and slap at anti-gmo by equivocating selective crop breeding with gene splicing.

Geez, dude. Get a cup of coffee or something.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

No, I think his joke was a subtle slam on the "perfect banana = goddidit" argument and slap at anti-gmo by equivocating selective crop breeding with gene splicing.

Geez, dude. Get a cup of coffee or something.

Took your advice and made a fresh pot. I guess I am unfamiliar with the "perfect banana = goddidit" argument. I did spot the equivocation though. Although bananas are not bred the same way as other plants. They are generally natural somatic mutations propagated by corm separations. ie clones. This makes it particularly difficult to replace a commercial banana when it gets infested by a disease like the devastating Panama disease. Almost all commercial bananas are from 2 genetically identical types, Dwarf Cavendish and Grand Nain, and even those two are almost identical to each other, neither produces seeds. So a breeding program with them is pretty fruitless.

So how does a somatic mutation qualify in any argument as "perfect banana = goddidit"?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I'm horrified that I'm actually posting this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ3Fw3wZouM


I apologize in advance.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Anyway, the commercial banana as we know it appears to be the result of long contact with human intervention as opposed to a naturally occurring plant in the same form as the wild type. Same as corn (maize) but as you say the propagation mechanisms are different.

 

[Dinwar]

Anyway, the commercial banana as we know it appears to be the result of long contact with human intervention as opposed to a naturally occurring plant in the same form as the wild type. Same as corn (maize) but as you say the propagation mechanisms are different.

Domestication is, by itself, proof of human manipulation. Even if it's unintended, humans will select certain plants for stock seed, resulting in selection pressures. The silver fox experiments in Russia demonstrate the efficacy of this selection pressure (and make me want to spend an unconscionable amount of money on one--those things are cute as hell!).

 

[Fast Eddie B]

The silver fox experiments in Russia demonstrate the efficacy of this selection pressure (and make me want to spend an unconscionable amount of money on one--those things are cute as hell!).

That experiment is featured in the Nova Special "Dogs Decoded", available on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAnVS27WODg

That segment begins at about 35:30, but the whole show is worth a watch - especially for dog lovers.

 

[justintime]

If scientists cannot be certain about Neanderthals who lived and went extinct some 45,000 years ago. How can they be certain of anything going beyond that time?

1. Why did they go extinct? Did they interbreed with humans? Why do we have traces of neanderthal genes in only non-African human genome. Modern Africans do not have any Neanderthal DNA.

Evolutionists toss around numbers like millions and millions of years like it is well within their purview to understand evolutionary development during those periods. But something as recent as 45,000 years ago the neanderthals are barely understood.

In fact early neanderthal fossils were mistakenly identified as an ape and the belief held for a over a 100 years till it was discovered the specimens bones were badly diseased and deformed, that is was actually human and not an ape and the records corrected.

There are no evolution answers....just guesses.

 

[Dinwar]

If scientists cannot be certain about Neanderthals who lived and went extinct some 45,000 years ago.

We are. It's only a handful of crackpots muddying the waters for those, like you, who consider a debate forum a substitute for education.

Why did they go extinct?

To quote an old professor of mine, "Because the last member of the species died." Why they DECLINED is another question entirely, but likely involves competition with humans.

Did they interbreed with humans?

Genetic studies indicate yes.

Why do we have traces of neanderthal genes in only non-African human genome.

Because interbreeding occurred in populations of anotomically modern humans that left Africa.

Evolutionists toss around numbers like millions and millions of years like it is well within their purview to understand evolutionary development during those periods.

It is, for various reasons I've explained to you before.

But something as recent as 45,000 years ago the neanderthals are barely understood.

No, we have a very good understanding of it. We're learning new details, is all--and you are confusing learning new details with discarding the whole theoretical structure, quite dishonestly.

In fact early neanderthal fossils were mistakenly identified as an ape

This is a lie, read as intended (humans ARE apes, so it's not technically untrue--but it's akin to saying "Someone confused an F-150 with a pickup truck", and it's obvious that you don't understand taxonomy).

and the belief held for a over a 100 years

Not among scientists actually studying the fossils.

till it was discovered the specimens bones were badly diseased and deformed, that is was actually human and not an ape and the records corrected.

None of this is true.

There are no evolution answers....just guesses.

Funny how you have to lie to make it appear so.

 

[nathan]

Anyway, the commercial banana as we know it appears to be the result of long contact with human intervention as opposed to a naturally occurring plant in the same form as the wild type.

the 'banana goes yellow when ripe' behaviour is the result of a specific mutation encountered in (IIRC) 1837 or so.

google fu finds http://marysueandsusan.com/news/Apr06/news04067.htm

ooo 1836 -- so close!

my god, there's http://bananapedia.com/ some people are seriously into bananas!

 

[Dinwar]

my god, there's http://bananapedia.com/ some people are seriously into bananas!

People have been killed over bananas. The history of the fruit is pretty bloody.