posted
First modern humans protected themselves against disease after leaving Africa by 'interbreeding with Neanderthals'
Early humans 'picked up genes' which protected them
By Daily Mail Reporter Last updated at 3:01 PM on 17th June 2011
It might seem like a novel way to keep disease at bay.
Researchers claim that the first modern humans protected themselves against unfamiliar illnesses by interbreeding with Neanderthals.
Although it was known that homo sapiens had bred with Neanderthals after leaving Africa, a study has concluded that in doing so they picked up genes which protected them and eventually helped them to populate the planet.
Your place or mine? Research suggests that intimate relations with Neanderthals and humans strengthened man's immune system
The publication of the Neanderthal genome last year provided proof that modern man also enjoyed intimate relations with other races including the Denisovans, a species identified from a Siberian fossil.
However it had been unclear until now whether or not their sexual shenanigans had influenced their evolution.
Gene pool: Neanderthals probably passed vital genes on to homo sapiens as they populated the rest of the world
According to New Scientist, the research was carried out by Peter Parham, from California's prestigious Stanford University, who carried out research into human leukocyte antigens (HLAs) - which are vital to the human immune system.
HLAs contain some of the most variable genes in the population - known as alleles - which allow the body to react to both established and new diseases.
And while the humans that left Africa probably only carried a small number of the HLA alleles, the research indicates they picked up new ones from the Neanderthals they interbred with as they established themselves in other parts of the world.
One such allele, known as HLA-C*0702, for example, is common among modern Europeans and Asians but is never seen in African nations - suggesting that it found its way into humans through breeding with other races.
Another, the HLA-A*11 - seen among Asians but not those of African descent was discovered by Parham in the Denisovan genome, indicating that its source was interbreeding outside of Africa.
Although the majority of the modern human genome originated in Africa, Parham found the share of HLAs acquired as a result of interbreeding to be much higher.
He told New Scientists that half of European HLA-A alleles come from other ancient races, while those figures rise to 72 per cent of the population in China and over 90 per cent for those in Papua New Guinea.
Parham added that because Neanderthal and Denisovan races had lived outside Africa for over 200,000 years before encountering homo sapiens, their immune systems would have been well suited to local diseases - thus helping to protect modern humans also.
He presented his findings at a recent Royal Society discussion meeting on human evolution which took place in London.
Posts: 1365 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
So why did they--Neanderthals and Denisovans--go extinct approximately 10,000 years after sharing living space with the migrant blacks from Africa?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't really get the logic of wanting to descend from a Neanderthal as opposed to a full modern human being, but apparently elements among non-Africans, mostly Eurocentrists or their brainwashed disciples, want to maintain distance from modern humans (Africans) badly enough, that they yearn to be descendants of an extinct species outside of the modern human phylogeny. Even more odd, is how they imagine having genes of an extinct species makes them more biologically fit than complete modern human beings.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Even more odd, is how they imagine having genes of an extinct species makes them more biologically fit than complete modern human beings.
Indeed, especially when "fitness" is all about survival, which speaks to the above question posed by lamin.
posted
Well, at least they don't argue for an intelligence difference LOL. And as Sundjata's link points out, Europeans would have gone through a bottleneck 30,000 years ago resulting in bad mutations to build up.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Don't really get the logic of wanting to descend from a Neanderthal as opposed to a full modern human being, but apparently elements among non-Africans, mostly Eurocentrists or their brainwashed disciples, want to maintain distance from modern humans (Africans) badly enough, that they yearn to be descendants of an extinct species outside of the modern human phylogeny.
Exactly LOL!
-------------------- L Writes: Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't know how primitive Neanderthals are but it seems that they get a bad reputation. They were advanced enough to invent an adhesive much like superglue.
Neanderthals Made High-Tech Superglue By Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News
Jan. 16 ? Neanderthal tools were built to last, according to a recent analysis of artifacts that revealed Neanderthals made a strong, relatively high-tech adhesive to affix wooden handles to flint stone knives.
The discovery suggests that, despite their bumbling reputation, Neanderthals were perhaps as intelligent and industrious as early modern humans.
Neanderthals appeared approximately 230,000-300,000 years ago and are believed to have gone extinct 30,000 years ago.
The ancient "superglue" was detected on two tool remnants excavated at a site called Koenigsaue in the northeastern foothills of the Harz Mountains in Germany. The first object had a big Neanderthal fingerprint on one side, and grains of wood on the other. The second, smaller object appeared to have been molded by hand. Findings are published in the current issue of the European Journal of Archaeology, which is issued by SAGE publications and the European Association of Archaeologists (EAA).
The adhesive, a form of birch pitch, is tricky to make, and would even be difficult for modern manufacturing plants to duplicate, according to the report.
Author Dietrich Mania and his team, from Freidrich-Schiller University in Jena, wrote that the smoldering process required to turn birch bark into pitch "must be carried out at the correct temperatures and under exclusion of oxygen in order for the biologically conditioned distribution patterns of extractable birch bark components to be maintained."
They explained that birch only turns into usable glue between 340-400 degrees Centigrade. Lower temperatures prohibit resin in the wood from melting and higher temperatures would burn tar exuded from the birch.
" ... The very fact that birch bark pitch was identified (in the artifacts) already proclaims the intellectual and technical abilities of the Neanderthals," concluded the researchers.
Chris Stringer, head of human origins in the Department of Paleontology at The Natural History Museum in London, did not wish to directly comment on Mania's paper, but suggested that the news adds to the argument that Neanderthals were not instantaneously killed off by supposedly superior Cro-Magnons ? early modern humans.
"These days, both DNA and morphological studies support the majority view that Neanderthals were indeed a separate lineage, and probably species, to modern humans," said Stringer. "But equally there is growing evidence from dating techniques that Neanderthals did not vanish overnight, and that in some ways they were as behaviorally sophisticated as Cro-Magnons."
Stringer added that researchers hoped to next study Neanderthal fossils from western Asia, which could solve the mystery behind the apparent Neanderthal extinction. ______________
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stanford supposedly has this program which detects levels of Neanderthal ancestry through available genome data. May be fun for some of us who already have files with our genome data ready for upload.
Given DNA recombination, it is highly unlikely that an African-American will have any signs of Neanderthal ancestry.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
(ANY) humans carrying Neanderthal genes? Don't believe it. Give it time. Sheet always rises to the surface.
Notice many of the well known Gene experts are staying clear of this one.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
If people have to capacity to be perverts now, having sex with basically anything that walks, including animals, why would that be different in paleolithic times?
It has been said that if a Neanderthal were to dress up in modern attire, shaven and groomed, a layman wouldn't be able to notice it as any different from other bystanders, if it walked right across from us.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Neanderthals and Early Humans May Not Have Mingled Much
By NICHOLAS WADE
An improvement in the dating of fossils suggests that the Neanderthals, a heavily muscled, thick-boned human species adapted to living in ice age Europe, perished almost immediately on contact with the modern humans who started to enter Europe from the Near East about 44,000 years ago. Until now bones from several Neanderthal sites have been dated to as young as 29,000 years ago, suggesting there was extensive overlap between the two human species. This raised the question of whether there had been interbreeding between humans and Neanderthals, an issue that is still not resolved.
But researchers report that tests using an improved method of radiocarbon dating, based on a new way to exclude contaminants, show that most, and maybe all, Neanderthal bones in Europe are or will be found to be at least 39,000 years old. Thomas F. G. Higham, a specialist in radiocarbon dating at Oxford University, and Ron Pinhasi, an archaeologist at University College Cork in Ireland, have dated the bones of a Neanderthal child less than 2 years old whose remains were found in the Mezmaiskaya Cave in the northern Caucasus Mountains. A second Neanderthal baby, found in a lower layer in the cave, was previously dated back 29,000 years.
The first baby, since its bones were retrieved from a higher layer, must be even younger, but in fact it turns out to be 39,000 years old when an improved version of the radiocarbon dating technique is used, Dr. Higham and Dr. Pinhasi reported Monday in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Radiocarbon dating depends on measuring the radioactive isotope of carbon known as carbon 14, which is ingested during a person’s lifetime and steadily decays after death. Very little carbon 14 remains in specimens more than 30,000 years old, and even tiny amounts of contaminating carbon 14 can make a sample seem much younger than it is.
Dr. Higham has developed a method of ultrafiltration that removes contaminants and leaves whole molecules of collagen recovered from fossil bone.
Reviewing other Neanderthal dates ascertained with the new ultrafiltration method, Dr. Higham sees an emerging pattern that no European Neanderthal site can reliably be dated to less than 39,000 years ago. “It’s only with reliable techniques that we can interpret the archaeological past,” he said.
He is re-dating Neanderthal sites across Europe and so far sees no evidence for any extensive overlap between Neanderthals and modern humans. “There was a degree of contemporaneity, but it may not have been very long,” he said. A short period of contact would point to the extinction of the Neanderthals at the hands of modern humans.
“It’s very unlikely for Neanderthals to go extinct without some agency from modern humans,” Dr. Higham said.
Paul Mellars, an expert on Neanderthals at Cambridge University in England, said that the quality of the dates from Dr. Higham’s laboratory was superb and that samples of bone re-dated by the lab’s method were almost always found to be several thousand years older than previously measured. The picture supported by the new dates is that the interaction between modern humans and Neanderthals in Europe was brief in each region, lasting perhaps a few hundred years, Dr. Mellars said, until the modern humans overwhelmed their competitors through better technology and greater numbers.
Richard Klein, a paleoanthropologist at Stanford University, said Dr. Higham’s re-dating was “compelling” and fit with his own view that “modern humans were technologically and intellectually far superior to the Neanderthals.” This, he said, “would have allowed them to spread very rapidly and to precipitate the extinction of the Neanderthals almost immediately on contact.”
The new radiocarbon findings show little evidence that the two species peacefully coexisted within Europe. But geneticists who have decoded the Neanderthal genome reported last year that some 2.5 percent of the modern human genome is derived from Neanderthals. The interbreeding, they postulate, occurred not in Europe 40,000 years ago but in an earlier encounter 100,000 years ago. They believe that this encounter must have been in the Near East.
Modern humans and Neanderthals occupied the same sites in what is now Israel, but it is not clear that the populations overlapped. The Neanderthals seem to have occupied the sites during cold periods and the modern humans during spells of warmer weather.
The presence of modern humans in Israel 100,000 years ago was long assumed to have been a failed attempt to leave Africa, since there is no archaeological evidence of modern humans outside Africa until some 44,000 years ago. But geneticists led by Svante Paabo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology argue that this earlier attempt was in fact successful, and that modern humans commingled with Neanderthals in the Near East before going on to occupy Europe and Asia. This would explain, they say, why Neanderthal genes are found in Europeans and Asians but not in Africans.
Dr. Klein said interbreeding between the two species was perfectly possible in principle, “but it’s kind of anti-archaeological because there is no evidence that they overlapped” in the Near East.
“I would be more convinced if it were in fact postulated for the extensive, if brief, contact between Neanderthals and modern humans after 50,000 years ago,” he said.
posted
As I said I don't believe it. Not the mechanics LOL! The biology. From high school biology 23 plus 23 chromoses make a human baby. Meiosis mitosis etc. Given a similar scenario humans can mate with current apes.. . .biologically! HA! I know some of us will like to try.
It is the same ole line. Europeans spinning BS to make them think they are special. The liars are eventually exposed.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: If people have to capacity to be perverts now, having sex with basically anything that walks, including animals, why would that be different in paleolithic times?
It has been said that if a Neanderthal were to dress up in modern attire, shaven and groomed, a layman wouldn't be able to notice it as any different from other bystanders, if it walked right across from us.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reminds of another report I saw, on AIDS. It said that one percent of Europeans are immune to the diseases(if there is one. . .Lion!). And they were off to the races in the forums. “wow we are so special”. What the reports left out was that about 20% of Africans are also immune to the disease.. . .if there is one.
Then there is also the report that says Scandinavians (Hg-I) are highly susceptible to the disease. Go figure people. Read between the lines people, educate yourself.
Yeah. He is saying this co-mingling thing is BS.
===Dr. Klein said interbreeding between the two species was perfectly possible in principle, “but it’s kind of anti-archaeological because there is no evidence that they overlapped” in the Near East.
and
“I would be more convinced if it were in fact postulated for the extensive, if brief, contact between Neanderthals and modern humans after 50,000 years ago,” he said.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I can go on and on. Then there were studies showing HG-E was Asian(Sforza ?). Then Torino(?) et al proved it was all BS. HG-E is African. Then AfroAsiatic language originated in the Levant then comes whats’s his name and proved it originated in the Sahara. I can give you a laundry list. It is all about stroking the low self-esteem Euros. Put the black man down for they to feel good about themselves. Many of them are mentally disturbed. Maybe due to thousands of years of isolation.. . .
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: So why did they--Neanderthals and Denisovans--go extinct approximately 10,000 years after sharing living space with the migrant blacks from Africa?
Some scientists hypothesize climatical changes, genetic assimilation or competitive exclusion brought about their extinction.
Posts: 535 | From: From the Darkest of the Abyss | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sahel, The implicit Euro point made is that the approx. 4% Neanderthal DNA that Euros and others such as New Guineans(Melanesians) carry gave some kind of genetic advantage over Africans.
The counterargument is that if such were the case then one has to explain why Africans(blacks) migrating into an area where the population had been surviving for 300,000 years were able to survive and multiply while the indigenous Neanderthals did not last for more than 10,000 years after the migrants from Africa moved in.
Who knows why? After all, there was enough empty space and flora and fauna for both groups to survive comfortably.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sahel, The implicit Euro point made is that the approx. 4% Neanderthal DNA that Euros and others such as New Guineans(Melanesians) carry gave some kind of genetic advantage over Africans.
The counterargument is that if such were the case then one has to explain why Africans(blacks) migrating into an area where the population had been surviving for 300,000 years were able to survive and multiply while the indigenous Neanderthals did not last for more than 10,000 years after the migrants from Africa moved in.
Who knows why? After all, there was enough empty space and flora and fauna for both groups to survive comfortably.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
XYYman, Dout it's low self esteem. Looks more like "racial narcissism".
For reasons of lazy default the rest of world have given whites a free pass on political and economic matters.
The U.S. is the world's biggest debtor yet it is allowed to keep the dollar as the world's reserve currency. China, Japan, Taiwan, and Korea are the world's biggest producers of real goods yet the seem afraid to exercise their will. Even the relatively new Euro carries more clout than the Yen and the Renminbi. OPEC nations still want to be paid in dollars than in a currency that will sink the U.S. maybe they are afraid of the Gaddafi treatment: bombs and more bombs.
And the world meekly accepts that the chiefs of the international banking institutions such as the IMF and WB be Euro-Americans.
Politically, the rest of world accepts the hegemonic political power of the U.N. Security Council--all Western[Russia has rejoined the West] except for the odd Chinaman. The SG of the U.N. must also meet with U.S. approval before appointment.
Now all this could be easily changed because the rest of the world has the money and the numbers. So it must be fear and respect. What else?
In cultural-aesthetic matters the rest of the world just genuflects before Euro-America.
Even China and Japan, historically both impressive nations all wear Western clothing--for men Western suit with a string around the neck and women go with the Western style--for formal appearances. This could easily change but it doesn't.
In aesthetics, the bland and harsh traits of the Euro-American female are considered "beautiful" as demonstrated in those confounded cattle shows called "beauty contests".
I could go on, but the point is made. It's not inferiority complex but racial narcissism. And the world meekly accepts. Not good!
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
It has been said that if a Neanderthal were to dress up in modern attire, shaven and groomed, a layman wouldn't be able to notice it as any different from other bystanders, if it walked right across from us.
It would take a blind layman to ignore the stark cranio-facial contrasts between modern humans and Neanderthals. Humans are picky enough about "uglies" amongst modern humans as it is, let alone one perceived of an external though related species.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
The U.S. is the world's biggest debtor yet it is allowed to keep the dollar as the world's reserve currency. China, Japan, Taiwan, and Korea are the world's biggest producers of real goods yet the seem afraid to exercise their will. Even the relatively new Euro carries more clout than the Yen and the Renminbi. OPEC nations still want to be paid in dollars than in a currency that will sink the U.S. maybe they are afraid of the Gaddafi treatment: bombs and more bombs.
There have already been threats about the need for changing the current holder of reserve currency, against the backdrop of the present global economic slowdown. However, it seems that players like China are partaking the 'waiting game', if for nothing else, in that in the interim, they can take economic advantage of the stronger dollar against local currency. This is what's got elements of the U.S. ruling class' pants bunched up; they complain about China refusing to strengthen its local currency against the dollar, while promoting excess trade surpluses [by being "excessively" export-oriented] when they could allow for a "more consumptive" [keywords for "allowing more imports from the 'west'"] oriented trade balance sheet.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are modern Europeans evolving into Neanderthals ? from TIMOTHY D. WEAVER AND KAREN STEUDEL-NUMBERS === European Neandertals and their Upper Paleolithic modern human successors differ substantially in various proportions of their bodies. As compared to Neandertals, Upper Paleolithic Europeans tend to have longer limbs, both absolutely and relative to estimated skeletal trunk height; narrower bi-iliac breadths, both absolutely and relative to femur length; and higher brachial and crural indices. 1–7 Although these differences hold generally, body proportions did change through time during the Upper Paleolithic and subsequent Mesolithic, "with more recent groups approximating Neandertals more closely".
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: It has been said that if a Neanderthal were to dress up in modern attire, shaven and groomed, a layman wouldn't be able to notice it as any different from other bystanders, if it walked right across from us.
It would take a blind layman to ignore the stark cranio-facial contrasts between modern humans and Neanderthals. Humans are picky enough about "uglies" amongst modern humans as it is, let alone one perceived of an external though related species.
Your arguments make no sense. Are you saying that ugliness translates to a stable and concrete set of traits, either scientifically or culturally, and that it can be said that it is a measure of genetic relatedness to us as a species? Are you saying that cranio-facial distance relative to modern humans is a measure of ugliness? Furthermore, no layman that I know has the mental faculties to register, interpret and compare the dimensions of the craniums of the people/organisms they pass by on the streets. But who knows, maybe you have x-ray vision..?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: ‘Neanderthals may not have met modern humans’ Sunday, May 15, 2011, 09:28 Tags:Neanderthals, Modern humans Views 519 Comments 1 Washington: Neanderthals might have died off thousands of years earlier than previously thought, suggesting that they weren't around to mingle with modern humans, a new study has claimed.
It's believed that Neanderthals might have interbred with our ancestors before they all died off and thus many of we possess their genes. But it remains uncertain how long modern humans interacted with them as when and how they went extinct is still debated.
The latest study by an international team of scientists focused on Mezmaiskaya Cave -- a key site in the northern Caucasus Mountains within European Russia.
This region "is seen by many as a crossroads for the movement of modern humans into the wider Russian plains," said researcher Tom Higham at the University of Oxford in England.
"The extinction of Neanderthals here is, therefore, an indicator we think, of when that first probably happened," Higham was quoted as saying by LiveScience.
The researchers, who analysed a fossil of a late Neanderthal infant there, found that it was 39,700 years old.
"For some years now we thought that the Mezmaiskaya Neanderthals survived until 30,000 years ago, but now we know that they actually became extinct by around 40,000 years ago, so there was no chance of modern humans who first arrived to the region 4,000 to 5,000 years later to meet them," said Ron Pinhasi of University College Cork in Ireland.
"This fits well with results of other teams from the southern Caucasus," he said, adding that past research on Neanderthals may have underestimated their age due to contamination with later materials, giving the erroneous impression they survived much longer than they actually did.
Based on this new data, "we are suggesting that Neanderthals may have went extinct in Europe by this date (40,000 years ago)," Pinhasi said.
However, Clive Finlayson, an evolutionary biologist at the Gibraltar Museum in Spain, said: "All this paper shows is that Neanderthals lived somewhere in the Caucasus about 40,000 years ago."
"It doesn't mean they went extinct then," said Finlayson, whose team has recently found clusters of Neanderthals that might have lasted until as late as 24,000 years ago.
"We have to be careful with some radiocarbon dates that, on revision, appear older, which we knew already. But this doesn't mean all dates are bad," he said.
In response, Pinhasi did note there may have been sites "in which Neanderthals survived perhaps even as late as 24,000 years ago".
"More systematic dating and careful selection of materials to date is necessary in order to obtain true ages of key events such as Neanderthal extinction," he added.
The scientists detailed their findings online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
^^If it indeed the case that Neanderthals and humans may not have had much contact after all, how to account for the trivial trace of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans?
Could this trivial trace (seemingly hailed in some quarters) suggest "interbreeding" or are such traces simply archaic artifacts, outliers or dead end mutations in the overall genus Homo? The terminology is not the best in asking the question-but just throwing it out on these 2 divergent views: interbreeding versus little contact.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Your arguments make no sense. Are you saying that ugliness translates to a stable and concrete set of traits, either scientifically or culturally, and that it can be said that it is a measure of genetic relatedness to us as a species? Are you saying that cranio-facial distance relative to modern humans is a measure of ugliness? Furthermore, no layman that I know has the mental faculties to register, interpret and compare the dimensions of the craniums of the people/organisms they pass by on the streets. But who knows, maybe you have x-ray vision..?
You are one comical puppy. You first complain about my post [which is simple enough for any kindergartener to understand] not making sense, and then proceed onto ask questions. Shouldn't you be asking questions first, before concluding that I'm not making sense?
Here's what I'm saying, not "arguing", since it is not up for argument:
Varying trends in cranio-facial patterns within and between modern human populations pale dramatically in comparison to that between humans and Neanderthals.
So given these stark cranio-facial distinctions, an average Neanderthal would make "ugliness" of a modern human seem fairly tame, going by cultural standards that modern humans use amongst themselves in order to adjudge who is "ugly" and who is not. If that were not so, then people--i.e. human beings, would be readily attracted [sexually] to gorillas or even chimpanzees. Who knows; maybe you are the sort of person who would be attracted to a Neanderthal? If so, that would put you in a very constricted fringe of people, who would be physically attracted to a Neanderthal.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
Could this trivial trace (seemingly hailed in some quarters) suggest "interbreeding" or are such traces simply archaic artifacts, outliers or dead end mutations in the overall genus Homo?
I'm inclined to go with the latter, if anything. I find it rather odd, that one set of researchers were able to notice that Neanderthal uniparental sequences could not contaminate those of modern humans, while some other research team is trying to persuade us that some rare mutations can only be the product of Neanderthal-human interbreeding.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:You first complain about my post [which is simple enough for any kindergartener to understand] not making sense, and then proceed onto ask questions.
Yes, I said your post doesn't make sense, and I still stand by that. My questions were posed to you to make it clear to you how odd your reasoning is, not to ask you what you meant, as the oddities in your post in response to mine are pretty self evident. But of course, you're free to have wacky ideas, that is your inalienable right.
quote:Varying trends in cranio-facial patterns within and between modern human populations pale dramatically in comparison to that between humans and Neanderthals.
I'm not sure what this has to do with my initial post, and this was explained to you already. If my experience telling lay people about cranio-metrics is anything to go by, most laymen don't even know that there are cranial differences underlying human populations, that are stable and meaningful enough that they can be studied systematically. It's not even a part of their paradigm, let alone a part of how they size people up in daily life. You seem to be suffering from a nasty case of projecting your own habits to the general population. You also seem to be under the impression that people see objective reality, rather than that they see through their beliefs. Why else would you imply that objective, state of the art revelations from the field of biological anthropology, that needed to accumulate for decades, would magically make their way into the minds of casual observers?
quote:So given these stark cranio-facial distinctions, an average Neanderthal would make "ugliness" of a modern human seem fairly tame
Again, you're making the unsubstantiated assumption that craniofacial distance relative to the human range, equals ugliness. Any evidence for this, or is this just a figment of your imagination?
quote:going by cultural standards that modern humans use amongst themselves in order to adjudge who is "ugly" and who is not.
I have never heard in my life that normal, non racist people group animals (including us), into distinct species, on account of aesthetics. You haven't even demonstrated that Neanderthals would be considered ''ugly'' to modern humans, and even that would have to be tested with cultural values taken into account. It would have to be interpreted within a a temporal context as well, as aesthetic values change over time.
quote:If that were not so, then people--i.e. human beings, would be readily attracted [sexually] to gorillas or even chimpanzees.
Can you explain how your example applies to anything discussed thusfar? I for one, am completely baffled by the irrelevance of the above. Neanderthals are way closer to modern humans in appearance than any non human ape is. In fact, Neanderthals are considered humans, just not ''modern''. Besides that, the above is (again) suffering from the above mentioned unsubstantiated notion that cranio-facial distance relative to the modern human range equates to ugliness. Which is, judging by the universal attraction people have towards nature and its many creations, utter and complete bullsh!t. Lions are for example much more distant from humans than Neanderthals are, craniofacially, yet I haven't found too many people that call them ugly, have you? Instead, all I keep hearing about is how they're, like many other forms of African wildlife, graceful and pleasing to the eye, and worthy enough of tourist visitation from all over the world.
All in all, there are no radical craniofacial differences between humans and Neanderthals, that would be observable to the layman without doing actual meassurements. Dogs vary way more in cranial shape than neanderthals and modern humans, yet all people agree that a Chihuahua is just as much a dog as a Rotweiler. ''Ugly'' dogs are just as much dogs as ''good looking'' dogs, and the same goes for other species. I might be debating you on this front, but to be frank, I still don't know what craniometrics have to do with my initial post, for reasons already stated.
posted
I thought always thought that Neaderthals would look similar to certain Russian/Body Builder type people. I always thought Neaderthal would look similar to Humans.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Exactly, to our eyes, they would have looked very similar in the flesh. If not, I'd be more than open to see evidence to the contrary. Explorer is debating absent opponents with his strawman about ''radical'' craniometric differences. Then he invokes non-human apes like Gorillas and Chimps, as an analogy to Neanderthal ''ugliness'' relative to modern humans. This only shows how uninformed he really is.
1.Gorilla 4.Neanderthal 6.Modern human
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only absent component here is a brain in your head. You post cartoons you don't know what to do with, all the while throwing clueless and confused accusations around about others being uninformed, LOL. Even your own cartoon makes a punk out of you, while you proclaim to be using it to presumably discredit me.
Your cartoon shows the starking cranio-facial distinctions between modern humans and Neanderthals. Here's to school you:
Anyone even with an intelligence slightly above a nimrod can clearly see how massive a Neanderthal skull is when stacked against a modern human's. The mid-facial projection of the Neanderthal makes prognathism amongst humans look like a child's play. While Neanderthal skulls are comparatively massive, they are also markedly flatter in profile. The slope of Neanderthal forehead has no peer in modern humans--that is to say, even modern human examples with relatively sloppy foreheads, are generally nowhere near the Neanderthal level in this feature.
Perhaps to school you effectively, let's try grown-up schematics, instead of loony tune style cartoons that you resort to:
^Notice again, that modern humans clearly have variations in this regard, but they all still pale in size against the Neanderthal ranges.
Even with adaptation to cold environment, with regards to limb-shortening, the Neanderthals were yet again found to assume extremes; the modern humans never reached the Neanderthal extremes.
More schematics, an anterior view, highlighting distinctions between a modern human cranium and a Neanderthal cranium:
Now to address foolishness...
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Yes, I said your post doesn't make sense, and I still stand by that. My questions were posed to you to make it clear to you how odd your reasoning is, not to ask you what you meant, as the oddities in your post in response to mine are pretty self evident. But of course, you're free to have wacky ideas, that is your inalienable right.
Insistence on sticking to an error is a sign of stupidity. Normal people try to learn from mistakes, not be stagnated by them. Your so-called "revelatory" questions sure sounded like a confused individual asking for clarification. I guess the shabbily constructed questions show that you are not even good at making your supposed "rebuttals" clear through questioning.
quote:
quote:Varying trends in cranio-facial patterns within and between modern human populations pale dramatically in comparison to that between humans and Neanderthals.
I'm not sure what this has to do with my initial post, and this was explained to you already.
Dummy, this is just a rephrasing of the comment that you were too dense to understand, crying your eyes out that it made no sense to you.
quote:
If my experience telling lay people about cranio-metrics is anything to go by, most laymen don't even know that there are cranial differences underlying human populations, that are stable and meaningful enough that they can be studied systematically.
Is that why we constantly have foolish talk here about "caucasoids", "negroids", "prognathism", "orthognathism", etc?...because people are naturally blind to superficial cranio-facial variations amongst modern humans?
quote:
Again, you're making the unsubstantiated assumption that craniofacial distance relative to the human range, equals ugliness. Any evidence for this, or is this just a figment of your imagination?
I tell you what evidence I do have: This post is evidence that you are a dullard. Read and learn from the preceding posts right above.
quote: I have never heard in my life that normal, non racist people group animals (including us), into distinct species, on account of aesthetics. You haven't even demonstrated that Neanderthals would be considered ''ugly'' to modern humans, and even that would have to be tested with cultural values taken into account. It would have to be interpreted within a a temporal context as well, as aesthetic values change over time.
There is a lot of things, even those which are otherwise common sense to others, that you've never heard in your life, LOL.
quote: In fact, Neanderthals are considered humans, just not ''modern''.
Indeed, and yet listening to you, the clueless would think that Neanderthals are "modern".
quote: Besides that, the above is (again) suffering from the above mentioned unsubstantiated notion that cranio-facial distance relative to the modern human range equates to ugliness. Which is, judging by the universal attraction people have towards nature and its many creations, utter and complete bullsh!t.
You must not interact with human beings, to come to such a profoundly idiotic conclusion. People bicker every time about the small variations amongst modern humans, which they dismiss hatefully as "unattractive". We even have abundant examples here on the Ancient Egypt side, replete with threads about how "blacks" and/or "black females" are supposedly not "attrative", because of so and so feature. That even these examples, right here -- in front of your eyes, have managed to trick your attention, shows just how obtuse you really are.
Addressing the rest of your incredibly stupid posts, would only be creating more unnecessary spam-fillers.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Explorer is such a douche Even though it has been explained to him numerous times, he simply cannot compute the fact that the traits that he calls "radically different’’, and ‘’outside the modern human range modern humans’’, are separate from the basic traits that allow us to recognize something as human. His little brain simply cannot grasp it, it is too difficult a concept for him.
Cranio-metrics have nothing to do with this, and only nerds who are obsessed with it would bring that up in a conversation where its mention is totally out of the blue. Cranio-metrics can only help us objectively "map" the appearance of a cranium, it can tell us zip about the basic traits, their location, and proportions, that need to be present before our brain recognizes an organism as indistinguishable from our own. Like in our previous discussion re: tectonic plates, it strikes me that Explorer simply doesn’t know what the limitations are, of the science that he is randomly citing, to give currency to his questionable ends.
To put it in simple terms: if our brain isn't hard wired to care about low receding foreheads, mid facial projection etc etc, when it comes to grouping humans intuitively, you can yap about how "radically different’’ said Neanderthal parts of the face are cranio-metrically, but the only thing that will amount to, is trolling, plain and simple.
Numerous Neanderthal crania, but also archaic homo sapiens, have been described as "not fully modern", and "with archaic traits present".
When reconstructions have been performed on them, however, all those traits seem to disappear under their reconstructed skins. Most of them look like fellow humans to our eyes.
This is the case, even for the reconstruction performed on the Neanderthal craniums that Explorer attempted to pass off as belonging to some sort of radically different ape, in that irrelevant post of his, that I can only describe as trolling.
Explorer is such a douche Even though it has been explained to him numerous times, he simply cannot compute the fact that the traits that he calls "radically different’’, and ‘’outside the modern human range modern humans’’, are separate from the basic traits that allow us to recognize something as human. His little brain simply cannot grasp it, it is too difficult a concept for him.
asshead, it is all too apparent that you are not clued in what "fact" means, as demonstrated by your loose use of it to describe your stupidity. Fact does not = stupidity.
It is in fact true that my brain cannot grasp incredible stupidity. What are the "basic traits that are supposed to allow us to recognize something as human" that are supposedly divorced from the structure of the cranium, you dumb little nimrod?
Do you imagine that the shape of your face owes nothing to the underlying bone structures (aka cranium) of your face?
This jackass is on the one hand, posting cartoons that include a gorilla cranium, presumably to demonstrate how significantly different said cranium is to the modern human's when compared with that of the Neanderthal against the modern human's...all the while crying its beady little red eyes out in reaction to stated facts about the marked cranio-facial differences between modern humans and Neanderthals. On the other hand, we are to be "persuaded" that the structure of the gorilla's cranium has bearing on the animal's facial appearance, but that with regards to the same for the Neanderthal, we should just shut our eyes and shrugged it off as not important at all.
quote:
To put it in simple terms: if our brain isn't hard wired to care about low receding foreheads, mid facial projection etc etc,
Yet, the modern human-brain is somehow only hard-wired to tell the relatively slighter variations within modern human facial projections (aka orthognathism vs. prognathism), variations within modern human nose widths (aka broad flat noses vs. thin high bridged noses), variations within modern human foreheads (high foreheads vs. low slanted foreheads, and smooth forehead vs. sturdy thick brow ridges), variations within modern human facial height (long thin faces vs. short broader faces) and variations in modern human cranial profile (e.g. dolicocephalic type vs. the brachicephalic type)?
Modern humans notice these slight variations within modern humanity itself and even build pseudo "races" out of them, that they quibble on about, but this frankinstein blockhead is telling us that modern humans will not and could not notice the starker distinctions of Neanderthals.
quote:
Numerous Neanderthal crania, but also archaic homo sapiens, have been described as "not fully modern", and "with archaic traits present".
stupidrama, that is why they are not called anatomically modern humans. Get something to stuff that empty head of your's with. LOL
quote: When reconstructions have been performed on them, however, all those traits seem to disappear
Now the frankin-idiotstein is reduced to resorting to facial reconstruction cartoons, which are left to the whim of the artist no less, as matter that supposedly trumps quantifiable cranio-morphometric traits. This incredibly lowbrow dullard is telling us that a facial reconstruction cartoon is a much harder fact than the actual cranial elements of the creatures, and that we should dismiss the latter as inconsequential and just a matter of "trolling".
I tell you, the newbreed newbies that we get on this board; this one takes the cake--even the worst regular trolls on this forum trigger more brain wave activity than this kook.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:it is all too apparent that you are not clued in what "fact" means, as demonstrated by you loose use of it to describe your stupidity.
What about it is not in line with what the word ‘’fact’’ means? Simply labeling something what you think it is won’t do, explain why that section of my post is not in line with objective reality.
quote:Do you imagine that the shape of your face owes nothing to the underlying bone structures (aka cranium) of your face?
Do you imagine that I said that? If so, where?
quote:posting cartoons that include a gorilla cranium, presumably to demonstrate how significantly different said cranium is to the modern human's when compared with that of the Neanderthal against the modern human's...
You assume, well, you’re wrong about that assumption.
quote:all the while crying its beady little red eyes out in reaction to stated facts about the marked cranio-facial differences between modern humans and Neanderthals.
Whats the matter, why substitute quality arguments for fantasy, are you running out of points to build your case? Where did the above happen?
quote:On the other hand, we are to be "persuaded" that the structure of the gorilla's cranium has bearing on the animal's facial appearance, but that with regards to the same for the Neanderthal, we should just shut our eyes and shrugged it off as not important at all.
This is what you’re reduced to; making up stuff, just like in the other thread re: the subjectivity of tectonic plates. Wetpongid, is it within the jurisdiction of physical anthropology to dictate where the mental boundary lies that separates human from non human? Direct me to this sub discipline, please.
quote:what are the "basic traits that are supposed to allow us to recognize something as human" that is supposed to be divorced from the structure of the cranium?
Even more fairytales that you’re imagining in that senile head of yours. This never took place. Do I need to remind your ass again about how you had trouble making a distinction between subjective tectonic plates, and subjective choices in the other thread? Maybe asking you to understand my previous post – and those before it – is too heavy a burden on you.
quote:Yet, the modern human-brain is somehow only hard-wired to tell the relatively slighter variations within modern human
This argument is idiotic and doesn’t apply. Why? Because Neanderthals would be subjected to the same ridicule because of the higher frequency of some of their traits. This however, does not mean that they would have been seen as belonging to something other than a ‘’race’’, in the mind of casual observers. Besides, I said nothing about a Neanderthal population. My initial post involved a single Neanderthal passing by a layman, hence, there would be no basis to generalise about Neanderthal traits, and that Neanderthal would simply be grouped with the ''racial'' group it most closely resembled. Is that easy enough for you to understand, or do I need to baby feed it to you in pongid steps, lol.
quote:Modern humans notice these slight variations within modern humanity itself and even build pseudo "races" out of them, that they quibble on about
So, besides making ‘’races’’ out of those variations, which nobody here contests, will you for once argue on the front where the actual discussion takes place, you know, debating people that are present instead of non-existent opponents? You can start here: do non-racist laymen organize modern humans into species based on the traits you’ve just mentioned?
quote: is telling us that modern humans will not and could not notice the starker distinctions of Neanderthals.
I don't know what drugs you've been taking in, but it must be good stuff. I never said that Pongid. But you can answer the following question: in the mind of the layman, do those starker distinctions translate the bearer of those traits as non-human? If so, according to what evidence?
quote:Now the frankin-idiotstein is reduced to resorting to facial reconstruction cartoons, which are left to the whim of the artist no less
You Pongid, do you realize that every last one of the traits you have called ‘’radically different’’ and ‘’out of the human range’’, is discernable on those reconstructions. If the presence of said traits were not enough to make them look like anything other than humans, what does that say about your argument. LOL.
quote:This incredibly lowbrow dullard is telling us that a facial reconstruction cartoon is a much harder fact than the actual cranial elements of the creatures
This Pongid, is telling us that a people see craniums, instead of flesh and skin when they see real life people walking by. In addition, he is also telling us that laymen are qualified paleoanthropologists, fully capable of spotting all cranial differences between humans and Neanderthals without formal training. In fact, this pongid even went as far as calling laymen who are incapable of distinguishing human and Neanderthal faces ‘’blind’’.
quote:and that we should dismiss the latter as inconsequential
Expongid, you’re quite exceptional for a pongid, I didn’t know they had the mental capacity to be as creative as you. You seem to have quite a knack for inventing scenarios that never happened, that much I’ll give you.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:what are the "basic traits that are supposed to allow us to recognize something as human" that is supposed to be divorced from the structure of the cranium?
Even more fairytales that you’re imagining in that senile head of yours. This never took place.
Well ok then, fuckhead. If you wish to now disown your kooky idea about cranio-morphometric features being "separate from basic traits that tell us when something is human", then I'll play along.
quote:
quote:Yet, the modern human-brain is somehow only hard-wired to tell the relatively slighter variations within modern human
This argument is idiotic and doesn’t apply. Why? Because Neanderthals would be subjected to the same ridicule because of the higher frequency of some of their traits.
moby dickhead, from your chicken jive talk, it is easy to tell that lexical items such as "argument" and "idiotic" are more words alien to your constricted lexicon. You cluelessly call said post "argument" and dismiss it as "idiotic", only to proceed agreeing with its premise, in so far as it applies only to Neanderthals. That aside, your "reply" is just goofy gobbledygook, considering the said post was simply correcting your retarded ass about humans "not being hard-wired to care" about cranio-facial variations, which they use at any rate to group people and to distinguish who is supposedly "good-looking" and who isn't.
You couldn't tell your ass and head apart, if you were tortured to death to tell the difference.
quote:
Is that easy enough for you to understand, or do I need to baby feed it to you in pongid steps, lol.
dumbfuck, there is no way to make stupid easier to understand.
quote:
will you for once argue on the front where the actual discussion takes place, you know, debating people that are present instead of non-existent opponents?
I would address it, if only someone or something was "present" in that thimble bonehead of your's.
quote: You Pongid, do you realize that every last one of the traits you have called ‘’radically different’’ and ‘’out of the human range’’, is discernable on those reconstructions. If the presence of said traits were not enough to make them look like anything other than humans, what does that say about your argument. LOL.
asshead, your cartoon "reconstructions", which are obviously left to the subjective taste of the artist, are just immaterial spam-fillers that you punk yourself into believing will somehow distract away from the grown-up scientific cranial data that was wastefully fed to you.
quote: This Pongid, is telling us that a people see craniums, instead of flesh and skin when they see real life people walking by. In addition, he is also telling us that laymen are qualified paleoanthropologists, fully capable of spotting all cranial differences between humans and Neanderthals without formal training. In fact, this pongid even went as far as calling laymen who are incapable of distinguishing human and Neanderthal faces ‘’blind’’.
asspimple, I'm saying that you are dumber than fart and blinder than a bat, when a no-brainer about people (humans) being able to discern and getting picky about minor cranial variations within their own species, let alone the more pronounced Neanderthal contrasts, can leave you stumped stupid beyond measure.
I get the impression you could be a Neanderthal mongrel of some sort, because nobody could be that incredibly stupid to mistake a Neanderthal for a modern human. Did your mother fvck a Neanderthal that the rest of us somehow don't know about?
Anyways, my advice to you is to refrain from trying to translate what people say at any cost. There is no reason you should punish yourself with the exercise of thinking.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you wish to now disown your kooky idea about cranio-morphometric features being "separate from basic traits that tell us when something is human", then I'll play along.
What is wrong with you, are you retarded or something? I can’t disown something that never came out of my mouth to begin with, ass-offerer. You can edit your interpretation of what I said all you want and play make belief with yourself. It won’t change the fact though, that you’ve just now changed it to a more compatible interpretation, after I confronted you about your inability to read. Its becoming more and more apparent, that you’re the low IQ one who talks goofy gobbledygook, post after post. Where did I say that cranio-metric features are separate from the basic traits that tell us when something is human?
quote:You cluelessly call said post "argument" and dismiss it as "idiotic", only to proceed agreeing with its premise,
Ass-offerer, I called it idiotic, because you still haven’t justified the presence of cranio-metrics in this discussion, and because, like in the other thread, you keep debating me on matters with which I’ve already agreed publically, re: craniofacial differences between modern humans and Neanderthals, lol. How dumb do you have to be to keep regurgitating that? It reminds me of a certain repetitive behavior you did in our previous discussion, wherein it had to be stamped into your head 10 times that I didn't disagree with the position that tectonic plates are real, and that the word ''continuous'' wasn’t used in the manner in which you used it, before it got through to you.
quote:considering the said post was simply correcting your retarded ass about humans "not being hard-wired to care" about cranio-facial variations, which they use at any rate to group people and to distinguish who is supposedly "good-looking" and who isn't.
When I authored that post you replied to, I dropped the ‘’ugliness’’ issue a long time ago, since your cowardly ass kept refusing to answer my requests for substantiation of your wacky ideas, so I can’t see for the life of me how you’d be correcting me on that front. What my actual post said (I’m baffled that I have to keep feeding you this, like I would feed it to a toddler), was that the traits wherein Neanderthals and modern humans differ, are not the traits that are a factor for deciding intuitively who is ‘’one of us’’ and who isn’t. So again, to reanimate that barely functioning granule of grey matter in your ever shrinking diminutive brain, I’ll give you a baby example, just for you: do you know a normal functioning layman who, upon visual contact, gets the feeling that people who have artificially altered their cranium, no longer have that feel to them that they are modern humans? Why do you suppose that is, if not that said alteration was simply not performed in an essential cranio-facial region, and/or modified to such a degree, that it takes away from that intuitive feeling that I’ve just described?
quote:there is no way to make stupid easier to understand.
You keep making accusation that sections of my posts are stupid, but you never back those accusations up, not when I repeatedly ask you to, and not in the moment you spout such baseless epithets. In fact, you keep selectively replying to what I’ve been saying to you. This is testament to the fact that you’re all talk with that pongid mouth of yours, with no back up of what you say, whatsoever. In my previous post, I asked you to back up what was supposedly stupid about that section you called ‘’stupid’’, but your coward ass went on to selectively reply to sections that you felt were easy to respond to, and even those you didn't manage to get right. LOL. Pathethic little b!tch.
quote:I would address it, if only someone or something was "present" in that thimble bonehead of your's.
This is what I mean, bantering like a little b!tch who thinks shes funny, when that post you replied to offers enough viewpoints to pick and refute. Instead you give me this crap. I might be ridiculing you here and there, like you did above, but make no mistake, in the meantime I’m intellectually stomping you in the head so hard, that your posts keep getting shorter and shorter. LOL. Next thing he’ll say, is that he’s won the discussion, or he’ll simply butt out and go MIA, like in our previous discussion. Just watch him.
quote:your cartoon "reconstructions", which are obviously left to the subjective taste of the artist, are just immaterial spam-fillers that you punk yourself into believing will somehow distract away from the grown-up scientific cranial data that was wastefully fed to you.
Another demonstration of the pattern I’ve been noting above. I told him that he had no basis to dismiss the reconstructions, because they preserve and depict all the traits that he called ‘’radically different’’, and ‘’outside of the human range’’. Throughout his posts he has maintained that said traits should translate as ‘’off human’’ to our eyes. Yet when reconstructions were posted, with those exact same traits present, the congregation of those traits were still not enough to make them look like something other than humans to our eyes. That was what my previous post said, and above is his response: more hot air, that has zip connectivity to the case I was making. It wouldn’t be any more random if he had started talking about tropical islands, and how they’re sunny during the daytime.
quote:when a no-brainer about people (humans) being able to discern and getting picky about minor cranial variations within their own species,
Yet another example of how dense Ass-corridor is: I’ve never denied the above, and told him numerous times why it would be irrelevant that humans are picky about minor variations. Among normal functioning laymen, said trivial variations have never been recognized as a valid basis to separate modern humans into species. Yet this dim-witted senile ass-offerer keeps repeating it, for no reason.
quote:let alone the more pronounced Neanderthal contrasts
You’re not going to ‘’let alone’’ me, you uninformed fuckface. I’m not just going to assume that more pronounced variations automatically and linearly equate to ‘’separate species’’ to the modern human layman. That is what unsophisticated people like you do (ie assuming ’’more of something causes some other associated variable to increase linearly’’, because it was the case somewhere else). I’ve asked you senile ass for evidence that increases in minor variations linearly, and automatically lead to the perception that someone who carries those increased variations, belongs to a seperate species. Where is your data? Watch how he'll avoid my request, and simply bring it up again, like he has been doing throughout his posts with the topic of cranio-metrics and ''ugliness''.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
What is wrong with you, are you retarded or something? I can’t disown something that never came out of my mouth to begin with, ass-offerer. You can edit your interpretation of what I said all you want and play make belief with yourself. It won’t change the fact though, that you’ve just now changed it to a more compatible interpretation, after I confronted you about your inability to read. Its becoming more and more apparent, that you’re the low IQ one who talks goofy gobbledygook, post after post. Where did I say that cranio-metric features are separate from the basic traits that tell us when something is human?
You see people, we are dealing with one demented and perverted sick puppy. Numbnut, you only wished I offered you ass. You are clearly suffering from Faggotisis Ape-tisis. In fact that's what I'll call you from hereon, "Faggotisis Ape-tisis". LOL I think you meant to say that I hand out your ass to you, because that's what I do best, handing asses out.
You did write this, nimrod, didn't you:
he simply cannot compute the fact that the traits that he calls "radically different’’, and ‘’outside the modern human range modern humans’’, are separate from the basic traits that allow us to recognize something as human. His little brain simply cannot grasp it, it is too difficult a concept for him. - by kalongibbon dummytitis
Since it is apparent to any brain-functioning human that the traits I talked about essentially amount to all the essential components of the cranium, one has to wonder what then are these "basic traits" of your's that are supposed to be "separate" from the components I talked about, and that "supposedly allow us to recognize something as human"? Shoot, potato head!
quote:
Ass-offerer, I called it idiotic, because you still haven’t justified the presence of cranio-metrics in this discussion, and because, like in the other thread, you keep debating me on matters with which I’ve already agreed publically, re: craniofacial differences between modern humans and Neanderthals, lol. How dumb do you have to be to keep regurgitating that? It reminds me of a certain repetitive behavior you did in our previous discussion, wherein it had to be stamped into your head 10 times that I didn't disagree with the position that tectonic plates are real, and that the word ''continuous'' wasn’t used in the manner in which you used it, before it got through to you.
If you agree with the cranial facts I fed to your ass, then nimrod, why are you so dumb-founded and punked by the fact that Neanderthals would standout to any modern human observer, and that because of those mentioned peculiar traits only few weird fringe elements (like you, I've now learnt) would actually find them sexually appealing, just going off by the general trend of human pickiness, with regards to "looks" and thereof, general hostility to even the slightest variations that do occur within its very own species?
quote:
When I authored that post you replied to, I dropped the ‘’ugliness’’ issue a long time ago, since your cowardly ass kept refusing to answer my requests for substantiation of your wacky ideas, so I can’t see for the life of me how you’d be correcting me on that front.
Paralyzed ape, maybe you should pay a lot more attention to and stick to what my post is saying, and not go off on a tangent, ranting endlessly about some other nonsense not in the post that you are replying to.
quote: What my actual post said (I’m baffled that I have to keep feeding you this, like I would feed it to a toddler), was that the traits wherein Neanderthals and modern humans differ, are not the traits that are a factor for deciding intuitively who is ‘’one of us’’ and who isn’t.
Gibbon in tampon, then what distinguishes modern humans (meaning my species minus you) from Neanderthals, if not the traits that distinguish us?
quote: So again, to reanimate that barely functioning granule of grey matter in your ever shrinking diminutive brain, I’ll give you a baby example, just for you: do you know a normal functioning layman who, upon visual contact, gets the feeling that people who have artificially altered their cranium, no longer have that feel to them that they are modern humans? Why do you suppose that is, if not that said alteration was simply not performed in an essential cranio-facial region, and/or modified to such a degree, that it takes away from that intuitive feeling that I’ve just described?
You call this a "baby example", you dumb lizard? Armed forces around the globe had been looking at the wrong places. They could torture and break enemy combatants a lot quicker with your profound propensity towards stupidity and incomprehensible language. LOL
quote:
You keep making accusation that sections of my posts are stupid
Really? Do I really need to demonstrate how stupid a person is, who cannot distinguish a Neanderthal from a modern human, even when clued in with pictographic examples?
quote: This is what I mean, bantering like a little b!tch who thinks shes funny, when that post you replied to offers enough viewpoints to pick and refute. Instead you give me this crap.
Crap is the only language a turd in a turbine can understand. You don't expect me to reason with you like you are intelligent, do you?
quote:
Another demonstration of the pattern I’ve been noting above. I told him that he had no basis to dismiss the reconstructions, because they preserve and depict all the traits that he called ‘’radically different’’, and ‘’outside of the human range’’.
Farthead, if the images "preserved" all the cranial elements I fed to your dry bony weasel ass, then you would in effect simply be reinforcing my point, and there would be no need to go through the redundancy via your spam-filling cartoons. However, I know you are obtuse enough to confuse your spam-filling cartoons with something you imagine undermines me. I simply alerted your bonehead to the fact that these facial reconstructions are subjective, i.e. based on the imagination and taste of the artist doing the work. I can show you literally many examples of "reconstructions" of Neanderthals that look different from your's and even examples of the same specimen looking radically different from one another under different artists. If you weren't a dumb little nattering punk, you'd take it as an opportunity to learn something new.
quote: Among normal functioning laymen, said trivial variations have never been recognized as a valid basis to separate modern humans into species. Yet this dim-witted senile ass-offerer keeps repeating it, for no reason.
Mr. "thong in my butt crack", all the time spent on this board has not even educated you about the so-called "human races", which could have easily served as straightforward examples of "separating modern humans into discrete sub-species", that the proponents thereof "recognize as a valid basis". You spend way too much time on the internet, and not interacting with humans to know how ordinary human beings operate.
quote:
You’re not going to ‘’let alone’’ me, you uninformed fuckface. I’m not just going to assume that more pronounced variations automatically and linearly equate to ‘’separate species’’ to the modern human layman.
kalongibbon the ineducable dummy, you've spun around so much with your incredible stupidity, that you've lost track of the issue under discussion...going on endlessly with nonsense like a bitch on drugs. The issue under discussion was how the Neanderthals' peculiar traits would make them standout and likely make them sexually undesirable to mainstream modern humans. The incredible stupid hulk could be a fitting name for you. Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
he simply cannot compute the fact that the traits that he calls "radically different’’, and ‘’outside the modern human range modern humans’’, are separate from the basic traits that allow us to recognize something as human. His little brain simply cannot grasp it, it is too difficult a concept for him.
Yep, so how did my phrase ‘’traits that he calls radically different’’ (eg, pronounced mid-facial projection, low calvarium etc), magically morph into the entire ‘’structure of the cranium’’, and then, when I called you out on it, you changed it to more compatible, but still a distortion of my original message, ‘’ cranio-morphometric features’’ lol. I wouldn’t be surprised if I’ve just stumbled on another one of those rather obvious distinctions, that your mind cannot wrap itself around, because it’s too hard to process for you.
quote:why are you so dumb-founded and punked by the fact that Neanderthals would standout to any modern human observer
Ass-offerer, what I am dumbfounded about, is that you’re so obtuse that you actually think you’ve demonstrated that Neanderthals would stand out as a non-human to a layman, by pointing out craniofacial differences. I’m dumbfounded by your inability to substantiate what you say, even though I’ve repeatedly asked you to do so. I’m also dumbfounded by your inability to understand that craniometrics cannot tell us who would stand out as non-human to our eyes, when we’re dealing with our closest human relatives. I’ve noticed you keep neglecting to address the latter point (the mentioned inhibition of craniometrics), for obvious reasons. You’re simply a dumb ape. 10 posts down the road, and after numerous mentions of why craniometrics are irrelevant, you still seem to think that the craniometric differences you’ve pointed out play a role. You’re THAT obtuse, lol.
quote:Since it is apparent to any brain-functioning human that the traits I talked about essentially amount to all the essential components of the cranium
^This is how dumb you are I challenged every cotdamn idiot reading this, including you (but you’ll likely coward out just like in previous requests), to substantiate the above. The cranial similarities by far outweigh the mentioned differences, which is why it is said that Neanderthals are the closest relatives to modern humans in the first place. Boy, you are one idiotic ape. That the mentioned differences occur globally (ie, that most cranial regions have a modification that occurs to a lesser degree in modern humans), doesn’t mean that the ‘’entire structure’’, as you initially said, is different relative to modern humans. Also notice that I said ‘’to a lesser degree’’. Qafzeh 9 is not an necessarily representative for all populations, even the Piedmosti 3 individual has a sloping head and brow ridge that is comparable to the Neanderthal above it, at least to the eye. Most of the mentioned differences on that chart you’ve posted are differences relative to the nitpicked moderns (Qafzeh 9 and Cro-magnon), and a number of said comparison points simply wouldn’t not hold up when other modern human craniums are inserted on that graph. Some Mesolithic populations had prominent occipital buns, prominent brow ridges and low sloping foreheads. Some Australian aboriginal groups qualify for all of those traits. Yet, those are the traits that are supposed to sums up the differences between Neanderthals and Australian Aboriginals that would be visually apparent to our eyes (the other ones are mostly buried under their skin). With that said, how can it possibly make sense, that you distort my initial post from saying ‘’traits that he calls radically different’’ to ‘’the entire structure of the cranium’’? Let’s see if the ape in you knows the difference
quote:then what distinguishes modern humans (meaning my species minus you) from Neanderthals, if not the traits that distinguish us?
Do you know the difference between, ‘’a scientifically mapped cranium’’, and ‘’a fleshy looking face’’? Do you know the difference between ‘’knowing that a Neanderthal falls outside of the human range, determined with the aid of comparative population series’’ and ‘’seeing just another face, and being led by intuition and bias, rather than anatomical research’’? Yep, the Ass-offerer subspecies of pongid apes cannot think abstractly, and make themselves useful, ie doing anything other than passively perceiving sensory input, shitting and sleeping. It has been confirmed today.
quote:Armed forces around the globe had been looking at the wrong places. They could torture and break enemy combatants a lot quicker with your profound propensity towards stupidity and incomprehensible language.
^What did I tell ya, Expongid is fond of ignoring messages in posts, and supplanting refutations for fun and games. Can’t blame him though. Apes just wanna have fun.
quote:Really? Do I really need to demonstrate how stupid a person is
No refutation forthcoming, all talk, but what do you expect? Apes just wanna have fun.
quote:I simply alerted your bonehead to the fact that these facial reconstructions are subjective
So what are you saying, that the authors of the charts that pointed out the differences between moderns and Neanderthals were not subjective when they were nitpicking modern human craniums without sloping foreheads, massive brow ridges and occipital buns? Of course, nitpicking craniums (ie picking total opposite Qafzeh 9 and CroMagnon 1) is way more subjective, since the massive variation among moderns offers infinitely more room for nitpicking than the measurable landmarks on craniums allow for.
quote:if the images "preserved" all the cranial elements I fed to your dry bony weasel ass, then you would in effect simply be reinforcing my point,
I’d be reinforcing your point, and there would be no relevancy to that, because I never disagreed with it, you phucking ape. See my initial post that prompted this debate. Do you see anything in there that suggests that a position was taken on the craniofacial similarity between moderns and Neanderthals? Watch what Ass-offerer will do: he’ll start b!tching about how I said that a layman wouldn’t tell a groomed Neanderthal apart from bystanders (which is echoed by current understandings about Neanderthals). Of course, in doing so, that will be where his ape-like inability to make subtle distinctions between what he thinks, and what was said, factors in.
quote:I can show you literally many examples of "reconstructions" of Neanderthals that look different from your's
Irrelevant. Ass-offerer, can you address for once, why the ‘’cartoons’’ with all their ‘’radical differences’’ present and discernable, still looked like moderns?
quote:all the time spent on this board has not even educated you about the so-called "human races", which could have easily served as straightforward examples of "separating modern humans into discrete sub-species",
^This pongid ape is going on record saying grouping humans into subspecies, and grouping humans into species are the same. Of course, this is another example of his pongid ape-like inability to make subtle distinctions.
quote:The issue under discussion was how the Neanderthals' peculiar traits would make them standout
Look at him backtracking like a little fag. The issue under discussion, Ass-offerer, is that you specifically said that humans bicker about minor variations among moderns, ‘’ let alone the more pronounced Neanderthal contrasts’’. I asked you to follow up on your claim that more pronounced contrasts would lead to perceptions of Neanderthals appearing non-human. Where is your evidence?
^Pretty extreme example, as the cranial divergence focuses on a single region, rather than distributed globally, like on Neanderthals. Its still very demonstrative to my argument, which has made a certified fugitive out of Ass-offerer (his pongid ass keeps running away from it).
I’m pretty sure that this rather unique looking Amerindian fella falls, cranially speaking, way outside of the modern human range, arguably on par with, if not more than all the divergent Neanderthal traits combined. Does he look non-human to your eyes? LOL.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^faggotzilla, why do you keep tugging your tail between your hooved legs and running away from this:
Since it is apparent to any brain-functioning human that the traits I talked about essentially amount to all the essential components of the cranium, one has to wonder what then are these "basic traits" of your's that are supposed to be "separate" from the components I talked about, and that "supposedly allow us to recognize something as human"? Shoot, potato head!
Earlier I wrote kalonjigaboo the following, stumping the illiterate punk stupid by the rudimentary facts contained in it:
Anyone even with an intelligence slightly above a nimrod can clearly see how massive a Neanderthal skull is when stacked against a modern human's. The mid-facial projection of the Neanderthal makes prognathism amongst humans look like a child's play. While Neanderthal skulls are comparatively massive, they are also markedly flatter in profile. The slope of Neanderthal forehead has no peer in modern humans--that is to say, even modern human examples with relatively sloppy foreheads, are generally nowhere near the Neanderthal level in this feature.
^Trnsltn: That variations exist among modern humans is a no-brainer, which your thick sloping educationally-impenetrable gibbon skull confuses with the more pronounced inter-species level variations between Neanderthals and modern humans...and LOL, you go onto drool endlessly about some modern human specimens having some or another trait that typifies Neanderthals. Especially comical, is the sight of the pussy struggling to make a distinction b/n the Neanderthal and the Piedmosti 3, despite a visual aid. Muttonhead, these traits in modern human specimens don't occur anywhere near Neanderthal levels. Understand? You are obviously too much of a dope to ever learn from experience, but I tried to batter this basic concept into your fuckhead in the past, when you comically tried to make connections b/n Neanderthal traits and the so-called "negroid" archetype.
List the names of "Mesolithic" modern human populations with "occipital buns, brow ridges, etc" on the level of the Neanderthal counterparts, and demonstrate why you are smarter than the researchers who "mistook" these folks for modern humans instead of Neanderthals, mr. "thong in my butt-crack"!
The inter-species level cranial variations between Neanderthals are not emotional opinions of scientists, you plantation reared monkey. These are consistent quantifiable facts across the research community, unlike your petty kindergarten level reliance on facial reconstruction cartoons.
The endlessly nibbling anal fungus says that my invocation of Neanderthals cranio-facially standing out to the average modern human and the inclination of those features to be scorned is arguing for Neanderthals being "non-human". What planet does this fuckheaded dyke come from? Stupidarama? LOL
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:That variations exist among modern humans is a no-brainer, which your thick sloping educationally-impenetrable gibbon skull confuses with the more pronounced inter-species level variations between Neanderthals and modern humans...
Again, a distortion of my post. You’re doing this because you have no arguments, nor sources to document your wacky claims, and you feel the net closing in on you. This is how desperate you are to prevent this discussion from reaching its inevitable and already occurring climax, which is, you being cornered, with your viewpoints depleting to less than 99% of their original volume, because you are forced to abandon them one by one. After this, your next step will be another one of your habitual sick misogynistic tantrums, where you’ll rant on and on about female genitals, tampons and mother/son incest. That section of my post doesn’t even argue what you’re saying it does, it doesn’t even use the language needed for your bizarre conclusion, since it contains constant, and strategically placed reminders that it’s all relative (eg ‘’at least to our eyes’’, ‘’occur to a lesser degree in modern humans’’, ‘’that is comparable to the Neanderthal above it’’). Additionally, that post you replied to is part of a long line of posts that fully acknowledge that that the Neanderthal falls outside of the modern range. Something is horribly wrong with The Ass-offerer, I’m telling you.
quote:List the names of "Mesolithic" modern human populations with "occipital buns, brow ridges, etc" on the level of the Neanderthal counterparts, and demonstrate why you are smarter than the researchers who "mistook" these folks for modern humans instead of Neanderthals
Not needed, since your request is based on another one of your faulty interpretations. LOL, after my previous post to him, his inability to properly respond has pressured him into throwing all his wacky arguments out of the window, and deciding to start anew. The Ass-offerer is placing all his bets on another faulty interpretation of my posts, and in doing so, he’ll have no on-topic material to reply to anymore. What are you gonna do now, The Ass-offerer? Do the black knight, and claim you are the victor, again? Or will you simply go MIA, like in our previous discussion about tectonic plates?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Folks, as you can see, Real life people who show the full plethora of the outward visible ''Neanderthal'' traits don't look like non-humans, despite The Ass-offerers prediction. LOL!! Watch the Ass-offerer do the black knight!!
quote:Originally posted by Apocalypse: Explorer Wrote:
quote:That is delusional talk; it is the result of post traumatic stress syndrome from defeat.
I had no quarrel with you Explorer. My quarrel was with a troll named Watu. You decided to interpose and play "god of logic" and received a sound whooping from me for your efforts. Monty Python's "Black Knight" best illustrates your hollow declaration of victory.
This is what "I'm gonna do": hand your dead ass out to you, which has become something of a ritual. The following came from your yeasty ass:
even the Piedmosti 3 individual has a sloping head and brow ridge that is comparable to the Neanderthal above it, at least to the eye
weiner kisser, that is basically "confusing with the more pronounced inter-species level variations between Neanderthals and modern humans", noted earlier.
By insinuating that humans can see minor variations within their own species, but would somehow be oblivious to the more stark ones from another species, you are demonstrating that you don't interact with humans. You also natter about "Some Mesolithic populations having prominent occipital buns, prominent brow ridges and low sloping foreheads", obviously a ploy to make the case that Mesolithic modern humans can be like Neanderthals, yet when your ass is being poked with fire, you chicken out with naming these "would-be" Mesolithic modern human populations.
Spamming with photos displaying rare or isolated cases like the sloping forehead profile of Nikolai Valuev shows that we are dealing with an animal incredibly obtuse and uninformed about the art of objectivity. The Valuev guy is no Neanderthal by any stretch, and can only be mistaken for one by a complete idiot. Mr. Valuev obviously has a prominent chin, has a flat mid-face, lacks an occipital bump, overall build is certainly not diminutively stocky, his nose structure obviously outlines a "pear-like" aperture, and sans the sloping forehead, the guy's braincase is obviously in line with the modern human pattern, showcasing a narrow high braincase, giving it a more rounded profile than a typical Neanderthal skull's. And this is just from looking at the guy with his skin/muscles attached. This plantation reared monkey, kalonjibbon, simply does not get it (or anything else simple), and never will. The sum whole of Neanderthal cranial pattern sets it apart from modern humans', and it is a modal phenotype, not some isolated cases of some weird looking individuals, as some might deem this Valaev fellow. And even though Valeuv is obviously a modern human, a lot of folks will not perceive his sloping forehead profile as a sexually appealing trait. Again, the gibbon in tampon only furthers my points, with every effort to spam the thread with immaterial pictographs like a little kid who is just learning to become familiar with things in the real world. LOL
Using the kid props for the fuckhead's understanding...
compared to this:
One would have to be a total douchebag not to see the differences.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Like all your other post in this thread that were directed towards me, what you say above has zip connectivity to the points that were raised, and what was actually said (why you neglected to include the specifics points you were replying to in the first place). Especially funny was your obsolete evaluation of Nikolai Valuev, which of course, contains even more beside the point utterances that have zip connectivity to what I was saying. This is Ass-endorser way of admitting defeat: simply talking past all of the points people raise. The Ass-endorser is simply proving my point by posting the Neanderthal reconstruction. Even with all of the peculiarities that leave room for misinterpretation (eg his neckless sloppy posture is not a Neanderthal trait), the man would not stand out as a non-human among seniors in a retirement home, to the layman. Why? The differences between Neanderthals and Moderns that are observable to the eye, are differences of degree, not of kind. Additionally, unless specifics are posted that document that laymen intuitively pick up on limits of human variation, my original point still stands, and The Ass-endorsers position will remain one of the more hilarious examples of his uphill battles with objective reality.
Conclusion? Going by his face and his head, the aged Neanderthal man above would surely go unnoticed among a crowd of seniors. If he would be singled out, it would be because of something other than his face and head.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
You are naturally not going to get the educational value of my ass-kicking (btw, just call me the ass-kicker; it is more accurate, and I like it better, LOL) post, because you simply lack any brain spark for that to happen. It's a good thing you realized the blunder of trying to pass "Mesolithic" modern humans and Australian Aborigines as Neanderthal-like. Any moderately intelligent person with moderately operational eyes can see the intuitiveness of the childish visual aids I had to resort to, in hopes of getting through to kalonG-Spot of a ho's skull. It shows that even despite your best efforts to find "Neanderthal-like" individuals in modern humans, your crap about Neanderthals being lost in and undetectable to modern humans is stupid beyond measure, for even Mr. Valuev's weird look still looked fairly tame I when pitted it against a Neanderthal "reconstruction" [not to leave out the fairly transparent differences I noted], knowing well that reconstructions don't even accurately portray the would-be living individual. It is also telling that you had to look hard just to find an isolated case that someone like Mr. Valuev presented, just so you can say that so and so is not very different from a "Neanderthal", and hence, undetectable. The very act of searching for and nitpicking these sorts of isolated cases itself defeats your "Neanderthals be undetectable to modern humans" nonsense. You picked Mr. Valuev precisely because he struck you as being out of the norm.
Furthermore, you are so stupid beyond measure, that you don't notice that other than yourself, no body has uttered a word about Neanderthals standing out as "non-human". They would certainly stick out for their rare physique and cranio-facial traits, and would not easily blend in as "modern humans".
I mean look at this fellow, which kalonG-Spot of a ho assumed was an aged man, just because of his looks: If I saw this guy anywhere, I would at least think he is one creepy looking fellow, and may even think to myself, that "this guy looks like a Neanderthal"...LOL. Yes, the face alone would have jumped out right at me, just as Mr. Valuev's forehead apparently jumped out at kalonG-Spot of a ho. This is not even counting the body stature and build of Neanderthals.
This reconstruction itself has been generous to Neanderthals. Here are several, left as links:
That you posted those reconstructions shows you know nothing about anthropology. The ''ape'' Neaderthal is a myth, and deeply rooted into Western culture because early scientific phuckups, in which you are now partaking. You are a phucking dunce who knows nothing about the subject. Only an idiot would post Neanderthal reconstructions that depict them as not fully erect, or with anything other other than fleshy pale skin tones (they were not brown skinned), reddish scalp hair and reduced facial hair (the latter four points have all been scientifically documented). You phucking Pongid ape, LOL.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: This reconstruction itself has been generous to Neanderthals. Here are several, left as links:
You are the mother of all fuckheads. These images were not posted for their objective value; they were posted to show that your petty childish reliances on subjective facial reconstructions, as though they were some hardcore scientific data, are just that; subjective! Each of these artists project their reconstructions presumably on the basis of reported bone shapes of Neanderthals. You are also as blind as a bat, and going off on a figment of your imagination; none of these images show a non-erect Neanderthal. As for skin color, nobody has that info; it is all guesswork on all quarters. I dare you to give me the DNA sequences of the Neanderthal, which you can unequivocally prove is a coding for pale skin. You are such a queer quack.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:This reconstruction itself has been generous to Neanderthals. Here are several, left as links
This speaks for itself, you pongid ape, you were trying conceptualize those other reconstructions as more nuanced examples of the Neanderthal group, that I supposedly left out by using the ones Í posted. Further evidence of this, is that you included full body reconstructions, that cannot even be determined cranio-facially. You are well aware of this, yet you opted to include them in, to add ‘’effect’’ to your idea of apelike Neanderthals. You’re lying that you included those reconstructions to point out that reconstructions are subjective. It makes no sense to use sketchy science as evidence that someone is willful about nitpicking soft tissue and skin color. The former is simply deeply erroneous science, the latter is using reasonable creative freedom within the boundaries of what the measurable cranio-facial structures tell. You were not aware that those reconstructions were highly inaccurate and why, and I exposed you as the uninformed idiot that you are, plain and simple.
quote:You are also as blind as a bat, and going off on a figment of your imagination; none of these images show a non-erect Neanderthal.
This is further evidence that you simply don't know what is being referred to here. This dumb pongid ape is completely oblivious to the fact that Neanderthals were thought of as having a hunched over posture and slightly bending knees; which is why you posted those reconstructions in the first place, thinking the reconstructions you posted are part of the more nuanced picture, that supposedly trumps my notion of Neanderthal blending in among moderns, to the layman.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
There's no "conspiracy" here to lie; it is simply your imagination, or lack thereof, since after all you lack a brain. You are just too fucked in the head to absorb what's written right in front of you, like this, posted just moments before the images were posted:
even Mr. Valuev's weird look still looked fairly tame I when pitted it against a Neanderthal "reconstruction" [not to leave out the fairly transparent differences I noted], knowing well that reconstructions don't even accurately portray the would-be living individual.
I'd repeated myself countless times to your non-functional gibbon fuckhead that the facial reconstructions are subjective, noting that even a single specimen can look radically different under two different artists. It's all in print right above, making it impossible to lie your plantation cultured ass off. We know that your eyes are deader than a door nail, because you cried ambiguosly about "not fully erect". This is nothing more than a display of your dunder-fuckheadedness, because the hunch like profile of Neanderthals stems from their relatively diminutive stocky & muscular build, particularly the thick short neck. Your plantation cultured monkey ass doesn't even realize that most of these reconstructions are fairly recent or that several of them are photos of life-like mock ups in museums, not some "early scientific phuckups" [the foggotzilla cannot even spell "fuckup" or "fucking" LOL]. Go and climb some tree, or catch crawling lice off your back...in other words, doing what you are good for, instead of wasting band width with turkey jive, when civilized people could be putting it to better use.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
One would have to be a total douchebag not to see the differences. [/QB]
The man with the axe is an atypical contemporary human who has some traits similar to the Neanderthal, the sloping forehead and prominent brow ridge. The main difference is the much wider mouth opening of the mouth opening of the Neanderthal (broader jaw structure) You can see it more clearly in this view:
It's not just that the mouth is wide, it's that it nears much closer to the side of is face.
Also, some people have large bulbous type noses. However compared to those people the Neanderthal reconstruction pictured here appears to have a longer nose on the up and down vertical axis and compared to similar humans. It is also wider than even bulbous type human noses. This is because in the Neanderthal the nasal opening begins at a lower point under the eyes than in a human.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic