Radiocarbon dates review rewrites European prehistory
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
-
Guest
-
Guest
well so far, i like your train of thought. i won't make any promises that i will always agree with you but i would like to hear your opinions.I'm almost reluctant to give an opinion on anything
there are always peole who will twist words, even on this board. so far people accuse me of not answering their questions even though i have; they just didn't like the answers i gave.
but it is funny, not oneof them has attempted to answer one of my questions i have posed, since i joined. hypocrisy is met everywhere.
what is your opinion on the subject. mine is, that i do not believe that neanderthals existed but were just differently shaped humans (much like we have today--carl ewing of b-ball fame compare to asians is a prime example).
with the findings of the skeletons of the hobbit, we have evidence that each person or groups of people were not carbon copy, machine made robots who all looked alike. it would be farfetched and a long stretch, to assume that all ancestors looked exactly the same.
it goes to show that some people are not willing to accept the reality and must justify their expensive educations with findings that have no basis intruth.
-
RK Awl-O'Gist
reply
Neanderthals existed alright, I don't see any reason to doubt that they were a 'side branch' of human development which disappeared, for whatever reason. We can tell from their bones that they were cold adapted, so if that was only a genetic variation, it was one hell of a long-lived one.
We know that the original idea of them being brutes is rubbish, but I don't personally think they were as adaptive or resourceful as the incomers, ie Homo Sapiens. I doubt very much if there was some kind of prehistoric genocide, since hunter-gatherers don't have the time, effort or energy to waste in protracted war. They have enough to do just to survive themselves. They may have carried some kind of disease to which the Neanderthals had little/no resistance, that would explain the rapidity of their replacement.
As for 'The Hobbit', I really don't know what to make of that one.
We know that the original idea of them being brutes is rubbish, but I don't personally think they were as adaptive or resourceful as the incomers, ie Homo Sapiens. I doubt very much if there was some kind of prehistoric genocide, since hunter-gatherers don't have the time, effort or energy to waste in protracted war. They have enough to do just to survive themselves. They may have carried some kind of disease to which the Neanderthals had little/no resistance, that would explain the rapidity of their replacement.
As for 'The Hobbit', I really don't know what to make of that one.
-
Guest
wouldn't that same cold adaption be present in people of today like the swedes, the finns, the siberians and easily detected when compared to peopl of the equatorial regions?We can tell from their bones that they were cold adapted, so if that was only a genetic variation, it was one hell of a long-lived one
could they have been, as we have seen in the 20th century, similar to those amazonian tribes who were discovered as more 'civilised' man infringed on their tribal lands?but I don't personally think they were as adaptive or resourceful as the incomers,
how will history treat them in 1000 years? just because a tribe did not develope as fast as another does it mean they were less than human.
yes, we have seen that with the spanish and south america but that doesn't mean they were a different humanoid species. it just means they were not protected as well as the invading tribe.They may have carried some kind of disease to which the Neanderthals had little/no resistance
well we have pygmies in africa, dwarves in the western world, it would be safe to consider that s.e. asians had some physical defect that struck a group of people as well.As for 'The Hobbit', I really don't know what to make of that one.
i am not attacking you but just asking some questions and pointing out my perspective.
-
RK Awl-O'Gist
reply
No probs.
Can't do better than post this link meantime:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/sci/tech/3431609.stm
Can't do better than post this link meantime:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/sci/tech/3431609.stm
-
Guest
-
Guest
<Studies of mitochondrial DNA from Neanderthal bones also suggest they had little affinity to modern populations.
But some researchers believe this does not exclude the possibility that interbreeding occurred.
Dr Magnus Nordborg, of Lund University in Sweden, has calculated that even if Neanderthals had comprised 25% of the population after merging with modern humans, their DNA might be impossible to detect today. >
I just dealt with these issues and some of the questions raised in another thread, But one point to add is that yes the Scandanavians do have adaptations not seen at all in the tropics. Turns out there is another form of melanin besides black. Red.The Red dont tan well either, but it *dont* burn. But given the milky whiteness of the Redheads I've been close enough to see, clearly an adaptation that would permit Vitamin D generation.
But melanin still tends to raise the adrenalin level and lower the seratonin level, so Redhead lovers are a handfull.
Then too, there's the economic aspect of HNS & HSS meeting, Specialization that greatly enhances survival of their joint efforts. The HNS has been there forever, and knows the territory, knows the habits of the megafauna, and knows when the hunters should be where. And the HSS brings these new tools, and kills the megafauna without anybody getting hurt. But finally, the HNS dudes are the draft animals to haul tons of meat back to the group.
So, while in Africa for instance tribes have evolved to be the most adapted to a particular ecosystem, and thus pygmies are short and Masai are tall; the Native Europeans are all mixed up, with short dudes and tall ones found in every part of the continent, some heavy set and some gracile. Which is the kind of variation you'd get when you hybridize two species.
My own neck of Ozark woods has some inbred Neanderthal hybrids, but they tend to have a low profile and stay out of sight and out of trouble. Much more laid back than the Redneck crankheads.
But some researchers believe this does not exclude the possibility that interbreeding occurred.
Dr Magnus Nordborg, of Lund University in Sweden, has calculated that even if Neanderthals had comprised 25% of the population after merging with modern humans, their DNA might be impossible to detect today. >
I just dealt with these issues and some of the questions raised in another thread, But one point to add is that yes the Scandanavians do have adaptations not seen at all in the tropics. Turns out there is another form of melanin besides black. Red.The Red dont tan well either, but it *dont* burn. But given the milky whiteness of the Redheads I've been close enough to see, clearly an adaptation that would permit Vitamin D generation.
But melanin still tends to raise the adrenalin level and lower the seratonin level, so Redhead lovers are a handfull.
Then too, there's the economic aspect of HNS & HSS meeting, Specialization that greatly enhances survival of their joint efforts. The HNS has been there forever, and knows the territory, knows the habits of the megafauna, and knows when the hunters should be where. And the HSS brings these new tools, and kills the megafauna without anybody getting hurt. But finally, the HNS dudes are the draft animals to haul tons of meat back to the group.
So, while in Africa for instance tribes have evolved to be the most adapted to a particular ecosystem, and thus pygmies are short and Masai are tall; the Native Europeans are all mixed up, with short dudes and tall ones found in every part of the continent, some heavy set and some gracile. Which is the kind of variation you'd get when you hybridize two species.
My own neck of Ozark woods has some inbred Neanderthal hybrids, but they tend to have a low profile and stay out of sight and out of trouble. Much more laid back than the Redneck crankheads.
-
Guest
-
Rokcet Scientist