Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Should interracial marriages be promoted?

Page 6 of 19 [ 302 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 19  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

16 Aug 2012, 11:25 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
that argued some cave paintings and jewelry seems to predate the arrival of modern humans, and could possibly be attributed to Neanderthals.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Or not, as the case may be.

Our Neanderthal predecessors were not overly artistic and communicative. Also their weapons and tools were crude and did not change over a long period of time. Whereas the weapons and tools of the Cro-mags did change and improve discernibly. Cro-mag (i.e. modern humans) were probably smarter which is why their descendants are here and full bore Neanderthal descendants are noticeably absent. If there was interbreeding (it is possible) not much of Neanderthal genetics was incorporated into the modern line.

ruveyn



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,190
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

16 Aug 2012, 12:04 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
that argued some cave paintings and jewelry seems to predate the arrival of modern humans, and could possibly be attributed to Neanderthals.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Or not, as the case may be.

Our Neanderthal predecessors were not overly artistic and communicative. Also their weapons and tools were crude and did not change over a long period of time. Whereas the weapons and tools of the Cro-mags did change and improve discernibly. Cro-mag (i.e. modern humans) were probably smarter which is why their descendants are here and full bore Neanderthal descendants are noticeably absent. If there was interbreeding (it is possible) not much of Neanderthal genetics was incorporated into the modern line.

ruveyn


I think terms such as Homo Sapiens or modern humans would be more inclusive than the term Cro Magnon. Cro Magnons were only one variety of modern humans who had arrived in prehistoric Europe - there was also Grimaldi Man, Aflou Ofnett, and Furfooz man; each of which had very distinctive characteristics as ethnic groups in modern times have. Cro Magnons were prehistoric modern humans, but not all prehistoric modern humans were Cro Magnons.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

16 Aug 2012, 12:29 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

I think terms such as Homo Sapiens or modern humans would be more inclusive than the term Cro Magnon. Cro Magnons were only one variety of modern humans who had arrived in prehistoric Europe - there was also Grimaldi Man, Aflou Ofnett, and Furfooz man; each of which had very distinctive characteristics as ethnic groups in modern times have. Cro Magnons were prehistoric modern humans, but not all prehistoric modern humans were Cro Magnons.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


O.K. Modern humans are the only humans because their intelligence produced a differential in reproductive success. Full bore Neanderthal did not make the cut.

There was a time when both kind of humans lived on the planet. Now, only our kind lives on the planet.


ruveyn



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,190
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

16 Aug 2012, 1:15 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

I think terms such as Homo Sapiens or modern humans would be more inclusive than the term Cro Magnon. Cro Magnons were only one variety of modern humans who had arrived in prehistoric Europe - there was also Grimaldi Man, Aflou Ofnett, and Furfooz man; each of which had very distinctive characteristics as ethnic groups in modern times have. Cro Magnons were prehistoric modern humans, but not all prehistoric modern humans were Cro Magnons.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


O.K. Modern humans are the only humans because their intelligence produced a differential in reproductive success. Full bore Neanderthal did not make the cut.

There was a time when both kind of humans lived on the planet. Now, only our kind lives on the planet.


ruveyn


Regardless, Neanderthals and other archaic humans were still close enough to us that we modern homo sapiens from time to time had no problem with getting busy behind the bushes with them, as is demonstrable with the 3 or 4 percent of non-modern human DNA in many of us.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

16 Aug 2012, 2:24 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Regardless, Neanderthals and other archaic humans were still close enough to us that we modern homo sapiens from time to time had no problem with getting busy behind the bushes with them, as is demonstrable with the 3 or 4 percent of non-modern human DNA in many of us.

Maybe. The article that was linked earlier in the thread has a link to another article about a different study that concludes that the DNA similarities are not due to interbreeding.

In any case, that there was a small amount of interbreeding and/or art does not show that your professor was right. I don't know whether the modern humans killed all the Neanderthals violently or whether they peacefully outcompeted them, but either way, when we showed up, they all died.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,190
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

16 Aug 2012, 2:55 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Regardless, Neanderthals and other archaic humans were still close enough to us that we modern homo sapiens from time to time had no problem with getting busy behind the bushes with them, as is demonstrable with the 3 or 4 percent of non-modern human DNA in many of us.

Maybe. The article that was linked earlier in the thread has a link to another article about a different study that concludes that the DNA similarities are not due to interbreeding.

In any case, that there was a small amount of interbreeding and/or art does not show that your professor was right. I don't know whether the modern humans killed all the Neanderthals violently or whether they peacefully outcompeted them, but either way, when we showed up, they all died.


There is a matter of debate regarding whether or not we had absorbed Neanderthals and other archaic humans. I think there is still strong evidence in favor for intermixing. And while Neanderthals had vanished with the arrival of modern humans, it was hardly something that had happened overnight. In fact, modern and archaic humans had coexisted for thousands of years before we were the last human type left standing.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

16 Aug 2012, 3:08 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Regardless, Neanderthals and other archaic humans were still close enough to us that we modern homo sapiens from time to time had no problem with getting busy behind the bushes with them, as is demonstrable with the 3 or 4 percent of non-modern human DNA in many of us.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


While some interbreeding occurred we do not know how much and to what extent Neanderthal DNA was integrated with Sapien DNA. We do know that Neanderthal led a much different life, communicated a great deal less than sapien and has left fewer sophisticated artifacts, which may indicate a different mental process. Could it be that Neanderthals were autistic?

ruveyn



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

16 Aug 2012, 4:54 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Regardless, Neanderthals and other archaic humans were still close enough to us that we modern homo sapiens from time to time had no problem with getting busy behind the bushes with them, as is demonstrable with the 3 or 4 percent of non-modern human DNA in many of us.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


While some interbreeding occurred we do not know how much and to what extent Neanderthal DNA was integrated with Sapien DNA. We do know that Neanderthal led a much different life, communicated a great deal less than sapien and has left fewer sophisticated artifacts, which may indicate a different mental process. Could it be that Neanderthals were autistic?

ruveyn


The communication thing is based on some shaky hypothesis about their hyoid bones and Mental protuberance. Mostly BS largely dismissed in the field.

I think if the Neanderthal would have survived and ended up in say Scotland we would just call them modern humans and use the same out of Africa model with the preface of the ancestors of the Scotts left Africa first.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

16 Aug 2012, 5:32 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Regardless, Neanderthals and other archaic humans were still close enough to us that we modern homo sapiens from time to time had no problem with getting busy behind the bushes with them, as is demonstrable with the 3 or 4 percent of non-modern human DNA in many of us.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


While some interbreeding occurred we do not know how much and to what extent Neanderthal DNA was integrated with Sapien DNA. We do know that Neanderthal led a much different life, communicated a great deal less than sapien and has left fewer sophisticated artifacts, which may indicate a different mental process. Could it be that Neanderthals were autistic?

ruveyn


The communication thing is based on some shaky hypothesis about their hyoid bones and Mental protuberance. Mostly BS largely dismissed in the field.

I think if the Neanderthal would have survived and ended up in say Scotland we would just call them modern humans and use the same out of Africa model with the preface of the ancestors of the Scotts left Africa first.


"if the neanderthal could have survived"?
Well-why didnt they survive?

every point youve made here is nonsense.

Neanderthals were definetly not modern humans.

If they were alive in historic times they would be regarded as a seperate species of human- human yes- but untermenshun.

The communication theory is not dismissed at all. But its also hard to prove since we dont have grammaphone recordings of neanderthal speech.

But we do know that their behavior had definite differences with ours. One difference was the lack of long distance trade. Even in the stone age anatomical moderns who lived inland aquired sea shells for example. Neanderthals used only their own tribes local resources. So aparently Neanderthals were not as good at networking and salesmanship as the anatomical moderns. So - a differnce in communications skills is definetly on the table as an explanation.

Also - we know that the Neanderthals occupied europe for 200 thousand years before being suddenly replaced by the Cro Magnon man 35K years ago. So how could neanderthals be part of the same "out of africa hypothesis"?

I have nothing against Neanderthals. One on one they were probably atleast as smart as we are- if not more so. But their fatal flaw probably had to do with being impaired in their ability to pool their smarts through symbolic behavior - their collective tribal smarts were not as good.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 121
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

16 Aug 2012, 7:44 pm

According to this:

http://creation.com/foxp2-gene-neandertals-human

Neanderthals were probably able to speak.

I wonder why Neanderthals are usually depicted as White?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

16 Aug 2012, 7:55 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
According to this:

http://creation.com/foxp2-gene-neandertals-human

Neanderthals were probably able to speak.

I wonder why Neanderthals are usually depicted as White?


They lived in northern Europe where black skin would have been a survival impediment.

ruveyn



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 121
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

16 Aug 2012, 8:06 pm

Well, here is quite a lot of information and speculation about Neanderthals and autistics

http://www.rdos.net/eng/asperger.htm

Quote:
Neanderthals most likely had fur. Without fur they would not be able to survive in Finland in between ice-ages, nor in Europe during the ice-ages.


I guess we'll never know much about them with much certainty.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

16 Aug 2012, 8:21 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Regardless, Neanderthals and other archaic humans were still close enough to us that we modern homo sapiens from time to time had no problem with getting busy behind the bushes with them, as is demonstrable with the 3 or 4 percent of non-modern human DNA in many of us.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


While some interbreeding occurred we do not know how much and to what extent Neanderthal DNA was integrated with Sapien DNA. We do know that Neanderthal led a much different life, communicated a great deal less than sapien and has left fewer sophisticated artifacts, which may indicate a different mental process. Could it be that Neanderthals were autistic?

ruveyn


The communication thing is based on some shaky hypothesis about their hyoid bones and Mental protuberance. Mostly BS largely dismissed in the field.

I think if the Neanderthal would have survived and ended up in say Scotland we would just call them modern humans and use the same out of Africa model with the preface of the ancestors of the Scotts left Africa first.


1)"if the neanderthal could have survived"?
Well-why didnt they survive?

every point youve made here is nonsense.

Neanderthals were definetly not modern humans.

2) If they were alive in historic times they would be regarded as a seperate species of human- human yes- but untermenshun.

3) The communication theory is not dismissed at all. But its also hard to prove since we dont have grammaphone recordings of neanderthal speech.

4) But we do know that their behavior had definite differences with ours. One difference was the lack of long distance trade. Even in the stone age anatomical moderns who lived inland aquired sea shells for example. Neanderthals used only their own tribes local resources. So aparently Neanderthals were not as good at networking and salesmanship as the anatomical moderns. So - a differnce in communications skills is definetly on the table as an explanation.

5) Also - we know that the Neanderthals occupied europe for 200 thousand years before being suddenly replaced by the Cro Magnon man 35K years ago. So how could neanderthals be part of the same "out of africa hypothesis"?

I have nothing against Neanderthals. One on one they were probably atleast as smart as we are- if not more so. But their fatal flaw probably had to do with being impaired in their ability to pool their smarts through symbolic behavior - their collective tribal smarts were not as good.


1) The God of Evolution did not love them? There are plenty of reasons species go extinct evolution is a rough and ready solver not a well oiled machine. I go with the displacement and interbreeding thang.

2) There is anti-scotch sentiment now but with a brain size larger than modern mans I think they could hold their own.
I believe when Anthros threw out race they would welcome the Scottish into the human fold.

3) They have human hyoids, human ears, big brains why wouldn't they be able to speak?
http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1092&context=totem here is a good survey on the subject.

4) The Jarawa in the Andaman don't trade I think they are human.

5) Are you claiming an African ape (the Neanderthal) close enough genetically to mate with another African ape (us) did not come from Africa? The out of Africa theory supposes that there were multiple human migrations out of Africa. I say the first one was the Homo erectus during the Early Pleistocene. Is there a requirement in out of Africa for all of us to come out at one time?

Every point I made was nonsense? -very rude- :lol:

My point was semantic if H. neanderthalensis survived to the modern era we would see them as modern humans. Not all of us of course but folks who are not racist.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

16 Aug 2012, 8:21 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
Neanderthals were probably able to speak.

They may have had the vocal apparatus that would allow them to physically speak modern human languages. That doesn't imply that they had languages comparable to those of modern humans.

If they had the mental ability to cope with modern human languages, then even if they didn't have the vocal apparatus, they could have made and used sign languages.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,190
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

16 Aug 2012, 8:27 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Regardless, Neanderthals and other archaic humans were still close enough to us that we modern homo sapiens from time to time had no problem with getting busy behind the bushes with them, as is demonstrable with the 3 or 4 percent of non-modern human DNA in many of us.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


While some interbreeding occurred we do not know how much and to what extent Neanderthal DNA was integrated with Sapien DNA. We do know that Neanderthal led a much different life, communicated a great deal less than sapien and has left fewer sophisticated artifacts, which may indicate a different mental process. Could it be that Neanderthals were autistic?

ruveyn


There is indeed a popular theory stating just that. Personally, I think prehistoric Aspies had been the guys painting on cave walls when the super butch cavemen were hunting mammoths.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

16 Aug 2012, 8:43 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
with a brain size larger than modern mans I think they could hold their own.

I don't believe you can predict intelligence purely from brain size.

Quote:
My point was semantic if H. neanderthalensis survived to the modern era we would see them as modern humans. Not all of us of course but folks who are not racist.

I think they would be categorized as a different species of humans. And I think that labeling anyone who might possibly disagree with you over a matter with relatively little evidence as 'racist' is quite silly.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton