The most telling part of that video is that no one appears to take any notice of the trolley in the whole 15 mins. That's 3 people with 45 man minutes of preaching with zero impact. I am not expecting a major increase in Bristol on the back of this evidence.
Neanderthal man
by scary21 77 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Oubliette
Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals would have to have been pretty closely related to interbreed. This also shows that the term "species," while useful, also has some inherent difficulties.
The problem is that evolutionary forces weren't reading human taxonomic charts and graphs while they were happening.
I attended a four day National Science Teacher's Association (NSTA) conference this summer. Ken Miller, the author of the popular high school textbook Biology published by Pearson was a guest lecturer.
Among other things, he made the intriguing comment that Aristotle's taxonomy was getting a major reworking in light of many recent discoveries in genetics and paleontology. Although he didn't say when this new taxonomy would be introduced into future textbooks and high school curriculum in the United States, he hinted it would be within the next year or so (I know, that sounds a lot like "Soon!").
For those that are interested, here is a link to his website:
There are tons of excellent resources on their website!
Enjoy,
Oubliette
-
cofty
Thanks for the link Oubliette
-
Perry
Aborigine and Eastern European Skull
Bottle-neckng of genes can more than account for skeletal variations. Think of the muzzle differences between a Pug and a Collie:
This is from a recent National Geographic article:
Many scientists had long doubted whether Neanderthals were capable of producing symbolic art.
But that's begun to change in recent years, thanks in part to the discovery of pigments, tiny art objects, and what might be body paint at Neanderthal sites, according to Paul Bahn, a cave art expert and a member of the Archaeological Institute of America.
"There remains a rump of blinkered scholars who still consider Neanderthals to be brutish savages, little better than animals, but fortunately they are a dwindling minority," Bahn, who was not involved in the study, said in an email.
"I think almost all objective scholars now fully accept Neanderthal art."
Study co-author João Zilhão goes a step further, suggesting that, if Neanderthals were responsible for some of the Spanish cave art, then perhaps there's no real distinction between them and modern humans.
"It adds to the evidence ... that Neanderthals were a European racial variant of Homo sapiens, not a distinct species," said Zilhão, of the University of Barcelona.
-
Village Idiot
So Perry, which of the species that have been fossilized do you believe are human versus something that's human-like but not quit us?
Homo Erectus with 2/3 of our brain capacity? Homo Rudolfensis with even less cranial capacity but walking upright nonetheless? Their tools get simpler and simpler with the passage of time (hundreds of thousands of years)and the difference in their brain capacity. Is that not evolution?
-
Village Idiot
"There remains a rump of blinkered scholars who still consider Neanderthals to be brutish savages, little better than animals, but fortunately they are a dwindling minority,"
Not true except 70 or so years ago.
Bahn, who was not involved in the study, said in an email.
"I think almost all objective scholars now fully accept Neanderthal art."Not really. Neandertal is known for his lack of symbolic objects, such as bone carvings of animals and humans and cave wall paintings. That doesn't mean that there are no minor exceptions but that is the general consensus.
Study co-author João Zilhão goes a step further, suggesting that, if Neanderthals were responsible for some of the Spanish cave art, then perhaps there's no real distinction between them and modern humans.His lack of a sophisticated tool kit indicates that he had lesser intelligence than Homo Sapiens.
"It adds to the evidence ... that Neanderthals were a European racial variant of Homo sapiens, not a distinct species," said Zilhão, of the University of Barcelona.No, he wasn't a distinct race. He was a species in himself.
-
Perry
Their tools get simpler and simpler with the passage of time
Viliage Idiot,
There is a scripture that describes what I do on Sunday mornings:
Ps. 100: 1 reads - Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye lands.
I couldn't carry a note if my life depended upon it. However, according to National Geographic, humans (or Neanderthals) were making bone flutes 40,000 years ago in caves in Germany, which is where this specimen in the below image was found.
V
Seems like Neanderthal (ancient) man was farther advanced from at least this modern man.
-
Village Idiot
How does any of this have to do with the evolution of man with Neandertal being one of the offshoots? The hundreds of thousands of year refer to those species going backwards in time. As cranial capacity gets smaller the tools get simpler. Going backwards in time you have Homo Heidelbergensis from which Neandertal/Sapiens evolved; Homo Antecessor; Homo Erectus/Ergaster; Homo Rudolfensis; and further back you get the 'walking apes' like Australopithecine.
So what is your boundary point for humanity? Which specimen do you draw the line at?
By the way Homo Sapiens had flutes.
-
Perry
As cranial capacity gets smaller the tools get simpler.
And apparently other skills increase.
Aborigines:
They seem to have better visual memory than other populations, having a much larger visual cortext.
Australian Aborigines have long been famous for their ability to navigate the trackless wastes, to find water holes and locate animal lairs. Modern testing has shown that this is because they excel in what is called "visual memory." On average, they perform about 50 percent better than whites when asked to recall what they saw in a room or picture.
Now Clive Harper, a professor of pathology in Sidney, Australia, reports that the visual cortex, which processes visual information, is about 25 percent larger in Aborigines than in whites and has more nerve cells. He points out that no one really knows how the visual cortex works, but the difference in size suggests inherently superior spatial ability. However, racial differences in brain structure are a very unfashionable area of study, and Prof. Harper has been unable to publish his work in any scientific journal. Editors are "anxious that this was going to be seen as some form of discrimination," says Prof. Harper. The organizers of a conference in the United States also refused to let him present his work. [Alasdair Palmer, The Difference, Sunday Telegraph (London), Nov. 19, 2000.]
It is easy to scorn the unwillingness of editors to deal with scientific fact, but their terror is easy to understand. Overall, the Aborigine brain is only about 85 percent the size of the European brain, and the skull is about twice as thick as in other races.....If, given their generally smaller brains, the Aborigine visual cortex is exceptionally large, this would mean other areas of the brain are correspondingly smaller. This would conform entirely with the low performance levels Aborigines show in other mental abilities.How do you think you would fare against an aborigine in a visual recall test or memory mapping spatial pathways? Different populations have different areas of strength.
It seems to me that tool formulation (and technology in general) is affected by environment, weather, population differences, competition, access to previous acquired knowledge etc. and probably many other factors that I haven't mentioned.
-
Village Idiot
Perry, Aborigines are smaller than Caucasians. There is going to be variation within a species. As far as their adaptability to their environment is concerned that can be expected since they've been raised in it.
As far as their having more skills than us that is because we're the product of school education and further more we are not submerged in an environment from which we get our food. That is their 'profession' so to speak and evolution would have weeded out those who aren't smart enough.
As for Neandertal and his brain he had, as I previously stated less frontal cortex due to the sloping of his skull. That is the portion of the brain that deals with fore planning. However he had much more of the occipital brain, to the rear where visual processing occurs.
As far as tools are concerned it is undisputable in the scientific community that they did not compare with Homo Sapiens of the same time period. Just because it would be hard for you to make those tools doesn't mean that they're more intelligent than you. The reason is because they would learn those skills as children. It's like learning a second language, childhood is when it's best to do that.
