Slashdot Mirror


Modern Humans, Neanderthals Shared Earth for 1,000 Years

joffley writes "ABC News is reporting on new evidence that has emerged suggesting Neanderthals co-existed with anatomically modern humans for at least 1,000 years in central France, before gradually disappearing about 28,000 to 30,000 years ago. But why did they disappear?"

765 comments

  1. they invented by geekoid · · Score: 4, Funny

    slider technology and left the planet. Unfortunatly they lost the coordinates for there home earth dimension. Also unfortunate that they became NAZI's.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:they invented by FosterKanig · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's my understanding that the Neanderthals lived in caves located below sea level. A big storm came and wiped them all out.

    2. Re:they invented by patio11 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thats not offtopic, thats a reference to a bad sci-fi series. What could be more on-topic at Slashdot?

    3. Re:they invented by David+Rolfe · · Score: 2, Funny

      Time traveling space Nazis?

      Rick Berman? Is that you?

      --
      Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
    4. Re:they invented by jcenters · · Score: 2, Informative
      Actually, it was a pretty good series before they introduced the Strogg/Nazi/Reptile villans, changed the cast, and completely destroyed the original, cool premise of the show.

      Then it got handed over to the Sci-Fi channel where they really fucked it up.

      --

      vi ~/.emacs

    5. Re:they invented by xquark · · Score: 1

      Time Traveling Astro Commi-Nazis would be the politcally correct term thank-you!

      Arash

      --
      Arash Partow's Philosophy: Be a person who knows what they don't know, and not a person who doesn't know.
    6. Re:they invented by kolobcreek · · Score: 0, Troll

      Of course the biggest problem of our century is supposed scientists and learned people stumbling on a few interesting facts and making outlandish assumptions and passing them off as irrefutable truths.

      Then a the haters come and latch onto these facts make a world from vein imaginations and then subject us the rest of society to their artificial hell.

    7. Re:they invented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You gave me an idea... (Or should I say I have now irrefutably discoved the truth...)

      The Neanderthals with their superiorly large brains became capable of making outlandish assumptions to each other and passing them off as irrefutable truths until one point where they all did something catastrophically silly (at least for themselves) and thus ending their species.

    8. Re:they invented by Goth+Biker+Babe · · Score: 1, Insightful

      people stumbling on a few interesting facts

      Are but that's the crux of the matter. There are facts. The whole lot isn't just guessed.

      making outlandish assumptions

      As compared with non-learned people making outlandish assumptions? In this case, of course, there has been lots of evidence over time and the theory (a plausable explanation that explains the *facts*) has been polished.

      The thing is that most science comes down to one thing. Where we came from. If you replace that you have to throw away, physics, chemistry, astronomy, cosmology, geology, biology, anthropology...

    9. Re:they invented by lisaparratt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As opposed to the living hell on Earth that is everyday life caused by religion passing off plain lies as irrefutable truths.

      Yeah, nice one. Think I'll take science any day of the week - at least there's some method behind it's madness.

    10. Re:they invented by lanswitch · · Score: 4, Funny

      They invented Intellectual Property Rights and sued each other to oblivion?

    11. Re:they invented by FLEB · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The thing is that most science comes down to one thing. Where we came from. If you replace that you have to throw away, physics, chemistry, astronomy, cosmology, geology, biology, anthropology...

      How's that?

      If physics, chemistry, etc. still all work as expected, how is origin so critical?

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    12. Re:they invented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's my understanding that the Neanderthals lived in caves located below sea level. A big storm came and wiped them all out.
      I know this is going to get modded down, but did Neanderthal's live in Naw Leans possibly?

    13. Re:they invented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh, the Neanderthals didn't vanish, its no secret that they evolved to become the French. :P

    14. Re:they invented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they are still alive today

      The Scum looters in Louisiana amd Mississippi proves that low level brains are still very much alive .

    15. Re:they invented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for there home earth dimension

      "their".

    16. Re:they invented by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 1
      How's that? If physics, chemistry, etc. still all work as expected, how is origin so critical?

      Well, you do have to determine which point we switched from la-la-magic-man-in-the-sky to actually believing carbon dating. You can't just say go created the earth and creatures in seven days but then later he created science and made it all make sense, albeit in a contradictory way to the (literal) interpretation of the bible.

      I do personally believe that there is nothing in evolution that directly contradicts the idea that some intelligence may have set evolution 'on its way'. Why does no one argue this? If god is truly all-knowing and omniscient then why is it such a stretch to believe that maybe he came up with evolution? You never really hear that argument.

      --
      If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
    17. Re:they invented by Slime-dogg · · Score: 0, Troll

      As opposed to the living hell on Earth that is everyday life caused by religion passing off plain lies as irrefutable truths.

      It is nice to know that your religion is contradictory in nature. How is this crap modded insightful?

      Following science to the exclusion of anything else is also a religion. Perhaps you want to ammend your values.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    18. Re:they invented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean? They right in the White House!

    19. Re:they invented by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Shut up, troll.

      Science is about using testable, verifiable evidence to find the truth. Following that principle to the exclusion of believing things for absolutely no good reason ("faith") is absolutely rational, and not at all a religion. Using the scientific method as the only way to find truth is the most noble of values.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    20. Re:they invented by The_Sock · · Score: 1

      I hear the arguement a lot, but the people making it never inject facts, just conjecture to the debate.

      It's easy to say evolution happened. It's been hard to prove, but I feel it's been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. At least that evolution happens has been shown. Some of the mechanics are definately up for debate, we don't know all the finer details, but those will come with time.

      It's even easier to evolution happened because of some invisible wizard in the sky, to cover the parts we don't yet understand. It's impossible to prove or disprove, and therefore not really a scientific approach to the whole thing. It can never be considered a fact.

      Unless of course the FSM comes down and touches us all with His Noodly Appendege.. Then we'll understand. It will happen on day.. The Marinera Monologues predict it.

      --
      For a good time call www.sawkie.com
    21. Re:they invented by jfx32 · · Score: 1

      Actually, many catholics might argue that point.

      http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolu tion.asp

    22. Re:they invented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and the CroMagnon modern man tried to help them but the Neanderthals sniped at their doctors and helicopters, so we just left them there.

    23. Re:they invented by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "slider technology and left the planet. Unfortunatly they lost the coordinates for there home earth dimension. Also unfortunate that they became NAZI's."

      They were CroMags on "Sliders", not Neanderthals. Nice try, but you do not get to pass go this round.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    24. Re:they invented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but their opinion doesn't count.

    25. Re:they invented by evil-osm · · Score: 2

      What could be more on-topic at Slashdot?

      - Natalie Portman

      - Hot Grits being poured down someone's pants

      -Some whacky backwards Russian thing

      --


      E.

      Never rub another man's rhubarb - The Joker
    26. Re:they invented by ericdano · · Score: 1

      well, it beats the daily DUPES on slashdot

      --
      It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
      I moderate therefore I rule!
      --
    27. Re:they invented by patio11 · · Score: 2, Funny

      In Soviet Russia, someone pours Natalie Portman down Hot Grit's pants. (Asked for comment, Hot Grit said "If I wasn't a strict Marxist-Leninist who thought religion was the opiate of the masses I would say 'Thank God for Communism!', but as it is I'll have to content myself with having Natalie Portman being poured down my pants." Natalie Portman could not be reached for comment.)

    28. Re:they invented by ericdano · · Score: 1
      Seriously. What the fuck is someone thinking shooting at a helicopter when it's trying to SAVE people?!@?!?

      Man, if I was incharge, it would be a SHOOT to KILL order for any fuckers who did not disarm or who shoot at an official.

      Amazing, people don't heed the warnings to leave, then want to start a war in the city.......

      --
      It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
      I moderate therefore I rule!
      --
    29. Re:they invented by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      A religion is just a system of beliefs that are held to find an underlying meaning. Be it spiritual or not, it is still a religion. Using science to explain everything is very much a religion.

      Furthermore, what is truth, who defines it, and why would it exist?

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    30. Re:they invented by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 1
      It's easy to say evolution happened. It's been hard to prove, but I feel it's been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. At least that evolution happens has been shown. Some of the mechanics are definately up for debate, we don't know all the finer details, but those will come with time.

      I think perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been - I don't disagree with you at all, and I hold the observations made in the name of evolution to be scientific fact. I am simply open to the idea of there being a greater intelligence that may have had a say in the beginnings of our species - but readily admit that this has never been proven in any directly observable way.

      --
      If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
    31. Re:they invented by bleckywelcky · · Score: 1



      reference to a bad sci-fi series

      Maybe according to you. I, for one, enjoyed the sliders show immensely. The plots were general fun (not terribly engaging though if you were looking for intellectual stimulation). The acting was good for a TV sci fi series. And the premise was pretty cool: parallel universes where events in our history changed and what the world would be like today if such event changes happened.

    32. Re:they invented by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
      No. Anybody who understands the scientific model knows that it can NEVER FIND TRUTH. It only examines a small subset of reality (that which can be falsified) and deems the rest of no consequence.

      Unfortunately, you seem to be a product of modern 'schooling' systems.

      Noble? The greatest minds of all time have always believed in a creator (note: not the catholic church representation of god). "is god friendly?"

    33. Re:they invented by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      Neanderthals are alive and well, and living among modern Humans. Just pay a visit to the shipyard a few miles from where I live one of these times.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    34. Re:they invented by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      It's my understanding that the Neanderthals lived in caves located below sea level. A big storm came and wiped them all out.
              You're apparently referring to the paintings in the Grotte Cosquer http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/archeosm/en/fr- cosqu1.htm , which I think are actually dated to the Palaeolithic, and produced most likely by AMHs (Anatomically Modern Humans).
              This site, and no doubt many others, had an entrance considerably below present day sea level - 40-odd metres for Cosquer - but the cave passages followed by the ancients led up to passages that have not (yet) been flooded. But at the time that the paintings were made, the sea level was below the cave entrance, as has been documented by fossils of land animals , drowned plants etc. Plus the fairly obvious issue of how the painters got their light sources into the cave. (The abundance of soot marks in the cave testifies that burning organic matter was used for illumination during the production of the paintings.) It's just about conceivable that an ancient could have carried illumination which he could have lit after doing a lung-powered cave dive (Norbert Casteret could do it, so why not Uggh the Caveman?)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    35. Re:they invented by The_Sock · · Score: 1

      Don't get me wrong either. It is possible are just part of a big dominos game, setup by some god. It's just not an arguement I'd use because it's impossible to be proven or disproven. That's all I meant. Wether it's science class, a debate or an arguement, it's good to have evidence on your side, and making that arguement leaves you with precious little. But that does not render it an impossibility.

      But I see we're not disagreeing, so cheers..

      --
      For a good time call www.sawkie.com
    36. Re:they invented by MellowTigger · · Score: 1

      If physics, chemistry, etc. still all work as expected, how is origin so critical?

      Continuity. A valid theory should be able to predict both the future and the past. If any observation contradicts the theorized condition (future or past), then the theory must be reconsidered. Even if entropy leads to an ill-defined "end point" in the continuous activity, there is often a well-defined "start point" in the past. So the origin is a time of interest in the long continuity of predicted events.

    37. Re:they invented by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      I am a "product" of modern schooling?

      What does that make you? The product of absurd fairy tale brainwashing?

      Science demonstrably finds the truth--in ever-improving precision. If our understanding of physics isn't the truth, we wouldn't have ever been able to put a man on the moon.

      Compare that to religion. Everyone can pray all day long and natural disasters still happen. And no amount of praying would ever put a man on the moon.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    38. Re:they invented by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
      No. You see, i have this thing called a brain. I tend to use it quite often. I question EVERYTHING.

      I don't swallow what ever the school system says just because they teach it as the truth.

      Where would quantum physics be if physics was the truth? Where would string theory be if quantum physics was the truth? Go read godel, escher and bach, you might then understand the problem with science, it can never find truth. I didn't say it couldn't get us usuable equations and predictions hence the trip to the moon.

      Why do you have to bring in religion? Why does everybody seem to think that religion is the opposite of science? If anything, secular school and religion are exactly the same, brainwashing people with 'facts' and unfortunately not teaching them how to question and explore the world around them.

    39. Re:they invented by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Yes, we all have brains. The more skeptical the better. But individual brains make mistakes. The scientific process weeds out those mistakes. Do you know of a better way to do so?

      Perhaps you have a different version of the word "truth" than I have. Do you know of some process better than the scientific method for approximating "truth?"

      When I talk of science, I'm talking of the real scientific process you will find in higher-level academia and research. I'm not talking about high school text book.

      And yes, there are some questions the scientific method won't ever be able to answer. Those are the stupid, pointless questions.

      So my question to you is: what non-pointless questions are fundamentally unexaminable by the scientific process? What process do you know of that's better than the scientific one?

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    40. Re:they invented by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
      How about happiness?

      Science tries to be all grand and all encompassing and blah blah blah. But anything that comes down to individual people is always going to come down to the individual person.

      Science cannot accurately study the subjective reality that we all live in. Is there anything more worthwhile to study? Spirituality (definitely NOT organized religion) has made some inroads into this. The one thing we do know is that tech and science don't buy happiness, so what does? Is it possible for 'regular' people to free themselves from suffering without all the claptrap of religion? I'm talking about true freedom, not hiding from the rain like the christians, or hiding in caves like ascetics. Avoiding problems (which science and western civ are big on) is not the answer, so how do we eliminate the problems?

      These are the most important questions we should be focusing on, after all, if we deny our humanity then what are we? We could just replace everybody with robots and there'd be no difference.

      If you think these are stupid and pointless questions i would not like to be your coworker, your son, your daughter, your mother or father, your wife or husband or anybody that has to come into contact with you because you are no longer human, you're just a mindless drone in the machine.

      At the same time, i do think that science could make great inroads into these areas IF things were examined in the proper way. However, the final puzzle piece is always contained within the subjective reality of the individual, and science deals with objective reality.

  2. *sigh* by Wavicle · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Can't we just go one day without a creation v. evolution thread?!

    --
    Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
    Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    1. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, there's really only one place in the world where that debate ever comes up.

    2. Re:*sigh* by FredThompson · · Score: 1

      A day?!?! Are you mad, sir?

      What else do you suggest we do on Slashdot? Recycle hackaday links? Recycle earlier posts? Recycle Beowulf cluster comments? Attack Microsoft and TiVo?

      Really!

    3. Re:*sigh* by Mahou · · Score: 1

      you're the first person to bring it up so what the hell are you complaining about

      and anyway, of more importance is the chimp genome being mapped and found to be 96% similar to humans

      --
      if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
      ...te?
    4. Re:*sigh* by hungrygrue · · Score: 1

      The article has absolutely nothing to do with creation, so I don't see how this applies. If you mean "Can't we go one day without discussing anything that I can't find in Genesis?", then: No. Probably not.

    5. Re:*sigh* by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      Can't we just go one day without a creation v. evolution thread?!


      What, you don't like seeing those two memes battle it out every day? Don't worry, eventually the weaker meme will die off, and the stronger one will successfully reproduce and its descendants will become ubiquitous. In a few thousand years everybody will wonder where the weaker meme went...

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    6. Re:*sigh* by Liquidrage · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Can't we just go one day without a creation v. evolution thread?!

      Are we supposed to not discuss certain topics because some people refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence when it conflicts with their presupposed biases?

      I don't think so. This isn't evolution vs creationism. This is a science story. And that ignorant people prefer ignorance isn't reason to push science underground.

    7. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God will have killed off the weaker meme.

    8. Re:*sigh* by mrs+dogbreath · · Score: 0

      Oh crap, those fun-de-mentals post to /.
      Like shit on a blanket, going to take some cleaning

    9. Re:*sigh* by uncqual · · Score: 2, Funny

      Unfortunately, the Intelligent Designer Program (IDP) will be patched to prevent the weaker from dying off and to kill off the stronger. I imagine this will be part of patch #9756483 to IDP 1.0 which will be downloaded via AutoUpdate on a Tuesday soon (since it is a critical fix). Then the evolutionists will be wrong (the strongest didn't survive) and the IDers will cover their tracks. Wait... my brain hurts - maybe the download is happening early... NO, NO... IT'S NOT OKAY TO INST.........

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    10. Re:*sigh* by webwiz1986 · · Score: 1

      Take cover!!! Incoming spaghetti! Incomeing ultra-large number with exponents to large to handle!

    11. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? This topic has nothing to do with creationism. It's about the side-by-side evolution of two species, one of which is no longer around. The question is WHY they disapeared. Creationists need not present themselves in this topic, unless they WANT to start a debate where one isn't necessary.

    12. Re:*sigh* by doxology · · Score: 0

      Actually, I think there might be some creationists in Australia as well.

      --
      sigfault. core dumped.
    13. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Can't we just go one day without a creation v. evolution thread?!"

      No.

      No, we can't.

  3. Far Side? by statusbar · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm CERTAIN that I have seen a Far Side comic that dealt with this exact situation.

    --jeff++

    --
    ipv6 is my vpn
    1. Re:Far Side? by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      I've seen a BOOK that dealt with this exact situation.

      We're Golgafrinchan telephone sanitizers and hairdressers. Neanderthal were the original organisms of the Earth computer. We fucked up the algorithm, and they died off.

    2. Re:Far Side? by hungrygrue · · Score: 2, Informative

      :-) Another interesting, if less humorous, book that this brings to mind is Clan Of The Cave Bear and the rest of the "Earth's Children" series by Jean Auel.

    3. Re:Far Side? by bhtooefr · · Score: 3, Funny
      You were the one that didn't read it.

      The Golgafrinchans didn't do any work, but they survived two million years. Arthur and Trillian were the last two descendants of the Golgafrinchans.

      Remember that it was the "CAVEMEN" that were dying off?
      "Yes. One of our film producers is already making a fascinating documentary about the indigenous cavemen of the area."
      "They're not cavemen."
      "They look like cavemen."
      "Do they live in caves?"
      "Well..."
      "They live in huts."
      "Perhaps they're having their caves redecorated," called out a wag from the crowd.
      Ford rounded on him angrily.
      "Very funny," he said, "but have you noticed that they're dying out?"
      (my emphasis)
    4. Re:Far Side? by unixbugs · · Score: 1

      I WORK at a place with this exact situation. My employer would prefer to pay me with bear hides and sharp objects than real currency.

      --
      You are about to give someone a piece of your mind, something which you can ill afford...
    5. Re:Far Side? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scene: Two cavemen near a cave.

      Caveman 1 to Caveman 2: "Hey, Link's missing!"

    6. Re:Far Side? by Thangodin · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm reminded of that line by Londo Mollari in Babylon 5: "You know, there were two intelligent species on our planet, but we wiped the other one out. Do you know what the last one said just before he died? AAAAAAAAGGGHHH!!!."

    7. Re:Far Side? by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      The book that comes to my mind when I hear this sort of thing is The Evolution Man: or how I ate my Father

      It's a most amusing read.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    8. Re:Far Side? by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Replying to myself, but correction:

      Arthur, Trillian, and Random were the last THREE descendants of the Golgafrinchans. Forgot for a moment there that Arthur and Trillian had a kid...

    9. Re:Far Side? by Xzzy · · Score: 2, Funny

      A history lesson sure ain't why I read those.

      Am pretty sure every 14 year old kid has the exact same pages dog-eared.

    10. Re:Far Side? by snuf23 · · Score: 1

      Atuk zug zug Lana!

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    11. Re:Far Side? by hungrygrue · · Score: 2, Funny

      I remember thinking many times while reading those books that the author really needed to stop and get laid and then write the rest of the book. She had sex on her mind way too much. This theory was confirmed beyond all doubt when she described intercourse between two wooly mamoths for at least twenty pages.

    12. Re:Far Side? by Enrico+Pulatzo · · Score: 1

      I just figured you were from a parallel universe...

    13. Re:Far Side? by boredofthesane · · Score: 1

      Holy crap, twenty pages?

    14. Re:Far Side? by patio11 · · Score: 1

      Wasn't Londo the fake French guy? Ahh, my favorite part of that show. He also gets all the good lines in the novelizations -- the introduction to the first one, which is framed around Londo telling a story to two human children, is a classic. Eons better than most mass-market sci-fi, to say nothing of mass-market sci-fi series.

    15. Re:Far Side? by uberdave · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, it is sex of mammoth proportions, after all.

    16. Re:Far Side? by kasparov · · Score: 1

      Another couple of books that explore the concept of Neandertals and Homo sapiens being contemporaries is Greg Bear's "Darwin's Radio" and "Darwin's Children". Both are great reads about the possiblity of retroviruses being a potential cause of abrubt evolutionary change. From reading them, I'm pretty sure he did a lot of homework.

      --
      There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity.
    17. Re:Far Side? by mrkun · · Score: 1

      What a coincidence, I just finished watching "In The Beginning".

      --
      I'm not interested in watching TV on my phone for the same reason I'm not interested in having a shit in my tumble drier
  4. But why did they disappear? by XXIstCenturyBoy · · Score: 1

    Did somebody said Intelligent Design?

    1. Re:But why did they disappear? by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 1

      We got all the chicks and they couldn't reproduce

    2. Re: But why did they disappear? by hungrygrue · · Score: 1

      So that's it! They're jealous that they lost out in evolution so they want to ban the teaching of it in schools! I finally understand.

    3. Re:But why did they disappear? by slickwillie · · Score: 1

      What makes you think they ALL disappeared?

    4. Re:But why did they disappear? by vertinox · · Score: 1

      because they didn't stand up to the RIAA.

      The humans declared they patented fire and the spear as that they also held a copyright to verbal communication phrase "uggg!". The neanderthals, unable to afford a lawyer, had to settle out of court with all their winter supplies and starved to death.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    5. Re:But why did they disappear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those filthy man-animals!

      Perhaps Xenu killed the neanderthals off.

    6. Re:But why did they disappear? by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 1

      Yum! Neanderthal steak!

      --
      Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    7. Re:But why did they disappear? by rbgaynor · · Score: 1

      Did somebody said Intelligent Design? Apparently not.

      --
      "Good things don't end with eum, they end with mania or teria." - H. Simpson
  5. It's obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Because the Flying Spaghetti Monster decided so.

    1. Re:It's obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      actually, the french neanderthals surrendered...

      har har har..

    2. Re:It's obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because the Flying Spaghetti Monster decided so.

      Ah yes, here it is, in the Book of Manicotti:

      On the eighth day, The Noodly One examined his creations, and saw that they were good. Then, the Neanderthals began to eat meatballs, which made His Spaghettiness angry, for this was considered to be consumption of The Blessed Testicles. The Neanderthals were then cast out from the Holy Colander, where they were doomed to a life without marinara or alfredo and, even worse, certain death.

    3. Re:It's obvious... by Ambush+Commander · · Score: 3, Informative

      A little while back, I would have had no clue what the joke meant. Actually, it's suprisingly relevant. Anyway... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Mons terism

    4. Re: It's obvious... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > A little while back, I would have had no clue what the joke meant.

      It was only invented three months ago.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    5. Re:It's obvious... by Professional+Slacker · · Score: 1

      RAmen!

      --
      A Free Market requires informed intelligent consumers, such people are rare, we're in trouble.
    6. Re: It's obvious... by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      His noodlieness was not "invented". He was "revealed".

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  6. Because... by mbrewthx · · Score: 2, Funny

    They couldn't find any acting jobs until recently.

    --
    __________ Leave me alone I'm compiling a RPG II program on my S/36...Thanks to metamucil I'm a Regular Meta Moderator
    1. Re:Because... by sigmaseven · · Score: 3, Funny

      You haven't been watching NBC, have you?

    2. Re:Because... by zephc · · Score: 1

      well, there's Gianin Loffler, who looks awfully Neanderthalish.
      (he played the dim friend of Skaara in the Stargate movie, his pic is here)

      Not to be cruel, but c'mon: some thick Neanderthal-like genes poppin' out there.

      --
      "I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
  7. I'm pretty sure.... by FraggleMI · · Score: 5, Funny

    they are still here...

    --
    huh?
    1. Re:I'm pretty sure.... by hotspotbloc · · Score: 4, Funny
      they are still here...

      ... in management. A Dilbert comic has come true.

      --
      "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
    2. Re:I'm pretty sure.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh yeah, but they believe they're too sophisticated for modern humans

    3. Re:I'm pretty sure.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      didn't geico get into a PR snag by insulting them? or am I confusing neaderthals with cave men?

    4. Re:I'm pretty sure.... by pickup22 · · Score: 2, Funny

      They've voted for Bush twice now;-)

      --
      God, I wish I could think of a sig!
    5. Re:I'm pretty sure.... by pickup22 · · Score: 1

      According to everyone around here anyway...

      --
      God, I wish I could think of a sig!
    6. Re:I'm pretty sure.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yes... They're still there. They're now called "The French."

    7. Re:I'm pretty sure.... by Easy2RememberNick · · Score: 1

      Indeed they are Gérard Depardieu!

    8. Re:I'm pretty sure.... by The+Wooden+Badger · · Score: 1

      A Dilbert comic has come true? I thought ALL of them were true. I was talking to a co-worker the other day about a peculiar habit of a manager and then about 15 minutes later we are looking at the most recent Dilbert and it was making fun of the exact behavior of the manager.

      --
      Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
    9. Re:I'm pretty sure.... by MotorMachineMercenar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you only have to look at what's happening in New Orleans to see that.

      People looting, raping and pillaging under the conditions when they should be pulling together is abhorrent behavior and not fit for homo sapiens. The Asian tsunami last year was a MUCH worse catastrophe and all we heard from there were how people did everything they could to help their fellow man. Sad day for America and I hope it's not indicative of how morally corrupt the unwashed masses are.

      Go ahead, mod me down as flamebait. I'm still right and you know it.

      --
      "We have an A-Bomb...what more do you want, mermaids?" --I.I. Rabi, speaking in defense of Robert Oppenheimer
    10. Re:I'm pretty sure.... by MortiRena · · Score: 1

      Yep. Still in France, too.

    11. Re:I'm pretty sure.... by halber_mensch · · Score: 1

      they are still here...

      ... in management. A Dilbert comic has come true.

      No, they evolved in to homo territus, took over the republican party, and ran for office.

      --
      perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
  8. heh by NanoGator · · Score: 1, Funny

    "ABC News is reporting on new evidence that has emerged suggesting Neanderthals co-existed with anatomically modern humans for at least 1,000 years in central France, before gradually disappearing about 28,000 to 30,000 years ago. But why did they disappear?"

    They surrendered?

    --
    "Derp de derp."
    1. Re:heh by HTTP+Error+403+403.9 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Touché.

      --
      I'm not a Troll, it's reverse psychology.
    2. Re:heh by QuantaStarFire · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but ask yourself this: Do Fark cliches REALLY deserve a '5 - Funny?'

    3. Re:heh by deaddrunk · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nah they moved to the UK and started following soccer teams. Watch the World Cup next year and you'll see them engaging in the great British tradition of going somewhere foreign and trashing it, which will be especially popular with British Neanderthals since it's in Germany.

      --
      Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
    4. Re:heh by sbryant · · Score: 1

      deaddrunk wrote:

      ... the great British tradition of going somewhere foreign and trashing it ...

      Come, now! That's just not true!

      The great British tradition is to go somewhere foreign, get utterly wasted, and then trash it. How you could forget that, especially with your nick, is beyond me!

      -- Steve

    5. Re:heh by ThinWhiteDuke · · Score: 1

      Think about it for a second. If they did, they surrendered to the French :)

      --

      It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
    6. Re:heh by Darby · · Score: 1

      The great British tradition is to go somewhere foreign, get utterly wasted, and then trash it. How you could forget that, especially
      with your nick, is beyond me!


      Great Flying Spaghetti Monster with a side of garlic bread my good man!

      The great British tradition is to go somewhere foreign, get utterly wasted, *get naked* and then trash the palce.
      Sheesh.

  9. Are you there God? it's me, Neanderthalis by way2trivial · · Score: 5, Funny

    Mebbe they weren't cross fertile (produced mules) and neanderthals had such a strong exogamy component, they died out trying too hard.

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    1. Re:Are you there God? it's me, Neanderthalis by ari_j · · Score: 1

      That's a fascinating thought. Thanks.

  10. no why by NoGuffCheck · · Score: 2, Funny

    the question should be " did they dissapear?"

    and the answer is no http://newsfeed.tcm.ie/images/people/pieterdevilli erskieranclancy.jpg/

    --
    serenity now!
  11. But why did they disappear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because we killed them. obviously.

  12. Well. by Jediman1138 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, everyone took a vote, and they got voted off the island.

    --

    nothing.can.stop.me.now

    1. Re:Well. by Quinn_Inuit · · Score: 1

      You mean This Island Earth?

      --

      Stop learning! Only you can prevent esoterrorism.
    2. Re:Well. by ear1grey · · Score: 2

      ...and welcome to historically confused live semi final with your hosts Raquel Welch and Brendan Fraser... remember ...

      • To evict Ug, signal: fat-cloud, fat-cloud, fat-cloud.
      • To evict Nnnngmph, signal: little cloud, little cloud, tall-cloud.

      Call cost may vary according to avaiable combustible materials and wind direction. One vote per cave.

    3. Re:Well. by fimbulvetr · · Score: 1

      Only if it's narrated by our favorite robots and imprisioned guy.

    4. Re:Well. by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "Well, everyone took a vote, and they got voted off the island."

      Or, to New Orleans...

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
  13. Where they went... by mfh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think it's fairly easy to know where they went. Because they were "different" than modern humans, with lower technology levels, we simply killed them off for trying to take our resources. It's a no-brainer, because it's what we do as humans. We try to related but we destroy people who are not like us. Look at it as an early form of racism, and it's pretty straight forward. I'm not saying it's good, but at the time, we were equally as primative. We are still as primative, generally.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Where they went... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We are still as primative, generally.

      Especially when it comes to spelling.

    2. Re:Where they went... by SkuzBuket · · Score: 0

      I agree with the parent. If you don't believe we are primitive, look at what's going on in the Gulf Coast, esp. New Orleans. People killing each other over insignificant things like a single portion of food, or a bag of ice. Technologically speaking, we've come a long way in the last 30,000 years, but psychologically, we are still primitave in many ways, and our instincts have not caught up with the modern world. The world has been "modern" for a short period of time, and it will be many generations before our instincts adapt to the new threats of the world. Why are people scared of spiders, but not electrical outlets? Because for many generations in the past, people who would stay away from spiders were more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Our society has not been around long enough to pass on instinctual fear of electrical outlets. On the opposite side of the coin, we have many instinctual hunter-gatherer tendencies that are no longer relevent in today's American society. Many times, they do not emerge until some event enacts great stress on an individual.

    3. Re:Where they went... by Trepalium · · Score: 1
      Uh huh. What a cynical attitude! A certain amount of evidence has been discovered that suggests at least a certain amount of interbreeding happened between neanderthal humans and modern ones. It's possible that as modern humans migrated into the areas inhabited by neanderthals, they were simply overwealmed.

      And as for "primitive", neanderthals had brains that were 10% larger than modern human brains and had poorer speech capabilities. They were the first to adapt to sub-arctic conditions, and were adept stone tool makers. Physically, they were shorter, and very possibly stronger.

      Don't believe everything you see from Hollywood. Movies are not required to accurate, merely entertaining. Reality may be far more boring than fiction.

      --
      I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
    4. Re:Where they went... by JourneyExpertApe · · Score: 1

      I think it's fairly easy to know where they went.

      No, it's not easy to know. That's why researchers have been debating this question since the discovery of the first Neanderthal. The idea that it was the result of murder has the problem that the Neandertals were much stronger than modern humans. I've heard them described as having the musculature of modern bodybuilders (the males, anyway). Neanderthals ate mostly meat, so they obviously had the ability to kill animals. And modern humans at the time didn't have much more advanced weaponry than spears.

      There are several theories why they died out including environmental changes. And it's not entirely certain that Neanderthals didn't interbreed with modern humans to some extent. It's been theorized that the red hair gene came from Neanderthals.

      --
      If you can read this sig, you're too close.
    5. Re:Where they went... by nomadic · · Score: 1

      It's a no-brainer, because it's what we do as humans. We try to related but we destroy people who are not like us. Look at it as an early form of racism, and it's pretty straight forward. I'm not saying it's good, but at the time, we were equally as primative. We are still as primative, generally.

      I've never destroyed anyone who wasn't like me. I don't know anyone who has. Life's a lot better these days, and believe it or not human society has become a lot more tolerant and peaceful overall. I know it's cool to be cynical but honestly I rather like the 21st century.

    6. Re:Where they went... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you should visit a Holocaust memorial.

    7. Re:Where they went... by Gulthek · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ahh yes. The "primitive" neanderthal who survived the brunt of the last major ice age and thrived. Who had a larger cranial capacity than we Homo Sapiens. (Note that larger brain size is used as evidence for Homo Sapiens mental superiority in all cases comparing to other genetic lines (Australopithecus, etc) except when comparing to Neanderthals. In that case textbooks commonly claim that our brains operated "more efficiently" than the Neanderthals' when there is little reason to make such a conclusion.

      I suggest you read up some more. The issue is more complex than you summarize, there is a reason that there is still a debate.

    8. Re:Where they went... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neanderthal became Neocon

    9. Re:Where they went... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh huh. What a cynical attitude! A certain amount of evidence [palomar.edu] has been discovered that suggests at least a certain amount of interbreeding happened between neanderthal humans and modern ones.

      Think... about... the story of Tarzan. You are a little human who wandered away from camp. Some Neanderthals found you and raised you as their own, because maybe one of their own kids was killed in a raid or something and they have that motherly need to nurture. You learn their ways and follow their customs until you take a mate and, low and behold... you have a child together.

    10. Re:Where they went... by Tekdemon · · Score: 1

      WHAT?!?! Humans slaughtering?!?!? Say it isn't so!

    11. Re:Where they went... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Posting as anon as to not stir up a flamewar - even though I've got red hair and freckles myself)

      One theory says the Neanderthals were pushed out of Europe westwards by modern man. Ireland would then be the last place they thrived in before becoming extinct.

      Red hair and freckles are much more common in Ireland than in the rest of Europe.

    12. Re:Where they went... by Vinnie_333 · · Score: 1
      Because they were "different" than modern humans we simply killed them off for trying to take our resources.

      Plus, we wouldn't let them into our country clubs or any of out finer colleges. Nor would we let them own land in the Hamptons. This really pissed the Neanderthals off.

      --

      "We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
    13. Re:Where they went... by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      Neanderthals practiced infanticide, and used the "run the elk off a cliff" hunting technique. As resources thinned, I imagine that more babies got killed (they couldn't support babies). Then their women got too old to have babies, and the line ended.

      I'm doubtful that they died out. Take a look at Arnold, even pictures of before he really hit the steroids.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    14. Re:Where they went... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Your snide tone aside, one could argue rather effectively that since survival is pretty much the only measure of success that MATTERS, we can call them "primitive", "stupid", or whatever we want: they didn't make it for some reason. Barring some theory of catastrophe, since pretty much the only thing humans have going for them in a primitive setting is their intelligence, it's also reasonable to infer that we had more of it than they did.

      Or, using your post as an example, maybe they were smarter but were so annoyingly patronizing our ancestors did us a favor and killed them all. Must've missed a line, apparently.

      Ultimately we're here, they're not = we win.

      Homo Sapiens Sapiens for the win!

      --
      -Styopa
    15. Re:Where they went... by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "No, it's not easy to know. That's why researchers have been debating this question since the discovery of the first Neanderthal. The idea that it was the result of murder has the problem that the Neandertals were much stronger than modern humans. I've heard them described as having the musculature of modern bodybuilders (the males, anyway). Neanderthals ate mostly meat, so they obviously had the ability to kill animals. And modern humans at the time didn't have much more advanced weaponry than spears."

      I'm tired of the conflicting reports. On one side, some claim the Neanderthals were taller and more muscular than homo sapien sapiens because their diet consisted of over 90% meat. Even in my anthro classes back in the 90s, the materials claimed the Neanderthals were taller than our alleged separate ancestors. And now its all about how squatty the Neanderthals were because Europe was cold in comparison to Africa? The hypothesis that they were less intelligent than homo sapiens is hard to believe (for me) since their brains were larger. If anything, I would hedge bets that homo sapiens invading into Europe were directly influenced by Neanderthal culture and adopted at least some of their religious concepts (like burying their dead, and with objects for the afterlife) before the Neanderthals supposedly disappeared.

      It also annoys me to see all this talk about DNA results (especially ones claiming modern humans have no Neanderthal genes). Just how many modern humans have they compared DNA from? Seems like a small sample to me. And for that matter, how many Neanderthal bones (from different remains) did they extract DNA from? Its like comparing statisical results of television viewing by 6,000 Nielsen families versus 2 million TiVo subscribers.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    16. Re:Where they went... by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "Neanderthals practiced infanticide, and used the "run the elk off a cliff" hunting technique. As resources thinned, I imagine that more babies got killed (they couldn't support babies). Then their women got too old to have babies, and the line ended."

      What's your point? The Greeks and plenty other homo sapien people did the same throughout the ages. And the "run the elk off a cliff" technique you speak of was common amongst the Native American peoples before the reintroduction of horses to North America.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    17. Re:Where they went... by fafalone · · Score: 1

      There's evidence that H. sapiens developed a much more sophisticated economic system that included trade and specialization, related to possession of slightly more advanced tools. This would seem to imply a slight edge in mental ability. So while the matter is by no means settled, there's actually very good reason to suggest such a conclusion.

      If you're interested, the new research on economic systems appears in the Journal of Economic Behavior and Organisation, Shogren et al, 2005.

    18. Re:Where they went... by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      Where did I say that Neanderthals were successful? I merely take great issue with the idea that we are utterly superior to the "primative" Neanderthal.

      I'm not at all sure that they died out. And yes, Homo Sapiens Sapiens is an amazing species. Our superb adaptability thanks to our delicious brains enables us to kick all kinds of ass.

    19. Re:Where they went... by FurryFeet · · Score: 1

      I'd listen to this guy. Looking at his ID, he probably remember it. Right gramps?

    20. Re:Where they went... by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      Let's see...

      Windows/Unix... Unix is technically superior, Windows gets higher market share.

      Beta/VHS... Beta had superior picture quality, VHS won out...

      Neanderthals/Homo Sapiens... see where this is going?

      Just because you're better doesn't mean you win. Wouldn't surprise me at all is the Neanderthals were more intelligent than us.

  14. Well, isn't that obvious by JesusCigarettes · · Score: 0, Troll

    They disappeared because God didn't create the world until six thousand years ago! So if they coexisted with us thirty thousand years ago, it doesn't matter because the world was created long after that.

    Either that or they missed the Ark.

    Of course, the article talks about how the Neanderthals were found to coexist with our species in France. And that explains why the French are so evil in the neoconservative Christian theology - they weren't God's chosen species!

    Maybe the Christian Right just traveled back in time and killed them off because they're not mentioned in the Bible.

    I know, I know. -1 Offtopic, -1 Failure to actually be funny. Hooray!

    1. Re:Well, isn't that obvious by Tyreth · · Score: 0
      Or perhaps you're just someone with a serious lack of understanding of the Creationist model.

      No surprise there though - people like that are a dime a dozen.

      The Creationist model includes Neanderthals as just another species of human. Natural selection just played a lot heavier on humans, possibly due to our tendencies towards genocide. So Neanderthals, among others, were removed from the pool.

      (cue now surprise that a young earth creationist accepts natural selection)

    2. Re: Well, isn't that obvious by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Or perhaps you're just someone with a serious lack of understanding of the Creationist model.

      You mean this model?

      for Species in human_ancestry do
        case flip_coin() is
            heads : Species = ape;
            tails : Species = deformed_human;
        esac
      done
      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:Well, isn't that obvious by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Why do you need a model? Isn't everything contained right there in the first two chapters of Genesis?

      Oh yeah, and while we're on the subject, which of the two contradictory creation stories do you discount?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    4. Re:Well, isn't that obvious by Tyreth · · Score: 1
      Why do you need a model? Isn't everything contained right there in the first two chapters of Genesis?
      What makes you think that Christian Creationists aren't allowed to participate in the scientific process? The first two chapters of Genesis only describe what is important for purposes of understand God, His will for mankind and His plan of salvation. Genesis does give us the human genome, nor does it tell us which genes control height, how different species arose, or many other things.
      Oh yeah, and while we're on the subject, which of the two contradictory creation stories do you discount?
      They do not contradict. I doubt you can tell me anything on this topic I haven't already heard. And a simple google search will show many different ideas on how the two chapters complement each other and do not necessarily contradict. They only contradict if you take one set of assumptions.
    5. Re:Well, isn't that obvious by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Christian Creationists are allowed to do whatever they want. However, unless they check their assertion that God is the answer to all unanswered questions, they don't have anything "scientific" to add to the discussion.

      Please don't misunderstand me: If you are a Creationist, I respect that. You are entitled to whatever faith tradition feeds your soul, and I hope that you will forever strive to improve your relationship with and your understanding of God.

      You must, however, accept that your relationship with God is not scientific. There is no scientific rationale for the existence of God.

      "They only contradict if you take one set of assumptions."

      Yeah: Like the assumption that the Bible is the literal Word of God, un-changed by 1600 years of human transcription and translation.

      If you take it as a non-historical, non-scientific allegory, it is a perfectly serviceable creation myth, and does a rather good job at laying out the order of things at the beginning of our universe.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    6. Re:Well, isn't that obvious by crazyphilman · · Score: 2, Funny

      The story of the Garden of Eden (as told by a New Yorker):

      God: "Hmm... Kinda bored; Greenwich Village won't exist for 6,000 years... Maybe I'll make some people, see what they get up to."

      POOF!

      God: "Hey, YOU! Nature-boy! Your name is Adam. See all these animals over here? They're for you. Have fun, but, um..." (thinks for a second) "I know! Ok, see those two trees over there? The ones with the juicy apples and so on? Those are the trees of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and of Life. Yeah... So... You don't need any of that stuff, so don't eat them. Everything else is fair game, though."

      God (to Gabriel): "Hey, what odds will you give me that he'll pick the tree of knowledge?"

      Gabriel: "My Lord, I believe he will pick the tree of Life. Knowledge is overrated, it sayeth this on Slashdot."

      God: "Gimme fifty bucks on Knowledge."

      (They wait a week. Nothing happens.)

      God: "What IS it with this guy? All he does is pet that damn cat."

      Gabriel: "Perhaps he needs someone to egg him on."

      God: "Hmm... Hey! Let's get him laid!"

      POOF!

      God (to Adam): "Hey, Nature-boy! I made you a babe. Check her out: 36-26-36! Be fruitful and multiply! But don't eat from those two trees!"

      Adam: "W00T!"

      Eve: "Don't get any ideas, buster..."

      (Another week goes by).

      God (to Gabriel): "They're STILL not eating the damn fruit. What the hell is WRONG with these people? They're beautiful apples, huge and red, how can they MISS them???"

      Gabriel: "My lord, they've been fornicating day and night. Perhaps you shouldn't have created them as adults..."

      God: "Yeah, yeah... We've got to speed this process up. Fetch me that consultant."

      Consultant: "Yessssssss, my Loooooorrdd?" (flicks tongue, hisses).

      God: "Ok, I need you to trick that dame down there into eating some apples from that tree over there. Normal consulting rates apply, be mindful of the do not exceed rate, keep an eye on expenses or I'll really do a number on you."

      And the rest, as they say... Is history!

      (Epilogue):

      God: "Ha! Fork 'em over, Gabe, that's two to one, too!"

      Gabriel: "Man, what a disappointment. I was sure she was going to go for the Tree of Life for a minute there."

      God: "Ha! By me, I knew that kid wouldn't disappoint me! Hey! I have an idea! Gimme some odds on that Kain vs. Abel bout we've got coming up... I'm feeling lucky..."

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
    7. Re:Well, isn't that obvious by Tyreth · · Score: 1

      Answering the spirit behind your post: I never claim that Creationism or religion is scientific. Science is an empirical process, whereas religious claims are philosophical. Philosophy describes what science is, but philosophy is not science. I believe it is logical and rational to state: a. God exists b. Christianity is the one true religion And providing proofs for each is ultimately a philosophical process, not a scientific one. I do not appreciate attitudes that condescend religion as a useful but ultimately misguided crutch by which the weaker minded can cling to what is good. Ie, those who say that religion is untrue, but serves as a useful means to keep people in line. There are "proofs" that God exists, and these are logical/philosophical "proofs". Darwinists in my experience are the most likely to elevate science to a level that it does not approach in reality. Science is a very useful process for understanding our universe, but it is not the sole means of discerning truth. Anyway, I need to get back to work, so I'll hold off other thoughts. Basic summary of my post: I am aware of the difference of science and philosophy and how they apply to the creation/evolution debate. I do not think it is foolish, or a sacrifice of reason, to accept God and reject Darwinism.

    8. Re:Well, isn't that obvious by Moofie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ontological argument...that which is greater than the greatest thing of which I can conceive....bleh. That is a tired crutch.

      If you believe in God, believe in God. If you need proof of God's existence to believe in God, don't believe in God. I happen to believe that God would be quite annoyed with us if we wasted our phenomenally powerful synthetic reasoning skills on trying to prove His existence rather than, say, curing cancer or draining New Orleans.

      I believe it is NOT rational to state A) God exists and B) Christianity is the one true religion, because you can't make that argument without begging the question. Note: I do not dispute your (or my) faith in God on this basis.

      Dressing up religion in the clothing of science is silly. Dressing up science in the clothing of religion is equally silly. Thinking that one can explain one with the other is silly.

      The Bible is not a book about how the Heavens go...it is a book about how to go to Heaven. (That's Galileo. He was very not popular with the religious figures of his day.)

      I don't believe that you can use reason to demonstrate the existence of God. Nor do I think it is necessary to do so.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    9. Re:Well, isn't that obvious by Tyreth · · Score: 0
      Ontological argument...that which is greater than the greatest thing of which I can conceive....bleh. That is a tired crutch.

      Then remember that you were the one who brought it up. The ontological argument is not the only one, nor was it one of the ones I had in mind. I've never given this one an in depth look.

      If you believe in God, believe in God. If you need proof of God's existence to believe in God, don't believe in God. God.
      Is this supposed to make sense? Why do you claim it it foolish in God's eyes to require proof of something before you accept it? It is a most natural thing to require something to be demonstrated. Of course, quite often people choose not to require proof and put their faith in tales and untruths...but such are called fools.

      It sounds to me that you are an agnostic. You are wrong about being unable to demonstrate the existence of God. And I'm not sure why you think that requiring proof is such a wrong thing.

    10. Re:Well, isn't that obvious by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Why do you think I'm an agnostic? Seems like you are prone to making unwarranted assumptions. You might want to be careful of that. I've been a confirmed, practicing Methodist for 20 years. (That's since I was twelve.)

      Of course it's natural to want to see evidence. It's also impossible to present evidence of God's existence.

      In all my studies of religion and philosophy, it always comes down to one thing: Do you believe, or not?

      If you've got a logical proof of God's existence, I'd love to see it.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    11. Re:Well, isn't that obvious by Tyreth · · Score: 1
      Why do you think I'm an agnostic? Seems like you are prone to making unwarranted assumptions. You might want to be careful of that. I've been a confirmed, practicing Methodist for 20 years. (That's since I was twelve.)
      Well, if you check my post I said "it sounds to me", which is no more presumptuous than you saying "seems like you are prone to". I realised full well when I wrote it that you may not be agnostic. You sounded agnostic because you were talking about it being impossible to prove God's existence (a claim which in itself is absurd since you can't prove a negative). You sounded unchristian because you talked about the Genesis accounts being contradictory, and sounded less respectful of Scriptures than I'm used to (again, 'sounds' like. I don't know you or your view on Scripture)

      Your entire attitude towards belief in God is very different from my own, but not unsurprising. It is my firm belief that God asked people to believe *with* proof. He demonstrated His graciousness and love towards Israel on many occasions.

      Tell me, if you don't believe that God's existence can be demonstrated, why do you believe in him?

    12. Re:Well, isn't that obvious by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Oh sure, like anyone is going to bet on the vegetarian winning over the animal herder!

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    13. Re:Well, isn't that obvious by loucura! · · Score: 1

      He asked for your proof, where is it?

      --
      Black and grey are both shades of white.
    14. Re:Well, isn't that obvious by Tyreth · · Score: 1
      I didn't provide it because it seemed rather strange and irrelevant to discuss the proofs for God with someone who already believes in Him.

      Among others I consider the Axiological argument to be powerful. It forces people to either accept the existence of God, or accept that there is no such thing as right or wrong.

    15. Re:Well, isn't that obvious by Moofie · · Score: 1

      My belief in God is an article of faith, and requires no proof.

      I'm still trying to figure out why YOU believe in God.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    16. Re:Well, isn't that obvious by F_Scentura · · Score: 1

      "And I'm not sure why you think that requiring proof is such a wrong thing."

      Proof is required for supernatural existence, not for the non-existence of supernatural/mythical deities and creatures.

    17. Re:Well, isn't that obvious by IthnkImParanoid · · Score: 1
      So a powerful argument is one that relies on exisiting beliefs? If you can accept that there is no such thing as right or wrong, how does that argument fare? This said it better:
      "No matter how common or popular our values are, it is a logical fallacy to use that fact to conclude that the concepts are more than human creations."
      --
      It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
    18. Re:Well, isn't that obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think that Christian Creationists aren't allowed to participate in the scientific process?

      Because they're idiots.

    19. Re: Well, isn't that obvious by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > What makes you think that Christian Creationists aren't allowed to participate in the scientific process?

      Oh, they're allowed to. They just don't want to, because part of the scientific process is discarding nifty ideas that turn out to be contrary to the evidence.

      > They do not contradict. I doubt you can tell me anything on this topic I haven't already heard.

      And there's the problem: having had the problems with your "model" pointed out to you repeatedly, you still cling to it.

      > And a simple google search will show many different ideas on how the two chapters complement each other and do not necessarily contradict.

      And which of those ideas is actually right? If some of them are wrong, how do you know one of them isn't wrong?

      > They only contradict if you take one set of assumptions.

      Namely, that both versions of the story mean what they say.



      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    20. Re: Well, isn't that obvious by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Philosophy describes what science is, but philosophy is not science.

      I would have said, philosophy attempts to offer a post hoc explanation for what we were already doing.

      > I believe it is logical and rational to state: a. God exists b. Christianity is the one true religion And providing proofs for each is ultimately a philosophical process, not a scientific one.

      Notice that "logical and rational" have nothing to do with "true". You can build a "logical and rational" system on any set of non-contradicting axioms.

      > I do not appreciate attitudes that condescend religion as a useful but ultimately misguided crutch by which the weaker minded can cling to what is good.

      And other people don't appreciate your attitudes. But what does any of that have to do with the truth?

      > Ie, those who say that religion is untrue, but serves as a useful means to keep people in line.

      ISTM that it serves a useful means of keeping people in line, whether it's true or not. (Supposedly Napoleon and several other monarchs spoke the explicit idea that religion is useful for keeping people in line.)

      > There are "proofs" that God exists, and these are logical/philosophical "proofs".

      Logical/philosophical proofs have nothing to do with reality. You can "prove" anything you want, given a free choice of axioms. But that doesn't mean the real world will conform to the proven claims.

      > Darwinists in my experience are the most likely to elevate science to a level that it does not approach in reality.

      In what way do you think they do that, and what is your support for that claim?

      > Science is a very useful process for understanding our universe, but it is not the sole means of discerning truth.

      But unlike other "means of discerning truth", science is the one that checks its results.

      > Basic summary of my post: I am aware of the difference of science and philosophy and how they apply to the creation/evolution debate. I do not think it is foolish, or a sacrifice of reason, to accept God and reject Darwinism.

      It may not be foolish to accept God, since there isn't any evidence one way or the other. However, the same can be said of the IPU, the FSM, and, AFAIK, string theory.

      However, if by "Darwinism" you mean the fact and/or theory of evolution, it is both foolish and unreasonable to reject it, just as it is foolish and unreasonable to reject general relativity. Because there isn't a lack of evidence on those topics.


      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    21. Re:Well, isn't that obvious by Moofie · · Score: 1

      OK, pretend I'm a raving atheist. What is your proof? I did a Google search on the axiological argument, and got nothing germane.

      State your case.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    22. Re:Well, isn't that obvious by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

      People love an underdog... ;)

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
    23. Re:Well, isn't that obvious by Tyreth · · Score: 1
      If you can accept that there is no such thing as right or wrong, how does that argument fare?

      If you believe there is no such thing as right or wrong, then the argument quite simply fails. However, most people believe that right and wrong do exist external to any human measurements.

      For example, raping a child is considered "wrong" - no matter what the culture or time, we consider it as absolutely wrong independent of human reasons. We can invent reasons *why* it is wrong, but even in the absence of these reasons we still consider it wrong. For example, we may say it is because children are innocent and unable to defend themselves. But even if a child was elevated above that (was neither innocent or unable to defend itself) we would still consider it wrong.

      For me it's not a difficult problem. Most people do accept that certain things are absolutely and objectively "wrong", even if they don't realise. There are a few exceptions, and these people in my experience tend to be guided by their own philosophy. Usually a Darwinist "I follow the law and do good to others because ultimately it is better for both myself and the evolution of the race"...but any reasons for doing "good" beyond that are absent.

    24. Re:Well, isn't that obvious by Tyreth · · Score: 1
      My belief in God is an article of faith, and requires no proof.

      It seems that you have fallen prey to one of the greatest misunderstandings in Christianity - that faith means believing in that which we cannot know. The word faith can have two meanings in English:
      1. A belief or trust in that which you cannot know. You have faith because you have no proof - this, while existing in English, is not what Biblical faith is.
      2. A belief or trust in that which has been demonstrated to be trustworthy and true. This is the case that God is in. We believe, not because we have no proof, but because He has demonstrated Himself beyond all doubt countless times throughout history.

      An example of Biblical faith that you have probaby heard before. A tightrope walker goes along a tightrope over a ravine. He then takes a wheelburrow across, without sweating. He then fills the wheelburrow with bricks and again walks over and back without trouble. He then asks the crowd if they think he could take a person across. They all shout back yes. He then asks if any would volunteer.
      If someone does volunteer, they put their faith in this man. They have seem him prove himself trustworthy and capable. That is true faith - putting your trust in God to do what He has promised, because He has demonstrated Himself as trustworthy and good in the past. Which answers your next question...

      I have faith in God because of all the times His works have demonstrated His love and trustworthiness to His people. From Genesis, from the very beginning, until this very day, when He has fulfilled all that He promised He will.

      Having proof of God does not remove the need for faith. It strengthens faith.

    25. Re:Well, isn't that obvious by Moofie · · Score: 1

      You have still provided no such proof. You persist in questioning MY relationship with God (although I've gone to some lengths to ensure that I was respecting YOUR relationship with God).

      You have utterly failed to provide a rational basis for your belief in God, never mind Christianity.

      I need no proof. I see God all around me. I see Him in the lives of the people around me. This is not rational, but it's every bit as important to my life as my rational faculties are.

      I know my faith. I know my God. If you know yours, you're doing a remarkably poor job sharing your knowledge.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    26. Re: Well, isn't that obvious by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Why do you claim it it foolish in God's eyes to require proof of something before you accept it

      Because God's in deep sh*t if he wants people to think that way and still believe in him.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    27. Re:Well, isn't that obvious by Tyreth · · Score: 1
      I do respect your faith in God, and would consider you a brother in Christ - even if it doesn't sound that way.

      If I'm not answering your question, it's because I don't really understand what you're asking (and also haven't had a chance to reply to your "imagine I'm a raving atheist" post).

      In all honesty you confuse me with your approach. You say "I need no proof. I see God all around me. I see Him in the lives of the people around me." - Yet that is proof! You see proof of God all around you, and you see proof of Him in the lives of people around you. So it feels to me that you are saying two very contradictory things - that you believe God has established His existence beyond doubt, but also that He hasn't.

      And so I ask myself, "why do I need to convince this person that God exists when already he (or she) has seen enough proof of His existence. This person's problem is not a lack of proof of God's existence, but rather an inability to recognise that he has accepted proofs."

      And don't think I'm trying to cop out of arguments of God's existence. It's just that it's saturday and I'd rather be doing other things right now. I'll post in reply to your other post with the summarised version of the axiological argument.

    28. Re:Well, isn't that obvious by Tyreth · · Score: 1
      Axiological argument can be summarised as:
      1. If God did not exist, objective moral values and duties would not exist.
      2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
      3. Therefore, God exists.

      The most common objection to this argument would be, I believe, that objective moral values and duties do not exist. Which, if accepted, leads us to the conclusion that there is no such thing as right or wrong - which leads to its own set of conclusions. But I consider (2) to be true. Take this example (which is not my own):

      To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independent of whether anybody believes it to be so. It is to say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good, and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won WOrld War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them. On classical theism God's own holy and perfectly good nature supplies the absolute standard against which all actions and decisions are measured. God's moral nature is what Plato called the "Good." He is the locus and source of moral value. He is by nature loving, generous, just, faithful, kind and so forth.
    29. Re:Well, isn't that obvious by Moofie · · Score: 1

      What an utterly un-convincing argument.

      1) I have a rock in my pocket.
      2) I have never been attacked by a tiger.
      3) Therefore, this rock in my pocket protects me from tigers.

      It is a simple matter to construct secular, humanist moral values. The existence of such morals proves nothing, other than that people are smart and can figure things out.

      If you say that "I know objective values exist, because they're written in the Bible, and I know the Bible is true, because it was written by God, and I know that God exists, because objective values exist", your argument boils down to precisely what I figured it would: You're begging the question. You're setting up a tautology, not demonstrating the validity of your axioms, and proving that the sky is made of Kleenex.

      You might have faith in God, and that's great. Your reasoning is sketchy, at the very best.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    30. Re:Well, isn't that obvious by Tyreth · · Score: 1
      Ugh. That example you provided is nothing like what I said. It's obvious you have no clue what you are talking about.

      If I've presented you with a tautology then point it out. Don't make up "if you say that" statements. Present something I actually said.

      1) I have a rock in my pocket.
      2) I have never been attacked by a tiger.
      3) Therefore, this rock in my pocket protects me from tigers.
      What is this? What are you trying to prove? Are you trying to demonstrate to me that you have no idea about logic and the path it follows? Looking at assumptions 1&2, 3 simply does not follow. Seriously - take a look at what I said. If you assume 1&2, then 3 is the conclusion. Not so in your case here. Your argument does not follow, while mine did.

      Not much more to say, really. I suggest you learn something about philosophy & logic before you try to engage in a discussion on it - because you've just seriously embarrassed yourself.

    31. Re:Well, isn't that obvious by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Yes, if you assume your point 1 and point 2, you get to point 3. The point is, those are really dumb assumptions.

      Look, it's clear that I'm imposing on you. You haven't presented me with anything that bears further discussion...I'm sorry to have wasted your time. Go with God.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  15. well duh... by imboboage0 · · Score: 2, Funny

    They invented computers. about 100 years later, they were all nerds hiding in caves bootlegging MP3s and stealing wireless connections. Ahhh, the future of us.

    --
    Honesty may be the best policy, but by process of elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.
  16. They're still here.. by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 5, Funny
    The humans got sick of the neanderthals and moved away. The neanderthals just...stayed in France :)

    I kid, I kid.

    --
    Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    1. Re:They're still here.. by _PimpDaddy7_ · · Score: 1

      I kid, I kid.

      Yah well I don't ;)

    2. Re:They're still here.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The humans got sick of the neanderthals and moved away. The neanderthals just...stayed in France :)

      But I thought Neanderthals were intellegent and technologically advanced? Hard to be sure about their bathing practises.

    3. Re:They're still here.. by boot1780 · · Score: 2, Informative

      no, they actually migrated to the US, but they now call themselves "Republicans" . . . go figure.

    4. Re:They're still here.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, you are confused... They are undoubtedly french, of course. Who but the french are that stupid? Exactly!

    5. Re:They're still here.. by shokk · · Score: 1

      Some would say they are Basques, now living in France and Spain.

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
    6. Re:They're still here.. by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "Some would say they are Basques, now living in France and Spain."

      But the Basques would say they came from Atlantis. And not of the Stargate garden variety.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    7. Re:They're still here.. by sysadmn · · Score: 1

      Oops, you misspelled "linebacker".

      --
      Envy my 5 digit Slashdot User ID!
  17. We have a pretty good idea where they went. by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A period of a thousand years is long enough for the Cro-Magnon, with their superior abilities and traits, to become more numerous than the Neanderthals. At that point the Neanderthals were either killed off or crossbred with the Cro-Magnon. Over time, most of the Neanderthal genes in the offspring probably faded.

    1. Re:We have a pretty good idea where they went. by Thanatopsis · · Score: 5, Informative

      What is the mechanism by which genes fade? I suggest that you take a basic biology class. Mitochrondrial DNA tests indicate that Neanderthals were an entirely seperate species with no interbreeding.Here's more on MtDNA highlight the discovery of Eve who lived 200,000 years ago.

    2. Re:We have a pretty good idea where they went. by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      They might not have got pregnant from having sex with cro magnon, but there surely was sex. If some people will get laid with sheep, a purty neanderthal lady with a few teeth is quite a turnon, comparatively! I still wonder, if horses and asses can interbreed to have mules, why couldn't two kinds of people do the same? Perhaps we only have a few skulls and very little evidence, but I bet you, there were at least some neanderthal-cromagnon mules, even if they were sterile like mules are. But I'm guessing they weren't even sterile. Sex is such a wonderful thing, because it's one thing that no matter how different a culture you go to, people can agree on and appreciate.

    3. Re:We have a pretty good idea where they went. by Raul654 · · Score: 1

      The neandarthals were a different species, which means (by definition) there was no interbreeding.

      --


      To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
      --E.C. Stanton
    4. Re:We have a pretty good idea where they went. by vga_init · · Score: 1

      I think it's strange to just assume that there would have been "mules." Horses and donkeys just happen to have genomes that come together that way. However, the vast majority of species contain DNA that, when combined, simply produce an embryo that fails to develop. Having studied biotechnology, it seems to me that the mule case is something of a rare occurence. However, I've done no formal research onto the topic of breeding between species, and I'm definitely not saying it's not possible that Neanderthals didn't have sterile children with the other thingies (aka us). I just feel that it's a little preemptive to start basing other theories off of that.

    5. Re:We have a pretty good idea where they went. by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      Oh crap.

      www.neanderthalbrides.com is not registered!

    6. Re:We have a pretty good idea where they went. by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 2

      What is the mechanism by which genes fade?

      Isn't that process called stonewashing?

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    7. Re:We have a pretty good idea where they went. by jc42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Mitochrondrial DNA tests indicate that Neanderthals were an entirely seperate species with no interbreeding.

      Actually, this merely says that any Neanderthal ancestors we may have weren't through the pure-maternal line. It says nothing at all about the nuclear DNA, which is over 99% of our DNA.

      I've been watching for reports on Neanderthal DNA, and I've been repeatedly disappointed by people making conclusions from mtDNA samples. This basically indicates cluelessness about how inheritance works. Your mtDNA is a rather special case, and it's inherited very differently from your nuclear DNA. It's only useful for tracing your purely-maternal line of ancestors. It carries no information about any male or any of his ancestors.

      It's still entirely possible that a tiny part of the ancestry of Europeans is Neanderthal. This could mean a few hundred genes scattered through the nuclear DNA. It could mean just one gene. Until you convincingly show, for every single gene, that it's not of Neanderthal origin, you really haven't shown that there was no interbreeding at all.

      This is significant because nobody suggests a significant Neanderthal contribution to the modern European gene pool. Even supporters of the conjecture would be surprised if 1% of our genes are of Neanderthal origin. The question is whether the number is exactly zero or something slightly higher.

      My guess is that we'll never have good enough evidence of Neanderthal genes to show that there was no interbreeding at all. That requires study of the entire genome, and the fossil record doesn't have to have preserved it for us. Unless there's some very luck discovery, such as a deep-frozen Neanderthal in the permafrost (that's now rapidly melting, so we'd better hurry), it's unlikely that we'll ever have a complete sample of Neanderthal DNA. And even that wouldn't really be enough; the most it could prove is that that particular individual wasn't one of our ancestors.

      In any case, arguments from mtDNA are supremely unconvincing. Interesting, yes, but unconvincing.

      But that doesn't stop the media from publishing gee-whiz articles on the topic.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    8. Re:We have a pretty good idea where they went. by JourneyExpertApe · · Score: 1

      What is the mechanism by which genes fade? I suggest that you take a basic biology class.

      Individuals with less well adapted genes don't reproduce and the genes die out. As the number of these genes in the gene pool decreases, it can be thought of as "fading away". Maybe you should take a biology class.

      And the fact that Neanderthals had different mtDNA doesn't mean that they're related. You have different mtDNA than your own father. Besides, the study only compared the DNA of two individuals.

      --
      If you can read this sig, you're too close.
    9. Re:We have a pretty good idea where they went. by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      The neandarthals were a different species

      You are begging the question.

      which means (by definition) there was no interbreeding.

      So by definition, mules do not exist. In the real world, speciation is rarely a bright line.

    10. Re:We have a pretty good idea where they went. by doktor-hladnjak · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't romanticize things too much. If there was sex between cromagnon man and neanderthals, it seems likely that much (most probably even considering the circumstances) of it would have come in the form of rape.

    11. Re:We have a pretty good idea where they went. by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, this merely says that any Neanderthal ancestors we may have weren't through the pure-maternal line. It says nothing at all about the nuclear DNA, which is over 99% of our DNA.

      True, however:

      My guess is that we'll never have good enough evidence of Neanderthal genes to show that there was no interbreeding at all. That requires study of the entire genome, and the fossil record doesn't have to have preserved it for us.

      No - there would be a distinctive signal we can detect purely from modern human genomes. Imagine that for gene X, 1% of Europeans have a Neandertal gene, and everyone else (including all non-Europeans) have the Sapiens gene. We sequence this gene from 10000 people, 1000 of whom are European, 10 of whom have the Neandertal gene. Those 10 Europeans have sequences which are similar to each other, but are much more different from the consensus than any other gene sequences - and most significantly, much more different than any of the African samples. (Africa being the homeland of Homo Sapiens means it has the largest genetic variability.)

      Putting it another way: if we created a phylogenetic tree of the genes, we would observe some of the European genes being basal (separated from the bulk of the sequences by the first bifurcation on the tree), and by a large margin (after this bifurcation, there is a long time before the next bifurcation on the main branch.)

      We haven't yet observed such a pattern, although I think people have looked. We may yet find this, but the longer we look without finding it, the less likely the interbreeding hypothesis becomes.

      IAATMP. (I am a theoretical molecular phylogenist.)

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    12. Re:We have a pretty good idea where they went. by mentatchris · · Score: 1

      oh snap. genetics for teh win.

    13. Re:We have a pretty good idea where they went. by Autumnmist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We haven't yet observed such a pattern, although I think people have looked. We may yet find this, but the longer we look without finding it, the less likely the interbreeding hypothesis becomes.

      Perhaps you missed this publication from this past spring which has found very very interesting evidence for interbreeding between homo erectus populations in Asia and anatomically modern homo sapiens spreading out of Africa. The group even found a neat gradient (what would be expected if interbreeding did occur on an infrequent, but significant basis) of the genetic locuses they examined, with the highest percentage of people with the gene located in Southern China (the epicenter of homo erectus as far as we can tell), decreasing across China, through Asia and dwindling to near nil among native Africans.

      For those of you non-scientists, this means that a larger proportion of people from southern China have a particular gene (of sorts) that people from other parts of the world (e.g. Africans) do not have. Since homo sapiens spread out of Africa, carrying their genes with them, for some ~53% of southern Chinese to have a gene that native Africans do not have, the ancient ancestors of those Chinese very well may have acquired the gene from another species that was reproductively compatible but separate from homo sapiens arriving from Africa. This is further supported in the paper I linked by the gradient the group discovered. The highest percentage of people who have the gene in question are located in Southern China, while the percentage of people who have the gene slowly tapers off as you go west and south from China towards Africa, until you reach Africa itself and find that almost no Africans have the gene at all.

      IAAMBS - I am a molecular biology student. :P

      --
      --- "Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." ~ Ben Kenobi, 'Return of the Jedi'
    14. Re:We have a pretty good idea where they went. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they'd invented alcohol back then the chance of interbreeding would have gone way up!

    15. Re:We have a pretty good idea where they went. by cnettel · · Score: 1

      Also, when you get down to a single gene within a fraction of a population, it's possible that the gene was actually transferred by a retro-virus infecting both human species as hosts...

    16. Re:We have a pretty good idea where they went. by dajak · · Score: 1

      What is the mechanism by which genes fade?

      You can't fool me. Gene fading is an established theory supported by reputable sources. It should be taught alongside intelligent design, because people, especially blonde people, should be aware of the mechanism of gene fading and its dangers in our modern society.

    17. Re:We have a pretty good idea where they went. by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Good job Mark, proof by assertion.

    18. Re:We have a pretty good idea where they went. by juhaz · · Score: 1

      They don't "just happen" to have genomes like that, they happen to have them because they're rather "recently" (few million years ago) diverged and still very close relatives

      Many closely related species are genetically compatible enough for hybridization, not just equids, large cats for example, as well as canines and bovines, so two species of humans being capable of interbreeding doesn't sound very unreasonable assumption.

    19. Re:We have a pretty good idea where they went. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it also possible, then, that neanderthals were actually an offshoot of homo sapiens?

    20. Re:We have a pretty good idea where they went. by sgt101 · · Score: 1

      Mitochrondria are passed from the female line only. So what is indicated is that no female neanderthals bore children from sapien males.

      It is still possible that female sapiens bore children to male neanderthals.

      --
      --------------------------------------------- "In the end, we're all just water and old stars."
    21. Re:We have a pretty good idea where they went. by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Your statements assume that interbreeding between humans and neandertals would lead to viable offspring. I wouldn't be surprised if, when you have a small (or closed) population and a large (or open) population where interbreeding is common, but leads to infertile offspring, that the small population will be decimated. It might cause problems for the larger population, too, but not as badly.

      So we might be able to say that our ancestors didn't have any neandertal genes, but that doesn't mean they weren't interbreeding.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    22. Re:We have a pretty good idea where they went. by F_Scentura · · Score: 1

      And why is that, captain baseless conjecture?

    23. Re:We have a pretty good idea where they went. by MickLinux · · Score: 1

      Maybe you'd want to sequence some Allens (germanic tribe). Or maybe you'd want to sequence some dwarfs. Both are small and squat in a different way than most, and could have something to do with a case of Neanderthal genes.

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    24. Re:We have a pretty good idea where they went. by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

      Thank you for that - I had missed that paper. It is exactly the pattern I refered to, although I note that they say the statistics are not yet good enough to reject an out-of-Africa explaination.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
  18. Its both! by geekoid · · Score: 5, Funny

    maybe the neanderthalls evolved, and modern humans were created by intelligent design?

    by intellegent design, I of course mean Flying spahgetti monster.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Its both! by XXIstCenturyBoy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yep.. God killed the Neanderthalls. Thats being an Intelligent Designer.

      And he left their bones to test our faith.

    2. Re:Its both! by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 3, Informative

      The real theory of Intelligent Design doesn't eliminate evolution. It actually proposes (hell, should I just say "proposed" at this point?) that evolution didn't stem only from random mutations, but from some that seem to have been encouraged. Unfortunately, seven-day-Creationists have corrupted the term worse than the words "communist" and "hacker" combined.

    3. Re:Its both! by hungrygrue · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or they were a prototype. ;-)

    4. Re:Its both! by Trespass · · Score: 1

      Is this hypothesis of Intelligent Design either testable or falsible? If not, it's not science.

    5. Re: Its both! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Interesting


      > The real theory of Intelligent Design doesn't eliminate evolution. It actually proposes (hell, should I just say "proposed" at this point?) that evolution didn't stem only from random mutations, but from some that seem to have been encouraged.

      ID "theory" doesn't even say that much. It just says "here's something evolution couldn't have produced, therefore it's the result of intelligent design".

      And when you start asking what "intelligent design" means, you'll discover that they believe "someone did something".

      The "someone" is clearly the Christian God (though they don't say that except when they're presenting their "research" to religious audiences), and the "something" is... completely unspecified. Presumably if God draws something on the back of a napkin it is allowed to come into being.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    6. Re:Its both! by flyingsquid · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The real theory of Intelligent Design

      "Theory of intelligent design" is an oxymoron.

      Merriam Webster's defines a theory as "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." Intelligent design doesn't qualify- it hasn't been tested (it's arguable whether it's even testable at all), it isn't accepted, and it explains absolutely nothing. It doesn't explain who the designer is or how the designer designed things, how the design was implemented, why, or when. It's the complete and total absence of a theory.

      Which is the beauty of it. Creationists learned from the Young Earth Creationism disaster- as soon as you start making testable statements like "the earth is 6000 years old" scientists will disprove you and show what a bunch of idiots you are. So you avoid making testable statements at all costs.

    7. Re:Its both! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Actually, the Neaderthalls were just suspected of having WMDs. The rest, as they say, is history.

    8. Re:Its both! by CunningNickName · · Score: 1

      Hey look, it's Slashdot where people can't even correctly spell a word even if it's in the article's headline!!! And I thought people just didn't read the articles!

    9. Re:Its both! by lasindi · · Score: 1

      The real theory of Intelligent Design doesn't eliminate evolution. It actually proposes (hell, should I just say "proposed" at this point?) that evolution didn't stem only from random mutations, but from some that seem to have been encouraged.

      Darwinian evolution says that organisms evolve as a result of random, natural variations being naturally selected for. Intelligent design "theory" disagrees with this because it replaces natural selection with "intelligent" selection. It would be like trying to rewrite Einstein's equation E=mc^2 by replacing m with, say, v for volume, and saying that E=mc^2=vc^2. Both the analogy and the claim that intelligent design is compatible with evolution are completely false (the equation is completely ridiculous, but then again, some would say the same of ID).

      There is no scientific evidence for this, and its advocates propose no experiments or investigations we can use to even start to test their ideas.

      The point here is that supporters of ID like the discovery are not doing any science; they're carrying out a PR campaign that has success because much of the American public knows little or nothing about just how solid the science underlying evolution is. It's much easier to get acceptance of completely unscientific ideas as science in the general public than it is in the scientific community, which will demand empirical scrutiny.

      --
      I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this theorem that this sig is too small to contain.
    10. Re:Its both! by martyn+s · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Intelligent design (or rather, just the belief in God, and his necessity in creating our universe as it is) doesn't even have to suggest that some mutations were encouraged. There is the fact that the rules of the universe, (e.g. the relative strengths of gravity, electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear forces, the cosmological constant, etc.) seems to be very finely tuned to produce life, and if those rules were any different, the universe would be undifferentiated mush. So maybe God "intelligently designed" the universe with such finely tuned rules, but evolution played out on its own with no intervention based on those perfectly tuned rules.

    11. Re:Its both! by dgatwood · · Score: 1
      Even better.... Soylent green is people!

      No, wait....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    12. Re:Its both! by EtherealStrife · · Score: 1

      One amusing tidbit is that Darwin had no fscking clue how organisms evolved (he was mistakenly leaning towards Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's Use/Disuse Theory, in which Lamarck theorized that if an organism needed and desired a bodily change, over time this change would occur), it was Alfred Wallace who came up with what we commonly attribute to Darwin but specific to animals (proliferation and continuation of best suited characteristics). Darwin turned around and published Origin of Species and Descent of Man, in which he combined all the theories of those who came before him and wrote em off as his own.

    13. Re:Its both! by _newwave_ · · Score: 1

      And God didn't give freewill to humans and everything that happens on earth is his choosing.

      I love it when secularists like yourselves show their inner hate toward those of faith.

      "Yep...people of faith are morons and I hate them. That's being an open minded liberal."

    14. Re:Its both! by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I always hate these evolution/creation fights as Evolution, as presented to me in school, wasn't a creation of life theory.

      It was a expanation of current(last few hundred thousands of years) events. There was some muttering about different atmospheres, 'soupy oceans', lightning strikes, and mud. Asteroids were also thought to be potentially involved. But then, I went to school before much research on extremophiles had trickled to the beginning of life theorists, much less high school science. And it was fully admitted, pretty much stated: 'We have no clue, we're pretty sure this is wrong on many details, but this is the best we have to date'. It didn't require fake dinosaur bones, fake fossil layers, etc.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    15. Re:Its both! by terjeber · · Score: 1

      The real theory of Intelligent Design doesn't eliminate evolution.

      There is no (scientific) theory of intelligent design any more than there is a (scientific) theory of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. ID is superstitious goobledigook wrapped in the language of science. That doesn't make it any less goobledigook.

    16. Re: Its both! by Ztream · · Score: 1

      I think you just invented the "Intelligent Napkin" theory. This explains a lot.

    17. Re:Its both! by harishpa · · Score: 2, Funny

      We still co-exist with them. They evolved and became managers.

    18. Re:Its both! by l0b0 · · Score: 1

      Prototypes? We don't need no steenking prototypes!

    19. Re:Its both! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...if those rules were any different, the universe would be undifferentiated mush. So maybe God "intelligently designed" the universe with such finely tuned rules...

      It is not surprising that we see ourselves surrounded by a nicely habitable universe. Obviously if the universe were otherwise, you wouldn't be able to ask that question. Or you'd be asking the same question somewhere else...

    20. Re:Its both! by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 1
      Someone else said:


      If evolution is "only a theory", then so is Intelligent Design, and the two theories make distinct predictions: ID predicts the absence of "stupid design", while evolution predicts equal amounts of clever and stupid designs, as long as they increase the reproductive success of the organisms they appear in.

      Of course, stupid designs in nature far outnumber the miraculously intelligent ones, starting with the human appendix and tailbone, ranging across non-functional foot bones in whales, to joke animals like the dodo and the platypus, to molecular features like "junk DNA" and vitamin-C processing genes that are broken *in the very same way* in humans, apes and monkeys.


      Evolution by nature is very good at finding unexpected answers - if it works, no matter why, no matter if a designer would have never thought of doing it that way, it will be selected for. But it has virtually no long-term planning. The ostrich for instance is as birds go a good antelope. But a designer with foresight wanting to go to antelope, probably wouldn't start from bird.

      Intelligent design is the opposite; it would have foresight, would use certain characteristic design patterns (unless you believe in Omniscient Design). This is however not what we see.
      --

      My Karma: ran over your Dogma
      StrawberryFrog

    21. Re:Its both! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We still co-exist with them. They evolved and became managers.

      Managers? Ha! Turn on your TV. They're down in New Orleans!

    22. Re:Its both! by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Is this hypothesis of Intelligent Design either testable or falsible?

      Of course it is. If it's true and you don't believe in it you'll go to Hell. If it's not true you'll go to whatever limbo you athiests believe in.

    23. Re:Its both! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Usually there isn't any hate. It's more of an amused confusion.

    24. Re:Its both! by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 1

      "Unfortunately, seven-day-Creationists have corrupted the term worse than the words "communist" and "hacker" combined."

      Except the term was initially used as a drop-in replacement for creationism in the 1989 book "Pandas and People," lately of fame in the Dover Intelligent Design scandal. Here's a review by the Geoscience Research Institute, a young-earth creationist group, from 1992. Notice in the review that "creationism" and "intelligent design" are used more or less interchangeably. Or you can read a 1989 review from the National Center for Science Education that finds the same thing. ID wasn't taken over by creationists. It was founded by them.

    25. Re:Its both! by Decaff · · Score: 1

      The real theory of Intelligent Design doesn't eliminate evolution.

      There is no 'theory' of intelligent design. If there were, there would have to be testable evidence and predictions from it. Simply saying 'this feature is too complex for me to believe that it could have evolved' is not a theory!

      Intelligent Design is a 'God of the Gaps' type of philosophical position that can never be falsified, simply (hopefully) reduced to irrelevance as more and more aspects of evolution are explained.

    26. Re:Its both! by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      God of the Gaps? Does he rule the space between the platform and subway cars? That's a pretty specific god-function, but those "Mind the gap" signs make more sense now. (Although I want to add a comma after mind.)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    27. Re:Its both! by fuzzix · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Grandparent post:
      Yep.. God killed the Neanderthalls. Thats being an Intelligent Designer.

      And he left their bones to test our faith.

      Hmmm... Seems to be an amusing gibe at the expense of that whole fossils theory.

      Parent post:
      And God didn't give freewill to humans and everything that happens on earth is his choosing.

      I love it when secularists like yourselves show their inner hate toward those of faith.

      "Yep...people of faith are morons and I hate them. That's being an open minded liberal."

      Hmmm... Don't understand how this reaction could be prompted by such a light-hearte... Oh, wait. He said secularist. Now I get it - everybody who doesn't have "True Faith" is a woolly-minded, liberal pot-smoker bent on the destruction of all that is good and holy in the world. Good, holy things like mass murder, denial of free-will and subjugation of women. Gimme that old-time religium! </rhetoric>

      Don't whine at us because your logic deficiency precludes having the ability to tell the difference between an imaginary friend and a real friend. Trust me, if you didn't have that faith shit pushed into your head with the twin fangs of sin and guilt back when your head was still soft you would be a much happier person today.

      I'm not open-minded - I don't have the sort of time required to listen to everybody's point of view. I shave down the time required to hear what something's all about by cutting out people whose reasoning skills I don't respect. If you have an imaginary friend I'm not going to take you too seriously on other matters - same if you read horoscopes or partake in the lottery... I'm no Spock but I do know how to spot someone with a severe logic deficiency.
    28. Re:Its both! by Decaff · · Score: 1

      God of the Gaps? Does he rule the space between the platform and subway cars?

      In case this does need explanation....

      'God of the Gaps' describes a philosophical point of view in which God (or some other intelligence or higher power) is given as the explanation things we don't understand ('gaps' in our knowledge).

    29. Re:Its both! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Yep...people of faith are morons and I hate them. That's being an open minded liberal."

      Don't quote what isn't a quote. It's bearing false witness and you'll burn in hell, fucktard.

    30. Re:Its both! by indifferent+children · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Unfortunately, as all too often happens: you come up with a disposable prototype and management insists on tweaking it and deploying it as a final product.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    31. Re:Its both! by indifferent+children · · Score: 1

      I hate to dispel your notions about secularists (disclaimer: no I don't), but those of us who don't believe that God gave us free will, also don't believe that everything that happens on earth is his choosing. The whole god-thing is pretty much a non-issue for us until someone tries to trample on our religious freedom.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    32. Re:Its both! by Branko · · Score: 1

      ...very finely tuned to produce life

      "Life", as we know it.

      ...if those rules were any different, the universe would be undifferentiated mush

      "Mush", from our point of view.

      Different laws of physic would make our kind of life impossible, but may well produce life that, while being different, is equally complex.

    33. Re:Its both! by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      And the gaps get smaller over time as we figure why the big red thing comes up each morning, or why someone's kids look like the mailman.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    34. Re:Its both! by mcvos · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why some American christians feel so threatened by the evolution theory. If I can use evolution, including truly random mutations and all, to make something, then surely so can God? Evolution is not magic, it's a mechanism. A tool, if you will, and it can be used to make something that does exactly what you want it to, but is to complex to design by hand.

      Take a look at Genetic Programming to see what I'm talking about.

      The most important argument of the Intelligent Design crowd seems to be that life is too complex to be the result of a random process, but these kind of random processes produce amazingly (even ridiculously) complex solutions all the time. They just don't really understand what they're talking about. Evolution may not be experimentally provable in biology, but it has already been proven in Artificial Intelligence.

      And it doesn't even conflict with a belief in God. What more do you want?

    35. Re: Its both! by indifferent+children · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, it is not the Napkin that is Intelligent. This is the Deus Ex Napkin theory.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    36. Re:Its both! by smchris · · Score: 1

      I've suspected overlap as long as I can remember because of prehistoric legends like the Nordic trolls that live under bridges and will steal you away.

      Considering the state of popular American thought though that doesn't sound so profound at the moment because I have to admit it is only (very) quantitatively distinct from the "We can remember dragons so people lived with the dinosaurs!" school.

    37. Re:Its both! by indifferent+children · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are right. I understand that Darwin did not have all of the answers. And now you know the difference between a scientist and a zealot.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    38. Re:Its both! by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      There's an alternate definition of theory that applies to the Theory of Intelligent Design.

      An acceptable definition of "theory" (although the last one listed in my Random House dictionary) is: Guess or conjecture.

      If it weren't such a pain to type out, from now on, I'd refer to it as the "Guess or Conjecture of Intelligent Design".

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    39. Re:Its both! by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      I'm not open-minded - I don't have the sort of time required to listen to everybody's point of view. I shave down the time required to hear what something's all about by cutting out people whose reasoning skills I don't respect.

      It's nice to make new friends : )

      I'm not going to take you too seriously on other matters - same if you read horoscopes or partake in the lottery.

      Though... I still play a couple of times a year. I see it as a very high-risk investment. I'm willing to invest that dollar in the government's coffers on the off chance that I'll get an astronomical return. If not, then eh, I like roads, hospitals, and the likes (I don't gamble in private casinos though, that's just pathological IMO).

      And horoscopes are good for a laugh! I like to compare them from different sources on the same day, to see how wildly off they all can simultaneously be.
      The best one I ever saw said "Today is a good day to consult your astrologist"... the people in te restaurant were wondering why I was suddenly laughing maniacally from reading the paper : )

      I'm also working on the notion that there is something to the idea that the month of your birth could have a developmental influence on your mind... at what age was your first spring? First fall? At what stage of maturing was your brain when that happened? That kind of stuff. Chicks who are into astrology can tell you things about your personality simply from your sign. I'm 100% sure that has nothing to do with the shape or colours of the stars, but they are right too often to be a coincidence all the time. Just because the explanation of the phenomenon is crap, doesn't make their observations and predictions any less valid.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    40. Re:Its both! by saider · · Score: 1

      Atheists don't go anywhere. We just die. End of Life. That's it. Nothing else. Dead. Kaput. For a glimpse of what this is like, try to remember a time before you were conceived. That's what death will be like.

      Alternatively, eternity is your last moment in life. If you die at peace with your life, your eternity will be peaceful. But the opposite is also true.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    41. Re:Its both! by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      And if you say "why would an intelligent designer make it so that the birth channel leads through the only non-expandable bone ring in our body, which is barely wide enough to allow birth at all, a catholic might say, "well, as punishment for original sin, duh."

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    42. Re: Its both! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > There's an alternate definition of theory that applies to the Theory of Intelligent Design. An acceptable definition of "theory" (although the last one listed in my Random House dictionary) is: Guess or conjecture.

      ID isn't a guess or conjecture either: it's apologetics for big-tent creationism. These people aren't "guessing" or "conjecturing" that an intelligent designer exists; they're offering pseudosceintific "proofs" to shore up the beliefs of people who don't like what real science has discovered.

      > If it weren't such a pain to type out, from now on, I'd refer to it as the "Guess or Conjecture of Intelligent Design".

      Stick with "Intelligent Design Creationism" or "Intelligent Design Propaganda". (Preferably the first, since that seems to piss them off the most.)


      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    43. Re: Its both! by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      "ID isn't a guess or conjecture either: it's apologetics for big-tent creationism."

      And is not creationism a guess or conjecture?

      Besides, ID is definitely conjecture -- "an opinion without sufficient evidence for proof".

      No matter what the motivations for, and methods of, promulgating ID are, it is still conjecture.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    44. Re:Its both! by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      everybody knows the neanderthals were wiped out by the golgafrinchams.

    45. Re:Its both! by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
      It's because America is the seat of division in the world.

      It's kinda funny, cause most everybody dislikes the americans, and yet, they're bringing forth the fruits of gods labour.

      Know thyself is only possible when there are those different from yourself, and americans find the tiniest little things to seperate themselves from those around them.

      The big question, is whether americans can ever return to unity. If not, then america truly is hell.

    46. Re:Its both! by fuzzix · · Score: 1
      Though... I still play a couple of times a year. I see it as a very high-risk investment. I'm willing to invest that dollar in the government's coffers on the off chance that I'll get an astronomical return. If not, then eh, I like roads, hospitals, and the likes (I don't gamble in private casinos though, that's just pathological IMO).

      Well, that's not exactly overboard :)

      My parents play the Irish Lotto here twice a week. I make sure to keep the number of times I point out the fact that if they had been saving that money they'd have about 10,000 quid now to a minimum ;)

      It doesn't go into the same kitty as tax revenue here AFAIK. It's donated to charities and such so it's not all bad, I guess. Still, there are people around here who spend their pensions on scratch cards - I can't get behind that. The adverts are terrible, as well - at least they were back when I watched TV. No real indication that you may not win. Sure, people are supposed to know that but my confidence in people knowing things they should is fairly low.

      And horoscopes are good for a laugh! I like to compare them from different sources on the same day, to see how wildly off they all can simultaneously be.
      The best one I ever saw said "Today is a good day to consult your astrologist"... the people in te restaurant were wondering why I was suddenly laughing maniacally from reading the paper : )

      As long as you keep laughing. If you start planning your day around it it's time to check into Belleview.

      I'm also working on the notion that there is something to the idea that the month of your birth could have a developmental influence on your mind... at what age was your first spring? First fall? At what stage of maturing was your brain when that happened? That kind of stuff. Chicks who are into astrology can tell you things about your personality simply from your sign. I'm 100% sure that has nothing to do with the shape or colours of the stars, but they are right too often to be a coincidence all the time. Just because the explanation of the phenomenon is crap, doesn't make their observations and predictions any less valid.

      You see all the seasons before you're 1 year old...

      However, it has been observed that children born later in the year are more prone to depression. Not sure how accurate that is but I was born in December and can't get out of bed most mornings. :)

      As for being able to derive personality traits from your star sign... I bet if I was flattering enough you'd agree with anything. "Pisces? Oh, you're a strong individual with a free spirit" and so on... ;)
    47. Re: Its both! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > God of the Gaps' describes a philosophical point of view in which God is given as the explanation things we don't understand

      Ach, I thought Godiva Gaps was an anatomical term.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    48. Re:Its both! by cfuse · · Score: 1
      Don't whine at us because your logic deficiency precludes having the ability to tell the difference between an imaginary friend and a real friend. Trust me, if you didn't have that faith shit pushed into your head with the twin fangs of sin and guilt back when your head was still soft you would be a much happier person today.

      I'm getting that made into a t-shirt. Fucking hilarious!

    49. Re: Its both! by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Pardon my poor grasp of dead languages, but wouldn't the preposition ex imply that the Napkin created God?

  19. Disappeared? No... by s-twig · · Score: 2, Funny

    They didn't disappear, they moved into management roles.

    1. Re:Disappeared? No... by chadseld · · Score: 1

      Those who didn't go into management are now shooting at rescuers in New Orleans.

    2. Re:Disappeared? No... by dratox · · Score: 1

      Don't forget groups like the NFL and NHL

    3. Re:Disappeared? No... by Ingolfke · · Score: 1

      Hum... if one species could get another species to willingly do what they wanted them too w/o violence... which species would you say is more advanced?

    4. Re:Disappeared? No... by s-twig · · Score: 1

      All jest aside. That's pretty sad to see. Watching from Australia, I was pretty disappointed to see that happening in the "always there to help" US.

    5. Re:Disappeared? No... by Doctor+Memory · · Score: 1

      (looks slantwise at cat occupying 90% of available desk space, recalls refilling food and water bowls before settling down to read /.)

      Don't go there.

      --
      Just junk food for thought...
    6. Re:Disappeared? No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New Orleans already had a crime rate ten times the national average. Katrina just made it news.

  20. Sliders... by Ma�djeurtam · · Score: 0

    Probably those Kromaggs for the Sci-Fi show Sliders just slid on Earth Prime.

    --
    Instant Karma's gonna get you, Gonna knock you right on the head (John Lennon, 1970)
  21. Is it always Violence? by denissmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From TFA: In short, the indicators point to the likelihood that Homo sapiens crushed or ousted the Neanderthals in the fight to survive. Why do we always need to reduce the possibilities to just these two? Isn't it equally likely that in the ebb and flow of occupation of the area humans eventually exhausted the resources that the Neanderthal relied upon, while being able to exploit other resources that the Neanderthal couldn't? Since 1,000 years is the overlap epoch it doesn't appear that a policy of active antipathy is at work.

    --
    I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
    1. Re:Is it always Violence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      From TFA: In short, the indicators point to the likelihood that Homo sapiens crushed or ousted the Neanderthals in the fight to survive. Why do we always need to reduce the possibilities to just these two?

      For the same reason we drive monster trucks, stockpile guns, and act like our favorite football team winning a game had something to do with us: so we don't have to admit to ourselves that the other guy's dick is bigger.

    2. Re:Is it always Violence? by mveloso · · Score: 1

      Yes, it pretty much always is violence.

      Another option might be that Neanderthals were enslaved by humans, and they slowly died out due to abuse and the poor living conditions afforded them. Not a great story either.

    3. Re:Is it always Violence? by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      > Another option might be that Neanderthals were enslaved by humans, and they slowly died out due to abuse and the poor living conditions afforded them. Not a great story either.

      Yes, that's it! But then an evolved Neanderthal from a far future where Neanderthals ruled over Cro-Magnon men came back in time to the present in a crashed spaceship left by modern explorers and had an evolved child who was hidden from the authorities in a circus who then went on to teach the other Neanderthal slaves how to say 'No' and say it forcefully, thus leading to the eventual overthrow of the modern human population and the existence of the very future the evolved Neanderthal came from until finally the entire timeline got re-written once again by a fucking pretty-boy underwear model which completely screwed up any logic or reason in the entire timeline confusing all hopes of putting together any sort of sensible history.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    4. Re:Is it always Violence? by bskin · · Score: 1

      Because, in evolutionary terms, exhausting the resources another species uses and/or exploiting resources that they can't is crushing and ousting another species. Also, in the time periods we're talking about, 1000 years is barely a blink of the eye.

      --
      hot foreign sheep.
    5. Re:Is it always Violence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeppp... just tune in to CNN, check out New Orleans.
      It is always...

    6. Re:Is it always Violence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it equally likely that in the ebb and flow of occupation of the area humans eventually exhausted the resources that the Neanderthal relied upon, while being able to exploit other resources that the Neanderthal couldn't?

      No. Next stupid fucking question?

    7. Re:Is it always Violence? by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

      The problem with those two ideas is, there's no evidence that either took place. Nobody knows WHAT happened. You can't draw such sweeping conclusions from a few old bones.

      What modern humans are revealing when they come up with theories like this is that they have self-loathing issues and always imagine/assume the worst about their own species.

      This is very common among liberal arts majors these days, who are practically told in class that human beings are the Face of Evil(tm).

      Cheer up! We're not so bad. The Neanderthals probably just couldn't adapt as well as modern humans and died out quietly on their own. Like every OTHER human-like species that has come and gone on this planet.

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
    8. Re:Is it always Violence? by kypper · · Score: 1

      Actually, evolutionists have been trying to point to anything BUT genocide as the explanation; nobody wants to think that we wiped out such a (relatively) advanced species. In all reality, it's likely the truth based on the evidence. Doesn't say much for us though.

    9. Re:Is it always Violence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Virtually all recorded history is an example. Violence is the nature of competitive survival, and survival always comes first. Cooperative survival works only in special circumstances, particularly on large scales, and those circumstances are very rare in human history.

    10. Re:Is it always Violence? by F_Scentura · · Score: 1

      "Evolutionists"? Whereas all creationists are deluded, the rest of the field of science is less single-minded. Because people share a belief in evolution does not mean that they have any other scientific or UNRELATED HISTORICAL THEORIES in common.

    11. Re:Is it always Violence? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Isn't it equally likely that in the ebb and flow of occupation of the area humans eventually exhausted the resources that the Neanderthal relied upon, while being able to exploit other resources that the Neanderthal couldn't?

      You just defined "crushed or ousted".

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    12. Re:Is it always Violence? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      From TFA: In short, the indicators point to the likelihood that Homo sapiens crushed or ousted the Neanderthals in the fight to survive. Why do we always need to reduce the possibilities to just these two?

      How many instances of homo sapiens meeting a slightly different group of homo sapiens do you know of that didn't result in violence? None? Right.

      Why always violence? Because it's human nature.
      There are peacefull humans... they tend to get killed by the violent ones, though.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    13. Re:Is it always Violence? by denissmith · · Score: 1

      The terms crushing and ousting imply an intent, when it could be massive ignorance. I think ignorance kills even more frequently than intent, though even when we finally realize what we are doing we seem rather reluctant to stop. 1000 years is not a long time evolutionarily, but if you think in terms of a concerted effort at the eradication of a reasonably small population it is an enormous timescale. Of course, it is possible that peaceful coexistence broke down and the end came swiftly. I admittedly don't know what the bones say about cross species violence. I guess my original point was that we jump to the dramatic ( and admittedly human) explanations, but more complex (or less complex) human behaviors could also be at work. A lot of species die off as a by-product of our activities, and we are not even aware of their existence. Although we certainly eould have been aware of a very large primate in the area. You are, however quite right that objectively there is no difference - we caused their demise- which is a liklihood.

      --
      I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
    14. Re:Is it always Violence? by denissmith · · Score: 1

      Exactly, what the bones tell us is an important indicator of whether or not it was a violent struggle or a quiet fade-out under other pressures ( loss of habitat, isolation when the next glaciation occurred, resource depletion by the new dominant hominid). I don't know all the bone evidence, but I haven't seen clear evidence of carnage. That doesn't mean it isn't out there, just that I haven't seen it. BTW, I was a liberal arts major.

      --
      I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
    15. Re:Is it always Violence? by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      What modern humans are revealing when they come up with theories like this is that they have self-loathing issues and always imagine/assume the worst about their own species

      Probably because we've done all those things to our OWN species. In parts of the world we still do. Why wouldn't we have done them to another?

    16. Re:Is it always Violence? by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

      You've personally done all those things?

      Wow.

      Ah... Broad smile, friendly countenance, backing away slowly, backing away...

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
    17. Re:Is it always Violence? by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

      ...So, liberal arts major...

      Are you saying that your professors didn't push any propaganda your way? You never got the "western civilization is evil" speech?

      I find that hard to believe. Where I went to school, some of the teachers (not all, mind you) were practically overflowing with self-loathing. And they tested you on it.

      Mostly it was the sociology crowd; our history professors were pretty good, and tended to relate the facts without trying to put an unpleasant spin on them. I really liked my Western Civilization prof.

      On the other hand, we had some real nutbags.

      Here's one example: I actually had a sociology teacher that tried to tell me that "no culture ever engaged in widespread murder of civilians until Europe during the second world war". I offered her many examples of ancient people "putting cities to the sword", genghis khan, etc, but she blithely dismissed this with "Well, I've seen statistics that say that stuff was really exaggerated and didn't happen."

      She was from India, and was doing this whole "white people are evil" thing. I used to argue bitterly with her, needless to say. I studied hard and aced all her tests just to piss her off; she gave me a B anyway, on the basis that she subjectively didn't like my essays on the final.

      I found my liberal arts courses to be a real mixed bag. Didn't you?

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
    18. Re:Is it always Violence? by denissmith · · Score: 1

      Actually. we had no requirement to take sociology - so I didn't. I took a lot of History(though it wasn't my major), but the History Department was mostly interested in uncovering reality, and most of the history professors seemed to believe that any power group would behave about the same as any other power group. Which I think is basically true. My favorite test was one in which a History professor gave us a map of a region France in the early 1700's and early 1800's along with a set of birth records and death records for the villages in the region for random dates over the century. He just asked us to explain what happened.

      --
      I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
    19. Re:Is it always Violence? by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

      Wow... Now, THAT is a cool assignment.

      I liked my history teachers, too. Here's a delicious irony:

      One of the more sociologically interesting things I learned in college was that almost all sociology profs were utterly full of shit. If only I could go back in time and inspire myself, I'd tell myself to write a paper statistically proving this amazing fact, and submit it to my most annoying sociology prof. It's really too bad I can't. ;)

      I learned far more about human nature and society from the history profs, who seemed to be much more interested in facts and details (i.e. "getting it right"). They seemed to enjoy their subject matter more, too.

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
    20. Re:Is it always Violence? by denissmith · · Score: 1

      Sociology doesn't HAVE to be crap, but it ususlly is. Sociobiology has the potential to rescue the endeavor - put it on a hard science, rather than soft science basis. But when I was in school sociobiology wasn't even named yet.

      --
      I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
    21. Re:Is it always Violence? by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

      What will they think of next? ;)

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
  22. Easy by sharkey · · Score: 1
    But why did they disappear?

    Because Broud cursed Ayla with death, but Goov did not take back the pieces of the spirit of every Clan member when he did.

    Next?

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    1. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But why did they disappear? Because Broud cursed Ayla with death, but Goov did not take back the pieces of the spirit of every Clan member when he did. Next?

  23. not in the article by uits · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's not implied in the article...but I've got a nagging suspicion we just slaughtered them for fun and sport.

  24. Some would say... by RUFFyamahaRYDER · · Score: 1

    We still have neanderthals among us... =)

    Sorry.. I just had to!

  25. Why Neanderthals disappeared by howard_coward · · Score: 1

    Look around yourself! They disappeared because they were hunted down and killed.

  26. oh, the answer is easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually they all got computers, became heavily involved in open source and failed to procreate. Simple really. (in truth it wasn't open source as much as it was duke nukem B.C.)

  27. Only 1,000 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They say that as if there are no Neanderthals around today... ;-)

  28. Heard this before... by AsiNisiMasa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Discovery channel ran a special recently about evolution and it offered similar information. Considering how long it takes to produce such a show, one would think this would have already made it's rounds around the internet.

    As far as the question of why they are extinct, the show stated it as a matter of fact that homo sapiens simply over-ran their niche, as is prone to happen when two competing species inhabit the same environment.

    I dunno if the show was pushing it's speculation as fact or if this source is out of date. It seems to make sense though. Smarter, team-working homo sapiens out-hunt the competition and the others starve.

    --
    Help a student gain some exp. http://www.halovariants.com/touchup/index.php
    1. Re:Heard this before... by jefferson_uk · · Score: 1

      The BBC also did a really good documentary about the evolution of man with plenty of info about Neanderthals in the last few episodes. "Walking with Cavemen" if anyone's interested. It's floating about on a torrent somewhere no doubt.

      Anyone know the name of the Discovery one?

      --
      echo $sig;
    2. Re:Heard this before... by AsiNisiMasa · · Score: 1

      It was either "Ape to Man" or "From Ape to Man." Can't quite remember which.

      --
      Help a student gain some exp. http://www.halovariants.com/touchup/index.php
    3. Re:Heard this before... by The+Wooden+Badger · · Score: 1

      If memory serves I heard we were contemporaries in a college biology lecture about 7 years ago.

      --
      Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
  29. The modern chicks were hotter by phizman · · Score: 1

    Probably because the Neanderthal women were ugly and the modern chicks were hotter and the envy of the Neanderthal men. So the Neanderthal men spent all their time trying to get a piece of the modern women until all the Neanderthal women got upset and killed the Neanderthal men.

  30. Like a "Brief history of everything" put it by seifried · · Score: 1

    Maybe they were tasty and we ate them.

    1. Re:Like a "Brief history of everything" put it by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 1

      Kurt,
      Perhaps this explains the mythic origin of the "Cain and Abel" story...

      --
      "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
  31. Re:evidence that they still share the earth with u by Drac8 · · Score: 1

    Yea, because anyone who reads SI or plays sports must be a neanderthal right? God forbid anyone intellegent play sports.

  32. of course by Tedium+Unleased · · Score: 0

    they were skull fucked our ancestors

  33. Because they met by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - ..and thus, one rock equals 30 fur skins.
    - But.. rock.. small...
    - Oh wait, you're right, it equals 40 fur skins!

  34. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do we explain Zonk?

  35. Re:FP by MonkeyBob · · Score: 1

    No

    --
    // TODO: Add comments
  36. I agree. by TheOtherAgentM · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm sure many of us at Slashdot remember getting beating up by guys on the football team that resembled Neanderthals.

    1. Re:I agree. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Neanderthals had bigger brains than us, if anything those footballers are all too human.

    2. Re:I agree. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      So what do you call an ill tempered geek who used to beat up guys on the football team?

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    3. Re:I agree. by justforaday · · Score: 1

      Imaginary?

      --
      I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
    4. Re:I agree. by Neoncow · · Score: 1

      Terrorists?

  37. whaa--? by Eternal_Flame · · Score: 1

    what??? You mean we don't co exist today???

    I could have sworn I had the boss figured out this time....

    --
    ~You laugh because I'm different, I laugh because I'm insane~
  38. But why did they disappear? by b17bmbr · · Score: 1

    They were running IIS and the darn humans hacked into it. They never recovered after that. They should have used linux.

    --
    My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
  39. Gribba rung fthooga Rupert by sigmaseven · · Score: 1

    They run a little TV network called FOX (obFirefly lament)....

  40. This whole topic is against my religion. by unsigned+integer · · Score: 1
    WWFSMD?

    And how exactly does this relate to pirates and global warming?

    Will this even be taught in Kansas?

  41. They merged with the Yeti by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1
    and became Neocon Republicans.

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:They merged with the Yeti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, they mergered wiht ur mom and became the liebrul dummocrats!!!111one!!! OMGLOL

    2. Re:They merged with the Yeti by Johnny5000 · · Score: 1

      They merged with the Yeti and became Neocon Republicans.

      Nah, the Neocon ancestry also includes pond scum, weasel, vulture, chickenhawk, and snake. Can't underestimate those.

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
  42. But why did they disappear? by KillShill · · Score: 1

    because they didn't stand up to the RIAA.

    --
    Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
  43. No, natural selection in action by a.different.perspect · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think it's fairly easy to know where they went. Because they were "different" than modern humans, with lower technology levels, we simply killed them off for trying to take our resources.
     
    We wouldn't have needed to actually kill them. Both Neanderthals and humans would have competed for the same food; because of our higher intelligence, we would have gotten it and they wouldn't have as a result. Neanderthals probably died because of us, true, but we needn't have directly killed them.

    1. Re:No, natural selection in action by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful
      We wouldn't have needed to actually kill them. Both Neanderthals and humans would have competed for the same food; because of our higher intelligence, we would have gotten it and they wouldn't have as a result.
      I think in the end it would inevitably come to a fight. When somebody is hungry, they try to get food, even if somebody else happens to own it. Cf. New Orleans.
    2. Re:No, natural selection in action by shawb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or they became a resource.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    3. Re:No, natural selection in action by NotZed · · Score: 1

      Who says they were less intelligent? Their brains were bigger.

      Maybe they just didn't adapt to changing conditions very well, although perhaps the hate for anything different comes from that age, and they were just murdered.

      --
      _ // `Thinking is an exercise to which all too few brains
      \\/ are accustomed' - First Lensman
    4. Re:No, natural selection in action by NotZed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or maybe they just didn't fuck like rabbits and decimate their natural environment and keep moving on like an uncontrollable scourge?

      --
      _ // `Thinking is an exercise to which all too few brains
      \\/ are accustomed' - First Lensman
    5. Re:No, natural selection in action by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Or maybe they just didn't fuck like rabbits and decimate their natural environment and keep moving on like an uncontrollable scourge?

      Well, it's nice to know that out of concern, you won't be reproducing.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    6. Re:No, natural selection in action by hoggoth · · Score: 4, Funny

      > Or maybe they just didn't fuck like rabbits and decimate their natural environment and keep moving on like an uncontrollable scourge?

      I, for one, welcome our new rabbity-fucking uncontrollably moving slightly higher evolved overlords! Er... our old overlords... er... I mean us. I welcome us.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    7. Re:No, natural selection in action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The original long pork?

    8. Re:No, natural selection in action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      agreed, modern man is a war-breed race... the side with the best ability and inclination to kill survives (low tolerance, mob mentality, aggression and willingness to kill & be killed, are all plusses here)

      Neanderthals may have been the more peaceful and thoughful (slow-thinking/acting) of the two... No chance against a nasty little cro-mag gang from down south that didn't know to store food for the winter, liked to play with sharp sticks and decided to form a wolf-like hunting pack and kill when they got hungry instead of plan ahead.

      Ofcourse we eventually learnt/copied how to survive better in the cold, but this just meant larger war parties.

    9. Re:No, natural selection in action by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Maybe we just learned to hide food instead of sharing it. Hoarding as a survival skill? Possibly not the last primitive instinct we've kept past it's use-by date...

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    10. Re:No, natural selection in action by birge · · Score: 1

      Says the guy with plenty of food and water...

    11. Re:No, natural selection in action by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who says they were less intelligent? Their brains were bigger.

      Cows have much bigger brains than humans, but are significantly less intelligent. Some whales have brains larger than an entire human, and they're still less intelligent.

      Because the brain controls all muscles, larger creatures have a bigger brain even if they're not really smarter. To compare intelligence without the luxury of watching the creature in action, the best plan is to use the ratio of body size to brain size.

      By that metric, the neanderthal comes out worse than a homo sapien. It's brain is larger, but the body is larger by an even greater proportion. Until a cloned neanderthal sits for an IQ test, this size comparison is the best we can do.

    12. Re:No, natural selection in action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah..... because looting big screen TVs correlates directly with one's survival.

      Ok. Whatever.

    13. Re:No, natural selection in action by qazsedcft · · Score: 1

      Cows have much bigger brains than humans, but are significantly less intelligent. Some whales have brains larger than an entire human, and they're still less intelligent.

      I don't know where you got that from. A whale brain weighs 7.8 Kg while a cow brain is 500 g, compared to 1.5 Kg for humans.

      To compare intelligence without the luxury of watching the creature in action, the best plan is to use the ratio of body size to brain size.

      By that measure a mouse beats a human. Maybe the Hitchhiker's Gide is right after all. ;)

    14. Re:No, natural selection in action by qval · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also, what sort of competition are we imagining? a card game? Competition is fierce and violent when it comes to survival, and since the Neanderthals were in direct competition with our ancestors' resources of food, living area, etc., it's almost guaranteed that it came to blows. Whether there was something more organized than a tribe of humans ganging up on a family of Neanderthals (weren't they less socially advanced and so didn't organize into groups larger than families?) will probably never be known. But to say that there will be competition without killing is dumb. Just look at the rest of the animal kingdom. Those members of the species that are less competitive are driven to another area, and when they've lost their habitat, they die. I don't think early Homo Sapiens waged a crusade against the Neanderthals, but that doesn't mean the struggle between them wasn't violent.

    15. Re:No, natural selection in action by lotus_out_law · · Score: 1

      oof .. Seems like we are overrating our intelligence quite a bit!!

      Nothing says neanderthals were dumber than us ... As per the latest evidence, they were supposed to be brainier than homo-sapiens at that point of time.

      I would say, we are here cos we were better suited than them to survive in the wild. In the end, that is all that matters.

      We were thin (not now :-) ), did not have too much body hair etc. Ok, an issue when the climate is cold or freezing. But we could always use animal hide for clothes and we were Ok. But if the climate became hotter then we just have to discard it. For neanderthals they did not have this option at all, since they were having quite a bit of muscle mass and fat. and overheating does kill quite fast.

      With their technology at that time, there werent any A/C or freezer to shed the excess heat off.

      So,as I said earlier, we do give too much importance to brain for our evolution. We became world beaters cos of our brains, but for the basic survival at that time, brawn does win over.

    16. Re:No, natural selection in action by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we didn't kill them, we just let them die, and decreased the surplus population.

    17. Re:No, natural selection in action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's pretty arrogant to assume that our race was more intelligent. It's entirely plausible that they were, in fact, more intelligent, but we were the same people we are today: brutish warmongers.

      They simply had not the resources to fend off, with their superior intelligence, our agressive actions.

      Kind of like the nerd that always got pushed around in high school.

    18. Re:No, natural selection in action by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "Cows have much bigger brains than humans, but are significantly less intelligent. Some whales have brains larger than an entire human, and they're still less intelligent."

      To paraphrase the late great Douglas Adams, humans claimed to be more intelligent than other species on the planet because they built things like New York City; the Dolphins claimed they were more intelligent because they did not build things like New York City.

      Wish I had my copy of Hitchhiker's nearby...

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    19. Re:No, natural selection in action by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "Or maybe they just didn't fuck like rabbits and decimate their natural environment and keep moving on like an uncontrollable scourge?"

      Or they practiced widespread homosexuality and were outnumbered by the quickly reproducing homo sapien sapiens.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    20. Re:No, natural selection in action by ChrisA90278 · · Score: 1

      "I think in the end it would inevitably come to a fight." Look at the population density of Europe at that time. It was _Very_ low. Low enough that the two groups would not bump intoeachother very often. Just remember how long it takes to walk 5 miles when there are no roads. Rather then direct confontation it likely went more like "We can't live here anymore because there is to little food, let's move. So they move. Over time there is no place let to move to. This is they way species go extinct today, someone else moves onto thier land so they move onto poorer land and the cyle continues. It would have been nearly impossable for modern humans to have killed each Neanderthal simply because of the low chance of meeting one given the low population density. Most likely we just slowly took over thier land and eat their food.

    21. Re:No, natural selection in action by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      I would say, we are here cos we were better suited than them to survive in the wild

      Maybe we are Cain, and the whole story is a distant, dunno, memory embedded in our, dunno, genes

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    22. Re:No, natural selection in action by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      It's strange that you seem to show such distain for a well tested strategy that has worked well for us longer than anyone could've expected.

    23. Re:No, natural selection in action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia (subject of title) (verb in present tense) YOU!

    24. Re:No, natural selection in action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> "Or maybe they just didn't fuck like rabbits and decimate their natural environment and keep moving on like an uncontrollable scourge?"

      > Or they practiced widespread homosexuality and were outnumbered by the quickly reproducing homo sapien sapiens.

      No, that was "homo erectus."

  44. Interesting by FatAssBastard · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...but from some that seem to have been encouraged.

    That's very interesting, can you please point me to a link that describes the scientific evidence which brought about the hypothesis that some of the mutations seem to have been encouraged? I would be very interested in reading that.

    --
    /.: why the hell am I here?
    1. Re:Interesting by FatAssBastard · · Score: 1

      I wasn't talking about god, I was merely asking the grandparent to point me to a link describing the evidence of preferred mutations. It would be interesting to read, if it does indeed exist.

      --
      /.: why the hell am I here?
    2. Re:Interesting by geomon · · Score: 4, Funny

      *shrug* there doesn't have to be any evidence. but, that does mean it shouldn't be taught alongside evolution as an "alternate theory"

      Great!

      Why not include Scientology along with Judeo-Christian creation?

      You think a Christian parents are pissed that Little Johnny was told by his teacher that man evolved from a common ancestor to apes, just wait until he comes home and tells Mommy and Daddy about a Galactic Federation founded 5,000,000 years ago, Teegeeack, H-Bombs, and body thetans.

      I can't wait to see that one.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    3. Re: Interesting by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny


      > *shrug* there doesn't have to be any evidence. but, that does mean it shouldn't be taught alongside evolution as an "alternate theory", just on the basis that there is no evidence.

      Here are my favorite no-evidence theories that I want schoolkiddies to learn:

      • Flying Spaghetti Monster Theory
      • Intelligent Falling Theory
      • Invisible Pink Unicorn Theory
      • Last Thursday Theory
      • 2+2=5 Theory
      We've really got to quit letting the boring old farts set the agenda!

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    4. Re: Interesting by StarvingSE · · Score: 2, Funny

      I, for one, welcome our new Flying Spaghetti overlords.

      --
      I got nothin'
    5. Re:Interesting by dirty · · Score: 1

      ID isn't a theory, it's a hypothesis and a really bad one at that. Gravity is a theory, germ theory of disease is a theory, cellular structure is a theory. These are all things that are accepted as facts by most everyone with some degree of scientific education. ID makes no predictions, it offers no way to test it, and has no evidence to support it. It doesn't belong is science class. Maybe in a social studies or world religion class, and then presented along side other creation myths.

      --

      -matt
    6. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Representatives of the Galactic Federation will be visiting with you tomorrow geomon. Don't go anywhere. Oh wait...just got word. Mormon missionaries want sloppy seconds.

    7. Re:Interesting by geomon · · Score: 1

      Representatives of the Galactic Federation will be visiting with you tomorrow geomon. Don't go anywhere. Oh wait...just got word. Mormon missionaries want sloppy seconds.

      Crap.

      There go my plans for the "Friday Virgins Dance".

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    8. Re: Interesting by Megahurts · · Score: 1

      What, no timecube?

      I am flabbergasted that the "big brother" hired pedants can brainwash and indoctrinate the powerful antipode human mind to ignore the simple math of 4 simultaneous 24 hour days within a single rotation of Earth, to worship one and trash three.

      Magnificient evil job by teachers.

    9. Re:Interesting by danharan · · Score: 4, Funny

      If the Scientologists get their theories in, so should Pastafarians.

      I can't prove my beliefs in the FSM (blessed be), but you can't disprove them either. So there! ;)

      --
      Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
    10. Re:Interesting by geomon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the Scientologists get their theories in, so should Pastafarians.

      I'll go for that only if the Invisible Pink Unicorn is included in the curriculum as well.

      IPU2U2 - Amen.

      Pastafarians.... That one is good too.

      Do they wear dreads?

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    11. Re: Interesting by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      Holy shit, I think this guy actually sets the curriculum down here in Texas!

      A parallel to the 2+2=5 theory was actually witnessed at the local Wendy's. I had the sheer NERVE to give the lady $5.44 for a $3.44 item, and got $3 back (after a long period of deliberation and muttering of "The register is broken"). She was reaching for the change drawer but I moved on to Window 2. I will have to live the rest of my life wondering what else she was going to give me in change.

    12. Re:Interesting by danharan · · Score: 2, Funny

      The rapture- this makes total sense now. So that's where all my socks disappear- I must be very favored by the IPU.

      This information is obviously vital, and should no doubt be covered in Biology class!

      --
      Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
    13. Re: Interesting by glitch23 · · Score: 0, Insightful

      don't forget evolutionary theory

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    14. Re:Interesting by ozmanjusri · · Score: 2, Funny

      Do they wear dreads?

      Those of us who have been touched by his noodly appendage generally prefer Angel Hair to dreads.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    15. Re:Interesting by geomon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This information is obviously vital, and should no doubt be covered in Biology class!.

      Heh, one should think so. But there are soooo many non-believers out there.

      I told my local school district a couple of years back that if they continued to insist that prayer be not only allowed in school, but lead by a teacher, that I would first convert my children to their grandma's religion (she was of the Blackfoot tribe), and then sue under federal law to force the district to accomodate their worship in the school. Since they would have to accomodate my children during "prayer time", I knew that having a bunch of whooping, dancing students in the classroom would be too much for them to take.

      They dropped their proposal because they eventually realized that in order to stay neutral with regard to the Establishment Clause they would have to accomodate every religious belief to avoid having their policy ruled unconstitutional.

      Intelligent Design will have the same fate when every religion in the world demands equal time in the science classroom.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    16. Re:Interesting by geomon · · Score: 1

      Those of us who have been touched by his noodly appendage generally prefer Angel Hair to dreads.

      Of course. How silly of me.

      My apologies.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    17. Re:Interesting by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

      Aha! I can point you in the right direction.

      The world-acclaimed scientist James P. Hogan, in his "Giants Trilogy", reveals the amazing truth of our genesis:

      Millions of years ago, a large planet existed where the asteroid belt now floats. On this planet were the Gentle Giants of Ganymede, who were somewhat interested in Earth. Unfortunately, they disliked dinosaurs because they were vegetarians and the dinosaur's diets upset them. So they wiped out the dinosaurs with advanced energy weapons, which interestingly created our great deserts.

      OUR forebears were carried to this planet by the Giants because they felt we would make good pets with a little genetic engineering. At some point, all the Giants left for another star system, leaving behind a culture of humans who developed their own advanced technology and had a tremendous war. Unfortunately for them, they blew the planet to bits, throwing its moon towards the sun (along with a stranded colony of astronauts).

      The moon was captured by the Earth, and the stranded astronauts descended in their remaining spacecraft. One of these astronauts, Koriel, lost his watch. This watch was later discovered by an archeologist who thought it was a prank and threw it away.

      Simultaneously, Koriel's old friend, who had died on the moon in his military space suit, is discovered by scientists, which leads to a whole big drama including a remnant of the ancient culture which starts some NEW trouble with the Ganymeans, leading ultimately to their being thrown back in time (and starting the war with our far-off ancestors on that big planet).

      Whee! Now, isn't that a LOT more fun than "we evolved from ambitious monkeys in Africa, beat up the Neandertals, and spread all over the earth like a fungus"???

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
    18. Re: Interesting by Tekdemon · · Score: 1

      OMG did you go to my high school?! I think I might have sat behind you in Invisible Pink Unicorn Theory!!!

    19. Re: Interesting by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > A parallel to the 2+2=5 theory was actually witnessed at the local Wendy's. I had the sheer NERVE to give the lady $5.44 for a $3.44 item, and got $3 back

      If you think that's bad, try giving them $5.69 to get rid of some pennies and get a quarter back in the change. I used to do that habitually, but had to give it up due to the chaos I was creating.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    20. Re:Interesting by terjeber · · Score: 1

      *shrug* there doesn't have to be any evidence. but, that does mean it shouldn't be taught alongside evolution as an "alternate theory"

      In order for something to be taught in science it has to be a scientific theory. As most /. readers knows, most of what scientists deal with are theories. Some of them are only approximations, like some of what Newton did - later Einstein found some better approximations which probably aren't 100% accurate either.

      ID isn't a scientific theory, and therefore should not be taught next to evolution as an alternative theory. ID is superstitious goobledigook dressed in scientific language to make it palatable to more people. That doesn't make it a scientific theory though.

      Lots have been writen about this, check out, for example, http://www.csicop.org/ or http://www.skeptic.com/

    21. Re:Interesting by terjeber · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because this is a democracy, where majority rules.

      Pardon my french, but that is pure bullshit. Majority doesn't have anything to do with what is science or not. A huge portion of the population also believes in Astrology, should that be included in science class? Of course not.

      ID and Creationism are religious ideas. They have nothing to do with science. If they are to be taught in schools they should be taught where they belong, along side of Buddhism, Islam, Astrology and all the other superstition. Science class is for scientific theory, and ID, all though a theory, doesn't qualify as a scientific theory. If you do not know what a scientific theory is, and why ID and Creationism doesn't qualify, I suggest you read up on the subject. It isn't all that hard.

    22. Re:Interesting by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

      Only one of those theories has anything to do with science, and thus would be the only one that should be taught in a SCIENCE class. The other two belong in a theology class.

      It doesn't matter if 99% of the people believed in id/creationism/scientology/FSMism, they're not science and have no place in a class room. In order for it to be scientific it must be able to be proven wrong, since all religions can simply say that '(the) god(s)' made it like that to trick us, you can't test for it, ergo religion (ANY religion) is not something that should be taught in a classroom.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    23. Re:Interesting by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Ramen to that brother.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    24. Re:Interesting by Conanymous+Award · · Score: 1

      But alas, science isn't part of democracy or a democractic process in itself. If people decided about what is a fact and what is not, we'd probably still live in caves having fun throwing our feces at each other.

      If we'd "let the people decide" and began to teach creationism, ID and evolution in science classes, then we'd also have to include astrology along with astronomy, magic along modern physics (or Intelligent Pushing, perhaps?) and phrenology along psychology classes. How does that sound? Sorry, facts are facts, not some opinions that can be sacrified because of a certain demographic percentage that dislikes them.

    25. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not include Scientology along with Judeo-Christian creation?

      Because, anybody could tell you, nobody would be able to teach it right. Tom Cruise is the only person who actually knows Scientology, so he would have to teach every single class. Duh.

    26. Re:Interesting by richlv · · Score: 1

      but it's proven ! really, it is !
      see, here they have a lot of proofs -
      http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

      --
      Rich
    27. Re: Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would put it to anyone to find more than 5 people in the entire world that *seriously* believe any of those theories, and not merely claim to as a response to somehow satirize or ridicule another person or group of people's sincere beliefs. People can _say_ they believe in the flying spaghetti monster theory, but do they _REALLY_ believe it? Or are they just saying that they do in order to somehow show how silly it must be to believe in something that science is unable to prove? I expect the latter.

    28. Re: Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Always thought the "Intelligent Falling" Theory was poorly named. Better to have named it "Falling Intelligence" Theory

    29. Re:Interesting by torpor · · Score: 0, Troll

      I am interested in this Science religion of yours, and would like to learn more. Please sign me up for your newsletter.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    30. Re: Interesting by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > I would put it to anyone to find more than 5 people in the entire world that *seriously* believe any of those theories, and not merely claim to as a response to somehow satirize or ridicule another person or group of people's sincere beliefs. People can _say_ they believe in the flying spaghetti monster theory, but do they _REALLY_ believe it? Or are they just saying that they do in order to somehow show how silly it must be to believe in something that science is unable to prove? I expect the latter.

      Of course. The whole point is that unevidenced beliefs are all in the same basket, and it's as foolish to teach one in school as it is to teach another.

      The fact that some people "really" believe one myth or another is irrelevant. We could make a long list of stupid stuff that people "really" believe. Should any of these be taught in schools?

      • Raelian Theory
      • Heaven's Gate Theory
      • Thetan Theory
      • All European Languages Are Derived From Greek Thory
      • UFOs Are Alien Visitors Theory
      • 9/11 Was Another Rove Scam Theory
      • My Religious Sect Is Right And Yours Is Wrong Theory
      • I Could Win The Randi Challenge If I Wanted To But I Don't Want To Theory
      No. When it comes to primary education, we need to stick with the tried-and-true Bullshit Walks Theory.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    31. Re:Interesting by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      No no, he explains it all. Besides, as a master of Matter Energy Space-Time, he could teach all those classes.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    32. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I demand that my theory be represnted with equal right then and taught across the land also as an "alternate theory"

      God is a potato. He created himself. He also created a universe for the singular purpose of sustaining potato life on a singular planet. He created 5.5 billion years of backdrop and lore for this universe , including many superior predators to himself on this planet. Just to fuck with the ones that have developed written record and science, he created rules that all things must abide by when he could of just as easily said 'because', like assigning all molecules different bonding patterns, or making all life based on endlessly long strips of molecules telling 'cells' how to create this life on their own, when he could of just made a plant and given it infinite health, lifespan, and ammo, incase it ever needed ammo for some reason. This potato impregnated a virgin woman one day, who in kind gave birth to a cupcake. The cupcake was deemed a messiah, and praised as the son of god, when really it was just cupcake born from a virgin human, who was not impregnated by a potato. The cupcake died after being nailed to a cross and then stabbed with a spear, but then it came back to life, which is easy when you are not alive to begin with. The humans are then left to postulate for all eternity on the possible explanations for such a strange universe, to draw their own conclusions based on the recordings by people who don't believe it themselves, and wrote it down centuries later late one night after a kegger. Monks ran out of paper in the 10th century and used it to play madlibs, which continued to be recognized as the word of God (the potato) anyways. God chooses to not guide his children on a day to day basis so much as sit in the ground and grow sprouts from his potato-e body. Tragically one day during the Irish potato famine, God is devoured by a hungry irish man. After having fermented in the ground since before time, the irish man is now immune to the effects of alcohol and rocket fuel and anything else he might drink.

      I swear to you, this is the word of God, call it the Newer testament if you must. Amen, Praise be to Cupcakes.

    33. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you want to bring humor into the classrooms... Good Idea!

    34. Re:Interesting by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Since when has a popularity contest been the method for sorting fact from fiction? If 90% of people thought the earth was flat, would it be?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    35. Re:Interesting by koi88 · · Score: 1


      Because this is a democracy, where majority rules.

      Education is not a democracy. Parents have never been allowed to decide what their children are taught. And with reason.

      --

      I don't need a signature.
    36. Re:Interesting by Knuckles · · Score: 1
      Well, leaving God aside, Rupert Riedl has worked quite a bit about something similar to "preferred mutations". Not in the sense of an intelligent designer preferring them, but in the sense that a complex system seems to encourage certain developments.
      Riedl developed his "systems theory" of evolution, which emphasizes the role of functional and developmental integration in limiting and enabling adaptive evolution by natural selection. The main objective of this theory is to account for the observed patterns of morphological evolution, such as the conservation of body plans. In contrast to other "alternative" theories of evolution, Riedl never denied the importance of natural selection as the driving force of evolution, but thought it necessary to contextualize natural selection with the organismal boundary conditions of adaptation. In Riedl's view development is the most important factor besides natural selection in shaping the pattern and processes of morphological evolution
      Unfortunately, most of his books seems only available in German, but there are some in English on Amazon:
      http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471 103098/qid=1125665129/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-692132 3-3396115?v=glance&s=books
      http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0897 200594/qid=1125665129/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-692132 3-3396115?v=glance&s=books
      http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471 996351/qid=1125665129/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/102-692132 3-3396115?v=glance&s=books

      However I have only read "Die Strategie der Genesis" (The Strategy of Genesis), so can't comment on those. But "Strategie" was very interesting.
      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    37. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most domesticated animals are the result of "preferred mutations". The same is true of many plants, especially those grown for food, but also flowers. Sorry, don't have a link.

      To the Slashdot editors and coders:

      Slow Down Cowboy!

      Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

      It's been 19 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment

      Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form.


      No, I'm not behind a fucking firewall or proxy, and I didn't click my fucking "Back" button. What happened was that you fucking idiots don't fucking tell me in advance (when I fucking click the fucking "Reply to This" link) how fucking long I have to fucking wait to fucking post. Instead, you wait until I have composed my reply and try to submit it, and only then do you tell me that I should have waited longer. This is totally fucked up. If I didn't have ad blocking turned on, I would email your advertisers and complain about how you treat people who post anonymously when they post useless crap because they are afraid to compromise their kharma.

      Oh, and when the fuck are you going to fix the punctuation in your obnoxious message ("It's been X minutes since you last successfully posted a comment" should end with a period/full stop, you stupid motherfucking hamster fondlers)?

      Please note that the above is meant to be friendly helpful criticism, and interpret it in that spirit. Thank you.

    38. Re:Interesting by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Science is not a religion, it is in fact the total opposite. Science deals in things that can be tested and falsified. That is the definition of science. Intelligent design can not be tested and it can not be falsified, that is why it is not science.

      For some reason people think that there is "belief" involved when it comes to science, and that is just a sign of how amazingly ignorant these people are. Science doesn't deal in beliefs, that is the domain of religion. Science is the exact opposite of religion.

    39. Re:Interesting by pizzaman100 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Americans accept the idea of the free expression of ideas at public schools.

      From the poll: Even many who are politically liberal and who believe in evolution favor expanding the scope of public school education to include teaching creationism....John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said he was surprised to see that teaching both evolution and creationism was favored not only by conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of natural selection. Mr. Green called it a reflection of American pragmatism..

      So...Teach it all, and let the kids figure it out. Public School is not just a 13 year long science class.

      Teach evolution as an explanation of natural selection in science class where it's appropriate. And teach creationism, ID, and other theories (including evolution) in other classes where it's appropriate. A well rounded education includes exposure to history, religion, literature and philosophy.

    40. Re:Interesting by TractorBarry · · Score: 1

      By Ragnars beard !

      Never mind all the panty waist mediocretin religious techings. What are they going to say when little Johhny comes home smoking a pipe full of frop and spouting unorthodox Subgenius liturgy.

      "Too much is better than not enough"... "Fuck them if they can't take a joke"...

      By Wotans beard their tiny pink minds will fry, fry I say before being served up in a luke warm gravy made from their own blandness.

      Aiiieeee !!!! Praise "Bob" !!!

      --
      Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
    41. Re:Interesting by geomon · · Score: 1

      80% of Americans believe in UFOs.

      The idea that science should be subject to an American plebisite is horseshit. Science belongs to no one nation.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    42. Re: Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Actually, the fact that some people really believe in a higher power is very relevant. At least with regards to the theories mentioned in the grandparent post.

      My point was that theories like the flying spaghetti monster theory cannot vie for equal attention as creationism as the final premise for the former is ultimately only to satirize the latter. In this light, the theories you have just mentioned _are_ in the same league as creationism.

      However, of course the subjects you've just mentioned should not be taught in schools. And neither should creationism. But not because creationism thought to be false or because it is "just superstition", but because the scientific method cannot ascertain any positive data on the subject.

      ID, on the other hand, may be a viable theory to teach in schools with respect to figuring out where *WE* came from... (we do not need to concern ourselves with where the designer came from, or even what the designer's nature must necessarily be, since that is as outside the scope of ID theory as why the planets move the way they do is outside the scope of evolution).

    43. Re:Interesting by rwise2112 · · Score: 1

      The first of that series, is one of may favorite sci-fi books of all time. It was really awesome and explained a lot of solar system observations, like the asteroid belt, the off centre center of mass for the moon, etc.

      I'd recommend it to anyone who like hard SF.

      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
    44. Re: Interesting by Coryoth · · Score: 1

      I would put it to anyone to find more than 5 people in the entire world that *seriously* believe any of those theories, and not merely claim to as a response to somehow satirize or ridicule another person or group of people's sincere beliefs.

      Don't be so hasty, you can make a very rational and scientific sounding case for "Intelligent Falling" such as Uncaused Force. It sounds every bit serious and believable as any Intelligent Design piece, and I'm sure you could find plenty of people in the US who, presented with the article, would more than happily sign on for Uncaused Force and the belief that gravity is a lie.

      Equally you could look at something like Time Cube which looks like a load of crap, but then there are people like this guy who seriously believe it, and try to make arguments as to why -1 * -1 = 1 is stupid and evil.

      Jedidiah.

    45. Re:Interesting by phxbadash · · Score: 1

      If it keeps him from making any more horrendous movies I'm all for it.

    46. Re:Interesting by FatAssBastard · · Score: 1

      I was actually referring to the original poster who said:

      Intelligent Design...actually proposes...that evolution didn't stem only from random mutations, but from some that seem to have been encouraged.

      I was interested if that poster could provide some evidence of his assertion, but he seems to have disappeared.

      And regarding your next point (and at the risk of sounding like an elitist, I really don't mean to be), I have another account with a 4-digit UID, so I've been here almost since the beginning, and I can tell you one thing for sure about CmdrTaco et al: they don't care. They have shown repeatedly over the years that they are going to run this site exactly as they see fit and really couldn't care less about criticism from the users.

      Fair enough, it's their site and they can do what they want. But they really come across as megalomaniacs.

      --
      /.: why the hell am I here?
    47. Re: Interesting by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > ID, on the other hand, may be a viable theory to teach in schools with respect to figuring out where *WE* came from

      ID has nothing more to recommend it than the others do. It is nothing more than a tissue of logical fallicies applied to misrepresentations of biology. Its only value is as religious propaganda.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    48. Re: Interesting by Skjellifetti · · Score: 1

      All European Languages Are Derived From Greek Theory

      Why not? Most US public schools already teach that all European Languages Are Greek.

    49. Re:Interesting by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      I think you meant to say "pardon my stupidity", as you're clearly writing english.

    50. Re:Interesting by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      yes.

    51. Re:Interesting by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      Huh? Gravity is a bad theory, because it's false. However, it still gives predictable results within a certain range of testing parameters which is why it is still taught.

    52. Re:Interesting by sveinungkv · · Score: 1

      Or better, trow out (macro)evolution, and leave the question open. Macroevolution is, like creation, based on faith.

      --
      Spelling/grammar nazis welcome (English is not my first language and I am trying to improve my spelling/grammar)
    53. Re:Interesting by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Stupidity? What are you talking about? It seems utterly clear that he does not understand the difference between superstition and science. His comment about the majority deciding what is science or not is pure rubbish. Science is a relatively well-defined dicipline, and no matter what people believe, ID is not science. Postulating a theory doesn't mean you are dabbling in science. The theory must, for one, be falsifiable, which ID is not.

      I fully respect peoples belief, I have beliefs of my own. I would never try to suggest that my private beliefs should be taught in schools as science though. Neither should the followers of the belief that the universe is a result of Intelligent Design.

    54. Re:Interesting by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Americans accept the idea of the free expression of ideas at public schools.

      So do I. I therefore think that we should teach ID in schools, as we should teach Islam, Christianity, Scientology and Astrology. They all belong somewhere in social sciences and religion type of subjects. ID isn't, and has never been science. The problem with the advocacy of ID is not that they want it taught in schools, the problem is that they want it taught in science class. What else should we teach in science class do you think? Santa Claus? Astrology? Scientology?

      And teach creationism, ID, and other theories (including evolution) in other classes where it's appropriate.

      This is where you go wrong. You are lumping a scientific theory (evolution) in with all other theories. That is the idiocy. ID and Creationism are not scientific theories. They are theories, but they are not scientific.

      A scientific theory must be testable and falsifiable, that is the litmus test. Evolution matches both those criteria. ID matches neither. That is why Evolution, as a theory belongs in science class and ID does not.

    55. Re: Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ID has one thing to offer that makes it recommendable that evolution does not: the fact that we are as complex as we are is exceedingly difficult to justify from the theory of evolution alone when faced with the inexorable increase of entropy. I am not saying that what evolution describes is impossible, only that it is unlikely. The mere fact that we are here and as complex as we are is not actual evidence that we evolved from simpler organisms, since in order to come to that conclusion, you have to asssume that is the simplest possible explanation in the first place. Another plausable explanation is that somebody, or perhaps many somebodies, somewhere in the universe, perhaps long dead by now, had designed us to be the way that we are, or perhaps to evolve the way that we did, possibly even ultimately surpassing them in complexity (in much the same way that computers today are rapidly approaching the complexity of our own brains, and will almost certainly exceed it at some point). The only real "proof" that we currently have to support this notion is that we are astoundingly complex creatures and it is similarily astoundingly unlikely that we evolved the way we did entirely by chance. One can not assume that absence of evidence of the existence of these designers is evidence of their absence (although it does provide a very sound supporting argument against ID, the argument does not constitute actual proof). Again, one cannot rationally conclude that evolution is the only possible way, or even the simplest explanation for how we got to be the way we are unless one presupposes that, in fact, such an assertion is true in the first place, before even subjecting it to objective scientific inquiry.

      A significant majority of the people that are aware of ID perceive it as a back door to creationism, and while one cannot refute that it could be used in that manner, if ID is true, that doesn't necessarily mean that creationism is true. I categorically do *NOT* advocate the teaching of creationism in schools, as that makes suppositions about the nature of the designer in ID theory, which cannot be addressed in any objective scientific manner.

    56. Re: Interesting by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > ID has one thing to offer that makes it recommendable that evolution does not: the fact that we are as complex as we are is exceedingly difficult to justify from the theory of evolution alone when faced with the inexorable increase of entropy.

      Before you go further, what definition of 'entropy' are you using, and what does its increase have to do with evolution?

      Notice that if you're going to make claims based on an increase in entropy, your definition has to be quantitative.

      Also, unless your definition is something that can be measured, you're not going to be able to show whether it actually does increase in the real world.

      > I am not saying that what evolution describes is impossible, only that it is unlikely.

      How unlikely is it? Is it more unlikely than ID, or less likely? Can you support your answer?

      > Another plausable explanation is that somebody, or perhaps many somebodies, somewhere in the universe, perhaps long dead by now, had designed us to be the way that we are, or perhaps to evolve the way that we did, possibly even ultimately surpassing them in complexity (in much the same way that computers today are rapidly approaching the complexity of our own brains, and will almost certainly exceed it at some point).

      Plausible? Perhaps. Supported by evidence? No.

      > The only real "proof" that we currently have to support this notion is that we are astoundingly complex creatures and it is similarily astoundingly unlikely that we evolved the way we did entirely by chance.

      FYI, the theory of evolution doesn't specify "entirely by chance". Mutations are a matter of chance, but natural selection is a derandomizing filter: it biases the results strongly in favor of adaptedness.

      Moreover, an argument that one mechanism is unlikely is not an argument in favor of a competing mechanism. And in this case, we don't have the faintest idea what the unlikeliness of that competing mechanism is.

      > One can not assume that absence of evidence of the existence of these designers is evidence of their absence

      The same applies to the FSM, IPU, and Santa Claus.

      > although it does provide a very sound supporting argument against ID, the argument does not constitute actual proof

      I don't know of many people trying to prove that IDers don't exist. What people are pointing out is that there is no reason to believe that they do exist.

      > Again, one cannot rationally conclude that evolution is the only possible way, or even the simplest explanation for how we got to be the way we are unless one presupposes that, in fact, such an assertion is true in the first place, before even subjecting it to objective scientific inquiry.

      You miss the point. No one is trying to prove that evolution is the only possible mechanism or the simplest explanation. What biologists and other educated people claim is that evolution is the only explanation anyone has ever offered that stands up to scrutiny.

      > A significant majority of the people that are aware of ID perceive it as a back door to creationism, and while one cannot refute that it could be used in that manner, if ID is true, that doesn't necessarily mean that creationism is true. I categorically do *NOT* advocate the teaching of creationism in schools, as that makes suppositions about the nature of the designer in ID theory, which cannot be addressed in any objective scientific manner.

      That, IMO, is a sensible position. I wish you would go further and learn a bit more about the other topics you brough up in your post.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    57. Re:Interesting by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Parents have never been allowed to decide what their children are taught. And with reason

      That door swings both ways, unfortunately...

  45. Why did they disappear?? by CyberSnyder · · Score: 1

    Come on, if you could hump a neanderthal or a human, which would you choose?

    (Actually knowing Slashdot, maybe I shouldn't ask that question.)

    1. Re:Why did they disappear?? by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      Yeah but the choice is not always between a neanderthal or human, but between a neanderthal and sheep. And rumor is, sheep do get humped - but I don't know anything specific about that kind of stuff.

  46. Peer Review? by eagle52997 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This guy's publications list pretty much ends in 1997. http://www.arch.cam.ac.uk/~pam/publications.html Where is this work published? If it can't stand up to peer review, why is ABC reporting on it?

    I'd like to see his methods, and find out how exactly they dated samples, and if they did a check on sample prep in order to verify their results. Until that can be shown, why should we believe the report?

    1. Re:Peer Review? by Oxen · · Score: 2, Informative

      It was published in Nature, last year. Nature. 2004 Nov 25;432(7016):461-5.
      -Mark

      --
      First you animate. Then you SUSPEND!!!
    2. Re:Peer Review? by Vadim+Makarov · · Score: 1
      It seems to be in the last issue of Nature. I can't find it on Nature's site yet, but here is the abstract.

      Publications lists on academic sites are sometimes obsolete. Nobody has bothered tu update this one.

      P.S. The other guy's link is to a wrong article.

      --
      17779 eligible voters in a district, 17779 'vote' as one. This is Russia.
  47. Yet another case of racism ya'll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You bitches know it's true.

  48. Soooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the future will the articles say "XYZ News is reporting on new evidence that has emerged suggesting Windows users co-existed with Linux users for at least 1,000 years in central France, before gradually disappearing about 28,000 to 30,000 years ago."? :P

  49. Intermarrige? by Tavor · · Score: 1

    My personal explination for this, is that Neanderthal intermarried with Modern Man, (thus becoming more like him,) and giving rise to the Neo-Con movement within the Republican party.
    /me cackles madly. Doesn't Bush look like a monkey?

    --
    Windows has detected an undetectable error.
  50. I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How exactly is this related to Linux and the open-source movement?

    1. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      think of it like this. microsoft are modern humans,and linux are the neanderthals. linux will share the earth with microsoft for 1000 years and then it will die with linus travald and the jedi movement.

  51. Who said Neanderthals were extinct? by MrClever · · Score: 1

    We've been sharing this planet with Neanderthals for eons! These days we call them "users" though.

  52. B-Ark by tverbeek · · Score: 1

    They got on the "B" Ark.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    1. Re:B-Ark by ross.w · · Score: 1

      Nah,

      They were already here and got wiped out by the telephone sanitisers and hairdressers

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
  53. They never left. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Disappeared!?!? No, they are quite common. You can find them in sanctuaries all over the world. I believe these places are called "Wal-mart." I suspect that pre-Bronze Age hunter-gatherers may be found there as well.

  54. Chatelperronian vs. Aurignacian by John+Hawks · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are two central issues. One is that the "Aurignacian" industry, which is proposed to have been made by modern humans, may not actually have been a single industry across Europe. In the current study, the "interleaving" of the two kinds of tools is documented by around 10 artifacts, out of 750 total.

    The other issue is that no fossil remains of modern humans have yet been found associated with early "Aurignacian" tools. We simply don't know who made them. Since they are not technically very different from the Neandertal-associated Chatelperronian, it is hard to say that there is a real cognitive difference represented by those tools, whoever made them.

    I have some pictures of the tools on my weblog post (John Hawks Anthropology Weblog), and conclude this:

    But when two pictures look like the ones above, and they are supposed to be typologically identifiable products of "modern humans" on the one hand, and "Neandertals" on the other -- well, it seems to me there needs to be a bit more than an edge of retouch behind that conclusion.

    --John

    1. Re:Chatelperronian vs. Aurignacian by trocki · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Material culture (lithic industry in this case) commonly associated with the "later Ancients" (e.g. Neanderthals) is called "Mousterian" and was widespread in Middle East and Europe between 250-200 Ka and 30 Ka. It is based on flake technology and consists of mainly scrapers, denticulates and points, which are often made in "levalois" technique. It doesn't include any bone tools (bone points are typical Aurignacian tool). There is a striking (cognitive) difference between Chatelperonronian and Aurignacian on one side (which use blade technology) and Mousterian on the other. Since Chatelperronan material culture was found together with Neanderthal burials (cave Sant-Cesaire) it is now widely thought that Chatelperronian industry is handiwork of Ancients. However, this transittion in technology is not evident in other aspects of material culture. Chatelperronian sites have same nest-like organisation of space as Mousterian and are in striking contrast to the Aurignacien campsites (with huts, structures etc.). It is possible that the reason behind Mousterian-Chatelperronian technological (and cognitive?) transition is imitation rather than invention.

  55. Central France is the clue... by ACK!! · · Score: 1

    They killed themselves because they were tired of dealing with the French.... :)

    ok that was cheap and I am not even a Franco-hater. It was just too easy.

    --
    ACK /ak/ interj. 2. [from the comic strip "Bloom County"] An exclamation of surprised disgust, esp. i
  56. Where's McDonalds when you need it? by kb1cvh · · Score: 1

    Why ?

    Natural Selection
    from:
    http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/press/dpp/20041124 03

    "Equipped with these new abilities, the Homo sapiens people who entered Europe in the middle of the last ice age would have been able to compete much more effectively with the local Neanderthals for food, hunting territories and the scarce fuel supplies that were essential to survival in the harsh, treeless landscapes of Europe."

    --
    Peter AI6PG
  57. Not dead by GreatStrife · · Score: 0, Troll

    They never died out, they're down in New Orleans right now...

  58. Actually... by ImagistTD · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is actually good reason to believe that homo neandertalis is still very alive in some parts of the world. Isolated regions of the planet often have some groups of people who are unable to interbreed with other groups that have been active members in the gene pool. Although homo neandertalis would probably have evolved just as much as our own homo sapiens since the time of the neanderthal skeleton, they could easily still be living. It is also possible that homo erectus could be alive, but this is less likely because of their smaller brains. Homo neandertal is able to compete with, though not dominate, homo sapiens because we have similar cranial mass, but homo erectus just didn't have enough brains to cut it.

    1. Re:Actually... by sillybilly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't you know it's not the brainmass that counts, but the interconnectedness of neurons? A kitty-cat has a pretty small brain compared to a cow, but you can't say it's proportionally more stupid. It's similar with people, CPU's, etc.. the visible macroscopic size is not what counts, but the microscopic stuff inside that makes it tick. As far as genetic fitness goes, it's amazing just how much doesn't depend on genetics, but it's learned, educated. See feral children.

    2. Re:Actually... by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      There is actually good reason to believe that homo neandertalis is still very alive in some parts of the world.

      Okay, where? I think Neanderthals lived in and near Europe; not Africa or Asia, so it'd have to be there. And, please, no Ireland/Poland etc type ethnic jokes.

  59. Considering what we know... by NeuroManson · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The neanderthals had funerals, in many cases, they've found a few with life long crippling conditions. Probably many more with severe illness were revered as well. Essentially they kept what one in modern society would consider as a potential threat (mental, psychological disorders, birth defects, etc).

    Hypothetically, let us say that xenophobia came into its own with homo sapiens. They spurned the old, the weak, the infirm, anything with a condition that could not be explained easily. Anyone with an unexplained illness, flaw, etc, would be left to die or killed outright.

    Based on overall history, perhaps this is a learned trait, but every human today, no matter how "enlightened" still shudders at least mentally when faced with the horrors of disease, injury, differences, et al. Some of us are just better at blocking it than others, while others lapse into either disgust, hatred, or post traumatice stress disorder.

    These elements are counterproductive to modern humans' perceived psychology, so the logical cause for the neanderthals' eventual demise may very well be ourselves, since as history shows, that very behavior has led to genocide many MANY times.

    Look at ethnic cleansing today, some of these people and cultures that were being wiped out took less than a couple of thousand years til some group, culture, or society decided to try killing them off.

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    1. Re:Considering what we know... by jefferson_uk · · Score: 1
      The neanderthals had funerals
      Are you sure? I seem to recall one of the main differenes between us and the neandertals was imagination. The whole idea behind funerals relates to religion/faith/spiritual belief/etc whereas they didn't have any concept of such things.

      Thinking about it, the world might have been a better place if we hadnt invented a God to fight for.
      --
      echo $sig;
    2. Re:Considering what we know... by Detritus · · Score: 1

      If you lived in a nomadic society, not being able to keep up with the group would usually be fatal.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    3. Re:Considering what we know... by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

      Imagination is not a factor. All animals, as far as I know, have imagination. Cats chase laser pointers, dogs chase a stick, fish chase random shiny things, because that's what they imagine as prey.

      They have found neanderthal burial sites, complete with flowers, et al, dating back quite a bit before their extinction.

      Now if you really want to compare imaginations as a factor, then yes, you may be correct, since what I described for homo sapiens developing xenophobia, there is a definite factor for imagination in xenophobia, eg; "Gronk get broken leg, therefore Gronk not liked by great god, therefore, kill Gronk so we have better hunting season!".

      Not much different than the Jewish scourge propaganda films put out by Nazi Germany, when you think about it.

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    4. Re:Considering what we know... by F_Scentura · · Score: 1

      He refers to imagination in the creative context, not in the capacity you're referring to.

  60. Damn! by ShadyG · · Score: 4, Funny

    Based on that picture, I'd have to say that the Neanderthals died out because the Cro-Magnon women were way better looking.

  61. Could Neanderthal and Human breed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Was it possible?

  62. Why did they die off? by VAXGeek · · Score: 1

    We had better tools?

    --
    this sig limit is too small to put anything good h
  63. Farscape: The Eidelons took them! by epgandalf · · Score: 2, Funny

    I just watched Farscape: The Peacekeeper Wars movie last night and I learned that the Eidelons took humans from earth 27,000 years ago and they eventually became the Peacekeepers. That's when they stopped sharing earth.

  64. Thought they moved to... by bobalu · · Score: 1

    _____ (fill in the blank for your favorite scapegoat shorthand geographical generalization).

    Was this a test?

    --
    The revolution will NOT be televised.
  65. Why did Neanderthals disappear? by ktakki · · Score: 1


    Obviously, it was because they were crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    k.

    --
    "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
  66. The "Extinct" American Tribe of Xualaes by Black-Man · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One of many made extinct by the Cherokee's. The Shawnee's another tribe infamous for its mass killings/extinctions of rival tribes.

    The way of the world.

    1. Re:The "Extinct" American Tribe of Xualaes by F_Scentura · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The "all native americans lived in harmony with the land and used every part of the animal" myth also needs to die.

      I'm not holding my breath, though.

  67. I Know Where They Went by Bizzeh · · Score: 0

    in 5 years, i create a time machine, go back in time to try and prove what actualy happened, and accidentaly gave them all a cold, and they all died... on a side note, it was my friend who got into the machine a year later, who killed the dinosaws

  68. Remember the Matrix? by way2trivial · · Score: 1

    humans, like viruses, overrun their enviroment --period.. we don't need a second team, we'll do it to ourselves!

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  69. MOD UP! by Ingolfke · · Score: 1

    Hum... I do believe we've found a thinking man in the midst of the mob.

    Great post.

  70. So how do you explain the hybrid child ? by vlad_petric · · Score: 1, Interesting
    Yes, a skeleton of a human-neanderthal hybrid child was found in Portugal.

    So how do you explain it ? Zoophilia :) ?

    With such hotly-debated scientific questions, I believe it is prudent not to jump to quick-and-easy conclusions.

    --

    The Raven

    1. Re:So how do you explain the hybrid child ? by rockola · · Score: 1
      Yes, a skeleton of a human-neanderthal hybrid child was found in Portugal. So how do you explain it ? Zoophilia :) ?
      I'm willing to bet it wasn't illegal back then.
      --
      Those who don't know Lisp are doomed to reimplement it.
    2. Re:So how do you explain the hybrid child ? by blamanj · · Score: 2, Informative

      Whether the child was a hybrid is subject to debate. Given that the judgement is not settled and there's only one such skeleton, it would seem a bit rash to claim it to be a cold hard fact.

    3. Re:So how do you explain the hybrid child ? by i41Overlord · · Score: 1

      Later DNA tests revealed that the child wasn't a hybrid at all, but 100% human. It shared no DNA with that of neanderthals.

    4. Re:So how do you explain the hybrid child ? by daeley · · Score: 1

      I'm willing to bet it wasn't illegal back then.

      No, but I bet it was frowned upon.

      And when a Neanderthal frowns, brother, you *know* he's frowning!

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
  71. Here's a mechanism: natural selection. by John+Hawks · · Score: 1

    It's a common misconception that Neandertal mtDNA has proved that they went extinct. That is one interpretation of the data. Here's another:

    The real elephant under the rug of these papers (or as I've said elsewhere, the 800-pound gorilla) is natural selection. Both of the papers rely on the assumption that mtDNA is neutral. This is, in a sense, necessary to the papers' existence, since without this assumption mtDNA may be considered to be completely uninformative about the Neandertal problem. But there are good reasons to think that mtDNA has been under positive selection recently in human prehistory. Most notable among these reasons is the fact that human mtDNA violates every test of neutrality. Also suggestive is the limited mtDNA variation among the known Neandertal sequences--a suggestion that the positive selection that has affected human mtDNA recently may be just the most recent of several episodes throughout human evolution. Until papers like these take the issue of selection seriously, there is little chance of finding consensus on the Neandertal genetic problem.

    If they were under selection, Neandertal mtDNA would be gone, but some other genes might well remain. It's another hypothesis, but it may be demonstrated sooner than you think, since people are trying to reconstruct the Neandertal genome!

    --John
    1. Re:Here's a mechanism: natural selection. by jswalter9 · · Score: 1

      And then there's the fact that only the mother passes mtDNA to offspring. That leaves male neanderthal and female modern unions producing humans with modern mtDNA.

      And if, at some point, there was a plague that affected only those with neanderthal mtDNA, it could leave some neanderthal DNA in the human gene pool.

      Of course, those offspring might not have been attractive enough to be selected for mating...

      --
      Retired from software... maybe. Sort of.
  72. Sorry.. I just had to! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope no one's said this yet, but I think there are still Neanderthals among us! lol

    Sorry.. I just had to! :-P

  73. Birth canal problems by Baldrson · · Score: 4, Interesting
    One theory is that when neanderthals mated with modern humans the offspring would survive if the father was a modern human and mother was a neanderthal because the neanderthal woman's birth canal was wider. However, if a neanderthal man mated with a modern human the mother and child could die in labor due to the fact that the birth canal was too narrow for the hybrid child. There has been speculation on differing gestation periods as well.

    The reason this results in extinction of one of the races is due to the fact that when there is consistent gender bias in inter-racial mating, if there is any degree of polygyny or serial monogamy (de facto polygyny) then the gene flow tends to be from the race whose males are successfully mating to the population whose males are not as successfully mating. If there is any substantial inter-racial mating under such circumstances it could easily be that a millenium or so is all it would take to destroy the existence of the race whose males are experiencing lower fertility.

    The question is what was the trigger that resulted in the presence of modern humans midst neanderthals?

    1. Re:Birth canal problems by Oxen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I love how every time something is posted on Slashdot as to what makes humans unique, everyone states some random idea as if it has more credibility than the others. The fact is that there is likely no simple reason why humans outcompeted Neanderthals, but was problem several factors working synergistically.
      Furthermore, mitochondrial DNA contradicts your argument. Mitochondrial DNA is passed down only from mother to child. The evidence stongly points to the fact that modern humans do not have Neanderthal mtDNA. For your scenario to work, all humans would have Neanderthal DNA.

      --
      First you animate. Then you SUSPEND!!!
    2. Re:Birth canal problems by teknickle · · Score: 2, Funny

      Interesting take on that.
      When I was in school, the girls with the 'large birth canals' were the more popular girls. Even though they weren't as smart as the homosapiens, we didn't call them 'neanderthals', we called them 'Cheerleaders'.

    3. Re:Birth canal problems by Gilgaron · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, if there was interbreeding a subset of Europeans would have Neandertal DNA. There's no reason to think it would have spread to all of the old world, let alone the new world, until modern travel.

    4. Re:Birth canal problems by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      The question is what was the trigger that resulted in the presence of modern humans midst neanderthals?

      The "trigger" was beer. I have an earlier post that explains everything.

      I think both races merged their genes -- but it is harder to notice this, since we are so into grooming and shaving and drinking.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  74. We probably killed them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looking at how we have delt with problems in the past i bet we just killed them off. Little "wars" and what not.

  75. The more intersting question... by kyrcant · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Is why have they re-emerged in the midwest and south-central states?

  76. obvious answer by acvh · · Score: 1

    But why did they disappear?

    They knew what was coming.

  77. They should proofread... by jesup · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Smaller and squatter than Homo sapiens but with larger brains, Neanderthals lived in Europe, parts of central Asia and the Middle East for about 170,000 years.
    Ummm, they were larger than modern humans... though they did have larger brains (avg 1500-1600cc), though well within the range of modern humans (1000-2000cc, avg 1300cc).

    It is interesting to see proof of overlap in a single area, though this isn't surprising. Also, currently mitocondrial data indicates that there isn't a major influx of DNA from them, though some interbreeding could have occurred and survived to today, especially if it conferred a survival advantage in northern climes, for example.

  78. Why did they disappear? by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 1

    Procreation is critical to survival of the species. Now, take a look at the picture of a young female neanderthal attached to TFA ...

  79. Re:They didn't get FP!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You Neanderthal.

  80. This is only marginally new by Arker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Lewis Binford, many years back, investigated another site (in Israel) where h. sapiens and h. neanderthalis existed in close proximity for MUCH longer, around 90,000 years IIRC. The same results otherwise, despite an incredibly long time period very close to each other, no genetic drift towards each other to be seen. Pretty much has to mean that they were not sexually compatible with each other.

    Everyone assumes that OUR ancestors had the 'superior abilities and traits' but, other than the fact that we're here instead of them, there's no reason to think that. They were definately stronger, more muscular and with a more efficient musculature as well - if they were still alive today they would take all the top spots in just about any sport you can think of. The 'hunchback' stereotype is incorrect - one of the early neanderthal skeletons had those features and that was taken as typical, but it turns out it was just that that particular individual had massive crippling arthritic problems - it wasn't genetic. And despite the stereotype that they were dumb, there's really no evidence of that either - their brains were even larger than ours, and their artifacts are not inferior.

    One difference is that there is a bone in the throat, (hyoid bone iirc) critical to the production of human speech, which was shaped differently in the neanderthal. They would not have been capable of making many of the sounds we use in speech as a result. However, that doesn't mean they couldn't have spoken their own languages, with different sounds - only that they would not have been able to make many of the sounds we use.

    Still a great mystery. Maybe one day we'll know what happened.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    1. Re:This is only marginally new by ucblockhead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The trouble is that the fossil record only shows certain types of traits. There may have been a trait that Homo Sapiens acquired that is not visible in the fossil record that gave it a big advantage. (For instance, a change in brain structure that did not change the size and shape of the skull cavity.) The fact that "humans" had a small range for a hundred thousand years and then exploded out of Africa in a fairly short time frame implies that something changed, even if we can't see it in the bones.

      --
      The cake is a pie
    2. Re:This is only marginally new by Moofie · · Score: 1

      "other than the fact that we're here instead of them, there's no reason to think that."

      What other evidence do you need?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    3. Re:This is only marginally new by the+phantom · · Score: 1

      Ugh... Binford. The best evidence shows anatomically modern humans showing up no earlier than about 100,000 years ago, and H. neanderthalensis disappearing about 25-30,000 years ago... earlier in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. 90,000 years, no. However, there is good evidence that both H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis existed at the same time (though in different areas) for quite a long time.

    4. Re:This is only marginally new by FreshnFurter · · Score: 2, Insightful
      >Everyone assumes that OUR ancestors had the >'superior abilities and traits' but, other than the >fact that we're here instead of them, there's no >reason to think that.

      In fact, that is the fallacy most people have when talking (thinking) about evolution. The traits aren't supposed to be superior, they should only be better adapted to the circumstance, event, environment that is driving the selection. Take for example food shortage. In a first stage a larger size will allow you to talk food from smaller competitors, but when food gets even more scarce a smaller build might just need less food.

      Most people think it is survival of the strongest. It is survival of the fittest, as in fitting a square peg in a square hole, the only difference with the round peg is its squareness, color, size, or material are of no consequence.

      Come to think of it even religion is surely a factor in evolution. It is the first means humankind had to spread 'rules that enable survival' to larger groups. I am sure you can think of many, if not think of combinations of certain type of meats, parasites and climate and how they are dealt with in different religions. These rules enable more religious people to survive than non-religious. Be aware that this is not only way to do this. There are now many different ways to spread such rules (laws, science, internet etc...)

      Funny huh, Intelligent Design evolved ;-)
    5. Re:This is only marginally new by dhasenan · · Score: 1

      The hyoid bone has a role in speech production? What planet are you from?

      The most it could do is provide support for the larynx. The larynx has four functions in speech: providing silence, providing a buzzing noise or else letting air flow without noise (the difference between s and z), and creating the English h sound.

      As long as H. neanderthalis had a similarly-shaped mouth, it would have been able to whisper in any language that you can speak. If it had a larynx similar to ours, it could speak as well. (Provided it had the mental capacity--speech is pretty specialized. Apes could speak English, too, if they had the appropriate brain structures.)

      Yes, I am a linguist.

    6. Re:This is only marginally new by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Everyone assumes that OUR ancestors had the 'superior abilities and traits' but, other than the fact that we're here instead of them, there's no reason to think that.

      That's a silly statement, akin to "We were last in the conference standing, and they were first, but, other than the score, there is no reason to assume they had the better team."

      their brains were even larger than ours

      And a cow's brain is much bigger than either. Size matters, but not all that much.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    7. Re:This is only marginally new by JavaLord · · Score: 1

      Come to think of it even religion is surely a factor in evolution. It is the first means humankind had to spread 'rules that enable survival' to larger groups. I am sure you can think of many, if not think of combinations of certain type of meats, parasites and climate and how they are dealt with in different religions. These rules enable more religious people to survive than non-religious. Be aware that this is not only way to do this. There are now many different ways to spread such rules (laws, science, internet etc...)

      I always thought this could be a reason for religions choosing not to eat pork...but why do some avoid cow? Were they not big fans of the atkins diet back then?

    8. Re:This is only marginally new by JavaLord · · Score: 1

      And despite the stereotype that they were dumb, there's really no evidence of that either - their brains were even larger than ours

      Brainsize doesn't equate to intellengence, or we would lose chess games to elephants.

  81. they didn't disappear by circletimessquare · · Score: 1
    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  82. What about OOG?! by MochaMan · · Score: 1

    Ok, I've had it with the editors around here.

    How can this tripe make the front page of slashdot, when it's quite obvious to anyone who's been here awhile that Neanderthals still roam the earth?

  83. Re: Modern Humans, Neanderthals Shared Earth ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps when they decided to leave the planet with their offspring they left the cross-bred, stupid humans behind.

  84. They disappeared because... by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

    Neanderthals disappeared for the same reason that e.g. Australian Aboriginals are disappearaing, and that is the bad behaviour of human beings. They were no doubt treated badly, prejudiced against and hunted to extinction because they were "different", but unlike other animals were not so different that they were not perceived as a threat. It's been the same story ever since with every minority race, so a different species of human stood no chance at all.

    1. Re:They disappeared because... by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      In the good old European tradition, the Neanderthals had a different religion and were all killed in a Pogrom...

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    2. Re:They disappeared because... by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Australian Aboriginals are disappearaing,

      No they're not. See AusStats. Though the poulation did crash after colonisation, from maybe 300,000 to a minimum of about 60,000, it's now steadily growing and currently over 400,000 (depending on your definition of "Aboriginal"). However, Tasmanian Aboriginals (pureblooded) were wiped out, though some with partial Tasmaninan ancestry survived. They were racially distinct fomr mainland Australian Aboriginals.

  85. The Truth about Neanderthals extinction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Grand grand grand grand [..] grand father Bush sent his armies to find weapons of mass destruction at Neanderthals' and figured out if they'd kill every Neanderthals nobody would learn the truth (about non-existence of such weapons). [It's a flamewar and mod it so!]

    1. Re:The Truth about Neanderthals extinction by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      Hmm, maybe Neanderthals invented fire but Homo Sapiens patented it and killed the competition?

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
  86. "What is the mechanism by which genes fade?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've found that daily wear over time (and using bleach inappropriately in the wash) works rather well.

    YMMV

  87. A fantastic article about ID in The Guardian... by GrahamCox · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You can't really make the argument against ID plainer than this. I highly recommend everyone to read it, whatever you believe:

    Guardian article

    1. Re:A fantastic article about ID in The Guardian... by maotx · · Score: 0

      Try reading The reluctant messenger. It is in the fiction section but has its own cult growing with it. It makes a good argument on the basis of our various religions, how they tie together, and how evolution fits into it all. Everytime these damn evolution vs. ID threads come into place I wish everyone would just shutup and read the book. I'm not trying to say anything, but this book really gets you thinking.

      --
      I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
    2. Re:A fantastic article about ID in The Guardian... by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the terriffic link! Great stuff!

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    3. Re:A fantastic article about ID in The Guardian... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      terrific link? Yet again Richard Dawkins manages to show his lack of scientific rigour...

    4. Re:A fantastic article about ID in The Guardian... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why, then, would two lifelong educators and passionate advocates of the "both sides" style of teaching join with essentially all biologists in making an exception of the alleged controversy between creation and evolution?
      I agree with the article. However you have got to laugh at this protestation of impartiality by Dawkins. It's not like the man has written numerous books about evolution, nor thousands of words slamming ID and Creationism in particular.
  88. Caucasian features by HermanAB · · Score: 1

    I have my thoughts about the strong Caucasian features, vs soft Asian features. That seems to indicate that Neanderthals simply interbreeded into the Caucasians, which would explain why we are so big, bony and fierce, compared to the rest of the human race.

    If you can't beat them, join them...

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
    1. Re:Caucasian features by jc42 · · Score: 1

      That seems to indicate that Neanderthals simply interbreeded into the Caucasians, which would explain why we are so big, bony and fierce, ...

      Then there's the observation that if you were to transport an average Neanderthal in your time machine to the present day, give him a shave and a haircut, dress him in modern clothes, and drop him off anywhere in Europe, nobody would give him a second glance.

      This isn't necessarily convincing of anything. Neanderthals and Europeans are both adapted to European conditions. Their physical similarities could be from interbreeding, or from adaptation to the climate. It's not easy to get the evidence.

      But it is kinda fun to think that we may be in part descended from Neanderthals.

      There has been a lot of science fiction written on the topic.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    2. Re:Caucasian features by grikdog · · Score: 1

      Actually, DNA evidence is pretty clear that Neanderthals contributed nothing to the modern human gene pool. Apparently, like all dinosaurs, they promulgated non-adaptive standards.

      --
      ``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
    3. Re:Caucasian features by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      Yup, and take an average European, give him a shave and a haircut, dress him in modern pajamas and drop him off downtown in a Chinese city and the people will run away screaming...

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    4. Re:Caucasian features by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      The Free and Open Sex Society won out...

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    5. Re:Caucasian features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      >if you were to transport an average Neanderthal in your time machine to the present day, give him a shave and a haircut, dress him in modern clothes, and drop him off anywhere in Europe, nobody would give him a second glance.

      Actually, we do give them a second glance. And a third. After all we call these people business executives.

  89. They Went North. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As the neanderthals disliked the new wave French cusine they went to England. Where their culinary flare and influence can still be tasted.

  90. obHomer by djdavetrouble · · Score: 1

    mmmmmmmmm flying spaghetti overlords.

    --
    music lover since 1969
    1. Re:obHomer by Wavicle · · Score: 1

      Eschew your sinful thoughts or the noodly appendage will smite you!

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
  91. 1000 years? Should be millions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering the time it takes for animal populations to diverge into separate species is closer to a million, modern humans and neanderthals must have co-existed far longer than a few thousand years. Maybe allopatrically, but still. Or where the populations were really different enough to be considered different species, ie if they could they interbreed and produce fertile offspring they were not separate species.

  92. Saw A Program About This On German TV 2 Years Ago by aquatone282 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My german is pretty poor, but it was simple to pick up the basic story line:

    The show followed a family of Neandrathals as they attempted to cross the Alps.

    A young female wandered off from the family. Nearby, three "modern" human males had a camp and were cooking meat over a fire. The female picked up the scent of the meat and followed it to the camp.

    The males lured her into the camp with the offer of food. She warily accepted and while she was eating, one of the males knocked her down to her hands and knees and took her from behind (much to her distress). The other males then took their turns.

    The last shot was of the female wandering up into the snow-covered mountains, obviously pregnant.

    Again, my german is not very good, but the impression I got was the show was attempting to explain how a neandrathal female corpse, preserved by altitude and cold, was found in the Alps with an unborn child that contained "modern" human DNA. . .

    Got to love those European documentaries - they leave little to the imagination.

    --
    What?
  93. Chimps and bananas. by Lellor · · Score: 1

    Yes, and humans are also 3% genetically similar to bananas. So we are 96% chimps, and 3% bananas. Or more scientifically, humans are 99% chimps and bananas. This combination can only lead to the conclusion that the intelligent designer is none other than Mojo Jojo.

    --
    Liberal Ontarians and French Quebecers are draining Western Canada's wealth. Stop them now! Support Western separatism.
  94. The more I read these types of postings... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The more I think that they don't know jack about anything.

  95. Invalid argument to operation ++/-- by hlee · · Score: 1

    This is completely offtopic, but I noticed my parent post signed off as --jeff++, to which in true geek fashion I attempted to compile in Java:

    int jeff = 0;
    System.out.println(--jeff++);

    Compilation error:
    Invalid argument to operation ++/--

    Took me a minute to figure out why it doesn't compile.

  96. dear neanderthal man, by RevengeOfPoopJuggler · · Score: 0

    pwn3ed j00!!!!

  97. I go to public school and my science class says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the world is only 7000 years old. The bible proves it. It's called intelligent design. So anything that supposedly existed before then are obviously made up like fairy tales.

    1. Re:I go to public school and my science class says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how does that affect your life?

  98. What is the mechanism by which sibling species... by mosel-saar-ruwer · · Score: 1

    What is the mechanism by which genes fade? I suggest that you take a basic biology class. Mitochrondrial DNA tests indicate that Neanderthals were an entirely seperate species with no interbreeding.Here's more on MtDNA highlight the discovery of Eve who lived 200,000 years ago.

    What is the mechanism by which a child species loses the ability to breed with its parent species? [Mathematically, this kind of differentiation has the topology of a totally order set. Oh, and don't be a semantics nazi who quibbles that "by definition, a child species is not a separate species until it is incapable of breeding with its parent."] Remember, we're talking sexual species here, so if you believe in differentiation via mutation, then you'll need at least one breeding pair with compatible mutations, i.e. before you can get a child species, you'll need at least one male and one female with compatible mutations. Differentiation via incest, anyone?

    Along the same lines, what is the mechanism by which two sibling species become incapable of breeding with one another? [Mathematically, this kind of differentiation has the topology of a partially order set, which Comp Sci guys tend to call a "tree"]. This time you'll need a male/female pair A with compatible mutations, and a male/female pair B with compatible mutations, and you'll need pair A's mutation to be incompatible with pair B's mutation, and, finally, you'll need both of those mutations to be incompatible with the code of the non-mutated parent species.

    Care to venture a guess as to the odds of such a thing happening over the course of, say, 10,000 years? 25,000 years? 100,000 years?

  99. All of the above by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't it most likely that we took resources they could not, on top of which we killed them for the resources they took or attempted to take from us?

    Plus, maybe I have a comic book comparison in my head, but I somehow imagine them being more physically powerful than us, and while our intelligence boosts our level in terms of who can kill us, they may still have sought to use violence against us instinctively and our use of violence could be defensive just as much as offensive.

  100. Slartibartfast??? by HermanAB · · Score: 3, Funny

    Amazing, only in America would people teach in Public School that Earth was created by the Magrathean planetary construction engineer Slartibartfast. Douglas Adams would be proud!

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
  101. Simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's all George Bush's fault. (tm)

  102. Voice box - no communication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The current theory is that they could not communicate because of their higher than homosapien voice box causing lack of vowel sounds because the sound would not resonate like it does with us. When the ice age came, they could not cooperate with each other due to lack of communications and died out. At least that's the current theory.

    Their brain was actually larger than the brains of the homosapiens so it wasn't because they were stupid or anything.

    1. Re:Voice box - no communication by DesiGuy421 · · Score: 0

      That is true. Neanderthal brains were larger, but having a larger brain did not necessarily make them more intelligent.

    2. Re:Voice box - no communication by EtherealStrife · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Slashdot has once again made a big deal out of nothing. In one of my archaeology classes a few years ago we discussed these very caves, and covered the EVIDENCE (that's right, evidence) that damn near proves the existence of Homo sapiens and neanderthals in fairly close quarters.

      The fact of the matter is that Homo sapiens have been around for 200 THOUSAND YEARS!! Neanderthals were the dominant species for most of that time, until they died off approximated 30-35k ago ... it's not such a big leap to suggest that coexistence goes back to far earlier times, but the big deal about these caves is that the neanderthals were competing for the same resources as Homo sapiens, and were outhunted (the BIG mystery the article claims is unknown...you gotta love media) to extinction. Neanderthals used flake technology, while Homo sapiens used blade tech. Without going too heavily into it, Homo sapiens were killing up a storm with thrown spears and using prismatic cores and all that high tech jazz. Neanderthals still had to close in for the kill, and as such could not compete at all.

      The important thing to understand is that there were two variants of hominids during the middle and upper paleolithic periods (assuming we disregard the Homo erectus groups off in Asia that were still hanging in there), rather than one being descended from the other. Neanderthals were adapted for the Ice Age, and were limited to Europe because of this. The highly adaptable (yet peabrained) little Homo sapiens spread like wildfire across the continents, killing as we went. Neanderthals are believed to have been very gentle and possibly even possessors of culture (although this is in constant debate), even taking care of the sick and wounded around them. One skull was even found with a hole beveled into it, suggesting some attempt at early surgical treatment (it was done premortem, and the individual lived for several years after the hole was made).
      Whereas we were honed to kill.


      Disclaimer: It's highly improbable that Homo neanderthalensis and homo sapiens mingled, or that the Homo sapiens killed off the neanderthals. But until we can send a time machine back to record all this shit, nobody can be 100% certain.

      Oh and A.C., I'm not making any corrections to what you've said, just trying to expand on it a bit. Seemed like as good a place as any. :) I agree about the communication, and how large Neanderthal brains were.

    3. Re:Voice box - no communication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neanderthals are believed to have been very gentle and possibly even possessors of culture (although this is in constant debate), even taking care of the sick and wounded around them. One skull was even found with a hole beveled into it, suggesting some attempt at early surgical treatment

      A skull with a premortem hole might also indicate that these folks were pretty sadistic. But hey, who am I to let lack of evidence get in the way of a good story?

    4. Re:Voice box - no communication by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > hey, who am I to let lack of evidence get in the way of a good story?

      A troll, possibly...?

      > A skull with a premortem hole might also indicate that these folks were pretty sadistic

      You, evidently, have no idea how many cultures have drilled holes (successfully) into peoples' heads. Egyptians did a good bit of it. There are holes drilled into peoples' heads today. They are generally smaller and more precise, but it happens. Do you thing brain surgeons have magic tools that "phase" through the skull or something?

    5. Re:Voice box - no communication by Grape+Shasta · · Score: 1
      Slashdot has once again made a big deal out of nothing. In one of my archaeology classes a few years ago we discussed these very caves, and covered the EVIDENCE (that's right, evidence) that damn near proves the existence of Homo sapiens and neanderthals in fairly close quarters.

      That's WHY this is such a big deal. Despite your conspiracy to cover the evidence about Homo sapiens and neanderthals, the truth is getting out!

      --

      "I am a cipher, a cipher, wrapped in an enigma, smothered in secret sauce" -Jimmy James
    6. Re:Voice box - no communication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My wife is a pediatric resident. She had a kid in the ER a few months ago with head trauma and they called in the neurologist to consult. The neurologist took a look at the kid and decided he wanted a pressure monitor in the kids brain, so he pulled out a hand drill (like this) and punched a hole in the kid's skull :)

    7. Re:Voice box - no communication by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      "Damn it man, you want to drill into his skull? What is this, the Inquisition?!"

  103. A Credible Theory by octalman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Some time ago I saw a TV program on this subject. The investigators claimed to have found objects which they associated with Cro-Magnon people, objects with strange marks on them; marks which appeared to be a crude lunar calendar. If true, Cro-Magnon folks were much more intelligent than their Neanderthal neighbors -- able to forecast dark (or light) nights, able to record information and able to engage in non-verbal communication. And outsmart their enemies as well as become more efficient hunters and providers.

  104. MOD PARENT UP by rbarreira · · Score: 1

    See subject :)

    --

    The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
  105. all part of Intelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...right along with the grand Intelligent Designer putting all those dinosaurs in the ground, so that we, The Chosen, would have gas for our SUVs...

  106. Well I am French speaking and I blame the Arabs by crovira · · Score: 1

    Anybody who doesn't drink wine or beer isn't civilized. Pop a cork in Rhyad and you're a dead man. Were's the fun in that.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  107. Head-ache by HermanAB · · Score: 1

    The Neanderthal women suffered from severe migraine...

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
  108. Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most likely because we killed tham all. That would be in keeping with general human history, afte all there is a fair chance that we will kill off the first intelligent alien race we find.

  109. Warcraft by Begossi · · Score: 1

    I guess this explains the overall obsession for the theme... Warcraft II: Orcs vs Humans
    Glad to know we beat them in the end!

    --
    Friend of the Wise, Brother of the Brave.
  110. Geeks by Mobile+Mineral · · Score: 1

    I think aspergers and other geek disorders come from neanderthal hybridization. Don't be so sure about "genetic evidence" that shows this is not the case. Here is a geek who advocates this theory. http://www.rdos.net/eng/asperger.htm

  111. not gone by spudgun · · Score: 1

    today they are called yetti etc..

    --
    Type unto others as you would have them type unto you.
  112. Reminds me of a series I read ... by deek · · Score: 1

    .... called the "Saga of the Exiles" (The Many-Coloured Land, The Golden Torc, etc). Modern humans went back in a time device, to prehistoric earth. They settled in France, funnily enough.

      They went back 6 million years, in the book. So the coincidences stop there. It's a good read!

  113. Rick Berman? Unlikely by infonography · · Score: 1
    Berman can't tolerate prolonged exposure to new ideas. To him they burn like Hygiene. Remember this is the King of the Trekkies we are talking about. I gather he lives in a Huge basement on the lot at Universal Studios, and has come to resemble the fat vampire from the first Blade movie.

    Hmmm come to think of it I think it may have been Rick Berman in that role. They would have had to use some makeup to make him look closer to human. Exposure to soapy water would do to him what water did to the Gremlins in that Phoebe Cates movie.

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
    1. Re:Rick Berman? Unlikely by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Exposure to soapy water would do to him what water did to the Gremlins in that Phoebe Cates movie.

      Make him multiply geometrically?
      *shudder*

  114. Just look at what humans are doing by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

    to the rest of the great simian family.

  115. Isn't this obvious? by dtjohnson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The 'cro-magnons' were taller, relatively weak, and good walkers but...not real bright. the Neandertals were much brighter but short, stocky, and not as good in the walking and throwing department. Then mix a Neandertal with a cute cro-magnon babe and...voila...'modern man' with his big brain and superb two-legged walking and baseball throwing ability. We are all descendants of those few hybridized offspring 38,000 years ago who then quickly multiplied and killed off the ancestral forms, of course.

  116. Maybe they tasted like pork to our ancestors... by Mr.+Roadkill · · Score: 1

    ... or maybe our ancestors tasted like pork to them, but they had a lower tolerance to some pathogen that gets transmitted through human flesh and developed a rampaging case of Mad Neanderthal Disease.

  117. Their brains were bigger, hmmm brainsssss by infonography · · Score: 1

    I wonder how they cooked them?

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
    1. Re:Their brains were bigger, hmmm brainsssss by uberdave · · Score: 1

      It's all in the book To Serve Man

  118. Sexual Attractiveness - like birth defects? by MonkeyBoyo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I guess the Cromagnons could not find the Neanderthals sexually attractive - what was the turn off?

    I've seen lots of chimps, orangs, and gorillas in zoos. Some I like the look of, be it dignified or humerous but I have never found any of them remotely sexually attractive nor have I found any that I would call gorgeous.

    Which is strange because I have seen horses and dogs that I would call gorgeous. And this type of prettyness is tied in with some inate system of sexual attraction - not that I am sexually attracted to dogs or horses but that somehow a great horse ass can remind one of human females' asses.

    I've known women from many of the so-called races and sub-races of the humans that I consider gorgeous and think such can be found everywhere.

    However I find birth defects such as midgets or Down's Syndrome as anti-attractive.

    So my hypothesis is that modern humans did not want to interbreed with Neanderthals or great apes because they looked like they had birth defects, and somehow this notion of 'not true to form' is inately tied to our notion of attractiveness.

    Though I still don't know what the big Neanderthal turnoff is.

  119. No, the Neandertahals took a vote... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1
    The Neanderthals, all lovey dovey-like, took a vote, and decided that Homo Sapiens was the better species.

    In a last minute compromise, they did not take the James Town Kool-Aide solution (tm), but rather, decided to peacfully fail to pro-create their way out of existence.

    See? No violence involved. PETA need not get riled up over this.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  120. My god! by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    did you pay attention to the picture in the story? The most nightmarish kind of pic - it looks too much like human and too fucking crazy to be human... Alien looked pretier. No wonder they disappeared - once the first mirrors were invented, they just all committed suicide!

  121. We are them by Just-some-person · · Score: 0

    We stopped being different for a while, so the idiots thought we were them.

  122. They mated by hoggoth · · Score: 1

    There is newly uncovered evidence that Neandertal and Cro-Magnon often mated, siring hybrid caveman/modern humans as seen in these recently discovered remains.

    --
    - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
  123. This is old news by raque · · Score: 2

    This has been dealt with to death, Scientific American has run dozens of articles on it. There are any number of simulations that show exactly what happened to the Neanderthals (check out these StarLogo examples http://www.scottcamazine.com/personal/selforganiza tion/starlogo/starlogo.htm/ ), all that has to happen is that reproduction has to drop below replacement for a long enough period of time. Europe is very mountainous, they are "Cave Men" after all, and if populations in different valleys don't mix because some of those funky new people are in a valley between you, and extinction occurs, without any contact at all. We can out compete them without ever meeting them.

  124. Neanderthals DO exist by FredThompson · · Score: 4, Funny

    My sister told me she's dated a few...

    1. Re:Neanderthals DO exist by IceFoot · · Score: 0

      And I used to worked with one. I actually said out loud, once, "If you want to know what he looks like, open World Book Encyclopedia to "Neanderthal," and there's his picture!

  125. i blame... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i blame the french, they dont smell right.

  126. God didn't get ride of them . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He gave them all government jobs, just look at our fearless leader!

  127. solent green by sven_eee · · Score: 1

    But why did they disappear?
    well us others had to eat something

    [sVen]

  128. They were delicious... by dpa · · Score: 1

    An anthropologist friend of mine relates the contents of an ancient memo he claims to have found in a cave in France, to wit:

    "We mourned the passing of the last Neanderthals... they were delicious.
    best regards,
    --Mugumba"

  129. They had enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's how it went...

    Some day they really had enough of the modern humans. They convened and made a declaration: "fuck that shit...", then called home.
    Shortly after they were evacuated from Earth.
    When the spaceships showed up, modern humans felt dehumiliated for a moment. They said "man, you can't trust anybody these days... they looked really stupid and ugly... oh well... whatever".

  130. Natural Selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would you want to sleep with one if you didn't have to?

  131. 29000 years ago by Azreal · · Score: 0

    Communal area homo neanderthalensis cave paintings found. Rough translation of one such cave painting as follows:

    I for one welcome our new Homo Sapien overlords.

    --
    $sys$droids
  132. We have a model for this already in our history by Enrique1218 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The conquest of the Americas nearly cause a similar event with the Native Americans. Disease, domination, and marginalization of territory nearly wipe out the Amerindians. My guess it was simlar set circumstances that did in the Neanderthals. First, Humans and Neanderthals are related closely just as a horse an a donkey are. So, diseases that human had long evolved to resist Moreover, these are the humans whose descendants will be the most notorious conquerors in human history. Live and let live and share and share alike were probably not well practice back then either. Humans with superior numbers and technology wipe out whole tribes. Then, the final blow was neanderthals, due to war, probably limited themselves to smaller stretches of territory in less hospitable regions where they finally went extinct. Native Americans were lucky in that they could interbreed with the conqueror; however, since human and neanderthals are different species, any interbreeding may have lead to sterile offspring if that.

    --
    You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
  133. Extermination, of course by Ray+Alloc · · Score: 0

    The usual way we make room : exterminate the former inhhabitants. Happens all the time. Why shying away?

  134. Even a Caveman Could Understand by Ranger · · Score: 1

    Dunno why they died out but I saved a ton of money on car insurance. Hey, put that club down. Ooww!

    --
    "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
  135. Simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They developed a taste for wine and cheese, starting becoming increasingly arrogant and pompous. Pretty soon they became Frenchmen.

  136. Multiple mtDNA lineages by Baldrson · · Score: 3, Informative
    "The argument for recombination is based on the observation that the pattern of polymorphism in mtDNA is incompatible with a single genealogical tree and unique mutations."

    Innan and Nordborg

  137. My theory: Roasted Neaderthal tastes good! by scotty1024 · · Score: 1

    My Chinese fiancee told me a joke one time (I never knew China was so varied in its population that they told jokes about various parts of it, in this case the Cantonese...)

    Q: Why are there still Great Pandas in China?
    A: They taste so bad even a Cantonese won't eat them.

    So I present...

    Q: Why did the Neanderthal die out after co-existing with homo sapiens for a thousand years?
    A: Roasted Neanderthal tastes good!

    I present as backing present day evidence the reports from Africa about "bush meat" a.k.a. Monkey and Gorilla roasted over an open fire. In my opinion the African's are making excellent progress at a modern day recreation of the death of the Neanderthals.

    No need to invoke God or intelligent design, just simple every day human nature can explain it.

  138. Still here... by trellick · · Score: 1

    The Neanderthals are still here...they just work for the French bureaucracy.

  139. IPU by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 4, Informative

    For those not familiar with it: The Invisible Pink Unicorns are a counter-argument to a common straw-man attack on atheism.

    The attack is "You can't know whether there is a god, so to disbelieve is every bit as much an act of faith as to believe."

    The counter goes as following.
    Atheist (A): "Do you believe there are herds of invisble pink unicorns somewhere unnoticed on the planet?"
    Believer (B): "No, of course not."
    A: "So this would be an absolute religious conviction, would it?"
    B: "Well, no, not really"
    A: "Right. I don't believe in god in the same way you don't believe in invisible pink unicorns."

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    1. Re:IPU by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      How can the unicorns be pink if they are invisible? Aren't inivisible things, by definition, "clear colored"?

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    2. Re:IPU by lanswitch · · Score: 1

      Silly question! Since you cannot see them, you cannot see what color they are.

    3. Re:IPU by jweatherley · · Score: 1

      R 255
      G 255
      B 0
      A 0

      Duh!

      --

      --
      Reverse outsourcing: it's the future
    4. Re:IPU by jweatherley · · Score: 1

      Duh to me! That's the heretical invisible invisible yellow unicorn. Better make that:

      R 255
      G 0
      B 255
      A 0

      before i get a 'mosquito bite'...

      --

      --
      Reverse outsourcing: it's the future
    5. Re:IPU by nathanh · · Score: 1
      How can the unicorns be pink if they are invisible? Aren't inivisible things, by definition, "clear colored"?

      That the unicorn is pink while also being invisible is proof of her incredible power.

    6. Re:IPU by indifferent+children · · Score: 1

      If you can't reconcile pink+invisible, stay away from the Christians. They have this 'trinity' 3-but-1 thing that will confuse the hell out of you.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    7. Re:IPU by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 1

      If you were an open-minded True Believer, you'd understand.

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
    8. Re:IPU by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      R 255
      G 0
      B 255
      A 0

      That's the invisible purple unicorn. Not heretical, but certainly heterodox, and possibly with megalomaniacal tendencies.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    9. Re:IPU by bleckywelcky · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That is the most ridiculous "common straw-man attack" ever. Anyone that would use it, whatever their angle may be, doesn't deserve a lot of credit. So the need to counter it is somewhat diminshed.

      A better, perhaps less-common, straw-man attack is to discuss the point of living with atheists. If they truly believe that there is no spiritual life to humans (or other animals, as prescribed on a religion-by-religion case ), then why live at all? If you completely cease to exist in any form whatsoever when your physical body dies, then what is the point of living your life? In the end, everything you do now will not matter. Well, maybe you just want to enjoy the ride? To what end? Why enjoy it, if the enjoyment means nothing after you die? People take vacations to relax and take a break from working. The effects of the vacation are felt after it completes as you get back to your work, you feel refreshed, the fact that you took the vacation really matters. You can remember it and reminisce about the events. But if there is nothing beyond death, then everything you do in life is meaningless. You will not recall anything you did in life. Everyone that is still alive when you die will not remember anything about you when they die. And so on. You might as well stop living right now. The only reason you have a will to live your life is because of the hard wiring in your brain to not die long enough to reproduce and raise young. But isn't that an absurd reason to live your life ... because you are hard-wired to? You really don't care about life at all, you are just following directions from your brain? Even then, why not just get a simple job, reproduce at age 20, raise your kids until they are 20 and you are 40, then die? Perhaps atheists are just short-sighted and aren't thinking about the long-term implications? The responses to this discussion from atheists are interesting.

    10. Re:IPU by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
      You mean catholics not christians. Believe it or not some christians actually read the bible instead of swallowing the shit the church teaches.

      Amazingly, some people learn about science instead of swallowing the shit that the schools and media teach.

    11. Re:IPU by mcvos · · Score: 1

      I don't really see how this would work.

      Atheist (A): "Do you believe there are herds of invisble pink unicorns somewhere unnoticed on the planet?"
      Believer (B): "No, of course not."
      A: "So this would be an absolute religious conviction, would it?"
      B: "I suppose so. At least until I see any evidence to the contrary."
      A: "Er..."

      I can't really see how B could answer "Well, no, not really".

    12. Re:IPU by indifferent+children · · Score: 1

      Like it or not, the majority of the world's Christians are Catholic. If you want to nit-pick then there is probably not a single thing that you could say "Christians believe", because you can always find some fringe group that doesn't believe X.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
  140. Your mark:5, Funny!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HA ha hahaha!!! That was SUPER funny!!!

  141. Well.... by JohnTheFisherman · · Score: 1

    Are we supposed to not discuss certain topics because some people refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence when it conflicts with their presupposed biases?
     
    ...since that approach would pretty much rule out every pro-Linux story (and the several subsequent dupes ;) on Slashdot....it would seem that ID is fair game.

  142. maybe Douglas Adams was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and we really are descended from phone sanitizers and management consultants...

  143. Brain size correlates with body size? by corngrower · · Score: 1
    That would be news to me. I've read that dinosaurs, big as they were, had very small, walnut sized brains.


    Why would the size of brain be correlated with the body size? I could understand a bigger brain being needed to control something with more joints (or degrees of freedom) in the body. But body size alone wouldn't necessarily dictate a bigger brain. If the creature has very good vision or hearing (for communications purposes) they'ld need a bigger brain as well.


    Maybe the neanderthals brain was just wired differently than homo sapiens and had different strengths and weaknesses.

    1. Re:Brain size correlates with body size? by m_maximus · · Score: 1

      The first thing that comes to mind is the fact that you would need a bigger brain to process all the information that comes from having more skin, since you have more surface area to feel with. This of course assumes that there is the same sensitivity per unit of surface area in the larger animal.

      --
      I have a solution but you're not going to like it. (Something I say far too forten to my boss)
  144. Re:What is the mechanism by which sibling species. by firewrought · · Score: 1
    What is the mechanism by which a child species loses the ability to breed with its parent species?

    "Species" is an abstraction. Abstractions leak. Consider the sexual crossing of genes, the non-uniform application of environmental pressures across a population, the importation of new DNA via cross-breeding/microevolution, the occasional mutation... with the various forces of differentiation at work, it's hard to imagine how a species could keep itself together unchanged for the long haul. The miracle of life is not that species split apart but that their individuals members are--for a time--able to spawn new members despite everybody having different DNA.

    If you have difficulty relating to this, look at human languages. They work in mostly the same way... if, for instance, you were to geographically isolate two groups of English speakers for several centuries, you would likely get two child languages that were mutually unintelligible.

    You may find this post to be more applicable to your original question. Also, I am not a geneticist, but I believe that you are overestimating the role of mutations in driving change.

    --
    -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
  145. Forget "Clan of the Cave Bear" by geoswan · · Score: 2, Interesting
    About twenty years ago Scientific American reviewed the most recent sequel to "Clan of the Cave Bear", and compared it with the work of Bjorn Ku:rten, a real anthropologist, who wrote a pair of novels about the meeting between Neanderthal and modern humans. Excellent novels. I highly recommend them too.

    The Scientific American reviewer commented that the author of COTCB had done a reasonable amount of homework. She got details about the technology right. But that her heroine was like a Californai "vallery girl" transplanted to the paleolithic.

    Various contributors to this thread have said "We killed them. We were smarter than they were. That's life." But there is no evidence that we were more intelligent. Some anthropologists have suggested that one advantage modern humans had over Neanderthals was that the shape of our throat and larynx allows modern humans to make sounds that Neanderthals couldn't -- and that this allowed a richer, more expressive, vocal expression.

    1. Re:Forget "Clan of the Cave Bear" by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1
      But that her heroine was like a Californai "vallery girl" transplanted to the paleolithic.
      More like a scientist who gets stranded in the wilderness. "Hmmm. The end of my arm moves faster than the shoulder,. So if I could artificially extend my arm..." Voila! A sling! And now a spear-thrower. "Hmmm. Maybe if I act as this baby hanimule's mother, I can leverage the natural herding/pack instincts of certain animals..." Wow, I got me a cute doggie-woggie And a gee gee!
      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
  146. We ate them by quink · · Score: 1

    Not a mystery, really. Just a protein shortage or two is all it takes..

  147. Also... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    They are still here... ... in management. A Dilbert comic has come true.

    Also a Geico commercial.

    "I'm sorry. We didn't know you guys were still around..."

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought they made up a majority of the Kansas BoE and ran our country....

  148. God's Roadmap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    From God's Roadmap:

    Beta
    Release version: Homo neanderthalensis
    Build name: Adam
    Release date: 4,569,770,000 years after cooling
    Deprecated: 4,569,971,000 years after cooling

    Stable
    Release version: Homo sapiens
    Build name: Eve
    Release date: 4,569,800,000 years after cooling
    Deprecated:
    [Sigh] Still deciding. I mean, the codebase is starting to look a bit creaky in a few places, and they're starting to tinker with it themselves (they think it's open source - hah!). Inquisitive little so-and-so's can't leave well enough alone... They've noticed the legacy code from the previous build too - ick, some cruft in there. Very tempting to trash the lot and start again using AOP. Mind you I mightn't have to lift a finger if they don't stop blowing each other to smithereens.
    [sigh] TODO: Take oort cloud inventory - look for something nice and big...

    1. Re:God's Roadmap by darmey · · Score: 0

      mod this up anyone, it's just great!

    2. Re:God's Roadmap by eggsome · · Score: 1

      I wish this wasn't posted AC, I'd love to congratulate whoever wrote it!

      --
      If they made a movie of your life, would anybody buy a ticket?
    3. Re:God's Roadmap by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      I call shenanigans, since even God can't cram 4,569,770,000 into a 32-bit register.

    4. Re:God's Roadmap by saider · · Score: 1

      Eve (female) is "stable"?!?

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    5. Re:God's Roadmap by ldpercy · · Score: 1

      Hey it was me, it was kind of an accident that I posted AC. Glad you enjoyed it.
      Cheers, Percy.

    6. Re:God's Roadmap by eggsome · · Score: 1

      Onya mate.

      --
      If they made a movie of your life, would anybody buy a ticket?
  149. AHAH! by kermitthefrog917 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    So that explains french women....

    --
    I may be wrong but you're downright ugly!
    1. Re:AHAH! by chawly · · Score: 1

      Now, now - did your mother never tell you not to talk (or write) about something you obviously know nothing about ? If not, she should've - that's a bad habit you've got.

      --
      How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley
    2. Re:AHAH! by kermitthefrog917 · · Score: 1
      obviously? what's so obvious about it? Loosen up... its just an amusing stereotype. Just an assumption. I'm guessing you picture me as some high-school punk in a little town in the states who has never travelled more than 50 miles from his hometown... (something like that?)

      well in reality i currently live in Brussels, and I actually do know something

      Either way, lighten up... If I had a dollar for every time someone made some comment against Bush or the US about something which they know nothing about, I'd be all over slashdot by now as the next IT tycoon... Once more... Lighten up

      --
      I may be wrong but you're downright ugly!
    3. Re:AHAH! by chawly · · Score: 1

      Well I feel that I must answer your answer (though I probably shoudn't) - but I'll do so very carefully; 'cause we wouldn't want to start a private war here on /.now would we ? I should apologise for the use of the word "obviously" - nothing in your original post allowed me to "picture you". Please understand that the word "obviously" was used to mean "obvious to me". Picture me if you will - as lightly as possible, please. I'm a Scot and have lived in Central France for the last 30 some years, and have been married to a french woman for all of that time. Thanks to your answer, I now have a "picture" of you. You're American probably and living in Brussels (where all the Belgian jokes come from). Brussels is also the home of the European Parlement (where most of the political jokes come from). And you tell me that you do "know something"! Doesn't come as a surprise to me, given your circumstances - so yeah, you're correct I must lighten up; I just haven't heard the joke yet. I'm sorry. Bush and the US ? Can quite see that you'd make a lot of money at $1 per comment "against" that you hear on those subjects. Myself, I just got back from a 3 week trip to Iraq and Saudi Arabia - I suppose I missed another joke - but I could surely have collected a few dollars for you. Don't see how this would make you the "next IT tycoon" though : even on /. Must be the third joke I've missed. To finish, I apologise to you, sir, and unreservedly. My original post was written without thought to your good self, to Brussels, to the Belgians, or to anything except my own opinions. I admit also that I posted without catching up on all these jokes - so sorry again. I will try to lighten up - I really and truly will - on any and all subjects, however serious. The fault was/is mine. But I will NOT withdraw the use of the word "obviously". Heh, while we're into lightening up, did you hear that Mr. Bush and Condoleeza Rice are both asking Congress for monetary compensation because they have had to shorten their holidays ? Do you get a dollar ? Do I get a dollar ? Smile.

      --
      How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley
    4. Re:AHAH! by kermitthefrog917 · · Score: 1

      I stand humbled...

      --
      I may be wrong but you're downright ugly!
    5. Re:AHAH! by chawly · · Score: 1

      Have a seat, friend. Wasn't my intention to have you either standing or humbled. Just wanted to state my feelings fully and completely, giving my reasons. Felt that I should. Felt that I owed it to myself, to you, and to anybody else in this public space who might be interested (not necessarily in that order). I gotta say it though (being an evil little Scotsman) - you gotta try and lighten up, you really gotta. Heh, did you hear how much Mr. Bush and and Madame Rice were asking as compensation for their fore-shortened vacations ? In the version I heard, Mr Bush was asking for $1 million per day and Madame Rice wants 10 new lilac pant-suits. Mr. Bush's demand is considered not to require explanation. Madame Rice wants to replace the lilac pant-suit she was wearing when she heard that she had to come off holiday to come back to face the music. It appears that the one she had on got very, very dirty when she heard the message (she probably fell over in the mud). Why 10 for 1 ? Compensation for the embarrassment, of course. She further explains the delay between Mr. Bush's arrival and her own with the pristine phrase "well, I hadta, kinda, well, get cleaned up" - explanation which was received by her boss with complete understanding. I close with the obligatory exortation to "lighten up" and, of course, the obligatory "who gets the dollar for this one?" question. Smile, its Sunday. Only fools and Scotsmen start work at 7:30 a.m. on Sunday.

      --
      How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley
  150. Unfair! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy actually knows what he's talking about!

    What the HELL has happened to Slashdot!?!

    I'll post as AC, so I can apply to the parent the mod points I get every Friday. No, I don't know why that happens.

  151. The Neanderthals Were Not Innovative by shoor · · Score: 1

    I read an article a few years back that pointed out that, over a period of thousands of years, the Neanderthals continued to use the same designs in their tools and weapons, whereas the homo saps were constantly experimenting with different designs. Whatever the sizes of their brains, or physical advantages, this would spell their eventual doom.

    It is kind of curious that there is no sign of cross-fertization though. Were they really so different. Maybe cross-breeds were sterile, like mules. It seems highly unlikely but I can't help but wonder if maybe they just weren't sexually attracted to each other. In some cases I suppose sex is based on aggression, at least with homo sap, so I imagine some neanderthal females must have been raped. But any offspring of that would have been stuck with the other Neanderthals and shared their fate.

    --
    In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
  152. Yum neandelocious by jegan22280 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    It's simple: We ate them.

  153. Gieco by qray · · Score: 1

    The author of this article has obviously never watched the Gieco commercials.
    ---
    fro mort hostro gort

  154. Kill the trolls! by tuite · · Score: 1

    Just as slashdot readers want to get rid of the trolls, so did the french. The big difference is that they succeeded. But it took a while, around 1000 year. So fellow slashdot readers we have 1000 years of trolls ahead of us, but then we are troll free! :) (On a side note, I think I have read somewhere that the stories of trolls, which is a very old folktale, may have emerged when Neantherthals and Homo sapiens live side by side (probably killing each other at first chance).

    --
    -- My site
  155. Evolution is NOT "random"!!! by adrenaline_junky · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm sick of people touting Intelligent Design when they don't even understand Evolution.

    Evolution is NOT about "random mutations". There is nothing at all RANDOM about evolution. Sure, there are random mutations going on all the time, but that's not what evolution is about. Evolution is about NATURAL SELECTION which is definitely NOT a random process.

    There is a very specific rule that is applied to the "random mutations" to see which ones move forward and that is (more or less) this: Those mutations that tend to make a creature at least slightly more successful will tend to spread throughout a population. And "successful" means (essentially) living long enough to reproduce and raise young.

    This is NOT random at all. Most (nearly all) mutations are either BAD and cause damage, or effectively do nothing. Only a few rare mutations actually pass the natural selection test of being positive and therefore spread through successive generations.

    In a given context a mutation is either going to tend to be helpful to the survival of the creature or not. So I say once again Evolution is NOT random.

    I could go on and on and explain how natural selection often leads to results that APPEAR to look "planned", even though they were not planned with any intelligent forethought, but that would be a whole book. Instead, read Richard Dawkins "The Blind Watchmaker".

  156. That makes a lot of sense by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    We seem to have a lot of nuts and fruits running around these days.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:That makes a lot of sense by Hannes+Eriksson · · Score: 1

      Pardon me, but the banana is a false berry of a herb, not a fruit on a tree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana

      --
      Geek rants since like... 2000 or something.
    2. Re:That makes a lot of sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll bet that you are a LOT of fun at parties, huh?

  157. What happend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Modern man eradicated the enemy. We love to kill any and all that we consider a threat. I'm sure that there were many battles and eventually we got rid of them.

  158. "To Serve Neanderthal Man " by infonography · · Score: 1

    (Homer's face is smeared with barbecue sauce.) Kodos takes the book and blows off the dust. The real title is "How to Cook for Humans." Lisa blows off more dust: "How to Cook Forty Humans." Kodos blows off yet more dust. The full title reads "How to Cook for Forty Humans." The aliens are shocked and hurt that the Simpsons thought they were going to eat them. ("Frankly, you people made pigs of yourselves.") Serak the Preparer cries.

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  159. What was that Neanderthal movie ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I caught only the end of it on TV. It was like the last Neaderthal on Earth. Very sad. He ate some sort of hallucenegenic plant and had a drug trip toward the end...

    Can anyone help me find the title of the movie? It was really good.

    1. Re:What was that Neanderthal movie ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would that be the 1984 movie Iceman?

  160. Utter folderol by FatAssBastard · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Because this is a democracy, where majority rules.

    Incorrect. We live in a Republic, which means we have Representatives that make policy. Our form of government was set up specifically to avoid the tyranny of the majority. Are you really unaware of this?

    Regarding teaching Creationism/ID, there's nothing to teach except "God/A Mysterious Intelligent Force did it". Whether you are willing to accept it or not, evolution theory is supported by science, therefore it should be taught in science class.

    Do you really want to dumb down our country? If we don't teach our children proper scientific methods, we will lose our technological leadership.

    Do you really want to weaken America?

    /serious...

    --
    /.: why the hell am I here?
    1. Re:Utter folderol by indifferent+children · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. We live in a Constitutional Republic, and it is the Consitution-part rather than the Republic-part that protects us from the tyranny of the majority. Even a unanimous referendum is not allowed to pass unconstitutional laws. If you can convince 100% of Americans to become Southern Baptist, you must still go through the process of repealing the first ammendment before you can outlaw freedom of religion. Good luck.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    2. Re:Utter folderol by FatAssBastard · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. We live in a Constitutional Republic...

      Thank you for the clarification, I sit corrected. :)

      --
      /.: why the hell am I here?
    3. Re:Utter folderol by legojenn · · Score: 1
      Because this is a democracy, where majority rules.

      Incorrect. We live in a Republic, which means we have Representatives that make policy. Our form of government was set up specifically to avoid the tyranny of the majority. Are you really unaware of this?

      I don't know if it's due to the major I had in university or if it is the fact that I work in a government of what some people might say is a nifty North American country, but, I have never understood people who think a republican form of government and democratic governments are different or opposite.

      The US is a republic. There is no queen of the USA. The US is a liberal democracy, a presidental democracy. You vote for your president, your houses of whatever the equivalent to Parliament is down there. You do the same thing for the state. You even elect judges and sheriffs. Referenda are popular down there. I love watching tv adverts on US channles asking people to vote "Yes" on Proposition H...

      Many Americans are not happy with the manifestation of the democracy in the US, but it remains a democracy. It seems that everything is codified. Mechanisms have been put in place to protect minorities from the majority, 2 senators for each state vs. dispersion of Congress-type people at a rate of approximately 1 rep per half-million people. Other protections have been written into the constitutions of countries, like Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The mechanisms added to governments do not change its nature or being a republic or not, but may have an impact on its perception of being responsible to the citizens of a country.

      The UK is also a liberal democracy, a Parliamentary democracy. It's also a constitutional monarchy, rather than a republic. The Queen exists and is head of state, but real authority is exercised by a democratically elected Parliament. The constitution is unwritten and based on principles and conventions, but

      Most complex societies use representatives to proxy preferences. It produces results that may seem undemocratic. For example, Red v. Blue states in the US. There are conservatives in Mass-o-choosits and there are liberals in Tay-haz. Hopefully, the numbers balance out.

      Both monarchies and republics can be authoritarian or free. Monarchies and republics can be/seem distant or close from the population. In reality, in countries where the monarchy is not strong, there is no real difference between living in a republic and a constitutional monarchy, except maybe the fact that in a monarchy, you have the possibility of haveing a living person on the money.

      Warning! Car analogy coming!

      The statement that we(meaning Americans) live in a republic, not a democracy is as illogical as saying "I have a Mazda, not a car with manual transmission." I do happen to have a Mazda with automatic transmission, but that is beside the point. The manufacturer has nothing to do with type of transmission since most car companies sell vehicles with manuals and automatics.

      As far as your main point goes. What year is this? Why is this an issue in the 21st century? I'm sure if G!d was a smart guy (and existed), he'd probably not appreciate speculation about what he has done to substitute for examining and discussing what the evidence has shown, for example, hundreds of years of scientific research.

      --
      I make a reasonable middle-class wage by going to work and not spamming blogs with scams.
    4. Re:Utter folderol by FatAssBastard · · Score: 1

      You are correct, of course, the US is indeed a democratic republic. I typed out my post rather hastily and wasn't entirely accurate. I was mostly trying to point out to the original poster that "majority rules" is patently incorrect.

      Thanks for the clarification. :)

      --
      /.: why the hell am I here?
  161. MOD PARENT UP INSIGHTFUL by spafbnerf · · Score: 1

    My thoughts exactly...

  162. convincingly show what ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until you convincingly show, for every single gene, that it's not of Neanderthal origin, you really haven't shown that there was no interbreeding at all.


    Modern humans and chimps are said to have 96% (or was it 99%) of common genes. Does it prove that there was interbreeding between us and them ?

  163. nonsense by memeplex · · Score: 1

    The notion that modern sapiens evolved and replaced Neanderthals within 1K years is ridiculous. Anatomically modern humans have lived since at least 100K years ago and "shared the Earth" with various now-extinct groups of Homos (e.g. Neanderthals & "Hobbits") for probably 50K years or more. (Not to mention "sharing the Earth" with millions of other species.) This is pop-claptrap. Also, Neanderthals were pretty modern humans, with language, technology, culture, and very large brains (larger than most /. readers.) None of this, of course, falsifies Noodly Intervention...

    1. Re:nonsense by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      The notion that modern sapiens evolved and replaced Neanderthals within 1K years is ridiculous.

      Yes, that's nonsense. RTFA if you want to know what they actually said, which is completely different.

  164. Brain and intelligence by dapyx · · Score: 1
    Actually, their tools had pretty much the same complexity as those of our ancestors and they also did cave paintings, so we can assume that had a similar intelligence to the Cro-Magnon.

    But it seems that their brain structure was slightly different. But yet, we don't know how would this influence things.

    --
    I'm sorry, the number you have dialed is an imaginary number. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and dial again.
  165. Just to stir the pot.... by Quadraginta · · Score: 1
    Hmmm. In assessing the value of smarts to species survival, we should remember roaches have inherited several islands in the Pacific after we "smart" humans rendered them uninhabitable for our species via uncontrolled nuclear fusion reactions....

    Perhaps the Neanderthals were smarter than us and had a higher technology and perhaps they used it to wipe themselves out, and we just picked up their chips after they cashed out.

    We always assume that more of what we call "intelligence" must improve the survivability of a species. But is this really true? Perhaps not. What we call "intelligence" is not so much a pipeline to the truth, a way of knowing instinctively the significance of facts, but rather more of a generalized pattern-recognition ability: we are good at guessing underlying patterns from incomplete and noisy data.

    But it is not clear that survivability is indefinitely increased by increasing one's sensitivity to patterns. Indeed, psychotic people are often helpless in part because they detect "patterns" in pure noise:

    They're all staring at me! There's a plot to ambush me!

    No, they're not all staring at you. Only a few are looking this way, and that's probably just chance. Most of the rest are looking elsewhere.

    But that's because there's also a plot to keep the ambush plot secret! Wheels within wheels! Some of them have been instructed to look away whenever we look over at them...devious bastards...

    And so on. If you turn up the sensitivity on your significance detector too high, you get overwhelmed with bogus significance.

    So, maybe we won the race because the Neanderthals were mental rabbits to our mental tortoises.
  166. Dissapeared? by HogynCymraeg · · Score: 0, Redundant
    suggesting Neanderthals co-existed with anatomically modern humans for at least 1,000 years in central France

    I was under the impression they still lived in France and worked in the European Parliament?

  167. Neanderthals were tasty by Y0tsuya · · Score: 0, Redundant

    mmmm...succulent neanderthal steak...(drool)...

  168. No, Basques by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The French aren't Neanderthals, the Basques are.

  169. Assuming too much by php_krisp · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't the question be where are they hiding? After all, I've met a lot of french people rather like neanderthals....

  170. Patent the Neanderthals for Profit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Neanderthals lasted until only 30,000 years ago - that's recent enough for DNA to survive
    2) The DNA can be used to clone new Neanderthals, using other primates as host mothers.
    3) Neanderthals were intelligent, with brains larger than the brains of most modern humans.
    4) Because they're not human, they do not have human rights, and can be patented.
    5) The patent-holder would license them to do jobs that humans don't want, for less than minimum wage!
    6) Profit!

  171. Evolving by amyamie28 · · Score: 1

    I saw this article on ABC and the evidence shows this is a possibility. But in amkes sense that evolution would allow generational gaps for more evolded humans.

  172. They just moved by Capacitor · · Score: 1

    - to Texas. Have a closer look at the Bush family ...

  173. Re:Saw A Program About This On German TV 2 Years A by pdabbadabba · · Score: 1

    You obviously didn't RTFA. If you had you would know that this scenario is impossible as Neanderthal femals were very ugly. (See the illustration)

    Have a nice day. :)

  174. Last Time I checked.. by SargeantLobes · · Score: 1
    Last time I checked, France was still full of Neanderthalls.

    Or maybe Rosie O'Donnell (Mark 2) has whiped them out by now, I'm not sure...

    --
    I do love "!" but not as much as I love "..."...
  175. They started receiving email by kiore · · Score: 3, Funny

    REQUEST FOR URGENT BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP

    Dear Mr Neanderthal,

    First I must solicit your strictest confidence of this transaction. This is by virtue of its nature as being utterly confidential and "Top Secret".

    You must be surprised hearing from me in this manner as we have not previously communicated.

    Please allow me to introduce myself. I am HOMO SAPIENS SAPIENS, descendant and heir of the late HOMO HEIDELBERGENSIS of AFRICA.

    Before he passed away my late ancestor secreted one hundred thousand (ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND) african elephants in the plains of Africa and I seek your assistance to export these animals to Europe where the growing shortage of the similar "Woolly mamoths" would make them highly marketable.

    While the seas and deserts seperating Africa from Europe are easily overcome, African Animals are unable to tolerate cold and I will need a number of large fur coats to protect them for the journey.

    In return for the suply of these furs and acting as my agent for the sale I would be delighted to offer you a full 50% of the realised market value.

    Yours Faithfully

    Homo Sapiens Sapiens,
    Lagos,
    Africa

  176. Deepak Chopra by efuseekay · · Score: 1


    is this your alias in /.?

    --
    Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
  177. Human beings have always existed on planet earth ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  178. Neanderthal Olympics by agwilliams1000 · · Score: 1

    if they were still alive today they would take all the top spots in just about any sport you can think of

    if the bbc documentary I watched is anything to go by then this isn't true at all. Apparently Neanderthals were used to hunting in dense woodland and as a result hunted by creeping up close to their prey and stabbing them with flightless spears.

    Humans however were used to hunting over large distances and were therefore adept at running and throwing their spears.

    So in summary if an Neanderthal found himself at the modern day Olympics, he would have to persuade the organisers to include creeping and stabbing in order to come home with a decent medal haul!

    1. Re:Neanderthal Olympics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He might not win the running competition (low weight is generally an advantage in running), but he might easily beat us in weight lifting...

  179. nothing new by ezelkow1 · · Score: 1

    This is nothing new what so ever. It has already been fairly understood that neandertals and humans co-existed by the artifacts left behind. Neandertals never had any sort of jewelry or artwork in anything they owned, until the time period during which human's came around. During this time many artifacts found at neandertal sites show various pieces of jewelry but with a slight twist that was not seen amongst human jewelry. The neandertal version was also much more basic and not as intricate as the human's version. This leads many to believe that not only did they co-exist, they also exchanged various goods and possibly some ideas as well

  180. Longer than that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We still have two of them in the accounting...

  181. It's obvious.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..if you look at the reconstruction of a young female -> they did get laid anymore and beer was not invented yet.

  182. Human beings have always existed on planet earth ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Human beings have always existed on planet earth !

    Forbidden Archeology : The Full Unabridged Edition
    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0892 132949/104-9540575-2392718?v=glance

    Human Devolution : a Vedic alternative to Darwins theory
    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0892 133341/102-7321020-8327348?v=glance

  183. Re:they invented? by JPThorne · · Score: 1

    They invented? Surely the Monolith educated them giving modern humans the edge in being naturally selected over Neanderthals (sp?). We've just not explored enough of the moon to take our first steps towards becomming star children yet. Was it the Kubrick, the Clark or the Strauss that made that first viewing so good? It's Friday, I ramble.

  184. Humans will be humans by dzfoo · · Score: 1

    >>"In short, the indicators point to the likelihood that Homo sapiens crushed or ousted the Neanderthals in the fight to survive."

    It took almost 1,000 years, but we finally did it. And as soon as we finish crushing or ousting all other species on this planet, Martians are next!

    Yay!

              -dZ.

    --
    Carol vs. Ghost
    ...Can you save Christmas?
  185. Patent Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Homo Sapiens patented humanness and put the Neands out of business.

  186. a lot can happen in a millennium by kwoff · · Score: 1

    We eliminated most native Americans in a few decades. A lot can happen in a millennium (or more, I'd guess). Diseases, famines.. even if you're stronger and more advanced, circumstances can work against you. Maybe Neanderthals were in fact smarter, but they were less aggressive or got depressed like that robot in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

  187. Do neanderthals and modern man share MtDNA? by master_p · · Score: 1

    Does anybody know?

  188. almost true... by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 0

    IANAA (I am no an Archeologist) but from what I have learned when younger, there is the possibility that the last descendants of Neanderthal to be the Basque People.

    They way my history teacher told it, it seems that Homo sapiens took the best places and competed with Neanderthal on most things.

    After some time, the Neanderthals retreated to a somewhat inhospitable region in southern france, high across the Pyrenees Mountains and evolved there for some time.

    That theory was later confirmed by the Biology teacher that taught us that ther basques had an differentiator gene that was different from other people of the same area.

    Also, the basque language is different from anything you ever heard, having no common root with latin, greek, german nor latin nor eastern form of speech (hindi...)

    So they taught us at least. Maybe the basques are not of neanderthal stock, but there is a certainty that they are from an isolated genetic stock that evolved for some time in autarcy.

    BTW, I'm happy to remind you that if you are american, you are most certainly of european stock; be it Frog, Brit or Kraut, you all evolved (mutated in some cases) to become the americans...

    A good proof for the christian anti-darwinists that it is not always the fittest that survive...

    --
    It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
    1. Re:almost true... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      differentiator gene that was different from other people of the same area
      Weell it wouldn't be much of a differentiator gene if it was the same, would it?
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:almost true... by Carbonated+Milk · · Score: 2, Informative

      Holy crap, one different gene?! They must be a different species! Why are you trusting what your crackpot history teacher has to say about genetics?

    3. Re:almost true... by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 2, Insightful
      if you are american, you are most certainly of european stock
      Not true of most Americans all of whose ancestors were here prior to the arrival of Columbus.
      (The exceptions, if any, would have some Viking blood.)
      --
      Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
    4. Re:almost true... by Jupiter9 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "A good proof for the christian anti-darwinists that it is not always the fittest that survive..."

      Actually you misunderstand the meaningof that term. The word fittest is termed as something that is "the best at surviving.", not necessarily the best at something like strength, eating, building, etc. So in the real world those species that are best at learning, or adapting to their environment (read as: able to survive in their environment), are those that evolve and thus "survive".

      So the fittest always do servive, because they are the best at surviving.

      --

      --
      Does anyone remember /\/\/\?
    5. Re:almost true... by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      BTW, I'm happy to remind you that if you are american, you are most certainly of european stock; be it Frog, Brit or Kraut, you all evolved (mutated in some cases) to become the americans...

      Um. No, not necessarily. Quite apart from the surviving native populations, and the San Francisco Chinese, you are aware that enormous numbers of Africans also migrated to the New World? They did so on European ships, and it can't really be said that they were especially keen to go, but go they did, and their descendants make up a large fraction of the population of the modern United States.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  189. Charlton Heston was partially right... by Lone_Canuck · · Score: 1

    Soilent Green is Neanderthal.

  190. Another theory... by Lone_Canuck · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Neanderthals couldn't order in French so they simply starved to death.

  191. Bah by Back+Slider+1969 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I'm betting they left. Who wants to live with the French?

  192. They died from imbarassment. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    by being sucessfully invaded and defeated by the French.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  193. Easy by stewwy · · Score: 2, Funny

    they caught avian bird flu........ coming to a chicken near you this winter

  194. Re:Saw A Program About This On German TV 2 Years A by CmdrGravy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Are you somehow unaware of the over riding laws of real men ?

    1) Every hole's a goal.
    2) You don't look at the mantlepiece when you're stoking the fire.

  195. Ummmm by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    This was on history channel last week.. And THAT was a re-run..

    Everyone now knows we co-existed for quite some time.

    The running theory is we ran the Neanderthals out of town as we slowly migrated and covered the earth. Both by force ( killing them for ground space ) and that we ate all their food.

    We were smarter and able to use tools better, so we won. Again the theory is we ate more fish.. so our brains developed more.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  196. That explains the French. by slasher999 · · Score: 1

    They didn't become extinct at all.

  197. 30k years ago ? by DinX · · Score: 0

    Sometimes you think you're still living together with Neanderthals ...

  198. Re:Saw A Program About This On German TV 2 Years A by aquatone282 · · Score: 2, Funny

    The neandrathal female in the program WAS very ugly.

    But boys will be boys, won't they?

    ;D

    --
    What?
  199. Neanderthals in France... by dayhox · · Score: 0
  200. simple answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    all humans are virus'
    by this i mean we take over and consume every thing we come in contact with and inhabit, even the chemicals we produce through normal activity are destructive,volitile or corrosive.
      we are bad by our nature and do not deserve to live on this living entity we decided to label planet earth

    neaderthals were not strong enough

  201. And everybody sings ... by Flambergius · · Score: 1

    I'm a neanderthal man
    You're a anatomically modern human girl
    Let's make neanderthal love
    In this neanderthal world

    --
    Computers are useless. They can only give you answers - Pablo Picasso
  202. Neanderthals still exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look at how many people re-elected Bush. And he's done a fine job in Iraq and Louisiana.

  203. Neanderthals disappeared? by Pointdexter · · Score: 1

    Have you ever been to France?

    --
    Party Time: Excellent
  204. Re:they invented? by 3waygeek · · Score: 1

    Was it the Kubrick, the Clark or the Strauss that made that first viewing so good?
     
    Or the drugs?

  205. Yeah, you're right by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 1

    it's not a gene, but a (some) chromosome that is used in differenciating different genetic population across the human genome. (My fault, really, for failling to use the right word... I keep forgetting this is slashdot....)

    The most easy to use are the X and Y chromosome, which allow you to differentiate the people as belonging to different haplogroups and the intermixing thereof, then after studying the specific ADN mitochondrial on those two chomosome and adding some data using the blood groups distribution, you can get a good idea of the various migrations and from what specific stocks they come from (hope the technobabble won't confuse you overmuch...)

    To get to the point, when Europe was under an Ice Age from 20000 to 13000 years ago, middle europe was almost emptied of its human population - people went mostly to Ukraine (Balkans) and the Aquitano-Pyrennean zone to escape the freezing.

    Later on the migrant flux from the balkans to old europe where a mix from the asiatic (hindi/Aryan) stock that had melanged with the basic european (caucasian, reminds you some ?) stock that took refuge in the south-east europe.

    This flux met the one coming from Spain and Pyrenees and intermixed somewhat.

    The Neanderthalic population that had retreated into the mountain was more and more isolated as the migratory flux was avoiding their inhospitable part of the mountain except for the usual human predatory habits. This caused some inbreeding, and also the reinforcement of certain genetic straits in the population marking them further apart from the rest.

    As for the gene thingy you mentionned, please remember that the human genome is 26,000 genes big, and that your closest relative (the chimpazee) is 99.7% compatible genetically, meaning only 78 genes are separating you from a small furry arboreal creature, possibly less if we take into consideration your stellar answer 8p

    Also to take in consideration are linguistic studies that tend to prove that the basque language is arount 8000 years old and has survived without alteration from that time, meaning that hearing two basque people speaking brings you back to the time when Neanderthals and Homo-sapiens were still contemporary.

    So, the Basques people have some specific genetic markings that are unique when compared to other migratory flux in europe, are the only representants of that particular genetic stock, are using a language that can be traced back quite some time that has no relation whatsoever with anything else you can hear...when all other language in the region belong to proved homo-sapiens stocks...

    Thay are not a different species, just a branch having kept some archaic vestiges of our genetic past...and possibly are the sole descendants of Neanderthals, or a human example of genetic deviation due to long term isolation...

    Now make your own mind, do some research, I hope I gave you enough to make you interested in the subject at least....

    --
    It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
    1. Re:Yeah, you're right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought all that nazi-era eugentic crap was out of fashion in Europe

    2. Re:Yeah, you're right by jsveiga · · Score: 1

      >your closest relative (the chimpazee) is 99.7% compatible genetically

      The breaking news is that it's possibly 96%:

      http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_ page/0,5744,16453082%255E30417,00.html

      I'm not bringing this to counter your well-written argument. It opens even more 'space' for possible changes before becoming another species.

    3. Re:Yeah, you're right by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 1

      Google a bit for the term Aryan before commenting please...

      What was that sentence ? ah, yes : I don't think it means, what you think it means...

      Also, your answer could participate in favor of the long stanging argument on eugenics (which means selection by breeding of certain specific, desirable traits, like we do with cattle...=>

              * pertaining to or causing improvement in the offspring produced
                  http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn2.1

              * Eugenics (from the Greek, for "well-born") is a philosophy which advocates the manipulation of human reproduction for the purposes of attempting to improve the human species over generations in regards to hereditary features. The term was coined in 1883 by Sir Francis Galton (though the idea had been put forward by Galton some time before), and eventually came to encompass the idea of using social policies which fell into the categories of "positive" ....
                  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenic

      --
      It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
    4. Re:Yeah, you're right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually calling it a chromosome is even more incorrect. The differences they're refering to are genetic markers on the Y chromosome that are used to trace ancestry. A genetic marker is usually just an area of the chromosome (usually outside coding regions) with a series of repeats that is variable. It's absolutely not a different "basque" chromosome.

      Suggesting that Basques have evolved from Neanderthal while the rest of us evolved from some other hominid species is also fundamentally wrong. That would make their genetic makeup even more different than Neaderthal is from homo sapiens. Plus Neader supposedly died out ~30,000 years ago so dating the Basque language to 8,000yo doesn't put them at the same time period.

      FWIW, you're history teacher is smoking crack. The basques represent a population that migrated to Europe eary on and has been extremely isolated both geographically and socially for a long period of time. Population isolation leads genetic drift and introduction of new alleles (markers) that aren't present in other populations. Which is why the basques are very distinct genetically.

    5. Re:Yeah, you're right by druxton · · Score: 1

      ...specific ADN mitochondrial on those two chomosome...
      ...hope the technobabble won't confuse you overmuch...

      Apparently you were a bit confused by the technobabble - Mitochondrial DNA has nothing to do with the chromosomes and that is exactly why it is useful in tracking lineage.

    6. Re:Yeah, you're right by davidfree · · Score: 1

      From what your saying, is it likely that the neanderthals had some sort of language then, as we would know it, however basic it may have been?

      We always have a picture of people of this time using nothing more that a series of grunts, rather than actually speaking. I presume speech developed over a long period of time, and was usually mixed in with a few bashes on the head with a club!

      --
      --Imagine every Thursday shoes exploded if you tied them the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers.
  206. It's easy!!! by RabidAmerican · · Score: 0

    We had the hottest chicks......
    ;-}

    --
    /*Dave
  207. True, just they are now a minority... by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 1

    Not being an USA citizen, I had the impression that Indians are a minority, and that most of the population came from old-continent migration...

    Might be mistaken, for sure, and my post was perhaps a little bit too simplifying the facts, but then this is slashdot 8)

    --
    It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
    1. Re:True, just they are now a minority... by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1
      I had the impression that Indians are a minority, and that most of the population came from old-continent migration.
      That's true.
      However, the phrase "most certainly" means something like "very, very certainly", or "100% certainly".
      Perhaps you meant "almost certainly", which is slightly less definite.
      Actually, I think that the phrase "most likely" would have been more appropriate to what I (now) think that you meant.
      And, given another poster's pointing out that many so-called "African-Americans" aren't descended from Europeans either (and, come to think of it, neither are many so-called "Asian-Americans"), using the word "likely" or "probably" would probably be more accurate.
      --
      Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
  208. ask Vercingetorix... by yossarian+dent · · Score: 1
    Take a quick look at early Gallic culture, and you'll see why the question in the post reminds me of a joke:

    Why do men die earlier than women?
    Because they want to.

    --
    sig not ready: (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail.
  209. soylent green is pre-people by binarybum · · Score: 1

    maybe they tasted good?

    --
    ôó
  210. Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very funny post, thank you for making my day! (I've even bookmarked it).

    On a slightly different note I am a religious/spiritual person and would like to add that there are some who honestly believe (or find it extremely likely) that the names Adam and Eve (and the rest of the early names) were versions of humanity rather than specific individuals and that the use of the names in a proselike manner are allegorical. It might sound totally wacky but take a look at the generally accepted meaning and inherent symbolisms of the names in the jewish sources and it isn't that much of a step further.

    Oh and back to the funny stuff: who could blame God if he suffers from bouts of Humanoia? :)

  211. Legend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Big Foot, Yeti, flesh eating "witches", think there's any way Neanderthals could have been origin of these and others? Hummmm....

  212. They died out because by CKnight · · Score: 1

    neanderthals are yummy!

  213. Flying Spaghetti Monster?! by hangingonwords · · Score: 0

    Whats all this I've been hearing about a Flying Spaghetti Monster?

    --
    fact: microsoft > linux
  214. "most certanly"? by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    "white" people constitute less then 50% of the population in many states. They make up 69.1% of the population in total, if you don't count 'hispanic'

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:"most certanly"? by orasio · · Score: 1

      What does that mean, "hispanic"?
      I believe they asked me something like that when I traveled to the US.
      I found it somewhat insulting.
      I am of course hispanic, if that means I am from a spanish speaking country, but there is no such thing as "hispanic". If they mean color, I don't know, I'm pale pink. There was no such option.
      América (the continent) has people of all ethnicities. Natives, Africans, and Europeans.
      "hispanic" doesn't define any of us.

    2. Re:"most certanly"? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I believe most "hispanics" are at least partly of European ancestery, which means they, like the white man, wouldn't be here without "old continent" migration.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  215. They Never Disappeared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, they never disappeared.

    They are now holding public office.

  216. A Protector came back for them by SWPadnos · · Score: 1

    Isn't it obvious?

    --
    - The Sigless Wonder
  217. I know why by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

    But why did they disappear?

    Global warming, of course! They destroyed themselves by driving all those SUV's, running all those Freon-filled air conditioners, smog-spewing factories and powerplants, and spraying all those underarm deodorants!

    Why oh why can't we learn from the past? Our Neanderthal predecessors destroyed their own civilization just as we are destroying ours right now! If we would only regress back to the Stone Age, all would be well again. /sarcasm>

    --
    In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
  218. Ill tempered geeks by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1

    So what do you call an ill tempered geek who used to beat up guys on the football team?
    Sir.

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
  219. Science is not a religion by Doc+Ri · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Following science to the exclusion of anything else is also a religion.

    This not true. Unfortunately, statements like this all to often remain unchallenged. The false assumption behind it is that every approach to the mysteries of the world we are living in qualifies as a religion. Science is different, however.

    As opposed to religion, science is based on evidence. It is about making informed choices. These are not necessarily the right choices (in hindsight). But they are the only ones you can come up with without simply relying on tradition, authority or 'revelation'. Usually, adopting the scientific method is an informed choice in itself.

    How much different are religions! The vast majority of religious people did not pick their specific religion based on an informed choice. Most just believe what their parents believe or what was planted in their minds by other authorities when they were children.

    Like the GP I'll also take science any day of the week. Not because I am converted but because I am convinced.

    --
    617B3B7F7E7C7D7F00EOF
    1. Re:Science is not a religion by tsarmallon · · Score: 1

      Science is also furthered by those disinterested in its outcome. Scientists seek knowledge and truth as such, not as a means. Some religions seek to explain what cannot be described (or has yet to be described) by science. It seems that once the religious beliefs are disproved by science, the religion becomes mythology. However, Christianity is now being used as a political tool, as a means to further an agenda. The first proto-Christian was Plato, who in Book X of the Republic described the Myth of Er. Briefly, the Myth of Er was a tool to be used to keep man just. Plato/Socrates referred to this myth as a noble lie, because although it was a lie, it served a noble purpose. Christianity has been used to justify many acts, even some that are antithetical to the values the religion preaches. Perhaps this is why Christianity is falling in popularity among most of Europe.

    2. Re:Science is not a religion by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      Hm. Science is an approach to the mysteries, regardless of how it is defined. How it is approached does not matter. If science were completely adequate, then there would be no barrier between QM and GR.

      Your allusion to being taught religion is not that far from going to school and taking a science class. The God of a religion has been replaced by knowledge itself, and I see no difference.

      Like you, I'll take religion not because I'm converted, but because I am convinced. I also take science, because I am convinced. The two are not mutually exclusive, as much as you may like to think it is. One covers the rational, the other covers the irrational.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    3. Re:Science is not a religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Hm. Science is an approach to the mysteries, regardless of how it is defined. How it is approached does not matter.

      I like to think of science and religion as being different approaches to the handling of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Religion offers faith as a solution, and gives answers based on the wisdom and authority of trusted holy personages.

      Science instead *encourages* doubt as a useful tool for investigation. If you don't know the answer, come up with a hypothesis and test it. It acts as a filter for knowledge, and doesn't take any stance on belief. Science is littered with examples of "disproved" theories (e.g. phlogiston) and cares not one whit whether anyone believes it or not-- it's still a theory as far as science is concerned, even when there is zero evidence to support it.

      > If science were completely adequate, then there would be no barrier between QM and GR.

      Well, that's not strictly accurate; it's more of a gap than a "barrier." If someone unified the theories tomorrow, your argument that science is inadequate would go out the window. It's not impossible in principle.

  220. Secondhand Smoke by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    It was second hand smoke that killed them off. According to the news reports I've heard, that stuff is much more deadly than the first hand stuff.

    Seeing how cigaretts killed off the dinosaurs (see FarSide), they wouldn't have stood a chance.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  221. So easy, even a neanderthal could use it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not cool man, not cool.

  222. Have you been to France? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some are still there.

    Ah, the cowardly flame!

    1. Re:Have you been to France? by chawly · · Score: 1

      Yes I have - in fact I live in Central France. Can't quarrel with you since "some" is a relative term, but I will say that your "some" is "a hell of a lot" in my (still relative) terms.

      --
      How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley
  223. Heh, Even a Caveman could do it... by ilselu1 · · Score: 0
    --
    -my inner racer is pointing at him and laughing.-
  224. And from the future http://www.cnn.co.vega.univ by SlashingComments · · Score: 1

    Windows and Linux co-existed for about 20 years before one of them died off. No one knows why but historians believe that there was a surge of common users who wanted spyware, spam and other security holes for their daily computing experience and since one of them was not capable of doing that it perished.

    --

    - People who believe other people have no right to live, got no right to live ...

  225. Neanderthals died out by ktharsis · · Score: 1

    The same thing probably happened to Neanderthals that happens to all species that become extinct. Humans adopt a superior mindset and kill them after proper justification.

  226. ID is not science by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm sick of people touting Intelligent Design when they don't even understand Evolution.

    Most people touting Intelligent Design do it because they don't understand Evolution, or they do it to dishonestly promote their religious beliefs, hiding them under pseudoscience.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  227. That explains... by JamesTKirk · · Score: 1

    Neanderthals co-existed with anatomically modern humans for at least 1,000 years in central France

    That explains a lot about the French.

    1. Re:That explains... by chawly · · Score: 1

      It does at that - and a good deal about yourself by the same occassion. As a great man once said "You have a point there, but if you keep your hat on you'll only be thought of as lacking politeness"

      --
      How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley
    2. Re:That explains... by JamesTKirk · · Score: 1

      Yes, it does explain something about myself. I have a sense of humor.

    3. Re:That explains... by chawly · · Score: 1

      And I know where you got it, sir ! You purchased it (at the special low price of $1.19) in the city of Yuma, Arizona - or rather in one of it's suburbs. Suburb called "Sensa". It consists of a small statue of Mr. Alfred E. Neuman (of "what, me worry ?" fame). Following the instruction leaflet, you have installed this at bottom of your garden where you go and contemplate it early each morning (except Sundays, of course). Just keep the hat on, friend.

      --
      How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley
    4. Re:That explains... by JamesTKirk · · Score: 1

      Wow. May I ask you, "friend", what you are smoking?

    5. Re:That explains... by chawly · · Score: 1

      You may indeed ask, my cheery old spaceship driving chum, why not ? I don't smoke, or drink either for that matter. May I ask you - since I see you trying to explain the French - where did you get the habit of trying to explain the inexplicable ? This is not a good habit, and it might happen - as in the case of the French - that the inexplicable comes to resent you for bringing your powerful intellect to bear on them. The French (I'm an adopted member of that club) try to take a humourous outlook - but Yuma, Arizona is a long way from Grenoble, France and this accounts for the difference in humour maybe. To change the subject slightly, I have another question. Any truth in the rumour regarding your off-duty activities together with your Communications Officer ? Some trekky friends (French also) have been asking me, and I've promised to ask. Sorry if we're indiscrete - but your secret will be safe with us.

      --
      How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley
    6. Re:That explains... by JamesTKirk · · Score: 1

      Ah, I think I understand now. I originally thought you were smoking dope, or possibly insane. But in fact, your harsh words appear to be due to the fact that you think I'm American, and my comment was motivated by my political views.

      I am, in fact, not American, but German. I have never eaten a Freedom Fry or Freedom Toast. My comment was purely humorous. If Neanderthal artifacts had been found in Italy or Poland, I would have made the same joke about the Italians or Polish. I believe that, if they didn't try to read any political motivation into it, a person in both Yuma, Arizona and Grenoble, France would find this humorous. If you truly resent this joke, I can only conclude that you have no sense of humor.

      As for my relationship with my communications officer, I will only say that what we shared was special and tender, and I will not discuss it further.

    7. Re:That explains... by chawly · · Score: 1

      "or possibly insane" - I only said that I neither smoked nor drank ; I leave the rest to the appreciation of my fellow humans. "your harsh words" - very sorry, didn't mean to be harsh and nothing in your post gave any hint of "political views". I have been offered both "Freedom Fries" and "Freedom Toast" though not on the same occassion. The fit of laughter which overcame me on both occassions caused the American ladies and gentlemen who were present to offer the opinion - with the frankness that is their wont - that I was, in fact, insane. (And who knows, they may well be correct.) "Yuma, Arizona" - didn't have anything to say about the city of Yuma; I wrote about one of it's suburbs, the small and regrettably little know town of Sensa. The address would therefore be Sensa, Yuma, if you catch my drift. "you have no sense of humor." - you're quite right, sir. I forgot it in the train last Thursday along with my umbrella - and it was raining, too. "my communications officer, I will only say that what we shared was special and tender, and I will not discuss it further." And quite right too - no gentlemen discusses ....But, as the actrice said to the bishop, 'nuff said. Spectacular legs though. As a note to end on, I notice some differences between German and Scottish humour (or humor, if that's your taste in spelling). Have you noticed that there's no difference in the facial expression when you're smiling or when you're grinding your teeth ? Makes a difference in what you have to pay your dentist though - so smile.

      --
      How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley
  228. Disease probably did it by dreadlocks · · Score: 1

    common cold - that's how 15th-16th century Europeans wiped out much of the native americans. Also there was the black plague which decimated Europe. If disease (or viruses/ bacterial infections etc.) can do so much damage within a species, it shouldn't be too much of a leap to consider the effects of "disease" spread to a related species

  229. Creationism is about authority, not truth by ianscot · · Score: 2, Insightful
    If physics, chemistry, etc. still all work as expected, how is origin so critical?

    Let's see, how exactly do we come up with a coherent world view in which a) DNA, genes, chromosomes and so on are the means of inheritance; and b) the first woman was created using a rib torn from the side of the first man? The best you can do is propose a "God set things in motion" model, in my view anyway, and then you've got all sorts of problems keeping that afloat if you've ever even seen meiosis or mitosis. (If God "set it in motion" then where exactly along the genetic chain does God intervene to make certain subcellular determinations in line with prophesy and so on? Michael Behe winds up proposing that sort of constant intervention in order to make his watch-watchmaker arguments for things like Cilia.)

    At a basic foundational level, almost any science poses extreme challenges to a "literalist" (which of course always means selectively, conveniently literalist in actual practice) reading of the Bible.

    In geology, for example, realizing that the world wasn't made exactly the way it is now, that it became this way over time on a scale unimaginable to the people who wrote the Bible, makes the "On the Xth day..." business staggeringly superficial by comparison, just to start with. The actual age of the earth is, in and of itself, a contradiction of any reasonable reading of the Bible's specific claims about human life. (Not that the whole 6,000 year thing is actually in the Bible, mind you, except indirectly.)

    But c'mon -- "creationism" isn't about God. It's about the worldly authority of those who claim they speak for God. That's a completely different set of questions. Our Pharisees will tie themselves into intellectual knots to keep their hold on power, and to keep us from asking the obvious questions about their Oh So Divine knowledge... Which contrasted with the rigors of science, seems to come to them awfully, awfully easily, and to back their authority ever so conveniently.

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
    1. Re:Creationism is about authority, not truth by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
      Why do you think you can argue points in the bible when you don't even know what the bible says?

      Rib? There is no rib! There's a huge difference between what the bible says and what the bible translations say.

      Slashdot is the home of logical fallacies and people claiming something is wrong, when they don't even understand what that thing is.

    2. Re:Creationism is about authority, not truth by FLEB · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe that particular version of creationism is incompatible, but that doesn't rule out all intelligent design.

      The basic theory of an intelligent creator could include everything from the strict Biblical idea, hoaxes from God, to time-traveling scientists from the future, to well, it's endless. Depending on what the truth really is, it could include or disprove common scientific holdings. (Personally, my money's on science.)

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
  230. More evidence of Intelligent Design on IRC by mikael · · Score: 2, Interesting


    * Wingman has joined #intelligentdesign
    * AlphaHelix has joined #intelligentdesign
    * MutatedTaxon has joined #intelligentdesign
    <Wingman> hi
    <AlphaHelix> hi Wingman
    <MutatedTaxon> morning Wingman
    <Wingman> finished my project at work today
    <Wingman> the boss upstairs asked me to design something that could fly
    <AlphaHelix> =O=
    <MutatedTaxon> awesome
    <Wingman> so I knew it would have to be something small with wings
    <Wingman> but I didn't what to do for eyes
    <AlphaHelix> hundreds and thousands :)
    <Wingman> tahts what I did, compound eyes
    <MutatedTaxon> l33t
    <Wingman> 4000 on each side
    <MutatedTaxon> w00t
    <AlphaHelix> what about a couple of eyes on the back of the head?
    <Wingman> thought about that too
    <Wingman> got three
    <Wingman> good to have a spare
    <AlphaHalix> lol
    <MutatedTaxon> does it walk?
    <Wingman> Its got six legs with feet
    <Wingman> so it can jump up and start flying if anything comes too close
    <Wingman> and it can even land upside down on a ceiling or roof
    <MutatedTaxon> h4x0r sk1llz
    <Wingman> and it will eat absolutely anything
    <AlphaHelix> no way!!!!
    <Wingman> it regurgitates its stomach acid on anything tasty
    <Wingman> and sucks it back up
    <AlphaHelix> Yuck!
    <AlphaHelix> what are you going to call it?
    <Wingman> The Fly
    <Wingman> cos it flies, gettit?
    * MutatedTaxon has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
    * AlphaHelix has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
    * Wingman has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    1. Re:More evidence of Intelligent Design on IRC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Is that taken from here:
      http://www.ircbible.destrukto-theater.nl/

      Or just inspired by it?

  231. This is old news by sargosis · · Score: 1

    There was something about this a few months ago on the History channel. I believe it was called "Ape to Man." I highly suggest trying to find and watch it. It was pretty entertaining.

    --
    for free wallpapers, visit Sargosis.com
  232. Neaderthals all around us by hkb · · Score: 1

    Apparently people with a certain skull structure (which I have) and people with red in their hair (reddish-brown here) have Neanderthal in them.

    I certainly embrace my heritage, now if only I can get us half-breeds recognized by the Equal Opportunity Employment and Multicultural Diversity programs: "I need time off to go rock climbing this week, it's my culture."

    --
    /* Moderating all non-anonymous trolls up since 2004 */
  233. Not so funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That meme is not so funny, as it is the essence of Christian Identity. They believe that European Whites were created by God and non-white "Muds" were evolved. Which makes the "Muds" souless animals, to be slaughtered!

  234. Re:Human beings have always existed on planet eart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you'd like to spam a human being, here is a link

    ARinteela@aol.com

    Email Me

  235. Since this was ancient France by MECC · · Score: 1

    The real question is: what happened to the modern humans?

    --
    "We are all geniuses when we dream"
    - E.M. Cioran
  236. They're still alive and well! by chroot_james · · Score: 1

    It is my understanding that the Neanderthals are still alive and well in France!

    --
    Reality is nothing but a collective hunch.
    1. Re:They're still alive and well! by chawly · · Score: 1

      Mine too, friend, mine too. Further, many of them are novice computer users with a minimum of 10 years user experience. Notice, please, that I live in Central France - so I know whereof I write. Yet further .... no, I'aint saying what OS they use.

      --
      How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley
  237. Um...no. by s388 · · Score: 1

    how much "intelligence" do most animals need to find more than enough food to survive?

    maybe you're only talking about a possibility, ("we needn't have [NECESSARILY] directly killed them"), but still your comments seem pretty off-target or at least shallow. --along with a lot of other comments around here when such topics come up.

    you have absolutely no evidence that the humans simply had "higher intelligence." what you just said is a foolish just-so story. "well, humans had higher intelligence, so they got the food. the neanderthals couldn't compete." it's totally circular, just running around the fact that neanderthals are gone and humans aren't. any number of things can lead to a species extinction or apparent disappearance.

    neanders and humans would only have had to "compete" in the way you're describing if they were trying to fill the same ecological niche-- which would mean that they were most likely competing in a confrontational way, if anything like what you're saying actually happened. if your totally vacuous story was true, then all neanderthal remains would show signs of starvation. (...take a guess about whether that's true or not)

    it's just as silly and oversimplified as all the garbage about how humans simply started using "blade tech" and could "clean house" on all the HUGE GAME ANIMALS RUNNING ALL OVER THE PLACE. in fact, the role that big game animals and "hunting" played in the prehistoric human diet is overexaggerrated, and over-represented for physical and chemical reasons. plus, it makes windbags (like some people in this thread) feel like they have a big johnson, i think. or like they have acute intelligence, or super-hunting ferocity, embedded in their souls. nice try. (in most environments, "hunting" can't sustain a human population by itself, and meat-eating itself is usually only a pivotal part of the diet when those resources are maintained by intervention, pastoralism, and the animal-analogs to agricultre.)

  238. disappeared? by Khashishi · · Score: 1

    Maybe we killed them.

  239. science news from yesterday...

    I'm definately not that up to date 8)

    thx for not flaming me, slashdot feels lonely sometimes, when you're feeding the trolls 8)

    --
    It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
  240. What?! by mack0196 · · Score: 1

    Perhaps modern humans beat them to the bipedalism patent, then they were screwed.

    1. Re:What?! by chawly · · Score: 1

      Nope! I live in Central France and I insist that the article is wrong. Both parties are still present. You got the dept. right though.

      --
      How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley
  241. I have a theory... by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

    My own theory on what happened to Neanderthals has three points.

    1) One big difference between humans and Neanderthals is that humans have an advanced voice box allowing them to speak and thus communicate information without the use of excessive hand gestures (i.e., "Hey, he's over behind the bush, throw a rock"). Though I don't think this "speech thing" has made one bit of difference other than to increase the penchant for humans to attack their own and it is perhaps "speechification" of human leaders that lead to the "great rock throwing" arms race of the early mesolithic period. As we can see from public discourse, communications are highly over-rated. So really, my whole theory rests on the next two items. I just wanted to prove my superior intelligence by pointing out that I know something unique and totally worthless--yet with just the right touch of obscurity. So, props to my Momma.

    2) Humans are flabbier and weaker than Neanderthals. Why didn't we perish? Either humans are better at throwing rocks, or we didn't fight at all. In fact, if you look at the history of warfare -- it is rarely the strong that survive, but actually the most unkempt, disease ridden and nastiest that survive. Europeans never conqured America, for instance, it was a combination of Yellow Fever and BO. Addiction to alcohol did the rest. These remain good American values to this day.

    But I digress,.. Neanderthals disappeared around the time of a great ice age. My theory; humans have less muscle and can survive on less food. We can eat anything and often prefer to eat things that would shorten the life of any lesser animal -- we seem to like to live on the edge of digestibility. Neanderthals with their boulder throwing ability were no match for the couch potato superious (aka Homo Erectus -- a word which is probably the main reason for church folk flocking to the Intelligent Design camp -- If we've learned nothing else from Carl Rove, it's make what you are saying sound more good with words like "Strategery" -- if we were to name humans today, we might call them something more catchy like just "erectus viagorus, cio baby"). Yes, our ability to be pound for pound, the weakest and most bloated animal on two or more legs allowed humans to be nearly the best animal and retaining weight gain. The winner has got to be the camel. Imagine the compelling junk mail for them; "reduce the hump and hump more in three easy payments." Neanderthals would never have developed an economic system that allowed for three easy payments-- our dominance of the earth was inevitable.

    3) The final theory; Humans and Neanderthals interbred and sexual selection weeded out the hairy shoulders, stooped forehead and foreign looks--with some success here and there. Now here is another little factoid that plays into the "getting jiggy with it theory": One of the main reasons people developed farming communities was for the creation of Meade. You can "google" the terms 'Early Man Society Beer' and quickly find that I'm not making this up. I'd put the link here, but 90% of the time studies have shown just saying "google it" will make most people pass on any research that requires 5 seconds or more.

    Again, I digress, but it was informative... Now this "Meade" is a pretty good way of creating protein from carbohydrates and turning wheat into something that doesn't taste like straw, and therefore is welcome but also serves the human preference for being "just this side of toxic". Meade left out longer in the sun forms a lighter, fluffier and tastier version -- known to many as beer, except it is darker and more bitter in Europe and still called Beer. Now this Beer substance gets Homo Erectus drunk (again, I didn't come up with such a Fabulous sounding Latin term), and Neanderthal's look good enough for it being 3 am and Batenderus Man is giving us a last call signal, so -- "what the hell?" Time to save the starving Neanderthal race, one drunken lady at a time. Thus the need for diversity and survival of the species would one

    --
    >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  242. George Bush by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


    Need I say more?

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  243. Who's ridiculous? by Cujo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Who said that atheists don't believe in a spiritual life? You can have spirituality aplenty without a deity or anything supernatural at all. As the old Zen master said - if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!

    I personally have plenty of reasons to live (I'm leaving in 10 minutes to go pick one of them up from preschool) without a supernatural invisible friend or a fantasy (nighmarishly dull) afterlife. They're my reasons, not someone else's, and not delusions.

    --

    Helium balloons want to be free.

    1. Re:Who's ridiculous? by bleckywelcky · · Score: 1

      Um, well then you're not really an atheist. However, assuming you are an atheist that believes that there is nothing after death, then going to pick up your kids from preschool is pointless. Because their life is pointless. And your life is pointless. Both your lives mean nothing in the end because after you die, you cease to exist in all forms. Many atheists can't think outside the box in terms of their existence (although they may be capable of such thought elsewhere), so this may be a hard thing to grasp. But in the grand scheme, if one thing means absolutely nothing, why should anyone bother with it? It all comes back to just being hard-wired ... there's no other argument. However, if you would care to extrapolate on your statement: "I personally have plenty of reasons to live (I'm leaving in 10 minutes to go pick one of them up from preschool)" then please do. Come up with some arguments and reasons for why your daily actions, your kid's life, and your life matter at all.

    2. Re:Who's ridiculous? by Cujo · · Score: 1

      You don't understand what an atheist is. An atheist is someone who denies the literal existence of any theistic deity, classing said entities with Leprechauns, the Boogy Man, and Bigfoot. Santa Claus has a slightly higher status, since some of us lie to our children about that.

      Both your lives mean nothing in the end because after you die, you cease to exist in all forms.

      As for your multiple non-sequiturs about meaning and purpose, I'm not going to debate anything so poorly thought out. The fallacies are so tangled up together I can't distinguish them. What is the argument, exactly? Make it plain. I've come across things that ARE hard for me to grasp, but this doesn't qualify.

      --

      Helium balloons want to be free.

    3. Re:Who's ridiculous? by bleckywelcky · · Score: 1


      Alright, show me an atheist who believes in an afterlife (whether that be a spiritual life, reincarnation, or whatever).

      Non-sequiturs ... right. Because it so difficult to see that no matter what your derivation might be, if you multiply by 0 in the end, you always get 0.

      I can't make it much more plain, so take your shot at it. I like how you skirt by taking any responsibility for your argument by just shrugging it all off:

      The fallacies are so tangled up together I can't distinguish them.

      Why don't you quit the hand-waving and actually come up with something we can discuss. Unless you really are that inept at arguing, in which case this whole thing will just be annoying for me and confusing for you, so we might as well stop now.

  244. This is SO not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Paleoanthropologists have known since 1992 that Neandertals and Cro-magnons co-existed in the Palestine area for 40,000 years. So how, exactly, is this news?

  245. to the contrary by the_REAL_sam · · Score: 1

    i've met lots of intelligent athletes. i was merely making a joke.

    meanwhile your comment is a total cheap shot. do you wear that hostility everywhere you go? is it working out for you?

    --
    "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
  246. It's a tautology, and people *still* don't accept. by Lifewish · · Score: 1

    The best "alternative viewpoint" I've come across was from a (fairly well-educated) Christian who honestly believed that the human race tended towards Christianity.

    Um... Holy Roman Empire --> Dark Ages, anyone?

    --
    For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
  247. Neanderthals = Dwarves? by bytta · · Score: 1

    This is a bit (or a lot) off topic, but when reading about Neanderthals , they:
    Were short, strong and extremely tough.
    A lot hairier than humans.
    Lived in caves.
    Made sharp tools of stone, notably axes.
    And so on...
    All these, and many more similarities, also apply to Tolkien's, Terry Pratchett's and Disney's dwarves.

    28-30.000 years are somewere between 1-2000 generations so the facts can get a bit skewed going from parent/grandparent to child about a thousand times.

    Any takers on the theory that the 7 little men depicted in the Snow-White are what remains of the Neanderthals?

    Flame away...

  248. Democracy by CarpetShark · · Score: 1
    Well, everyone took a vote, and they got voted off the island.
    Yes, kind of like two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner ;)
  249. What happened to them? by gevantry · · Score: 1

    They interbred with homo sapiens. Just about everybody likes sex. I doubt Neanderthals were any different from Cro Magnon in that department.

  250. Re:the reply is not close to true... by Lew-the-nerd · · Score: 1
    Actually there are those of us that came from other places like Poland, Russia, Italy,China, SE Asia, Africa, the other Americas - and are quite satisfied with our origins.
    A good proof for the christian anti-darwinists that it is not always the fittest that survive...
    This kind of mindless slur really dimishes what seems to be a sensible posting. Grow up.
  251. Modern humans used dogs to hunt by Gary+Williams · · Score: 1

    I cannot think of any way of proving this conjecture, but I wonder if H. sapiens sapiens out-competed H. sapiens neanderthalis because the neanderthals didn't have dogs and the modern humans had a mutually beneficial hunting relationship with canines.

    I fully realise that I could have made an equally unprovable assertion on pretty well any property that is not likely to be archeologically testable like: modern humans out-competed neanderthals because we had access to cannabis for pain relief during childbirth and the neanderthals didn't! :-)

    Still, I like dogs.

    1. Re:Modern humans used dogs to hunt by EtherealStrife · · Score: 1
      Dogs have been around for a long time, but exact dates are iffy. Archaeologists tend to side with hard evidence, which dates to early Homo sapiens. Whereas biologists are saying well into the Middle Paleolithic (200k-35k BP). Which would really be fascinating, imho (and would put them well into the neanderthal time period as well as Homo sapiens).

      As for hunting, I don't believe dogs would've made that significant of a difference. Just the fact that one group is limited to a kill range of a few feet and favors caves, while the other has early projectiles and favors high points with panoramic views of their surrounds.... it's a pretty major advantage.

      What I'd really like to see is a better estimate of *when* exactly humans and dogs started relying on oneanother, and *where* that first occurred.

    2. Re:Modern humans used dogs to hunt by EtherealStrife · · Score: 1
      "Archaeologists tend to side with hard evidence, which dates to early Homo sapiens"

      blah meant to say that it dates to purely Homo sapien times (somewhere around 20 thousand years ago evidence starts showing up of man and dog living/dying together)

  252. Clan Of The Cave Bear by beforewisdom · · Score: 1

    An excellent novel to read is "Clan Of The Cave Bear" by Jean Auel.

    The story is set in prehistoric Europe where Cromagnon and Neanderthal humans coexist. The story is about a Cromagnon toddler who is orphaned, adopted by a tribe of Neanderthals, does not know of the other kind of humans for almost her entire life, and how she adjusts growing up.

    Auel thoroughly researched her book to the point of becoming the darling of archaeologists. Many of the places and elements in the story were inspired from real life finds. The same is true for some of the caves and places she describes. She interpolates what Neanderthal culture was like liberally, but her interpolations start from what is believed to be known in scientific circles. She writes very descriptively like Ray Bradbury.

    When you read the book you really feel as if you visited prehistoric Europe.

  253. Re:the reply is not close to true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually there are those of us that came from other places like Poland, Russia, Italy,China, SE Asia, Africa, the other Americas

    Actually, Poland and Italy (and even parts of Russia) *are* in Europe...

  254. Which is why ID ain't science by ianscot · · Score: 1
    The basic theory of an intelligent creator could include everything

    You're so right, and as a result whenever ID writers like Michael Behe get things completely refuted -- see his earlier arguments about fossil whales -- they can therefore just move the playing field to the edges of whatever scientists are working on how, claiming that whatever it is represents the very edges of human knowledge and ability to understand complexity.

    Scientific ideas can be disproved. ID cannot.

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
  255. You were about to post in Greek or Aramaic, then? by ianscot · · Score: 1
    There's a huge difference between what the bible says and what the bible translations say.

    How charmingly relativistic you become when cornered by the incoherence of the position you're supporting. God's word has suddenly become sort of slippery, lost in translation, but somehow it's still on your side and it's still literally true if only I could believe?

    I feel certain that you're about to re-translate the Genesis verses in question in order to comprehensively argue for a connection between (Genesis 2 in the KJV):

    2:21. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept:and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

    2:22. And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

    2:23. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh:she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

    And mitochondrial DNA, or something? Or were you just posting a sort of dismissive B.S. meant to neatly wall off your ideology from any criticism?

    Incidentally, my Southern Baptist background is totally adamant that the KJV is the ONLY worthwhile translation, and quite literal about the rib. If you'd really like to make the point about the mistranslation, perhaps you'd like to fight out your little schism with them. I don't claim to speak for God, personally; I just recognize the completely self-serving claptrap of those who do make that claim for what it is.

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
  256. And to repeat what that claptrap is: by ianscot · · Score: 1
    Arguments for the "literal" truth of the Bible are not about morality, or God, or truth. They are about the authority of human beings to speak in God's place about all those things.

    They are authoritarian, not moral, arguments.

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
    1. Re:And to repeat what that claptrap is: by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
      It's also called religion. I think americans tend to forget because they're so full of themselves and their veiw of the world. It's mainly americans and those indocrinated by americans that believe the bible is literal truth.

      Haha, then again, if they didnt' do that then they wouldn't be able to constantly argue with all the people who believe in science but don't know what the hell science is about :)

      I'm always amazed by how many different ways americans have been able to find to seperate themselves from those around them, and so polarized too!! I just love the left/right political stuff where if left right were a scale from 1 to 100 the left and right of america would probably be about 97 and 98 :) And yet, they still fight like mad, seemingly dumping their brains in the dustbin and arguing about apostrophes or some other such nonsense. :)

  257. Re:You were about to post in Greek or Aramaic, the by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
    I'm not supporting any position. I personally am not a christian or a jew. I'm just pointing out that the translations are incorrect, there is no rib mentionned.

    I know for some reason everybody has to turn everything personal and everything, but i can't be bothered. Again i'm just pointing out that you're incorrect.

    In fact, i find it all amusing. People don't seem to realize that ALL paths lead to enlightenment. That means truths in any path can be applied to any other path if the person is smart enough to open themselves to different ways of looking at the universe. Divisionistic people like yourself are one of the reasons it's taking us so damn long to learn anything.

  258. Simple answer by FatAssBastard · · Score: 1

    I choose something over nothing. When I die, I'm dead, that's it, game over, thanks for playing. I do, however, enjoy my life, and would like to go on enjoying it for as long as possible. It is most certainly preferable (IMO, of course) to absolute nothingness.

    And you're right, with a few exceptions for people like Ghandi and so forth, nothing we do will make an ounce of difference 100 years from now.

    --
    /.: why the hell am I here?
  259. Ah -- you're the left end of that same spectrum! by ianscot · · Score: 1
    People don't seem to realize that ALL paths lead to enlightenment. That means truths in any path can be applied to any other path if the person is smart enough to open themselves to different ways of looking at the universe. Divisionistic people like yourself are one of the reasons it's taking us so damn long to learn anything.

    Believe me, I was raised by a family whose Southern wing -- as recently as last week at Grandma's funeral, in fact -- is dedidated to maintaining an absolute grip on Godly power for the white guys who claim that power. I've been to their church services, which despite being oh so into personal (as opposed to impersonal?) relationships with Jesus seem to be informed exclusively by the mindset of the Book of Numbers. They post tracts, whose message is invariably "Devote yourself to blindered obedience and abject worship or you will fry in Hell," at the entrance to the sanctuary.

    I'm all for religious tolerance of exactly the sort you support. Essentially the problem I have with modern American fundamentalism, which you rightly suggest is largely a US (and Australian) thang, is that it's not about any of the things religion is about. We want enlightenment -- How do I live as a moral individual in a world with massive corporate structures like this? When does life begin? The answer from this authoritarian wing of Christianity is "Believe absolutely the right thing, and never waver in your obedience to us... Er, to God, yeah, that's right, to God."

    The paths that don't lead to enlightenment are the ones that, specifically, determinedly, by any means necessary, will crush the individual's attempt to attain that enlightenment, through the use of worldly power and the threat of divine power. And I know my relatives, and that is what they seriously believe in: brainwashing, pure and simple. It's also exactly, exactly, the wing of Christianity that has so much trouble with evolution. And that's not a coincidence.

    (Personally I have no trouble at all with belief in creation by God -- but the Biblical version is at best a poor Platonic shadow for my money, and certainly not worthy of the authoritarian baggage it's carrying for those folks.)

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
  260. Re:Ah -- you're the left end of that same spectrum by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
    Unfortunately, all paths do lead to enlightenment, even those that take advantage of other people. God/creator/Bob is all things, love of others as well as love of self.

    Love of self is just a more lonely road and more destructive, but eventually it'll get to the same place, it is after all, still learning about love and how to express it, even if it means killing other people to fulfill it.

    Wish it weren't so, but that's the way it is.

    Sometimes i love christians for their faith, other times i can't believe how stupid and unthinking they can be. Then again, unquestioning devotion is a path frequently used in india, china, japan,etc... Unfortunately, it only really works when the person you are devoted to is already enlightened or a master (archery, carpentry, etc...). When we give ourselves unto someone we start to become like them. Not much people i'd like to become around here though!

  261. Naive question(s) by Cujo · · Score: 1
    But there are good reasons to think that mtDNA has been under positive selection recently in human prehistory. Most notable among these reasons is the fact that human mtDNA violates every test of neutrality.

    What in the phenotype do propose is being selected?

    Could this be a case of sexual selection? Is it possible that human males found Neanderthal females unappealing?

    --

    Helium balloons want to be free.