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?"
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
I'm CERTAIN that I have seen a Far Side comic that dealt with this exact situation.
--jeff++
ipv6 is my vpn
Did somebody said Intelligent Design?
Because the Flying Spaghetti Monster decided so.
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
they are still here...
huh?
"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."
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
the question should be " did they dissapear?"
i erskieranclancy.jpg/
and the answer is no http://newsfeed.tcm.ie/images/people/pieterdevill
serenity now!
Well, everyone took a vote, and they got voted off the island.
nothing.can.stop.me.now
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.
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.
I kid, I kid.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
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.
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
They didn't disappear, they moved into management roles.
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?
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.
It's not implied in the article...but I've got a nagging suspicion we just slaughtered them for fun and sport.
We still have neanderthals among us... =)
Sorry.. I just had to!
Look around yourself! They disappeared because they were hunted down and killed.
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
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!
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.
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?
Maybe they were tasty and we ate them.
Yea, because anyone who reads SI or plays sports must be a neanderthal right? God forbid anyone intellegent play sports.
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.
No
// TODO: Add comments
I'm sure many of us at Slashdot remember getting beating up by guys on the football team that resembled Neanderthals.
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~
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.
They run a little TV network called FOX (obFirefly lament)....
And how exactly does this relate to pirates and global warming?
Will this even be taught in Kansas?
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
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.
because they didn't stand up to the RIAA.
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
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.
...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?
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.)
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?
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.
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.
We've been sharing this planet with Neanderthals for eons! These days we call them "users" though.
They got on the "B" Ark.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
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:
--John
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
Why ?
4 03
Natural Selection
from:
http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/press/dpp/2004112
"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
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.
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!
Based on that picture, I'd have to say that the Neanderthals died out because the Cro-Magnon women were way better looking.
Nerd Rock In Progress
Was it possible?
We had better tools?
this sig limit is too small to put anything good h
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.
_____ (fill in the blank for your favorite scapegoat shorthand geographical generalization).
Was this a test?
The revolution will NOT be televised.
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
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.
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
Hum... I do believe we've found a thinking man in the midst of the mob.
Great post.
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
It's a common misconception that Neandertal mtDNA has proved that they went extinct. That is one interpretation of the data. Here's another:
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!
--JohnThe 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?
Seastead this.
Is why have they re-emerged in the midwest and south-central states?
But why did they disappear?
They knew what was coming.
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.
Procreation is critical to survival of the species. Now, take a look at the picture of a young female neanderthal attached to TFA ...
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.
they are doing advertisements for a car insurance company
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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?
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.
You can't really make the argument against ID plainer than this. I highly recommend everyone to read it, whatever you believe:
Guardian article
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...
mmmmmmmmm flying spaghetti overlords.
music lover since 1969
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?
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.
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.
Hmm, maybe Neanderthals invented fire but Homo Sapiens patented it and killed the competition?
Oh well, what the hell...
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
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?
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...
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.
See subject :)
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
> Or perhaps you're just someone with a serious lack of understanding of the Creationist model.
You mean this model?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
The Neanderthal women suffered from severe migraine...
Oh well, what the hell...
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.
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
today they are called yetti etc..
Type unto others as you would have them type unto you.
Take cover!!! Incoming spaghetti! Incomeing ultra-large number with exponents to large to handle!
They went back 6 million years, in the book. So the coincidences stop there. It's a good read!
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
to the rest of the great simian family.
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.
... 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.
I wonder how they cooked them?
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
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.
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.
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!
You can't handle the truth.
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
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.
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!
My sister told me she's dated a few...
But why did they disappear?
well us others had to eat something
[sVen]
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"
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
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!"
Innan and Nordborg
Seastead this.
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.
The Neanderthals are still here...they just work for the French bureaucracy.
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.
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!
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.
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
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!
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.
"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
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.
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.
Not a mystery, really. Just a protein shortage or two is all it takes..
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
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!
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...
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)
The author of this article has obviously never watched the Gieco commercials.
---
fro mort hostro gort
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
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.
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".
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.
(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
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.
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?
/.: why the hell am I here?
My thoughts exactly...
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!
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...
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.
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:
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.
Shouldn't the question be where are they hiding? After all, I've met a lot of french people rather like neanderthals....
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.
- to Texas. Have a closer look at the Bush family ...
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.
caritj.org
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 "..."...
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
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?
is this your alias in
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
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!
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
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.
>>"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
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.
Does anybody know?
Soilent Green is Neanderthal.
The Neanderthals couldn't order in French so they simply starved to death.
some info on theories in parent:
r n
s terism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Falling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unico
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Mon
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.
they caught avian bird flu........ coming to a chicken near you this winter
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.
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 ----
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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?
They didn't become extinct at all.
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.
The neandrathal female in the program WAS very ugly.
But boys will be boys, won't they?
;D
What?
(The exceptions, if any, would have some Viking blood.)
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
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
Have you ever been to France?
Party Time: Excellent
Was it the Kubrick, the Clark or the Strauss that made that first viewing so good?
Or the drugs?
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
He asked for your proof, where is it?
Black and grey are both shades of white.
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
Why do men die earlier than women?
Because they want to.
sig not ready: (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail.
maybe they tasted good?
ôó
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.
neanderthals are yummy!
http://www.watacrackaz.com
"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.
Isn't it obvious?
- The Sigless Wonder
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!
But why did they disappear?
/sarcasm>
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.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
"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.
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.
"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
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
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.
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 ...
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.
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...
Neanderthals co-existed with anatomically modern humans for at least 1,000 years in central France
That explains a lot about the French.
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
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.
* 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
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.
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
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."
It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
The real question is: what happened to the modern humans?
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
It is my understanding that the Neanderthals are still alive and well in France!
Reality is nothing but a collective hunch.
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.)
Maybe we killed them.
> 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?
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
Perhaps modern humans beat them to the bipedalism patent, then they were screwed.
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!!!"
Need I say more?
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
> 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
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.
> 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
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
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!
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"!!!
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...
People love an underdog... ;)
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
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.
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.
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!
> 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
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.
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):
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!
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.
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.
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!
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
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 ?
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 ?
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!
They interbred with homo sapiens. Just about everybody likes sex. I doubt Neanderthals were any different from Cro Magnon in that department.
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 ?
I stand humbled...
I may be wrong but you're downright ugly!
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.
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 ?
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.
"Damn it man, you want to drill into his skull? What is this, the Inquisition?!"
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.
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):
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.
They are authoritarian, not moral, arguments.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.