Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Neanderthal Males Had Popeye-Like Arms
Discovery News ^ | Tuesday, July 6, 2010 | Jennifer Viegas

Posted on 07/07/2010 7:19:56 AM PDT by SunkenCiv

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last
To: alexander_busek

:’) Yeah, what a weird choice of words by her. Maybe it’s an ESL problem though.


41 posted on 07/07/2010 8:27:37 AM PDT by SunkenCiv ("Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others." -- Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: One_Upmanship
".. Neanderthal males had Popeye-type right arms"

Were Neanderthal females that unattractive or receptive?
42 posted on 07/07/2010 8:33:02 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum

In the Redmond area? They were all IT specialists.

43 posted on 07/07/2010 8:33:50 AM PDT by One_Upmanship
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
Depends on your definition of spear, I guess.


44 posted on 07/07/2010 8:37:54 AM PDT by One_Upmanship
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

That’s because they weere a type of glorified ape...just as the apes of today have very stronger arms. There still is no evolutionary transitional fossils of apes into humans and there will never be. Yet the brainwashing continues. Thank God for commonsense and the internet!


45 posted on 07/07/2010 8:41:23 AM PDT by fabian (" And a new day will dawn for those who stand long, and the forests will echo in laughter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fabian

Neandertal wasn’t a glorified ape, yet the brainwashing continues.


46 posted on 07/07/2010 8:47:46 AM PDT by SunkenCiv ("Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others." -- Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

"We're strong to the finish 'cause we eats our spinach..."

47 posted on 07/07/2010 8:48:41 AM PDT by Jonah Hex ("Never underestimate the hungover side of the Force.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

That isn’t a real picture, is it? (shocked and dismayed)


48 posted on 07/07/2010 8:53:34 AM PDT by wbarmy (I decided to be a sheepdog when I saw what happens to sheep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: fabian
That’s because they weere a type of glorified ape

Using your scientific terms, is a human a super duper glorified ape?

There still is no evolutionary transitional fossils of apes into humans and there will never be.

This is exciting news! Are rather revolutionary! Of course, hand-waving away hundreds of fossil remains is easy to do, so I'll wait for your research on the matter.
49 posted on 07/07/2010 8:53:34 AM PDT by whattajoke (Let's keep Conservatism real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

There simply is no transitional fossil of apes into humans...simple fact. If there were clearly so there would be zero debate! Please be intellectually honest here.


50 posted on 07/07/2010 8:56:16 AM PDT by fabian (" And a new day will dawn for those who stand long, and the forests will echo in laughter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: HuntsvilleTxVeteran; colorcountry; JoeProBono; org.whodat; a fool in paradise; bert; whattajoke; ...

:’) Thanks!


51 posted on 07/07/2010 8:56:54 AM PDT by SunkenCiv ("Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others." -- Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: fabian
There simply is no transitional fossil of apes into humans...simple fact. If there were clearly so there would be zero debate!

Discounting the fact that there is "zero debate" in the anthropology, biology, chemistry fields - other than the specifics of the lineage - I am curious as to what type of fossil (or any) evidence you require to change your mind. Seriously.
52 posted on 07/07/2010 9:08:21 AM PDT by whattajoke (Let's keep Conservatism real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

anyone can do a search about the lack of real transitional fossils and see the truth. If you die hard intellectuals can not accept the facts; well, that does not change them! If there were real transitionals, the MANY scientist who once believed evolution and now denounce it as the fraud that it is would not exist. Just look it up..anyone who doubt this FACT.


53 posted on 07/07/2010 9:27:24 AM PDT by fabian (" And a new day will dawn for those who stand long, and the forests will echo in laughter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

So I just posted evidence that there is plenty of debate amongst very real scientists...you are not being honest here and I am tired of you evolutionist pushing liars...because that is exactly what you are. The sooner you realize it the sooner you can recover and become normal again! You may not realize you are a liar, but you are. Sorry, that is a fact. If you would like help recovering..go to fhu.com please...


54 posted on 07/07/2010 9:31:40 AM PDT by fabian (" And a new day will dawn for those who stand long, and the forests will echo in laughter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Reeses
Light skin is mostly a cosmetic trait selected for by some mothers favoring it in their children. It doesn’t seem likely that Neanderthals were that deep into cosmetic selections. Dark skinned Neanderthals must be politically incorrect to depict.

In northern climates, you need light skin in order to pass enough sunlight to produce enough vitamin D. It's possible that the genes for light skin came from Neanderthals breeding with humans rather than evolving in the rather short period of a few tens of thousands of years.

55 posted on 07/07/2010 9:32:44 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (Public healthcare looks like it will work as well as public housing did.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: fabian
anyone can do a search about the lack of real transitional fossils and see the truth.

Yes, they can. IF, that is, they are comfortable using apologetics as reputable scientific resources. If you choose to google the term "transitional fossils" without the preceding "lack of real," you'll get tens of thousands of hits with actual scientific research. It's up to you which route you wish to take.

Again I ask, what type of evidence do you require to change your mind? It's a simple thought experiment. It's not asking you to change your mind, but rather to simply think a little bit. It's not that hard.

If there were real transitionals, the MANY scientist who once believed evolution and now denounce it as the fraud that it is would not exist.

Oh I'm sure there are a few apologists who have used teh ICR, DI, and AiG to make a buck by "denouncing" evolution. Of course, your definition of "many" in the face of the many, many, many more scientists who accept the facts of evolution shouldn't get in your way of a good story.
56 posted on 07/07/2010 9:40:27 AM PDT by whattajoke (Let's keep Conservatism real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: fabian
So I just posted evidence that there is plenty of debate amongst very real scientists...

What evidence? Creationist evidence now constitutes telling a person to search for a loaded term like "lack of real?" Is that how it works?

Note: there is no debate among "very real scientists" insofar as whether or not humans have evolved from ancestral ape-like creatures and that there have been many lineages to fail and others that have evolved, ultimately becoming what we are today. There IS debate on the mechanisms of the changes, the time-lines, and things like that - which , of course, clever creationists often use to further trick their followers into thinking the evil plot is overthrown somehow.

I am tired of you evolutionist pushing liars...because that is exactly what you are.

Huh? Where did that come from? Is this how your church teaches you to argue those with whom you disagree? I never "pushed" anything. I've only simply asked you what type of evidence would interest you in the subject of human evolution. Heck, your answer can be "Only God himself appearing in my bedroom and laying it all out in front of me." That would be a perfectly fine answer.

You may not realize you are a liar, but you are. Sorry, that is a fact. If you would like help recovering..go to fhu.com please...

I just did and here's what I learned: "Your emotional upsets have literally turned you upside-down. Even though you were technically correct in what you said or did, if you did it resentfully, your emotions backfired and confused you and as you began to doubt yourself, conflict, depression and fear grew. Emotion has destroyed your objectivity, and, failing to see clearly, you have made terrible errors of judgment. This, in turn, led to a fear of making decisions, so that perhaps you began to look too much to others for guidance, and you know how upsetting it can be if they happen to be wrong or take advantage of you."

Good stuff.
57 posted on 07/07/2010 9:49:06 AM PDT by whattajoke (Let's keep Conservatism real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

"I'm not one-hundred percent in love with this theory..."

58 posted on 07/07/2010 10:33:21 AM PDT by Slings and Arrows (You can't have IngSoc without an Emmanuel Goldstein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
In northern climates, you need light skin in order to pass enough sunlight to produce enough vitamin D. It's possible that the genes for light skin came from Neanderthals breeding with humans rather than evolving in the rather short period of a few tens of thousands of years.

The vitamin D theory is popular but some scientists disagree with it. Not all northern populations have light skin and everyone was outdoors so much then that vitamin D deficiency should not have been a major problem. Natural selection requires many people to die before breeding age to choose a preference. A vitamin D deficiency was probably not enough to kill off so many in such short a time. Mothers play an under-appreciated role in cosmetic trait selection, by playing favorites. This is hard to understand in modern times because we have food security, but they didn't have that back then and mothers often had to choose among their many children. Some proof that blond hair, light skin, and less hairy bodies was cultivated by mothers is that children are whiter, blonder, and less hairy than adults. Most European babies have blond hair and blue eyes, then these traits are free to change once the mother has bonded to the child.

59 posted on 07/07/2010 10:36:21 AM PDT by Reeses (Sowcialist: a voter bought with food stamps)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
I looked around and Behold that was true, I wonder why?
60 posted on 07/07/2010 10:48:37 AM PDT by Little Bill (Harry Browne is a poofter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson