Posted on 07/18/2011 7:16:57 AM PDT by decimon
Humans out of Africa seemed to change spear-point styles over the ages as they tried new things - while Neanderthal humans seemed to be tied to the same styles.
They also may have been nice guys.
History has shown that we are not so nice, and not above pretending to be nice until the nice guys lower their guards.
Disease may have also played a role.
We may have also just out reproduced them. Humans have problems with reproduction due to the large skull, Neanderthals may have had even worse problems. It wouldn't take much of a difference to make a HUGE difference over time.
So what if, every time we come in conflict, they kill us two to one - if our population produces three healthy babies in the time it takes them to produce one.
Stop posting that animation.
Thanks.
We remove it when ever it is posted and we are made aware of it.
That should help convince your family and friends.
Hitting the abuse button when you see racism or other inapproiate posts that go against the rules of Free Republic will get the notification to us quicker than a post on a thread.
Thanks.
The only Scripture that existed at that time was the Scripture that Yehoshua/Jesus used. The Tanach/Old Testament. Everything else has been ADDED and the Old Testament warned about ADDING to it.
I've been mugged by people smaller and likely less intelligent than me -- in groups of five or more.
If the Cro-Mags were, for example, faster or were able to throw further, then they could run up to the Neandertal camp, toss some rocks and spears at them, and run away from any response. Repeat until the Neandertals are all dead.
You are, of course, correct that there are a number of possible explanations for modern humans out-competing the Neandertals, besides the obvious one of us killing them.
The absence of Neandertal male DNA in our own ancestry makes it less likely the process was peaceful, though. That’s exactly what you find in those areas where historically we know the invaders killed all the males and kept some or all of the women.
My point was how often anthropologists jump to the conclusion the replacement of one species or race was peaceful, when there is really little evidence either way. It’s obviously what they want to believe.
BTW, if we’re interfertile with Neandertals, are they really a separate species? Maybe they were just lost Klingons.
Maybe the reason why non-African populations are only 1-4% of Neanderthal ancestry is that there would be enough inversions to make a hybrid have fertility problems.
Neandertals were different enough that they would, by most zoological standards, count as a separate species, but certainly a ‘cousin’.
Modern day coyote populations are of some 5% (IIRC) wolf ancestry.
But a wolf and a coyote are obviously not the same species.
“A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology or ecological niche.”
Wiki
Sounds like the definition of what separates a species from a sub-species isn’t all that precise .
I missed the part where it discussed the genealogy of pigs.
Reality, as is usual, doesn't like to comport well with being assigned either or little boxes and hew perfectly to set definitions.
Say you walk from a forest into a swamp, where do you draw the line between, is there such a thing as a swampforest?
;)
Species (and other taxonomic categories) do not exist in nature. They are human-created distinctions we set up to help us categorize things.
IOW, they’re map, not terrain.
Yep, great analogy.
And like a map we like to write “forest” or “swamp” over particular areas and maybe even draw a line between - somewhat arbitrarily.
Ok, so you don’t believe Paul was speaking authoritatively for God, and I do.
If you believe the OT, then, certainly you believe that we are all descended from Adam, so we are all “one blood” in the sense that Noah Webster construed that to mean.
Ergo, Paul was speaking correctly in saying what he did, basing it, as he did, on the Creation Story to which he explicitly referred in Acts 17:24-25.
Therefore, I submit that Paul was speaking authoritatively, basing his assertions on the Creation Story in Genesis.
We share a common ancestry with Adam, but, NOT of ‘one blood’, or we wouldn’t have so many blood types. We know things now that Paul didn’t know back then. The dictionary gives meaning to words in today’s context, but, with the Bible different nuances come into play depending on the language, nation and time it was used. The Concordance is a better gauge, especially when one takes into account that some words are translations and some words are transliterations and they are two very different things.
Paul was not speaking for God, and he never walked with or spoke with Yehoshua/Jesus in real life and Paul taught things that were opposed to the teachings of Yehoshua, which is why James the successor of Yehoshua had Paul brought before the Jerusalem Council. So, no I don’t credit Paul with any authority. He spoke out of both sides of his face like modern politicians, trying to be all things to all men, which he even tells you in his very own words.
1 Corinthians 9:19-23
19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
23 And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.
Romans 3:7
7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
2 Corinthians 12:15-16
16 But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.
Typical lying, deceitful, two faced politician.
I’m done with this discussion, to continue leads us further into areas that this thread was not posted for.
> We share a common ancestry with Adam
Looks like you don’t take Genesis as authoritative, either.
Adam and we do not have common ancestry.
The Bible says that Adam was especially created by God, not descended from “lower forms”.
Blood types do not denote ancestry, yet they are genetic. So, how can people with different ancestries have the same blood type? Specifically, how can an African have the same blood type as a Russian? Yet, we see this.
Eve was formed from Adams rib, so she will have the same genetic markers. Where do all the various blood types come from?
Don’t forget the Rh factor, also.
Please read the whole article. It answers your question in technical and statistical detail.
The Punnett square simply predicts what the possible phenotypes would be for a given couple’s children. From the number of children that Adam and Eve likely produced, it is not difficult to envision all of the ABO blood types being passed down to their offspring.
If Adam and Eve were heterozygous for the ABO blood type gene locus, then the allele frequency for the type O allele is 50 percent (2 of 4 alleles), the allele frequency for type A is 25 percent (1 of 4 alleles), and the allele frequency for type B is 25 percent (Figure 2). If there are no selective pressures or genetic drift for these alleles, then the allele frequency will remain constant through all of their descendants. The overall allele frequency in the Punnett square is actually the same for the children as it might have been for Adam and Eve. This scenario would also be true for Noah’s family and their descendants.
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.