A reconstructed Neanderthal skeleton, right, and a modern human skeleton
on display at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, Jan. 2003.
"Because they had better clothing, better technology(??) and a better mastery of fire, the humans were equipped to deal with it," Mellars said.
What kind of technology did they have back then??
Or does the aurthor have to be dramatic with his linguistic ability??
They still walk among us. See the head on Bob Beckel?
It may be that the answers scientists get depend on what they're looking for. I'd hold off on believing these studies for a long time until the scientists have gotten everything in order.
Here's another thing humans are guilty of.
What does that tell us about jihad?
I've always wondered how evolutionists can eat meat. After all, what's the moral difference between humans and creatures that we eat? If we stem from the same ancestor, why is one considered "sacred" (in a sense) and another not?
I've also wondered how evolutionists cannot be racists. After all, Australian Aborigines, for example, very well could be less evolved versions of those fully-human. Where are the less-evolved forms of humans or new-humans? Is it right or wrong to see them as deserving of less rights than those fully human?
It seems very problematic, morally-speaking, to believe in evolution. Seems like an evolutionist wouldn't be able to challenge Hitler's (and Nietchze's) superman....
This sounds like the makings of a great PC Game
"Mods vs Neanderthals"
This has been an interesting debate. And while I will not interject my personal views into the discussion as they may set us off on another course, I will simply recommned that anyone who actually finds this topic of curious interest should explore the fiction books by Jean M Auel.
While I reject her neo-paganism and somewhat creative science, she does write with a very reasoned supposition which would at the least provide an entertaining theory to about every question raised in this entire thread.
I am looking forward to her next book in this series. I do not mention the name of the books because her first book was turned into a movie and the movie version was so bad she sued them and won.
Do your own google and then if you use such tools that allow you to access books and media for free trials, search them and see for yourself. Her first and second books were the best and she has fallen into formula since, but still, worth the read if this topic is of any interest to you.
Enjoy.
Haven't the evolutionists said that modern man descended from neanderthals? If what this article says is true, where did modern humans come from?
This article is nothing more than wild speculation; typical of almost all evolutionary thought.
Oddly, this is going on today...Arabs stuck in the eighth century. Everybody else going great guns with tech. advancement, etc.. But for some reason (oil), we're propping up the Arabs.
What kind of technology did they have back then??
Sticks.
Rocks
Planning commissions
The Neanderthal gets a bad rap as far as tool development goes. Basing his intelligence on this is like saying a Japanese handplane is inferior to a Western one for the fact that it's pulled instead of pushed. Both do the same thing, only in a different manner, although one (Western) is more efficient than the other.
No one would claim that Aborigines in Australia, 200 years ago, are inferior to Italians of the same era simply because the former would use 'primitive' instruments to make music and the latter would use stringed instruments. Or that one would use a stick to eat with while the other would use a knife and fork.
I believe that, due to the inability to communicate and move around like we do today, early man's solutions to problems arose independently, and in many cases one solution was more efficient than another. It's probably because of this that one 'tribe', subspecies, clan, call it what you will, was able to wipe-out or assimilate another. It's this natural evolution of intelligence that got us here today where we now can communicate without seeing or knowing each other.
And, as for differenciating species and subspecies by skulls and skeletons, a chihuahua's skeleton looks markedly different than a Irish wolfhound's, but both are dogs. A Pygmy's stature is shorter than a Northern European's (except the French), yet they're all human. The same variability that we see in humans today surely had to exist tens of thousand years ago.
I think we come into this debate with too much baggage that weighs our thoughts/beliefs heavily, and that our modern experiences cloud any objectivity we might have about what did or didn't happen long ago.
But what do I know? I'm still a fan of George "The Animal" Steele.
"Neanderthals are sooooooo stupid."
New Study Reveals Neanderthals Were As Good At Hunting As Early Modern Humans ^ Posted by blam On News/Activism ^ 01/19/2006 11:28:01 AM PST · 65 replies · 920+ views Science Daily ^ | 1-19-2006 | University Of Chicago
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060118210756.htm
New Study Reveals Neanderthals Were As Good At Hunting As Early Modern Humans The disappearance of Neanderthals is frequently attributed to competition from modern humans, whose greater intelligence has been widely supposed to make them more efficient as hunters. However, a new study forthcoming in the February issue of Current Anthropology argues that the hunting practices of Neanderthals and early modern humans were largely indistinguishable, a conclusion leading to a different explanation, also based on archaeological data, to explain the disappearance of the Neanderthals. This study has important implications for debates surrounding behavioral evolution and the practices that eventually allowed modern humans like ourselves to displace other closely-related species.
YEC INTREP - Neanderthals were "modern humans" - junkscience alert
Better weapons, tools, and skills at making clothing and shelters.
| Humans vs. Neanderthals: Game Over Earlier |
||
| Posted by SunkenCiv On General/Chat 02/23/2006 1:25:12 AM EST · 16 replies · 239+ views LiveScience | 22 February 2006 | Associated Press Humans and Neanderthals, thought to have coexisted for 10,000 years across the whole of Europe, are more likely to have lived at the same time for only 6,000 years, the new study suggests. Scientists believe the two species could have lived side by side at specific sites for periods of only about 2,000 years, but Mellars claims they would have lived in competition at each site for only 1,000 years... Two new studies of stratified radiocarbon in the Cariaco Basin, near Venezuela, and of radiocarbon on fossilized coral formations in the tropical Atlantic and Pacific have given scientists a better... |
||
|
|
||
| Modern humans took over Europe in just 5,000 years |
||
| Posted by S0122017 On News/Activism 02/23/2006 7:20:40 AM EST · 13 replies · 460+ views www.nature.com/news | 22 February 2006 | Michael Hopkin Published online: 22 February 2006; | doi:10.1038/news060220-11 Better bone dates reveal bad news for Neanderthals Modern humans took over Europe in just 5,000 years. Michael Hopkin These drawings from the Chauvet cave were originally dated to around 31,000 years ago. But a new analysis pushes that back four or five thousand years. © Nature, with permission from the French Ministry of Culture and Communication. Advances in the science of radiocarbon dating - a common, but oft-maligned palaeontological tool - have narrowed down the overlap between Europe's earliest modern humans and the Neanderthals that preceded them. Refinements to the technique, which... |
||
|
|
||
| Modern humans 'blitzed Europe'(Radiocarbon Dating Development) |
||
| Posted by nickcarraway On News/Activism 02/23/2006 1:22:51 PM EST · 21 replies · 671+ views The Telegraph (U.K.) | 23/02/2006 | Roger Highfield Our ancestors colonised Europe and wiped out their Neanderthal cousins even faster than we thought, says a study published today. Argument has raged for years about whether our ancestors from Africa outsurvived, killed or bred with the Neanderthals, who were stronger, bulkier and shorter but had equally large brains. Now developments in radiocarbon dating suggest that many of the dates published over the past 40 years are likely to underestimate the true ages of the samples. Prof Paul Mellars, of the University of Cambridge, describes today in the journal Nature how better calibration of radiocarbon ages have led to revisions... |
||
To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.The Neandertal EnigmaFrayer's own reading of the record reveals a number of overlooked traits that clearly and specifically link the Neandertals to the Cro-Magnons. One such trait is the shape of the opening of the nerve canal in the lower jaw, a spot where dentists often give a pain-blocking injection. In many Neandertal, the upper portion of the opening is covered by a broad bony ridge, a curious feature also carried by a significant number of Cro-Magnons. But none of the alleged 'ancestors of us all' fossils from Africa have it, and it is extremely rare in modern people outside Europe." [pp 126-127]
by James Shreeve
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)