Posted on 02/26/2006 3:25:01 AM PST by Pharmboy
"And then we can announce to everyone our vaunted "findings" and if someone questions them, here comes the attack."
No surprise, is it? You have dared question "science"!
"The Neanderthal had inferior tools, inferior weapons, inferior artistry, etc."
That could be said for many people today I suppose. Does that make them sub-species? If so, a sub-species of what?
I don't mind debating this yet further, but please see my post #175 first then follow up with that context.
So Eve was really not Eve?
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Wilford_98.html
I have read that Neanderthals had speech. Did they or not?
That is a perfectly legitimate decision on your part, so far as I'm concerned, but until that changes, please avoid pinging me. It is really for your own good. When you do ping me, there is no doubt that I will respond to you, and then you simply will look ridiculous and foolish when you reply that you won't debate me immediately after you just did.
No no no...this was more human evo rathen than GGG. But now I know and it shan't happen again. ( :-D
Have you decided that you're now debating me? Yes or no?
Not debating - just pointing out that others have different opinions. I'll keep my opinions to myself because I am not nearly as intelligent as you.
I see. Well then, I'm not debating you either, just pointing out that your link dates to 1998 and the crucial role of FOXP2 in human speech and language was not discovered until 2001.
PS. And, if I might be so bold to say, it's hardly an issue of intelligence here; it's an issue of education. There is nothing I've posted on this topic that I think you would have the slightest problem grasping if you read into the latest scientific research with an open mind.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/sci_tech/highlights/010710_neanderthal.shtml
From 2001
Aside from archaeology, another line of evidence for speech would be genetics. The announcement in August 2002 of the unique form of the FOXP2 gene in modern humans was seen as a possible line of evidence for the lack of language in human ancestors. The FOXP2 gene seems to be vital in allowing human to speech to develop much more clearly, as mutations cause problems with movements of the lips and tongue as well as selection of the correct word tense.
The human version of the gene does not seem to appear until 200,000 years ago, after the neanderthals split from the ancestors of modern humans. This suggests neanderthals may have lacked a fine-tuned speech ability. However, there is unlikely to be a single 'language gene'. Language relies on an incredibly fine-tuned interaction between brain and throat, and is likely to be dependent on several genes. Further studies may show neanderthals used different genes to perform a similar function. The debate continues.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/learnthinkqa.shtml
"The debate continues" hmmmmm
Yes, of course the debate continues, but there are two relevant points here:
In modern humans quite clearly the gene that regulates speech and language is our unique FOXP2 gene.
Even if Neanderthals did have a language capability, then it would be based on "different genes to perform a similar function".
The topic of debate here is how closely related the Neanderthals were to the Cro-Magnons as a species, or sub-species.
Therefore, regardless whether the Neanderthals had their own unique genes to enable speech, their genes that performed the function would be different from that of Cro-Magnons.
And so, that would be yet another in the lengthy list of items above that clearly point to Neanderthals as being fully distinct species.
In any contest where one side has long-range weapons (arrows, atlatls, slings) and the other side doesn't, the side that has only short-range weapons is in deep trouble
I don not think blonds are going to be extinct in 200 years. It will take much more time. It is too many blonds in Scandinavia. I am from Norway so I know. Another fact is that in the future people can choose the appearance of their offspring due genetic science. Parents can get Nordic looking children from blond donors. It was just an article about it in a newspaper in Norway. It was from New York and that it was an increasing demand for Nordic donors
And note also that even if you hypothesize "different genes to perform a similar function" of speech in Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons, there are no known modern humans that evidence this alleged Neanderthal alternative to the unique human FOXP2 gene. So, that would be yet another sign that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons did not intermix, because if they did then you would plausibly expect to find some descendents with this hypothetical Neanderthal speech-enabling alternative.
For the Times, that is probably the right answer...
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:J_SUa7DC0akJ:www-personal.umich.edu/~wolpoff/Papers/Why%2520not%2520the%2520Neanderthals.pdf+FOXP2+GENE+BLACKS&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=8
I haven't had time to read the entire article, just skimmed over it because I need to get to work. But it appears quite interesting - would like your comments.
Have a good day.
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.