Neolithic Interventionism

[Swede]

Yes, i've argued the physiological changes in the core Neolithic region were not down to cultural factors.

True, but there is always going to be a considerable period of time before any changes are seen throughout the entire population, and also Intervention theory argues for ongoing chnages over considerable periods of time, if the original creation of human species was circa 200,000 years ago.

If this is alien intervention then obviously geographic distances aren't problematic, and australoid types were also around in the Near East.

Like i said above, i don't think changes in the greater population will ever be 'sudden' and that the evidence for interventionism suggests extensive and ongoing time periods.

Selection for smaller body size, right....

According to the aboriginal Australians themselves;

Wandjina

China has similar tales of Celestial beings, they also have a population bottleneck/flood myth;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fu_Xi

The pair are also depicted cojoined above a serpentine double helix.

The cellular cubicles are considered the only onsite habitations, they aren't storage units, except for people.

http://www.exoriente.../docs/00018.pdf

I don't see any connection between these and Ancestral Puebloans

Well yes, those are common sense considerations, in some ways though comparing the Neolithic geometric patterns with their nearest design equivalent, the Andean cross or chakana motifs, provides a possible insight into how such could perhaps be interpreted;

My observation of the Neolithic patterns suggested this was the prototype for the tree of life iconography/symbolism.

That might also provide an explanation for the basic colour symbolism, white for the upper world, black for the underworld, and red for the Earth plane, flesh and blood, here and now.

To address:

"Yes, i've argued the physiological changes in the core Neolithic region were not down to cultural factor".

Firstly (and again), the term Neolithic refers to technological and cultural elements that are associated with transitions that are not geographically or temporally universal. A "core" Neolithic region would apply to specifically where? Especially when one takes into account recent cultures that have been documented to utilize said technologies. Secondly, you would appear to be discounting the migrational, genetic, and environmental factors that have impacted human physiological change.

"True, but there is always going to be a considerable period of time before any changes are seen throughout the entire population, and also Intervention theory argues for ongoing chnages over considerable periods of time, if the original creation of human species was circa 200,000 years ag".

A fallacious presentation. There is no indication that H. sapiens was "created" circa 200,000 BP. The recovery of Omo 1 circa 196,000 BP is simply the earliest current documentation for anatomically modern man. This factor is not to be confused with the appearance of somewhat cognitively different H.s.s circa 70,000 – 50,000 BP (note, recent research may be pushing this date back a bit). Ongoing changes over time are quite consistent with understood evolutionary processes.

"If this is alien intervention then obviously geographic distances aren't problematic, and australoid types were also around in the Near East".

While the research is ongoing, the indigenous inhabitants of Australia would appear to have been present (and essentially genetically isolated) for some 40,000 to 60,000 years. Please study timelines/climate/terminology.

"Like i said above, i don't think changes in the greater population will ever be 'sudden' and that the evidence for interventionism suggests extensive and ongoing time period".

Which, again, is consistent with evolutionary processes. And there is no documented evidence for interventionism.

"Selection for smaller body size, right...."

Your misconceptions in this regard are notable. For starters, would suggest that you reference island dwarfism, amongst others. The impacts of environmental stress factors on selection are well documented.

"http://www.exoriente.../docs/00018.pdf"

Another interesting collection of papers, but, once again, they do little to support your position.

1) Their focus is on lithic technology.

2) They do, however, point to some evaluations relating to structure function, i.e.,

"The position of this building, its

form, its dimensions and the investment

necessary for its constructlon

all point to the probability

of its function being a

communal one. It was probably

multi-functional: collective storage

in the small cells, meetings, and

perhaps rituals, as the presence of the headless skeleton lying in the central room would seem to suggest.

It would appear that you are (and you have essentially admitted to such) imposing a preconceived "belief" upon the archaeological data.

"I don't see any connection between these and Ancestral Puebloans".

Really? Have you actually studied the planviews? A couple that are easily accessible:

http://arch.ced.berk...ery/gal150.html

http://docs.google.c...RjAMvH-aarGyIcw

Should you desire more technical information related to Chaco, such can readily be provided. You may also wish to research Mesa Verde, Castle Rock, etc.

"That might also provide an explanation for the basic colour symbolism, white for the upper world, black for the underworld, and red for the Earth plane, flesh and blood, here and now".

Once again, your presentation would appear to lacking.

1) First your geometric patterns are purported to represent cultural insight into genetic "structure".

2) Now they are purported to represent lower world/upper world cosmology.

3) The color pattern does not reflect your cosmological "interpretations".

The following material is based upon oral myth/tradition. This haphazard combination of "interpretations" is quite consistent with the fringe approach and is not to be taken with any degree of seriousness. Until cohesive and supportable arguments can be presented, there is little likelihood that your proposition will be acknowledged.

Edit: Format

Edited May 2, 2011 by Swede

[Kantzveldt]

Kantzfeldt,

Has it occurred to you that ancient cultures had creation myths (regarding the human species) similar to this because they based their mythology on an observation similar to the cosmological observation of universal expansion?

i.e. they observed that the population was increasing, and so used some form of logic to reason it must, at one time in the past, have been few (or two)?

There is no necessity to invoke outside causes for the origin of these mythologies. The combination of human observation and reasoning are sufficient to explain them all.

They observe that one way or another the old generation type passed away and there was a new population source,in the various flood type myths. The Chinese tradition regarding the caly figures is very interesting;

Fu Xi and Nüwa found an additional way by using clay to create human figures, and with the power divine being entrusted to them, they made the clay figures to come alive.

The Sumerian tradition is that the humans were also created from clay and brought to life, a possible basis for this is the association of the old communal birthing houses with clay figurines during the Neolithic, they become synonomous with the emergance of the new population.

[Kantzveldt]

"Yes, i've argued the physiological changes in the core Neolithic region were not down to cultural factor".

Firstly (and again), the term Neolithic refers to technological and cultural elements that are associated with transitions that are not geographically or temporally universal. A "core" Neolithic region would apply to specifically where? Especially when one takes into account recent cultures that have been documented to utilize said technologies. Secondly, you would appear to be discounting the migrational, genetic, and environmental factors that have impacted human physiological change.

The core Neolithic region is Syria/Anatolia, that's where it began.

A fallacious presentation. There is no indication that H. sapiens was "created" circa 200,000 BP. The recovery of Omo 1 circa 196,000 BP is simply the earliest current documentation for anatomically modern man. This factor is not to be confused with the appearance of somewhat cognitively different H.s.s circa 70,000 50,000 BP (note, recent research may be pushing this date back a bit). Ongoing changes over time are quite consistent with understood evolutionary processes.

Yes, the Archaic H. Sapiens of circa 200,000 BP is the first human type, radically differant than any hominid, and without any transitional evolutionary phases from Hominids.

While the research is ongoing, the indigenous inhabitants of Australia would appear to have been present (and essentially genetically isolated) for some 40,000 to 60,000 years. Please study timelines/climate/terminology.

I was refering to Australoid types in the Near East.

"Selection for smaller body size, right...."

Your misconceptions in this regard are notable. For starters, would suggest that you reference island dwarfism, amongst others. The impacts of environmental stress factors on selection are well documented.

Yes but we're talking humans here, who i don't think are going to start changing their mating habits for environmental reasons whatever the conditions...see present global situation.

"That might also provide an explanation for the basic colour symbolism, white for the upper world, black for the underworld, and red for the Earth plane, flesh and blood, here and now".

Once again, your presentation would appear to lacking.

1) First your geometric patterns are purported to represent cultural insight into genetic "structure".

2) Now they are purported to represent lower world/upper world cosmology.

3) The color pattern does not reflect your cosmological "interpretations".

The following material is based upon oral myth/tradition. This haphazard combination of "interpretations" is quite consistent with the fringe approach and is not to be taken with any degree of seriousness. Until cohesive and supportable arguments can be presented, there is little likelihood that your proposition will be acknowledged.

Edit: Format

There isn't neccesarily any inconsistancy, the best comparison would be with the Chinese basic symbolism of Yin-Yang-Yuan, the white representing the Celestial Heavens and the masculine, the black representing the underworld and the feminine, and the red representing the Earth or blood/passion, that which links the masculine and feminine, or that which links the upper and lower worlds.

So the basic colour symbolism of the geometric patterns has the white as background, whilst the red and black form the active pattern arrangements, thus the active elements are the female and the blood...birthing.

These basic colour interpretations aren't haphazard as far as ancient cultures go, they are universal and self explanatory.

There are other interesting comparative between the Andean Chakana symbolism and the Near Eastern Neolithic, the three levels were represented by the Condor for upper, the Jaguar/Puma for middle, and the serpent for lower...with not surprisingly many mother Goddess types being serpentine.

The correspondant from Catal Hoyuk would be the vulture, leopard and serpent.

This developed in Near Eastern symbolism to the Eagle, Lion, Serpent symbolism, with the Lion thus representing this middle/Earth element, in the form of Earthly ruler, or Divine son.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Kantzveldt

[Abramelin]

Your main problem is: you had an idea, you searched for other ideas to corroborate your idea, you ignored scientific facts that opposed your idea, and then you said. "Bingo, I found it!!"

At some point you will start doubting your convictions.

Be it now, or at some point in the (hopefully) near future.

That is somewhere around 20 to 30 years in your future.

That's just a wild guess, based on people's experience.

And then you will feel ashamed of what you once firmly believed in.

But let me tell you: don't feel ashamed; every skeptic here has been there.

I admit I was there.

[Kantzveldt]

Your main problem is: you had an idea, you searched for other ideas to corroborate your idea, you ignored scientific facts that opposed your idea, and then you said. "Bingo, I found it!!"

Errr, this investigation is due to the actual traditions from the various regions and cultures themselves, it's hardly my idea...

At some point you will start doubting your convictions.

Be it now, or at some point in the (hopefully) near future.

That is somewhere around 20 to 30 years in your future.

That's just a wild guess, based on people's experience.

Who said anything about convictions...???...this is an investigation into cultures and regions were Celestial Beings creating humans was claimed.

The only thing i'm doubting is your capacity to evaluate what is being presented without resorting to preconceived positions.

And then you will feel ashamed of what you once firmly believed in.

But let me tell you: don't feel ashamed; every skeptic here has been there.

I admit I was there.

I'd be ashamed if i believed i could patronize those whom i know nothing about, i'd be ashamed if i believed i was of some sort of sub-species self named Homo Skepticus...do try not to oscillate so wildly in your beliefs.

Edited May 3, 2011 by Kantzveldt

[Swede]

The core Neolithic region is Syria/Anatolia, that's where it began.

Yes, the Archaic H. Sapiens of circa 200,000 BP is the first human type, radically differant than any hominid, and without any transitional evolutionary phases from Hominids.

I was refering to Australoid types in the Near East.

Yes but we're talking humans here, who i don't think are going to start changing their mating habits for environmental reasons whatever the conditions...see present global situation.

There isn't neccesarily any inconsistancy, the best comparison would be with the Chinese basic symbolism of Yin-Yang-Yuan, the white representing the Celestial Heavens and the masculine, the black representing the underworld and the feminine, and the red representing the Earth or blood/passion, that which links the masculine and feminine, or that which links the upper and lower worlds.

So the basic colour symbolism of the geometric patterns has the white as background, whilst the red and black form the active pattern arrangements, thus the active elements are the female and the blood...birthing.

These basic colour interpretations aren't haphazard as far as ancient cultures go, they are universal and self explanatory.

There are other interesting comparative between the Andean Chakana symbolism and the Near Eastern Neolithic, the three levels were represented by the Condor for upper, the Jaguar/Puma for middle, and the serpent for lower...with not surprisingly many mother Goddess types being serpentine.

The correspondant from Catal Hoyuk would be the vulture, leopard and serpent.

This developed in Near Eastern symbolism to the Eagle, Lion, Serpent symbolism, with the Lion thus representing this middle/Earth element, in the form of Earthly ruler, or Divine son.

1) Your "core" region applies only to that particular area/time-frame. Even a cursory study of the topic will illustrate that the cultural/technological elements associated with a Neolithic classification are currently understood to have occurred independently in different parts of the world at different times. It would appear that you are basing part of your premise on the diffusion of certain cosmological constructs from your "core" area to a much broader geographical landscape than is currently evidenced.

1) First human type? Radically different? Without transition? You may wish to first study some of the more recent information regarding H. neanderthalensis. While the two species would appear to have diverged some 300 kya to 700 kya, the technological and "cultural" factors involved do not isolate H. sapiens as a "sudden" appearance. First some basic genetics, then some more "culturally" related material. This is merely a primer.

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/20/5/547.full

http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba66/feat1.shtml

http://news.discovery.com/archaeology/neanderthal-burial-ground-afterlife-110420.html

For one of the more current interpretations of lineage relationships, please consult the following. Note-there are other slightly different "trees". Will save details for later, should you be interested.

http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/hhoguide/family-tree.html

To flesh out the above - Please explore in its entirety.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/human-family-tree

2) Re: Australoids - You will have to be more concise here, and provide references. Suspect that you are misguided.

3) Selection for body size - The homonid line has seen a surprising amount of variation. For a rather extreme example, please reference H. floresiensis.

4) The following material again falls under the categories of "connection" and "extrapolation" that have previously been addressed. Need the admonitions of Flannery and Marcus be repeated? In the first case, there is no sound documentation for genetic "intervention" of any kind, at any point in time. None. In the second case, your cosmological interpretations are highly tenuous at best. A qualified researcher would be most hesitant to draw such conclusions given the cultural, geographical, and temporal conditions involved.

.

[Kantzveldt]

1) Your "core" region applies only to that particular area/time-frame. Even a cursory study of the topic will illustrate that the cultural/technological elements associated with a Neolithic classification are currently understood to have occurred independently in different parts of the world at different times. It would appear that you are basing part of your premise on the diffusion of certain cosmological constructs from your "core" area to a much broader geographical landscape than is currently evidenced.

Possibly, but there is still much that needs to be evaluated, i was recently looking at the commonality of the Catal Hoyuk headless bull cult and similar seen in the arrival of the Neolithic culture into the Western Sahara.

1) First human type? Radically different? Without transition? You may wish to first study some of the more recent information regarding H. neanderthalensis. While the two species would appear to have diverged some 300 kya to 700 kya, the technological and "cultural" factors involved do not isolate H. sapiens as a "sudden" appearance. First some basic genetics, then some more "culturally" related material. This is merely a primer.

Neanderthals are an entirely differant species, they're hominids, which did achieve basic technological and cultural levels before extinction, but they tell us nothing regarding the radical physical changes from hominid to Homo Sapien.

For one of the more current interpretations of lineage relationships, please consult the following. Note-there are other slightly different "trees". Will save details for later, should you be interested.

All the trees show is that there were many variations of hominid, some developing the capacity to walk upright, transitional stages observed and understood, and then suddenly there are humans...

2) Re: Australoids - You will have to be more concise here, and provide references. Suspect that you are misguided.

With regards to Australoids being part of the Near Eastern racial mix, this consideration derives from this oft referanced phrase 'Buxton and Rice found that of 26 Sumerian crania 17 were Australoid', but i don't have the original paper.

3) Selection for body size - The homonid line has seen a surprising amount of variation. For a rather extreme example, please reference H. floresiensis.

Yes there is much variation in size amongst hominids, but the issue was humans purposely selecting smaller mates....no evidence for that.

4) The following material again falls under the categories of "connection" and "extrapolation" that have previously been addressed. Need the admonitions of Flannery and Marcus be repeated? In the first case, there is no sound documentation for genetic "intervention" of any kind, at any point in time. None. In the second case, your cosmological interpretations are highly tenuous at best. A qualified researcher would be most hesitant to draw such conclusions given the cultural, geographical, and temporal conditions involved.

I'd agree they're tenuous, and inconclusive, but still i thought worth noting.

[Swede]

Possibly, but there is still much that needs to be evaluated, i was recently looking at the commonality of the Catal Hoyuk headless bull cult and similar seen in the arrival of the Neolithic culture into the Western Sahara.

Neanderthals are an entirely differant species, they're hominids, which did achieve basic technological and cultural levels before extinction, but they tell us nothing regarding the radical physical changes from hominid to Homo Sapien.

All the trees show is that there were many variations of hominid, some developing the capacity to walk upright, transitional stages observed and understood, and then suddenly there are humans...

With regards to Australoids being part of the Near Eastern racial mix, this consideration derives from this oft referanced phrase 'Buxton and Rice found that of 26 Sumerian crania 17 were Australoid', but i don't have the original paper.

Yes there is much variation in size amongst hominids, but the issue was humans purposely selecting smaller mates....no evidence for that.

I'd agree they're tenuous, and inconclusive, but still i thought worth noting.

1) Not at all sure what this has to do with "alien intervention". Also keep in mind that certain cult practices would also appear to have independent origins. Example - Bear "cults", which are suspected to be evidenced in the archaeological record by cultural elements as culturally, geographically, and temporally diverse as Paleolithic Western Europe and the mid - North American latter Woodland period.

2) Not "entirely" different, but actually close enough to interbreed, as you have recently observed. Also, you may not fully understand that H.s. and H.s.s. are also hominids. Additionally, as you have been studying the topic, you will note that such statements as "radical physical changes" are simply not supported by the Bio-Anth data. While H. neanderthalensis was more physically robust than the more gracile H.s., and also presented a somewhat different cranial morphology, modern reconstructions indicate that a member of the H. n. population could visually blend in with the current population. It should also be noted that H. n. also underwent evolutionary changes after the suspected neanderthalensis/sapiens divergence from H. heidelbergensis. The first of the following, though a bit dated, provides some good visuals in this regard. Scroll down. The second provides a bit more recent data.

http://darwiniana.org/hominid.htm

http://news.discovery.com/archaeology/humans-neanderthals-heidelberg-man-110504.html#mkcpgn=emnws1

3) Again, "they" were not "suddenly" humans.

4) Am afraid that this reference is still a bit vague as far as working with your premise. The racial construct of Australoids is a bit dated and, in itself, has less than precise connotations. Are you referring to the term's application in regards to early "out of Africa" coastal migrations? If so, this would notable pre-date the Neolithic.

5) It may be that you are misinterpreting the use of the word "selection". In evolutionary terms, the word selection refers to environmentally influenced factors that favor the survival rate of certain traits or characteristics. These are then naturally "selected" for, thus enhancing the survival/reproductive potential of individuals displaying such traits or characteristics. While individual agency does come into play, the environmental factors will still, in the long run, determine the viability of these selections.

6) Yes, possibly worth noting, but, again, of little (no) support for your initial premise.

.

[Kantzveldt]

2) Not "entirely" different, but actually close enough to interbreed, as you have recently observed. Also, you may not fully understand that H.s. and H.s.s. are also hominids. Additionally, as you have been studying the topic, you will note that such statements as "radical physical changes" are simply not supported by the Bio-Anth data. While H. neanderthalensis was more physically robust than the more gracile H.s., and also presented a somewhat different cranial morphology, modern reconstructions indicate that a member of the H. n. population could visually blend in with the current population. It should also be noted that H. n. also underwent evolutionary changes after the suspected neanderthalensis/sapiens divergence from H. heidelbergensis.

The modern reconstructions are bogus, the closest comparative to Neanderthal skull shape is the chimp, yes biologically we are hominids but we're not primates, Neanderthals were hairy primates not clean shaven human lookalikes.

Here's a video of Neanderthal reconstruction i find more credible;

Neanderthal Reconstruction

The suggestion of interbreeding is highly problematic, humans can't breed with primates there is chromosome discrepancy, there is no Neanderthal MitDna in the human gene pool, so no evidence that we could have bred with Neanderthal females, and yet the supposition that well they could have bred with us...it's more likely Neanderthal DNA was cut and spliced into the human genome in the Near East, after all if you are producing the future inhabitiants of Europe then the Neanderthals would have developed advantageous characteristics to life in a cold climate.

3) Again, "they" were not "suddenly" humans.

There isn't anything to suggest otherwise, there are no intermediate stages between the primate Hominids and ourselves, and our MitDna suggests a sudden emergance.

4) Am afraid that this reference is still a bit vague as far as working with your premise. The racial construct of Australoids is a bit dated and, in itself, has less than precise connotations. Are you referring to the term's application in regards to early "out of Africa" coastal migrations? If so, this would notable pre-date the Neolithic.

No i was just pointing out that Australoid types weren't neccesarily geographically and genetically removed from the initial population/culture

5) It may be that you are misinterpreting the use of the word "selection". In evolutionary terms, the word selection refers to environmentally influenced factors that favor the survival rate of certain traits or characteristics. These are then naturally "selected" for, thus enhancing the survival/reproductive potential of individuals displaying such traits or characteristics. While individual agency does come into play, the environmental factors will still, in the long run, determine the viability of these selections.

Perhaps i was.

[Abramelin]

The modern reconstructions are bogus, the closest comparative to Neanderthal skull shape is the chimp, yes biologically we are hominids but we're not primates, Neanderthals were hairy primates not clean shaven human lookalikes.

Here's a video of Neanderthal reconstruction i find more credible;

Neanderthal Reconstruction

The suggestion of interbreeding is highly problematic, humans can't breed with primates there is chromosome discrepancy, there is no Neanderthal MitDna in the human gene pool, so no evidence that we could have bred with Neanderthal females, and yet the supposition that well they could have bred with us...it's more likely Neanderthal DNA was cut and spliced into the human genome in the Near East, after all if you are producing the future inhabitiants of Europe then the Neanderthals would have developed advantageous characteristics to life in a cold climate.

There isn't anything to suggest otherwise, there are no intermediate stages between the primate Hominids and ourselves, and our MitDna suggests a sudden emergance.

No i was just pointing out that Australoid types weren't neccesarily geographically and genetically removed from the initial population/culture

Perhaps i was.

You copy from only one site that supports your opinion.

It is now known the Neanderthal DNA shows up in 1-4% of the Eurasian population.

They created stone tools and spears.

It is also known they buried their dead (in the Shanidar cave they found a Neanderthal grave covered in what was left of flowers).

Not much ape-like behaviour, right?

You said, "the closest comparative to Neanderthal skull shape is the chimp"...

So you see not much difference between these skulls???

.

Edited May 5, 2011 by Abramelin

[Leonardo]

There isn't anything to suggest otherwise, there are no intermediate stages between the primate Hominids and ourselves, and our MitDna suggests a sudden emergance.

Further to what Abe and Swede have commented on, we (H. sap. sap.) are "primate hominids", as much as H. neanderthal was a "primate hominid". The terms 'primate' and 'hominid' refer to different levels of taxa (order vs family), not different species.

All the great apes are family Hominidae (the hominids). All the great apes which resulted in the split when the Pongids (orang-utans) went their separate way, are hominins (including the gorilla and the chimpanzee).

These hominins also include the extinct branches of Australopithicus, Ramapithicus, etc, including the extinct branches of Homo - habilis, heidelbergensis, erectus, neanderthal.

There is a well-studied descent of 'intermediate stages' between the common ancestor of all hominids, and us.

Edited May 5, 2011 by Leonardo

[Kantzveldt]

It is now known the Neanderthal DNA shows up in 1-4% of the Eurasian population.

They created stone tools and spears.

It is also known they buried their dead (in the Shanidar cave they found a Neanderthal grave covered in what was left of flowers).

Not much ape-like behaviour, right?

They were undoubtably the most advanced primates.

You said, "the closest comparative to Neanderthal skull shape is the chimp"...

So you see not much difference between these skulls?

Not really, apart from the teeth.

[questionmark]

Not really, apart from the teeth.

May I suggest getting new glasses?

[Kantzveldt]

Further to what Abe and Swede have commented on, we (H. sap. sap.) are "primate hominids", as much as H. neanderthal was a "primate hominid". The terms 'primate' and 'hominid' refer to different levels of taxa (order vs family), not different species.

All the great apes are family Hominidae (the hominids). All the great apes which resulted in the split when the Pongids (orang-utans) went their separate way, are hominins (including the gorilla and the chimpanzee).

These hominins also include the extinct branches of Australopithicus, Ramapithicus, etc, including the extinct branches of Homo - habilis, heidelbergensis, erectus, neanderthal.

There is a well-studied descent of 'intermediate stages' between the common ancestor of all hominids, and us.

There are no intermediate stages between the general hominid primates and humans, such as the skull shape, rib cage, arm length, less robust bones, diminished bodily hair etc...there simply isn't one common bone.

[Kantzveldt]

May I suggest getting new glasses?

I'd have to get some old ones first, but if you're happy to consider that Neanderthals looked more like us than chimps that's fine by me, in fact if they were still around i'd suggest you marry one to make your point...

[questionmark]

I'd have to get some old ones first, but if you're happy to consider that Neanderthals looked more like us than chimps that's fine by me, in fact if they were still around i'd suggest you marry one to make your point...

I see...

[Abramelin]

I'd have to get some old ones first, but if you're happy to consider that Neanderthals looked more like us than chimps that's fine by me, in fact if they were still around i'd suggest you marry one to make your point...

Compare that skull from obviously an old individual to this one:

You just stubbornly stick to your opinion because you do not want to admit you are so wrong that wrong is the wrong word for it, lol.

If you think the skull I posted resembles the skull of a chimp, then I am out of here.

.

Edited May 5, 2011 by Abramelin

[Kantzveldt]

Compare that skull from obviously an old individual to this one:

.

It's nothing to do with the age, i simply used a profile image of a skull, because that's were the similarity with the chimp is best seen...you're getting over excited over camera angles.

You just stubbornly stick to your opinion because you do not want to admit you are so wrong that wrong is the wrong word for it, lol.

If you want to see something that actualy is funny try this;

Great reconstruction...

Edited May 5, 2011 by Kantzveldt

[Abramelin]

It's nothing to do with the age, i simply used a profile image of a skull, because that's were the similarity with the chimp is best seen.

If you want to see something that actualy is funny try this;

Great reconstruction...

I am glad I had training in human anatomy (and I dont mean for creating art, heh), and I can tell you that when your teeth are gone, and you are an old man, then the bones of your lower jaw will adapt to the loss of teeth, and your jaw will change shape somewhat.

Now tell me - and please do not avoid it again - do you think that the skull I posted looks anything similar to a chimp skull?

And how do you think Neanderthal DNA showed up in 1-4 % of the Eurasians?

I can imagine some men were desparate, but not that desparate to mate with the gorilla you think Neanderthal women looked like??

-

I can show you the skull of the socalled 'elephant man', and someone would be convinced, someone who doesn't know the next thing about human anatomy and about what diseases and old age can do with the shape of bones, that this was not the skull of a human being, or better of someone belonging to the H. Sapiens Sapiens.

++++++++

EDIT:

I clicked your 'funny' link, and this is what I saw:

It looks too human for your (I think Creationist') ideas?

And why do you avoid what I said about how Neanderthals buried their dead, or that they made stone tools, and spears??

.

Edited May 5, 2011 by Abramelin

[questionmark]

Compare that skull from obviously an old individual to this one:

You just stubbornly stick to your opinion because you do not want to admit you are so wrong that wrong is the wrong word for it, lol.

If you think the skull I posted resembles the skull of a chimp, then I am out of here.

.

Hey, he seez he needs no glasses!

[Kantzveldt]

Now tell me - and please do not avoid it again - do you think that the skull I posted looks anything similar to a chimp skull?

Could i see a profile of it...?

And how do you think Neanderthal DNA showed up in 1-4 % of the Eurasians?

I can imagine some men were desparate, but not that desparate to mate with the gorilla you think Neanderthal women looked like??

Well nobody considers it could be from a human male and neanderthal female breeding...

I clicked your 'funny' link, and this is what I saw:

It looks too human for your (I think Creationist') ideas?

It looks like an Italian with bushy eyebrows, hilarious when compared to the skull next to it, there is obviously an agenda to make neanderthals appear like humans.

And why do you avoid what I said about how Neanderthals buried their dead, or that they made stone tools, and spears?

.

Because i don't dispute they did...

[Kantzveldt]

Hey, he seez he needs no glasses!

I'd probably even compare your skull to that of a chimp, or at least whats inside it.

[questionmark]

I'd probably even compare your skull to that of a chimp, or at least whats inside it.

That also figures...

[Abramelin]

Could i see a profile of it...?

Well nobody considers it could be from a human male and neanderthal female breeding...

It looks like an Italian with bushy eyebrows, hilarious when compared to the skull next to it, there is obviously an agenda to make neanderthals appear like humans.

Because i don't dispute they did...

If your eyes are ok, and that means you can imagine in 3D, then you will know this skull does not show ape-like prognatism.

And wrong again: how else - but mating - does Neanderthal DNA show up in modern Eurasian people? Because they descended from a common ancestor? That is not what I read.

Apparantly these Neanderthal females were not looking like your 'ferocious looking gorilla' reconstruction. But I know tastes differ, so I don't know how tight your pants get when visiting the zoo, LOL !!

--

It's YOU who has an 'agenda', and that is: "By all means, never admit you are wrong".

[Oniomancer]

It's nothing to do with the age, i simply used a profile image of a skull, because that's were the similarity with the chimp is best seen...you're getting over excited over camera angles.

If you want to see something that actualy is funny try this;

Great reconstruction...

Camera angles indeed.

Try finding one that's actually shown aligned upright with the vertebral column instead of leaning back on it's occipital. Look at the angle of the teeth for crying out loud. The majority of the Neanderthal skulls found are 80-90+ percent intact, with the only "reconstruction" involved being putting the pieces back together. in these examples, There are no large gaps missing so the bones can only go together one way, leaving no room for interpretation and alternate arrangements.

Neanderthal skulls are slightly more prognathous than H. Sapiens skulls but nowhere near as much as chimps. Contrary to your opinion you can in fact see a noticeable shallowing of the mandibular process between the period of Australopithecus through H. ergaster into

H. Sapiens, regardless of who actually produced who.