Ice Age Civilization

[Abramelin]

H. neanderthalensis were not in anyway "Monkey men" and H. sapiens certainly did not kepe them as pets.

I know where that is coming from.

Some artist/creationist once suggested in a book that Neanderthals looked like a sort of gorillas, or big apes. He depicted them with flat, ape-like noses, black skin, hairy. He also suggested that Neanderthals actively hunted modern humans.

A simple look at a Neanderthal skull will tell anyone his nose was anything but flat.

And that's just one.

++++

EDIT:

Found it (I saved the pic once, because someone here really took that theory seriously):

Edited September 21, 2012 by Abramelin

[Imaginarynumber1]

I know where that is coming from.

Some artist/creationist once suggested in a book that Neanderthals looked like a sort of gorillas, or big apes. He depicted them with flat, ape-like noses, black skin, hairy. He also suggested that Neanderthals actively hunted modern humans.

A simple look at a Neanderthal skull will tell anyone his nose was anything but flat.

And that's just one.

l

All evidence suggests that Neanderthals where not much different from us at all. Shorter and stockier and the larger occipital bun on the back of their skulls, but other than that, pretty damn similar. No chins, though. To even entertain the nothing that they were "monkey men" or "pets" is outlandish at best and pure ignorance at worst.

I think his idea came from the Vanara of Hindu epic Ramayana. They were a monkey man race of... monkey men. Still no more true than all that creationist claptrap, though.

[Abramelin]

All evidence suggests that Neanderthals where not much different from us at all. Shorter and stockier and the larger occipital bun on the back of their skulls, but other than that, pretty damn similar. No chins, though. To even entertain the nothing that they were "monkey men" or "pets" is outlandish at best and pure ignorance at worst.

I think his idea came from the Vanara of Hindu epic Ramayana. They were a monkey man race of... monkey men. Still no more true than all that creationist claptrap, though.

Here is that thread btw:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=202981&st=330#entry3891426

[Imaginarynumber1]

Here is that thread btw:

http://www.unexplain...30#entry3891426

Oh wow. That is bad. That is real, real bad.

[Abramelin]

Oh wow. That is bad. That is real, real bad.

And here's the book:

http://www.themandus.org/

[Harsh86_Patel]

http://en.wikipedia....thaler_Fund.png

http://en.wikipedia....erthalensis.jpg

The reconstruction of Neanderthal assumes the hair pattern and the skin color since we have no better option then assuming when in comes to these things but below i have posted a common depiction of Hanuman "one of the vanaras".Notice the protruding mouth region in the two depictions and notice the hair line shown in the neaderthal reconstructions.

http://www.freewebs....ges/hanuman.jpg

All evidence suggests that Neanderthals where not much different from us at all. Shorter and stockier and the larger occipital bun on the back of their skulls, but other than that, pretty damn similar. No chins, though. To even entertain the nothing that they were "monkey men" or "pets" is outlandish at best and pure ignorance at worst.

I think his idea came from the Vanara of Hindu epic Ramayana. They were a monkey man race of... monkey men. Still no more true than all that creationist claptrap, though.

Though you have to admit that the reconstruction does look very 'apeish'. The 'vanaras' were supposed to be closer to neaderthals then to monkeys but most Indians call them monkey men.

Also i found this article given in the link below sometime back and it is one of the reasons why i do not readily ascribe to genetics based migration charts.

http://www.pbs.org/w...ern-humans.html

"Men and monkeys doing it lol XD" (did this how aids spread in humans?or was it the african sailors?)(and sorry in advance i wont refer to them as monkeys again)

If this is true not only did we co-exist but we did "it" too and probably all night long.

Surprisingly the mother of 'Hanuman' was supposed to be a 'Human' called 'Anjani' according to the 'Ramyana'.

Also:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100506-science-neanderthals-humans-mated-interbred-dna-gene/

Edited September 21, 2012 by Harsh86_Patel

[The Mule]

Primates don't just change into horses.

Don't be too sure about that

[Harte]

All sorces presuppose evolution(as we understand it today)and are full of extrapolations ans assumptions so i don't consider them worth anything in this debate,the predictions of Darwin that you have mentioned are only in regards to there being different species showing different level of complexities,extrapolating that one evolved from the other is the problem.

"Only in regards to..."?

Only?

These are predictions made by the theory. Didn't you ask for such predictions?

Most of these predictions were never made prior to Darwin's day. Just because you consider them commonplace today, that is no indication of their actual significance.

I suspected you'd rationalize a way to pretend they aren't significant.

Try searching for 'beneficial mutations' in multicellular animals and you will understand what i am talking about.

Try comprehending that mutation is only one of several ways that evolution occurs. Consider lateral (or horizontal) gene transfer, genetic drift, allelle frequency variation, geographic isolation, etc.

Your pretense that "mutation is how evolution occurs, and 99% of mutations are deadly" is an all-too-often used Creationist dodge.

Harte

[Arbitran]

Like i said i am not seeing any debunkings being posted by you,unlike you i will give you the liberty of using atheist websites,anti-creationist websites or sources or any source you want as long as they have references.

A list of great scientists that believed in God-

http://atheismexpose...obelistsgod.htm

Can you debunk their work or do you think their work is unreliable or their logic is stupid and fallacious,they are all creationists.

Wow, you posted yet another creationist website. It's pretty easy to tell, when they're listing Einstein as a scientist who believed in god... despite the fact that he patently denied claims that he believed in god.

http://en.wikipedia....kers_in_science

Are they all stupid and is their work unreliable?

No, not all of them, but ones who place their faith above their science, they are unreliable (e.g., modern creationists; who, incidentally, aren't scientists to begin with).

If a creationist website or author puts forward scientific objections to evolution with references, is it wise to dismiss it because of their personal belief alone?

It isn't about their personal beliefs alone; it is about the quality of the information dispensed, which in their case, is consistently fallacious.

The reason why there are not many atheist sites posting scientific objections to evolution is probably because they are too embarassed by them or probably they don't have the funding for this kind of work (lol).Though there are a large number of books though i don't have many written by agnoustics or atheists pointing out the scientific flaws in the theory of evolution.

The reason? Most atheists happen to be more scientifically literate than religious people (it's a fact; look up the polls), and thus are more consistently aware that there are no scientific objections to evolutionary biology at the moment. It's just the creationists spewing their age-old, long-ago-debunked idiocies that have missed the boat entirely...

Same can be said about evolutionists and atheists.Delibrate twisting of facts.

Give one example. Otherwise I brand you a liar; plain and simple.

[Arbitran]

Maybe the monkey men were copying Human practices.This can be very good circumstantial evidence.Or maybe Humans buried their ape like pets because they loved them.Do you know in India if a monkey dies he is buried and rites are performed still.

Here is something interesting if you would like to read it.

http://www.theosophy...ce/sc-moff2.htm

Were the monkeys talked about in here "Neaderthals"?

You know nothing about biology. End of story.

[Arbitran]

Why do you think it is not possible.I will try to explain to you.

News paper article 3 billion years later:

3 billion years ago tetrapedal primates divurged from man as they could run faster and hence escape predators and travel large distances. 2 billion years ago the proto horse divurged from these tetrapedal primates as the proto horse had become a more specialised runner and didn't have stringent dietary requirements.1 billion years ago the proto winged horse divurged from the proto horse as the wing like structures provided better aerodynamics while running and helped it glide over valleys and water bodies.50 million years ago the proto unicorn divurged from the proto winged horse and it was favoured by natural selection as it had a horn with which it could poke and kill other animals.10 million years ago the Unicorn divurged from the proto unicorn and it was favoured by nature as it had completely formed wings and a large horn on it's forehead and small girls thought it was cute.

Now we have fossil evidence for Man,tetrapedal primates and horses and scientists are still searching for the rest.

You know nothing about biology. End of the end of the story...

[Arbitran]

But out of all the things you have stated none of it disproves what i said before.There is not a peice of evidence that what i said is not true.On the contrary when you say that they were just as advanced as Homo Sapiens you are only adding to my suggestion that they probably copied Humans in a crude fashion though.

Now since i am an Indian,i have knowledge of our 'mythological text' called Ramayana which states that these neanderthals(vanars) collobrated with humans in their wars. Before these texts were dismissed as myths but now we know that neaderthals("ape men"since you don't like them refferd to as "closer to monkeys") and man did co-exist for a long time.The link i posted talks about this.

Then how do fish change into men?I did say billions of years in my explaination didn't I?

Vanaras were not Neanderthals. Get real. Neanderthal were a subspecies of Homo sapiens, just like us.

[cormac mac airt]

Does anyone know what percentage of the earth's land surface was submerged after the last ice age? Or possibly how much land area in square miles was submerged?

While not the entire globe, perhaps this will give you some idea of what Europe was like during the Last Glacial Maximum.

cormac

[Quaentum]

Wow some people seem to know everything that happened millions and billions of years ago without having any objective proof,some people believe one species gave rise to another without seeing it happening for themselves.Some people have no problems in believing that Man can after billions and billions of years become a Unicorn (ofcourse if Unicorns are favoured by natural selection) but then maybe unicorns did evolve in this course of billions of years but probably we have not found the fossils yet.

Some people look at what is there oh say transitional fossils http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Edited September 21, 2012 by Quaentum

[cormac mac airt]

Decrease in the longevity of humans,decrease in physical strength, can be taken as few examples of devolution also descent from a spiritual to a materialistic existence can probably also be termed as devolution (as suggested by cremo).

No they can't as there is no such thing as DE-volution, since evolution doesn't work in a single linear direction.

cormac

[cormac mac airt]

Vanaras were not Neanderthals. Get real. Neanderthal were a subspecies of Homo sapiens, just like us.

This would not be right since Neanderthals and (archaic) Homo sapiens both appear to have descended from Homo heidelbergensis and neither are ancestral to the other. The earliest Homo sapiens (Omo I and Omo II remains) date to c.200,000 BP while Neanderthals existed well before that point in time. And while 1% - 4% of Eurasian nuclear DNA may have been shared between the two, there is a significant enough distinction in their Y Chromosome and Mitochondrial (mtDNA) to show that they were not as closely related as you appear to believe. The only way Neanderthals could be a subspecies of Homo sapiens is if it could be shown that Homo sapiens pre-dated Neanderthals. To date, this has not been shown to be true.

cormac

[Arbitran]

This would not be right since Neanderthals and (archaic) Homo sapiens both appear to have descended from Homo heidelbergensis and neither are ancestral to the other. The earliest Homo sapiens (Omo I and Omo II remains) date to c.200,000 BP while Neanderthals existed well before that point in time. And while 1% - 4% of Eurasian nuclear DNA may have been shared between the two, there is a significant enough distinction in their Y Chromosome and Mitochondrial (mtDNA) to show that they were not as closely related as you appear to believe. The only way Neanderthals could be a subspecies of Homo sapiens is if it could be shown that Homo sapiens pre-dated Neanderthals. To date, this has not been shown to be true.

cormac

Well, there is some debate as to whether Neanderthals should be classified as a separate species or a subspecies. Personally I prefer the subspecies model, but both have evidence to support them.

[cormac mac airt]

Well, there is some debate as to whether Neanderthals should be classified as a separate species or a subspecies. Personally I prefer the subspecies model, but both have evidence to support them.

For the reasons I gave, and others, there appears to be a growing tendency in the scientific community to distance themselves from the latter while supporting the former. Until such time as it can be shown that Homo sapiens predates Neanderthals then I'm inclined to go with what the evidence shows overall.

That being said, I think we both would agree that the Vanaras/Neanderthals being ape-men is a joke. And not a very good one at that.

cormac

[Imaginarynumber1]

You know nothing about biology. End of the end of the story...

Why is it always the ones who understand nothing about biology and evolution are the ones most up in arms about it?

Wouldn't you think that fact along would show them something?

[Swede]

.

5.Swede all the links you have posted presuppose evolution and then try to provide evidence for it,which is what most evolutionist do.I consider it as circular reasoning.After predicting numerous ancestors etc etc when evolutionist try to find fossils,they probably find one tooth and make a whole new species around it.Like i said finding different extinct species and saying one evolved from the other is not science.I am sure if genetic mapping of these extinct species was possible (which is not the case) then we would come to know that how different one is from the other though evolutionists think one evolved from the other.I gave some examples in point 3 and 4 regarding the same conundrum and i would also like to state that 'the famous horse series' whcih we have in most evolutionary textbooks has been totally falsified,it is an example of how we tend to presuppose that similar looking animal evolved from each other but that is often not the case.

With all due respect, the above demonstrates a rather tragic misunderstanding of faunal analysis. The incrementally changing morphology of numerous species has been repeatedly documented (and, to some degree, presented on these pages).These changes, combined with various environmental pressures and such factors as population isolation have led to speciation.

Notes -

1) Dentition has been documented to be one of the "slowest" osteological characteristics to respond to evolutionary change. As such, dentition acts as a bridge marker that assists in the correlation of species change.

2) As to your reference in regards to equid evolution - The terribly brief "explanation" incorporated is of notably little value (!). Please see prior references. Should you wish further detail, such can be provided. To state that the "series" has been "totally falsified" is, to be quite blunt, a patent lie.

3) You would appear to have a difficulty in reconciling science with religion. Some points to ponder:

a) There are quite a number of contributors to these pages who hold religious/spiritual beliefs. And quite a number of these individuals would not appear to be disturbed by the concept of evolution.

In this regard, one may wish to evaluate one's concept of a "higher power".

c) To be more direct - If one believes in a "higher power", then, by what rationale, does one place a mortal limitation on said higher power? Could not evolution be an element of the "higher design"? Again, merely something to ponder.

.

[Arbitran]

For the reasons I gave, and others, there appears to be a growing tendency in the scientific community to distance themselves from the latter while supporting the former. Until such time as it can be shown that Homo sapiens predates Neanderthals then I'm inclined to go with what the evidence shows overall.

That being said, I think we both would agree that the Vanaras/Neanderthals being ape-men is a joke. And not a very good one at that.

cormac

Agreed.

[cormac mac airt]

How do you know that?

1) Because as a member of the genus Homo, Neanderthals are considered human. There is no such thing as a "monkey-man".

2) Because the Y Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA haplogroups of Neanderthals are sufficiently close enough to further show that they are human, although not the same species as us (Homo sapiens).

3) Because by the time that modern humans (HSS) left Africa and then settled into Europe and Asia the Neanderthals were in decline and by c.39,000 BP Neanderthals were extinct.

4) Because modern human and Neanderthal remains have never been found in the same exact place at the same exact time.

5) Because you obviously know nothing about human genetics/archaeogenetics.

cormac

[Harsh86_Patel]

No they can't as there is no such thing as DE-volution, since evolution doesn't work in a single linear direction.

cormac

Simple to complex seems linear so complex to simple can be the reverse.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Vanaras were not Neanderthals. Get real. Neanderthal were a subspecies of Homo sapiens, just like us.

Neanderthals subspecies of homo sapiens lol XD.You state things that even the scientists are not sure about anymore so you must having some secret sources i feel.Get updated please.

What were 'Vanaras' do you know who or what they were? Few facts are mentioned in 'Ramayana' like they had a protruding mouth region,they had a hairline whoch looks awfully similar to neanderthal reconstruction,they could walk upright and could talk as well were intelligent.............how can you state that 'vanaras' were not neanderthals?

[Imaginarynumber1]

.............how can you state that 'vanaras' were not neanderthals?

Mainly because vanaras aren't real.