5 of 19
5
(forget Darwin) Them and Us: how Neanderthal predation created modern humans begins
Posted: 24 September 2009 04:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15033
Joined  2006-08-16
Madmouse - 24 September 2009 04:40 PM

Bernardo, if you witsh to continue holding a sensible discussion in this thread then I suggest you quit the sarcasm. You asked about members’ suitability to comment knowledgeably on this topic, and when answered, you decided to be rude.
There will be no more behaviour of that kind here, or the thread will be closed.
- Moderator

I would also like to point out to all our regular members that you should know the Forum Rules already.  Particularly #13.

Thank you.

Bernardo - 24 September 2009 07:25 AM

Dear LaMa. Please accept my apologies. I did not know until your post that you were from the planet Paleoanthropologia. How wonderful that you can breathe in Earth’s atmosphere. And that - LaMA - I assume is your real name, as opposed to what we call a knock off from the bro boys of Baltimore in the television series, The Wire. Anyway, please allow me to welcome you to earth on behalf of my people. We are pleased to have you among us, and I would be delighted if you could tell me why intergalactic visitors such as yourself always choose to land in minor cities like Adelaide. Or remote outback wheatfields. Congratulations also on your wonderful grasp of our language. Your spelling of Neandertal - without the “h” speaks volumes. However I think I should point out, with great respect, that here on Earth we have some important unwritten ground rules for criticism.  Paramount among these is that if we wish to analyse and/or denigrate a written work, then - in deference to the author - we are obliged to read it first. This is to enable us to persuade those who read our subsequent appraisals that we know what we are talking about.  Otherwise we would appear vacuous, unscientific, ignorant and, worse than that, impolite. I imagine its the same on Paleoanthropologia. I expect your professors would have your guts for garters if you went spouting off about things which you had not studied in any detail. And here on Earth we have a quality called modesty which prevents us generally speaking from describing ourselves as “specialists” unless we really are. And offer some proof. I hope these comments are helpful and enable you to have an enjoyable stay on Earth.

Bernardo, if that is how you truly feel and think about how you should reply to a legitimate scholar countering your argument points then I would suggest you walk away from this now.  Leave the forum and stop posting.  The Forum Rules (linked above) apply to you, too.  Further trollish behavior like that will result in you leaving the forum.  It will still be by your choice, but by your bad choice, not a respectable choice.

 Signature 

Attention to detail: An apostrophe is the difference between a company that knows its shit and a company that knows it’s shit.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2009 04:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  6
Joined  2009-09-21

Criticism is a wonderous thing. Those who dish it out so freely invariably take it so badly.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2009 04:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6932
Joined  2005-10-21

“Oh Kettle, thou art so black.”

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsability to disprove your claims, but rather your responsability to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2009 05:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15033
Joined  2006-08-16
Bernardo - 24 September 2009 08:54 PM

Criticism is a wonderous thing. Those who dish it out so freely invariably take it so badly.

What you posted was not criticism.  It was mockery.  At best.  And that would be stretching it.

It was rude.  It was rude not just toward LaMa, but toward everyone who has participated in this discussion.  Even worse, it was rude when no one had been rude to you previously.  (If you feel this statement is incorrect and that someone was rude to you please share with me via Private Message the exact comments you felt were rude.)

And don’t think you’re anything new or special here.  We’ve seen your kind before.  You have your opinion on whatever it is you believe and no one is going to sway you.  Everyone else who even considers countering that viewpoint is wrong and you will pull out anything at your disposal - no matter how misplaced - to prove them wrong.  Because you are right, no doubt about it.  And when your oh-so-smart and well-thought-out arguments are no use in swaying these differing opinions and you have no legitimate counters or answers to their questions and inquiries you decide to start getting personal.  And when that doesn’t work you just decide to crank it up and make it more personal.

It’s nothing new.  Now, actually having an intelligent back-and-forth, answering questions and inquiries, debating in an intelligent manner and not harping on the same two or three points over and over again after they have already been shown to be moot or maybe even completely misplaced.  That would be something new.

 Signature 

Attention to detail: An apostrophe is the difference between a company that knows its shit and a company that knows it’s shit.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2009 06:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2899
Joined  2005-06-15
Tah - 24 September 2009 08:33 PM

I would also like to point out to all our regular members that you should know the Forum Rules already.  Particularly #13.

Thank you.

I apologise for not paying attention to that rule. I’ll try to take notice of it from now on.

To Bernardo.

Listen mate. We’re all just a bunch of friendly people here. We use a bit of humour and a dash of sarcasm but it’s generally meant in good fun. We do like serious debate as well and people do get defensive at times but we still have respect for each other.

You’re perfectly welcome to put forward the arguments in that book. But it’s just a fact of life that not everybody will agree with you.

The weekend is upon us so I suggest you just walk away for a day or two and chill out. Maybe have a few beers and watch a nice movie. After that just try to tone it down a bit and have some respect for other people’s feelings when you respond to people here. You’re probably a nice person, really, and we’d like to see that side of you shine through.

 Signature 

I’m not some ordinary moron.
I’m an Oxy-Moron!

Mental Giant: A very tall person who is more than slightly confused.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2009 06:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Bernardo - 24 September 2009 08:54 PM

Criticism is a wonderous thing. Those who dish it out so freely invariably take it so badly.

There is a difference between criticism of a person’s individual theories and criticism of a person.

We’re happy to have the former here.  We encourage debate on theories and ideas, even.  We’d be delighted if you decided to engage in that.

Now, Vendramini has written a book outlining a theory of his.  This theory is about Neandertals, a subject that has been studied for a long, long time.  There isn’t all that much new information on them to base new theories on, and what new information is gained is generally soon known among those who specialise in the field.  Instead there’s just new ways of looking at old data.  That data is already widely available.  Furthermore, Vendramini’s basic theory is described and some of his points outlined on his webpage and elsewhere.  We can see what his theory is, and some of the points he’s based it on.  We can even see that the basics of his theory isn’t anything overall.  We’re not simply guessing in the dark here, we have the initial information available and we can see much of what Vendramini did with it.

A number of points have been raised regarding Vendramini’s work, many of them by a person who is a professional expert specifically on the subject that Vendramini wrote on.  Those points were raised based on a knowledge of the available data on Neandertals, and on knowledge of what Vendramini is claiming.  It is not simply ignorant guessing.  LaMa is aware of the record on Neandertals, and has shown how the record simply does not support the claims that Vendramini says that the record supports.

Do you have any counterarguments to those specific points?  Not criticisms of LaMa, not criticisms of his spelling or grammar, not criticisms of his choice of what books he spends his money on, but criticisms of the points that he has raised?

If all you’re here to do is to advertise the book, then do so and move on.  If you’re here to actually discuss Neandertal Predation theory, then do it.  Don’t come here to advertise the book and then complain about and snipe at anybody who doesn’t express unmitigated joy at the prospect of Vandramini’s book and theory.

What are your responses to LaMa’s assertions that the fossil record of Neandertals simply does not support the whole “they ate hominids often” idea, which is one of the main foundations of Vandramini’s theory?

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2009 10:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2009-09-24

Hi guys, wow! this seems like a pretty contentious issue. It was really interesting to read and thankyou so much LaMa, for your post, I was almost taken in by the THEM AND US website. Is the author not a screen writer or film director or something? Seems like it might make a good movie base or something of the like. Does this mean that neandertal was not as violent ? and do we as Homo Sapiens share some common genes? I read the books by Jean Auriel years ago, do any of the themes in her books ring true? i.e. very basic language, communal soul, spiritual awareness, inability to learn new processes etc? I was under the impression (please forgive my ignorance, but it is so intersting , but I have 0 knowledge on the subject) that neandertal was almost"bred out” by interaction between H Sapien and them. Was neandertal totally hairy , or was he more like us? Also the big question , was he as strong as Arnie?

 Signature 

Some men are wise and some are otherwise

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2009 11:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14

I don’t know when LaMa will be back to give a more educated answer, but I can answer in part some of those questions myself:

Australo-who-icus? - 25 September 2009 02:18 AM

and do we as Homo Sapiens share some common genes?

Neandertal DNA was first able to be analysed only a short while ago, in the late 1990’s.  So there are still very many uncertainties about it.

You have most of the same genes that any Neandertal would have had.  Modern man and Neandertals came from the same basic stock, so while I don’t know what the actual percentage of similarity is it would be far closer than that of modern man to chimpanzees.

One of the distinguishing features of our DNA compared to other apes is that two chromosomes in their genes have fused into one chromosome in ours (human chromosome number 2).  Thus we have 23 chromosomes, while other apes have 24.  I believe that Neandertals also had the conjoined chromosomes that we have, giving them just 23.

There is considerable debate over whether or not we modern humans have Neandertal ancestors.  Some paleontologists think that Neandertals did intermix with Homo sapiens.  Others don’t.  For that matter, there’s still debate over whether Neandertals were merely a subspecies of humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, compared to our own current Homo sapiens sapiens) or a totally separate species (Homo neanderthalensis).

I read the books by Jean Auriel years ago, do any of the themes in her books ring true? i.e. very basic language, communal soul, spiritual awareness, inability to learn new processes etc?

I’m under the impression that most paleontologists view those books in much the same way that most historians view Mel Brooks’ History of the World:  Part 1.  Possibly entertaining, but not much more beyond that.

On the matter of language, I remember reading about a find in Israel where they discovered a Neandertal hyoid bone, which is the bone used for speech.  And it was pretty much identical to ours.  So they probably had the physical ability to speak.  They also had actually more brain than we do* and didn’t seem to be lacking any major parts of it, so there’s no reason to suppose that they lacked the mental ability to speak as well.  So they probably could have spoken.  Whether they did or not, of course, is impossible to say because we have no way to listen to them.

They may have had the concept of art, however, which would strongly imply the ability to communicate.  LaMa would be the one to know more about that, though.

We do know quite well that they could learn new processes, however.  Their species (or subspecies) was around for at least a hundred thousand years.  Their toolmaking changed greatly over that period, meaning that they learned new techniques.  Also, different populations lived in different ways; the Neanderals living on the coast learned to make use of their coastal environment, while those living in the mountains learned how to make use of their own habitat’s peculiarities.

Communal soul and spiritual awareness. . .there’s no way to say.  It’s not greatly likely, though, that they had any sort of racial memory or telepathy or anything like that.  There are just too many problems with those basic concepts.

I was under the impression (please forgive my ignorance, but it is so intersting , but I have 0 knowledge on the subject) that neandertal was almost"bred out” by interaction between H Sapien and them.

I believe that what ended the Neandertal species is one of the most hotly contested of all debates in the field.

Was neandertal totally hairy , or was he more like us?

As far as I know, we only have the DNA that codes for Neandertal hair.  We don’t have any preserved specimens of Neandertals with their hair attached.  So how hairy they were is very speculative.  Many paleontologists don’t think that they were all that significantly hairier than we are, though.  I’ve read reports of computer simulations showing that Neandertals would overheat too easily if they were indeed covered in hair.

Also the big question , was he as strong as Arnie?

Again, we don’t have direct evidence.  With only skeletal remains, we have to make estimates based on where and how the muscles had been attached to the bones (we can see that by looking carefully at the bones).  Strong muscles tend to require certain attachment characteristics that aren’t so well developed on weaker muscle attachments.  Then there are all sorts of bone and muscle ratios, bone density measurements, and so on.  These clues aren’t perfect, but they give us an idea.  Based on that, it’s pretty certain that the average healthy Neandertal was probably stronger than the average modern human.  Whether the average Neandertal was as strong as Arnie can only be answered in one way, of course:  Governor Arnold vs. Uya the Neandertal in a cage fight, best two out of three!  If you’ll book the contestants, I’ll arrange for the popcorn and drink sales.

.

.

* Brain size is not an exact measure of intelligence.  There’s only a rough correlation between comparative brain size and comparative intelligence when there’s an extreme difference in size amongst somewhat related species.  So while having a brain 5% bigger than another hominid doesn’t mean you’re probably smarter, having a brain 500% bigger means you probably are.  Of course, part of that also depends on what parts of the brain are bigger or smaller.

If it was just brain size that mattered, whales would rule the world, and we’d be subservient even to cattle.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 September 2009 12:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2009-09-24

Thanks heaps for that Accipiter,

It sort of puts a few things into perspective. In regards to the cage fight, I am as we speak trying to contact Dana from the UFC to try and host a fight here in Adelaide. I saw a guy that was working the front door of a night club last weekend and from the descriptions you and other comments have given me , I am 89% sure that this guy is a neandertal, his name was even Uya! If we can just convince Arnie to the match ” I think you may have something here!”

Image Attachments
357px-JediBrute.jpg
 Signature 

Some men are wise and some are otherwise

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 September 2009 12:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2009-09-24

I am trying to get the picture that I attached onto the left hand side of my posts , under my blog name. Can anyone help me?

 Signature 

Some men are wise and some are otherwise

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 September 2009 12:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Australo-who-icus? - 25 September 2009 04:20 AM

Thanks heaps for that Accipiter,

It sort of puts a few things into perspective.

Wait until LaMa gets here, he can probably tell you more.  I’m likely a bit out of date on my information.

Australo-who-icus? - 25 September 2009 04:22 AM

I am trying to get the picture that I attached onto the left hand side of my posts , under my blog name. Can anyone help me?

Read this page first.  Then do what it says.  It will often take a while even after you get it set up before it shows, though.  Hours later, sometimes.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 19
5