NEANDERTHALS MAY HAVE SAILED TO CRETE

http://news.discovery.com/history/neanderthals-sailed-mediterranean-121115.html

Thomas Strasser, an associate professor in the Department of Art and Art History at Providence College, told Discovery that he believes "future research will confirm recent discoveries that hominids reached the Mediterranean islands when they first left Africa. I believe the Homo erectus radiation out of Africa was both terrestrial and maritime."

funnt how they now think neanderthals could sail around, form africa to crete and even to Australia, but no one believes africans could of sailed to south america. i think this discovery might have future implications on theories of the ancient civilizations maritime abilities

Neanderthalls = really apes get this crap out of here... smh at anybody that believes this crap...

H Boy wrote:Neanderthalls = really apes get this crap out of here... smh at anybody that believes this crap...

are you retarded? lwl what isnt there to believe? neanderthal settlements have been found on the island. there where no land bridges, too far to swim.... or is it that you dont believe that there were neanderthals. i wish i knew what you were talking about so i can tell you how wrong you are.

DontxTrip wrote:

H Boy wrote:Neanderthalls = really apes get this crap out of here... smh at anybody that believes this crap...

are you retarded? lwl or you dont believe in evolution either?

Oh i believe in evolution. I study, and there is actual proof of evolution, however it is to an extent. I refuse to believe we come from some ape looking humanoid. If you believe in evolution then lets debate another one of their evolutionary theories of a hen coming from the tyrannosaurus rex. Most of the evolution claims they make are theories that have been so widely accepted that people are being deceived.

H Boy wrote:

DontxTrip wrote:

H Boy wrote:Neanderthalls = really apes get this crap out of here... smh at anybody that believes this crap...

are you retarded? lwl or you dont believe in evolution either?

Oh i believe in evolution. I study, and there is actual proof of evolution, however it is to an extent. I refuse to believe we come from some ape looking humanoid. If you believe in evolution then lets debate another one of their evolutionary theories of a hen coming from the tyrannosaurus rex. Most of the evolution claims they make are theories that have been so widely accepted that people are being deceived.

so what about hte article dont you believe? that was my question?

Actually, "Neandertals" were fully human, and not an intermediary form between modern-man - "homo-sapien-sapiens", and more "primitive hominids" like evolutionists proclaimed at one time.

Some quick facts: Neandertal brain size equals or exceeds modern human dimensions, and although there isn't a direct correlation between brain size and intelligence, Neanderthal brain size certainly does NOT support views that argue for an evolutionary growth of "Hominid" brains.

More facts: They buried their dead, used tools, had a complex social structure, hunted and gathered, employed language, and played musical instruments. Just like modern-humans. Neandertal anatomical differences to modern humans are incredibly minor and can be for the most part explained as a result of a genetically isolated people that lived a rugged life in a cold, and harsh climate.

Decades of indoctrination in schools have resulted in peopl to believe in the half-ape, half-man, dumb primitive cave man called "Neandertal". This is no longer believed by the evolutionary community of scientist, but the indoctrination has been effective and the effects will be long-lived, unfortunately.

Anyway, I think I should start a thread about these kinds of things...eventually.

H Boy wrote:Oh i believe in evolution. I study, and there is actual proof of evolution, however it is to an extent.

Care to elaborate?

thats kinda my point tho....

these neanderthals were supposedly sailing around a hundred thousand years before anyone else, but its supposedly impossible for more modern africans to have sailed form africa to south america, or that there was no contact between civilizations in the the extremely less distant past.

WholeGrains4Life wrote:Actually, "Neandertals" were fully human, and not an intermediary form between modern-man - "homo-sapien-sapiens", and more "primitive hominids" like evolutionists proclaimed at one time.

Some quick facts: Neandertal brain size equals or exceeds modern human dimensions, and although there isn't a direct correlation between brain size and intelligence, Neanderthal brain size certainly does NOT support views that argue for an evolutionary growth of "Hominid" brains.

More facts: They buried their dead, used tools, had a complex social structure, hunted and gathered, employed language, and played musical instruments. Just like modern-humans. Neandertal anatomical differences to modern humans are incredibly minor and can be for the most part explained as a result of a genetically isolated people that lived a rugged life in a cold, and harsh climate.

Decades of indoctrination in schools have resulted in peopl to believe in the half-ape, half-man, dumb primitive cave man called "Neandertal". This is no longer believed by the evolutionary community of scientist, but the indoctrination has been effective and the effects will be long-lived, unfortunately.

Anyway, I think I should start a thread about these kinds of things...eventually lol.

they still do , neanderthals evolved form a common ancestor of homo sapiens, but in europe, there were actually believed to be five different types of human on earth 100,000 years ago.

The topic of origins was one of my most sought after subjects while I was being "institutionalized"....lol. So yeah, I know a thing or two. But I'll get back to this later, I can spend days discussing this stuff.

WholeGrains4Life wrote:The topic of origins was one of my most sought after subjects while I was being "institutionalized"....lol. So yeah, I know a thing or two. But I'll get back to this later, I can spend days discussing this stuff.

its funny that were discussing this at this exact time, cuhz im watching a paleontologist being interviewed as we speak, which is were i go the "5 different humans" fact from, ive always thought there was just the two, untill recently, but the recent discoveries of the "hobbit" species on the island of flores. and also there is the so called "java" man and one that ive never heard of before that evolved in asia, forgot what its called.

DontxTrip wrote:they still do ,

The previous schools of thought regarding who Neandertals were among the evolutionist community has changed drastically over the course of the history of paleontology, and is to this day, a topic of considerable debate. Many theories have been/are being proposed, with many of them being at odds with one another. Just look up the on-going Neanderthal genome research projects to get an idea of what I'm talking about here. The general consensus no longer holds the view that Neandertals were primitive/dumb hominids on an intermediate path toward modern man, but a separate species all together that diverged from homo-sapiens some time in the distant path. This is the most accepted view, currently.

However, the newer research being conducted is challenging these long standing beliefs. The Neandertal genome researchers tested for evolutionary relationships (which they assummed any similarities are due to common ancestry) among great apes, Neandertals and various groups of modern humans. This is where the real debate begins, since the answers they came up with aren't what most expected. They discovered that that Neandertals are well within the range of diversity of modern man, that the Neandertal genome is incredibly similar to the genome of modern man, and that there are only a few fixed differences between modern man and Neandertals. Again, this is challenging long standing beliefs and creating a whole whirl of controversy and debate.

Anyway, I'll be back tomorrow to discuss more of this.

WholeGrains4Life wrote:

DontxTrip wrote:they still do ,

The previous schools of thought regarding who Neandertals were among the evolutionist community has changed drastically over the course of the history of paleontology, and is to this day, a topic of considerable debate. Many theories have been/are being proposed, with many of them being at odds with one another. Just look up the on-going Neanderthal genome research projects to get an idea of what I'm talking about here. The general consensus no longer holds the view that Neandertals were primitive/dumb hominids on an intermediate path toward modern man, but a separate species all together that diverged from homo-sapiens some time in the distant path. This is the most accepted view, currently.

However, the newer research being conducted is challenging these long standing beliefs. The Neandertal genome researchers tested for evolutionary relationships (which they assummed any similarities are due to common ancestry) among great apes, Neandertals and various groups of modern humans. This is where the real debate begins, since the answers they came up with aren't what most expected. They discovered that that Neandertals are well within the range of diversity of modern man, that the Neandertal genome is incredibly similar to the genome of modern man, and that there are only a few fixed differences between modern man and Neandertals. Again, this is challenging long standing beliefs and creating a whole whirl of controversy and debate.

Anyway, I'll be back tomorrow to discuss more of this.

thats not really saying much since the dna of a chimp is 99% identical to humans, and yea a fixed few differences is what separated all the early forms of human. i dont get how the theory has diverged from the former theories. but ill wait for your further explanations. plus id love to see where your copying and pasting this shit form! hahaah

A well-known anthropologist on his very popular evolutionary blog concluded that not only are Neandertals fully human, but that all human-beings are now what he calls "multi-regionalists", which seems to be the new replacement for the old "out of Africa" theory.

Read here:

http://johnhawks.net/weblog

Interesting topic. Ever since making the switch to my "Paleo" eating, the subject of early man started to interest me a lot.

The term "multiregional hypothesis" was coined in the early 1980s by Milford H. Wolpoff and colleagues, who used the theory to explain regional similarities between archaic humans and modern humans in various regions, in what they called regional continuity.[9][10] Wolpoff proposed that the mechanism of clinal variation allowed for the necessary balance between both local selection and overall evolution as a global species, with Homo erectus, Neanderthals, Homo sapiens and other human forms as subspecies. This species arose in Africa two million years ago as H. erectus and then spread out over the world, developing adaptations to regional conditions. Some populations became isolated for periods of time, developing in different directions, but through continuous interbreeding, replacement, genetic drift and selection, adaptations that were an advantage anywhere on earth would spread, keeping the development of the species in the same overall direction while maintaining adaptations to regional factors. By these mechanisms, surviving local varieties of the species evolved into modern humans, retaining some regional adaptations but with many features common to all regions.

seems legit but doesnt really have to do with my point of this thread, that the scientific community seems to be making these early forms of man seem smarter and marginalizing more modern africans. but his multi regional hypothesis seems like its going to be a precursor to the scientific community hypothesising that our different races are now evolving into different sub species of humans.

DontxTrip wrote:thats not really saying much

Those findings say a lot, actually. And the implications they give are much more significant than you seem to think.

DontxTrip wrote: since the dna of a chimp is 99% identical to humans

LOL....not that old canard. Read this: http://www.icr.org/article/human-chimp-similarities-common-ancestry/


That article is somewhat old, and at the time states that an 86% similarity had been found, but more recent testing on the y-chromosome of chimp DNA has revealed that only 70% similarity was found in 2010 (almost exactly what is expected between man and chicken) add in the 50% of the chromosome that IS sequenceable, and that gap becomes ever wider.

plus id love to see where your copying and pasting this shit form! hahaah

Not really copying and pasting as much as putting together what I've learned over the years and going back to sources for reference.

RC wrote:Interesting topic. Ever since making the switch to my "Paleo" eating, the subject of early man started to interest me a lot.

It's super interesting man. And how the topic of origins isn't something that interest most people, is beyond me.

that souce seems a lil biased seeing how its from the institute for creation research. and the y chromosome is gonna have more differences, thats they dont use the mothers dna to research genealogy....if im not mistaken

DontxTrip wrote:that souce seems a lil biased seeing how its from the institute for creation research.

Biased? Everybody is biased my friend. No one is neutral, especially in the study of such things as origins science. The reality of the matter is that we all have the same evidence, but our interpretations of the evidence vary according to our world-views.

DontxTrip wrote:and the y chromosome is gonna have more differences, thats they dont use the mothers dna to research genealogy....if im not mistaken

Not exactly, but I'll get back to this tomorrow. About to get some shut-eye right now.

WholeGrains4Life wrote:

DontxTrip wrote:that souce seems a lil biased seeing how its from the institute for creation research.

Biased? Everybody is biased my friend. No one is neutral, especially in the study of such things as origins science. The reality of the matter is that we all have the same evidence, but our interpretations of the evidence vary according to our world-views.

yea, but that diesnt changed anything, which is why i dont think it should be presented as fact or evidence. in my opinion, but all this is still way off my original point of this topic....