seriously though, 50,000 years and nothing to show for it. No great buildings, no books not even the wheel for crying out loud. Did they have souls like us, or were they just a prototype, a practice species? Just a thought.
No. At one time, they were the teachers, we the students. We outdid our teachers. Neanderthal burials have been found, (They buried their dead) with flowers, shells and bits of pretty stones. As for Cag having a soul. Yeah, him too. He can't prove he doesn't. NOW THATS TOO FUNNY!
Oh yeah, this statement coming from a mystic. Got to love it.
chimps mourn their dead
http://hubpages.com/hub/Chimpanzees-mou … ike-humans
Many animals mourn their dead - including elephants who will re-visit the bones of their lost family members.
The thing about Neanderthal is that they buried their dead and it is that this is accompanied by ritual which is a number one pointer for civilized societies. This evidence comes from grave goods etc.
well as civilised as living in a cave can be. Even the biblical 'modern' humans were pretty primitive
the Egyptians were rather advanced for their time.
Back to bible - the thinking of that time was to kill people for not being virgins & to send women out of the camp when menstruating - things like that
Yes, they were clever, but seriously unenlightened.
Well I was meaning the people in the Bible, but the Egyptians also, yes. They enslaved a whole nation. Not enlightened behavior from that point of view.
Civilised is nothing to do with living conditions, it is a condition of thinking advancement.
The grave goods just indicate that the people felt general grief and responded to it with ritual, also the discovery of Neanderthal cave art is about their level of metaphysical thinking ability not the quality of the work.
Many modern people display regressive thinking characteristics that make them less civilised than stone age man and Neanderthal man - which is why some people claim we are becoming 'less pure' and in a degenerated state from the 'original' pure man.
That would imply someone was practicing. Which of the mass delusions we call religion are we asking about?
You're right, God wouldn't need to practice.
weird you posted this as I just finished viewing an in depth documentary regarding 'Big Foot' where they have found three species of cryptid apes, that people believe are humanoid prototypes.
The largest clusters were in Tibet, China and modern day British Columbia. they even have reports, as far south as Indonesia. Mystically they have many names, commonly Yeti (or Japanese meti for Bear).
anyway, as for proof of humans being 50k --or in some circles 250k years old--- with no evidence, apart from the last 300 years of heavy industrialization, it is hard to believe the stories.
Granted, bones have been found of humans from various regions, climatic conditions, etc. I would think a species living in Tibet's snow region and Malaysia or Africa would have slight variations of body type and bone structure.
The carbon dating issue is the problem. Even still, I am with you: why would it take 50k or 250k years for humans to reach this industrialized point of existence? Humans seen to be the only creatures on earth with this ability and intellect. Else, the monkeys would have been ruling us long before we could say, iPad.
what a coincidence! 3000 miles away too.
Thanks for the info. So the neanderthal may or may not have been an animal? Did you hear the story from the late Georgian period where a chimpanzee was arrested for treason, or some such thing, put on trial and hanged? We were at war with the French at the time and there was much paranoia about terrorists. Apparently they mistook the chimp for a French man, dressed in clothes as he was, and not able to speak English, probably from the circus. Poor thing didn't stand a chance.
You are right - and people from the northern England city who did this still have the nick-name of monkey-hangers even now !
James is confusing the various extinct apes - that may or may not have been humanoid - with the well established evidence of Neanderthal man. The distinctive characteristics of the remains of these people is very clear and the record show that they made homes, used tools and formed social groups that buried their dead - all the attributes of civilization.
Some people deny the existence of 'other' kinds of human as it poses problems for religious trains of thought, or lack of thinking, whichever side of that fence you are on.
It is highly speculative. This creature resembles most mammalian types. But, there is nothing to prove they are humanoid. They migrated across the temporal land mass between Russian and Canada, (now reduced to just the Bering Straight) which explains their concentration in B.C. from Asia. From what they have gathered: (bones, prints, etc) it leans heavily toward this Tibetan Yeti.
Now, here is the very weird part. In the last 150 years, many claim they saw them, but what is odd, on a large scale no one has. I mean with advanced geothermal satellite technology, communications and social movement, there is really no where they could hide long enough, that more an one random person would encounter them.
Second, how -if they are Neanderthal or descendants of- did they survive, without evolving into a human of today --if not more advanced. Why didn't they die off? I mean science is claiming they existed in this supposed Ice Age, some 1 million years ago. That is a long, long, long time. Considering the average human lives a meager 80 years and each generation gets progressively more intelligent, in less than 50 generations (4,000 years), these Neanderthals would have been "Einsteins". The time lines do not fit, nor does the evolutionary process.
But it is a cool story
humans don't rule monkeys & other animals.
If you look at the baboons breaking into houses & cars to steal food in South Africa (and terrifying humans), I'd say the baboons have the upper hand.
Derek Prince, who I have always respected greatly, held the theory (which he clearly marked as just that, a theory) that there possibly were an 'earlier version'of humanity, created by Lucifer/Satan or whatever one would wish to call him, maybe 'The Fallen Arch Angel' would suffice?
Anyhow the theory was that he (The Fallen Arch Angel)could create humanoids, but was unable to infill them with a spirit, hence they would be reactive and instinctive, rather than considered and inspired.
From that comes the reasoning that God created humans, and filled them with a spirit (albeit unenlivened until they reached a point where they could commune with God)which made the difference.
Just a thought....
By definition, that would be an "assertion" not a theory.
Yep, you are right... assertion, concept, idea, something he pondered without any serious intent that it may be truth, but nevertheless a possible actuality that could explain certain aspects of the history of humanity.
99.5% similar DNA - seems like god liked satan's creation to plagarise it
Or that Satan was just not capable of doing EVERYTHING that God can, it's a common mistake folk make, thinking they can be equal to God.
You mean Satan can't create a rock he can't lift, or he can created it, but just can't lift it?
"equal to God"
yet, satan must have created something rather good if god decided to copy it - near identical DNA and all
Apparently both mythical entities couldn't build a decent DNA if their life depended on it.
Scientists are needing to repair great lumps of code that god and satan both got wrong it seems.
Worse, it is claimed by some learned people that the DNA we have is happy to kill us in order to survive itself.
Nasty little DNA!
Earnest, that must be the most nonsensical reply I have seen you make, one where you try to blame entities you deny exist for mistakes that only your worshipped scientists can correct.
Amazing convolutions of faith you need to twist through to maintain your eccentric secular stance.
BB, nice twist also, even if you deliberately got the pecking order wrong again.
God runs things whether you approve or not, and your petulant replies make not one jot of difference to that.
petulant? Hark who's talking. I merely pointed out how silly Derek Prince's assertion is & I'm surprised you can't see it
This god thing only occupies your head space, not mine, you would do well to research DNA and keep your god where it belongs in your fantasy.
Whether God occupies your head space makes no difference to the fact that you occupy His space, with His Blessing and under His control.
Wow, you're tetchy today, all I was doing is passing through, and found my favourite secularists expounding, so made a comment, gotta go, got a life to live!
The only thing that controls me is me. Oh and maybe a few small children.
If you wish to believe that, fine by me....
Yes, I do wish to believe that, fine by you or not.
However, I'm not the one you need to consider whether it's fine with.
You guys are staking a whole lot on being 'mythically' right, good luck.
I was going to say you and your god but had decided to leave the god bit out.
Your particular slant on who is saved and who is not is just one of thousands.
Your chances of being right about an invisible entity having told a bunch of goat herders the "truth" has odds that no human should even bother with. Pink fairy elephants have more credibility, at least we can see elephants.
If that isn't enough reason to find religion wanting, one should know there is more missing from the bible than there is in it. It has been rewritten, re-interpreted to suit the churches to the point of absurdity, yet you know the only true way.
What a load!
pecking order on invisible mythical beings....hmmmm
That is correct Earnest, we better give our heads a shake as tens of thousands of children starve to death every day, because "God runs things whether you approve or not"
you had to have some of this nasty DNA destroyed by doctors, didn't you Earnest?
you know that a cabbage has more genes than a human. how crazy is that!!
A practice species? That's too funny!
As for having soul? You cannot prove YOU have one.
So what was it made them so different from us?
Conscious awareness...the level and the capacity of brain usage. Nothing more.
So they were a sort of practice species really. They weren't going anywhere so they faded away and a better species emerged. Slightly unscientific version, I know.
No they would not be. A practice species, means that they were created as an experiment and there is nothing to suggest that to be the case.
They were not evolved enough, which is why they faded.
Is 150,000 years not a successful length of time to exist? Do you not think they simply faded because they were without purpose? I am being a little facetious when I talk about a practice species, but our success is due in large part, to our determination to continue for ever.
They likely did not "fade away". More likely our direct ancestors removed them, either by killing or starving them out. Neanderthal could not compete.
They were an experiment in the same sense that every living species has been. They exist until something better comes along.
150,000 is not a very long time in evolutionary terms. They were not very successful.
Successful? Subjective. It doesn't actually matter.
No. Adaptability and mental capacity was their problem.
Interestingly, I've also read that they did not have the physical apparatus for speech. They were not able to produce the fine nuances for real communication, and without that ability they are not likely to invent language at all. Grunts, pointing, screams yes, but not complex communication.
I've also seen biologists that discount this idea and claim that they could. Who knows?
Diet probably played a part as well; although Neanderthal apparently hunted their primary diet consisted of roots which is probably not a real good thing in an ice age.
Hey Wilderness....what you said is different than what I said?
Adaptability? Lack communication skills or ability to form complex communication, would qualify as being unable to adapt...no?
Sure. It was just an interesting observation I've seen that might indicate a "why" for their demise. I didn't think their cranial capacity was enough different from ours to matter, and they were probably physically better adapted than we are to the environment they lived in at the time.
Nevertheless they are gone, and those two observations may play a large part in the "why".
Mind-space(capacity, not brain size) to think is different.
Mind-space (meta physical) we can of course have no idea of. Capacity, in the form of physical characteristics (cell size, # of neurons, etc.) we can find in our own species, but have no soft tissue from Neanderthal.
A pertinent comment in any case - brain size is not all there is to it by a long shot. It is probably an indication only and only in fairly closely related species, such as the great ape family.
Actually, from what I've learned, it can be determined what level of consciousness they did have, simply through what they displayed in the writings/art/pictures and so.
It isn't difficult to understand, when it's learned that many of the human species in the last few thousand years, actually existed in a stasis of unawareness of their own life.
The language thing IS interesting yes. The very act of conversing and being understood is intensely formative. I also think that fear makes you stupid. If your predominant emotion is fear then it leaves little room for self-reflection and learning. These fellows lived in dangerous times and subsequently in fear and ignorance.
I rather like Eddie Izzard's sketch on the subject: "The Neanderthals lived for 150,000 years. So after 50,000 years they said um? another 50,000 and they said err? another 50,000 and oh? And that was it really"
The jury still seems to be out as to whether or not Neanderthals could speak
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 … years.html
But what is this need to feel superior to Neanderthals? Are Homo Sapiens that insecure?
It isn't insecurity on our part. That would be absurd. The question really becomes one of, what makes us human?
What makes us homos sapiens is what makes us homo sapiens. Putting down Neanderthals doesn't make us any more or less what we are - they were what they were, and we will probably never fully know their levels of capability, awareness etc. All we can do is speculate from the archaeological evidence.
But what seems to be running through this thread is a desperate need to prove that homo sapiens are somehow better than the Neanderthals and special in some way. It reeks of insecurity and is the basis of why we are probably the most dangerous animals on the planet. Instead of seeing ourselves as part of the natural world, we seem to think that we are somehow unique and special, and that this gives us the right to take from the planet anything we wish without putting anything back or show any concern for the all the other animals and plants that we share this world with. This is why as a species we have no chance of surviving as long as the Neanderthals until we get our collective act together
This isn't about putting down Neanderthals because, as you say, we know hardly anything about them. It is about learning more about them in relation to ourselves. You are quite right too that we are the most dangerous animal on the planet; nasty, barbaric, selfish, cruel but also artistic, charitable, self-sacrificing and wonderful. What's it all about?
agree - calling them a 'practise species' means they were created as a 'stuff-up'
When we Homo Sapiens have been around for as long as the Neanderthals survived, then maybe we can start dissing their survival skills - only about another 100,000 years before we start crowing!
Alien genetic experimentation and DNA splicing.
Not a heck of alot. Conscious awareness? It is indicated that they were consciously aware. They were compassionate, as indicated by neanderthal remains showing old, crippling injuries, which would have been fatal had the creature not had someone hunting for it. This wasn't an acception. This seems to have been regular practice. Tools to acheive specific, specialized objectives. They were inquisitive, intrepid explorers, and excellent hunters and gatherers. I think their conscious awareness isn't in question here.
Try and build an engine by yourself, or tell me how to create plastic?
Lets go to the wheel example, how would you warp wood to a circular shape, how would you create spokes without a lathe? I know I couldn't do it.
in 150,000 years one of us might have had a bash.
I don't think so. Without any pre-taught skill or information to go look up I doubt if you could get oil from a peanut, make simple soap, grow anything worth eating and how you would be able to run and catch an animal (let alone try and tame it) in that tight frock I have no idea !
But we did do it, that's the point. Early man got stuck right in making this and that...clothes, shoes, fire, eating utensils and stuff. We've been utilising animals and wheels for thousands of years, for donkeys years even.
They had no need for buildings...They were nomadic..Followed the food sources...No books...but we do have some artwork...They were just like us...minus the technology...LOL.. there are people today that would fall apart if you took away their Cell phones and Laptops...
Sorry when I said 50, 000 I meant to say 150,000 years. Nothing to show for 150, 000 years! Ok some cave paintings.
Cags is right...Humanoids were still developing during that time frame...They were simply still evolving...If humans have souls then, it would serve to say that all humans have souls...not just the Homo Saphiens of today...
Which begs a question...If man was created in "god's image" which human form is the correct one for that statement...?
The theological belief that we are made in God's image refers to our souls. Our souls are made in God's image. If the Neanderthals didn't have souls, it would explain why they had no spiritual yearning, which is after all, the driving force behind our creativity and ambition.
Spiritual yearning is why we are creative and ambitious?
I thought is was more because we are easily bored and require stimuli to keep us entertained.
Not to mention we are now inherently lazy and looking for ways to make life easier.
how so? I was just giving a different view as to why we are creative and ambitious.
Yes we are inherently lazy, among many other flaws, but surely our drive comes from a desire to improve, to expand to be better. Our spiritual yearning is notable by our egocentric view of the world: that part of ourselves which makes us who we are, call it what you will, has a desire to live on and be remembered even when we are gone.
Don't dis the cave paintings, they are amazing works of art and they are still here with us today. Ancient peoples wrote their stories in stone. Who will know our story when the books have all rotted and the power goes out? We're not smart enough to carve it on the sides of our buildings.
And a massive ice-age that wiped out all evidence that even our species existed before it except for a few bones. Our presence has been pushed back to 140,000 yrs. and we only started officially advancing in the last ten thousand, and that number is also starting to be pushed back.
Soul is the breath of life. I know it was new to Cag, but it's in Genesis.
New to me. WOW! What a joke! Just another mystics practicing mysticism to deceive others. You must be very proud of yourself.
However, don't worry, the dishonesty was made available to those who actually do choose to learn about mysticism. But, again, nice try to support it. Too bad, you're a few decades too late.
Humans didn't have anything to show for our first 150,000 years either. We only managed to invent agriculture about 10-12,000 years ago, and we've been around for nearly 200,000. Advanced societies didn't start showing up until about 6,000 years ago.
What Double Scorpion says makes sense to me!
Neanderthals were well-adapted to the ice age but didn't fare so well in competition with what we consider more modern humans. Their brain case was comparable to ours (maybe even larger) but no one knows how their thought process actually worked.
Late in their existence they seem to be adopting the innovations of Cro Magnon, so maybe they were smart but not too creative. Who knows?
Their DNA is nearly the same as ours, but as for their having or not having a soul, that's a religious issue. I think most would say if we have one, they did too.
It's true, we don't know because they weren't interested in posterity. A life beyond their own was perhaps inconceivable.
I suppose my interest is more religious than scientific. I would say that humans are defined by having souls which make us ambitious, covetous, aggressive, spiritual, inquisitive, selfish and changeable. It can't just be about intelligence. I've met men in whom the missing link is all too apparent. Kidding.
But the definition of the soul is that it is self-knowing. Were they self-knowing, and if not, were they human?
So they were a sort of practice species really.
If we last another 120,000 years, we will be able to say that we were as successful as the Neanderthals.
Maybe we're the practice species.
"it would explain why they had no spiritual yearning, which is after all, the driving force behind our creativity and ambition" How do you know that?
Well that's an opinion based on the fact that there isn't much evidence of them searching beyond the present for meanings in things. Perhaps this is an indication of extreme satisfaction will their lot; something us homo-saps don't experience a great deal and isn't to be sniffed at as such.
So, were the dinosaurs just a practice species for birds and lizards?
OK, so I know where the book of Genesis is and what it says. pretty durned mystical...woooooo. SPOOKY. Neanderthals, yes, fell from popularity when it was discovered, too late, that the radiator installed be Toyota wasn't efficient enough for the temperature rise leading to our age. I saw it in my crystal ball. Actually, I read it in science publications instead of making my answer up. Like Cag. I saw that in the stars! LOL
That's like saying that the Model T was a practice for the Maseratti. Besides...who was practicing?
Yet, another meaningless post. And, a piss poor attempt at mocking or making fun of me. Not surprising in the least from a mystic.
Just a suggestion: READ! Do your homework. 1st book on your list should be FORBIDDEN ARCHEOLOGY. In the words of A. Lincoln, "It is best to remain silent and appear ignorant than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
Well thanks for that. Are we all to be forbidden from conversation until we know everything? Discussion takes me into places I wouldn't otherwise go. I am humble enough to accept that I have more curiosity than knowledge. This thread has been interesting for me.
If someone living today in what is called a "primitive society" is removed to "civilization" they usually will readily adapt to the modern world and modern technology.
If a Neanderthal were moved through time to today, would they be able to likewise adapt? If so, they're mentally no different from modern man. Unfortunately, there's no way to know if they were really wired differently from us (in their thought process or lack thereof).
Were they mentally limited or just socially limited?
Look up Neanderthal burial practices. Look up Neanderthal inability to cool properly. Check out those cave art thingies that non-mystic mentioned above. Cag...everyone is right. You are HILARIOUS!
It's a good question. There is a dispute on this thread, however, what extent the neanderthals even existed. I'm intrigued.
They not only existed, they merged with the cro-magnon, eventually disappearing as a separate race of humans...many humans still carry physical Neanderthal characteristics...Their genes are still alive and well in the 21st century...
Present genetic data negates this and, unfortunately, the theories are too many to sort out. no proof exists that humans 'evolved' as most theories suggest. They may have had variable bone structures, depending on where they lived, what they ate and such. My biggest complaint is the time lines used. None of them are fully rational.
There is some evidence of Neanderthal art but it's crude and each piece seems to be a one-off. IAW there's no continuity to indicate that art was a normal thing for them.
I am aware of no record of Neanderthals doing cave painting. The examples that we have were done by early modern man.
I wasn't aware of them being signed. No matter. I just threw that in to see if a "non-mystical" claim would be accepted. I stand by my burials claim AND the tools thing. Cag said they weren't consciously aware. Conscious awareness can come on different levels. A fly is consciously aware of our presence, yet not consciously aware of it's own mortality. (or so we are told. Personally, I've never discussed it with them.
I like how you are open to anything being possible. The neanderthals existence is very obscure to us, but even if they did all sorts of clever things, why was there no signs of progress in all that time? Were they self aware like the homo sapien?
Neanderthals were a very successful and widespread species that dissapeared along with sabre tooth tigers and mammoths at the same time that hunter-gatherer stone age man spread all around the world with his new weapons of mass destruction. Most theories are that we out-thought them to become the dominant species, this might be a little self-congratulatory as it is just as possible that we, as the physically smaller and weaker species were just more aggressive and murderous, just as we are today.
Their dissapearance also coincides with the 10,000 year period when the ice age receded (in steps) allowing people to migrate to new areas, and we all know what man has done to the aboriginal peoples in memory, no reason to think anything different of our relatively recent ancestors.
recommend1, could you provide us with proof of this, not theory, please. It is something of a hobby for me to learn impressive things like this.
There is no proof, to my knowledge, that 'Neanderthals' actually existed. Sure, there are various human types, from various locations, but my friend who is a geneticist at Columbia University can prove they never existed the way people believe they did, according to genetic recording, not carbon dating. The story of Neanderthals coincides with the Yeti story of migration. As said, Yeti (typical Neanderthal) is the Northern Caucus word for a snow ape.
The existence of this human type is well documented in the archaelogical record, well researched in easily accessible places that you can Google. The first discovery of their remains was in the Neander valley in Germany which gave the name. Genetecists recently concluded that specifically Neanderthal DNA is also present in non-African humans today. Like any exploration of remains and traces we are left with only theories, but the current theories generally hold up pretty well and I suspect your friend would have some exterior and unrelated motive for claiming they never existed.
No, none what-so-ever. He is, as the saying goes, a 'die hard realist' and quite learned I might add. He does not accept theory as proof, but as possibility via speculation.
Possibility via speculation is theory - what is the issue with this ?
The best fit possibility with available evidence is the best we can ever do - and the best theory changes as more evidence is accumulated and tested against what we already know.
As the archaeological record clearly shows the existence in our past of the Neanderthal type - how does you realist friend dispute this ?
Exactly, it is NOT proof, it is theory - all of it. Even with the Lovely Bones Archives is still just hypothetical. Just like the other side of the house, religion.
The notion that it took 245,000 years to learn how to make cities and tools is ridiculous. Especially since science claims humans have existed since the Ice Age --a million years ago. Gotta love all those big numbers. In less than 300 years, they thoroughly industrialize the planet, etc. Ludicrous!
As far as a verity of human species, just look at humans today. Men in Africa differ in body type and bone structure slightly to those living in Sweden; they differ from those in the dense rain forests of Brazil; they differ from those in the Highlands. In a mere 400 years of history, the human has changed dramatically.
As for cave drawings, why do people assume it was an Adult Neanderthal? My 2 1/2 year old, along with his preschool pals draw stuff like that all the time. A child with autism draw the entire NYC subway map -with colors- in less than 30 minutes, from memory. Talk about the coolest cave drawing ever!
Science, just more indoctrination.
It's true James. People often forget that science is theory not fact. It is closer to philosophy than maths really. Who we are and where we came from is still shrouded in mystery for us.
It is unfathomable the depth of some peoples powers of creativity or deduction alive today , but to remind ourselves that equally great minds existed 5000 years ago is wild.
As for cave paintings, I would be more likely to keep them than some of the paintings my kiddies bring home, but no they're not quite da Vinci.
To say they were a Practice Species implys that they were created for that purpose?????
are we talking evolution, ot God theory?
to me they seemed to be a developing species, a stepping stone for an evolving species. Learning and advancing, and passing on.
if it was a God or creator that was there then why would a God need to practice?
either way Godhead, or Evolvement, we have a delima it seems.
You're right, God would not need to practice. I was being facetious for the sake of argument there, but in terms of evolution, there is no proven link between the neanderthal and homo-sap as yet. We may think we see the link eating in Macdonalds from time to time but we would be wrong.
The Neanderthal genome was drafted 2 years ago in Germany. It has not been fully analyzed yet but a Dr. Church of Harvard says it's now possible to take a chimp egg, add bits of Neanderthal DNA to certain critical areas and incubate the Neander-human in a chimp. Wait 9 mos. and voila! Cave Baby.
That's very oversimplified but the details are here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/scien … mp;emc=rss
Were Neanderthals a practice species?
Maybe we'll ask them in person.
A percentage of modern humans have neanderthal DNA
http://news.discovery.com/human/neander … d-dna.html
Neanderthals had hyoid bone required for speech
These are good references and both give great food for thought.
When I was in school, Neanderthals were considered ignorant brutes. When I got to College, that had changed and they were then considered a primitive type of human or hominid.
Now they have evolved into a probable human in most scientific circles and now, with their DNA mapped, I think we'll eventually find out what they were capable of.
The DNA will tell the story - which brain areas were well-developed, did they rely more on smell or hearing and a lot more.
As far as cloning one, I think we can be sure it'll never happen, at least not in the near run. Mastodons maybe but Neans, no way.
I haven't read a lot about them. The current view is they are an extinct human species?
Neanderthals are classified either as a subspecies of modern humans or as a separate human species, but modern anthropology seems to have no doubt that they were human. Of course, as we can tell by this thread, not everybody agrees.
maybe as closely related as horses are to donkeys? They can interbreed too
They were most likely a parallel human species from a recently common human ancestor - there is evidence that non-African humans carry their genes.
They existed at the same time as stone age man and became extinct at the same time that humans became much more prolific and migrated to most of the places we are found today, including the American continent.
donkeys & horses are a parallel equine species?
They are I believe, but Neanderthal and us were more similar I think. BTW The reason the question of them being animal or human keeps coming up is that it is problematic for the religious types - in his own image etc., also were there two Adam and Eves etc.
99.5% similar, I think.
I notice that creationists either deny the existence of neanderthals or they say they are diseased modern humans
This is a largely humerous topic for me, but I also think it's just an interesting thing to consider. Like it or not, we are naturally spiritual. That doesn't prove the existence of God, it could just mean that our bigger brains cause us to have such an ego that we can't bear the idea of not existing forever. That's what make it an interesting discussion.
I'm not a creationalist because that would mean I had stripped my religion of all its resonance and wonder, liturgy and philosophy and reduced it to the worshiping of a book. That would make me an American protestant, which I am not.
Spirituality is a normal kind of discussion outside these forums, it is only the consideration of the things that we don't know and how we deal with it, like death, luck, chance, absence.
It appears in different forms, for some the absent space is filled with a god, some have some gaia nature thing going on and some, like me, think it is more about a reflection of our own self awareness.
The Chinese, that everyone seems to think are secular, have a huge sprituality clearly believing in something outside of themselves - unlike the so-called christian right, that are most vocal here, who talk about outside themselves but actually refer to inside themself, self-centred.
Nobody can prove or disprove a god, this is why those who do believe must have faith rather than any kind of proof. None of the religious thread arguments get past this point to discuss what might really be out there in the unknown. The Chinese history of philosophy took all this into account thousands of years ago, When they made some kind of high advance in thinking it usually resulted in a 'school' with a champion and its own writings, the school that got furthest with the unknown decided that it cannot be 'unknown' because we know something about it, that it exists and we don't know. They would have senior level meetings at which trying to discuss the subject just showed that you knew nothing about it These people spawned off zen buddhism, the Tao among many other highly advanced thinking strategies so we should take them seriously.
I have huge respect for religious people, its just that we don't find many in here. I consider that any useful statement about anything in the unknown must make sense BOTH with or without consideration of any god or absence thereof.
that is probably the difference btwn humans and other animals - we have this search for meaning - animals just get on with their lives
But that's good though isn't it? Searching for meaning is what gives us art.
you asked earlier what makes humans different - I think that's it - we contemplate, want meaning in our lives etc - do yes that's where the desire to create comes from & the the thirst for knowledge - so we get art, science, music etc. It's not that we have emotions because other animals do too. Sure, we have speech, but other animals communicate in ways we cannot understand
"I Am American Protestant, and so can you!".
nice one Liz. PS, that would make a great title for a book...
if you breed a donkey and a horse you get a mule. mules are very strong but can't breed. a really curious thing I think.
"Necessity is the mother of invention" is a fair statement in my opinion. Neanderthals were not much different than cro-magnon other than slight body differences.
They were in competition with the intrusive new human species and were therefore destroyed by the newcomers. Perhaps it wasn't intentional but it happened just the same.
When the first Europeans stepped foot in the New World they also brought with them many diseases the Native Americans had no resistance to. Measles, mumps, even the common cold had the effect of wiping out perhaps 80% of the indigenous natives.
The rest were considered savages and not worthy to compare with the immigrants coveting their lands. Similar to the Africans imported to serve the "chosen ones" as slaves. The earliest Spanish explores killed the Florida natives at will while stealing their corn supplies. They even fed old women to the dogs for entertainment. God stepped foot in America!
With our known documented history of such racism and prejudice against those who appear different from us, or who don't worship the correct deity, imagine how much worse primitive humans would have dealt with "those savages." Especially with there being no laws to prohibit cro magnon man from killing Neanderthals at will.
Unless of course, one thinks our ancient ancestors were more ethical or non-prejudicial than we are today. Good luck with that!
I knew you were in to history, but this is a bit off the usual path and very interesting stuff to learn about as a "foreigner" Thanks Randy, nice post.
Thanks Earnest! Not many "Americans" learn about the abject cruelty and horror inflicted upon the Native Americans by the very first Spanish explorers.
Landing around Tampa Bay, they proceeded to steal and murder their way along the gulf coast until all but 2 of them were either killed by the natives or by their own stupidity.
The diseases they brought with them did most of the damage, perhaps it was "god's will." Later explorations found many abandoned villages those diseases decimated.
Cabo De Vaca and a single black slave were the only survivors of that ill-fated expedition. After being held as slaves by the "heathens" themselves, they eventually made their way back to Mexico after many years to relate their almost unbelievable tale of survival.
God must have really disliked the native people.
That is very interesting, and true. My, this whole thread is starting to remind me of Gullivers Travels.
Modern man lived alongside Neanderthals for some time. Neanderthals were not the primitive big brow creatures that they have been painted. They were as advanced, with religion and some kind of society. The traditional image that we have of them was the creation of atists who tried to imagine how a so-called primitive man could look. History is always written by those who have replaced older native races. Native Americans were once portrayed as primitive, as were Africans by European colonialists.
I seem to remember that the cave painting attributed to Neanderthal is more 'primitive' than the corresponding art from Homo sapiens and the general picture is of homo sapiens rapidly developing faster than the Neanderthal.
However, the point about how they were literally 'painted' is valid, old drawn pictures of native American indians, Australian aborigenes and other 'tribespeople' almost always show them with a forehead sloping deeply backward - not apparent in the early photographs and so almost certainly a projection of the artist's perceived racial mental superiority ?
by Disappearinghead6 years ago
It has been established by genetic inquiry that Neathderthals were a different species from Homo Sapiens, but possessed large brains, perhaps a culture, and possibly speech. There have been a few reconstructions from...
by CMHypno7 years ago
Major DNA study shows that our ancestors could have interbred with Neanderthal populations at least twice in our history and that most humans carry some Neanderthal geneshttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ …...
by Mahaveer Sanglikar6 years ago
<image removed>I wanted to know that who created God? I mean who is father of God? Homo Sapiens or Neanderthal?
by Julie Grimes7 years ago
With some recent archaeological discoveries in India, and in South Africa has Darwin's evolution clouded our judgment about the creation of mankind? That's the question I would like to pose to all of you this...
by Will Benson8 years ago
If they did have souls, what did they have to do to save them?
by Knight66 years ago
why is it that every time humans turn to their repective gods it is usally as a result of some form of emtion sad happy guilt etc.."if you believe in light it is because of darkness,if you believe in joy it is...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.