an interesting film. but riddled with eurocentric superiority attitude.
one is one of our ancestors before neanderthals had "no imagination". no forethought. if someone can work a tool, there is thought, and thus, imagination.
then later they focus on neanderthals, whom according to "scientists" were better than those further south in africa. more eurocentric thinking. also, they viewed neanderthals as having no imagination. neanderthals worked and used tools. this had to have been the use of imagination. you had to go beyond just banging rocks together and accidently forming a tool. you had to think, thus imagine, how can i shape this?, how can it be used?, how can i make it better?
i am a flintknapper. i think my way around the stone of its first form to what can i make, what will it form, etc..
thought goes way beyond what a eurocentric scientists thinks it is.
today people are far too arrogant in their easy chair, mickey dees, cable tv world. they believe our ancestors were a bunch of idiots bumbling their way through life and accidently discover how to survive.
i believe the majority of modern man is doing more accidently surviving than anything else. adversity and hardship causes us to think our way to survival. today there is very little thought and possibly evolution of humanity is at an end. unless a future of fat lazy blobs in wheelchairs is a future.

Perhaps the Neanderthals of Europe were "better" than their relatives in Africa at the time. If the most intelligent people (for lack of a better word) at the time happened to be in Europe, I don't think that implies Eurocentrism. There was no Europe back then, and all humans are the same now, so I don't see how you reached that conclusion.

I was reading about DNA, I'll have to look it up so I can share it with you.
Anyway.
They discovered through DNA that Neanderthals weren't actually our ancestors.

After making this discovery scientist went back to the place they found Lucy. They wanted to find more fossils like that of Lucy and discovered that Lucy wasn't the only type of hominid in the area at the same time.
So scientist went further up the tree and searched for more fossils resembling the hominid next in line. Only they discovered that the one next in line on the tree also existed with a completely different hominid at the same time.

I think they called the hominid that existed along with Lucy, cookie man or something like that. And the hominid just above cookie man that was most recently discovered was called the hobbit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobbit_man
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article499745.ece
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/flores/

eurocentric as in most education systems have a basis in european thought patterns. as in brain size dictates intelligence, etc..

Hobbit man has a brain the size of a chimp and used tools. But they're not considered to be human.
The tools discovered in the caves they lived in were very crude and undeveloped.
Even a chimp can pick up a bone and beat something with it.

or realize it can MAKE a stick and stick it in an anthill to get ants to eat. and pass the knowledge down. chimps and gorillas taught sign language are passing the language to other apes. without prompting to do so by humans.

Thats pretty cool.
I think it demonstrates imagination to a lesser degree.
I also think cats have emotions, but they're no where near as developed as human emotions.

Same thing.

Makes me wonder, if you give a man enough information will he be like Einstein eventually?
Or will he simply be unable to comprehend it all.
I guess we all have our limits.

Perhaps the Neanderthals of Europe were "better" than their relatives in Africa at the time. If the most intelligent people (for lack of a better word) at the time happened to be in Europe, I don't think that implies Eurocentrism. There was no Europe back then, and all humans are the same now, so I don't see how you reached that conclusion.

don't waste your time, the jackass would call a white dog riding in the front of a truck while a black dog sat in the back racism.

and trav is still an idiot. it is apparent of the approximate 10% we humans use of our brain, he is only clicking on about 5%.

That's the best come back you can muster?

I think I'll give this thread a shot in the arm and add a comment from another forum in an entirely different thread.

ORIGINAL: Sport
well the thing is, human origins is very hotly debated. These articles don't seem to be saying Neanderthals weren't human, they're saying they weren't our ancestors.....that they were some sort of offshoot. But here's the thing......Evolutionary theorists need Neanderthals to have died out without givng rise to "modern" humans because according to the fossil record, what is known as Neanderthal morphology quickly disappeared....like almost instantly. For this reason, ToE (which is a gradualistic theory) cannot explain how it would be that "modern" human morphology arose from "archaic" morphology in such a short amount of time. Therefore, they must make -- regardless of the evidence -- Neanderthals go "extinct." If the scientific community were to agree that Neanderthals were simply the ancestors of modern humans they would have to give a biological explanation of how it happened....aka a mechanism for rapid morphological changes. But they are not willing to do this because any mechanism responsible for rapid morphological changes is generally shunned because these may very well be "non-evolutionary," non-genetic mechanisms.......which would invalidate the whole concept of human evolution.

I'm not sure I understand what that quote is trying to say. Do you think you could simplify it? :)

I'm not sure I understand what that quote is trying to say. Do you think you could simplify it? :)

Evolution is currently based on how very long it takes for life to evolve.
So long it is not noticed.

At one time Neanderthals were considered to be our ancestors, as is plain to see by the OP. Currently that is a very heated topic.
The reason it is such a heated topic, is because Neanderthals have very suddenly died out. It is unexplainable, there are a few theories but no actual answers as to where Neanderthals went.

If, evolution takes so long a time that it isn't noticed, how come Neanderthals disappeared so fast? If they are in fact our ancestors.

taking that into consideration we can only assume that Neanderthals are not part of the human evolutionary tree. It would be impossible for them to be our ancesters, only because they have disappeared so quickly.

But!
Scientist have still discovered that Neanderthals are 99.5% identical to humans.
Thats closer then anything else ever recorded or current.
They have also discovered that when humans shared the planet with them, or supposedly shared the planet with them. They were some what more imaginative then humans of the same time.

But all this information that has piled up as evidence is to conflicting to say one way or the other.
Basically, in the most broadest and quickest way I can say it.
Because of the events unfolding for Neanderthals in the evolutionary chain.
Every piece of fossil evidence we have regarding human evolution is in question.

It's all conflicting.

Aha... I think I understand now.

Just because Neanderthals aren't necessarily our ancestors does not mean they aren't part of the "human evolutionary tree". They could be sort of like our cousins, from a common ancestor.

And yes, human evolution is one of the most contentious subjects in science, and not just because of the religion aspect. No respectable scientist would claim that we have everything figured out. We're still looking for fossil evidence to help us understand the story of how humans came to be, and it's so interesting to hear about every new development! :D

Aha... I think I understand now.

Just because Neanderthals aren't necessarily our ancestors does not mean they aren't part of the "human evolutionary tree". They could be sort of like our cousins, from a common ancestor.

And yes, human evolution is one of the most contentious subjects in science, and not just because of the religion aspect. No respectable scientist would claim that we have everything figured out. We're still looking for fossil evidence to help us understand the story of how humans came to be, and it's so interesting to hear about every new development! :D


Very true.

One of the things I noticed, is that the DNA evidence rarely matches what was thought by the fossil evidence.

Very true.

One of the things I noticed, is that the DNA evidence rarely matches what was thought by the fossil evidence.
I don't know if I would say "rarely", but yes, in fields that are relatively new, theories are disproved and changed all the time.

I think I read somewhere that European neandrothals who were less Intelligent were labelled 'pilgrims' put on a boat and pointed west.

Bwhahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They were, but they lost that title when they started chanting "No Blood for oil".

one thing about "primitive" cultures that will always be better than modern "civilized" cultures. they had to devote more time to taking care of their families, people, and themselves . such as food, etc., than making war for stoopit reason. like money, and oil. so, whose more intelligent and using more of their brain and resources in a constructive way?