A treasury and a place to meet people of all ages with various interests from all over the World
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

PLEASE READ OUR FORUM RULES HERE

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11

Author Topic: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)  (Read 18884 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

breedofrandy

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 2651
  • Ringo Love <3
    • Me Tumblr Blog
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #160 on: January 14, 2010, 10:44:41 PM »

^nice video Emmi!  ;D
Logged


"Ringo will always be my friend"--George Harrison (Rolling Stone Magazine 1987)

Kevin

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5544
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #161 on: January 15, 2010, 09:12:57 AM »

Neandertal is a fake. I`ve heard from one interview with the participation of scientists that Neandertal was removed from the museum (don`t remember which one used to have the exhibit). And can you guess why? Because it was discovered that Neandertal is A DEFORMED HUMAN BEING! So there has never been any Neandertal at all. It was all a mistake.

Jane - that's absolute ruibbish. Fossils of over 400 individual neandertals have been found. One being wrong (if that's the case, for which I can find no proof. I'd like to see yours) ) doesn't discount the rest. Plus there is the DNA record which confirms them as a seperate species.
Do some research Jane. Evolution is a fact.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2010, 10:58:14 AM by Kevin »
Logged
don't follow leaders

Kevin

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5544
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #162 on: January 15, 2010, 11:09:08 AM »

Jane, this is what I think you're referring to:
"In the 1800's the famous pathologist Rudolf Virchow was one who claimed that the first Neandertal fossil found was of a rickets sufferer. As Trinkaus and Shipman (1992) point out, Virchow, an expert on rickets, should have been the first to realize how ridiculous this diagnosis was. People with rickets are undernourished and calcium-poor, and their bones are so weak that even the weight of the body can cause them to bend. The bones of the first Neandertal, by contrast, were about 50% thicker than those of the average modern human, and clearly belonged to an extraordinarily athletic and muscular individual."

This was over 100 years ago. Since then massive amounts of evidence has been amassed - in the fossil, genetic and geological records which proves beyond doubt the existance of neandertals. 
Logged
don't follow leaders

Mairi

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 7934
  • The owls are not what they seem
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #163 on: January 15, 2010, 05:27:19 PM »

I know I believe in Neanderthals. I saw evidence of them every day in high school.
Logged
I am posting on an internet forum, therefore my opinion is fact.

AngeloMysterioso

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 185
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #164 on: January 15, 2010, 06:50:40 PM »

 ha2ha

Well put, Mairi !


Doing my own research over that topic, I read somewhere, something interesting about a book done by Steven Mithen (some College professor teaching at Reading U). THE SINGING NEANDERTHALS The Origins of Music, Language, Mind, and Body. Seems that the scholar suggests that the neanderthalians, because of their specific facial and throat bone and muscle configuration, might have had more technical skill to sing than to talk. Accordingly, Mithen goes a step further suggesting that Neanderthals might have learned to speak from Homo Sapiens, and reversely, Homo Sapiens may have learned to sing from these guys.

However, it must be underlined here that professor Mithen never, ever suggested that The Beatles derived from Neanderthalians.
  ;sorry
« Last Edit: January 15, 2010, 09:07:17 PM by AngeloMysterioso »
Logged
Music's all right John, but you'll never make a living out of it.

Jane

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3760
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #165 on: January 15, 2010, 09:04:42 PM »

A new book has just come out called Them And Us, a new theory that modern humans evolved in the middle east from the pressures of near extinction by smart, predatory, aggressive neandertals (more clever-apes than dumb humans.)
 a new find has been announced of pigment (paint) found in shells in a neandertal site in Gibralta. Prior to this it was thought body ardornment was unique to our species. If neandertals were painting thenmselves then it's unlikely they were hairy and the Them And Us book goes down the can.
So either:
1. The neandertal predator theory is wrong
2. The Gibralta findings have been misread or
3. Our ancestors were hunted nearly to extinction by clever, transvestite gorilla's.

1 is most likely, but 3 would make one hell of a movie.

Dear Kevin! But you also write about some doubts concerning Neandertals.  ;)
In fact, I am not trying to change anybody`s views, cause this is 100% impossible, I am just conveying something I heard, BTW these were Americans speaking at an interview. Maybe you are right, it might have been just one Neandertal removed cause found fake.
Logged

Jane

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3760
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #166 on: January 15, 2010, 09:37:54 PM »

So are you saying you don't believe in Evolution, Jane? Because I strongly believe in it. The whole Adam and Eve theory doesn't make sense to me.

First of all, emmi, please, do not try to make sense of something you (we all) can`t understand. Neither you nor anybody else. This "theory", as you call it, is not to be taken literally, it is a GREAT CODE which a human is incapable of deciphering. Our brains are weak, and the brains of the greatest scientists are too weak to understand it even a bit. Certainly something else is meant but the ultimate truth maybe so overwhelming that we are spared its burden and given this simple explanation.
Frankly, I don`t believe much in evolution. To me a human has always been a human. I don`t know what he looked like time ago, but not as the evolution theory tells us.
I want to tell you a paradoxical thing about Russia. In 1917 religion was killed in the country by bolsheviks. All the churches were forcefully closed or made into something else like stores to keep goods. For 70 years there was no religion, new generations were born without being baptised, without knowing much, I would say even anything, about the whole thing, without reading the bible and so on. People didn`t go to church. 70 years is long! After 1987 freedom of expression and religion was restored. And what do we see? Most people get baptised and go to church. I don`t know anybody who believes in evolution. Even those people who are sceptical about religion do not believe in evolution. The majority say, Well, I don`t know about the Adam-Eve but certainly not Darvin`s evolution theory.
I don`t know, nobody knows. There`s a theory that we were brought to the Earth by extraterrestrials. The experiment failed about twice, with dinozaurs and these neandertals or the like but in the end succeeded with humans. And I would believe in it more than in the evolution theory.
Logged

The Swine

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 729
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #167 on: January 15, 2010, 09:45:35 PM »

a new wayne has finally come to us!
Logged
THE INTERNET IS NOT A PLACE FOR 13 YEAR OLDS

Kevin

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5544
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #168 on: January 18, 2010, 10:00:41 AM »

ha2ha

Well put, Mairi !


Doing my own research over that topic, I read somewhere, something interesting about a book done by Steven Mithen (some College professor teaching at Reading U). THE SINGING NEANDERTHALS The Origins of Music, Language, Mind, and Body. Seems that the scholar suggests that the neanderthalians, because of their specific facial and throat bone and muscle configuration, might have had more technical skill to sing than to talk. Accordingly, Mithen goes a step further suggesting that Neanderthals might have learned to speak from Homo Sapiens, and reversely, Homo Sapiens may have learned to sing from these guys.

However, it must be underlined here that professor Mithen never, ever suggested that The Beatles derived from Neanderthalians.
 ;sorry


I have this book, and it's not quite how I remember it. He thinks singing (as in the melodious (sp) noises made by most primates) preceeded speech ie language is an off shoot of music. No one knows for sure if neandertals could talk, but you're right in that the structure of their throat makes it unlikely. Also, as it unclear whether they had capacity for imagination or forethought (still hotly debated) so what would they talk about?
But they weren't silent (as no primate is). I don't recall the angle of neandertals teaching us to sing, more that "singing" is inherent in all primates, and was the basis for modern language (most people dismissed singing as a pretty nbut useless offshoot of language.)
And Jane, I debate neandertal behaviour, not their existance. And Jane, people do know about evolution. Religion and Religious people "believe"  in things (ie accept things as true despite a complete lack of evidence, like fairies or loch ness monsters, witches and vampires - in which millions of people still believe.) Religion and evolution aren't competing theories. I don't "believe" in evolution anymore than I "believe" in gravity, tectonic plates or lightening being caused by electricity in the atmosphere. These things, like evolution, are observable, measurable facts.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2010, 11:25:51 AM by Kevin »
Logged
don't follow leaders

AngeloMysterioso

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 185
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #169 on: January 18, 2010, 03:57:31 PM »

(…) And Jane, I debate neandertal behaviour, not their existance. And Jane, people do know about evolution. Religion and Religious people "believe"  in things (ie accept things as true despite a complete lack of evidence, like fairies or loch ness monsters, witches and vampires - in which millions of people still believe.) Religion and evolution aren't competing theories. I don't "believe" in evolution anymore than I "believe" in gravity, tectonic plates or lightening being caused by electricity in the atmosphere. These things, like evolution, are observable, measurable facts.
I was going to add my little pinch, in the same perspective.

I personally believe in some higher being, beyond the grasp of my own mind; although, I have stopped, long ago, trying to conceptualize what it could be. Perhaps the Bible, maybe Veda or Qur’an, gives me clue about it. Perhaps not: I simply can’t say. But these are all in the field of belief. They have nothing to do in the field of theory, in the scientific acceptation of that word.

We have no direct proof of evolution; nor have we straightforward evidence of neutrons, protons, electrons or quarks. DNA replication is something that’s far from being totally understood. We are not even 100% sure that global warming is caused by fossil fuel burning. However, we can infer, from scientific method, what is the simplest, most probable explanation. Or theory. Let’s take the aforementioned example of earth being fertilized by extraterrestrial beings. Sure, it can have happened, no doubt about it. But if we simply create, inside an airtight jar, the conditions that existed on our primitive planet, we repeatedly notice basic organic molecules arising. And if we wait long enough, these end up combining together to form complex hydrocarbons: the building blocs of life. So long little peculiar green guys, rogue comets, spectacular flying saucers or black monoliths: all the ingredients of primitive life were, boringly, already around. And this little experiment has been done repeatedly thousand of times. With the same predictable, boring results.

This has nothing to do with faith. Or public opinion polls.

Roughly 50% of Americans are convinced that alien have visited earth in the past. Two-thirds of U.S. adults think that human beings were directly created by God. A little percentage still believe that Elvis is alive. And I am sure that – provided we dig a little – a chunk of people are sure that earth is flat and that the sun revolves around it (a chunk significantly lower than a few centuries ago, I reckon).

Do any of these assertions make good candidates for scientific theory?

Please.
Logged
Music's all right John, but you'll never make a living out of it.

Jane

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3760
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #170 on: January 18, 2010, 09:53:49 PM »

Kevin, maybe you are right.  :)
But I can`t get convinced that we have evolved from a creature in your avatar. I just think those species became extinct or evolved into monkeys. Still it is very interesting to read your posts.
Logged

Kevin

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5544
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #171 on: January 19, 2010, 12:48:41 PM »


Do any of these assertions make good candidates for scientific theory?

Please.
Hi Angelo. Nice post.

edit: I made a rather lengthy post which I deleted. I don't want to come across all preachy. Respect to you and your views and I have nothing to say that I haven't said earlier.
But please don't read my silence as either acceptance or surrender.  :)
I shall continue to post the odd evoltionary story I find interesting, but won't get involved in the God thing. My views are here for all to read should they wish.
Use the forks Homer, use the forks.

« Last Edit: January 19, 2010, 04:18:47 PM by Kevin »
Logged
don't follow leaders

Mairi

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 7934
  • The owls are not what they seem
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #172 on: January 19, 2010, 10:21:52 PM »

Yo. I believe in evolution and God. How wacky is that? Sorta like liking both the Beatles and Gwen Stefani. Crazy.
Logged
I am posting on an internet forum, therefore my opinion is fact.

Hello Goodbye

  • Global Moderator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14774
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #173 on: January 25, 2010, 11:54:37 PM »

Ardi is the Cover Girl for the 18 December 2009 issue of Science



She might have been a knock-out in her day, 4.4 million years ago.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2011, 01:24:59 AM by Hello Goodbye »
Logged
I can stay till it's time to go

Bobber

  • Administrator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14534
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #174 on: December 23, 2010, 01:03:14 PM »

Hi Kev. Don't know if you're still around?

Thought this might be of interest:

Fossil genome reveals ancestral link

A distant cousin raises questions about human origins.

Ewen Callaway

The ice-age world is starting to look cosmopolitan. While Neanderthals held sway in Europe and modern humans were beginning to populate the globe, another ancient human relative lived in Asia, according to a genome sequence recovered from a finger bone in a cave in southern Siberia. A comparative analysis of the genome with those of modern humans suggests that a trace of this poorly understood strand of hominin lineage survives today, but only in the genes of some Papuans and Pacific islanders.

Named after the cave that yielded the 30,000–50,000-year-old bone, the Denisova nuclear genome follows publication of the same individual's mitochondrial genome in March1. From that sequence, Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, and his colleagues could tell little, except that the individual, now known to be female, was part of a population long diverged from humans and Neanderthals.

Her approximately 3-billion-letter nuclear genome, reported in this issue of Nature2, now provides a more telling glimpse into this mysterious group. It also raises previously unimagined questions about its history and relationship to Neanderthals and humans. "The whole story is incredible. It's like a surprising Christmas present," says Carles Lalueza Fox, a palaeogeneticist at Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona, Spain, who was not involved in the research.

When the ancient genome was compared to a spectrum of modern human populations, a striking relationship emerged. Unlike most groups, Melanesians — inhabitants of Papua New Guinea and islands northeast of Australia — seem to have inherited as much as one-twentieth of their DNA from Denisovan roots. This suggests that after the ancestors of today's Papuans split from other human populations and migrated east, they interbred with Denisovans, but precisely when, where and to what extent is unclear.

More answers could come from a closer look at Denisovan, human and even Neanderthal DNA. So far, conclusions about interbreeding have been drawn from a relatively small number of human genomes using conservative DNA-analysis methods, says David Reich, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, who led the Denisova analysis. "There may have been many more interactions," he says. Pääbo says it may be possible to determine roughly when humans interbred with Denisovans by examining the length of DNA segments lurking in various human genomes, with shorter segments corresponding to more shuffling of genes and a longer elapsed time.

A molar discovered in the same cave also yielded mitochondrial DNA resembling that of the finger bone. But the Denisovans were probably more widespread, says Pääbo. Some fossils from China, for example, resemble neither Neanderthals nor modern humans — nor Homo erectus, an earlier human ancestor. Pääbo wonders whether they could be more closely related to Denisovans. His Russian collaborators plan to search for more complete Denisovan fossils that could be matched to others from China.

Chris Stringer, a palaeoanthropologist at London's Natural History Museum, agrees that Asian fossils, such as the 200,000-year-old Dali skull from central China, could have links to the Denisovans. But he says that firm conclusions about such relationships will have to await the discovery of more complete Denisovan fossils.

Preserved DNA from other Asian fossils would also provide a clearer picture of the Denisovans, which Pääbo, to sidestep controversy, has opted not to call a new species or subspecies of hominin. The challenge will be to make sense of such discoveries and put them in the context of ancient human history, says Lalueza Fox. Palaeoanthropologists are just beginning to scrutinize the Neanderthal genome published earlier this year3 for clues to ancient human history. With the Denisova genome, "they will need to deal with another surprise", he says.

From Nature Magazine
Logged

Hello Goodbye

  • Global Moderator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14774
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #175 on: December 29, 2010, 02:33:21 AM »

Thanks, Bobber.  I always liked this thread.








Logged
I can stay till it's time to go

7 of 13

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 546
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #176 on: March 06, 2011, 11:58:06 PM »

Neandertal is a fake. I`ve heard from one interview with the participation of scientists that Neandertal was removed from the museum (don`t remember which one used to have the exhibit). And can you guess why? Because it was discovered that Neandertal is A DEFORMED HUMAN BEING! So there has never been any Neandertal at all. It was all a mistake.
wrong. there is hard science and the fossil record to back up evolutionary theory.

Mitochondrial DNA Clarifies Human Evolution
Mitochondrial Eve
The DNA of Human Evolution

2001 Space Odyssey theme - Monkey and Bone. Dawn of Man. HD

Logged
day tripper yeah

Joost

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5108
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #177 on: March 07, 2011, 12:41:38 AM »

Yo. I believe in evolution and God. How wacky is that? Sorta like liking both the Beatles and Gwen Stefani. Crazy.

That's not wacky at all, that's called inteligent design. And it makes a whole lot more sense to me than religion or atheism.
Logged

7 of 13

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 546
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #178 on: March 07, 2011, 05:21:36 PM »

... that's called inteligent design.
i do hope you're kidding there joost. intelligent design is for those that cannot do the math. and you will notice that it's the religious right types that push this warped fairy tale.  roll:)

Quote
from : What is "Intelligent Design" Creationism?
"Intelligent Design" creationism (IDC) is a successor to the "creation science" movement, which dates back to the 1960s. The IDC movement began in the middle 1980s as an antievolution movement which could include young earth, old earth, and progressive creationists; theistic evolutionists, however, were not welcome. The movement increased in popularity in the 1990s with the publication of books by law professor Phillip Johnson and the founding in 1996 of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (now the Center for Science and Culture.) The term "intelligent design" was adopted as a replacement for "creation science," which was ruled to represent a particular religious belief in the Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987...


Quote
intelligent design
Intelligent design (ID) is an anti-evolution belief asserting that naturalistic explanations of some biological entities are not possible and such entities can only be explained by intelligent causes....


Human Evolution


HAL 9000 Apple ad
« Last Edit: March 07, 2011, 06:46:37 PM by 7 of 13 »
Logged
day tripper yeah

Hello Goodbye

  • Global Moderator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14774
Re: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman)
« Reply #179 on: March 07, 2011, 08:33:35 PM »

intelligent design is for those that cannot do the math. and you will notice that it's the religious right types that push this warped fairy tale.  roll:)

I've always felt that cogent arguments are more convincing than disparaging remarks.
Logged
I can stay till it's time to go
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11
 

Page created in 1.21 seconds with 26 queries.