The nerve of some people (Warning: rant)

[Mike_H]

Ok, I know not everyone accepts darwinian natural selection (evolution) and I kinda ok with that.  But some people need to learn a thing or two about it before saying some pretty dumb things.  Like this guy,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZbmywzGAVs.  Ok, so the video goes one to paint neanderthals as monsters, short bigfoot pretty much.  His so called arguments make no sense.  Like saying they had bodies covered in fur and they looked more ape than human.  Not to mention he claims that neanderthal hunted and raped early humans in the middle east! Arg!

Sorry for the short rant.  Such folks get on my nerves.

PS. I post under NorthWoodsbushcraft in the comments.

[lostarrow]

Try not to get yourself too worked up about it. You can't fix stupid. If you could ,it would be a full time job and you'd  never catch up. . Remember, this is the same kind of crap  we were being taught in school 30 years ago. I didn't bother checking this guy out, but I'm guessing your comments were lost on him.

[Josh B]

I didn't bother checking out the person you're calling stupid.  It could be an accurate description or maybe not, but it seems to me you're being a bit nervy yourself to go on a rant about someone who doesn't subscribe to your beliefs.  I don't agree with everyones various opinions and beliefs, but I respect their right to hold them.  I view that as one of the major keystones on which freedom stands.  So chill out would ya!   Josh

[Mike_H]

He has not responded at all.  However there was some one who did and I actually got to him to go check out some other videos produced by the BBC, "Prehistoric Autopsy", a great set of shows.  They were done last year using up-to-date research.  So it wasn't a total waste.  But you're right, I should try to let it go.  It just pisses me off so dang bad!  Even 30 years ago, the image of H. neadnerthalensis was starting to be changed, and the nerve of this guy to try to bring it back to the 19th century.  We've worked so hard to bring H. neanderthalensis to the 21st century.  Sigh...thankfully he seems to be a loony anyway.  It just irks me so.

[Mike_H]

I didn't bother checking out the person you're calling stupid.  It could be an accurate description or maybe not, but it seems to me you're being a bit nervy yourself to go on a rant about someone who doesn't subscribe to your beliefs.  I don't agree with everyones various opinions and beliefs, but I respect their right to hold them.  I view that as one of the major keystones on which freedom stands.  So chill out would ya!   Josh

Now, I didn't say he didn't believe in evolution.  I only put that in there so some folks here wouldn't get upset with me.  It is his lack of research into anatomy and forensic reconstruction and the outragious claims.  I pointed out at least six errors of his including the fact that humans lost hair around 1.3 million years ago so H. neanderthalensis could not have been covered in fur.  He is claiming that H. neanderthalensis hunted and raped early humans in the middle east and that is why there are neanderthalensis genes in our DNA.  Also hunted as in killed and ate.  It's those things that irk me.

[Dharma]

A lot of people tend to get beliefs about Neanderthals from the Clan of the Cave Bear series of books. While they are very entertaining, there are serious flaws in the books. The books are based on conjecture and the author's ideas. We do know the Neanderthal buried their dead, which leads us to believe they had emotions as we do. But their technology skills could not keep up with Cro Magnon (us) and so there are several possibilities. We outhunted them and they could not compete for available game. Or our weapons technology gave us a huge firepower superiority over them and they could never hope to close the "Projectile Gap" and we basically wiped them out in conflict over hunting/foraging grounds. They probably didn't have atlatls and if we did and they didn't, it's the equivalent of a culture with nuclear weapons engaging a culture without even a bow. If they could not launch projectiles, they were pretty much hosed. I'm not saying we did pull the plug on them, but it is possible. Another possibility is environmental/weather changes occurred and they died out. Or Cro Magnon had diseases for which they had no immunity, smallpox perhaps. There are a number of diseases that could have wiped out the Neanderthal.

I find it unlikely that Neanderthal could have gotten away with raping and killing Cro Magnons when they were at a firepower disadvantage. But had they done so, Cro Magnon certainly would have had the pretext to remove them from the equation. If Neanderthal had no atlatls, and they most likely didn't, it would be like shooting fish in a barrel if they engaged Cro Magnon who did.

[Pappy]

  not sure on evolution,I do believe is survival of the fittest and pretty sure I didn't come from a monkey. even tho I act like one now and then. Other than that none of this stuff really bothers me. Good luck figuring it all out.
   Pappy

[lesken2011]

What Pappy said!!

[Mike_H]

A lot of people tend to get beliefs about Neanderthals from the Clan of the Cave Bear series of books. While they are very entertaining, there are serious flaws in the books. The books are based on conjecture and the author's ideas. We do know the Neanderthal buried their dead, which leads us to believe they had emotions as we do. But their technology skills could not keep up with Cro Magnon (us) and so there are several possibilities. We outhunted them and they could not compete for available game. Or our weapons technology gave us a huge firepower superiority over them and they could never hope to close the "Projectile Gap" and we basically wiped them out in conflict over hunting/foraging grounds. They probably didn't have atlatls and if we did and they didn't, it's the equivalent of a culture with nuclear weapons engaging a culture without even a bow. If they could not launch projectiles, they were pretty much hosed. I'm not saying we did pull the plug on them, but it is possible. Another possibility is environmental/weather changes occurred and they died out. Or Cro Magnon had diseases for which they had no immunity, smallpox perhaps. There are a number of diseases that could have wiped out the Neanderthal.

I find it unlikely that Neanderthal could have gotten away with raping and killing Cro Magnons when they were at a firepower disadvantage. But had they done so, Cro Magnon certainly would have had the pretext to remove them from the equation. If Neanderthal had no atlatls, and they most likely didn't, it would be like shooting fish in a barrel if they engaged Cro Magnon who did.

Unfortunately, almost everything you said is completely wrong.  They were not at a technological disadvantage, their stone tool technology is surprisingly sophisticated and deliberate.  It's really a one tool fits all technology and worked extremely well.  They were ambush hunters using thrusting spear.  The issue is that before modern man traveled into Europe, H. neadnerthalensis suffered a dramatic decline in population numbers, thus humans out bred and out competed them.  Also, geneticists have shown that we did interbreed with them as well.  It may just be as simple as population integration as to why H. neanderthalensis went extinct.  But the whole point was that this guy is trying to resurrect the original view of H. neanderthanensis when it was first discovered.  They hair covered, ape faced monster.

Papy, I'm too tired right now to argue. 

[Pappy]

Nothing to argue about,you think what you like and I will continue to think what I like.  It's like auguring on which wood is best,no real answer, science is just that and changes all the time. What I believe don't change.
   Pappy

[bowsandroses]

Amen! Gun doc & Pappy.

[Mike_H]

Not quite, Pappy.  Science is based on observation of the natural world and working out the hows and whys of it.  Evolution is stood for 150 years and it's not gonna get debunked because it explains the how and why of species diversification. I accept it, there is no belief when there is empirical evidence to back it up.  There is an answer, many just refuse to accept it on principle that it clashes with belief.  I equate it to dinosaur with feather.  I don't like it, but I cannot deny the fossil evidence, so I just have to accept it.  But that is far besides the point and we got off on a tangent.

[Slackbunny]

It doesn't take a genocide or a dramatic event to cause an extinction. We didn't have to hunt them to extinction, and a climate change didn't necessarily have to happen. It all comes down to energy in and energy out. If your net energy gain is less than species around you, then you will go gradually go behind.

Since every habitat has a certain carrying capacity, every step you go behind, another species will fill, and you will not be able to regain unless you improve your net energy gain. If you allow your species to go far enough behind, your gene pool becomes diluted, and once that happens your population is no longer viable and its just a matter of time. Extinction is insidious.

Even small things can make a big difference. Small calorie savings due to simple adaptations and characteristics add up, and give you that edge when it comes to reproduction.


On the philosophical part of it, I've never understood the resistance to evolution based. I know there is no religion talk here, so I'll be careful what I say, but it seemed to me that if there was a God, then evolution seems like it would be the kind way it would make its influence felt.  But your minds are your own and your all entitled to your thoughts on the matter.

[Mike_H]

We don't quite know what caused the decline in H. neanderthalensis but it was dramatic.  I think, based on the evidence we have at the moment. it was gradually breeding out of H. neanderthalensis as well as competition from H. sapiens (us).

Well said, Slackbunny.   Indeed, everyone has a right to their opinion.  I happen to follow the evidence at hand and evolution makes the most sense.

[ionicmuffin]

Not quite, Pappy.  Science is based on observation of the natural world and working out the hows and whys of it.  Evolution is stood for 150 years and it's not gonna get debunked because it explains the how and why of species diversification. I accept it, there is no belief when there is empirical evidence to back it up.  There is an answer, many just refuse to accept it on principle that it clashes with belief.  I equate it to dinosaur with feather.  I don't like it, but I cannot deny the fossil evidence, so I just have to accept it.  But that is far besides the point and we got off on a tangent.

 

not sure i can agree with you there. We don't have substantial proof to prove that evolution is true or not, not on a macroscopic level anyway. What the theory of evolution is is merely an extrapolation of what could be. there are so many possibilities that its just insane to think that this is the guaranteed method, its a possibility and we should consider the possibility, but we should also be ready to consider other possibilities if they arise.