Neanderthals, Dinosaurs?

[GodLovesCats]

What is TOE?

 

[Neogaia777]

What is TOE?

Theory of Evolution.

God Bless!

 

[ViaCrucis]

Sorry, I need to see this evidence for myself.

These seem like some decent resources to look into it:

Human Evolution Evidence
Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jonaitis]

These seem like some decent resources to look into it:

Human Evolution Evidence
Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution

-CryptoLutheran

So where is it?

 

[The Righterzpen]

If your outer skin layer weren’t dead you’d dehydrate. And the exposed nerve endings would be painful . Remember the last time you got a blister and took off the top by accident ? Ouch!

You have no way of proving this was true before the fall.

you’re misunderstanding of the Big Bang isn’t a solid basis for scientists to reject it. AND the fossil record is only one facet of the evidence for common descent and why scientists accept it as a fact. Your rejection of these major scientific theories is based on your misunderstanding them and the evidence for them . What are we supposed to do with that?

I'm not misunderstanding the big bang; how do you get an organized universe out of a chaotic event? If you set off a bomb in a junk yard; it's not going to assemble a space shuttle ready to launch. Even a single celled organism is too complex to have occurred by random chance. The mathematical laws of statistical probably are stacked against that hypothesis. There's no way around that fact.

Also, you are misrepresenting the fossil record. There are no "common descent links" between humans and apes. In all skull fossils found, you can easily tell by the blood drainage pattern on the inside of the skull if it's human or ape (or some other animal). That drainage patten tells you if the skull belonged to an individual who was bipedal and stood upright or not.

Now there is evidence in the fossil record of large, bipedal apes. Yet from the inside of the skull of even these apes; it's obvious they were not upright standing and had a smaller cubic skull capacity than humans, in proportion to their physical size. Also, the hinge joints on the arm bones of monkeys are different than humans and all these alleged "links" have clear skeletal characteristics of apes.

Your rejection of these major (material facts) is based on your misunderstanding them and (your personal world view). What are we supposed to do with that? (How about we try being honest about the evidence that's actually there!)

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm not misunderstanding the big bang; how do you get an organized universe out of a chaotic event? If you set off a bomb in a junk yard; it's not going to assemble a space shuttle ready to launch

Much about physics is still not very well understood, for example gravity is still a bit of a head scratchier. Not because how gravity works is all that difficult, it's basically mass attracts mass; but gravitation as one of the fundamental forces is still not entirely understood. On the macro level things tend to make sense according to the standard model, but on the quantum level, dealing with subatomic particles and fundamental forces things work very weird. And bridging the gap between standard physics and quantum physics has proven to be extremely difficult.

I bring all this up because the big bang isn't about some sudden chaotic event throwing matter around like a bomb in a junk yard. It's probably more like if you were to take a container of coffee grounds and began shaking it--the result isn't pure randomness, but rather something more predictable: granular size separation. Larger grains move up while smaller grains move down. Resulting in the larger grains at the top of the container and the smallest ones at the bottom. This is the same reason why there are crumbs at the bottom of a bag of chips or box of cereal. Or, if you pour water on an uneven surface, water will collect at the lowest point due to the pull of gravity.

Negative and positive charged particles (electrons and protons respectively) attract one another, and hence the most basic matter, hydrogen, is comprised of a single electron and a single proton. So if you have electrons and protons swarming around and electromagnetism (one of the basic fundamental forces) holds them together. And Now we have atoms with atomic mass, and as mass attracts mass clouds of hydrogen clump together. Rank up the mass to 11, and all that hydrogen begins to ball up, getting hotter and heavier under the immense gravitational pressure. All that superhot hydrogen plasma in its core begins the process of nuclear fusion, fusing hydrogen atoms into helium atoms. These superhot massive balls of plasma are what we call stars.

Again, it's not a bomb in a junkyard, it's things working according to basic principles. The fundamental forces holding together the basic particles doing as they do. The strong nuclear force holds quarks and gluons together into protons and neutrons, electromagnetism brings protons and electrons together as hydrogen, under massive amounts of gravitation hydrogen atoms fuse into helium, and as stars burn through their hydrogen eventually helium is fused into carbon, carbon and helium fuse together into oxygen, and so all this stuff we call matter is churned out through the nuclear fusion going on inside of stars. When stars reach the end of their lives they go out spectacularly and all of that matter gets send out into huge clouds of interstellar dust and debris.

Now, the thing is this: As far as I'm aware we really don't have a good idea as to why things are the way they are. That is, why these physics, why these fundamental forces and why these subatomic particles. And ultimately, what caused the "big bang" in the first place. But as for how stuff works, as for how the big bang gets us from a cosmic soup of subatomic particles to things moving around in space--well that stuff is pretty well and easily understood.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[GodLovesCats]

So where is it?

Evidence is everywhere. If you don't see it, you don't want to.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Much about physics is still not very well understood, for example gravity is still a bit of a head scratchier. Not because how gravity works is all that difficult, it's basically mass attracts mass; but gravitation as one of the fundamental forces is still not entirely understood. On the macro level things tend to make sense according to the standard model, but on the quantum level, dealing with subatomic particles and fundamental forces things work very weird. And bridging the gap between standard physics and quantum physics has proven to be extremely difficult.

I bring all this up because the big bang isn't about some sudden chaotic event throwing matter around like a bomb in a junk yard. It's probably more like if you were to take a container of coffee grounds and began shaking it--the result isn't pure randomness, but rather something more predictable: granular size separation. Larger grains move up while smaller grains move down. Resulting in the larger grains at the top of the container and the smallest ones at the bottom. This is the same reason why there are crumbs at the bottom of a bag of chips or box of cereal. Or, if you pour water on an uneven surface, water will collect at the lowest point due to the pull of gravity.

Negative and positive charged particles (electrons and protons respectively) attract one another, and hence the most basic matter, hydrogen, is comprised of a single electron and a single proton. So if you have electrons and protons swarming around and electromagnetism (one of the basic fundamental forces) holds them together. And Now we have atoms with atomic mass, and as mass attracts mass clouds of hydrogen clump together. Rank up the mass to 11, and all that hydrogen begins to ball up, getting hotter and heavier under the immense gravitational pressure. All that superhot hydrogen plasma in its core begins the process of nuclear fusion, fusing hydrogen atoms into helium atoms. These superhot massive balls of plasma are what we call stars.

Again, it's not a bomb in a junkyard, it's things working according to basic principles. The fundamental forces holding together the basic particles doing as they do. The strong nuclear force holds quarks and gluons together into protons and neutrons, electromagnetism brings protons and electrons together as hydrogen, under massive amounts of gravitation hydrogen atoms fuse into helium, and as stars burn through their hydrogen eventually helium is fused into carbon, carbon and helium fuse together into oxygen, and so all this stuff we call matter is churned out through the nuclear fusion going on inside of stars. When stars reach the end of their lives they go out spectacularly and all of that matter gets send out into huge clouds of interstellar dust and debris.

Now, the thing is this: As far as I'm aware we really don't have a good idea as to why things are the way they are. That is, why these physics, why these fundamental forces and why these subatomic particles. And ultimately, what caused the "big bang" in the first place. But as for how stuff works, as for how the big bang gets us from a cosmic soup of subatomic particles to things moving around in space--well that stuff is pretty well and easily understood.

-CryptoLutheran

In order for any of this to be true though, you'd have to have fundamentally different forces at work in the universe at the onset. Hubble (the guy who invented the telescope) made an observation that the universe is expanding. That jives with entropy. (Things going from a state of order to a state of chaos; or what we might call "decay".)

Now if he's right; which I don't see any reason to think that he's not. At one point obviously the universe was "smaller" (and smaller and smaller and smaller) as you go back through time, until you get to a "singularity" and the "second" before that it didn't exist. Now that jives with Genesis. Some unknown "force" brought this universe into existence; yet did so in an organized matter.

The first verse in Genesis describes "earth is without form and void and darkness upon the face of the deep". This is still an organized dividing of (probably) atomic mass from what ever other forces are created to govern the universe from the standpoint of physics. Gravity is only one "element" of that. It is the mass / attractive property of the physical matter. There is a "counter law" to that though. I don't even know if science has a name for it? "Anti-gravity?" Either way; what is "without form and void" is still delineated from the "darkness upon the face of the deep." Now quantum physics has a theory of "dark matter" which is a counter force to the material atomic structure of the universe. (Again, fit's Genesis.) (Matter / dark matter, Gravity / "anti-gravity"?) Time?

Time only goes one direction because "we" can't reverse entropy. Thus making time travel as science fiction has depicted it impossible. We can not go back into an event that is past. That being said though, there is this "rubber banding" of "time" as it relates to gravity of objects in the universe. For example: The further you move from a sun, the slower "time" goes. i.e. A human on Pluto is not going to age as quickly as one on earth, yet the process of their aging is still moving forward. Just the pace at which this happens is relative to the gravitational pull of the bodies in the solar system.

Yet is there some sort of "counter time" to the forward motion of time? That is certainly a valid question. I believe the answer to that is "eternity". God exists in a domain that has no time. That, I believe is the stabilizing "factor" that makes time as we understand it exist.

Now the other aspect of this is physicists have realized that the space between objects of mass contains something. It's not just "empty". There's "stuff" in the "space". Now this "stuff" operates like a grid for the material universe (stars, solar systems, galaxies) to exist in. Now what that is, they don't know, but they know it's there because it's not just random "gravitational force" that keeps objects in place. And here's where your cereal in the bag example does not fit the paradigm of what we currently understand about gravity. The mass of the universe is not evenly distributed. On the vertical plane of this "bag of cereal" the objects of mass are not distributed according to size surrounding a gravitational center (or gravitational "direction"). The mass of the universe is "caught" in this "grid". And on top of this we seem to have "holes" in the grid (black holes) that we don't really understand how they operate, why they are there; yet it does appear to us that they are a destructive force upon matter.

Now it is assumed that the universe is a "closed system"; meaning mass and energy are constant factors; but maybe that's not true either? In order to sustain life, there has to be a constant injection of energy into that process. Because just like the passing of time; once energy is "spent" its "gone". "Renewable resources" of energy (like trees) all come from the creation of life. The amount of "matter" on a planet, very much depends on the amount of life it contains. The multiplication of life, just like the "rubber banding" of time, is a variable factor. The agent of the injection of that "energy" into the system that creates life is called "the breath of life" which comes from God.

So here raises another question. Does "spent mass" leave the universe as new mass is created (in the form of life) by God. Is that the purpose of black holes? Thus keeping the mass of the universe at a stable level and having to do so because of the operation of gravity?

Now if one looks at "quantum physics" from the vanish point of having to account for energy and mass entering and leaving an open system. You'd reasonably draw the conclusion that the universe would contain a lot of life.

So moral of the story is; considering what is currently known about the laws that govern the operation of this universe; the only theory of origin that makes any sense is intelligent design. It's too pristinely organized in all of it's components to be otherwise.

 

[JackRT]

Hubble (the guy who invented the telescope)

Are you referring to the radio telescope because the optical telescope was invented centuries before Hubble.

 

[Halbhh]

how do you get an organized universe out of a chaotic event?

Because the laws of nature are God's, His design, and He is able and knows more than we do. That's how that can happen.

Physics is the work and effort to try to discover the laws of nature.

We have slowly begun to understand more about how 'order emerges from chaos', in physics and mathematics. The amazing and beautiful way nature works.

If one believes in God, they should admire His design, I think (though many will have the excuse of not understanding, possibly,if they refuse to recognize His design, physics, is good).

 

[The Righterzpen]

Are you referring to the radio telescope because the optical telescope was invented centuries before Hubble.

The Hubble telescope was the guy I was referring to.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Because the laws of nature are God's, His design, and He is able and knows more than we do. That's how that can happen.

Physics is the work and effort to try to discover the laws of nature.

We have slowly begun to understand more about how 'order emerges from chaos', in physics and mathematics. The amazing and beautiful way nature works.

If one believes in God, they should admire His design, I think (though many will have the excuse of not understanding, possibly,if they refuse to recognize His design, physics, is good).

So what you are saying is that you don't believe God created an ordered universe from the start?

 

[Brightmoon]

You have no way of proving this was true before the fall.



I'm not misunderstanding the big bang; how do you get an organized universe out of a chaotic event? If you set off a bomb in a junk yard; it's not going to assemble a space shuttle ready to launch. Even a single celled organism is too complex to have occurred by random chance. The mathematical laws of statistical probably are stacked against that hypothesis. There's no way around that fact.

Also, you are misrepresenting the fossil record. There are no "common descent links" between humans and apes. In all skull fossils found, you can easily tell by the blood drainage pattern on the inside of the skull if it's human or ape (or some other animal). That drainage patten tells you if the skull belonged to an individual who was bipedal and stood upright or not.

Now there is evidence in the fossil record of large, bipedal apes. Yet from the inside of the skull of even these apes; it's obvious they were not upright standing and had a smaller cubic skull capacity than humans, in proportion to their physical size. Also, the hinge joints on the arm bones of monkeys are different than humans and all these alleged "links" have clear skeletal characteristics of apes.

Your rejection of these major (material facts) is based on your misunderstanding them and (your personal world view). What are we supposed to do with that? (How about we try being honest about the evidence that's actually there!)

there’s a much easier way to tell if a hominid is bipedal. All you have to do is see how the spine inserts into the skull. If it inserts from underneath then the hominid walked upright. Monkeys have a flange on their elbows that prevents them from fully straightening their arms. Apes armswing so if you see that on an arm bone it’s a monkey . humans are great apes and even a superficial examination of a human or ape skeleton makes that obvious ( Linnaeus settled that specific issue back in the 1700s by the way . It’s THE reason that humans monkeys and apes are called Primates) . My question is why are you misrepresenting apes ancestry?

 

[Halbhh]

So what you are saying is that you don't believe God created an ordered universe from the start?

The precise opposite of that actually! The amazing elegant laws of nature are beautifully ordered. What seems(seemed) chaos at first to us, isn't at all. It had always been order of a sublime form. Or in the popular shorthand, "order emerges from 'chaos'"

 

[The Righterzpen]

My question is why are you misrepresenting apes ancestry?

I'm not. Humans and apes are not related. They never were.

Just because someone decided back in the 1700's when they were coming up with a classification system for animals, that humans and apes needed to both be labeled as "primates" (because they both have flexible hands and feet, opposing digits on the hands, finger and toe nails, short snout and large brain); doesn't mean they have a common ancestry.

There are some distinct differences that evolution can't explain; besides the obvious that apes don't build cities and develop civilizations. LOL

For example, with exceptions of very few small species, monkeys don't swim. I think there are only 3 species of monkeys that have been recorded as actually "swimming" in the wild. And none swim like humans do. (They "doggie paddle".) Wild apes are actually afraid of water. Anecdotally, some primates in captivity will play in water; but they don't actually swim.

Cognitive capacity:

From there the variant in capacity of the simplest means of thought humans have over apes is astounding. Back in the 70's a group of scientists raised (at least one) monkey from birth as a human and besides the one time signing "give orange me, give orange me, give orange me"; the most linguistically skilled monkey they had, never developed language skills beyond that.

Scientists discovered that although monkeys are rather good at reading body language, (but so are domesticated dogs and cats) they lack what's called "theory of mind" which is very important to language development as used in social context to express thoughts and share information. "Theory of mind" is the ability to recognize another individuals feelings or extrapolate what they may be thinking. No ape has ever expressed linguistically a thought that wasn't an egocentric demand for something desired.

Apes as well as many other types of animals including dogs, dolphins, elephants, birds and even rodents all display "permanence" which is the essential element of memory. But memory and language as they apply to "theory of mind" are two very different skill sets.

There are examples of apes in captivity seeming to show appreciation to a human keeper; but the interpretation of the gestures rendered to human and ape, likely have two very different meanings.

The one example I've seen is a troop of monkeys who'd been kept in captivity for decades as zoologists studied monkey behavior. The lead zoologist had worked for years to secure a location for a larger enclosure for this troop of monkeys and when they had finally moved the troop to the new enclosure, the alpha male, (after all the other monkeys had come into the enclosure and were climbing around and squealing in monkey happiness); came up to the "alpha researcher" and gave him modified "high five". Now this was a gesture this monkey had engaged in with this human in the past and to the monkey, it most likely meant acceptance as "you are recognized as a non threat and I won't attack you"; but to the human it represented a gesture of gratitude. And there is an example of the difference between man and monkey in regards to "theory of mind".

Ironically though, researches have discovered that domesticated dogs have a far greater ability to accurately read human gestural language and perform tasks directed by humans than monkeys do; but heck, dolphins and killer whales are rather keen at this too.

As far as identifying skeletal remains:
You'd look for the blood flow pattern on the inside of the skull because you may not necessarily have the portion of the skull where the cervical vertebra insert into the skull. Other possibilities are broken skulls (where you can't tell what the internal cubic skull capacity was) and having been buried in environments (like a bog) where depending on age of the individual buried, may have misshaped the head post mortem.

 

[The Righterzpen]

The precise opposite of that actually! The amazing elegant laws of nature are beautifully ordered. What seems(seemed) chaos at first to us, isn't at all. It had always been order of a sublime form. Or in the popular shorthand, "order emerges from 'chaos'"

I think I sort of get what you're saying?

I certainly agree that the universe from its inception was designed in an orderly fashion. But I guess I'm not following your application of how order emerges from chaos; when it was all orderly to begin with? Seeing how according to Genesis, prior to the order was not chaos, but nothing.

 

[JackRT]

I'm not. Humans and apes are not related. They never were.

Just because someone decided back in the 1700's when they were coming up with a classification system for animals, that humans and apes needed to both be labeled as "primates" (because they both have flexible hands and feet, opposing digits on the hands, finger and toe nails, short snout and large brain); doesn't mean they have a common ancestry.

There are some distinct differences that evolution can't explain; besides the obvious that apes don't build cities and develop civilizations. LOL

For example, with exceptions of very few small species, monkeys don't swim. I think there are only 3 species of monkeys that have been recorded as actually "swimming" in the wild. And none swim like humans do. (They "doggie paddle".) Wild apes are actually afraid of water. Anecdotally, some primates in captivity will play in water; but they don't actually swim.

Cognitive capacity:

From there the variant in capacity of the simplest means of thought humans have over apes is astounding. Back in the 70's a group of scientists raised (at least one) monkey from birth as a human and besides the one time signing "give orange me, give orange me, give orange me"; the most linguistically skilled monkey they had, never developed language skills beyond that.

Scientists discovered that although monkeys are rather good at reading body language, (but so are domesticated dogs and cats) they lack what's called "theory of mind" which is very important to language development as used in social context to express thoughts and share information. "Theory of mind" is the ability to recognize another individuals feelings or extrapolate what they may be thinking. No ape has ever expressed linguistically a thought that wasn't an egocentric demand for something desired.

Apes as well as many other types of animals including dogs, dolphins, elephants, birds and even rodents all display "permanence" which is the essential element of memory. But memory and language as they apply to "theory of mind" are two very different skill sets.

There are examples of apes in captivity seeming to show appreciation to a human keeper; but the interpretation of the gestures rendered to human and ape, likely have two very different meanings.

The one example I've seen is a troop of monkeys who'd been kept in captivity for decades as zoologists studied monkey behavior. The lead zoologist had worked for years to secure a location for a larger enclosure for this troop of monkeys and when they had finally moved the troop to the new enclosure, the alpha male, (after all the other monkeys had come into the enclosure and were climbing around and squealing in monkey happiness); came up to the "alpha researcher" and gave him modified "high five". Now this was a gesture this monkey had engaged in with this human in the past and to the monkey, it most likely meant acceptance as "you are recognized as a non threat and I won't attack you"; but to the human it represented a gesture of gratitude. And there is an example of the difference between man and monkey in regards to "theory of mind".

Ironically though, researches have discovered that domesticated dogs have a far greater ability to accurately read human gestural language and perform tasks directed by humans than monkeys do; but heck, dolphins and killer whales are rather keen at this too.

As far as identifying skeletal remains:
You'd look for the blood flow pattern on the inside of the skull because you may not necessarily have the portion of the skull where the cervical vertebra insert into the skull. Other possibilities are broken skulls (where you can't tell what the internal cubic skull capacity was) and having been buried in environments (like a bog) where depending on age of the individual buried, may have misshaped the head post mortem.

You seem to be confusing monkeys and apes.

 

[Halbhh]

I think I sort of get what you're saying?

I certainly agree that the universe from its inception was designed in an orderly fashion. But I guess I'm not following your application of how order emerges from chaos; when it was all orderly to begin with? Seeing how according to Genesis, prior to the order was not chaos, but nothing.

The big bang, which is still having mysteries, just means it seems to have suddenly come into existence, and a theory thinks it may have expanded with amazing (faster than light)-speed. It's not an "explosion" in the way we think of such normally, but something so much more fascinating and amazing.

 

[Brightmoon]

I'm not. Humans and apes are not related. They never were.

Just because someone decided back in the 1700's when they were coming up with a classification system for animals, that humans and apes needed to both be labeled as "primates" (because they both have flexible hands and feet, opposing digits on the hands, finger and toe nails, short snout and large brain); doesn't mean they have a common ancestry.

There are some distinct differences that evolution can't explain; besides the obvious that apes don't build cities and develop civilizations. LOL

For example, with exceptions of very few small species, monkeys don't swim. I think there are only 3 species of monkeys that have been recorded as actually "swimming" in the wild. And none swim like humans do. (They "doggie paddle".) Wild apes are actually afraid of water. Anecdotally, some primates in captivity will play in water; but they don't actually swim.

Cognitive capacity:

From there the variant in capacity of the simplest means of thought humans have over apes is astounding. Back in the 70's a group of scientists raised (at least one) monkey from birth as a human and besides the one time signing "give orange me, give orange me, give orange me"; the most linguistically skilled monkey they had, never developed language skills beyond that.

Scientists discovered that although monkeys are rather good at reading body language, (but so are domesticated dogs and cats) they lack what's called "theory of mind" which is very important to language development as used in social context to express thoughts and share information. "Theory of mind" is the ability to recognize another individuals feelings or extrapolate what they may be thinking. No ape has ever expressed linguistically a thought that wasn't an egocentric demand for something desired.

Apes as well as many other types of animals including dogs, dolphins, elephants, birds and even rodents all display "permanence" which is the essential element of memory. But memory and language as they apply to "theory of mind" are two very different skill sets.

There are examples of apes in captivity seeming to show appreciation to a human keeper; but the interpretation of the gestures rendered to human and ape, likely have two very different meanings.

The one example I've seen is a troop of monkeys who'd been kept in captivity for decades as zoologists studied monkey behavior. The lead zoologist had worked for years to secure a location for a larger enclosure for this troop of monkeys and when they had finally moved the troop to the new enclosure, the alpha male, (after all the other monkeys had come into the enclosure and were climbing around and squealing in monkey happiness); came up to the "alpha researcher" and gave him modified "high five". Now this was a gesture this monkey had engaged in with this human in the past and to the monkey, it most likely meant acceptance as "you are recognized as a non threat and I won't attack you"; but to the human it represented a gesture of gratitude. And there is an example of the difference between man and monkey in regards to "theory of mind".

Ironically though, researches have discovered that domesticated dogs have a far greater ability to accurately read human gestural language and perform tasks directed by humans than monkeys do; but heck, dolphins and killer whales are rather keen at this too.

As far as identifying skeletal remains:
You'd look for the blood flow pattern on the inside of the skull because you may not necessarily have the portion of the skull where the cervical vertebra insert into the skull. Other possibilities are broken skulls (where you can't tell what the internal cubic skull capacity was) and having been buried in environments (like a bog) where depending on age of the individual buried, may have misshaped the head post mortem.

. 99% DNA similarities between chimps and humans says that we’re apes . We’re a little unusual in that we evolved as long distance runners . Scientists recently found the single gene mutation that allowed that btw and subsequently lost our hair and developed the long legs of runners. The gene is called CMAH and in humans it’s disabled . This loss of genetic information ( using that term deliberately since creationists claim falsely that this isn’t evolution) enables the limbs to use O2 more efficiently and makes them more resistant to fatigue .

There’s a short summary in the January 2019 Scientific American.

 

[JackRT]

. 99% DNA similarities between chimps and humans says that we’re apes . We’re a little unusual in that we evolved as long distance runners . Scientists recently found the single gene mutation that allowed that btw and subsequently lost our hair and developed the long legs of runners. The gene is called CMAH and in humans it’s disabled . This loss of genetic information ( using that term deliberately since creationists claim falsely that this isn’t evolution) enables the limbs to use O2 more efficiently and makes them more resistant to fatigue .

There’s a short summary in the January 2019 Scientific American.

Another mutation is our ability to sweat copiously. This is associated with our loss of hair. This means that we can dump our excess body heat far better than the Neandertal people who had far more body hair. This would enable man to persue prey over long distances and easily outrun a Neandertal. You wanted to avoid a wrestling match or a slugfest with one of those boys.