No slave race: no evolution

[True_Blue]

Here's the basic problem with human evolution. Start with the proposition that the human brain provides a competitive advantage over monkey brains. Then accept the proposition that Neanderthal brains and other transitional brains would have provided competitive advantages over monkey brains (otherwise, no natural selection). Then accept the proposition that homo sapiens brains provide a competitive advantage over hypothetical Neanderthal brains. Now, monkeys are still around, and as a family, monkeys have survived rather well. It stands to reason that if Neanderthals ever existed, they definitely would have survived because they would have been superior to monkeys. If Neanderthals ever existed, they would have existed as a slave race to humans, not quite wild and not quite domesticated, and suitable only as slaves. Except that humanity has no slave race of such a creature.

Evolution would have made a lot of sense to 19th century white Europeans in Darwin's day, when he wrote "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." After all, the black Africans were slaves to the Europeans, and the Europeans were much more advanced than every other society. To have not been a racist during that era would have taken a great deal of courage, and required swimming against a strong current. We now know, of course, that all human races are the same, and that differences are sociological and technological, not biological. So because the human race has no slave race, has never encountered an inferior race, and has never unearthed any evidence of an inferior slave race, human evolution never existed. I've seen with my own the meager bones and scraps that provide the source material that scientists have used to make grandiose extrapolations about human evolution, and I'm not impressed.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Wierd.

 

[Washington]

Here's the basic problem with human evolution. Start with the proposition that the human brain provides a competitive advantage over monkey brains. Then accept the proposition that Neanderthal brains and other transitional brains would have provided competitive advantages over monkey brains (otherwise, no natural selection). Then accept the proposition that homo sapiens brains provide a competitive advantage over hypothetical Neanderthal brains. Now, monkeys are still around, and as a family, monkeys have survived rather well. It stands to reason that if Neanderthals ever existed, they definitely would have survived because they would have been superior to monkeys. If Neanderthals ever existed, they would have existed as a slave race to humans, not quite wild and not quite domesticated, and suitable only as slaves. Except that humanity has no slave race of such a creature.

Interesting that you bring up Neanderthals, because earlier this week one of the science channels had a program on just this subject. According to the program the latest evidence points to a very likely interbreeding between Homo spaies and H. neanderthalensis, and if this should not be the case, the Neanderthals were only marginally less efficient or bright than H. sapiens. In fact, their cranial capacity was larger than ours. So I wouldn't be so quick to put Neanderthals down.

And, just what of forms of Homo do you see the Neanderthals transitioning between?

Moreover, the notion that, "It stands to reason that if Neanderthals ever existed, they definitely would have survived because they would have been superior to monkeys." shows a real ignorance of the subject. Do you really think the Neanderthals of Europe were in some sort of competition with, what, European monkeys? Then there's the silly idea that, "If Neanderthals ever existed, they would have existed as a slave race to humans,." which doesn't deserve further comment.

Weird

Absolutely, and pretty sad..

 

[juvenissun]

Here's the basic problem with human evolution. Start with the proposition that the human brain provides a competitive advantage over monkey brains. Then accept the proposition that Neanderthal brains and other transitional brains would have provided competitive advantages over monkey brains (otherwise, no natural selection). Then accept the proposition that homo sapiens brains provide a competitive advantage over hypothetical Neanderthal brains. Now, monkeys are still around, and as a family, monkeys have survived rather well. It stands to reason that if Neanderthals ever existed, they definitely would have survived because they would have been superior to monkeys. If Neanderthals ever existed, they would have existed as a slave race to humans, not quite wild and not quite domesticated, and suitable only as slaves. Except that humanity has no slave race of such a creature.

Very good reasoning.

I am not convinced at all that Neanderthal "extincted" because of the competition with us (Sapiens?). I recently browsed reports that researchers found the Neanderthal "became" smarter and smarter than we thought they were.

Evolutionist may argue that Neanderthals were killed by "bad environment". What environment? too cold? too hot? no rain? or too many ozone holes? Or, they were so stupid so they starved to death?

I say, there was no Neaderthal at all.

 

[Bombila]

TrueBlue and juvenissun, I am sorry to see such things as you both have written. It seems neither of you have bothered to keep up with modern research wrt Neanderthals, and yet decide to speak up with statements that look ridiculous because they don't reflect reality at all.

Neanderthals have always been a particular interest of mine. They came so close to surviving; imagine, another kind of human sharing the planet with us! But you? All you can think of is they were dumb, we would make slaves of them, if they existed at all.

The bones of more than 400 Neanderthals have been found, including almost complete skeletons. DNA has been extracted from Neanderthal bone more than once, proving beyond a doubt that they were a related but separate species. Although there is speculation about interbreeding, the DNA evidence says there is no trace of unique Neanderthal DNA in modern humans. If the two did mate, none of that heritage has survived.

It is most likely that Neanderthals were as intelligent (their brains were on average a little larger) and as capable of making technologically advanced tools as early humans were. Research into tool-making and use confirms this. There is no doubt left that Neanderthals were as physically and genetically capable of complex language use as early humans were. There is little, if any, doubt left that at least some (and probably all) Neanderthals disposed of their dead ritually, and used flowers as part of that ritual. There is some evidence that they left food with their dead.

There is evidence they cared for their ill and old, such as the old man with a withered arm and other disabilities who most certainly would not have survived without someone caring for him and feeding him.

There is little to no doubt left that Neanderthals decorated either their bodies or possessions with mineral pigment. Hundreds of 'crayon' blocks of manganese dioxide or ochre have been found associated with Neanderthal habitation which could have few other uses. The crayons are worn in such a way as to indicare that the reddest crayons were the most used. There are also disputed but very suggestive finds of pierced animal teeth and bone that certainly appear to be for decorative use.

There is also the seldom discussed issue of clothing, because no clothing has survived. However, there is the evidence of tools: Neanderthals made a particular kind of flake tool, also made by early man, which is only used for making holes in hides or bark in order to use cord/fibre/sinew/etc. to attach pieces together in order to make clothing and containers.

A lot has been said about the physical 'awkwardness' of Neanderthals, but there is in fact no evidence to suggest they weren't as fit and agile as early humans to hunt and create. They hunted large land mammals successfully, and are now known to have also harvested both adult and immature seals. They also exploited clams and mussels.

There is growing speculation that an inability to have children as frequently as other humans is what doomed Neanderthals. In an era when early humans barely escaped extinction, the neanderthals lacked that one edge, and succumbed. There is also no evidence that early humans waged war on Neanderthals.

Here are some recent articles, though I doubt you two have any interest in reading them or the twenty or so other new articles I have found and read in the past few months alone.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0825203924.htm

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/20...ls/hall-text/4

http://www.livescience.com/history/0...l-seafood.html

 

[Morcova]

Someone has watched way to many sci-fi films.

 

[Split Rock]

Hi True_Blue

Here's the basic problem with human evolution. Start with the proposition that the human brain provides a competitive advantage over monkey brains. Then accept the proposition that Neanderthal brains and other transitional brains would have provided competitive advantages over monkey brains (otherwise, no natural selection). Then accept the proposition that homo sapiens brains provide a competitive advantage over hypothetical Neanderthal brains. Now, monkeys are still around, and as a family, monkeys have survived rather well. It stands to reason that if Neanderthals ever existed, they definitely would have survived because they would have been superior to monkeys. If Neanderthals ever existed, they would have existed as a slave race to humans, not quite wild and not quite domesticated, and suitable only as slaves. Except that humanity has no slave race of such a creature.

You have some very common misunderstandings about evolution. Hominid evolution was not just about brain size. Early hominds, in fact, had only slightly larger brains than other apes of the time. Instead, they evolved bipedal locomotion. This was to exploit the growing African savannas. This begs the question, if monkeys stayed in the trees of the jungle, and early hominids evolved to exploit a different ecological niche, how could they be in competition with each other? Answer... they were not.

Your idea about a slave race, was answered by others who pointed out Neanderthals were about as smart as modern humans. The evidence suggests they were in direct competition with modern humans (not monkeys), and lost out to them.

Evolution would have made a lot of sense to 19th century white Europeans in Darwin's day, when he wrote "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." After all, the black Africans were slaves to the Europeans, and the Europeans were much more advanced than every other society. To have not been a racist during that era would have taken a great deal of courage, and required swimming against a strong current. We now know, of course, that all human races are the same, and that differences are sociological and technological, not biological. So because the human race has no slave race, has never encountered an inferior race, and has never unearthed any evidence of an inferior slave race, human evolution never existed. I've seen with my own the meager bones and scraps that provide the source material that scientists have used to make grandiose extrapolations about human evolution, and I'm not impressed.

First, the "races" Darwin referred to were species or subspecies, not "races" as we use the term today. Second, we have uncovered many extinct species of hominid that had smaller brains than us, and some overlaped with each other in time... as did Neanderthal and modern humans. Lastely, you speak of "meager bones and scraps" and claim you have seen them. I guess you missed the many complete or near complete fossil skeletons we have of many of these species, including "Lucy" and Neanderthal Man. Bombila already mentioned that we have found more than 400 Neanderthal specimens. If you are not impressed, than you are either very hard to impress or are looking at the evidence with glasses colored by your own presumptions.

 

[Split Rock]

I say, there was no Neaderthal at all.

In light of the fact we have over 400 specimens of Neanderthal Man, this is a ridiculous conclusion to reach... even for a creationist.

 

[Bombila]

Split Rock, there has been a lot of doubt cast on the competition aspect of Neanderthal extinction. It's looking more and more like they were slow breeders and reached a critical population low at a time when our own direct ancestors were also barely surviving. But we had the faster breeding capability.

 

[sbvera13]

You seem a little obsessed with slavery and inferior races, if you ask me. The whole idea never even crossed my mind. Why does "not the same as us" equate to "inferior to us and thus 'suitable only for slaves'" in your mind?

Besides, it doesn't work. The evidence so far indicates that Neanderthals were simply outcompeted by humans, likely because the Neanderthals were niche-adapted to large-game hunting and humans were generalized omnivores. It would take only a small change in environment (such as a receding ice age, overhunting, or the introduction of new competing predators) to make a high end niche predator extinct.

edit: @ bombila: I didn't know that. Seems a little anti-climactic

 

[Bombila]

You seem a little obsessed with slavery and inferior races, if you ask me. The whole idea never even crossed my mind. Why does "not the same as us" equate to "inferior to us and thus 'suitable only for slaves'" in your mind?

Besides, it doesn't work. The evidence so far indicates that Neanderthals were simply outcompeted by humans, likely because the Neanderthals were niche-adapted to large-game hunting and humans were generalized omnivores. It would take only a small change in environment (such as a receding ice age, overhunting, or the introduction of new competing predators) to make a high end niche predator extinct.

edit: @ bombila: I didn't know that. Seems a little anti-climactic

Yeah, I'm mildly obsessed with Neanderthal research, and there's been a lot of new stuff lately, DNA studies, a boatload of new habitation material, researchers taking a hard look at the physical structure of Neanderthal women, and so on.

 

[Vene]

Here's the basic problem with human evolution. Start with the proposition that the human brain provides a competitive advantage over monkey brains. Then accept the proposition that Neanderthal brains and other transitional brains would have provided competitive advantages over monkey brains (otherwise, no natural selection). Then accept the proposition that homo sapiens brains provide a competitive advantage over hypothetical Neanderthal brains. Now, monkeys are still around, and as a family, monkeys have survived rather well. It stands to reason that if Neanderthals ever existed, they definitely would have survived because they would have been superior to monkeys. If Neanderthals ever existed, they would have existed as a slave race to humans, not quite wild and not quite domesticated, and suitable only as slaves. Except that humanity has no slave race of such a creature.

Evolution would have made a lot of sense to 19th century white Europeans in Darwin's day, when he wrote "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." After all, the black Africans were slaves to the Europeans, and the Europeans were much more advanced than every other society. To have not been a racist during that era would have taken a great deal of courage, and required swimming against a strong current. We now know, of course, that all human races are the same, and that differences are sociological and technological, not biological. So because the human race has no slave race, has never encountered an inferior race, and has never unearthed any evidence of an inferior slave race, human evolution never existed. I've seen with my own the meager bones and scraps that provide the source material that scientists have used to make grandiose extrapolations about human evolution, and I'm not impressed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright...

.

 

[Vene]

...researchers taking a hard look at the physical structure of Neanderthal women...

That sounds like my kind of "research," oh you said Neanderthal women. Never mind then.

 

[Blayz]

And remember kiddies, the originator of this OP runs a biotech company.

As I have said before, human intelligence shows all the hallmarks of sexual selection, rather than some kind of direct environmental pressure.

Once again true blue starts with a false premise and runs to the ludicrous.

Can we just shortcut about 10 pages of posts and get back to that god shaped hole in your brain?

 

[Bombila]

That sounds like my kind of "research," oh you said Neanderthal women. Never mind then.

Here she is, Vene, a little scarred and worn - it was a hard life - but ready to kick carnivore butt with conviction.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/10/neanderthals/neanderthals-photography

 

[Vene]

And remember kiddies, the originator of this OP runs a biotech company.

I wonder if he tries to give the scientists advice concerning their research. I hope not, better to keep this man as far away from the lab as possible.

As I have said before, human intelligence shows all the hallmarks of sexual selection, rather than some kind of direct environmental pressure.

Once again true blue starts with a false premise and runs to the ludicrous.

I guess he's sticking to what he's good at.

Can we just shortcut about 10 pages of posts and get back to that god shaped hole in your brain?

But only ten pages? I thought it took longer than that last time.

 

[atomweaver]

Originally Posted by Ecclesiastes 7:29a

Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright...​

​

.

So... you think Ecclesiastes 7 is talking about physical posture?

 

[Split Rock]

Split Rock, there has been a lot of doubt cast on the competition aspect of Neanderthal extinction. It's looking more and more like they were slow breeders and reached a critical population low at a time when our own direct ancestors were also barely surviving. But we had the faster breeding capability.

I have not heard before that Neanderthals were slow breeders. What evidence is this based on? Also, you cannot deny that Neanderthals and modern humans were in direct competition for the limited resources available in Eurasia at the time. That may not be the entire answer to their extinction, but it surely must be part of it.

 

[atomweaver]

nm