Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Neanderthals
rabair
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 159 (53270)
09-01-2003 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Admin
09-01-2003 4:20 PM


Re: Where are they now (again)?
sorry admin, I had posted that message in a different category when I thought the neanderthal thread had closed completely, and when I was informed that it had just moved, I just copied my message from the other thread and placed it here. When I said "mumbo jumbo" I wa talking about the 2 replies I'd gotten in the original neanderthal thread, which didn't give me any real answer to why the other species died, not directed at the closing of the thread. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Admin, posted 09-01-2003 4:20 PM Admin has not replied

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 380 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 17 of 159 (53271)
09-01-2003 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by mike the wiz
09-01-2003 3:02 PM


recent DNA tests(yes DNA) have concluded that the are a different species they are not an ancestor. However the 2 Species Shared a common ancestor called Homo Erectus. Some of this Species came out of Africa Earlier and Became Neanderthal leaving others of the same Species to evolve into Homo sapiens.
Its a shame Neanderthals are commonly thought to be ape like when they clearly are not. it is much more Human like(Which is a great ape but you know what I mean). so I would like to know how creationist Explain Neanderthals. Even if as you say they where animals. did God make them Humanlike to be funny?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 09-01-2003 3:02 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
rabair
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 159 (53273)
09-01-2003 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by John
09-01-2003 2:25 PM


But why did they die?
You aren't explaining what caused us to survive, and them to die? I mean, being that the evolutionist view is that it was such a gradual evolution from monkey, the couple previous "versions" of "man", or very similar to us... So being that there were only slight differences, why did they not survive along side of us. I mean, yeah there are some people with bad posture, and shorter arms than legs.... But there should be many. And I don't understand why if the basic apes could survive extinction, why is it they (the apes) and us are the only ones to survive? That just doesn't make any sense. Also, I am under the impression evolutionist belief is that we took our current form or whatever like a million years ago. Really? A million years? And it took until the past couple thousand for advancements like building shelters, then towns, and governing towns, and boats, and traveling and starting new countries and technology. Why is it if the world is so old, that almost everything has happen just in the recent thousands of years? I seed that the technological and scientific advancement get bigger and more every year.... But it seems hard to believe that for hundreds of thousands of years, there wasn't much going on other than just layin around in the jungle not doing much of anything to advance life/technology/whatever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by John, posted 09-01-2003 2:25 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2003 4:55 PM rabair has not replied
 Message 20 by DC85, posted 09-01-2003 5:41 PM rabair has not replied
 Message 46 by John, posted 09-01-2003 10:16 PM rabair has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 19 of 159 (53275)
09-01-2003 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by rabair
09-01-2003 4:46 PM


You aren't explaining what caused us to survive, and them to die?
That would be natural selection. Either we were sufficiently adapted and they were not, or else we were just lucky.
And it took until the past couple thousand for advancements like building shelters, then towns, and governing towns, and boats, and traveling and starting new countries and technology. Why is it if the world is so old, that almost everything has happen just in the recent thousands of years?
Because language is the prerequisite for all those things, and it took a very, very long time for hominds to develop language.
After all, without language, everything you know dies with you. How could technology or science advance under such a condition? But once we had complex, symbolic language, those things took off like a rocket.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by rabair, posted 09-01-2003 4:46 PM rabair has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Speel-yi, posted 10-01-2003 3:45 AM crashfrog has replied

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 380 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 20 of 159 (53282)
09-01-2003 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by rabair
09-01-2003 4:46 PM


Re: But why did they die?
you seem to think that we don't think Humans are spacial. that is completely the Opposite. I think Humans are amazing animals(yes animals) our family tree is the first to Evolve this form of intelligence (that we know of) so Of course there couldn't be cities a million years ago we where still a new species (not our exact species) and Our numbers where so low we had a hard time finding creatures of our on species. so how do you expect them to advance as fast as we are now? as For why
Neanderthals aren't alive with us today. couldn't it simply be them competing with us for food space etc.. and we won? it could have very well turned out the other way but it didn't
[This message has been edited by DC85, 09-01-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by rabair, posted 09-01-2003 4:46 PM rabair has not replied

  
rabair
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 159 (53288)
09-01-2003 5:58 PM


evidence?
Why are none of you giving me evidence? Cashfrog, what is this? You're just guessing it sounds like... "That would be natural selection. Either we were sufficiently adapted and they were not, or else we were just lucky." And this "After all, without language, everything you know dies with you", is probably the lamest thing I've heard if I'm reading it right. Not to mention, based on what you say, how could we have ever evolved if our ancestors just all died off? There wouldn't be man at all by your logic. I don't understand how we develop a "complex, sybolic language" things took off.... You basically say that the ancestors just kept dying off without such a language, how would they devolope one when they're dead. I'm just baffaled because I don't understand how you could use that as an answer. I could see if you stated it as if it was a guess, but you portray it as fact, but if you actually read it, it's basically your guess.

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2003 6:08 PM rabair has replied

  
rabair
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 159 (53289)
09-01-2003 6:07 PM


now, dc85
hey, dc85.... I don't know why you think that I think you don't think humans are special. To be honest, if you've been in this discussion, I haven't read it, I just got on here yesterday, and they moved the neanderthal thread to here. So I don't think anything in particular about any of you. I didn't read anything else, I just want to read people's answers to my questions... Anyway you're missing the point. I'm not saying there would have been cities millions of years ago... But the common evolutionist belief (from what I hear) is basically that we've taken our current form for like a million years... But what, it took over 990,000 years to do anything? And to begin recording history? And you haven't really addressed the issue about neanderthals. The point is, if you look at that ridiculous evolution pictures starting with monkey and going to man... Well the previous couple species before today's man, were still very similar... Why did they not stick around. I mean, there are a couple random people today that bear a resemblance out of bad posture and longer arms (caused by genes), by why aren't there a whole species of them in un-civilized areas in the world? If the last 1 or 2 variations of man were so much like us, why wouldn't they just live along side us? Please provide evidence if you want to answer me, because I don't want to discuss opinions. I just posed a question. If you feel that you have proof of things, then I'm interested....
you seem to think that we don't think Humans are spacial. that is completely the Opposite. I think Humans are amazing animals(yes animals) our family tree is the first to Evolve this form of intelligence (that we know of) so Of course there couldn't be cities a million years ago we where still a new species (not our exact species) and Our numbers where so low we had a hard time finding creatures of our on species. so how do you expect them to advance as fast as we are now? as For why
Neanderthals aren't alive with us today. couldn't it simply be them competing with us for food space etc.. and we won? it could have very well turned out the other way but it didn't

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by DC85, posted 09-01-2003 7:05 PM rabair has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 23 of 159 (53290)
09-01-2003 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by rabair
09-01-2003 5:58 PM


Re: evidence?
Why are none of you giving me evidence?
I don't understand what you want evidence for. Species go extinct. Is this something you deny? Do you want evidence that species we evolved from are extinct? Or what? I don't understand what you're asking for evidence for.
And this "After all, without language, everything you know dies with you", is probably the lamest thing I've heard if I'm reading it right.
Huh? If you don't have language, how do you pass knowledge on to anybody else?
Not to mention, based on what you say, how could we have ever evolved if our ancestors just all died off?
That's as dumb as saying "you can be alive if your ancestors are dead. Your grandfather is dead, therefore you don't exist."
Are you thinking these things through before you write them? It doesn't sound like you are.
You basically say that the ancestors just kept dying off without such a language, how would they devolope one when they're dead.
What are you even talking about?
I said that, in a population where nobody has language, knowledge can' be passed on. Therefore anything an individual learns dies when he does, so the population as a whole doesn't advance. But when individuals can pass on information to others, then the population can advance because learning persists beyond the lifetime of the individual.
You may need to read a little harder. You're clearly misunderstanding what I'm trying to tell you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by rabair, posted 09-01-2003 5:58 PM rabair has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by mark24, posted 09-01-2003 6:24 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 26 by rabair, posted 09-01-2003 7:05 PM crashfrog has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 24 of 159 (53293)
09-01-2003 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by crashfrog
09-01-2003 6:08 PM


Re: evidence?
Hi Crash,
Strictly speaking, not everything is lost when an organism dies that lacks language, information wise. Chimps learn from their parents various techniques that they pass on to their children, the stick-in-an-ant-nest, for one.
Mark
------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2003 6:08 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2003 6:58 PM mark24 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 25 of 159 (53299)
09-01-2003 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by mark24
09-01-2003 6:24 PM


Re: evidence?
Strictly speaking, not everything is lost when an organism dies that lacks language, information wise.
Well, yes. Observational learning could be taken as a kind of transfer of technique. On the other hand, some things can't be learned through observation. For instance, I can't communicate a map through observational learning, though I could take you to the fruit tree to show you where it is. But we wouldn't be able to plan a trip there, for instance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by mark24, posted 09-01-2003 6:24 PM mark24 has not replied

  
rabair
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 159 (53300)
09-01-2003 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by crashfrog
09-01-2003 6:08 PM


Re: evidence?
Well, crash, that clarified what you were saying a little more. Now that you used the word "individual" it makes a little more sense. But you still didn't address what I was mainly referring to with the evidence. Your first reply to my first post was just complete guessing. I mean you straight up gave 2 options for something in your first line which I provided as an example last time. You state:
"That would be natural selection. Either we were sufficiently adapted and they were not, or else we were just lucky." How can you be acting like what you're saying is fact, when you are leaving multiple choice statements? But the main point is that no one is really explaining why the closest to man "versions" of today's man are completely gone. I mean, because we baked bread differently 1000 years ago, it doesn't mean that any advancements to where we are today can't be done. Because we make bread a certain way now, doesn't mean that we can only make it the original first way it was made, or the current way... But none of the ways in between. That is about how stupid what you've said about why any of the in between monkey and man species exist. If all of our previously evolved forms died off, why not the monkey's too?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2003 6:08 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2003 7:27 PM rabair has replied

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 380 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 27 of 159 (53301)
09-01-2003 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by rabair
09-01-2003 6:07 PM


Re: now, dc85
ok since you clearly aren't really understanding I will ask you another queston. Did God make ape men(there are ALOT more then Neanderthals) as a joke to confuse us? why did these ape men exist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by rabair, posted 09-01-2003 6:07 PM rabair has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by mike the wiz, posted 09-01-2003 8:05 PM DC85 has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 28 of 159 (53309)
09-01-2003 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by rabair
09-01-2003 7:05 PM


How can you be acting like what you're saying is fact, when you are leaving multiple choice statements?
Because there's a hundred thousand reasons that species become extinct. Most of them don't leave evidence. Most of the time, we have to guess why they went extinct.
But so what? Why does it matter why this or that species went extinct? They're extinct. End of story.
It's like asking "why did Jim win the lottery, and not Steve? They both bought tickets! They even live on the same block!" It doesn't matter. Some things happen at random. Species exitinction can be one of those things.
That is about how stupid what you've said about why any of the in between monkey and man species exist. If all of our previously evolved forms died off, why not the monkey's too?
Because they didn't. It's like asking "why did the coin land heads and not tails?" It's a meaningless question because it assumes purpose where there is none.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by rabair, posted 09-01-2003 7:05 PM rabair has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by rabair, posted 09-01-2003 8:08 PM crashfrog has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 29 of 159 (53312)
09-01-2003 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by DC85
09-01-2003 7:05 PM


Re: now, dc85
'ok since you clearly aren't really understanding I will ask you another queston. Did God make ape men(there are ALOT more then Neanderthals) as a joke to confuse us?'
Well, I have seen skeletons (or tiny parts) so far, of men and apes, what I havent seen is ape men.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by DC85, posted 09-01-2003 7:05 PM DC85 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by DC85, posted 09-01-2003 8:11 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
rabair
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 159 (53313)
09-01-2003 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by crashfrog
09-01-2003 7:27 PM


pointless
Well, crash, it's clearly pointless to discuss this with you, so I guess I'm probably done here.... It's funny how you're saying "it doesn't matter why" and stuff like that.... I don't know why you ever chose to reply in the first place, because that was what my question was. If you just want to ramble then ramble. My question was why they supposedly all went extinct. You chose not to answer it, but to reply, with totally different things. And it's not like it's fact that there were all these species. You may think so, but it's strange that there aren't thousands, or millions of skeletal remains from all these levels of man evolving. I'm sure you'll "guess" at why it is that there aren't tons of more remains, but it's funny how everything with the theory of evolution seems to be guessing and chance.... and I thank you for stating that in your last post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2003 7:27 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2003 9:55 PM rabair has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024