Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cast your Vote Evolutionists
Prozacman
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 43 (63468)
10-30-2003 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Dan Carroll
10-30-2003 11:46 AM


OK, I didn't get higher than trigonometry, but my point was that a mathematical equation, in theory should have a proof, and either 2+2=4 or it doesn't. Why? 4-2=2! In theory there should be a proof equation for all mathematical statements, even the abstract ones of Godel's theorem. Yes or No, 0/1. The rest of Science is not like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Dan Carroll, posted 10-30-2003 11:46 AM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
Prozacman
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 43 (63469)
10-30-2003 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by NosyNed
10-30-2003 1:12 PM


Ok, I'll agree with that. Mathematics doesn't have answers to all of it's problems.(After having read about Godel's theorem for the ninth time).
[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 10-30-2003]
[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 10-30-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by NosyNed, posted 10-30-2003 1:12 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Prozacman
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 43 (63472)
10-30-2003 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Asgara
10-30-2003 1:05 AM


Asgara, Way Cool links!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Asgara, posted 10-30-2003 1:05 AM Asgara has not replied

  
Apostle
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 43 (63554)
10-31-2003 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Darwin's Terrier
10-30-2003 8:45 AM


DT
I realize you do not know me and so have no way to tell whether or not I am about to lie to you.
I will tell you that the following is completely truthful. The reason I started this poll, is because I wanted to have my statement confirmed. Now that it has not been, and if this trend continues, I will know that my statement needs to change.
It is becoming apparent that my thread needs some language changing so as to be more consistent.
However (with regards to the second possibility you mentioned), certainly you woundnt deny that the Neanderthal did show intelligence in his tools, culture and religion? You confused me a bit at the end there.
Apostle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 10-30-2003 8:45 AM Darwin's Terrier has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 10-31-2003 1:23 AM Apostle has not replied
 Message 21 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 10-31-2003 3:46 AM Apostle has not replied
 Message 25 by Rei, posted 11-06-2003 11:19 AM Apostle has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 20 of 43 (63559)
10-31-2003 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Apostle
10-31-2003 12:08 AM


Did anyone say Neanderthal didn't show intelligence? Or that erectus didn't? Or a Bonobo? So what?
I have read speculations about Neanderthals wondering about how intelligent they were. They could have been as intelligent as we. Maybe a different kind of intelligence? Maybe one like we had for a long time? Somethings will always be hard to be sure about.
You statment needs to change? I may be about to be astonished! I hope so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Apostle, posted 10-31-2003 12:08 AM Apostle has not replied

  
Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 43 (63570)
10-31-2003 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Apostle
10-31-2003 12:08 AM


Apostle: That's fine, old chap. My 'Option 1', then, as I'd hoped!
I do find it odd though that you chose to poll a bunch of folks on an internet bulletin board for this. It's much like pulling people in off the street. What do we know? And what do you know as to whether our opinions are worth having? As it happens, many here do indeed know their stuff, but it's a risky strategy for getting an informed opinion, no?
Personally, I'd have gone to PubMed, and my local library, and checked out what the qualified experts think! (But to save you the time, now you've come this far: they agree with us )
And sorry if I confused you a bit at the end there. All I meant was, what I've already said: insofar as you can put the label on anything other than modern humans, then Neanderthals were human. But they were not actually us. In the same was as you are not actualy your cousin.
Cheers, DT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Apostle, posted 10-31-2003 12:08 AM Apostle has not replied

  
Apostle
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 43 (64664)
11-05-2003 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by NosyNed
10-30-2003 1:31 AM


NosyNed asks in Message 5;
"Apostle, why don't you look at the information available and tell us what you think?"
Truth is Ned, from the information that I have about the Neanderthal's I must conclude that, while not like modern humans in every way, they certainly are fully human.
"Primitive?" Nothing about them leads me to this conclusion either.
Apostle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 10-30-2003 1:31 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by NosyNed, posted 11-06-2003 1:12 AM Apostle has not replied
 Message 24 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 11-06-2003 10:46 AM Apostle has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 23 of 43 (64676)
11-06-2003 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Apostle
11-05-2003 11:51 PM


They are afterall classed (at least in some places) as Homo sapiens neanderthalis. So they are a subspecies. I guess we agree on that.
However, they are NOT deformed members of modern human forms. They are NOT made in the same image as were are. There are no humans like them alive. Do you disagree with that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Apostle, posted 11-05-2003 11:51 PM Apostle has not replied

  
Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 43 (64729)
11-06-2003 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Apostle
11-05-2003 11:51 PM


Neanderthals not 'primitive'?
"Primitive?" Nothing about them leads me to this conclusion either.
That's curious. Perhaps, then, you could define what you are meaning by 'primitive'? Is Homo ergaster more 'primitive' than archaic H sapiens? I would have thought so...
Perhaps you can explain the presence in neandertalensis of what I was assuming to be) primitive features such as a lack of a mental process, long-and-low cranial shape and heavy brow ridges? I'll look up some others tonight, the ol' memory's not what it was... but you get the idea, I hope. Neanderthals had several features also found in earlier species and not found in modern sapiens. Are these features not 'primitive', and if not, why not?
Cheers, DT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Apostle, posted 11-05-2003 11:51 PM Apostle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Apostle, posted 11-09-2003 10:37 AM Darwin's Terrier has replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 25 of 43 (64731)
11-06-2003 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Apostle
10-31-2003 12:08 AM


Their weapons didn't advance over the course of their entire history except (possibly) briefly after the encounters with Cro-Magnons. They used only a small fraction of fractions of the variety of tools and other artifacts that Cro-Magnons did. To counter their relative lack of tool sophistication, they had a far more robust, strong build.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Apostle, posted 10-31-2003 12:08 AM Apostle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Peter, posted 11-10-2003 7:00 AM Rei has not replied

  
Apostle
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 43 (65306)
11-09-2003 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Darwin's Terrier
11-06-2003 10:46 AM


Re: Neanderthals not 'primitive'?
Perhaps sometimes there are misconceptions about the Neanderthal. This is often shown in artists portrayals of them. Here are a few to think about.
1. Early Humans were Hairy Creatures
The oldest fossils of humans are either bones or pieces of bones and this makes it absolutely impossible to determine what kind of skin or hair the early people had. Furthermore, some groups of people have more body hair than others but this has never been a reason to believe that early humans had a type of skin that was similar to a modern apes fur.
2. Early Humans had Long Arms
A ‘hairy’ man with long arms makes it quite easy to picture early man evolving from apes. However, just as there is no way to tell how hairy early man was, so too is there no evidence to suggest that they had arms longer than that of modern humans. Quite the contrary, all discernable human fossil arms that have been found are about the same size as that of modern arms.
3. Early Man was a Hunched Over Creature
The Neanderthal Man founded in 1856 did walk hunched over. Does this mean that all early men shuffled along hunched over like apes? Probably not. Also, after a thorough examination it was concluded that almost definitely the Neanderthal man did suffer from arthritis. His stooped over appearance would be normal for a man of his age with his particular bone disease. The other early fossil discoveries of early man have consistently shown a fully erect human. Despite this though, many still favor the more ape-like posture.
4. Early Man had a Small Skull
At one time scientists believed that a man’s brain size indicated how smart he was. Of coarse after gaining more knowledge in this field we know that this is simply not the case. At this time, scientists do not know the actual brain size of the early man yet artists have continued to draw a small head with a large jaw so as to make the early man appear more ape-like. What is interesting is that some of the Cro-Magnum men have larger heads that that of modern man.
5. Early Man was Unintelligent
On the faces of the majority of early man drawings, is a rather stupid expression. Usually the faces appear rather confused, the creature being unable to ponder even the most simple matter. One must keep in mind that these are only the opinion of the artists. Nobody can tell what the skin and muscles looked like from the remaining bones that have been discovered.
I will have more misconceptions (at least what I feel are)to come in the future.
Apostle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 11-06-2003 10:46 AM Darwin's Terrier has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by NosyNed, posted 11-09-2003 10:45 AM Apostle has replied
 Message 30 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 11-10-2003 4:19 AM Apostle has not replied
 Message 31 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 11-10-2003 4:34 AM Apostle has not replied
 Message 32 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 11-10-2003 6:38 AM Apostle has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 27 of 43 (65309)
11-09-2003 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Apostle
11-09-2003 10:37 AM


Re: Neanderthals not 'primitive'?
Speaking of misconceptions.
You seem to be equating "early man" with the Neanderthals and cro magnon and these being closer to the "apes". For example you comments on longer arms and smaller brains.
You need to learn a lot more about other homonids and those that preceeded them. Neanderthal and cro-magnon are not "early" in our evolutionary history at all! They are the very, very last steps to fully modern humans and were very close to us. So of course they have human like brains (cromagnon was, in fact, "us" ) and anatomy.
Your whole post about misconceptions seems to be a misconception itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Apostle, posted 11-09-2003 10:37 AM Apostle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Apostle, posted 11-09-2003 10:18 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Apostle
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 43 (65483)
11-09-2003 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by NosyNed
11-09-2003 10:45 AM


Re: Neanderthals not 'primitive'?
Artists portrayals of the early man are often of the Neanderthal. Hence the criticism of obvious misconceptions.
Apostle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by NosyNed, posted 11-09-2003 10:45 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by NosyNed, posted 11-09-2003 10:26 PM Apostle has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 29 of 43 (65484)
11-09-2003 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Apostle
11-09-2003 10:18 PM


Re: Neanderthals not 'primitive'?
I think that is a misconception too. But then there are lots of very old texts floating around. So maybe.
It is just that what you said didn't have anything to do with Neanderthal, separate from any artists misconceptions or outdated ideas.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Apostle, posted 11-09-2003 10:18 PM Apostle has not replied

  
Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 43 (65523)
11-10-2003 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Apostle
11-09-2003 10:37 AM


"Early Man"?
Okay, define 'early man'. Which fossil species are you referring to?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Apostle, posted 11-09-2003 10:37 AM Apostle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024