But before that Ice Age, when Homo Erectus became Homo Sapiens in Africa, why would those traits ever come about over the more necessary traits (tool making [Neanderthals were better tool makers] and physical robustness [the ability to survive in dangerous situations, Neanderthals even had better pain tolerance]) back then, that were selected more then???
I understand why, when those traits were selected, the migrant homo sapiens prevailed over those that had evolved from homo erectus (Neanderthals and others) in Europe and Indonesian areas, but why did they come about in the first place?
That's why I say, intervention is not impossible. However, I am agnostic, preferring the accuracy of science to guide me over the anthropocentric tendencies formed from spirituality.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
When the charts where written, the tilt of the Earth was different then today (Or should I say different as in precession). That places the zodiac sign off by at least one sign. Prove me wrong.
That doesn't effect astrology, just like scientific facts about the earth's age doesn't effect Christianity.
This isn't my point.
Originally posted by Oneness
When did I claim "Carl Sagan believes in astrology".When did I claim I believed in astrology?
I'm agnostic, look me up on facebook.
I said it's possible that religions, especially the first religion (astrology) may have real merit.
We're talking about how star maps helped guide early man, and how astrology gives us all a unique purpose, star locations when astrology was formed are permanent. Precession is irrelevant. Carl Sagan was making an example of the limitations of religion next to empirical data - and making an example of how perspectives change as science builds objective knowledge over the generations.
In fact, it is the culmination of facts gained by earlier generations that allow humans to increase our scientific understanding and our technological sophistication. The fact that homo-sapiens, shrinking brains, increasingly dependent on technology, evolved polar opposite of the smarter, stronger, and more intelligent Neanderthals is indication of intervention. Nature would never predict that the ability to outsource information would be more desirable for evolution than visual-spatial intelligence and physical robustness. The Ice Age is why homo-sapiens survived and Neanderthals did not, in that times of food scarcity humans needed less than half as many calories as the more massive Neanderthals, but mainly it was our ability to produce more delicate pronunciation and broader syllables has increased what we can put into language; thereby allowing us to pass on information to our descendants, outsourcing information through it.
@Stealthmoose; that's what you get for taking an obvious joke seriously.
I reiterate, when in the quote you said "LOLWUT" to did I claim to believe in astrology!?.
I didn't.
Originally posted by Oneness
But before that Ice Age, when Homo Erectus became Homo Sapiens in Africa, why would those traits ever come about over the more necessary traits (tool making [Neanderthals were better tool makers] and physical robustness [the ability to survive in dangerous situations, Neanderthals even had better pain tolerance]) back then, that were selected more then???
This tangent comes out of nowhere. What are you saying here?
Neanderthals being better tool makers, if true, doesn't make them necessarily better survivors. In any case, it's been proven recently that a small fraction of European and Asian DNA is neanderthal in origin, so some cultural interchange happened back before recorded time.
Better pain tolerance is not necessarily a better thing. People who are immune to pain often have bad physical shape because they do not pace themselves and run their bodies harder than if they had pain receptors. If you want to be silly about this, women experience pain more frequently and acutely than men, but they can tolerate a lot more pain over the course of childbirth. Pain reception is not in itself something that would cause a species to die out. Natural selection is a complex process, which relies on a species to adapt in many different ways over long periods of time.
I understand why, when those traits were selected, the migrant homo sapiens prevailed over those that had evolved from homo erectus (Neanderthals and others) in Europe and Indonesian areas, but why did they come about in the first place?
Why does anything come about? Each unique species is unique because it has evolved and mutated to a point in which its chromosomes no longer match and can mate with the parent species. That's just the way it works.
That's why I say, intervention is not impossible. However, I am agnostic, preferring the accuracy of science to guide me over the anthropocentric tendencies formed from spirituality.
Agnosticism is the belief that we can't really know, so making absolute judgments is folly. Science and reason are windows to truth, but agnostics are usually astute enough to avoid making anything seem utterly conclusive, since our knowledge is always developing and changing as a result of developments.
I'm not sure about what your kick is with using anthropocentric a lot, except you're probably in Anthropology 101. The term is not at all as relevant as you are implying to the discussion at hand, and all if this is derailing anyways.
Originally posted by Oneness
That doesn't effect astrology, just like scientific facts about the earth's age doesn't effect Christianity...
Originally posted by Oneness
That doesn't effect astrology, just like scientific facts about the earth's age doesn't effect Christianity.
This isn't my point.@Stealthmoose; that's what you get for taking an obvious joke seriously.
I reiterate, when in the quote you said "LOLWUT" to did I claim to believe in astrology!?.
I didn't.
You did. I quoted it above. Your inability to admit your mistakes or dishonesty in communicating with others is your failing, not mine.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Art [culturally sophistication, outsourcing of information that allows us to pass on knowledge down through the generations, knowledge =/=intelligence, the capacity to use knowledge] andabstract thinkingis what gave Homo Sapiens the edge over Neanderthals.
We are becoming less and less intelligent due to what we have provided for us, all the resources, outsourced information and scientific understanding we've gained over the years from our more technologically, scientifically primitive, and intellectually cognitive) ancestors. Our modern education system isn't demanding of intellectual creativity by any stretch of the imagination. This advanced society has coddled us, the modern man does not need to be as cognitive from day to day, and evidence suggests we are losing our intellectual capacity because of it. Our craniums and brains are decreasing in size, we're becoming taller, thinner, less robust.
However, there is new evidence that the Neanderthals did not die out, but instead merged with Homo Sapiens.
Interbreeding =/= merging totally. Regardless of whatever amount of Neanderthal DNA we still have, 23 chromosomes and our brain structure is different because of that.
Originally posted by Oneness
We are becoming less and less intelligent due to what we have provided for us, all the resources, outsourced information and scientific understanding we've gained over the years from our more technologically, scientifically primitive, and intellectually cognitive) ancestors. Our modern education system isn't demanding of intellectual creativity by any stretch of the imagination. This advanced society has coddled us, the modern man does not need to be as cognitive from day to day, and evidence suggests we are losing our intellectual capacity because of it. Our craniums and brains are decreasing in size, we're becoming taller, thinner, less robust.
You modified my post, then replied to the modified post. Your modification was wrong, and sense it wasn't a joke, or fun for all, it was also inappropriate. Please don't do that again.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
doesn't make them necessarily better survivors.
Let's look back at the context of my argument, at that point in time, those traits had been more beneficial to the homo erectus species that both the homo sapiens and Neanderthals evolved from. So it makes me wonder why opposite traits would have been developed in Africa than had been developed in European and Asian areas. That's all it does, and that is my only thesis, not that it proves or disproves anything, just that it's true that these traits shouldn't have been developed.
In any case, it's been proven recently that a small fraction of European and Asian DNA is neanderthal in origin, so some cultural interchange happened back before recorded time.
Not only that, but it shows that Neanderthals either possessed characteristics for survival that proved to allow the procreation with the so-called "superior" homo sapiens. How can this be, if homo sapiens were superior why could they not defend the sanctity of their gene pool?
In fact, after first meeting the Neanderthals they fled to Asia, and then returned around 50,000 years ago, and archaeological evidence indicated that by 30,000 years ago the Neanderthals were all but extinct - showing a direct relation to the Ice Age.
And it makes sense that homo sapiens, who only needed 2000 calories, in contrast to the neanderthals 5000, and who could communicate and collaborate to improve technology over many generations far better than could the Neanderthals who were limited in language capacity, survived the Ice Age.
Better pain tolerance is not necessarily a better thing. People who are immune to pain often have bad physical shape because they do not pace themselves and run their bodies harder than if they had pain receptors.
As opposed to letting your prey run away?
If you want to be silly about this, women experience pain more frequently and acutely than men, but they can tolerate a lot more pain over the course of childbirth. Pain reception is not in itself something that would cause a species to die out. Natural selection is a complex process, which relies on a species to adapt in many different ways over long periods of time.
And you don't think the ability to ignore pain to succeed in finding shelter or catching an animal to eat as its advantages?
Why does anything come about? Each unique species is unique because it has evolved and mutated to a point in which its chromosomes no longer match and can mate with the parent species. That's just the way it works.
However, it is unlikely that traits which are deemed irrelevant at the time will get passed on.
Agnosticism is the belief that we can't really know, so making absolute judgments is folly. Science and reason are windows to truth, but agnostics are usually astute enough to avoid making anything seem utterly conclusive, since our knowledge is always developing and changing as a result of developments.I'm not sure about what your kick is with using anthropocentric a lot, except you're probably in Anthropology 101. The term is not at all as relevant as you are implying to the discussion at hand, and all if this is derailing anyways.
I just can't stand that people now a days think they're the shit.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You modified my post, then replied to the modified post. Your modification was wrong, and sense it wasn't a joke, or fun for all, it was also inappropriate. Please don't do that again.
The modification of quotes can be a useful device in better communication, especially with hard topics like this. Instead of breaking up the quote further I added a strike and a retort within. I hate having to retype "[b*]" and "[/b*]" every-time I break up a quote. It's easier.
I wasn't attempting to be obnoxious.
Originally posted by Oneness
Let's look back at the context of my argument, at that point in time, those traits had been more beneficial to the homo erectus species that both the homo sapiens and Neanderthals evolved from. So it makes me wonder why opposite traits would have been developed in Africa than had been developed in European and Asian areas. That's all it does, and that is my only thesis, not that it proves or disproves anything, just that it's true that these traits shouldn't have been developed.
Okay, but what does this have to do with anything else being discussed in this thread? If you want to really hash out human evolution, you could start a thread easily elsewhere. This is, despite all our derailing efforts, a thread on dream communication. It was funny at first to joke around, but we're approaching 3+ pages of nonsense. If you feel your point has merit, make a thread.
Not only that, but it shows that Neanderthals either possessed characteristics for survival that proved to allow the procreation with the so-called "superior" homo sapiens. How can this be, if homo sapiens were superior why could they not defend the sanctity of their gene pool?
Survival and natural selection implies superior genes for passing on, but remember that species are just as victim to the environment and outside causes as anything else.
The leap of logic from Homo sapiens replacing Neanderthals by virtue of ancient astronauts violates Ockham's Razor so bad I'd have to swear in as a witness in court.
In fact, after first meeting the Neanderthals they fled to Asia, and then returned around 50,000 years ago, and archaeological evidence indicated that by 30,000 years ago the Neanderthals were all but extinct - showing a direct relation to the Ice Age.And it makes sense that homo sapiens, who only needed 2000 calories, in contrast to the neanderthals 5000, and who could communicate and collaborate to improve technology over many generations far better than could the Neanderthals who were limited in language capacity, survived the Ice Age.
Wait, so you just contradicted yourself here? Or did you have a meandering point that's just not clear? I don't intend to get drawn out into debating something you brought up out of the void. Make a thread.
As opposed to letting your prey run away?
Homo sapiens developed some of the best distance running in the animal kingdom; this point is a red herring.
And you don't think the ability to ignore pain to succeed in finding shelter or catching an animal to eat as its advantages?
Anything we would consider to be "beneficial" is irrelevant if such traits died out ages ago. Again, your initial assertion was that ancient astronauts or a space-faring whatever may have explained the gap between the various pre-modern human sub-species. It's not a very well thought out or explained theory and you've gone nowhere with it.
However, it is unlikely that traits which are deemed irrelevant at the time will get passed on.
According to who?
I just can't stand that people now a days think they're the shit.
God forbid anyone challenge your publicly available opinion.
Originally posted by Oneness
The modification of quotes can be a useful device in better communication, especially with hard topics like this. Instead of breaking up the quote further I added a strike and a retort within. I hate having to retype "[b*]" and "[/b*]" every-time I break up a quote. It's easier.I wasn't attempting to be obnoxious.
Replying to reorganized quotes of other people smacks of straw-manning. Some explicit communication might help avoid this in the future.
Originally posted by Oneness
Actually, Shakya, I should have put the strike there.Abstract thinking is from the frontal lobe structures, which are larger in homo sapiens than in Neanderthals.
I said: "Art and abstract thinking is what gave Homo Sapiens the edge over Neanderthals. ..." It sounds like you thought I said the opposite.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I said: "Art and abstract thinking is what gave Homo Sapiens the edge over Neanderthals. ..." It sounds like you thought I said the opposite.
My point is that the technology humans have invented is what a theoretical Type I Civilization, that created the simulation that we think is the universe, would be going for - not us.