info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Neanderthals Were Orcs
1,064 views
Skip to first unread message
Ed Stasiak
Oct 5, 2017, 10:50:13 PM10/5/17
to
Neanderthals may have been scary muscle bound cannibal rapists, hunting white wimmin at night.
15 min video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZbmywzGAVs&t=
1 hour radio interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEqv2_jWYfM
Not wholly on-topic for this group but I thought it very interesting nonetheless and I think the guy
makes a lot of sense; a species that exists almost solely by hunting in a shitty climate, probably
isn’t going to be cuddly and nice.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DG5yVIpV0AEghHT.jpg
15 min video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZbmywzGAVs&t=
1 hour radio interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEqv2_jWYfM
Not wholly on-topic for this group but I thought it very interesting nonetheless and I think the guy
makes a lot of sense; a species that exists almost solely by hunting in a shitty climate, probably
isn’t going to be cuddly and nice.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DG5yVIpV0AEghHT.jpg
Tiglath
Oct 5, 2017, 10:58:50 PM10/5/17
to
On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 10:50:13 PM UTC-4, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> Neanderthals may have been scary muscle bound cannibal rapists, hunting white wimmin at night.
We have those today. Any wimmin.
> Neanderthals may have been scary muscle bound cannibal rapists, hunting white wimmin at night.
Peter Jason
Oct 6, 2017, 1:47:16 AM10/6/17
to
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 19:50:13 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net>
wrote:
Well this is a Neanderthal blackwash. Why did the Neanderthals get
out of Africa in the first place? Clearly they were chased out, and
so escaped the usual African genocides. And their remains found in
many Levant graves explains much about that part of the world.
wrote:
out of Africa in the first place? Clearly they were chased out, and
so escaped the usual African genocides. And their remains found in
many Levant graves explains much about that part of the world.
Ed Stasiak
Oct 7, 2017, 10:11:50 AM10/7/17
to
> Peter Jason
makes sense and he suggests the mainstream view of Neanderthals as
just slightly different looking humans with essentially similar behaviors,
is wrong and based more on what we’d like them to be and not what the
archeological evidence implies.
He mentions that radioisotope testing of Neanderthal teeth shows that
meat made up 90+% of their diet (he says their body mass means they’d
have to eat the equivalent of at least 25 Big Macs a day) and that ice age
Europe had very limited options when it came to plant food.
This means they’d have to be excellent hunters and he labels them “apex
predators” who were hunting very dangerous game such as musk ox, wooly
rhinos, cave bears, etc. and as a predator species, they probably hunted at
night as lions and such do, which is supported by their larger eyes (20%
larger then ours) and they were doing this with only stabbing spears, no
bows or atlatls.
He also suggests that forensic reconstructions of Neanderthals got it wrong,
as soft tissue like noses are only speculation and they probably were more
like apes (also with a much better sense of smell) and that instead of wearing
animal skins, they were probably furry/hairy considering the ice age environment.
Think of them as something akin to intelligent and super aggressive pack hunting
blond/red haired gorillas with spears prowling the night, which is pretty freaking
scary.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/fc/d6/cf/fcd6cf356cd25160ca8ad10fd94ba080.jpg
> Why did the Neanderthals get out of Africa in the first place?
> Clearly they were chased out, and so escaped the usual African
> genocides. And their remains found in many Levant graves
> explains much about that part of the world.
The author claims when Neanderthals encountered humans in the Levant,
they treated them as simply another game animal, hunting them down and
eating them but also raping any human women they managed to get their
hands on, resulting in the interbreeding that genetic studies now show
happened.
This intense pressure on humans resulted in natural selection favoring
stronger and smarter humans who were also far more aggressive and
we eventually adopted a policy of genocide against the Neanderthals,
hounding them throughout Europe until we finally wiped them out.
The author suggests that our innate fear of the night isn’t derived from
wolves and lions and other animal predators but from thousands of years
of being hunted by freakishly strong (up to 6X stronger then humans) and
cunning cannibal night hunting rapists.
Essentially orcs.
>
> Well this is a Neanderthal blackwash.
I ain’t no anthropologist (and neither is the author) but I think his theory
> Well this is a Neanderthal blackwash.
makes sense and he suggests the mainstream view of Neanderthals as
just slightly different looking humans with essentially similar behaviors,
is wrong and based more on what we’d like them to be and not what the
archeological evidence implies.
He mentions that radioisotope testing of Neanderthal teeth shows that
meat made up 90+% of their diet (he says their body mass means they’d
have to eat the equivalent of at least 25 Big Macs a day) and that ice age
Europe had very limited options when it came to plant food.
This means they’d have to be excellent hunters and he labels them “apex
predators” who were hunting very dangerous game such as musk ox, wooly
rhinos, cave bears, etc. and as a predator species, they probably hunted at
night as lions and such do, which is supported by their larger eyes (20%
larger then ours) and they were doing this with only stabbing spears, no
bows or atlatls.
He also suggests that forensic reconstructions of Neanderthals got it wrong,
as soft tissue like noses are only speculation and they probably were more
like apes (also with a much better sense of smell) and that instead of wearing
animal skins, they were probably furry/hairy considering the ice age environment.
Think of them as something akin to intelligent and super aggressive pack hunting
blond/red haired gorillas with spears prowling the night, which is pretty freaking
scary.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/fc/d6/cf/fcd6cf356cd25160ca8ad10fd94ba080.jpg
> Why did the Neanderthals get out of Africa in the first place?
> Clearly they were chased out, and so escaped the usual African
> genocides. And their remains found in many Levant graves
> explains much about that part of the world.
they treated them as simply another game animal, hunting them down and
eating them but also raping any human women they managed to get their
hands on, resulting in the interbreeding that genetic studies now show
happened.
This intense pressure on humans resulted in natural selection favoring
stronger and smarter humans who were also far more aggressive and
we eventually adopted a policy of genocide against the Neanderthals,
hounding them throughout Europe until we finally wiped them out.
The author suggests that our innate fear of the night isn’t derived from
wolves and lions and other animal predators but from thousands of years
of being hunted by freakishly strong (up to 6X stronger then humans) and
cunning cannibal night hunting rapists.
Essentially orcs.
Tiglath
Oct 7, 2017, 10:51:34 AM10/7/17
to
The only flaw in all this is why did the weaker species survive and the stronger and better adapted perished. That is not how it works.
Ed Stasiak
Oct 7, 2017, 11:59:04 AM10/7/17
to
> Tiglath
resulted in smarter, stronger and now very aggressive humans, who developed better
tech and tactics and eventually genocided the Neanderthals out of existence.
But the author claims it was near thing, with archeological evidence showing a steep
decline in human populations in the Levant after contact happened, with humans almost
being wiped out before adapting and making a come back, then steadily marching thru
Europe, slaughtering Neanderthals on sight and finally trapping the last of them down
in Gibraltar.
>
> The only flaw in all this is why did the weaker species survive and the stronger
> and better adapted perished. That is not how it works.
Our higher intelligence to begin with and natural selection thru Neanderthal predation,
> The only flaw in all this is why did the weaker species survive and the stronger
> and better adapted perished. That is not how it works.
resulted in smarter, stronger and now very aggressive humans, who developed better
tech and tactics and eventually genocided the Neanderthals out of existence.
But the author claims it was near thing, with archeological evidence showing a steep
decline in human populations in the Levant after contact happened, with humans almost
being wiped out before adapting and making a come back, then steadily marching thru
Europe, slaughtering Neanderthals on sight and finally trapping the last of them down
in Gibraltar.
Ed Stasiak
Oct 7, 2017, 12:22:09 PM10/7/17
to
> Ed Stasiak
as traits from the Neanderthals for greater aggression were introduced to the human population?
The author mentions that not all human women who were raped were carried off, some would
have survived among their human tribe and given birth to hybrid Human-Neanderthal babies,
who were probably killed at birth if they showed too many physical Neanderthal traits but X%
would have looked human enough to keep around, passing on their genes that modern genetic
research has shown happened.
Humans have an instinctual aversion to those who are different and this is still obvious today,
where Whites, Blacks and Asians tend to interact with their own and when you consider the
far more obvious physical differences between humans and Neanderthals, it makes more
sense then humans willingly getting it on with fugly Neanderthal chicks.
>
> Our higher intelligence to begin with and natural selection thru Neanderthal predation,
> resulted in smarter, stronger and now very aggressive humans, who developed better
> tech and tactics and eventually genocided the Neanderthals out of existence.
I’ll add that the forced interbreeding with Neanderthals may have contributed to their downfall,
> Our higher intelligence to begin with and natural selection thru Neanderthal predation,
> resulted in smarter, stronger and now very aggressive humans, who developed better
> tech and tactics and eventually genocided the Neanderthals out of existence.
as traits from the Neanderthals for greater aggression were introduced to the human population?
The author mentions that not all human women who were raped were carried off, some would
have survived among their human tribe and given birth to hybrid Human-Neanderthal babies,
who were probably killed at birth if they showed too many physical Neanderthal traits but X%
would have looked human enough to keep around, passing on their genes that modern genetic
research has shown happened.
Humans have an instinctual aversion to those who are different and this is still obvious today,
where Whites, Blacks and Asians tend to interact with their own and when you consider the
far more obvious physical differences between humans and Neanderthals, it makes more
sense then humans willingly getting it on with fugly Neanderthal chicks.
Tiglath
Oct 7, 2017, 5:14:14 PM10/7/17
to
Fugly varies with culture and taste. In the other hemisphere there are places
where the standard of female beauty is round face, small smiling eyes and curly
dark hair. Up here it's mostly cheekbones, long blonde hair, and swimming-pool size eyes. Those are called 'cow eyes' down there and lustrous blond hair 'straw hair,' neither flattering.
I understand what you say but, if climate was too cold for a balanced plant
diet, meat was more available at night, and the Fuglies had evolved hair and
large eyes to deal with both, then the worse endowed Sapiens Sapiens (SS)
got superior intelligence from where? How? I'd expect them to evolve first
of all what's needed to run the one minute mile, to get away from muscle-bound Fuglies.
You've got to be pretty aggressive to hunt beasts your size and larger at night.
I see how more aggressive beats less aggressive and smart beats dumb, but are
those traits actually real Neanderthal traits, or merely supposed from outcomes?
The night hunter/rapist theory is a bit suspect. Stone Age people (why not
Neaderthal?) were nomadic and lived mostly off the low hanging fruit, meaning birds and fish and small mammals, why bother with a big kill everyday? It took our species thousands of years to wipe out the mega-fauna, which inevitably required hunting with cojones. They also moved around with the seasons.
If Neaderthal rapists hunted at night like lions do, then they were lion food and their extinction is no surprise, but I doubt it.
Maybe human chicks needn't be raped -- a Neanderthal can wear flower on
his hair - If Robin Givens can fuck Mike Tyson, there is no reason why the ice prom queen of the naked apes can't go to town low-down dirty on an Orc hung like mastodon.
Life has a way.
Paul J Gans
Oct 7, 2017, 5:46:42 PM10/7/17
to
existence...
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Ed Stasiak
Oct 7, 2017, 8:53:55 PM10/7/17
to
> Tiglath
> > Ed Stasiak
Neanderthals were as hairy and apelike as the author suggests.
http://themandus.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/neanderthal-human-body-comparison.jpg
http://themandus.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/comparisonC.jpg
I’ll point out that the earliest depictions of Neanderthals were as beast men
and it was only later, that anthropologists began saying they were more or
less like us and nowadays, their appearance is presented as virtually the
same as humans with depictions in museums showing happy-go-lucky
Neanderthals hanging out at the cave with the family like you and me.
I think the earlier depictions by archeologists were in fact on the money
and what we’re shown today, is based more on wishful thinking and political
correctness.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Co-FwPxWEAAeUib.jpg:large
> I understand what you say but, if climate was too cold for a balanced plant
> diet, meat was more available at night, and the Fuglies had evolved hair and
> large eyes to deal with both, then the worse endowed Sapiens Sapiens (SS)
> got superior intelligence from where?
Homo Sapiens Sapiens had already evolved higher intelligence before we
encountered Neanderthals and the predation pressure only encouraged even
higher intelligence and a more developed society, (as well as aggression) the
better to deal with the threat.
It's also suggestive that agriculture and civilization developed in the same regions
where humans and Neanderthals interacted.
> The night hunter/rapist theory is a bit suspect. Stone Age people (why not
> Neaderthal?) were nomadic and lived mostly off the low hanging fruit, meaning
> birds and fish and small mammals, why bother with a big kill everyday?
There weren’t many low hanging fruits in the regions inhabited by Neanderthals,
it was an ice age version of Arrakis where the strong and aggressive survived
and with their much higher body mass, a Neanderthal would need a hell of a
lot of rabbits to get thru the day (not to mention better weapons, like bows).
I also remember reading an article that pointed out that there were very few
salmon bones in Neanderthal trash middens, suggesting that while they would
eat fish if they happened to come across them, they might not have had a very
good sense of time and couldn’t grasp that the salmon would be running in the
same river every year at roughly the same time.
The implication being Neanderthals kinda just went where the wind blew them
(or maybe they just didn’t like fish?).
> If Neaderthal rapists hunted at night like lions do, then they were lion food and
> their extinction is no surprise, but I doubt it.
There’s no denying their eyes were roughly 20% larger and that clearly implies
a night hunter.
> Life has a way.
Sure but life finds the easiest way and that’s rape.
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > Humans have an instinctual aversion to those who are different
>
> > Humans have an instinctual aversion to those who are different
>
> Fugly varies with culture and taste.
Sure, but we’re talking about almost bestiality here, especially if the
Neanderthals were as hairy and apelike as the author suggests.
http://themandus.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/neanderthal-human-body-comparison.jpg
http://themandus.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/comparisonC.jpg
I’ll point out that the earliest depictions of Neanderthals were as beast men
and it was only later, that anthropologists began saying they were more or
less like us and nowadays, their appearance is presented as virtually the
same as humans with depictions in museums showing happy-go-lucky
Neanderthals hanging out at the cave with the family like you and me.
I think the earlier depictions by archeologists were in fact on the money
and what we’re shown today, is based more on wishful thinking and political
correctness.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Co-FwPxWEAAeUib.jpg:large
> I understand what you say but, if climate was too cold for a balanced plant
> diet, meat was more available at night, and the Fuglies had evolved hair and
> large eyes to deal with both, then the worse endowed Sapiens Sapiens (SS)
> got superior intelligence from where?
encountered Neanderthals and the predation pressure only encouraged even
higher intelligence and a more developed society, (as well as aggression) the
better to deal with the threat.
It's also suggestive that agriculture and civilization developed in the same regions
where humans and Neanderthals interacted.
> The night hunter/rapist theory is a bit suspect. Stone Age people (why not
> Neaderthal?) were nomadic and lived mostly off the low hanging fruit, meaning
> birds and fish and small mammals, why bother with a big kill everyday?
it was an ice age version of Arrakis where the strong and aggressive survived
and with their much higher body mass, a Neanderthal would need a hell of a
lot of rabbits to get thru the day (not to mention better weapons, like bows).
I also remember reading an article that pointed out that there were very few
salmon bones in Neanderthal trash middens, suggesting that while they would
eat fish if they happened to come across them, they might not have had a very
good sense of time and couldn’t grasp that the salmon would be running in the
same river every year at roughly the same time.
The implication being Neanderthals kinda just went where the wind blew them
(or maybe they just didn’t like fish?).
> If Neaderthal rapists hunted at night like lions do, then they were lion food and
> their extinction is no surprise, but I doubt it.
a night hunter.
> Life has a way.
Sure but life finds the easiest way and that’s rape.
Ed Stasiak
Oct 7, 2017, 8:57:47 PM10/7/17
to
> Paul J Gans
> > Ed Stasiak
Persia all the way to the Indus Valley, so it’s not like they couldn’t handle warmer weather
and the fall of the Neanderthals very closely coincides with the expansion of Humans into
their territory, implying Humans turned the tables on them and they were now the hunted.
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > But the author claims it was near thing, with archeological evidence showing a steep
> > decline in human populations in the Levant after contact happened, with humans almost
> > being wiped out before adapting and making a come back, then steadily marching thru
> > Europe, slaughtering Neanderthals on sight and finally trapping the last of them down
> > in Gibraltar.
>
> Or it might have been climate change that did the Neandertals out of existence...
The wider range of estimates for Neanderthal show them living in the Sinai, thru Mesopotamia,
> > But the author claims it was near thing, with archeological evidence showing a steep
> > decline in human populations in the Levant after contact happened, with humans almost
> > being wiped out before adapting and making a come back, then steadily marching thru
> > Europe, slaughtering Neanderthals on sight and finally trapping the last of them down
> > in Gibraltar.
>
> Or it might have been climate change that did the Neandertals out of existence...
Persia all the way to the Indus Valley, so it’s not like they couldn’t handle warmer weather
and the fall of the Neanderthals very closely coincides with the expansion of Humans into
their territory, implying Humans turned the tables on them and they were now the hunted.
Pete Barrett
Oct 8, 2017, 9:01:27 AM10/8/17
to
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 07:11:49 -0700, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> The author claims when Neanderthals encountered humans in the Levant,
> they treated them as simply another game animal, hunting them down and
> eating them but also raping any human women they managed to get their
> hands on, resulting in the interbreeding that genetic studies now show
> happened.
>
Is the author suggesting that they also raped other game animals that
> The author claims when Neanderthals encountered humans in the Levant,
> they treated them as simply another game animal, hunting them down and
> eating them but also raping any human women they managed to get their
> hands on, resulting in the interbreeding that genetic studies now show
> happened.
>
they hunted down? Because if so, that's very odd behaviour (what other
animals do it?); and if not, then it implies that their treatment of
humans was _not_ like their treatment of other game animals.
The argument simply doesn't work - the best you can get is that some
Neanderthals (or all Neanderthals some of the time) treated humans as
game, and others mated with them. The latter seems to be accepted, but
I've heard no evidence for the former. Have butchered human bones been
found in Neanderthal middens?
--
Pete BARRETT
Tiglath
Oct 8, 2017, 2:08:12 PM10/8/17
to
So a Neanderthal could not win an argument with a Sapiens but could tear him
apart like a rag doll.
Let's see, a few coordinates and figures...
Our brain is about 2/3% of the body mass but it consumes a quarter
of the energy. I ain't cheap.
The most successful human speciee has been Homo Erectus, lasted about two
million years and we'll never beat them.
Neanderthal lived from 500,000 to 30,000 years ago.
Until recently our heavy brain did not have much to show for its taxing
weight, only some pointy sticks and flint knives. So I am not sure how
our intelligence could be so crucial crushing the Fuglies.
The more I ask the question of WHAT drove us to develop a massive brain and
superior intelligence the more it seems that we just don't know.
I find no causative problem or impulse that would drive it.
Up until a few hundred thousand years ago various human species walked this
Earth at the same time, at least six. The current exclusivity is also quiet new.
Only until the appearance of Sapiens Sapiens were we able to make it to the top of the food chain, a recent 100K years ago. Before we were in the middle of the
chain. Rarely hunting anything big, and mostly waiting for the top animals to
finish their meal so that we could crack the bones and eat the marrow, if the hyenas and jackals left any.
Also, Neanderthal brain was bigger than Sapiens brain.
Homo had a big brain for some two million years and for most of that time it was
a weak and marginal creature, with little payoff from the big skull.
Animals at the top of the chain got there slowly so the rest could evolve into
some balance, as lions and sharks got to the top of the chain, their prey
evolved better means of escape, so that top predators would not cause too much
havoc. But our rise to the top has been meteoric and the ecosystem hasn't
caught up, so WE ARE wreaking havoc in the world.
The habits of Homo were profoundly changed by fire. While a chimpanzee spends
five hours a day chewing raw food, we needed only one hour to ingest our cooked
food.
In the end we have to choose between two theories: the Interbreeding Theory by
which Sapiens coming out of East Africa interbred with Neanderthal in Eurasia
and Homo Erectus in Asia, and today's people are the result.
Or the Replacement Theory by which the genetic gulf was too wide for interbreeding, and Sapiens prevailed as the other species died out or were killed. So we all are pure Sapiens straight of Africa 70,000 years ago.
Neither seems to be totally correct, since Sapiens genes have a bit of Neanderthal in them, 4-6%. As usual, biology is not black and white and we
are left with lots of ifs.
What is true is that Sapiens has such a bad character vein that it's surely for
the best that the wold does not have several human species. Look what happens
with just one species and the minor cosmetic difference among specimen.
What kind of racism would we see against the Neanderthal and the Deiisovans,
had they survived?
The same that perhaps erased them from this world. Our 'early work.'
Aren't we great?
Diogenes
Oct 8, 2017, 4:32:45 PM10/8/17
to
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:57:46 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net>
wrote:
Another possible factor in the eventual triumph of homo sapiens over
homo neathertalis is the dog. Until recently the earliest
domestication of the dog was generally thought to be ~ 15,000 YBP.
However recently published DNA research suggests that the date can be
pushed back as far as 40,000 YBP. This was about the time that the
Neandethals began to become extinct in Europe.
Coincidence? Maybe.
----
Diogenes
The wars are long, the peace is frail
The madmen come again . . . .
wrote:
homo neathertalis is the dog. Until recently the earliest
domestication of the dog was generally thought to be ~ 15,000 YBP.
However recently published DNA research suggests that the date can be
pushed back as far as 40,000 YBP. This was about the time that the
Neandethals began to become extinct in Europe.
Coincidence? Maybe.
----
Diogenes
The wars are long, the peace is frail
The madmen come again . . . .
Diogenes
Oct 8, 2017, 4:43:27 PM10/8/17
to
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 16:34:58 -0400, Diogenes <cdh...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
For an in-depth analysis of this theory read "The Invaders" by Pat
Shipman.
wrote:
Shipman.
Paul J Gans
Oct 8, 2017, 4:52:14 PM10/8/17
to
Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>> Paul J Gans
>> > Ed Stasiak
>> >
>> > But the author claims it was near thing, with archeological evidence showing a steep
>> > decline in human populations in the Levant after contact happened, with humans almost
>> > being wiped out before adapting and making a come back, then steadily marching thru
>> > Europe, slaughtering Neanderthals on sight and finally trapping the last of them down
>> > in Gibraltar.
>>
>> Or it might have been climate change that did the Neandertals out of existence...
>The wider range of estimates for Neanderthal show them living in the Sinai, thru Mesopotamia,
>Persia all the way to the Indus Valley, so it?s not like they couldn?t handle warmer weather
>> Paul J Gans
>> > Ed Stasiak
>> >
>> > But the author claims it was near thing, with archeological evidence showing a steep
>> > decline in human populations in the Levant after contact happened, with humans almost
>> > being wiped out before adapting and making a come back, then steadily marching thru
>> > Europe, slaughtering Neanderthals on sight and finally trapping the last of them down
>> > in Gibraltar.
>>
>> Or it might have been climate change that did the Neandertals out of existence...
>The wider range of estimates for Neanderthal show them living in the Sinai, thru Mesopotamia,
>and the fall of the Neanderthals very closely coincides with the expansion of Humans into
>their territory, implying Humans turned the tables on them and they were now the hunted.
Be careful here. You are implicitly arguing that Neanderthals
>their territory, implying Humans turned the tables on them and they were now the hunted.
simultaneously lived in areas from Europe to the Indus valley.
I'm implying that they moved in response to climatic conditions.
Eric Stevens
Oct 8, 2017, 7:52:32 PM10/8/17
to
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 11:08:11 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
>
>So a Neanderthal could not win an argument with a Sapiens but could tear him
>apart like a rag doll.
>
>Let's see, a few coordinates and figures...
>
>Our brain is about 2/3% of the body mass but it consumes a quarter
>of the energy. I ain't cheap.
>
>The most successful human speciee has been Homo Erectus, lasted about two
>million years and we'll never beat them.
>
>Neanderthal lived from 500,000 to 30,000 years ago.
>
>Until recently our heavy brain did not have much to show for its taxing
>weight, only some pointy sticks and flint knives. So I am not sure how
>our intelligence could be so crucial crushing the Fuglies.
Speech.
The consensus seems to be that while neanderthals had speech of a kind
their speech organs did not enable them to create sounds as richly
varied as can homo sapiens.
>
>The more I ask the question of WHAT drove us to develop a massive brain and
>superior intelligence the more it seems that we just don't know.
>
>I find no causative problem or impulse that would drive it.
Not being at the top of the food chain would help.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>
>So a Neanderthal could not win an argument with a Sapiens but could tear him
>apart like a rag doll.
>
>Let's see, a few coordinates and figures...
>
>Our brain is about 2/3% of the body mass but it consumes a quarter
>of the energy. I ain't cheap.
>
>The most successful human speciee has been Homo Erectus, lasted about two
>million years and we'll never beat them.
>
>Neanderthal lived from 500,000 to 30,000 years ago.
>
>Until recently our heavy brain did not have much to show for its taxing
>weight, only some pointy sticks and flint knives. So I am not sure how
>our intelligence could be so crucial crushing the Fuglies.
The consensus seems to be that while neanderthals had speech of a kind
their speech organs did not enable them to create sounds as richly
varied as can homo sapiens.
>
>The more I ask the question of WHAT drove us to develop a massive brain and
>superior intelligence the more it seems that we just don't know.
>
>I find no causative problem or impulse that would drive it.
>
>Up until a few hundred thousand years ago various human species walked this
>Earth at the same time, at least six. The current exclusivity is also quiet new.
>
>Only until the appearance of Sapiens Sapiens were we able to make it to the top of the food chain, a recent 100K years ago. Before we were in the middle of the
>chain. Rarely hunting anything big, and mostly waiting for the top animals to
>finish their meal so that we could crack the bones and eat the marrow, if the hyenas and jackals left any.
>
>Also, Neanderthal brain was bigger than Sapiens brain.
So are whales brains.
>Up until a few hundred thousand years ago various human species walked this
>Earth at the same time, at least six. The current exclusivity is also quiet new.
>
>Only until the appearance of Sapiens Sapiens were we able to make it to the top of the food chain, a recent 100K years ago. Before we were in the middle of the
>chain. Rarely hunting anything big, and mostly waiting for the top animals to
>finish their meal so that we could crack the bones and eat the marrow, if the hyenas and jackals left any.
>
>Also, Neanderthal brain was bigger than Sapiens brain.
>
>Homo had a big brain for some two million years and for most of that time it was
>a weak and marginal creature, with little payoff from the big skull.
>
>Animals at the top of the chain got there slowly so the rest could evolve into
>some balance, as lions and sharks got to the top of the chain, their prey
>evolved better means of escape, so that top predators would not cause too much
>havoc. But our rise to the top has been meteoric and the ecosystem hasn't
>caught up, so WE ARE wreaking havoc in the world.
>
>The habits of Homo were profoundly changed by fire. While a chimpanzee spends
>five hours a day chewing raw food, we needed only one hour to ingest our cooked
>food.
>
>In the end we have to choose between two theories: the Interbreeding Theory by
>which Sapiens coming out of East Africa interbred with Neanderthal in Eurasia
>and Homo Erectus in Asia, and today's people are the result.
>
>Or the Replacement Theory by which the genetic gulf was too wide for interbreeding, and Sapiens prevailed as the other species died out or were killed. So we all are pure Sapiens straight of Africa 70,000 years ago.
>
>Neither seems to be totally correct, since Sapiens genes have a bit of Neanderthal in them, 4-6%. As usual, biology is not black and white and we
>are left with lots of ifs.
>
>What is true is that Sapiens has such a bad character vein that it's surely for
>the best that the wold does not have several human species. Look what happens
>with just one species and the minor cosmetic difference among specimen.
>
>What kind of racism would we see against the Neanderthal and the Deiisovans,
>had they survived?
>
>The same that perhaps erased them from this world. Our 'early work.'
>
>Aren't we great?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
>Homo had a big brain for some two million years and for most of that time it was
>a weak and marginal creature, with little payoff from the big skull.
>
>Animals at the top of the chain got there slowly so the rest could evolve into
>some balance, as lions and sharks got to the top of the chain, their prey
>evolved better means of escape, so that top predators would not cause too much
>havoc. But our rise to the top has been meteoric and the ecosystem hasn't
>caught up, so WE ARE wreaking havoc in the world.
>
>The habits of Homo were profoundly changed by fire. While a chimpanzee spends
>five hours a day chewing raw food, we needed only one hour to ingest our cooked
>food.
>
>In the end we have to choose between two theories: the Interbreeding Theory by
>which Sapiens coming out of East Africa interbred with Neanderthal in Eurasia
>and Homo Erectus in Asia, and today's people are the result.
>
>Or the Replacement Theory by which the genetic gulf was too wide for interbreeding, and Sapiens prevailed as the other species died out or were killed. So we all are pure Sapiens straight of Africa 70,000 years ago.
>
>Neither seems to be totally correct, since Sapiens genes have a bit of Neanderthal in them, 4-6%. As usual, biology is not black and white and we
>are left with lots of ifs.
>
>What is true is that Sapiens has such a bad character vein that it's surely for
>the best that the wold does not have several human species. Look what happens
>with just one species and the minor cosmetic difference among specimen.
>
>What kind of racism would we see against the Neanderthal and the Deiisovans,
>had they survived?
>
>The same that perhaps erased them from this world. Our 'early work.'
>
>Aren't we great?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Tiglath
Oct 8, 2017, 8:03:47 PM10/8/17
to
On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 7:52:32 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >
> >Until recently our heavy brain did not have much to show for its taxing
> >weight, only some pointy sticks and flint knives. So I am not sure how
> >our intelligence could be so crucial crushing the Fuglies.
>
> Speech.
>
References.
> >
> >Until recently our heavy brain did not have much to show for its taxing
> >weight, only some pointy sticks and flint knives. So I am not sure how
> >our intelligence could be so crucial crushing the Fuglies.
>
> Speech.
>
> The consensus seems to be that while neanderthals had speech of a kind
> their speech organs did not enable them to create sounds as richly
> varied as can homo sapiens.
>
> >
> >The more I ask the question of WHAT drove us to develop a massive brain and
> >superior intelligence the more it seems that we just don't know.
> >
> >I find no causative problem or impulse that would drive it.
>
Stevens seems to know what experts express much doubt about. No surprise.
I was hoping this of Ed's threads would not be disrupted by your theories and
nutty opinions. Not again...
> Not being at the top of the food chain would help.
Really? Mammals weren't at the top for millions of years and down they
remained, until a meteor removed the dinosaur aristocracy and at last
mammals could move up the ladder. Their being near the bottom did not help at all.
Ed Stasiak
Oct 8, 2017, 9:38:07 PM10/8/17
to
> Pete Barrett
> > Ed Stasiak
weren’t up for raping them also.
People today commit beastaility with dogs and sheep and whatnot, so it’s
not much of a stretch to believe Neanderthals would rape human women,
which I’d say is far more likely then humans and Neanderthals willingly
mating.
Which I believe is behind the continuing humanization of Neanderthals
in literature and museums.
This used to be the common representation of Neanderthals:
https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2012/08/13/21/Pg-8-scientists-getty.jpg
Nowadays, they’re presented as pretty much just like humans:
https://wonderopolis.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/neanderthal1.jpg
Artists are even “squashing” down Neanderthal skulls to make them look
more human. Couple of drinks and I’d probably tap dat ass;
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/81/f5/43/81f543f29688c567ce598cd58afe6328--pre-history-shakira.jpg
But even wearing the beer goggles, I wouldn't do her;
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/69/3d/4c/693d4c3635702266e843481c5cb9aee7.jpg
> The argument simply doesn't work - the best you can get is that some
> Neanderthals (or all Neanderthals some of the time) treated humans as
> game, and others mated with them. The latter seems to be accepted, but
> I've heard no evidence for the former. Have butchered human bones been
> found in Neanderthal middens?
A on-line search “neanderthal cannibalism” turns up a bunch of articles.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/07/european-neandertals-were-cannibals
By Lizzie Wade
Jul. 8, 2016
European Neandertals were cannibals
Neandertals ate each other—at least once in a while—according to a new analysis
of bones unearthed in a Belgian cave. The remains were excavated near Goyet
beginning in the 19th century and now sit in museums in Brussels. The outdated
excavation techniques make it impossible to reconstruct how these Neandertals
lived, but when researchers examined the bones, it was unmistakably clear what
happened to them after they died. Many of the bones were covered in cut marks
and dents caused by pounding, indicating that the meat and marrow had been
removed. The researchers also spotted what appear to be bite marks running up
and down finger bones. The marks were identical to those found on reindeer and
horse bones also uncovered at the site, suggesting all three species were
prepared and eaten, the researchers report this week in Scientific Reports. A few
of the Neandertal bones also showed additional wear and tear, suggesting they
were later used to shape stone tools. The bones are between 40,500 and 45,500
years old, which is before Homo sapiens arrived in the region, so the only possible
culprits are the Neandertals themselves. Although scientists knew that Neandertals
had practiced cannibalism in Croatia, this is the first evidence of it in northern
Europe. No one yet knows if Neandertal cannibalism was a ritual practice, reserved
for special occasions and imbued with special meaning, or if they were just really,
really hungry.
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > The author claims when Neanderthals encountered humans in the Levant,
> > they treated them as simply another game animal, hunting them down and
> > eating them but also raping any human women they managed to get their
> > hands on, resulting in the interbreeding that genetic studies now show
> > happened.
>
> Is the author suggesting that they also raped other game animals that
> they hunted down? Because if so, that's very odd behaviour (what other
> animals do it?); and if not, then it implies that their treatment of humans
> was _not_ like their treatment of other game animals.
That Neanderthals were fine with eating humans, doesn’t mean that they
> > The author claims when Neanderthals encountered humans in the Levant,
> > they treated them as simply another game animal, hunting them down and
> > eating them but also raping any human women they managed to get their
> > hands on, resulting in the interbreeding that genetic studies now show
> > happened.
>
> Is the author suggesting that they also raped other game animals that
> they hunted down? Because if so, that's very odd behaviour (what other
> animals do it?); and if not, then it implies that their treatment of humans
> was _not_ like their treatment of other game animals.
weren’t up for raping them also.
People today commit beastaility with dogs and sheep and whatnot, so it’s
not much of a stretch to believe Neanderthals would rape human women,
which I’d say is far more likely then humans and Neanderthals willingly
mating.
Which I believe is behind the continuing humanization of Neanderthals
in literature and museums.
This used to be the common representation of Neanderthals:
https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2012/08/13/21/Pg-8-scientists-getty.jpg
Nowadays, they’re presented as pretty much just like humans:
https://wonderopolis.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/neanderthal1.jpg
Artists are even “squashing” down Neanderthal skulls to make them look
more human. Couple of drinks and I’d probably tap dat ass;
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/81/f5/43/81f543f29688c567ce598cd58afe6328--pre-history-shakira.jpg
But even wearing the beer goggles, I wouldn't do her;
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/69/3d/4c/693d4c3635702266e843481c5cb9aee7.jpg
> The argument simply doesn't work - the best you can get is that some
> Neanderthals (or all Neanderthals some of the time) treated humans as
> game, and others mated with them. The latter seems to be accepted, but
> I've heard no evidence for the former. Have butchered human bones been
> found in Neanderthal middens?
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/07/european-neandertals-were-cannibals
By Lizzie Wade
Jul. 8, 2016
European Neandertals were cannibals
Neandertals ate each other—at least once in a while—according to a new analysis
of bones unearthed in a Belgian cave. The remains were excavated near Goyet
beginning in the 19th century and now sit in museums in Brussels. The outdated
excavation techniques make it impossible to reconstruct how these Neandertals
lived, but when researchers examined the bones, it was unmistakably clear what
happened to them after they died. Many of the bones were covered in cut marks
and dents caused by pounding, indicating that the meat and marrow had been
removed. The researchers also spotted what appear to be bite marks running up
and down finger bones. The marks were identical to those found on reindeer and
horse bones also uncovered at the site, suggesting all three species were
prepared and eaten, the researchers report this week in Scientific Reports. A few
of the Neandertal bones also showed additional wear and tear, suggesting they
were later used to shape stone tools. The bones are between 40,500 and 45,500
years old, which is before Homo sapiens arrived in the region, so the only possible
culprits are the Neandertals themselves. Although scientists knew that Neandertals
had practiced cannibalism in Croatia, this is the first evidence of it in northern
Europe. No one yet knows if Neandertal cannibalism was a ritual practice, reserved
for special occasions and imbued with special meaning, or if they were just really,
really hungry.
Ed Stasiak
Oct 8, 2017, 9:56:22 PM10/8/17
to
> Tiglath
then as humans were subject natural selection due to predation and interbreeding
and thus “punctuated evolution”, once these hybrid and very aggressive new
humans moved out into the world, we probably would have killed ANY similar
not-quite-humans, even the cute little hobbits on Flores Island.
(after we raped them...)
>
> Up until a few hundred thousand years ago various human species walked this
> Earth at the same time, at least six. The current exclusivity is also quiet new.
Interesting point and if the theory of Neanderthals being essentially orcs is right,
> Up until a few hundred thousand years ago various human species walked this
> Earth at the same time, at least six. The current exclusivity is also quiet new.
then as humans were subject natural selection due to predation and interbreeding
and thus “punctuated evolution”, once these hybrid and very aggressive new
humans moved out into the world, we probably would have killed ANY similar
not-quite-humans, even the cute little hobbits on Flores Island.
(after we raped them...)
Eric Stevens
Oct 8, 2017, 10:10:56 PM10/8/17
to
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 17:03:46 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
>On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 7:52:32 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>> >
>> >Until recently our heavy brain did not have much to show for its taxing
>> >weight, only some pointy sticks and flint knives. So I am not sure how
>> >our intelligence could be so crucial crushing the Fuglies.
>>
>> Speech.
>>
>
>References.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o589CAu73UM will do for a start.
fittest. I'm sure you have heard that somewhere.
rise to the Deccan Traps played a part. The argument about which one
dominated hasa swung backwards and forwards over the years. Currently
the Deccan Traps seem to be winning.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 7:52:32 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>> >
>> >Until recently our heavy brain did not have much to show for its taxing
>> >weight, only some pointy sticks and flint knives. So I am not sure how
>> >our intelligence could be so crucial crushing the Fuglies.
>>
>> Speech.
>>
>
>References.
>
>
>> The consensus seems to be that while neanderthals had speech of a kind
>> their speech organs did not enable them to create sounds as richly
>> varied as can homo sapiens.
>>
>> >
>> >The more I ask the question of WHAT drove us to develop a massive brain and
>> >superior intelligence the more it seems that we just don't know.
>> >
>> >I find no causative problem or impulse that would drive it.
>>
>
>Ah... Look here. Are we going to find any Gauls in Neanderthal land?
>
>Stevens seems to know what experts express much doubt about. No surprise.
>
>I was hoping this of Ed's threads would not be disrupted by your theories and
>nutty opinions. Not again...
>
>
>> Not being at the top of the food chain would help.
>
>Nice theory, so being a loser is really what drives winning.
It's what drives survival of winners. You know, survival of the
>
>> The consensus seems to be that while neanderthals had speech of a kind
>> their speech organs did not enable them to create sounds as richly
>> varied as can homo sapiens.
>>
>> >
>> >The more I ask the question of WHAT drove us to develop a massive brain and
>> >superior intelligence the more it seems that we just don't know.
>> >
>> >I find no causative problem or impulse that would drive it.
>>
>
>Ah... Look here. Are we going to find any Gauls in Neanderthal land?
>
>Stevens seems to know what experts express much doubt about. No surprise.
>
>I was hoping this of Ed's threads would not be disrupted by your theories and
>nutty opinions. Not again...
>
>
>> Not being at the top of the food chain would help.
>
>Nice theory, so being a loser is really what drives winning.
fittest. I'm sure you have heard that somewhere.
>
>Really? Mammals weren't at the top for millions of years and down they
>remained, until a meteor removed the dinosaur aristocracy and at last
>mammals could move up the ladder. Their being near the bottom did not help at all.
It wasn't just a meteor. It is accepted that the eruptions which gave
>Really? Mammals weren't at the top for millions of years and down they
>remained, until a meteor removed the dinosaur aristocracy and at last
>mammals could move up the ladder. Their being near the bottom did not help at all.
rise to the Deccan Traps played a part. The argument about which one
dominated hasa swung backwards and forwards over the years. Currently
the Deccan Traps seem to be winning.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Ed Stasiak
Oct 8, 2017, 10:19:25 PM10/8/17
to
> Diogenes
evolutionary pressures on them, but also social and tech developments
because of those pressures.
I remember a kids book that would have been written back in the 1960s
I’m guessing, where a teenage cave boy and girl are cast out of their tribe
and at one point, the boy kills a female wolf and is about to kill her puppy,
when the cave girl stops him (because of course puppies are cute) and
gets away with it by suggesting they’d get more meat if they let the puppy
grow larger but instead the wolf becomes tamed and best buds with the
cave teens and helps them hunt and survive.
>
> Another possible factor in the eventual triumph of homo sapiens over
> homo neathertalis is the dog. Until recently the earliest
> domestication of the dog was generally thought to be ~ 15,000 YBP.
> However recently published DNA research suggests that the date can be
> pushed back as far as 40,000 YBP. This was about the time that the
> Neandethals began to become extinct in Europe.
>
> Coincidence? Maybe.
Good point and I don't think it's a coincidence, as not only did humans have
> Another possible factor in the eventual triumph of homo sapiens over
> homo neathertalis is the dog. Until recently the earliest
> domestication of the dog was generally thought to be ~ 15,000 YBP.
> However recently published DNA research suggests that the date can be
> pushed back as far as 40,000 YBP. This was about the time that the
> Neandethals began to become extinct in Europe.
>
> Coincidence? Maybe.
evolutionary pressures on them, but also social and tech developments
because of those pressures.
I remember a kids book that would have been written back in the 1960s
I’m guessing, where a teenage cave boy and girl are cast out of their tribe
and at one point, the boy kills a female wolf and is about to kill her puppy,
when the cave girl stops him (because of course puppies are cute) and
gets away with it by suggesting they’d get more meat if they let the puppy
grow larger but instead the wolf becomes tamed and best buds with the
cave teens and helps them hunt and survive.
Ed Stasiak
Oct 8, 2017, 10:23:55 PM10/8/17
to
> Diogenes
A very cool historical fiction novel that’s also on-topic for this newsgroup,
being set 10th century Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eaters_of_the_Dead
>
> For an in-depth analysis of this theory read "The Invaders"
> by Pat Shipman.
And “Eaters of the Dead” by Michael Crichton
> For an in-depth analysis of this theory read "The Invaders"
> by Pat Shipman.
A very cool historical fiction novel that’s also on-topic for this newsgroup,
being set 10th century Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eaters_of_the_Dead
Ed Stasiak
Oct 8, 2017, 10:33:11 PM10/8/17
to
> Paul J Gans
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > The wider range of estimates for Neanderthal show them living in
> > the Sinai, thru Mesopotamia, Persia all the way to the Indus Valley,
>
> > the Sinai, thru Mesopotamia, Persia all the way to the Indus Valley,
>
> Be careful here. You are implicitly arguing that Neanderthals
> simultaneously lived in areas from Europe to the Indus valley.
>
> I'm implying that they moved in response to climatic conditions.
Maybe, but I think but think climate change is thrown around to
> simultaneously lived in areas from Europe to the Indus valley.
>
> I'm implying that they moved in response to climatic conditions.
redly nowadays and is more a reflection of our current situation
then in oldy timey days. But what were the climatic conditions
back then?
Was it getting colder, forcing Neanderthals south? Because my
understanding is it was slowly getting warmer and humans were
pushing them north?
But I still think it’s interesting that civilization developed in the
interaction zone between humans and Neanderthals; the Nile,
Mesopotamia and Indus.
Ed Stasiak
Oct 8, 2017, 10:45:15 PM10/8/17
to
> Tiglath
> > Eric Stevens
> > > Tiglath
information between themselves and more importantly, their kids.
A Neanderthal boy for example, would have to learn more about life and
hunting and such on his own thru trial and error, (sometimes fatally) as
the poor speech capabilities of the adults prevented them from effectively
passing on important info from their own life experiences.
A human boy on the other hand, has a much easier time as Dad and Uncle
Grog can verbally explain how not to get gored to death by a wholly rhino
before the kid goes hunting for the first time.
> > Eric Stevens
> > > Tiglath
> > >
> > > Until recently our heavy brain did not have much to show for its taxing
> > > weight, only some pointy sticks and flint knives. So I am not sure how
> > > our intelligence could be so crucial crushing the Fuglies.
> >
> > Speech.
>
> References.
As humans have more advanced speech, they’d be better at passing on
> > > Until recently our heavy brain did not have much to show for its taxing
> > > weight, only some pointy sticks and flint knives. So I am not sure how
> > > our intelligence could be so crucial crushing the Fuglies.
> >
> > Speech.
>
> References.
information between themselves and more importantly, their kids.
A Neanderthal boy for example, would have to learn more about life and
hunting and such on his own thru trial and error, (sometimes fatally) as
the poor speech capabilities of the adults prevented them from effectively
passing on important info from their own life experiences.
A human boy on the other hand, has a much easier time as Dad and Uncle
Grog can verbally explain how not to get gored to death by a wholly rhino
before the kid goes hunting for the first time.
Ed Stasiak
Oct 8, 2017, 10:58:57 PM10/8/17
to
> Eric Stevens
Olympus Mons and the other gigantic volcanos on Mars are the result
of an (admittedly much larger) impact on the other side of the planet
(Hellas basin) and the Chicxulub crater that’s believe to be the dino
killer, is also kinda on the opposite side of the Deccan Traps.
>
> It wasn't just a meteor. It is accepted that the eruptions which gave
> rise to the Deccan Traps played a part. The argument about which one
> dominated hasa swung backwards and forwards over the years. Currently
> the Deccan Traps seem to be winning.
The meteor impact could have sparked off the Deccan Traps?
> It wasn't just a meteor. It is accepted that the eruptions which gave
> rise to the Deccan Traps played a part. The argument about which one
> dominated hasa swung backwards and forwards over the years. Currently
> the Deccan Traps seem to be winning.
Olympus Mons and the other gigantic volcanos on Mars are the result
of an (admittedly much larger) impact on the other side of the planet
(Hellas basin) and the Chicxulub crater that’s believe to be the dino
killer, is also kinda on the opposite side of the Deccan Traps.
Eric Stevens
Oct 8, 2017, 11:55:08 PM10/8/17
to
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 19:58:56 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net>
wrote:
>> Eric Stevens
>>
>> It wasn't just a meteor. It is accepted that the eruptions which gave
>> rise to the Deccan Traps played a part. The argument about which one
>> dominated hasa swung backwards and forwards over the years. Currently
>> the Deccan Traps seem to be winning.
>
>The meteor impact could have sparked off the Deccan Traps?
Yes, that's another theory. I don't know whether or not the geology
supports it.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>> Eric Stevens
>>
>> It wasn't just a meteor. It is accepted that the eruptions which gave
>> rise to the Deccan Traps played a part. The argument about which one
>> dominated hasa swung backwards and forwards over the years. Currently
>> the Deccan Traps seem to be winning.
>
>The meteor impact could have sparked off the Deccan Traps?
supports it.
>
>Olympus Mons and the other gigantic volcanos on Mars are the result
>of an (admittedly much larger) impact on the other side of the planet
>(Hellas basin) and the Chicxulub crater that’s believe to be the dino
>killer, is also kinda on the opposite side of the Deccan Traps.
Kinda, sorta - see http://i.imgur.com/KWpyhcO.jpg
>Olympus Mons and the other gigantic volcanos on Mars are the result
>of an (admittedly much larger) impact on the other side of the planet
>(Hellas basin) and the Chicxulub crater that’s believe to be the dino
>killer, is also kinda on the opposite side of the Deccan Traps.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Tiglath
Oct 9, 2017, 12:52:12 AM10/9/17
to
On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 10:45:15 PM UTC-4, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>
> As humans have more advanced speech, they’d be better at passing on
> information between themselves and more importantly, their kids.
>
> A Neanderthal boy for example, would have to learn more about life and
> hunting and such on his own thru trial and error, (sometimes fatally) as
> the poor speech capabilities of the adults prevented them from effectively
> passing on important info from their own life experiences.
>
> A human boy on the other hand, has a much easier time as Dad and Uncle
> Grog can verbally explain how not to get gored to death by a wholly rhino
> before the kid goes hunting for the first time.
Many kinds of animals and even insects have SPEECH - the articulation of
>
> As humans have more advanced speech, they’d be better at passing on
> information between themselves and more importantly, their kids.
>
> A Neanderthal boy for example, would have to learn more about life and
> hunting and such on his own thru trial and error, (sometimes fatally) as
> the poor speech capabilities of the adults prevented them from effectively
> passing on important info from their own life experiences.
>
> A human boy on the other hand, has a much easier time as Dad and Uncle
> Grog can verbally explain how not to get gored to death by a wholly rhino
> before the kid goes hunting for the first time.
thoughts by means of sounds. Or some language of sorts. That can't be it.
Parrots can imitate a phone ringing, a door closing, and a police siren, and probably every sound Einstein could make. Whales have also a large vocal
range, and monkeys can yell whether an eagle or lion is about.
The difference between Einstein and a parrot is not vocal.
A reasonable speculation for Sapiens success is that it was due to chance, since
evolutionary mutations are random.
Sapiens lucked out and got the Cognitive Mutation.
A cognitive leap seems to have occurred about 70,000 years ago. Previous
Sapiens were dumber than us, it seems. Sapiens started a migration from East
Africa to the Middle East into Neanderthal territory some 100,000 ago but they
failed to get a firm footing.
But in the second try around 70,000 ago when Sapiens had brains just like ours,
they did not only prevailed against the Neanderthal in the Levant, but also wiped out all other human species on Earth.
The period between 70,000 and 30,000 years ago, is when Sapiens achieved
cognitive ability that allowed to think in unprecedented ways and do special
things, like the invention of boats, bow and arrows, the oil-lamp, and needles
to make garments.
Superior cognitive ability enhanced the levels of cooperation, in which
language played a big part, but I think another aspect of such ability may
have been as important or even more important than language. The ability to
imagine things that do not exist.
There is a 32,000 year old ivory figure from the Stadel Cave that represents
a man with a lion head. A fictional animal.
The one aspect of the Cognitive Revolution that made a big difference is not
only that Sapiens could imagine things, but that could do so collectively.
Is that ability, probably lacking in other species, that allowed Sapiens to
organize in large numbers and annihilate all competition, and become US.
Us and the U.S. and religion and the Rotary Club, and all the other fictions
that allow us little humans to make big waves and big things like a space program and climate change.
reach Australia,
Tiglath
Oct 9, 2017, 12:52:38 AM10/9/17
to
On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 10:10:56 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 17:03:46 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 7:52:32 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> >Until recently our heavy brain did not have much to show for its taxing
> >> >weight, only some pointy sticks and flint knives. So I am not sure how
> >> >our intelligence could be so crucial crushing the Fuglies.
> >>
> >> Speech.
> >>
> >
> >References.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o589CAu73UM will do for a start.
> >
> >
> >> The consensus seems to be that while neanderthals had speech of a kind
> >> their speech organs did not enable them to create sounds as richly
> >> varied as can homo sapiens.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >The more I ask the question of WHAT drove us to develop a massive brain and
> >> >superior intelligence the more it seems that we just don't know.
> >> >
> >> >I find no causative problem or impulse that would drive it.
> >>
> >
> >Ah... Look here. Are we going to find any Gauls in Neanderthal land?
> >
> >Stevens seems to know what experts express much doubt about. No surprise.
> >
> >I was hoping this of Ed's threads would not be disrupted by your theories and
> >nutty opinions. Not again...
> >
> >
> >> Not being at the top of the food chain would help.
> >
> >Nice theory, so being a loser is really what drives winning.
>
> It's what drives survival of winners.
What has that got to do with anything? Keep with the program or just be quiet.
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 17:03:46 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 7:52:32 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> >Until recently our heavy brain did not have much to show for its taxing
> >> >weight, only some pointy sticks and flint knives. So I am not sure how
> >> >our intelligence could be so crucial crushing the Fuglies.
> >>
> >> Speech.
> >>
> >
> >References.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o589CAu73UM will do for a start.
> >
> >
> >> The consensus seems to be that while neanderthals had speech of a kind
> >> their speech organs did not enable them to create sounds as richly
> >> varied as can homo sapiens.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >The more I ask the question of WHAT drove us to develop a massive brain and
> >> >superior intelligence the more it seems that we just don't know.
> >> >
> >> >I find no causative problem or impulse that would drive it.
> >>
> >
> >Ah... Look here. Are we going to find any Gauls in Neanderthal land?
> >
> >Stevens seems to know what experts express much doubt about. No surprise.
> >
> >I was hoping this of Ed's threads would not be disrupted by your theories and
> >nutty opinions. Not again...
> >
> >
> >> Not being at the top of the food chain would help.
> >
> >Nice theory, so being a loser is really what drives winning.
>
> It's what drives survival of winners.
You know, survival of the
> fittest. I'm sure you have heard that somewhere.
> >
> >Really? Mammals weren't at the top for millions of years and down they
> >remained, until a meteor removed the dinosaur aristocracy and at last
> >mammals could move up the ladder. Their being near the bottom did not help at all.
>
> It wasn't just a meteor. It is accepted that the eruptions which gave
> rise to the Deccan Traps played a part. The argument about which one
> dominated hasa swung backwards and forwards over the years. Currently
> the Deccan Traps seem to be winning.
This is about your contention that being a loser low in the food chain is
the evolutionary force that gets species to the top.
Most obviously not.
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Oct 9, 2017, 4:01:42 AM10/9/17
to
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 21:52:38 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
Please stop trying to be smart and nasty. It interferes with the
intellectual flow.
If a population is pursued by hunters only those who survive will get
to breed. Only the hereditary characteristics which enable them to
survive will have a chance to be passed on to the next generation.
This is a well recognised mechanism for increasing the survivability
of the species. If intelligence is one of those characteristics then
intelligence will be enhanced in future generations.
of the food chain" which is what I originally said.
Just think of being low in the food chain, and being pursued by snails
and the like. Its a bit like what happens in this newsgroup.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
intellectual flow.
If a population is pursued by hunters only those who survive will get
to breed. Only the hereditary characteristics which enable them to
survive will have a chance to be passed on to the next generation.
This is a well recognised mechanism for increasing the survivability
of the species. If intelligence is one of those characteristics then
intelligence will be enhanced in future generations.
>
>
>You know, survival of the
>> fittest. I'm sure you have heard that somewhere.
>> >
>> >Really? Mammals weren't at the top for millions of years and down they
>> >remained, until a meteor removed the dinosaur aristocracy and at last
>> >mammals could move up the ladder. Their being near the bottom did not help at all.
>>
>> It wasn't just a meteor. It is accepted that the eruptions which gave
>> rise to the Deccan Traps played a part. The argument about which one
>> dominated hasa swung backwards and forwards over the years. Currently
>> the Deccan Traps seem to be winning.
>
>The usual subject creep. This is not about why the dinosaurs died, start another thread.
Creep? You started the subject creep. Are you backing out?
>
>You know, survival of the
>> fittest. I'm sure you have heard that somewhere.
>> >
>> >Really? Mammals weren't at the top for millions of years and down they
>> >remained, until a meteor removed the dinosaur aristocracy and at last
>> >mammals could move up the ladder. Their being near the bottom did not help at all.
>>
>> It wasn't just a meteor. It is accepted that the eruptions which gave
>> rise to the Deccan Traps played a part. The argument about which one
>> dominated hasa swung backwards and forwards over the years. Currently
>> the Deccan Traps seem to be winning.
>
>The usual subject creep. This is not about why the dinosaurs died, start another thread.
>
>This is about your contention that being a loser low in the food chain is
>the evolutionary force that gets species to the top.
"Low" in the food chain is not the same as being "not being at the top
>This is about your contention that being a loser low in the food chain is
>the evolutionary force that gets species to the top.
of the food chain" which is what I originally said.
Just think of being low in the food chain, and being pursued by snails
and the like. Its a bit like what happens in this newsgroup.
>
>Most obviously not.
>
>
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Eric Stevens
--
>Most obviously not.
>
>
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Eric Stevens
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Tiglath
Oct 9, 2017, 11:28:26 AM10/9/17
to
On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 4:01:42 AM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >
> >This is about your contention that being a loser low in the food chain is
> >the evolutionary force that gets species to the top.
>
> "Low" in the food chain is not the same as being "not being at the top
> of the food chain" which is what I originally said.
>
> Just think of being low in the food chain, and being pursued by snails
> and the like. Its a bit like what happens in this newsgroup.
With scientific arguments like that to support your claim you are failing
> >
> >This is about your contention that being a loser low in the food chain is
> >the evolutionary force that gets species to the top.
>
> "Low" in the food chain is not the same as being "not being at the top
> of the food chain" which is what I originally said.
>
> Just think of being low in the food chain, and being pursued by snails
> and the like. Its a bit like what happens in this newsgroup.
faster than usual.
This is the kind of thread that is not good for you health. Fair warning,
you may end up again, "killfiling" someone, and live in a huff for months,
like the last time.
You don't seem to have used the time off you took to improve your mind or
manners, so a repeat of what went before is likely. Fair warning.
You are unable as per usual to show any evidence or reference that will
support your contention that being not at the top of the food chain is what
drives organisms to reach it. Since except for a few lucky ones ALL the rest
NEVER make it to the top, it it pretty good evidence that you are spouting
bullshit AGAIN.
Get lost, will you?
Ed Stasiak
Oct 9, 2017, 11:47:56 AM10/9/17
to
> Eric Stevens
> > Ed Stasiak
http://digilander.libero.it/chandrast/antimateria.htm/CHA_jakesKTpaleo-c.jpg
And as the Deccan Traps were close to erupting, the pulse
or shockwave of the meteor impact traveling thru the planet
would have set it off, as happened on Mars.
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> >Olympus Mons and the other gigantic volcanos on Mars are the result
> >of an (admittedly much larger) impact on the other side of the planet
> >(Hellas basin) and the Chicxulub crater that’s believe to be the dino
> >killer, is also kinda on the opposite side of the Deccan Traps.
>
> Kinda, sorta - see http://i.imgur.com/KWpyhcO.jpg
Close enough for geology.
> >Olympus Mons and the other gigantic volcanos on Mars are the result
> >of an (admittedly much larger) impact on the other side of the planet
> >(Hellas basin) and the Chicxulub crater that’s believe to be the dino
> >killer, is also kinda on the opposite side of the Deccan Traps.
>
> Kinda, sorta - see http://i.imgur.com/KWpyhcO.jpg
http://digilander.libero.it/chandrast/antimateria.htm/CHA_jakesKTpaleo-c.jpg
And as the Deccan Traps were close to erupting, the pulse
or shockwave of the meteor impact traveling thru the planet
would have set it off, as happened on Mars.
Ed Stasiak
Oct 9, 2017, 12:36:19 PM10/9/17
to
> Tiglath
> > Ed Stasiak
they were less capable then humans is going to have a decided impact on
child rearing and social interaction.
Having a wide ranging (and constantly growing) vocabulary is much more
useful then grunts and gestures.
I’m reminded of the movie “Clan of the Cave Bear”, where Neanderthal
speech was shown as mostly being limited to sign language, which would
have made it much harder to plan and organize.
Meanwhile, humans would have been able to carefully explain detailed plans
and concepts to each other and their kids.
> Superior cognitive ability enhanced the levels of cooperation, in which
> language played a big part, but I think another aspect of such ability may
> have been as important or even more important than language. The ability
> to imagine things that do not exist.
Indeed, the further advantage of conceptual art would have allowed humans
to drawn out maps in the sand for example, strategically planning out attacks
on Neanderthal camps.
I think cunning humans waging a genocidal war against orcish Neanderthals
makes more sense then the current theory of peaceful interaction, with the
Neanderthals simply fading away.
Because known history shows that more often than not, humans are dicks.
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > As humans have more advanced speech, they’d be better at passing on
> > information between themselves and more importantly, their kids.
>
> > As humans have more advanced speech, they’d be better at passing on
> > information between themselves and more importantly, their kids.
>
> Many kinds of animals and even insects have SPEECH - the articulation of
> thoughts by means of sounds. Or some language of sorts. That can't be it.
>
> thoughts by means of sounds. Or some language of sorts. That can't be it.
>
> The difference between Einstein and a parrot is not vocal.
Exactly and while extent of Neanderthal speech isn’t known, the fact that
they were less capable then humans is going to have a decided impact on
child rearing and social interaction.
Having a wide ranging (and constantly growing) vocabulary is much more
useful then grunts and gestures.
I’m reminded of the movie “Clan of the Cave Bear”, where Neanderthal
speech was shown as mostly being limited to sign language, which would
have made it much harder to plan and organize.
Meanwhile, humans would have been able to carefully explain detailed plans
and concepts to each other and their kids.
> Superior cognitive ability enhanced the levels of cooperation, in which
> language played a big part, but I think another aspect of such ability may
> have been as important or even more important than language. The ability
> to imagine things that do not exist.
to drawn out maps in the sand for example, strategically planning out attacks
on Neanderthal camps.
I think cunning humans waging a genocidal war against orcish Neanderthals
makes more sense then the current theory of peaceful interaction, with the
Neanderthals simply fading away.
Because known history shows that more often than not, humans are dicks.
Tiglath
Oct 9, 2017, 1:18:40 PM10/9/17
to
True. My point is to disagree with the guy who claims that what made a difference was 'speech.'
All humans had that ability.
The difference was the THOUGHTS, no the
ability to express them vocally, which
allowed them to create myths to believe in.
You can ask a monkey all day to give you
a banana, by promising all the bananas it
wants in monkey heaven, and you'll
go hungry.
Sapiens will not only give you the
banana but also will make you high priest.
Bees and ants exhibit a lot of cooperation also. But it is rigid
and possible only in among 'friends and relatives,' whereas Sapiens' myths
allowe cooperation with stragers in
large numbers and flexible ways.
All humans had that ability.
The difference was the THOUGHTS, no the
ability to express them vocally, which
allowed them to create myths to believe in.
You can ask a monkey all day to give you
a banana, by promising all the bananas it
wants in monkey heaven, and you'll
go hungry.
Sapiens will not only give you the
banana but also will make you high priest.
Bees and ants exhibit a lot of cooperation also. But it is rigid
and possible only in among 'friends and relatives,' whereas Sapiens' myths
allowe cooperation with stragers in
large numbers and flexible ways.
Pete Barrett
Oct 9, 2017, 4:57:33 PM10/9/17
to
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 18:38:07 -0700, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> Pete Barrett
>> > Ed Stasiak
>> >
>> > The author claims when Neanderthals encountered humans in the Levant,
>> > they treated them as simply another game animal, hunting them down
>> > and eating them but also raping any human women they managed to get
>> > their hands on, resulting in the interbreeding that genetic studies
>> > now show happened.
>>
>> Is the author suggesting that they also raped other game animals that
>> they hunted down? Because if so, that's very odd behaviour (what other
>> animals do it?); and if not, then it implies that their treatment of
>> humans was _not_ like their treatment of other game animals.
>
> That Neanderthals were fine with eating humans, doesn’t mean that they
> weren’t up for raping them also.
But did they also rape deer and aurochs and rabbits and so forth? Because
>> Pete Barrett
>> > Ed Stasiak
>> >
>> > The author claims when Neanderthals encountered humans in the Levant,
>> > they treated them as simply another game animal, hunting them down
>> > and eating them but also raping any human women they managed to get
>> > their hands on, resulting in the interbreeding that genetic studies
>> > now show happened.
>>
>> Is the author suggesting that they also raped other game animals that
>> they hunted down? Because if so, that's very odd behaviour (what other
>> animals do it?); and if not, then it implies that their treatment of
>> humans was _not_ like their treatment of other game animals.
>
> That Neanderthals were fine with eating humans, doesn’t mean that they
> weren’t up for raping them also.
if they didn't, they were treating humans differently to other prey
animals. Do you think the Neanderthals were fine with raping deer? And if
so, why?
>
> People today commit beastaility with dogs and sheep and whatnot, so it’s
> not much of a stretch to believe Neanderthals would rape human women,
> which I’d say is far more likely then humans and Neanderthals willingly
> mating.
>
You've just said that modern humans willingly mate with dogs and sheep,
> People today commit beastaility with dogs and sheep and whatnot, so it’s
> not much of a stretch to believe Neanderthals would rape human women,
> which I’d say is far more likely then humans and Neanderthals willingly
> mating.
>
but refuse to believe that they would willingly do so with Neanderthals,
who were much closer and more compatible in every department. Why believe
one and not the other?
> Which I believe is behind the continuing humanization of Neanderthals in
> literature and museums.
>
> This used to be the common representation of Neanderthals:
> https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/
image/2012/08/13/21/Pg-8-scientists-getty.jpg
>
> Nowadays, they’re presented as pretty much just like humans:
> https://wonderopolis.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/neanderthal1.jpg
>
> Artists are even “squashing” down Neanderthal skulls to make them look
> more human. Couple of drinks and I’d probably tap dat ass;
> https://i.pinimg.com/736x/81/f5/43/81f543f29688c567ce598cd58afe6328--
pre-history-shakira.jpg
>
> But even wearing the beer goggles, I wouldn't do her;
> https://i.pinimg.com/
originals/69/3d/4c/693d4c3635702266e843481c5cb9aee7.jpg
>
>> The argument simply doesn't work - the best you can get is that some
>> Neanderthals (or all Neanderthals some of the time) treated humans as
>> game, and others mated with them. The latter seems to be accepted, but
>> I've heard no evidence for the former. Have butchered human bones been
>> found in Neanderthal middens?
>
> A on-line search “neanderthal cannibalism” turns up a bunch of articles.
>
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/07/european-neandertals-were-
cannibals
> By Lizzie Wade Jul. 8, 2016
>
> European Neandertals were cannibals
_modern_ human bones been found in Neanderthal middens?
>
> Neandertals ate each other—at least once in a while—according to a new
> analysis of bones unearthed in a Belgian cave. The remains were
> excavated near Goyet beginning in the 19th century and now sit in
> museums in Brussels. The outdated excavation techniques make it
> impossible to reconstruct how these Neandertals lived, but when
> researchers examined the bones, it was unmistakably clear what happened
> to them after they died. Many of the bones were covered in cut marks and
> dents caused by pounding, indicating that the meat and marrow had been
> removed. The researchers also spotted what appear to be bite marks
> running up and down finger bones. The marks were identical to those
> found on reindeer and horse bones also uncovered at the site, suggesting
> all three species were prepared and eaten, the researchers report this
> week in Scientific Reports. A few of the Neandertal bones also showed
> additional wear and tear, suggesting they were later used to shape stone
> tools. The bones are between 40,500 and 45,500 years old, which is
> before Homo sapiens arrived in the region, so the only possible culprits
> are the Neandertals themselves. Although scientists knew that
> Neandertals had practiced cannibalism in Croatia, this is the first
> evidence of it in northern Europe. No one yet knows if Neandertal
> cannibalism was a ritual practice, reserved for special occasions and
> imbued with special meaning, or if they were just really,
> really hungry.
--
> Neandertals ate each other—at least once in a while—according to a new
> analysis of bones unearthed in a Belgian cave. The remains were
> excavated near Goyet beginning in the 19th century and now sit in
> museums in Brussels. The outdated excavation techniques make it
> impossible to reconstruct how these Neandertals lived, but when
> researchers examined the bones, it was unmistakably clear what happened
> to them after they died. Many of the bones were covered in cut marks and
> dents caused by pounding, indicating that the meat and marrow had been
> removed. The researchers also spotted what appear to be bite marks
> running up and down finger bones. The marks were identical to those
> found on reindeer and horse bones also uncovered at the site, suggesting
> all three species were prepared and eaten, the researchers report this
> week in Scientific Reports. A few of the Neandertal bones also showed
> additional wear and tear, suggesting they were later used to shape stone
> tools. The bones are between 40,500 and 45,500 years old, which is
> before Homo sapiens arrived in the region, so the only possible culprits
> are the Neandertals themselves. Although scientists knew that
> Neandertals had practiced cannibalism in Croatia, this is the first
> evidence of it in northern Europe. No one yet knows if Neandertal
> cannibalism was a ritual practice, reserved for special occasions and
> imbued with special meaning, or if they were just really,
> really hungry.
Pete BARRETT
Tiglath
Oct 9, 2017, 5:37:31 PM10/9/17
to
On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 4:57:33 PM UTC-4, Pete Barrett wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 18:38:07 -0700, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> > That Neanderthals were fine with eating humans, doesn’t mean that they
> > weren’t up for raping them also.
>
> But did they also rape deer and aurochs and rabbits and so forth? Because
> if they didn't, they were treating humans differently to other prey
> animals.
Of course. The two groups were too similar to ignore each other but too
> On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 18:38:07 -0700, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> > That Neanderthals were fine with eating humans, doesn’t mean that they
> > weren’t up for raping them also.
>
> But did they also rape deer and aurochs and rabbits and so forth? Because
> if they didn't, they were treating humans differently to other prey
> animals.
different for mutual sexual attraction.
If Fuglies raped a lot of Sapiens chicks it must have been before eating them,
because a very small amount of Neanderthal DNA hitched a ride on Sapiens' genes.
> Do you think the Neanderthals were fine with raping deer? And if
> so, why?
> >
> You've just said that modern humans willingly mate with dogs and sheep,
> but refuse to believe that they would willingly do so with Neanderthals,
> who were much closer and more compatible in every department. Why believe
> one and not the other?
>
Tiglath
Oct 9, 2017, 6:18:07 PM10/9/17
to
If you had asked a Neanderthal he would probably describe Sapiens as Orcs too.
Sapiens orcs swarm in enveloping armies guided by intelligence and expose
horrible hairless bodies, full of scars or worse covered with dead animals.
Is the Cognitive Mutation blessing or curse?
Curse for the rest of the creatures of this world, naturally, but...
It's sure great at the Sapiens individual level, but taking the long view, we
are surely atypical.
Where nature doesn't spare the weak, we do. Blind people live long lives and
have families, for example.
Yet blindness must be rare among humans because of the generations when
blind people weren't spared, so it remained aberration.
The sudden change of habitat, habits, and the not even remotely comparable new
life Sapiens has will have consequences in our evolution still unknown.
The Cognition Revolution, however, seems to be coming full-circle.
It surely looks like we are on our way to become masters of our genes.
Genetics to the rescue. Evolution -- Boutique Edition?
The consequences of closing that circle are also unknown.
Hopefully, instead of a bunch of blind people dying for thousands of years, we
can just yank out the 'blindness gene,' so to speak, out of the human genome,
by editing some code on some device.
And, hopefully will have Mammoth and Mastodon again, and even a Fugly, with a
big of luck.
But then someone will want to invent a SUPER COGNITIVE MUTATION, and thus
apply all the power of such a supernova of a mutation to ITSELF.
Erilar
Oct 9, 2017, 8:39:26 PM10/9/17
to
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>>> Tiglath
>>>
>>> The only flaw in all this is why did the weaker species survive and the stronger
>>> and better adapted perished. That is not how it works.
>
>> Our higher intelligence to begin with and natural selection thru Neanderthal predation,
>> resulted in smarter, stronger and now very aggressive humans, who developed better
>> tech and tactics and eventually genocided the Neanderthals out of existence.
--
biblioholic medievalist via iPad
> Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>>> Tiglath
>>>
>>> The only flaw in all this is why did the weaker species survive and the stronger
>>> and better adapted perished. That is not how it works.
>
>> Our higher intelligence to begin with and natural selection thru Neanderthal predation,
>> resulted in smarter, stronger and now very aggressive humans, who developed better
>> tech and tactics and eventually genocided the Neanderthals out of existence.
>
>> But the author claims it was near thing, with archeological evidence showing a steep
>> decline in human populations in the Levant after contact happened, with humans almost
>> being wiped out before adapting and making a come back, then steadily marching thru
>> Europe, slaughtering Neanderthals on sight and finally trapping the last of them down
>> in Gibraltar.
>
> Or it might have been climate change that did the Neandertals out of
> existence...
>
Or simply too much specialization?
>> But the author claims it was near thing, with archeological evidence showing a steep
>> decline in human populations in the Levant after contact happened, with humans almost
>> being wiped out before adapting and making a come back, then steadily marching thru
>> Europe, slaughtering Neanderthals on sight and finally trapping the last of them down
>> in Gibraltar.
>
> Or it might have been climate change that did the Neandertals out of
> existence...
>
--
biblioholic medievalist via iPad
Diogenes
Oct 9, 2017, 10:52:34 PM10/9/17
to
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 19:23:54 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net>
wrote:
Excellent book with many similarities to the Beowulf legend. Not until
you get tothe end of the book do you realize just who (or what) the
Grendel and the other monsters are.
There was a movie "The 13th Warrior" based on the book. I've put the
DVD on hold at my local library.
wrote:
you get tothe end of the book do you realize just who (or what) the
Grendel and the other monsters are.
There was a movie "The 13th Warrior" based on the book. I've put the
DVD on hold at my local library.
Diogenes
Oct 9, 2017, 11:03:00 PM10/9/17
to
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 19:19:24 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net>
wrote:
Sounds like a good plot. Throughout history their have been many myths
and legends of human/wolf interaction (e.g., Romulus and Remus).
Around 1960 a Russian genetecist named Dmitry Belyaev did interesting
research in domesticating silver foxes, which were raised in captivity
for their fur. His work suggested that the tendency towards
domestication was (at least in foxes) an inherited trait.
wrote:
and legends of human/wolf interaction (e.g., Romulus and Remus).
Around 1960 a Russian genetecist named Dmitry Belyaev did interesting
research in domesticating silver foxes, which were raised in captivity
for their fur. His work suggested that the tendency towards
domestication was (at least in foxes) an inherited trait.
Ed Stasiak
Oct 10, 2017, 12:05:23 AM10/10/17
to
> Pete Barrett
> > Ed Stasiak
isn’t the same as a human and a dog.
If you had to win a bet, you could get it on with a Neanderthal chick
and this is even more so the case for a Neanderthal with a human
gal.
> > European Neandertals were cannibals
>
> So are some modern humans, some of the time. I ask again - have
> butchered _modern_ human bones been found in Neanderthal middens?
I only did a quick look for a reference and just saw cannibalism among
Neanderthals themselves mentioned but if they’re willing to each other,
why stop at eating a human?
(after you rape her… and maybe him too)
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > That Neanderthals were fine with eating humans, doesn’t mean
> > that they weren’t up for raping them also.
>
> But did they also rape deer and aurochs and rabbits and so forth?
Come on now, the difference between Neanderthals and humans
> > That Neanderthals were fine with eating humans, doesn’t mean
> > that they weren’t up for raping them also.
>
> But did they also rape deer and aurochs and rabbits and so forth?
isn’t the same as a human and a dog.
If you had to win a bet, you could get it on with a Neanderthal chick
and this is even more so the case for a Neanderthal with a human
gal.
> > European Neandertals were cannibals
>
> So are some modern humans, some of the time. I ask again - have
> butchered _modern_ human bones been found in Neanderthal middens?
Neanderthals themselves mentioned but if they’re willing to each other,
why stop at eating a human?
(after you rape her… and maybe him too)
Ed Stasiak
Oct 10, 2017, 12:24:07 AM10/10/17
to
> Tiglath
what’s attractive, there is a broad acceptance among humans on the basics.
Sorry, but an Australian Aborigine is not anybody’s idea of attractive, while
a European supermodel is considered attractive by men all over the planet.
And while not sexual, we even categorize apes and monkeys also; chimps are
cute, gorillas are scary, orangoutangs are funny, so I would say a Neanderthal
male would in fact find a human female generally attractive, in a kinda exotic
way while the reverse wouldn’t be the case for most human men.
This implies the interbreeding happened mostly one way; Neanderthal males
with human females and that was most likely thru rape, as most human chicks
wouldn’t have willingly hooked with a short, stout and ugly Neanderthal dude.
>
> If you had asked a Neanderthal he would probably describe Sapiens as Orcs too.
But I don’t think sexually, because despite varying details in the attitude for
> If you had asked a Neanderthal he would probably describe Sapiens as Orcs too.
what’s attractive, there is a broad acceptance among humans on the basics.
Sorry, but an Australian Aborigine is not anybody’s idea of attractive, while
a European supermodel is considered attractive by men all over the planet.
And while not sexual, we even categorize apes and monkeys also; chimps are
cute, gorillas are scary, orangoutangs are funny, so I would say a Neanderthal
male would in fact find a human female generally attractive, in a kinda exotic
way while the reverse wouldn’t be the case for most human men.
This implies the interbreeding happened mostly one way; Neanderthal males
with human females and that was most likely thru rape, as most human chicks
wouldn’t have willingly hooked with a short, stout and ugly Neanderthal dude.
Ed Stasiak
Oct 10, 2017, 12:45:55 AM10/10/17
to
> Diogenes
>
> For an in-depth analysis of this theory read "The Invaders" by Pat Shipman.
Interesting, found an interview with the author.
>
> For an in-depth analysis of this theory read "The Invaders" by Pat Shipman.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/03/150304-neanderthal-shipman-predmosti-wolf-dog-lionfish-jagger-pogo-ngbooktalk/
By Simon Worrall, for National Geographic
MARCH 5, 2015
Did Dog-Human Alliance Drive Out the Neanderthals?
With the help of wolf dogs, early humans out-hunted—and outlasted—Neanderthals.
In popular culture, they're often portrayed like members of a heavy-metal band: fur clad, shaggy haired, ape-like. But in most ways they were like you and me. They used fire and made tools, lived in social groups, and loved red meat.
So why did the Neanderthals disappear? The traditional wisdom has been that climate change did them in, possibly triggered by the super-eruption of the Campi Flegrei volcano, near Naples, which sent already-cold Ice Age temperatures plummeting.
In her new book, The Invaders: How Humans and Their Dogs Drove Neanderthals to Extinction, Pat Shipman, retired adjunct professor of anthropology at Pennsylvania State University, sets out a groundbreaking new argument.
Talking from her home in North Carolina, she explains how reading about invasive species while holidaying on a Caribbean island inspired her, why more accurate carbon-dating methods have revised the timeline for Neanderthal extinction, and how the discovery of "wolf dog" remains at woolly mammoth sites in Central and Eastern Europe may hold the key to understanding why humans went on to build the Sistine chapel and send a robot to Mars while Neanderthals became a footnote in popular culture.
My wife sometimes calls me a Neanderthal. I'm a redhead and can be a bit brutish. Could I have the Neanderthal genome?
[Laughs] You could have some of it. But I very seriously doubt you'll have all of it. The degree of interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans was probably very slight. I've seen two calculations of how many cases of interbreeding would give us the kinds of levels most of us outside Africa carry, which is roughly one to 4 percent of the genome. It's approximately 50 to 80 [interbreeding events]—so that's not very many.
Neanderthals have had a pretty bad press. Tell us about them and why they're called Neanderthals.
The name actually comes from the Neander Valley or tal, near Dusseldorf, in Germany. What's deliciously ironic is that neander also means "new man." So it's the Valley of the New Man in which the original fossils were found.
And of course it was an utterly new man to everyone's eyes because no previous fossils had been found that were so closely related to humans but not human. So Neanderthals captured the public imagination and worked their way into numerous bad movies, cartoons, and songs.
Most experts ascribe the disappearance of Neanderthals above all to climate change. According to you, they're all wrong.
I wouldn't say climate had absolutely nothing to do with it. The climate, particularly in the parts of the world inhabited by Neanderthals and early humans at the time of the extinction, was unstable. And that produced changes in the habitats, in forests, plants, and animals.
But what we don't get is a very convincing linkage between climates and the extinction events. This is partly due to some wonderful advances in radiocarbon dating that we can thank the Oxford [University] dating lab for. They've worked out ways to decontaminate samples and ultrafilter them, so that by the time you've processed the sample, you've removed the contamination.
One of the examples cited by Tom Higham, the deputy director of the Oxford lab, is that if you have a 50,000-year-old bone, and it's contaminated with only one percent of modern carbon, which might seem pretty good, then the bone would appear to be 37,000 years old. That's a huge misdating.
And until many sites were re-dated with this new modern technique, it appeared Neanderthals were retreating farther and farther south toward the Mediterranean as the climate got colder, harsher, and drier. That has now been called into question because the dates from the southern sites, on which this hypothesis was based, are inaccurate.
The book begins with your eureka moment far from Neanderthal territory, on the Caribbean island of Little Cayman. Put us inside that moment.
My husband and I are very fortunate to own a small house on Little Cayman, an island west of Jamaica that's only one mile by ten, surrounded by wonderful tropical reefs with a high diversity of fishes and mollusks.
Some years ago, lionfish began invading the Caribbean and turned up on Little Cayman. Lionfish are very beautiful fish, much favored by the aquarium trade. But they come from the Indo-Pacific and have no business being in the Caribbean. They also reproduce at a phenomenal rate and eat everything they come across. So for an island where having beautiful reefs and pristine ecosystems was important, this was a disaster.
In the struggles to keep their numbers down, there has been a lot of work on invasion biology: the study of invasive species. Because I was trying to understand the lionfish phenomenon, I began reading about invasion biology and suddenly realized—Aha! This is what went on with modern humans and Neanderthals.
Neanderthals had been in Europe and into Asia for a couple of hundred thousand years before humans moved out of Africa into their home territory. The question has always been: Here are these two species, us and Neanderthals, which are closely related. We both made tools, had fire, were social and good hunters.
So how come one survived and the other didn't? Especially as the one that was the outsider survived, when you'd think the one that had been there for hundreds of thousands of years would know the terrain and the animals and how to survive.
The key to your theory about the extinction of the Neanderthals is the domestication of wolf dogs by humans. Can you unpack that idea for us a little bit?
First of all I want to say that when I use the term wolf dog, I don't mean a hybrid between a wolf and a modern dog. It's not clear if it's appropriate to call these things wolves or dogs. They're not modern dogs, and they're not modern wolves. They're not ancient wolves, either. They're a distinctive group. Forty individual specimens, at a number of different sites, have been identified as what I'm calling wolf dogs.
They're large, have big teeth and all those predatory, dog/wolf characteristics. You have to assume from the anatomy that they could track very well from the scent of an animal. They were built to be fast running, as wolves and most dogs are. Humans don't run terribly fast. We have a crappy sense of smell. We do cooperate with each other, which is helpful, and we had long-distance weapons, like spears and bows and arrows.
Neanderthals seem to have specialized in stabbing an animal at close quarters with handheld weapons and wrestling it down. We had weapons we could launch from a distance, which is a very big advantage. There's a lot less risk of personal injury.
Add into that mix the doggy traits of being able to run for hours much faster than we can, track an animal by its scent, then with a group of other wolf dogs surround the animal and hold it in place while you tire it out. The advantage for wolf dogs is that humans can come in and kill from a distance. The wolf dogs don't have to go and kill this thing with their teeth, thereby lowering the risk of injury and death from very large animals like mammoths. For humans, it meant you could find the animals a lot quicker and kill them more efficiently. More food, less risk, faster.
A lot of the new evidence from your claims came from an archaeological site in Předmostí, in the Czech Republic. Describe this place and how these finds revolutionized our understanding of Neanderthals.
Předmostí is one of a series of archaeological sites in Central and Eastern Europe. They're really weird sites because they're full of dead mammals. Before modern humans came into Eurasia, there was little evidence that Neanderthals were killing mammoths on a regular basis. They're huge! Attacking them with handheld weapons was probably too intimidating, unless you came across a baby mammoth.
But once modern humans arrive on the scene, you start finding these sites with dozens and sometimes hundreds of dead mammoths. At some, the bones are so concentrated that if the mammoths were alive they couldn't stand in the territory where their bones are.
These mammoth megasites, as they became known, contain an outrageous amount of mammoths. So what's changed that is going to enable modern humans to kill all these animals? Neanderthals couldn't, and they weren't inept. Distance weapons of the kind that humans had might have been helpful, but you had to track the darn thing as it died.
And that's where wolf dogs come in, because wolf dogs are found with lots of mammoth bones. Some of these sites even have beautiful tent-shaped huts made out of mammoth bone. This suggests people were there for a long time. They were living there and building these settlements where the animals died.
You don't carry around a dead mammoth. It's very difficult, and chopping it up and dragging it somewhere is a long and dangerous process because scavengers will start coming in, and there were very formidable carnivores around. There were wolves and cave lions, which were bigger than lions today. There were cave hyenas, a saber-toothed cat, and cave bears.
Hanging around a dead carcass while you cut it up is a really dangerous place to be. There would be a lot of confrontation going on over the carcasses, and humans would certainly have lost a fair number of those confrontations—unless they had a new way to guard the carcass. Then they could risk living there. And that is the wolf dogs.
Tell us now about the Jagger principle.
[Laughs] The Jagger principle is, "You can't always get what you want, but sometimes you find you get what you need." Life may not be perfect, life may not be simple, but with a little luck and ingenuity you may get what you need. I regard that as a very important ecological principle.
Modern humans clearly changed something about the way they were hunting, and it was something crucial. But Neanderthals didn't change. They continued to do things in the same old Neanderthal way as life got hard and times cold. They continued to hunt the same animals with the same tools in the same way.
And that lack of adaptability may have been a telling failure as these new invaders moved in. If you then add in wolf dogs, Neanderthals were at a terrific disadvantage.
Last question, Pat. You cite Walt Kelly, the creator of the comic strip "Pogo"—"We've met the enemy. And he is us!" How are human beings their own worst enemy?
Because we're so invasive. Because we've continued to invade new continents and new habitats, accompanied by our dogs, altering, tipping, and changing the ecosystems in virtually any place in the world you can think of, with the possible exception of submarine habitats and Antarctica.
We're everywhere. And every place we go, we're an invasive predator. And we're really good at it! So, we're wiping out many valuable species and decreasing the biodiversity of the world by carrying "hitchhikers" like lionfish and killer bees and kudzu, which do their own damage to ecosystems.
You could say that the best ecological move for all the organisms alive today might be: killing off all humans. War never goes away, but none of us wants to vote for killing off all humans. There needs to be some kind of compromise where we can keep ecosystems functioning and intact and save the many beautiful, useful, and amazing creatures that live in the world with us. But it's a hard thing to do. And as our populations increase, it's going to get even harder.
Eric Stevens
Oct 10, 2017, 4:01:26 AM10/10/17
to
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 08:28:25 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
You omit, delete and ignore the important 90% of my argument contained
in the previous article. Then you resort to abuse.
Fancy that you require an independent source of authority before you
will consider a new idea (see your last paragraph).
Which way do the hairs run on your arms?
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
in the previous article. Then you resort to abuse.
Fancy that you require an independent source of authority before you
will consider a new idea (see your last paragraph).
Which way do the hairs run on your arms?
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Oct 10, 2017, 4:02:28 AM10/10/17
to
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 09:36:19 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net>
wrote:
So too does this news group :-)
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Tiglath
Oct 10, 2017, 10:23:48 AM10/10/17
to
you pass shit for info I'll call you out. Don't like it? Bug off.
I told you that while Mr. Hines is here you are second fiddle, a fiddle
that sounds more like a banjo.
Tiglath
Oct 10, 2017, 10:27:17 AM10/10/17
to
A whole new ball game. You can't learn about it in school, and you can't have a late start.
You write like a fugly Neanderthal.
Pete Barrett
Oct 10, 2017, 12:58:22 PM10/10/17
to
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 21:05:22 -0700, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> Pete Barrett
>> > Ed Stasiak
>> >
>> > That Neanderthals were fine with eating humans, doesn’t mean that
>> > they weren’t up for raping them also.
>>
>> But did they also rape deer and aurochs and rabbits and so forth?
>
> Come on now, the difference between Neanderthals and humans isn’t the
> same as a human and a dog.
>
> If you had to win a bet, you could get it on with a Neanderthal chick
> and this is even more so the case for a Neanderthal with a human gal.
I don't see why it would be more so one way than the other, but it is in
>> Pete Barrett
>> > Ed Stasiak
>> >
>> > That Neanderthals were fine with eating humans, doesn’t mean that
>> > they weren’t up for raping them also.
>>
>> But did they also rape deer and aurochs and rabbits and so forth?
>
> Come on now, the difference between Neanderthals and humans isn’t the
> same as a human and a dog.
>
> If you had to win a bet, you could get it on with a Neanderthal chick
> and this is even more so the case for a Neanderthal with a human gal.
any case irrelevant. Did they treat humans the same way as they treated
other prey animals or didn't they? You suggested (or the author you
referred to suggested) both that they did, _and_ that they raped humans.
>
>> > European Neandertals were cannibals
>>
>> So are some modern humans, some of the time. I ask again - have
>> butchered _modern_ human bones been found in Neanderthal middens?
>
> I only did a quick look for a reference and just saw cannibalism among
> Neanderthals themselves mentioned but if they’re willing to each other,
> why stop at eating a human?
>
> (after you rape her… and maybe him too)
And you jumped from that to the assumption that they also ate modern
>> > European Neandertals were cannibals
>>
>> So are some modern humans, some of the time. I ask again - have
>> butchered _modern_ human bones been found in Neanderthal middens?
>
> I only did a quick look for a reference and just saw cannibalism among
> Neanderthals themselves mentioned but if they’re willing to each other,
> why stop at eating a human?
>
> (after you rape her… and maybe him too)
humans? I'm sorry - your whole argument relies on _non sequiturs_ such as
this, or on extrapolating from a pair of statements, either of which
might be true, but which are unlikely or impossible to be both true.
--
Pete BARRETT
Ed Stasiak
Oct 10, 2017, 3:12:53 PM10/10/17
to
> Pete Barrett
> > Ed Stasiak
and gorillas scary so it stands to reason that a Neanderthal would see
a human female as cute and rapable, while still being fine with eating
her afterwards.
> > I only did a quick look for a reference and just saw cannibalism among
> > Neanderthals themselves mentioned but if they’re willing to eat each
with cannibalizing each other, it’s hardly a jump to suggest they would eat
humans also.
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > If you had to win a bet, you could get it on with a Neanderthal chick
> > and this is even more so the case for a Neanderthal with a human gal.
>
> I don't see why it would be more so one way than the other, but it is in
> any case irrelevant. Did they treat humans the same way as they treated
> other prey animals or didn't they? You suggested (or the author you
> referred to suggested) both that they did, _and_ that they raped humans.
As I suggested up-thread, humans can perceive chimpanzees as cute
> > If you had to win a bet, you could get it on with a Neanderthal chick
> > and this is even more so the case for a Neanderthal with a human gal.
>
> I don't see why it would be more so one way than the other, but it is in
> any case irrelevant. Did they treat humans the same way as they treated
> other prey animals or didn't they? You suggested (or the author you
> referred to suggested) both that they did, _and_ that they raped humans.
and gorillas scary so it stands to reason that a Neanderthal would see
a human female as cute and rapable, while still being fine with eating
her afterwards.
> > I only did a quick look for a reference and just saw cannibalism among
> > other, why stop at eating a human?
>
>
> And you jumped from that to the assumption that they also ate modern
> humans? I'm sorry - your whole argument relies on _non sequiturs_ such
> as this, or on extrapolating from a pair of statements, either of which might
> be true, but which are unlikely or impossible to be both true.
Seeing as Neanderthals were almost exclusively carnivores and were fine
> humans? I'm sorry - your whole argument relies on _non sequiturs_ such
> as this, or on extrapolating from a pair of statements, either of which might
> be true, but which are unlikely or impossible to be both true.
with cannibalizing each other, it’s hardly a jump to suggest they would eat
humans also.
Eric Stevens
Oct 10, 2017, 4:55:21 PM10/10/17
to
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 07:23:47 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
No calling out by you in this case. You deleted what I had written and
hoped you could get away with evading it. It was I who called *you*
out.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
hoped you could get away with evading it. It was I who called *you*
out.
>
>I told you that while Mr. Hines is here you are second fiddle, a fiddle
>that sounds more like a banjo.
>
--
>I told you that while Mr. Hines is here you are second fiddle, a fiddle
>that sounds more like a banjo.
>
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Oct 10, 2017, 4:57:25 PM10/10/17
to
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 07:27:16 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
You are capable of intelligent discussion. What is that motivates you
to give priority to being offensive?
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
to give priority to being offensive?
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Paul J Gans
Oct 10, 2017, 5:32:39 PM10/10/17
to
--
--- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
Oct 10, 2017, 6:10:21 PM10/10/17
to
Multi-causal.
Intersecting & Building.
NEVER look for, or be satisfied with, just a SINGLE CAUSE, in something as
complex as this.
DSH
"Having a thousand flowers blooming at the beginning of a new era is
generally a good thing. But when you've got your back against the wall, too
many new blooms can cause message and operational cacophony." -- Rob
Stein -- Longtime Democratic Party Strategist -- October 2017
"Paul J Gans" wrote in message news:orje9l$ia3$1...@reader2.panix.com...
Intersecting & Building.
NEVER look for, or be satisfied with, just a SINGLE CAUSE, in something as
complex as this.
DSH
"Having a thousand flowers blooming at the beginning of a new era is
generally a good thing. But when you've got your back against the wall, too
many new blooms can cause message and operational cacophony." -- Rob
Stein -- Longtime Democratic Party Strategist -- October 2017
"Paul J Gans" wrote in message news:orje9l$ia3$1...@reader2.panix.com...
D. Spencer Hines
Oct 10, 2017, 6:14:36 PM10/10/17
to
The Motivations of Steven Paddock, the Las Vegas shooter, will prove to be:
MULTI-CAUSAL.
DSH
"Having a thousand flowers blooming at the beginning of a new era is
generally a good thing. But when you've got your back against the wall, too
many new blooms can cause message and operational cacophony." -- Rob
Stein -- Longtime Democratic Party Strategist -- October 2017
"D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message news:orjggc$utc$1...@dont-email.me...
MULTI-CAUSAL.
DSH
"Having a thousand flowers blooming at the beginning of a new era is
generally a good thing. But when you've got your back against the wall, too
many new blooms can cause message and operational cacophony." -- Rob
Stein -- Longtime Democratic Party Strategist -- October 2017
The Horny Goat
Oct 10, 2017, 6:26:06 PM10/10/17
to
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:12:52 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak
<esta...@att.net> wrote:
>As I suggested up-thread, humans can perceive chimpanzees as cute
>and gorillas scary so it stands to reason that a Neanderthal would see
>a human female as cute and rapable, while still being fine with eating
>her afterwards.
The trouble with that theory is that most humans seldom see chimps
<esta...@att.net> wrote:
>As I suggested up-thread, humans can perceive chimpanzees as cute
>and gorillas scary so it stands to reason that a Neanderthal would see
>a human female as cute and rapable, while still being fine with eating
>her afterwards.
over the age of two years old. Baby chimps ARE cute just like human
toddlers.
They become decidedly less cute in their adolescent and adult years
where they become quite skilled hunters with a nasty bite.
As for eating, if the 'tribe' had eaten a human woman how on earth
could we tell from archaelogical evidence than she had been raped (or
even consented!) first?
The Horny Goat
Oct 10, 2017, 6:33:50 PM10/10/17
to
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 21:24:07 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net>
wrote:
>But I don’t think sexually, because despite varying details in the attitude for
>what’s attractive, there is a broad acceptance among humans on the basics.
>Sorry, but an Australian Aborigine is not anybody’s idea of attractive, while
>a European supermodel is considered attractive by men all over the planet.
I dunno Ed - if you went to Google Images and entered 'australian
aboriginal models' I strongly suspect you could find several you would
think fairly attractive. (And one or two in my opinion go WAY beyond
"fairly attractive")
Now I suppose you might think differently if your idea of beauty
involves size 0 anorexics but having done that Google images search
mentioned above I can see quite a few the missus would not enjoy
seeing me watch too closely.
wrote:
>But I don’t think sexually, because despite varying details in the attitude for
>what’s attractive, there is a broad acceptance among humans on the basics.
>Sorry, but an Australian Aborigine is not anybody’s idea of attractive, while
>a European supermodel is considered attractive by men all over the planet.
aboriginal models' I strongly suspect you could find several you would
think fairly attractive. (And one or two in my opinion go WAY beyond
"fairly attractive")
Now I suppose you might think differently if your idea of beauty
involves size 0 anorexics but having done that Google images search
mentioned above I can see quite a few the missus would not enjoy
seeing me watch too closely.
Eric Stevens
Oct 10, 2017, 7:15:19 PM10/10/17
to
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 15:26:03 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:12:52 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak
><esta...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>As I suggested up-thread, humans can perceive chimpanzees as cute
>>and gorillas scary so it stands to reason that a Neanderthal would see
>>a human female as cute and rapable, while still being fine with eating
>>her afterwards.
>
>The trouble with that theory is that most humans seldom see chimps
>over the age of two years old. Baby chimps ARE cute just like human
>toddlers.
>
>They become decidedly less cute in their adolescent and adult years
>where they become quite skilled hunters with a nasty bite.
And they are also cannibals.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:12:52 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak
><esta...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>As I suggested up-thread, humans can perceive chimpanzees as cute
>>and gorillas scary so it stands to reason that a Neanderthal would see
>>a human female as cute and rapable, while still being fine with eating
>>her afterwards.
>
>The trouble with that theory is that most humans seldom see chimps
>over the age of two years old. Baby chimps ARE cute just like human
>toddlers.
>
>They become decidedly less cute in their adolescent and adult years
>where they become quite skilled hunters with a nasty bite.
>
>As for eating, if the 'tribe' had eaten a human woman how on earth
>could we tell from archaelogical evidence than she had been raped (or
>even consented!) first?
--
>As for eating, if the 'tribe' had eaten a human woman how on earth
>could we tell from archaelogical evidence than she had been raped (or
>even consented!) first?
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Oct 10, 2017, 7:23:43 PM10/10/17
to
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 15:33:48 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
wrote:
>On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 21:24:07 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net>
>wrote:
>
>>But I don’t think sexually, because despite varying details in the attitude for
>>what’s attractive, there is a broad acceptance among humans on the basics.
>>Sorry, but an Australian Aborigine is not anybody’s idea of attractive, while
>>a European supermodel is considered attractive by men all over the planet.
>
>I dunno Ed - if you went to Google Images and entered 'australian
>aboriginal models' I strongly suspect you could find several you would
>think fairly attractive. (And one or two in my opinion go WAY beyond
>"fairly attractive")
>
You will find that most of them are from pure-blooded aboriginal
models. Descent from aboriginals is the best that they can claim.
Try doing your Google search on "australian aboriginal women -models"
>Now I suppose you might think differently if your idea of beauty
>involves size 0 anorexics but having done that Google images search
>mentioned above I can see quite a few the missus would not enjoy
>seeing me watch too closely.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 21:24:07 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net>
>wrote:
>
>>But I don’t think sexually, because despite varying details in the attitude for
>>what’s attractive, there is a broad acceptance among humans on the basics.
>>Sorry, but an Australian Aborigine is not anybody’s idea of attractive, while
>>a European supermodel is considered attractive by men all over the planet.
>
>I dunno Ed - if you went to Google Images and entered 'australian
>aboriginal models' I strongly suspect you could find several you would
>think fairly attractive. (And one or two in my opinion go WAY beyond
>"fairly attractive")
>
models. Descent from aboriginals is the best that they can claim.
Try doing your Google search on "australian aboriginal women -models"
>Now I suppose you might think differently if your idea of beauty
>involves size 0 anorexics but having done that Google images search
>mentioned above I can see quite a few the missus would not enjoy
>seeing me watch too closely.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
The Horny Goat
Oct 10, 2017, 9:48:19 PM10/10/17
to
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 19:50:13 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net>
wrote:
>Neanderthals may have been scary muscle bound cannibal rapists, hunting white wimmin at night.
>
>15 min video
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZbmywzGAVs&t=
>
>1 hour radio interview
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEqv2_jWYfM
>
>Not wholly on-topic for this group but I thought it very interesting nonetheless and I think the guy
>makes a lot of sense; a species that exists almost solely by hunting in a shitty climate, probably
>isn’t going to be cuddly and nice.
>
>https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DG5yVIpV0AEghHT.jpg
Why the heck would you assume the first people out of Africa would be
white?
I mean the most you can say is mebbe maybe not.
wrote:
>Neanderthals may have been scary muscle bound cannibal rapists, hunting white wimmin at night.
>
>15 min video
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZbmywzGAVs&t=
>
>1 hour radio interview
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEqv2_jWYfM
>
>Not wholly on-topic for this group but I thought it very interesting nonetheless and I think the guy
>makes a lot of sense; a species that exists almost solely by hunting in a shitty climate, probably
>isn’t going to be cuddly and nice.
>
>https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DG5yVIpV0AEghHT.jpg
Why the heck would you assume the first people out of Africa would be
white?
I mean the most you can say is mebbe maybe not.
Ed Stasiak
Oct 11, 2017, 12:14:31 AM10/11/17
to
> The Horny Goat
> > Ed Stasiak
as scary and this is an instinctual reaction, the same way a clown fish
is seen as “cute” and a shark is not.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Schimpanse_Zoo_Leipzig.jpg/1200px-Schimpanse_Zoo_Leipzig.jpg
http://animals.sandiegozoo.org/sites/default/files/2016-09/Gorilla_ZN.jpg
> As for eating, if the 'tribe' had eaten a human woman how on earth
> could we tell from archaelogical evidence than she had been raped
We know from genetic research that humans and Neanderthals did
interbreed, all modern humans outside of Africans, have Neanderthal
DNA in their family tree.
> (or even consented!) first?
Thats the point the author is making; human women weren’t consenting,
they were being raped by brutish and orcish Neanderthals and the lucky
ones avoided becoming BBQ .
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > As I suggested up-thread, humans can perceive chimpanzees as cute
> > and gorillas scary so it stands to reason that a Neanderthal would see
> > a human female as cute and rapable, while still being fine with eating
> > her afterwards.
>
> The trouble with that theory is that most humans seldom see chimps
> over the age of two years old. Baby chimps ARE cute just like human
> toddlers.
Even an adult chimp is perceived as “humanish” while a gorilla is seen
> > As I suggested up-thread, humans can perceive chimpanzees as cute
> > and gorillas scary so it stands to reason that a Neanderthal would see
> > a human female as cute and rapable, while still being fine with eating
> > her afterwards.
>
> The trouble with that theory is that most humans seldom see chimps
> over the age of two years old. Baby chimps ARE cute just like human
> toddlers.
as scary and this is an instinctual reaction, the same way a clown fish
is seen as “cute” and a shark is not.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Schimpanse_Zoo_Leipzig.jpg/1200px-Schimpanse_Zoo_Leipzig.jpg
http://animals.sandiegozoo.org/sites/default/files/2016-09/Gorilla_ZN.jpg
> As for eating, if the 'tribe' had eaten a human woman how on earth
> could we tell from archaelogical evidence than she had been raped
interbreed, all modern humans outside of Africans, have Neanderthal
DNA in their family tree.
> (or even consented!) first?
Thats the point the author is making; human women weren’t consenting,
they were being raped by brutish and orcish Neanderthals and the lucky
ones avoided becoming BBQ .
Ed Stasiak
Oct 11, 2017, 12:16:23 AM10/11/17
to
> The Horny Goat
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > But I don’t think sexually, because despite varying details in the attitude for
> > what’s attractive, there is a broad acceptance among humans on the basics.
> > Sorry, but an Australian Aborigine is not anybody’s idea of attractive, while
> > a European supermodel is considered attractive by men all over the planet.
>
> I dunno Ed - if you went to Google Images and entered 'australian
> aboriginal models' I strongly suspect you could find several you would
> think fairly attractive. (And one or two in my opinion go WAY beyond
> ”fairly attractive")
Look, I’m not being racist but this is objectively not attractive in any way.
> > what’s attractive, there is a broad acceptance among humans on the basics.
> > Sorry, but an Australian Aborigine is not anybody’s idea of attractive, while
> > a European supermodel is considered attractive by men all over the planet.
>
> I dunno Ed - if you went to Google Images and entered 'australian
> aboriginal models' I strongly suspect you could find several you would
> think fairly attractive. (And one or two in my opinion go WAY beyond
> ”fairly attractive")
https://www.debrapascalibonaro.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Lena-and-Rosie-Pula.jpg
The Australian “Aboriginal” models you’re talking about are mostly and
clearly of European decent.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/15/ee/33/15ee331a67677ba16656fc23cee33e4b.jpg
Ed Stasiak
Oct 11, 2017, 12:20:34 AM10/11/17
to
> The Horny Goat
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > Not wholly on-topic for this group but I thought it very interesting nonetheless
> > and I think the guy makes a lot of sense; a species that exists almost solely by
> > hunting in a shitty climate, probably isn’t going to be cuddly and nice.
>
> > and I think the guy makes a lot of sense; a species that exists almost solely by
> > hunting in a shitty climate, probably isn’t going to be cuddly and nice.
>
> Why the heck would you assume the first people out of Africa would be white?
Huh, where did I say or imply that?
The White traits such as blond/red hair and blue/green eyes are mostly likely
derived from Neanderthals.
Pete Barrett
Oct 11, 2017, 12:44:40 PM10/11/17
to
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:12:52 -0700, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> Pete Barrett
>> > Ed Stasiak
>> >
>> > If you had to win a bet, you could get it on with a Neanderthal chick
>> > and this is even more so the case for a Neanderthal with a human gal.
>>
>> I don't see why it would be more so one way than the other, but it is
>> in any case irrelevant. Did they treat humans the same way as they
>> treated other prey animals or didn't they? You suggested (or the author
>> you referred to suggested) both that they did, _and_ that they raped
>> humans.
>
> As I suggested up-thread, humans can perceive chimpanzees as cute and
> gorillas scary so it stands to reason that a Neanderthal would see a
> human female as cute and rapable, while still being fine with eating her
> afterwards.
>
Do you perceive kittens as cute? Do you rape them and then eat them
>> Pete Barrett
>> > Ed Stasiak
>> >
>> > If you had to win a bet, you could get it on with a Neanderthal chick
>> > and this is even more so the case for a Neanderthal with a human gal.
>>
>> I don't see why it would be more so one way than the other, but it is
>> in any case irrelevant. Did they treat humans the same way as they
>> treated other prey animals or didn't they? You suggested (or the author
>> you referred to suggested) both that they did, _and_ that they raped
>> humans.
>
> As I suggested up-thread, humans can perceive chimpanzees as cute and
> gorillas scary so it stands to reason that a Neanderthal would see a
> human female as cute and rapable, while still being fine with eating her
> afterwards.
>
afterwards? No? I thought not.
Does any other animal generally behave this way? (Yes, there may be a few
odd (in every sense) humans who shag sheep and then eat them, but humans
do not *generally* behave like that.) If not, what grounds do you have
for suggesting that Neanderthals did?
>> > I only did a quick look for a reference and just saw cannibalism
>> > among Neanderthals themselves mentioned but if they’re willing to eat
>> > each other, why stop at eating a human?
>>
>> And you jumped from that to the assumption that they also ate modern
>> humans? I'm sorry - your whole argument relies on _non sequiturs_ such
>> as this, or on extrapolating from a pair of statements, either of which
>> might be true, but which are unlikely or impossible to be both true.
>
> Seeing as Neanderthals were almost exclusively carnivores and were fine
> with cannibalizing each other, it’s hardly a jump to suggest they would
> eat humans also.
Pete BARRETT
Erilar
Oct 11, 2017, 3:55:33 PM10/11/17
to
--
biblioholic medievalist via iPad
Peter Jason
Oct 11, 2017, 4:55:59 PM10/11/17
to
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 14:55:31 -0500, Erilar
<dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>Diogenes <cdh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 19:23:54 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Diogenes
>>>>
>>>> For an in-depth analysis of this theory read "The Invaders"
>>>> by Pat Shipman.
>>>
>>> And ?Eaters of the Dead? by Michael Crichton
<dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>Diogenes <cdh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 19:23:54 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Diogenes
>>>>
>>>> For an in-depth analysis of this theory read "The Invaders"
>>>> by Pat Shipman.
>>>
>>>
>>> A very cool historical fiction novel that?s also on-topic for this newsgroup,
>>> being set 10th century Europe.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eaters_of_the_Dead
>>
>> Excellent book with many similarities to the Beowulf legend. Not until
>> you get tothe end of the book do you realize just who (or what) the
>> Grendel and the other monsters are.
>>
>> There was a movie "The 13th Warrior" based on the book. I've put the
>> DVD on hold at my local library.
>>
>> ----
>> Diogenes
>>
>> The wars are long, the peace is frail
>> The madmen come again . . . .
>>
>
>I read Eaters of the Dead. It lived down to average Crichton and then some.
It is too soon for despair. Emigration to Mars is on the horizon.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eaters_of_the_Dead
>>
>> Excellent book with many similarities to the Beowulf legend. Not until
>> you get tothe end of the book do you realize just who (or what) the
>> Grendel and the other monsters are.
>>
>> There was a movie "The 13th Warrior" based on the book. I've put the
>> DVD on hold at my local library.
>>
>> ----
>> Diogenes
>>
>> The wars are long, the peace is frail
>> The madmen come again . . . .
>>
>
>I read Eaters of the Dead. It lived down to average Crichton and then some.
Tiglath
Oct 11, 2017, 5:02:20 PM10/11/17
to
On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 4:57:25 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
e start.
> >
> >You write like a fugly Neanderthal.
>
> You are capable of intelligent discussion. What is that motivates you
> to give priority to being offensive?
It only happens when I reply to you.
e start.
> >
> >You write like a fugly Neanderthal.
>
> You are capable of intelligent discussion. What is that motivates you
> to give priority to being offensive?
Feel special yet?
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric Stevens
Tiglath
Oct 11, 2017, 5:06:19 PM10/11/17
to
On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 4:55:21 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >Because due to your record I will NEVER take you seriously, and every time
> >you pass shit for info I'll call you out. Don't like it? Bug off.
>
> No calling out by you in this case. You deleted what I had written and
> hoped you could get away with evading it. It was I who called *you*
> out.
> >
Not interested.
> >Because due to your record I will NEVER take you seriously, and every time
> >you pass shit for info I'll call you out. Don't like it? Bug off.
>
> No calling out by you in this case. You deleted what I had written and
> hoped you could get away with evading it. It was I who called *you*
> out.
> >
No me interesa.
Non interessato
Pas intéressé
And in case you are foggy on this, here it is in Bulgarian:
Hе се интересува
Eric Stevens
Oct 12, 2017, 6:02:59 PM10/12/17
to
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 14:06:18 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
>H? ?? ??????????
Weasel.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
Weasel.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Oct 12, 2017, 6:03:53 PM10/12/17
to
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 14:02:19 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
>On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 4:57:25 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>e start.
>> >
>> >You write like a fugly Neanderthal.
>>
>> You are capable of intelligent discussion. What is that motivates you
>> to give priority to being offensive?
>
>It only happens when I reply to you.
Not so.
>
>Feel special yet?
>
Oh, but I am. We all are.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 4:57:25 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>e start.
>> >
>> >You write like a fugly Neanderthal.
>>
>> You are capable of intelligent discussion. What is that motivates you
>> to give priority to being offensive?
>
>It only happens when I reply to you.
>
>Feel special yet?
>
Oh, but I am. We all are.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Tiglath
Oct 13, 2017, 1:38:32 PM10/13/17
to
>
> Eric Stevens
> Weasel.
> --
Fugly Stevens wants to be taken seriously like I take my 'SHM friends.'
SHM friends happen when people find discourse mutually beneficial.
Even rhetorical adversaries can be SHM friends. I consider Mr. Hines a friend
from whom I learn many interesting facts, words, and even funny ones, but just
happen to have fundamental politico-religious differences, though sometimes we
agree.
But after prolonged back and forth I STILL have not learned anything of value
from that Stevens individual -- neither informative nor civil.
Should I re-post your Hit Parade of Blunders?
Want me to talk to you seriously? Read on.
Your type is neither new nor appealing: a man who is wrong frequently and
spends most of his energy on evading and weaseling out of saying, "I stand
corrected," for his copious mistakes and bullshit ideas.
Even more seriously... I like it when you are gone.
Act accordingly.
Eric Stevens
Oct 13, 2017, 6:31:41 PM10/13/17
to
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 10:38:31 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
It is not really necessary to use so many words to say nothing much.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Tiglath
Oct 13, 2017, 6:42:53 PM10/13/17
to
On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 6:31:41 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >
> >Even more seriously... I like it when you are gone.
> >
> >Act accordingly.
>
> It is not really necessary to use so many words to say nothing much.
No interested.
> >
> >Even more seriously... I like it when you are gone.
> >
> >Act accordingly.
>
> It is not really necessary to use so many words to say nothing much.
Eric Stevens
Oct 13, 2017, 8:39:04 PM10/13/17
to
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 15:42:51 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
After all that verbiage? No one would believe it.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Tiglath
Oct 13, 2017, 10:32:17 PM10/13/17
to
On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 8:39:04 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> After all that verbiage? No one would believe it.
Can't you read Fugly?
> After all that verbiage? No one would believe it.
Half that post was not addressed to you but to readers ABOUT you.
What do you get from being kicked around? Are you a masochist?
I'd never be in a place like you are here, where anyone not ignoring you thinks
you are a kook, except kooks.
Get a life.
Ed Stasiak
Oct 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM10/13/17
to
> Tiglath
> > Eric Stevens
> >
> > Regards,
>
> Get a life.
Thanks for shitting up my thread, dicks...
> > Eric Stevens
> >
> > Regards,
>
> Get a life.
Thanks for shitting up my thread, dicks...
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Eric Stevens
Oct 14, 2017, 4:06:27 AM10/14/17
to
For what it is worth, I am prepared to discuss the topic with you
without the intervention of the local orc.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Oct 14, 2017, 4:08:22 AM10/14/17
to
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 20:16:40 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
>See Stevens, he started it. I never reply to his posts, unless he starts
>polluting mine.
>
And I was writing about neanderthals. You were the orc who corrupted
the thread.
>Thread's dry and ran its course. Stevens interjected himself in both your
>thread and my post. See above. Hey, if it's good stuff who cares who writes it
>but the TWO first lines he writes are bullshit, the same old bullshit we've
>seen dozen of times and the same bullshit arguments to support it.
>
>Needs exposing.
>
>If it bothers sell a gun and buy a proper newsreader to customize your reading
>experience. Either way... Thanks for the original post.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>polluting mine.
>
And I was writing about neanderthals. You were the orc who corrupted
the thread.
>Thread's dry and ran its course. Stevens interjected himself in both your
>thread and my post. See above. Hey, if it's good stuff who cares who writes it
>but the TWO first lines he writes are bullshit, the same old bullshit we've
>seen dozen of times and the same bullshit arguments to support it.
>
>Needs exposing.
>
>If it bothers sell a gun and buy a proper newsreader to customize your reading
>experience. Either way... Thanks for the original post.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Tiglath
Oct 14, 2017, 11:06:22 AM10/14/17
to
On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 4:08:22 AM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 20:16:40 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 10:49:57 PM UTC-4, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> >> > Tiglath
> >> > > Eric Stevens
> >> > >
> >> > > Regards,
> >> >
> >> > Get a life.
> >>
> >> Thanks for shitting up my thread, dicks...
> >
> >See Stevens, he started it. I never reply to his posts, unless he starts
> >polluting mine.
> >
> And I was writing about neanderthals. You were the orc who corrupted
> the thread.
Stevens is lying just as I remarked. He started it and wants to keep it going
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 20:16:40 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 10:49:57 PM UTC-4, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> >> > Tiglath
> >> > > Eric Stevens
> >> > >
> >> > > Regards,
> >> >
> >> > Get a life.
> >>
> >> Thanks for shitting up my thread, dicks...
> >
> >See Stevens, he started it. I never reply to his posts, unless he starts
> >polluting mine.
> >
> And I was writing about neanderthals. You were the orc who corrupted
> the thread.
as long as possible. The cretin even apologizes, see if anyone bites.
Just look at the thread. His first reply was not to the group but to me,
an act of provocation from someone who should know better.
Why reply to posts of someone he killfiled? Just to stir things, that's what
he does and when the provokes lots of post he is happiest, never mind every
reply insults him. He is used to that, such is HIS life.
Hey Stevens, asshole, why don't you just fuck off back to the crypt.
An act of provocation, especially since she knows fuck-all about the subject.
Why would anyone want to know more about Fuglies from this moron.
His first two lines should convince anyone of what I've been
Tiglath
Oct 14, 2017, 12:51:50 PM10/14/17
to
Don't you have geocentrists conventions to go to?
You are so Trump-like, that's why I like you so much.
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Oct 14, 2017, 6:00:57 PM10/14/17
to
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 08:06:21 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
<09dltcldfprk3bn9s...@4ax.com> I wrote:
"The consensus seems to be that while neanderthals had speech of a
kind their speech organs did not enable them to create sounds as
richly varied as can homo sapiens."
You replied in Message-ID:
<9d1f3b91-0126-4b9b...@googlegroups.com>:
"Ah... Look here. Are we going to find any Gauls in Neanderthal
land?
Stevens seems to know what experts express much doubt about. No
surprise.
I was hoping this of Ed's threads would not be disrupted by your
theories and nutty opinions. Not again... "
... and you continued from there.
>
>Just look at the thread. His first reply was not to the group but to me,
>an act of provocation from someone who should know better.
I was respond to your article. Who else should I reply to?
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 4:08:22 AM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 20:16:40 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 10:49:57 PM UTC-4, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> >> > Tiglath
>> >> > > Eric Stevens
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Regards,
>> >> >
>> >> > Get a life.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for shitting up my thread, dicks...
>> >
>> >See Stevens, he started it. I never reply to his posts, unless he starts
>> >polluting mine.
>> >
>> And I was writing about neanderthals. You were the orc who corrupted
>> the thread.
>
>Stevens is lying just as I remarked. He started it and wants to keep it going
>as long as possible. The cretin even apologizes, see if anyone bites.
In response to you, in Message-ID:
>On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 4:08:22 AM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 20:16:40 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 10:49:57 PM UTC-4, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> >> > Tiglath
>> >> > > Eric Stevens
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Regards,
>> >> >
>> >> > Get a life.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for shitting up my thread, dicks...
>> >
>> >See Stevens, he started it. I never reply to his posts, unless he starts
>> >polluting mine.
>> >
>> And I was writing about neanderthals. You were the orc who corrupted
>> the thread.
>
>Stevens is lying just as I remarked. He started it and wants to keep it going
>as long as possible. The cretin even apologizes, see if anyone bites.
<09dltcldfprk3bn9s...@4ax.com> I wrote:
"The consensus seems to be that while neanderthals had speech of a
kind their speech organs did not enable them to create sounds as
richly varied as can homo sapiens."
You replied in Message-ID:
<9d1f3b91-0126-4b9b...@googlegroups.com>:
"Ah... Look here. Are we going to find any Gauls in Neanderthal
land?
Stevens seems to know what experts express much doubt about. No
surprise.
I was hoping this of Ed's threads would not be disrupted by your
theories and nutty opinions. Not again... "
... and you continued from there.
>
>Just look at the thread. His first reply was not to the group but to me,
>an act of provocation from someone who should know better.
>
>Why reply to posts of someone he killfiled? Just to stir things, that's what
>he does and when the provokes lots of post he is happiest, never mind every
>reply insults him. He is used to that, such is HIS life.
>
>Hey Stevens, asshole, why don't you just fuck off back to the crypt.
--- More of the same snipped ---
>Why reply to posts of someone he killfiled? Just to stir things, that's what
>he does and when the provokes lots of post he is happiest, never mind every
>reply insults him. He is used to that, such is HIS life.
>
>Hey Stevens, asshole, why don't you just fuck off back to the crypt.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Tiglath
Oct 14, 2017, 6:23:23 PM10/14/17
to
Not interested.
How do you want me to tell you?
Were you truthful about your intentions to discuss anthropology only, you could
have replied directly to one of Ed's post. I rarely, if ever, interfere with
any "conversation" you carry with others. Why can't you likewise if you don't want any trouble, idiot?
I'll never discuss anything with you seriously, and every time you post bullshit I call you on it volume up. Unless...
Here is something new...
There is the Iran Deal the New Deal and now there is going to be the:
Fugly Deal.
Here is the deal, Fugly. You will never hear from me again, or read any post
of mine alluding to you directly or any other way, if ONLY you just do the same.
I ignore your posts, which I already do unless you butt into mine, and you
ignore mine.
If I can do it you should too. It's easy man, believe me. I do it sleep or awake.
Imagine two black ships passing each other in the night. Forever.
That's the deal. If you don't take it, then you cannot complain ever.
Peace by indifference.
If you accept, I will even wish you good luck in your rotten life.
What do say, Fugly Geocentrist No-good Fuck Stevens?
Fugly Deal - Now or never.
Eric Stevens
Oct 15, 2017, 4:55:58 AM10/15/17
to
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 15:23:22 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
>
>
Turd
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>
>
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Tiglath
Oct 15, 2017, 1:12:27 PM10/15/17
to
Never complain again about my insults.
Thank me too, we have a win win situation.
Trust the whip.
Tiglath
Oct 15, 2017, 1:40:43 PM10/15/17
to
Fugly Stevens' Patents and Inventions: The Hit Parade.
------------------------- cordon sanitaire -------------------------
1. "Both the heliocentric model and the geocentric model of Earth
are correct."
2. "The motions of the planets with respect to each other and the sun
remain constant irrespective of whether the model is geo or helio
centric."
3. "This is a serious question. You postulate a 'still' sun. That is,
that the sun is not moving. What is your reference point against which
you determine the (lack of) motion of the sun?"
4 An atheist cannot experience the absence of gods.
[Actually he wrote less concisely:] "A person who is an athiest [sic](such
as you and I) cannot have empirical evidence of the absence of God(s)."
5. "Michael Martin's [Ph.D. Analytical Philosophy, Harvard] acknowledged
expertise is not in the field of logic."
NEW!!!
6. "Not being not at the top of the food chain is what helps organisms reach it."
-- Mr. Stevens - The Thunder from Down Under.
Tiglath
Oct 15, 2017, 5:52:07 PM10/15/17
to
The funk from #3 is almost toxic:
Engineer this...
"This is a serious question. You postulate a 'still' sun. That is,
that the sun is not moving. What is your reference point against which
you determine the (lack of) motion of the sun?"
of motion of the sun. Which one is it?
Does he know what 'postulate' means?
To see the obtuse thickness inherent in the question consider this, he is asking the equivalent to asking on what are axioms based, what is their reference?
Postulate... axioms....
How hard can it be?
Eric Stevens
Oct 16, 2017, 12:02:07 AM10/16/17
to
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 10:12:26 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
I doubt if you will understand my next message.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Oct 16, 2017, 12:10:50 AM10/16/17
to
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 10:40:43 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
>
>
>2. "The motions of the planets with respect to each other and the sun
> remain constant irrespective of whether the model is geo or helio
> centric."
>
True, but it's too hard an idea for you to come to grips with.
>3. "This is a serious question. You postulate a 'still' sun. That is,
> that the sun is not moving. What is your reference point against which
> you determine the (lack of) motion of the sun?"
Another idea too hard for you to come to grips with.
>
>4 An atheist cannot experience the absence of gods.
> [Actually he wrote less concisely:] "A person who is an athiest [sic](such
> as you and I) cannot have empirical evidence of the absence of God(s)."
Logically correct.
understand. I suppose that's why you could not even paraphrase it
correctly.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>
>Fugly Stevens' Patents and Inventions: The Hit Parade.
>
>------------------------- cordon sanitaire -------------------------
>
>1. "Both the heliocentric model and the geocentric model of Earth
> are correct."
True, but it's too hard an idea for you to come to grips with.
>
>------------------------- cordon sanitaire -------------------------
>
>1. "Both the heliocentric model and the geocentric model of Earth
> are correct."
>
>2. "The motions of the planets with respect to each other and the sun
> remain constant irrespective of whether the model is geo or helio
> centric."
>
>3. "This is a serious question. You postulate a 'still' sun. That is,
> that the sun is not moving. What is your reference point against which
> you determine the (lack of) motion of the sun?"
>
>4 An atheist cannot experience the absence of gods.
> [Actually he wrote less concisely:] "A person who is an athiest [sic](such
> as you and I) cannot have empirical evidence of the absence of God(s)."
>
>5. "Michael Martin's [Ph.D. Analytical Philosophy, Harvard] acknowledged
> expertise is not in the field of logic."
Not at the date of writing.
>5. "Michael Martin's [Ph.D. Analytical Philosophy, Harvard] acknowledged
> expertise is not in the field of logic."
>
>NEW!!!
>
>6. "Not being not at the top of the food chain is what helps organisms reach it."
I know that what I originally wrote was too hard an idea for you to
>NEW!!!
>
>6. "Not being not at the top of the food chain is what helps organisms reach it."
understand. I suppose that's why you could not even paraphrase it
correctly.
>
> -- Mr. Stevens - The Thunder from Down Under.
--
> -- Mr. Stevens - The Thunder from Down Under.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Tiglath
Oct 16, 2017, 9:10:29 AM10/16/17
to
On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 12:10:50 AM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 10:40:43 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Fugly Stevens' Patents and Inventions: The Hit Parade.
> >
> >------------------------- cordon sanitaire -------------------------
> >
> >1. "Both the heliocentric model and the geocentric model of Earth
> > are correct."
>
> True,
Evidence?
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 10:40:43 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Fugly Stevens' Patents and Inventions: The Hit Parade.
> >
> >------------------------- cordon sanitaire -------------------------
> >
> >1. "Both the heliocentric model and the geocentric model of Earth
> > are correct."
>
> True,
but it's too hard an idea for you to come to grips with.
>
> >
> >2. "The motions of the planets with respect to each other and the sun
> > remain constant irrespective of whether the model is geo or helio
> > centric."
> >
> True, but it's too hard an idea for you to come to grips with.
>
> >3. "This is a serious question. You postulate a 'still' sun. That is,
> > that the sun is not moving. What is your reference point against which
> > you determine the (lack of) motion of the sun?"
>
> Another idea too hard for you to come to grips with.
>
> >
> >4 An atheist cannot experience the absence of gods.
> > [Actually he wrote less concisely:] "A person who is an athiest [sic](such
> > as you and I) cannot have empirical evidence of the absence of God(s)."
>
> Logically correct.
> >
> >5. "Michael Martin's [Ph.D. Analytical Philosophy, Harvard] acknowledged
> > expertise is not in the field of logic."
>
> Not at the date of writing.
> >
> >NEW!!!
> >
> >6. "Not being not at the top of the food chain is what helps organisms reach it."
>
> I know that what I originally wrote was too hard an idea for you to
> understand. I suppose that's why you could not even paraphrase it
> correctly.
at the top IS what helps getting there. You wrote that clearly in your answer.
"Not being at the top of the food chain would help. "
- Fugly Stevens
Hollow denials convince no one. Let us see if there is anyone, ANY one who
agrees with you on ANY of your blunders, let us hear his or her arguments,
because yours are just blind denials, and that will never do for a FAIR READER.
What does it feel like to live your ridiculous life?
Eric Stevens
Oct 16, 2017, 6:16:41 PM10/16/17
to
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Tiglath
Oct 16, 2017, 7:04:06 PM10/16/17
to
On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 6:16:41 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >I doubt if you will understand my next message.
>
> .
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric Stevens
Wonderful. So witty.
> >I doubt if you will understand my next message.
>
> .
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric Stevens
This is my last reply to you outside your sandbox, Fugly.
Let's leave the thread, filthy as it has become, to Ed's good graces.
He seems to think that if he starts a thread he sort of of owns it and
he is due certain deference, like not talking to Fuglie Stevens.
If he has not figured out yet how unmoderated groups work, it may be a while
before he understands what Neanderthal did at night. First things first.
lontra...@gmail.com
Apr 2, 2018, 6:14:35 PM4/2/18
to
Read his book, his first book. I liked it a lot.
I believe the humanization of Neanderthal is recent and inspired to our desire of seeing "the different" like "us".
Neanderthals were apes. We were hunted for thousands of years. We adapted. We kill them all.
Yes. It makes more sense than any other existing theory about the birth of homo sapiens sapiens and the end of those apes.
I believe the humanization of Neanderthal is recent and inspired to our desire of seeing "the different" like "us".
Neanderthals were apes. We were hunted for thousands of years. We adapted. We kill them all.
Yes. It makes more sense than any other existing theory about the birth of homo sapiens sapiens and the end of those apes.
lontra...@gmail.com
Apr 2, 2018, 6:17:18 PM4/2/18
to
> I'm implying that they moved in response to climatic conditions.
Climate change is the quick exit route, when you don't have a better explanation.
They moved west to east. The climate is steady at the same latitude. They did not go to Africa, they did not go to Cape North.
Duh?
lontra...@gmail.com
Apr 2, 2018, 6:22:49 PM4/2/18
to
On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 3:56:22 AM UTC+2, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> > Tiglath
> >
> > Up until a few hundred thousand years ago various human species walked this
> > Earth at the same time, at least six. The current exclusivity is also quiet new.
>
> Interesting point and if the theory of Neanderthals being essentially orcs is right,
> then as humans were subject natural selection due to predation and interbreeding
> and thus “punctuated evolution”, once these hybrid and very aggressive new
> humans moved out into the world, we probably would have killed ANY similar
> not-quite-humans, even the cute little hobbits on Flores Island.
>
> (after we raped them...)
Nope. Not selection. Eugenics. Self imposed eugenics.
And yes. That's what we did. Ask your friends Denisovians and the other funny little men living in the Borneo. We killed them all after raping them.
> > Tiglath
> >
> > Up until a few hundred thousand years ago various human species walked this
> > Earth at the same time, at least six. The current exclusivity is also quiet new.
>
> Interesting point and if the theory of Neanderthals being essentially orcs is right,
> then as humans were subject natural selection due to predation and interbreeding
> and thus “punctuated evolution”, once these hybrid and very aggressive new
> humans moved out into the world, we probably would have killed ANY similar
> not-quite-humans, even the cute little hobbits on Flores Island.
>
> (after we raped them...)
Nope. Not selection. Eugenics. Self imposed eugenics.
And yes. That's what we did. Ask your friends Denisovians and the other funny little men living in the Borneo. We killed them all after raping them.
Ed Stasiak
Apr 3, 2018, 7:54:39 AM4/3/18
to
> Ed Stasiak
>
> Humans have an instinctual aversion to those who are different and this is still obvious today,
> where Whites, Blacks and Asians tend to interact with their own and when you consider the
> far more obvious physical differences between humans and Neanderthals, it makes more
> sense then humans willingly getting it on with fugly Neanderthal chicks.
Came across mention of the lack of mitochondrial (female) Neanderthal DNA elsewhere
and thought it pertinent, as it implies all or most of the Neanderthal+human interbreeding
was male Neanderthal on female human, further supporting the position that Neanderthals
were rapist orcs;
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Neanderthal-mitochondrial-DNA-totally-absent-from-the-human-gene-pool
>
> Humans have an instinctual aversion to those who are different and this is still obvious today,
> where Whites, Blacks and Asians tend to interact with their own and when you consider the
> far more obvious physical differences between humans and Neanderthals, it makes more
> sense then humans willingly getting it on with fugly Neanderthal chicks.
Came across mention of the lack of mitochondrial (female) Neanderthal DNA elsewhere
and thought it pertinent, as it implies all or most of the Neanderthal+human interbreeding
was male Neanderthal on female human, further supporting the position that Neanderthals
were rapist orcs;
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Neanderthal-mitochondrial-DNA-totally-absent-from-the-human-gene-pool
Tiglath
Apr 3, 2018, 11:17:48 AM4/3/18
to
But also from DNA to consent is a long leap. If fugly Neanderthal chicks were
blonde maybe there were not so fugly?
I imagine a mix of raping orcs, suave seductive orcs, Messalina-like orcs,
pushovers a bit like the village bicycle - all took a ride on it, shy orcs, and
love-at-first-sight orcs.
Ed Stasiak
Apr 3, 2018, 4:00:12 PM4/3/18
to
> Tiglath
> > Ed Stasiak
like then the current (and I’d suggest, politically correct) representations, then it
would be like getting it on with a blond gorilla and just don’t see that happening
and the lack of mitochondrial Neanderthal DNA seems to support that.
Because if Neanderthals were just slightly different looking humans, then there
ought to be evidence of male Human + female Neanderthal interbreeding and
that’s not the case, which implies the breeding happened via rape.
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > Came across mention of the lack of mitochondrial (female) Neanderthal DNA
> > elsewhere and thought it pertinent, as it implies all or most of the Neanderthal
> > +human interbreeding was male Neanderthal on female human, further
> > supporting the position that Neanderthals were rapist orcs;
>
> > Came across mention of the lack of mitochondrial (female) Neanderthal DNA
> > elsewhere and thought it pertinent, as it implies all or most of the Neanderthal
> > +human interbreeding was male Neanderthal on female human, further
> > supporting the position that Neanderthals were rapist orcs;
>
> But also from DNA to consent is a long leap. If fugly Neanderthal chicks were
> blonde maybe there were not so fugly?
If the author is correct that the appearance of Neanderthals was much more ape
> blonde maybe there were not so fugly?
like then the current (and I’d suggest, politically correct) representations, then it
would be like getting it on with a blond gorilla and just don’t see that happening
and the lack of mitochondrial Neanderthal DNA seems to support that.
Because if Neanderthals were just slightly different looking humans, then there
ought to be evidence of male Human + female Neanderthal interbreeding and
that’s not the case, which implies the breeding happened via rape.
The Horny Goat
Apr 7, 2018, 12:00:55 PM4/7/18
to
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 08:17:46 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
wrote:
>> https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Neanderthal-mitochondrial-DNA-totally-absent-from-the-human-gene-pool
>
>Ed is tolkien sense.
>
>But also from DNA to consent is a long leap. If fugly Neanderthal chicks were
>blonde maybe there were not so fugly?
>
>I imagine a mix of raping orcs, suave seductive orcs, Messalina-like orcs,
>pushovers a bit like the village bicycle - all took a ride on it, shy orcs, and
>love-at-first-sight orcs.
'Orcs have all the gold, many times great grandmothers want it and
will do ANYTHING for it" doesn't imply rape.
Though to be sure in the ancient world rape usually went along with
looting and pillaging...
wrote:
>> https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Neanderthal-mitochondrial-DNA-totally-absent-from-the-human-gene-pool
>
>Ed is tolkien sense.
>
>But also from DNA to consent is a long leap. If fugly Neanderthal chicks were
>blonde maybe there were not so fugly?
>
>I imagine a mix of raping orcs, suave seductive orcs, Messalina-like orcs,
>pushovers a bit like the village bicycle - all took a ride on it, shy orcs, and
>love-at-first-sight orcs.
will do ANYTHING for it" doesn't imply rape.
Though to be sure in the ancient world rape usually went along with
looting and pillaging...
Ed Stasiak
May 7, 2018, 3:27:43 PM5/7/18
to
> Ed Stasiak
>
> Neanderthals may have been scary muscle bound cannibal rapists,
> hunting white wimmin at night.
The Neanderthal predation theory came up on another forum and one
of the things suggested, was that Neanderthals evolved more body hair
due to living in an ice age climate but someone else said the opposite
would be the case; the colder the climate, the LESS body hair (due to
issues with sweat freezing on the body).
Is this accurate?
Also, someone posted a video that claims the 1-5% Neanderthal DNA
within modern (non-African) humans is the equivalent level of one’s
grandfather’s DNA content and that couldn’t be the case unless non-
African humans evolved from Neanderthals and not from African humans
(i.e. multi-regional vs. out of Africa).
Is this also accurate?
Additionally, someone else mentioned that there is zero male Neanderthal
DNA in modern humans, meaning that all interbreeding that happened was
exclusively male Neanderthal on female human, with only daughters resulting
from this mating being fertile, while any sons born of the union would have
been infertile.
True?
>
> Neanderthals may have been scary muscle bound cannibal rapists,
> hunting white wimmin at night.
The Neanderthal predation theory came up on another forum and one
of the things suggested, was that Neanderthals evolved more body hair
due to living in an ice age climate but someone else said the opposite
would be the case; the colder the climate, the LESS body hair (due to
issues with sweat freezing on the body).
Is this accurate?
Also, someone posted a video that claims the 1-5% Neanderthal DNA
within modern (non-African) humans is the equivalent level of one’s
grandfather’s DNA content and that couldn’t be the case unless non-
African humans evolved from Neanderthals and not from African humans
(i.e. multi-regional vs. out of Africa).
Is this also accurate?
Additionally, someone else mentioned that there is zero male Neanderthal
DNA in modern humans, meaning that all interbreeding that happened was
exclusively male Neanderthal on female human, with only daughters resulting
from this mating being fertile, while any sons born of the union would have
been infertile.
True?
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages