Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[alway]

Don't see what's so hard about it myself... So long as you have the most rudimentary of ideas of how it works, you can pretty much use http://www.w3schools.com/ to BS your way through the rest.

[Detonate]

Some time yesterday my iTunes account was accessed and someone downloaded two $15 movies, the King's Speech and Unknown. They also downloaded something free. I don't know where they got the money to do so was from, though, as there isn't a credit card linked with the account, all the money came from iTunes cards. I now have $32.60 in my iTunes budget. BLARGH.

[Akura]

Someone at work had found a large series of audio CDs for what were labeled as "Old Testament studies" or something like that, where some guy tries to explain how each and every detail of our lives is done wrong according to the Bible based on his interpretation(which, according to him, is absolutely correct). The entire first CD has him "proving" that every facet of scientific proof about the age of Earth and the universe is wrong based on flawed concepts, while "proving" himself correct using his own flawed concepts. Here is my favorite example:

According evolutionists, humans have been around for 1-2 million years, possibly more. He said that at the reproduction rate of humans, there'd be many, many billions of people(I missed the number, but I think it was three digits of billions), and since there are only 4 billion people, the number of humans is more accurate to around the time of Noah's Ark(around 3500BC), which means evolutionists are wrong, and stupid. First, there are more than six billion people in the world, probably closer to seven(the copyright date is 2005, so it's not even because of old information), and second, the human reproduction rate has been going up pretty fast in the last couple of centuries, along with a similar decline in infant mortality. Not only that, but war, food limitation, disease, basically the whole Four Horsemen have been keeping populations down pretty well, up until modern times where we have reduced them(NOT eliminated, mind you) as factors in reducing population. Not to mention that the species homo sapiens(us) has only been around for I think around 20,000 years, although other species within the homo are considered human(after all, that's what "homo" means).


Funnily enough, the first CD ends cutting him off mid-sentence. Either way, I really don't want to argue about it. I'm still trying to figure out whether the aneurysm was caused by what I was listening to, or a mysterious, hand-shaped blunt impace to my face.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If I'm remembering correctly, the amount of time humans have been around is about 200,000 years. The current population is 6.9 billion, and will probably reach 7 billion before the end of the year. The estimate of how many humans have ever lived is about 150 billion, but for obvious reasons we can't ever be completely sure of that number.

Also, other species within the homo genus aren't exactly humans. They're close, but still different species. Not that it really matters all that much today, as we killed everyone else in our genus.

[nenjin]

or a mysterious, hand-shaped blunt impace to my face.

Well, you know, God DOES work in mysterious ways.

[Vorthon]

If I'm remembering correctly, the amount of time humans have been around is about 200,000 years. The current population is 6.9 billion, and will probably reach 7 billion before the end of the year. The estimate of how many humans have ever lived is about 150 billion, but for obvious reasons we can't ever be completely sure of that number.

Also, other species within the homo genus aren't exactly humans. They're close, but still different species. Not that it really matters all that much today, as we killed everyone else in our genus.

They were human, just different species of human. Heck, neanderthals may have even been a subspecies (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) of modern humans.

[Something Evil]

They were human, just different species of human. Heck, neanderthals may have even been a subspecies (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) of modern humans.

And it seems there were discoveries of hybrids our ancestors and Neanderthals. And since different species can interbreed if they haven't split off too long ago down the evolutionary line, it comes to support the idea that they can be considered as "human".

Not that it really matters all that much today, as we killed everyone else in our genus.

Point. It seems that one of the reasons we've made it whereas other hominids got wiped out was our remarkable degree of aggression, inter-tribal or otherwise. We pretty much ran on "If it's more trouble than it's worth, kill it.", something that we've only started weeding out fairly recently.


Thing is, the kinds of self-proclaimed researchers Akura was talking about tend to crop up fairly often because evolutionary theory is based on a lot of guesswork (albeit mathematically-driven guesswork) and little palpable evidence. Never mind the fact that the actual likelihood of finding a few identifiable bones is low, and one is far more likely to win the lottery than find a near-complete skeleton of something.
Also, without genetic data (not much DNA to get out of a lump of mineral shaped like a bone), taxonomy is very shaky as well. For instance, the Red Panda's place was widely disputed until DNA mapping managed to show where it belongs, and that's a living critter you can poke and prod.

What these people constantly choose to disregard is that this is as much biology as it is history. They expect all the skeletons to be neatly lined up, with the minor differences clearly visible. But, in reality, the further back you go in history, the more you have have to use shaky conjectures.

Truth of the matter is, we've been using evolution since our earliest days. It's what artificial selection is based on. Look at corn, sunflower, cattle and so on. Even antibiotic-resistant pathogens cropping up more and more often is a result of (unintended) artificial selection, simply because they're the ones left alive, hence pass on the resistance genes.

So, if you want proof of evolutionary theory, go ask an epidemiologist.

[Kay12]

They were human, just different species of human. Heck, neanderthals may have even been a subspecies (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) of modern humans.

And it seems there were discoveries of hybrids our ancestors and Neanderthals. And since different species can interbreed if they haven't split off too long ago down the evolutionary line, it comes to support the idea that they can be considered as "human".

Actually, another viable theory that we are descendants of Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon hybrids. Not sure myself, of course, but this theory has become a lot more popular recently, I think.

[Reelyanoob]

I delved into the Neanderthal thing, and the only discernable difference was diet - Neanderthal > 99% carnivorous and Cro-Magnon 50/50 omnivore. I'm putting money on the fact that this was a major factor in what happened to the Neanderthals.

Similarly-sized omnivore will out-breed a carnivore when they hunt the same prey. Also, forests were declining at this period, and Neanderthal hunting methods were primarily suited to forests, while Cro-Magnons were suited to open plains.

Also Carnivores exists in a cyclic relationship with the prey levels, while Omnivores deplete prey, then stick around consuming plant matter. Their presence has a permanent dampening effect on the prey levels, which would have driven down the Neanderthal numbers.

Cross-breeding if possible would have been the final nail in the coffin (as much more Cro-Magnon would have gone into the mix)

[MetalSlimeHunt]

As it was told to me, the Neanderthal brain would have had more empathy, but less intelligence and agression. We got the opposite. Guess which proved more useful to survival?

[Reelyanoob]

All the stuff about different brains is pure speculative. And seems to be "we smart. them dumb" logic.

I've heard 1000 variants and they all fail at logic. I'll just add your one to the list. Literally they write a new "neanderthals dumb" theory every year or two because the old ones prove to be ridiculous. With diet, we have evidence of actual vast difference, and models which can explain the extinction (population modelling, predator/prey models etc) based on the difference.

major psychological difference: No Evidence. And no models to show how it made us survive, and them not. After all many "retarded" species survive better than smart species.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'll just add your one to the list.

As it was told to me, the Neanderthal brain would have had more empathy, but less intelligence and agression. We got the opposite. Guess which proved more useful to survival?

[Something Evil]

As it was told to me, the Neanderthal brain would have had more empathy, but less intelligence and agression. We got the opposite. Guess which proved more useful to survival?

No MRI of a working brain? No dice.

As I've pointed out, a lot of our evolutionary history is just guesswork. No point in discussing which stab in the dark we like better right now.
But there is sufficient evidence to support the idea of evolution as opposed to divine creation (which would mean no hominids showing up in the fossil records, then bam! Homo sapiens all over the place).

major psychological difference: No Evidence. And no models to show how it made us survive, and them not. After all many "retarded" species survive better than smart species.

One possible source of psychological evidence is actually the fossil record. If I remember right, some places had Neanderthal bones, then switch to Sapiens bones, meaning that the Neanderthals were pushed out. But again, that's just speculation.

[Reelyanoob]

I'll just add your one to the list.

As it was told to me, the Neanderthal brain would have had more empathy, but less intelligence and agression. We got the opposite. Guess which proved more useful to survival?

Not so much targeting you as the theory itself! Every year or two someone tells me a new theory of Neanderthals inferior brains, which came from some researcher somewhere. Each one of these theories is mutually exclusive, and the one you're telling me isn't the craziest one Ive heard. Here are the two best ones I've been told:

1. Neanderthals lacked "Lateral Thinking" and therefore bacame extinct. Evidence: Neanderthal tools were not made of the same stuff as Cro-Magnon tools. I think it is more to do with the environment and food sources available than "lateral thinking".

2. Neanderthals lacked "Conscious Thought" - this theory actual proposed than Neanderthals were born knowing how to make stone axes and spears, while Cro-Magnons had to be "taught" these things, therefore Cro-Magnons were able to transcend the "Genetic" technology of Neanderthals with "Conscious" tenchology.

Note most theories of Neanderthals "inferior thinking" are based on differences in technology, which is the same basis as 19th Century scientists who held that Australian Aboriginals and Africans were less evolved mentally, which was evidenced from "inferior" technology. We don't accept the argument from technology about black people today, so we can't accept technology-based arguments of Neanderthals being mentally inferior either.

[Something Evil]

TBH, at one point I've actually heard that it was the Neanderthals who had more efficient tools and toolmaking techniques because they were sedentary and had time on their hands, which they used to improve tools, as opposed to the semi-nomadic Sapiens who allocated a large chunk of their time to walking around.

So, more guesswork.