Science Shows Cave Art Developed Early

BBC ^ | 10-3-2001

[medved]

"Studies of neanderthal DNA indicate that it was about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee, clearly explaining why there was never any evidence of interbreeding. We could no more interbreed with them than we could with horses and, further, all scientists agree, there is no way we are descended from them."

So, how do you explain the 'hybrid' skeleton that was found? (No DNA)

One freak skeleton could best be explained as a birth defect. This is the standard problem with evolutionism; the theory absolutely demands that there should be many thousands of such skeletons, and so they search for a hundred years and finally manage to come up with one deformed neanderthal skeleton and proclaim victory. Likewise, according to evolutionary doctrine, the vast bulk of all fossils should be intermediate forms and, after combintg the Earth for 140 years, they come up with a little collection of 100 or so freaks, all of which could be explained without resort to evolutionism, and proclaim themselves winners.

What'w wrong with the picture? Discover Magazine ran a big article on the problem, and this was back around September of 96 I believe, which noted that neanderthals and modern humans had lived in close proximity for long periods of time particularly in the levant, and yet there was no evidence of crossbreeding whatsoever which was totally contrary to what you would expect. The question they asked was how was it possible that the two groups lived close together like that without sex ever apparently happening even once, noting that sex is generally a more powerful stimulus than any form of racism or tribalism.

Basically, that is the reality of the situation, and not the one freak skeleton.

[blam]

You should have just said 'up front' that no amount of data would change your opinion.

[dubyagee]

After horses acquired the digestive, dental and axial body structures for life in the open, came an explosion in distal limb length (and the development of large body mass in a few lineages).(equinestudies.org)

What is a scientist's definition of a "few" lineages?

[PatrickHenry]

Your question to me in post 30:
Were all the horse niches filled 30,000 years ago?

Your newest question:
What is a scientist's definition of a "few" lineages?

Where are you going with this line of questions?

[blam]

"After horses acquired the digestive, dental and axial body structures for life in the open, came an explosion in distal limb length.

Horses are only 25% as efficent as cows at converting cellouse into nutrients/energy. Humans cannot digest cellouse at all. During times of famine, (usually droughts), the horse population relative to cows plummets. (At least in ancient times)

[G-Bear]

Hey, I work for this guy!

(Sorry, don't know how to insert that picture again.)

Seriously, I sometime wonder about this cave art, or even the Indian petroglyphs we have here in Kansas. Did this really have some spritual significance, or is it more like the grafitti you see on a passing freight train?

[dubyagee]

Where are you going with this line of questions?

Simply trying to determine if a horse of 30,000 years ago, considering evolution, could look EXACTLY like a horse today......

[dubyagee]

And that has to do with??.....

[TKEman]

That's correct. The Neanderthals were around at the time. Problem is, how do we determine whether or not it was our ancestors or the Neanderthals that did this?

[Roscoe]

"According to Helene Valladas the research shows that ancient man was just as skilled at art as the humans who followed 13,000 years later."

More skilled than some of the artists funded by the NEA.

[TKEman]

Interesting thinking. Would require an incredible string of luck for people to live to be 105, and also to have it together enough to pass all this info on.

Ever read about the Tasmanian Aborigines? They walked to Tasmania when the island was still a part of Australia. When the waters rose 10,000 years ago, they were cut off from the rest of humanity.....

[PatrickHenry]

... trying to determine if a horse of 30,000 years ago, considering evolution, could look EXACTLY like a horse today......

Probably. Why wouldn't they look the same? If the animal is suited to its environment, it will persevere. If it produces some mutation which branches off and is also well-suited to its environment, the mutant line will, perhaps, develop into a different (but clearly related) species. And the parent stock will also continue to exist, unless some calamity wipes it out. This is how evolution works. I'm really not following your question at all. Are you operating on some notion that every species MUST morph into something different every 247.5 years?

[rogers21774]

I bet there were a lot of pre-historic kids who got sent to time out for coloring on the living room walls.

[blam]

"And that has to do with??....."

Evolutionary stress.

[TKEman]

Bred their way into us?? No way. Studies of neanderthal DNA indicate that it was about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee, clearly explaining why there was never any evidence of interbreeding. We could no more interbreed with them than we could with horses and, further, all scientists agree, there is no way we are descended from them.

Actually, my understanding of this debate is that this is still under some dispute. There are a few people who claim that the Neanderthal population was absorbed into ours. I personally doubt it. I tend to agree with you.

Life would be radically different today if the Neanderthals had made it to the present time. There's a very good book out there called Extinct Humans about the evolution of our species. It points out that speaking in terms of evolution, there have been many different homo sapien-like lines that evolved. All for one reason or the other went by the wayside. Very interesting book that changed my whole perspective."we are alone in the universe" bunk would've never even developed. Since they didn't make it, probably due to our ancestor's crowding them out, we now live in a world where nuts such as Mr. bin Laden think they're God's gifts to the universe........

[dubyagee]

. Are you operating on some notion that every species MUST morph into something different every 247.5 years?

No, I'm operating on the notion that if evolution is an ongoing process, then changes should take place. We humans have changed since then, right? But then, maybe I'm forgetting the fact that if all niches are filled, the evolutionary process will slow down or even stop. Hmmmm, I don't know, maybe there were mutated ancestors even then, humans just didn't elect to draw them....

[dubyagee]

Evolutionary stress.

Ahhhh, gotcha. Wouldn't this cause them to evolve more slowly than say, a human?

[TKEman]

Nice post. Evolution also develops due to geography. In fact, that's what the whole "east side story" thing is about. Our ancestors developed differently from the apes (or closest relatives) because of climate changes. The growth of savanna like conditions forced our ancestors to come down from the trees, and work out a methodology for survival in these new conditions. Bipedalism is one result of this. So is losing the majority of our hair.

Different circumstances call for a different approach, in order to survive.

My understanding is that all of the 17 or so lines of human-like creatures (for lack of a better term) that arose are evolutionary developments as a result of the east side story......

[blam]

"There's a very good book out there called Extinct Humans about the evolution of our species."

I read this book and thought it was okay. It pointed out that different species of humans were living at the same time. I just don't think the Neanderthals were different species.

[TKEman]

What'w wrong with the picture? Discover Magazine ran a big article on the problem, and this was back around September of 96 I believe, which noted that neanderthals and modern humans had lived in close proximity for long periods of time particularly in the levant, and yet there was no evidence of crossbreeding whatsoever which was totally contrary to what you would expect. The question they asked was how was it possible that the two groups lived close together like that without sex ever apparently happening even once, noting that sex is generally a more powerful stimulus than any form of racism or tribalism.

There are several factors that could explain this. First of all, the Neanderthal population were of a different body type than we are. They may not have appealed to our ancestors, and vice versa.

Science Fiction used to have a lot stories in the 50's of rapes of women by lizard men, etc. Why would this occur? Would a lizard man find a homo sapien woman any more appealing than you would find a lizard woman? Something to think about.

Also, the Neanderthal population may not have been as thick on the ground as our ancestors were. Their language, brainpower and hunting skills may not have been as developed as our ancestors. The gestation rate for Neanderthals was also different from that of our ancestors.

All of these factors combined might have something to do with their demise.

Finally, genetic differences could play into this. Even if you're attracted to a horse, no offspring will be produced. You don't see hybrid horse and zebra offspring out and about, do you? The DNA match isn't there. The article you refer assumes that reproduction is possible. It may not have been no matter how many times copulation occured, simply because the DNA sequences were off just enough to say "no."