Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.
View Active Topics View Your Posts Latest 100 Topics FAQ Topics Mobile Friendly Theme
Discuss and talk about any general topic.
Them and Us: How Neanderthal Predation Created Modern Humans
The reason you have not heard of this theory is because Anthropology in colleges is massively infested with SJW's, its as bad as women's studies. Anthropology teaches a narrative, anthropology is actually not about science anymore. The narrative is neanderthals were very human like and peaceful. Human males (the patriarchy) hunted neanderthals to extinction (insert white guilt here). This is the likely reason Danny Vendramini's theory is dissed and ignored.
I never bought neanderthals were peaceful, that smacked of total BS but I did not know of an alternative myself. Hell creationism is more useful than SJW postmodernism masquerading as science. It looks like a much better theory has come from outside of academia. Politically correct academia is fundamentally not about understanding how the world actually works. 19th century anthropology without DNA, advances in chemistry, physiology and few specimens did a whole lot better than today's ideologically possessed anthropology. Today's SJW anthropology is more about prescribing who's guilty and how to find heretics. Its really more like religion.
The neanderthals were more like very smart gorillas who were the apex predators of Ice Age Europe. They were about 6 times as strong as a human and they would rape human women.
The YouTube goes over more of the details, it explains many of the oddities of human evolution.
These are the San People of Botswana, they may be what humans were like 50,000 years ago, docile, easy going and an IQ of 72. Easy meat for the predatory neanderthals and easy to rape too. These humans already had 50,000 years of the effect of neanderthal predation.
Last edited by tom on December 12th, 2017, 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Scientists now seem to be leaning toward the idea that Neanderthals were basically a race of human beings, and that Caucasians and Asians are descended from Neanderthals, representing something like 1.5 to 6% of the DNA.
One theory I read was that Neanderthals lived to be about 150 years old, and older Neanderthals tended to get calcium deposits on their brow ridges, which explained the larger brows of some skulls. The rib cages were bigger and arms were larger. This is a stout, long armed race of humans. They could reproduce with humans and have fertile offspring, so why consider them non-human.
When they were first discovered, artists depicted them as ape-like, in line with evolutionary theories. But reconstructions with modern techniques show that them looking human. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svdvm-i0mek
Cut this one's hair, give her some bluejeans, a t-shirt, some sensible shoes, wash her face and she looks a bit like a modern feminist:
https://mathildasanthropologyblog.files ... /wilma.jpg
The theory in the video doesn't account for red hair among Neanderthals. Whites and Asians don't have better night vision than Africa does it?
The anatomical reconstructions use Humans as the template which would lead to false results. Neanderthal bones are twice as thick as Humans, this would lead you to think they were muscled more like a chimp or gorilla. And the eyes in these reconstructions are also clearly completely wrong. Neanderthals evolved in Ice Age Europe, there is no evolutionary reason they would become hairless under freezing conditions. I just noticed that 19th century anthropologist with far fewer scientific tools guessed much closer to this. There misconception was to think Neanderthals were not very smart, the opposite seems to be the case. They were very smart brutes, real monsters. Our past with them is very violent.
Humans have certain fears hard wired in like for instance a fear of snakes, this fear is universal. The universal fear of the Bogeyman, Sasquatch, Yeti, and many other forest monsters was what Danny Vendramini was tiring to find an explanation for.
I remember something about red hair associated to Neanderthals, DNA stuff.
If I took your DNA today I cannot tell what you would look like, no one is remotely close to being able to do this today. This happened to be a topic of discussion today at our microbiology lab. We could find your hair color, eye color, race and many specific general characteristics but would still have no idea what you look like. An extinct hominid separated by 600,000 years, we would have no clue.
Also it seems most Neanderthal characteristics have been long ago culled from hybrids. Maybe hybrid were common but fertile offspring may have been rare, like mules in the equine genus. This happened 45-55 thousand years ago, just going by memory, may not be exact. Out of this mess came the Cro-Magnon who was likely a little smarter than modern humans. They took the fight to the Neanderthals and wiped them out.
The idea is Neanderthal predation (the 70,000 year war with the Neanderthal) drove human evolution for 70,000 years. There are some SJW influenced biases in anthropology like tribal people were very peaceful, all evidence points to the opposite. An exception would be the San People of Botswana which are an island of ancient humans, there are very different from other Africans.
Anthropology is full of post modernist just like women studies. You cannot trust they will follow the scientific method, often ideology is the guiding theme over science. They adhere to pseudoscience proven to be positively untrue like men and women are the same and the different races are the same. They try to extend this to different species like Neanderthals. Its a very corrupt field.
It could also be characteristic of humans with dense muscle mass. And who is to say that gravity has been constant throughout history? It's an assumption scientists may make, but assumptions are assumptions.
In the 19th century and early 20th century, artists apparently used large apes as the template for how to reconstruct the face of Neanderthals. I don't know the in and outs of how they do facial reconstructions, like the one they used to reconstruct the face of King Tut. I'd imagine there is some art involved. Skin tone and body hair are probably a guess, or informed by other research. The bone shape wouldn't tell you skin color or hair style.
Do you really know enough about these facial reconstruction methods to know that the reason they make Neanderthals look like (unattractive, white) humans is because they are using humans as a template, and not because of their knowledge of how to reconstruct faces? Do you know that, or is that just your guess based on the idea that you believe in a gorilla-looking ape.
It's counter-intuitive to think that Neanderthals was so different as to look like gorillas and yet be able to reproduce with humans and produce fertile offspring.
Scientists say whites and Asians have Neanderthal genes, but for the most part, Africans do not. Whites might get their prominent noses from some other source, but if whites are more Neanderthal, might not Neanderthals have had larger noses that protrude out more? Those using modern facial reconstruction techniques depict them that way.
Europeans, people said to have the most Neanderthal DNA, tend to be hairier than Africans. Hair is probably the choice of the artist or facial reconstruction guy. Once the scientists say Neanderthals are human, they make them look human on the exterior, the parts not covered by the facial reconstruction methodology they are using. I don't sculpt this stuff, so this is my conjecture. I've just seen them on documentaries. They think some of the Neanderthals had red hair and freckles. They may have looked like people that, if mixed would blacks from Africa, would look Caucasian. That would be an oversimplification.
Why don't white people look like big gorillas if Neanderthals were gorrilla-like?
Some people-groups throughout history have been violent, and some of been cannibals. Tribes have fought wars against each other. They didn't have to be apes to do that.
That is an extremely silly argument for Neanderthals being gorillas. There are all kinds of dangerous animals on the planet that people are afraid of them. Gorillas can be dangerous, and they look exactly like gorillas. You seem to be making a pseudo-science ev. psych. argument for human fascination with hairy human-like monsters being proof that Neanderthals must have been ape-like.
Do most cultures even have a legend about a Sasquatch or a Yeti? There are beliefs in a variety of monsters. It's not all that uncommon to portray foreign invading armies as animal-like, even if they are human. The Anglo-Saxons are presented in animalistic terms in the writings of monks who told how they attacked the Britons. The Norse vikings who invaded are presented in a similar way by the writings Anglo-Saxon writings of later eras. Fear of invading armies, along with local beliefs about the supernatural and other experiences can lead to stories of ogres, trolls, and other creatures.
And if people passed stories down like these because there were some smart dangerous critters that looked ape-like running around, why would these creatures have to be Neanderthals?
Btw, the Bogeyman apparently comes from British sailors saying to watch out for the Boogies, or rather the Bugis, a people-group that still exists in modern Indonesia which, at that time, had a lot of pirates near their home territory. That apparently turned into 'the bogeyman' or 'boogeyman'. These aren't ape-people. I met one girl who was Bugis who was quite attractive, with no ape-like features or visible body hair at all.
This is another example of fear of just regular people turning into the idea of a monster. It must have been scarey to be attacked by pirates, but the individual 5-foot-tall Indonesian man isn't all that scary in real life outside of the pirating situation.
This is one of those pop-news kind of online articles about the topic.
https://www.nature.com/news/2007/071025 ... 7.197.html
The idea that the San are a prototype for ancient humans seems like wild guesswork to me. What are the rest of the genetic expressions of man-kind? Chopped liver? Neanderthals were humans, too. So were Cromagnon people. Humans just used to have more diverse characteristics.
I haven't read a lot of antro stuff, but it seems like they can use really small sample sizes, and it's kind of like some branches of sociology in that it gets into abstract theories and concepts that aren't really testable. There is lots of 'bla bla bla' and not a lot of testable propositions. At least some of the other social sciences like psychology can be tested in some way, but there are plenty of ideologues in those fields as well.
Evolutionary psychology seems to me to be a speculative psuedoscience to me as well, more like a kind of 'logic' for reasoning. It can also be kind of teolological, which it is not supposed to be.
Actually I really need to read his book to get a better understanding of his theory. It seemed interesting to me and more believable that PC versions about prehistoric man.
The DNA research I remember on the San People, commonly called bushmen, they have been isolated for 50,000 years, they are clearly different from other Africans in behavior.
The pictures of Neanderthals as ape-like just show artists following a popular narrative back then. They didn't call it 'PC" but that was just the current belief. Are you saying 'PC' means preshistoric man was peaceful? Who really believes that? There was plenty of violence a couple of thousand years ago and there still is today.
If we all descended from San, why don't many other peoples have huge buttocks?
I heard that only whites have neanderthal genes. But blacks do not. Is that true? If so then whites and blacks have different racial origins. Why doesnt the media mention that?
Also neanderthal brains were said to be larger. So perhaps they were more intelligent.
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!
Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!
"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
Neanderthals were human. The monkey art is, for the most part, a think of the past. The recently posted book author disagrees.
If the DNA research is legit (and how can you verify it?), Asians have a bit of Neanderthal genes and Europeans have about twice that. Maybe the 2 or 3% the Asians got were the Neanderthal genes that made them good at math.
MEANWHILE ACCORDING TO SCIENCE!
Italians have the Most Neanderthal DNA!
Neanderthals bred with humans. Today's Whites and Asians have Neanderthal DNA.
http://www.abroadintheyard.com/people-f ... nderthals/
Meanwhile in the Current Year!
The WONDERFUL NATIVES OF BOTSWANA: so very docile, easy going are also currently acting in CANNIBALISTIC WAYS!
http://tia-mysoa.blogspot.com/2014/01/c ... table.html
QUESTION: Why doesnt the media mention that?
ANSWER: The media is controlled by Globalists. And these Globalists thrive under the belief all humans are the same.
People are not as alike as scientists once thought.
How could any research methodology in anthropology ever support a theory like this one with any kind of remotely solid evidence? It just doesn't seem possible given the nature of the field.
From my limited contact with those in the anthropology field it does seem full of postmodernist types. It seemed like a better theory than neanderthals were tree hugging liberals which does not sound very believable to me. But I cannot say much more.
I can see what you mean, but other than looking at evidence of social practices, anthropology would be limited in what they could discover about Neanderthals. They couldn't tell us if they were physically ape-like, for example. It seems like the consensus is that they looked like stout humans, but apparently the previous consensus was wrong on that.
Science magazines with glossy photos and online articles aren't real science publications. Some articles on these and various other topics are written by journalists who don't understand the field. If you know a bit about a field of study or some non-academic topic and read an article on it, you may roll your eyes about what a journalist writes.
History Channel documentaries can also be pure garbage. They show some of the stupidest conspiracy theories on that show. If something is in a science documentary, that doesn't mean it's true or even reasonable.
Europeans have some Neanderthal genetics. And East Asians have trace amounts of Homo Erectus. We are all basically Homo Sapiens because the agricultural revolution was a huge success. As a consequence, the genetic influence of the original hunter gatherers was also greatly reduced in most regions.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... -tree.html
http://www.nature.com/news/how-china-is ... ns-1.20231
Evolution is a fraud. As if nobody has heard about the Piltdown man hoax, or Lucy. The whole theory is just meant to remove God out of the equation. They don't want to honor God. They don't want to believe in His Son or obey. Therefore they make up elaborate fantasy and hoaxes. They have esteemed positions of honor and glory within society, with fancy titles, money and large atheistic (or misguided) institutions on their side. And because they hate God, the God-haters who are in charge of society naturally promote them.
It's all massive deception, part of deceiving the nations. It's like the myths of ancient religions, but now they just call it science. And much of the evidence even by the standards of science is complete garbage. People really just believe everything they're told without critical thinking, because they don't want to believe that God is real.
There is no human evolution. Man was made by God. The purpose of this life is to reconcile with God through faith in Christ, and then after salvation to obey so that He doesn't take away earthly life on this earth and to experience as much goodness in this life as possible as gifted to us by God (the fullness of glory within the way of righteousness). After we die, if we believed in Christ, then God will exalt each and every one of us who believed, and we will get to be kings and priests ourselves for eternity. But the unbelievers will go to Sheol as penalty for their sins , because unbelief means Christ has not covered their sins, meaning they are not worthy to enter into eternal life.
A good man is above pettiness. He is better than that.