It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Shouldn't Neanderthal be black?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Antigod
 

I was focussing on the first paragraph of the OP;

Ive watching a lot of Man to ape type documentaries lately. While doing this I noticed that almost all depictions of mans relatives are white or tan at best.

And I suspected that the word "neanderthal" was being used a little loosely.




posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   

overanocean
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Mabye,
Think about it , if you were to reverse the population from our present 7 billion , take into effect major wars and catastrophes, I find it very interesting that the human population seems to begin around the end of the last ice age. I know we have discovered bones of man like "things" roaming around the worls for millions of years , but they were sub human neanderthals , mabye some genes God wanted to reuse for his new creation , but they were mabye a little better than the monkeys ,, they were not from Adam.


No, you find modern humans like modern Europeans predating the last ice age by tens of thousands of years (in Europe, obviously)

Last ice age in Europe was at it's peak 22,000 years ago, and fully ended about 10,000 years ago, and people had recolonised northern Europe about 15,000 years ago, and most of the rest of the planet had people then too.

There was a thriving culture in Japan about 17,000 years ago that had pottery.Just for a sense of perspective.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
It doesn't seem unreasonable that humans would still have some genes left over from Gods past creations.
Humans have nothing to do with neanderthal , monkey , or any of Gods past creations.
Humans are unique , we are Gods "SWAN SONG" . We are one of a kind and didnt evolve from a monkeys masturbating in the trees and eating #.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Antigod
 


You seem well informed. So I'm not really completely disagreeing with ya. But the article I read on the subject. The headline was about pale skin being a more recent development then previously thought with the whole article backing it up. I'm not saying this means the majority of scientists think this, but it's fair to say they ( meaning the ones working that find or the article writers for science news) do believe that.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   

overanocean
We are one of a kind and didnt evolve from a monkeys masturbating in the trees and eating #.


Well you cudda fooled me!



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   

ArtemisE
reply to post by Antigod
 


You seem well informed. So I'm not really completely disagreeing with ya. But the article I read on the subject. The headline was about pale skin being a more recent development then previously thought with the whole article backing it up. I'm not saying this means the majority of scientists think this, but it's fair to say they ( meaning the ones working that find or the article writers for science news) do believe that.


Something less than 10,000 years for pale skin, but it didn't mean a change from very dark to very pale The change was from tan to pale.

SLC45A2 gene, after a look though old files.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   

overanocean
. We are one of a kind and didnt evolve from a monkeys masturbating in the trees and eating #.


Not from them, no. Masturbation doesn't make babies.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Here's a link to the most recent recon of a neanderthal, with our best guess on skin and hair colour.

www.philipsonphotography.com...

She's called Wilma.

Is it tragic that I only just got that refernce to the Flintstones?



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 04:06 PM
link   
How do you know they weren't? Did they leave some family photos up on the mantle in the cave or something? but who really cares what color they were. they were inferior and nature gave them the boot. that's all we have to know about them. they were a footnote in history. and since the human race is already extinct, what does it matter?



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Underneath all the fur, or fellow primates the great apes are generally white skinned.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


Very loosely lol. You gotta have a short enough headline to grab attention.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by overanocean
 


Best quote ever!


Science is true weather you believe in it or not!

Well ok, ok, it's a close second to sun tzu's .

Never fight a battle with nothing to win.

Well actually they both kinda apply



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Antigod
 


A look thru old files? What do you do for work? If it's not personal info. No offence taken if you consider it private.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by overanocean
 


Actually the whole concept of a god is unreasonable. At least the omnipotent all knowing, all seeing, all controlling god is unreasonable.... If it wasn't there would be no need for faith. The science would prove it.


Unreasonable: un'ree son a bull; to be against all reason, the thought that the fish, the earth and plants came before the sun and stars.

Anyone wanna use it in a sentence? Lol



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   

ArtemisE
reply to post by Antigod
 


A look thru old files? What do you do for work? If it's not personal info. No offence taken if you consider it private.


Physical anthropology graduate with an interest in Neanderthals, and prehistoric human migrations. Main interest is the evolution of the human brain though.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   

ArtemisE
No one said we came from Neanderthals.... People said we crossbreed with them. Which is proven.
Evolution is also proven. The bible has been mainly disproven. This isn't a religion thread. This is a science thread. Not a faith thread.



You paint with too broad a brush.

If you read Biblical Archeology Review, you will find accounts of war that are have been confirmed by both ancient historians and field archeology. As the books of the bible were written across a large snap of time by different writers and edited by the First Council of Nicaea, I'm certain that more than a few events were somewhat-accurately documented.

The above micro-rant was not intended to push creation over evolution. Far from it. Melanin determines skin color and the further north people went, the less sun (vitamin D) they got. If my understanding is correct, evolution lightened the skin to allow greater absorption of vitamin D.

Would it follow that those peoples living in the north longer would have lighter skin (skin color being a function of time in environment)? If true, then could it be that late-comers to northern climes would be darker because they were still in the process of change? Perhaps we would need a large sample of Neanderthals and other homo groups from different periods to determine the facts?



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Antigod
 


Defiantly more informed then me lol. Did you read any articles on the find I was talking about?



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by juspassinthru
 


They also found Troy from the Iliad. That doesn't mean there are Cyclopes and sirens. One true thing doesn't validate it all..... Look at the creation story. The earth plants and fish COULD NOT have come before the stars and sun. Obviously...



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 04:55 PM
link   

dollukka
What difference does it make as all skin pigmentations are a results of genetic mutations.


I always thought that when Cain was kicked out of the Garden and in fear that an avenger would come upon him kill for murdering Able that God put a mark on him and the only mark that a man could see for some distance say 50 yards is black skin.

and that one of his daughters married one of the three sons of Noah so that the black race survived the flood.

But then again who knows?



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Primates with more hair/fur usually have fair skin. All humans ancestors 'probably' had fair skin before they 'lost' their hair.

Dark skin evolved as a 'substitute' for the lost of hair. Its all about vitamin D production.

The Biology of Skin Color: Black and White

The Inuit have a diet already rich in vitamin D; they didn't 'need' to evolve whiter skin.

Inuits live in very cold climates, why do they have dark skin?

(note problems with the article title: 'Inuit' is already plural, 'Inuits' is doubly plural. It asks the wrong question... cold climate is not the issue, it is less UV radiation)

You used to hear stories of mothers feeding their kids doses of Cod Liver Oil and kids hating it (it tasted awful). That was to dose them up on vitamin D especially. You don't hear of that anymore (except from the modern snake oil salesmen, of course) because now milk is (usually) fortified with vitamin D - a much more palatable way to dose up on vitamin D.

If you don't or can't drink vitamin D fortified milk, you should probably listen to your doctor and take vitamin D capsules of some sort. The snake oil salesmen will be glad to sell you fish oil tablets.
edit on 17/3/2014 by rnaa because: correct a clumsy sentence



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join