3 Species of man? 80 000 years?

I've heard it said: Neanderthal man is a phoney.
They were all different looks of Homo Sapiens.
Skulls with "mixed" qualities were found, eg. in Israel.
Yeah there might have been some people with special adaptions to the cold. So what? Does that make the Kalahari Bushmen a different species because they have adaptations for the warm?
But to even call them a different "species" is a stretch.
A bit of a laugh really.
It was a construction that has led to searches to uncover their own "evidence" - which begins at 20 000 years ago.
It's probably all rubbish.

It's all so circumstantial.
Wheresoever the last bones were found is their "last outpost".
Currently, I think it's Gibraltar.
They find a tooth, or bit of skull (too old for DNA tests anyway).
Then they find a shell with some ochre and ooh!!!
From that they deduce now that Neanderthals had art - like us.
Well, duh, they were us.



[edit on 6-9-2010 by halfoldman]

I Dunno if anybody has posted this OP but this heavily supports your theory.

Their findings demonstrate that ancient humans occupied Britain over 800,000 years ago, marking the first known settlement in northern Europe -- far earlier than previously thought.

www.sciencedaily.com...

www.sciencedaily.com...

Originally posted by Alxandro
Are you sure you don't mean 3 races and not 3 species?

Maybe the three races of Man evolved from previous versions/upgrades.

Up until recently, they were considered separate species. Scientists believe they've found a genetic link to Neanderthal through DNA testing.

Originally posted by buddha
I believe that they cross bred and ended up with a high breed race. humans! it has been mixing for so long it would be very hard to see this in the DNA. why do people find things like this so hard to believe in? they like to think they are very spatial. so they say we where made by a God. they dont like to think that they just groow from sludge!

I'm all for finding a genetic link to homo sapien, but it hasn't shown up yet.

Originally posted by salman rushdie
reply to post by halfoldman

 

If I were a betting man, I'd say that we killed the other species off through war. We probably survived because we were the most violent. If one were to look for one of the most common and consistent threads in our history, it's clear that one would conclude that our main occupation is war and we likely have always been this way.

For the same reason it would make sense we survived because we had a more developed brain which led to better weapons and strategies.

I don't necessarily see being violent as being the deciding factor as we would have been in direct competition for the same food supplies. That would make it an act of survival, not violence.

reply to post by Blaine91555

Unless of course, they were the food supplies.
Cannibalism is fast losing its recent taboo status as history uncovers it everywhere - from Homo Sapiens in Britain to colonial times and the World Wars. There's not a single human region that didn't practise it.
So, if we were slightly more advanced we probably hunted them and ate them.
Mmm ... hominid.
Humor aside, I'm not sure human species were really numerous enough to eat as a main protein - I'm sure it happened however.
So far Neanderthals were said to be less organized and social, with scattered fires, rather than our central fires.
And they were also denied certain tools and art.
Making huge deductions from very little evidence, it is assumed that Neanderthals used their muscle power to drive big game into their fire-hardened spears.
It's assumed they couldn't throw or aim weapons well.

But then, it was also assumed that Neanderthals walked with a brutish hunch-back for decades, because one skeleton was (as it later turned out) an athritic man.