Neanderthals built mysterious cave structures 175,000 years ago .

a reply to: Spider879

Great catch! Their communication skills had to consist of what? Words, grunts, sign, and for the sake of arguement, I will throw in physic.

They would have known more about the plants of their time than we ever will. Their diet. Did they eat meat? Where they hunters or gatherers? Either way, they would have to communicate. Hunters had to set up intricate plans to take down a mammoth, or they just ate the smaller creatures that they caught . Accidentally? Maybe, but I would think that the same accident does not happen a lot.

Gatherers. Aw the more auspicious of the two. They would have been more what the scientists are today, so to speak. Neither the aptitude nor the knowledge of the Hunter, but so much more skillful in other, more less deadly endeavors. But wait, maybe not less deadly. The gatherer had to know how to communicate to other tribesmen, when the plant gathered was deadly. Who knows, maybe they used a control group. Sorry. Just some mean-less ramblings of the thought.

originally posted by: 3daysgone
a reply to: Spider879

Great catch! Their communication skills had to consist of what? Words, grunts, sign, and for the sake of arguement, I will throw in physic.

If you are intimately acquainted with someone you can easily read their thoughts. We're all psychic in the that respect BUT even if is a typo or a mis-spell, I am going to assume it is intended. Research over the past decade has revealed that the Neanderthals not only tended and buried their dead, which displays empathy and compassion, but they tended to the sick and therefore were indeed 'physic'. As someone else pointed out, they had a diverse diet that included a variety of herbs and other plant medicinals.

www.independent.co.uk...

www.york.ac.uk...

They come across as the kind of people who would have welcomed new neighbours and shared their knowledge with them.

originally posted by: Anaana

originally posted by: 3daysgone
a reply to: Spider879

Great catch! Their communication skills had to consist of what? Words, grunts, sign, and for the sake of arguement, I will throw in physic.

If you are intimately acquainted with someone you can easily read their thoughts. We're all psychic in the that respect BUT even if is a typo or a mis-spell, I am going to assume it is intended. Research over the past decade has revealed that the Neanderthals not only tended and buried their dead, which displays empathy and compassion, but they tended to the sick and therefore were indeed 'physic'. As someone else pointed out, they had a diverse diet that included a variety of herbs and other plant medicinals.

www.independent.co.uk...

www.york.ac.uk...



They come across as the kind of people who would have welcomed new neighbours and shared their knowledge with them.

I meant psychic, as in telepathy.

You can read someone's thoughts that are close to you. I can't. At most I might be able to read their subtle change, in their situational awareness, that hints to a certain reaction to their behavioral pattern. Only if I acclimatize myself to their daily habits.

a reply to: Bedlam

Me also Neanderthal, marry one Colombian woman. Drink coffee on plantation, me make smart TV spot, Juan Neanderthaldez and me famous rich now.

originally posted by: 3daysgone
I meant psychic, as in telepathy.

You can read someone's thoughts that are close to you. I can't. At most I might be able to read their subtle change, in their situational awareness, that hints to a certain reaction to their behavioral pattern. Only if I acclimatize myself to their daily habits.

But if you were a small, extended family group living in close quarters, you would be able to communicate with limited speech. We are dependent upon language to cope with complex systems that evolved from living in enormous groups of largely unrelated families. Spoken language is often a barrier to understanding and perceiving.

a reply to: Kandinsky

i will as soon as i find it. i googled but dont see it. any chance you could link it to me?

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: Byrd

Actually, in science this is expected. Science is not the same thing as religion. The religion of our fathers is generally not questioned and you certainly don't see church doctrine being overturned on a yearly basis.

its what happens but it isnt healthy. when scientists are confronted with ideas they are against they mock and snicker like kids. the behavior that rational human beings should show is curiosity. they should respond to such ideas with a simple "wow thats very interesting we should look into that". i think science would move much much faster if that was the attitude shown by scientists.

Do you know any scientists?

I ask, because I go to science fiction conventions (and have been going since the 1980's.) There's a lot of scientists hanging out there (because some of them write science fiction and others are guests who give a lot of cool lectures on everything from "how can we make flying cars" to some of the really strange stuff. So I've met a bunch of them, including some of the NASA astronauts (who are PhDs, by the way - keep running into Stanley Love, who's very personable and kind to the fans.)

I even work (volunteer) for two world-famous dinosaur scientists.

For these people. the first thing that occurs when they see something new is that they become curious and look up a lot of stuff about it (if it's out there.)

A lot of them HAVE looked into alternative stuff (the PhD geophysicist that I know dismisses (but knows a lot about) the Flat Earth concept, the Expanding Earth concept, the Electrical Universe (he also dismisses that - but he's familiar with it and he can do the math)... the paleontologists laugh about Jurassic Park but they also talk about how it interested people in paleontology (same with archaeologists and the Indiana Jones series.)

I have found from knowing scientists that the attitude you expressed comes mostly from people who have a so-called "brilliant idea" and then didn't bother to do the basic research (the "Expanding Earth" concept) into geology and then are dismayed and offended when scientists point out that the geology doesn't even match the presentation.

Yeah, there' s a few snarky ones there and some of them have their pet 'hot button' topics. But you don't get anywhere in science by taking things for granted.

You make progress by asking "what's that?" and "why is that happening" and then reading up on it and if it IS something new or odd, taking it up for study.

originally posted by: 3daysgone
a reply to: Spider879

Great catch! Their communication skills had to consist of what? Words, grunts, sign, and for the sake of arguement, I will throw in physic.

Given that they were able to interact (trade, intermarry, hunt with) H. sapiens, it's a better guess that they did have a complex language capable of expressing ritual and negotiations. And it would have to be more complex than any of the Great Apes exhibit, given that they had identifiable culture groups and that techniques spread.

a reply to: Byrd

im sure most scientist are pretty even headed people. its the people at the top. people like dawkins or Zahi Hawass who are at the forefront. the authorities. people who have been given the spotlight and rely on keeping things the same. their careers and reputations rely on their ability to be right. as soon as a person has to be right to protect themselves the reptilian braion takes over and logic takes a back seat.

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: Kandinsky

i will as soon as i find it. i googled but dont see it. any chance you could link it to me?

You can read it here - NEO-LITHICS 2/03 - The Newsletter of Southwest Asian Neolithic Research (pdf).

It's an example of earnest research that isn't bogged down in the rhetoric you mentioned. There are more detailed, academic papers out there and this is one that's easy to absorb and understand.

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: Byrd

im sure most scientist are pretty even headed people. its the people at the top. people like dawkins or Zahi Hawass who are at the forefront. the authorities. people who have been given the spotlight and rely on keeping things the same.

Sorry, but as Dawkins and Hawass can tell you, they're actually NOT safe from other scientists. My Egyptology profs (who are well known in the field) really got onto Hawass about some of the DNA stuff.

The only ones who are "protected" (and only for a limited time) are those from totalitarian governments, where (Russia and China) the research upholds a philosophy. Out here in the rest of the world (as the NASA scientists I heard spoke about), your research is going to be challenged by everyone.

It can't stay the same - ever. Or you're not making progress.

their careers and reputations rely on their ability to be right. as soon as a person has to be right to protect themselves the reptilian braion takes over and logic takes a back seat.

Some do hold onto their beliefs (if it's their life work) - even Stephen Hawking has done so - (and to our shame, Roger Penrose.) But that doesn't mean they control science or what others think.

It's a competition sport. If you think your team has it all locked up, someone else will come along and do something odder or more different.

Heck, even my profs expect my (undergraduate) research paper to actually challenge something or point out something new. I'll fail if I just gurgle facts back at them... and I'd rather not fail. I really do want to get this Bachelors'!

a reply to: Byrd

yeah i know that... do you think im saying that science wont progress because of a small number of (albeit important) scientists? because im not. science isnt about beliefs or consensus its about who is right. we could get to the bottom of what is right quicker if people weren't such.... people.

originally posted by: Anaana

originally posted by: 3daysgone
I meant psychic, as in telepathy.

You can read someone's thoughts that are close to you. I can't. At most I might be able to read their subtle change, in their situational awareness, that hints to a certain reaction to their behavioral pattern. Only if I acclimatize myself to their daily habits.

But if you were a small, extended family group living in close quarters, you would be able to communicate with limited speech. We are dependent upon language to cope with complex systems that evolved from living in enormous groups of largely unrelated families. Spoken language is often a barrier to understanding and perceiving.

The number of sophisticated things that they did indicates they had some sort of language.

We do see culture spread in some primates... but it's not a WHOLE culture. Generally it's one useful thing rather than a whole collection of technologies (Neanderthals sewed clothing, made glues, created a number of special shaped stones and so forth and so on.)

a reply to: Byrd

Do you believe in the 100th monkey theory? or is it just hogwash?

a reply to: Spider879

what a phallyc cave if i ever saw one

originally posted by: 3daysgone
a reply to: Byrd

Do you believe in the 100th monkey theory? or is it just hogwash?

I believe that it might generally apply to some types of monkeys and even some types of animals living in social groups. I do not believe it applies to humans except in a very broad and very weak manner.

originally posted by: Zimnydran
Not to sound overly critical... but science educators "Teach" things as facts instead of stressing that it is a theory and nothing more. To be challenged and tested without fear. To be questioned and doubted.

Many researchers that go against mainstream beliefs and dare publish their findings have their careers ruined and not until after they are long dead and buried do they have their names vindicated.

So now we have a new "fact".....and a new birthday for cavemen.... and it will be taught as fact.. and someone will dare write a paper that pushes the date back a little farther....and his peers will point at him and yell HERETIC!! and make an example of him...... and bright minds will be afraid to explore new ideas and then they will learn to make the data fit the theory...or else

You mean like Harlan Bretz,who spent an entire lifetime trying to convince his fellow geologists?
www.detectingdesign.com...

originally posted by: Byrd
The number of sophisticated things that they did indicates they had some sort of language.

Yes, I know, I wasn't disputing that they had language or indeed complexity, I was only pointing out that the way in which we use language today is somewhat different to how spoken language is used amongst closely knit or related groups that could imply a greater degree of 'psychic' communication, if one was to choose to look at it that way.

a reply to: MysterX

Great thread!

The current thinking seem's to be that Neanderthal's were not the backward race we were taught at school.

humanorigins.si.edu...

The draft sequence of the Neanderthal genome provides more evidence that interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans may have occurred. It showed more similarities between non-African modern humans and Neanderthals than between African modern humans and Neanderthals. This difference between regions is consistent with interbreeding between Neanderthals and the ancestors of Eurasian modern humans before they branched off into regional groups. Approximately 1 to 4% of non-African modern human DNA is shared with Neanderthals.

Of all of the mysteries of this universe the one that I think would benefit us most is to learn the true origins of our species.

I just have a hard time believing the Out Of Africa theory. It just doesn't make sense.