so people dont evolve they pretty much just stay the same except for an increase in technology yeah that sounds about right but why call early humans neanderthals at all why not just call them early humans?
| |
Well, neanderthals have a substantially different physical structure from modern homo sapiens. They were a robust species meaning they were much larger than humans. Additionally, they have different skeletal features, especially with regard to the jaw, brow and dome. This lead scholars to speculate that they were a sepearate species. However, the name neanderthal is simply a derivation of the site where the first remains were found. It has since been used to identify the species (or sub-species as many scientists now believe).
However, to say that humans, or any other creature, stay pretty much the same isn't wholly accurate. There are large differences between early homo sapiens and anthropologically modern homo sapiens sapiens (AMHS). But there differences are related to physiology, not psychology or intellectual ability. On average AMHS have a slightly larger brain than early homo sapiens. Does that mean we are smarter? Not necessarilly. While our brains are probably slightly more efficient as a whole (think about the weakest links getting weeded out), that doesn't mean any individual modern human is any more intelligent than any individual early homo sapien. In fact, intelligence is highly relative and I would argue that in terms of reaction and adaptive thinking, early homo sapiens would probably be hands down winners over the sedate modern populace. Fortunately for us, we have the benefit of better education and tools, so we don't need to be as "smart" in that regard. Unfortunately, stripped of those tools we are often woefully out of our element (eg the pathetic attempts at survival on the series "Survivor"). -James | |
Jmurph wrote:
(think about the weakest links getting weeded out) Unfortunately, this does not happen any more. Smokers, dumb people, druggies, they all reproduce and as soon as they are near-death or sick they are cared for. These days, natural selection is almost negligible in the development of humans, and it will become moreso as new remedies for deseases and other health technologies become avaliable. -Lord of Water | |
Foomer wrote:
Annoying. HAHAH I love that word, I will start saying it now! next to "sorry ms. jackson OOOOOOOOO I am for real!" lol got that stupid song stuck in my head. Stealth2k | |
Unfortunately, this does not happen any more. Smokers, dumb people, druggies, they all reproduce and as soon as they are near-death or sick they are cared for. These days, natural selection is almost negligible in the development of humans, and it will become moreso as new remedies for deseases and other health technologies become avaliable. You say this like it is a bad thing. Evolution/natural selection is simply a process, like addition, that is neither good nor bad. True, in some ways it may benefit a species as a whole by incrasing the number of its members that have genetically desirable traits, but just as often it allows random or even destructive traits to continue until the species becomes extinct. Saying that people are "dumb" or "smokers" hardly makes them fit for extinction and if these genes hadn't survived in the first place, they would not be here today, so obviously they do not rise to the level that previous natural selection weeded them out. Perhaps they have other desirable traits, such as the dumb ox that's also incredibly strong and a great friend. Or the smoker who is intelligent. And natural selection continue; we simply have changed the environment. People still continue to die or fail to pass on genetic material. Now, different traits are considered beneficial for survival, however. Intelligence may become more desirable than endurance, for example. However, it is highly likely that the latter will still be necessary in a number of situations and over-specializing genetically is usually a very bad thing. As to implying that we give medical care to the ill is a bad thing, I don't know where to begin. Once again, the occurrence of the "sick"-prone genes indicate that previous natural selection failed to remove them, thus there is little reason to say modern society has substantially interfered with the process in that regard. On a moral level, however, humans have almost universally advocated care for those members who require it- it's one of the traits that most human beings consider a defining element of "humanity"- compassion. Just as the ancient neanderthals cared for their sick, elderly member when he was no longer able to hunt for himself, modern humans seek to care for each other in the hope that the same would be done for them. Even when it is clear recovery is not possible, we as humans still seek to aid one another. It is a sort of preservation instinct that has helped us survive through over a million years of change. Now we simply have tools to aid more people in worse conditions. Those that would have died may now live. Is this a bad thing? Well, let's illustrate by example. Stephen Hawkings. Arguably one of the most intelligent members of our species ever. And yet physically useless. Ought we not preserve such members? I must admit that I am somewhat biased in that I was born with pneumonia and would not have been viable prior to probably about 1965. Prior to WWII, my mother would have died as well. (In fact, in primitive societies, childbirth is the leading cause of death in women.) Since then I have gone on to become a good athlete, National Merit Scholar and currently am on a full scholarship to law school. Is the genetic pool adversely affected by Hawking's continued existence? By mine? By either when we procreate? My point is that in all of this, one must keep sight of the larger picture. Trying to rectify the morally neutral natural world with our own subjective value judgements can be difficult and invite us to errors if one is not careful. | |
Well, it's not just natural selection that is hurt by such complete medical care. Now, I'm not up in arms with the medical system, or the idea of helping the ill, but the idea that we must save a human at all costs is simply insane. Consider permadeath in a MUD; if you are killed, there is no second chance. Then, consider, for example, substance abuse in real life. One can abuse even multiple substances to get "high" or to feel good. It can be legal or illegal. But, they know that when they are in a bind due to their substance abuse, the medical system kicks in and saves them. If common knowlage was that substance abusers died and were not "saved" by the medical system, many abusers would not start in the first place. We would not have your hypothetical "intelligent person who smokes". There might be a load of dull-minded fools who would still smoke and do pot, but those people would be weeded out of socioty by their deaths. Now, these thoughts are part of my beleifs but it seems that BYOND is not a good place to share them, so I will drop out of this post as not to get myself any deeper in this argument. It'll do us all good to discontinue the argument alltogether, in my mind.
-Lord of Water | |
Why do people continue to insist that neanderthals were some kind of stupid brute? Anthropologists have shown that not only was the neanderthal highly intelligent, some may have actually been smarter than homo sapiens. Neanderthals were the first to use flint spear points and fire tempering of wood, for example. Neanderthals seem to have very developed cultures that included music, religion, and charity for the elderly and injured. In fact some thoerists believe the neanderthals were not a seperate hominid species at all and point to feature overlap between late neanderthals and modern humans that are not present in earlier homo sapiens remains.
Some good info sites:
http://www.neanderthal-modern.com/index.html
http://sapphire.indstate.edu/~ramanank/index.html
http://www.webster.sk.ca/greenwich/fl-compl.htm (concerns the "neanderthal flute")
PS This was not meant in any way to disparage you, Super16. I simply get annoyed by the perpetuation of ignorance and stereotypes that I feel are harmful to an understanding of ourselves as human beings.
-James (who would have proudly befriended neanderthals for trade and protection ;-)