Yes, even within our own species, there are long heads, round heads, fat cheeks, narrow cheeks, squat physiques, slender physiques, etc. And I, too, can think of an acquaintance or two who look more Neanderthal than Homo Sapiens.
Java man is an Erectus , Erectus was human but they could never pass for Homo Sapient. Modern humans have round skulls and no brow ridges , also those guys were not the sharpest pencils in the box , their brain was 2/3 of ours and they never improved their technology in the 1.5m years they have been around.
They were almost exclusively carnivorous predators, adapted to the cold, and stronger than humans of the time. Like warm blooded dinosaurs and the asteroid extinction hypothesis this idea will take a generation to be accepted. Too many scientists have professional stake in the idea that neanderthals were sweet cuddly guys who looked like Uncle Fred.
there are homo sapien societies that are almost exclusively meat eaters, we are all carnivores/omnivores...sapien too adapted to the cold and lived through the same ice ages in the same regions in the same way that neanderthal did, with clothing and shelters...neanderthal strength is an adaptation to their hunting techniques, up close and personal... right, they had vertical slits for pupils like depicted in the illustration show us which of the great apes has vertical pupils, and the skull they based the reconstruction on is missing the entire mid-face and they shaped it according to that...the illustration is imaginary BS, pure fantasy... eew so now now we're getting into conspiracy theories of those evil scientists who have some in this? tell us what's their plan ? global domination? ...I'll need to keep an eye on my daughter the archeologist to see what evil schemes she's concocting...
modern have no brow ridge seriously? explain this... both modern sapien...certainly looks like a brow ridge to me
Actually there is evidence that cro-magnons ate neanderthals. Why be hostile to the opposite, especially since scientists agree that neanderthals had far more meat protein in their diet. Anything that can bring down a mammoth isn't going to be squeamish about getting something smaller like us. Some even argue that one cause of neanderthal extinction was their less flexible dietary needs. The apex predator theory has some defects admittedly and the reconstruction is a bit sensationalized but look at that neanderthal skull. See the much larger eye sockets and see how they are significantly higher in the skull than h. sapiens. This guy isn't going to look like Uncle Fred no matter how you dress him up. Scientists are people and like everyone, especially the published tenured ones, they don't like to see their cherished ideas challenged. Bakker (warm blooded dinosaurs) and Alverez (asteroid extinction) were vilified for decades by their peers. It took years of work by others to bring their theories into the mainstream to a new generation of scientists. Many of the older ones never changed. They just died and were replaced by the new ones. Since Vendramini is an outsider and not an anointed archaeologist/palaeontologist it may take far longer for his ideas to take hold. But they make sense. The Velikovsky affair should have taught scientists to be cautious about attacking novel ideas without analysis. Although gloriously wrong about his basic tenets and time frames many of Velikovsky's specific hypotheses (catastrophism, migration of planetary orbits, ejection of one celestial body from another, and the idea that Venus is red hot) have now been accepted. As Dylan said "And don't speak too soon For the wheel's still in spin And there's no tellin' who that it's namin'."
wishful thinking, there is no definitive evidence neanderthals ate us or we them...sapiens have eaten other sapiens and it's possible that neanderthals even ate each other but definitive evidence is non existent...cut marks on bones do not prove cannibalization, defleshing the dead is also a ritualistic practice...Neanderthals ate more protein than a arctic hunter gather society like the Inuit? no... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...urns-ate-greens-knew-use-plants-medicine.html you see what you want to see and change perspective to meet your own pov criteria...I could meet those same criteria with photos of modern sapiens below... View attachment 19846 a recreated Neanderthal like this would go unnoticed among us when compared to the photos of modern sapiens above, out of the norm but not the extremes...modern sapiens can come with brow ridges http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19960748 anyone who authorizes illustrations like those depicted in your link isn't a credible scientist...I've personally known a number of archeologist drinking beers on my patio and none of them could care one iota what a neanderthal ultimately looks like they have nothing to gain other than satisfying curiosity in the technology/process involved and the finished results...
Actually there is some evidence. http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/did-humans-hunt-neanderthals-130521.htm Until more information is accumulated it is still a possibility. The overall consensus is still a largely carnivorous diet. Given the environmental conditions and lack of agriculture vegetation is still considered to be a less important part of their diet. I fail to see how your post shows any information about the quantity of vegetation eaten, only that they ate some. Why? Who knows? My cats eat grass for health purposes even though they're obligate carnivores. That of course is the majority opinion as I indicated in my first post. To categorically reject the other until more fossil data is accumulated seems a bit extreme almost as if you have some personal stake on the outcome. So if a person doesn't do things in a very precise way and go through a specific number of hoops he isn't a scientist? That attitude would surprise a lot of people in the 19th and even 20th centuries, especially in such a speculative field like paleontology/archaeology. Granted he's not a peer reviewed scientist with a doctorate degree from an officially accredited university but still, I didn't realize the term scientist had become so narrow and exclusive. He's certainly not a creationist and his views are based on review of current science, observation of fossil evidence, and modern reconstructive techniques. As I said in my first post this is just a minority view. If future research and fossil science begins to confirm the hypothesis it may eventually become the majority opinion. But that's for the future. I'm surprised it upsets you so.
I meant no protruding ones like earlier species , apologies for bad usage of words. The left one is no way a modern HS
the left one is indeed a modern sapiens, an Australian aborigine, another http://www.boneclones.com/BC-031.htm... View attachment 19878 we tend to have a euro centric view of how people should look, and that western europeans have the classical sapiens shaped skull but there is a large range of skull shapes none of them more advanced or more correct than the others...the different appearances are the result of geographic isolation and sexual selection... brow ridges are very normal even in europeans - - - Updated - - - intelligent people care, stupid people have issues with topics they don't comprehend...
He doesn't look modern not because of his eye sockets but because the brain case isn't rounded , teeth wise skull is modern. I do not think that Europeans are "average" and deserve to have perceptions centered on them , we lived in extreme conditions and our transformation is much more "dramatic" than people lived in conditions close to African motherland. The farther you go back in our ancestral line the more prominent the brow ridges , the larger the teeth and the more elongated brain case is , of course Aboriginals are like 60.000 years old people while we Europeans are recent addons
australia doesn't have extreme conditions? australia is far more extreme than sub saharan africa, more extreme than temperate europe... europeans and aborigines are precisely the same age, we are the exactly the same species...europeans have more archaic traits than sub saharan africans, morphology is not an indicator of development in sapiens...
Agreed...if not for DNA evidence. And yet, ALL races can interbreed with one and other. Amazing result...assuming that they are all form different 'hostile species'. Or...they were merciless. What does that have to does with racial discrimination?
that damn DNA can be such an inconvenience... be prepared to rewrite all the biology texts now, hostile species canoodling... propaganda was the norm...the enemy always ate babies, were incredibly ugly and cruel, stupid, treacherous, unmerciful and numbered in the millions etc. etc. and the valiant good guys always were but a handful and won the day regardless...the same story repeats over and over throughout history regardless of the culture...
Me? Stupid? I bet my degree in astronomy took more brain power than sifting through a hole in the ground for bones. Biologists are idiots. And they're gay.
almost as bad as nerds I used to sit for hours doing stupid math just figure than i learn that most, nerd or othrwise dont really give a sh'i
Tropical conditions are not as extreme as cold for tropical species . Nobody claimed that we are not same species , Aboriginals reached Australia like 60.000 years ago long before Europe was finaly colonised. The Australian skull you posted obviously has more Cro Magnon features than modern Europeans do . White skin is useless in Africa not only because of skin cancer but also because ultraviolet radiation destroys a substance (apologies i do not remember what it is exactly ) in female bodies and it is the one babies use to create their bones .
a degree in astronomy :roflol and I'm Bill Gates! really I am!:...oh we are all just so special on the internet aren't we ...what I've noticed about the intelligent/educated people on the forums, they don't feel the need to brag about it unlike posers, wannabe's and BSers
Tell me, what kind of astronomer doesn't know the difference between a paleontologist and a biologist? Also, what scientist of any kind would use "gay" as an insult?
At the other end of the spectrum - "Why Gramma, what big eyes ya got... Humans in 100,000 years: What will we look like? June 12, 2013 > Homo sapiens have slowly evolved over thousands of millennia, but what happens when modern technology comes into play?
good one...I'm embarrassed to say I missed that... sounds very jr. high school doesn't it, that's one of 13 yr old wyly Jr's favourite insults...
