Homo_Erectus
- Thread starter Ms_Lilith
- Start date
Homo_Erectus
Virgin
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2003
- Posts
- 29
vixenshe said:
Geeze, here I pick a perfectly respectable scientific kind of name... and people start reading sexual connotations into it?
Get yer minds out of the gutter!
What is this, some kind of porn site?
Homo_Erectus
Virgin
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2003
- Posts
- 29
Pyper said:
Let me be the first to solve this scientific mystery.
Homo erectus did indeed speak the first words ever spoken in the evolutionary branch that would eventually become homo sapiens sapiens...
and those words were...
Bend over!
I liked "Quest for Fire", what did you think?
And thank you for the welcome, MissTaken, very kind of you!
Pyper
Lurking
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2000
- Posts
- 12,211
Homo_Erectus said:
*in best scholarly voice*
While "Quest for Fire" was a creative interpretation of the Upper Paleolithic struggle for survival, I must protest against the inherently racist portrayal of Neandertals as hairy, dark-complected beasts and Homo sapiens sapiens as fair-haired, upright citizens. It is far more likely that Neandertals, having evolved in the cold climate of Ice Age Europe, would be fair-haired and light-skinned, while Homo sapiens sapiens, recently arrived from Africa, would appear more dark in features.
Homo_Erectus
Virgin
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2003
- Posts
- 29
Pyper said:*in best scholarly voice*
While "Quest for Fire" was a creative interpretation of the Upper Paleolithic struggle for survival, I must protest against the inherently racist portrayal of Neandertals as hairy, dark-complected beasts and Homo sapiens sapiens as fair-haired, upright citizens. It is far more likely that Neandertals, having evolved in the cold climate of Ice Age Europe, would be fair-haired and light-skinned, while Homo sapiens sapiens, recently arrived from Africa, would appear more dark in features.
I reject the whole idea that Homo Sapiens Sapiens are somehow superior to Neanderthals. The Neanderthals existed for tens of thousands of years in a harsh climate, with fully human art and burial. My guess, for what it is worth, is that Home Sapiens Sapiens had some _cultural_ advances that gave them the ability within a couple thousand years to finally wipe out our last niche competitors after 70,000 years or so of trying (and millions of years if you consider the more distant cousins we have been killing off since long before the dawn of time as we know it.)
You are absolutely right, the Neanderthals were far more likely to have low skin pigmentation (to allow for the maximum generation of Vitamin D) than were there Homo Sapien Sapien competitors at the time of that movie. But the competion was _far_ more equal than we think, perhaps more than we can comprehend, or it would not have been a 70,000+ year war... the longest war that has ever existed among "intelligent" species?
And as the ignorant survirors of the winners, we write our competitors off as stupid... when the odds are their existence is why we are as intelligent as we are today, in order to win that competion for survival... We have no evolutionary need to be as smart as we are for our niche, unless it is to beat a "stiff" competitor....
Last edited:
BoobsNBrains
Pornicator
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2002
- Posts
- 37,156
Homo_Erectus said:
We need to beat a "stiff"
Ok...so I edited the shit out of that...but those are your words...and this place does put nasty thoughts into my head. That's why I like it here.
Pyper
Lurking
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2000
- Posts
- 12,211
Homo_Erectus said:
I reject the whole idea that Homo Sapiens Sapiens are somehow superior to Neanderthals. The Neanderthals existed for tens of thousands of years in a harsh climate, with fully human art and burial. My guess, for what it is worth, is that Home Sapiens Sapiens had some _cultural_ advances that gave them the ability within a couple thousand years to finally wipe out our last niche competitors after 70,000 years or so of trying (and millions of years if you consider the more distant cousins we have been killing off since long before the dawn of time as we know it.)
You are absolutely right, the Neanderthals were far more likely to have low skin pigmentation (to allow for the maximum generation of Vitamin D) than were there Homo Sapien Sapien competitors at the time of that movie. But the competion was _far_ more equal than we think, perhaps more than we can comprehend, or it would not have been a 70,000+ year war... the longest war that has ever existed among "intelligent" species?
And as the ignorant survirors of the winners, we write our competitors off as stupid... when the odds are their existence is why we are as intelligent as we are today, in order to win that competion for survival... We have no evolutionary need to be as smart as we are for our niche, unless it is to beat a "stiff" competitor....
Ooh yeah, talk more anthropology to me, baby.
The Neandertals got a raw deal when some Frenchman in the 19th century examined an elderly and arthritic specimen and declared the entire species to be stooped, brutish knuckle-draggers.
Neandertals truly fascinate me as they were nonhuman intelligent life right here on our very own planet. Unfortunately, we killed them off or out-competed them, as we tend to do.
It's unlikely, though, our high intelligence comes from our competition with them. Homo sapiens sapiens had already existed tens of thousands of years in Africa before they moved to Europe and encountered the Neandertals. Also, Neandertals existed only in Europe, so by that argument only European Homo sapiens would have risen in intelligence.