Re: Neanderthal DNA in all Europeons and to a smaller exttent Asians Africans the most evoled?
Click here!
Click here!
Click here!
Click here!
So does this means Negroids are more evolved or do you think these stories are false Let me know what you think.
Click here!
Click here!
Click here!
So does this means Negroids are more evolved or do you think these stories are false Let me know what you think.
The gist of it is this:
1. A long time ago, a bunch of people (or close enough) left Africa. These people became the Neanderthals.
2. Not such a long time ago, another bunch of people left Africa. These people had S E X with the Neanderthals.
3. The people who stayed behind in Africa did not have S E X with the Neanderthals.
I'm not sure how you're supposed to arrive at the conclusion that "Africans are more evolved"... Your logic leaps kinda make my head hurt.
1. A long time ago, a bunch of people (or close enough) left Africa. These people became the Neanderthals.
2. Not such a long time ago, another bunch of people left Africa. These people had S E X with the Neanderthals.
3. The people who stayed behind in Africa did not have S E X with the Neanderthals.
I'm not sure how you're supposed to arrive at the conclusion that "Africans are more evolved"... Your logic leaps kinda make my head hurt.
Arent Neanderthals less intelligent more primitive then Homo sapiens?
There's no such thing as "more evolved." You're not "more evolved" than a bacterium. Everything's been evolving for the same amount of time.
Not true.
Anyway do you think these story is false?
Anyway do you think these story is false?
Neanderthals are extinct. Homo-sapiens and homo-neanderthals are separate species of human. Since the neanderthals all died out I dunno 35,000(?) years ago it's safe to assume that we, the homo-sapiens, are more evolved. So sure, if this is what you're saying I agree with you.
However I don't think that's what you're saying. Are you trying to say that those with the least amounts of neanderthal genomes are the most evolved? Because that's not really how it works.
However I don't think that's what you're saying. Are you trying to say that those with the least amounts of neanderthal genomes are the most evolved? Because that's not really how it works.
The logic of two similar breeds procreating to create a 'new' breed being more evolved is illogical.
If you breed a wolf with a husky, is it farther along the evolutionary line?
Does that make mutts, dogs that are essentially a mixing pot of multiple breeds of dogs, more evolved?
I honestly do not believe this.
Therefore, to me, Neanderthals and Sapiens procreating would not be any more evolved than Humans today.
If you breed a wolf with a husky, is it farther along the evolutionary line?
Does that make mutts, dogs that are essentially a mixing pot of multiple breeds of dogs, more evolved?
I honestly do not believe this.
Therefore, to me, Neanderthals and Sapiens procreating would not be any more evolved than Humans today.
Arent Neanderthals less intelligent more primitive then Homo sapiens?
Nope. There's plenty of evidence of Neanderthal tool use, cave paintings and funeral rites - the same stuff as humans of the time. Whether they were noticeably dumber, as intelligent, or smarter than contemporary modern humans is anyone's guess with the amount of information we have. They weren't short either.
Even if they HAD been moronic troglodytes, interbreeding wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing in the long run. Natural selection favours good traits, so a troglodyte/human descendant would have Human Intelligence +1 and Troglodyte Strength +1, rather than Human Strength -1 and Troglodyte Intelligence -1.
And certainly, none of this is "More evolved"... Simply "better" would be a much more fitting word for what you're getting at.
Nope. There's plenty of evidence of Neanderthal tool use, cave paintings and funeral rites - the same stuff as humans of the time. Whether they were noticeably dumber, as intelligent, or smarter than contemporary modern humans is anyone's guess with the amount of information we have. They weren't short either.
Even if they HAD been moronic troglodytes, interbreeding wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing in the long run. Natural selection favours good traits, so a troglodyte/human descendant would have Human Intelligence +1 and Troglodyte Strength +1, rather than Human Strength -1 and Troglodyte Intelligence -1.
And certainly, none of this is "More evolved"... Simply "better" would be a much more fitting word for what you're getting at.
Even then, stating something is 'more evolved' is a gross oversimplification of the evolutionary process, of which I do not claim to be knowledgeable in due to having no formal education in it beyond passing mention in a grade school science class.
From what I do know is that evolution happens in which a certain animal gains traits that allow it to thrive in a specific environment, such as certain birds having smaller, thinner beaks to snatch up termites and the like than other birds with more robust beaks.
From what I do know is that evolution happens in which a certain animal gains traits that allow it to thrive in a specific environment, such as certain birds having smaller, thinner beaks to snatch up termites and the like than other birds with more robust beaks.
Nope. There's plenty of evidence of Neanderthal tool use, cave paintings and funeral rites - the same stuff as humans of the time. Whether they were noticeably dumber, as intelligent, or smarter than contemporary modern humans is anyone's guess with the amount of information we have. They weren't short either.
Really?
Really?
