You are a fukcing Neanderthal

Gauss

Do you find the racist statement above acceptable?

The assumption is that Neanderthals are inferior. I for one am not comfortable with labelling other races as superior or inferior.

Ghandee

Gauss wrote: »

Do you find the racist statement above acceptable?

Neanderthals weren't a different 'race' to us though.

They were a different species.

I get called horse cock all the time, same difference.

oldyouth

Totally acceptable, no wait I mean unacceptable, or do I?

I'm confused:o

stoneill

Sexy species though.

Opinicus

Not necessarily. They could be admiring your large beautiful sloping forehead or your big ****ing nose.

kfallon

I have nothing against the Dutch :pac:

Strawberry Fields

survival of the fittest. they are extinct.

Where To

What Ghandee said.

1ZRed

They're extinct and they never were within our race.


It's like saying the phrase "dumb as a dodo" is racist.

Gran Hermano

OP, you need to move on and evolve.

0ph0rce0

**** off with the racist threads, you big neanderthal

Ghandee

Loved this neanderthal when i was a lad!

Latchy

That's not racist ...that's telling the truth .

ScumLord

Well at least someone learned something today. Humans and Neanderthals were completely different species. Next up, Biggins with the letter A.

Lawrence1895

Didn't they invent the first weapons and the wheel?

Bad Santa

I'm rushing out but just off to say quickly that remarkably little is known about the population-level processes leading up to the extinction of the Neanderthal. TDNA sequences from 13 Neanderthal individuals, including a novel sequence from northern Spain, examining Neanderthal demographic history, the analyses indicated that recent western European Neanderthals (48 kyr). Using control region sequences, Bayesian demographic simulations provide higher support for a model of population fragmentation followed by separate demographic trajectories in sub-populations over a null model of a single stable population. The most parsimonious explanation for these results is that of a population turnover in western Europe during early Marine Isotope Stage 3, predating the arrival of anatomically modern humans in the region and so, yeah, using 'Neanderthal' as an insult ignores the fact that Ron Jeremy, the only current living Neanderthal, could quite easily perform autofellatio.

SEPT 23 1989

They had bigger brains than us and they wore flares

Latchy

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

They had bigger brains than us and they wore flares

1970s Hipsters .

ScumLord

Lars1916 wrote: »

Didn't they invent the first weapons and the wheel?

They were extremely intelligent but it seems the one thing they lacked was sociability. Humans get along with other humans and trade outside of their family group. It seems Neanderthals did not. So it was pretty much the entire human species against small family groups of Neanderthals.

sydthebeat

Ghandee wrote: »

Neanderthals weren't a different 'race' to us though.

They were a different species.

I get called horse cock all the time, same difference.

Seeing as we could procreate with them its debatable if it is actual correct to claim they were a different species.

Duckworth_Luas

Aren't they obsessed with "flegs"?

Pilotdude5

‘Adventurous’ Woman Needed as Surrogate for Neanderthal Baby

http://www.completegenomics.net/adventurous-woman-needed-as-surrogate-for-neanderthal-baby/

ScumLord

Pilotdude5 wrote: »

‘Adventurous’ Woman Needed as Surrogate for Neanderthal Baby

http://www.completegenomics.net/adventurous-woman-needed-as-surrogate-for-neanderthal-baby/

Are you an adventurous human woman?

Dammit, so close.

Gauss

Latchy wrote: »

That's not racist ...that's telling the truth .

Saying blacks are dumber is the truth as they get lower iq scores on average, it's still racist though.

Bad Santa

Gauss wrote: »

You are a fukcing Neanderthal

Next time someone says that to you Gauss, just say:

I beg your pardon, I'm celibate.

ScumLord

Gauss wrote: »

Saying blacks are dumber is the truth as they get lower iq scores on average, it's still racist though.

It's not the truth to say black people are dumber across the board. That would be a ridiculous assumption to make.

Human groups tend to have a wide variety of talents spread across the population so that different individuals end up excelling in different areas.

Thrill

Gauss wrote: »

Do you find the racist statement above acceptable?

The assumption is that Neanderthals are inferior. I for one am not comfortable with labelling other races as superior or inferior.

Damn their hairy hides. Bunch of knuckle draggers.

Gauss

Gauss wrote: »

The assumption is that Neanderthals are inferior. I for one am not comfortable with labelling other races as superior or inferior.

There is no assumption that Neanderthals are inferior. The implication in calling someone a Neanderthal is that they're primitive. Which Neanderthals are.

Hollzy

As has been already said, they had a larger brain capacity.

Interesting point that was made at the end of a palaeontology lecture I had - there was some breeding between neanderthals and our species so some modern people actually have a small number of neanderthal genes.

Rasheed

Bad Santa wrote: »

Next time someone says that to you Gauss, just say:

I beg your pardon, I'm celibate.

I don't get that one..... : (

Gauss

Ghandee wrote: »

Neanderthals weren't a different 'race' to us though.

They were a different species.

I get called horse cock all the time, same difference.

Define a different species.

judgefudge

sydthebeat wrote: »

Seeing as we could procreate with them its debatable if it is actual correct to claim they were a different species.

We are Homo sapiens they are homo neanderthalensis.

Gauss

true-or-false wrote: »

There is no assumption that Neanderthals are inferior. The implication in calling someone a Neanderthal is that they're primitive. Which Neanderthals are.

If there is no assumption of inferiority would deem the statement acceptable, however it is still racist if you consider Neanderthals a race.

What makes Asians not a different species to Caucasians which doesn't apply to Caucasians and Neanderthals?

Yitzhak Rabin

judgefudge wrote: »

We are Homo sapiens they are homo neanderthalensis.

They were classified as a separate species before it was discovered we could mate with them. Technically we (non-africans) are partly Neanderthals. About 4% Neanderthal. Possibly more as we only have a tiny sample to create a Neanderthal genome from.

Tbh, we still know fcuk all about what exactly was going on when all the different types of humans were knocking about at the same time. Saipiens, Neanderthal, denisovans, cro-magnon etc. I reckon if they were like humans today then, everyone was fcuking everyone, and we're a big mixed bag of different genes that transferred from different populations.

1ZRed

Gauss wrote: »

If there is no assumption of inferiority would deem the statement acceptable, however it is still racist if you consider Neanderthals a race.

What makes Asians not a different species to Caucasians which doesn't apply to Caucasians and Neanderthals?

Asians and Caucasians are still the same species!

Neanderthals are considered to be a different species that are closely related to modern humans but are still different.

Look up the anatomical differences between humans and neanderthals and you'll find many. There's no such difference between Asians and Caucasians as we are both of the same species. The differences you're probably thinking of, eye shape, etc. are only traits to that race.

This is a stupid argument.

Gauss

1ZRed wrote: »

Asians and Caucasians are still the same species!

Neanderthals are considered to be a different species that are closely related to modern humans but are still different.

Look up the anatomical differences between humans and neanderthals and you'll find many. There's no such difference between Asians and Caucasians as we are both of the same species. The differences you're probably thinking of, eye shape, etc. are only traits to that race.

This is a stupid argument.

I think it's an interesting argument.

What particular anatomical differences need to be in place to distiguish separate species.

There are a variety of skull shapes amongst various human "races" for example?

Neanderthals and humans were capable of breeding with eachother, many would say that means we are the same species, simply different subspecies.

Latchy

Gauss wrote: »

Saying blacks are dumber is the truth as they get lower iq scores on average, it's still racist though.

Hmmm....you see I wasn't thinking along race lines ( although some might use the term to describe one and it would be racist ) but more of the modern day use of the world for people who are just plain destructive with no consequences for their actions .

Hollzy

Defining a species is one of the most debated topics in biology... There's the biological species concept, the evolutionary species concept and recognition species concept to name a few. Each has it's strengths and weaknesses.

To quote a lecturer I had "A species is that which is defined as a species by a competent taxonomist!"

Fr_Dougal

Gauss wrote: »

Do you find the racist statement above acceptable?

The assumption is that Neanderthals are inferior. I for one am not comfortable with labelling other races as superior or inferior.

Replace "Neanderthal" with "traveller", "Jew" or "black" etc. and you have your answer.

crockholm

Saving my judgement until I listen to the neanderthal representative on the ICCL debate the matter with cro-mag supremacists on pat kenny's show

1ZRed

Gauss wrote: »

I think it's an interesting argument.

What particular anatomical differences need to be in place to distiguish separate species.

Enough major ones to differentiate the species.

There are a variety of skull shapes amongst various human "races" for example?

No there isn't. There is one primary skull shape which is distinctly homo sapien. The differences in shape I think you're taking about are altered by people - the Egyptians commonly practised skull modification as well as the Incan's, etc.

Funnily enough I'm messing around on the Internet here and a documentary called Russian Bigfoot is on in the background and they thought they found a relic neantherthal in the 19th century. The skull looked neantherthal-like but once analysed and X-rayed by scientists it was actually distinctly human as the curvature of the skull was a dead give away despite looking very different at a glance.

Neanderthals and humans were capable of breeding with eachother, many would say that means we are the same species, simply different subspecies.

Some say they were a subspecies but nobody says they were the same species. The differences in anatomy like skull shape and capacity as well physical stature are too different to be considered the same species as us.

Being a subspecies isn't the same as being of the same species. We shared a common ancestor and are closely related in an evolutionary sense but we are still different as we evolved in different paths and so we are not of the same species.

It wasn't me!

Gauss wrote: »

Neanderthals and humans were capable of breeding with eachother, many would say that means we are the same species, simply different subspecies.

Are horses and donkeys the same species?

As to neanderthals and homo sapiens, look at the actual physical structure. Your bog standard neanderthal could pull the limbs off a human like you pull them off a fly. They were absolutely monstrously strong, with strong bones to match. Very different structure.

Gauss

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Are horses and donkeys the same species?

The argument can be made that they are.

Yitzhak Rabin

1ZRed wrote: »

Enough major ones to differentiate the species.

No there isn't. There is one primary skull shape which is distinctly homo sapien. The differences in shape I think you're taking about are altered by people - the Egyptians commonly practised skull modification as well as the Incan's, etc.

Funnily enough I'm messing around on the Internet here and a documentary called Russian Bigfoot is on in the background and they thought they found a relic neantherthal in the 19th century. The skull looked neantherthal-like but once analysed and X-rayed by scientists it was actually distinctly human as the curvature of the skull was a dead give away despite looking very different at a glance.

Some say they were a subspecies but nobody says they were the same species. The differences in anatomy like skull shape and capacity as well physical stature are too different to be considered the same species as us.

Being a subspecies isn't the same as being of the same species. We shared a common ancestor and are closely related in an evolutionary sense but we are still different as we evolved in different paths and so we are not of the same species.

I think it's dodgy territory when you start getting into looking at skull shapes and anatomical differences to determine species. Population genetics, IMO, are the only way to decide.

Say a paleo-anthropologist dug up the bones of a large Finnish man, an Australian aborigine, a Peruvian man from the andes, and an African Pygmy. We know that they are all homo saipiens, as we have access to comparative genetics. However I have no doubt if they were dated as being 300,000 years old, a palaeontologist would be declaring them as different species or sub-species of humans. They'd be pointing out the thicker bones and skull of the Australian, the short stature of the African, the large modern gracile build of the Finn, the larger more developed rib-cage, and more stout stronger legs of the Peruvian.

I really think the whole concept of species, is much less definite marked out than people like to say. Saying Neanderthal were definitely a different species is incorrect in my opinion. They were definitely human, they could definitely produce viable offspring with us, they're behaviour was remarkably similar. The more we discover about them, the more they surprise us with how 'advanced' they were. They even seemed to have art, and jewellery.

I think to be honest we'd be better off just throwing out the whole notion of race, and species and sub-species, and just talked in terms of population and relatedness.

Gauss

1ZRed wrote: »

Enough major ones to differentiate the species.

No there isn't. There is one primary skull shape which is distinctly homo sapien. The differences in shape I think you're taking about are altered by people - the Egyptians commonly practised skull modification as well as the Incan's, etc.

Funnily enough I'm messing around on the Internet here and a documentary called Russian Bigfoot is on in the background and they thought they found a relic neantherthal in the 19th century. The skull looked neantherthal-like but once analysed and X-rayed by scientists it was actually distinctly human as the curvature of the skull was a dead give away despite looking very different at a glance.

Some say they were a subspecies but nobody says they were the same species. The differences in anatomy like skull shape and capacity as well physical stature are too different to be considered the same species as us.

Being a subspecies isn't the same as being of the same species. We shared a common ancestor and are closely related in an evolutionary sense but we are still different as we evolved in different paths and so we are not of the same species.

That isn't particularly specific. Once the differences are big enough.

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/racial-differences-in-skull-shape/

As you can see the human negroid skull is differerent to the caucosid skull.there lots of other differences such as the enzymes we produce.

Caucasians also have common ancestors to Asians. You could make an argument that Asians are a different species if you maintain Neanderthals are different species and leopards and jaguars are different species.

It wasn't me!

Gauss wrote: »

The argument can be made that they are.

Not on that basis, it can't.

They can breed, but the offspring are sterile. That would suggest that reproductive compatibility is not a useful indicator of shared species.

1ZRed

Gauss wrote: »

The argument can be made that they are.

Because they've four legs, hooves and are mammals?

Absolutely not. Part of the definition of a specials is that organisms can interbreed with each other to produce viable and fertile offspring. Since donkeys and horses can breed but not produce fertile offspring that is just part of the reasoning behind why they are considered differing species.

Galwayguy35

Weren't they supposed to be twice as strong as even the most powerful homo sapiens.

1ZRed

Gauss wrote: »

Caucasians also have common ancestors to Asians. You could make an argument that Asians are a different species if you maintain Neanderthals are different species and leopards and jaguars are different species.

No and you're still not getting it. Anatomically speaking we are the exact same as them.

Leopards and jaguars have very different structures for their different environments so they have evolved to be different. The only thing similar between them is that they are big cats that share some of the characteristics of being that. The differences between Caucasians and Asians is near absolutely non existent when you're talking about the biological aspect of things.

That isn't particularly specific. Once the differences are big enough.

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/racial-differences-in-skull-shape/

As you can see the human negroid skull is differerent to the caucosid skull.there lots of other differences such as the enzymes we produce.

What's your argument here? I actually don't fully know what angle you're coming from.

Wibbs

1ZRed wrote: »

They're extinct and they never were within our race.

ScumLord wrote: »

Well at least someone learned something today. Humans and Neanderthals were completely different species.

Eh nope, 'fraid not. They were very closely related to us, enough that we could have viable kids with each other, not possible with a completely different species. And hence non Africans have up to 4% Neandertal DNA in their genes(and Otzi the ice man has near 7% because he was closer to the event). We were subspecies of each other and they were "human". I found out I've 3% or somesuch of their DNA, so yep I'm proud to be a Neandertal(in part).

As for their inventiveness? Well contrary to popular we were both on a pretty level playing field technology wise up until around 40,000 years ago. Culturally pretty close too. Indeed one area of research in Spain and Italy shows they were regularly adorning themselves with jewelry and body paint and bird feathers before us and we may have learned that from them. They seem to have been the first to make bread/biscuits and had a type of glue that required serious prep to come up with(we even have a lump of it that still has the guys fingerprint on it and it looks like one of ours), oh and they made the first throwing spears we know of. One site again in Spain is turning up complex wood tools which rarely survive. They survived and thrived in myriad changing environments for well over 300,000 years. "Cavemen" they were not.

steddyeddy

Unpopular opinion but neanderthals .cared for their dead, they may have been responsible for some cave paintings attributed to modern humans and they may have used boats. Imo they were more intelligent than some humans, stronger and probrably more healthy than a lot of modern humans.