You are a fukcing Neanderthal

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.

steddyeddy

Just saw Wibbs post and have to back him up. Europeans are part neandertal as confirmed by genome studies.

Wibbs

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

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

Yea. They studied the arm bones of a female Neandertal and judging by the muscle attachments she had 10% more muscle power than the world champion male arm wrestler. The men would have been significantly stronger again. Their forearm muscles were so strong they actually bent the underlying bones into a curve from the strain. In a straight fight they would fook you up in a big way.

steddyeddy wrote:

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.

They had tents and mammoth bone houses too. I suspect brainswise if you cloned one(late Neandertal) and brought him or her up in a modern environment they'd be the same as modern humans on that score. The jury may still be out on the burial of their dead. Some disagree with the intrepretation of possible grave sites. In any event some modern humans today and in the past weren't too pushed with ritual burial. There's an Amazonian tribe(IIRC) that shed few tears about deaths and barely cover the body. I'd reckon it's how they looked after their living that shows their culture. One bloke they found had a bad limp, was blind in one eye and had an atrophied arm that had been ripped off/amputated many years before he died(how tough was this old bastard) and they looked after him and fed him, yet he wouldn't have been much cop in a hunt and would have been a liability because of his bad limp. He must have been valuable to them, even in this state. Another old guy hadn't a tooth in his head(very unusual for back then) and was riddled with arthritis, yet someone looked after him and probably had to pre chew his food for him. Most of them have a list of injuries and broken bones(from being up close and personal with huge effin prey) and survived them and would have had to be treated in some way while they were healing. One site may hint at particular herbs and such that may have been used in a palative way. The more we know of them the more human they become.

Gauss

1ZRed wrote: »

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.

If they can't make viable offspring then no. Inwas going on the basis of the zeedonk.

Of the zeedonk is infertile then no they are different species.

Mouldy Mary

Didn't red hair start with Neanderthals?

steddyeddy

Mouldy Mary wrote: »

Didn't red hair start with Neanderthals?

Well it's an example of convergent evolution I think. They evolved red hair but we didn't get our red heads from neanderthal genes. I think we evolved it independently. Again I use the phrase I think because I'm not 100% sure.

Fox_In_Socks

Wibbs wrote: »

One bloke they found had a bad limp, was blind in one eye and had an atrophied arm that had been ripped off/amputated many years before he died(how tough was this old bastard) and they looked after him and fed him, yet he wouldn't have been much cop in a hunt and would have been a liability because of his bad limp. He must have been valuable to them, even in this state.

*COUGH* Clan of the Cave Bear *COUGH*

:pac:

KTRIC

I think this thread has gone completely off course and am I the only one that has suspicions that the OP doesn't have a notion what a neanderthal is ??

Fox_In_Socks

KTRIC wrote: »

I think this thread has gone completely off course and am I the only one that has suspicions that the OP doesn't have a notion what a neanderthal is ??

The OP is a "makey uppy" person. Check out his previous started threads.

face1990

OP, you asked if it's a racist statement. It's not, as neanderthals are not a race of human. Doubtless it would be offensive to neanderthals if they still existed, but they don't.

Or are you actually just asking this so that you can talk about racial classifications and intelligence levels? Cos that is racist.

(Btw, you mentioned black people having lower intelligence levels.
While there is some evidence toward that conclusion, it fails to take into account the differences in income and access to education between white & black people.
I.e. the perceived difference in intelligence is down to socio-economic factors rather than genetic factors.)

Wibbs

face1990 wrote: »

OP, you asked if it's a racist statement. It's not, as neanderthals are not a race of human. Doubtless it would be offensive to neanderthals if they still existed, but they don't.

I reckon if they were still around they'd be seen as another "race", more scientifically another population of humans. Then again it would be unlikely they'd stil be around as "pure" Neandertals. Just like none of us are "pure" humans. We've been migrating back and forth happily shagging along the way for a very very long time, so although populations may differ, we're all still human and that would IMHO have happened with them.

Indeed IMHO that's what likely happened to them. Rather than the extinction notion I would personally favour a more nuanced "disappearance" of them. We now know that non African folks have Neandertal DNA and that amount was higher in the past closer to the event. What about their DNA? We've only got tiny amounts of it from a couple of source individuals. I'll put money down now that if and when they find Neandertal DNA closer in date to their disappearance it'll contain our DNA and lots of it. IE that they didn't so much as die out for the most part, but became more assimilated, geneticaly and culturally until the "pure" Neandertal fizzled out, leaving basically us carrying bits of them.

Or are you actually just asking this so that you can talk about racial classifications and intelligence levels? Cos that is racist.

Well the question if posed isn't in of itself racist, however dubious conclusions might be. There should be no "forbidden" questions especially about cultural sacred cows.

(Btw, you mentioned black people having lower intelligence levels.
While there is some evidence toward that conclusion, it fails to take into account the differences in income and access to education between white & black people.
I.e. the perceived difference in intelligence is down to socio-economic factors rather than genetic factors.)

+1, I'd add in cultural selection bias to that mix. EG id a culture selects for male thuggery, you'll end up with more male thugs, if a culture selects for intelligence you'll end up with more intelligence coming through. So you can't easily equate what one culture selects for with the abilities of people from that culture. Take the African Americans. "Oh they're great at basketball" Sure, but that's because the culture selects for it as a positive and there is easy access to Bball courts. There was a time it was thought Black folks were crap at things like tennis. Oh wait... There are lots of top end Brazilian footballists and racing drivers. Does this mean they're genetically "designed" for same? And not designed for Basketball? Nope. African ancestry people do extremely well at many field sports. Now there may indeed be a population advantage because of selection pressures of the slave trade, however why don't you see a black face winning the Tour de France? Maybe they don't respond well to the drugs , but far more likely its because while they would clearly have the same or possibly better aerobic advantages, bike racing isn't yet on their cultural radar(though there have been a couple of black blokes who were gangbusters on bikes, particularly on track). IIRC correctly the French have won the TdF more than anyone, does this mean your French bloke is genetically a separate race and genetically superior in turning pedals?

TL;DR Cultural selection pressures are an enormous factor in such things and this also includes intelligence and the testing of same.