tholden wrote:The link on the C in C forum discusses the question of same genes found in Neanderthals and some modern humans.
Troy and I do not subscribe to Vendramini's thesis of Neanderthal predation driving gracile hominids to morph into Cro Magnon man. We do believe that his Neanderthal reconstructions are accurate other than for fur color and one or two other very minor details.
viscount aero wrote:tholden wrote:The link on the C in C forum discusses the question of same genes found in Neanderthals and some modern humans.
Troy and I do not subscribe to Vendramini's thesis of Neanderthal predation driving gracile hominids to morph into Cro Magnon man. We do believe that his Neanderthal reconstructions are accurate other than for fur color and one or two other very minor details.
It's worth listening to regardless of one's beliefs I think. It breaks the mold of the conventional anthropomorphic thinking towards Neanderthals. Vendramini's model posits a more animal-like Neanderthal, less human-like, carnivorous, cannibalistic, and very aggressive--which is what most primates are (such as baboons and chimpanzees). It raises the question: does sexual/DNA compatibility, in part, mean that the species is directly related? It seems that despite sexual compatibility Neanderthals and humans are barely similar. It raises more questions than it answers.
tholden wrote:viscount aero wrote:tholden wrote:The link on the C in C forum discusses the question of same genes found in Neanderthals and some modern humans.
Troy and I do not subscribe to Vendramini's thesis of Neanderthal predation driving gracile hominids to morph into Cro Magnon man. We do believe that his Neanderthal reconstructions are accurate other than for fur color and one or two other very minor details.
It's worth listening to regardless of one's beliefs I think. It breaks the mold of the conventional anthropomorphic thinking towards Neanderthals. Vendramini's model posits a more animal-like Neanderthal, less human-like, carnivorous, cannibalistic, and very aggressive--which is what most primates are (such as baboons and chimpanzees). It raises the question: does sexual/DNA compatibility, in part, mean that the species is directly related? It seems that despite sexual compatibility Neanderthals and humans are barely similar. It raises more questions than it answers.
Vendramini's video is definitely worth listening to, but the idea of Neanderthal predation driving SK hominids into some sort of a punc-eek development into modern humans does not work for the reasons listed in the OP, again:
http://cosmosincollision.com/forum/index.php?topic=57.0
The thesis of Cosmos in Collision opens a gigantic can of worms which I assume a lot of people in the Neo-Catastrophism movement would rather not get into; nonetheless, sooner or later, they will discover that seeking human origins on Earth or Mars is a dead end. Again the most major thing which jumps out at you from Vendramini's reconstructions is the eyes, which do in fact correspond to the huge hominid eye sockets:
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r53/icebear46/n4.gif
Those eyes correspond to the overwhelmingly darkish world of the "Purple Dawn", as Troy describes:
http://saturndeathcult.com/the-sturn-de ... rple-haze/
Humans represent a creature adapted to a warm, wet, bright, and safe sort of a world; in our native state and without technology, we wouldn't last more than a few weeks in the Neanderthal's world. That also says that any sort of an inhabited planet we might ever find orbiting a dwarf star like Saturn used to be, will be inhabited by hominids and not humans. You wouldn't go there for the music or culture or anything like that but it might make for a hell of a survival TV series of sorts....
Any sort of a planet which you might ever find inhabited by humans will look more like Ganymede used to, either a planet orbiting a main sequence star directly or existing as a moon of a gas giant planet orbiting a main sequence star within the habitable zone, as formerly was the case with Ganymede and Jupiter.
viscount aero wrote:
Ok sure but realize, of course, that Vendramini is coming from an Earth-centric/Earth-only paradigm and not the "twilight purple day" Jovian/moon off-Earth worlds that are alleged to have existed when the alleged Velikovski-esque planetary orders and arrangements were quite different. None of that is proven any more than Vendramini's ideas. None of them can be proven.
tholden wrote:viscount aero wrote:
Ok sure but realize, of course, that Vendramini is coming from an Earth-centric/Earth-only paradigm and not the "twilight purple day" Jovian/moon off-Earth worlds that are alleged to have existed when the alleged Velikovski-esque planetary orders and arrangements were quite different. None of that is proven any more than Vendramini's ideas. None of them can be proven.
David Talbot would argue with you on that one but consider this...
Even if all you had was the dinosaur and hominid eye sockets, and our own eyes, you would sooner or later have to consider the likelihood that dinosaurs and hominids originated in a dark world, and that we could not have originated in such a world.
viscount aero wrote:
But about eyesight.
On Earth, owls and most birds have gigantic eyes relative to their heads. It doesn't mean they live in a dark world. Many large-eyed species live in broad daylight. Large eyes denote exponentially enhanced clarity and resolution power for the creature to use as a survival tool (such as an eagle and airborne raptors). Large eyes may denote predation.
Certainly, some animals are nocturnal and their eyes have adjusted accordingly (owls). Additionally, some nocturnal animals' eyes are actually smaller such as those on moles, bats, or opossums. These animals compensate for their poor eyesight with sonar or smell. In other words, increased (proportionately) orbit sizes need not denote absolutely that the creature lives in a dark world. ...
As for humans. I think human beings are highly specific to Earth and could not live elsewhere as free-breathing, unaided, biological entities....
viscount aero wrote:But about eyesight.
On Earth, owls and most birds have gigantic eyes relative to their heads. It doesn't mean they live in a dark world. Many large-eyed species live in broad daylight. Large eyes denote exponentially enhanced clarity and resolution power for the creature to use as a survival tool (such as an eagle and airborne raptors). Large eyes may denote predation.
tholden wrote:One of the interesting things about dinosaurs and their huge eyes was that it wasn't just predators, it was pretty much all of them, herbivores included.
viscount aero wrote:Certainly, some animals are nocturnal and their eyes have adjusted accordingly (owls). Additionally, some nocturnal animals' eyes are actually smaller such as those on moles, bats, or opossums. These animals compensate for their poor eyesight with sonar or smell. In other words, increased (proportionately) orbit sizes need not denote absolutely that the creature lives in a dark world. ...
tholden wrote:There's more to it than that. The Neandeerthal was always viewed as a primitive human rather than as an advanced ape because of the size of his brain, actually a bit larger than ours. Nonetheless it turns out that the Neanderthal brain was dominated by the areas of the brain involved with vision and motion:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-bri ... r7j2qivTnE
In other words, much of the Neanderthal brain amounted to the neurological equivalent of the circuitry for a military night vision scope.
viscount aero wrote:As for humans. I think human beings are highly specific to Earth and could not live elsewhere as free-breathing, unaided, biological entities....
tholden wrote:You really should have a copy of Cosmos in Collision. The book describes the requirements for an original human world and then builds a very powerful case for Jupiter's largest moon, Ganymede, having amounted to just such a perfect original world for humans some 60,000 years ago.
As for Earth being a perfect human world, that's totally wrong and we survive here on infrastructure and technology, and not by being natively adapted to the place. In fact how far humans are from being adapted for Earth is the basis of a popular TV show:
http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/naked-and-afraid
There's almost no such thing as a totally healthy human back past age forty in Earth's gravity and that's before you even get to predators and/or diseases and the creatures of Pandora's box. Several scholars have recently published works claiming that humans could not plausibly have originated on this planet, Lloyd Pye for one and then the new book by Ellis Silver:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... laims.html
It is interesting but I have forgotten how they make the leap from Ganymede to Earth.
Sparky wrote:It is interesting but I have forgotten how they make the leap from Ganymede to Earth.
By trebuchet!![]()
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest