"Cave men".....

[tholden]

Updated version... My basic response to the claims about human/hominid interbreeding coming from Max Planck...

http://cosmosincollision.com/forum/index.php?topic=57.0

Aside from everything else, Troy notes that horses and donkeys are much more closely related than we are to hominids, and that mules are sterile.

[Sparky]

What about the claims that Neanderthal dna has been recovered and matched to modern man's to some extent?

Could you find an image of a Neanderthal smiling???

[viscount aero]

from:
http://www.themandus.org/

excerpt:
neanderthal predation theory

NP theory reveals that Eurasian Neanderthals hunted, killed and cannibalised early humans for 50,000 years in an area of the Middle East known as the Mediterranean Levant (see map, below).

Because the two species were sexually compatible, Eurasian Neanderthals also abducted and raped human females.

Them and Us cites new evidence from archaeology and genetics to demonstrate that this prolonged period of cannibalistic and sexual predation began about 100,000 years ago and that by 50,000 years ago, the human population in the Levant was reduced to as few as 50 individuals.

The death toll from Neanderthal predation generated the selection pressure that transformed the tiny survivor population of early humans into modern humans.

This Levantine group became the founding population of all humans living today.

NP theory argues that modern human physiology, sexuality, aggression, propensity for inter-group violence and human nature all emerged as a direct consequence of systematic long-term dietary and sexual predation by Eurasian Neanderthals.

Vendramini's discovery of the traumatic secret history of our ancestors resolves the last great mysteries of our species - how, why, when and where we became human beings.

It is unquestionable the biggest shake-up in evolutionary theory since Darwin.

[tholden]

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.

[tholden]

One thing Troy notes is that horses and donkeys are much closer to each other than we are to Neanderthals, and all mules are sterile...

[viscount aero]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

I do take that into account. I am on thunderbolts.info where many Velikovskian followers visit. As for me I am not as impressed by that. I do not reject it out of hand but I find it very difficult to believe. It isn't that I don't believe in planetary musical chairs. I do think that the solar system we see today is merely a snapshot in time. And it was configured differently in the past. I fully believe that.

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. Many fish and creatures in caves or in the deep ocean abyss have no eyes whatsoever as they are not needed. Evolution does not always follow the same remedy for the issues it faces.

As for humans. I think human beings are highly specific to Earth and could not live elsewhere as free-breathing, unaided, biological entities. The Earth and human beings are one and feature the same proportions of key aspects in their constructions (for example human kind being 75% water as is the surface of the Earth, the presence of saline in the human body and the oceans, the foetus evolving over 9 months from a fish, a reptile, then a human, the Schumann resonance and the human body, etc....)

[tholden]

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.

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.

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. ...

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.

As for humans. I think human beings are highly specific to Earth and could not live elsewhere as free-breathing, unaided, biological entities....

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

[Spektralscavenger]

What about the evidence hinting modern humans have existed since millions of years ago?

[viscount aero]

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.

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.

But again, birds are not all predators. Most of them are herbivores (or eat insects or worms). Relative to their skulls the orbit dominates the skeletal structure. Birds are modern dinosaurs and they live, hunt, fly, and procreate in broad daylight. Why? Because they need light to see and they must resolve things orders of magnitude more clearly than humans. It is a function of resolving power versus indication of a nocturnal ecology. 90% of birds sleep at night.

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. ...

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.

That's debatable per above. Large eyes are not absolute indicators of a nocturnal ecology. As I posited beforehand, some animals have very tiny eyes for night ecology as they don't rely on eyesight in the dark. This falsifies an absolute hypothesis of large eyes = nocturnal ecology. Bats, moles, opossums, etc.. as previously mentioned. Some dark dwellers have no eyes and use sonar or electromagnetic fields to navigate through life.

As for humans. I think human beings are highly specific to Earth and could not live elsewhere as free-breathing, unaided, biological entities....

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

Modern humans predate the industrial revolution by thousands or even millions of years. Humanity survived for millennia up until today somehow. It was not by magic. I will check out the book, however.

EDIT: I checked out the book title and have already known about it per this interview:
http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/20 ... 130421.php

They talk about variable Earth gravity, living on Ganymede or something like that, and that the Sun was farther away and the world was dim.... etc... It is interesting but I have forgotten how they make the leap from Ganymede to Earth.

I actually was led to Vendramini through this interview.

[Sparky]

It is interesting but I have forgotten how they make the leap from Ganymede to Earth.

By trebuchet!

[viscount aero]

It is interesting but I have forgotten how they make the leap from Ganymede to Earth.

By trebuchet!

LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApwIGvUjZoE