Rogue Keeper on 3/3/2008 at 11:15
I hate Ronald Reagan because, among other filthy things he did, he awarded her with Presidential Medal of Freedom. What a farce. Now that was a warmongering jerk. An Anti-Christ himself awarding a living saint!
WHAT SICK WORLD DO WE LIVE IN ??? :nono:
Vivian on 3/3/2008 at 11:41
Quote Posted by BR796164
Fucking beastman? You assume I think that - I granted him some sophisticated skill. Anatomically indistinguishable? As you have suggested before, their cranial size was slightly bigger and there are slight differences in skeleton build as well. They were taller and generally more muscular (even females). There are people among us who are similar to them, but then we have people among us who are similar even to Neanderthals. Some do see New Guineans as "fucking beastmen", too. On some level that's understandable, afterall they used to be cannibals. But a modern, humanized, so called "wise" man should acknowledge that their lower level of development shouldn't lessen the value of their lives.
Yes, anatomically indistinguishable. Slightly different to a typical modern european, but within the range of variation displayed by extant homo's. Bigger head just seems to be some kind of cold adaptation (probably keeps the brain warmer due to higher volume/surface area ratio), increased bulk probably a bit of that and reflected the demands of hunting in a boreal environment.
You said that if you tried to educate a Cro Magnon human that you would get a 'hairier forest gump', so don't get on your ethnographic high horse all of a sudden, it makes you sound like a closet racist.
Yes, fair enough, society evolves - but you sounded like you had social and biological evolution confused for a bit. There's no evidence that we are any more intelligent than earlier
H.sapiens sub-types, so there's nothing special about us that makes us morally superior. All we've had is a longer period of cultural continuity.
Rogue Keeper on 3/3/2008 at 13:01
Quote:
Yes, anatomically indistinguishable. Slightly different to a typical modern european, but within the range of variation displayed by extant homo's. Bigger head just seems to be some kind of cold adaptation (probably keeps the brain warmer due to higher volume/surface area ratio), increased bulk probably a bit of that and reflected the demands of hunting in a boreal environment. You said that if you tried to educate a Cro Magnon human that you would get a 'hairier forest gump', so don't get on your ethnographic high horse all of a sudden, it makes you sound like a closet racist.
So for you, this :
(
http://www.resurrectisis.org/PagEvol2_files/holtcromag201.jpg)
or this
(
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Cro-Magnon-male-Skulll.png/717px-Cro-Magnon-male-Skulll.png)
or this
(
http://www.nordish.net/snpa/bilder/gl-cromagnon1.jpg)
or this
(
http://www.abouthumanevolution.org/images/cromag225.jpg)
is totally anatomically indistinguishable from this :
(
http://www.science-art.com/gallery/17/17_9122003204419.jpg)
What is, mind you, the most standard type of a modern human's skull presented on medical universities and on basic schools. Please go on and sue the education systems all over the world that they are teaching kids racism by not showing them a Cro-Magnon skull as a typical example of a modern humanoid! Good luck.
I asked you, how would you estimate intelligence of an average Cro-Magnon. You don't know how. And that is correct, because if you would present him with series of modern IQ tests, he would stare at you literally like stupid. "Forrest Gump" would be actually a flattery for a Cro-Magnon. Forrest Gump is a modern, current Homo Sapiens Sapiens. He can live perfectly in our society, he's just too simple to understand many things around him deeply. Maybe he would even surpass a trained Cro-Magnon in many everyday delicate tasks we do!
I said already I don't care about slight physiological differences as much, but if you intend to play with that shit further, as you obviously do, know that
if making differencies in physiological features makes me a "racist", then anthropology is by its roots a RACIST SCIENCE, because it works with physiological differencies among earlier hominides and us, it even divides people to various races today.
And if you believe that Neanderthals have been on lower evolutionary level than Cro-Magnons - as you scientifically should! - that surprisingly makes you a racist too. Afterall, even Neanderthals had a SOUL!
Quote:
Yes, fair enough, society evolves - but you sounded like you had social and biological evolution confused for a bit. There's no evidence that we are any more intelligent than earlier H.sapiens sub-types, so there's nothing special about us that makes us morally superior. All we've had is a longer period of cultural continuity.
And neither is there any evidence we aren't generally more intelligent. Indeed there is something very special about us - our society is at least 10 000 years more advanced than theirs. 10 thousand years of rich collective social experience, philosophical and ethical development. Biological evolution does progress with time just as social evolution does. If the evolution develops our intelligence, we develop our psychological and cultural sophistication accordingly. Next time when I insist "we are more ethically sophisticated", don't confuse it with "we are morally superior". "Advanced" and "superior" are words with quite different flavour.
Rogue Keeper on 3/3/2008 at 13:34
Unbelievable, since "sub-species" is a legitimate taxonomic rank in Biology.
Vivian on 3/3/2008 at 13:48
Yeah, but what about fucking ring-species - things that are morphologically distinct, cannot breed directly, but still have indirect gene-flow between them? What about chrono-species, things that are morphologically indistinguishable but sensibly have to have been seperate species biologically (because of genetic drift) because they exist over 50 million years or so? (that group includes most dinosaurs that have more than one example - Allosaurus, frinstance). The species concept itself is getting shaky at times, so when it comes to splitting things even more I'm dubious, ESPECIALLY when you're using morphometric divergence to seperate out a fossil species when the relevant variance in the extant population exceeds it. Cro Magnon is officially anatomically modern, and if you don't like that, tough. Go look it up.
Other points
- negative evidence (i.e. 'theres no evidence that we aren't generally more intelligent') doesn't really mean anything.
-advanced and superior colloquially mean very similar things. In phylogenetics we're not supposed to use either. We say 'derived', but I guess thats just quibbling.
-stop trying to back up your estimates of dead peoples intelligence with reference to famous retards.
- also, please stop making my own points back at me.
Rogue Keeper on 3/3/2008 at 14:46
If you refuse the classification of subspecies by principe, your biology and anthropology classes must have been a hell to get through. My condolences.
I'm sure biology eventually solves the dilemma of ring-species chrono-species to your satisfaction. Don't give up your hopes.
Quote Posted by Vivian
Cro Magnon is officially anatomically modern, and if you don't like that, tough.
Quote Posted by BR796164
I said already I don't care about slight physiological differences as much
Quote Posted by Vivian
negative evidence (i.e. 'theres no evidence that we aren't generally more intelligent') doesn't really mean anything.
Then logically neither does lack of positive evidence. Why should lack of evidence supporting your POW should have more weight than lack of evidence supporting my POW?
Quote Posted by Vivian
advanced and superior mean very similar things. In phylogenetics we're not supposed to use either. We say 'derived', but I guess thats just quibbling.
We are not discussing what "advanced" and "superior" means in phylogenetics.
We are discussing the difference between "advanced ethics" and "superior morality" (what you hear instead of "advanced ethics").
Quote Posted by Vivian
also, please stop making my own points back at me.
Quote Posted by BR796164
You assume I think that!
Vivian on 3/3/2008 at 14:59
My anthropology classes went ok enough for me to get a degree in it. I'm also halfway through a doctorate in evolutionary biomechanics. I believe I'm qualified to hold opinions on the lack of any real meaning to the concept of a sub-species, and I believe I'm far from alone in it among my colleagues.
You can't argue about something and then finish off with 'well I don't care'. Thats what dickheads do. In terms of positive evidence - well, the deal is establishing whether or not this particular ancient H.sapiens was as intelligent as the modern one, yes?
Well, their anatomy is indistinguishable from modern humans, including their cranial anatomy and features of the braincase. Thats point one. Two, they created and used complex multipart tools, appeared to understand the concept of life and death, and used symbolic thinking, particularly art, to communicate concepts etc.Technically and socially they appear to be on a level with many recent modern human societies in less civilised bits of the world. Thats two good reasons to suppose they were as intelligent as modern humans - one anatomical and one cultural - versus none to suppose that they weren't, other than your 'theres no evidence to suppose that they weren't thickies'.
Fair enough, advanced ethics, whatever, you can backpeddle on that if you want. I still would say that older peoples are exactly as psychologically complex (if thats what you mean by sophisticated) as us, even if they have less of a tech-tree behind them. Like I said, there is no evidence to suppose that the mind wasn't basically the same. Besides, what we were originally discussing was me taking the piss out of you for talking bollocks about knowing how clever Cro Magnon were, even though you obviously don't keep up with the field too much.
fett on 3/3/2008 at 16:17
A little late here, but anyone who thinks Mother Teresa was a good person is a fucking idiot (no offense). Go to Calcutta and witness what's actually happening there. The entire operation from the brainwashing of the nuns who serve, right up to the people who handle the money is a large scale operation to wrangle confession and "repentance" (whatever the FUCK that means for a dying person) out of poor, diseased, dying people for the sake of bloating the number of "conversions" to Roman-Catholicism. Robert Tilton is a fucking saint compared to the people involved in this sham. Don't be fooled - there's a PR machine that works the media for this "ministry" and until you see it up close, you cannot imagine how an individual responsible for raking in millions of dollars can only use it to bludgeon people with religion when they're in the most vulnerable state imaginable. No medicines, no healthcare, no doctors. Just old women walking around in habits "comforting" the dying and pressuring them to "confess Christ" before they kick it.
Gag a fucking maggot with a used tampon.
Rogue Keeper on 3/3/2008 at 16:54
Quote Posted by Vivian
„My anthropology classes ....“
Then good luck with re-definition and re-classification of the species, I hope it will be a little revolution, I'm quite curious about it. I'm also happy for future students of biology - it will mean just less latin words to learn.
Quote:
You can't argue about something and then finish off with 'well I don't care'. Thats what dickheads do. In terms of positive evidence - well, the deal is establishing whether or not this particular ancient H.sapiens was as intelligent as the modern one, yes?
It seems you‘re not willing to discuss their psychological and ethical sophistication, so instead you are constantly turning attention to physical features which weren't originally of my concern. You sugest psychological, ethical and cultural sophistication it's not the same, but there it ends for you and you refuse to examine it further - and let's talk about the size of the skull and shit instead, yes!? And along that I'm a racist for you, because I suggested a heretical thought that they may have lesser average intelligence.
Then by extension of your thinking every antrophologist must be a racist, because if the anatomical differences between different evolutionary stages of hominides haven't been described, we would know a dick about our origins. You can start with Darwin and call him a racist, as his evolution theory begins and ends with putting hominides on different evolutionary levels.
To quote you : „Cro Magnon H.sapiens had if anything a slighter bigger head than us, and there is no way of really telling what their psyche was like.“
Like if his psyche had something to do with the size of his head, doh !!!
Quote:
Well, their anatomy is technically indistinguishable from modern humans, including their cranial anatomy and features of the braincase. Thats point one.
I think we've been over this.
Not that you wouldn't be able to think for yourself on the street : „Heeey, he looks like a Neanderthal!“. Don't tell me. There is a little racist in every antrophologist. It must be. Otherwise this field wouldn't work.
Quote:
Two, they created and used complex multipart tools, appeared to understand the concept of life and death, and used symbolic thinking, particularly art, to communicate concepts.
I acknowledged that before and very soon.
Quote:
Technically and socially they appear to be on a level with many recent modern human societies in less civilised bits of the world. Thats two good reasons to suppose they were as intelligent as modern humans - one anatomical and one cultural - versus none to suppose that they weren't, other than your 'theres no evidence to suppose that they weren't thickies'.
And all these are reasons
to suppose, not to be sure. Please invent a time machine, go back to Upper Paleolithic period, bring a batch of carefully selected living subjects back with you, perform a series of intelligence tests and observations, ideally perform cranial autopsies on deceased ones and do necessary measurements. Then you'll maybe have a serious empirical proof in your hands. Nobel Prize waits for you.
Quote:
Fair enough, advanced ethics, whatever, you can backpeddle on that if you want. I still would say that older peoples are exactly as psychologically complex (is thats what you mean by sophisticated) as us, even if they have less of a tech-tree behind them. Like I said, there is no evidence to suppose that the mind wasn't basically the same. Besides, what we were originally discussing was me taking the piss out of you for talking bollocks about knowing how clever Cro Magnon were, even though you obviously don't keep up with the field too much.
Psychology can be shaped and trained just like intelligence, even if there always are boundaries of genetic and health factors. Your psychology and ethical concepts reflect the culture you live in.
Indeed, you made quite a fuss about a short statement „Our psyche is much more sophisticated than psyche of a Cro-Magnon.“ And yet you forgot to disprove that human nature does develop as the evolution proceeds...
I keep up with fields of sociology, political science, development of philosophy and ethics and history of art. I took classes in all these fields and I have papers for it. My Universe!
