Support NeoGAF

[Londa]

Maybe not, but I'm seeing it here:

wasn't that the one I was talking about? lol

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

The actual quote talks about how Neanderthal culture may have been palatable to modern humans due to their appreciation of art and music. Yes, that is speculation, and would generally be in the discussion section of the paper, and would be best left for confirmation by a more qualified source.

The factual findings - that humans at one point screwed around with other humanoid subspecies - is kind of hard to refute unless you deny that DNA is our primary genetic material.

Londa, you'd be getting less grief (or, at least, more nuanced grief) if you didn't do a drive-by thread bomb. References to "GAF" as a singular dim-witted hivemind are also frowned upon by the admins. As it turns out, your original criticism was a minor one expressed in a really confrontational way.

 

[Londa]

1. I wasn't trolling you, I was pointing out that you were acting like an imbecile in a thread celebrating an astounding (and somewhat comforting, actually) scientific finding. Here we are, thinking -- "hey, we didn't wipe them out! They fucked our great grandmothers and now we have better hair!" But nope, you're like "why should I believe what some 'scientist' (i bet you're finger quoting at this very moment!) says?" And we're like...waaaaa? So:

2. When you say the words "so-called scientist," in that exact order, it brands you forever as a dimwit, a fucktard, a slow trailing slug of a human. It's a dog whistle, man. There's only ONE type of person that uses that phrase, and we all know who they are.

3. But, let's give you the benefit of the doubt. What's a so-called scientist? What's an actual scientist? Do you know what a peer-reviewed article is? You home-schooled by any chance? Are you familiar with the academic rigors required to earn a pHD? Do you believe in dinosaurs? Do you believe in global warming? Do you believe our Solar System is about 6 billion years old, and do you know why everyone else does?

To be clear, you need to know that people don't "just believe" what "scientists" say. It doesn't work like that. But to even think like that, to say something like that, I dunno. It speaks to your culture, or lack of it. I'm not trying to stereotype you, but I'm guessing you don't say "so-called scientist" in one breath while positing counter-theories to string theory in the next.

I see that you can't discuss anything without calling people names. But here you are standing on your high horse acting as if you are superior/smarter than me. Whatever man, I'm done with you.

 

[Ahoi-Brause]

The actual quote talks about how Neanderthal culture may have been palatable to modern humans due to their appreciation of art and music. Yes, that is speculation, and would generally be in the discussion section of the paper, and would be best left for confirmation by a more qualified source.

The factual findings - that humans at one point screwed around with other humanoid subspecies - is kind of hard to refute unless you deny that DNA is our primary genetic material.

Well africans love music too.

 

[Ghost_Protocol]

If you truly "don't believe" what this Harvard/MIT backed, professional, peer-reviewed scientific article from Oxford's Molecular Biology and Evolution Journal has to say, you should have a reason beyond "It sounds like a guess." Comparing something like this to finding the "Ark", or the Dead Sea Scrolls (which are real, and have been found) is ridiculous.

 

[Ahoi-Brause]

If you truly "don't believe" what this Harvard/MIT backed, professional, peer-reviewed scientific article from Oxford's Molecular Biology and Evolution Journal has to say, you should have a reason beyond "It sounds like a guess." Comparing something like this to finding the "Ark", or the Dead Sea Scrolls (which are real, and have been found) is ridiculous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kFhPVAhV_o

 

[Souldriver]

how many times have scientist found the Ark? Dead sea scrolls? really now? you trying to say scientists are never wrong?

Hahaha, I literally laughed out loud.

It's like you specifically trying to post the most inane stuff to make this thread entertaining.

 

[Trojita]

The first Neanderthal Homo-Sapien Hybrid came out of the womb with a top hat, monocle, and a classy smoke pipe.

 

[Devolution]

I see that you can't discuss anything without calling people names. But here you are standing on your high horse acting as if you are superior/smarter than me. Whatever man, I'm done with you.

Can you manage to explain how you're not a troll who comes into threads to circumvent interesting discussion with the lowest common denominator shit possible?

 

[ryūkotsusei]

Well africans love music too.

[punchline]If you call that stuff "music".[/punchline]

 

[Joe Molotov]

True bloods

That's an insult in Asari culture. I don't now how much you know about Asari culture (I'm an expert) but having sex with other humanoid races is a huge part of it.

 

[alphaNoid]

The first Neanderthal Homo-Sapien Hybrid came out of the womb with a top hat, monocle, and a classy smoke pipe.

Hello my rag time gaaaaaal

 

[Londa]

The actual quote talks about how Neanderthal culture may have been palatable to modern humans due to their appreciation of art and music. Yes, that is speculation, and would generally be in the discussion section of the paper, and would be best left for confirmation by a more qualified source.

The factual findings - that humans at one point screwed around with other humanoid subspecies - is kind of hard to refute unless you deny that DNA is our primary genetic material.

Londa, you'd be getting less grief (or, at least, more nuanced grief) if you didn't do a drive-by thread bomb. References to "GAF" as a singular dim-witted hivemind are also frowned upon by the admins. As it turns out, your original criticism was a minor one expressed in a really confrontational way.

I actually wasn't trying to say there is a hivemind, sorry if it came off that way.

 

[PantherLotus]

I see that you can't discuss anything without calling people names. But here you are standing on your high horse acting as if you are superior/smarter than me. Whatever man, I'm done with you.

Oh that's really fucking cute, man. You're the creationist and I'm the bad guy. OOoooh kay.

 

[Londa]

Oh that's really fucking cute, man. You're the creationist and I'm the bad guy. OOoooh kay.

where did I say I was a creationist? yeah I'm done with you. lol

 

[LuCkymoON]

The differences have always been acknowledged on a genetic scale. Everyone outside of Africa is more closely related genetically than those who never left Sub-Saharan Africa.

The humans that left Africa were a small group that got very inbred. Evidence of this is found in the mitochondrial DNA that all humans outside of Africa share. Breeding with Neanderthals probably saved those inbred humans from doom by giving them a boost of genetic diversity.



The most interesting thing about Neanderthals contributing to the human X chromosome is what it suggests about how the breeding occurred. Neanderthal men must have impregnated Human women, passing on those X chromosome genes to their hybrid daughters. If it was the other way around, that wouldn't make sense since we all have a shared mitochondrial DNA lineage that traces back only along mothers, so we can't have had Neanderthal mothers be a significant part of our gene pool.

So that's why Dirk likes black women! =O

 

[MThanded]

I actually wasn't trying to say there is a hivemind, sorry if it came off that way.

where is the proof in any of these statements?

Oh I forgot, on gaf, everyone believes anything said by a so-called scientist.

 

[Joel Was Right]

You're a fucking idiot. Firstly, you said "so-called" scientist. Secondly, what dose the Ark, Dead Sea Scrolls and the like have to do with science? Nothing. Stay on topic, twit. Science is based on evidence and rational thought. If you disagree we expect you to point to evidence to support your claims and not just whatever tinfoil explanation you read on some 2012 website.

I resent that

 

[Kimosabae]

Why we still got Christians?

 

[Mumei]

Another sidenote: this reminds me of this book my mom had about 25 years ago, "Clan of the Cave Bear." I only remember the subject getting raped by a bunch of neandertals. Weird and shocking.

Close, but not quite. The protagonist is raped multiple times, but by the same, er, person each time.

 

[Chiave]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kFhPVAhV_o

That's what I was thinking when it was brought up lol

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Well africans love music too.

I think you're missing the point or the context of that quote badly.

They aren't saying that neanderthals were more attractive than humans. They are simply saying that, because they probably had a few things in common, it wouldn't be unlikely for the two groups to interact and/or hookup. There weren't any substantial Neanderthal populations that existed in Africa, so they never got the chance to get a an exotic taste of N-poon.

Again, this has nothing to do with physical attraction.

 

[PantherLotus]

where did I say I was a creationist? yeah I'm done with you. lol

You're not a global-warming denying creationist?

 

[Gaborn]

where did I say I was a creationist? yeah I'm done with you. lol

Interestingly you haven't denied the accusation either. I'm not sure it matters either way, but I just thought I'd point that out.

 

[Socreges]

In my first comment I didn't pin point what I found questionable until I explained myself as the discussion went on.

You haven't explained yourself. Why don't you give us just one example? And if you actually think the 'attractive' statement is an example, then please provide at least one more.

 

[PantherLotus]

Interestingly you haven't denied the accusation either. I'm not sure it matters either way, but I just thought I'd point that out.

I'm with ya but this is faulty logic too.

 

[Devolution]

You haven't explained yourself. Why don't you give us just one example? And if you actually think the 'attractive' statement is an example, then please provide at least one more.

Don't bother, all she does is deflect.

 

[iamblades]

The actual quote talks about how Neanderthal culture may have been palatable to modern humans due to their appreciation of art and music. Yes, that is speculation, and would generally be in the discussion section of the paper, and would be best left for confirmation by a more qualified source.

The factual findings - that humans at one point screwed around with other humanoid subspecies - is kind of hard to refute unless you deny that DNA is our primary genetic material.

Londa, you'd be getting less grief (or, at least, more nuanced grief) if you didn't do a drive-by thread bomb. References to "GAF" as a singular dim-witted hivemind are also frowned upon by the admins. As it turns out, your original criticism was a minor one expressed in a really confrontational way.

Interestingly, there is also evidence to suggest that neanderthals may have lived in matriarchal clans which was also one other possible explanation for why they lost out to humans, a clan built around a patriarch can grow much larger than one built around a matriarch because of the obvious advantage males have when breeding with multiple females.

Also, there is evidence that neanderthals may have been the first to (at least partially) domesticate animals, especially cattle and horses.

 

[Chiave]

Whelp, I learned two things in this thread.

1. All non-africans (does this specifically mean Africans or anyone of African decent aren't?) are part neanderthal.

2. Never mock GAF... or science I guess. Forgot what the argument was about :x

 

[Gaborn]

I'm with ya but this is faulty logic too.

I didn't say she was or she wasn't. I have my personal opinion based on the types of threads she's been in that I've seen and her position in those threads but all it would be is my opinion. I don't think we have enough to definitively say either way and I was just pointing out that her statement didn't clarify the matter either way.

 

[Londa]

Interestingly you haven't denied the accusation either. I'm not sure it matters either way, but I just thought I'd point that out.

I didn't say it matters. I also don't see why I would have to deny or tell what I am anyways?

I did find it funny the way someone said I was one as if it is derogatory term.


Green Mamba^

 

[Green Mamba]

So, Londa, what exactly do you believe, and how do you decide you believe it?

 

[Socreges]

Whelp, I learned two things in this thread.

1. All non-africans (does this specifically mean Africans or anyone of African decent?) are part neanderthal.

2. Never mock GAF... or science I guess. Forgot what the argument was about :x

You couldn't have guessed that such stupidity would be a recipe for disaster? The fact that he/she stubbornly stood by the initial post and kept the same attitude definitely didn't help.

 

[Lionheart1337]

The fuck is going on in here?

 

[Londa]

You haven't explained yourself. Why don't you give us just one example? And if you actually think the 'attractive' statement is an example, then please provide at least one more.

I already gave an example.

Sorry, I'm not going to pick the whole thing apart.

 

[evilwart]

Whelp, I learned two things in this thread.
1. All non-africans (does this specifically mean Africans or anyone of African decent?) are part neanderthal.

Only 100% pure africans. Any african with any non-african ancestry will be part neanderthal. So I imagine most africans outside of sub-sahara Africa are part neanderthal. Probably quite a few sub-saharan africans too.

 

[sans_pants]

I didn't say it matters. I also don't see why I would have to deny or tell what I am anyways?

I did find it funny the way someone said I was one as if it is derogatory term.


Green Mamba^

its extremely derogatory to anyone with a scientific education

 

[cdyhybrid]

Then why we still have white people?

 

[Devolution]

So, Londa, what exactly do you believe, and how do you decide you believe it?

I don't even know why you guys are asking anything of her, or direction questions. She never elaborates, she never clarifies, she just plays the same deflect game in threads like this, every time.

 

[Ulairi]

I didn't say it matters. I also don't see why I would have to deny or tell what I am anyways?

I did find it funny the way someone said I was one as if it is derogatory term.


Green Mamba^

Because it is a deragatory term. It means you're an idiot.

 

[Socreges]

I didn't say it matters. I also don't see why I would have to deny or tell what I am anyways?

I did find it funny the way someone said I was one as if it is derogatory term.

Not derogatory. But the fact that you're a creationist helps explain why you would a) not want to accept that you have Neanderthal genes, and b) not understand how science works.

I already gave an example.

Sorry, I'm not going to pick the whole thing apart.

Oh, beautifully done.

But really, provide an example that actually addresses the main argument of the article (since that is what you are attacking).

 

[Socreges]

I don't even know why you guys are asking anything of her, or direction questions. She never elaborates, she never clarifies, she just plays the same deflect game in threads like this, every time.

Same reason why you're repeatedly making this point. Transparency and frustration.

 

[Green Mamba]

I don't even know why you guys are asking anything of her, or direction questions. She never elaborates, she never clarifies, she just plays the same deflect game in threads like this, every time.

Looks like you're right, what with the way she confusingly pointed to her post that didn't answer my question at all.

And I just noticed now that the man in your avatar has cats for a beard.

 

[Londa]

Because it is a deragatory term. It means you're an idiot.

the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

I guess to me that doesn't sound very offensive. But in my mind I accept people for who they are and judge by their actions instead.

 

[Mael]

I already gave an example.

Sorry, I'm not going to pick the whole thing apart.

Where?
Seriously you lost me on that one, I was with you with some other shit you said in other threads but here you confound me.

 

[MThanded]

I guess to me that doesn't sound very offensive. But in my mind I accept people for who they are and judge by their actions instead.

There are a lot of nice yet ignorant people.

 

[Chiave]

You couldn't have guessed that such stupidity would be a recipe for disaster? The fact that he/she stubbornly stood by the initial post and kept the same attitude definitely didn't help.

I'm new so I didn't see it coming. Given the topic I figured we'd be arguing about something sillier.

 

[Ahoi-Brause]

Well... even if there's genetic differences we aren't all that different:

Without neandertal-genes

And with:

The result is the same, albeit in varying stages of effectiveness.

United in our hobbies as a species, isn't that a nice outlook?

 

[Devolution]

Same reason why you're repeatedly making this point. Transparency and frustration.

Eh she's pulled this numerous times in the gay threads. Just goes in circles every time.

Anyway it'd be cool to know if this kind of thing happens with other so called extinct species/sub species.

 

[Kinitari]

I've had similar discussions with Londa before, evolution is a touchy subject in general, and this would probably be a branch of that. As far as I understand, Londa is religious, and this sort of stuff goes against her religious beliefs.

But at the same time, I don't like putting words in her mouth, for all I know she has a legitimate qualm with this article, unfortunately you have a tendency to come off very abrasively in these sorts of posts Londa - you probably don't do it intentionally, but until you figure out a way to enter a conversation like this (where people are already on edge because it is an extremely touchy subject) you're going to be met with the sort of responses you've been met with.

In actual response to what she's said.

1. There is a certain level of scepticism that a lot of us employ, but most of us aren't scientists, even less are evolutionary biologists - this sort of stuff goes over a lot of our heads. So the best we can do is look at the source, look at the process the source went through and see if what they have told us 'makes sense'.

2. If your qualms are with the article discussing the findings - you should be clear about that. I think many in the thread would agree with you, some of the language is mildly presumptuous and maybe that's something to actually discuss. But the findings are separate from the article, they are peer reviewed findings from a prestigious group of professionals.

3. Those scientists (the ones that found the 'Ark') were not good scientists. The premise first of all, is silly - that you find an old boat and you immediately assume it's one from a fable? Absolutely non-scientific. Secondly, those findings would have to be peer-reviewed before they gain any semblance of credibility. They did not gain any credibility. What I am trying to say is, not every scientist is a winner - but these ones are.