I've read about neanderthal and came crasy idea to me..

Post Reply New Topic

Okay, what about the Egyptian leaders? They had all kinds of taboo marriages. Some pharaohs were products of sister/brother unions or other incestuous marriages to keep the power within the family. So, if the Egyptians did this, what makes you so sure the Neanderthals or other prehistoric entities didn't. At certain times the taboo doesn't seem to exist.
If it didn't exist for the leaders, how do you know it did for the population they led? Maybe it was widespread?

So, are you going to be working on nano technology, Slarti? That sounds like an awesome field.

Interesting! I found this, if it hasn't been posted already:

http://dayawane.ihep.ac.cn/twiki/bin/view/Public/

Akhenaten is prime example of what I'm talking about. His first name is Amenhotep IV, (notice amen just like what's in the Bible? Amen was another god), eighteenth dynasty pharaoh, he changed his name to Akhenaten to honor Aten.
Basically he pissed off the priests of Amen, taking away their power by denouncing their god.. This really aggravated them so they hated Akhenaten with a passion.
Akhenaten abandoned polytheism for monotheistic worship of one god, perhaps a precursor to widespread monotheism?
There is speculation Akhenaten had Marfan's Syndrome brought about by the small gene pool he inherited.

People have always freaked out, regardless. It doesn't matter if they are monotheistic, polytheistic or good ole atheistic. They freak out regardless. The Romans weren't monotheists and yet they fought with Carthage then they went about fighting with various tribes and civilizations that you would consider their neighbors. The only group that had one god then was the Jews and everyone else worshipped many gods like the Romans did. Rome conquered Egypt and it was polytheistic, too.

Akhenaten's monotheistic reign was short. His son, Tutankhamun was born an Aten. His name was changed to honor Amun to appease the people of Egypt and the priests of Amun. Tutankhamun means "living image of Amun" while Tutankhaten means "living image of Aten." He restored Egypt to pre-Akhenaten splendor.

So, as history has proven time again, it doesn't really matter what one worships, War breaks out with impunity no matter what.

Last edited by ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo on 01 Jun 2011, 7:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Humans and many other animals are territorial. Territory equals resources. Resources equal existence. Most conflicts today are over territories. Religion is a motivator, but usually not the root cause.

If it wasn't for nuclear weapons, the entire world would probably be in conflict instead of having only two world wars. It's just part of our nature and all the philosophy, religion, or other associated beliefs won't make it go away. However, the threat of total annihilation has worked pretty well on a large scale basis.

Over one hundred years with no major conflicts within some borders in the world, is quite an accomplishment for humans no matter how we arrived at that point.

Since 1945, technology has advanced at a level never before seen in mankind, I'm not sure a global economy would have even been possible without nuclear weapons. We would probably still be fighting "big" wars over territories.

Imagine a real war on our soil; does it even seem possible?

I would like to make a correction. In my other post, I meant the priests of Anum. Agreed about wars breaking up due to lack of territory and resources. Even when people rationalize, utilizing religious principles as excuses, what they really desire is resources, and, most importantly, wealth. The hope is their civilization will gain riches by conquering and exploiting another.
We have had a few major conflicts. Humanity has discovered mechanisms for isolating conflicts which has helped cease the initiation of wars involving many nations.

I dispute that. Nuclear war is a last resort. It would be a turf war with Nighthawks and carpet bombs before it would ever be a nuclear war, and it's happened already.

None of the nations that we have had conflicts with have had the ability to nuke us, since World War 2, or had the ability to attack us other than isolated terrorist attacks.

In the war with Iraq some were actually bouncing around the idea of an "isolated" nuclear attack but thank goodness they came to their senses. Israel likely has nukes, but the surrounding middle eastern countries don't. I can't remember two countries fighting each other, both with the capability of destroying each other, since the development of nuclear weapons.

No one will dare attack us on a conventional basis (excluding terrorist attacks) because of our nuclear capabilities. as no one would dare attack another country with nuclear capabilities, but they have had internal conflicts as have other nations with nuclear ability; however, they are not likely to nuke their own countries over an internal conflict.

We have had some covert operations in Pakistan, but not directed at the government of Pakistan.

I would hope that a nuclear attack is always one of last resort for every country. But, if countries with longstanding territorial disputes in the middle east gain them, there could be someone brave enough to push the button. Israel knows it, and I doubt they will be willing to even take that risk.

I'm not so sure it was a last resort during the previous administration, but I think it is for us and other countries as it stands now. North Korea is disconcerting, but they seem to be in check, and not a direct threat to us with their capabilities.

I also was obsessed with that theme, but in the end I rejected the idea because the Neanderthals were stout. Is more feasible to pre Indo-European populations.

My obsession was just one day and how i say clear instinct, without proves, simply i 've read short post about we mankind has 1-4% neanderthal genes, no link with asperger. My idea was totally opposite with "neanderthal theory". How i understand, they clame, neanderthals didn't behave like aspergers, they claim that neanderthal genes make disease like schizophrenia, daun syndrome, autism and put asperger in same box with autism, how weaker cousin of autism, in which some autism genes were switched.
So, my idea was totally non scientist, and i ask people what they think, excepted like yes, that is crazy and answer why, and how someone has came to idea promote in my topic neanderthal theory. I don't understand how they link my crazy idea ( i haven't that idea more) that asperger are one health evolution of nt neanderthal and them "neanderthal theory"?! Simple, my crazy idea was asperger are in behavior nt neanderthals. What have with this neanderthal theory?!

I find it satisfying when a similar conclusion is reached from a totally different direction, so you guys might find this interesting.

I've been told by people that I'm autistic. For the last week or so, I've considered this as a viable explanation, and have been looking into it. By "looking into it" I mean blundering around the internet, with Google as my guide.

The other night I came up with an easy to to test hypothesis, without prior reference to or knowledge of Neanderthal/autism theory:

"If I'm autistic, then Neanderthal man had a weird rib cage and a flat, rather than curved transition from the top of the skull to the back of the skull."

Google image search, and what do you know? The articles describe the rib cage as flared as opposed to "weird".

I suppose this becomes more pertinent if I establish whether or not I have autism. My sister has been diagnosed recently with AS, at the age of 40.

This whole asperger-neanderthal link theory business is fascinating, to say the least.

Let's think about an NT Neanderthal.

Iced up for 9 months out of 12, he'd probably spend most of his time indoors, with a limited number of people. In the dark environment, tribal eye contact wouldn't work. He would stare more, and whilst trying to explain things, he'd need to wave his hands a bit.
Aggression wouldn't work. Tribes can afford the odd fatality in fights, whereas a Cave can't. In fact, the only way to solve things is to talk through resolutely, overbearingly, even, but without the fear of a fight breaking out. And 9 months inside a Cave gives you plenty of time to think things through and solve problems.
With 8 to 10 people, the tendency to pick a specialty would be an evolutionary advantage. Neanderthals were carers, looking after the old and infirm, suggesting wisdom was prized. Strange behaviour might be advantageous. For example, the kid with a compulsion to chew might perform the function of a food blender at a care home.

He was almost exclusively carnivorous - woolly mammoth had the size and insulation to survive outside, and process vegetation for him. He would need an extremely acid gut. If you lived in a limestone cave, and had heartburn, what would you do? The by-products of his indigestion remedy would chelate some environmental toxins from his system, and thus over thousands of years, he would loose the ability to remove them himself. He would also have lost the ability to tolerate the foods found in more temperate parts.

Selfless love for another human would not be enough to ensure survival in this harsh environment. Love would need to be for the Cave, as this provides the best chance of genetic survival. This would lead to some pretty complex sexual urges between people.

When you look at the research that Borat's cousin is involved in, he seems to have almost worked it out.

Remember, other than pure blooded African homo sapiens who have continued to evolve, we are all members of a one of a number of stable, hybrid species - homo sapien x neanderthalis (please correct my syntax)

From the exceedingly rare successful inter-breeding events (i.e. ones that continue their genetic lines), the hybrid has spread to all other parts of the globe, successively interbreeding with the indigenous "varieties" of homo sapiens. As the hybrid communities became established, homo sapiens ceased to exist outside of Africa.

This interbreeding returned to Neanderthal man selfless love and food tolerance.

Link to Simon Baron-Cohen's Research

It bothers me too - I don't like the thought of being part of another type of human. And why just Autism? Why aren't other mental conditions, like Soto's Syndrome, Mental Retardation, ADHD, Dyspraxia, and many others never brought up to be ''part of another gene''? Why ain't Autism ever looked upon as just a genuine disability, like all the rest?