Talk:Homo neanderthalensis

Recent changes

This study needs to be worked into the article...I don't want to remove any of the information from legacy that suggested previous evidence of interbreeding, but I'm not sure how to word it, or confident that I can make such a change without inserting a fallacy. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Neanderthal

Copied from my talk page
Just to clarify, yes, it's speculative that neanderthal had religion, but things like "burrials", "dressing in feathers" are generally signs of a possible first or proto religion. To suggest that someone cannot understand what death is, or that the dead dude is no longer around makes no sense unless we are trying to suggest that neanderthal is of the intelligence of an animal or child trying to prod a dead friend to life. That's why I removed that one line. You are right, to an extent, though. anything about neanderthal is speculation at this point, but some is better speculation than others.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 19:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, a "burrial" would probably be a oritual involving a donkey. rpeh •T•C•E• 19:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

heh. so funny are we! ;-) Were it not for the squiggly red lines under words in fire fox, you all would not just ban me, you would have scouts out on patrol to insure i never ever showed up again. ;-)Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The claims for Neanderthal religion seem pretty flimsy for me, especially considering how much evidence turned out to fabricated or fraudulent. See, e.g., the "Cult of the Cave Bear." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

WFG, you mean "ensure", not "insure". Given the number of people who constantly insult and bully Prox for her style of writing, I think it's only fair that when a board member turns out to have a similar lack of ability that it should be highlighted. I'm personally capable of spelling without paying attention to wavy lines, and I suggest you focus on developing a similar ability. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you try not to be an asshole? One, WfG makes way fewer errors where it matters--in articles, as opposed to on a talk page, where it doesn't. Two, WfG has on a number of occasions copped to struggling with writing issues, while PC is clueless and sometimes even boasts about being a great writer. Three, WfG's contributions are typically sound, well-reasoned, and relevant, if in need of a bit of proofing; even if PC wrote like Hemingway, many if not most of her edits would be problematic, for her incessant axe-grinding alone. Finally, the part where you wrote "that it should be highlighted" should be "then it should be highlighted," pinhead. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 21:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Asshole-wise, you're way, way ahead of me. You continually harass and bully a member of this site who wants nothing more than to add content. The fact that you claim people like me bully Ken while ignoring your own behaviour towards Proxima would be amusing if it wasn't so disgusting. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC) ^{— Unsigned, by: Proxima Centauri / talk / contribs} 15:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

What Creationists Believe

This section should either be omitted, as it's irrelevant to the actual topic OR it should be WHAT CREATIONISTS truly believe. I have never heard a Creationist say they think Neaderthal is fully human. I am 50 years old. False claims about what I think. or people like me think, have no room.. I wrote what I KNOW many Ceationists DO believe (as a Creationist), which can be verified.

THAT should have been left, then the topic locked, as it was more factual than the lie that was written- Not reverted then locked. ^{— Unsigned, by: Twistedmental / talk / contribs 2013-11-02T22:26:38}

"I have never heard a Creationist say they think Neaderthal is fully human." I'll admit that I've never heard it out loud either, but I've certainly read it many times. I realise that those are all Institute for Creation Research-related links—they're what was in my ICR-centric blog under "Neanderthal"—but I have no doubt that the same could be found from CMI or AiG. Or are they not true creationists? Peter ^mqzp 23:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

We're all different. I am NOT a YEC, and in my opinion we need to be progressive, research and find out how evolutionary facts fit into our belief/faith. That being said, the Neanderthal being fully human idea, is not the most current or commonly accepted belief. Creationists are increasingly accepting a type of evolution as the infomation becomes available. There are some that won't budge, fundementalists-- but they don't represent the majority. --Twistedmental (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

There are many kinds of creationists whose beliefs differ in how far they vary from reality - so it's a bit dangerous to generalise. Many non-YEC creationists will certainly try to distance themselves from the weirdest 6,000-year-old earth nonsense while sticking firmly to their own brand of idiocy. That being said our statements really should all be referenced.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 19:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it a bit better now? Peter ^mqzp 02:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

"Feminism killed the Neanderthals"

Is there anything that suggests this is one of the more common, widely accepted theories, as the article claims? The study it cites, which does not seem to be widespread, seems to be claiming instead that Neanderthals focused on only the "Hunter" part of "Hunter-gatherer", and so were outcompeted, not that this was necessarily because women were allowed to hunt. The evidence cited for that claim is a lack of discovered remains of bone needles, awls, grinding stones, and small animal remains at Neanderthal dwellings, and the stockiness of the female Neanderthals. There's no coverage that I can find of this theory being accepted in scientific journals, only that "two anthropologists proposed it", and the usual internet backdraft.

In short, this seems to be a fringe theory that was given some internet fame several years ago for being controversial. I don't see why we should be according it notoriety.KrytenKoro (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)