Evolution: a different view (Introduction)

by David Turell , Saturday, May 16, 2015, 21:49 (3478 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Tony: Yes, but it was assumed it was used as grunts and groans, not the eloquent speech we have today. That assumption is squarely based on the assumption that they were knuckle-dragging cave-dwellers, which in turn is squarely based on the theory of evolution's blueprint of common decent from apes.-No, McCrone assumes short clipped series of a few words, based on anatomy for H. erectus 
> 
> Tony: It is a form of mental gymnastics used to show that we are superior to our ancestors despite the evidence. And I say despite the evidence because, when that evolutionary view is removed, the picture that is painted by the evidence is quite different than the story we tell ourselves today.-Yours is an interesting and basically controversial viewpoint, not assuming evolution. The brains of H habilis were 550-680 cc and H. erectus were 850-1100 compared to our 1250-1300 size. Assuming size enlargement with growth in complexity would negate your approach, but you don't think abut evolution as I do. H. sapiens is superior. 
> 
> tony:In short, they were stronger, faster, hardier, more resilient, and quite likely every bit as intelligent and clever as we are today, if not more so. What we need specialized tools to do, they were able to do without. For example, has anyone ever considered the possibility that they simply did not NEED to write? The possibility of eidetic memory being common instead of rare? The lack of medicines being because disease/illness was virtually non-existent?-The only difference I see, IF you are referring only to early H. sapiens is they lived as feral animals. Probably in small cooperative groups. With short lifespans. The specialization today in civilized humans results in having survival classes for the soldiers and in civilian life, as no one knows how to survive unless taught. If you are referring to earlier forms, E e and E h, your thoughts make no sense to me.
 
> 
> tony: Yes, technologically we are more advanced, but technology is a crutch that we use to compensate for our own weaknesses, weaknesses that they did not necessarily share. -Early humans were taller and stronger. The smaller and weaker forms came with agriculture. That is well-known.
> 
> Tony: http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/features/f0100-stone-bracelet-is-oldest-ever... article. I read it thoroughly as it gave me info I hadn't seen before about Denisovans. Thank you!-> Tony: Let's now somewhere, I can't recall, there was a story about a people that were builders of cities and used metal and such that were completely wiped out. Now, we see in the archaeology that there was a technological reset between and earlier group and a later group. How convenient.....-We have four groups of Homo to study: Denisovans, Floresiensis, Neanderthal and us. How do you explain their existence if evolution did not happen?