/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2738266
no one ever claimed that.

>>2738249
no. if you want to claim mass raping, provide evidence.

>>2738196
precisely.

the changes we have made are testament to the significant gap between when we separated from the other modern primates.

we seperated from chimpanzees about 5-7 MILLION years ago, while neanderthal was still breeding with us only 50-80,000 years ago, not long before becoming extinct only 30,000 years ago.

you expect me to believe they look more like chimps (let alone gorillas)?

guess again.

>>2738143
precisely.

not only that, but that it is still prevalent enough to be detectable in todays populations.

if these babies truly were fathered by a super predator like the one he depicts, there is now way that child would be able to integrate the society in such a way that it could propogate its genes.

>>2738104
show any evidence at all that your position is valid.

the onus is on you.

>>2738060
you cannot be this dumb...

>The flat, large, and sharp teeth of neanderthal are perfect for tearing flesh off of bone held in the hand.
>Modern humans have to use the side of our teeth to do that.

wait... what...?

we use the side of our teeth because it has CANINES...

>>2738024
this, a thousand time this.

why do peopel say shit like:

>Plus, when I think of the neanderthals as fuck awesome super predators that nearly hunted us to extinction and then we turned around and killed them all, everything seems more awesome.

ffs "the world is better if i think x, therefore i will assume x is true and ignore any evidence to the contrary".

>>2738007
>He made good arguments for all of the features he added

>oval pupils
>reflective retinas
>zero evidence

nice try, troll.

>>2737990
i will concede to that point.

>>2737871
possibly. depends on whereabouts in europe the neanderthal came from. they extended as far down as modern isreal iirc.

modern humans native to that area range from pale to quite dark.

of course, diet had an impact as well.

really, given the broad geography of neanderthals, it is reasonable to expect them to have a range of skin colours.

you will only ever see a white one in a museum though. that was more my issue, rather than "they all had skin as black as an african", which is completely wrong.

when i said:

>we can be very confident in claiming that neanderthals had black skin, but no museum would ever make an exhibit look like that out of fear of claims of racism.

it was a overt simplification. by black i really mean "not white", and if they ever did start making exhibits darker than they currently are, then yes, people would start claiming racism.

>>2737832
im not concerned at all.

i, unlike most people, understand that the features shown on exhibits are mostly the "most probable" scenario, barring the obvious tweaking to cater to the public (white skin, clean shaven etc.)

>>2737819
maybe i missed something, but where was the photo claiming they do have tapetum lucidums?

all the eyes in the pictures i have seen do not show reflective properties.

>>2737790
thats how museums justify it.

although there is a case for it (especially when there could be validity to the claims humans and neanderthals were interbreeding as late as only 50,000 years ago), there isnt enough evidence to justify including it in an exhibit and letting people believe the exhibit is 100% accurate.

imo, they probably did have breasts, but the issue here comes from presenting things that arent conclusive to be undeniably true. exhibits arent scientific representations, they are models used to garner public support.

if you remember that, then there really isnt THAT much of an issue.

think abotu it, when you are making a model, you have evidence that they quite probably DID have breasts. do you give them breasts, or do you leave the women flat chested?

remember that including the breasts will also help to get people to associate with the models, thus generating more interest/money for you.

>>2737758
>and? the fact that he used a hollywood tactic to help garnish support for his theory means the whole idea is bullshit right?

lets look at his idea:

>complains that museum displays use a hollywood tactic to help garnish support.

>uses a hollywood tactic to help garnish support.

hypocritical much?

modern reconstruction of neanderthals is in complete agreement. he hired someone and said "make your reconstruction look this THIS". that is hardly scientific.

>the fact that they used tools easily explains away the need for cuspid teeth.

oh, just like it took away ours too right?

>>2737753
i know its not, i completely agree on that part.

but museums are there to make money, and i like to hope that sometimes they spark a curiosity of science i younger people.

i mean, think about it, we can be very confident in claiming that neanderthals had black skin, but no museum would ever make an exhibit look like that out of fear of claims of racism.

when money, and public interest/perception is involved, very little leeway remains.

5:35 into the video:

(paraphrasing)
"they didnt look like humans, so what DID they look like? well, they were primate, and as such, we expect them to look like primates (shows footage of gorillas"

derp. humans arent primates at all right? fuck this guy is dumb.

neanderthals and humans seperated quite recently compared to how far back we seperated from what became gorillas.

we EXPECT them to share some of our characteristics, seeing as they diverged so recently.

as for shaving/breasts etc. on museum exhibits, of course its exaggerated. we have an indication of what they look like, but the general public wants to know EXACTLY what they look like.

this is so completely and utterly wrong.

i know its s troll, and the guy is an idiot, but two of the most obvious problems are:

a) cite ANY legitimate source that shows neathderthals, or any other primate, have oval pupils.

the reasoning for this, based on the NP proponent claims, was "they had big eyes".

a lot of animals have very large eyes (including nocturnal primates) without having oval pupils.

they only said they had oval pupils to instill an emotional response. it does look awesome, but there is ZERO evidence for it.

b) why the fuck would they lack canines, a basic feature of even mainly herbivorous, if the NP theory is true?

if you are a faggot who cannot into money, then the super repel is for you.

max repel is better because it lasts for longer, and a pile of 99 of them goes much further.

one also cannot help it if they are born with a genetic predisposition to being an outright asshole.

should we then put up with assholes purely because they were born that way?

you divided both sides by (a-b).

derp, divide by zero etc etc.

>>2730060
lol, squirm.

lets recap some of the beauties in the thread:
>(because im going to be a troll and say divide by zero = infinity)
>i should know, as i am a published mathemagician with a phd.
>take it from someone with 70 years of industry experience

seriously...

yeah, i was "squirming" the whole time.

fullretard.jpg.

anyway, with that, im out, i have shit to do.

>>2730035
you are honestly trying to say that:

"1/1 = 1
1/0.5 =2
1/0.1 = 10

as the denominator approaches zero, the value approaches infinity"

is wrong...?

and you dont see why you come across as a complete turd who failed year 8?

>>2730013
>The best answer of why you're wrong is still my rather lengthy proof else-thread.

oh im sorry, you mean the one which proved nothing and made you look like an idiot?

>>2730015
i am glad you can see my point.

>>2729995
>Thus I did give a proof that lim as x->0 of 1/x does not goes to inf.

completely fucking wrong.

1/1 = 1
1/0.5 =2
1/0.1 = 10

as the denominator approaches zero, the value approaches infinity.

THIS IS BASIC LEVEL MATHS.

holy fucking shit you cannot be this dumb.