Wanted: 'Adventurous Woman' to Give Birth to NEANDERTHAL MAN

[Aratus]

Consider...

First,
that if you take a baby monkey from its mother and keep it in your house, regardless of whether or not you give it the proper food and drink and exercize, that monkey stands a strong change of growing up a basket case. It will likely bear little behavioral resemblance to an adult monkey of its same species. This is fairly well documented.

Second,
that if you take a baby Chinese human being from its mother and keep her in a cradle for the first two years of its life, regardless of whether or not you give her the proper food and drink and exercize, by the time an American family adopts her, she's very likely to have a laundry list of psychological and developmental issues. In short, she will also bear little behavioral resemblance to a young human being. This is not only well documented, there's actually an industry that gets paid to try to fix these children.

Third,
regardless of whether evolution is real, that a Neanderthal must fall somewhere in the interval between monkey and human, including endpoints.

Fourth,
that no human being in the last 11,000 years has had the slightest clue what goes into rearing a Neanderthal child.


Therefore, the chance that this Neanderthal will develop into a balanced individual is pretty damned low.

its almost more moral to create a very neurotic clone of newton, maxwell or einstein rather than an almost psychotic frustrated upset

confused neanderthal/modernHuman hybrid who even if adequately nourished and emotionally grounded & accepted, is often very "aspie"

in terms of their cultural template patterning and social roles. we moderns would be an illogical maddening confusion multi~headed social

leviathan crowd pleasing beastie whose ground rules have a fluidity. the world of the neanerthal is no more, it was tight knit & communal.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

If two "species" can reproduce... they are the same species.

[PaulConventionWV]

No it's not. It's proper scientific nomenclature. Taxonomy is boring and complicated, but it's a real part of science.
The full nomenclature for homo sapien:
Familia: Hominidae
Subfamilia: Homininae
Tribus: Hominini
Subtribus: Hominina
Genus: Homo
Species: Homo sapiens
Subspecies: Homo sapiens sapiens

All of taxonomy is bullshit. It's based on the assumption that all organisms are related. The word homo sapien sapien doesn't come from any tangible difference between humans now and humans in the 19th century or whatever. It's a fiction that scientists came up to reinforce the notion that we are changing somehow by giving it a different name. Yeah, we're the "wise, wise human". How do we reinforce the idea that humans are evolving? Just tack another wise on and all of a sudden, the population eats that shit up because they like the idea that we're evolving too, but it's all in their heads.

[phill4paul]

Perfect candidate. amiright?

[fisharmor]

If two "species" can reproduce... they are the same species.

I think this is an oversimplification. What about mules?

All of taxonomy is bullshit. It's based on the assumption that all organisms are related. The word homo sapien sapien doesn't come from any tangible difference between humans now and humans in the 19th century or whatever. It's a fiction that scientists came up to reinforce the notion that we are changing somehow by giving it a different name. Yeah, we're the "wise, wise human". How do we reinforce the idea that humans are evolving? Just tack another wise on and all of a sudden, the population eats that shit up because they like the idea that we're evolving too, but it's all in their heads.

I don't know that taxonomy started out that way. HB listed 7 different groups starting with family, and when I learned it 20 years ago there were only 7 in total.
This tells me that the taxonomy is being changed over time to try to reflect the idea that all things are related. If taxonomy was originally developed in support of evolution then I think the lines would have been much blurrier in the beginning.

[Acala]

I think this is an oversimplification. What about mules?



I don't know that taxonomy started out that way. HB listed 7 different groups starting with family, and when I learned it 20 years ago there were only 7 in total.
This tells me that the taxonomy is being changed over time to try to reflect the idea that all things are related. If taxonomy was originally developed in support of evolution then I think the lines would have been much blurrier in the beginning.

I think taxonomy was first based entirely on anatomical structures but now includes genetic information.

[PaulConventionWV]

I think this is an oversimplification. What about mules?



I don't know that taxonomy started out that way. HB listed 7 different groups starting with family, and when I learned it 20 years ago there were only 7 in total.
This tells me that the taxonomy is being changed over time to try to reflect the idea that all things are related. If taxonomy was originally developed in support of evolution then I think the lines would have been much blurrier in the beginning.

You may be right, but it wasn't long before it was used for that purpose, if anything. The point is that it reflects that now.