Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuna
Actually, I did. Distinguishing physical characteristics perpetual to a certain population group that has a common geographic ancestor population.
|
Actually, you didn't unless you are arguing that there are thousands and thousands of human races.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuna
It really doesn't matter, modern humans that followed the interbreeding now have neanderthal DNA in them, thus making the neanderthals an ancestor. It's really not something up for debate.
|
It does matter, because of what you were saying in the post I was initially responding to. You implied that the "less neanderthal" a group is, the "more evolved" they are. The problem with this, as I said earlier, is that neanderthals were cousins of modern humans, not their predecessors. What this means is that there are humans alive today who do not have neanderthal DNA in them. This is not because these groups evolved "further" than anybody else, but rather because their ancestors never mated with neanderthals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuna
What relevance does bigger brains have? For the second time, I'm saying that certain groups seem further evolved based on their appearance, namely neoteny. This has been a trend as "Homo Sapiens are more neotenized than Homo Erectus, Homo Erectus was more neotenized than Australopithicus, Great Apes are more neotenized than Old World monkeys and Old World monkeys are more neotenized than New World monkeys."
|
Let me answer your question with a question: Who has a bigger brain to body ratio, adults or kids?