PDA

View Full Version : What Happened To The Middle Man?


Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-03-2012, 09:16 AM
http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/d/d8/Human-evolution.gif


if humans and neanderthals were descended from apes, and we still have apes and humans, what happened to neanderthals?

hashashin
12-03-2012, 09:20 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_extinction_hypotheses

No need to thank me :)

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-03-2012, 09:22 AM
anything else? or do you just rely on wiki? i should have known that's where you get all your 'knowledge'.

hashashin
12-03-2012, 09:27 AM
well seeing as I wasn't around during the time of neanderthals it's the best I can do for you!

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-03-2012, 09:28 AM
your knowledge revovles around wiki. get out if you got nothing to add.

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-03-2012, 09:38 AM
wiki thinks it could either be:


failure to adjust to climate change
violent conflicts with other neanderthals and animals
rapid extinction through ill health



i'm thinking the second one. i'm thinking they might have been cannibals too.

hashashin
12-03-2012, 09:47 AM
slags me off for using wiki, bases her opinion off wiki link I provided......smh lol :)

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-03-2012, 09:48 AM
i was thinking cannibalism before i checked your link. i tweeted cannibalism at 3.32pm. then i checked your link. |)

hashashin
12-03-2012, 09:50 AM
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/28082186.jpg

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-03-2012, 09:52 AM
i tweeted the word canniblism at 3.32pm. then i checked your link. |)

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-03-2012, 10:09 AM
Rapid extinction by parasites and pathogens

Another possibility raised by Diamond and others, paralleling colonialist history, would be a greater susceptibility on the part of the Neanderthals to pathogens introduced by Cro-Magnon man. Diamond argues that asymmetry in susceptibility to pathogens is a consequence of the difference in lifestyle.[citation needed]. A pandemic will generally have a limited mortality because the pathogen needs a host in order to spread. If two species are similar and live side by side, then the survival of one species becomes less important for the pathogen, and in the end it may have three outcomes: divergence, exchange of genes, or downfall. The evidence supporting this claim that Neanderthals were cannibals comes from the study of skulls. By examining skulls, scientists noticed that they were cut and smashed with tools to reveal the brain.[17] At the site of Ardeche, France, scientists found over 100 specimen of Neanderthals with evidence of cannibalism.[18] In addition to human brain, scientists also believe that the Neanderthals ate the brain of other mammals, perhaps as some sort of ritual. Scientists know today that eating the brain of a deceased mammal can lead to spongiform encephalopathy.[19] This condition is always fatal and is similar to that of mad cow disease. This disease would have spread throughout communities fast because the Neanderthals would not be able to realize why it is occurring. Within 250 years the Neanderthals population size could have shrunk to irreversible levels.[20] This disease, along with the other mentioned hypothesis, could have been a main factor leading to their demise.


saying that, there are monkeys that are cannibals and they haven't died out. monkeys are just as prone to disease as neanderthals, right? neanderthals eating diseased neanderthals. monkeys eating diseased monkeys.

did neanderthals have any agricultural skills? if they did i could see them fighting over land.

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-03-2012, 10:24 AM
Coexistence prior to extinction

Neanderthals and modern humans coexisted in Europe for several thousand years, but the duration of this period is uncertain.[3] Modern humans may have first migrated to Europe 40–43,000 years ago,[4] and Neanderthals may have lived as recently as 24,000 years ago in refugia on the south coast of the Iberian peninsula such as Gorham's Cave.[5][6] Inter-stratification of Neanderthal and modern human remains has been suggested,[7] but is disputed.[8]
To further provide evidence to the claim that Neanderthals and modern humans coexisted, we can look at the work of Mellars, Gravina, and Ramsey. They discussed that there was a series of radiocarbon accelerator mass spectrometer measurements for the site of Chatelperron in central France, which was said to present a clear "interstratification" of successive levels of Neanderthal and modern human occupation, based on the archeological findings provided by Henri Delporte in the 1950s.[9] In western European caves, the archeological levels show altering uses of the same place based on the two different types of bones found. Modern humans and Neanderthals coexisting created a slight disturbance in the stratigraphic and archiological sequence of the areas they shared. This proves that they coexisted and somehow impacted each other.[10] The first Neanderthal draft genome suggests that Neanderthals made a small, but obvious contribution to the ancestry of modern humans.[11] Two Neanderthal fossil specimens were discovered at Mezmaiskaya during excavations (the skeleton of a Neanderthal neote and 24 cranial fragments of an infant) were found in the Middle Paleolithic layer. This proves Neanderthal survival in the Caucasus period.[12] The Caucasus was said to be one of the times that AMH populations were established. This being said, it can be concluded that Neanderthals and AMH coexisted in several areas.[13]


if neandethals and humans coexisted i reckon they would have fought over land and humans ate all the neanderthals.

John Nash
12-03-2012, 10:48 AM
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/09/21/humans-evolved-from-apes

Well then, why don’t we ask the obvious question: If humans evolved from apes, then why do apes still exist today? If they evolved into humans, the apes should naturally be gone . . . right?

Well, no, not really.

This argument shows a misunderstanding of what evolutionists actually believe about human evolution. The evolutionary concept of the origin of humans is not based on humans descending from modern apes but, rather, argues that humans and modern apes share a common ancestor.

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-03-2012, 10:52 AM
the question is about the middle man. if they all descended from one common ancestor what happened to the middle man?

John Nash
12-03-2012, 10:57 AM
the question is about the middle man. if they all descended from one common ancestor what happened to the middle man?

either evolved into humans or died out. one or the other.

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-03-2012, 10:58 AM
brilliant :clap:

John Nash
12-03-2012, 11:06 AM
brilliant :clap:

lol that was your basic question. what happened to them. and the answer is some evolved into humans and some died out. its a simple answer. how they died etc is just more in depth but the question was simply answered.

this

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/09/21/humans-evolved-from-apes

Well then, why don’t we ask the obvious question: If humans evolved from apes, then why do apes still exist today? If they evolved into humans, the apes should naturally be gone . . . right?

Well, no, not really.

This argument shows a misunderstanding of what evolutionists actually believe about human evolution. The evolutionary concept of the origin of humans is not based on humans descending from modern apes but, rather, argues that humans and modern apes share a common ancestor.

was in relation to this

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/d/d8/Human-evolution.gif


if humans and neanderthals were descended from apes, and we still have apes and humans, what happened to neanderthals?

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-03-2012, 11:08 AM
erm, any reason for them to die out? that is the question. not if they have died out but why have they died out?

check two
12-03-2012, 11:13 AM
-Humans Broke Off Neanderthal Sex After Discovering Eurasia


http://news.yahoo.com/humans-broke-off-neanderthal-sex-discovering-eurasia-210718879.html

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-03-2012, 11:19 AM
-Humans Broke Off Neanderthal Sex After Discovering Eurasia


http://news.yahoo.com/humans-broke-off-neanderthal-sex-discovering-eurasia-210718879.html


they all evolved through interbreeding? it's possible they could have interbred, i guess.


cannibalism has gotta be in there somewhere.

John Nash
12-03-2012, 11:30 AM
erm, any reason for them to die out? that is the question. not if they have died out but why have they died out?

lol same reason for all extinct species. natural selection/survival of the fittest. neanderthals werent as well suited to their environment compared to humans. there could be many different reasons 4 this.

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-03-2012, 11:30 AM
don't you think the humans would have been racist towards the neanderthals, though some interbred with them?

how do you think those neanderthal/human hybrids were treated? would their parents have had very different cultural backgrounds?

John Nash
12-03-2012, 11:31 AM
u could also ask why did the ancestor to modern apes and humans become extinct.

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-03-2012, 11:32 AM
lol same reason for all extinct species. natural selection/survival of the fittest. neanderthals werent as well suited to their environment compared to humans. there could be many different reasons 4 this.




lol. this thread is here to discuss those different reasons. lol.

John Nash
12-03-2012, 11:33 AM
don't you think the humans would have been racist towards the neanderthals, though some interbred with them?

how do you think those neanderthal/human hybrids were treated? would their parents have had very different cultural backgrounds?

people arent naturally racist. racism is created for other means. such as territorial means.

John Nash
12-03-2012, 11:37 AM
lol. this thread is here to discuss those different reasons. lol.

i thought the thread was about why did only the middle man die out . when in fact both the middle man and the ancestor of this "middle man" died out.

in ur first post u seemed to be suggesting that only the middle link had died out which isnt true.

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-03-2012, 11:39 AM
ok it's all evolution. it's all done. thanks. it's all the sex. just down to all the love they were making. i should have guessed.

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-03-2012, 11:42 AM
so what were the neanderthal/human hybrids called? just human?

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-03-2012, 11:49 AM
do you think neanderthals and humans would have had very different cultural backgrounds?

do you think they would have competed in sports?

do you think they would have gone to war with each other?

it couldn't have all been about love.

Uncle Steezo
12-03-2012, 04:01 PM
Middle Man
http://images.defensetech.org/images/alien.jpg

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-03-2012, 04:49 PM
in america there are people who will shoot another over who makes the best kool aid.

do you think neanderthals and humans back then would have behaved in a more civilised manner when it came to food and drink?

check two
12-03-2012, 05:08 PM
That hasn't happened in the UK?

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-03-2012, 05:10 PM
not that i'm aware of.

but i do remember 2 brothers taking each other to court over a shepherds pie.

John Nash
12-03-2012, 05:13 PM
i wonder what material did prehitoric people wipe their arses with?

i wonder if they had any type of politics dealing with how food was to be shared out.

i wonder if they treated their clothes like artistic pieces and what fashion sense they had.

i wonder and i ask. i wonder and i ask.

http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs51/i/2009/321/0/2/Looking_up_Into_the_Sky_by_KeyszerS.jpg

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-03-2012, 05:29 PM
not that i'm aware of.

but i do remember 2 brothers taking each other to court over a shepherds pie.



this was it:

Row over shepherd's pie ends in court

Shepherd's pie: without tomatoes on top
By Gary Cleland8:21AM BST 21 Apr 2008
A row over the correct way to make shepherd’s pie ended up in court after a disagreement between two brothers turned violent.

After a day spent drinking, Michael Garvin cooked his brother John the traditional English dish for dinner, expecting a grateful response.
John, however, voiced his disquiet that the pie was not topped with a layer of sliced tomatoes.
His brother, a chef, claimed a layer of tomatoes was not the appropriate way to finish off a shepherd’s pie, and responded by hitting him over the head with a shovel.
As the argument got out of control, John threatened to petrol bomb his brother’s flat and was arrested.
He spent a night in the cells in Blackburn, Lancs, where the pair lived in flats opposite each other. He admitted a breach of the peace, and was bound over to keep the peace for 12 months in the sum of £200.
Catherine Allen, prosecuting, said the brothers had been drinking before Michael embarked on culinary duties.
She said: “The argument started because there were no tomatoes on the top of the shepherd’s pie that Michael had made for their tea and John thought this was wrong.”
John swore at his brother and then said he was going to petrol bomb Michael’s flat, the prosecutor said.
This had frightened his brother, as John had previously set fire to his own flat, the court heard.
Liz Parker, defending, said : “My client does not accept the remark about petrol bombing.
“What he does say is that Michael hit him over the head with a shovel and there was a lot of trouble over very little.”
District Judge Peter Ward told the defendant that, in his view, there was no need for a layer of tomatoes on a shepherd’s pie.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00663/news-graphics-2008-_663739a.jpg

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-03-2012, 05:44 PM
could you imagine the arguments over the dinner table if one member of the clan wanted say buffalo one day and they could only come home with a rabbit because it was the neanderthals or humans from the ends that caught the buffalo that day? after they'd spent hours chasing after the buffalo, they got tired it and in the end it was another group that got that buffalo. they would have then had to find something else to hunt that day cos they got mouths to feed and were lucky to come back with a rabbit, resulting in little food to share between the clan.

if one group was better at catching a certain animal and the other group loved the meat but couldn't catch those animals themselves, would there have been clashes? did they ever share their catch?

i don't really know what they ate so don't quote me. i was just trying to give an example.

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-03-2012, 11:18 PM
Imagine if one clan always got the good buffalo and always had a feast at dinner time. And the neighbouring clan don't even know what buffalo tastes like cos they didn't have the skills to catch one. Having to eat rabbits all the time.

EAGLE EYE
12-03-2012, 11:42 PM
imagine

http://i.imgur.com/ALEqn.png

hashashin
12-04-2012, 03:53 AM
could you imagine the arguments over the dinner table if one member of the clan wanted say buffalo one day and they could only come home with a rabbit because it was the neanderthals or humans from the ends that caught the buffalo that day? after they'd spent hours chasing after the buffalo, they got tired it and in the end it was another group that got that buffalo. they would have then had to find something else to hunt that day cos they got mouths to feed and were lucky to come back with a rabbit, resulting in little food to share between the clan.

if one group was better at catching a certain animal and the other group loved the meat but couldn't catch those animals themselves, would there have been clashes? did they ever share their catch?

i don't really know what they ate so don't quote me. i was just trying to give an example.

I think they would just be grateful for whatever food they caught, whether it be buffalo, rabbit whatever... They might have also traded food for other things that the tribes needed

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-04-2012, 07:36 AM
of course they'd be grateful that another group got the animal they were after. yea. seeing the other group eat better/more food day in day out, they wouldn't feel any sort of resentment towards the other group, they would just be grateful for what they got. yea.

and if, after chasing a buffalo for hours, then lost out to the other group, then tried to come home with a rabbit but was unsuccessful at that too, what exactly would they have to be grateful for?

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-04-2012, 07:56 AM
i'm guessing the best hunters would have made the best tools, they wouldn't have traded their best tools that gets them buffalo for a bit of rabbit they themselves could catch anytime they like. that's like a man trading in his favourite gun/knife that gets him steak every day for some mcnuggets.

it's possible groups would have stole tools/weapons from other groups. it would have happened.

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-04-2012, 08:27 AM
there would have been someone with a special spear or whatever weapon. there's always a special one, the weapons didn't come off a production line so all the weapons would have been different, they would have had lots of weapons, but they'd have a special one that was their favourite. that special weapon would have been highly coveted and fought over as it passed down the generations or passed hands.

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-04-2012, 08:31 AM
I think they would just be grateful for whatever food they caught, whether it be buffalo, rabbit whatever... They might have also traded food for other things that the tribes needed



trade food for what?

trade buffalo for rabbit?






http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/showthread.php?t=116483&highlight=kool+aid

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1896225/Row-over-shepherds-pie-ends-in-court.html


after those two ^^^^ do you really think neanderthals and humans 200,000-300,000 years ago, where there was no law enforcement, no legal system, no fast food places or supermarkets, would have behaved more appropriately if they were hungry? the above cases weren't even fighting because of a lack of food/drink. neither were they fighting enemies/strangers/different race.

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-04-2012, 08:47 AM
when it came to the men, which group do you think was more endowed?

humans or neanderthals?

i recently read an article that says humans have gotten dumber over the many thousands of years and that our brains have got smaller.

can the same be said about dick size?

VORTEX
12-04-2012, 09:07 AM
don't leave out pussies aswell... from tight, to wide and loose as fuck... maybe there's something about it

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-04-2012, 09:16 AM
ass, tits, legs, hair, etc, etc

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-04-2012, 09:41 AM
would they have tight curls, loose curls, or straight hair?

would they all have different shades of hair?

hashashin
12-04-2012, 10:20 AM
lol, I meant there wouldn't be arguments around the dinner table you dipshit! I don't think someone would be complaining cos they had to eat a different type of meat sometime. Do you really think they would be sitting there thinking

'What's this shite? I really fancied a nice juicy buffalo steak tonight' lmao

When it comes to the trading, maybe you're right about them fighting/killing for food from each other but on the other hand they could easily have traded, just cos there was no law enforcment/rules etc they could still have done trades. Maybe greed etc wasn't as prevalent as it is today

hashashin
12-04-2012, 10:32 AM
I never said anything about them trading for tools or weapons either, they could have traded for animal skins for clothing or plants/herbs they thought had medicinal properties etc. I dunno, whatever type of things were considered a commodity back then

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-04-2012, 10:36 AM
I never said anything about them trading for tools or weapons either, they could have traded for animal skins for clothing or plants/herbs they thought had medicinal properties etc. I dunno, whatever type of things were considered a commodity back then

they traded animal skins for clothing?

they traded plants that were freely available?

hashashin
12-04-2012, 10:41 AM
Well im just guessing, I dunno how advanced or what knowledge they had back then but maybe they could have used animal pelts for warmth.

Obviously they wouldn't have been able to make medicine as we know it but maybe they believed that certain plants or herbs had medicinal or magical properties

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-04-2012, 10:46 AM
saying they could have used animal pelts for warmth is stating the obvious. if they weren't good at catching animals what animals skins could they have traded?

hashashin
12-04-2012, 10:52 AM
they traded animal skins for clothing?

saying they could have used animal pelts for warmth is stating the obvious.

lol, what you like!!!

What I'm saying is, one group may have an excess of something for whatever reason and then these could be traded for food with another group. Hunting may have been more succesful at certain times

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-04-2012, 10:55 AM
lol, what you like!!!

What I'm saying is, one group may have an excess of something for whatever reason and then these could be traded for food with another group. Hunting may have been more succesful at certain times

excess of what?

what reasons?

hashashin
12-04-2012, 11:03 AM
lol, how can I know for certain? I'm just suggesting possibilities.

An excess of whatever was considered a commodity at the time, pelts/plants/herbs are just an example

Again I cant give you definate reasons but maybe they had ventured or explored further afield than the other groups or were just more successful at hunting/gathering

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-04-2012, 11:09 AM
lol, how can I know for certain? I'm just suggesting possibilities.

An excess of whatever was considered a commodity at the time, pelts/plants/herbs are just an example

Again I cant give you definate reasons but maybe they had ventured or explored further afield than the other groups or were just more successful at hunting/gathering

what commodity? plants and herbs were freely available. the ones good at hunting already make the own pelts.

ventured or explored further afield into what?

hashashin
12-04-2012, 11:14 AM
As I already said, whatever was considered a commodity back then, I already gave you some examples.

I just meant further afield in general, went on further hunting trips/exploration missions. Even back then people probably had a sense of curiosity and wanted to explore their enviroment

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-04-2012, 11:17 AM
your examples failed. i don't consider plants and herbs that were freely available a commodity.

if the groups who were good at hunting ate good and had their own pelts and was able to gather their own plants and herbs, what could a next man offer him? a next man that ain't good at hunting isn't gonna have pelts to trade.

check two
12-04-2012, 11:19 AM
lol, I meant there wouldn't be arguments around the dinner table you dipshit! I don't think someone would be complaining cos they had to eat a different type of meat sometime. Do you really think they would be sitting there thinking

'What's this shite? I really fancied a nice juicy buffalo steak tonight' lmao

When it comes to the trading, maybe you're right about them fighting/killing for food from each other but on the other hand they could easily have traded, just cos there was no law enforcment/rules etc they could still have done trades. Maybe greed etc wasn't as prevalent as it is today

I didn't think they talked, I thought they just grunted? Not everybody loves steak. Maybe some liked dodo bird better or some didn't like meat at all, so they stuck to plants.

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-04-2012, 11:20 AM
I didn't think they talked, I thought they just grunted? Not everybody loves steak. Maybe some liked dodo bird better or some didn't like meat at all, so they stuck to plants.


what would they have eaten in the winter when plants aren't so abundant?

hashashin
12-04-2012, 11:28 AM
your examples failed. i don't consider plants and herbs that were freely available a commodity.

if the groups who were good at hunting ate good and had their own pelts and was able to gather their own plants and herbs, what could a next man offer him? a next man that ain't good at hunting isn't gonna have pelts to trade.

But one group may have known where to find certain plants/herbs that others didn't or were unable to get to. Just cos they grew wild doesn't mean it was a freely available commodity for everyone.

As for the pelts, one group could have a very succesful period of hunting and had gathered excess of what they actually needed. Doesn't mean they would always be successful though. If there was times when food was scarse then they would have something to trade with if another group were doing well at that time..... or they could have just massacred the other group and took everything off them!

None of us can say for certain

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-04-2012, 11:29 AM
lol, I meant there wouldn't be arguments around the dinner table you dipshit! I don't think someone would be complaining cos they had to eat a different type of meat sometime. Do you really think they would be sitting there thinking

'What's this shite? I really fancied a nice juicy buffalo steak tonight' lmao

When it comes to the trading, maybe you're right about them fighting/killing for food from each other but on the other hand they could easily have traded, just cos there was no law enforcment/rules etc they could still have done trades. Maybe greed etc wasn't as prevalent as it is today


no, because people never argue or fight over food. have you not seen all the brawls that break out at fast food places?

hashashin
12-04-2012, 11:32 AM
I didn't think they talked, I thought they just grunted? Not everybody loves steak. Maybe some liked dodo bird better or some didn't like meat at all, so they stuck to plants.

Maybe but I just don't really think they would have been as fussy as what people are today. With the abundance of different types of food, choice and availability that we have now I think peoples tastes/preferences are hugely different to what they would have been like. When food was scarce you probably would just be grateful for whatever you got to eat

hashashin
12-04-2012, 11:33 AM
no, because people never argue or fight over food. have you not seen all the brawls that break out at fast food places?

Thats what I'm trying to say though Trix, people fight over that shite these days but back then if food was scarce do you not think they would just be grateful for whatever was available?

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-04-2012, 11:34 AM
But one group may have known where to find certain plants/herbs that others didn't or were unable to get to. Just cos they grew wild doesn't mean it was a freely available commodity for everyone.

As for the pelts, one group could have a very succesful period of hunting and had gathered excess of what they actually needed. Doesn't mean they would always be successful though. If there was times when food was scarse then they would have something to trade with if another group were doing well at that time..... or they could have just massacred the other group and took everything off them!

None of us can say for certain


so, it's winter and there aren't many plants about, let alone any special ones, and they're not good at catching anything. what do they have to trade with?

hashashin
12-04-2012, 11:36 AM
so, it's winter and there aren't many plants about, let alone any special ones about. and they're not good at catching anything. what do they have to trade with?

I don't know! What other types of things could be considered a commodity back then?

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-04-2012, 11:38 AM
Maybe but I just don't really think they would have been as fussy as what people are today. With the abundance of different types of food, choice and availability that we have now I think peoples tastes/preferences are hugely different to what they would have been like. When food was scarce you probably would just be grateful for whatever you got to eat

Thats what I'm trying to say though Trix, people fight over that shite these days but back then if food was scarce do you not think they would just be grateful for whatever was available?



because people back then didn't have a preference of what type of food they liked?

because people didn't mind going hungry back then?

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-04-2012, 11:39 AM
I don't know! What other types of things could be considered a commodity back then?



you're the one who said they traded. you're the one that said they had a commodity to trade with. i'm asking you.

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-04-2012, 11:45 AM
giving how hard it is to hunt a buffalo, and with the added danger involved, what could a next man offer you in exchange for a bit of that juicy buffalo?

hashashin
12-04-2012, 11:46 AM
because people back then didn't have a preference of what type of food they liked?

because people didn't mind going hungry back then?

Maybe, but I really don't think it was anything like it is these days, remember how much people have developed since then. I think peoples tastes back then would have been a lot simpler back then

They probably did mind about going hungry, thats why I'm saying I dont think they would be arguing about what was on the table, Of course some things might have tasted better than others but I think they would just be grateful to have food! Plus they were probably adapted to going for longer periods of not eating than what people are today

Wu-Tang Forum Internet Poster
12-04-2012, 11:50 AM
FqlVRsA8aFE

hashashin
12-04-2012, 11:50 AM
you're the one who said they traded. you're the one that said they had a commodity to trade with. i'm asking you.

giving how hard it is to hunt a buffalo, and with the added danger involved, what could a next man offer you in exchange for a bit of that juicy buffalo?

Well I never claimed to be an expert, I'm just suggesting possibilities. Maybe they did just kill and take what they want from other groups but I don't think its impossible to believe that people could have traded things back then, I'd have to look into it some more and know about how they lived etc as to what type of things would be commodity

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-04-2012, 11:57 AM
if one group was chasing a buffalo and the buffalo ran into another group's territory, does that mean the group that own that territory own the rights to that animal and take over from the first group?




Maybe, but I really don't think it was anything like it is these days, remember how much people have developed since then. I think peoples tastes back then would have been a lot simpler back then

They probably did mind about going hungry, thats why I'm saying I dont think they would be arguing about what was on the table, Of course some things might have tasted better than others but I think they would just be grateful to have food! Plus they were probably adapted to going for longer periods of not eating than what people are today


people's tastes might have been simpler back then, they may have been able to go without food for longer periods but hunger is hunger. they would have eaten whatever they managed to come home with but they were short most days, they would have resented the other groups that were better off. if they were losing out to the same group all the time, there would have been bitter resentment.

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-04-2012, 11:58 AM
Well I never claimed to be an expert, I'm just suggesting possibilities. Maybe they did just kill and take what they want from other groups but I don't think its impossible to believe that people could have traded things back then, I'd have to look into it some more and know about how they lived etc as to what type of things would be commodity


you do that.

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-04-2012, 12:03 PM
Maybe but I just don't really think they would have been as fussy as what people are today. With the abundance of different types of food, choice and availability that we have now I think peoples tastes/preferences are hugely different to what they would have been like. When food was scarce you probably would just be grateful for whatever you got to eat


if their skills only allowed them to eat fruit and veg and perhaps rabbit. do you think they were happy to eat the same shit everyday? the same shit that doesn't really satisfy their hunger (say they had a big clan to feed).


if they'd been trying to catch a buffalo for years, and year in year out they lose to the next group, it wouldn't matter at all they would just be happy they tried?

hashashin
12-04-2012, 12:04 PM
if one group was chasing a buffalo and the buffalo ran into another group's territory, does that mean the group that own that territory own the rights to that animal and take over from the first group?

people's tastes might have been simpler back then, they may have been able to go without food for longer periods but hunger is hunger. they would have eaten whatever they managed to come home with but they were short most days, they would have resented the other groups that were better off. if they were losing out to the same group all the time, there would have been bitter resentment.

I'd say the ones chasing it would get the spoils

How would they know the other group was doing so successful though? Unless you're trying to say that these different groups were all living on top of each other and they all had to share one dinner table between the different groups?

hashashin
12-04-2012, 12:05 PM
you do that.

Nah, cant be bothered

hashashin
12-04-2012, 12:09 PM
if their skills only allowed them to eat fruit and veg and perhaps rabbit. do you think they were happy to eat the same shit everyday? the same shit that doesn't really satisfy their hunger (say they had a big clan to feed).

I really don't think they would have been that bothered, obviously when they caught something bigger then it would be a result and a reason to celebrate and feast but I honestly don't think they would be complaining about it to the extent people whinge on about food these days

Longbongcilvaringz
12-04-2012, 12:11 PM
Neanderthals died out because they were stupid. Caucazoid devils fucked them for the same reason.

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-04-2012, 12:12 PM
I'd say the ones chasing it would get the spoils

How would they know the other group was doing so successful though? Unless you're trying to say that these different groups were all living on top of each other and they all had to share one dinner table between the different groups?



i'd say that the group chasing the buffalo into another group's territory would lose it because they'd be tired after doing all the chasing and it would be the next group who will still have the energy to chase down the buffalo.

more resentment.

hashashin
12-04-2012, 12:12 PM
Yup man lead to their extinction

hashashin
12-04-2012, 12:13 PM
i'd say that the group chasing the buffalo into another group's territory would lose it because they'd be tired after doing all the chasing and it would be the next group who will still have the energy to chase down the buffalo.

more resentment.

Yeah but if food had been scarce they aint gonna give that buffalo up without a fight, no matter how tired they are!

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-04-2012, 12:13 PM
I really don't think they would have been that bothered, obviously when they caught something bigger then it would be a result and a reason to celebrate and feast but I honestly don't think they would be complaining about it to the extent people whinge on about food these days



yes, because in the winter when food really is scarce, they really wouldn't bother making a fuss.

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-04-2012, 12:15 PM
Yeah but if food had been scarce they aint gonna give that buffalo up without a fight, no matter how tired they are!



if that's the case, i wouldn't put it past the owners of the territory to take care of the first group before they take care of the buffalo.

hashashin
12-04-2012, 12:16 PM
yes, because in the winter when food really is scarce, they really wouldn't bother making a fuss.

they could have prepared for winter though, remember how long ago we're talking here trix, people would have been much easier pleased and satisfied than what they are today.

hashashin
12-04-2012, 12:17 PM
if that's the case, i wouldn't put it past the owners of the territory to take care of the first group before they take care of the buffalo.

Maybe, I could definatly see it ending in a fight either way!

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-04-2012, 12:18 PM
they could have prepared for winter though, remember how long ago we're talking here trix, people would have been much easier pleased and satisfied than what they are today.



yes, because fruit and veg picked in the summer will last through the winter in a cave.

hashashin
12-04-2012, 12:23 PM
yes, because fruit and veg picked in the summer will last through the winter in a cave.

lol, I dunno if they had any way to store things back then or not! Could have had dried out meat? Like jerky!

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-04-2012, 12:24 PM
how old are you?

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-04-2012, 12:27 PM
lol, I dunno if they had any way to store things back then or not! Could have had dried out meat? Like jerky!


if they weren't good at catching anything would they have an abundance of jerky ready to store for the winter?

hashashin
12-04-2012, 12:33 PM
how old are you?

lol, why do you want to know?


if they weren't good at catching anything would they have an abundance of jerky ready to store for the winter?

Yeah but they obviously knew that winter would be a very harsh time back then and so they would have been preparing for it throughout the year. When they caught things people wouldn't be stuffing their faces and gorging on food like they do today. When something is in short supply you would have learnt to adapt and ration and prepare yourself for when times were going to be difficult

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-04-2012, 12:37 PM
lol, why do you want to know?




Yeah but they obviously knew that winter would be a very harsh time back then and so they would have been preparing for it throughout the year. When they caught things people wouldn't be stuffing their faces and gorging on food like they do today. When something is in short supply you would have learnt to adapt and ration and prepare yourself for when times were going to be difficult



prepared with what?

hashashin
12-04-2012, 12:38 PM
with buffalo and rabbit jerky!

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-04-2012, 12:40 PM
:{

hashashin
12-04-2012, 12:44 PM
lol, wasn't meant to be funny! Do you consider it totally impossible for there to even be a slight chance that they could have prepared dried meats back then? If there was no food storage system available then dried meats could have definatly been used as a source of food during harsh times

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-04-2012, 01:00 PM
What preservatives would they have known about and use to prepare the dried meat?

check two
12-04-2012, 01:10 PM
Weren't there some areas around where the winters weren't as cold and frigid as other areas?

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-04-2012, 01:12 PM
Plants will only grow in seasons. It doesn't matter how mild the winters are.

drippie k
12-04-2012, 01:54 PM
Humans killed those inferior muthafuckas. Humans were faster, smarter and stronger. little monkeys and apes were no threat so they weren't all killed off. but neanderthals and humans fought all the time although occasionally breeding with them and that's why Canadians exist

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-04-2012, 02:24 PM
Some meats dont need preserving but still rotten meat versus fresh meat?

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-04-2012, 02:26 PM
Humans killed those inferior muthafuckas. Humans were faster, smarter and stronger. little monkeys and apes were no threat so they weren't all killed off. but neanderthals and humans fought all the time although occasionally breeding with them and that's why Canadians exist

I reckon winter time would be the time when cannibalism occurs more often.

check two
12-04-2012, 02:35 PM
I enjoy the winter time more than the sweaty ass summer, myself.

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
12-04-2012, 02:44 PM
Would you enjoy it as much if there was little fruit and veg for you to eat?

JASPER
12-04-2012, 03:07 PM
well seeing as I wasn't around during the time of neanderthals it's the best I can do for you!
http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab52/robochrist/1346803457806.jpg