Well every great discovery starts with a theory. Once upon a time a Neanderthal was masturbating in the mid afternoon like he usually did when he saw a female walk by. in a moment of masturbatory clarity he theorized that sex would be more fun. So he tried it and it was! So he kept doing it and spread the word so the Neanderthals all over Europe started doing it.

He soon began to have less fun cause the female learned she could get things for sex. He then stared to have to get her fine elk skins and exotic berries. He was content because he was still getting laid. Then she started getting moody and fat! So he was turned off but the power of sex drove him on. After 9 months she got pregnant and had a kid. At first he was ecstatic she didn't look so fat! He soon realized it was another mouth to feed and more work. after 4 kids he couldn't handle it anymore and returned to masturbating.

Being the intelligent creatures they are he spread the word. Sex isn't worth the hassle! So they all went back to masturbating and taught there young boys that sex wasn't worth it and to just masturbate in the bushes while checking girls out. the women however secretly told the daughters the power they had and they used it to trick boys into sex. This lead to rampant unhappiness and divorce. The girls were still happy they got half of his stuff and child support. After a few generations men took heed of their for fathers advice more and more. They lived out their lives happy and masturbated whenever they wanted at no cost. The word spread and the population tapered off to nothing. Proving Neanderthals were smarter than us! The end

prove you wrong?

how would Neandrethals of existed if they had never had sex before this "moment of masturbatory clarity"

stopped reading there, too easy to prove wrong. dissapoint

Brilliant, so I take it you believe the world is 4000 years old and evolution didn't happen.... Who's to say Neanderthals didn't come into existence through the evolution of multiple ancestors? That is to suggest we all came from Adam and Eve, which would have lead to nothing but inbreeding and mass retardation, wait maybe you qualify..

Try again...

evolution still requires procreation....

no i am not religious. it would seem to me from your orig post that you just assume that Neanderthals existed, which would be along with creation wouldnt it?

but i see that your confidence in your argument is so pure that you have to result yo personal insults. cool story bro

Haha, Yes evolution does require breeding. It does not require a new species to breed. It could either go extinct, or start breeding, which is what happens in my scenario...

Also, don't play the high and mighty card with me. Every conversation I have tried to have with you has ended in you calling me names or saying I am a terrorist and need to move out of the united states. So that may fly with those who haven't heard our conversations, but we both know better. Man up...

so how do you define the creation of a new species? a few neanderthals were born from the same mother im assuming is your logic? because its pretty basic that evolution is based on mutation and mutation is pretty limited. its very unlikely that a few apes just popped out neanderthals..... procreation within the development of a species is still required.


see what i did there? argument without any insults. i do not remember any conversations with you. i am sorry but flattered at the same time that my words are so memorable to you!

23:06<fordy>: u mad FireFly?
23:06<fordy>: fluffing retard

I am suggesting multiple ancestors breeding and producing neanderthal offspring, not from the same mother. If humans existed from one mother we would have burnt out long ago. I think we all know the results of inbreeding...

I like how on AT you try to play like you can have an argument without insults but at the same time flame me in chat...

your "assumption" is an invalid one. but sure, if you wish to discount my easy refutation of your story, more power to you.

as for those quotes, they were from 10 min ago, after you had already instigated the "name calling" there is a rather large difference in forum debates and IRC banter in my opinion, and i believe most would agree.

Prove it's invalid, pretty sure you'll need a time machine...

If you would have read it all, you would have probably not argued rather laughed.

i did read it all, after the fact. however your thread title asked for a refutation, and i gave a valid one. your choice is to discount it, so there we go.

the likelihood of the same mutation happening within a same generation for the rapid transformation that you are apparently assuming is pretty slim.

Is this thread about Neanderthals or about bromance between the two of you?

"We could not disprove the hypothesis of multiple ancestry"
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/.../2001/01/0111origins.html
I'll agree you offer an alternative scenario suggesting a common ancestor, but it isn't a proven fact, therefore doesn't prove me wrong.

you are not even talking about the same thing apparently, nor is that article.


you are assuming that there is a strictly defined start for the Neanderthal species. like they were just created one day and that monkeys started popping out neanderthal babies like a switch was thrown. this is neither piratical nor possible. there was a mutation, and that mutation mated with other non mutated members, and once the mutation became a dominant trait it stuck. this is usually caused by the mutation being an advantage ion the environment that the species exits. this is the way evolution works. there is really no definitive point in time where you can say look! thats the first generation of neanderthals, none of them have ever fluffed!

but sure, you are right guy. science knows nothing, my refutation is nothing but crazy talk. have a cookie.

never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you!

If there is no point in which a Neanderthal becomes a Neanderthal then why do we have names for species? I understand your point that it is an extremely slow process which, if anything, gives my argument validity. If a large group is slowly mutating towards becoming a Neanderthal and they spread out and become "Neanderthals" then there is a large genus pool of Neanderthals spread out to masturbate independently of one another without requirement of sexual relation to continue the species until my for stated Neanderthal has his masturbatory epiphany.

+1 to ninong. hahaha +trolled, but shhhhHHHhhHhhhh I'm still enjoying this!

also, who is to say this fist Neanderthal in my argument isn't one of the very first to evolve to the state of "Neanderthal-ism". His theory that sex was better than masturbation could have saved a species on decline do to lack of breeding, or continued evolutionary advancement, whatever you want to call it. Thus allowing the species to continue and "thrive" until an undermanned amount of generations had past... etc... etc...

undermanned = undetermined*

http://thechive.com/...otos-78/tuesday-dar-16-8/

They are not extinct. BAM

^ bahahaha damn, looks like I overlooked the most basic part of the theory.

Firefly: The point where a "new species" arises is typically considered when one species can no longer interbreed with another, usually due to isolation of breeding either due to geographic or other means; this results in genetic drift over time.

But that line is always very fuzzy, and typically requires *MANY* generations of isolation, though not necessarily.


For example, there were some birds in the galapagos recently highlighted as a new species, as they had somehow become isolated, and their mating songs changed; when they then encountered other birds from the original stock, they would no longer breed with them as they didn't recognize each other's mating songs.



Humans, chimps (and presumably neanderthals) aren't as concerned with such things, so the time for no longer being able to breed is probably longer.

neaderthals are not extict there in md!