Bird People

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Anyway, Equality 7-2521 wrote: People didn't evolve from apes. Yup.

I'm guessing I know what Pat was getting at... However, rather than guess that you're not thinking the same thing, would you care to enlighten us?

Moreau.

Dean wrote: Moreau.

I've just taken 4 months of U.S. Diplomacy.

The Monroe/Moreau Doctrine....

The only thing disappointing about the novel is I expected the puma-woman to make out with the main character as per the movies, but this turned out to be a vulgar addition by the movies.

Dean wrote: RoyFairbank wrote: Have you ever looked up the robust offshoots? They evolved in the opposite direction, toward thicker skulls, heavier jaws. better ability to eat raw food, stupider brains. They coexisted with the upward-rising hominids for millions of years, but eventually died out. Neanderthals (last known non Homo Sapien hominid) had larger brain volume than modern man, it just developed and worked differently, which does not make them more stupid, just different, they were as smart as we are but had different skill-sets. There is also evidence that they cooked their food and ate vegetables, revered the dead (ceremonial burial) and appreciated aesthetics (wore jewellery).

No, no, no. Neanderthal is practically human. I'm talking about a different line that split from Australopithecus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranthropus_robustus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranthropus








Edited by RoyFairbank - April 28 2012 at 04:57

according to Tray Parker and Matt Stone, evidence of crab-people is quite possible and should not be negelected as pure myth

and have you ever observed corvids (crow, raven, magpies, nutcrackers, jays, rays,) they are said to be after humans, the second most intelegent species after the three great apers (Sjimpansee, Gorilla and Orangutang), Cetacean, and Corvidea

so maybe a Crow species, evolve to a bird-people like being
my favourite bird


also pinguens man, pinguins, thye look like people with beaks,

The female Avis sapiens would not think of using curling tongs for her feathers.

Dean wrote: RoyFairbank wrote: No, no, no. Neanderthal is practically human. I'm talking about a different line that split from Australopithecus You showed Homo erectus in the post I responded to, who are thought to share a lineage with modern man (as Homo ergaster), so were not necessarily a separate offshoot from Australopithecus. Homo erectus died out 1.8 million years ago, long before Homo sapiens emerged as a separate species and Homo ergaster is a common ancestor of Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalenis, unfortunately the evidence is sparse so everything is informed speculation and supposition as to whether Homo erectus was Homo ergaster (with racial differences) or they were subspieces.   However, Homo neanderthalenis were an offshoot that did co-exist with homo sapiens (as Cro-magnon - a racial difference not a species difference) and may have interbred (ie were a subspecies)

my mistake for showing Homo Erectus, I just like its accomplishments. It was unrelated to comment about robust hominins, which are a interesting but primitive life form compared to any of our immediate ancestors (though they would be possibly the most advanced one besides us if they were alive today). They merely illustrate that evolution isn't just monodirectional, if I can use that word.

It seems that research is showing that the evolutionary process was incredibly fluid.

Also, I believe its been said that the strange hobbit fossils (exhibiting Island dwarfism) were evidence that Homo Erectus' line continued into human history independently of us.


*** oh and I guess I should acknowledge that indeed Erectus and Sapiens are on the same line from Lucy. All the Hominids are on the same line from the later periods of hominid history, I believe. It seems likely that the Neaderthals and Humans could have interbred, but we won't be able to know until we try it. We were different species, and the slightest thing can lead to sterile offspring, even if we got that far. Consider the mule. However, we looked very remarkably similar, and some say that they can detect their DNA relics in our own DNA.


Edited by RoyFairbank - April 28 2012 at 09:13

^

U said it. I would add that denying evolution (macro evolution included) is impossible because all our practical modern technology, predictive science and all our modern medicine is based on the direct consequences and function of evolution, it wouldn't work or even exist if (macro) evolution didn't.

It rather like thinking the world is flat to not believe in evolution, and ultimately has to result (should it develop) in either secularism of one sort or another or the rejection of a law guided physical universe in favor of pure ideas.
In easier words, the man who believes the world is flat comes to the point where he's looking at the photo from the moon (or has gone up in a spacecraft) and has to decide whether to accept the world really is round or whether he dismisses the reality of it as inconsequential, the idea of flatness prevails over reality and is the only truth. These are the common sense end positions of such beliefs as creationism, though they if they do not develop properly, they may be stuck in a belief in compatibility, which is not necessary to religious belief or science, respectively.

Dean wrote: Imagine this as a representation of the evolutionary timeline from fish to birds: