Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
New findings on 'Hobbits.'
#1
Anyone else find these 'people' an interesting anomaly in the lineage and spread of humans?
Seems they really did get to Asia long before everyone else.  They weren't nearly as close relatives as thought.
Predated Cro Magnon by eons,  far older than 'us'  by at least .5 million years and yet were still around, relatively unchanged until just 54,000 years ago.  
Why didn't they evolve ahead of us?  Or did they evolve as far as they needed to?  Have we?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-19/bourke-st-dimitrious-gargasoulas-tells-court-i-am-the-saviour/8454290?WT.mc_id=newsmail&WT.tsrc=Newsmail
Reply
#2
Do you mean the Tongan/Greeks?
Reply
#3
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-22/origin-of-hobbits-finally-uncovered-by-anu-researchers/8463376
Reply
#4
Shit, wrong link, sorry bout that.  Yes your link, thanks Shiner.  Dunno what I'd do without a secretary. [Image: happy-smiley35.gif]
Reply
#5
When dna analyses evolved to the point that implicated modern man as having head 'relations' with that (Neanderthal) woman, we were all pretty ashamed of our selves. And now, we're discovering that we 'mixed it up' with yet another sub-human in the past.

Jesus, people!
What else did we fuck?

I'm not sure I want to know.

I'd like to hold onto this shattered pride for a little longer.
Reply
#6
I don't think any evidence of cross breeding was mentioned, just that they evolved from a much earlier common ancestor than was presumed. They were around long before our branch was and seem to have evolved along parallel line with how we did, to fill the same niche our later version of the species has adapted to fill. They just did it sooner.

Makes me wonder why they were so small. That seems to have been a major difference, we got bigger so did they get smaller in later stages or were they always small?
Reply
#7
They're showing up in our dna.

That's why i went off in such a comedic, light hearted way, above.
There have been a bunch of side-shoot human-type experiments over the years, and a lot of them evidently did more then simply kill each other. I guess it doesn't qualify as full-fledged bestiality...but where do we draw the line? Bonobos?

Personally, I simply wouldn't fuck a homo-erectus. It sounds too queer for my blood, even way back then.
(But i think i know some guys that might have.)
Reply
#8
Quote:Personally, I simply wouldn't fuck a homo-erectus. It sounds too queer for my blood, even way back then.

(But i think i know some guys that might have.)


Don't we all??  [Image: happy-smiley35.gif]

Do you think they'd recognize that they were different species?  Or just presumed to be different tribes? 
Fugly was pretty much a universal condition so the degree of it probably wouldn't have bothered them.

Can't call it bestiality really, all these philosophical and ethical terms are fairly recent concepts, wasn''t anything wrong about it to them.  Any more than Bubba's junk yard Rotty gets pangs of guilt about rogering the Pug next door.  Can't judge their behaviour by the prissy standards of today.

I've just watched another episode of that 10,000 BC reality series/experiment.  They are bloody hopeless at it.
Some have dropped out due to physical problems, but most drop out due to being spoiled modern diddums with issues.  

Oddly the ones who burst into tears and moan about being picked on when told to rattle their arses and help out for the good of the camp and not just concentrate solely on making themselves comfortable,  are the young men! 
They're emotional bloody volcanoes.  Whod'a thort?
 
The women seem to be taking it pretty much in their stride, but I did miss an episode or two.
One young woman dropped out this episode but she did it with aplomb. 
No tears, no accusations, no mental breakdown, just the statement that she'd done enough to prove she wouldn't want to live like that, had nothing else to contribute, felt no further need to 'prove herself'  and decided to go back to her nice house and comfy bed and to hell with the experiment. 

She made a coldly pragmatic decision and left with no hard feelings whatever.   No insults, no recriminations no problems with the others in the team, group hugs and well wishes all round as she left.  It seems only the blokes get all emotional and catty  about it and flounce out like drama queens.   I find that amazing.  And a bit frightening.

BUT ...

It could be down to cherry picking for character types. Although  they range over various occupations, it's not hard to imagine that they were picked for their flakey personalities for viewing action appeal.  The soapie factor?

Is the integrity of the experiment overriden by the requirements of the ratings value??   Probably.  I don't imagine there would have been any poofs, hipsters, or lazy bastards in general with emotional issues kept for long in a stone age tribe.
Their greatest value to the tribe would have been as protein.

... told you I was feeling dark side today. 
Reply
#9
The consensus among those whom study the distant past, is that women did most of the work and even provided most of the food.
Men like to play dress-up, and go off to kill stuff. When game runs out, they switch to killing each other.

Women really should consider getting rid of men.
Reply
#10
You called?? [Image: wassat.gif]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)