Guest simple_language@yahoo.com Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 source: http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,269115,00.html Practices ranging from bondage to group sex, transvestism and the use of sex toys were widespread in primitive societies as a way of building up cultural ties. According to the study, a 30,000-year-old statue of a naked woman -- the Venus of Willendorf -- and an equally ancient stone phallus found in a German cave, provide the earliest direct evidence that sex was about far more than babies... "The widespread lay belief that sex in the past was predominantly heterosexual and reproductive can be challenged," said Taylor. He argues that monogamy only became established as hunter-gatherer societies took up agriculture and settled in houses, allowing the social roles of men and women to become more fixed. Experts believe research such as Taylor's may help overturn false assumptions that sex for the purposes of reproduction is the form closest to nature. Quote
Guest Atheist are Stooges Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 <simple_language@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1181852597.394232.35270@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > source: > http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,269115,00.html > > Practices ranging from bondage to group sex, transvestism and the use > of sex toys were widespread in primitive societies as a way of > building up cultural ties. Were you there? If not I suggest you stop your fantasy. Quote
Deathbringer Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 Sex was important, but in what way? Hindus still consider the lingam an important symbol to this day, and fertility goddess worship survives in many cultures. Neither Hindus nor druids are particularly hedonistic, no more than Catholics are cannibals despite eating things that represent blood and human flesh on a regular basis... Now, if I wanted to make your argument, I would use records of ancient culture and not anything that could be construed as a religious artifact. Ancient Greeks were incredibly tolerant of sexual deviance from the beginning, as is well documented in the writings they left behind. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:23:17 -0700, "simple_language@yahoo.com" <simple_language@yahoo.com> wrote: >source: http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,269115,00.html > >Practices ranging from bondage to group sex, transvestism and the use >of sex toys were widespread in primitive societies as a way of >building up cultural ties. > >According to the study, a 30,000-year-old statue of a naked woman -- >the Venus of Willendorf The Willendorf Venus was a fertility goddess. > -- and an equally ancient stone phallus You're equating that to a dildo? You're a moron. No surprise, seeing that you believe that Faux Noise doesn't make up its stories. "He argues that monogamy only became established as hunter-gatherer societies took up agriculture and settled in houses, allowing the social roles of men and women to become more fixed." It most likely became fixed when it became a reproductive advantage to have one man stay with a woman. Evolution isn't really that difficult to understand - when something works it continues to be reproduced. If monogamy produced more offspring, humans tended toward monogamy. Quote
Guest Day Brown Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On Jun 14, 6:32 pm, "Atheist are Stooges" <Atheist.Stoo...@Yahoo.com> wrote: > > Practices ranging from bondage to group sex, transvestism and the use > > of sex toys were widespread in primitive societies as a way of > > building up cultural ties. > > Were you there? > If not I suggest you stop your fantasy. I cant speak to what any given group did. But archaeologists have found "phallic wands". But dude, I've seen porn flix, and I know dildos when I see them. The earliest evidence I know of is the 52,000 year old shaman grave at Shanidar Iraq. The shamen was buried with several powerful medicinal herbs, among which is Cyannus Centaurea, aka "bachelor button". hmm. guess why it has that name. If they were not having sex for recreation rather than procreation, why bother with an emmenegogue? Hello? It has also common knowledge in India of a class of transvestite men who are priestess to Kali and midwives. It is less common, but clearly documented that the Sythians millennia ago, had a similar class of men who made a potion from pregnant mare's piss that had so much estrogen in it, it made their beards fall out and grow tits. When you trace back the etymology of Aryan words related to clergy, you find out that they are all femine forms. One of my more obscure resources, "Did the Proto-Indo-European Priesthood Commit Treason in the Period of PIE Unity?" is a masterful piece of scholarship from 1988, before computers were used to collate all the vocabularies of all the Aryan languages to reconsctruct PIE. But by citing German, Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit sources, they show how the Aryan clergy were banned from the use of weapons. It didnt occur to them that this was because the original clergy were all female, and they had other weapons, like cunts, to control the behavior of men. But one of the more obvious clues... is that the Pope still dresses in drag. with lace. In a gown, without visible pants. with a hat that would cover a beehive hairdo. And if you look at the figures of women in postures of authority shown by Gimbutas, you see the hairdos. 7000 years ago. Your dismissability is unwarranted, and evidence of a lack of scholarship. Quote
Guest Atheist are Stooges Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 "Day Brown" <daybrown@hughes.net> wrote in message news:1181874926.706154.187070@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 14, 6:32 pm, "Atheist are Stooges" <Atheist.Stoo...@Yahoo.com> > wrote: > > Your dismissability is unwarranted, and evidence of a lack of > scholarship. > Translated: Your evidence is unwarranted, and evidence of a lack of scholarship and an appeal to authority. Quote
Guest charles Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On Jun 14, 10:25 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:23:17 -0700, "simple_langu...@yahoo.com" > > <simple_langu...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >source:http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,269115,00.html > > >Practices ranging from bondage to group sex, transvestism and the use > >of sex toys were widespread in primitive societies as a way of > >building up cultural ties. > > >According to the study, a 30,000-year-old statue of a naked woman -- > >the Venus of Willendorf > > The Willendorf Venus was a fertility goddess. Perhaps. I don't think we fully understand all there is to know about the "Cult of the Venuses." These statuettes were found throughout Europe and parts of Asia (from "France to Siberia") and date to the period from 20 - 27 kya. So whatever was prompting the artists to make the Venuses continued for about 7000 years. One thing is becoming quite clear to me: The Venus of Willendorf represents a FAT person and not necessarily a pregnant person. Jois and I had this same discussion on sap many years ago. The bonobos engage in a variety of sexual practices, and in similar fashion to humans. So "our" sexual practices probably predate the H/P split some 6 million years ago. AFAIK, when we consciously connected reproduction to sexual intercourse is unknown. That we engage in intercourse for fun was probably exploited very early in our development as a species. regards, charles > > > -- and an equally ancient stone phallus > > You're equating that to a dildo? You're a moron. No surprise, seeing > that you believe that Faux Noise doesn't make up its stories. > > "He argues that monogamy only became established as hunter-gatherer > societies took up agriculture and settled in houses, allowing the > social roles of men and women to become more fixed." It most likely > became fixed when it became a reproductive advantage to have one man > stay with a woman. Evolution isn't really that difficult to > understand - when something works it continues to be reproduced. If > monogamy produced more offspring, humans tended toward monogamy. Quote
Guest Fred A Stover Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:cdt3739rtg1fcn26nfov65e2af0keero19@4ax.com... It's not likely, did you ever smell one of them? Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 04:01:35 -0000, charles <charles.uzzell@gmail.com> wrote: > The bonobos engage in a variety of sexual practices, and in >similar fashion to humans. So "our" sexual practices probably predate >the H/P split some 6 million years ago. AFAIK, when we consciously >connected reproduction to sexual intercourse is unknown. That we >engage in intercourse for fun was probably exploited very early in our >development as a species. 1) Those who don't enjoy reproducing usually don't reproduce, so enjoying it is a distinct advantage. It had to have been that way since at least the time sex came about. Whether amoebas "enjoy" splitting or not is still an open question. 2) Although bonobos are the closest apes to us as far as sex goes, we're a lot different from them in many ways when it comes to sex, so we can't use them as a model without adjustments. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 04:11:18 GMT, "Fred A Stover" <fredstover@email.com> wrote: >"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message >news:cdt3739rtg1fcn26nfov65e2af0keero19@4ax.com... >It's not likely, did you ever smell one of them? A little context would be nice. Quote
Guest Sasha Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On Jun 14, 7:32 pm, "Atheist are Stooges" <Atheist.Stoo...@Yahoo.com> wrote: > Were you there? > If not I suggest you stop your fantasy. Unless you were sitting under Jesus' crucifix while his bony ass became a mounted hill decoration, you look like a retard making a comment like "were you there?" Quote
Guest Connie Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 On Jun 15, 10:35 am, Day Brown <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote: > On Jun 14, 6:32 pm, "Atheist are Stooges" <Atheist.Stoo...@Yahoo.com> > wrote:> > Practices ranging from bondage to group sex, transvestism and the use > > > of sex toys were widespread in primitive societies as a way of > > > building up cultural ties. > > > Were you there? > > If not I suggest you stop your fantasy. > > I cant speak to what any given group did. But archaeologists have > found "phallic wands". But dude, I've seen porn flix, and I know > dildos when I see them. > > The earliest evidence I know of is the 52,000 year old shaman grave at > Shanidar Iraq. The shamen was buried with several powerful medicinal > herbs, among which is Cyannus Centaurea, aka "bachelor button". hmm. > guess why it has that name. > > If they were not having sex for recreation rather than procreation, > why bother with an emmenegogue? Hello? > It has also common knowledge in India of a class of transvestite men > who are priestess to Kali and midwives. It is less common, but clearly > documented that the Sythians millennia ago, had a similar class of men > who made a potion from pregnant mare's piss that had so much estrogen > in it, it made their beards fall out and grow tits. > > When you trace back the etymology of Aryan words related to clergy, > you find out that they are all femine forms. One of my more obscure > resources, "Did the Proto-Indo-European Priesthood Commit Treason in > the Period of PIE Unity?" is a masterful piece of scholarship from > 1988, before computers were used to collate all the vocabularies of What the heck are "Aryan languages"? Did you make this term up, or did you crib it from German sources of the 1930's? > all the Aryan languages to reconsctruct PIE. But by citing German, > Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit sources, they show how the Aryan clergy > were banned from the use of weapons. It didnt occur to them that this > was because the original clergy were all female, and they had other > weapons, like cunts, to control the behavior of men. > > But one of the more obvious clues... is that the Pope still dresses in > drag. with lace. In a gown, without visible pants. with a hat that > would cover a beehive hairdo. And if you look at the figures of women > in postures of authority shown by Gimbutas, you see the hairdos. 7000 > years ago. > > Your dismissability is unwarranted, and evidence of a lack of > scholarship. Quote
Guest Day Brown Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 On Jun 16, 8:50 am, Connie <conrad.gel...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 15, 10:35 am, Day Brown <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote: > > > On Jun 14, 6:32 pm, "Atheist are Stooges" <Atheist.Stoo...@Yahoo.com> > > wrote:> > Practices ranging from bondage to group sex, transvestism and the use > > > > of sex toys were widespread in primitive societies as a way of > > > > building up cultural ties. > > > > Were you there? > > > If not I suggest you stop your fantasy. > > > I cant speak to what any given group did. But archaeologists have > > found "phallic wands". But dude, I've seen porn flix, and I know > > dildos when I see them. > > > The earliest evidence I know of is the 52,000 year old shaman grave at > > Shanidar Iraq. The shamen was buried with several powerful medicinal > > herbs, among which is Cyannus Centaurea, aka "bachelor button". hmm. > > guess why it has that name. > > > If they were not having sex for recreation rather than procreation, > > why bother with an emmenegogue? Hello? > > It has also common knowledge in India of a class of transvestite men > > who are priestess to Kali and midwives. It is less common, but clearly > > documented that the Sythians millennia ago, had a similar class of men > > who made a potion from pregnant mare's piss that had so much estrogen > > in it, it made their beards fall out and grow tits. > > > When you trace back the etymology of Aryan words related to clergy, > > you find out that they are all femine forms. One of my more obscure > > resources, "Did the Proto-Indo-European Priesthood Commit Treason in > > the Period of PIE Unity?" is a masterful piece of scholarship from > > 1988, before computers were used to collate all the vocabularies of > > What the heck are "Aryan languages"? Did you make this term up, or did > you crib it from German sources of the 1930's? My reading of history goes back a good deal before the Nazis tried to define "Aryan" to suit them. I am not the only one who is trying to reclaim the word to what it meant in the 19th century when it was realized that English, German, Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, Sogdian, and (in the beginning of the 20th when they found) Tocharian, that all these Aryan languages had a common root. Go to Tehran, and ask, and they will clearly tell you that they are descended from "the Aryans" and that this is why "Iran" has the name. Are they wrong to use the term? "Proto-Indo-European" is a cumbersome politically correct mouthful. But if you, or anyone, can point out to me what the original Aryans themselves called themselves, I'd seriously consider using that term. We do it for other groups. Quote
Deathbringer Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 On a side note, bonobos indisputably have sex for fun. So do chimps. So do people, as chronicled ever since recorded history began. Assuming that primitive man and prehistoric woman didn't get it on for fun is flatly stupid. What did some of you do, find abstinence education pamphlets scrawled on the back of a cave? Hellooooo? Quote
Guest Tiktaalik Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 On Jun 15, 3:43 pm, Sasha <KTBpy...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 14, 7:32 pm, "Atheist are Stooges" <Atheist.Stoo...@Yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > Were you there? > > If not I suggest you stop your fantasy. > > Unless you were sitting under Jesus' crucifix while his bony ass > became a mounted hill decoration, you look like a retard making a > comment like "were you there?" NEWSFLASH!!!! He IS a retard. "I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being". (Abraham Lincoln). Quote
Guest chibiabos Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 In article <gr1573djm5dlv7tbf35p952k56nlu3qbrm@4ax.com>, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 04:01:35 -0000, charles <charles.uzzell@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > The bonobos engage in a variety of sexual practices, and in > >similar fashion to humans. So "our" sexual practices probably predate > >the H/P split some 6 million years ago. AFAIK, when we consciously > >connected reproduction to sexual intercourse is unknown. That we > >engage in intercourse for fun was probably exploited very early in our > >development as a species. > > 1) Those who don't enjoy reproducing usually don't reproduce, so > enjoying it is a distinct advantage. It had to have been that way > since at least the time sex came about. Whether amoebas "enjoy" > splitting or not is still an open question. > > 2) Although bonobos are the closest apes to us as far as sex goes, > we're a lot different from them in many ways when it comes to sex, so > we can't use them as a model without adjustments. Usually involving leather, metal, latex, lubricants and Google. Silly bonobos. Don't know what they're missing. -chib -- Member of S.M.A.S.H. Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor Quote
Guest Atheist are Stooges Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 "Day Brown" <daybrown@hughes.net> wrote in message news:1182022750.724247.175570@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 16, 8:50 am, Connie <conrad.gel...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 15, 10:35 am, Day Brown <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote: >> >> > On Jun 14, 6:32 pm, "Atheist are Stooges" <Atheist.Stoo...@Yahoo.com> >> > wrote:> > Practices ranging from bondage to group sex, transvestism and >> > the use >> > > > of sex toys were widespread in primitive societies as a way of >> > > > building up cultural ties. >> >> > > Were you there? >> > > If not I suggest you stop your fantasy. >> >> > I cant speak to what any given group did. But archaeologists have >> > found "phallic wands". But dude, I've seen porn flix, and I know >> > dildos when I see them. >> >> > The earliest evidence I know of is the 52,000 year old shaman grave at >> > Shanidar Iraq. The shamen was buried with several powerful medicinal >> > herbs, among which is Cyannus Centaurea, aka "bachelor button". hmm. >> > guess why it has that name. >> >> > If they were not having sex for recreation rather than procreation, >> > why bother with an emmenegogue? Hello? >> > It has also common knowledge in India of a class of transvestite men >> > who are priestess to Kali and midwives. It is less common, but clearly >> > documented that the Sythians millennia ago, had a similar class of men >> > who made a potion from pregnant mare's piss that had so much estrogen >> > in it, it made their beards fall out and grow tits. >> >> > When you trace back the etymology of Aryan words related to clergy, >> > you find out that they are all femine forms. One of my more obscure >> > resources, "Did the Proto-Indo-European Priesthood Commit Treason in >> > the Period of PIE Unity?" is a masterful piece of scholarship from >> > 1988, before computers were used to collate all the vocabularies of >> >> What the heck are "Aryan languages"? Did you make this term up, or did >> you crib it from German sources of the 1930's? > My reading of history goes back a good deal before the Nazis tried to > define "Aryan" to suit them. I am not the only one who is trying to > reclaim the word to what it meant in the 19th century when it was > realized that English, German, Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, Sogdian, and > (in the beginning of the 20th when they found) Tocharian, that all > these Aryan languages had a common root. > > Go to Tehran, and ask, and they will clearly tell you that they are > descended from "the Aryans" and that this is why "Iran" has the name. > Are they wrong to use the term? > > "Proto-Indo-European" is a cumbersome politically correct mouthful. > But if you, or anyone, can point out to me what the original Aryans > themselves called themselves, I'd seriously consider using that term. > We do it for other groups. Uh huh...and piltdown man was a pigs tooth that you dummies concocted a whole culture around.Such is evolutions weakness. Quote
Guest Rich Travsky Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 Whaddya think those beads were for? Quote
Guest Lorentz Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 > According to the study, a 30,000-year-old statue of a naked woman -- She wasn't naked. She was wearing a hat. A knitted hat. I am not making this up. Quote
Guest Atheist are Stooges Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message news:46756A07.48A36196@hotmMOVEail.com... > Whaddya think those beads were for? Wearing? Unless they belonged to your mother. Quote
Guest charles Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 15, 8:39 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 04:01:35 -0000, charles <charles.uzz...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > The bonobos engage in a variety of sexual practices, and in > >similar fashion to humans. So "our" sexual practices probably predate > >the H/P split some 6 million years ago. AFAIK, when we consciously > >connected reproduction to sexual intercourse is unknown. That we > >engage in intercourse for fun was probably exploited very early in our > >development as a species. > > 1) Those who don't enjoy reproducing usually don't reproduce, so > enjoying it is a distinct advantage. It had to have been that way > since at least the time sex came about. Whether amoebas "enjoy" > splitting or not is still an open question. > > 2) Although bonobos are the closest apes to us as far as sex goes, > we're a lot different from them in many ways when it comes to sex, so > we can't use them as a model without adjustments. Well of course your first point is well made. but I was thinking along the lines of what the original post was about. "sex for fun" which is relatively rare in the animal world. We DO share many characteristics in sexual behaviour with the bonobos... homosexual sex, masturbation, sex for "something"... some sort of cultural reason, as a greeting (which I would say we don't share, unless one considers a kiss to be sex), frequency, sex not during menses/"heat", etc. Bonobos also have adult-juvenile sex, which is of course taboo in hss. Humans cross-culturally seem to have "sex in private" which is a biggie difference. Humans do a LOT of things different than the average animal, which is the entire problem for anthrolopology. How did we become who we are... and how are we truly unique from the other animals? There is bipedal locomotion, big brain, etc. We can't use any existing animal other than our own selves as a model, but we can look at some common factors and try to figure out what preceded the hss/pan split. regards, charles Quote
Guest Lorentz Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 > Well of course your first point is well made. but I was thinking > along the lines of what the original post was about. "sex for fun" > which is relatively rare in the animal world. No way. Sex for fun is quite common in the natural word. In fact, I would say that from the viewpoint of the individual animal it is always for fun. The reproduction occurs, but the animal isn't aware of the connection. I would say that sex where neither partner has fun is a human invention. Sex without no reproduction is quite common. Microorganisms like protozoa and yeast conjugate for the purpose of exchanging genetic material, but often there is no reproduction afterward. You just have a different animal. In the case of yeast you have fewer animals afterward than before (just a larger yeast cell). Animals that are isolated masturbate. Monkeys in zoos are often seen to masturbate. Parthenogenic lizards often have sex, it is part of their social lives. I am giving the most obvious examples. I wish to just point out that the social mechanisms associated with sex are not and can not be separated from other social interactions, even among nonhuman animals. Of course, sex toys are a form of tool. Human beings have this specialization in making tools. So I'll bet we are the biggest, although I doubt the only, maker of sex toys. Quote
Guest charles Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 18, 10:32 am, Lorentz <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Well of course your first point is well made. but I was thinking > > along the lines of what the original post was about. "sex for fun" > > which is relatively rare in the animal world. > > No way. Sex for fun is quite common in the natural word. In > fact, I would say that from the viewpoint of the individual animal it > is always for fun. The reproduction occurs, but the animal isn't aware > of the connection. I would say that sex where neither partner has fun > is a human invention. > Sex without no reproduction is quite common. Microorganisms like > protozoa and yeast conjugate for the purpose of exchanging genetic > material, but often there is no reproduction afterward. You just have > a different animal. In the case of yeast you have fewer animals > afterward than before (just a larger yeast cell). Animals that are > isolated masturbate. Monkeys in zoos are often seen to masturbate. > Parthenogenic lizards often have sex, it is part of their social > lives. > I am giving the most obvious examples. I wish to just point out > that the social mechanisms associated with sex are not and can not be > separated from other social interactions, even among nonhuman animals. > Of course, sex toys are a form of tool. Human beings have this > specialization in making tools. So I'll bet we are the biggest, > although I doubt the only, maker of sex toys. hmmm... I don't actually disagree, but still... I am ascribing this whole conversation to a "homo-centric" point of view... which is my read of the original post. How do you define "fun"? Are humans or mammals the only creatures capable of having "fun"? Is a protozoa conscious? etc. Your post, as written, destroys the premise of the original research. Maybe that is a good thing, since I was having trouble with it myself. While I believe that "sexual selection" had a lot to do with human evolution, it is not clear and probably never will be clear, when humans became conscious of "fun sex" and toys and connections between sex and reproduction. you state, "from the viewpoint of the individual animal, it is always fun." This is slapping the face of much of biology, which ascribes the sex drive purely to hormonal impulses. I am inclined to agree with you, but just thought I would point out the "science" would be in disagreement. regards, charles Quote
Guest Lorentz Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 > you state, "from the viewpoint of the individual animal, it is > always fun." This is slapping the face of much of biology, which > ascribes the sex drive purely to hormonal impulses. I am inclined to > agree with you, but just thought I would point out the "science" would > be in disagreement. Hormonal impulses are fun. No scientist, and certainly not the abstraction "science," would disagree. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 02:47:19 -0000, charles <charles.uzzell@gmail.com> wrote: > Humans cross-culturally seem to have "sex in private" which is a >biggie difference. We do just about everything that requires a lack of being fully clothed in private. But that's societal, it has nothing to do with species. There have been many human societies that considered nudity, sex and elimination of wastes not something to be hidden, just as there have been some that considered almost any show of skin scandalous. > Humans do a LOT of things different than the average animal, which >is the entire problem for anthrolopology. How did we become who we >are... and how are we truly unique from the other animals? We're not, unless you compare us to one species at a time. But, then, most species have differences from other species. >There is bipedal locomotion, big brain, etc. Brain size, even compared to body size, doesn't seem to have any direct correlation to intelligence. >We can't use any existing animal other than our own selves as a mode >but we can look at some common >factors and try to figure out what preceded the hss/pan split. Exactly my point. What we have in common with bonobos most likely came from our common ancestors. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.