As far as I am aware. In prehistoric times there was two species of man the robustus and gracile (Homo Habilius?) and both existed side by side. Robustus were squat, short and strong limbed vegetarians and the gracile were slender, wiry and athletic meat-eaters. There came a time that due to climate change, plant life was sparce as were the animal life. Both species were heading towards extinction. What little plant food was being consumed by a mass of other plant eaters and there was too much competition for the graciles to hunt by larger hunters, scavengers and carrion. So by the time they could safely get to a kill, the bones wer picked clean.
The robustus became extinct. Our primative ancestors were the graciles. They adapted to the situation by learning to sharpen stones and brak the bones and scull, thereby getting to nutrient rich bone marrow and brain after the last of the carrion had left this the protein increased their brain development. The graciles who survived were very social (clan-like), very good at communicating (sharing knowledge), good at adapting quickly to situations and obviously very co-ordinated.
These types of attributes were not only the saving of mankind but also some of its biggest stregnths today.
Not sounding very autistic hey.
I guess I don't look at us as the next step in evolution at all.
I wouldn't say any race of human beings is superior to another, black, white, asian, middle eastern or aspie.
Ian
I was just stating my beliefs, heh I'm the guy that was annoyed when Soccerfreak said a mildly predudiced about why african americans are so good at basketball ;p
Ian
[/quote]
Back to ranger2736. NT = New Testament? What about the Old Testament = OT? Forgive me, but I think these abbreviations are quite funny. I've only just deciphered btw...
[/quote]
NT=Nero-typicals, not New Testaments. Amung people with brain differences, it stands for the norm. sterio type. You will find NT used alot around here to mean 'nero-typical'.
(my last post was quoting Itchms, by the way.)
There have been certain rules set by humans to tell each other that it was vital to be intellectual in what they did. At some point, we needed control of certain brain functions in order to keep order over ourselves, our mouths, our families, lives, etc. Our species really does now needs certain intellects to surive our enviroments.
Currently for all sorts of animals, it's vital to have social connection with others of the same spiecies in order to be safer from preditors who also group up together. Maybe our human race needed bonding, grouping, and effection long ago more than we need it today? Someone indeed had to be the brainiac of the spiecies at some point for all this to have been started. They would have needed to bread with other similar brainiacs of their day, so more little braniacs like them could follow and start the changing process.
Jean-Pierre a cited evolutionary theory reminds you of Creationist characters? Really? In which way? What deatils were you trying to "match"? Can I be of assistance? BTW what the hell are you talking about mate?
Meiolyn thanks for trying to help mate, but it is my fault, again. I read Jean-Pierre's post back to me and thought "WTF?" I didn't know why he was getting worked up. I re-read my post and thought "...Unless he might have read the post as meaning...***! I've done it again."
I've done something similar to you too Meiolyn, and believe me you weren't the first. I do try to phrase myself well..but sometimes...
Anyhow Jean-Pierre if I came across as mad, arrogant, nasty, angry or what have you it was not my intent. I do apologise for the offense.
I am tactless, brusque and forthright and am keenly aware of this. I was very confused and bewildered from your first comment to me. To me it made about as much sense (at the time - and you have clarrified it to me now) as if you had said "Robustus physical type might represent Buddha whilst the physical type of the Gracile may have been closer to Jesus" (This is in no way a slur on any religion or any of the associated personas. It is not an opinion that I believe in or think has any merit and is purely used as an example of a unfathonable statement).
So I was thinking how to let you know I was confused and I guess a little frustrated (not angry) at trying to work out what you were saying. Came across badly.
Sooo..The whole Adam and Eve thing may have been metaphorical not a literal interpretation? I am not religious myself and have a very basic comprehension of the bible, and have personally viewed most of the bible stories (not desparagingly) as fablesque. Like Aesop's Fables they are stories told in a way to induce the understanding in the reader (or listener) a moral regarding reward of good behaviour or actions or punishing bad behaviour or actions and even if the characters or event were fictious does nothing to reduce the benefit of the lessons learnt.
I do struggle with anything less than concrete representations, lies, sarcasm, metaphors, similes, anologies or the like but I do try.
It was a genuine offer to try to research the details of that evolutionary tidbit. I have long forgotten where or when I read it, but I am more than happy to try to find it on the internet. It is bound to be findable and evolutionary history and I guess history in general is a strong interest of mine.
This world is actually quite logical at the bottom. I do not think that early civilisation thought that other culture was wrong. Culture is something civilisations have used to identify themselves with. Civilisations who learnt this only symphatised with those who had their cultural marks to declare loyalty only to their own people. These civilisation outconquered other civilisations. It might have evolved from primitive (monkey) civilisation ofcourse.
I personally don't think there is any master race. We are all just human beings and that's that.
Diffirent people work diffirently in diffirent environments. Evolution isn't only taking humanity in this one direction.
The idea of a master race is dangerous! Look what happened when Hitler got hold of that concept.
Nero-typicals?
Does that mean we fiddle while autistics burn?
yeah.. sarcasum. har.. |:| I was just saying what it meant.
I put "har", as in 'hardie har har' Not "***" for anyone whores wandering!
*whoes, not whores.. God.. :frustrated now:... Gee, now I'm typing what's on my mind.
Uh, I thought we already had different "breeds" of human in different racial groups. It is of course plausible that autistic or non-autistic individual could predominate in different genetic lines.