Um, where were these?

sasquatch responds:
March 14th, 2012 at 9:40 pm
Once again evolutionists prove they are as racist as their founders.

Can you explain what you mean by that? Because I am apparently missing something in the articles and/or artists rendering. I know medium to darker skin tones are used traditionally due to two reasons. 1] out of Africa model of human evolution, (especially now with the theory that Neanderthal mutated to lighter skin in order to absorb vitamin D in the colder, less sunny environments of Northern Europe. 2] our predecessors spent most of their time out in the weather hunting and gathering with little to no protective clothing, hence most would have more melanin to protect themselves from the sun’s radiation. As for any facial features, those are determined by the shape of the skull so that’s a non-starter.

So, please, explain to me how anything regarding this article is racist.

Unique features of the Red Deer Cave people seen neither in modern nor known archaic lineages of humans include a strongly curved forehead bone, very broad nose and eye sockets, and very flat cheeks that flare widely to the sides to make space for large chewing muscles. In addition, the place where the lower jaw forms a joint with the base of the skull is unusually wide and deep.

All in all, the Red Deer Cave people are the youngest population to be found anywhere in the world whose anatomy does not comfortably fit within the range of modern humans, whether they be modern humans from 150 or 150,000 years ago, the researchers noted.

Given this description I don’t think the artists rendering is that far off. The beard hides the jutting chin and without any further information it would be foolish to guess at skin tone or amount of body hair. All they can go by is what we know so far.

What I found most interesting in the article is this quote:

A key reason the scientists have not yet decided how to classify the Red Deer People scientifically has to do with one of the major ongoing questions for scientists investigating human evolution — “the lack of a satisfactory biological definition of our own species, Homo sapiens,” Curnoe said. “We still don’t have one that most of us agree upon.”

This leaves the door open for a lot of changes in science. The Human family tree may become more inclusive. I would think the fact that the Red Deer Cave people cooked their meat is a good indication of being on ‘this side’ of that line. But there are so few traits that are specifically human. Social groups are well known through out the animal world. Tool making isn’t nearly as rare and special as we once thought. Even ants farm aphids so I’m not sure that farming can be a deciding factor either, and where do you draw the line between agriculture and simply learning to replant something you’ve come to enjoy the taste of? So far the use and ability to control fire seem to be one of the very few things that is still rather specific to the human race.

Another biped besides humans that likes to eat deer? Gee, who could that be?

These knuckleheads will only go kicking and screaming to the bitter end…