Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Your Forefathers Were Not Neanderthals'
IOL ^ | 1-26-2004 | Maggie Fox

Posted on 01/27/2004 8:08:04 AM PST by blam

'Your forefathers were not Neanderthals'

January 26 2004 at 02:30PM

By Maggie Fox

Washington - You may think your grandparents act like Neanderthals, but United States researchers said on Monday they had strong evidence that modern humans are not descended from them.

A computer analysis of the skulls of modern humans, Neanderthals, monkeys and apes shows that we are substantially different, physically, from those early humans.

New York University paleoanthropologist Katerina Harvati said Neanderthals should be considered a separate species from Homo sapiens, and not just a sub-species.

"We interpret the evidence presented here as supporting the view that Neanderthals represent an extinct human species and therefore refute the regional continuity model for Europe," she and colleagues wrote in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Some anthropologists believe that Neanderthals, who went extinct 30 000 years ago, may have at least contributed to the ancestry of modern Europeans.

There is strong evidence that Homo sapiens neanderthalis, as they are known scientifically, interacted with the more modern Cro-Magnons, who eventually displaced them. Cro-Magnons are the ancestors of modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens.

Some research has suggested they may have interbred to a limited degree, although this is hotly disputed in anthropological circles.

At least one study that looked at fragments of Neanderthal DNA suggested any Neanderthal-Cro-Magnon offspring did not add to the modern gene pool.

Harvati and colleagues combined modern computer technology and the tried-and-true method of determining species that uses physical comparisons.

They examined the skulls of modern humans and Neanderthals and 11 existing species of non-human primates including chimpanzees, gorillas and baboons.

They measured 15 standard skull and face landmarks and used 3-D analysis to superimpose each one on the other.

"From these data, we were able to determine how much variation living primate species generally accommodate, as well as measure how different two primate species that are closely related can be," Harvati said in a statement.

Their computer analyses showed that the differences measured between modern humans and Neanderthals were significantly greater than those found between subspecies of living monkeys and apes.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: archaeology; crevolist; eve; forefathers; ggg; godsgravesglyphs; history; morphology; multiregionalism; neandertal; neanderthals; not; paleontology; replacement; were; wolpoff
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-337 next last
I'm still not convinced.
1 posted on 01/27/2004 8:08:05 AM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
The Neanderthal Theory
2 posted on 01/27/2004 8:09:39 AM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
so once again we have a HUGE gap in the fossil record making it impossible to make any credible case for macro evolution...

What will they do without Neanderthal to look back on? Are we now missing two links?
3 posted on 01/27/2004 8:10:55 AM PST by Gerasimov ( <a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com" target="_blank">miserable failure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
Redheads 'Are Neanderthal'
4 posted on 01/27/2004 8:11:28 AM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gerasimov
More proof of alien gene splicing.
5 posted on 01/27/2004 8:13:58 AM PST by Indrid Cold (He thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Indrid Cold
Quick! Someone call Art Bell!!!!
6 posted on 01/27/2004 8:15:28 AM PST by Gerasimov ( <a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com" target="_blank">miserable failure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: blam
"Your forefathers were not Neanderthals"

Then, again, they never met my Grandfather ... (rimshot) ...

7 posted on 01/27/2004 8:17:20 AM PST by BlueLancer (Der Elite Møøsënspåånkængrüppen ØberKømmååndø (EMØØK))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

8 posted on 01/27/2004 8:18:28 AM PST by Restore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Indrid Cold
I agree
9 posted on 01/27/2004 8:18:57 AM PST by cyborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: blam
Since when did all of us become Neanderthals? (Aside from the Judges Ted Kennedy point out to us)

Aren't we Homo-sapiens and didn't Neanderthals become extinct around the last Ice age?
10 posted on 01/27/2004 8:19:46 AM PST by OXENinFLA (Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto: "In God is our trust.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
blam wrote:
I'm still not convinced.

_____________________________________


Measuring a limited number of skulls, then using those statistics to do 'computer models'... Bah, -- garbage in, garbage out..

There seems to be a bit too much political pressure behind the out of africa theory..

11 posted on 01/27/2004 8:22:15 AM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but the U.S. Constitution defines a conservative. (writer 33)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle!
12 posted on 01/27/2004 8:23:42 AM PST by Revolting cat! ("In the end, nothing explains anything!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
Doesn't explain the existance of Liberals...
13 posted on 01/27/2004 8:24:21 AM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
A computer analysis of the skulls of modern humans, Neanderthals, monkeys and apes shows that we are substantially different, physically, from those early humans.

Isn't this how Hitler got started?

14 posted on 01/27/2004 8:25:02 AM PST by CholeraJoe (I'm a Veteran. I live in Montana. I own assault weapons. I vote. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
I'm still not convinced.

Have you seen the actual evidence? Most of the fossil evidence for "pre-humans" won't even cover a coffee table, and yet the paleoanthropologists wants everyone to buy "hook, line, and sinker" that these bits and pieces respresent evidence of human evolution. Now we have a computer saying that monkey bones look closer to human to these bones, AND that the DNA doesn't look right and you still won't let it go?

Interesting . . .

15 posted on 01/27/2004 8:25:18 AM PST by realpatriot71 (legalize freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
But the Neanderthal link does look a little stronger after listening to the Howard Dean "I have a scream" speech.
16 posted on 01/27/2004 8:26:58 AM PST by 11th Earl of Mar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gerasimov
so once again we have a HUGE gap in the fossil record making it impossible to make any credible case for macro evolution...

What will they do without Neanderthal to look back on? Are we now missing two links?

At least one, i.e. something or other between us and the neanderthal. That's one problem with evolution, there're lots of others. The sciences of probability and statistics for instance.

17 posted on 01/27/2004 8:27:29 AM PST by greenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: blam
They examined the skulls of modern humans and Neanderthals and 11 existing species of non-human primates including chimpanzees, gorillas and baboons

Isn't this phrenology?

18 posted on 01/27/2004 8:28:11 AM PST by Modernman ("The details of my life are quite inconsequential...." - Dr. Evil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gerasimov
What will they do without Neanderthal to look back on? Are we now missing two links?

What link are we missing?

19 posted on 01/27/2004 8:29:38 AM PST by Modernman ("The details of my life are quite inconsequential...." - Dr. Evil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Modernman



Fictitious 'Ape Men'
Time magazine's new ape-man
Publication's latest evolution contention less-than-believable

By James Perloff
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

In 1999, following the controversial de-emphasis of evolution in Kansas schools, Time magazine struck in its August 23 issue with an editorial denouncing creationists and a huge cover story called "How Man Evolved." The latter displayed man's supposed oldest ancestor –Ardipithecus ramidus – while neglecting to tell readers that its fragments had been found scattered over an area of about one mile, and put together to form a "missing link."

Time's cover was of a reconstructed ape-man skull, yet well less than half the skull consisted of actual fossil fragments – the rest was plaster, molded by imagination. The most recent issue of Time, dated July 23, takes no less liberty. On the cover is a painting of an ape-man called Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba with the headline "How Apes Became Human." Inside, the article begins: "Meet your newfound ancestor." The painting is based on some fragmentary bones recently found in Ethiopia by a graduate student named Yohannes Haile-Selassie.

Time assures its readers that the creature walked upright. The evidence for this? A single toe bone. Time displays the bone with the unequivocal caption: "THIS TOE BONE PROVES THE CREATURE WALKED ON TWO LEGS." But not until the last page of the eight-page article do readers learn that the toe bone was actually found some ten miles from the other bones. What evidence exists that the toe bone belonged to Haile-Selassie's other specimens? None, other than speculation.

There is great danger in basing conclusions on a single bone. In 1922, paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn, an ardent evolutionist, was shown a single tooth found in Nebraska by geologist Harold Cook. After examining it, Osborn declared it belonged to an early ape-man, whom he named Hesperopithecus haroldcookii in Cook's honor. Popularly, it became known as "Nebraska Man." Osborn hailed the tooth as "the herald of anthropoid apes in America." At the American Museum of Natural History, William K. Gregory and Milo Hellman, specialists in teeth, said after careful study that the tooth was from a species closer to man than ape. Harris Hawthorne Wilder, a zoology professor at Smith College, wrote: "Judging from the tooth alone the animal seems to have been about halfway between Pithecanthropus [Java Man] and the man of the present day, or perhaps better between Pithecanthropus and the man of the Neanderthal type. ..." In England, evolutionist Grafton Elliot Smith convinced the Illustrated London News to publish an artist's rendering of Nebraska Man. The picture, which appeared in a two-page spread and received wide distribution, showed two brutish, naked ape-persons, the male with a club, the female gathering roots. All this from one tooth. However, further excavations at Cook's site revealed that the tooth belonged neither to ape nor man, but to a peccary, a close relative of the pig.

Or take the Piltdown Man. It was declared an ape-man, 500,000 years old, and validated by many of Britain's leading scientists, including Grafton Elliot Smith, anatomist Sir Arthur Keith and British Museum geologist Arthur Smith Woodward. At the time the discovery was announced (1912), the New York Times ran this headline: "Darwin Theory Proved True." For the next four decades, Piltdown Man was evolution's greatest showcase, featured in textbooks and encyclopedias. But what did the Piltdown Man actually consist of? A very recent orangutan jaw, which had been stained to look old, with its teeth filed down to make them more human-looking, planted together with a human skull bone, also stained to create an appearance of age.

Those who think such mistakes no longer occur need only consider the Archaeoraptor, promoted in a 10-page color spread in the November 1999 National Geographic as the "true missing link" between dinosaurs and birds. The fossil was displayed at National Geographic's Explorers Hall and viewed by over 100,000 people. However, it too turned out to be a fake – someone had simply glued together fragments of bird and dinosaur fossils. Even if Time
turns out to be correct, and Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba walked on two feet, would it prove he was our "newfound ancestor"?

This assertion is based on a long-standing evolutionary assumption, usually stated something like this: "Humans are the only creatures that have evolved to the point where they can walk on two feet; therefore, if we can find the fossil of an animal that could walk on two feet, such a creature was our ancestor." However, the assumption that two-footed mobility establishes human kinship is groundless. Gorillas occasionally walk bipedally; Tanzanian chimpanzees are seen standing on two legs when gathering fruit from small trees; Zaire's pygmy chimpanzee walks upright so often that it has been dubbed "a living link." Science News reports of the latter: "Like modern gorillas they tend to be knuckle-walkers on the ground, yet they seem to be natural bipeds, too, frequently walking upright both on the ground and in the trees." So even if a fossil creature did have some limited ability to stand on two feet, it doesn't make it man's ancestor any more than these modern apes.

And man is not the only bipedal creature. Birds are bipedal; so was the T.-rex. Therefore, are they human ancestors? Time refers to "fossil discoveries as far back as Java Man in the 1890s" as validating the relationship between man and ape. But Time does not relate much of what is known about those finds. The Java Man story began with Ernst Haeckel, the German zoologist who has become notorious for using fraudulent drawings of embryos to prove the theory of evolution (See the July issue of WorldNet Magazine). Haeckel was convinced that an ape-man must have existed, and he named it Pithecanthropus alalus: ape-man without speech.

One of Haeckel's students, Eugene Dubois, became determined to find Pithecanthropus. Haeckel believed men might have separated from apes somewhere in Southern Asia. So in 1887, Dubois signed up as a doctor with the Dutch medical corps in the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia), intending to hunt for fossils during all his spare time. Dubois, it should be noted, had no formal training in geology or paleontology at the time, and his "archaeological team" consisted of prison convicts with two army corporals as supervisors. Years of excavation produced little of significance. Then, in 1891, along Java's Solo River, the laborers dug up a skullcap that appeared rather apelike, with a low forehead and large eyebrow ridges. Dubois initially considered it from a chimpanzee, even though there is no evidence that this ape ever lived in Asia. However, the following year, the diggers unearthed a thigh bone that was clearly human. Dubois, like Piltdown's discoverers, presumed that an apelike bone somewhere near a human bone meant the two belonged to the same creature, constituting Darwin's missing link. Haeckel, who had not even seen the bones, telegraphed Dubois: "From the inventor of Pithecanthropus to his happy discoverer!"

In 1895, Dubois returned to Europe and displayed his fossils. The response from experts was mixed, however. Rudolph Virchow, who had once been Haeckel's professor and is regarded as the father of modern pathology, said: "In my opinion, this creature was an animal, a giant gibbon, in fact. The thigh bone
has not the slightest connection with the skull." The circumstances of Dubois' find were unorthodox. He had apparently been absent when the convicts dug up his fossils. Maps and diagrams of the site were not made until after the excavation. Under such conditions, a modern dig would be disregarded. In 1907, an expedition of German scientists from various disciplines, led by Professor M. Lenore Selenka, traveled to Java seeking more clues to man's ancestry in the region of Dubois' discovery. However, no evidence for Pithecanthropus was found. In the stratum of Dubois' find, the scientists found hearths and flora and fauna that looked rather modern. The expedition's report also noted a nearby volcano that caused periodic flooding in the area. Java Man had been found in volcanic sediments. The report observed that the chemical nature of those sediments, not ancient age, probably caused the fossilization of Pithecanthropus. Nevertheless, the Selenka findings and various deficiencies of Dubois' work were largely ignored, and Java Man became one of evolution's undisputed "facts."

Then there was Peking Man, worked on and validated by a number of Piltdown alumni, including Davidson Black, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Smith. In
seeing textbook portrayals of Peking Man, few students learned that the skulls had been found in scattered little fragments, and that the reconstructions were actually composites taken from various individuals. Where fragments were missing, plaster substituted, and the famous final images of Peking Man were the creations of a sculptress named Lucille Swann. Later, all of the Peking Man fossils mysteriously vanished, except for a couple of teeth, preventing Peking Man from being subjected to the kind of checking that doomed Piltdown Man.

Neanderthals were long portrayed as ape-men, stooped over. This misconception was largely the result of a faulty reconstruction by French paleontologist Marcellin Boule, who mistook the skeleton of a man with kyphosis (hunchback) for an ape-man in the process of becoming upright. Another snag: Neanderthal skulls are larger than those of modern humans. This flies in the face of evolutionary tradition, which says that man evolved progressively from creatures with smaller brains and skulls. In any event, Neanderthals are no longer classed as "ape-men," and some evolutionists have even discarded them as human ancestors. Which basically leaves us with australopithecines, currently in vogue as man's ancestor. However, australopithecine fossils show that they had long forearms and short hind legs, like today's apes. They also had long curved fingers and toes, like those apes use for tree-swinging. This may pose a problem for Time's thesis, since it claims the toe bone of Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba was over 5 million years old, yet relatively human-like – implying that it was more evolved than the toes of australopithecines, who supposedly came 2 million years later. The main substance to the claim that australopithecines are our ancestors is some evidence suggesting that the famed "Lucy" and her peers may have walked upright. But as noted, limited bipedality does not prove human ancestry, and a number of scientists – contrary to the impression created in Time – have disagreed that australopithecines are man's relatives. Britain's Lord Solly Zuckerman, who was raised to peerage for his scientific achievements, was a leading authority on australopithecines, having subjected them to years of biometric testing. He stated:

For my own part, the anatomical basis for the claim that the australopithecines walked and ran upright like man is so much more flimsy than the evidence which points to the conclusion that their gait was some variant of what one sees in subhuman primates, that it remains unacceptable.

Charles Oxnard, former director of graduate studies and professor of anatomy at the University of Southern California Medical School, subjected australopithecine fossils to extensive computer analysis. Stephen Jay Gould called him "our leading expert on the quantitative study of skeletons." Oxnard concluded:

[T]he australopithecines known over the last several decades are now irrevocably removed from a place in the evolution of human bipedalism, possibly from a place in a group any closer to humans than to African apes and certainly from any place in the direct human lineage. All of this should make us wonder about the usual presentation of human evolution in introductory textbooks, in encyclopedias and in popular publications. In such volumes not only are australopithecines described as being of known bodily size and shape, but as possessing such abilities as bipedality and tool-using and -making and such developments as the use of fire and specific social structures. Even facial features are happily (and non-scientifically) reconstructed.

The July 23 Time includes a graphic showing the evolution of man, starting with the supposed Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba, with progressively more human figures culminating in man. However, it is very easy to arrange bones to demonstrate "evolutionary progress." In 1927, Osborn, along with other evolutionists, created a diagram of man's evolution. Skulls were displayed in progressive order. No. 1 in the sequence was the fraudulent Piltdown Man. No. 4 was a Neanderthal; No. 6 Cro-Magnon Man. No. 8 was labeled "Australian" (aborigine). No. 9? "Negro." No. 10? "Chinese." No. 11 (and last)? "Caucasian."

Because 99 percent of an organism's biology resides in its soft anatomy, it is very easy to invest a bone with imagination. For this reason – despite the protests of Darwinists – evolutionary anthropology is not a science like physics or chemistry. The laws of physics and chemistry can be demonstrated in a high school laboratory. Evolutionary anthropology, on the other hand, consists of speculations about unobserved events that supposedly occurred millions of years ago. Science cannot observe the past with the same authority as the present. As Lowenstein and Zihlman noted in New Scientist: "The subjective element in this approach to building evolutionary trees, which many paleontologists advocate with almost religious fervor, is demonstrated by the outcome: There is no single family tree on which they agree."

There was a wealth of evidence concerning the assassination of John F. Kennedy: hundreds of eyewitnesses interviewed by the Warren Commission; the Zapruder movie that caught the actual slaying; the autopsy; fingerprint evidence; ballistics evidence. Nevertheless, controversy has never stopped raging about what actually took place. Scores of books challenged the evidence, offering widely differing explanations as to who killed Kennedy, from what angle(s) he was shot, etc. Even the autopsy results were challenged in a best-selling book.

Granted, the Kennedy assassination was a politically charged event. Nonetheless, if that much disagreement can occur over something that happened just 38 years ago, how can a paleontologist pick up a fragment of bone, supposedly 5 million years old, and declare its meaning with a high degree of certainty? Unlike the Kennedy assassination, there are no eyewitnesses who saw this creature, no Zapruder movie of it, no soft tissues to examine.

Other weaknesses permeate the Time article. It states that Haile-Selassie's bones are known to be 5.6-5.8 billion years old, because this "can be accurately gauged by a technique known as argon-argon dating." It says the result was "confirmed by a second dating method." However, argon-argon dating has been demonstrated in various studies to be unreliable, and Time doesn't mention what the second method was.

Time refers to the "astonishingly complete skeleton of Lucy"– but those words belie the fact that about 60 percent of Lucy's skeleton, including most of
the skull, was missing.

In explaining why apes began to walk upright, Time quotes anthropologist C. Owen Lovejoy: "To walk upright you have to do so in synchrony. If the ligaments and muscles are out of synch, that leads to injuries. And then you'd be cheetah meat." But even fully coordinated, healthy human beings cannot outrun a cheetah!
Time also neglects the fact that species vary widely within themselves. Darwinian anthropologists use cranial capacity (skull size) to judge the evolutionary status of our supposed ancestors, but even in modern humans, cranial capacity ranges from 700 to 2200 cubic centimeters, and has no bearing on intelligence.People's bone structure varies greatly, based on heredity, age, sex, health and climate. Some are big-boned, some small-boned. There are sumo wrestlers and pygmies. Doubtless, our ancient forebears were also diverse in their looks. How, then, can one assign a single fossil bone to a distinct place in human history? Apes vary widely, too; australopithecines may simply be a type that became extinct. Science journalist Roger Lewin, though an outspoken evolutionist, has noted:

It is an unfortunate truth that fossils do not emerge from the ground with labels already attached to them. And it is bad enough that much of the labeling was done in the name of egoism and a naive lack of appreciation of variation between individuals; each nuance in shape was taken to indicate a difference in type rather than natural variation within a population.

Another oddity surfaces in Time's diagram of the evolution of humans, chimps and gorillas. Human ancestors are shown going back almost 6 million years. But no chimpanzee or gorilla ancestors are depicted before a million years ago. If chimps and humans really diverged about 7 million years ago, as Time asserts, then where are all the fossils of chimpanzee and gorilla ancestors? Why does every bone fragment turn out to be a human ancestor? Perhaps that question was answered by Dr. Tim White, anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley. Though quoted in Time, and noted as Haile-Selassie's thesis adviser, he has previously stated: "The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone."

As creationist Marvin Lubenow notes, "No one will care if you discover the oldest fossil broccoli, but if you are fortunate enough to discover the oldest fossil human, the world will beat a path to your door."

[Kent Hovind- We offer James Perloff’s excellent book Tornado in a Junkyard as well as several great resources about “cave men” for those who wish to study the subject further. Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow is a great expose of each of the so-called “cave men” and Buried Alive by Jack Cuozzo is an eye opener about the fraud called Neanderthal Man. Much useful information on the cave man issue can be found on our seminar video #2 as well.]



















20 posted on 01/27/2004 8:32:15 AM PST by Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: blam
Know what I find really amazing? Someone goes out to the Great Rift Valley, digs around in an old riverbed, and finds a bit of hominid skeleton. Maybe a femur.

Then 1/2 mile away along that riverbed another researcher finds a hominid jawbone.

And a third researcher 1/4 mile the other way finds some finger bones.

Soon there is a paper out mentioning the "widely scattered remains" of a [specific name] hominid from a dry riverbed. An illustration shows the various bones and the missing pieces. Theories are put forth concerning the creature's demise.


Okay, how are these guys so SURE that these are fossils from the SAME creature? Answer: They're not sure. But it sure looks good on paper. Keeps those grants coming!
21 posted on 01/27/2004 8:38:22 AM PST by petuniasevan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
Most of the fossil evidence for "pre-humans" won't even cover a coffee table, and yet the paleoanthropologists wants everyone to buy "hook, line, and sinker" that these bits and pieces respresent evidence of human evolution.

Are you saying that neanderthals were not any more human than chimps?

Now we have a computer saying that monkey bones look closer to human to these bones, AND that the DNA doesn't look right and you still won't let it go?
Interesting . . .

Yes, your reaction is quite interesting.. Are you convinced we all came out of africa at some point fairly recently?

22 posted on 01/27/2004 8:41:49 AM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but the U.S. Constitution defines a conservative. (writer 33)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Cowgirl
Oh Cowgirl! Your just so panickity LOL. Love your list.

Mel

23 posted on 01/27/2004 8:49:00 AM PST by melsec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: blam
It's ridiculous to try to base this kind of conclusion on morphology alone. There are so many variations within the current human species that any number of individuals might pass for "neanderthals." And the way I learned it, speciation has to do with the ability to interbreed and produce offspring. That can be affected by a lot of factors, but I doubt very seriously if skull morphology is one of them.
24 posted on 01/27/2004 8:55:47 AM PST by Agnes Heep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Are you saying that neanderthals were not any more human than chimps?

The evidence for neanderthals seems real enough, or at least there's enough of it. The others...

The next thing in line behind the neanderthal is homo erectus which is basically an ape, and the things behind erectus are more like monkeys, i.e. they're not even as far along AS apes.

In fact there appear to be two basic KINDs of homo erectus, called 'robust' and 'gracile'; that means they're probably somehow or other the ancestors of modern gorillas and chimpanzees.

All of which tell us that there's some kind of a story there about how modern humans arose, at least a scientific story to go along with the story in Genesis, but we haven't found it yet. And all we've really ever gotten from the evolutionists so far is a bunch of stories less easy to believe than Genesis.

25 posted on 01/27/2004 8:58:26 AM PST by greenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: *crevo_list; VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Physicist; LogicWings; ...
PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]
26 posted on 01/27/2004 9:03:49 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Hic amor, haec patria est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
Human Ancestors
27 posted on 01/27/2004 9:10:00 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Hic amor, haec patria est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Thanks for the ping!
28 posted on 01/27/2004 9:12:22 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Are you saying that neanderthals were not any more human than chimps?

Who knows what they are - I don't know - and I'm sure the paleoantropologists don't know. I do know they aren't human, and I'm not making anymore conjecture on the subject above and beyound that.

Yes, your reaction is quite interesting.. Are you convinced we all came out of africa at some point fairly recently?

I believe in a special creation of life on this earth by God - recently - perhaps ~6000-10000 years ago.

29 posted on 01/27/2004 9:12:39 AM PST by realpatriot71 (legalize freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: blam
I don't know about the rest of you, but my ansetors[sp] came from the Garden of Eden!
30 posted on 01/27/2004 9:13:11 AM PST by TMSuchman (sic semper tranis,semper fi! & you can't fix stupid either!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Agnes Heep
Which brings up the question: Did the Neanderthals interbreed with ancestors of modern man? I have no doubt that attempts were made, and there may have been viable offspring. These half-breeds may even have eventually bred true, which would make modern man maybe not so modern after all. Certainly some seeming throwbacks continue to appear even in the best of families.

And who knows? The crossbreeds may well have been major improvements over either of the parent stocks.
31 posted on 01/27/2004 9:13:55 AM PST by alloysteel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: TMSuchman
I don't know about the rest of you, but my ansetors[sp] came from the Garden of Eden!

Do you have any evidence to support this claim, other than the Bible?

32 posted on 01/27/2004 9:15:46 AM PST by Modernman ("The details of my life are quite inconsequential...." - Dr. Evil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
Who knows what they are - I don't know - and I'm sure the paleoantropologists don't know. I do know they aren't human

What about the homo sapiens/neanderthal hybrids that have been recently discovered? To say neanderthals aren't exactly human is really only half the story.

33 posted on 01/27/2004 9:18:05 AM PST by Modernman ("The details of my life are quite inconsequential...." - Dr. Evil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: blam
These researchers are fogetting they are injecting personal bias into the study.

If there were intelligent squids and they were studying Neaderthals and modern humans, its very possible that using the same kind of data, but viewing these subjects from an unbiased perspective, they would conclude the similarities between the two were so much greater than any apparent differences that they could justifiably be termed subspecies. In all other organisms, subspecies can and do interbreed and create viable, fertile offspring.
34 posted on 01/27/2004 9:20:04 AM PST by ZULU (Remember the Alamo!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe
I don't think he had a computer.
35 posted on 01/27/2004 9:21:07 AM PST by ZULU (Remember the Alamo!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: blam
The issue of whether Neanderthals did or did not contribute to the gene pool as it exists now is not exactly the same question as whether they should be considered a separate species. If the last Yanomami indian dies next year, they will have contributed nothing to future gene pools, but they're still the same species.

The question of whether the Neanderthals were a separate species is really a moot one. We define species by the (arbitrary) standard of whether members from two populations can produce viable offspring, but that's not something you can apply to extinct populations. The only answerable question is whether every individual can be unambiguously assigned to one population or the other, based upon morphology. But my understanding is that that's been the case for a long time.

36 posted on 01/27/2004 9:21:22 AM PST by Physicist (Sophie Rhiannon Sterner, born 1/19/2004: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1061267/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
No, I don't. Just my faith. And for my family & I that is enough.
37 posted on 01/27/2004 9:23:38 AM PST by TMSuchman (sic semper tranis,semper fi! & you can't fix stupid either!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!
"Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle!"

lol!

38 posted on 01/27/2004 9:23:57 AM PST by pax_et_bonum (Always finish what you st)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: blam
Evolution is as old as the bible. It was idolatry then and it is idolatry now.
39 posted on 01/27/2004 9:24:05 AM PST by biblewonk (I must try to answer all bible questions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
A better question would be what did those ancestors look like and where was the Garden of Eden.

Biblical fundamentalists make a fundamental error when they seek to literally interpret a tome which is full of allegory and symbolism and requires a degree of intelligent thought, in light of facts currently known, to accurately assess its meaning in many cases - especially when subjects in the Bible are not central to the theme of the book.

The Bible is a theological work with historical overtones. It is neither a history book nor a biology text.
40 posted on 01/27/2004 9:26:14 AM PST by ZULU (Remember the Alamo!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
I'd like some studies done on DNA of early modern humans and modern humans to see how much they diverge. The discrepancy might equal that observed between modern man and the Neanderthal specimens.

I think we are the same species and interbreeding could have produced and probably did produce, viable offspring.
41 posted on 01/27/2004 9:28:34 AM PST by ZULU (Remember the Alamo!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: TMSuchman
No, I don't. Just my faith. And for my family & I that is enough.

I can certainly respect your views. However, you have to acknowledge that your views have nothing to do with science and are unproveable.

42 posted on 01/27/2004 9:32:39 AM PST by Modernman ("The details of my life are quite inconsequential...." - Dr. Evil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: blam
So they say we´re better than Neanderthals? What right do they have to speak so arrogant? Maybe the Neanderthals were better!

I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THIS ARROGANT SCIENCE CRAP! WE LIVE IN ONE WORLD AND THE NEANDERTHALS ARE PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND ME! They shouldn´t be treated like that.

Poor Neanderthals, they´re just humans like we, our cats and dogs and apes are.

/gone mad off
43 posted on 01/27/2004 9:32:40 AM PST by Michael81Dus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
What about the homo sapiens/neanderthal hybrids that have been recently discovered? To say neanderthals aren't exactly human is really only half the story.

I have not heard anything about this, so I cannot comment.

44 posted on 01/27/2004 9:33:34 AM PST by realpatriot71 (legalize freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
The Bible is a theological work with historical overtones. It is neither a history book nor a biology text.

I'll go even further- the Bible is a textbook on morality and ethics. That is what people should focus on when they read the Bible, not some vague creation myths which have little or nothing to do with the major themes of the Bible.

Would Jesus' moral message be any less powerful if humans evolved from single-celled organisms?

45 posted on 01/27/2004 9:35:54 AM PST by Modernman ("The details of my life are quite inconsequential...." - Dr. Evil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
Most of the fossil evidence for "pre-humans" won't even cover a coffee table

To think that we have trouble identifying offspring of people who lived 100 years ago, or even still living. If we could be sure we had all the evidence even though it only covers a coffeetable we could devise a coherent hypothesis. But we have barely begun to find evidence and every new find seems to force a change in the hypothesis rather than confirm the hypothesis. We're still early in the investigation.

46 posted on 01/27/2004 9:36:31 AM PST by RightWhale (Repeal the Law of the Excluded Middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
"Would Jesus' moral message be any less powerful if humans evolved from single-celled organisms?"


Obviously not. But then, we don't think like fundamentalists. They exhibit the same kind of thinking the Inquisition did when Galileo talked about the moons of Jupiter.
47 posted on 01/27/2004 9:37:58 AM PST by ZULU (Remember the Alamo!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
I have not heard anything about this, so I cannot comment

Try this link:

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Neanderthal.html

Or do a Google search for "neanderthal hybrid"

48 posted on 01/27/2004 9:40:00 AM PST by Modernman ("The details of my life are quite inconsequential...." - Dr. Evil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
realpatriot71 wrote:

I believe in a special creation of life on this earth by God - recently - perhaps ~6000-10000 years ago.

Yet at #22 you admitted that:

"Most of the fossil evidence for "pre-humans" won't even cover a coffee table".

Why does such fossil evidence exist if life on this earth was created " - recently - perhaps ~6000-10000 years ago" ? And where do the many 'tables' of neanderthal fossils fit in to your belief?

49 posted on 01/27/2004 9:40:31 AM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but the U.S. Constitution defines a conservative. (writer 33)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
To think that we have trouble identifying offspring of people who lived 100 years ago, or even still living. If we could be sure we had all the evidence even though it only covers a coffeetable we could devise a coherent hypothesis. But we have barely begun to find evidence and every new find seems to force a change in the hypothesis rather than confirm the hypothesis. We're still early in the investigation.

Exactly! Paleoanthropology is such a small and distinct field of study that most people have not the training nor the knowledge to understand wether the scientists are talking "crazy" or not. These folks get to dictate the "evolution of man" to the world at will, and most people buy it "hook, line, and sinker". Is there room for "experts" in this world? Of course! But everything "scientific" should be questioned and the orthodoxy here that cannot, nor will not be questioned, is this: man evolved to his current form from something less complex in the manner paleoanthropoligists have dictated. Any evidence pointing otherwise has been rejected. At least it's starting to look like the field is taking on a bit of "intellectual honesty" - questioning orthodoxy gets you closer to the truth every time, even if your questioning eventually agrees with said orthodoxy.

50 posted on 01/27/2004 9:47:47 AM PST by realpatriot71 (legalize freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-337 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson