Was Neandertal Man Human?

[willis 1]

The most popular argument I can find put forth by creationsts is the idea that Neaderthals were just deformed humans that suffered from diseases such as rickets, arthritis or syphilis. This is part of the explanation for the neanderthal morphology.

AIG Anthropology

 

According to talk origins this is incorrect for several reasons:

    *  Rickets does not produce a Neandertal, or Homo erectus  morphology; it is clear from many sources (Reader 1981; Tattersall 1995) that the original Neandertal skeleton was unlike any previously known, even in a century in which rickets was a common disease.

    * Evidence of rickets is easily detectable, especially on the growing ends of the long bones of the body. Radiology courses routinely teach the symptoms. It has never (so far as I know) been detected in Neandertals or Homo erectus.

    * Even Virchow did not claim rickets as a sole cause. Virchow in 1872 decided that the first Neandertal Man fossil had had rickets in childhood, head injuries in middle age, and chronic arthritis in old age. A whole population of such people strains credibility, to say the least, although Lubenow says that this diagnosis "is as valid today as when [Virchow] first made it".

    * The long bones of Neandertals, like those of rickets victims, are often more curved than normal, but rickets causes a sideways curvature of the femur, while Neandertal femurs curve backwards (Klein 1989).

    * Humans could hardly have stayed in shelter all the time; food gathering would have required them to spend a lot of time outside (and probably a lot more time than most modern urban humans).

    * The most extreme differences from modern humans (H. erectus) are mostly found in regions such as Africa and Java, which were always tropical; the reverse of what would be predicted by Lubenow's hypothesis.

    * Creationists usually claim that most of the fossil record was laid down by the Noahaic Flood. And yet there are hundreds of fossils of "post-Flood" humans, who supposedly lived in a period of low population and little fossilization. Why, underneath these post-Flood humans, do we not find far larger numbers of fossilized pre-Flood humans?

 

Talk origins neandertals

Any thoughts? How could natural selection and random mutations produce the neandertal morphology?

[Guest George R]

There has been a fair amount of controversy over the yers on this topic, and I don't limit that to creationists by any means.

 

The Rickets/arthritis issue is simple: scientists and artists got carried away and depicted the Neandethals as humped over knuckle draggers.

 

This was because the initial skeletons identified as Neandertal was indeed slumped over with bone disease (of some sort - let the experts sort that one out).

 

The "Neanderthals=Humans" issue is a bit more involved.

 

That question is not, by the way, the same question as "Do living humans descend from Neanderthals"... so lets answer that one first.

 

I think that there are no humans alive today descended from the Beothuk indians ... but they were certainly human.

 

 

So ... Do we descend from Neanderthals?

 

The way to seek a real answer is NOT to trot out DNA studies.

 

Clearly if a Neanderthal man and a non-Neanderthal woman were a couple, there would be no mitocondrial DNA evidence of that union found today because mitocondrial DNA is inherited on the maternal line.

 

The logical and honest answer is ... "We really don't know. Especially from less than a dozen DNA sources tested. Even if we find no matches, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

 

The twisted answer better fitting evolutionist propaganda is "At last ... Science proves it. It's highly unlikely that humans descended from Neanderthals".

 

Based on that reasoning ... nobody is descended from Cromwell and his wife ... because he only had sons. His wife's mitocondrial DNA is not found today!!!

 

For your enjoyment ... here's some sample propaganda: (note the weasel word "suggested" planted in the middle)

 

... the mitochondrial DNA was significantly different from that of anyone alive today. It was equally different when compared with Europeans, Africans, Australians and so on. This suggested that the Neanderthals formed a separate branch to the human lineage that survives today, contradicting the idea that they might be partly ancestral to modern Europeans. Mitochondrial DNA has been sampled from about 10,000 individuals from Europe, and from at least five Neanderthals, and no living person so far tested has anything resembling the DNA types found in Neanderthals.

 

from: http://www.fathom.com/feature/190159/

 

 

Now the main dish ... Are Neanderthals human?

 

Yes, the remains of over 400 specimens identified as Neanderthal have been discovered around the world.

 

The question is ... well, if asked about ducks... do they look like ducks? do they quack like ducks?

 

 

Lets describe some Neanderthal traits:

 

Neanderthals performed a sophisticated set of tasks normally associated with humans alone.

 

- they bury their dead with religious objects, grave gods, maybe even flowers

 

- they have is a small bone (hyoid)that holds the root of the tongue in place, a requirement to human speech

 

- they routinely constructed a variety of stone implements. The Neanderthal (Mousterian) tool case consisted of sophisticated stone-flakes, task-specific hand axes, and spears. Many of these tools were very sharp.

 

- they constructed complex shelters,

 

- they controlled fire

 

- they skinned animals

 

- they fashioned weapons.

 

They also had a bone structure that if (speculatively) populated with musculature and skin could likely end up looking like some people walking the street today.

 

Some scientists speculate that interbreeding was likely or possible at one time, so the physical features show no "show stopper" non-human characteristics.

 

There are some differences especially in the thickness of the cranium. On average the Inuit (Eskimo) also as a thicker cranium than a typical Filipno. So what.

 

The average male is said to be 5'6 and the female 5'1. This size discrepancy once touted as evidence of "ape-like" traits is similar to early humans among hunter-gatherers.

 

I leave it to you to explore further differences / similarities. And to draw your own conclusions.

 

When somebody says that Neanderthals were not human, I usually hear the mitocondrial or the larynx difference. I'm not convinced.

 

 

 

(Most facts from the same pro-evolutionist web site or from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_man )

[willis 1]

Well since you gave it such a thorough response I am going to play devil's advocate.

Yes, the remains of over 400 specimens identified as Neanderthal have been discovered around the world.

 

The question is ... well, if asked about ducks... do they look like ducks? do they quack like ducks?

 

Well, there are some pretty distinct differences between neadertals and modern humans which is why they are classified as a sub-species of humans. Examples:heavy brow ridges, a long low skull, a robust skeleton. How would you explain these differences? Wouldn't this mean that they are obviously different from modern humans, which then leaves open the possibility that we descended from them?

 

ets describe some Neanderthal traits:

 

Neanderthals performed a sophisticated set of tasks normally associated with humans alone.

 

- they bury their dead with religious objects, grave gods, maybe even flowers

 

- they have is a small bone (hyoid)that holds the root of the tongue in place, a requirement to human speech

 

- they routinely constructed a variety of stone implements. The Neanderthal (Mousterian) tool case consisted of sophisticated stone-flakes, task-specific hand axes, and spears. Many of these tools were very sharp.

 

- they constructed complex shelters,

 

- they controlled fire

 

- they skinned animals

 

- they fashioned weapons.

So what? Even evolutionists like Velarius Geist (University of Calgary) will admit that, they were skilled hunters, very muscular, and very crafty with tools and weapons. How do these traits affect evolutionary history?

They also had a bone structure that if (speculatively) populated with musculature and skin could likely end up looking like some people walking the street today.

 

Well not exactly. According to Johanson and Edey (1981) if you put Homo erectus on a subway, "people would probably take a suspicious look at him".

Also, Trinkaus and Shipman (1992)

""Rare individuals among modern humans may share one, or even a few, of the anatomical characteristics of Neandertals, but not one human - much less any population - can be found that possesses the entire constellation of traits that define Neandertals" (p 412)."

[chance 1]

That Neanderthal is a diseased human, is not born out by their morphology, they are just too different from us, and as George R, pointed out, with currently 400 specimens, it is not creditable to have them all suffering from ‘rickets’. See http://www.ecotao.com/holism/hu_neand.htm

 

From the article

A list of distinctive Neanderthal features is as follows:

 

 

Large round " apical tufts " to the finer tips;

Robust finger bones;

 

Enlarged rib cage, with barrel-chested build;

Stout, bowed femoral shaft;

Dorsal sulcus on scapula for more muscle attachments;

Relatively short, bowed scapula;

Long pelvic pubis (superior pubic ramus);

Relatively short tibia and fibula (lower leg);

Low forehead with occipital bun (chignon, occipital torus) & projecting mid-face ;

Lack of chin (mental eminence);

Long clavicle and large shoulder joint;

Large and thick patella;

occipital depression ( suprainiac fossa );

supraorbital torus;

A mastoid crest located behind the external auditory meatus ;

Absence of a canine fossa;

Presence of a retromolar space;

That they are a ‘branch of Homo’ is not in doubt.

 

The likely explanation is that Neanderthal, or it’s ancestors, became isolated in Europe, and adapted to the cold environment, wile Homo-sapiens become warm adapted in Africa. As the Ice ages ended Homo-sapience migrated north and eventually replaced Neanderthal.

[willis 1]

That Neanderthal is a diseased human, is not born out by their morphology, they are just too different from us, and as George R, pointed out, with currently 400 specimens, it is not creditable to have them all suffering from ‘rickets’. See http://www.ecotao.com/holism/hu_neand.htm

It may not have been rickets, but some environmental and dietary issues probably are responsible for their morphology.

[chance 1]

It may not have been rickets, but some environmental and dietary issues probably are responsible for their morphology.

yes like adapting to cold, and eating mammoths! Evolution is a far simpler explanation than what you propose because Neanderthal lived in a large section of Europe through many climate changes. To think there was some lingering pathogen responsible (eg. Like Elephantitis), which affected all European humans then vanished (Homo Sapiens gradually replaced) is very unlikely, and in the sprit of science the best explanation is evolution of two branches of Homo. It would need to be a very strange disease indeed, and I can’t think of any president.

[willis 1]

yes like adapting to cold, and eating mammoths!  Evolution is a far simpler explanation than what you propose because Neanderthal lived in a large section of Europe through many climate changes. To think there was some lingering pathogen responsible (eg. Like Elephantitis), which affected all European humans then vanished (Homo Sapiens gradually replaced) is very unlikely, and in the sprit of science the best explanation is evolution of two branches of Homo.  It would need to be a very strange disease indeed, and I can’t think of any president.

6909[/snapback]

HA HA HA, Chance made a funny!

In all seriousness though, is that really evolution? Weather conditions and diet? Just a side note I never accepted the rickets argument, I was more interested in the issue of Neadertals being human or not.

[Desperado 0]

In all seriousness though, is that really evolution? Weather conditions and diet?

6917[/snapback]

I'm not going to speculate on phylogenetic position of neaderthalis, but just wanted to respond to your questions. Yes, in fact, environmental factors and dietary niche partitioning are two major factors in speciation.

 

On the environmental front, populations of North America mammals exhibited drawfism during the earliest Eocene (~55 mya). This morphological event coincides with one of the most extreme global warming events of the Cenozoic (Gingerich, 2003. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PD...ebound_opt.pdf)

 

Many examples can be found where multiple species coexist (sympatrically) by thriving on differing diets. For example, a group of similar but distinct African cichlids live simultaneously, by living in differnt substrates and exhibiting differing dietary preferences. (Genner & Turner, 2005 http://www.hull.ac.uk/cichlids/papers/genn...rner_mbuna.pdf)

 

These are just a couple of cases illustrating how enviromental factors can induce speciation.

[willis 1]

I'm not going to speculate on phylogenetic position of neaderthalis, but just wanted to respond to your questions. Yes, in fact, environmental factors and dietary niche partitioning are two major factors in speciation.

I did not mean to make you think that I deny those factors will lead to speciation.They certainly will produce speciation, but I am talking about evolution in the sense of universal common descent. That is, dietary and environmental factors won't lead to universal common descent. Evolutionists must rely on something else like mutations to produce evolution(i.e. molecules to men)

[chance 1]

In all seriousness though, is that really evolution? Weather conditions and diet?

Yes, amongst others, they are part of the ‘environmental stress’. For living things that can’t control their environment, there are only a few options when the environment changes, i.e. move, die or evolve. The cornerstone to evolving is natural selection, i.e. during the reproductive life time parents will produce far more offspring than is needed to maintain a stable population, statistically only the fittest will survivein an environment with finite resources.

 

 

 

 

Just a side note I never accepted the rickets argument, I was more interested in the issue of Neadertals being human or not.

I believe the current thought on the matter is: They are regarded as Homo-Neanderthal, with a common ancestor to Homo-sapiens. Neanderthal is older than ourselves, with no intermixing.

[lionheart209 0]

The most popular argument I can find put forth by creationsts is the idea that Neaderthals were just deformed humans that suffered from diseases such as rickets, arthritis or syphilis. This is part of the explanation for the neanderthal morphology.

AIG Anthropology

 

According to talk origins this is incorrect for several reasons:

 

Talk origins neandertals

Any thoughts? How could natural selection and random mutations produce the neandertal morphology?

6869[/snapback]

 

Neandertals never existed, they are a figment of evolutionists imaginations, The first man Adam was inteligent, not some unga bunga neandertal like evolutionists would like you to believe.

All through history we see evidence of inteligence, for example: the sphinx was built around the time Christ walked the Earth, yet even today we have a hard time duplicating that technology.

 

There is absolutely no evidence to support a sub-human unga bunga uninteligent human/neandertal.

It's just another made up story by evolutionists along with the idea of millions or billions of years.

See http://www.answersingenesis.org for more on this issue.

 

 

 

 

Louie Buren

[chance 1]

Neandertals never existed, they are a figment of evolutionists imaginations,

Fossils such as this would tend to discount that. yes?

 

The first man Adam was inteligent, not some unga bunga neandertal like evolutionists would like you to believe.

All through history we see evidence of inteligence, for example: the sphinx was built around the time Christ walked the Earth, yet even today we have a hard time duplicating that technology.

 

There is absolutely no evidence to support a sub-human unga bunga uninteligent human/neandertal

Current thought on Neanderthal intelligence is that it is comparable to our own, but may have lacked a certain amount of ‘inventiveness, imagination or artistry’.

 

 

It's just another made up story by evolutionists along with the idea of millions or billions of years.

See http://www.answersingenesis.org for more on this issue.

Your link just points to the AiG home page?

[willis 1]

Neandertals never existed, they are a figment of evolutionists imaginations, The first man Adam was inteligent, not some unga bunga neandertal like evolutionists would like you to believe.

All through history we see evidence of inteligence, for example: the sphinx was built around the time Christ walked the Earth, yet even today we have a hard time duplicating that technology.

 

There is absolutely no evidence to support a sub-human unga bunga uninteligent human/neandertal.

It's just another made up story by evolutionists along with the idea of millions or billions of years.

See http://www.answersingenesis.org for more on this issue.

Louie Buren

7041[/snapback]

Lionheart, buddy that is a little too extreme. Of course Neandertals existed only there is a non-evolutionary explanation for their morphology.

[lionheart209 0]

Lionheart, buddy that is a little too extreme. Of course Neandertals existed only there is a non-evolutionary explanation for their morphology.

7060[/snapback]

 

I'm sorry guy, that's incorrect. Neandertals never existed. What is extreme is how man tries to assume something then sware by it. Gods word/the bible tells us everything we need to know and we never have to dream up or imagine different scenarios. The bible should be taken at face value by exactly what it says.

 

The idea of Neandertals is as I stated before just another incorrect evolutionary idea. Secular/evolutionary scientists define a Neandertal as:

 

1. An extinct human species (Homo neanderthalensis) or subspecies (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) living during the late Pleistocene Epoch throughout most of Europe and parts of Asia and northern Africa and associated with Middle Paleolithic tools.

2. An individual belonging to this species or subspecies.

 

The bible clearly depicts that man was inteligent from the very start/creation.

And in fact man is more primitive now than in years past due to the fall of man account in Genesis.

We were never another species or sub human or less inteligent in any way shape or form, that's all evolution lies.

 

Thank you.

Louie Buren

[willis 1]

I'm sorry guy, that's incorrect.  Neandertals never existed. What is extreme is how man tries to assume something then sware by it.  Gods word/the bible tells us everything we need to know and we never have to dream up or imagine different scenarios. The bible should be taken at face value by exactly what it says.

 

The idea of Neandertals is as I stated before just another incorrect evolutionary idea.  Secular/evolutionary scientists define a Neandertal as:

 

1. An extinct human species (Homo neanderthalensis) or subspecies (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) living during the late Pleistocene Epoch throughout most of Europe and parts of Asia and northern Africa and associated with Middle Paleolithic tools.

2. An individual belonging to this species or subspecies.

 

The bible clearly depicts that man was inteligent from the very start/creation.

And in fact man is more primitive  now than in years past due to the fall of man account in Genesis.

We were never another species or sub human or less inteligent in any way shape or form, that's all evolution lies.

 

Thank you.

Louie Buren <><

7065[/snapback]

I don't disagree with anything you have said. Did you read what I actually posted?

 

Of course Neandertals existed only there is a non-evolutionary explanation for their morphology.

[randman 0]

Well, there are some pretty distinct differences between neadertals and modern humans which is why they are classified as a sub-species of humans. Examples:heavy brow ridges, a long low skull, a robust skeleton. How would you explain these differences?

The answer is simple. In breeding. We see variations in different tribes and ethnic groups, based on their inbreeding within one group. Neanderthals were just a tribe of people that due to isolation developed specific traits.

 

No big deal.

 

The only reason, imo, that evos still try to make such a big fuss with Nenderthals as "subhuman" is basically due to the fact for many years, evos incorrectly depicted Neanderthals as excessively ape-like in their quest for "missing links." In fact, the reality of Neanderthals and how evos misrepresented them for so long is very good evidence for claims that evolutionists are engaging in a type of myth-making in allowing their preconceptions to grossly distort the data, even long after there is solid evidence that prior claims are false. In other words, it's been hard for the evolutionist community to come to grips with the reality that Neanderthals are just people and not some subhuman transitional creature.

[lionheart209 0]

The answer is simple. In breeding. We see variations in different tribes and ethnic groups, based on their inbreeding within one group. Neanderthals were just a tribe of people that due to isolation developed specific traits.

 

No big deal.

 

The only reason, imo, that evos still try to make such a big fuss with Nenderthals as "subhuman" is basically due to the fact for many years, evos incorrectly depicted Neanderthals as excessively ape-like in their quest for "missing links." In fact, the reality of Neanderthals and how evos misrepresented them for so long is very good evidence for claims that evolutionists are engaging in a type of myth-making in allowing their preconceptions to grossly distort the data, even long after there is solid evidence that prior claims are false. In other words, it's been hard for the evolutionist community to come to grips with the reality that Neanderthals are just people and not some subhuman transitional creature.

7093[/snapback]

Ok and where did you get your information to state this? You see many people have many different idea's on many topics, but when it comes to answers, there are only two sources to get them, Gods word and man.

 

I choose to get my answers from Gods word, which states historys facts, not mans assumptions, which are vain guesses, nothing more.

True man has figured out alot thus far, but the things man can't figure out, he assumes with imagination and then swares it's true.

 

That's the trouble with choosing the option of mans idea's.

 

 

 

Louie Buren

[randman 0]

lionhearted, the skeletons of Neanderthals are fully human, not subhuman. You can call them whatever you'd like, but the Bible does not list every bit of human history that has occurred. They were a tribe of people, simple as that. The minor differences should rightly be understood as ethnic differences, probably the result of breeding within one tribe.

[chance 1]

The answer is simple. In breeding. We see variations in different tribes and ethnic groups, based on their inbreeding within one group. Neanderthals were just a tribe of people that due to isolation developed specific traits.

 

No big deal.

Inbreeding is unlikely a mechanism for such a wide ranging and long duration species (they populated much of Europe over a long period of time). Can you give me an example of the inbreeding and variations caused by it that you are referring to?

 

 

 

The only reason, imo, that evos still try to make such a big fuss with Nenderthals as "subhuman" is basically due to the fact for many years, evos incorrectly depicted Neanderthals as excessively ape-like in their quest for "missing links."

Terrible strawman argument, there is no fuss re Neanderthal, they are a extinct branch of hominid ancestors closely related to ourselves.

 

 

In fact, the reality of Neanderthals and how evos misrepresented them for so long is very good evidence for claims that evolutionists are engaging in a type of myth-making in allowing their preconceptions to grossly distort the data, even long after there is solid evidence that prior claims are false. In other words, it's been hard for the evolutionist community to come to grips with the reality that Neanderthals are just people and not some subhuman transitional creature.

This is far from current thinking on the status of Neanderthal and this opinion is something like one would have found at the turn of the last century, not this one. So if it’s science you wan’t to discuss then at least lets discuss the current science not that that was displaced decades ago, yes?

[randman 0]

This is far from current thinking on the status of Neanderthal and this opinion is something like one would have found at the turn of the last century, not this one.

Actually, this is what evos presented as fact until just a few years ago. Neanderthals are still, in fact, presented as more ape-like in some educational materials and listed as a missing link or transitional species.

 

The reality is Neanderthals are simply a racial and ethnic variation of people, not some separate species. There is no reason, for example, to think Neanderthals did not or could not marry and have children with non-Neanderthal human beings. The simple fact is they are anatomically and behaviourly human.

 

The point on in-breeding is among different living tribes and ethnic groups, you will see differences between groups, and that has to do with the fact that more isolated tribes do not intermarry as much outside of the group. The longer such a situation exists, which one could imagine with something like an ice age there would be more isolation, more unique characteristics would be more pronounced.

[chance 1]

Actually, this is what evos presented as fact until just a few years ago. Neanderthals are still, in fact, presented as more ape-like in some educational materials and listed as a missing link or transitional species.

How many years do you consider to be a few? From memory the modern interpretation of Neanderthals begins from the 70’s.

 

If “some educational†material is out of date then I suspect it will be revised in a later edition. If we are talking about school books and the like, I no doubt suspect budgetary constrains are a consideration as to when a new book is purchased.

 

 

The reality is Neanderthals are simply a racial and ethnic variation of people, not some separate species.

If you wish to claim this as more than just your opinion I am more than happy to discuss the evidence with you.

 

 

 

There is no reason, for example, to think Neanderthals did not or could not marry and have children with non-Neanderthal human beings.

Perhaps you are right or perhaps you are wrong, what evidence do you have for any inter breeding? I might add that currently the evidence is against such, it is believed Neanderthal went extinct with out leaving any descendants.

 

 

 

The simple fact is they are anatomically and behaviourly human.

Anatomically they are ‘Humanoid’ and indeed very closely related to ourselves, but also significantly different to not be confused with ourselves. There is also a disturbing lack of progress made by Neanderthal, his stone tool hardly changed at all during his stay on earth and art work appears almost non existent. Art appears to have been introduced very late in the day to Neanderthal by Homo-sapiens.

 

The point on in-breeding is among different living tribes and ethnic groups, you will see differences between groups, and that has to do with the fact that more isolated tribes do not intermarry as much outside of the group. The longer such a situation exists, which one could imagine with something like an ice age there would be more isolation, more unique characteristics would be more pronounced.

On his I agree, and we can see such racial characteristics a skin colour, eye shape, physique, etc. If one were to go only by our bones however there would be no doubt that we are all the same species as the differences are small, unlike Neanderthal where there is a consistent difference in the skull and physique.

[randman 0]

From memory the modern interpretation of Neanderthals begins from the 70’s.

Well, let's take the 70s despite evos as late as the mid-90s still presenting Neanderthals as excessively ape-like. The truth is we have known since at least the early 50s that Neanderthals were not ape-like, my term btw related to presenting them as less human.

 

Why was and is it to hard for evos to correct their icons?

 

Perhaps you are right or perhaps you are wrong, what evidence do you have for any inter breeding?  I might add that currently the evidence is against such, it is believed Neanderthal went extinct with out leaving any descendants.

First off, whether they went extinct or not really doesn't change the fact there is no reason to think if Neanderthal humans were alive today that they could mate with Americans. Furthermore, there are skeletons of mixed traits between Neanderthals and Cro-magnons, another basic tribe that evos have tried to suggest was transitional when in reality they were just people.

 

Anatomically they are ‘Humanoid’ and indeed very closely related to ourselves, but also significantly different to not be confused with ourselves.

I think that's horsedung myself. First off, there are differences in modern humans. Secondly, it has been shown that sometimes Neanderthal features have been exagerrated. I don't have the study handy, but one guy that was skeptical of evo claims, went to one museum in Europe and showed that the earlier analysis were exagerrated, and the museum has since taken away the old reproductions and are doing new ones, which show the jaw not jutting out as before and other more "neanderthal features" lessened. The simple fact is evos wanted Neanderthals to be transitional, and still do, and so have not taken an honest approach to the data, which is why it was not until at least the 70s, and imo, the 90s, that they began to even adjust their claims about Neanderthals and admit they appeared and acted "human."

 

Btw, are you aware that South and Central American Indians did not use the wheel when Europeans first arrived? Maybe that is disturbing too, and we can say the Indians were, hmmm..., a subspecies or some such.....and what about the pygmies or some tribes in very remote areas less technologically advanced.....can we also claim they are subspecies?

 

The simple fact is Neanderthals were people that lived under certain circumstances and probably isolated, perhaps s*xually, culturally or geographically, but among Europeans, I think we do see from time to time, Neanderthal features. I doubt genetic studies have been extensive enough to rule out Neanderthal genes. Certainly, we don't have a full and extensive study of Neaderthals due to the few specimens, and probably not of the current population of Europe either.

[chance 1]

Well, let's take the 70s despite evos as late as the mid-90s still presenting Neanderthals as excessively ape-like. The truth is we have known since at least the early 50s that Neanderthals were not ape-like, my term btw related to presenting them as less human.

 

Why was and is it to hard for evos to correct their icons?

IMO popular misconceptions (not scientific opinion) are propagated by the near instant access to modern media, newspapers, movies, books, and now the internet. Old opinion now have the ability to linger on as textbooks, movies survive well beyond the authors life span.

 

You must remember that there is a difference in what is popular culture and what is accepted as fact in scientific circles.

 

First off, whether they went extinct or not really doesn't change the fact there is no reason to think if Neanderthal humans were alive today that they could mate with Americans. Furthermore, there are skeletons of mixed traits between Neanderthals and Cro-magnons, another basic tribe that evos have tried to suggest was transitional when in reality they were just people.

Ok First off how do you know they would be able to mate and produce offspring, how do you know. Is it not possible that the DNA is just too different?

 

Can you give me a link to the mixed traits you claim exist, so that I can read the source, thanks.

 

I think that's horsedung myself. First off, there are differences in modern humans. Secondly, it has been shown that sometimes Neanderthal features have been exagerrated. I don't have the study handy, but one guy that was skeptical of evo claims, went to one museum in Europe and showed that the earlier analysis were exagerrated, and the museum has since taken away the old reproductions and are doing new ones, which show the jaw not jutting out as before and other more "neanderthal features" lessened. The simple fact is evos wanted Neanderthals to be transitional, and still do, and so have not taken an honest approach to the data, which is why it was not until at least the 70s, and imo, the 90s, that they began to even adjust their claims about Neanderthals and admit they appeared and acted "human."

So what you are saying is that science is correcting a mistake, that’s a good thing, yes? Plus it’s the ‘evo’s’ doing the correcting!

 

 

Btw, are you aware that South and Central American Indians did not use the wheel when Europeans first arrived? Maybe that is disturbing too, and we can say the Indians were, hmmm..., a subspecies or some such.....and what about the pygmies or some tribes in very remote areas less technologically advanced.....can we also claim they are subspecies?

Neither did they use horses. This is culture not evolution.

 

The simple fact is Neanderthals were people that lived under certain circumstances and probably isolated, perhaps s*xually, culturally or geographically, but among Europeans, I think we do see from time to time, Neanderthal features. I doubt genetic studies have been extensive enough to rule out Neanderthal genes. Certainly, we don't have a full and extensive study of Neaderthals due to the few specimens, and probably not of the current population of Europe either.

Actually I think there is Neanderthal DNA and is one of the reason for the current non intermixing opinion. Try this LINK

I have not read it myself yet.

[Avenged Sevenfold 0]

By observing the Neanderthal's DNA, we know that there is absolutly NO difference in their DNA and homo sapiens DNA.

 

This leads me to believe neanderthals are simply a variant of current humans, perhaps an extinct ethnic group given their location.

 

How many fossils and individuals of neanderthal folks do we have?

[chance 1]

Avenged Sevenfold, Your statement

By observing the Neanderthal's DNA, we know that there is absolutly NO difference in their DNA and homo sapiens DNA.

seem to contradict the linked article I posted previously, see extract below. What is your reference ?

 

In July of 1997 the first ever sequencing of Neanderthal DNA, a breakthrough in the study of modern human evolution, was announced in the Journal Cell (Krings, et. al., 1997). DNA was extracted for the type specimen and the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence was determined. This sequence was compared to living human mtDNA sequences and found to be outside the range of variation in modern humans. Age estimation of the Neanderthal and human divergence is four times older than the age of the common mtDNA ancestor of all living humans. The authors suggest that the Neanderthals went extinct without contribution to the present mtDNA of modern humans.

 

How many fossils and individuals of neanderthal folks do we have?

I have provided a random selection of web sites for you to look at, but I cant find a tally of all current finds. Googeling around I think over 100 is a very conservative estimate (in various states of completeness).

 

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/humankind/n.html

 

from the link:

 

This single site has 9 individuals:

 

Shanidar 1

Estimated age: 70,000 to 40,000 years

Date of discovery: 1953 to 1960

Location: Shanidar Cave, Iraq

 

This site has yielded nine Neanderthal skeletons. One of them, Shanidar 1, was partially blind, one-armed, and crippled when he died, suggesting that he was a member of a society that cared for its elderly. Shanidar 4, another specimen found here, appears to have been buried with offerings of flowers (although this interpretation has been disputed).

There are more listed in that link.

 

 

Extract from this link

http://www.britarch.ac.uk/BA/ba66/feat1.shtml

 

Funerary caching continued after these very early examples. Evidence from after about 100,000 years ago includes the fragmentary cranial remains of at least 22 Neanderthals from La Quina in the Charente, and at the fissure site of L'Hortus - also in France - the remains of at least 20 individuals were found in which young Neanderthals were especially common. At Krapina Cave in Croatia, over 70 Neanderthals wound up in deposits of the cave dating to before 100,000 years ago.