Skip to comments.HUMANS, NEANDERTHALS DID NOT HAVE BABIES
Posted on 08/17/2012 9:37:26 AM PDT by Pharmboy
Recent research strikes a blow to the theory that humans and Neanderthals interbred.
THE GIST Studies over the last two years suggest that Neanderthals vanished more than 30,000 years ago. This would mean that early humans and Neanderthals could not have interbred. enlarge
Over the last two years, several studies have suggested that Homo sapiens got it on with Neanderthals, an hominid who lived in parts of Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East for up to 300,000 years but vanished more than 30,000 years ago.
The evidence for this comes from fossil DNA, which shows that on average Eurasians and Asians share between one and four per cent of their DNA with Neanderthals, but Africans almost none.
But a new study by scientists at Britain's University of Cambridge says the shared DNA came from a shared ancestor, not from "hybridization" or reproduction between the two hominid species.
Common ancestor It begins with a common ancestors of Neanderthals and H. sapiens who lived around half a million years ago in parts of Africa and Europe.
Around 300,000 to 350,000 years ago, the European population and the African population of this hominid became separated.
Living in genetic isolation, the European range evolved bit by bit into Neanderthals, while the African range eventually became H. sapiens, which expanded in waves out of Africa from around 60,000 to 70,000 years ago.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.discovery.com ...
The shared DNA is one of the most important aspects of evolution. It means that genes don’t have to be constantly totally invented. What changes is the timing and amount of time of the expression of different genes. For example apparently there is not a separate gene for the long neck of a giraffe. Rather there is a genetic mechanism in giraffes which turns the neck length gene on much longer than it is on for most developing embryos. This mechanism works for many different aspects of development in all creatures and plants. Thus, it does not take nearly as long to develop new species as it would if they had to be developed from scratch. Shawn Carroll wrote a fascinating book on this called “Endless Forms Most Beautiful.” A very interesting read.
Don't pick fights with new-earth creationists unless you have ample supply of aspirin handy. It is an exercise in futility.
Sadly, their clown car shows up on every science-related thread posted on FR making an intelligent discussion of such topics pretty much off-limits.
Homo Sapiens living in Africa did not have major ice ages to contend with. They had heat. Desert Africans tend to be taller and more slender than jungle Africans. The Africans that wandered north had to pass through the generally drier more savanna like lands that are now the north African desert before arriving in Europe. I don’t think it had anything to do with shortage of food or a kinder society.
Bishop Usher’s methodology was to look at the length of the “begats” in the bible. And if you look at your bible you will see they are years, not months and days. Then from this highly “scientific” methodology, with very exact time frames he stated that God created Adam and Eve on Dec. 23, 2004 BC, or some similar exact date. Anyone who could possibly believe that the Bishop achieved an accurate date with this method is dumb indeed.
Whiie on the subject of Genesis. How many people believe that God created Adam and Eve from the earth, and how many believe that God created Eve after he created Adam by taking out a rib. Two very different stories, with rather different implications for the relationship of woman to man.
Around 300,000 to 350,000 years ago the European population and the African population of this hominid became separated.Who got to keep the dog? And the cave? Was it amicable?
things they never tell us. (LOL)
1. It's easy to count up the years between Adam and the flood (about 1700 years).
2. From the flood to Abraham is about 300 years and from Abraham to Israel leaving Egypt, about 500 years = about 800 years.
-- So far, that's about 2500 years.
3. Israel's independence as a nation: about 1000 years from their exodus out of Egypt to the Babylonian captivity. (Side note: remarkable that Israel was an independent and free nation for so long.)
-- So far, that's about 3500 years.
4. The book of Daniel tells us it's about 500 years from the Babylonian captivity to Christ.
5. It's been about 2000 years since Christ.
There you have it - the Biblical record of the 6000 years of man from Adam to the present.
Although you can figure out the years using the biblical record of time, years, and genealogies, the Bible gives you a hint in the first chapter, Genesis 1. The Bible says one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day (2 Peter 3:8). It took six days to (re)create the earth and on the seventh day God rested. It's been 6000 years since (re)creation and we're rapidly heading into the 1000 years of Jesus ruling as King of Kings on the earth (His seventh "day" of rest).
How many times do you have to be corrected on this?
The color, eyes, nose and expressions are all wrong.
Here are some more realistic reconstructions:
PapaNew post #54: "No valid scientifically tested artifact has been validated to show 'modern man' existed before 6000 years.
The evidence is not only anemic, its non-existent.
Maybe something else like dinosaurs or monkey-type creatures.
But not 'modern man.' "
PapaNew post #81 "I try to based my beliefs on hard evidence not popular assertions.
As I said, I haven't seen any conclusive scientifically tested evidence of these things. "
Drew68 post #102: "Don't pick fights with new-earth creationists unless you have ample supply of aspirin handy.
It is an exercise in futility.
Sadly, their clown car shows up on every science-related thread posted on FR making an intelligent discussion of such topics pretty much off-limits."
Drew68 pretty much said it all, but still important to understand a bit of the how posters like PapaNew distort the truth.
In this particular example, PapaNew is relying on his unique (indeed, secret) definitions of terms like "valid science" and "modern man".
When PapaNew says "validated by true scientific investigation", he means: "validated by reading the Bible", since in PapaNew's mind, any investigation which might disagree with PapaNew's interpretations of Bible, cannot be "true science".
When PapaNew says "modern man", he means "mankind as described in the Bible -- as interpreted by PapaNew".
Since PapaNew makes no secret of his religious beliefs, understanding how he defines scientific terms is not all that difficult, once you "get it".
No secret - as I posted, valid science is that which has been tested by the scientific method and recognized and basically universally accepted by the science community.
"Modern man" was another poster's term I used. Put it this way - our ancestors. Not as mysterious as you portray.
The Bible and "valid science" are friends because both point to the truth. So far, I know of no "valid" scientific theory that goes against an accurate understanding of the Bible.
Your attack post doesn't present a positive argument, only an argumentum ad hominem which is a logical fallacy.
That creates a chronology problem for creationists. Creation was around 4000BC, but the Flood was around 2500BC. In the Flood, the human race supposedly perished except for Noah's extended family.
Yes they were not humans they were apes. :-)
And they would provide the genes that would enable dark-skinned "out of Africa" humans to survive in the North. Probably, also much of the technology for creating warm clothing necessary to survive in the North.
Nice try, no cigar. Gobekli Tepe goes back 10,000 years. Animals can't carve sculptures and engineer megalithic structures. Only humans can.
Let's see....took God 4 days to create the simple Earth but only one day to create hundreds of billions of planets and stars...this is all you need to know about the fail of the Creationism theory.
If there are indeed Creationists who make this claim, they misunderstand their own document.
Whether you agree with the biblical account or not, it does not say God created the heavens in a single day.
It says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” No statement as to how long this took, or whether there was a gap in time before the start of the first day.
The “days” are describing the events leading up to making the earth habitable for Man, not the creation of the planet, much less the heavens.days
Again courtesy www.themandus.org, without the fur coat for illustration purposes:
Please write an essay in 350 words or less describing the creation of the universe, earth, and the order of the appearance of life on earth. Make this essay understandable to a very **primitive** people.
Let's see if you can do as well and as **accurately** as the first chapter of Genesis.
Unlike other creation stories of primitive people, Genesis conforms remarkably to what is not known scientifically about the creation of the universe, earth, the order of the appearance of life on earth.
God created Adam and Eve from the earth, and how many believe that God created Eve after he created Adam by taking out a rib.
Genesis was written for a very primitive people. So? ...What term would you use to explain to a primitive people that our first parents were composed of the common chemical elements of the universe ? “Dust of the earth” seems like a good choice to me.
Men have an XY gene that makes male. Women are XX. If you were to attempt to explain this to a primitive people would using the expression “rib” come to mind? Man is missing a “rib” which creates the Y gene.
Yes, it was well written for the "primitive" people of the day..the problem is there are people that actually believe in the 6 day Creation in this modern age.
I suspect the blue eyes that seem to often pair with the red haired, pink skinned people from Scotland and Ireland may be a different or independent mutation from the one that these scientists found testing a different European population group. They should now test the Scots and the Irish.
New research shows that people with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor. A team at the University of Copenhagen have tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6-10,000 years ago and is the cause of the eye colour of all blue-eyed humans alive on the planet today.
Neanderthal DNA is not halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee, but thanks again for posting that ridiculous lie, along with Vendramini’s last-rate sci-fi nutjobbery.
Dunno. Maybe these artifacts survived the flood or maybe the accuracy of the artifact dating needs to be verified.
Nice assertion, questionable proof. For instance...
"questionable radiocarbon dating."
As correctly written online by Omar W. Rosales in a comment at the Smithsonian Magazine online:
"... you still need independent verification of the age of the burial site. It mentions that stone implements (whether they are flint, or knives, or whatever) resemble those found in another site, where the artifacts in the other site radiocarbon date to 11000 B.C. Okay, so how does prove that Gobekli Tepe dates around 11000 B.C.? If there are wood fragments, pottery shards, or some other type of carbon-based item at Gobekli, then test these to establish the date. Although undiscovered sites with monumental architecture probably pre-date our discovered (and well-known) archaeological sites, you still need to independently verify the dates. - Omar W. Rosales J.D. http://www.elementalshaman.com
Posted by Omar W. Rosales on October 24,2008 | 03:15PM"
If how God did this doesn't fit with your idea of how things should have been done, I guess you'll have to take that up with God.
the fail of the Creationism theory
Not sure what that phrase means, but the theory that living things were created certainly does not fail or fall because of lack of evidence since evidence of intelligent (purposeful) design is EVERYWHERE. But it takes REAL faith (read "blind faith") to believe in Darwinism since there is NO generally accepted evidence that any species ever evolved or "jumped" to another species.
In the article Dr. Eiberg says “From this we can conclude that all blue eyed individuals are linked to the same ancestor.” I do not see this as a proven fact. The same or similar mutation could have occurred more than once in different parts of the world. This data was based on a modest number of samples taken in Denmark, Turkey and Jordan. The article says nothing about the examination of blue eyed genetics in the British Isles. My late husband’s blue eyes were lighter and a different shade of blue. Less violet than the eye sown. Also, scientist are saying that Neanderthals had red hair and pink skin, and likely blue eyes. At any rate, something like 10% of the population in the fringes of the British Isles have that coloring, and apparently 40% carry the “ginger gene”.
I'm not talking about artifacts dated using radiocarbon methods. I'm talking about WRITTEN RECORDS of civilizations existing around the period of the Flood ( ~ 2500 BC, give or take), such as the Sumerians of the Babylonian region, and the Egyptians, which talk about dynasties, events, etc, but strangely make no mention of any world-destroying Flood happening right in the middle of their time lines.
When you have civilizations making written records, dating from hundreds of years before the Flood, to well after the Flood, civilizations comprising millions of people, one would think that there would be some indication or note about, well, EVERYBODY BEING WIPED OUT, and the civilization having to be repopulated by the descendents of Noah, who oddly just continued the writing styles of the civilizations who were there before the Flood, did so without interruption, and made no mention in their writings of any Flood.
When these writings actually took place is important. "Around 2500BC" actually means these writings took place before the flood, since the Bible record nails down the flood occurring at 2344 BC, so of course those writings would make no mention of the flood.
Thanks for the ping, gleeaikin. Having Scottish genes, as my family does, it is known we are considered to be and have always been thought of as Neanderthals. Glad the genes were not left behind or my family would never have survived. Another story is the family name is now based on one lone male. Should he fail to deliver another male, the family name goes the way of the Neanderthals. In that respect our family is nearly extinct. Gave me a whole new perspective. Thanks, gleeaikin.
That makes it worse. The records go from before 2500BC FORWARD to the present. No mention of the Flood, no gap to indicate all of humanity wiped out and repopulated just from Noah's offspring.
You're way to general. What records? Where is the clear and convincing evidence generally accepted by the scientific community, of the actual date of these writings?
That icy blue eye color? My family also originated in Scotland, light blue eyes, red hair, and all. Same as you described your late husband in another post.
Those aren't actual "writings" but someone's supposed timeline. Anybody can come up with a timeline.
Thanks. I’ll check it out.
Since you thought about my husband’s description, I wonder how many of the other characteristics family members may have had. For my husband as I already said they were weak chin (which he disguised with a trimmed beard, heavy brow, long heavy shouldered torso, short legs, and warrior temperment. In addition he had very heavy bones and skull, very mesomorph physique, he was dyslexic, and he died of Alzheimers at age 75.
I have a theory about Alzheimers. Many of us have heard stories about elderly Indians going out to freeze to death in bad winters so there would be more food for their families. My husband would get hungry and leave the house trying to find food. I had to call the police several times to find him. I learned to quickly get some food into him when he seemed to want to get out. So my theory is that these elderly Indians may have had Alzheimers and got hungry or went out to pee and could not find their way home again. This actually would have a positive survival advantage by leaving more food for their families. This phase of his illness occurred about 1 year before he became really physically dependent. At that time he could do useful things like sweep the sidewalk, rake the leaves, and help me with carpentry projects like sawing a beam after I began the cut. Thus, someone in a primitive situation would be able to help knap flints, skin game, scrape hides, etc. and still be useful, but if they wandered away in starving time, their useful life would be almost done.
I also theorize that this genetic trait would be more common in peripheral regions that were most recently still tribal in their structure. I have done some research which tends to support this theory. My husband was also 1/16th Cree Indian (a Canadian tribe). My older son is a big husky guy and finishing up his 20 years in Special Forces. He had to have his SIX wisdom teeth pulled. At the dental school they said 6 wisdom teeth are found among Esquimos. I suppose that some of them got interbred with the Crees, unless this is also a trait among the Scots. Genetics is so much fun. In addition, my sons both have dark brown eyes. As I said my husbands were clear light blue (very recessive) and mine are hazel. I have some Asiatic tartar in my upper class Germanic heritage, so my theory there is that I have brown eye Asian genes which are recessive to the European hazel eye genes, and they both got the Asian brown eye gene which was more dominant than the blue eye gene.
There are writings. Writings on the walls of tombs. Writings on the walls of temples. Writings in the pyramids. Writings telling the story of this pharaoh and that pharaoh and their exploits. Writings about battles and victories. From these writings, historians piece together timelines. None of these writings mention any Flood.
But, you believe what you want to believe. I'm done on this thread.
That's great Mr. PapaBear but you seem to be ignoring the point here: generally accepted scientific date verification of these writings.
BTW, even though evidence of the actual dates of theses writings and your conclusions regarding them may be in question, there is not much question that sometime in history there was a flood that covered the world. There is abundant physical evidence such as fossils or imprints of fish found near the tops of mountains, etc. that point to a world-wide catastrophic flood. Seems the only issue is WHEN this flood occurred.
Those "fish fossils" found on top of mountaintops was because those mountaintops was originally the sea bed and rose over millions of years from tetonic pressure to form mountains.
.......and I learned this in 5th or 6 grade at St. Mary's CATHOLIC SCHOOL.
existing around the period of the Flood ( ~ 2500 BC, give or take), such as the Sumerians of the Babylonian region, and the Egyptians, which talk about dynasties, events, etc, but strangely make no mention of any world-destroying Flood happening right in the middle of their time lines.
= = =
When these writings actually took place is important. “Around 2500BC” actually means these writings took place before the flood, since the Bible record nails down the flood occurring at 2344 BC, so of course those writings would make no mention of the flood.
1) so in 156 years, the people on the Ark, repopulated the entire world?
in 2500BC, there were already large cities, across vast geographical areas.
2) you disagree with the accepted datings,
by generations of historians, achaeologists, geologists, etc.,
who’s work ALL confirms each others, independently?
3) Luther himself, refused to believe the earth orbited the Sun. does that make all his other beliefs false? no.
He was correct, to condemn the corruption in the Church.
...but, the earth DOES orbit the Sun. and there is vast, cross-discipline evidence, that humans lived continuously, without a world-wide flood, in many places in the world, around 2344BC.
4) my faith in Jesus, doesn’t require me, to take the OLD Testament literally. and many top scientists, are also devout Christians, who revere the Bible, as a holy book.
5) frankly, i think organizations like “creation research institute”, are a complete waste. (WHY such fanatic emphasis?) ...if they’d spend a tenth as much effort, on spreading the New Testament, i’d applaud them!
Depending who you speak to and who calculates it, some have the great flood as early as 3300 BC.
Since we’ve double the planet’s population in 40 years, you could use that as “guide” to figure the planet “could” double the population every 40 years. In 800 years you could go from 8 people to about 8.3 million people. If you doubled every 20 years (totally possible) you end up with a number in the trillions. 800 years can be a VERY long time in population growth!
Ever wondered how we have made great technological strides in the past 500 years or so and these civilizations that were around for, supposedly, thousands of years stayed in the stone age? Maybe, just maybe, they weren’t around for as long as we thought...
We stayed at mostly the same technology level for a long time. If you grabbed Socrates from 400BC and brought him forward to 1200AD, he would not see much changed. People still plowed with animals drawing plows, rode horses for transport, and ships still used sails. The world would be very comprehensible to him. Even drawing him forward to 1750 or so, the main innovation would be gunpowder. Most other aspects of people's lives would be very similar.
Go forward just 100 years to 1850, and things get very different, with steam powered railroads and electric telegraphs. Jump forward another 100 years to 1950, and Socrates would think he was in a world of sorcery.
What created such a rapid degree of progress was an increasing number of very smart people who were allowed to innovate under the free market, and reap great rewards for innovation.
I'm mostly bowing out at this point, and letting Elendur have a turn at banging his head against the wall.
Inconclusive. Some fossils have been found to be there from the tectonic plate action, but necessary all. Many discoveries of fossil of marine life as well as tree fossils, etc. and other evidence pretty convincingly point to a catastrophic world-wide flood.
2500BC is BEFORE 2344 BC, the Biblical time of the flood.
Well put, particularly #5 — gosh, I wonder what their motivation could possibly be?
Can no one out there in editor land write a proper headline in the English language?
I was thinking the same thing.
Saying “did not interbreed” would have been so much clearer.
Interesting. Seems rather surprising since there are actually variant blues for eyes, and regardless of eventual eye color, babies tend to be born with blue eyes.
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.