Posted on 08/12/2009 11:42:29 AM PDT by decimon
You'd have to come up with some new hominid BETWEEN modern man and the neanderthal in both time and morphology:
But the works and remains of such a creature, had it ever existed, would be all over the place and easy to find. Standard theory has the neanderthal dying out 30K years ago and HIS works and remains are easy to find, and Gunnar Heinsohn has the end of the neanderthal more like about 4500 years ago.
I wouldn’t argue that Man descended directly from Neanderthal......but to say that they are soooooooooo different to make the assumption that they could not have co-evolved from the same common ancestor is not based on much more than the belief that Man walked with dinosaurs is.
|
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks decimon.To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.The Neandertal EnigmaFrayer's own reading of the record reveals a number of overlooked traits that clearly and specifically link the Neandertals to the Cro-Magnons. One such trait is the shape of the opening of the nerve canal in the lower jaw, a spot where dentists often give a pain-blocking injection. In many Neandertal, the upper portion of the opening is covered by a broad bony ridge, a curious feature also carried by a significant number of Cro-Magnons. But none of the alleged 'ancestors of us all' fossils from Africa have it, and it is extremely rare in modern people outside Europe." [pp 126-127] |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
Neanderthal DNA is generally described as about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee.No, it isn't. That's just some creationist stupidity that I'd not seen pop up on FR in a very long time.
"The sense of bitter taste protects us from ingesting toxic substances," the report said.That's a fact.
hmmm, maybe I should find new friends?
They always say it was an accident, but I'm starting to have my doubts.
I suggest neanderthals. They won't poison you and they're good bowlers.
Neanderthal DNA is generally described as about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee.
No, it isn't. That's just some creationist stupidity that I'd not seen pop up on FR in a very long time.
I've never seen that on any sort of a creationist source since most creationists would like to believe in a 6K year old Earth; I see it on science sites e.g.:
Neandertals are almost exactly halfway between the chimpanzee and modern humans...
Again most creationists I speak with appear to think or at least want to think that the neanderthal was simply another race of modern humans, wjhich is clearly not what the evidence indicates. The neanderthal involved a species difference from us and not merely a racial or sub-species difference.
What I find interesting is the amount of stuff that’s called *creationist stupidity* that was taught as science at one time.
Examples are vestigial organs, junk DNA, most mutations are harmful, .....
There’s even the issue of frauds like Piltdown Man that evos keep bragging that scientists proved were a fraud, which creationists never believed was authentic in the first place.
Scientists/evos shouldn’t be so quick to disparage creationists for promoting the belief (which they don’t do anyway) of things that were taught as science at one time.
If there is any blame it belongs on the scientists who taught it to a whole generation of kids in public schools as science in the first place. Then they wonder why stuff that scientists have changed their position on is still circulating? It isn’t creationists fault.
Clearly the scientific community is remiss for not getting the word out better.
But then that would entail scientists admitting that they were wrong.....
The creationist politicians (because that’s what the “discussion” is about, politics) make a bunch of false claims about Darwinism etc, with a small leavening of stuff like what you said.
The Darwinists et al make a bunch of false claims about their own beliefs (denying of course that their beliefs *are* beliefs), with a small leavening of the creationist stupidities, which are numerous.
Many people are creationists — they believe in God, and believe that the universe was created — but don’t regard themselves as such because they don’t fit in with this or that flavor of creationism.
For the record, I am myself a creationist because the universe is so obviously a creation.
That’s pretty reasonable. There are a handful of things which prevent me from being a 6K-year-Earth style literal creationist, including Venus which is ballpark for a 6K year age estimate and does not resemble Earth or Mars at all, and the neanderthal which I would GUESS was some sort of a proto-human lord of some previous creation, prior to Adam and Eve. Like I say, without a time machine, all anybody could do with that sort of thing is guess.
==That’s just some creationist stupidity that I’d not seen pop up on FR in a very long time.
Awfully provocative, SunkenCiv. It would appear by the tone of your reply that you believe that creation science is synonymous with stupidity. Can you please supply specific examples to back up your allegation so we can get to the bottom of just who is (and who is not) stupid. You can start with Neanderthals, if you please.
It’s not provocative at all — Neanderthal isn’t halfway between human and chimp. Claiming otherwise is in fact something creationists cling to, the same way Virchow (probably the originator of the first campaign to dump on Neanderthal fossils) clung to a series of escalating false claims.
Here’s something perhaps you hadn’t read, even though it’s in the same thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2314370/posts?page=29#29
Well said. One 20th c translation of the Bible shows no definite article in the first sentence, i.e., “In a beginning” instead of the usual “in the beginning”.
That can arise from being translated into and out of languages which don’t use articles. When you have six or more declension cases, you don’t need articles....
It was calling creationists stupid that I found provocative. I’m still waiting for you to cite specific examples so we can get to the bottom of who is (and who is not) stupid. And since you called creationists stupid in relation to Neanderthals, let us begin right there. Please be specific, and be sure to cite your sources.
Did you read the links in wendy's post 27?
Why are you seeming to lay at the feet of the creationists this concept that Neanderthals are halfway between chimps and humans when it started with the scientists?
It wouldn't make sense for creationists to *cling* to it because in general, creationists don't believe that man evolved from some ape like ancestor to begin with, so Neanderthal couldn't possibly be half way between chimp and man. It just might be more similar to man than chimp, but it can't be halfway between something (chimp) and nothing (since man didn't evolve).
The neanderthal DNA findings do more (much more) damage to evolutionism than they do to any other religion including Christianity. The findings totally break the chain. There is nothing on this planet which modern man could have evolved from; you’d need some new hominid closer to us in both time and form than the neanderthal and that creature, had he ever existed, would be very easy to find.
” you’d need some new hominid closer to us in both time and form than the neanderthal and that creature, had he ever existed, would be very easy to find.
—Neandertals overlapped with homo sapiens the entire time they were here. And the fossils are easy to find - they are found throughout europe, africa, and asia.
Both Neandertals and Homo sapiens probably split from Homo heidelbergensis.
Neandertals were never really viewed as an ancestor of Homo sapiens, since Neandertals are no older than Homo sapiens. The question has been whether Neandertals and Homo sapiens interbred, and whether Neandertals should be viewed as fully Homo sapiens (which is what I’ve always seen Creationists argue - this is probably the first time I’ve seen otherwise), or whether they should be seen as a sub-species, or maybe even as an entirely separate species.
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.