Neanderthals and human lived side by side in Middle Eastern caves and even interbred

Daily Mail (UK) ^ | 9-29-2012

[Renfield]

Neanderthals may have lived side by side with early humans and possibly interbred with them, according to new research.

Stone axes and sharp flint arrowheads of both branches of the human race have been discovered in limestone caves in northern Israel.

The findings, reported in the Times, have led archeologists to believe the two sub-species found harmony in a coastal mountain range that today is in a state of war with its neighbours...

[ravenwolf]

As I mentioned earlier, there is zero actual archaeological evidence on the planet of humans cross-breeding with Neanderthal, e.g.

---

Now it is making more sense to me and i agree, but i can see that people with the scientific minds and scientists also do not agree with each other, it is no different than the global scientists, too many assumptions.

With these big imaginations they should be able to make a great movie out of it but i have yet to see one that is very good.

I am not anti science but it appears that all of the results that come out of this sort of science comes from assuming that earlier results were correct.

If a rocket scientist miscalculates, the rocket fails and any one can see the failure, in this case how can any one see a failure when no one knows for sure what the results are supposed to be in the first place, maybe the illegal Government grants that keep coming in is a sign of success.

[varmintman]

Good, I’m glad at least a couple of people here are starting to grasp this one. Scientists have no problem reconstructing other hominids as glorified apes but the Neanderthal has served as a kind of a poster child for evolutionism and kum-bay-ah religion and is generally portrayed as if he were just some slightly stranger than usual race of modern man, and that clearly is wrong. I don’t subscribe to Vendramini’s thesis of modern (Cro Magnon) man evolving from Shkul/Kafzeh hominids, but his reconstructions of Neanderthals strike me as totally logical and in keeping with the available evidence and the creature he ends up with is very definitely not just another race of modern humans.

[BroJoeK]

ravenwolf: "most Christians believe in there being one creation, which started with Adam and Eve almost seven thousand years ago."

Actually, that's not what "most Christian" churches teach, if by "most Christians" you include Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Mainline Protestants -- which add up to around 85% of all the world's Christians.

Those churches all teach there is no conflict between science and Genesis, if Genesis is understood as a remarkably accurate representation recorded by people who had zero, zip, nada knowledge of actual science.

Remember, the purpose of Genesis is not to explain the world scientifically, but rather to illustrate imperfect mankind's relationship to Almighty God.
This relationship does not change regardless if we understand it through Genesis, or even through a scientific perspective.

ravenwolf: "...i don,t put much stock in every thing that is called science."

There is no law requiring anyone to believe any scientific theory or hypothesis.
And you can base your rejections on whatever criteria you chose.
But if you chose your particular interpretation of the Bible as a basis for rejecting some scientific theory, then you should at least have the common decency not to pretend your ideas are somehow more "scientific" than science.

[varmintman]

That was also my point, most Christians believe in there being one creation, which started with Adam and Eve almost seven thousand years ago.

The conclusion I come to is that there had to have been at least two saltations of modern humans on this planet, that is, the Cro Magnons who got here at some point before there was even light on the planet, and the familiar Bible antediluvians starting with Adam and Eve.

There is a list of things which the Bible and Jewish literature would have to know about if you wanted to believe that Adam and Eve were descended From Cro Magnons and which the Bible and Midrashim appear to know nothing about:

• Stone tools. Adam and Eve and their descendants were metal-tech people from day one. By contrast, human groups descended from Cro Magnons went on using stone tools until forced out of it by neighbors descended from Bible antediluvians if they ever stopped at all. Aztecs were using stone knives and weapons when the Spanish arrived even though they used gold for ornaments and purposes other than tools, and native Australians are killing kangaroos with such weapons now.
• The atlatl i.e. the signature weapon of the Cro Magnon people. The Bible knows nothing of this weapon; the weapons of the Bible are the sword, the spear, the sling, and the bow. By contrast, amongst Cro Magnon descendants, the Aztecs were using atlatls agains the Spanish and native Australians use it to hunt kangaroos today.
• Neanderthals and/or other hominids. The Bible knows nothing of hominids. By contrast, the Basque "Basajuan" appears to be a reflection of the Neanderthal and the Australian "Yowie" appears to be some sort of hominid, possibly the Neanderthal, which native Australians remember. Amerinds likewise in their oral traditions remember dealing with hominids as well as dinosaurs and ice-age megafauna.
• An upper paleolithic (I prefer the term Neolithic) world war in which all hominids were exterminated from the planet.
• A "Purple Age", that is, a protracted age without any source of light such as we experience now, prior to the classical "Golden Age" of ancient literature. Dwardu Cardona notes that the Bible mentions the creation of light before the sun and moon are created and that the beginning is called an age when "the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep"; but Adam and Eve and the Bible antediluvians did not live on Earth in that age and the Bible beyond Genesis 1:2 does not speak of it again. By contrast, native Australians refer to this purple age as a "dream time" which their traditions recall vividly, and Amerind oral traditions speak of it as well.

All of these are the kinds of things which make deep and overwhelming impressions on people and which nobody ever totally forgets about, no matter how many ages pass by afterwards. The fact that the Bible and Midrashim do not know anything about any of them has to indicate that neither the Bible antediluvians nor any of their ancestors if they had any, ever experienced them.

---

The neat thing about Cro Magnon hunting weapons is that you don't have to guess as to what they looked like or how they worked...

Hunting fruit bats with a boomarang

Picture being a Beretta salesman and having to try to sell that guy a shotgun.....

Hunting kangaroos with atlatls (woomera in native Australian language)

[ravenwolf]

Unlike many people, i believe there being two or two parts of the creation because the Bible appears to be describing that

I realize that lots of Church denominations are now going along with science because science is of the world, not because they read it in the bible.

---

then you should at least have the common decency not to pretend your ideas are somehow more “scientific” than science.

---

I said nothing about any of my ideas being scientific, did you read it? i said i did not put much stock in this type of science.

And the more i read from people who are pretending to be scientists the less stock i put in it.

[ravenwolf]

The conclusion I come to is that there had to have been at least two saltations of modern humans on this planet, that is, the Cro Magnons who got here at some point before there was even light on the planet, and the familiar Bible antediluvians starting with Adam and Eve.

---

Like i may have mentioned, i believe in the Bible first, according to the Bible God made light long before he made man.

As far as the rest of it goes there would not be room in our minds if God would have told us every thing.

[SunkenCiv]

Neandertal DNA isn’t “almost exactly halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee.” Claiming that it is merely regurgitates a falsehood, and all falsehoods come from Satan.

[SunkenCiv]

None of those analogies are applicable.

[BroJoeK]

ravenwolf: "I realize that lots of Church denominations are now going along with science because science is of the world, not because they read it in the bible."

I think you could go back even before the Age of Enlightenment -- i.e., our Founding Fathers -- to theological philosophers like St. Aquinas, St. Augustine, and even the pagan Aristotle and there you will see distinctions drawn between scientific "materialism" and religious spiritualism.
They are two separate realms, the truths of one not necessarily relating to those of the other.

I mentioned before, Genesis is all about the spiritual relationship between imperfect, sinful mankind and Almighty God.
That same idea could be told any number of different ways, metaphorically, historically, even scientifically, and it still comes out meaning the same thing.
So no scientific theory, no archaeological discovery, no historical revisionism can ever possibly change that idea, because the idea is not about those things -- instead it's about God's love and promise, mankind's sin and downfall, and eventually His offer of salvation.

Nothing science theorizes or hypothesizes can change that, FRiend.
And that's why most Christian churches don't get all worked up and excited by every new scientific discovery or theory.

ravenwolf: "And the more i read from people who are pretending to be scientists the less stock i put in it."

All the people "pretending to be scientists" on these threads are anti-evolutionists pretending they have some "scientifically" based ideas to discredit evolution theory.
In fact, their bottom line is always that evolution does not fit into their particular interpretations of Genesis and other biblical verses, and that's why anti-evolutionists consider it wrong.

[ravenwolf]

Nothing science theorizes or hypothesizes can change that, FRiend.
And that’s why most Christian churches don’t get all worked up and excited by every new scientific discovery or theory.

---

You are right, i do not get excited about any thing the scientists discover, even the dinosaur discovered frozen in the ice ( according to what i heard ) simply because i already knew about them on account of the tracks they left.

But how does it get to be that the scientists are so acquainted with the extinct creatures including cave men or even before the cave men?

The way they talk you would think they knew the personal lives of the ones who was here 25 to 60 thousand years ago.

It seems ridiculous to me because we do not even know anything about each other.

For instance you may think you know me but i will guarantee you do not know me.

And the same goes for me, i do not know as much about my wife, my brother or best friend as these people seems to know about these creatures that they have given a name to.

So when some one talks about this subject as if it were proven facts i take it with a grain of salt.

I think some one may have seen a hundred head of cattle drink out of a wash tub, but i would take it with a grain salt and if some one told me they had seen five thousand head drink out of a wash tub i would say it was rubbish.

[BroJoeK]

varmintman: "•You've got your links backwards."

You are correct. Here are the corrected links:

"The nucleotide diversity between humans is estimated to be in the range of 0.1%, which is 1 difference per 1,000 base pairs[6] to 0.4%....

"It is estimated that a total of 10 to 30 million SNPs exist in the human population"

Note that .1% to .4% difference is 3 million to 12 million alleles among humans.
Also note those 30 million SNPs among humans.

"At roughly 3.2 billion base pairs,[3] the Neanderthal genome is about the size of the modern human genome.
According to preliminary sequences, 99.7% of the base pairs of the modern human and Neanderthal genomes are identical..."

Note that .3% difference corresponds to roughly 10 million base pairs between humans and Neanderthals.

varmintman: "•You're claiming that one is a larger number than three."

That is incorrect, but if you can quote my words which suggest such a thing to you, I'll explain what they really mean.

varmintman: "•You're using a hypothesis which takes "junk" DNA into account for the human-chimp difference but not for the human-Neanderthal difference i.e. you're using an apples to bananas comparison."

That is incorrect, since all of these numbers are expressed in terms of percentages, i.e. .1% alleles, which apply regardless of whether we are looking at "active" or "junk" DNA.

6% alleles (not .6%) between humans and chimpanzees corresponds to 192 million base-pair differences -- or roughly 20 times the 9.6 million differences between humans and Neanderthals.
It is also at least 15 times the number of alleles among different modern humans.

varmintman: "Aside from that, it is well known that the human race has so little genetic diversity as to require a "bottleneck" which standard theories put around 45K years ago..."

The idea of a "bottleneck" is correct, but not 45k years ago:

"Research on many genes finds different coalescence points from 2 million years ago to 60,000 years ago when different genes are considered, thus disproving the existence of more recent extreme bottlenecks (i.e., a single breeding pair).[3][6]

"On the other hand, in 2000, a Molecular Biology and Evolution paper suggested a transplanting model or a 'long bottleneck' to account for the limited genetic variation, rather than a catastrophic environmental change.[7]
This would be consistent with suggestions that in sub-Saharan Africa numbers could have dropped at times as low as 2,000, for perhaps as long as 100,000 years, before numbers began to expand again in the Late Stone Age[8]"

varmintman: "the difference between humans and Neanderthals is comparatively gigantic."

The genetic differences between Neanderthals and modern humans is consistent with common ancestors in North Africa circa 500,000 years ago and/or interbreeding in Europe as recently as 30,000 years ago.

DNA differences (% of alleles) between humans and Neanderthals is smaller than the number DNA differences among modern human beings.

varmintman: "Again a Neanderthal footprint, and that item is real and not hypothetical: "

Neanderthal's big fat footprints look to me like cold-adaptation for the long ice-ages in Europe.
Here are some footprint comparisons:

varmintman: "Can you really look at that and try to claim that there's more difference between you and me than there is between either of us and whoever made that footprint???"

Only if you are, perchance, a Pygmy from Africa or maybe Aborigine from Australia.
If you are of European descent, then our genes are much more closely related to each other than they are to anyone else, including Neanderthals.
But there is less known genetic diversity separating us from Neanderthals than from some other human beings.

Finally, here again are some realistic represenatations of what Neanderthals looked like:

[null and void]

I realize that lots of Church denominations are now going along with science because science is of the world, not because they read it in the bible.

If God wanted us to live in Bible World, we could still breed ringstraked, speckled, and spotted sheep with nothing more than peeled sticks.

Try it and report back to us, 'mkay?

[null and void]

Cro Magnons who got here at some point before there was even light on the planet

They had eyes because why, again?

[ravenwolf]

They had eyes because why, again?

---

Its funny enough with out the riddles.

[ravenwolf]

If God wanted us to live in Bible World, we could still breed ringstraked, speckled, and spotted sheep with nothing more than peeled sticks.

Try it and report back to us, ‘mkay?

---

I am not interested in doing that, but i imagine that with a few miscalculations here or there or a few hidden facts or a few assumptions called facts you could most likely do a lot better job than i could even think of..

[null and void]

*sigh* You can’t possibly be that dense, can you?

It’s not a riddle.

It is a serious question. Why would a critter living before there was any light have eyes?

In the total nonexistence of light eyes are a major liability, easily injured, easily infected, and a straight path to the brain for any number of parasites and pathogens.

In the total nonexistence of light a Cro-Magnon wouldn’t even know to blink to keep sand out.

Do try to think through the implications of what you assert, it’s much more intellectually honest than having to pretend to ridicule a serious point when someone points out an obvious non sequitur.

I ask again, if light had never existed, why would eyes exist?

I would like to think that you really can do better than to dismiss the question.

Unless you can’t, In which case please do feel free to mock the question and/or ignore it.

[null and void]

My facts are well hidden in Genesis, chapter 30, verses 37, 38 and 39.

Perhaps you’ve actually read the book?

My guess is in the unlikely event of you knowing the passage, you would be loathe to defy God by following His instructions to see if they work.

That would, after all be Blasphemy most foul. (At least in your own mind).

[null and void]

Oh, and the final kicker?

I’d be willing to bet a goodly sum that if one followed the Biblical instructions there would be more particolored offspring than otherwise.

[Just mythoughts]

Headline is a statement of FACT ....”Neanderthals and human lived side by side in Middle Eastern caves and even interbred”

Then the ‘real’ story is couched in a big fat ‘may have’....

“Neanderthals may have lived side by side with early humans and possibly interbred with them, according to new research.”

The so called ‘neanderthals’ are not the missing link or keys to the so called transition of species. I do get it with the insanity of liberalism on display around this globe, modern scientific methodology can and has claimed just about anything to make their TOE credible.

[ravenwolf]

Perhaps you’ve actually read the book?

---

Yep, i have read it, but since i don,t raise sheep or goats i don,t know any thing about it, you thought of it so why don,t you try it?

And i have also read Ezekiel 1:4-28 and i believe there may be something to that also, but several people have come up with drawings that they thought was what Ezekiel was describing and they were all different, but even if every one got them the same and they actually constructed a flying saucer it would not fly because they would know nothing about the spirit of the thing, the thing that makes it tick.

The space scientists have proven space travel by their product but we would prove nothing by the construction of the likeness of Ezekiels space ship.

The archaeologist scientists have come up with what they believe is prehistoric man.

The foot bone connected to the ankle bone, the ankle bone connected to the shin bone, the shin bone connected to the knee bone.

Even if they did not get the bone of one creature connected to the wrong creature where do they get the facial expressions, the smiles ,etc on these ape men?

It would be just like Christians trying to build a space ship with out having any idea of the inner workings of the machine , the spirit.

Also please note that i only mentioned the Bible to explain to you why i take evolution with a grain of salt, i am not trying to prove to you that the Bible has the real facts, it makes no difference to me and i have nothing to prove, which i could not prove any way.