Replies

Neanderthal DNA turns out to be almost exactly halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee That's a fact, regardless of how many times SunkenCiv or anyboy else might deny it or call me a liar for stating it. There is also the question of Neanderthal footprints, which are very definitely not human:

That's from the Natural History Museum in Prague.

The Neanderthal was the absolute apex predator of ice-age Europe and had spread out to other regions as well, particularly the Levant. He walked on two feet, made stone implements and weapons including thrusting spears, scrapers, and knives, and was certainly more intelligent than any other creature in his environment prior to the arrival of modern humans although it's been noted that some of his physiology and behavior resembled that of big cats more than that of humans:

http://thesubversivearchaeologist.blogspot.com/2011_11_20_archive.html

So, I thought I'd do a wee comparison between a modern day "top" carnivore and our cousin's, the Neanderthal, face. Do you see what I see in the image below? It looks as if the felid and the Neanderthal face have more in common than either has with the modern human.
The lion has a keen sense of smell. Which of the bipedal cousins do you think has the better sense of smell? Relative to the rest of the face, the big cat has a nasal aperture that's equivalent in size to that of the Neanderthal. Not so that of the modern-day hominid on the right.
A cat can spot its prey from 3 km away. Can you? Do you think the Neanderthal could?
The cat has dagger-like fangs and molar teeth that would put a deli meat-slicer to shame. "Aha!" you might say, "that chap from Forbes quarry couldn't be as effective as the lion--it doesn't have the appropriate dental accoutrements!" Umm. It's possible, isn't it, that all those flint flakes lying about came in handy for more than whittling?

Gargett also notes that if you try to draw a human-like Neanderthal with the eyes and nose as large as the bones indicate they would have to be, what you end up with is outlandish:

Given all of that, people were starting to wonder if in fact Neanderthals might have had fur coats and the astonishing answer to all such questions has arrived in the form of a massive study by a New Zealand scholar by the name of Danny Vendramini and may be viewed at a website (www.themandus.org) and a youtube video.

What Vendramini noticed early on is something which scholars should have figured out a hundred years ago i.e. that Neanderthal skulls, other than for much larger brain area, are a very good match for primate profiles and a very bad match for ours:

Vendramini's reconstructions take all of that into account as well as the much larger (than ours) eye sockets and nasal areas and, again, the results are startling (Some images without the 6" ice-age fur coat for illustration purposes):

The most startling thing about the creature is the eyes. Dinosaurs had eyes like that as do several very old kinds of animals, lemurs, tarsiers, bush babies and possibly one or two others. Vendramini assumes the eyes were adapted for nocturnal hunting but we have nocturnal creatures in our present world which don't have anything like those kinds of eyes and my own guess is that those eyes were adapted to a world which never experienced anything which we'd call daylight at all.

In sharp contrast to all of that, Cro Magnon artwork shows the earliest humans on the planet to look entirely like us:

Judge for yourself whether you think there'd be any possibility of humans and Neanderthals "interbreeding(TM)".....

Judge for yourself also which of the two creatures (Neanderthal or human) would be better fit for taking on mammoths and wooly rhinos with thrusting spears.....

Maybe some of the Neanderthals had fur coats--made from bearskins, perhaps--but others wore good Republican cloth coats.

I'm not saying that Pat Nixon was a Neanderthal, mind you.

I can,t call you a liar because i don,t know exactly what you are saying.

Also i take with a grain of salt what scientists say on many things.

Science starts either by accident or theory and is usually built on from there, for instance the idea of the air plane most likely started with a theory, we now have the airplane but how many theories were tried and failed before one was proven.

Archaeology is a different can of worms because there is no way of knowing if they got every thing to gather right because there is no end product.

Or how do they prove that what they call the conclusion is like the real thing.

Neanderthal DNA turns out to be almost exactly halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee

This would indicate that the Neanderthal was half man and half monkey which would contradict the idea that man came from the Neanderthal.

He walked on two feet, made stone implements and weapons including thrusting spears, scrapers, and knives, and was certainly more intelligent than any other creature in his environment prior to the arrival of modern humans

If he was half man and half monkey as the dna suggests then he could not have been here before man, i think the scientists have gotten so overloaded on information that it has crossed their wires.

I believe Archaeology scientists are a lot like the climate scientists in the sense that they do a lot of assuming due to information that may have been false in the first place and no product to prove them right or wrong.

Personally i believe there were two parts of the creation, the first part on the sixth day God created man and woman.

Gen1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

God rested on the seventh day and it was after that that he made Adam and Eve.

Just my theory.

Judge for yourself whether you think there'd be any possibility of humans and Neanderthals "interbreeding(TM)".....

I never said it would be a "consensual relationship™".

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.