Posted on 01/27/2004 8:08:04 AM PST by blam
'Your forefathers were not Neanderthals'
January 26 2004 at 02:30PM
By Maggie Fox
Washington - You may think your grandparents act like Neanderthals, but United States researchers said on Monday they had strong evidence that modern humans are not descended from them.
A computer analysis of the skulls of modern humans, Neanderthals, monkeys and apes shows that we are substantially different, physically, from those early humans.
New York University paleoanthropologist Katerina Harvati said Neanderthals should be considered a separate species from Homo sapiens, and not just a sub-species.
"We interpret the evidence presented here as supporting the view that Neanderthals represent an extinct human species and therefore refute the regional continuity model for Europe," she and colleagues wrote in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Some anthropologists believe that Neanderthals, who went extinct 30 000 years ago, may have at least contributed to the ancestry of modern Europeans.
There is strong evidence that Homo sapiens neanderthalis, as they are known scientifically, interacted with the more modern Cro-Magnons, who eventually displaced them. Cro-Magnons are the ancestors of modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens.
Some research has suggested they may have interbred to a limited degree, although this is hotly disputed in anthropological circles.
At least one study that looked at fragments of Neanderthal DNA suggested any Neanderthal-Cro-Magnon offspring did not add to the modern gene pool.
Harvati and colleagues combined modern computer technology and the tried-and-true method of determining species that uses physical comparisons.
They examined the skulls of modern humans and Neanderthals and 11 existing species of non-human primates including chimpanzees, gorillas and baboons.
They measured 15 standard skull and face landmarks and used 3-D analysis to superimpose each one on the other.
"From these data, we were able to determine how much variation living primate species generally accommodate, as well as measure how different two primate species that are closely related can be," Harvati said in a statement.
Their computer analyses showed that the differences measured between modern humans and Neanderthals were significantly greater than those found between subspecies of living monkeys and apes.
I believe that all life was created in the age range specified. However, dating techniques such C-14 dating are, admittedly, only accurate to about ~50,000 years (some may argue this, but no one tries to use C-14 dating for anything older than 200,000 years), and this is assuming that the ratio of C-14 to C-12 has been constant over the 50,000 year time period. If the atmosphere, pre-flodd, was as the Bible suggests, then it only makes sense that current C-14 dating will be off. I can understand why people believe the dating techniques, taking what can be objectively seen today and extrapolating. However, it is just that, a conjecture an extrapolation. The calculations are not wrong, just misunderstood. Fossils older than 50k are generally dated according to the layer of Earth within which they were found - ironically science dates much of the geologic collumn according to the fossils found there.
How could such changes occur so quickly? Based on that view, we should have seen significant changes to humans in the last 2000 years or so, but we haven't.
You have seen significant changes, according to the Bible man lived almost 1000 in a lifetime, but now seems limited to 120 years postflood, also predicted by the Bible. Also according to evolutionary theory "positive genetic changes" take eons, but we can objectively see everyday that "negative genetic changes" occur quite rapidly - think Down's Syndrome. The reason for the continuation of the "average" man is that we reproduce regularly with a God-given system of sexual recombination. It's worked reasonably well so far, but if you look at human DNA you see a lot more that's useless than useful.
Hyracotherium is barely more specialized than a small, late condylarth. Condylarths are the likely ancestors of the even-and-odd toed ungulates and perhaps a few other groups, I forget.
Just to be clear, Christianity has never claimed to be about "Jesus' moral message," at least not as its central principal. While the "moral message" is an important corollary that follows from the Gospel, It is not the Gospel itself. Christianity is first of all about God's perfection, our sin, his forgiveness, our response to His forgiveness.
I suspect most folks that object to evolution do so because it is difficult to reconcile theologically with standard, historic Christianity, which clearly teaches:
God created the world perfect,
Man rejected God,
bringing judgement, death and suffering into the world.
So people have a hard time with a God that chooses a system of cruelty and brutality to bring about a "good" creation.
When I speak of "Creator" I mean the one and only God of the Bible. This Holy Being is completely different from other religion's god(s). So, one does have to reject the God of the Bible, BUT you're right, one does not have to completely rule out a "creator, aliens, lifeforce, whatever" to make a paradigm of their "origin of man" work.
Modernman's 101 gives a nice summary of the overall history with this site. From the fossil you get a picture of a tree of a tree structure with extinctions and new branchings. Again, the earliest horses aren't very horselike and are very little specialized or "derived" from the ancestral condylarth line. Later species are increasingly specialized and on some branches are more like modern horses. Common descent is not a great leap of inference, here.
No need to reject the creator even as you see it. There is only need to reject literalism and inerrancy in the Bible. The two are not tied.
By the way, the early part of Genesis was polytheistic.
BUT it definitely wasn't created" should finish the quote. Evolution as an explanation to origin to life on this planet is athiestic, meaning God is not considered. The theory makes no real statement reagrding God whatsoever, but is clear that it explains everything with or without a God. Evolutionary theory is not trying, actively, to get rid of God, but for all practical purposes that is exactly what it does - explains away God to those who chose not to take the time to investigate the issue themsleves.
Yeppers - look at any of the Catholic v. Protestant theological debates that crop up on FR from time to time, the rhetoric is similar to the Crevo threads. Furthermore, the creationists should not act as if their sh!t doesn't stink because the same "morally superior" attitude is displayed by both sides of this deabte. You cannot engage in an intellectually honest discussion over an issue with which both parties disagree if one sides sees the other as "stupid, ignorant, lost, etc." - if this is one's attitude, you're not in the discussion to exchange ideas, but to tear down anothers cherished beliefs. Always remember, you catch more flies with honey.
Personally, I'm looking for intellectual honesty. Unfortunately too many people get so caught up in their dogma to admit when they are wrong or admit the possibility for an alternative explanation. It's this kind of thinking that lead to the Inquistitions and the Killing Fields of Cambodia for example.
Stumpy::"Is a series of horses possessing progressively fewer and fewer toes an example of change overtime?"
Bright Eyes.: "Yes, of course"
Stumpy.:" And is it an example of complexity arising from simplicity through generation of new genes through mutation?"
Bright Eyes.: "Well, no, not really."
Stumpy: "So is it 'evolution'?"
Bright Eyes.: "Uh...., well, it depends on what you mean by the term 'evolution','".
Stumpy: " Exactly."
Everyone believes in "evolution", ("change over time") including the most ardent fire-breathing creationists, who believe that Africans, Asians and Swedes all descend form Noah.
So "evos" should understand that demonstrating "change" in and of itself doesn't advance their argument. It must be change of a very specific type. The sequence of "Horse-Toes" doesn't cut it. You need simplicity---->complexity, not the other way 'round.
One of the major creationist criticisms of evolution is that it cannot be observed as it is happening. I'm just asking for an example of degeneration in action, since it should be easily observable in action. Are we seeing new, less-perfect sub-species of humans arising? Also, in connection to your biblical claim that people used to live 1000+ years, your only basis for that is the Bible. If creationism is to be more credible than evolution, it cannot have the same flaws that creationists accuse evolution of having.
It's worked reasonably well so far, but if you look at human DNA you see a lot more that's useless than useful.
Or, there is a large percentage of the human genome whose purpose we do not yet understand.
Yes.
What do you mean by "fossil dispersion"? Strategraphic dispersion or geographical dispersion or temporal dispersion?
Yes -- the question of whether all the bones belong together.
It says a lot about our understanding of the morphology of the species in question and the competency of the scientist involved. It says nothing about the basic concepts here.
It does when the basic concepts are confirmed or denied by spurious fossil combinations.
Even people like me who believe in evolution, do not disbelieve in Divine Creation.
My point is seldom communicated effectively, but here goes: Creation is not a theory, it is faith. I disagree with those who want to come up with a scientific basis for creation, because the creation of the bible is a supernatural event. Science is a way of observing the natural, it cannot be used to observe the supernatural. You can't draw scientific conclusions about the supernatural.
Whether evolution is a sound, viable theory does not contradict the creation story of how man and the universe came into being. Evolution can be completely correct from the standpoint of how things work, and exactly wrong from the standpoint of what really happened.
And I simply cannot find evolution to be scientifically sound. Its adherents spend far too much time attacking creation and not nearly enough time addressing the shortcomings of evolution.
Correct one needs to reject the literalism and inerrancy of the Bible, but to do so is to reject the God of the Bible, as the Word is his communication with a fallen world. God does NOT change, but humans have sure tried to change Him.
By the way, the early part of Genesis was polytheistic.
No it isn't.
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.