'Your Forefathers Were Not Neanderthals'

IOL ^ | 1-26-2004 | Maggie Fox

[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.

[hopespringseternal]

Yeah, we know. And that, my friend, is the "point."

What would be the point? You want more points to ignore?

[Revolting cat!]

No, sorry, these "United States researchers" are not going to make a monkey out of this cat!

[js1138]

So those who go to Heaven give up their free will? I know this sounds like sarcasm, but when you speak of eternal life, it would be interesting to know whether it involves being lobotomized.

[Lazamataz]

Someone goes out to the Great Rift Valley, digs around in an old riverbed, and finds a bit of hominid skeleton. Maybe a femur. Then 1/2 mile away along that riverbed another researcher finds a hominid jawbone. And a third researcher 1/4 mile the other way finds some finger bones.

Okay, how are these guys so SURE that these are fossils from the SAME creature?

Easy. They usually find a Qu'ran nearby.

And you know how those Islamics like to blow themselves up.

[Modernman]

BUT it definitely wasn't created" should finish the quote

There is no need to go that far. Some evolutionists might think this way, but evolution theory really does not touch on the beginnings of life.

Evolution as an explanation to origin to life on this planet is athiestic, meaning God is not considered.

Atheism means disebelief in or the denial of the existence of a god or gods. Following your logic, any scientific theory that doesn't explicitly mention God is therefore atheistic. Evolution may be agnostic when it comes to the existence of a creator, since it does not come down one way or the other on the issue, but it is not atheistic.

Creationists accuse evolution of denying the existence of God even though evolution never sets out to determine the existence of God, one way or the other. It's not a fair criticism- would you also accuse Einstein of being an atheist because his theories never talk about 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.

Evolution cannot be blamed for things that are in no way tied to the theory.

[Lazamataz]

I believe in a special creation of life on this earth by God - recently - perhaps ~6000-10000 years ago.

Blasphemer! I believe G-d created the Earth exactly 21 seconds ago.

[whattajoke]

What would be the point? You want more points to ignore?

In an honest effort to display to you that I won't ignore your question(s) and/or point(s), I'll answer you. The point is that you're complaining no one is speaking to the creationist claims. To date, no creationist anyone on the earth has ever made a scientific claim. We are eagerly awaiting the first one and maybe you will make it. the answer to your second question is now self evident.

[whattajoke]

What would be the point? You want more points to ignore?

In an honest effort to display to you that I won't ignore your question(s) and/or point(s), I'll answer you. The point is that you're complaining no one is speaking to the creationist claims. To date, no creationist anyone on the earth has ever made a scientific claim. We are eagerly awaiting the first one and maybe you will make it. the answer to your second question is now self evident.

[ZULU]

Uhh, no.

They exercized their free will here to choose God, goodness and decency and will be rewarded with eternal salvation.

Much better than, uhh, the OTHER place.

[varon]

Your Forefathers Were Not Neanderthals`

Perhaps but my ex-mother-in-law certainly was ;-)

[js1138]

I'm just trying to figure out what you mean by rewarded.

And I'm troubled by the word "reward". That sounds like a payment for earthly good deeds. I thought that being saved was a gift, not nomething you earned.

[whattajoke]

I apologize, I see that you did make some points in your post to ZULU.

you ended it mentioning the "shortcomings of evolution." Now we're getting somewhere. Let's discuss them. What are they? (I know a few, but I figure I'll let you address those that concern you.)

And I applaud your recognition of what creationism is (faith) and I will not attack that. I only "attack" it when it IS presented as science.

[Modernman]

The sequence of "Horse-Toes" doesn't cut it. You need simplicity---->complexity, not the other way 'round.

I disagree. Complexity, in of itself, is not necessary for evolution to occur. Rather, what we're looking for is adaptation to the species' environment. A horse is a running machine and hooves are better suited for running than regular toes. The fact that a hoof is less "complex" is irrelevant. The fact that a hoof makes a horse a better runner is quite relevant.

[whattajoke]

from your profile:

"I'm a 25 year old medical student"

Can I be so bold as to ask where? (no answer necessary, just curious).

[hopespringseternal]

To date, no creationist anyone on the earth has ever made a scientific claim.

Oh, now that is funny. Did you intend to be humorous?

Ok, assuming all creationists are wild-eyed cargo-cultists...

[realpatriot71]

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.

Degeneration in action? Have you seen the kids today?! :-) Ok, seriously, sub-human species is VERY possible IMHO, but who knows. My point was look at the DNA, its full of junk - regions of no use, no longer coding, or even foriegn DNA such as what appears to be no longer functioning proviral genomes. Cancer is completely genetic at the root. You see one does not have to develop new subspecies of degenerates in order to point to the fall of man.

You are complete correct that I have no objective scientific evidence that man every lived 1000 year, BUT find me a man that lived longer than 120 years, you won't, and this WAS predicted by the Bible.

Creationism is not without it's own gaps. That's why Creationists at our core believe what we believe based on faith, and when scientific fact can reasonably point back to the Creator of the Bible that only increases our faith.

Complete proof will not be available in this world, in fact to prove creation and God would be to negate faith, which is core to the salvation of the lost. Not only this but proof, for all practical purposes, negates free choice, allowing for service out of fear of retribution, rather than service out of love.

Or, there is a large percentage of the human genome whose purpose we do not yet understand

It is quite possible that we don't understand enough of the genome to understand every bit of what we call "junk". However, we do know enough recognize real junk when we see it in the genome. As to anything else, its like "dark matter" - it exists we just don't know what the hell it is.

[ZULU]

The ability to be saved is a gift. Christ died to give us that gift. But some people reject it by selecting an evil lifestyle. Those who follow Christ and his teachings find that leads to achieving the salvation he suffered for.

I do not believe in predestination.

That's how I look at it, but then, I have a pretty simple mind when it comes to religion and am not a theologian.

[Junior]

In my humble opinion, you're reaching in an effort to bolster your rather tenuous position. But then again, what do I know?

[whattajoke]

me: To date, no creationist anyone on the earth has ever made a scientific claim.

you: Did you intend to be humorous?

me: No. You yourself admitted creationism is a faith. Creationists have certainly pretended to make such claims, but they are as scientific as Miss Cleo's claptrap.

[realpatriot71]

Not bad, not bad at all, go ahead and synthesize non-exitant quotes to put you opponent in a bad light.

I wasn't putting words into the responder's mouth, but rather giving the quote as seemed appropriate from my experience. Modernman, saw what I was getting at and wasn't indignant at all. I try to keep these discussions as honest as possible. BTW, where's your dog in this fight anyway?