'Your Forefathers Were Not Neanderthals'

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.

Actually, I'm making a distinction. The differences you pointed out do not make a difference one way or the other as far the relationship of "man to God and God to man" which is really the heart of Christianity. It doesn't matter if bat equaled bird to the Hewbrew writers, what mattered was the relationship. Destroying the creation story is not only not taking the Bible literally, it is completely marring the image of God as the loving creator of life and man. It destroys the reason for man's existance as desrcibed by the Bible, and this is why the Genesis story needs to be taken literally. I pick and chose nothing.

You have set criteria for it, but you are still picking and choosing. How would a god be any less loving if he'd set in motion the process of evolution (and cosmology, etc.) as his mechanism of creation?

As I already pointed out, the Bible describes exactly this occuring, only it also follows the history of the Monothesistic worshipers of the only Holy God, the Creator. I already told you that all apostate religion began after the flood from ...

That's your interpretation and conjecture from the Bible, not following actual history. Judaism/Christianity grew from primitive polytheistic societies, just as Islam did. This was a vast improvement.

Even humanists are heart are monotheistic, because, "I am God," right? Think about it.

No, humanists are at heart atheistic. Your worldview that there needs to be a god somewhere is not accepted by all.

Both Creationists and Postmodernists claim special knowledge that is superior to scientific inquiry and this special knowledge is to be preferred in the case of conflict?

Postmodernism I don't know.

I am sure from a nonbelieving point of view that is an accurate description. But there is a difference between what scientific inquiry reveals and what it implies. Gravity, F=MA, V=IR, are all observable. Macroevolution is not. The Big Bang is not.

It is like sitting in a room and seeing strong light come through the door. A reasonable assumption may be that it is morning, but if you can't see out the door you don't really know if it is morning or strong artificial light.

I don't reject science, I count on it. But for some things, there will always be missing data. I can't trace my genealogy back 30,000 years or even 3000. Maybe 300 with many, many holes.

Those who claim to know with absolute scientific certainty the origin of the universe and the origin of man are abusing science. Science stops speaking and they babble on endlessly. However you may put it, the supposition of the supernatural supercedes science. It isn't a question science can address except in the directly observable.

"Special knowledge" may be complete gibberish, or it may be exactly correct. Science can only judge special knowledge when it claims to affect something science can observe.

If I claim that my special knowledge enables me to step in front of a moving bus, then science may safely conclude my special knowledge was wrong as it mops up my quite mashed carcass.

If on the other hand, I claim that I will go to heaven when I die, and that neither heaven nor my going there has an observable effect on the natural world, science has no dog in that fight. Nothing is observable.

That is why I don't buy creation science. I believe that if faith was observable, it wouldn't be faith.

In either case you don't really know. Regardless of how much evidence you accumulate, you are just making your best interpretation of the data. The science you are dismissing has hundreds of independent lines of evidence accumulated over hundreds of years, with tens of thousands of people adding their critical thoughts to the interpretation.

And actually, transmutation within a given species does not show an ability of evolution from one kind to another to occur, only that sub-speciation can be observed. Evolution on a micro sense clearly happens. Man is growing taller, and as in the article you linked to, evening primroses are able to mutate over several generations of pollination. (they happen to be my favorite flower, BTW. Truly amazing.) But you cannot observe, recreate, or devise an experiment to study the plausibility of macro evolution, or the changing of one kind to another

I won't convince you, you won't convince me. The evolutionists inability to admit that the theory of evolution as the origin of any kind is no more of an empirical science than creation does leave me somewhat confused, though.

I admit that I cannot observe and study creation. Creationism is outside the realm of empirical science. Faith is a large element of my belief in creation. Why can't you admit that you cannot observe and study evolution of the type necessary to rise man from the muck? An evolutionist requires as much faith as a creationist does.

The science you are dismissing has hundreds of independent lines of evidence accumulated over hundreds of years, with tens of thousands of people adding their critical thoughts to the interpretation.

I realize there is a lot of evidence and a lot of smart, sincere people looking at it.

Evolution is probably as good a theory as they are going to be able to come up with, but the body of data is incredibly small compared to the scope of what you are dealing with.

I don't fault them for putting forward the theory or believing it to be a good one whatever my opinion may be. I do fault those who are rude and obnoxious to anyone showing any skepticism. And I am not really interested in debating evolution right now. My observation was just that many debates on evolution wind up as debates on the bible, and that just isn't right. If someone wants to pick apart evolution and pick on some aspect of it, that should be the topic of discussion, not Moses parting the Red Sea.

My observation was just that many debates on evolution wind up as debates on the bible, and that just isn't right.

I can agree with that. Many of the people who insisted on turning scientific debates into rants about the Bible are gone. Believe it or not, the tone of these discussions is much more civil than it was a few months ago.

there are some who get a bit short tempered when a poster willfully ignores the evidence and critical analysis of hundreds of years. Willful ignorance is not the same thing as rational debate. If you wish to go up against the authorities in a field, you must first know what they have to say and how they arrived at their conclusions.There have been many false statements put forth in these debates, such as the assertion that the full geological column does not exist anywhere in one piece. There are arguments about the speed with which water can cut through rock, unsupported by any experimental data. There are assertions that mutations cannot be beneficial, flying in the face of observed facts.

If someone wants to argue science, let them come to the table without the baggage of claims that have been discredited thousands of times.

You have set criteria for it, but you are still picking and choosing. How would a god be any less loving if he'd set in motion the process of evolution (and cosmology, etc.) as his mechanism of creation

As I have stated many times now one can place many different religious points of view as to origins with evolution. However, to insist on eons of evolution as science thinks it understands evolution, is completely inconcsistant with the God of Love found in the Bible - it creates contradictions within the text. So, in the face of an apparant contradiction, which cannot logically exist one must recheck one's premises. I'll keep it consistant and literal, and just because some idiots think God could have used evolution to bring about his creation, doesn't make that particular idea Christian or Bible based.

That's your interpretation and conjecture from the Bible, not following actual history. Judaism/Christianity grew from primitive polytheistic societies, just as Islam did. This was a vast improvement.

You're wrong. I've already explained how polytheism began in the world, and I already explained that there have always been monotheists following the true Holy God of the Bible throughout history. Monotheists, the minority, lived among the polytheists, the majority, so I can see how a simple mind sampling bits a pieces of history might conclude that polytheism came first. However, it is quite the opposite.

What I find interesting is that when I give you a reasonable explanation for mono vs. polytheism during the history of man, you completely discount anything I've said as not possible. Tell me why it's not possible, or agree to disagree because this topic is going nowhere fast.

No, humanists are at heart atheistic. Your worldview that there needs to be a god somewhere is not accepted by all.

So, to the humanist, who's the center of their "theology"? Man - themsleves - their religion is centered around the self, ie. the God is Self - monotheistic (Ha!), wether the humanist wants to admit it or not, they are their own God.

"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God" Ps. 14:1 - I think we've pretty much hashed this subject back and forth as much as we could. No sense in beating a dead horse.

So, in the face of an apparant contradiction, which cannot logically exist one must recheck one's premises.

If you start with the premise that inconsistencies cannot exist within the Bible, then you run into serious logical problems when confronted with the multitude contained within it. If you start with the premise that the Bible was written by fallible human hands, then there is no conflict.

I've already explained how polytheism began in the world,

According to your interpretation of one inconsistent, scientifically innacurate book. Doesn't fly.

Tell me why it's not possible, or agree to disagree because this topic is going nowhere fast.

Look at the history of religion. The more advanced a society, the more it tends to lean towards monotheism. The multitude of gods that oversee the minutae of life start becoming too confusing and problematic as a society grows. Primitive socieites such as the ancient Jews are generally polytheistic, but over time start to become monotheistic, or become quickly monotheistic due to the introduction of a new religion. The strain of monotheism of which you speak may have been a minority sect within the tribe that had already advanced to monotheism, but the polytheism came first.

Here you make the gross mistake of calling it a religion, which then requires a god. It is not a religion, therefore has no god, including the "self." With the concept of God being so central to your life I realize you can't understand the concept of atheism, so you might as well just drop that.

If you start with the premise that inconsistencies cannot exist within the Bible, then you run into serious logical problems when confronted with the multitude contained within it.

There are no serious logical problems found within the Bible. For instance, your bat/bird point is not any problem as far as faith and practice goes, and tantamount to not reading a book because you found a mispelled word. It's a simplistic childish way to approach the Bible, but one I'm sure lets your feel quite smug and superior. The Bible is consistant when it matters, and you cannot find a case otherwise.

According to your interpretation of one inconsistent, scientifically innacurate book. Doesn't fly.

It's not MY interpretation it's exactly what the book says. Not only that it is a reasonable explantion for the polytheism we see today, regardless of what book it came from. The written language of the world all began about the same time, archeology will tell you this, which coincidently also dates to the time of the first written work of the Bible. So because every other culture was polytheistic in their writing this can only indicate a prima facie case of a polytheisic only civilization(s)? Hardly! Did you check your logic at the door? What I have pointed out is not irrational, but I can see how it could hurt your cherished "beliefs". Don't want anything to screw up the smugness nor the superiority.

ere you make the gross mistake of calling it a religion, which then requires a god. It is not a religion, therefore has no god, including the "self." With the concept of God being so central to your life I realize you can't understand the concept of atheism, so you might as well just drop that.

Humanism is a religion and it does have a god - Self - which ironically is the same god of Satan. I can understand atheism as a philosophy. I've read Nietzsche, Freud, Marx, Heidegger, Rand, Jefferson, Paine, etc. And athiesm at its core rejects god because "god," as defined by the individual, doesn't meet with the individual's own personal definition. So the atheist stomps his feet like a child (Whaaaah!), because "god" doesn't grant them their definition, and claims, "there is no 'god'". The atheist may not build an literal alter and worship themselves, but for all practical purposes the atheist is his own god.

"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God -- The wise man says it to the world."

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" Ps. 111:10

"The way of the fool is right in his own eyes; but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise" Prov. 12:15

"Every prudent man dealeth with knowledge: but a fool layeth open his own folly" Prov. 13:16

"The mouth of the foolish is a rod of pride: but the lips of the wise preserve them" Prov. 14:3

"A scoffer seeketh wisdom, and findeth it not: but knowledge is easy unto him that understandeth" Prov. 14:6

"A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident" Prov. 14:16

"The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness" Prov. 15:2

"A scoffer loveth not one that reproveth him: neither will he go unto the wise" Prov. 15:12

"Understanding is a wellspring of life unto him that hath it: but the instruction of fools is folly" Prov 16:22

"A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may disover itself" Prov. 18:2

"A fool's mouth is his destruction, and his lips are the snare of his soul" Prov. 16:7

"The foolishness of man perverteth his way: and his heart fretteth against the Lord" Prov. 19:3

The Lord has much to say on Widom and Foolishness. In fact, I expect the exact attitude you give me because the Lord has already addressed the issue. I'm done with this discussion because it is clear it ha reached it's end.

Think on these things. God Bless.

There are no serious logical problems found within the Bible. For instance, your bat/bird point is not any problem as far as faith and practice goes, and tantamount to not reading a book because you found a mispelled word

The Bible does have errors! Who is to say that your important parts are not errors, too? The contradictions are too numerous to mention here, and would practically require their own web site. If hundreds of volumes must be written to explain away all of the errors and inconsistencies in only one book using twisted logic and massive assumption, you'd think there are problems with that book.

The written language of the world all began about the same time, archeology will tell you this, which coincidently also dates to the time of the first written work of the Bible.

The beginnings of the Bible were written around 1500 BC, while the earliest written languages began around 3,300 B.C., and possibly earlier. There were entire libraries of written works a thousand years before Moses. The earliest stories in the Bible happened centuries before they were ever written down. Until then it was oral tradition.

Humanism is a religion and it does have a god - Self - which ironically is the same god of Satan.

Yes, you truly don't understand. Like they say, "If Atheism is a religion, then health is a disease." or, alternately, "...bald is a hair color." Realize that other people do not need the concept of a god in order to live a happy, productive life.

Oooooo, quote wars!

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen Roberts

"God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." -David Brooks

"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -Delos B. McKown

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." -Albert Einstein

"If God cannot be taken literally when He writes of the rising sun, then how can one insist that he be taken literally when writing of the rising of the Son?" - Professor Gerardus Bouw

"It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God, but to create him." --- Arthur C. Clarke

And my favorite: "If Jesus had been killed 20 years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little Electric Chairs around their necks instead of crosses" - Lenny Bruce

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.