Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Your Forefathers Were Not Neanderthals'
IOL ^ | 1-26-2004 | Maggie Fox

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.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: archaeology; crevolist; eve; forefathers; ggg; godsgravesglyphs; helixmakemineadouble; history; morphology; multiregionalism; neandertal; neanderthals; not; paleontology; replacement; were; wolpoff
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 321-339 next last
To: blam
There's a problem with analyzing the skeletal features of a child that age -- they aren't fully developed and can lead to false interpretations. That's why there is controversy surrounding that particular find.
61 posted on 01/27/2004 10:15:51 AM PST by Junior (Some people follow their dreams. Others hunt theirs down and beat them mercilessly into submission)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
Have you seen the actual evidence? Most of the fossil evidence for "pre-humans" won't even cover a coffee table

You must have quite a large coffee table.
62 posted on 01/27/2004 10:16:08 AM PST by whattajoke (Neutiquam erro.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
The Earth was created perfect, man rebelled, so God's creation began to degenerate. Genetic mutations + bottleneck effects could have easily lead to degenrate forms of "humanity" after the fall. My faith actually expects to see hominid type forms that are not quite human but close.

Huh? Please explain further.
63 posted on 01/27/2004 10:18:55 AM PST by whattajoke (Neutiquam erro.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
ping the crew, if you see fit.
64 posted on 01/27/2004 10:19:22 AM PST by whattajoke (Neutiquam erro.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
Not at all, 'whatever' is just an easy way to inform you that you've been dismissed..


65 posted on 01/27/2004 10:22:18 AM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but the U.S. Constitution defines a conservative. (writer 33)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
You must have quite a large coffee table.

No, not really, actual "bone evidence" of these "pre-humans" are few and far between and consist most of a chip of "skull" here or a peice of "fermur" there. You want to base your understanding of "human evolution" on a chip here or a bone there - go ahead.

66 posted on 01/27/2004 10:22:31 AM PST by realpatriot71 (legalize freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
Huh? Please explain further.

It was a simple statement. What did you not understand?

67 posted on 01/27/2004 10:23:02 AM PST by realpatriot71 (legalize freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Not at all, 'whatever' is just an easy way to inform you that you've been dismissed..

I see :-) Then I dismiss you as well. Go in peace.

68 posted on 01/27/2004 10:24:11 AM PST by realpatriot71 (legalize freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
The only answerable question is whether every individual can be unambiguously assigned to one population or the other, based upon morphology. But my understanding is that that's been the case for a long time.

This is mostly true but not totally. The Lagar Velho child was originally thought to be a hybrid. Some now argue that it only shows that very young Neanderthals were less robust-looking and different from us than the adults. There are also some specimens from 90-100kya, the Skuhl site in Israel, which are overall classified as early modern. Nevertheless, one or two have some "Neanderthalish" features which may result from then-current crossbreeding with Neanderthals or may just represent "atavistic" variations within that population.

DNA studies with nuclear DNA would be best, but nuclear DNA is much harder to recover than mtDNA.

69 posted on 01/27/2004 10:30:56 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Cowgirl
Kent Hovind-

Oh come on, please bring on papers and arguments from Hovind. I could use a good laugh today.

70 posted on 01/27/2004 10:31:13 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
ping the crew, if you see fit.

Done, way back at post 26.

71 posted on 01/27/2004 10:31:22 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Hic amor, haec patria est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
The Bible is a theological work with historical overtones. It is neither a history book nor a biology text.

Two of the most annoying things about this whole debate:

First, question evolution and the response is never to address the points brought up but to burn a bible. Many times, the points have nothing to do with the bible, but are valid scientific questions.

Second, the use of the bible as a basis for scientific truth. The bible is simply not meant as a basis for science.

72 posted on 01/27/2004 10:33:26 AM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
Most of the fossil evidence for "pre-humans" won't even cover a coffee table,

Your coffee table must be a lot bigger than mine.

73 posted on 01/27/2004 10:44:39 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
"Many times, the points have nothing to do with the bible, but are valid scientific questions."

Name one.
74 posted on 01/27/2004 10:46:25 AM PST by ZULU (Remember the Alamo!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
Not at all, 'whatever' is just an easy way to inform you that you've been dismissed.

Correct. The Bible is not a science textbook, and should not be used as such. However, Creation (which science studies), should point back to a Creator and His Word, the Bible. And to a person of faith, Creation does point back to a Creator. Unfrotunately, evolution as a means to origins intentionally uses the "unknown" to promote a specific theory, which works out beautifully because nothing can be shown confidently correct nor incorrect. The theory behind evolution is merely conjecture based on the objective evidence we have today - however - God is never considered, therefore evolution MUST come up with a way for life to have evolved from mere chemicals to rational, thinking minds. What's interesting here is that in order to begin a theory like this, one must first reject a Creator, then comes the conjecture. The devious thing about the theory is that once in place it can then be used to persuade those who believe, not to believe. Evolution attacks faith every chance it gets when ironically it has to be taken on faith itself by its own believers.

75 posted on 01/27/2004 10:48:27 AM PST by realpatriot71 (legalize freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
see reply #66
76 posted on 01/27/2004 10:49:26 AM PST by realpatriot71 (legalize freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
Would Jesus' moral message be any less powerful if humans evolved from single-celled organisms?

Yes, he himself refers to Adam. That would either make him misinformed and finite in his knowledge and therefore less than God or it would make him a liar.

77 posted on 01/27/2004 10:55:05 AM PST by Frapster (John 3:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
what link? It's more like most of the chain that is missing ... and we have a link here or there, from which evolutionary scientists "construct" the rest of the chain. There is no fossil record that backs up evolution...it's a myth.
78 posted on 01/27/2004 10:57:15 AM PST by Gerasimov ( <a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com" target="_blank">miserable failure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Frapster
Yes, he himself refers to Adam.

I refer to the "Boy Who Cried Wolf." That doesn't necessarily mean the young fellow actually existed. References to Adam could simply be a method of illustrating a point that would be recognizeable to His listeners.

79 posted on 01/27/2004 10:59:39 AM PST by Junior (Some people follow their dreams. Others hunt theirs down and beat them mercilessly into submission)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: blam
If humans and neanderthals ever interbred you'd think there'd be more evidence of it than one or two questionable children's skeletons. That seems to be grasping.
80 posted on 01/27/2004 10:59:41 AM PST by greenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 321-339 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson