'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.

[Modernman]

The Earth was created perfect, man rebelled, so God's creation began to degenerate.

How do you account for the existence of lifeforms that are much older than the 6-10 K range? Was the earth created 10K years ago, or just Man?

Furthermore, you're saying that Man, in his current state, was created first and then degenerated over time. 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.

[antiRepublicrat]

I just Googled this up. That's quite more than what you'd fit on a coffee table. There are some chips and small bones, but also a lot of larger collections.

What will blow your "evolution conspiracy" mind is that some of the claims for these fossils were rejected by the scientific community, only to be later accepted when corroborating evidence was found. They've learned their lesson from previous mistakes and are very critical of new claims supporting evolution of mankind.

[Junior]

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

What are your "valid scientific questions" and have they been addressed and dismissed on previous threads?

[hopespringseternal]

Read this thread.

Several scientific points have been made, and you responded with attacks on creationism. Physicist addressed one point in a manner pertinent to the subject. You didn't.

If I ask you about fossil dispersion, the response is entirely independent of what the bible says.

Whether a set of bones did indeed come from one creature or species says a lot about the credibility of the researcher, and very little about the bible.

"Scientific" dogma can be every bit as ruinous to science as religious dogma.

[antiRepublicrat]

What's interesting here is that in order to begin a theory like this, one must first reject a Creator, then comes the conjecture.

No, they have to reject ancient tribal beliefs about how the world started, handed down through generations of oral tradition, mixed with slightly less ancient beliefs, and eventually put into text.

They do not have to reject the creator itself.

[Modernman]

Danggit! Now I have to see that pic every time I check "my comments" for the next day or so. :-)

I think the kid's kind of cute. Like seeing a picture of a long-lost family member.

[antiRepublicrat]

Furthermore, you're saying that Man, in his current state, was created first and then degenerated over time. 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.

Furthermore, according to the hypothesis you'd think we'd find the most degenerate (primitive) forms in more recent strata and carbon dated more recently as the degeneration continues.

[hopespringseternal]

What are your "valid scientific questions" and have they been addressed and dismissed on previous threads?

I am making a comment on the threads I have seen. Why don't you show me where you have addressed the points in this thread? I see a pattern here, and neither side is without blame. The evolutionists respond to nearly every legitimate point with the nonsequitur of scorn for religion. The creationists try to torture science (nature) into explaining the supernatural.

[blam]

Neanderthal Extinction Pieced Together

By Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News

Cro-Magnon vs. Neanderthal

Jan. 27, 2004 — In a prehistoric battle for survival, Neanderthals had to compete against modern humans and were wiped off the face of the Earth, according to a new study on life in Europe from 60,000 to 25,000 years ago.

The findings, compiled by 30 scientists, were based on extensive data from sediment cores, archaeological artifacts such as fossils and tools, radiometric dating, and climate models. The collected information was part of a project known as Stage 3, which refers to the time period analyzed.

The number three also seems significant in terms of why the Neanderthals became extinct. One of the scientists involved in the research told Discovery News that a combination of three factors did the Neanderthals in.

"My general take on Neanderthal extinction was that they were in competition with anatomically modern humans at a time when there was increasing severe cold stress that was not only affecting them, but also the food resources they relied on," said Leslie Aiello, head of the University College London Graduate School, and an expert on Neanderthal response to weather.

Neanderthals appear to have tolerated temperatures as cold as zero degrees Fahrenheit, but during the last ice age, winter temperatures dipped to well below freezing. In order to cope, Neanderthals would have needed a lot more food than they were used to obtaining in winter.

"The costs of maintaining internal heat production at the required levels would have only been possible if Neanderthals were able to sustain a correspondingly high level of dietary energy intake," explained Aiello, adding that anatomically modern humans were better at dealing with the cold.

Early Homo sapiens, such as a group called the Gravettians that arose in Europe before the Neanderthals became extinct around 30,000 years ago, were loaded with the latest in prehistoric high tech.

They wore warm clothing made of fur and woven materials, lived in enclosed dwellings, and used effective weapons to ensnare animals and fish.

Paul Pettitt, a Neanderthal expert at the University of Sheffield who agrees with the new study findings, said, "(Gravettian) toolkits reveal a very sophisticated range of weaponry."

He said Neanderthals used spears that required close range contact with their prey, such as hyenas. Neanderthals probably thrust spears, like bayonets, into animals. Gravettians were better equipped.

"Far from general purpose spears deployed in the hand, we now see specialist projectile weapons (javelins) perhaps thrown with the aid of spearthrowers to increase effective range," Pettitt told Discovery News.

With such technologies, our ancestors won the prehistoric battle for survival.

While some researchers theorize that Neanderthals also are related to humans, yet another study, published in the current Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, claims that the skulls of Neanderthals and humans differ too much for Neanderthals to be our relatives.

Lead author Katerina Harvati of New York University said in a press release that we now have "the most concrete evidence to date that Neanderthals are indeed a separate species within the genus Homo."

[Modernman]

God is never considered, therefore evolution MUST come up with a way for life to have evolved from mere chemicals to rational, thinking minds.

I think, when asked how life started, an evolutionist would have to say "We don't really know."

What's interesting here is that in order to begin a theory like this, one must first reject a Creator, then comes the conjecture.

I don't think that's true at all. The existence or non-existence of a Creator is wholly irrelevant to evolution. Could evolution work with a Creator? Sure. Could evolution work without a Creator? Sure. The fundamental point is that evolution does not talk about how life arose, only how it changes.

[Modernman]

There is no fossil record that backs up evolution...it's a myth

None? Have you been to a museum lately and seen, for example, skeletons of various horse species starting with cat-sized horses and ending with modern horses? Are those just a coincidence?

I believe VadeRetro has posted, about a million times, a progression of skull samples showing evolution in hominid species.

The problem with creationists a lot of times is that they ask for examples of evolution from A to B to C, but when shown such evidence, they then demand proof of A to A2 to A3 to A4 ad infinitum.

[Modernman]

Furthermore, according to the hypothesis you'd think we'd find the most degenerate (primitive) forms in more recent strata and carbon dated more recently as the degeneration continues

Certainly. The point I was trying to make is that creationists critisize evolution for not being observable (When's the last time you saw a fish turn into a bird! Never? Ha! Evolution doesn't work). For the theory that man is degenerating to be any more credible, therefore, we would need to be able to observe humans degenerating. Seeing as the timeframe for this degeneration is only 6-10 K years, it would logically follow that we whould be seeing less-perfect humans popping up in the general population fairly commonly.

And Howard Dean doesn't count.

[hopespringseternal]

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.

Correct. Real science does not require a decision on the existence of God. When real science comes up to a supernatural event, it faces a discontinuity that it simply cannot address.

I am an amatuer astronomer. I can look up in the night sky and fully realize that night sky implies a very old universe. However, that doesn't mean the universe is very old. God set up a system with physical laws, the very real implication of which is that the universe must look old. The supernatural governs natural reality in a way that natural reality cannot observe outside of faith.

The question science tries to answer is akin to which vine did the wine Jesus made supernaturally come from? At first glance, it may look like a certain variety of a certain age, etc., but you would be wrong. Science can only tell us what something looks like, not what it is. Minus the supernatural, real science will be correct. With the supernatural, variables are introduced that science is incapable of accounting for.

Those who attack faith using science aren't acting as science, but as a competing religion. They refuse to see this, it would undermine their position.

[antiRepublicrat]

And Howard Dean doesn't count.

Damn, he almost had proof for his idea.

[ValerieUSA]

You don't want to miss this one, Civ

[Junior]

Why don't you show me where you have addressed the points in this thread?

Ah, the old tabula rosa gambit. You're an old hand at this game; instead of making me slog through 90 posts, why don't you just post one "argument" you'd like to see addressed. If I can't do it, maybe I can find someone who can. Ichneumon comes to mind...

[greenwolf]

None? Have you been to a museum lately and seen, for example, skeletons of various horse species starting with cat-sized horses and ending with modern horses? Are those just a coincidence?

You've been sucked straight in. All of those fossil horses were running around at more or less the same time and there's no way to claim any one of them is older than or ancestral to any other. The only honest thing anybody can say is that there used to be lots of kinds of horses running around and now there are only a few. The idea of a line of descent from small to large is fiction.

[greenwolf]

You don't think they (neanderthals) died out simply from being too UGLY or anything like that?

[Wacka]

Of course Neanderthals still exist. Ever see Mafia goons/

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Evolution is as old as the bible. It was idolatry then and it is idolatry now.

Before this thread gets completely out of control, what source for evolutionary biology do you have that's 3000 years old?