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
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 321-339 next last
To: alloysteel
I'd like some studies done on DNA of early modern humans and modern humans to see how much they diverge. The discrepancy might equal that observed between modern man and the Neanderthal specimens.
I think we are the same species and interbreeding could have produced and probably did produce, viable offspring.
41
posted on
01/27/2004 9:28:34 AM PST
by
ZULU
(Remember the Alamo!!!!!)
To: TMSuchman
No, I don't. Just my faith. And for my family & I that is enough. I can certainly respect your views. However, you have to acknowledge that your views have nothing to do with science and are unproveable.
42
posted on
01/27/2004 9:32:39 AM PST
by
Modernman
("The details of my life are quite inconsequential...." - Dr. Evil)
To: blam
So they say we´re better than Neanderthals? What right do they have to speak so arrogant? Maybe the Neanderthals were better!
I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THIS ARROGANT SCIENCE CRAP! WE LIVE IN ONE WORLD AND THE NEANDERTHALS ARE PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND ME! They shouldn´t be treated like that.
Poor Neanderthals, they´re just humans like we, our cats and dogs and apes are.
/gone mad off
To: Modernman
What about the homo sapiens/neanderthal hybrids that have been recently discovered? To say neanderthals aren't exactly human is really only half the story. I have not heard anything about this, so I cannot comment.
44
posted on
01/27/2004 9:33:34 AM PST
by
realpatriot71
(legalize freedom!)
To: ZULU
The Bible is a theological work with historical overtones. It is neither a history book nor a biology text. I'll go even further- the Bible is a textbook on morality and ethics. That is what people should focus on when they read the Bible, not some vague creation myths which have little or nothing to do with the major themes of the Bible.
Would Jesus' moral message be any less powerful if humans evolved from single-celled organisms?
45
posted on
01/27/2004 9:35:54 AM PST
by
Modernman
("The details of my life are quite inconsequential...." - Dr. Evil)
To: realpatriot71
Most of the fossil evidence for "pre-humans" won't even cover a coffee table To think that we have trouble identifying offspring of people who lived 100 years ago, or even still living. If we could be sure we had all the evidence even though it only covers a coffeetable we could devise a coherent hypothesis. But we have barely begun to find evidence and every new find seems to force a change in the hypothesis rather than confirm the hypothesis. We're still early in the investigation.
46
posted on
01/27/2004 9:36:31 AM PST
by
RightWhale
(Repeal the Law of the Excluded Middle)
To: Modernman
"Would Jesus' moral message be any less powerful if humans evolved from single-celled organisms?"
Obviously not. But then, we don't think like fundamentalists. They exhibit the same kind of thinking the Inquisition did when Galileo talked about the moons of Jupiter.
47
posted on
01/27/2004 9:37:58 AM PST
by
ZULU
(Remember the Alamo!!!!!)
To: realpatriot71
I have not heard anything about this, so I cannot comment Try this link:
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Neanderthal.html
Or do a Google search for "neanderthal hybrid"
48
posted on
01/27/2004 9:40:00 AM PST
by
Modernman
("The details of my life are quite inconsequential...." - Dr. Evil)
To: realpatriot71
realpatriot71 wrote:
I believe in a special creation of life on this earth by God - recently - perhaps ~6000-10000 years ago.
Yet at #22 you admitted that:
"Most of the fossil evidence for "pre-humans" won't even cover a coffee table".
Why does such fossil evidence exist if life on this earth was created " - recently - perhaps ~6000-10000 years ago" ? And where do the many 'tables' of neanderthal fossils fit in to your belief?
49
posted on
01/27/2004 9:40:31 AM PST
by
tpaine
(I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but
the U.S. Constitution defines a conservative.
(writer 33)
To: RightWhale
To think that we have trouble identifying offspring of people who lived 100 years ago, or even still living. If we could be sure we had all the evidence even though it only covers a coffeetable we could devise a coherent hypothesis. But we have barely begun to find evidence and every new find seems to force a change in the hypothesis rather than confirm the hypothesis. We're still early in the investigation. Exactly! Paleoanthropology is such a small and distinct field of study that most people have not the training nor the knowledge to understand wether the scientists are talking "crazy" or not. These folks get to dictate the "evolution of man" to the world at will, and most people buy it "hook, line, and sinker". Is there room for "experts" in this world? Of course! But everything "scientific" should be questioned and the orthodoxy here that cannot, nor will not be questioned, is this: man evolved to his current form from something less complex in the manner paleoanthropoligists have dictated. Any evidence pointing otherwise has been rejected. At least it's starting to look like the field is taking on a bit of "intellectual honesty" - questioning orthodoxy gets you closer to the truth every time, even if your questioning eventually agrees with said orthodoxy.
50
posted on
01/27/2004 9:47:47 AM PST
by
realpatriot71
(legalize freedom!)
To: tpaine
Why does such fossil evidence exist if life on this earth was created " - recently - perhaps ~6000-10000 years ago" ? And where do the many 'tables' of neanderthal fossils fit in to your belief? I see no cognitive dissonance. 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.
51
posted on
01/27/2004 9:53:11 AM PST
by
realpatriot71
(legalize freedom!)
To: Modernman
see reply #51
52
posted on
01/27/2004 9:56:39 AM PST
by
realpatriot71
(legalize freedom!)
To: blam; *Gods, Graves, Glyphs; A.J.Armitage; abner; adam_az; Alas Babylon!; ameribbean expat; ...
Gods, Graves, Glyphs List for articles regarding early civilizations , life of all forms, - dinosaurs - etc.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this ping list.
53
posted on
01/27/2004 10:03:05 AM PST
by
farmfriend
( Isaiah 55:10,11)
To: realpatriot71
"What about the homo sapiens/neanderthal hybrids that have been recently discovered? To say neanderthals aren't exactly human is really only half the story.""I have not heard anything about this, so I cannot comment."
Neanderthal - Cro-Magnon Hybrid
54
posted on
01/27/2004 10:04:55 AM PST
by
blam
To: alloysteel
Which brings up the question: Did the Neanderthals interbreed with ancestors of modern man? I have no doubt that attempts were made, and there may have been viable offspring. These half-breeds may even have eventually bred true, which would make modern man maybe not so modern after all. Certainly some seeming throwbacks continue to appear even in the best of families. I think it highly likely that some interbreeding occurred. The problem with anthropologists is that they tend to see evolutionary progression as a one-dimensional thing, i.e., X led to Y which led to Z and so on. For X, Y, and Z they have only the particular species that have been discovered, not the plethora of transitional forms in between, which may have numbered in the hundreds and consisted of types whose differences were so minute as to be undetectable. The same thing applies to history. There's a tendency to see everything moving in a linear progression with no interaction or branching-out involved. The untrained historian sees, for example, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Hittites, each in its own context, without really understanding that there was continual movement of all these peoples, inside, outside, and upside down, and continual interaction between them.
To: realpatriot71
Whatever,
56
posted on
01/27/2004 10:07:26 AM PST
by
tpaine
(I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but
the U.S. Constitution defines a conservative.
(writer 33)
To: realpatriot71
Reconstructed Face Of Hybrid Neanderthal Child
57
posted on
01/27/2004 10:08:05 AM PST
by
blam
To: tpaine
Whatever, LOL - the retort of a child :-)
58
posted on
01/27/2004 10:10:26 AM PST
by
realpatriot71
(legalize freedom!)
To: Agnes Heep
"The untrained historian sees, for example, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Hittites, each in its own context, without really understanding that there was continual movement of all these peoples, inside, outside, and upside down, and continual interaction between them." Amen. Well stated. It's like trying to track race using linguistics.
59
posted on
01/27/2004 10:11:16 AM PST
by
blam
To: blam
Danggit! Now I have to see that pic every time I check "my comments" for the next day or so. :-)
60
posted on
01/27/2004 10:11:23 AM PST
by
realpatriot71
(legalize freedom!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson