The bottom line - what do we really know?

[The Barbarian]

What evidence supports any claim of "cousin" rather than "brothers?"

Great question. A good clue is that early Neanderthals look more like anatomically modern humans than later ones. which indicates common origin, but divergent evolution from that common ancestor. Another clue is that they are genetically much closer to anatomically modern humans than archaic H. sapiens or other species of human like H. ergaster, but do have a characteristic genome. They seem to be right at the edge of speciation, pretty much fitting the definition of subspecies or race. I mean race in the biological sense, not in the cultural sense modern humans use to describe "races."

Another clue is cultural. They were extremely conservative in their technology, keeping the same tools over a very long time, while anatomically modern humans continued to refine and develop their tool kits. And it's not for inability; in at least one case, Neanderthals seem to have adapted the anatomically modern human toolkit after they shared the same areas with those humans.

The Neanderthals were as anatomically modern human as the Hottentot Venus.

No. They were much more robust in skull and postcranial skeletons than modern humans. They lacked a chin, retaining the "simian shelf" inside the mandible which is found in archaic humans and non-human apes. They had a different-shaped skull, with an occipital "bun", and their brains were significantly larger than those of anatomically modern humans. And they had a peculiar shoulder arrangement that seems to have made throwing less efficient for them, which is likely why they had few projectile weapons.

Neanderthal Lacked Anatomical Competitive Edge: Skeletal Remains Tell the Story

(PhysOrg.com) -- A new study of the skeletal fossils of Neanderthal and Early modern man suggest the lack of a "throwing arm" may have made the difference in human evolution. Researchers Jill A. Rhodes and Steven Churchill, evolutionary anthropologists published their findings in the January...

phys.org

 

[The Barbarian]

If Neanderthals are fully human then why assign them some other status except to plug into the theory?

They were significantly different than anatomically modern humans. The consensus is that they are not different enough to be a separate species, but do compose a sub-species of H. sapiens, which includes anatomically modern humans, Neanderthals, Denisovians, and one yet-to-be-described group.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolutionist keep explaining the facts to fit the theory. How about just the facts?

In this case, as usual, the theory was changed to fit the facts. When DNA sequencing of Neanderthal remains was done, it was generally interpreted to mean that they were a subspecies of H. sapiens, as we are.

Creationists have indeed come up with all sorts of weird notions about what Neanderthals were, but evidence indicates they were just another subspecies.

 

[The Barbarian]

And here I thought God Formed the animals, not the earth.

Well, let's ask Him...
Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

God did form living things. It's just that creationists don't approve of the way He did it.

 

[QvQ]

They were much more robust in skull and postcranial skeletons than modern humans. They lacked a chin, retaining the "simian shelf" inside the mandible which is found in archaic humans and non-human apes. They had a different-shaped skull, with an occipital "bun", and their brains were significantly larger than those of anatomically modern humans. And they had a peculiar shoulder arrangement that seems to have made throwing less efficient for them, which is likely why they had few projectile weapons.

THIS IS A COW, European stock

THIS IS A COW, European stock introduced in Texas 1521. A complete anatomical revolution or evolution within 200 years.

Both have the same common ancestor. Both are COWS, species.
It did not take millions of years to make the Long Horn taller, rangy, narrower with large horns.
Both of these cows are expression of their common genes, one could be the other within a few generations.
Evolutionist would claim those two bovine beast were from two different ancestors evolving through millions of years based on superficial anatomical differences?

 

[The Barbarian]

THIS IS A COW, European stock introduced in Texas 1521. A complete anatomical revolution or evolution within 200 years.

It's quite possible to use very selective breeding to make livestock that is very different in appearance. But not genetically. All cattle, for example, are genetically more closely related than are anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals.

But you'll find nothing of the difference we have seen in chin/simian shelf between modern humans and Neanderthals.

Evolutionist would claim those two bovine beast were from two different ancestors evolving through millions of years based on superficial anatomical differences?

Nope. Genes, you know. This is how we know that Neanderthals are just close enough to not be separate species, but do constitute a separate subspecies of H. sapiens.

It did not take millions of years to make the Long Horn taller, rangy, narrower with large horns.

Not these guys, either. But both forms are clearly the same subspecies, while Neanderthals are about the same distance from both of them anatomically and genetically.

 

[QvQ]

Neanderthals have 46 chromosomes = Homosapien.
Neanderthals have flutes, (art) = Homosapien
Neanderthals have ceremony (burial) = Homosapien

But you'll find nothing of the difference we have seen in chin/simian shelf between modern humans and Neanderthals.

The difference we have seen in chin simian shelf...in one species

The anatomical differences between Neanderthals and other Homosapiens could very well be selective breeding due to environmental conditions.

There isn't any proof offered that Neanderthals were subspecies.

 

[The Barbarian]

The anatomical differences between Neanderthals and other Homo sapiens could very well be selective breeding due to environmental conditions.

Evolution, but unlikely to be anything other than natural selection. "Selective breeding" in humans doesn't work so well, because humans are notoriously bad at following directions about whom to share genes with or not to share genes with. The key is that those two dogs are genetically more alike than anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals.

The two dogs are the same subspecies, Canis lupis familiaris. Anatomically modern humans are H. sapiens sapiens. Neanderthals are H. sapiens neanderthalis.

The bone structure in the mandibles of those two dogs is entirely the same, only lengthened or shortened. There is no structure in one that is not present in the other.

Notice neither has a chin. Foramina all in the same places, same zygomatic arches, same saggital crests, only lengthened or shortened. You see, this is what selective breeding does. The pug is distorted to the point that it is prone to a lot of health problems. Natural selection would do this very differently, Would you like to see that?

 

[QvQ]

The pug is distorted to the point that it is prone to a lot of health problems. Natural selection would do this very differently,

Neanderthals had a better configuration for their teeth and jaws than we do. Some people do lack chins. That could be selected.

One interesting fact I found is that Neanderthals share 99.7% of our genes.

Within species, there are variations, related to individual or group trait genetics which may be larger than that miniscule .3%

There isn't anything I have found that points to a separate species or a separate ancestor for Neanderthal.
It is Brother, not cousin as far as I can tell.

This is a very interesting and entertaining conversation by the way. Been a long time since I have researched this subject. I studied Neanderthals very closely at one time.

 

[QvQ]

Notice neither has a chin.

I can't find any articles that claim Neanderthals had a simian shelf. The only articles I can find on "chins" states that all humans have a chin including Neanderthals even if it appears to recede a bit on some individuals or groups.

 

[The Barbarian]

I can't find any articles that claim Neanderthals had a simian shelf. The only articles I can find on "chins" states that all humans have a chin including Neanderthals even if it appears to recede a bit on some individuals or groups.

The Mandible. The mandibles of the fossil hominids also share a number of structures with the pongids. The mandible of anatomically modern man has a well-developed protuberance called the mental eminence or “chin”. The pongid mandible lacks the mental eminence and tapers down and back toward the throat. Also seen in the pongid mandible is the “simian shelf” (see figure below), a lingual extension of bone behind the incisors. In the mandible of anatomically modern man, the bone development stops lingually with just enough bone to support the roots of the incisors. All of the fossil hominids including Neanderthal lack the mental eminence and have a simian shelf, although the shelf is relatively short in Neanderthal.

SCIENCE AND FAITH: THE HOMINID FOSSIL RECORD

 

[The Barbarian]

Neanderthals had a better configuration for their teeth and jaws than we do.

Yes. Our jaws have been reduced more than the jaws of Neanderthals, which means wisdom tooth problems.

Some people do lack chins.

Not people living today. The mental prominence is found in all humans, albeit to greater or lesser degree. The chin is necessary, since our smaller mandibles need reinforcement. Since we don't have room inside to brace it, the mental prominence braces it externally.

That could be selected.

One interesting fact I found is that Neanderthals share 99.7% of our genes.

Chimps share about 98%, depending on how you count. We are much closer to Neanderthals than we are to chimps. There isn't anything I have found that points to a separate species or a separate ancestor for Neanderthal.

It is Brother, not cousin as far as I can tell.

Since all species of humans, modern or otherwise, have a common ancestor, we are cousins, descended from siblings. But in cladistics, they would be considered sister taxa. This can get pretty technical. Suffice to say that both subspecies evolved from archaic H. sapiens.

 

[QvQ]

I see very little on that site you posted that states anything very clearly about Neanderthals. It is mostly the "plug it into the theory" type generalization without actually addressing the underlying issues.

Not people living today. The mental prominence is found in all humans, albeit to greater or lesser degree. The chin is necessary, since our smaller mandibles need reinforcement. Since we don't have room inside to brace it, the mental prominence braces it externally.

There is and has been for a very long time cultural pressure to select away from "receding chins." The vernacular is "strong jaw" or "weak chinned." That prominent chin is definitely selected. It is the culture of Dudley Do Right and Superman...the manly men.

"Chin," in both Neanderthals and other humans is as selected as Long Horn.

That "chin" selection misaligns our teeth like that Pug has been misaligned through selective breeding.

Are there any fossils from Africa or Asia in the same time period to compare?

Chimps share about 98%, depending on how you count. We are much closer to Neanderthals than we are to chimps. There isn't anything I have found that points to a separate species or a separate ancestor for Neanderthal.

There is a big difference between 98% and 99.7%.
In fact, given that the DNA is +/- 30,000 years old, a .3% difference....it could well be 100%

Again, are there any fossils from Africa or Asia in the same time period to compare?

Since all species of humans, modern or otherwise, have a common ancestor, we are cousins, descended from siblings. But in cladistics, they would be considered sister taxa. This can get pretty technical. Suffice to say that both subspecies evolved from archaic H. sapiens.

Brothers...and why not?
Cousins? Based on nothing more than anatomical differences that take 200 years or less to selectively breed in or out?
Those Long Horns have tremendous survival value. Neanderthal jaws have survival value.

It is possible to select anatomical characteristics with selective breeding but not chromosome count.

 

[The Barbarian]

There is and has been for a very long time cultural pressure to select away from "receding chins." The vernacular is "strong jaw" or "weak chinned." That prominent chin is definitely selected. It is the culture of Dudley Do Right and Superman...the manly men.

Fact is, because anatomically modern humans had smaller faces and jaws, bracing had to be external in the form of a chin (technically the mental prominence) rather than the simian shelf found in other hominids and apes. Actual biomechanical analyses support this hypothesis.

"Chin," in both Neanderthals and other humans is as selected as Long Horn.

There is no chin in Neanderthals, only a simian shelf internally. That's all the bracing there is for them. The "long horns" were sort of an atavism; aurochs from which cattle evolved, had much longer horns than most modern cattle. They might well be favored by selection as the chin appears to be in anatomically modern humans.

Perhaps the most common explanation is that our chin helps buttress the jaw against certain mechanical stresses. Ionut Ichim, a Ph.D. student at the University of Otago in New Zealand, and colleagues suggested in the journal Medical Hypotheses in 2007 that the chin evolved in response to our unique form of speech, perhaps protecting the jaw against stresses produced by the contraction of certain tongue muscles. Others think the chin evolved to safeguard the jaw against forces generated by chewing food. Last year, Flora Gröning, a biological anthropologist at the University of York in England, and colleagues tested the idea by modeling how modern human and Neanderthal jaws withstand structural loads. Their results, which they reported in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, indicated the chin does help support the jaw during chewing . They suggested the chin may have evolved to maintain the jaw’s resistance to loads as our ancestors’ teeth, jaws and chewing muscles got smaller early on in our species’ history.

Why Do Humans Have Chins?

Scientists have several explanations for why modern humans are the only hominids that have chins

www.smithsonianmag.com

Are there any fossils from Africa or Asia in the same time period to compare?

Yes, I think so. The "out of Africa" southern migration about 50,000 to 70,000 years ago was by people who were pretty much like anatomically modern humans. There seems to have been an earlier migration out of africa, but we don't know much about that; we know of it mainly by the clues in Neanderthal genes. I'm looking to find a mandible from that time.

Cousins? Based on nothing more than anatomical differences that take 200 years or less to selectively breed in or out?

More on genetic differences, behavioral difference, and some anatomical differences that seem to have taken a very long time to develop.

It is very unlikely that there are two ancestral lines of men who evolved with the same switch of 48 chromosomes to 46 chromosomes at about the same time, supposedly being separated by thousands of miles and millions of years.

That happened long before Neanderthals or anatomically modern humans. I suspect it occurred shortly after the evolution of our genus. Denisovans had 46 chromosomes, and if we ever find DNA from H. heidelbergensis or H. ergaster, I'll bet there will be 46 chromosomes.

It is possible to select anatomical characteristics with selective breeding but not chromosome count.

Moot point, far as I can see.

 

[QvQ]

The "long horns" were sort of an atavism; aurochs from which cattle evolved, had much longer horns than most modern cattle.

Exactly!
That jaw could be an atavism that could express if humans were subject to the environmental stress or a new environment that Long Horns experienced.
All humans

They suggested the chin may have evolved to maintain the jaw’s resistance to loads as our ancestors’ teeth, jaws and chewing muscles got smaller early on in our species’ history.

The loads on Neanderthal jaws would have been heavier than Africans. The muscles and the jaw design would aid chewing. The softer diets of the Africans would lead to lighter muscles and then a redesign on the front end, chin.

More on genetic differences, behavioral difference, and some anatomical differences that seem to have taken a very long time to develop.

Anatomical design changes very quickly. Expressed existing genes, Long Horns, are a snap, 200 years.
What anatomical differences seem to have taken a long time to develop?

I have a question for you:
Europeans 10,000 years ago, had dark skin.
It seems the genes necessary for light skin did not exist in the genome.

I read today that white skin suddenly appeared 8,000 to 12,000 years ago.

Would you say that was an anatomical difference :

1) That Evolved over million of years?

2) Was existing in some form, perhaps as a single gene, and in the fullness of time, everyone had two copies? (I think that is called genetic drift)

3) A color change to botanist is called a sport. A 'sport' in the botany world means a 'genetic mutation;' one that has no explanation and no specific rhyme or reason for its occurrence. Sport is a chance genetic mutation. It is instantaneous in the scheme of things. However, it would still have to drift, just not pre-existing as from an ancestral source, as in #2)

4) Or your own answer.

(Of course, the site I read about white skin occurring 8-12 thousand years ago might be bogus. You can read anything on the net but there are genuine "sports" so the question is relevant.)

 

[The Barbarian]

The loads on Neanderthal jaws would have been heavier than Africans.

Meat is generally easier on the jaws than grains and roots. Because of the climate, Neandertals were among the most carnivorous of humans. But the heavier jaws and masseter are merely retained from earlier hominids. Gracile humans were evolved away from the more robust earlier Homo.

If you're looking for a sport in humans, blue eyes would be a good candidate.

Is Everyone With Blue Eyes Related?

People with blue eyes probably have a common ancestor. Find out when he or she lived.

www.allaboutvision.com

In Europeans, light skin is caused by two mutant alleles SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. The evidence I've seen suggests that in Northern Europe this had been established by about 8,000 years ago, but was not common in Southern Europe.

 

[QvQ]

Meat is generally easier on the jaws than grains and roots. Because of the climate, Neandertals were among the most carnivorous of humans. But the heavier jaws and masseter are merely retained from earlier hominids. Gracile humans were evolved away from the more robust earlier Homo.

The time has come the walrus said to talk of many things: Of Long Horns and Genes.
The neck muscles in dog indicate whether the dog is a hunter or a retriever. Those muscles can vary in "power" very much between breeds, the bull dogs being thickly muscled and retrievers have more slender, less muscular necks.

Long Horns adapted to the environment. Long Horns did not change into desert tortoises or roadrunners. Long Horns before and after were Cows.
Type: Long Horns adapted using existing genetic material and patterns
Species: Every living organism inherits a box of genes from all previous generations. That box is the same for every one of the Species.
Species Barrier: Species is who can produce viable offspring with whom. 46 Chromosomes is a species barrier.

That is the Shape Shifter Box.

Homo Heidelbergensis and Homo Sapiens are exactly the same. Genetically. Both are Species who could produce viable offspring and shape shift within the confines of the shared 46 chromosomes. Both could shape shift into Neanderthals. Just the same as dogs can shape shift into all the various breed.
All those "shapes" (breeds) are in Dog Gene Box.

About 1900, botanist started using chemical to create polypoidal plants. (increase number of chromosomes.) That was tampering with the box to create new species. Those plants are sterile or not viable in the environment.

Here is an Article that discusses Chromosomes and polypoidal engineering.

Polyploidy and its effect on evolutionary success: old questions revisited with new tools - Heredity

Polyploidy, the condition of possessing more than two complete genomes in a cell, has intrigued biologists for almost a century. Polyploidy is found in many plants and some animal species and today we know that polyploidy has had a role in the evolution of all angiosperms. Despite its widespread...

www.nature.com

If you're looking for a sport in humans, blue eyes would be a good candidate.

I direct your attention to my Avatar. I have considered Blue Eyes.

Recombination...
Many animals, if not all, can "sport" blue eyes.
Not because mutation, random or otherwise.
Recombination
DNA has the ability to repair itself using existing material.
DNA has the ability to "sport" blue eyes. That is a recombination of materiel existing within the gene box (genome)
As recombination is a process observed across many species, it is logical to assume that it is an ability inherent within the DNA itself.

Recombination follows certain rules. Many different eye and coat colors are produced through recombination in cats and dogs but the color palette is limited. Green dogs and purple cats are not with the range of their genomes yet green flowers and purple flowers are all within range of some plant genomes.

Again, this is Species Boundary. When "blue eyed humans, whether Swedish or Neanderthal, appear, that Genome has the ability to manufacture that "sport" and only within certain parameters.

It looks as if "sports" are random or some new material but all sports are is "Recombined DNA" Sports can appear and disappear and reappear within the species.

So, the Shape Shifting has definite limits and those limits are set by the Genome itself both through Chromosomes and Recombination.

We know somewhat how recombination works but we don't know how to set new parameters (species boundaries) although scientist are attempting to manipulate the genome by both chemical and mechanical engineering. Most, if not all engineered genomes are sterile or not viable in the environment.

Here is an article on Engineered Recombination

Meiosis in Polyploids and Implications for Genetic Mapping: A Review - PMC

Plant cytogenetic studies have provided essential knowledge on chromosome behavior during meiosis, contributing to our understanding of this complex process. In this review, we describe in detail the meiotic process in auto- and allopolyploids from ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Now the question the anatomical structure of the critter:
1) Evolution?
2) Inherited?
3) Mutation (recombination)?

If #2 and #3 are correct, then #1 is false.

 

[QvQ]

In the landmark case on intelligent design, professor Behe picked the wrong thing to argue. He should have picked the first living cell. And asked the atheists to define what it was,. when how and where it it came to be, then how it developed from there. The court would have been silent. So their theory of life is not "scientific" it is just their belief and conjecture.

Genetics are proving the case

1) One Ancestor
Brown Eyed Ancestor

Gene Mutated
Blue Eyed and Brown Eyed Ancestor

Ancestor Split, many times to produce Man and Cat
Blue Eyed Cat
Blue Eyed Man



2) Two Ancestors
Brown Eyed Man
Gold Eyed Cat

Retroviral Insertional Mutagenesis
Man and Cat exposed to Viral RNA containing material for Blue Eyes

Blue Eye RNA can be recombined in Man and Cat
Brown Eyed and Blue Eyed Man
Gold Eyed and Blue Eyed Cats

 

[Diamond72]

Nobody knows where, when or how the first life started.

We are "star stuff". The elements that make us up were created in the furnace of a star. The Bible refers to this as the dust of the ground.

"Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

This passage describes how God created Adam by shaping him from the dust or clay of the earth. After forming Adam's physical body, God breathed the "breath of life" into him, and Adam became a living being. This account emphasizes the intimate connection between humanity and the divine, as well as the idea that human life is a special and deliberate creation of God.

 

[The Barbarian]

Homo Heidelbergensis and Homo Sapiens are exactly the same.

Sort of. H. heidelbergensis (notice species is always lower-case) had no chin, for example, so not so much like anatomically modern H. sapiens. Anatomically, it's closer to H. erectus, and was once classified as late H. erectus. H. erectus, aside from the skull, is pretty close to H. sapiens. Most authorities now think that H. heidelbergensis is the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans.