Distortiions due to evoltionists assumsions?

[lucaspa]

Now, how much more room for error is there, when we are working with what can not be directly observed? There are cases when an entire neandrathal profile is based on no more than one bone.

but the bone is there to be directly observed, isn't it? So you can check to see if the neandertal profile for the individual is correct.

BTW, the species profile is obviously drawn from several complete or nearly complete skulls. After all, Cuozzo has 3 from children at the site!

Plus the fact that no one scientist can put all the peices of the puzzle together in a lifetime, so they are working out of each other's data,

But the data can be directly observed. That's what publications are for. After all, doesn't Cuozzo use data from papers to make his critique? He's got the drawings, pictures, and x-rays to look at. And the skulls are still in existence. So if you don't think the interpretation is correct, you can always go back to the original directly observed bones. Cuozzo's site contradicts your own claims here.

Let's face it, no one has all the answers, or even a fraction of the peices they need to chart ever twist and turn of ancient history. Which is why it is a little amusing when you read things like, 10 million years ago, the such and such.....

But we have enough pieces to know there never was a global Flood or that neandertals were not long-lived H. sapiens. Remember, if they were long lived H. sapiens, we would have genes older than 89,000 years in our genomes. We don't.

11. A Gibbons, Modern men trace ancestry to African migrants. Science 292:1051-1052, May 11, 2001. Y chromosome of EVERY person in the study could be traced to forefathers who lived in Africa 35,000 to 89,000 years ago. "one self-described 'dedicated multiregionalist,' Vince Sarich of the University of California, Berkeley, admitted: 'I have undergone a conversion -- a sort of epiphany. There are no old Y chromosomes lineages. There are no old mtDNA lineages. Period. It was a total replacement.' " In another study, Peter Underhill and colleagues analyzed 218 markers in 1062 men from 21 populations.Primary paper is Y Ke, B Su, D Lu, L Chen, H Li, C Qi, S Marzuki, R Deka, P Underhill, C Xiao, M Shriver, J Lell, D Wallace, RS Wells, M Selestad, P Oefner, D Zhu, W Huang, R Chakraborty, Z Chen, L Jin, African Origin of modern humans in east Asia: a tale of 12,000 Y chromosomes. Science 292: 1151-1153, May 11, 2001.
12. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/08/0802_neandertal.html Neanderthal face not H. sapiens

 

[pudmuddle]

I'm sorry, Pudmuddle,

No, you're not

but this is a methodologically invalid study. To have less than 20% of the original sample in the final measurement is not acceptable. Any statistician will tell you that the study is biased. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery will not take any study with a dropout rate greater than 15%, and this one is over 80%.

"He goes on to cite an number of studies "
And none of these studies give us means and standard deviations for any of the parameters tested. What's more, I don't see the words "statistically significantly different" in any of the quotes used. We get indications of "growth" but never how much and whether it is of the same magnitude as Cuozzo is claiming for the neanderthal

Never said to be the same magnitude. Changed continuing over 300 years would realistly be more significant than 80 years. Quote: "We must never assume a similar rate of change in the past as in the present-that would be uniform thinking-but we can look for overall trends and make tentative predictions while "rates" will always remain in doubt."

Now, since Cuozzo apparently has the complete papers, why don't you e-mail him and ask him to put the actual data on his website? Then we can see if the conclusions actually match the data.
Did that. My boy scout hat I wore at Philmont. Fits just fine.

The remains of those people must be in the fossil samples we have now. After all, there is no reason to suppose there is a sampling bias toward younger people, unless people really didn't live to an old age. So why isn't Cuozzo doing the same measurements done in the papers he cites on the skulls of neandertals and archaic H. sapiens in the various museums?

Maybe he is. Why don't you ask him?

That won't work because the sequences don't show "devolution". Also, as you noted, we have the mtDNA from 60,000 year old Mungo Man and it is as different from the neandertal mtDNA as is modern human mtDNA. If we are "devolved" but Mungo lived when neandertal did, should have been the same species as neandertal by your claim, and thus wouldn't be "devolved".

Now, altho Mungo is anatomically human, it doesn't mean he is H. sapiens. Changes in the bone are the last changes. As creationists point out in other contexts, there are several modern species who have identical skeletons but very different soft tissue and are different species. Mungo could easily have been a different species that was replaced when H. sapiens got to Australia.
Data to back the assertion? I haven't seen it. Not in these sequences, which were chosen because they do not change rapidly.

if the conclusions are not correct, then they are not valid

More suppositions and guesswork. BTW, I noted that no one has all the answers and the answers will continue to change and evolve. I hear all the time on here that evolution has not been falsified, but that is only because the term falsified is used selectively. How many times has the evoltionary model been changed to try and fit new evidence in? 30 times? 50? The conclusions drawn are NEVER 100% correct, so I guess that makes them all invalid.
I've got work to do, later.

 

[Vance]

The basic principles of the theory of evolution have never changed. Some of the details of exactly how and why it happens have been adjusted as the evidence provides more clarification.

At any given point, scientists do two things. They analyze the evidence and determine what it means in a narrow scope. These are the facts, which do not change and can not be altered unless the analysis was done with incorrect methodology. These facts are the building blocks and the more building blocks, the better.

The second thing they do is to use these facts to develop concepts about how everything happens. Some of these are more speculative than others because they are based on less information. Usually, then, there are competing theories. As more information comes in, we see that either one or the other was correct, or maybe neither was correct and the incorrect theories are discarded. This is all good science and helps lead us to the truth. These competing theories are very useful since they help direct further studies to see whether it will hold up. Other times the proof that a given concept is correct or not comes from a group studying something entirely different, which is always interesting.

In any case, the core concepts of evolution have never been shown to be incorrect so far, but many of the subtheories developed have been discarded and their competing ideas have been generally accepted because this is how science works best.

 

[lucaspa]

No, you're not

Actually, I am. I realize that I am challenging some very strong emotional beliefs of yours and it will cause you pain to give them up.

Never said to be the same magnitude. Changed continuing over 300 years would realistly be more significant than 80 years. Quote: "We must never assume a similar rate of change in the past as in the present-that would be uniform thinking-but we can look for overall trends and make tentative predictions while "rates" will always remain in doubt."

But Cuozzo hasn't established that the change over 80 years is significant. He has claimed it, but never given the data that would back the claim.

Also, the change would have to be same magnitude. After all, Cuozzo is saying that neandertals age more slowly that modern humans. Therefore, the changes that humans undergo in 80 years would be the same neandertals undergo in whatever number of years.

I see that Cuozzo studies fossils of 3 neandertal children, but I don't see any comparison of their facial features to older neandterals to document change in their features. It seems that Cuozzo is violating his own doctrine of not trusting uniformity. He says that since sapiens change then neandertals change. Shouldn't he be documenting that?

Maybe he is. Why don't you ask him?

Why don't you? You are the one using him as a source. I notice that the paper is 1994. That's nearly 9 years to get a follow-up.

More suppositions and guesswork.

Actually data leading to an alternative hypothesis to explain the Mungo mtDNA data. The data in this case comes from a study of other species. For instance, there are two species of snail whose shells are virutually identical. Yet one species reproduces sexually and the other is hermaphoditic. VERY different soft tissues but the same hard tissues. There are two species of sparrow in England whose skeletons are virtually identical. Even the feather colors and patterning are nearly identical, but they are different species.

So, there is data on which to base the hypothesis that skeletal identity does not mean species identity. Mungo is presumed to be H. sapiens based on the skeleton, but his mtDNA says he is not H. sapiens. (BTW, there is also a question of methodology and possible contamination of the samples.)

BTW, I noted that no one has all the answers and the answers will continue to change and evolve. I hear all the time on here that evolution has not been falsified, but that is only because the term falsified is used selectively. How many times has the evoltionary model been changed to try and fit new evidence in? 30 times? 50? The conclusions drawn are NEVER 100% correct, so I guess that makes them all invalid.

Theories do change. That is what they are supposed to do in the face of new data. Theories must either change or be discarded in the face of data. Notice that creationism has also changed over the years. It used to be maintained that speciation never occurred. Now speciation is accepted. It used to be maintained that natural selection never happened. Now natural selection is accepted but the theory has changed to claim that "no new information" happens. So creationism tries to change in the face of falsification. It's just that it can't change the basic statements, and those have been falsified. All creationism is attempt to do is pretend it's not falsified.

I would expect a Biblical literalist to have the fallacy that if something is not 100% right then it is totally wrong.

The basic statements of evolution have not changed. Common ancestry is still there and unfalsified. Natural selection producing adaptations and the transformation of species is still intact and unfalsified. In fact, new data shows that reproductive isolation (necessary for speciation) is under the control of natural selection and is actually selected for.

12. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462 Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000

BTW, Pudmuddle, are you going to tell us why Cuozzo is not listing his references for his paper? Why is he hiding those so we can't find them and check up on him?

 

[pudmuddle]

Actually, I am. I realize that I am challenging some very strong emotional beliefs of yours and it will cause you pain to give them up.

Don't worry, I am in no way emotionally attached to the belief that neandrathals were human.
And you haven't given me any reason to give up my belief in creation.

But Cuozzo hasn't established that the change over 80 years is significant. He has claimed it, but never given the data that would back the claim.

Also, the change would have to be same magnitude. After all, Cuozzo is saying that neandertals age more slowly that modern humans. Therefore, the changes that humans undergo in 80 years would be the same neandertals undergo in whatever number of years.

No, because he in not claiming that they were just like us. Why was the neandrathal child mis-measured by something like 20mm? You keep telling me anyone can measure the skulls, but such a big descepency was never caught? Or, because the real measurement indicates too much growth between child and adult to fit the short life span scenero?

I see that Cuozzo studies fossils of 3 neandertal children, but I don't see any comparison of their facial features to older neandterals to document change in their features. It seems that Cuozzo is violating his own doctrine of not trusting uniformity. He says that since sapiens change then neandertals change. Shouldn't he be documenting that?

Buy the book. The website does not cover everything.

Why don't you? You are the one using him as a source. I notice that the paper is 1994. That's nearly 9 years to get a follow-up.


Actually data leading to an alternative hypothesis to explain the Mungo mtDNA data. The data in this case comes from a study of other species. For instance, there are two species of snail whose shells are virutually identical. Yet one species reproduces sexually and the other is hermaphoditic. VERY different soft tissues but the same hard tissues. There are two species of sparrow in England whose skeletons are virtually identical. Even the feather colors and patterning are nearly identical, but they are different species.

So, there is data on which to base the hypothesis that skeletal identity does not mean species identity. Mungo is presumed to be H. sapiens based on the skeleton, but his mtDNA says he is not H. sapiens. (BTW, there is also a question of methodology and possible contamination of the samples.)

So, skeletal identity does not mean species identity. Which means we are basing the notion of neandrathal being a seperate species on DNA alone? Sounds shaky.

Theories do change. That is what they are supposed to do in the face of new data. Theories must either change or be discarded in the face of data. Notice that creationism has also changed over the years. It used to be maintained that speciation never occurred. Now speciation is accepted. It used to be maintained that natural selection never happened. Now natural selection is accepted but the theory has changed to claim that "no new information" happens. So creationism tries to change in the face of falsification. It's just that it can't change the basic statements, and those have been falsified. All creationism is attempt to do is pretend it's not falsified.

What basic statements? God created the heavens and earth? No, those don't change. So, evolution trys to rebuild it's model in the face of multiple falsifications-but what's good for one isn't for the other?

I would expect a Biblical literalist to have the fallacy that if something is not 100% right then it is totally wrong.

Cheap shot, and how does this fit with your statement. "if the conclusions are not correct, then they are not valid."
It works when you are denouncing creationists, but doen'st apply to evolution?

The basic statements of evolution have not changed. Common ancestry is still there and unfalsified. Natural selection producing adaptations and the transformation of species is still intact and unfalsified. In fact, new data shows that reproductive isolation (necessary for speciation) is under the control of natural selection and is actually selected for.

The basic statements of creation have not changed. Adaptation is not producing new species.

BTW, why was the La Chapelle neandrathal found with jasper stones and buried with ocre? Did neandrathals wear jewels and have burial ceremonys? Also found was a leg bone from a bovide of some sort-did they also domesticate livestock?

12. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462 Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000

BTW, Pudmuddle, are you going to tell us why Cuozzo is not listing his references for his paper? Why is he hiding those so we can't find them and check up on him?

I don't work for Cuozzo, so I can't speak for him. Why can't you look up the original article using the references that are included?

 

[Vance]

But, Pudmuddle, it *is* creating new species!

Even AIG acknowledges this.

 

[lucaspa]

Don't worry, I am in no way emotionally attached to the belief that neandrathals were human.
And you haven't given me any reason to give up my belief in creation.

I should hope I haven't given any reason to give up CREATION. We are discussing the HOW of creation, not whether the universe or species were created. Or haven't you figured out yet that evolution is not denying God?

That neandertals are fully sapiens is part of your belief in creationISM, and I am giving you reason to give that up.

No, because he in not claiming that they were just like us. Why was the neandrathal child mis-measured by something like 20mm? You keep telling me anyone can measure the skulls, but such a big descepency was never caught? Or, because the real measurement indicates too much growth between child and adult to fit the short life span scenero?

How do we know it was mismeasured? Cuozzo never gave us the references to the original papers to look at the original pictures or see what their measurements were. Cuozzo only gave us 4 references out of 31 used! And none of the references was to the data he was talking about. So, you talk of evolutionist distortion, how do you know we are not dealing with creationist distortion? Why else withold the references so we can't check up on him?

Now, I don't see any indication at the website that the growth could NOT have occurred. I see that Cuozzo is challenging the estimates of the ages of the children, saying they are too young. But I don't see where the kids could not have grown.

Buy the book. The website does not cover everything.

I see. Then why did you give us the website as though it were all the relevant data?

So, skeletal identity does not mean species identity. Which means we are basing the notion of neandrathal being a seperate species on DNA alone? Sounds shaky.

I said that having skeletal identity does not always mean having the same species. Skeletons alone underestimate the number of species because you can have soft tissue differences that don't show in the skeletons. However, in neandertals we have both skeletal differences and mtDNA. So we know neandertals and sapiens are separate species. With Mungo we have near identical skeletons but different mtDNA. You are using that to call the mtDNA into question. Equally valid is that the mtDNA is accurate and it calls into question that Mungo and sapiens are the same species.

What basic statements?

For evolution? The basic statements are: common ancestry with descent with modification and natural selection gives the adaptive changes.

God created the heavens and earth? No, those don't change. So, evolution trys to rebuild it's model in the face of multiple falsifications-but what's good for one isn't for the other?

God created the heavens and the earth is CREATION. Creationism is a specific how God did this. In YEC the original theory was that species were immutable, 144 hour creation, 10,000 year old earth, global Flood, direct creation of each species. Remember, Darwin's book was Origin of the Species. Well, it has been so well shown that species form from previous species that the theory now says this happens.

What we are discussing is whether the "multiple falsification" of evolution are valid. Creationism was the accepted theory 1700-1831. The data falsified it and all those scientists who held to creationism recognized that and admitted it was falsified.

However, if scientists (who were all deists or theists) can admit that creationism is falsified, then they would also admit that evolution is falsified. So you have a problem: they haven't done so. That should have you questioning the validity of the "multiple falsifications" of evolution.

What we are dealing with, Pudmuddle, is a group of people who won't admit creationism is falsified for emotional reasons.

Originally Posted By: lucaspa

I would expect a Biblical literalist to have the fallacy that if something is not 100% right then it is totally wrong.

Cheap shot, and how does this fit with your statement. "if the conclusions are not correct, then they are not valid."
It works when you are denouncing creationists, but doen'st apply to evolution?

Two out-of-context quotes. The first refers to your statement:

The conclusions drawn are NEVER 100% correct, so I guess that makes them all invalid.

Simply because each conclusion is not 100% correct, it doesn't make all of them wrong. One of them can be correct, right? But literalists have this idea if the Bible isn't 100% right, then it's 100% wrong, right? Is that true? NO! Why? Because each claim has to be evaluated independently.

The second was in response to your statement

I don't claim all of Cuozzo's conclusions are correct, ... that are just as valid.

See? You said the conclusions were not correct. Well, then, that negates your second statement. I was just pointing out that your sentence internally contradicted itself.

The basic statements of creation have not changed. Adaptation is not producing new species.

But it is. Observed.
12. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462 Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000
4. Macnair, M. R. 1981. Tolerance of higher plants to toxic materials.In: J. A. Bishop and L. M. Cook (eds.). Genetic consequences of man made change. Pp.177-297. Academic Press, New York.
5. Toxic Tailings and Tolerant Grass by RE Cook in Natural History, vol90(3): 28-38, 1981
1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980.

BTW, why was the La Chapelle neandrathal found with jasper stones and buried with ocre? Did neandrathals wear jewels and have burial ceremonys? Also found was a leg bone from a bovide of some sort-did they also domesticate livestock?

That's a problem for creationists, isn't it? It's tough for you to imagine two sentient species, isn't it?

The reason is that it does appear that there were two sentient species on the planet. That neandertals did have a belief in life after death, had art, and may have domesticated animals. They were not quite as adaptive in tool making as sapiens (they kept their basic stone tool kit while sapiens developed a better one) and they did not have the level of language ability of sapiens. So sapiens out-competed them and they went extinct.

I don't work for Cuozzo, so I can't speak for him. Why can't you look up the original article using the references that are included?

because they aren't therein the other references. Look for yourself. The numbering of references goes to 31 but there are only 4 listed. And none of them have the authors listed associated with the fossils Cuozzo is discussing. We are told the references are being worked on! Worked on! What does that mean? Didn't he have them when he wrote the article? Then why use all those numbers? No, it looks like the references are being witheld. Do they even exist or has Cuozzo made it all up?

 

[sfs]

That's not all the data. Sequences have a mean and standard deviation of divergence. We have enough sequences from 3 individuals to show that the mtDNA sequences are different between neandertals and sapiens by 5%. This is 3 standard deviations beyond the means WITHIN each species. For us to be the same species, you need overlap in the bell-shaped curves, and you don't have that.

No, you don't need to have any particular genetic distance between populations to have two species. Subspecies of chimps (Pan troglodytes), for example, have mtDNA sequences that are more different than human and Neanderthal mtDNA, but they are still part of a single species. (On the other hand, humans and Neanderthals have larger morphological differences than chimps and bonobos, and the latter are clearly separate species.) The mtDNA evidence is quite clear that modern humans have not inherited Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA; that's why they're so different. It does not, and cannot, rule out the possibility that we have inherited Neanderthal DNA in some other part of our genome. (It does make it less likely, however.) It's quite likely that modern humans and Neanderthals were separate species, but not certain. In either case, it is quite clear that modern humans and Neanderthals were separated by at least several hundred thousand years of evolution, so I can't think of any solution that's faithful to the facts that won't make creationists unhappy.

 

[pudmuddle]

"That's a problem for creationists, isn't it? It's tough for you to imagine two sentient species, isn't it?

The reason is that it does appear that there were two sentient species on the planet. That neandertals did have a belief in life after death, had art, and may have domesticated animals. They were not quite as adaptive in tool making as sapiens (they kept their basic stone tool kit while sapiens developed a better one) and they did not have the level of language ability of sapiens. So sapiens out-competed them and they went extinct."

It's not tough at all to imagine two sentient species, it just causes some problems from a Biblical perspective.
I think it's possible there are sentient species on other planets, but that's another topic.

So, now we have a kinder, gentler neandrathal than originally thought? Nevermind that most people still have the caveman, knuckledragging concept that was taught for many years. Evolutionists had to admit that they did have art, believed in the afterlife, crafted tools, etc.
In fact, were pretty much like homo sapiens, except of course they're said to not talk real well, but there is no real proof of that.

Civilized man has devoloped odd veiws of "primitive" Making a living with stone and wood tools, surviving on a hunter gatherer lifestyle requires levels of skill far beyond that of most modern men. It requires extensive intellect, esp in a hostile landscape.
Don't you see how perfectly cave dwelling "neandrathals" fit a Biblical veiw of post flood people scattered after the fall of babel?

sapens out competed them?-or they devolved into what what we know consider normal humans.

 

[The Barbarian]

And they were musical:

"The most significant discovery in Oscar Todkopf's career was entirely serendipitous. Last April, the Hindenburg University paleontologist was hiking in Germany's Neander Valley when he tripped over something on a trail. Some quick digging exposed the obstacle as the tip of a mastodon tusk. But it wasn't until a few weeks later when the entire tusk was unearthed and dated that Todkopf realized the magnitude of his find. The tusk, he believes, was a Neanderthal musical instrument. Todkopf calls it a Neanderthal "tuba." Like the bone flute discovered in Slovenia last year, the 50,000-year-old tuba predates the presence of anatomically modern humans in Europe. Sixteen carefully aligned holes dot the surface of the six-foot-long tusk. "I think a Neanderthal master craftsman must have used a stone awl to hollow out the tusk and to punch the holes," says Todkopf. The number of holes, he says, suggests that Neanderthals used an octave scale. Todkopf also uncovered the remains of what appear to be at least three other instruments. One resembles a bagpipe. Although the "bag" part disintegrated long ago, it left a protein "stain" in the rock. Analysis suggests it was probably fashioned from the bladder of some large animal, perhaps a woolly rhinoceros, and was at one time attached to some long, thin bones found arrayed around the impression."

A reconstructed version of the horn was made and played. Here's what it sounded like:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/neandertuba.aiff

 

[lucaspa]

"That's a problem for creationists, isn't it? It's tough for you to imagine two sentient species, isn't it?"

It's not tough at all to imagine two sentient species, it just causes some problems from a Biblical perspective.

As I said, it's a problem for creationists. It doesn't fit their theory.

So, now we have a kinder, gentler neandrathal than originally thought? Nevermind that most people still have the caveman, knuckledragging concept that was taught for many years. Evolutionists had to admit that they did have art, believed in the afterlife, crafted tools, etc.
In fact, were pretty much like homo sapiens, except of course they're said to not talk real well, but there is no real proof of that.

1. Theories change when new data is found. It does take time for the latest discoveries to make it into high school classrooms.

2. I'm not sure that neandertals were "kinder" or "gentler", but they were more sophisticated and intelligent that previously thought.

3. The idea of communication and the ability to manipulate fine sounds comes from work with the FOXP2 gene and the hyoid bone in the throats of neandertals. Another indication is that the neandertals never adopted the more sophisticated stone tool kit that sapiens introduced to Europse. Considering the close contact, it appears that they either 1) couldn't learn it or 2) having learned it couldn't pass it on to the next generation.

Making a living with stone and wood tools, surviving on a hunter gatherer lifestyle requires levels of skill far beyond that of most modern men.

The only reason that it's beyond most modern humans is that that it is knowledge no longer required and therefore has been lost. There is nothing inherent in modern humans that would prevent them from acquiring the skills. After all, many anthropologists have reconstructed and relearned how to make the same stone tools used by our ancestors. But why do so when they are useless in ordinary life?

Don't you see how perfectly cave dwelling "neandrathals" fit a Biblical veiw of post flood people scattered after the fall of babel?

No. After all, the people at the Tower of Babel knew architecture, herding, farming, metal tools, etc. Neandertals knew none of these. Why would they not? How does the literalist Biblical view (not the Biblical view) explain the very different morphology and the lack of hybrids with sapiens?

sapens out competed them?-or they devolved into what what we know consider normal humans.

If they "devolved" then we would still have neandertal DNA in our genomes. That means old sequences dating back to 300,000 years ago when neandertals first appeared. They don't.

11. A Gibbons, Modern men trace ancestry to African migrants. Science 292:1051-1052, May 11, 2001. Y chromosome of EVERY person in the study could be traced to forefathers who lived in Africa 35,000 to 89,000 years ago. "one self-described 'dedicated multiregionalist,' Vince Sarich of the University of California, Berkeley, admitted: 'I have undergone a conversion -- a sort of epiphany. There are no old Y chromosomes lineages. There are no old mtDNA lineages. Period. It was a total replacement.' " In another study, Peter Underhill and colleagues analyzed 218 markers in 1062 men from 21 populations.Primary paper is Y Ke, B Su, D Lu, L Chen, H Li, C Qi, S Marzuki, R Deka, P Underhill, C Xiao, M Shriver, J Lell, D Wallace, RS Wells, M Selestad, P Oefner, D Zhu, W Huang, R Chakraborty, Z Chen, L Jin, African Origin of modern humans in east Asia: a tale of 12,000 Y chromosomes. Science 292: 1151-1153, May 11, 2001.

 

[Vance]

What I find interesting is that Creationists will accept the evidence about Neanderthals given to them by scientists whole-heartedly to the extent that they believe that it fits their theories, and even quote sources, etc. They gloss right over the fact that these same scientists who are providing the facts they use are also showing that the Neanderthals lived tens of thousands of years ago, much earlier than the YEC timeline.

 

[pudmuddle]

As I said, it's a problem for creationists. It doesn't fit their theory.



1. Theories change when new data is found. It does take time for the latest discoveries to make it into high school classrooms.

2. I'm not sure that neandertals were "kinder" or "gentler", but they were more sophisticated and intelligent that previously thought.

3. The idea of communication and the ability to manipulate fine sounds comes from work with the FOXP2 gene and the hyoid bone in the throats of neandertals. Another indication is that the neandertals never adopted the more sophisticated stone tool kit that sapiens introduced to Europse. Considering the close contact, it appears that they either 1) couldn't learn it or 2) having learned it couldn't pass it on to the next generation.

Ok, how many neandrathal skeletons do they have, total? Is this proven to be the case, or is it just that it hasn't been discovered yet? After all, scientists have gone so far as to claim pottery in a cave with neandrathal remains was actually pushed up from another level by frost heave, or that more delicate objects were the result of trading with sapiens. Distortions of evidence happen. How does the average joe know who or what to believe?

The only reason that it's beyond most modern humans is that that it is knowledge no longer required and therefore has been lost. There is nothing inherent in modern humans that would prevent them from acquiring the skills. After all, many anthropologists have reconstructed and relearned how to make the same stone tools used by our ancestors. But why do so when they are useless in ordinary life?

Agreed, to a point. I'm just trying to point out that there is nothing to say a neandrathal could not learn computer skills or drive a car, if the need had arose, eithor.
Useless in ordinary life? Lol!-I make a portain of my income selling braintanned hides. Some primitive skills do come in handy.
Besides, there may come a day when I need those skills for survival.

No. After all, the people at the Tower of Babel knew architecture, herding, farming, metal tools, etc. Neandertals knew none of these. Why would they not? How does the literalist Biblical view (not the Biblical view) explain the very different morphology and the lack of hybrids with sapiens?

Knew none or had no need of those skills? Or, no acess to metal? How did neandrathals and humas live peaceably with one another and not intermix? That is a bigger mystery to me.



I

f they "devolved" then we would still have neandertal DNA in our genomes. That means old sequences dating back to 300,000 years ago when neandertals first appeared. They don't.

11. A Gibbons, Modern men trace ancestry to African migrants. Science 292:1051-1052, May 11, 2001. Y chromosome of EVERY person in the study could be traced to forefathers who lived in Africa 35,000 to 89,000 years ago. "one self-described 'dedicated multiregionalist,' Vince Sarich of the University of California, Berkeley, admitted: 'I have undergone a conversion -- a sort of epiphany. There are no old Y chromosomes lineages. There are no old mtDNA lineages. Period. It was a total replacement.' " In another study, Peter Underhill and colleagues analyzed 218 markers in 1062 men from 21 populations.Primary paper is Y Ke, B Su, D Lu, L Chen, H Li, C Qi, S Marzuki, R Deka, P Underhill, C Xiao, M Shriver, J Lell, D Wallace, RS Wells, M Selestad, P Oefner, D Zhu, W Huang, R Chakraborty, Z Chen, L Jin, African Origin of modern humans in east Asia: a tale of 12,000 Y chromosomes. Science 292: 1151-1153, May 11, 2001.

In a way, isn't this kind of kick in the teeth for evolution? The neandrathal was an intermedient species in theory. Now, where are the evolving half ape humans?

 

[Vance]

In a way, isn't this kind of kick in the teeth for evolution? The neandrathal was an intermedient species in theory. Now, where are the evolving half ape humans?

No, that is where I think you misunderstand things. The Neandertal is not considered an intermediate species. It is not in the line of Modern humans at all. Both H. sapiens and H. neandertalis are thought to have a common ancestor (H. Erectus? or Egaster? not sure right off the top of my head). But they are a separate branch. True, there are some paleantologists who believe that they are close enough that they should be classified as H. sapiens neandertalis (where we are H. sapiens sapiens), which would still make them a separate and co-existing line, but just able to interbreed.

Now, why would you think there would be "evolving half ape humans"?

The idea is that all the other hominid lines (which were not in the direct line of descent to H. sapiens) simply died out, Neandertals being the last of them. The important point is what to make of the "evolving half ape humans" we have record of over the last few million years. Species with a very strong mix of ape-like and modern human features.

 

[lucaspa]

Ok, how many neandrathal skeletons do they have, total? Is this proven to be the case, or is it just that it hasn't been discovered yet? After all, scientists have gone so far as to claim pottery in a cave with neandrathal remains was actually pushed up from another level by frost heave, or that more delicate objects were the result of trading with sapiens. Distortions of evidence happen. How does the average joe know who or what to believe?

There are over 200 neandertal skeletons or parts of them. The hyoid bone of the neandertals is discovered and humans don't have one.

The "average joe" needs to understand that scientists fight like cats and dogs over every new discovery as long as fighting is possible. You learn patience to watch the fighting while witholding judgement until a consensus is reached and the data is so overwhelming that one side has "won". This is the case with the mtDNA data. In 1997 there were huge fights over whether neandertals were a separate species. Today the fight is over and consensus is reached that they were.

I'm just trying to point out that there is nothing to say a neandrathal could not learn computer skills or drive a car, if the need had arose, eithor.

Right. Being in the past and having a primitive technology does not equal stupid. A neandertal could perhaps learn to operate a computer or drive a car, but the evidence is that he could not invent the technology. After all, chimps can be taught both but no one supposes they could invent and make the artifacts.

Useless in ordinary life? Lol!-I make a portain of my income selling braintanned hides. Some primitive skills do come in handy.
Besides, there may come a day when I need those skills for survival.

For most people, useless in ordinary life. Notice that there may come a day when the skills are useful. And the day may never come, also.

Knew none or had no need of those skills?

Hmm. Which works better at piercing mammoth hide: a metal spearpoint or a stone one? And since later Europeans mined and refined metal ther is no reason the neandertals couldn't -- if they had the skills.

BTW, it's plain that neandertals cannot be after the Tower of Babel. Neandertals hunted mammoths. The "Biblical view" is that mammoths went extinct in the Flood (creationists claim that frozen mammoths were frozen in weather associated with the Flood). That was before the Tower of Babel.

How did neandrathals and humas live peaceably with one another and not intermix? That is a bigger mystery to me.

Why? After all, humans and chimps have lived relatively peaceably in Africa for millenia and don't intermix. Why? They are separate species! Same here. As long as sapiens populations are low so that they do not need the resources in neandertal territories, then why not let the other species exist?

There are hints among fossils in Europe that the co-existence was not always peaceful. There is at least one fossil showing a wound with a stone spearpoint (still in it) of the type used by sapiens.

In a way, isn't this kind of kick in the teeth for evolution? The neandrathal was an intermedient species in theory. Now, where are the evolving half ape humans?

Neandertal is not an intermediate species. Neandertals and sapiens are sibling species with H. erectus as our common ancestor.

 

[lucaspa]

Now, where are the evolving half ape humans?

Here:

F. Clark Howell, Early Man Time Life Library, 1980
Francis M Clapham, Our Human Ancestors, 1976

Afarensis to habilis: OH 24 is in between A. afarensis and habilis

Habilis to erectus:
Oldovai: Bed I has Habilis at bottom, then fossils with perfect mixture of characteristics of habilis and erectus, and erectus at top. At bottom of Bed II (top of Bed I) have fossils resemble H. erectus but brain case smaller than later H. erectus that lies immediately above them. pg 81
OH 13, 14 was classified by some anthropologists as H. habilis but others as early H. erectus. 650 cc
D2700 from Dmasi has features of both hablis and erectus. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.html
Koobi Fora: Another succession with several habilis up to 2 Mya, then transitionals, and then erectus at 1.5 Mya.

Erectus to sapiens:
Omo valley. Omo-2 "remarkable mixture of Homo erectus and Homo sapiens characteristics" pg. 70.
Omo-1: another mix of erectus and sapiens
Omo Valley, Ethiopia: ~ 500,000 ya. mixture erectus and sapiens features
Sale in Morrocco: skull discovered in 1971, ~300,000 ya. also shows erectus and sapiens features.
Broken Hill skull: another skull with mixtures of erectus and sapiens features
Tautavel, 200Kya: large brow ridges and small cranium but rest of face looks like H. sapiens.
"We shall see the problem of drawing up a dividing line between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens is not easy." pg 65.
Ngaloba Beds of Laetoli, 120 Kya: ~1200 cc and suite of archaic (erectus) features.
Guamde in Turkana Basin, 180 Kya: more modern features than Ngaloba but in-between erectus and sapiens.
Skhul, Israel "posed a puzzle to paleoanthropologists, appearing to be almost but not quite modern humans"
Skhul and Jebel Qafza caves: "robust" H. sapiens at 120 Kya that have brow ridges like erectus but brain case like sapiens.

Erectus to neandertalis:
Stenheim and Swanscombe, 250 Kya: called H. heidelbergensis but have characteristics of both erectus and neandertalis. Large brows and small cranium ( ~1200cc) but otherwise looks like neandertalis
Petroloma skull (complete): brow ridges and low forehead like erectus but not quite as primitive but not as derived as sapiens or neandertalis. Back of head resembles sapiens. 250 Kya
Vertesszollos, 400 Kya. Teeth like H. erectus but occipital bone like H. sapiens. brain ~ 1300 cc

 

[pudmuddle]

I know that they are not considered an intermediate species NOW.
Let me re state what I said to be clearer: In a way, isn't this kind of kick in the teeth for evolution? The neandrathal WAS an intermedient species in theory.
I'll get into the rest when I have more time.

 

[lucaspa]

Let me re state what I said to be clearer: In a way, isn't this kind of kick in the teeth for evolution? The neandrathal WAS an intermedient species in theory.

Not for all of evolution or the basic statements of evolution: descent with modification and natural selection.

It's a "kick in the teeth" for the multiregionalists, who proposed that H. sapiens arose by gene flow of all the H. erectus and the H. neandertal populations. But they really didn't stand a chance anyway because no other species has arisen that way. It was a theory that flew in the face of all other data on how evolution works. So Milford Wolpoff is discomfitted. Evolution goes on its merry way. No big deal.

Otherwise, all it is is redrawing the family tree.

Let's give an analogy. My ancestors trace back to England in the early 1700s. At that point it looks like the third son of a farmer (only the eldest son inherits) left for the New World to look for land. However, say some geneologist does more digging and finds that it was the 4th son who left instead. Does this invalidate that I have a family tree? Or that it goes back to England in the early 1700s? Or even that it traces to that particular farm family? It shakes things up a little, but not enough to really matter.

 

[Vance]

The simple fact that there *are* these intense debates going on about how these fossils should be characterized makes the process more likely to eventually come up with the correct layout. The same goes for the ability of the scientific community to insist, after a thorough hashing out of the evidence or obtaining new evidence, that implausible hypotheses be abandonded. Only that which is truly sound will stand the test of time after running that gauntlet. This is the strength, not the weakness, in the system.

BTW, I thought the multi-regional theory was still kicking. It is still presented as one alternate view in the recent Scientific American, counter-pointed with the Eve theory.

 

[pudmuddle]

There are over 200 neandertal skeletons or parts of them. The hyoid bone of the neandertals is discovered and humans don't have one.

200-some of which are actually one bone or two-and you seem to think we know all there is to know about them?

The "average joe" needs to understand that scientists fight like cats and dogs over every new discovery as long as fighting is possible. You learn patience to watch the fighting while witholding judgement until a consensus is reached and the data is so overwhelming that one side has "won". This is the case with the mtDNA data. In 1997 there were huge fights over whether neandertals were a separate species. Today the fight is over and consensus is reached that they were.

Which is a point I've been trying to make all along. Scientists do not agree on how the evolutionary tree has grown-and the fact that they are forced to reach some sort of consesis does not mean they have all been convinced. But, we-"the average joe" are supposed to believe that the consensus reached is the correct one? Forgive me if I remain skeptical.

Right. Being in the past and having a primitive technology does not equal stupid. A neandertal could perhaps learn to operate a computer or drive a car, but the evidence is that he could not invent the technology. After all, chimps can be taught both but no one supposes they could invent and make the artifacts.



For most people, useless in ordinary life. Notice that there may come a day when the skills are useful. And the day may never come, also.



Hmm. Which works better at piercing mammoth hide: a metal spearpoint or a stone one? And since later Europeans mined and refined metal ther is no reason the neandertals couldn't -- if they had the skills.

A properly sharped obsidian knife is sharper than steel. Surgeons have used them in delicate procedures because they can be sharpened to a much finer edge. If I stab you with an obsidian tipped spear or a modern broadhead, one would be just as lethal as the other. I'm betting the obsidian would peice deeper with less force applyed.
How do you know that no neandrathals used metal. Do you think they have all been found?

BTW, it's plain that neandertals cannot be after the Tower of Babel. Neandertals hunted mammoths. The "Biblical view" is that mammoths went extinct in the Flood (creationists claim that frozen mammoths were frozen in weather associated with the Flood). That was before the Tower of Babel.

So? Remember my veiw is that they were men who lived very long lives.
They would have existed before and after the flood. I also don't necessarily follow all creationist veiws-they vary too, being humans like all of us. Maybe Noah had a couple baby mommoths on the ark and they didn't go extinct until men hunted them to exinction. After all, they were basically a walking grocery store, if not an easy kill.

Why? After all, humans and chimps have lived relatively peaceably in Africa for millenia and don't intermix. Why? They are separate species! Same here. As long as sapiens populations are low so that they do not need the resources in neandertal territories, then why not let the other species exist?

Because mankind rarely can pass a generation without war. I doubt it was any different in the past.

There are hints among fossils in Europe that the co-existence was not always peaceful. There is at least one fossil showing a wound with a stone spearpoint (still in it) of the type used by sapiens.


Neandertal is not an intermediate species. Neandertals and sapiens are sibling species with H. erectus as our common ancestor.