Rethinking Neanderthal Man

Calminian · Jun 7, 2013

I didn't realize creationists had some disagreements about Neanderthal man, and am just now learning where the disagreements lie. Originally I remember hearing creationists say that their bones showed signs of certain diseases which explained their appearance, but many creationists now don't believe that to be an adequate explanation.

Here's an interesting overview of the whole issue.

Those Enigmatic Neanderthals
What Are They Saying? Are We Listening?
by Anne Habermehl, Independent Scholar

But thanks Jack Cuozzo and his book, Buried Alive, this debate has taken and interesting turn. Rather than primitive cavemen, Neanderthals may been our advanced ancestors (either pre-flood or early post flood). They were literally bigger stronger and smarter (which we'd kind of expect given the biblical record).

I'm a new comer to this issue, but am finding it fascinating. I'd be curious of the opinions out there, even of evolutionists.

sfs · Jun 7, 2013

Calminian said:
But thanks Jack Cuozzo and his book, Buried Alive, this debate has taken and interesting turn. Rather than primitive cavemen, Neanderthals may been our advanced ancestors (either pre-flood or early post flood). They were literally bigger stronger and smarter (which we'd kind of expect given the biblical record).

I'm a new comer to this issue, but am finding it fascinating. I'd be curious of the opinions out there, even of evolutionists.

They were bigger and stronger, but there is no reason to think they were smarter. Their artifacts tended to be somewhat simpler than those of anatomically modern humans, and they show fewer signs of symbolic behavior. Thanks to genetics, we know that Neandertals were not our ancestors, but our cousins, except that non-Africans interbred with them to a limited extent.

On the other hand, if you find a conspiracy buff like Cuozo persuasive, you're not likely to be interested in what a mere scientist has to say on the subject.

Calminian · Jun 7, 2013

sfs said:
They were bigger and stronger, but there is no reason to think they were smarter. Their artifacts tended to be somewhat simpler than those of anatomically modern humans, and they show fewer signs of symbolic behavior. Thanks to genetics, we know that Neandertals were not our ancestors, but our cousins, except that non-Africans interbred with them to a limited extent.

On the other hand, if you find a conspiracy buff like Cuozo persuasive, you're not likely to be interested in what a mere scientist has to say on the subject.

Well from what I understand, there's a lot of scientists that are not completely sold on the genetic aspect of this debate. In fact, secular scientist have found an apparent homo sapien neanderthali hybrid? Also we're finding remains of both homo sapien and neanderthals together, showing that lived together. It's all referenced in the article with a ton of footnotes.

Now you say they were not smarter than us do to some of the tools we find them with, but we find homo sapien remains with simple tools as well. Why would you assume they neanderthals were dumber.

Another really really interesting thing point out was the neanderthal remains near underwater megaliths. We these the ancient builders who lived prior to the water levels rising?

sfs · Jun 7, 2013

Calminian said:
Well from what I understand, there's a lot of scientists that are not completely sold on the genetic aspect of this debate.

I don't know which scientists you mean. Since a complete DNA sequence of a Neandertal is now available, the genetic situation is quite clear.

In fact, secular scientist have found an apparent homo sapien neanderthali hybrid? Also we're finding remains of both homo sapien and neanderthals together, showing that lived together. It's all referenced in the article with a ton of footnotes.

That kind of finding is always a little fuzzy, since it's hard to be certain that a skeleton is actually a hybrid of two closely related species, or that two populations lived together, rather than in the same place 100 years apart. The genetics are unambiguous, however: Neandetals were closely related to modern humans but genetically distinct, and did interbreed with modern humans, contributing about 2% of the genes that all non-Africans have.

Now you say they were not smarter than us do to some of the tools we find them with, but we find homo sapien remains with simple tools as well. Why would you assume they neanderthals were dumber.

I didn't say they were not smarter than us; I said there was no reason to think they were smarter.

mark kennedy · Jun 7, 2013

Well the cranial capacity being about 10% bigger might lead to some speculation along those lines.

Calminian · Jun 7, 2013

sfs said:
I don't know which scientists you mean. Since a complete DNA sequence of a Neandertal is now available, the genetic situation is quite clear.

I'm certain you know much more about DNA than I do, so I'll have to concede the point for now.

sfs said:
That kind of finding is always a little fuzzy, since it's hard to be certain that a skeleton is actually a hybrid of two closely related species, or that two populations lived together, rather than in the same place 100 years apart. The genetics are unambiguous, however: Neandetals were closely related to modern humans but genetically distinct, and did interbreed with modern humans, contributing about 2% of the genes that all non-Africans have.

So you're saying they did interbreed?

sfs said:
I didn't say they were not smarter than us; I said there was no reason to think they were smarter.

If you get a chance, take in the article. I'd be interested in an evolution response to this.

This article also, by Cuozzo himself.

Neanderthal children's fossils
Huge problems have been uncovered in evolutionary reconstructions of Neanderthal children's fossils.
by John W. Cuozzo (the author of Buried Alive)

SkyWriting · Jun 13, 2013

Calminian said:
I didn't realize creationists had some disagreements about Neanderthal man, and am just now learning where the disagreements lie. Originally I remember hearing creationists say that their bones showed signs of certain diseases which explained their appearance, but many creationists now don't believe that to be an adequate explanation.

Creationists are no better at creating fiction about the past than
secular science-fictionists.

Calminian · Jun 13, 2013

SkyWriting said:
Creationists are no better at creating fiction about the past than
secular science-fictionists.

Well in fairness, they have found some rickets like conditions in some of the neanderthals bones, so it was a reasonable inference. But they're now thinking that the neanderthal conditions may not be the result of diseases, but extremely long ages. IOW's the varying bone formations were not something they were born with, but developed having lived much longer than modern humans. They've found that young neanderthals don't have these conditions.

Presbyterian Continuist · Jun 13, 2013

SkyWriting said:
Creationists are no better at creating fiction about the past than
secular science-fictionists.

Here are some things that are not fiction. Dinosaur bones were discovered in a section of rock. In the same section of rock was a human footprint, exactly the same as modern man, and the fascinating thing about it, the footprint was sandalled! This means that civilised man existed as the same time as the dinosaurs.

All the scientific evidence that might have been used to support the idea of a subspecies of human beings, has been proved to be hoaxes, and have actually been the bones of pigs and donkeys. A full sketeton was found that was said to be an inferior species of human, but on examination it was found to be a normal person with a genetic bone disorder.

These are scientific facts. No actual evidence has ever been found of any other type of human being existing other than modern man as we know it. And there is no evidence of any human societies of any kind before around 6000 BC, and the ones since them are exactly the same as modern man, and show fairly advanced levels of civilisation.

Oh, I forgot. It was discovered by material evidence that the North American Indians migrated over an ice bridge from Siberia to North America about 10,000 years ago. These people were the same human beings as modern man, and show a very civilised society.

It is evolution that is fiction - a fairy tale.

AmericanChristian91 · Jun 13, 2013

Um, a bunch of fossils have been found that are not modern man but are also not bones of modern animals such as pigs, donkeys, etc.

List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes there have been hoaxes, such as the Piltdown Man, but that doesn't mean all fossils of ancient humans are fake.

So Oscarr are you saying there is no such thing as a Neanderthal?
Neanderthal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What do you make of obviously very human like fossils/bones that are not exactly the same as modern human bones?

Presbyterian Continuist · Jun 13, 2013

AmericanSoldier91 said:
Um, a bunch of fossils have been found that are not modern man ("Lucy" being just one example), but are also not bones of modern animals such as pigs, donkeys, etc.

List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes there have been hoaxes, such as the Piltdown Man, but that doesn't mean all fossils of ancient humans are fake.

So Oscarr are you saying there is no such thing as a Neanderthal?
Neanderthal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What do you make of obviously very human like fossils/bones that are not exactly the same as modern human bones?

They have never found any fossils that can be reliably identified as human. Any full skeletons that have been found are exactly the same as modern man.

As I said before, the earliest evidence of human society is of the American Indians who migrated to North America 10,000 years ago. They were no different to the North American Indians of today.

The missing link cannot be found, because there is no missing link. Human beings are the same as they were over 10,000 years ago when they first appeared.

Science depends on observation. No one has been able to personally observe the development of human society from its origins until anthropologists were able to observe human societies.

Papias · Jun 13, 2013

Cal wrote:

So you're saying they did interbreed?

Yes. As sfs pointed out, we have their full genome, and of course know the human genome well. The Neanderthals separated from the human line, and were genetically distinct, but did interbreed with our ancestors before going extinct (and so we have Neanderthal ancestors).

It's easy to see in our genome - a test at www.23andme.com shows how much (among a lot more information about ancestry and health). I had my genome mapped through 23andme, and I have a little more Neanderthal than average. Average is 2.4 to 2.7 %, and at 2.8%, about 3 out of 4 people have less Neanderthal than me. My friend, however, is over 3% Neanderthal - more than 99% of humans today!

Well the cranial capacity being about 10% bigger might lead to some speculation along those lines.

Yes, but they also had bigger bodies. They were likely about as intelligent as we are.

I'd be interested in an evolution response to this. (Cuozzo)

Here's a pretty detailed response, by someone who knows a lot more about this than I do:

Buried Alive: The Startling Truth about Neanderthal Man

Oscarr wrote:

Dinosaur bones were discovered in a section of rock. In the same section of rock was a human footprint, exactly the same as modern man, and the fascinating thing about it, the footprint was sandalled! .....

Um, the Paluxy tracks are a hoax. Even creationists admit that.

All the scientific evidence that might have been used to support the idea of a subspecies of human beings, has been proved to be hoaxes, and have actually been the bones of pigs and donkeys. ....

No actual evidence has ever been found of any other type of human being existing other than modern man as we know it. And there is no evidence of any human societies of any kind before around 6000 BC,

Did you bother to read the links that Soldier posted? That alone (and there is a lot more available), shows that you are just plain wrong here. There are literally hundreds of human evolution fossils that are recognized as not being hoaxes.

Look, you may not accept our evolution from earlier life, but at least avoid citing hoaxes and stating obvious falsehoods. That makes it very hard for all of us - creationist and evolution supporter - to witness for Christ, because it makes us look uninformed (at best).

In Jesus' name-

Papias

Calminian · Jun 13, 2013

Oscarr said:
They have never found any fossils that can be reliably identified as human. Any full skeletons that have been found are exactly the same as modern man.

As I said before, the earliest evidence of human society is of the American Indians who migrated to North America 10,000 years ago. They were no different to the North American Indians of today.

The missing link cannot be found, because there is no missing link. Human beings are the same as they were over 10,000 years ago when they first appeared.

Science depends on observation. No one has been able to personally observe the development of human society from its origins until anthropologists were able to observe human societies.

Agree with all the above for the most part, and am pretty much on the same page with you on just about everything. But there are a few points regarding the OP you may be missing. Neanderthal man was human, and our ancestor. Neanderthal's distinctive are not the result of being a different species, nor the result of diseases. The distinctions are due to (according to the theory) the long lifespan he lived. IOWs since Shem lived 500 years after the flood, he developed the distinctives we know as neanderthal man. We don't find this distinctives in young neanderthals, only old ones. Thus men like Shem, Eber, etc would have had time to develop these characteristics, while shorter lived humans were not. Thus according to the theory Neanderthal was hardly the dumb brute depicted in stories, but our superior advanced long-lived ancestor. At least that's the case Jack Cuozzo has been making (and a lot of creationists seem to be jumping on board). His book: Buried Alive: The Startling Truth About Neanderthal Man.

Presbyterian Continuist · Jun 13, 2013

Papias said:
Cal wrote:

Yes. As sfs pointed out, we have their full genome, and of course know the human genome well. The Neanderthals separated from the human line, and were genetically distinct, but did interbreed with our ancestors before going extinct (and so we have Neanderthal ancestors).

It's easy to see in our genome - a test at www.23andme.com shows how much (among a lot more information about ancestry and health). I had my genome mapped through 23andme, and I have a little more Neanderthal than average. Average is 2.4 to 2.7 %, and at 2.8%, about 3 out of 4 people have less Neanderthal than me. My friend, however, is over 3% Neanderthal - more than 99% of humans today!

Yes, but they also had bigger bodies. They were likely about as intelligent as we are.

Here's a pretty detailed response, by someone who knows a lot more about this than I do:

Buried Alive: The Startling Truth about Neanderthal Man

Oscarr wrote:

Um, the Paluxy tracks are a hoax. Even creationists admit that.

Did you bother to read the links that Soldier posted? That alone (and there is a lot more available), shows that you are just plain wrong here. There are literally hundreds of human evolution fossils that are recognized as not being hoaxes.

Look, you may not accept our evolution from earlier life, but at least avoid citing hoaxes and stating obvious falsehoods. That makes it very hard for all of us - creationist and evolution supporter - to witness for Christ, because it makes us look uninformed (at best).

In Jesus' name-

Papias

Everything that I have referred to is from research from respected scientists with published articles in prominent scientific periodicals.

Eminent scientists have proved through experimentation and research in genetics that all human beings came from the one male/female pair. There is no conclusive evidence of any sub species of human being.

Evolution over millions of years could not have happened, because if the sun existed millions of years ago, it would have been so big that it would have burned up the planet and everything on it. The sun is shrinking at a measured rate every year, and scientists have calculated that life on earth could only have existed for the last 10,000 years. This means that evolution could not have taken place in such a short time from.

Anyway, if you leave a mixture of dirt and seawater for 10 years, 100 years, 1000, 1 million years, it will still be dirt and seawater. Even if an electrical current was applied to it, it would still be dirt and seawater. Anyway, electrocution kills things. It doesn't bring life. Also the mutation theory is a crock because the scientific evidence is that mutations weaken the organism not strengthens it. If an organism got stronger through radiation mutation, then a master race of improved human beings should have resulted from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the scientific evidence is contrary. The radiation has killed people, not made them better. Science has proven that if an organism is mutated even in a very small way, it dies, or is made sterile and cannot reproduce itself. These evidences alone show that evolution is merely a fantasy and a God-denying theory.

In fact, Darwin's Origin of the Species has been abandoned, and even Darwin himself died a frustrated man because he could prove his own theories. Neo-Darwinism relies on the mutation theory, which is easily disproved by simple science and observation. No-one has yet been able to mutate an organism to make it better, and no-one has been able to make a live amino acid, even though it has been attempted in laboratories under very controlled conditions and sophisticated equipment. So the same happening by chance is so remote it seems ridiculous even to think about it.

Papias · Jun 14, 2013

Oscarr wrote:

Everything that I have referred to is from research from respected scientists with published articles in prominent scientific periodicals.

If that is true, then could you please cite the references for each claim you made?

Eminent scientists have proved through experimentation and research in genetics that all human beings came from the one male/female pair.

Simply false. The geneticists often point out that mitochondrial eve and y chromosome adam lived thousands of years apart, and that the human population was always at least thousands of individuals. Look, I'll even give a reference: Jordan: "Mitochondrial Eve"

There is no conclusive evidence of any sub species of human being.

As mentioned earlier, this is simply a bare assertion. Soldier has already given data showning this to be false, and we are still waiting for you to offer credible support for it.

Evolution over millions of years could not have happened, because if the sun existed millions of years ago, it would have been so big that it would have burned up the planet and everything on it. The sun is shrinking at a measured rate every year,....could only have existed for the last 10,000 years.

Ouch, the "shrinking sun" canard. This, like the Paluxy hoax, is so embarrassing that even other creationists have abandoned it, and it makes us as Christians look like dupes. Please clarify if you still make this claim.

Anyway, if you leave a mixture of dirt and seawater for 10 years, 100 years, 1000, 1 million years, it will still be dirt and seawater. Even if an electrical current was applied to it, it would still be dirt and seawater.

I see the claim, and am waiting for you to cite some reference of this experiment.

Anyway, electrocution kills things. It doesn't bring life.

Never seen anyone need a defibrillator, eh?

Also the mutation theory is a crock because the scientific evidence is that mutations weaken the organism not strengthens it. ......

Again, a claim without citing evidence. Mutations are most often silent, commonly harmful, and rarely (but still sometimes) beneficial. Did you know there are many beneficial mutations documented? I can provide some if you like.

If an organism got stronger through radiation mutation, then a master race of improved human beings should have resulted from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the scientific evidence is contrary. The radiation has killed people, not made them better. ..... No-one has yet been able to mutate an organism to make it better.....Neo-Darwinism relies on the mutation theory, which is easily disproved by simple science and observation

Are you aware that radiation has been used to make literally thousands of beneficial mutations, from which you benefit every day?

Science has proven that if an organism is mutated even in a very small way, it dies, or is made sterile and cannot reproduce itself. These evidences alone show that evolution is merely a fantasy and a God-denying theory.

It would if true. The reality is that mutations are observed all the time. A. Eyre-Walker, P. D. Keightley, Nature Reviews Genetics 8, 610-618, 2007 In fact, each of us has some small (or large) mutations - including you.

In fact, Darwin's Origin of the Species has been abandoned, and even Darwin himself died a frustrated man because he could prove his own theories. . ....

Actually, these are too vague to assess. Everyone is in some way frustrated when they die, etc. Yes, parts of the OOS aren't correct - but the main ideas are now the central ideas of biology. Could you be more specific?

and no-one has been able to make a live amino acid, even though it has been attempted in laboratories under very controlled conditions and sophisticated equipment.

Wow, that's a ringer! It's obvious you don't understand what amino acids are, nor the fact that they are made every day by labs around the world. Your statement is worthy of going in my .sig - if there was any available space.

OK, you've made a lot of claims, and don't seem to be defending them before making new ones. That's known as the Gish-gallop. Maybe go back an list your claims, so it is easy to list the references you claim to have from reputable scientists, in peer-reviewed journals?

I'd like to have an informed and good discussion - would you?

In Christ-

Papias

P. S. Cal, you asked if any evolution supporter could give some thoughts on the book by Cuozzo. I posted a link to such a review. Did you read it? thnx - Papias

Presbyterian Continuist · Jun 16, 2013

Papias said:
Oscarr wrote:

If that is true, then could you please cite the references for each claim you made?

Simply false. The geneticists often point out that mitochondrial eve and y chromosome adam lived thousands of years apart, and that the human population was always at least thousands of individuals. Look, I'll even give a reference: Jordan: "Mitochondrial Eve"

As mentioned earlier, this is simply a bare assertion. Soldier has already given data showning this to be false, and we are still waiting for you to offer credible support for it.

Ouch, the "shrinking sun" canard. This, like the Paluxy hoax, is so embarrassing that even other creationists have abandoned it, and it makes us as Christians look like dupes. Please clarify if you still make this claim.

I see the claim, and am waiting for you to cite some reference of this experiment.

Never seen anyone need a defibrillator, eh?

Again, a claim without citing evidence. Mutations are most often silent, commonly harmful, and rarely (but still sometimes) beneficial. Did you know there are many beneficial mutations documented? I can provide some if you like.

Are you aware that radiation has been used to make literally thousands of beneficial mutations, from which you benefit every day?

Science has proven that if an organism is mutated even in a very small way, it dies, or is made sterile and cannot reproduce itself. These evidences alone show that evolution is merely a fantasy and a God-denying theory.

It would if true. The reality is that mutations are observed all the time. A. Eyre-Walker, P. D. Keightley, Nature Reviews Genetics 8, 610-618, 2007 In fact, each of us has some small (or large) mutations - including you.

Actually, these are too vague to assess. Everyone is in some way frustrated when they die, etc. Yes, parts of the OOS aren't correct - but the main ideas are now the central ideas of biology. Could you be more specific?

Wow, that's a ringer! It's obvious you don't understand what amino acids are, nor the fact that they are made every day by labs around the world. Your statement is worthy of going in my .sig - if there was any available space.

OK, you've made a lot of claims, and don't seem to be defending them before making new ones. That's known as the Gish-gallop. Maybe go back an list your claims, so it is easy to list the references you claim to have from reputable scientists, in peer-reviewed journals?

I'd like to have an informed and good discussion - would you?

In Christ-

Papias

P. S. Cal, you asked if any evolution supporter could give some thoughts on the book by Cuozzo. I posted a link to such a review. Did you read it? thnx - Papias

I can do that. I have 1000 pages of references to choose from. But is there any point? The reports I have of discussions between Creationists and Evolutionists have shown that when the Creationists have produced valid scientific data to prove their position, the evolutionists have done nothing but argue and ridicule instead of producing valid scientific proof of their own.

So, what would be different here? Would I be wasting my time if I went to the effort of providing references from respected scientists if all is going to result is just a tearing-down and negative criticism and attempts to discredit the references instead of providing valid scientific proof of your own?

Papias · Jun 17, 2013

Oscarr wrote:

Would I be wasting my time if I went to the effort of providing references from respected scientists if all is going to result is just a tearing-down and negative criticism and attempts to discredit the references .....

Good point, Oscarr.

OK, so let's both agree ahead of time that we won't unfairly disregard references. Of course, to do so, we'll have to agree on what a valid reference is (or I could get away with posting somthing from some quack).

How about these criteria for a valid reference:

1. The material is published in a real (peer reviewed) journal.
2. The author's work is respected amoung other experts in the field.
3. The author has a relevant degree from a real, accredited, university.
4. The authors has done actual rearch, and has expertise in, the relevant field.

These are just a proposal - let me know if you think we need to change or add something, and why.

...instead of providing valid scientific proof of your own? ...

I certainly can provide valid scientific evidence of any claim I have made. (If I can't, I will (like any rational person), retract the claim. What claims that I have made would you like to see evidence of?

In Christ's love-

Papias

sfs · Jun 17, 2013

Papias said:
Oscarr wrote:

Good point, Oscarr.

OK, so let's both agree ahead of time that we won't unfairly disregard references. Of course, to do so, we'll have to agree on what a valid reference is (or I could get away with posting somthing from some quack).

How about these criteria for a valid reference:

1. The material is published in a real (peer reviewed) journal.
2. The author's work is respected amoung other experts in the field.
3. The author has a relevant degree from a real, accredited, university.
4. The authors has done actual rearch, and has expertise in, the relevant field.

I don't think criterion number 3 is appropriate. If someone is publishing respected work in a field, it doesn't matter what kind of degree they have. One of my colleagues was doing cutting edge genetics research for years with just an undergraduate degree in physics.

ETA: I'll be happy to help supply references, by the way.

sfs · Jun 17, 2013

Oscarr said:
I can do that. I have 1000 pages of references to choose from. But is there any point? The reports I have of discussions between Creationists and Evolutionists have shown that when the Creationists have produced valid scientific data to prove their position, the evolutionists have done nothing but argue and ridicule instead of producing valid scientific proof of their own.

So, what would be different here? Would I be wasting my time if I went to the effort of providing references from respected scientists if all is going to result is just a tearing-down and negative criticism and attempts to discredit the references instead of providing valid scientific proof of your own?

Well, if you post false statements about science, then yes, the false statements will be torn down. (And you have posted several false statements about genetics already.) They will be replaced, however, with true statements supported by the scientific literature.

Calminian · Jun 17, 2013

As the OP I'm going to ask you to tone down the insults. If you don't I'm going to ask the mods to remove your posts. If you can't make a point without insults, it probably means you don't have that good of a case.

Papias said:
....Ouch, the "shrinking sun" canard. This, like the Paluxy hoax, is so embarrassing that even other creationists have abandoned it, and it makes us as Christians look like dupes. Please clarify if you still make this claim.

I'm not sure what creationists you're referring to. Answers in Genesis has a good article on this is you want to know what some of the more prominent creationists are thinking.

That Matter of the Shrinking Sun

This doesn't sound like an all out abandonment to me at all. In fact it seems that some skeptics are parsing their words very carefully on this issue as well.

Rethinking Neanderthal Man

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Natura non facit saltum

Senior Veteran

The Librarian

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Listening to TW4

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Listening to TW4

Senior Veteran

Listening to TW4

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency