pgp_protector
Noted strange person
- Dec 17, 2003
- 51,702
- 17,622
- 55
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Um, yeah they do, in most general biology texts...
Not sure what you mean.Affirmation of faith to committed isn't a bad thing,I reckon.It worked in the past and is still working.
Perhaps, though they were probably mostly carnivores (though there is some evidence that they ate cooked vegetables as well) and probably very effective predators in their environment. It's plausible that they were out-competed by Homo sapiens if not outright destroyed, but it's also plausible that their physiology and brain structure (and aforementioned lack of innovation) made it too difficult to adapt to the relatively rapid changes in the environment happening at the time.More likely less aggressive and violent.
My understanding is that in terms of cranial shape/brain size, that wouldn't have even been a terribly big issue. It would have actually had to do with a difference in how sounds were made. My memory is a bit fuzzy, but my understanding is that Neanderthals had a less developed layrnx than Homo Sapiens, as such it's unclear whether they would have had language--at least as we understand it. And language is really how we get from from A to B, language permits the conveying of really complex ideas, and thus, the ability to organize, and as it turned out, settle down, grow crops, breed animals, and make cities.
-CryptoLutheran
So evolutionists have 'faith' in their conclusions since those conclusions are un-founded.
The way yawl act I was thinking you were more akin to Homo erectus LOL.
Can't tell if facetious or not.
What present day cross breeding teaches us is that the off spring are not able to breed; that is, outside of a familiy line.
But the consensus of experts says that Neanderthals were dumb.
I'm white and have no problem with the idea that I have some element of Neanderthal DNA in my genome.
Most commentators are taking the OPs comments conclusively as though evolutionists did find a connection between white and neanderthal; what could be more comical than that.
When scientists discovered a few years ago that modern humans shared swaths of DNA with long-extinct Neanderthals, their best explanation was that at some point the two species must have interbred.
Now a study by scientists at the University of Cambridge has questioned this conclusion, hypothesising instead that the DNA overlap is a remnant of a common ancestor of both Neanderthals and modern humans.
When the genetic sequence of Homo neanderthalensis was published in 2010, one of the headline findings was that most people outside Africa could trace up to 4% of their DNA to Neanderthals. This was widely interpreted as an indication of interbreeding between Neanderthals and early Homo sapiens just as the latter were leaving Africa. The two species would have lived in the same regions around modern-day Europe, until Neanderthals died out about 30,000 years ago.
But Andrea Manica said the analysis had over-estimated the amount of shared DNA between Neanderthals and humans that could be explained by interbreeding. The analysis had not taken into account the genetic variation already present between different populations of the ancestors of modern humans in Africa.
"The idea is that our African ancestors would not have been a homogeneous, well-mixed population but made of several populations in Africa with some level of differentiation, in the way right now you can tell a northern and southern European from their looks. The mixing is not complete within continents."
Taking these population differences, known as "substructuring", into account for early humans living in Africa, Manica and his colleague Anders Eriksson worked out that modern humans and Neanderthals must have shared a common ancestor some 500,000 years ago and that the subsequent evolution of this species was enough to account for the DNA crossover.-http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/aug/14/study-doubt-human-neanderthal-interbreeding
No, that would be overstating the case.But they didn't become extinct. They are us, just like birds are dinosaurs. If the recent DNA conclusions are correct, that is.