Why are evolutionists obsessed with lumping people in groups? Why do they insist that Neandertals are less human than they are?
Regardless of the fact that Neandertals and Homo erectus -- both fully human -- lived alongside homo sapiens, Evolutionists claim that both these groups of peole were somehow “subhuman.” So now, not only are fetuses sub-human -- and not up to their standards -- but so are our ancestors.
But see, here's one of evolutionists' tricks ---- they love to emphasize the postive characteristics of apes, yet at the same time they ridicule and downplay the Neandertal and Homo erectus. They play this mind game so they can sub-consciously level the mental playing field and soften people up to the notion that humans and apes are actually closer than they are. It’s nothing but a racist snowjob of picking and choosing who they build up or tear down – based on their political agenda. Unlike evolutionists, though, God is not a racist.
http://www.paleontologiaumana.it/nariokotome2.jpg (homo erectus skeleton)
Physical Traits of Neandertals and Homo Erectus:
We’ve already learned the power of plasticity and adaptivity. It can shape and mold an organism from the moment of conception. Also traits are able to be formed during development that will aid in the functionality of life on the outside. I’ve given numerous examples of plasticity….one is that tadpoles can develop into a large-headed or small-headed morph depending on diet early on in life. Snakes do the same thing -- as, no doubt, does every other creature on earth.
I submit, of course, that Neandertals and Homo erectus are no different. First, it is known that these individuals had very similar physical features...in fact, other than brain size they were almost identical. This might be why the early African Homo sapien fossils have been referred to as “African Neandertals”….while many of the Asian homo erectus fossils have been called “Asian Neandertals.” And in many cases it’s difficult to tell the difference between Neandertals and Erectus fossils.
But both groups were no-doubt hunters. Thus, their bodies were shaped for the purpose of living in a harsh environment and for fighting and overpowering their dinner. This required strong bones and a solid body mass. Interestingly the area of the brain that determines these motor functions is – you guessed it -- in the frontal lobe…. the cerebellum. This area was probably enlarged as a result of necessity to cope with their current situation. It has nothing to with being “subhuman." It has nothing to do with being blood-thirsty savages who carried their wives by their hair either. If anything, it proves the inner intelligence, majesty, and design of the human body.
In addition, these people no doubt used their teeth as tools of sorts – as cutting and clamping devices…thus their teeth and jaw structures were merely transformed by their dietary habits. It would be no different than when I was 8 years old and learned how to play the guitar: God made my fingers adaptive and soon they developed callouses, which allowed me to play without drawing blood – these callouses still remain today.
In addition, we’ve learned that Neandertals most certainly had rickets. This was a consquence of a Vitamin D definciency. Of course, we have learned that Vitamin D deficiency often results from having dark skin and being placed into a situation where there is less sunlight. My hypothesis is that Neandertals are the same people as the Homo erectus (both of which, no doubt, had dark skin)….and then Neandertals merely migrated northward – which, because of their extended distance from the equator and the occurrence of the Ice Age, resulted in a cooler, less-sunny climate than their dark skin was adapted for in Africa. In addition, these people most certainly consumed much meat, which possibly supplemented the body with an overload of Vitamin A. Vitamin A overload has been shown to interfere with Vitamin D production. Thus: a Vitamin D deficiency soon resulted among Neandertal individuals, which ultimately altered their bone structures:
Vitamin-D deficiency rickets, a disorder that becomes apparent during infancy or childhood, is the result of insufficient amounts of vitamin D in the body. The vitamin deficiency may be caused by poor nutrition, a lack of exposure to the sun, or malabsorption syndromes in which the intestines do not adequately absorb nutrients from foods. Vitamin D is needed for the metabolism of calcium and phosphorus in the body, which, in turn affects how calcium is deposited in the bones; thus it is considered essential for proper bone development and growth. Major symptoms of vitamin D deficiency rickets include bone disease, restlessness, and slow growth. This disorder is rare in the United States but is not uncommon in certain areas of the world.
http://www.webmd.com/hw/diet_and_nutrition/nord883.asp
(Interestingly it’s been shown that almost every Neandertal child studied had rickets)
My assertion, thus, is that Neandertals -- who were essentially the same individuals as Homo erectus – at some point migrated out of Africa, took up residence in Europe, and developed rickets as result of a dramatic climate change. Over the generations, through isolation and possibly some nonrandom genetic mutations cued by the environment, Neandertals became their own “race” of people. And that’s all they were: People….and this is proven by the fact that their bones were found in the same cave in Germany as “modern human” bones – both of which, date at 40-44,000 years ago. (evolutionists’ time clock). And it’s also proven by their large array of artifacts....that they used fire...and that they buried their dead.
And here’s something important. What you have to remember is that Neandertals and Homo Erectus, lived in the same general geological environment as apes. Thus, since it is a biological fact that humans share many similar physical characteristics with apes, it’s logical to assume that the same environmental cues could have elicited the same types of physiological changes in both organisms. This hypothesis is backed up by Peter Borger, who is insistent that nonrandom mutations account for genetic similarities between primates and humans.
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Borger_SharedMutations_061506.pdf
Why must evolutionists discriminate based on physical characteristics? Why do they assume people from Africa (who were most certainly dark-skinned) were somehow less than human?
Regardless of the fact that Neandertals and Homo erectus -- both fully human -- lived alongside homo sapiens, Evolutionists claim that both these groups of peole were somehow “subhuman.” So now, not only are fetuses sub-human -- and not up to their standards -- but so are our ancestors.
But see, here's one of evolutionists' tricks ---- they love to emphasize the postive characteristics of apes, yet at the same time they ridicule and downplay the Neandertal and Homo erectus. They play this mind game so they can sub-consciously level the mental playing field and soften people up to the notion that humans and apes are actually closer than they are. It’s nothing but a racist snowjob of picking and choosing who they build up or tear down – based on their political agenda. Unlike evolutionists, though, God is not a racist.
http://www.paleontologiaumana.it/nariokotome2.jpg (homo erectus skeleton)
Physical Traits of Neandertals and Homo Erectus:
We’ve already learned the power of plasticity and adaptivity. It can shape and mold an organism from the moment of conception. Also traits are able to be formed during development that will aid in the functionality of life on the outside. I’ve given numerous examples of plasticity….one is that tadpoles can develop into a large-headed or small-headed morph depending on diet early on in life. Snakes do the same thing -- as, no doubt, does every other creature on earth.
I submit, of course, that Neandertals and Homo erectus are no different. First, it is known that these individuals had very similar physical features...in fact, other than brain size they were almost identical. This might be why the early African Homo sapien fossils have been referred to as “African Neandertals”….while many of the Asian homo erectus fossils have been called “Asian Neandertals.” And in many cases it’s difficult to tell the difference between Neandertals and Erectus fossils.
But both groups were no-doubt hunters. Thus, their bodies were shaped for the purpose of living in a harsh environment and for fighting and overpowering their dinner. This required strong bones and a solid body mass. Interestingly the area of the brain that determines these motor functions is – you guessed it -- in the frontal lobe…. the cerebellum. This area was probably enlarged as a result of necessity to cope with their current situation. It has nothing to with being “subhuman." It has nothing to do with being blood-thirsty savages who carried their wives by their hair either. If anything, it proves the inner intelligence, majesty, and design of the human body.
In addition, these people no doubt used their teeth as tools of sorts – as cutting and clamping devices…thus their teeth and jaw structures were merely transformed by their dietary habits. It would be no different than when I was 8 years old and learned how to play the guitar: God made my fingers adaptive and soon they developed callouses, which allowed me to play without drawing blood – these callouses still remain today.
In addition, we’ve learned that Neandertals most certainly had rickets. This was a consquence of a Vitamin D definciency. Of course, we have learned that Vitamin D deficiency often results from having dark skin and being placed into a situation where there is less sunlight. My hypothesis is that Neandertals are the same people as the Homo erectus (both of which, no doubt, had dark skin)….and then Neandertals merely migrated northward – which, because of their extended distance from the equator and the occurrence of the Ice Age, resulted in a cooler, less-sunny climate than their dark skin was adapted for in Africa. In addition, these people most certainly consumed much meat, which possibly supplemented the body with an overload of Vitamin A. Vitamin A overload has been shown to interfere with Vitamin D production. Thus: a Vitamin D deficiency soon resulted among Neandertal individuals, which ultimately altered their bone structures:
Vitamin-D deficiency rickets, a disorder that becomes apparent during infancy or childhood, is the result of insufficient amounts of vitamin D in the body. The vitamin deficiency may be caused by poor nutrition, a lack of exposure to the sun, or malabsorption syndromes in which the intestines do not adequately absorb nutrients from foods. Vitamin D is needed for the metabolism of calcium and phosphorus in the body, which, in turn affects how calcium is deposited in the bones; thus it is considered essential for proper bone development and growth. Major symptoms of vitamin D deficiency rickets include bone disease, restlessness, and slow growth. This disorder is rare in the United States but is not uncommon in certain areas of the world.
http://www.webmd.com/hw/diet_and_nutrition/nord883.asp
(Interestingly it’s been shown that almost every Neandertal child studied had rickets)
My assertion, thus, is that Neandertals -- who were essentially the same individuals as Homo erectus – at some point migrated out of Africa, took up residence in Europe, and developed rickets as result of a dramatic climate change. Over the generations, through isolation and possibly some nonrandom genetic mutations cued by the environment, Neandertals became their own “race” of people. And that’s all they were: People….and this is proven by the fact that their bones were found in the same cave in Germany as “modern human” bones – both of which, date at 40-44,000 years ago. (evolutionists’ time clock). And it’s also proven by their large array of artifacts....that they used fire...and that they buried their dead.
And here’s something important. What you have to remember is that Neandertals and Homo Erectus, lived in the same general geological environment as apes. Thus, since it is a biological fact that humans share many similar physical characteristics with apes, it’s logical to assume that the same environmental cues could have elicited the same types of physiological changes in both organisms. This hypothesis is backed up by Peter Borger, who is insistent that nonrandom mutations account for genetic similarities between primates and humans.
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Borger_SharedMutations_061506.pdf
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,BoldItalic]Conclusions (from the Borger Paper)[/FONT]
The presented examples challenge the idea that alignment of mutations is compelling
evidence of common descent at the molecular level. Rather, shared mutations may be the
result of common mechanisms. Up to 50 percent of all mutations of homologous DNA
sequences of distinct species may line up due to such mechanisms and create a genetic
mirage – the illusion of common descent. How these mechanisms operate is not yet
evidence of common descent at the molecular level. Rather, shared mutations may be the
result of common mechanisms. Up to 50 percent of all mutations of homologous DNA
sequences of distinct species may line up due to such mechanisms and create a genetic
mirage – the illusion of common descent. How these mechanisms operate is not yet
understood, but the elucidation poses an excellent challenge for the scientific community
concerned with alignment of mutations. In the meantime, the principle of Occam’s razor
– also known as the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]principle of parsimony [/FONT]– dictates that scientific explanations must be
simple; they should not contain unnecessary assumptions. The simplest explanation for
shared mutations between humans and the great apes is not common descent, but rather a
common mechanism that introduced the mutations on the same spot in the DNA
sequence.
concerned with alignment of mutations. In the meantime, the principle of Occam’s razor
– also known as the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]principle of parsimony [/FONT]– dictates that scientific explanations must be
simple; they should not contain unnecessary assumptions. The simplest explanation for
shared mutations between humans and the great apes is not common descent, but rather a
common mechanism that introduced the mutations on the same spot in the DNA
sequence.
Why must evolutionists discriminate based on physical characteristics? Why do they assume people from Africa (who were most certainly dark-skinned) were somehow less than human?
