[_ Old Earth _] NEANDERTHALS - Only very aged pre FLOOD homosapiens?

[LittleNipper]

The theory seems to be that Neanderthal fossils represent our longer living ancestors, who lived several hundred years under oxygen enriches conditions caused by higher pressure due to a canopy surrounding the earth.

The brows of these humans protrude because they lived much longer (the brow continues to grow throughout ones lifetime). If one theoretically lived hundreds of years, what in fact would one look like and how much stronger would one be built...?

 

[jwu]

Not like a neanderthal. There are numerous other features which distinguish them from homo sapiens sapiens.

And genetic analyzes have shown that neanderthals are not ancestral to modern humans anyway.

 

[LittleNipper]

Not like a neanderthal. There are numerous other features which distinguish them from homo sapiens sapiens.

And genetic analyzes have shown that neanderthals are not ancestral to modern humans anyway.

Chapter 6: 1-4

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them. That the sons of GOD saw the daughters of men that they fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

And the LORD said, "My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also flesh; yet his days shall be an hundred an twenty years."

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of GOD came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare to them. the same mighty men which of old, men of renown.

 

[jwu]

How does that make solid genetic evidence go away?

 

[LittleNipper]

How does that make solid genetic evidence go away?

According to geneticists, DNA information only lasts about 10,000 years under the very best of circumstances. So want does that make your "solid" evidence?

 

[jwu]

They could extract sufficient sequences of mtDNA:

http://www.psu.edu/ur/NEWS/news/Neandertal.html

Paabo previously showed that even if extracting ancient DNA is possible, it tends to be damaged and degraded, yielding only short fragments. The researchers used a method of overlapping short strands of DNA to obtain a mitochondrial DNA sequence of 378 base pairs. To ensure that errors caused by damaged DNA were not incorporated into the sequence and that modern human DNA did not contaminate the samples, the researchers ran multiple extractions and amplifications. They also sent a sample to Penn State's Anthropological Genetics Laboratory where Stone, then a Ph.D. candidate at Penn State, ran a parallel extraction and amplification of the DNA.

 

[LittleNipper]

They could extract sufficient sequences of mtDNA:

http://www.psu.edu/ur/NEWS/news/Neandertal.html

Does that represent everything?

 

[jwu]

Could you rephrase that question? I don't understand what you're trying to get at (English isn't my first language).

 

[Guest]

And genetic analyzes have shown that neanderthals are not ancestral to modern humans anyway.

:roll: Blah, blah, blah...evolutionist rhetoric... :roll:

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061030/ ... 030-3.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061107/sc_ ... thals_dc_1

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/scien ... tml?ref=us

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6099422.stm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20061030/hl ... einterbred

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/ear ... _2006.html

 

[jwu]

Note the conjunctives in the articles..."may be", "may have".

This was up for further research and no evidence was found for interbreeding, an article from November 15th:
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/ ... ekey=77566

While it's not completely falsified, it is close to it.

 

[Guest]

While it's not completely falsified, it is close to it.

Keep up the faith...ha!! Anthropological observations say differently.

no evidence was found for interbreeding

So, they just started unraveling the DNA. Your trying to make the statement: "No evidence has been found, therefore it's not so.
Way premature for a statement like that. :

I understand your need to defend your faith, but please don't bring it into the science realm. :-?

 

[jwu]

Get off your high horse.

What faith are you talking about? I am not in any way emotionally tied to a specific relation to neanderthals.

Anthropological observations say differently.

Genetics > Anthropology.

So, they just started unraveling the DNA. Your trying to make the statement: "No evidence has been found, therefore it's not so.
Way premature for a statement like that.

A first prediction of the hypothesis that neanderthals and modern humans did interbreed and exchanged genes occasionally was found to be false, this does deal a serious blow to that hypothesis.

By the way, this thread is about neanderthals being ancestors of the current humans. Occasional exchange of genes by interbreeding is insufficient for that - it was the premise of the thread that neanderthals are fully incorporated in our history as longer lived humans. In that sense the articles which you listed miss the topic.

 

[Guest]

Get off your high horse.

What faith are you talking about? I am not in any way emotionally tied to a specific relation to neanderthals.

Ha! Your the one attempting to make observations bow to your philosophy. :roll:

Genetics > Anthropology.

genetics<anthropology when it comes to knowledge, repeatabilty, and observation. Your trying to take this lack of genetic observation, and project it as proof. Laughable...but expected from a brainwashed individual, adamently defending his faith...

You need to look from the outside, in, to realize how laughable your stance is from those that aren't brainwashed. :

 

[Guest]

By the way, this thread is about neanderthals being ancestors of the current humans. Occasional exchange of genes by interbreeding is insufficient for that - it was the premise of the thread that neanderthals are fully incorporated in our history as longer lived humans. In that sense the articles which you listed miss the topic.

Your assuming HNS were our only ancestors. They were just one race of many.

Erectus was all over the place, over 800k + B.P. ago...

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20031018/bob8.asp

 

[jwu]

Your assuming HNS were our only ancestors. They were just one race of many.

Erectus was all over the place, over 800k + B.P. ago...

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20031018/bob8.asp

This has nothing to do with the topic, and i am not assuming that they were our ancestors in first instance. That's a red herring.

 

[Guest]

This has nothing to do with the topic, and i am not assuming that they were our ancestors in first instance. That's a red herring.

Right, in which I replied, "your wrong".

Occasional exchange of genes by interbreeding is insufficient for that - it was the premise of the thread that neanderthals are fully incorporated in our history as longer lived humans.

Your assuming HNS were our only ancestors. They were just one race of many.

Erectus was all over the place, over 800k + B.P. ago...

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20031018/bob8.asp

Sounds right on the mark to me. The human population has some of the Neanderthal race, some of the Erectus race, some of the Hss race...all the same species, with mental capabilites every bit as capable as ours today.
They just didn't have the technological backdrop to rely on, as we do. They were truly innovators, inventing many technologies that we rely on to this.
day.

 

[jwu]

Right, in which I replied, "your wrong".

Huh?.

Sounds right on the mark to me. The human population has some of the Neanderthal race, some of the Erectus race, some of the Hss race...all the same species, with mental capabilites every bit as capable as ours today.
They just didn't have the technological backdrop to rely on, as we do. They were truly innovators, inventing many technologies that we rely on to this.
day.

There may be some neanderthal genes in our genome - that's irrelevant to the subject of this thread. This thread is about neanderthals being fully integrated in the lineage of homo sapiens sapiens. Sharing a few genes with them misses that mark by a long shot.

 

[Barbarian]

They just didn't have the technological backdrop to rely on, as we do. They were truly innovators, inventing many technologies that we rely on to this. day.

In fact, Neandertals were remarkably conservative in technology, making very little change in tools, weapons, etc, for thousands of years. Except for one instance, they pretty much did the same thing over and over again.

Anatomically modern humans were rapid innovators, and technological change was the rule.

 

[JohnR]

The theory seems to be that Neanderthal fossils represent our longer living ancestors

Bryan Sykes was able to extract the DNA from a tooth of a Neanderthal. The enamal of the teeth preserves the DNA longer then in the bones.

They now know that Neanderthals are not our "ancestors". Which is interesting because the Neanderthal had fire, tools, clothing and a lot of the stuff that would lead us to believe that they were human. They were able to sow skins together to make a tent out of.

 

[Barbarian]

Neandertals were human, of course. It is just that they are different enough to be a slightly different species. The early ones were much more like modern humans, and their differences are likely adaptations to living in the very cold and harsh glacial conditions in Europe.