September 2nd, 2005, 04:45 AM
Modern humans, Neanderthals shared earth for 1,000 years
New evidence has emerged that Neanderthals co-existed with anatomically modern humans for at least 1,000 years in central France.
The finding suggests Neanderthals came to a tragic and lingering end.
Few chapters in the rise of Homo sapiens, as modern mankind is known, have triggered as much debate as the fate of the Neanderthals.
Smaller and squatter than Homo sapiens but with larger brains, Neanderthals lived in Europe, parts of central Asia and the Middle East for about 170,000 years.
But vestiges of the Neanderthals stop about 28,000 to 30,000 years ago.
At that point, Homo sapiens, a smart, ascendant sub-species of humans originating in eastern Africa, became the undisputed masters of the planet.
Modern humans, Neanderthals shared earth for 1,000 years. 01/09/2005. ABC News Online
Even though the article doesn't actually say it...I've been saying for 20 years that man evolved ( like every creature ) as a distinct species...Darwinism is a crock...yes, we evolved, but the same as we evolve now, a distinct species...' lucy ' and the other so-called skulls and bones used to address the theory we evolved ( the chart you see on school walls ) actually belonged to a ' different ' race of humanoid that is now extinct...survival of the fittest...just as there are several species of other animals...there were other species of humans...which were never our ancestors.
September 2nd, 2005, 05:05 AM
I promised myself a while ago never to discuss evolution with an American, but you're Canadian so here you go
Darwin and evolution don't teach that man evolves from apes (I know you didn't say... just hang on). They teach that man and ape probably have a common ancestor. Around 6 million years ago, the species split: man (Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens) on one hand, ape on the other hand. Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens living together is not proof against Darwinism, if that's where you're trying to go. It's actually the best thing that could happen to Darwinism, for it shows exactly what Darwinism is all about.
September 2nd, 2005, 05:17 AM
Granted I'm no expert on Darwinism...but I do remember that ' Lucy ' was supposed to be a link...and that the Neanderthal was suppose to be a link in that chain of events as well...which is why I mentioned the old school picture that was on the wall of most classrooms of how man evolved from ape through these different links/stages...
whereas I have always maintained that there is no ' link ' and this new DNA evidence proves that Neanderthal Man is not related to us...but was, in fact, a different species.
Edit: this does not prove my theory but it is one more stage toward it.
Edit 2: for the purpose of clarity...my theory neither supports evolution or creationism...but falls somewhere inbetween.
Edit 3: many years ago in my studies I read the existing books of Diodorus of Sicily ( the author of the original history of the World ) where he relates how man came from the oceans and lived in caves, etc...this was written in approximately 80 BC...long before Darwin.
Yes...however, I maintain...that apes evolved separately and are not our ancestor...I maintain that each species evolved independantly of each other.
They teach that man and ape probably have a common ancestor. Around 6 million years ago, the species split: man (Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens) on one hand, ape on the other hand.
September 2nd, 2005, 05:48 AM
I wrote this some 3 years ago... it explains (hopefully) that Darwinism has nothing to do with the "we evolved from apes!" statements, that "survival of the fittest" has nothing to do with "survival of the strongest"... and stuff
Something else: amongst evolutionists, there has always been division about the Neanderthal/Homo Sapiens relationship. Some believed that they existed at the same time (but in different places), some believed that they never met (meaning that Neanderthal died out before Sapiens came along), some even believed that Neanderthal and Sapiens had babies together
Mellars (the guy from the discoveries) used to think that FOXP2 (some gene - don't ask me) was responsible for a modern human's speach abilities, and that this gene wasn't found in Neanderthalers (I wonder how he knows... kinda hard to get DNA from a Neanderthaler, I would think) - therefore: we don't descend from Neanderthalers!
It was found not much later that even mice carry the gene (in fact, almost every single living creature does).
His recent discovery seems to prove that they used to live together - that's great news for evolutionism, since that was one of the options (but until now, there was no proof for it, so all options were considered).
It's like croccodiles and alligators
September 2nd, 2005, 06:11 AM
Pseudoscientific ideas and lectures tend to be boring.
The History channel has great DVD's on homo erectus throwing his first rock etc..etc... which requires a complex communication system to throw.
Anyway this is the DVD
September 2nd, 2005, 06:13 AM
I checked your link and there really isn't anything I would contend with...however...
In respect to god and ethics I would disagree. There is no question in my mind that there is a god...just not the god people believe in...and there is no question in my mind that ethics/justice does exist...but again not as commonly assumed.
there couldn't be a God responsible for this, unless he is a sadist.
It would be best to assume that nature is a-moral (although that term shouldn't be used
since natural selection is not an organism, but a 'blind' mechanism without evil
intentions). Nature doesn't care about ethics.
Modern evolution-biologist George Williams takes this one step further and considers nature as hostile. His conclusion is that man should fight against all unfavourable conditions. Since we don't know how to control the HIV-virus yet, there still is a long way to go: natural selection makes virii and bacteria able to find ways around our medication. Therefore, we don't have another choice than to fight against this selection and try to control nature as much as possible.
I am aware of the theory of a common ancestor and my statement regarding survival of the fittest was just a poor choice of words on my part...I meant it in the natural sense.
it explains (hopefully) that Darwinism has nothing to do with the "we evolved from apes!" statements, that "survival of the fittest" has nothing to do with "survival of the strongest"... and stuff
I still maintain that there was no common ancestor...and I believe, given time, I will be proven correct on that...and it is easy to create proof if you cover all the bases ...
when you cover all the options you're bound to be proven right.
that was one of the options
September 2nd, 2005, 08:38 AM
Just so you know The Discovery Channel had a great show called Walking with the caveman or something like that hosted by Alec Baldwin ( who did a great job) if you can pick it up anywhere watch it and it will answer your questions.. i would reply with some other content but yall seemed to have covered it all and what you havent talked about, they talked about on that show
September 2nd, 2005, 07:38 PM
September 2nd, 2005, 10:49 PM
I'll agree with that part of the argument, but still believe that Darwin explains more than he disguises [?]
Neanderthal Man is not related to us...but was, in fact, a different species.
You OBVIOUSLY haven't been out on the lash in Liverpool recently
But vestiges of the Neanderthals stop about 28,000 to 30,000 years ago.
There are a HELL of a lot of those there knuckle draggers STILL walking around HERE ..........
I read about this a while ago, and would still have darwin taught in schools, rather than the strictly religious varient ..................
god did it all, and no questions ...........
just doesn't cut it for me, but I'm aware of Eg's leanings, and have the scars to prove it
55 - I'm fiftyfeckinfive and STILL no wiser,
Beware of Geeks bearing GIF's
come and waste the day :P at The Taz Zone
September 2nd, 2005, 11:34 PM