Neanderthal Americans

[jcrawford]

Neanderthal Americans are alive and well, and living in New York City. As evidence and proof of this claim, I shall offer myself up as a modern living specimen and representative of millions of white Anglo-Saxon and Caucasian Americans who are racially descended from historic races of European, Near East and Middle Eastern human beings who have recently been dehumanized in natural history by neo-Darwinist race theorists as a different and separate human 'species.'

Since there is really no scientific evidence that most white Anglo-Saxon Americans of Caucasian and Neanderthal ancestry are really Homo sapiens of any sort, and that such a term is nothing more than a neo-Darwinist 'label' which doesn't stick very well and is easily removed once one discovers, realizes and admits one's own Neanderthal or Asian racial origins, the biological label, 'Homo sapiens' may be reserved and applied to only those humans who racially associate and identify themselves with common ancestors and descendents of African monkeys and apes, in the same way, and to the same degree and extent which homosexuals may self-identify and classify themselves, sexually and biologically, for civil rights purposes.

[ST88]

Only trouble with Stringer from a creationist pov is that he won't give up his African ancestry in favor of our Caucasian origins/ancestry, and insists on including me in his neo-Darwinist ancestral family tree, by degrading early/archaic sapiens and all racial varieties of Neanderthals in Eurasia as extinct species.

I won't comment on Stringer any further, since I'm out of my scientific depth at that anthropological level. but I will point out that -- as it seems to me -- a Creationist POV seems like a strange platform to come from when arguing a multi-regional hypothesis. One would assume that Creationism teaches that there was a singular creation event -- of humanity -- from which all "races" sprung, for lack of a better word. If it was the Creation god's intention to create humanity as an end in itself, then why have two or more populations from which to spring modern humans? Being a Mediterranean Semite, and being part of the unbroken Davidian line, of which species was Jesus?

[Excised irrelevant point about a misperceived Biblical account of Creation. mea culpa]

Unless you mean "creationist" in some other sense of the word?

For me, it is a personal matter and question of modern racial identification based on origins/ancestry in history. Since I am a follower of Lubenow, I use his human fossil data and analysis of various neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution as a basis to challenge speculation that my ancestors came from Africa. I wouldn't mind if they did, since my wife and children have both African and Indian origins in their ancestral heritage, but my racial ancestors never went to, or evolved out of, Africa. Instead, they survived the Great Flood by hunting wooly mammoths from Wales to Siberia during the ensuing Ice Age and only came out of isolation when warmer weather followed and they were able to intermarry and interbreed with other tribes and racial groups from more southern climes.

I don't think that this is the proper place to debate Creationism, but I'm just curious as to how much of your objection is scientific and how much of your objection is personal. What are the implications of having your Neanderthal ancestry removed from the record?

You appear to be saying that you should be allowed to describe yourself as you see fit. As far as I can tell, there's nothing wrong with that. However, you should know that the terms you use have meanings outside of your opinion with regards to how scientists use them. It's not that you're wrong by stating such things, it's just that they don't coincide with current theories, which were based on the scientific process. If your argument is with the scientific process, then please address that.

That would be true if it were the only reason which creationists like me oppose neo-Darwinist theories about our origins/ancestry/descent. Besides neo-Darwinism being a corrupt ideology regarding human origins, it is also scientifically corrupt and obsolete, since evolutionist (natural selection) theory can't explain or account for the origin of intelligent DNA coding and hereditary instructions for human replication in sexual reproduction.

Well, yes it can, but that's a different conversation altogether. I'm just trying to get a handle on this, here. Your scientific objection to "Neo-Darwinism" is that human genetic material is sufficiently complex that no natural process can have brought it about, yes? That particular objection lacks validity in a statistical sense, but let's get past that for a moment.

You claim that Neo-Darwinism is an ideology. I disagree. The theory itself is not an ideology, which requires that there be no dissent, and that subsequent finds be fit into the system rather than allowing the finds to define the system. Though, admittedly, there are probably people who are dogmatic about it, just as there are people who are dogmatic about any theory, the theory itself only posits an explanation for current finds. I don't see any support for your "corruption" statement other than the pre-disposition towards a Creationist viewpoint, which, while not quite a competing theory, is diametrically opposed to the aims of science.

The Neanderthal claim for Kabwe is largely out of favor, from what I have read; and I've seen the hole, and no, it doesn't look like a bullet hole. This is largely neither here nor there.

How about the fact that the supposedly .5 MYO human skull of Kabwe isn't even fossilized? Isn't that called stretching one's scientific theory beyond imagination to the point it becomes science fiction?

Fossilization is actually a very rare process that requires a specific set of circumstances to occur. We would expect to find fossils, for example, in an area that was overrun by sediment very quickly. I don't know enough about Broken Hill to assess the fossilization potential for Kabwe, but I understand it was found in a limestone cave along with other skulls and bones. Actual bone does survive such treatment by the elements.

Lubenow documents how Rhodesian Man (now Kabwe) aged 300 - 400 TY in less than a century.

1921: Arthur Smith Woodward, the discover - 11,000 YA
1962: Carleton Coon - 40,000 YA
1973: Richard . Klein - 125,000 YA
1999: Ian Tattersall - 3 - 400 TYA

The original Broken Hill site was destroyed by further mining before Carlton Coon even arrived on the scence and "the possibilty of establishing a sequence events for "relative" dating was lost." - Lubenow.

Interesting how the timeline changes as the technology to date ancient objects improves. I would assume that the date would get more accurate as we learn more about how to date objects.

The Neanderthal morphology and concept would appear to survive even if this skull is not included.

Yes, of course, but we don't want to call anyone's 'human' ancestors in the fossil record a different 'species,' do we, when we can't even biologically explain or account for the great diversity, variety and origins of different and separate racial groups throughout human history and in the world today.

Again, a different thread. We see these things differently. I find that a few hundred thousand years, give or take, is enough to create phenotypically distinct populations. Look at the similarities and differences exhibited by children to their parents in ONE generation. Entire families have distinctive characteristics, most obviously in the face. My mother's side of my family, for example, has a partially folded upper right eyelid. This is possibly from our Hungarian ancestry, whose migration patterns lead back into the Ural mountains, and are possibly East Asian in origin. True? I don't know. Neither does it make a difference in how I define myself. How far back should we go when determining who our ancestors are? Even in your scenario, there is a common ancestor of Neanderthals and Sapiens.

ed: I removed a terrible, terrible argument about the Biblical Flood story that referenced a sequence of events that did not actually exist. bad ST88! ](*,)

[jcrawford]

Only trouble with Stringer from a creationist pov is that he won't give up his African ancestry in favor of our Caucasian origins/ancestry, and insists on including me in his neo-Darwinist ancestral family tree, by degrading early/archaic sapiens and all racial varieties of Neanderthals in Eurasia as extinct species.

I won't comment on Stringer any further, since I'm out of my scientific depth at that anthropological level. but I will point out that -- as it seems to me -- a Creationist POV seems like a strange platform to come from when arguing a multi-regional hypothesis.

I'm not really arguing or advocating the MRC model, especially from a neo-Darwinist vantage point, even though it eliminates the need for genocidal extinction and replacement of all other human 'species' and races extent during the time which the 'Out of Africa' model claims African Homo sapiens migrated all over the world.

One would assume that Creationism teaches that there was a singular creation event -- of humanity -- from which all "races" sprung, for lack of a better word.

That is the case with the Adam and Eve theory, but the regional/racial groups only came into existence after the flood and the Babylonian diaspora during the time "when the earth was divided." Apparently God provided for predestined regional/racial differences by repopulating the world through the three wives of Noah's sons.

If it was the Creation god's intention to create humanity as an end in itself, then why have two or more populations from which to spring modern humans? Being a Mediterranean Semite, and being part of the unbroken Davidian line, of which species was Jesus?

Creationists wouldn't consider Jesus or his Neanderthal ancestors to be different 'species' of humans at all, as neo-Darwinists need to do in order to artificially create a dehumanizing evolutionist digression of so-called 'human species' out of some African monkey and ape ancestors. In Biblical theology, not only is Jesus a creationist, he was present at, and instrumental in the creation, so he wouldn't have much difficulty associating Neanderthal morphology with the extreme longevity of his genealogical ancestor, Shem whose father Noah lived over 900 years on earth before human life spans and morphology began to change.

[jcrawford]

I don't think that this is the proper place to debate Creationism, but I'm just curious as to how much of your objection is scientific and how much of your objection is personal.

Why don't you think that this is the "proper place" to debate Creationism, when that is the forum we are in? You don't think the forum is limited to discussion and debate of evolutionism or 'science' only, do you?

What are the implications of having your Neanderthal ancestry removed from the record?

The social "implications" are devastating for Muslims, Christians and Jews of Neanderthal origins and biological descent. Proclaiming our Neanderthal ancestors an extinct 'species' is tantamount to racial, religious, social, political and biological extinction.

You appear to be saying that you should be allowed to describe yourself as you see fit. As far as I can tell, there's nothing wrong with that. However, you should know that the terms you use have meanings outside of your opinion with regards to how scientists use them. It's not that you're wrong by stating such things, it's just that they don't coincide with current theories, which were based on the scientific process. If your argument is with the scientific process, then please address that.

I don't regard neo-Darwinist theories about human origins or so-called "scientific processes" of human evolution in or out of Africa very scientific. It is a theoretical and abstract 'pseudoscience' which is inherently unprovable and racist according to creationists. Social Darwinism, eugenics and genetic racism are the only fruits growing on neo-Darwinist phylogenic trees.

[ST88]

I don't think that this is the proper place to debate Creationism, but I'm just curious as to how much of your objection is scientific and how much of your objection is personal.

Why don't you think that this is the "proper place" to debate Creationism, when that is the forum we are in? You don't think the forum is limited to discussion and debate of evolutionism or 'science' only, do you?

What I meant was that I didn't think that the larger issue of Creationism vs. Evolutionism should get in the way of this particular thread. Sorry if this wasn't clear. Debating Creationism as a whole takes us way beyond this topic.

What are the implications of having your Neanderthal ancestry removed from the record?

The social "implications" are devastating for Muslims, Christians and Jews of Neanderthal origins and biological descent. Proclaiming our Neanderthal ancestors an extinct 'species' is tantamount to racial, religious, social, political and biological extinction.

In truth, it's not an extinction of any sort because you are here. However you might have gotten here, here you are. The only thing this does is remove the distinction you would like to claim for your ancestry being different from the evolution(s) of African and Asian peoples. Your racial, religious, social, political, and biological status are also still intact.

You appear to be saying that you should be allowed to describe yourself as you see fit. As far as I can tell, there's nothing wrong with that. However, you should know that the terms you use have meanings outside of your opinion with regards to how scientists use them. It's not that you're wrong by stating such things, it's just that they don't coincide with current theories, which were based on the scientific process. If your argument is with the scientific process, then please address that.

I don't regard neo-Darwinist theories about human origins or so-called "scientific processes" of human evolution in or out of Africa very scientific. It is a theoretical and abstract 'pseudoscience' which is inherently unprovable and racist according to creationists. Social Darwinism, eugenics and genetic racism are the only fruits growing on neo-Darwinist phylogenic trees.

You should know that all theories are inherently unprovable, including yours. Your claim to the throne of Neanderthalia is admirable in a way, because you are trying to prod science to examine itself. However, you are doing it in a completely exclusionary way, stating up front that you know that their theory is wrong because you KNOW it, exactly the fault you claim of the other side.

I see where Shem gave rise to Middle-Eastern and Central Asian races; Japheth gave rise to European & Asia Minor races; and Ham gave rise to "the non-white" races because he was cursed by his father. Neo-Darwinism, as you say it does, claims that all current human "races", as you describe them, are descended from a single ancestor or set of ancestors, and that Neanderthals are not a part of this line.

It appears that you would like to assign Neanderthal finds to the Japheth line instead of having them be classified as Neanderthal. If true, then you would have to account for the morphological differences of Neanderthals. I notice in my research that many claims of this type attribute the structural differences to disease, specifically to acromegaly. Despite the fact that this condition causes sexual dysfunction in both men and women (meaning that acromegalics are unlikely to be anyone's ancestors), we may know the true answer to this question very shortly.
Scientists Begin Reconstructing Neanderthal Genome
There are three scenarios that could come out of this project. 1) That Sapiens and Neanderthals are exclusive species; 2) That Sapiens and Neanderthals successfully intermingled to produce modern (European) humans; or 3) That Neanderthals were Sapiens who happened to suffer from disease. Which are you hoping for?

[jcrawford]

The only thing this does is remove the distinction you would like to claim for your ancestry being different from the evolution(s) of African and Asian peoples. Your racial, religious, social, political, and biological status are also still intact.

I don't agree. Therefore, creationists must remove themselves from the neo-Darwinist superfamily of Hominoidea and create a new Human superfamily taxon for themsleves.

Your claim to the throne of Neanderthalia is admirable in a way, because you are trying to prod science to examine itself.

I'm only trying to prove that U.S. public school boards can't label creationists as Hominoidea in U.S. public schools without getting sued.

However, you are doing it in a completely exclusionary way, stating up front that you know that their theory is wrong because you KNOW it, exactly the fault you claim of the other side.

Based on my data, information and knowledge, I believe it is scientifically and morally wrong to teach that no descendents of Neanderthal people are alive today in U.S. public schools.

I see where Shem gave rise to Middle-Eastern and Central Asian races; Japheth gave rise to European & Asia Minor races; and Ham gave rise to "the non-white" races because he was cursed by his father.

Ham wasn't cursed by his father. His son, Canaan, was, and "the border of the cursed Canaanites was from Sidon unto Gaza, and from Sodom and Gomorrah unto Lasha. (Gen 10:15-19) Ham's other son's founded Cush, Mizraim and Phut in Africa, not Canaan.

Neo-Darwinism, as you say it does, claims that all current human "races", as you describe them, are descended from a single ancestor or set of ancestors, and that Neanderthals are not a part of this line.

Yes, much to the denigration, degredation, dehumanization and defamation of our Neanderthal ancestor's human character and our own descent from them. Neo-Darwinist race theorists claim their own ancestral from an African species they call Homo erectus or ergaster without proof have have no right to malign the ancestors of other races.

It appears that you would like to assign Neanderthal finds to the Japheth line instead of having them be classified as Neanderthal. If true, then you would have to account for the morphological differences of Neanderthals.

Middle East Neanderthals may properly be equally classified as genealogical descendents of any of Noah's three son's wives since the slight difference in the "morphological" physical features of classic Neanderthal skeletons may be equally attributable to the astounding longevity of ten generations of Noah's descendents. Even Abraham's father, Terah, lived 200 years before he died.

There are three scenarios that could come out of this project. 1) That Sapiens and Neanderthals are exclusive species; 2) That Sapiens and Neanderthals successfully intermingled to produce modern (European) humans; or 3) That Neanderthals were Sapiens who happened to suffer from disease. Which are you hoping for?

That Neanderthal skull and bone morphology was due to human beings living over 900 years of age prior to Noah's generations and that modern humans are genetically descended from these Neanderthal ancestors of ours.

[jcrawford]

The only thing this does is remove the distinction you would like to claim for your ancestry being different from the evolution(s) of African and Asian peoples. Your racial, religious, social, political, and biological status are also still intact.

I don't agree. Therefore, creationists must remove themselves from the neo-Darwinist superfamily of Hominoidea and create a new Human superfamily taxon for themsleves.

Your claim to the throne of Neanderthalia is admirable in a way, because you are trying to prod science to examine itself.

I'm only trying to prove that U.S. public school boards can't label creationists as Hominoidea in U.S. public schools without getting sued.

However, you are doing it in a completely exclusionary way, stating up front that you know that their theory is wrong because you KNOW it, exactly the fault you claim of the other side.

Based on my data, information and knowledge, I believe it is scientifically and morally wrong to teach that no descendents of Neanderthal people are alive today in U.S. public schools.

I see where Shem gave rise to Middle-Eastern and Central Asian races; Japheth gave rise to European & Asia Minor races; and Ham gave rise to "the non-white" races because he was cursed by his father.

Ham wasn't cursed by his father. His son, Canaan, was, and "the border of the cursed Canaanites was from Sidon unto Gaza, and from Sodom and Gomorrah unto Lasha. (Gen 10:15-19) Ham's other son's founded Cush, Mizraim and Phut in Africa, not Canaan.

Neo-Darwinism, as you say it does, claims that all current human "races", as you describe them, are descended from a single ancestor or set of ancestors, and that Neanderthals are not a part of this line.

Yes, much to the denigration, degredation, dehumanization and defamation of our Neanderthal ancestor's human character and our own descent from them. Neo-Darwinist race theorists claim their own ancestral from an African species they call Homo erectus or ergaster without proof have have no right to malign the ancestors of other races.

It appears that you would like to assign Neanderthal finds to the Japheth line instead of having them be classified as Neanderthal. If true, then you would have to account for the morphological differences of Neanderthals.

Middle East Neanderthals may properly be equally classified as genealogical descendents of any of Noah's three son's wives since the slight difference in the "morphological" physical features of classic Neanderthal skeletons may be equally attributable to the astounding longevity of ten generations of Noah's descendents. Even Abraham's father, Terah, lived 200 years before he died.

There are three scenarios that could come out of this project. 1) That Sapiens and Neanderthals are exclusive species; 2) That Sapiens and Neanderthals successfully intermingled to produce modern (European) humans; or 3) That Neanderthals were Sapiens who happened to suffer from disease. Which are you hoping for?

That Neanderthal skull and bone morphology was due to human beings living over 900 years of age prior to Noah's generations and that modern humans are genetically descended from these Neanderthal ancestors of ours.

[McCulloch]

That Neanderthal skull and bone morphology was due to human beings living over 900 years of age prior to Noah's generations and that modern humans are genetically descended from these Neanderthal ancestors of ours.

Does your science assert a literal worldwide flood, and that Noah was a Neanderthal?

[jcrawford]

That Neanderthal skull and bone morphology was due to human beings living over 900 years of age prior to Noah's generations and that modern humans are genetically descended from these Neanderthal ancestors of ours.

Does your science assert a literal worldwide flood, and that Noah was a Neanderthal?

Creation science is based on extensive evidence of worldwide volcanic eruptions, tectionic upheavals and a great flood during Noah's days of exceedingly long individual life spans which may account for our Neanderthal ancestor's slightly different morphology during their gradual transition to our modern form after the Ice Age.

[Cathar1950]

I don't agree. Therefore, creationists must remove themselves from the neo-Darwinist superfamily of Hominoidea and create a new Human superfamily taxon for themsleves.

Good luck with your cult. It is best to have a bumper sticker that sums up your idea. T-shirts would be nice.

I'm only trying to prove that U.S. public school boards can't label creationists as Hominoidea in U.S. public schools without getting sued.

I suppose you can sue anyone for anything. You just can't win. I doubt it would even make it to court.

Based on my data, information and knowledge, I believe it is scientifically and morally wrong to teach that no descendents of Neanderthal people are alive today in U.S. public schools.

Based on you data, information and knowledge you shouldn't try to teach anything. Do you mean there are neanderthals in out schools or that they should teach that?

[McCulloch]

That Neanderthal skull and bone morphology was due to human beings living over 900 years of age prior to Noah's generations and that modern humans are genetically descended from these Neanderthal ancestors of ours.

Does your science assert a literal worldwide flood, and that Noah was a Neanderthal?

Creation science is based on extensive evidence of worldwide volcanic eruptions, tectionic upheavals and a great flood during Noah's days of exceedingly long individual life spans which may account for our Neanderthal ancestor's slightly different morphology during their gradual transition to our modern form after the Ice Age.

Please, if you have scientific evidence of a global flood, please post it in the Global Flood thread. Obviously, it needs to be revived.