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.

[QED]

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

Ah yes! It's about time we had a good old fashioned debate about that. This idea of 900 year old animals is rather interesting though. It raises all sorts of questions about population sizes (reproductive cycles). A significant population ought to result in plenty of fossils: Have any fossils of animals that have lived for 900 years ever shown up?

[Cathar1950]

I think there is a fungi that is underground and is thousands of years old.
I head it was in the UP in Michigan.
There are and have been some very old trees. Some old turtles.
But for the most part nothing to indicate any form of animal life has always been fairly uniform. I seem to remember in our distant past we were a little more healthy Thos that lived long live long where most just dies young. But even this good health didn't make us much older as a species. 900 years would be old for almost anything but a plant. 200 would be a major find.

[jcrawford]

Do you mean there are neanderthals in our schools or that they should teach that?

Both, especially since most of the teachers are Neanderthals.

[jcrawford]

This idea of 900 year old animals is rather interesting though. It raises all sorts of questions about population sizes (reproductive cycles). A significant population ought to result in plenty of fossils: Have any fossils of animals that have lived for 900 years ever shown up?

Of course. Classic Neanderthals lived almost a millenium during their life-spans, and their classic morphologies only changed into Heidleberg and Wise Man upon the gradual decrease in their longevity.

[jcrawford]

200 would be a major find.

The fossil remains of Abraham's father Terah, would be a major find, since he lived two centuries. Abraham's life was cut short to a mere 175.

[ST88]

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.

That wouldn't be a scientific distinction, it would be a cult distinction. Individuals would be free to move in and out of such distinctions, whch means that science wouldn't apply.

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.

Since belief in Creationism is a choice, it must be classified as a psychological distinction, not a biological one. Unless, of course, they find the Creationism gene. In that case it would be a mutation.

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.

In the absence of any evidence, and because there is no scientific basis to make this claim, you have put yourself in the unfortunate position of having a pre-conceived idea. This means that any further research that you, yourself, perform or interpret can be criticized in exactly the same way as you have criticized current scientific evidence.

It seems to me that most claims against evolutionary evidence are made as if these interpretations of the evidence were made in a vacuum, at each instant when evidence is available. I guess this makes sense because the Creationist viewpoint teaches that things happened more or less instantaneously. But these evolution ideas evolved as the evidence become clearer and more plentiful. They are still evolving.

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.

Thanks for the distinction.

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.

Since your conclusions are based exclusively on your opinion, and, regardless of what you might say, "NDRTs" have enough proof to make their claims "scientific", you do not have scientific standing to make the ad hom argument.

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.

Interesting, humans used to get larger and stronger as they got older?

The general robusticity of Neanderthal can be attributed by the large muscle attachment area on Neanderthal bones, expecially the long bones. Though this is manifested as a slight "bowing" of the long bones, this curvature is a direct result of the large muscles that the Neanderthal skeletal structure supported. The deltoid, pectoralis major and radial tuberosities are massive, belying the underlying strength in pronation and supination (Trinkaus 1983, 1991). The fact that the radial tuberosity is more medially located (Trinkaus 1983) would allow a neanderthal to supinate more powerfully, that is, use his/her biceps to lift, pull, crush or carry objects.

and

palmar tuberosities in the carpal and phalangeal bones, while barely perceptible in modern humans are very apparent and noticeable in Neanderthal. This would have made Neanderthal fingers and thumbs upwards of twice the strength of modern humans Lumely-Woodyear 1973; Trinkaus 1983; Tattersall 1995). Tuberosities of distal phalanges being large and almost circular (Trinkaus 1981, 1983, 1991)indicating that they used their fingertips/nails on a regular basis for a wide variety of tasks such as grasping, pinching and kneading materials. It should also be noted that Neanderthal children were very robust at a very early age and so robusticity can be seen as genetic, and not an immediate environmental factor as some have surmised.
-- Neanderthal Morphology

I believe your stance would mean that no Neanderthal children would ever be found assuming that Neanderthal remains were the result of wear and tear. So to what do you attribute the Neanderthal children finds?

[jcrawford]

Therefore, creationists must remove themselves from the neo-Darwinist superfamily of Hominoidea and create a new Human superfamily taxon for themsleves.

That wouldn't be a scientific distinction, it would be a cult distinction. Individuals would be free to move in and out of such distinctions, whch means that science wouldn't apply.

How do scientists distinguish between creationist and neo-Darwinist cults when scientists themselves are free to move between membership in theistic evolution and scientific creationism? Is there a science of scientific cults like neo-Darwinism and evolutionism? Does one have to be a member of the Hominoidea superfamily to be a real scientist?

Since belief in Creationism is a choice, it must be classified as a psychological distinction, not a biological one. Unless, of course, they find the Creationism gene. In that case it would be a mutation.

Since neo-Darwinist genes are self-proclaimed mutations determined by evolutionist laws of nature, it seems neo-Darwinists have no choice in what they believe and offer none to others.

That's why Neanderthal creationists like me call neo-Darwinist theories a biological form of scientific racism and facism.

[ST88]

Therefore, creationists must remove themselves from the neo-Darwinist superfamily of Hominoidea and create a new Human superfamily taxon for themsleves.

That wouldn't be a scientific distinction, it would be a cult distinction. Individuals would be free to move in and out of such distinctions, whch means that science wouldn't apply.

How do scientists distinguish between creationist and neo-Darwinist cults when scientists themselves are free to move between membership in theistic evolution and scientific creationism?

They don't need to make a distinction in a scientific sense. That scientists are free to move from theory to theory as they see fit according to their interpretation of the evidence is not, in and of itself, a scientific classification scheme. The various cults within Creationism, for example, do not require a modern-day Linneaus to distinguish between them. What you're asking for is analagous to creating a new column in a Periodic Table of the Elements that includes only the elements that start with the letter V. You can perform this elemental surgery if you like, but it's not a scientific distinction that makes any sense to anyone who actually uses the Table for scientific purposes, so it is a useless and pointless exercise.

Is there a science of scientific cults like neo-Darwinism and evolutionism?

Since they are not cults, I would have to say no. But I think what you're looking for is epistemology.

Does one have to be a member of the Hominoidea superfamily to be a real scientist?

As a matter of fact, yes. I hesitate to validate the term "real scientist", since we are all scientists in one way or another. But I would have to say that it would be a requirement, barring the knowledge of intelligent alien infestation, that a scientist be human.

Since belief in Creationism is a choice, it must be classified as a psychological distinction, not a biological one. Unless, of course, they find the Creationism gene. In that case it would be a mutation.

Since neo-Darwinist genes are self-proclaimed mutations determined by evolutionist laws of nature, it seems neo-Darwinists have no choice in what they believe and offer none to others.

I doubt there is a "Neo-Darwinist" gene. It would not have had the chance to enter the human population since its inception, having only had a few generations to spread. But the choice is always there. Unlike religious belief, evolutionary theory doesn't demand adherence. There is no Evolution Hell that you would be consigned to if you didn't believe. On the contrary, the person who disproves evolution would become quite rich and famous.

That's why Neanderthal creationists like me call neo-Darwinist theories a biological form of scientific racism and facism.

Actually, I think that the reason you make this claim is because you support what you believe to be a competing theory. I suppose it's only fair that you are allowed to air your beliefs. Your consistent denigrating of the theory using such inflammatory terms as "racism" and "fascism" leads me to believe that there is no real objection to the theory, only a desire to turn people away from it because you feel your theory is superior.

And now I feel I must ask what exactly does the phrase "a biological form of scientific racism" mean? I mean, "race" is a term that means more than one thing, by itself. Does it mean that distinctions between races are biological or scientific? Or does it mean that the basis for racism is scientific, somehow genetically hard-wired? Or perhaps it is merely a code phrase that is meant to be vaguely sinister and doesn't really mean anything at all.

[jcrawford]

Does one have to be a member of the Hominoidea superfamily to be a real scientist?

As a matter of fact, yes. I hesitate to validate the term "real scientist", since we are all scientists in one way or another. But I would have to say that it would be a requirement, barring the knowledge of intelligent alien infestation, that a scientist be human.

How does membership in the Hominoidea superfamily make any scientist human since all members of the Hominidae family are apes?

And now I feel I must ask what exactly does the phrase "a biological form of scientific racism" mean?

It means that neo-Darwinist biological theories of Neanderthal extinction and Caucasian evolution out of Africa are a genetic and scientific form of ancestor racism.

[ST88]

How does membership in the Hominoidea superfamily make any scientist human since all members of the Hominidae family are apes?

I think you're committing a type of fallacy that is best expressed as a Venn diagram, or perhaps a syllogism:
1. All humans are apes.
2. All scientists are humans.
3. Therefore all apes are scientists.

Let me stress that the conclusion does not follow from the two statements: i.e., All scientists are apes, but not all apes are scientists.

It should also be stressed that Neanderthals are currently classified in this family also.

To make a taxonomic distinction in this manner between humans of various beliefs is not warranted and does not follow from the evidence.

And now I feel I must ask what exactly does the phrase "a biological form of scientific racism" mean?

It means that neo-Darwinist biological theories of Neanderthal extinction and Caucasian evolution out of Africa are a genetic and scientific form of ancestor racism.

That still doesn't clarify your position. It only re-states it.

Your continued assertion that Neanderthals are not, in fact, a different race (or species, or sub-class) makes your stance all the more puzzling. As NDs would have it, there is a biological distinction between the two groups -- as the morphology dictates. However, your contention is that there is no distinction. According to your beliefs, this is NOT racism because another race is not involved. You could probably get away with stating that the PC police have caused NDs to disclaim the idea that the White race evolved from a distinct species from the darker-skinned races, but only among white supremacists, because that stance, in itself, would be racist according to your own defintion. The theory of Neanderthal extinction only requires that there be no Neanderthal DNA in current human populations. The Neanderthal genome project should settle this matter.

Further, since Neanderthalensis is currently classified as a separate species, your criticism would not even conform to the reverse racism test as described above -- it would be specism.