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.

[jcrawford]

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.

All scientists are apes, but not all apes are scientists.

I didn't say all apes are scientists but that by including all humans in the Hominidae family, neo-Darwinist taxonomists themselves inadvertently classify all scientists as apes.

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

Only neo-Darwinist race theorists classify Neanderthals in the Hominidae family of apes. Noahists classify Neanderthals as Human beings equally descended from Adam and Eve through Noah.

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.

Classifying Neanderthals as an extinct species which were not biologically ancestral to modern Asians, Australasians and Caucasians is ancestral racism especially when an African species is artificially substituted as a replacement of Neanderthals as the original ancestors of all Asians.

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.

All Asians who respect or revere either Erect Man or Neanderthal Man in the Asian fossil record as their ancestors may consider neo-Darwinist Out of Africa theories to be racist, regardless of what the PC police have to say.

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.

Since Noahists consider Heidleberg Man to also be descended from Neanderthal Noah, the Neanderthal Genome Project will also have to find no Neanderthal DNA in Heidleberg Man besides finding some modern DNA in their bones.

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.

Racism and specism are the same thing when referring to the full and equal humanity of our racial ancestors.

[ST88]

All scientists are apes, but not all apes are scientists.

I didn't say all apes are scientists but that by including all humans in the Hominidae family, neo-Darwinist taxonomists themselves inadvertently classify all scientists as apes.

I assure you, it's not inadvertent. Scientist -> Human -> Ape -> Primate... however far you want to go back. This is an intentional lineage among scientists who have taken evolution to be a valid theory of species origin, which is to say just about all of them. I suppose one could argue that the human line and the ape line are separate -- as some have -- but if you wish to appeal to science for your particular conclusions, you're going to have to use scientific evidence beyond what you've shown.

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

Only neo-Darwinist race theorists classify Neanderthals in the Hominidae family of apes.

Not true. Non-NRDTs who subscribe to evolution also classify them as such.

Noahists classify Neanderthals as Human beings equally descended from Adam and Eve through Noah.

Interesting. So, by corollary, that would mean that all hominid species currently found as fossils -- not just those currently classified as Neanderthals -- descended from the same line.

Classifying Neanderthals as an extinct species which were not biologically ancestral to modern Asians, Australasians and Caucasians is ancestral racism especially when an African species is artificially substituted as a replacement of Neanderthals as the original ancestors of all Asians.

So now it's "ancestral racism".

My point here is that if one were to believe that Neanderthals were not Neanderthals, but were Sapiens who lived an extra-long time, one would not recognize the distinction between the two. Therefore, any attempt to make a distinction couldn't be called racism, because the distinction would be meaningless. Put it another way, you're saying that people don't get to be Neanderthals at some point in their lives. They are continously Sapiens regardless of what anyone says. To classify extremely aged persons as a different species is not racism -- according to your view -- because the distinction made is not a racial one. Regardless of what scientist claims which fossils belong to which species, the two sides -- your side and the scientific side -- both believe that modern humans are completely Sapiens. Thus there is no denial of ancestry.

All Asians who respect or revere either Erect Man or Neanderthal Man in the Asian fossil record as their ancestors may consider neo-Darwinist Out of Africa theories to be racist, regardless of what the PC police have to say.

And they would be wrong also.

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.

Since Noahists consider Heidleberg Man to also be descended from Neanderthal Noah, the Neanderthal Genome Project will also have to find no Neanderthal DNA in Heidleberg Man besides finding some modern DNA in their bones.

I misspoke earlier when I said "no Neanderthal DNA". Naturally, there will be some overlap in the out-of-Africa scenario since Neandethal and Sapiens had a common ancestor. There will, of course, be Neanderthal DNA and Sapiens DNA, but it might be impossible to tell which is common ancestor and which is mutative DNA. I don't know enough about the genetic studies involved to be able to know if there's a way to tell the difference.

The correct determination for your view should be that Neanderthal DNA and Sapiens DNA would be virtually identical. Not only that, but Neanderthal DNA -- seeing as how they only existed as long-lived individuals during specific Biblical times -- would have to show that it was a common ancestor in the genetic drift of all peoples worldwide. This means that even if Neanderthals intermingled with northern European/Asian peoples such that they are different from other continental peoples, your hypothesis would be disproved.

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.

Racism and specism are the same thing when referring to the full and equal humanity of our racial ancestors.

Not if you make the cross-claim that separate species aren't any less "human".

In your view, there was no race of Neanderthals. Therefore, there can be no racism.

[jcrawford]

Only neo-Darwinist race theorists classify Neanderthals in the Hominidae family of apes.

Not true. Non-NRDTs who subscribe to evolution also classify them as such.

In subscribing only, they don't do the original classifying though.

Noahists classify Neanderthals as Human beings equally descended from Adam and Eve through Noah.

Interesting. So, by corollary, that would mean that all hominid species currently found as fossils -- not just those currently classified as Neanderthals -- descended from the same line.

No, since hominids are apes whereas Noah's descendents in the fossil record are Humanids.

So now it's "ancestral racism".

Racism is based on different ancestral origins.

Put it another way, you're saying that people don't get to be Neanderthals at some point in their lives. They are continously Sapiens regardless of what anyone says.

Not exactly. Neanderthals are what people looked like before and after the Flood and Ice Age, until their life spans descreased and their morphology changed.

To classify extremely aged persons as a different species is not racism -- according to your view -- because the distinction made is not a racial one.

Denying Asian, Australasian and Caucasian ancestral descent from Neanderthals is not only racist when an African origin is substituted, but theoretically genocidal when proclaimed that all other humans on earth were replaced by African people.

Regardless of what scientist claims which fossils belong to which species, the two sides -- your side and the scientific side -- both believe that modern humans are completely Sapiens. Thus there is no denial of ancestry.

Sapiens is just a racist term which neo-Darwinist racial supremacists use to confuse Asians, Australasians and Caucasians about their Neanderthal ancestry from Adam and Eve through Noah. Denying Caucasian/Neanderthal ancestry is like denying Native American/Indian ancestry.

All Asians who respect or revere either Erect Man or Neanderthal Man in the Asian fossil record as their ancestors may consider neo-Darwinist Out of Africa theories to be racist, regardless of what the PC police have to say.

And they would be wrong also.

How would they be wrong? Morally, racially, religiously, politically, socially, legally, historically or just 'scientifically?'

I don't know enough about the genetic studies involved to be able to know if there's a way to tell the difference.

Neither do I. All I know is that if genetic theorists claim that all early/archaic human fossils (ie" Heidleberg Man), evolved from African erectus and not from either Asian erectus or Neanderthal Man, then their genetic theories are supremacist and racist to the core.

The correct determination for your view should be that Neanderthal DNA and Sapiens DNA would be virtually identical.

Not at all. I wouldn't expect the fossils of human beings whose life spans ranged from 200 - 900 years to have identical DNA with anyone living today.

Not only that, but Neanderthal DNA -- seeing as how they only existed as long-lived individuals during specific Biblical times -- would have to show that it was a common ancestor in the genetic drift of all peoples worldwide. This means that even if Neanderthals intermingled with northern European/Asian peoples such that they are different from other continental peoples, your hypothesis would be disproved.

No genetic drift or interbreeding necessary since Northern European/Asian peoples are simply shorter-lived versions of Neanderthals with long life spans who survived the Flood and Ice Age.

Racism and specism are the same thing when referring to the full and equal humanity of our racial ancestors.

Not if you make the cross-claim that separate species aren't any less "human".

You can't make that claim for a different neo-Darwinst 'species' of human though, because the biological test of what constitutes being human is interfertility.

In your view, there was no race of Neanderthals. Therefore, there can be no racism.

If Neanderthals were a different 'species' like neo-Darwinist race theorists like to proclaim, then over a period of 100,000 years there may have been many Neanderthal races.

[micatala]

Not exactly. Neanderthals are what people looked like before and after the Flood and Ice Age, until their life spans descreased and their morphology changed.

Interesting. This is a fair amount of morphological and genetic change to take place in a short period of time. Given that you believe this change occurred, I take it you have no trouble in believing in neo-Darwinist macro-evolution.

After all, this is really no more of a change than smaller horses to more modern horses, or some of the steps in the changes that took place in the lineage of modern whales. I wonder if any of these whale precursors were Neanderthals?

[Cathar1950]

I think the whale family have had there brain size for about 40 million years. I could be wrong. But They did have this program on the DSC discovery channel on Noah: the true story it was pretty interesting. It will be on again in two hours.

[ST88]

So now it's "ancestral racism".

Racism is based on different ancestral origins.

So if I claim that the entire Hungarian side of my family doesn't exist, does that make me racist? In order to answer, wouldn't you have to know why I denied this ancestry?

Put it another way, you're saying that people don't get to be Neanderthals at some point in their lives. They are continously Sapiens regardless of what anyone says.

Not exactly. Neanderthals are what people looked like before and after the Flood and Ice Age, until their life spans descreased and their morphology changed.

OK. Now we're getting somewhere. So, in your view, Neanderthals are the examples of the Biblical personnages who had long lives. They were Neanderthals all their lives -- because God had to give them "special" features to enable them to live that long, features that were stripped away at some point -- after the Flood, which is Biblical, and further after the ice age, which is not Biblical, but which is somehow a reasonable interpretation.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but the shift from Neanderthal to Sapiens happened world-wide instantaneously and was instigated by God, for his own purposes. If true, then this goes way beyond punctuated evolution -- this is more like paragraphed evolution, where, again for his own reasons, God chooses that humans must now be Sapiens instead of Neanderthal. All Neanderthals die out. Let me say that again. All Neanderthals die out. What humanity is left with are Sapiens. You can claim that we are descended from Neanderthals, but not in the sense that Neanderthals passed their features on down to us. With God involved to mess about in the DNA, all bets are off. He can go in there and do what he wants, but this doesn't constitute ancestry in any genetic sense. According to the fossil record, He essentially created a new race of beings -- virutally from scratch, since the morphologies are so different. But let's clarify something else, while we're clarifying things: were Sapiens suddenly being born to Neanderthal mothers, or were living Neanderthals suddenly altered into Sapiens?

All Asians who respect or revere either Erect Man or Neanderthal Man in the Asian fossil record as their ancestors may consider neo-Darwinist Out of Africa theories to be racist, regardless of what the PC police have to say.

And they would be wrong also.

How would they be wrong? Morally, racially, religiously, politically, socially, legally, historically or just 'scientifically?'

Hmmm. Let's see:
Morally: It would depend on your set of morals. If self-deception and reality-denial was a moral wrong, then yes, it would be wrong.
Racially: It couldn't be a racial wrong to accept an incorrect version of history without a racist motivation.
Religiously: This is tricky, because most people think that religious truths are what they say they are -- they need not be grounded in reality, so I guess I concede that they wouldn't be wrong no matter what they said.
Politically: It's only a political wrong if there are political consequences -- this is largely subjective based on the political capital they have to spend within the populace and the prevailing popular thought of the times.
Socially: This is a lot like the political question. If there are people who wish to throw stones, there's nothing you can do about it.
Historically: Well, yes, it would be wrong to state an untruth.
Scientifically: Most definitely wrong to make a scientific conclusion based on what one wishes to be true.

I don't know enough about the genetic studies involved to be able to know if there's a way to tell the difference.

Neither do I. All I know is that if genetic theorists claim that all early/archaic human fossils (ie" Heidleberg Man), evolved from African erectus and not from either Asian erectus or Neanderthal Man, then their genetic theories are supremacist and racist to the core.

You have not shown this to be anything other than your opinion.

The correct determination for your view should be that Neanderthal DNA and Sapiens DNA would be virtually identical.

Not at all. I wouldn't expect the fossils of human beings whose life spans ranged from 200 - 900 years to have identical DNA with anyone living today.

...

No genetic drift or interbreeding necessary since Northern European/Asian peoples are simply shorter-lived versions of Neanderthals with long life spans who survived the Flood and Ice Age.

You can't have it both ways. So which is it?

Racism and specism are the same thing when referring to the full and equal humanity of our racial ancestors.

Not if you make the cross-claim that separate species aren't any less "human".

You can't make that claim for a different neo-Darwinst 'species' of human though, because the biological test of what constitutes being human is interfertility.

But this isn't a biological test, it's a moral test. If you make the claim that Neanderthals aren't any less human than Sapiens are, that's not a biological distinction. In fact it's the opposite. The biological distinction is clear, clear enough that both sides agree on it. Both sides apparently also agree that the moral "value" of both species are identically human.

If Neanderthals were a different 'species' like neo-Darwinist race theorists like to proclaim, then over a period of 100,000 years there may have been many Neanderthal races.

That's quite possibly true, assuming that "racial" distinctions could be made.

[Cathar1950]

I have read many commentaries on bible from many Jewish points of view and not all have taken a literal/historical view of the flood story.
The best scholars say is the story was written into the Hebrew writings during the Bablyonian captivity 6th century BCE. They most likely ran into the story that went back to Summer. Of course the Hebrews adapted the story to meet their needs as they did other myths and tales. The commentaries have been varied but in one Noah is the son of one of the Gods and looks different then say, his dad. The sad part is when people read this stuff as God's word and perfect as many Bible believers do they miss the message what ever it may have been for those writers. The writings were part of their culture and identity. Even if they are not true as some insist they were meaningful to the people reading them thru the centuries. For many they must be true because they have hung their faith on a book or collection of writings. Why does there have to be an Adam and Eve? Because Paul used the story as an analogy for one man bringing sin and one taking it away. I think it was a poor analogy and lacked substance. Of course that is just one of the many issues I have with Paul. The darling of one interpretation that is foundational to the saved by "faith" adherents that equate faith with belief as opposed to faithfulness.

[jcrawford]

Not exactly. Neanderthals are what people looked like before and after the Flood and Ice Age, until their life spans descreased and their morphology changed.

Interesting. This is a fair amount of morphological and genetic change to take place in a short period of time. Given that you believe this change occurred, I take it you have no trouble in believing in neo-Darwinist macro-evolution.

After all, this is really no more of a change than smaller horses to more modern horses, or some of the steps in the changes that took place in the lineage of modern whales. I wonder if any of these whale precursors were Neanderthals?

Ice Age mastodons and woolly mammoths were the precursors of modern elephants just as Neanderthals were the forbears of modern men and women.

[jcrawford]

Racism is based on different ancestral origins.

So if I claim that the entire Hungarian side of my family doesn't exist, does that make me racist? In order to answer, wouldn't you have to know why I denied this ancestry?

How could the Hungarian side of your family exist in the first place if you claim it doesn't exist? Besides, denying one's own racial ancestry is not as racist as denying the racial ancestry of others is, especially when one substitutes ones own chosen racial origins for the ancestry of others.

Neanderthals are what people looked like before and after the Flood and Ice Age, until their life spans descreased and their morphology changed.

OK. Now we're getting somewhere. So, in your view, Neanderthals are the examples of the Biblical personnages who had long lives. They were Neanderthals all their lives -- because God had to give them "special" features to enable them to live that long,

Their skeletal morphology was the result of Noahic longevity which gradually changed as the life spans of generations of Noah's descendents gradually decreased.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but the shift from Neanderthal to Sapiens happened world-wide instantaneously and was instigated by God, for his own purposes.

The shift was gradual over 10 - 12 generations since God said that man's days shall be 120 years. (Genesis 6:3)

God chooses that humans must now be Sapiens instead of Neanderthal.

God chooses to reduce Neanderthal Man's life span to 120 years.

All Neanderthals die out. Let me say that again. All Neanderthals die out. What humanity is left with are Sapiens.

Neanderthals are slightly modified and transformed into men and women with 120 year life spans as a result of their own diminished life spans.

You can claim that we are descended from Neanderthals, but not in the sense that Neanderthals passed their features on down to us.

They were giants (Genesis 6:4) whose slightly larger skeletal morphology and cranial cavity were gradually modified to resemble ours today due to our shortened life spans.

According to the fossil record, He essentially created a new race of beings -- virutally from scratch, since the morphologies are so different.

They are not so different from H. erectus and Heidleberg Man who were transitional forms of humans during Neanderthal Man's descent into the present.

But let's clarify something else, while we're clarifying things: were Sapiens suddenly being born to Neanderthal mothers, or were living Neanderthals suddenly altered into Sapiens?

With each succeeding generation after the Flood and Ice Age subsided, Neanderthal children looked more modern than preceding generations.

[ST88]

Besides, denying one's own racial ancestry is not as racist as denying the racial ancestry of others is, especially when one substitutes ones own chosen racial origins for the ancestry of others.

But your claim is that everyone is denying their own ancestral origins. It's just that you're pointing it out. The entire human race is in a fog of Darwinism, is it not?

Neanderthals are what people looked like before and after the Flood and Ice Age, until their life spans descreased and their morphology changed.

OK. Now we're getting somewhere. So, in your view, Neanderthals are the examples of the Biblical personnages who had long lives. They were Neanderthals all their lives -- because God had to give them "special" features to enable them to live that long,

Their skeletal morphology was the result of Noahic longevity which gradually changed as the life spans of generations of Noah's descendents gradually decreased.

The shift was gradual over 10 - 12 generations since God said that man's days shall be 120 years. (Genesis 6:3)

So, wait a second. Are you now claiming that the Nephilim were Neanderthals, who bred with humans; or are you claiming that the Neanderthals were the offspring of the Nephilim-human mating?

The origination of the Nephilim begins with a story of the fallen angels. Shemhazai, an angel of high rank, led a sect of angels in a descent to earth to instruct humans in righteousness. The tutelage went on for a few centuries, but soon the angels pined for the human females. After lusting, the fallen angels instructed the women in magic and conjuring, mated with them, and produced hybrid offspring: the Nephilim.

The Nephilim were gigantic in stature. Their strength was prodigious and their appetites immense. Upon devouring all of humankind's resources, they began to consume humans themselves. The Nephilim attacked and oppressed humans and were the cause of massive destruction on the earth....

The wickedness of the Nephilim carried with it a heavy toll. Genesis 6:5 alludes to the corruption that the Nephilim had caused amongst humans and themselves: "The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become..." Their evil rebellion had incurred both the wrath and grief of God. God instructed the angel Gabriel to ignite a civil war among the Nephilim. He also chose Enoch, a righteous man, to inform the fallen angels of the judgment pronounced on them and their children. God did not allow the fallen angels any peace, for they could not lift their eyes to heaven and were later to be chained. The end of the Nephilim came about in the war incited by Gabriel, in which the giants eventually annihilated each other.
-- Nephilim