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]

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.

My claim is that current neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution out of Africa deny racial origins and ancestry from anywhere but Africa and artificially impose African origins and ancestry on racial groups like Asians, Caucasians and Australasians.

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?

No. Others may though. As far as I am concerned, 900 year life spans are enough to account for Neanderthal morphology.

[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.

My claim is that current neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution out of Africa deny racial origins and ancestry from anywhere but Africa and artificially impose African origins and ancestry on racial groups like Asians, Caucasians and Australasians.

And NDs are also among those groups. By saying "scientists" we are actually talking about people who practice science, and this transcends race and ancestral origin. Therefore my point is valid.

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?

No. Others may though. As far as I am concerned, 900 year life spans are enough to account for Neanderthal morphology.

But then you're back to the problem of genetics. God messing about in the DNA means that a Neanderthal ancestry is not relevant. Especially when you make the "racism" claim, and now the non-sequitur of "artificially imposed". For the claim to be truly racist, it would have to deny the ancestry for a racist reason. NDs have already indicated that Neanderthals -- should they be a different species -- are "no less human" than our species, which you also believe. The Out of Africa hypothesis should make this fairly plain, since Sapiens and Neanderthal had a common ancestor (i.e., they could have been sister species at one point).

Denial of this ancestry may be incorrect as far as your theory is concerned, it may be inconsistent with evidence as you see it, it may be unwise in moral terms; but to call it racist is completely unwarranted and inflammatory. I find it odd that Lubenow makes this claim, because it only spotlights his denial of African human origins, which could rightly be called racist because of his own definition of the term.

[jcrawford]

For the claim to be truly racist, it would have to deny the ancestry for a racist reason. NDs have already indicated that Neanderthals -- should they be a different species -- are "no less human" than our species, which you also believe.

Indicating that any Human ancestors were a "different species" than we are is racist, especially when those Human ancestors are also indicated to be an extinct species.

The Out of Africa hypothesis should make this fairly plain, since Sapiens and Neanderthal had a common ancestor (i.e., they could have been sister species at one point).

Since no Neanderthal fossils have ever been found in Africa, there is no evidence that Neanderthal ancestors evolved out of Africa.

I find it odd that Lubenow makes this claim, because it only spotlights his denial of African human origins, which could rightly be called racist because of his own definition of the term.

Since Lubenow and I both theorize that Caucasian Neanderthals were the original descendents of Noah and his succeeding generations, denying the African ancestry of Asians, Caucasians and Australasians, is more scientific and religious than racist.

[Grumpy]

jcrawford

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The roots of this mystery run deep, all the way back to 1856, when the science of paleoanthropology had not yet been born. That year, workers mining a limestone cave in Germany's Neander Valley came across a truly peculiar skeleton. This was the first Neanderthal ever found, and he was to become the leading man in the bones and stones part of the story.

To Johann Fuhlrott, the natural science teacher who first described the remains, the Neanderthal seemed to defy categorization. The limbs of the skeleton, though unusually thick, looked human enough and supported a very stocky and muscular frame. His braincase was actually larger than a modern human's. But his facial features were unlike any then known. In the book Origins Reconsidered anthropologist Richard Leakey and writer Roger Lewin offer this visual aid: "Imagine a modern human face made of rubber. Now take hold of the nose and pull it out several inches. The result is an oddly protruding central portion of the face, not just the nose but everything around it. That, roughly speaking, is a Neanderthal face."

The Neanderthals, always a puzzle to science, are now central to the debate over modern human origins. Descendants of Homo erectus, the Neanderthals lived from about 150,000 to 30,000 years ago in a broad swath of Eurasia stretching from the Iberian Peninsula to Uzbekistan. Although the Neanderthals weren't the only descendants of Homo erectus, their bones and tools are far more abundant than those of any other early humans. This is one reason they loom large in the controversy: They give paleoanthropologists plenty to argue about.

The burning question is whether the Neanderthals gave rise to us. And for years, the answer seemed pretty clear. Most scientists once interpreted the Neanderthals as an evolutionary transition between Homo erectus and ourselves. This view seemed to square with the broad patterns of the fossil record. For example, early this century scientists found 60,000-year-old Neanderthal remains in three caves in Israel. In two nearby caves they found modern-looking skeletons presumed to be 40,000 to 50,000 years old. Since the Neanderthals were respectably older than the moderns, there was no reason to doubt that the Neanderthals were our ancestors. In fact, the Neanderthal and modern human remains from two of the caves were thought to represent a single population that evolved gradually over time.

But by 1988, this tidy picture was shattered. Re-dating the fossils with new techniques, researchers learned that the modern humans from two of the caves were actually 80,000 to 100,000 years old, older than most of the Neanderthals. Now here was a thorny problem. If modern humans were around before and during the Neanderthals' existence, how could they be descendants of the Neanderthals? The evidence suggested that Neanderthals did not fit in a direct line from Homo erectus to us. Instead, Neanderthals and modern humans occupied separate branches on the evolutionary tree.

"The fact that in the Middle East you have moderns and Neanderthals remaining distinct over tens of thousands of years proves that they were two well-separated lineages," says Christopher Stringer, a paleoanthropologist at London's Natural History Museum. Moreover, though Neanderthals and modern humans coexisted for a time, Stringer believes that Earth ultimately wasn't big enough for the both of them. By 30,000 years ago, undisputed Neanderthal fossils disappear from the record in Europe, the last Neanderthal stronghold, and modern human fossils become abundant. Thus Stringer and many others believe that our ancestors wiped the Neanderthals off the face of the globe.

So who were these people who allegedly annihilated the Neanderthals? The fossil evidence may give a clue. In caves at the mouth of the Klasies River in South Africa, and in thick sediments of Ethiopia's Omo Basin, researchers have uncovered remains of modern-looking humans, dating back some 80,000 to 120,000 years. These are, arguably, the very oldest bones of Homo sapiens ever found. To Stringer and many other scientists, they offer compelling evidence that Africa is the birthplace of modern humans as well as the birthplace of the very first humans millions of years ago. The first modern humans, Stringer and colleagues say, were Africans. They -- we -- migrated to the Middle East and from there spread across Earth.

No one knows what presumably triggered the emergence of modern-looking humans in Africa or their migration into the rest of the world. Nor do scientists know why or how the Neanderthals and other human groups vanished. Multiregionalists resolve the problem by concluding that Neanderthals never truly disappeared; they simply interbred with modern humans until the two groups melded ("a great Pleistocene love-in," as Tattersall facetiously describes it). A vigorous supporter of the replacement idea, Tattersall himself thinks Neanderthals were more likely slaughtered by moderns: "You can't think of very many examples of Homo sapiens showing up on the territory of another group and everybody living happily ever after. It just doesn't seem to happen."

On the other hand, as Stringer points out, it's also possible that modern humans quietly edged out the competition. Though our ancestors were physically weaker than the Neanderthals, they might have been better able to communicate or plan ahead for the torturous winters. Even subtle cultural differences could have eventually tipped the scales so that our populations grew and the Neanderthals' shrank until they became extinct. "Perhaps if we hadn't come into Europe 40,000 years ago, the Neanderthals would still be here now," Stringer says. "Who knows? Maybe I would be speaking to you on the phone as a Neanderthal."

Just thought you guys needed a truth break ajter all of John's fantasy schtick.

Grumpy 8)

[Grumpy]

http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~reffland/an ... rica2.html

The above will get you to the refreshing waterfall of knowledge, a break from this cess pool of ignorance.

Grumpy 8)

[Cathar1950]

Has any one ever found a 900 year old humanoid bone?
I think if a neanderthal lived to be 50 he was a very old man.

[micatala]

Since no Neanderthal fossils have ever been found in Africa, there is no evidence that Neanderthal ancestors evolved out of Africa.

THis is like saying:

Since no American fossils have been found in Mesopotamia, there is no evidence that Americans are descended from Adam and Eve.

[ST88]

A vigorous supporter of the replacement idea, Tattersall himself thinks Neanderthals were more likely slaughtered by moderns

Personally, I think it's much more likely that a plague spread through Neanderthal populations that Sapiens had an inherent (genetic) immunity to. Since there were undoubtedly Neanderthal population islands in Eurasia, rather than a series of connected villages, for example, the vector could possibly have been flying insects, like mosquitoes or biting flies.

[ST88]

For the claim to be truly racist, it would have to deny the ancestry for a racist reason. NDs have already indicated that Neanderthals -- should they be a different species -- are "no less human" than our species, which you also believe.

Indicating that any Human ancestors were a "different species" than we are is racist, especially when those Human ancestors are also indicated to be an extinct species.

Respectfully, no it isn't. Unless you are redefining the term "racism" -- that's fine, but because it carries negative connotations, you can be suspected of trying to exploit its current common usage for demagoguery.

Now let's say that there is a different hominid species population alive today that cannot successfully reproduce with Sapiens -- offpring is sterile or some such. Is it racism to point this out?

The Out of Africa hypothesis should make this fairly plain, since Sapiens and Neanderthal had a common ancestor (i.e., they could have been sister species at one point).

Since no Neanderthal fossils have ever been found in Africa, there is no evidence that Neanderthal ancestors evolved out of Africa.

Regardless of Kabwe, the claim is not that Neanderthals evolved "Out of Africa". The situation isn't that direct. The claim is that the ancestors of Neanderthals migrated from Africa -- and that Neanderthals arose in Eurasia after this migration. Nothing in that scenario states that we would find Neanderthals in Africa.

However, if there were a common ancestor of Sapiens and Neanderthals, we could expect to find that in Africa.

I find it odd that Lubenow makes this claim, because it only spotlights his denial of African human origins, which could rightly be called racist because of his own definition of the term.

Since Lubenow and I both theorize that Caucasian Neanderthals were the original descendents of Noah and his succeeding generations, denying the African ancestry of Asians, Caucasians and Australasians, is more scientific and religious than racist.

I don't see the distinction. How can the denial of one type of ancestry be any less racist than the denial of another?

[McCulloch]

Indicating that any Human ancestors were a "different species" than we are is racist, especially when those Human ancestors are also indicated to be an extinct species.

JCrawford has extended the definition of racism to include all those who believe that all humans are ultimately descended from some invertibrate life form. Just exactly how this is racist is completely beyond my understanding.