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.

[McCulloch]

I can state, with confidence, that John Crawford is a neanderthal.

Thank you, USIncognito for your expression of confidence in, and confirmation of, the Neanderthal ancestry on my mother's side which I share with the Prince of Wales, even though the Neanderthal skull and teeth found in Wales don't bear much resemblance to ours nowadays.

Do you have any evidence at all that the current Prince of Wales claims Neanderthal ancestry? I thought that it would be an infringement of his rights to claim an ancestry for him which he, himself does not claim.

[ST88]

Over 400 fossil specimens of our Neanderthal American ancestors have already been discovered throughout Western and Middle Asia. Even a few in Siberia. What more proof can there be of our continued existence here in America? Don't tell us there are no Homo sapiens in the human fossil record! How else could you account for your existence?

What are you talking about?
I want to see a living Neanderthal.

If you are not of East Asian origins or of African descent and ancestry, just look in the mirror. No doubt you look more like a Neanderthal man than an African chimpanzee.

jcrawford:

What do you say to claims like Dr. Stringer's, who says that both sapiens and neanderthalensis are descended from a heidelbergensis diaspora originating in Africa?

While they were certainly not primitive sub-humans (they were actually highly evolved in aspects of their morphology and behaviour), the Neanderthals were definitely distinct from living people, different enough to be regarded as a distinct species, H. neanderthalensis, in my view. So for me, what is especially fascinating about the Neanderthals is that they were every bit as human as we are, yet they were different. What we share with them is a measure of what it means to be fully human, what differentiates us is what it means to be a Neanderthal, or a modern human (H. sapiens).
- Talk Origins archive

bold mine

Let's assume for the moment that Neanderthal blood exists in certain population lineages -- a bold leap down into the chasm for most of us. What is it about having minute traces of DNA of a separate and distinct species of animal that makes this such a contentious issue?

Before you answer, consider the reason for classifying species in the first place. If Neanderthals and Sapiens truly are separate species, then interbreeding would be spotty at best if not downright impossible, and so this would be a non-issue. But if it were possible for Neanderthals and Sapiens to interbreed to such an extent that an entire population would be affected by the merger, wouldn't this lead to the assumption that they could not be separate species and therefore this would not qualify as an accurate distinction?

Before you answer, consider that these distinctions by themselves are arbitrary, are useful only for taxonomic purposes, and do not have any relevance in modern-day society.

[jcrawford]

Do you have any evidence at all that the current Prince of Wales claims Neanderthal ancestry? I thought that it would be an infringement of his rights to claim an ancestry for him which he, himself does not claim.

I'm not sure on what legal basis or theory the Prince could sue one his Neanderthal relatives living in America these days. We Neanderthal Americans no doubt have sovereign immunity from frivolous ancestral lawsuits filed against us by members of the Royal Family or those in the White House. If George Bush can be easily recognized and identified as being of Royal Neanderthal blood, what's wrong with including Bonnie Prince Charley in our family tree just because Charlie Darwin ran off and built his own tree-house in order to perch on one of the branches of his chosen ancestors?

I doubt very much that either G.B. or the Prince would prefer to be included in Charlie Darwin's family tree. After all, human rights and human dignity are at the top of both of their agendas to allow Charlie Darwin back into the Neanderthal Family since he too is really one of our own.

[Grumpy]

JC

You and W as neaderthals, that I can believe, we'll give you Pat Robertson and Charles Stanley too but we'll let the Prince of Wales speak for himself. Maybe if we seperate the wheat(Sapiens) from the chaff we can improve our averages, who knows??? If you insist your race must be seperate from the rest of humanity, so be it.

Grumpy

[jcrawford]

What do you say to claims like Dr. Stringer's, who says that both sapiens and neanderthalensis are descended from a heidelbergensis diaspora originating in Africa?

While they were certainly not primitive sub-humans (they were actually highly evolved in aspects of their morphology and behaviour), the Neanderthals were definitely distinct from living people, different enough to be regarded as a distinct species, H. neanderthalensis, in my view. So for me, what is especially fascinating about the Neanderthals is that they were every bit as human as we are, yet they were different. What we share with them is a measure of what it means to be fully human, what differentiates us is what it means to be a Neanderthal, or a modern human (H. sapiens).
- Talk Origins archive

Chris Stringer is ovbiously a devout and dedicated 'out of Africaner' who never misses an opportunity to degrade and dehumanize his true forbears by disassociating and distancing himself from them as far as possible. Using the Mauer mandible and the Broken Hill skull of Rhodesian Man as a pretext for Neanderthal origins is inexcusable for a man in Dr. Stringer's position of prestige and authority, since Neanderthals date much further back than either in Atapeurca, Spain.

btw, did you ever notice the bullet-hole just in front of the left ear-hole of the Kabwe/Broken Hill/Rhodesian Man skull which isn't even fossilized?

Let's assume for the moment that Neanderthal blood exists in certain population lineages -- a bold leap down into the chasm for most of us. What is it about having minute traces of DNA of a separate and distinct species of animal that makes this such a contentious issue?

Before you answer, consider the reason for classifying species in the first place. If Neanderthals and Sapiens truly are separate species, then interbreeding would be spotty at best if not downright impossible, and so this would be a non-issue. But if it were possible for Neanderthals and Sapiens to interbreed to such an extent that an entire population would be affected by the merger, wouldn't this lead to the assumption that they could not be separate species and therefore this would not qualify as an accurate distinction?

Before you answer, consider that these distinctions by themselves are arbitrary, are useful only for taxonomic purposes, and do not have any relevance in modern-day society.

What you say above about the implications of Neanderthal and sapiens potential for interfertililty is obviously insightful and correct, except for your added claim that such "arbitrary distinctions" do not have any relevence in modern society.

The main reason that the mtDNA African Eve theory was invented was to bypass modern claims of Neanderthal descent by arbitrarily declaring Neanderthal ancestry to be genetically and racially extinct in order avoid the racial implications inherent in the Multi-regional Continuity Model of Wolpoff and Thorn which Carlton Coon modeled his "Origin of Human Races" on. As Lubenow points out, the intrinsic racism inherent in the basic theory of human evolution raised its ugly head in Carlton Coon's works, so it became necessary for neo-Darwinism to find one common human ancestral origin for all people as in the Noah's Ark Model.

Only trouble is that the Out of Africa Model is only a genetic theory despite howls of protest from neo-Darwinists that it constitutes indisputable evidence and proof. There is no way that neo-Darwinists can prove that early/archaic H. sapiens in Europe from .5 MYA originated from the same sub-species in Africa, especially when the leading contender for evolution into modern H. sapiens in Africa has a bullet-hole in the left side of it's non-fossilized skull.

[jcrawford]

JC

You and W as neaderthals, that I can believe, we'll give you Pat Robertson and Charles Stanley too but we'll let the Prince of Wales speak for himself. Grumpy

Good idea, Grumpy, since the Prince already has his own Coat of Arms and ancestral origin included in his ancestral title, flag and estate, while most of us poor Neanderthal peasants and city slickers here in America seem to have lost ours, misplaced them, sold them, or never had any that we knew of, to begin with.

[ST88]

What do you say to claims like Dr. Stringer's, who says that both sapiens and neanderthalensis are descended from a heidelbergensis diaspora originating in Africa?

While they were certainly not primitive sub-humans (they were actually highly evolved in aspects of their morphology and behaviour), the Neanderthals were definitely distinct from living people, different enough to be regarded as a distinct species, H. neanderthalensis, in my view. So for me, what is especially fascinating about the Neanderthals is that they were every bit as human as we are, yet they were different. What we share with them is a measure of what it means to be fully human, what differentiates us is what it means to be a Neanderthal, or a modern human (H. sapiens).
- Talk Origins archive

Chris Stringer is ovbiously a devout and dedicated 'out of Africaner' who never misses an opportunity to degrade and dehumanize his true forbears by disassociating and distancing himself from them as far as possible.

Perhaps we're reading two different Dr. Chris Stringers. "Degredation" does not even come close to how he's characterizing Neanderthals here. It appears as if -- from the above quote -- he is taking great pains to point out that, perhaps despite being classified a different species (again, in his opinion), neanderthalensis should not be considered as "sub-human" in some way (his word), but is merely different.

In my research on this subject, I've seen some conflicting evidence for both the multi-regional hypothesis and the Out of Africa hypothesis, and I'm left with the same question every time: Why does this matter? In terms of how humans are treated today -- in a legal sense, in a free society -- I maintain that genetic variations or species differences make no difference at all. Your objection appears to be with the liberal ideology of "We're all from the same stock" that somehow informed the scientific understanding of human evolution and migration patterns. If true, then it's a breach of the scientific method, no question. However, by proposing that the Out of Africa hypothesis is untrue because the ideology behind it is suspect you are falling victim to the very breach of science that you object to. That is, you are arguing on the level of ideology, exactly the fault you claim of the other side.

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

[jcrawford]

Perhaps we're reading two different Dr. Chris Stringers. "Degredation" does not even come close to how he's characterizing Neanderthals here. It appears as if -- from the above quote -- he is taking great pains to point out that, perhaps despite being classified a different species (again, in his opinion), neanderthalensis should not be considered as "sub-human" in some way (his word), but is merely different.

Nice post, ST88. Sincere, well thought out and written. 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.

In my research on this subject, I've seen some conflicting evidence for both the multi-regional hypothesis and the Out of Africa hypothesis, and I'm left with the same question every time: Why does this matter? In terms of how humans are treated today -- in a legal sense, in a free society -- I maintain that genetic variations or species differences make no difference at all.

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.

Your objection appears to be with the liberal ideology of "We're all from the same stock" that somehow informed the scientific understanding of human evolution and migration patterns. If true, then it's a breach of the scientific method, no question. However, by proposing that the Out of Africa hypothesis is untrue because the ideology behind it is suspect you are falling victim to the very breach of science that you object to. That is, you are arguing on the level of ideology, exactly the fault you claim of the other side.

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.

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? 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.

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.

[Chimp]

How old do you suggest the skull is Jcrawford?

[jcrawford]

How old do you suggest the skull is Jcrawford?

Since the Kabwe skull (better known as Rhodesian Man for over half a century) has what appears to be a bullet hole over it's left earhole, and has not even mineralized into a fossil yet, I would reasonably guestimate that it was buried less than 300 YA. Given the assertion that the hole above the left ear is not a bullet hole, I would guestimate the unfossilized skull is less than one TYO.