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.

[Cathar1950]

I think John as already said he believes in evolution. He evolved from a neanderthal and others evolved some place else. So evolution does not seem to be the problem now.
Now the questions is:
Is John a Neanderthal or did he evolve from one?
Homo erectus and others are either a descendent of Adam or Noah and are just really messed up from sin and evil.
It is all so simple.

[Jose]

If it is not first presumed that humans and other primates share a common ancestor what evidence could there possibly be of humans descending from some sort of other mammal?
...
It's only the prevailing view because neo-Darwinists have no choice to believe in anything other than human and monkey evolution. There is no evidence of human evolution and you know it, otherwise everyone would be able to see it, just like in a test demonstration of real science.
...
Neo-Darwinists make false assertions all the time about our human ancestors without presenting any evidence.
...
Neo-Darwinists who think they are scientists have in no way shown that any of the conclusions they have reached about human evolution in or out of Africa are correct.
...
Neo-Darwinist race theorists smear my Caucasian Neanderthal ancestors with off-hand lies and false claims about their human powers of speech and reproduction all the time.

It's a funny thing...we started a thread on Human Evolution precisely to deal with these kinds of claims. Oddly, when we actually started getting to the data, the discussion kinda fizzled. It's almost as if the evolution-deniers prefer to go hither-and-thither spreading assertions about the falsity of science, rather than actually study the evidence. It might be an interesting thing to take some of the recent assertions in this thread, and consider them in the light of the evidence in the thread whose topic is exactly that.

[jcrawford]

Since we logically must have descendants going back to the first life, whenever and wherever that occurred, we must be descended from beings which existed at times when life was very different from what it is now.

That's only a "logical" presumption based on the religious premise that Jews, Christians and Muslims are not descendents of Noah.

It does not take a rocket scientist to infer that some of these fossils represent possible or likely descendants of us.

No, it takes a neo-Darwinist race theorist.

Obviously, there are a lot of considerations concerning which, if any of the fossils we have, might be our descendants, but there are certainly ways of determining which fossils feasibly represent human ancestors and which do not, based on things like how long ago the 'fossil' lived, how many characteristics it shares with us, genetic evidence if it is present, etc.

This is all neo-Darwinist gobbly-gook for people who don't believe in God and deny Semitic genealogies of human descent from Noah.

Neo-darwinists may 'choose' to believe in anything they wish. However, if they are actually scientists and choose to base their beliefs on the scientific evidence, then they are limited to believing what this scientific evidence indicates.

I see. They choose to believe in neo-Darwinist theories about the "scientific evidence" and choose not to believe in Scripture. In other words, in order to be a neo-Darwinist race theorist, one must first choose to be an atheist.

What I know is that there is an incredible amount of evidence for human evolution, and you know very well that it exists, and you could actually go and see some of it yourself if you were so inclined and not averse to a bit of traveling.

I've seen all the evidence presented for human evolution and read all the books and none of it is actual evidence of human evolution. It's just a human fairy tale told by religious scientists who make it up and then "choose" to believe in it.

[jcrawford]

I think John as already said he believes in evolution. He evolved from a neanderthal and others evolved some place else. So evolution does not seem to be the problem now.
Now the questions is:
Is John a Neanderthal or did he evolve from one?
Homo erectus and others are either a descendent of Adam or Noah and are just really messed up from sin and evil.
It is all so simple.

900 year old Neanderthal Man metamorphized into 500 year old Heidleberg Man who metamorphized into 120 year old Modern Man. They are all one species of Man who lived at different times in history and their morpologies only differ somewhat due to surviving the Ice Age, adapting to changing climates and diets, and living shorter life spans. No evolution out of Africa necessary.

It really is quite simple.

[QED]

It really is quite simple.

What's not quite so simple for you to brush off is your DNA which paints a very different picture of life on this planet. Never mind the Monkey's -- you share 40% of your genes with a banana! Common descent from the Chordate Phylum isn't just a religious concoction either:

Phylum Chordata, our phylum, is made of animals that show five distinguishing features in either the adult or larvae stage. These features are a hollow nerve cord in the dorsal side of the body; a notochord, which is a flexible rod between the nerve cord and the digestive tract; gill structures in the pharynx; the digestive tube located just behind the mouth; and a post-anal tail. This phylum, although not the largest, is the most diverse phylum in the animal kingdom. Chordates have bilateral symmetry in some stage of the life cycle and have a coelom made from an outgrowth of the digestive tube. Therefore, all chordates are deuterosomes, and their organs are suspended in the mesentary tissue between the endoderm tissue of the digestive tract (alimentary canal) and the ectoderm tissue on the surface. Chordates also, for the most part, show body segmentation and other characteristics present in the more evolved phyla in the kingdom Animalia, such as true tissue.

There are three subphyla in the phylum Chordata. Subphylum Urochordata consists of the tunicates, that show the characteristics of being a chordate in the larval stage but not as an adult. Subphylum Cephalachordata consists of all lancelets, very primitive animals that do show the chordate characteristics in maturity. The final subphylum, subphylum Vertebrata, is by far the largest and consists of seven classes, including our own.

But enough of the technicalities. An outdoor adventure (equipped with a pocket knife and a cruel streak) among woodland and lakes ought to lead you to the same inevitable conclusion that there exist separate phylums differentiated by distinctly different body plans. Members of the same phylum can thus be sorted into separate groups and I would bet my pet duck that different people would all draw up the same dividing lines (so long as they were gifted with the powers of sight).

I'm utterly fascinated to see how people can still manage to hold our entire body of knowledge about natural history in abeyance just in order to retain their scriptually received account of same. I really must probe you on how you view the fossils of bygone life-forms ascribed to eras that you doubtless dismiss as invention. Would you join me John if I was to start a debate topic to explore this theme?

[micatala]

micatala wrote:
Since we logically must have descendants going back to the first life, whenever and wherever that occurred, we must be descended from beings which existed at times when life was very different from what it is now.

That's only a "logical" presumption based on the religious premise that Jews, Christians and Muslims are not descendents of Noah.

False. No religious premise involved, just plain old sexual reproduction and an actual look at the fossil record. Your statement is nonsense.

No, it takes a neo-Darwinist race theorist.

Hmmm. There are such things as rocket scientists. There are no such things as neo-Darwinist race theorists except in posts on this forum.

Quote:
Neo-darwinists may 'choose' to believe in anything they wish. However, if they are actually scientists and choose to base their beliefs on the scientific evidence, then they are limited to believing what this scientific evidence indicates.

I see. They choose to believe in neo-Darwinist theories about the "scientific evidence" and choose not to believe in Scripture. In other words, in order to be a neo-Darwinist race theorist, one must first choose to be an atheist.

False again.

I didn't say anything about not believing in God or Scripture. Neither does the science of evolution deny God. It simply provides a description of the unfolding of life within God's creation.

The scientific evidence can be considered as much a part of God's revelation, through creation, as scripture. See Psalm 19. "The Heaven's declare the Glory of God", etc. In my view, biological evolution, as well as cosmic evolution loudly and profoundly declare the Glory of God and His infinite wisdom and majesty.

I am every bit as much a believer in God as you are. I believe in Scripture as divinely inspired revelation, as I think you do.

You seem unwillingly to accept that God allows all of us the freedom to relate to him in our own best way. As it says in Romans Ch. 14 "who are you to judge another man's servant, it is to his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand because the Lord is able to make him stand." Paul also says "we work out our own salvation in fear and trembling."

It seems mighty presumptious of you (IMHO) to try and act as if you were an 'arbiter of the faith' and declare that anyone who does not share your view on evolution is an atheist. This is plainly false, based on the millions of professed Christians, not to mention believers in other religions, who accept the fact of evolution and understand that it is not inconsistent with belief in God nor even the Christian scriptures.

[jcrawford]

What's not quite so simple for you to brush off is your DNA which paints a very different picture of life on this planet. Never mind the Monkey's -- you share 40% of your genes with a banana! Common descent from the Chordate Phylum isn't just a religious concoction either:

Sharing genes with bananas and monkeys only indicates the intelligently designed genetic foundation and structure of our biological makeup which we share in common with all other life forms, not common descent or ancestry.

Phylum Chordata, our phylum, is made of animals that show five distinguishing features in either the adult or larvae stage. These features are a hollow nerve cord in the dorsal side of the body; a notochord, which is a flexible rod between the nerve cord and the digestive tract; gill structures in the pharynx; the digestive tube located just behind the mouth; and a post-anal tail. This phylum, although not the largest, is the most diverse phylum in the animal kingdom. Chordates have bilateral symmetry in some stage of the life cycle and have a coelom made from an outgrowth of the digestive tube. Therefore, all chordates are deuterosomes, and their organs are suspended in the mesentary tissue between the endoderm tissue of the digestive tract (alimentary canal) and the ectoderm tissue on the surface. Chordates also, for the most part, show body segmentation and other characteristics present in the more evolved phyla in the kingdom Animalia, such as true tissue.

There are three subphyla in the phylum Chordata. Subphylum Urochordata consists of the tunicates, that show the characteristics of being a chordate in the larval stage but not as an adult. Subphylum Cephalachordata consists of all lancelets, very primitive animals that do show the chordate characteristics in maturity. The final subphylum, subphylum Vertebrata, is by far the largest and consists of seven classes, including our own.

Looks like a very intelligently designed structural layout and blueprint for the genetic foundation on which to base the creation of all forms of life.

I'm utterly fascinated to see how people can still manage to hold our entire body of knowledge about natural history in abeyance just in order to retain their scriptually received account of same.

No one can deny shared physical observations of natural phenomena. Creationists and neo-Darwinists just differ on how long it took for the natural world to come into existance and on whether it was a 6 day supernatural event or a 5 billion year natural event. Since there is no way of going back in time to prove either eventuality, it all boils down to choosing between a world conceived by neo-Darwinist theorists or a world created by God.

I really must probe you on how you view the fossils of bygone life-forms ascribed to eras that you doubtless dismiss as invention. Would you join me John if I was to start a debate topic to explore this theme?

As indicated above, I choose to believe in creation scientist's accounts of the origin and present state of the world rather than neo-Darwinist explanations. The reason I make this choice is because neo-Darwinism doesn't take man's sinful nature into account when trying to describe the true nature of a fallen world either before the flood or afterwards. Also, in denying humanity's original descent from Adam and Eve, and our modern descent from one of Noah's three sons, neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution out of non-human beings in Africa inevitably become totalitarian, religious and racist.

[micatala]

Since there is no way of going back in time to prove either eventuality, it all boils down to choosing between a world conceived by neo-Darwinist theorists or a world created by God.

A false dichotomy.

First off, one can accept neo-Darwinism as the best explanation we have for the history and diversity of life as we know it, and accept that the world was ultimately created by God.

Also, the idea that we would have to go back in time to have an idea of what might have happened in the past is strange to say the least. It completely ignores the fact that events that occurred in the past sometimes (certainly not always) leave traces that we can see today.

If I walk along the beach and find myself following a set of footprints, I do not need to go back to the time when those footprints were being made to learn something about them and how they were made. I could probably tell, for example, whether the footprints were made by a four or two-footed being, perhaps the approximate size of the being, its rate of travel, etc.

You would, it seems, negate all such inferences and simply say that all our knowledge of everything that happened in the past that was not directly observed and recorded by humans must be accepted entirely on faith or guesswork.

This is completely illogical, it seems to me.

[McCulloch]

I choose to believe in creation scientist's accounts of the origin and present state of the world rather than neo-Darwinist explanations. The reason I make this choice is because neo-Darwinism doesn't take man's sinful nature into account when trying to describe the true nature of a fallen world either before the flood or afterwards.

This is an interesting thought. I did not know that science should use spiritual values to evaluate the validity of competing theories. Let's explore the idea in Creation Science reason to believe ...

Also, in denying humanity's original descent from Adam and Eve, and our modern descent from one of Noah's three sons, neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution out of non-human beings in Africa inevitably become totalitarian, religious and racist.

Besides being a non sequitur, I am not sure that your premise is correct. Let's debate whether Evolutionary science leads to totalitarianism.

[jcrawford]

That's only a "logical" presumption based on the religious premise that Jews, Christians and Muslims are not descendents of Noah.

False. No religious premise involved, just plain old sexual reproduction and an actual look at the fossil record. Your statement is nonsense.

My statement is a religious premise and cannot be falsified as nonsense since even such fundamental concepts as truth, falsehood and nonsense are metaphysical and religious in nature and the laws of nature rule sexual reproduction out as a means of human evolution from any other species.

There are no such things as neo-Darwinist race theorists except in posts on this forum.

A quick google for 'evolutionary racism' will reveal many a website like the following: http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/racist.shtml

False again.

Truth and Falsehood are religious concepts.

I didn't say anything about not believing in God or Scripture. Neither does the science of evolution deny God. It simply provides a description of the unfolding of life within God's creation.

Theistic evolution is a religion.

The scientific evidence can be considered as much a part of God's revelation, through creation, as scripture. See Psalm 19. "The Heaven's declare the Glory of God", etc. In my view, biological evolution, as well as cosmic evolution loudly and profoundly declare the Glory of God and His infinite wisdom and majesty.

Theistic Neo-Darwinism is also religious.

I am every bit as much a believer in God as you are. I believe in Scripture as divinely inspired revelation, as I think you do.

Yes, you are very religious, as most neo-Darwinist racial theorists of human evolution out of Africa are.

You seem unwillingly to accept that God allows all of us the freedom to relate to him in our own best way.

I've no problem with that. I just don't think that theories of reincarnation or theistic evolution should be taught in public schools when creationism is banned.

It seems mighty presumptious of you (IMHO) to try and act as if you were an 'arbiter of the faith' and declare that anyone who does not share your view on evolution is an atheist.

Anyone who teaches theistic evolution in public schools must be an atheist, since teaching either Christian evolution or creation would be a no-no. No?

This is plainly false, based on the millions of professed Christians, not to mention believers in other religions, who accept the fact of evolution and understand that it is not inconsistent with belief in God nor even the Christian scriptures.

What is patently false and hypocritical is the teaching of theistic or Chrsitian evolution in public schools to the detriment and discrimination of non-evolutionist Christians and other religious believers in God.