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.

[ST88]

Thanks for the summary McC. I notice that John didn't feel the need to correct any details so I think we can assume this is a fair representation of his beliefs. Am I right then in thinking that we wouldn't expect to find Neanderthal remains alongside those of modern man if indeed Neanderthals had gradually morphed into that form?

Well, if Neanderthals lived to be 900, they would still be around when the last generation of them had Great(10) Grandchildren.

Further, if the longevity change was gradual, we could expect that the first generation would die out last. That is:

comparative starting year: (100)
1st generation: age 900 years - dieout at year 1000
2nd generation: 30 years later (130), age 800 years - dieout at year 930
3rd generation: 30 years later (160), age 700 years - dieout at year 860
4th generation: 30 years later (190), age 600 years - dieout at year 790
5th generation: 30 years later (220), age 500 years - dieout at year 720
6th generation: 30 years later (250), age 400 years - dieout at year 650
7th generation: 30 years later (280), age 300 years - dieout at year 580
8th generation: 30 years later (310), age 200 years - dieout at year 510
9th generation: 30 years later (340), age 100 years - dieout at year 440

This means that by the time the 1st generation died out, the 9th generation of Neanderthal-Sapiens transitional forms would have itself been in its many successive generations -- i.e., fully Sapiens for over 500 years.

Is this what the evidence shows?

[jcrawford]

Neanderthals Did not live to be 200 or 900 they were lucky to live to be 50. Maybe not lucky. They were usually old and crippled.
You have nothing to support your Idea John except some words in a book that are questionable and mythic . They are no fossils of a human living to be even 300 years. You should be a stand up comedian.

What's funny is that we can all speculate on the origins of Neanderthal fossils and other human beings like them, and no one can prove anything about them which others are not willing to believe. You just choose to believe that humans started out with small brains in Africa and gradually evolved big ones whereas I choose to start out with big brained Neanderthal descendents of Noah who naturally devolved into all the other human beings whose fossil remains prove it.

The nice thing about recognizing Neanderthal Noah's descendents as our ancestors is that Jews, Christians and Muslims can all look to Abraham's ancestor Noah as our own ancestor and also be counted as his descendents in our own ancestral genealogy instead of being racially classified as Homo sapiens sapiens under the Hominoidea superfamily in neo-Darwinist phylogenies.

[jcrawford]

Thanks for the summary McC. I notice that John didn't feel the need to correct any details so I think we can assume this is a fair representation of his beliefs. Am I right then in thinking that we wouldn't expect to find Neanderthal remains alongside those of modern man if indeed Neanderthals had gradually morphed into that form?

Well, if Neanderthals lived to be 900, they would still be around when the last generation of them had Great(10) Grandchildren.

Further, if the longevity change was gradual, we could expect that the first generation would die out last. That is:

comparative starting year: (100)
1st generation: age 900 years - dieout at year 1000
2nd generation: 30 years later (130), age 800 years - dieout at year 930
3rd generation: 30 years later (160), age 700 years - dieout at year 860
4th generation: 30 years later (190), age 600 years - dieout at year 790
5th generation: 30 years later (220), age 500 years - dieout at year 720
6th generation: 30 years later (250), age 400 years - dieout at year 650
7th generation: 30 years later (280), age 300 years - dieout at year 580
8th generation: 30 years later (310), age 200 years - dieout at year 510
9th generation: 30 years later (340), age 100 years - dieout at year 440

Since Noah was 600 years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth, (Genesis 7:6) and his son's wives had no children at that time, we may safely assume that Noah's oldest son may have been at least 300 years old before beginning to spawn the next generation.

So each generation would have begun 300 years later, minus approximately 30 years for each succeeding generation.

[ST88]

What's funny is that we can all speculate on the origins of Neanderthal fossils and other human beings like them, and no one can prove anything about them which others are not willing to believe. You just choose to believe that humans started out with small brains in Africa and gradually evolved big ones whereas I choose to start out with big brained Neanderthal descendents of Noah who naturally devolved into all the other human beings whose fossil remains prove it.

It's not quite an analogous situation. Human evolution theories are constantly being revised as the evidence is discovered. The out-of-Africa hypothesis is not even the only human evolution idea among "evolutionists". Whereas with the Creation theory, the evidence must be placed into the existing superstructure -- somewhere; with the evolution theory, each new find must be reconciled with existing theory. If it can't be, then a new theory emerges or an alternate theory becomes more likely.

The nice thing about recognizing Neanderthal Noah's descendents as our ancestors is that Jews, Christians and Muslims can all look to Abraham's ancestor Noah as our own ancestor and also be counted as his descendents in our own ancestral genealogy instead of being racially classified as Homo sapiens sapiens under the Hominoidea superfamily in neo-Darwinist phylogenies.

It certainly must be nice to think like this. But science isn't interested in making us more or less comfortable. It is comfort-neutral, which is why I think you feel justified in making this "racism" claim. Because you think you see something that you recognize in a pejorative context, you perhaps do not realize the neutrality of the scientific perspective. It's perfectly understandable, as I catch myself sometimes seeing belief in a supreme being as sheer insanity. Then, of course, I have to apply logic to the situation, and realize that such beliefs are inherently irrational to the extent that they are beyond logic and reason -- applicable to a different part of the brain.

I don't see how being descended from Abraham is any less racist -- by your definition. In fact, isn't it more racist to suggest that one religion is descended from the bastard child of one man, and the other is descended from the legitimate offspring? This is a distinction in the lineage of religions that is not unlike what you claim for the biological lineage of humans, and yet is an "actual" distinction that has been documented, whereas the Neanderthal claim has not been substantiated.

[jcrawford]

Human evolution theories are constantly being revised as the evidence is discovered.

The fundamental assumption and premise that humans evolved from ape and monkey ancestors is always constant though. No monkey - no theory.

The out-of-Africa hypothesis is not even the only human evolution idea among "evolutionists".

It is amongst neo-Darwinists.

Whereas with the Creation theory, the evidence must be placed into the existing superstructure -- somewhere; with the evolution theory, each new find must be reconciled with existing theory. If it can't be, then a new theory emerges or an alternate theory becomes more likely.

Basically then, it's only the theory that keeps changing and evolving.

It certainly must be nice to think like this. But science isn't interested in making us more or less comfortable. It is comfort-neutral, which is why I think you feel justified in making this "racism" claim. Because you think you see something that you recognize in a pejorative context, you perhaps do not realize the neutrality of the scientific perspective.

With all the big bucks and reputations to made in "science," scientists can hardly be said to be "neutral."

It's perfectly understandable, as I catch myself sometimes seeing belief in a supreme being as sheer insanity.

Insanity on whose part? Theistic evolutionists? Besides being inherently racist, neo-Darwinist theories of ape-men can also be considered insane.

Then, of course, I have to apply logic to the situation, and realize that such beliefs are inherently irrational to the extent that they are beyond logic and reason -- applicable to a different part of the brain.

Ah, evolutionary psychiatry to the rescue. That will ensure sanity.

I don't see how being descended from Abraham is any less racist -- by your definition. In fact, isn't it more racist to suggest that one religion is descended from the bastard child of one man, and the other is descended from the legitimate offspring?

Interesting hypothesis. Not very scientific or religiously neutral though.

This is a distinction in the lineage of religions that is not unlike what you claim for the biological lineage of humans, and yet is an "actual" distinction that has been documented, whereas the Neanderthal claim has not been substantiated.

How has your "actual" distinction been documented? Religiously or scientifically?

[micatala]

ST88 wrote:
Human evolution theories are constantly being revised as the evidence is discovered.

The fundamental assumption and premise that humans evolved from ape and monkey ancestors is always constant though. No monkey - no theory.

No, this is still misunderstanding how science works.

There is no assumption being made, either ahead of time or afterwards, that humans and other primates share a common ancestor. Rather, scientists have concluded, on the basis of the over-whelming evidence that you seem to ignore or discount, that humans are descended from beings which were part of a non-human species.

At this point, it continues to be the pre-vailing view because that is what the evidence indicates.

With all the big bucks and reputations to made in "science," scientists can hardly be said to be "neutral."

A couple of fallacies here. First, you are making an assertion without presenting any evidence. Second, you have not in any way shown that the conclusions that scientists have reached are incorrect. You are simply trying to smear the credibility with an off-hand assertion.

[QED]

I always wonder what might be the real reason for rejecting the idea that humans evolved from apes: is it out of some perceived loss of dignity or simply that it conflicts with the story of genesis?

Either way it's one flight of fancy to declare such theories as racist -- but insane? That hardly seems appropriate given the similarities in body-plan stance and behaviour between apes and humans. I don't recall any other species looking quite so similar or being taught to communicate using sign language or pour cups of tea for each other!

Unlike the story of genesis, this stuff isn't just written down in books such that we have to take it on trust. We can go out and look for ourselves in any of the numerous wildlife centres or even take a trip to see these creatures in their natural habitat. I personally like paying a visit to Monkey World once or twice a year to remind myself just how close we are to this other semi-intelligent lodger of the planet. Sure they're hairy and scruffy, but I've know one or two people who better deserve the title of "animal".

[jcrawford]

There is no assumption being made, either ahead of time or afterwards, that humans and other primates share a common ancestor. Rather, scientists have concluded, on the basis of the over-whelming evidence that you seem to ignore or discount, that humans are descended from beings which were part of a non-human species.

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?

At this point, it continues to be the pre-vailing view because that is what the evidence indicates.

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.

First, you are making an assertion without presenting any evidence.

Neo-Darwinists make false assertions all the time about our human ancestors without presenting any evidence.

Second, you have not in any way shown that the conclusions that scientists have reached are incorrect.

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.

You are simply trying to smear the credibility with an off-hand assertion.

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.

[jcrawford]

I always wonder what might be the real reason for rejecting the idea that humans evolved from apes: is it out of some perceived loss of dignity or simply that it conflicts with the story of genesis?

Who knows? The real question is whether normal human beings are bound by some neo-Darwinist law to accept and believe in some racist theory of human evolution in or out of Africa just because a few neo-Darwinist race theorists try to pass their genocidal theories off as science?

Either way it's one flight of fancy to declare such theories as racist -- but insane? That hardly seems appropriate given the similarities in body-plan stance and behaviour between apes and humans.

The genetic and behavioral similarities between men and women is greater than between apes and humans despite, and in praise of, the obvious sexual differences, yet anyone who fancied that women evolved from men would surely be considered insane if not sexist.

I don't recall any other species looking quite so similar or being taught to communicate using sign language or pour cups of tea for each other!

So you are an ape-lover who fancies tea-time in the zoo as a sign of human evolution from monkey and ape ancestors. I'm not surprised that you haven't been able to communicate and share neo-Darwinist theories of racial supremacy with your fellow primates in either the wild or captivity since most of your fellow humans have equal difficulty following neo-Darwinist sympathies and propensities.

Unlike the story of genesis, this stuff isn't just written down in books such that we have to take it on trust.

Of course it is. If it isn't written down in a book somewhere, how can students of neo-Darwinist race theories read the textbooks in public schools?

We can go out and look for ourselves in any of the numerous wildlife centres or even take a trip to see these creatures in their natural habitat. I personally like paying a visit to Monkey World once or twice a year to remind myself just how close we are to this other semi-intelligent lodger of the planet. Sure they're hairy and scruffy, but I've know one or two people who better deserve the title of "animal."

Neo-Darwinists have already given more than one or two people the title of animal. How else could people be classified as hominoids and hominids if they weren't already classified as animals by neo-Darwinist race theorists?

[micatala]

micatala wrote:
There is no assumption being made, either ahead of time or afterwards, that humans and other primates share a common ancestor. Rather, scientists have concluded, on the basis of the over-whelming evidence that you seem to ignore or discount, that humans are descended from beings which were part of a non-human species.

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?

Without going into all the details of evidence I think you have been presented with numerous times, I will briefly cite several pieces of evidence.

First, based on what we experience today, and I'd be astonished if you didn't agree with this, we know that mammals reproduce sexually and that, due the workings of DNA etc., the children typically share many characteristics of their parents and/or grandparents.

Secondly, it is a reasonable assumption to make that this has happened in the past. However, based on our experience with both humans and non-humans, the further back you go, the more likely the ancestor would be more significantly different than the descendent. I am more likely to share more characteristics with my father than I am with my great-great-great-grandfather.

Thirdly, the fossil evidence, though not complete because of the rarity of the fossilization process, still is adequate enough to show that the life we see around us today is VERY different than the life which existed in the past. 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. It does not take a rocket scientist to infer that some of these fossils represent possible or likely descendants of us.

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.

It's only the prevailing view because neo-Darwinists have no choice to believe in anything other than human and monkey evolution.

Completely false. 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.

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.

Come, come. You can't possibly be serious with this statement.

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.