You, yes you, are part neanderthal

[Ahimsa]

I’m not sure your comparison of skulls tell us very much. Here’s a comparison of an australoid skull and a caucasoid skull. stormfront.org/forum/t712936/
The former resembles the Neanderthal skull in your photo. Is the one on the left in your photo caucasoid?

Not that I have any reason to distrust Stormfront, but I’ll use this image of an australoid skull. I can note some differences: (1) the australoid skull has a well-defined chin, unlike the Neanderthal skull; (2) the australoid skull’s upper mandible (ramus region) is like that of the causasian’s upper mandible, and both unlike that of neanderthal; (3) the bone surrounding the eye is thick in the neanderthal, and thin in the australoid skull (as it is in other Homo sapiens). I’m sure I could note other differences if I had the specimens in front of me.

 

[lao_tzu]

I’m not sure your comparison of skulls tell us very much. Here’s a comparison of an australoid skull and a caucasoid skull. stormfront.org/forum/t712936/
The former resembles the Neanderthal skull in your photo. Is the one on the left in your photo caucasoid?

Not a chance in hell will I be clicking on a link to stormfront!

Caucasoid? Could you raise that racist banner a little higher, so the rest of us can see it?

For shame. Dude!

 

[lao_tzu]

Good to see you. Three colleges! I can’t keep three threads straight.

Yeah, it gets pretty crazy. None of the terms align in any of them, either, so I can find myself doing the same lecture with modifications every other week.

Speaking of evidence. What the evidence does is to trace specific genes using simulated populations and mutation rates, etc. Since I have started reading research, the generation time was 15 years or maybe 20. This summer, I listened to an anthropologist who said generation time was approximately 25 years. One of the papers I read proposed that overlapping generations would influence overall data. Basically the data as evidence supports the conclusion regarding the specific genes out of 20,000 to 25,000 genes in a human person. What the data cannot do is to exclude the possibility of Adam and Eve.

Generation time is a moving target as we travel further back into our species’ history. And yes, the mutation rate isn’t constant across the entire genome, either, which makes for further uncertainties in calibrating the molecular clock.

Searching out minor possibilities is a goal of apologetics, not science. What we look for instead is the most likely scenario, and Adam and Eve don’t make that cut. It’s important to follow the data to our conclusions, and not the other way around: finding data to support conclusions set ahead of time. If there had been a meaningful bottleneck within reasonably recent times, we’d know it already.

Even the orthodox jews I’ve spoken with consider the first two chapters of Genesis allegorical, with the actual history of mankind beginning in Chapter 3. On this one, the Catholic church has simply backed the wrong horse by linking it to the questionable theology of inherited original sin.

The other thing I have noticed about older research compared to the present is the semantics. What used to be pre-human is now human ancestors. Part of this is due to the realization that science cannot account for humans’ rational functions such as intellect and will. So now there is an evolutionary cultural emergence or an epiphenomenon that comes about in populations which takes the place of the spiritual principle in humans. The question is now which population did one come from. If it is from a Neandertal population in western Europe, is one more human or less human than one descending from another Homo species? This upsets the basic unity of humanity.

Descriptions are bound to change as more data becomes available for analysis. The extent of branching among homonin species was far less understood even 50 years ago. There was a consensus of linearity in our tree that had to be modified to account for what was being uncovered in the fossil record. We now know that our current environment including a single Homo species doesn’t reflect the diversity prior to our increased mobility across the planet.

Intellect and will can’t be accounted for? That’s not something you picked up by reading the science, or if it is, it’s not something I’ve ever seen in a journal. Everything I’ve seen instead supports these as emergent behaviors. The discontinuity with other species is artificially enhanced by the extinction of our nearest cousins. Soon enough, we’re likely to see our slightly more distant primate cousins disappear as well, making the gap larger, as Darwin himself predicted.

By the way, evolutionary theory is a great study. Its application in the medical arena is amazinging.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

Always a pleasure posting with you.

As ever, Jesse

 

[Ridgerunner]

Not that I have any reason to distrust Stormfront, but I’ll use this image of an australoid skull. I can note some differences: (1) the australoid skull has a well-defined chin, unlike the Neanderthal skull; (2) the australoid skull’s upper mandible (ramus region) is like that of the causasian’s upper mandible, and both unlike that of neanderthal; (3) the bone surrounding the eye is thick in the neanderthal, and thin in the australoid skull (as it is in other Homo sapiens). I’m sure I could note other differences if I had the specimens in front of me.

I would never purport to be an expert in this subject. One of my daughters, however, is a forensic pathologist whose degree is in anthropology and whose specialty is determining age, gender, race, origin, life history, cause of death and so on. If I get the chance I’ll show her all of them and she can tell me. I will say, however, that she has said in the past that there are very telling features generally considered “Neanderthal” in certain skeletons of moderns. She told me as well that it’s often more subtle than just looking at major features and such, so I probably had no business just eyeballing a “Neanderthal-looking” skull. More to the point, there are also little peculiarities that are sometimes more indicative than are the more obvious features.

Also, you and a later poster mentioned “Stormfront”. Until you and he mentioned it, I had no idea what it was, other than the first site I googled purporting to have an australoid skull on it. If that site (what is it, Neo-Nazi or something?) offended, then I apologize for it.

 

[grannymh]

Searching out minor possibilities is a goal of apologetics, not science.

From an analytical point of view, it is science which is dealing with all the possibilities of the hominid line. Within the scientific framework, there are all kinds of theories such as the Multiregional theory and the Out of Africa theory. By the way, the Multiregional theory is not completely dead.

Speaking of the hominid line, and there may be a new name for that, I have a question. As I read the some of the simpler Cladistic diagrams, chimps would be cousins, not Neandertals. My question is did the Neandertals and the Homo…line have a common ancestor after the major divergence from the great apes? Considering the amount of Neandertal research in progress, is there a repositioning of Neandertals? Actually, I need to really study what has happened in the last five years.
This is my favorite link evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php
This is another good website tolweb.org/tree/
Both are recomended by non-theists.

What we look for instead is the most likely scenario, and Adam and Eve don’t make that cut.

It is my position that we examine the research to see if the data warrants an universal conclusion that there is no possibility of two sole parents of the kind of human nature which is the same as yours and mine. In other words, everyday, everywhere has to be totally accounted for by going backwards in time for millions and millions of years.

It’s important to follow the data to our conclusions, and not the other way around: finding data to support conclusions set ahead of time. If there had been a meaningful bottleneck within reasonably recent times, we’d know it already.

My posiition is that there is not enough data to rule out the possibility of an “Adam & Eve”. One of the “bottleneck” arguments is based on a 1995 research paper,* The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Originswhich *examines
Even the orthodox jews I’ve spoken with consider the first two chapters of Genesis allegorical, with the actual history of mankind beginning in Chapter 3. On this one, the Catholic church has simply backed the wrong horse by linking it to the questionable theology of inherited original sin.

Descriptions are bound to change as more data becomes available for analysis. The extent of branching among homonin species was far less understood even 50 years ago. There was a consensus of linearity in our tree that had to be modified to account for what was being uncovered in the fossil record. We now know that our current environment including a single Homo species doesn’t reflect the diversity prior to our increased mobility across the planet.

Intellect and will can’t be accounted for? That’s not something you picked up by reading the science, or if it is, it’s not something I’ve ever seen in a journal. Everything I’ve seen instead supports these as emergent behaviors. The discontinuity with other species is artificially enhanced by the extinction of our nearest cousins. Soon enough, we’re likely to see our slightly more distant primate cousins disappear as well, making the gap larger, as Darwin himself predicted.

Always a pleasure posting with you.

As ever, Jesse

 

[Ridgerunner]

What we look for instead is the most likely scenario, and Adam and Eve don’t make that cut. It’s important to follow the data to our conclusions, and not the other way around: finding data to support conclusions set ahead of time. If there had been a meaningful bottleneck within reasonably recent times, we’d know it already.

Even the orthodox jews I’ve spoken with consider the first two chapters of Genesis allegorical, with the actual history of mankind beginning in Chapter 3. On this one, the Catholic church has simply backed the wrong horse by linking it to the questionable theology of inherited original sin.

Descriptions are bound to change as more data becomes available for analysis. The extent of branching among homonin species was far less understood even 50 years ago. There was a consensus of linearity in our tree that had to be modified to account for what was being uncovered in the fossil record. We now know that our current environment including a single Homo species doesn’t reflect the diversity prior to our increased mobility across the planet.

Intellect and will can’t be accounted for? That’s not something you picked up by reading the science, or if it is, it’s not something I’ve ever seen in a journal. Everything I’ve seen instead supports these as emergent behaviors. The discontinuity with other species is artificially enhanced by the extinction of our nearest cousins. Soon enough, we’re likely to see our slightly more distant primate cousins disappear as well, making the gap larger, as Darwin himself predicted.

Catholic belief most definitely does not preclude an allegorical interpretation of many biblical accounts.

To my knowledge, the Catholic Church does not purport to tell us anything “scientific” about Adam and Eve. Nor does it purport to explain the “how exactly” of any part of the creation story.

Nor does it purport to say, exactly, what “original sin” was. It might simply be “choosing to exercise the ability to do deliberate wrong” versus total acceptance of Providence. On the other hand, it might be some singular act.

Regardless, anyone who believes that some aspects of evolutionary theory are more likely than not correct (as is the case with me) cannot help but be somewhat leery of accepting every conclusion within its community that comes along, precisely because the evidence is awfully thin for a lot of it and because theories or aspects of theories come and go so frequently. There is a real tendency to leap quite a bit beyond what the actual facts will support with any definiteness. That is particularly the case when some who believe in it unreservedly represent that it somehow poses a challenge to religion which, in my opinion, it actually does not. But when people come at it from that direction, one is tempted to think ideology, not science, is what drives the challenge.

 

[grannymh]

The Catholic Church has very definite teachings regarding Original Sin.
One heading in the *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition *is “Original Sin – an essential truth of the faith.” To understand the whole picture, please read paragraphs 355-421. The Incarnation of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is a direct response to the Original Sin committed by the first human.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[grannymh]

Regardless, anyone who believes that some aspects of evolutionary theory are more likely than not correct (as is the case with me) cannot help but be somewhat leery of accepting every conclusion within its community that comes along, precisely because the evidence is awfully thin for a lot of it and because theories or aspects of theories come and go so frequently. There is a real tendency to leap quite a bit beyond what the actual facts will support with any definiteness. That is particularly the case when some who believe in it unreservedly represent that it somehow poses a challenge to religion which, in my opinion, it actually does not. But when people come at it from that direction, one is tempted to think ideology, not science, is what drives the challenge.

This makes sense.
However, Catholicism stands alone in some of its doctrines. Thus, in this century, there are direct challenges to Catholic teaching regarding human nature in general, the original parents of humanity, and the effect of Adam’s sin.

 

[Arkadin]

Also, you and a later poster mentioned “Stormfront”. Until you and he mentioned it, I had no idea what it was, other than the first site I googled purporting to have an australoid skull on it. If that site (what is it, Neo-Nazi or something?) offended, then I apologize for it.

It’s extremely neo-nazi. I believe it is the biggest forum for white-supremacists and is monitored by the US government (not that they run it).

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s extremely neo-nazi. I believe it is the biggest forum for white-supremacists and is monitored by the US government (not that they run it).

Goodness me! So I guess Eric Holder has my address by now! Of course, he probably already has it from my being on CAF at all.

 

[lao_tzu]

Also, you and a later poster mentioned “Stormfront”. Until you and he mentioned it, I had no idea what it was, other than the first site I googled purporting to have an australoid skull on it. If that site (what is it, Neo-Nazi or something?) offended, then I apologize for it.

Accepted. It’s the most notorious white supremacist site on the net. Australoid and caucasoid are racist terms, not biological terms. While there are subtle differences visible in our anatomy even between near countries, no one proposes that these amount to even as much as a subspecies differentiation.

… is monitored by the US government (not that they run it).

This. Why I would never click on a link to stormfront. I don’t like being pulled out of line and searched going through airports.

As ever, Jesse

 

[Ridgerunner]

This makes sense.
However, Catholicism stands alone in some of its doctrines. Thus, in this century, there are direct challenges to Catholic teaching regarding human nature in general, the original parents of humanity, and the effect of Adam’s sin.

Not just in this century. It’s as old as the Eastern Schism, and probably older than that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Accepted. It’s the most notorious white supremacist site on the net. Australoid and caucasoid are racist terms, not biological terms. While there are subtle differences visible in our anatomy even between near countries, no one proposes that these amount to even as much as a subspecies differentiation.

This. Why I would never click on a link to stormfront. I don’t like being pulled out of line and searched going through airports.

As ever, Jesse

I am not persuaded that “Australoid” and “Caucasoid” are racist terms, though I would be inclined to agree they are not biological terms. There is only one human “biology”. My understanding is that those terms are simply terms of convenience to designate one (reasonably consistent…though none are entirely consistent) recognizable “racial” group from another. Possibly they are now out of date, or at least out of fashion.

Well, if I’m pulled out of line and searched, it won’t be the end of the world. It’s mostly a lottery anyway. But the very fact that we’re even (half) joking about such a thing ought to tell us quite a bit about what America is becoming. And it isn’t good.

 

[grannymh]

Searching out minor possibilities is a goal of apologetics, not science.

While this is true, I come from a different position. From an analytical point of view, it is science which is dealing with all the possibilities of the hominid line. Within the scientific framework, there are all kinds of theories such as the Multiregional theory and the Out of Africa theory. By the way, the Multiregional theory is not completely dead.

Speaking of the hominid line, and there may be a new name for that, I have a question. As I read some of the simpler Cladistic diagrams, chimps would be cousins, not Neandertals. My question is did the Neandertals and the Homo…line have a common ancestor after the major divergence from the great apes? Considering the amount of recent Neandertal research, is there a repositioning of Neandertals?
Actually, I need to really study what has happened in the last five years.

This is my favorite link http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php
This is another good website http://tolweb.org/tree/

What we look for instead is the most likely scenario, and Adam and Eve don’t make that cut.

Again, I am approaching this from a different position. My right brain is in gear.
It is my position that we examine the research to see if the data warrants an universal conclusion that there is absolutely no possibility of two sole parents who have the same human nature as you and me. In other words, every day, everywhere has to be totally accounted for by going backwards in time for millions and millions of years.

It’s important to follow the data to our conclusions, and not the other way around: finding data to support conclusions set ahead of time. If there had been a meaningful bottleneck within reasonably recent times, we’d know it already.

My position is that there is not enough data to totally rule out the possibility of an “Adam & Eve”. As for the bottleneck theory which is a reduction in population size, I would offer that “be fertile and multiply” was more their style. (Genesis 1: 27-31)

Intellect and will can’t be accounted for? That’s not something you picked up by reading the science, or if it is, it’s not something I’ve ever seen in a journal. Everything I’ve seen instead supports these as emergent behaviors.

I am assuming you mean emergent behaviors from a physical location in the anatomy such as the brain. At least that is what I have seen. I have seen references to culture development which sounded like moral relativism to me, but I have not read actual research.

Nonetheless, I agree with you that everything supports the evolutionary concept that human nature is sufficiently material to handle everything that comes down the pike.

On the other hand, when it comes to reading research on intelligence and volition which are the terms I have seen, one needs to think about what is actually happening. I am not saying that the paper’s conclusion is faulty. Rather it is the interpretation which is off base.

I know I am not being explicit. But sometimes it takes a lot of time to put my gut instincts on paper.

If you have really interesting citations, I would like to explore them .

Blessings,
granny

Carpe Diem – which in my youth meant seize the opportunity.

 

[grannymh]

Intellect and will can’t be accounted for? That’s not something you picked up by reading the science, or if it is, it’s not something I’ve ever seen in a journal. Everything I’ve seen instead supports these as emergent behaviors.

The short answer is that intellect and will are properties of the spiritual soul.

Thus, by definition, they are not in the material/physical realm which is the realm of current scientific endeavors. Therefore, in the scientific domain, there is only one possible explanation for human intellect and will – the materialistic explanation of emergence or an epiphenomenon of a solely material nature. This explanation excludes the human person’s spiritual soul and the existence of a personal God.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16

 

[Ahimsa]

I would never purport to be an expert in this subject. One of my daughters, however, is a forensic pathologist whose degree is in anthropology and whose specialty is determining age, gender, race, origin, life history, cause of death and so on. If I get the chance I’ll show her all of them and she can tell me. I will say, however, that she has said in the past that there are very telling features generally considered “Neanderthal” in certain skeletons of moderns. She told me as well that it’s often more subtle than just looking at major features and such, so I probably had no business just eyeballing a “Neanderthal-looking” skull. More to the point, there are also little peculiarities that are sometimes more indicative than are the more obvious features.

Also, you and a later poster mentioned “Stormfront”. Until you and he mentioned it, I had no idea what it was, other than the first site I googled purporting to have an australoid skull on it. If that site (what is it, Neo-Nazi or something?) offended, then I apologize for it.

I agree that there are certain features thought to be exclusively “Neanderthal” that can be found within some Homo sapiens. Given that both species separated only about 500,000 years ago, that is to be expected.

I’m not offended by Stormfront. But the fact that it is a white supremacist community, would mean that it would tend to over-emphasize any differences between Europeans and Australians, even to the point of possibly claiming that Australians are more Neanderthalish than Europeans.

 

[Ahimsa]

My question is did the Neandertals and the Homo…line have a common ancestor after the major divergence from the great apes?

Short answer: yes.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*My question is did the Neandertals and the Homo…line have a common ancestor after the major divergence from the great apes? *

Short answer: yes.

Another question. Wouldn’t a common ancestor indicate divergence which would indicate no interbreeding? Personally, when a true human person arrives on the scene, there would be other reasons to breed only with other true humans.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Another question. Wouldn’t a common ancestor indicate divergence which would indicate no interbreeding?

The fact that homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis have some similarities in their genomes is to be expected because we have a common ancestor but it isn’t evidence that they interbred. In fact, no skeletal remains of a homo sapiens-homo neanderthalensis hybrid have been discovered. That being said; divergence doesn’t necessarily mean that interbreeding is impossible but it depends on the extent of divergence and chances are that any such offspring would be infertile. For example, a horse and a donkey can interbreed but the resulting mule, if it is male, is completely infertile. A female mule is rarely fertile (only about 60 cases in the last 500 years) and their offspring are even less so (only 1 case). Even IF homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis did interbreed; their offspring are long since extinct.

 

[antonivs]

The fact that homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis have some similarities in their genomes is to be expected because we have a common ancestor but it isn’t evidence that they interbred. In fact, no skeletal remains of a homo sapiens-homo neanderthalensis hybrid have been discovered. That being said; divergence doesn’t necessarily mean that interbreeding is impossible but it depends on the extent of divergence and chances are that any such offspring would be infertile. For example, a horse and a donkey can interbreed but the resulting mule, if it is male, is completely infertile. A female mule is rarely fertile (only about 60 cases in the last 500 years) and their offspring are even less so (only 1 case). Even IF homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis did interbreed; their offspring are long since extinct.

Actually a skeleton was found in Portugal

A hybrid skeleton showing features of both Neanderthal and early modern humans has been discovered, challenging the theory that our ancestors drove Neanderthals to extinction.
The skeleton of a young boy was found in Portugal.

Scientists say it shows for the first time that Neanderthals, who became extinct tens of thousands of years ago, mated with early members of our own species…

source: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/323657.stm