Neanderthals- Distant Cousins, or genetic fluke?????

[barddas]

I was discussing thoughts of the Neanderthals with a friend a while back. And it made me wonder as to what m'friends here on the forums thoughts are.

Here are a few articles-

In search of Neanderthals
What killed the Neanderthals? New Scientist
New Clues- BBC

So what are your thoughts? A different species of human, a genetic mutaion, missing link in the evelotionary chain????


Lets sit back and enjoy each others views......

Cheers

[reddrake79]

I think they are part of the human race I do not use the word "species" in regard to humans because there is only one species: human. They may be a different people group i.e. Africans, Asians, etc. Here is an interesting article I found on the neanderthals.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1...3neandertal.asp

This website has a lot of articles about neanderthals and other supposed apemen.

BTW I don't think scientists beleive it is a "missing link" anymore.

[Kamchak]

I vote for genetic fluke.....

[Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas]

Add my vote to genetic cousins . . .

[Raven]

Correct me if I'm wrong but since I have been unable to find a catalog of neanderthal finds. (i.e. 2 in France, 1 in Germany, 3 in Africa etc..) and it has been a long time since I really studied this subject in depth (I did go to the links and spend about an hour exploring) I think that the whole neanderthal thing is based on a single find.

In light of this my vote goes for genetic anomally.

Mikel

[greenldydragon]

We were only taught about that one discovery in school. I think they might have been distant cousins, since they were so like ourselves..

[barddas]

here is an article I found that might be of some interest.
Also, I am trying to find a little time to list all of the know neanderthal finds/sites...


Extraordinary Ice Age Neanderthal Finds at Norfolk Quarry 

Unique Site of 50,000 Year Old Mammoths and Tools Reveals Secrets of a Little Known Era

 
Ice age finds

[Raven]

I read that article twice and I not only didn't see any mention of finding actual neanderthals, but the evidence that it was actually a butchery site was speculative at best.

Not being a smart alec, the artlicle just proclaimed that it was a rare neanderthal site and made no mention of how they determined that it was. I would just like to know what empiracle evidence they are basing their opinions on, or at least how they are arriving at them.

It also didn't mention how they arived at their dating (I would assume it was totally based on the mammoths).

Sticking with my genetic anomaly opinion (perhaps I should ad, archaiological fantasy )

Peace

Mikel

[TheCarolinaScotsman]

As I understand it, the main basis for listing Neanderthals as a separate species is the vast difference in morphology. Secondly is the fact that the Neanderthal culture did not "advance" over the number of years that they were extant. But if we examine modern humans across the entire planet, we find morphological differences greater than those between Neanderthals and modern humans. And there have been many instances of "stone age" people whose culture did not advance until contact was made with the outside world. The fact is that there's not enough firm eveidence either way to draw a definite conclusion. That they remained a group apart is certain. Whether that was because of genetic or cultural differences is unclear. I remain open to both possibilities.

[Raven]

From what I have read on the subject it seems like there is very little evidence to justify the seperate classification (i.e. fossils/skeletons of neanderthals) even if the morphology were greater so as to be more significant than you find on the planet today.

I am always open to ideas that are supported with good evidence, it just seems that in the pursuit of this particular genre of science that the evidence is often tenuous and that an active imagination is considered a greater asset.

Peace

Mikel

[tsargent62]

From what I understand, there may have been several different species of humans competing on the planet at one time. It's just that the more successful ones survived. Also, I understand that there is no actual genetic link between Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens. There appears to be more evidence that we're ascended from the Heidelburg Man. Where he came from I don't know. But I was shocked when I found out that we did not come from either Neanderthals or Cromagnons.

[reddrake79]

Did you know that the genetic differences between humans today (I mean living ones) that we can see. Those differences that are redily (sp?) apparent to the human eye is less than 1% of our DNA. one blood by Ken Ham Just because they were physically different does not validate that they were a lesser form of human.

Maybe they were a bunch of people that got together because they shared those same features. If that is the case then those features could easily become predominent in that group. Again, this does not make them less human just different.

How did they come up with their dates? The dating methods that are used by scientists are very subjective. Most dating methods cannot reliably come up with dates over a few thousand years old.

[Raven]

It is shocking to me given the lack of evidence that people commonly believe that we are evolved from any other species.

Even reading some of the articles posted by Jason you would get the idea that there are many at least several finds of the Neanderthal skeletons/fossils. Or possibly even one complete skeleton/fossil that was found relatively intact so that it was obviously the same fossil.

But as I stated before as far as I can tell, the whole Neanderthal story (as far as different species, DNA, etc...) is based on a single find of Neanderthal remains.

Peace

Mikel

[maisky]

The aliens planted several different species of humans: The Peckary strain, the Irish and the rest.
Actually, I think I saw a number of direct descendants of Neanderthal's when I was in North Georgia!

[reddrake79]

In referance to my last post. Even Science says they are all related. The manner of the relation is what is under debate. Weather one is descended from another or the other way around. What I was attempting to point out (didn't quite do it) is that based on the physicall differences, they could have the same physical characteristics as your boss.

If you've studied genetics (even in highschool) then you should remember that there are a lot of recessive genes. (those that don't show up physically unless a person has two of those kind of genes) In a small group recessive genes can become dominant physical attributes within a few generations. WE do it all the time with dogs. We breed dogs with similar attributes until the attribute becomes dominant. This is inbreeding. We don't allow it with humans. However, can you tell if someone has japanes ancestry in them. In a lot of times yes. If the family has been in a different country (i.e. America) long enough then it becomes more difficult.