Neanderthals

Originally posted by Proper Knob
That neanderthal DNA is in the human genome is based on genetic evidence. The figure given for the extinction date of neanderthals is based on the fact that no neanderthal remains have been found dated younger than 27,000yrs (or so).

The earliest neanderthal remains in the UK have been dated to around 230,000yrs ago, so i'm not sure where the encycoopedia Britannica got that figure from.

That 230kya figure is based on finds from Pontnewydd Cave in North Wales. A lot of stone tools were found, and a few teeth. These teeth are have characteristics which are generally considered to be indicative of neanderthal lineage.

http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/en/rhagor/article/1968/

It's not really possible to say when the first 'neanderthals' appeared, although the earliest neanderthal traits appear around 600kya. The earliest agreed neanderthal fossils are probably those from Ehringsdorf, which are pretty soundly dated to a little more than 200kya.

Originally posted by Suzianne
From what I understand, they are a branch of the lineage that has led to humans. Meaning we are not descended from them, nor they from us, but rather we have a common ancestor. Is this correct?

Who cares? They were killed in the flood of Noah's day anyway and are
of no importance to us today.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
That 230kya figure is based on finds from Pontnewydd Cave in North Wales. A lot of stone tools were found, and a few teeth. These teeth are have characteristics which are generally considered to be indicative of neanderthal lineage.

http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/en/rhagor/article/1968/

It's not really possible to say when the first 'neanderthals probably those from Ehringsdorf, which are pretty soundly dated to a little more than 200kya.

Can you understand why this type of evidence may not be enough to convince some people? Firstly it is obscenely scant, some tools and a few teeth. Secondly it has as its basis an interpretation, itself based upon similar interpretations of data found elsewhere, that being the fossil record, which in the case of a lineage from simians to humans is notoriously scant. I am not saying that its not valid, merely questioning the process which have led to those conclusions being drawn and the import that they have. Noobster has stated that it is 'believed', that the date of 27,000 years ago was given to the findings that he cited because that is when Neanderthals 'are thought', to have fallen from the fossil record, itself open to interpretation from data that has not been found rather than any that has. We haven't found anything therefore it must be the case. Once again I am not questioning the validity of the data, merely its interpretation and more specifically the way it is presented as hard and fast concrete evidence when nothing could be further from the truth. But dont tell Suzzianne, to her its gospel!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Can you understand why this type of evidence may not be enough to convince some people? Firstly it is obscenely scant, some tools and a few teeth. Secondly it has as its basis an interpretation, itself based upon similar interpretations of data found elsewhere, that being the fossil record, which in the case of a lineage from simians to humans is no ...[text shortened]... when nothing could be further from the truth. But dont tell Suzzianne, to her its gospel!

Oh absolutely. But it is 'hard' evidence. Neanderthal dentition and bones are definitely different from those of modern humans, and from those of fossils from different contexts. They are similar to other fossils from similarly dated contexts within a specific geographical range.

Despite the assertions of certain crazy people, this is real, tangible information, and the dating, while fairly vague, is deniable only if you reject the scientific principles upon which the many different techniques (which are all in broad agreement) are based.

You don't have to accept the word of anybody on this stuff, the raw data is published in the public domain and is accessible to anybody to reappraise. No archaeologist or palaeontologist would say they 'know' the neanderthal story from start to end, they can only give you their best guess based on the evidence so far recovered.

Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so analysts cannot say with absolute certainty that there was no global flood, or give the precise year in which the last neanderthal died. They can only say that there is no evidence to support these ideas.

Clearly, a large proportion of people find it easier to accept unverified and unverifiable stories which offer a clear and easy-to-understand story of origins than to consider the evidence we have and accept the vague and incomplete sort of truth which archaeology and palaeontology can provide.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Can you understand why this type of evidence may not be enough to convince some people? Firstly it is obscenely scant, some tools and a few teeth. Secondly it has as its basis an interpretation, itself based upon similar interpretations of data found elsewhere, that being the fossil record, which in the case of a lineage from simians to humans is no when nothing could be further from the truth. But dont tell Suzzianne, to her its gospel!

Can you understand why this type of evidence may not be enough to convince some people?

But this is just the earliest neanderthal site in the UK. There are numerous neanderthal sites scattered around Europe and beyond which provide ample evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Neanderthal_sites

But dont tell Suzzianne, to her its gospel!

Hang on a minute Rob, you can't level that charge at Suzianne when you believe that humans have only been on the planet for 6,000yrs. To you that is gospel.

You still though haven't explained how according to your creation story neanderthal DNA got into the human genome. What's going to be the official Watchtower position? Are you going to accept what HQ tells you, or are you going to put forth your won position?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Oh absolutely. But it is 'hard' evidence. Neanderthal dentition and bones are definitely different from those of modern humans, and from those of fossils from different contexts. They are similar to other fossils from similarly dated contexts within a specific geographical range.

Despite the assertions of certain crazy people, this is real, tangi ...[text shortened]... ept the vague and incomplete sort of truth which archaeology and palaeontology can provide.

You are spouting off nonsense now. You need to create a science fiction
forum and put it on there.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]Can you understand why this type of evidence may not be enough to convince some people?

But this is just the earliest neanderthal site in the UK. There are numerous neanderthal sites scattered around Europe and beyond which provide ample evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Neanderthal_sites

But dont tell Suzzianne, to her it ...[text shortened]... ? Are you going to accept what HQ tells you, or are you going to put forth your won position?

As I have tried to tell you, nobody knows enough about the Neanderthals
to tell anybody anything about them with any certainty.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are spouting off nonsense now. You need to create a science fiction
forum and put it on there.

Which part in particular are you having difficulty with? I would be happy to try to explain further.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Which part in particular are you having difficulty with? I would be happy to try to explain further.

You don't know what you are talking about so just forget it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You don't know what you are talking about so just forget it.

Fine.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Fine.

Good. I need to go get me something to eat. I'm hungry for some meat.

Can you understand why this type of evidence may not be enough to convince some people?

But this is just the earliest neanderthal site in the UK. There are numerous neanderthal sites scattered around Europe and beyond which provide ample evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Neanderthal_sites

But dont tell Suzzianne, to her it ? Are you going to accept what HQ tells you, or are you going to put forth your won position?

Our official position is that they are regarded as humanoid, that is a branch of humans. It is therefore no great surprise that they are found within the realms of human DNA genetic pattern. This is rather factual, it relies not on speculation, not on the interpretation of scientific data or such scant evidence evidence as a couple of teeth. Never the less, this is not our remit, we are dispensers of spiritual truths, not speculative interpretations based on scan data.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Our official position is that they are regarded as humanoid, that is a branch of humans. It is therefore no great surprise that they are found within the realms of human DNA genetic pattern. This is rather factual, it relies not on speculation, not on the interpretation of scientific data or such scant evidence evidence as a couple of teeth. Never ...[text shortened]... emit, we are dispensers of spiritual truths, not speculative interpretations based on scan data.

It does rather disregard the dating evidence though, doesn't it?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
It does rather disregard the dating evidence though, doesn't it?

Yes for its an interpretation based on scant evidence at best. Creationists have been calling into question the validity of dating techniques for years, carbon 14 etc etc

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes for its an interpretation based on scant evidence at best. Creationists have been calling into question the validity of dating techniques for years, carbon 14 etc etc

creationists are also renowned for using pseudo-science, misrepresentation and quote-mining. i would not take anything they say seriously.