Who was Neanderthal man?

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by Domenic, May 26, 2015.

  1. 0
    0
    0
    Domenic

    Domenic Guest

    Who was Neanderthal man?
    The first fossils of Neanderthal man were unearthed in 1856 A.D. Those who follow the theory of evolution claim Neanderthal was early man, before Adam.

    Skeletons have been unearthed with the voice box intact (hyoid bones). The hyoid bones of a Neanderthal man are identical to those we have. They had the ability to speak and were shorter than modern human beings. Although they are shorter than us they are nevertheless powerful. In figure 3 notice how much more surface area the knee socket on the skeleton has. This allowed for a greater attachment of ligament, tendons, and muscles. It also allowed carrying heavier loads with less strain. They also had extremely thick bones as seen in figure 5. The rest of the skeleton exhibits similar traits.

    These creatures came from some place? As Christians we believe there is only one who can create life, Jehovah God. Christians have also proven Jehovah has had record past, present, and future history. So who is Neanderthal, and when did God create him, and for what purpose?
    The book of Enoch suggest a possibility of who these creatures are: Angeles.
    After Jehovah God created man, he commanded the angels to serve man. Many rebelled against this. There are examples in the scriptures how Jehovah reacts to those who rebel against what he commands, he puts those who refuse in a position where they have to obey. Jonah, rebelled. He did not want to go to Nineveh, and tried to run away. Jehovah put him in a position where he was forced to go to Nineveh.
    When the angels refused, Enoch says Jehovah cast them down to earth in a man like form to serve Adam, who as the care taker of earth would need help with physical work to maintain the world for Gods pleasure. Neanderthal were strong, and be able to do heavy work. Enoch wrote that Satan said to one of these, "Let me use your body, and my words, and I will get them (Adam & Eve) to disobey God, and you won't have to serve them any longer. That creatures name was Sammual.
    If one can believe the book of Enoch, it would explain a creature we know was here. In the year 2014, science claims they have found Neanderthal DNA in some humans.
    Have any of you read the book of Enoch? Can it be proven with scripture to be inspired of god?

    Two directions this thing can go: Evolution is true, and the bible is false, or the bible is true, and evolution is false.
    Fact; Neanderthal was a living creature, and he was here. There is only one who can create life in any form, Jehovah.
     
  2. 2,210
    609
    113
    SingleCell

    SingleCell Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,210
    Likes Received:
    609
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Sciences
    Location:
    Lala Land, Israel
    There is no Neanderthal man.

    It is conjecture based on scientism (religion of science) looking to substantiate their predisposition through similar attributes found in fossils.

    NONE of the bones found which they claim are 'pre-man' are anything but man, or ape.

    Consider:

    The bone variation between Asians and Anglo-Saxons. Africans and Eskimos. Even within the same region there is BROAD variation -- for example, mountain living has formed large eyelids to protect eyes through adaptation.

    In 10,000 years you would see them and say "a ha, 4 different pre-cursors to modern man"

    It's simply a fiction of scientism and Darwin's religious system.

    Evolutionary Biology (which I was studying in college before realizing the fraud) works like this:

    1. Assume there is no creator
    2. Therefore the only way life could have formed is through adaptation + time + natural selection + mutation
    3. This leads to the un-scientific [untested, not replicatable] conclusion that because Bone A. looks kinda similar to Bone B. that Bone B. is a derivative of A

    ^ that is about as scientific as me saying the sky is blue because the sky is blue.

    Worse yet is predicating a religious conception based on this bad science :)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 26, 2015
  3. 2,942
    318
    83
    Utuna

    Utuna Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2013
    Messages:
    2,942
    Likes Received:
    318
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Hey, SingleCell, that's one of my playgrounds... :)

    Objection #1: The Nephilim were men only according to the Bible, but the Neanderthals were men, women and families.... Besides, there is nothing that links them to the Flood whatsoever... among other things...
     
  4. 2,210
    609
    113
    SingleCell

    SingleCell Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,210
    Likes Received:
    609
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Sciences
    Location:
    Lala Land, Israel
    Well I hope I'm playing nicely and not kicking sand in your face :)

    Any point of contention with my opinion? Personally, I don't reject evolution because of the Bible, but because of science, logic and reason!

    ... and the high-priests are creepy Jim-Jones types IMO!
     
  5. 2,942
    318
    83
    Utuna

    Utuna Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2013
    Messages:
    2,942
    Likes Received:
    318
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I don't reject the concept of "evolution*" at all... I just reject the points of view that reject God. As I always said, archeological artefacts are a fact, what the Bible says is a fact, what's in-between, that is our interpretation of it all, is where we are wrong...

    I disagree with Domenic on many grounds but I'm glad he broached that subject. What remains for me is to find the time to write down a thorough answer... :( ;)

    * micro-evolution, in other words
     
  6. 2,210
    609
    113
    SingleCell

    SingleCell Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,210
    Likes Received:
    609
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Sciences
    Location:
    Lala Land, Israel
    Yes, exactly Mr. Tuna! - micro-evolution, adaptation - GOOD engineering! Darwin proved there is a God LOL; otherwise you are forced to conclude that symbiotic complex systems just *poof* into existence. [magic]

    This is what Origin of the Species was about, not an engineer-less model for producing engineering :0
     
  7. 0
    0
    0
    Domenic

    Domenic Guest


    There are many who believe God created humans via evolution...is this what you believe? I do not.
    Number 1: If God created man via evolution theory, where are all the bones of the billions of stages of man? There would be so many We could dig just below the surface on any spot of earth and find these links. Not one has been found. But I'm game for most things. lets assume God made man via evolution. That kind of throws the bible in the trash can. but I'm still game. What happens to the humans that died? Will God give them life on a new earth? lets assume that is a yes. How far back does God go in bringing the stages of humans back to life? The monkey, fish, or one cell?

    Are you saying you are not a Christian that believes in Gods written word, but that you believe the written word is false, and God created everything via evolution?
     
  8. 2,764
    999
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    999
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Quite an interesting subject. I just happened to run across mention of "Neanderthal" in an article, "History of the Ancient Levant", aka Cyprus, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. That is where the label "ISIL" comes from, Islamic State In Levant vs "ISIS" Islamic State In Syria.

    For the period scientists have labeled "Stone Age", they say; ". . .by c. 60,000 BC in Palestine/Israel/Syria, especially at Amud, classic Neanderthal groups seem to have profited from the worsening climate to have replaced Homo sapiens, who seem to have been confined once more to Africa." (Amud, Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved 2007-10-11.) That little c. before 60,000 is the abbreviation of "circa", meaning about. That means an educated guess.

    At the beginning of the 6th creative period of time, Gen 1:24-25 says; "And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds, livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." (ESV)

    As a creator, would it not be plausible that He would not be experimenting with different creatures to see how they functioned and fit into his plan? Verses 24 and 25 mentions "beasts of the earth" and each time it repeats, "according to their kinds." That means, according to what function they were designed for. Is it possible that these "pre-humans" were prototypes? Finally, near the end of the 6th day, God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." (v 26)

    There are two different Hebrew words used in verse 26 associated with the creation of man (â'adam = ruddy, to be red) which is associated with the ground/dirt ('adamah). So, God created Adam and his wife in His image and likeness. Image = tselem, pronounced tseh'-lem, and meaning to shade. A shadow. The other word is demuwth pronounced dem-ooth', meaning similar, to resemble, having the same qualities.

    The other beasts/animals do not have those qualities. They cannot think or speak as humans do, or ponder the meaning of Jehovah God.

    So, did these creatures really exist? My answer is, maybe. I say this because all of the fragments of these creatures that have been found would only fill a small closet, at best. They do no possess enough bone to construct a full being. Label them as they do, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Neanderthal, Cro-magnon, etc, etc., they don't know what they are. The Paleontologists make outrageous claims with their radio carbon dates which are not even based on "educated guesses". Radio carbon dating is a fraud.

    Based on some of the material finds by people like Broom, Thackeray, Boise, Leakey, and others want to build a name for themselves to gain the money backers to keep them employed. The whole of Evolutionary Theory is junk science. After all, science is supposed to be based on "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." Experimentation should back up the observation and fact.
     
  9. 4,284
    837
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    4,284
    Likes Received:
    837
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Exactly! There is evidence of this behavior all over the animal kingdom. Just about every sea animal has multiple variations of itself, and why? Survival of the fittest.

    If I was to create life I would have all my buddies create things from their imagination, and then I would create the creatures I wanted at that moment, and I would tweak them over time, in different variations, and which ever survived, so be it...!

    This is why we have so much life that has come and gone in the strata!

    There are monkeys, apes, and any number of hominid type creatures on this planet that mimic what we do, and are living, but of course without our ability to conjecture.

    If I wanted to create a being in a universe that took eons to create, that I knew I was going to give the ability to think like I do, I would experiment. Not that one couldn't create perfection, but the mechanics of working in this universe means tools such as our hands, eyes, legs, and so therefore, just like the creatures that were adjusted over time to adapt to their environments, so was the bipedal creation...

    We have proof of this in sin itself. One can create a perfect being, and yet still fail in it's intended purpose.

    Thank you Tsaphah...
     
  10. Hi Tsaphah:

    It's really very easy. When we see the word "god" in the bible, the first thing we have to do is determine what god is meant. Is it Almighty God or is it a lesser god, which is what the bible sometimes called the angels. So, there are/is god (s), and then there is The God which of course means Jehovah. The last god is the combination or plurality of gods, which can be a collection of angels or a collection of angels along with Jehovah as in the case of let "us" make man.

    The same is true when we look at the simple sentences in verses 26 and 27 of Genesis 1. First off, we know that Genesis 1 describes a creation period over many thousands of years of 7 periods called "days" and we know these are not 24 hour days like we have now. So, there easily could be thousands of years between the expression in verse 26 from the expression in verse 27, although when read normally, we may assume that it is actually talking about the same creative act. It is not.

    Then God said: “Let us+ make man in our image,+ according to our likeness,+ and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every creeping animal that is moving on the earth.â€+ 27 And God went on to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:26,27

    God in verse 26 is a plurality and is the angels with Jehovah creating "man", which is all of the itterations of man from the first itteration down till the last sometime prior to the creation of Adam. These men are not like Adam, they are inferior to Adam. These men are in the "image of" the angels, so they are sons of sons of God.

    God in verse 27 is speaking only about Jehovah himself, no plurality, no angels along for the creative ride. This person that is created in verse 27 is not referred to simply as "man" but is designated as "the man", so just as The God designates that we are speaking about Jehovah himself and not Jesus or one of the other angels, saying "the man" distinguishes Adam from the earlier creation (s) of "man". It may seem like a simple point, but it makes all the difference. Adam, unlike the pre Adamic men and women was truly a direct Son of God and not an inferior son of a son of God.

    The sons of sons of God, "man" are not said to have been made male and female and are not ordered to become fruitful and multiply, are not told to "fill the earth and subdue it" but are given dominion over "fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every creeping animal that is moving on the earth.â€, whereas "the man" are created "male and female he created them.+ 28 Further, God blessed them, and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth+ and subdue it,+ and have in subjection+ the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving on the earth.†This subjection would include everything that was included in "mans" list as well as the subjection of "man" to "the man". Adam and Eve would have subjection of all life on earth from the insects to the largest animals up to and including "pre-Adamic "man".

    "man" represents all the divisions of man in the evolutionary scale without evolution being involved. It would also account for the lack of "missing links" between obvious differences in itterations, which is the largest "bug" in the theory of evolution. The angels made an itteration of "man" and let that man live for a long enough time for the angels to see obvious and not so obvious flaws in their "creation", then they would put their heads together and after some time produce the next "itteration" of "man". This process would repeat until they make "home sapiens".

    At this point Jehovah steps in in verse 27 and creates Adam, "the man" who was a direct son of "the God". Eve was taken from Adam, so she is a direct copy of Adam, only female. It is possible that there were "men" on earth at the same time that Adam was around. Perhaps that's where Cain went when he was banished from Eden.

    Frank
     
  11. 0
    0
    0
    Domenic

    Domenic Guest



    A simple question, and no insult intended: Do those who care for this forum believe God created via evolution?

    The catholic religion believe in evolution, and the Bib bank theory:

    One of the religious truths is that God created everything and declared all was good.

    Catholics can believe in the theories of the big bang or evolution or both or neither.

    On August 12, 1950 Pope Pius XII said in his encyclical Humani generis:

    The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

    Here is the complete encyclical: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x...

    And here is the Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on October 22, 1996 speaking of the Theory of Evolution: http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp...

    Here is an interesting article about Pope John Paul II's opinion in the matter: http://www.americamagazine.org/content/a...

    The Church supports science in the discovery of God's creation. At this time, the big bang and evolution are the most logical scientific explanations.

    As long as we believe that God started the whole thing, both the Bible and responsible modern science can live in harmony.

    Here is a nice list of Christian thinkers in science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

    The Clergy Letter Project an open letter endorsing the Theory of Evolution signed by over 10,000 clergy from many different Christian denominations: http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm

    Is this how some of you believe?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 26, 2015
  12. 2,257
    397
    83
    wallflower

    wallflower Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    397
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Occupation:
    Variety of roles
    Location:
    Australia (the Big Island)
    Hi Domenic

    I haven’t had a chance to read all of the links yet so I am posting off the top of my head here. (Typing this while dinner is cooking.)

    I’m no scientist and I’m just speculating here about the animals. I think it is possible for Jehovah to create a certain number of species and then step back and let those animals reproduce with variations in species appearing after time. Sometimes I wonder if what people refer to as “a new species†may very well be a variation in the original gene pool for that particular animal. Maybe an animal adapts to a change in its environment…….I don’t know.

    I look at animals like the saber tooth tiger with its large fangs. Then I think: “why doesn’t my pet cat have large fangs?†(Not the size that a saber tooth tiger would have, but I mean large fangs in comparison to the size of the domestic cat’s head.)

    Sometime ago, I read some information about the saber tooth tiger. It explained about the size and shape of the teeth of the animal. As well as the fangs, the saber tooth tiger had oval shaped teeth that were weak and apparently, fractured easily (according to some fossil experts.) They also had stronger and larger forelegs which they used to restrain their prey. (So they relied on their forelegs to kill the prey, as well as their teeth.)

    The domestic cat has smaller and rounder teeth compared to the saber tooth tiger. The animal experts think that this is because the domestic cat relies on its teeth to capture prey. The rounder tooth shape allows the domestic cat to exert force on its teeth in all directions, so it can exert a stronger grip on the prey. It uses its teeth to subdue its prey. It doesn’t have to rely on strong, large forelegs to do the job.

    Another animal I wonder about is the dolphin (and the whale also.) It has been noted that on the dolphin’s skeleton, there are what appear to be small bones (tiny appendages) that are located towards the rear of the dolphin’s body. Some people have put forward the theory that these are the remnants of legs and they feel that the dolphin might have walked on water. But I look at the dolphin’s skeleton and I wonder: “Maybe the dolphin was a larger animal in the past and had more body mass. What if it was a bigger animal and needed a longer skeleton and much more stronger muscles to propel itself through water? Perhaps it is a smaller animal now and doesn’t require the stronger skeleton and muscle systemâ€.

    A similar comment could be made about the whale. Animal experts have said that its skeleton contains what looks like the remnants of a small pelvis. Was the whale a much larger animal in the past?

    I’m going to borrow a quote here from one of the other posters. In the past, he has used an illustration. Jesus is at the wheel of the car and we are like the children in the back seat using colouring books and playing with puzzles. The books and puzzles give us something to do until Jesus gets to his destination. In the mean time, we have subjects to talk about and try to figure out the “puzzles.â€

    I’ll have more time later in the evening to read the links so I will set aside time for that later.

    Wallflower
     
  13. 2,257
    397
    83
    wallflower

    wallflower Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    397
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Occupation:
    Variety of roles
    Location:
    Australia (the Big Island)
    Hi Domenic

    I was able to read all of the links except for this last one. The message I received was that the "page could not be found."
     
  14. 0
    0
    0
    Gabriel

    Gabriel Guest

    Im just going to through this out there....is it possible that THE PLANET MARS was also a planet with 'experimental creations" ?
     
  15. 2,764
    999
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    999
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hey Frank,
    That’s quite an interesting concept. But I can’t buy into it. I know there are many different beliefs about those verses. It all comes down to interpretation of words, verbs, nouns, etc. I can write and say; “I believe in the Bible.†What does that really mean? What did I say in those 5 words? It leaves unsaid whether I really believe what the Bible says, or whether I put faith in what it says. It doesn’t say I believe in every word of what it says. It could mean that I believe the Bible is a book that exists.

    There is a lot of “belief†in what is meant in Gen 1:26, “Let us. . .†I say that it’s speculation to go beyond what is written. Who “us†is, or even if “us†should be there, because there appears to be opposing views if the Hebrew manuscript says “us†at all.

    Personally, in my understanding, I believe that if “us†is in the manuscripts, it is the person we call Jesus. All of what was being created was made with him, and for him. Being the first born of all creation, all inheritance would go to him. “He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.†(Joh 1:2-3 ESV) Paul writes to the Colossians; “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.†(Col 1:15-16

    As far as evolution is concerned, it depends on what you mean by evolution. Everyone thinks that the theory of evolution comes from Darwin. It doesn’t! In his book “The Origin of Speciesâ€, he never mentions, or equates evolution being a factor. He claims change is by Natural Selection. He used the evolved term once, at the last paragraph! “There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.†Pg. 539-540) The theory of evolution was developed by Herbert Spencer and others.
    ____________________________________

    Let’s look at the word evolution and it’s components. We will start with evolve: 1640s, “to unfold, open out, expand,†from Latin evolvere “to unroll, roll out, roll forth, unfold,†especially of books; figuratively “to make clear, disclose; to produce, develop,†from assimilated form of ex- “out†(see ex-) + volvere “to roll†(see volvox). Meaning “to develop by natural processes to a higher state†is from 1832. Related: Evolved; evolving.

    Evolution (n.) 1620s, “an opening of what was rolled up,†from Latin evolutionem (nominative evolutio) “unrolling (of a book),†noun of action from past participle stem of evolvere “to unroll†(see evolve).

    Used in medicine, mathematics, and general writing in various senses including “growth to maturity and development of an individual living thing†(1660s). Modern use in biology, of species, first attested 1832 in works of Scottish geologist Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin used the word in print once only, in the closing paragraph of “The Origin of Species†(1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the discarded 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762) and in part because it carried a sense of “progress†not present in Darwin’s idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (and the advantages of brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists after Darwin popularized evolution. Which brings us to: Evolutionist (n.) 1859, “one who accepts as true the biological theory of evolution,†from evolution + -ist.
    _________________________________

    Paul stated a standard example to the Hebrews. Anyone can understand it and logically cannot be denied. “For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything.†Having worked in the field of engineering for over 40 years, I would be a complete fool to not understand that process. Of course in my field, the engineers did not build, we contracted with architects to design the building. We did the analysis of the structure and layout. Contractors were hired to construct the facilities. Here is one I am very proud of. Use Google Earth, type in these coordinates; 38.052605, -122.627082, or, use this address:
    Lucasfilm Animation
    3737 Lucas Valley Rd (No, it was not named for George or his family.)
    Nicasio, CA 94946

    These are the administration facilities for Lucas Films Animation. The smaller building, in the lower right, near the reservoir dam, is the day care facilities for Lucas employees. All of the parking and delivery is located under the main building.
    It did not just appear out of nowhere. Sometime later I’ll direct you to another Lucas facility that I worked on.

    Paul wrote to the Romans; “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.†He added further; “For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.†( Rom 1:20, 25 NASB ) This is what the evolutionists do by denying that there is a true creator named Jehovah. They will stand before him and his son to try to explain why they do not believe.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 27, 2015
  16. 0
    0
    0
    Domenic

    Domenic Guest

    There is a train sitting on what is called, “The Round Houseâ€￾. It is a revolving table with one track. It turns 360 degrees. With this the engineer can take tracks leading to different locations. Let us pretend we are on this train. Our ticket is stamped, “Paradise…one way.â€￾ We settle back, confident the engineer has selected the right track. As we speed along we watch as the countryside turns from lush green to a faded burnt umber. Further yet the dead forest is left behind. The sky becomes dark, and the land is filled with burnt stones of all shapes. The whistle blows as our train comes to a full stop. “End of the line shouts the conductor.â€￾ Paradise? The people we see look at us, and shake their heads. They look sickly. Dirty deformed children play with a dead rat. Old people whisper of times past. “Is this Paradise you ask?â€￾
    There are groups of people that believe Jehovah cannot create a perfect living creature, that he must experiment to see what will develop.
    It is true there are things we call UFO’s. What are they? Where do they come from? Will we awake one day to find the skies full of these mysterious craft? Will what appears to be a race of creatures say they are from a distance galaxy? Will they declare they planted the human race on our tinny planet? Will they cure all types of sickness? Will they save us from ourselves? Will they teach us our Gods are nothing more than self-made defense against the fear of death? Will their leader look just like the engineer who took us to the place called Paradise?

    There is a sign posted above the arched doorway entrance of the railroad station that reads, “Before boarding your train, get to know your engineer, your life could depend on itâ€￾
     
  17. I guess it was too simple.

    Frank
     
  18. 2,257
    397
    83
    wallflower

    wallflower Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    397
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Occupation:
    Variety of roles
    Location:
    Australia (the Big Island)
    Correction: Sorry, I meant to say "walk on land."

    Must have had a "blank" moment.....:p
     
  19. 2,942
    318
    83
    Utuna

    Utuna Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2013
    Messages:
    2,942
    Likes Received:
    318
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I'm not saying in the following posts that I believe everything they say about evolution. I'm just making a synthesis of their ideas so you know what you are talking about next time to have a discussion while out in service or elsewhere about evolution and Neandertal man. The article below is dated 2007 and the most recents articles about it have already changed many important details, and not only about Neandertal Man but on many grounds. Please, as usual, hear me out before drawing conclusions about what these synthesis are meant to be.

    Pour La Science - October-December 2007

    Introduction


    "We aren't born a woman. We become one." - Simone de Beauvoir

    This applies to the men too. We are all molded, as human beings, by our culture and education.

    What did make us humans ? Intelligence ? Tools ? Bipedalism ?

    The recent discoveries in that field do shake a lot of our previous ideas.

    The apes and monkeys are intelligent, use tools and are bipedal.

    Even on genetic grounds, only 2 % of our DNA are different from the DNA of the chimpanzee.

    In fact, the reality of evolution is not anymore the linear history of apes merely getting up on their feet to become men.

    We have discovered that the apes (gorillas, ourangutans, chimps, etc) have cognitive, social and cultural behaviors that were deemed until recently as pertaining to humans only. Besides, the size of the skull isn't today a valid criteria as our apes are proven to be very intelligent with skull sizes four times smaller than fossil ones.

    The dietary strategies of the Neandertal men

    The Neandertal men were as intelligent as us. We can have a glimpse at what they ate by analyzing the food wastes found near their campsites, especially the bones of the animals they hunted. The hunting of big animals necessitated preparation, organization, memorization and coordination. Their stone tools were sophisticated. The location of their campsites changed according to the seasons. Yet, they didn't build real houses. We know they were carnivors thanks to the quantity of nitrogen and carbon isotops found in their bones, because this quantity changes according to the diet. They would either hunt the animals or get the meat from recently dead animals stuck in mud or drown in water. According to the locations of the campsites, we don't find the same bones, which means that they would go there because they knew that they'd find there those animals. Their hunting territories had a radius of about 100 km, which could be determined by the differences of shapes of the silex tools between different spots. Their status of hunter-gatherer makes that they would choose their campsite locations according to the seasons, the places where they could find berries or fruits or according to where the tracks of the hunted animals would lead them. They didn't hunt at random. All of this shows intelligence.

    Their weapons had a close range, which means that they had to invent tactics to get as close as possible to the animals. One tactic used for big animals was to make them run and end up into quagmires or dead-ends. They would use plant fibers to make ropes and use them as nets.

    We found slaughtering places (where the hunted animals were chopped up) wherein the size of the bones was in accordance with the distance to the campsite. Big chunks for long distances and smaller chunks near the campsite. We also found places where the meat was dried up, certainly for wintertime.

    Hunting means also organizational and social skills. Traditions must have been created thanks to this. Weapons had to be made, training had to be given, knowledge of the berries, animals and spots had to be shared. We can imagine a feast with chants, dances around a fire when the hunters would come back home and share the meat to the tribe members and families.

    Paleontologists say that Neandertal man was unable of speaking and yet, it's impossible to do all of this above without a highly-developped means of communication.

    As the example below shows, they would also take care of their wounded or ill relatives :

    Source :

    Shanidar 1 was an elderly Neanderthal male known as ‘Nandy’ to his excavators. He was aged between 40 and 50 years, remarkably old for a Neanderthal—equivalent to 80 years old today—and displayed severe signs of deformity. He was one of four reasonably complete skeletons from the cave which displayed trauma-related abnormalities, which in his case would have been debilitating to the point of making day-to-day life painful[SUP].[/SUP].

    At some point in his life he had suffered a violent blow to the left side of his face, creating a crushing fracture to his left orbit which would have left him partially or totally blind in one eye. He also suffered from a withered right arm which had been fractured in several places and healed, but which caused the loss of his lower arm and hand. This is thought to be either congenital, a result of childhood disease and trauma or due to an amputation later in his life. The arm had healed but the injury may have caused some paralysis down his right side, leading to deformities in his lower legs and foot and would have resulted in him walking with a pronounced, painful limp.


    All these injuries were acquired long before death, showing extensive healing and this has been used to infer that Neanderthals looked after their sick and aged, denoting implicit group concern. Shanidar 1 is not the only Neanderthal at this site, or in the entire archaeological record which displays both trauma and healing.

    Once the animal parts home, there is evidence of them being chopped up like we do nowadays.

    Besides the meat, the bones were used as tools or even jewels like necklaces. Sinews and ligaments were used too. They would melt horns to make glue. It also means here that inventing, learning such techniques and using them required a lot of intelligence.

    Many paleontologists think that the "modern" men had more sophisticated techniques and crafting skills but those differences are more a question of culture than a question of intelligence. For example, we can't say that the Indians who live in the Amazon rainforests are less intelligent than the rest of the world because they still haven't invented cars or haven't sent people on the Moon.
     
  20. 2,942
    318
    83
    Utuna

    Utuna Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2013
    Messages:
    2,942
    Likes Received:
    318
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The inventions of the last Neandertal men

    The Neandertal men created new ways of cutting and carving stones to use them as tools. They used bones and ivory to make "jewels". Many scientist think that they learned about those objects when they got in contact with "modern" men. That's wrong. They invented those tools and objects but created and crafted them their own way and such way was as sophisticated as the "modern" man's one, just different. They just found different solutions to the same problems they had to solve. The archeological remains can't enable us to know which group was more intelligent than the other.

    Some tools have decorative marks and we may extrapolate without risks that jewels may have been used also as coded messages as to the social position, age, genre and tribe of their owners. Many jewels and tools made with bones indicate that those who crafted them had an impressive knowledge of the bone structure in question.

    We know that Neandertal men buried their dead ones. This shows that their symbolic ability of thinking was like ours. "Modern" men in some places have left no more symbolic traces than Neandertal men and have even used tools and techniques of the latter ones without improving them whereas Neandertal men in other places developped on their own new techniques (use of pigments, jewellery, etc) which were unknown to "modern" man. And all of a sudden, what is considered as "modern" techniques burst everywhere in a short period of time, which means that it was all a question of culture, not intelligence.
     

Share This Page