Good anti-Evolution article.

[SilverTorch]

Originally posted by: NL5

Originally posted by: PanzerIV
Why would one be more predispotioned to believe a spiritual force made every single animal, insect and man right on down to each speck of sand on the beach? I don't claim to understand how we got here more than anyone else does but I find that theory rather inplausible as well.

Also, if there were not gradual changes in mankind why is it that we are growing taller and less hairy? This is not fiction but noted fact. If we are to hold to the theory that everything is created as it was and as it always will be why are we humans experiencing these changes? Why do people on Earth whom are exposed to intensely sunny climates have much darker skin than those who are not? Was it not adaptation or was it supposedly done by design by some unknown being?

The main reason we are growing taller is a simple one.....Nutrition. It has steadily improved over the past several centuries.

Becuase many women (who now have more choice as to who they marry) are more partial to taller men ..... could be the same thing for the harry thing 😀

cant spell

 

[bigalt]

Originally posted by: DrPizza


I didn't read the whole article, but I'll address two parts of it: "As Gould says, not only do most species just suddenly appear with no record of a long, gradual period of development,"
This person has absolutely no clue about the time spans being addressed.

i didn't read your whole post, but i'll just address this part. Saying that Stephen Gould is clueless about any facet of evolutionary theory is ridiculous.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: bigalt

Originally posted by: DrPizza





I didn't read the whole article, but I'll address two parts of it: "As Gould says, not only do most species just suddenly appear with no record of a long, gradual period of development,"

This person has absolutely no clue about the time spans being addressed.

i didn't read your whole post, but i'll just address this part. Saying that Stephen Gould is clueless about any facet of evolutionary theory is ridiculous.

The chance of an animal being fossilized is VERY SMALL. It's like watching a video at 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000001 frames per second and saying the movie isn't real because you can't see anything.

 

[Torghn]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Secondly... the probabilities. You CAN NOT USE PROBABILITIES to deny that something could happen if it happened. I don't know what Borel's law is, but if it's an actual law, it's being grossly misused. Example to prove it: I could flip a coin... I could roll the dice... But to make this fast and quick, I'm going to make a 10 sided die, and number the sides 1 to 10. I roll it once. it turns up a 2. The odds of that happening were 1 in 10. I roll it twice. In order, it comes up 4, then 3. The odds of getting that combination in that order are 1 in 10 followed by another 0. (1 in 100) Now, instead, I roll the die 52 times. The numbers that came up, and the order they come up in are: 2284725981235069871325908459873131698798436123409867 Now, according to you, that would have been impossible. The odds of that happening were 1 in 10 with 51 zeros after it. (and according to Borel, if you're referring to his work correctly) Hopefully, I just proved the writer of that article is certifiably "Doesn't know what he's talking about."

Word

 

[XZeroII]

I am curious as to how people who firmly believe that evolution is a fact can explain how a wing evolved (as it said in the article). According to macros, the wing just appeared on an animal one day?

 

[Yax]

Originally posted by: edro13
Fact or Fiction.




During a lecture at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981, prominent evolutionist Colin Patterson asked his esteemed audience of evolutionists a surprising question:

Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing...that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said 'I do know one thing--it ought not to be taught in high school.'[1]

Many people today accept evolution is a "fact." But is this truly the case? As indicated by the response to Colin Patterson's question, it would seem that the case for evolution is not as rock solid as many think. To be truly informed about the issue, we must also examine the other side of the story. I think that we will see that evolution is by no means a proven fact. On the contrary, there are good reasons to reject the theory of evolution. This work is not intended to be an in-depth treatment, but only to show a few of the problems in the evolutionary theory and, most importantly, to stimulate critical thinking about the issue.

The Problem of Mutations
Natural selection (the mechanism of evolution) can only retain or destroy a characteristic that already exists. What evolution needs to explain, however, is how those characteristics got there in the first place. Thus, it is said that mutations (random errors in copying the genetic code) in the DNA have produced the significant changes over time. Because of the complexity involved, however, it would take literally millions of tiny mutations to produce even a single new organ such as a heart. To think that such a complex organ could be constructed by such random events seems very odd. Furthermore, about 99.9% of mutations are either harmful or neutral (have no significant effect). Mutations simply cannot provide a sufficient mechanism to produce changes because mutations that are both not lethal and not neutral would need to be much more frequent.

For example, the mathematician D.S. Ulam argued that "it was highly improbable that the eye could have evolved by the accumulation of small mutations, because the number of mutations would have to be so large and the time available was not nearly long enough for them to appear." [2] Famous astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle conceded that the chances that life just occurred on earth are about as unlikely as a "tornado sweeping thorough a junkyard and constructing a Boeing 747." [3]

The Problem of the Fossil Record
The fossil record simply does not support evolution. In the 1800s Darwin admitted that "We have seen in the last chapter that whole groups of species sometimes appear to have abruptly developed; and I have attempted to give an explanation of this fact, which if true would be fatal to my views." [4] Darwin also questioned "why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine graduations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?" [5] The issue is not about the missing link. It is about the millions of missing links.

The gaps in the fossil record have still not been filled, even though many paleontologists agree that the fossil record today is complete. In the words of prominent evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould: "The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when the disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.

2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed."[6]

As Gould says, not only do most species just suddenly appear with no record of a long, gradual period of development, but there is also no record of change for the species' during their stay on earth. If the micro-mutation theory is correct (that all organs and organisms came about through slow, small modifications), we would expect to find some creatures with half-formed feet or a half-formed wing. There are no examples of this in the fossil record. [7] Further, such transitional stages during the animal's adaptation period would not help it survive, but actually hurt it. For example, an animal that slowly evolves wings from appendages would become very awkward for climbing or grasping and so he would be made easy prey.

Philip Johnson brings out the ramifications of this: "In short, if evolution means the gradual change of one kind of organism into another kind, the outstanding characteristic of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution." [8] Even if a few decent candidates for ancestor status to a species could be found, this would not be enough to rescue the theory of evolution, which acknowledges a world-wide history of continual development.

Because of the evidence of the fossil record, many scientists are abandoning the micro-mutation theory of Darwin (that evolution took place gradually through many favorable mutation s) in favor of the macro-mutation theory (that evolution occurred in sudden jumps, not gradually over long periods of time. This is what Steven Jay Gould argues for). However, the macro-mutation theory still requires many intermediate species--no one holds that one organism became another in a single generation. So the absence of any transitional forms still posses a problem. Additionally, it is just not likely that a structures as complex as an eye or a wing could have been produced only through mutations in the course of a few generations. There are definite bound aries within which mutations must operate: "...mutations are incapable of producing evolution because they cannot alter and effect the existing structure of genes: they cannot create new genetic material or new genetic potential." [9] Additionally, in order for evolution to occur rapidly, in the course of a few generations, there would need to be several large mutations in a short period of time. We have already seen that large, beneficial mutations are just not frequent enough to cause such "sudden changes."

Micro-mutationists do not accept that the fossil record disproves their theory, arguing that the transitional forms lived, but were not preserved. Thus, they say, evolution still happened through gradual processes over millions of years. Macro-mutationists also hold that their transitional forms were not preserved (since the transition occurred during such a short period of time). In other words, they are saying that the fossil record is not complete. However, many paleontologists are persuaded that the fossil record is complete. Further, it really doesn't matter whether it is complete or not. If it is complete, then the fossil record does not support evolution. If it is not complete, then what right do evolutionists have to fill these gaps with imaginary animals for which there is no evidence of their existence? Lastly, stasis (the absence of directional change in a species during its existence) is positive documentation that organisms remained as they were, and did not change into other organisms.

Since there are no transitional links and intermediate forms in the fossil record, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred.

The Problem of Probabilities
Carl Sagan (an evolutionist) and other prominent scientists have estimated the chance of man evolving at roughly 1 chance in 10 followed by two billion zeros. [10] According to Borel's law, anything beyond 1 chance in 10 followed by 50 zeros is impossible. [11] The infintesimal probability of evolution happening makes it impossible.

One Common Piece of Evidence for Evolution Investigated
A common evidence for evolution has been what used to be called the "biogenetic law." This states that the development of an organism's embryo reproduces the evolutionary development of that kind of animal. However, very few modern embryologists espouse this view today. Columbia University biologist Walter J. Bock concluded that this theory has "...been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous...scholars." [12] Professor C.H. Waddington said "The type of analogical thinking that leads to theories that development is based on the recapitulation of ancestral stages or the like no longer seems at all convincing or even very interesting to biologists." [13]

The Problem of the "Ape men"
Five transitional forms which were once considered to be ancestors of humans have been disproved. Nebraska man's existence was hypothesized on the basis of a single tooth, which was later shown to be a pig's tooth. Java man was found to be a gibbon, not an "ancestor" for man. Piltdown man was found to be a hoax in 1953; Australopithecines were found to be only ancient apes which never "evolved" into men; and both Neanderthal and Cro-Magnan man are Homo Sapiens themselves, and thus cannot be transitional forms for Homo Sapiens.

I've always wondered that myself, but there's still more weight to evolution. We just haven't gotten our facts straight yet, thats all. Tell someone who doesn't have a christian background about the theory of Creation and they'll think you're crazy. Tell them about evolution and they might be more willing to listen.

Edit: Justify: christian, Jewish and Muslim background

 

[jkats]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Secondly... the probabilities. You CAN NOT USE PROBABILITIES to deny that something could happen if it happened. I don't know what Borel's law is, but if it's an actual law, it's being grossly misused. Example to prove it:

I could flip a coin...
I could roll the dice...

But to make this fast and quick, I'm going to make a 10 sided die, and number the sides 1 to 10.

I roll it once. it turns up a 2. The odds of that happening were 1 in 10.

I roll it twice. In order, it comes up 4, then 3. The odds of getting that combination in that order are 1 in 10 followed by another 0. (1 in 100)

Now, instead, I roll the die 52 times. The numbers that came up, and the order they come up in are:
2284725981235069871325908459873131698798436123409867

Now, according to you, that would have been impossible. The odds of that happening were 1 in 10 with 51 zeros after it. (and according to Borel, if you're referring to his work correctly)

Hopefully, I just proved the writer of that article is certifiably "Doesn't know what he's talking about."

That's the worst logic I have ever seen! That's like saying, "I know evolution is true because we are here, aren't we?". That's bonehead logic! Of course we are here, and of course you just rolled that specific number, but the fact that you know what the end result is tells you nothing about probability. According to your logic, the odds of rolling that specific combination are 1:1, because that's the combination you just rolled (it's like asking, "what are the odds that I just rolled that combination?"). The real test is, let's see you roll that number again - that's what probability is all about. If you're arguing that his use of the word "impossible" is technically incorrect, than you're right, but it's a stupid point to argue because it's obvious that he's not saying it's TECHNICALLY impossible, but in real world situations, it's VIRTUALLY impossible.

 

[torpid]

Well the article assumes that if we don't have fossil evidence of something, it must be wrong. If you want to talk about half-formed wings just look at many flightless birds with tiny wings. We don't have very many fossils of dinosaurs, some of which were flying, or at least appeared to have wings. Can we therefore assume that dinosaurs spontaneously appeared on earth since we can't find fossil evidence?

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: jkats
That's the worst logic I have ever seen! That's like saying, "I know evolution is true because we are here, aren't we?". That's bonehead logic! Of course we are here, and of course you just rolled that specific number, but the fact that you know what the end result is tells you nothing about probability. According to your logic, the odds of rolling that specific combination are 1:1, because that's the combination you just rolled (it's like asking, "what are the odds that I just rolled that combination?"). The real test is, let's see you roll that number again - that's what probability is all about. If you're arguing that his use of the word "impossible" is technically incorrect, than you're right, but it's a stupid point to argue because it's obvious that he's not saying it's TECHNICALLY impossible, but in real world situations, it's VIRTUALLY impossible.

No more discussions of borel's law are necessary. It has miniscule merit, if any. The fact that borel himself discounted it when offering the "law" is pretty solid evidence that the -50 argument is worthless. Furthermore, even if one can use borel's law, we have to figure out which "scale" to apply. someone chose the "cosmic" scale because they like the word cosmic I guess. But there are other scales he has offered, in addition to his own outright statement that his law cannot be applied to the origins of life (or formations of crystals).

 

[Dacalo]

A couple of years ago at U.C. Davis, we had a prominent professor from Stanford debate on evolution.

He basically stated that evolution is so flawed that it would be easier to believe in creation.

 

[brigden]

Dinosaurs are only ten thousand years old, you know?

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I am curious as to how people who firmly believe that evolution is a fact can explain how a wing evolved (as it said in the article). According to macros, the wing just appeared on an animal one day?

It's hard to answer your question for a few reasons. First, the statement "believe that evolution is a fact" implies that a fact is somehow a belief; rather, that which we understand about evolution's factual basis is derived entirely from the empirical. Also, you are requesting an explanation as to how it occurred, and that remains an approximation in the several mechanistic theories of which you are free to subscribe.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Dacalo
A couple of years ago at U.C. Davis, we had a prominent professor from Stanford debate on evolution.

He basically stated that evolution is so flawed that it would be easier to believe in creation.

That's a logically fallacious argument called an ipse dixit, or more generally appealing to authority; in other words, it's about as valuable as a ball of fermenting fecal matter.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I am curious as to how people who firmly believe that evolution is a fact can explain how a wing evolved (as it said in the article). According to macros, the wing just appeared on an animal one day?

It's hard to answer your question for a few reasons. First, the statement "believe that evolution is a fact" implies that a fact is somehow a belief; rather, that which we understand about evolution's factual basis is derived entirely from the empirical. Also, you are requesting an explanation as to how it occurred, and that remains an approximation in the several mechanistic theories of which you are free to subscribe.

Well, someone said that evolution is a fact. I want people who truly know it is a fact to answer. In the article, it said that half formed wings would be a hinderance and those who had them would not survive. I want someone to disprove that. Tell me how an animal can, over time, grow wings. Keep in mind that evolution favors useful mutations and mutations that benefit the animal.

 

[Krakerjak]

Originally posted by: jkats

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Secondly... the probabilities. You CAN NOT USE PROBABILITIES to deny that something could happen if it happened. I don't know what Borel's law is, but if it's an actual law, it's being grossly misused. Example to prove it:



I could flip a coin...

I could roll the dice...



But to make this fast and quick, I'm going to make a 10 sided die, and number the sides 1 to 10.



I roll it once. it turns up a 2. The odds of that happening were 1 in 10.



I roll it twice. In order, it comes up 4, then 3. The odds of getting that combination in that order are 1 in 10 followed by another 0. (1 in 100)



Now, instead, I roll the die 52 times. The numbers that came up, and the order they come up in are:

2284725981235069871325908459873131698798436123409867



Now, according to you, that would have been impossible. The odds of that happening were 1 in 10 with 51 zeros after it. (and according to Borel, if you're referring to his work correctly)



Hopefully, I just proved the writer of that article is certifiably "Doesn't know what he's talking about."

That's the worst logic I have ever seen! That's like saying, "I know evolution is true because we are here, aren't we?". That's bonehead logic! Of course we are here, and of course you just rolled that specific number, but the fact that you know what the end result is tells you nothing about probability. According to your logic, the odds of rolling that specific combination are 1:1, because that's the combination you just rolled (it's like asking, "what are the odds that I just rolled that combination?"). The real test is, let's see you roll that number again - that's what probability is all about. If you're arguing that his use of the word "impossible" is technically incorrect, than you're right, but it's a stupid point to argue because it's obvious that he's not saying it's TECHNICALLY impossible, but in real world situations, it's VIRTUALLY impossible.

Agreed. Dr. Pizza was creating a condition not trying to match a known condition. I think that was his point though, actually i know it was.

I think Dr. Pizza missed the point of how the article used probability.

"it was highly improbable that the eye could have evolved by the accumulation of small mutations, because the number of mutations would have to be so large and the time available was not nearly long enough for them to appear."

This quote was not arguing that the evolution of an eye cannot happen. The theory of evolution states that "evolution occurs as the result of several small genetic mutations over long periods of time"... resulting in new species. This article simply states that the amount of small steps required for an eye to evolve would take far to long to allow a functional eye to exist today.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I am curious as to how people who firmly believe that evolution is a fact can explain how a wing evolved (as it said in the article). According to macros, the wing just appeared on an animal one day?

Because it doesn't appear 'one day' like you claim. Macro evolution IS microevolution, but on a larger scale. Instead of tens of thousands of years, you're looking at millions and tens of millions of years.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I am curious as to how people who firmly believe that evolution is a fact can explain how a wing evolved (as it said in the article). According to macros, the wing just appeared on an animal one day?

It's hard to answer your question for a few reasons. First, the statement "believe that evolution is a fact" implies that a fact is somehow a belief; rather, that which we understand about evolution's factual basis is derived entirely from the empirical. Also, you are requesting an explanation as to how it occurred, and that remains an approximation in the several mechanistic theories of which you are free to subscribe.

Well, someone said that evolution is a fact. I want people who truly know it is a fact to answer. In the article, it said that half formed wings would be a hinderance and those who had them would not survive. I want someone to disprove that. Tell me how an animal can, over time, grow wings. Keep in mind that evolution favors useful mutations and mutations that benefit the animal.

Evolution is a fact how it occurs is theory. Having poorly formed wings might allow an animal to "jump/fly" into or out of a tree to avoid get killed.

 

[edro]

I still don't understand how animals grow new organs.

The only way a species will live on, is if it's characteristics are beneficial to it's existence. How can a tiny misformed wing be beneficial? It would probably just slow them down or something, resulting in their death quickly.

A wing is just one organ, what about stuff like a pancreas?!?! How the hell would a pancreas form through evolution.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I am curious as to how people who firmly believe that evolution is a fact can explain how a wing evolved (as it said in the article). According to macros, the wing just appeared on an animal one day?

It's hard to answer your question for a few reasons. First, the statement "believe that evolution is a fact" implies that a fact is somehow a belief; rather, that which we understand about evolution's factual basis is derived entirely from the empirical. Also, you are requesting an explanation as to how it occurred, and that remains an approximation in the several mechanistic theories of which you are free to subscribe.

Well, someone said that evolution is a fact. I want people who truly know it is a fact to answer. In the article, it said that half formed wings would be a hinderance and those who had them would not survive. I want someone to disprove that. Tell me how an animal can, over time, grow wings. Keep in mind that evolution favors useful mutations and mutations that benefit the animal.

Evolution is a FACT, there's no denying it. It's the process that's a theory (survival of the fittest).

And half-formed wings wouldn't necessarily be a hindrance. What if it was used to glide from tree to tree? Then the longer these 'wings' are, the farther they can glide to get away from predators. Overtime, the ones with the longer wings mate more successfully, until you get wings that could support short flights. Those with wings that can support short flights would have a superior advantage to those that don't, since they can go up trees instead of just across and down... again, a survival advantage, so in time, they're more likely to pass on these genes.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: gopunk
fiction
fiction again

The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.

in other words, his criticism was in regards to systematics only, and not on evolution as a whole. this talk was intentionally taken out of context by creationists.

all the points purported to be made against evolutoin are addressed in numerous books by dawkins and gould, go read up if you're interested.

how dare you bring fact into an online flame thread!

 

[iwearnosox]

Lol @ ElFenix. 😀

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: edro13
I still don't understand how animals grow new organs.

The only way a species will live on, is if it's characteristics are beneficial to it's existence. How can a tiny misformed wing be beneficial? It would probably just slow them down or something, resulting in their death quickly.

A wing is just one organ, what about stuff like a pancreas?!?! How the hell would a pancreas form through evolution.

the answers are in this book

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: gopunk
fiction
fiction again

The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.

in other words, his criticism was in regards to systematics only, and not on evolution as a whole. this talk was intentionally taken out of context by creationists.

all the points purported to be made against evolutoin are addressed in numerous books by dawkins and gould, go read up if you're interested.

how dare you bring fact into an online flame thread!

yea i love how no one has really paid attention to the fact that the speech posted has had parts cut out and was not even about the validity of evolution to begin with.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Anti-evolution...

Characterizations like this always bother me because all scientific theories have problems or shortcomings that lead us to search for additional facts and try out new ideas that eventually lead to better theories. For the sake of argument, I'll suggest that anyone who "knows" something with total certainty (i.e. seeing no problems or shortcomings -- no chance he/she is mistaken) has crossed over into religious belief.

No one should be surprised that evolutionary scientists can all list several problems with the theory or evolution. That doesn't mean they are "anti-evolution" at all. Today's theory of evolution still seems to be the best description of the facts we've uncovered in the fossil records, but you can be sure that the theory itself will continue to evolve as we learn more.

That's the best that those of us without access to divine revelation can hope for!:laugh:

 

[Iron Woode]

That whole atricle is a poorly edited patchwork of anti-evolution theories and worn out hyperbole.

Show me one group of Paleontologists that says the fossil record is complete.

Sheesh. Those guys can even lie without looking retarded.

No fossil proof of life forms evolving from lesser forms to advanced forms? Go to the library and look up the Horse and its fossil record. Eohippus to Equis. A 4 toed horse the size of a dog to a single toed horse we see today.

I got a kick out of the Java man and Pittdown man. Java man was and is considered to be Homo Erectus. Little was found of this creature there, but those religious fanatics were claiming that teeth were found there that were really from an orangutan. There was no mention of teeth being found there by Dubrois. Later on some more bones and other types of remains were found some distance away. These same fanatics claim the skull cap was from an ape. Yup they sure look the same don't they. :roll:

Pittdown man was a hoax. Duh. Man didn't evolve in England dudes. The fact that the lower jaw was fresh and not thousands of years old kind of gave it away, eh?

Australopithecus was an off shoot of human evolution that went nowhere. But they sure weren't apes. They walked upright and were way better developed than apes were or are. Cro-magnon and Neanderthal man were closely related simply because they were both offshoots of Homo Sapiens and could inter-breed. They were quite different physically and mentally though. Yes they were both Homo Sapiens. What's their point? Homo Sapiens evolved some 300,000 years ago, while Neanderthal and Cro-magnon came about some 35,000 years ago. This actually proves that man had over time divided into at least 2 differing specimens. They remained seperate until Cromagnon wandered into Neanderthal territory. And eventually either killed off or inbred enough to remove Neanderthal man from the earth. Neanderthal man was nearing his end as the Ice Age was ending.