• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Study: Neanderthals, humans 99.5% identical

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
The presence of neanderthal genetics in modern humans is *obvious*, particularly in people of european ancestry. Geographic isolation and different conditions allowed ancient man's genetics to drift apart, but not so far as to prevent interbreeding when disparate groups came together. It's the same as racial differences today, if perhaps to a somewhat greater degree...

Neanderthals were obviously fully human, despite efforts by some to declare them as otherwise. Their brain capacity was often larger than many modern humans... They thrived in harsh environments where culture, language, and tools were an absolute necessity...
 
There have been in recent times discoveries of a race of people that lived on the North American Continent with red or blond hair and were very tall in stature; 8-12 foot tall. Some of their remains have been found in the Northwest buried in caves or revealed after flash floods washed dirt away from their burial places. Very little evidence has come to the public about this, because it does not fit well into the convenient theories about the population and migration of humans to the North American Continent.

What I am trying to say is that there is a school of thought among researchers and archeologists that people immigrated from asia over the bearing straight or across ice sheets. That may see logical but it is not very likely. It is more likely people would not travel over frozen trundra and take such a chance. It is lunacy to think like this. If you were living say in Canada, and you did not know russia was there, then you probably would not be interesting in traveling hundreds of mile from your temporate home to get to the Americas. This line of reasoning is totally illogical. It is the most illogical possibility. During the Ice Age humans would have been living further south, not further north. Why travel to a frozen tundra to live when you can just go south where it is warm?

Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!

It is more logical that Europe Asia and North America was once a gigantic super-continent and then there was some cataclysmic event and we just became separated or it was a gradual Continental Drift, or the planet was involved in a giant meteor and that cause the land masses to move around a bit. All of these things are more logical.

Here is another theory:

Some races of people in Europe were traders and they developed boats and ended up sailing to America like the Krugans.

In the Book titled, "He Walked the Americas", 1969, L Taylor Hansen, Legend Press, there are a collection of stories about a Pale Healer who traveled around the Americas and sometimes he traveled by ships powered by the wind. He was sometimes called the "Lord or God of the Wind and the Water".

Here is an interesting Website for you:

http://www.mysteriousworld.com/Journal/2003/Summer/Giants/#TheHolocaustOfGiants

Or Try This Website:

http://www.geocities.com/willow1d/amer.html

One question is what is the ancient trading empire of ChanChan? Supposedly they had trade routes and Ships???

Try this on for size:

http://www.delange.org/ChanChan/ChanChan.htm

UNESCO Heritage site!

City of ChanChan, Peru - City built from Mud (Abode)!

L Taylor Hanson had a master's Degree in Archeology, and Anthropology, and her Father Co-Authored the Continental Drift Theory. She is not some Kook. She spent over 30 years researching her book. Never once did she claim the Pale Healer was Jesus. She knew more then most people of the true tribal and native people of the American continents. She was also an expert in Egyptology. She simply wrote down and repeated other Native American Legends. She had access to volumes and books that were rare and may no longer exist. She understood the prejudice some archealogists had. She relates the sources of her information, and where one could search for other information and was not shy when it came to giving other people credit for their research.

What she understood is that most native people on the American Continent do not care to tell westerners or Whites their sacred stories. Often the Myans would not tell archealogists what the significance of certain things and symbolism means. This is because they considered the subject both taboo and too sacred to discuss with a white man. White men destroyed their artifacts, stole their gold and jewels, and then tried to make them Christians. It is a wonder, they would not talk to the white man?
 
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Neanderthals is a hoax.



Wow, but you're ignorant. You conclude that "Neaderthals are a hoax" from the story that there was a hoax involving data about ancient humans, including Neanderthals.

By your so-called reasoning method, if someone created falsified data that purported to show that Jesus Christ walked the earth 100 years ago rather than 2000 years ago, you'd conclude that the exposure of that hoax proves Jesus never existed.

 
Shira,

That article pertained specifically to Neanderthals, not to all "human" fossils. So I fail to understand the context of your first sentence. The age of fossils has a very great significance in regards to how these fossils should be viewed, because the time factor is a major component of the entire evolutionary theory. Since it was embedded in a much longer article, I'm pasting from another article in reference to this:

NEANDERTHAL MAN

In 1860, about the time that Darwin published his book on evolution, the first few fossil fragments of Neanderthal Man were found in the Neanderthal Valley, in Germany. Later, additional fossils of the Neanderthal people were found in other parts of Europe, in Asia, Africa, and Israel. In 1908, a nearly complete skeleton was found in France. The Neanderthal people manufactured tools and weapons, and they buried their dead just like modern-day people. furthermore, their brains were somewhat larger than those of modern-day humans. All of this indicated that they were fully human, Homo sapiens. They did, in some ways, however, appear to be rather primitive. their skulls were flatter than ours, some of them had rather heavy eyebrow ridges, and the skeleton in France appeared to be hunched over, as if Neanderthal Man did not walk completely upright like you and I. Based on these findings, the Neanderthal people were declared, by evolutionists, to be subhuman ancestors of man, and were given the official name of Homo neanderthalensis. Museum exhibits and pictures of the Neanderthal people portrayed them as sort of long-armed, knuckle-dragging, beetle-browed, stooped-shouldered, bow-legged subhumans.

A famous anatomist, Dr. Rudolph Virchow, declared, many years ago, that the primitive features of the Neanderthal people were not due to the fact that these people were subhuman, but were due to diseases, or pathological conditions. He pointed out that the skeleton discovered in France was of an old man who couldn?t walk upright because he had a bad case of arthritis! Dr. Virchow declared, further, that all of these people suffered severely from rickets (a condition caused by the lack of Vitamin D) which causes bones to become soft and deformed. For many years, however, evolutionists paid no attention to what Dr. Virchow was saying, because they wanted Neanderthal Man to be a true subhuman ancestor of man.

Eventually, however, other skeletons of Neanderthal people were found that were fully erect, and it was established, by medical research, that the skeleton found in France was, indeed, that of an arthritic old man. X-rays of the fossil bones and teeth showed, just as Dr. Virchow had declared, that all of the Neanderthal people had rickets. Scientists finally concluded that all of the so-called primitive features of the Neanderthal people were due to pathological conditions, or diseases. Museums have removed the old exhibits of Neanderthal people and have replaced them with new exhibits showing the Neanderthal people looking very human, and about 30 years ago, two scientists published an article about Neanderthal people in which they declared that if Neanderthal Man were given a shave, a haircut, and a bath, put into a business suit, and placed on the New York subway, no one would take a second look!
 

Neanderthal Hoax Exposed
A sensational archaeological hoax has been exposed in Germany. It's been revealed that Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten, a professor at a University in Frankfurt, has been systematically lying about the ages of skulls he found, claiming that they were far older than they actually were. In one instance he said that a skull was 21,300-years-old, although it was only 1300-years-old. As the Guardian reports:

"Anthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago," said Thomas Terberger, the archaeologist who discovered the hoax. "Prof Protsch's work appeared to prove that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals had co-existed, and perhaps even had children together. This now appears to be rubbish."

Apparently Prof. Protsch began his career as a forger when he returned from studying in America decades ago and discovered that he was unable to work a carbon-dating machine. So he just started making up the ages of things.
==================================================
You sir have got to be kidding me.

This guy the only Scientist on the planet??? 😕

You should apply for the new Information Minister for Iraq.
 
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Shira,

That article pertained specifically to Neanderthals, not to all "human" fossils. So I fail to understand the context of your first sentence. The age of fossils has a very great significance in regards to how these fossils should be viewed, because the time factor is a major component of the entire evolutionary theory. Since it was embedded in a much longer article, I'm pasting from another article in reference to this:

NEANDERTHAL MAN

In 1860, about the time that Darwin published his book on evolution, the first few fossil fragments of Neanderthal Man were found in the Neanderthal Valley, in Germany. Later, additional fossils of the Neanderthal people were found in other parts of Europe, in Asia, Africa, and Israel. In 1908, a nearly complete skeleton was found in France. The Neanderthal people manufactured tools and weapons, and they buried their dead just like modern-day people. furthermore, their brains were somewhat larger than those of modern-day humans. All of this indicated that they were fully human, Homo sapiens. They did, in some ways, however, appear to be rather primitive. their skulls were flatter than ours, some of them had rather heavy eyebrow ridges, and the skeleton in France appeared to be hunched over, as if Neanderthal Man did not walk completely upright like you and I. Based on these findings, the Neanderthal people were declared, by evolutionists, to be subhuman ancestors of man, and were given the official name of Homo neanderthalensis. Museum exhibits and pictures of the Neanderthal people portrayed them as sort of long-armed, knuckle-dragging, beetle-browed, stooped-shouldered, bow-legged subhumans.

A famous anatomist, Dr. Rudolph Virchow, declared, many years ago, that the primitive features of the Neanderthal people were not due to the fact that these people were subhuman, but were due to diseases, or pathological conditions. He pointed out that the skeleton discovered in France was of an old man who couldn?t walk upright because he had a bad case of arthritis! Dr. Virchow declared, further, that all of these people suffered severely from rickets (a condition caused by the lack of Vitamin D) which causes bones to become soft and deformed. For many years, however, evolutionists paid no attention to what Dr. Virchow was saying, because they wanted Neanderthal Man to be a true subhuman ancestor of man.

Eventually, however, other skeletons of Neanderthal people were found that were fully erect, and it was established, by medical research, that the skeleton found in France was, indeed, that of an arthritic old man. X-rays of the fossil bones and teeth showed, just as Dr. Virchow had declared, that all of the Neanderthal people had rickets. Scientists finally concluded that all of the so-called primitive features of the Neanderthal people were due to pathological conditions, or diseases. Museums have removed the old exhibits of Neanderthal people and have replaced them with new exhibits showing the Neanderthal people looking very human, and about 30 years ago, two scientists published an article about Neanderthal people in which they declared that if Neanderthal Man were given a shave, a haircut, and a bath, put into a business suit, and placed on the New York subway, no one would take a second look!

Naturally, your new quote is completely unattributed, and has nothing whatever to do with the original link you provided. In that original link (if you follow it to the Guardian Unlimited article whence it originated), you'll see that Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten's hoax involved numerous older skeletons, most of which had nothing to do with Neanderthals.

You seem to think that the entire foundation of our knowledge of Neanderthals is due to Zieten's materials. Are you really that simple-minded?

But now you've given us a new quote. Why not be honest with us and provide the true source?: Funamentalist Baptist Ministry's website

How about a more objective article on Neanderthals?:

Wikipedia Article

Somehow, nowhere in this Wikipedia article does it mention that the validity of Neanderthals is questioned by anyone in science.

Even the Smithsonian website, that bastion of anti-religion, has a webpage on Neanderthals, without a hint that "Neanderthals are a fraud":

Smithsonian Website

Now, go away.
 
shira,

What? Are we to have a showdown of links? What makes you believe that one is more credible than another? While the Smithsonian is a good source of information, what makes you believe that they are the most authoritative? I won't even comment on Wikipedia.
 
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
shira,

What? Are we to have a showdown of links? What makes you believe that one is more credible than another? While the Smithsonian is a good source of information, what makes you believe that they are the most authoritative? I won't even comment on Wikipedia.

Links? Nothing can convince anybody as closed minded as you of anything. You seem to believe that one case of someone lying somehow magically invalidates the mountains of validated work out there - the caves, the excavations, the dated remains, this genetic study etc.

You are a prime showcase of why poeple like Richard Dawkins are needed - you people are doing nothing short of waging a war on rationality, science and progress and we need as many people defending as possible.
 
His work was on neanderthals and humans living together, which was proven false -- not that neanderthals didn't exist.
 
Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
shira,

What? Are we to have a showdown of links? What makes you believe that one is more credible than another? While the Smithsonian is a good source of information, what makes you believe that they are the most authoritative? I won't even comment on Wikipedia.

Links? Nothing can convince anybody as closed minded as you of anything. You seem to believe that one case of someone lying somehow magically invalidates the mountains of validated work out there - the caves, the excavations, the dated remains, this genetic study etc.

You are a prime showcase of why poeple like Richard Dawkins are needed - you people are doing nothing short of waging a war on rationality, science and progress and we need as many people defending as possible.
You believe that being open minded is better? Being open minded mean that you have no idea of what the truth is. Since this area of science only has questions without answers,
theories without facts, I shall choose to remain closed minded, if that is what you choose to call it.

For anyone wanting links, all that you have to do is to Google with the keywords "neanderthal hoax", and you will get 123,000 of them to choose from.
 
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
shira,

What? Are we to have a showdown of links? What makes you believe that one is more credible than another? While the Smithsonian is a good source of information, what makes you believe that they are the most authoritative? I won't even comment on Wikipedia.

Links? Nothing can convince anybody as closed minded as you of anything. You seem to believe that one case of someone lying somehow magically invalidates the mountains of validated work out there - the caves, the excavations, the dated remains, this genetic study etc.

You are a prime showcase of why poeple like Richard Dawkins are needed - you people are doing nothing short of waging a war on rationality, science and progress and we need as many people defending as possible.
You believe that being open minded is better? Being open minded mean that you have no idea of what the truth is. Since this area of science only has questions without answers,
theories without facts, I shall choose to remain closed minded, if that is what you choose to call it.

For anyone wanting links, all that you have to do is to Google with the keywords "neanderthal hoax", and you will get 123,000 of them to choose from.

WOW that's a funny post. I thought open minded meant viewing all facts as they are presented and believing whatever has the most supporting evidence.
 
Termagant,

That is a good concept, except that it doesn't apply to this subject. Because there is NO evidence that a subhuman species predated man, except animals, and possibly a humanoid lifeform from a date preceding Genesis. Do not confuse theories with facts.
 
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
shira,

What? Are we to have a showdown of links? What makes you believe that one is more credible than another? While the Smithsonian is a good source of information, what makes you believe that they are the most authoritative? I won't even comment on Wikipedia.

Links? Nothing can convince anybody as closed minded as you of anything. You seem to believe that one case of someone lying somehow magically invalidates the mountains of validated work out there - the caves, the excavations, the dated remains, this genetic study etc.

You are a prime showcase of why poeple like Richard Dawkins are needed - you people are doing nothing short of waging a war on rationality, science and progress and we need as many people defending as possible.
You believe that being open minded is better? Being open minded mean that you have no idea of what the truth is. Since this area of science only has questions without answers,
theories without facts, I shall choose to remain closed minded, if that is what you choose to call it.

For anyone wanting links, all that you have to do is to Google with the keywords "neanderthal hoax", and you will get 123,000 of them to choose from.

This area of science has a lot of wonderful answers, its just that they're not accessible to those with diametrically opposed preconceived notions and no intent whatsoever to give them up. For those questions that are have not been answered, "I don't know" is certainly preferrable to the make-believe ego stroking offered by shaman peddlers of 'Truth'.

For anyone wanting links, all that you have to do is to Google with the keywords "magical unicorn faerie", and you will get 174,000 of them to choose from.
 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I'm firmly convinced that everyone here is now stupider for having read Seekermeister posts. Where's the GD "ignore" feature?!?

PM notfred for his Greasemonkey script. He made it so people could ignore JLGatsby, but it can work for anyone 😉
 
Martin,

Since you are convinced that evolution has some facts, why don't you impress me and everybody else, by explaining this in an exact scholarly fashion? The random collection of facts that do exist, do not support evolution in any fashion.
 
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Martin,

Since you are convinced that evolution has some facts, why don't you impress me and everybody else, by explaining this in an exact scholarly fashion? The random collection of facts that do exist, do not support evolution in any fashion.

Only if you insist on ignoring the evidence people consistently provide.
 
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Shira,

That article pertained specifically to Neanderthals, not to all "human" fossils. So I fail to understand the context of your first sentence. The age of fossils has a very great significance in regards to how these fossils should be viewed, because the time factor is a major component of the entire evolutionary theory. Since it was embedded in a much longer article, I'm pasting from another article in reference to this:

NEANDERTHAL MAN

In 1860, about the time that Darwin published his book on evolution, the first few fossil fragments of Neanderthal Man were found in the Neanderthal Valley, in Germany. Later, additional fossils of the Neanderthal people were found in other parts of Europe, in Asia, Africa, and Israel. In 1908, a nearly complete skeleton was found in France. The Neanderthal people manufactured tools and weapons, and they buried their dead just like modern-day people. furthermore, their brains were somewhat larger than those of modern-day humans. All of this indicated that they were fully human, Homo sapiens. They did, in some ways, however, appear to be rather primitive. their skulls were flatter than ours, some of them had rather heavy eyebrow ridges, and the skeleton in France appeared to be hunched over, as if Neanderthal Man did not walk completely upright like you and I. Based on these findings, the Neanderthal people were declared, by evolutionists, to be subhuman ancestors of man, and were given the official name of Homo neanderthalensis. Museum exhibits and pictures of the Neanderthal people portrayed them as sort of long-armed, knuckle-dragging, beetle-browed, stooped-shouldered, bow-legged subhumans.

A famous anatomist, Dr. Rudolph Virchow, declared, many years ago, that the primitive features of the Neanderthal people were not due to the fact that these people were subhuman, but were due to diseases, or pathological conditions. He pointed out that the skeleton discovered in France was of an old man who couldn?t walk upright because he had a bad case of arthritis! Dr. Virchow declared, further, that all of these people suffered severely from rickets (a condition caused by the lack of Vitamin D) which causes bones to become soft and deformed. For many years, however, evolutionists paid no attention to what Dr. Virchow was saying, because they wanted Neanderthal Man to be a true subhuman ancestor of man.

Eventually, however, other skeletons of Neanderthal people were found that were fully erect, and it was established, by medical research, that the skeleton found in France was, indeed, that of an arthritic old man. X-rays of the fossil bones and teeth showed, just as Dr. Virchow had declared, that all of the Neanderthal people had rickets. Scientists finally concluded that all of the so-called primitive features of the Neanderthal people were due to pathological conditions, or diseases. Museums have removed the old exhibits of Neanderthal people and have replaced them with new exhibits showing the Neanderthal people looking very human, and about 30 years ago, two scientists published an article about Neanderthal people in which they declared that if Neanderthal Man were given a shave, a haircut, and a bath, put into a business suit, and placed on the New York subway, no one would take a second look!

You're seriously quoting an article that says Neanderthals were just people with rickets? That's been shown false so many times, it's starting to get annoying.

The signs of rickets differ from Neanderthal fossils in several respects, including the following:

1. People with rickets are undernourished and calcium-poor; their bones are weak. Neanderthal bones are fifty percent thicker than the average human's.
2. Evidence of rickets is easily detectable, especially on the ends of the long bones of the body. This evidence is not found in Neanderthals.
3. Rickets causes a sideways curvature of the femur. Neanderthal femurs bend backward.


Virchow, who first reported the possibility of rickets in a Neanderthal, did not cite it alone. He said the fossil had rickets in early childhood, head injuries in middle age, and arthritis in old age. It is doubtful that an entire population suffered these same afflictions.

Source
 
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Martin,

Since you are convinced that evolution has some facts, why don't you impress me and everybody else, by explaining this in an exact scholarly fashion? The random collection of facts that do exist, do not support evolution in any fashion.

Were you actually interested in learning something, you could pick up The Blind Watchmaker and get a great overview of evolution, while if you were interested what recent research can tell us about pre-agricultural revolution human history, you could get Before the Dawn.

I could summarize them for you and have a lengthy discussion, but I wonder if that wouldn't be a waste of time, since you don't seem to believe in either genetics or fossil dating techniques.
 
HombrePequeno,

You might as well get used to being annoyed then, because nothing that you or anyone else has said proves anything. The reference to the "entire population" is without meaning, because they did find "neanderthals" with erect posture, which is the actual subject at hand. Nothing proves that the neanderthals were subhuman ancesters of man.
 
Martin,

You are correct that I'm not interested in any links of this kind, because I have read plenty of them before. You are also correct that I do not believe in any fossil dating techniques, because they are based on theories without any substance. As far as genetics, exactly what do you believe that this proves?
 
Seekermeister

You have a great comedy act. Have you tried pitching it to Comedy Central?

You are so far out in left field, you are in another ballpark altogether.

On the other hand, if you are serious, I guess it would be poinless to discuss it further with you as "profoundly ignorant" and "stupid" are a combination that is a tough nut to crack.
 
jackschmittusa,

Since you find it so simple to say that I am ignorant and stupid, it should be easy for you to prove your own intelligence by picking up the gauntlet that I threw down to Martin. So far, the only thing that you have proven with your posts is your expertise in using denigrating remarks.
 
Back
Top