• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Evolution, Religion, and Introspection

Status
Not open for further replies.
What about it?

Evolution predicts that we evolved from apes. We now find a species of ape-like intermediates and their DNA showing that they are similar to humans, but are a distinct species, just more ape-like.

40.jpg

Here is a facial reconstruction of a neanderthal from 3D Forensics:
41.jpg
 
Evolution predicts that we evolved from apes. We now find a species of ape-like intermediates and their DNA showing that they are similar to humans, but are a distinct species, just more ape-like.

View attachment 67191769

Here is a facial reconstruction of a neanderthal from 3D Forensics:
View attachment 67191770



I want to go to your source. Cite it.




I've got information that says
 
There's no evidence to macro-evolution!



Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway.

When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”?


James M Tour Group » Evolution/Creation


Gross extrapolation. That's all it has. WOW.
.........there's nothing wrong with admitting that you don't understand a subject. Just don't assume your own ignorance means that all the experts in the subject are wrong too. There's nothing wrong with admitting to not being an expert in the subject either. Maybe tear a leaf from Tour hisself
I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened..........
also
Likewise, I do not well-understand the stance of many of my creationist friends regarding their scientific evidence for creation or intelligent design,
 
Evolution predicts that we evolved from apes. We now find a species of ape-like intermediates and their DNA showing that they are similar to humans, but are a distinct species, just more ape-like.

View attachment 67191769

Here is a facial reconstruction of a neanderthal from 3D Forensics:
View attachment 67191770




The DNA was recovered from the bone of the first Neanderthal discovered, an individual so riddled with rickets and old age that his legs had bowed.

The DNA was mitochondrial DNA, not from the cell nucleus, and only 379 base pairs out of 16,500 (thus about 2%) of the total. It was found to differ from standard human mtDNA in 27 locations. Since modern human mtDNA differs on average in only eight locations within this stretch of 379, it was concluded that Neanderthals were probably not closely related to humans.

However, modern human mtDNA varies beyond the average, with the extremes statistically overlapping the Neanderthal measurement. Since all modern humans are interfertile, this measurement does not necessarily place them outside the family.

The technique is new and radical, and hopefully this measurement will be followed by others, which will give more insight and confidence. It would also be helpful to investigate Cro-Magnon bones of the same suspected date. This is breakthrough technology and both creationists and evolutionists would like to learn more.

From a creationist perspective, the Neanderthals were descendants of Noah—a language group that migrated away from Babel and found themselves in harsh "Ice Age" conditions with a meager lifestyle. Linguistic and geographic isolation may have produced a variant, but still human, genome.

Whether they went extinct or interbred with others is not yet known, but from what we do know, they were as human as you and I.



Is Neanderthal In Our Family Tree? | The Institute for Creation Research
 
Last edited:
Source for what? The 3D reconstruction? The Skull?


The reconstruction looks very human!

Check this out. You saying these guys with prominent cranial brows are neanderthal?

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search...r2=sb-top-search&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-004


The first guy that came to mind when I saw the reconstruction was, Lou Ferigno!



Anyway, if we have differing skin colors and other physical characteristics (depending on race).....why would it be any different with a neanderthal just because he's got differing cranial and skeletal characteristics?
 
Last edited:
The DNA was recovered from the bone of the first Neanderthal discovered, an individual so riddled with rickets and old age that his legs had bowed.

The DNA was mitochondrial DNA, not from the cell nucleus, and only 379 base pairs out of 16,500 (thus about 2%) of the total. It was found to differ from standard human mtDNA in 27 locations. Since modern human mtDNA differs on average in only eight locations within this stretch of 379, it was concluded that Neanderthals were probably not closely related to humans.

However, modern human mtDNA varies beyond the average, with the extremes statistically overlapping the Neanderthal measurement. Since all modern humans are interfertile, this measurement does not necessarily place them outside the family.

The technique is new and radical, and hopefully this measurement will be followed by others, which will give more insight and confidence. It would also be helpful to investigate Cro-Magnon bones of the same suspected date. This is breakthrough technology and both creationists and evolutionists would like to learn more.

From a creationist perspective, the Neanderthals were descendants of Noah—a language group that migrated away from Babel and found themselves in harsh "Ice Age" conditions with a meager lifestyle. Linguistic and geographic isolation may have produced a variant, but still human, genome.

Whether they went extinct or interbred with others is not yet known, but from what we do know, they were as human as you and I.



Is Neanderthal In Our Family Tree? | The Institute for Creation Research

First off, we have found hundreds of neanderthals. DNA degrades so we were only able to recover a small part of the Neanderthal DNA, thankfully we have done this with several individuals.

The comparison is done by comparing hundreds of humans together. We then compare each of these humans to the Neanderthal DNA. Since we are comparing the Neanderthal DNA to hundreds of humans this makes it far less likely that the Neanderthal happened to be more different from one human by chance. We have done this genetic analysis with multiple Neanderthals and have found the same results.

As of 2008, this analysis has been done to 18 neanderthal sequences. Some studies have even compared the Neanderthals together and then compared them to humans and found that the Neanderthals were genetically close, the humans were grouped together, and the humans and neanderthals are separate.
Fossil Hominids: mitochondrial DNA

That creationist article pretends that this was done to only one Neanderthal, also all these Neanderthals differ from humans far more than even the farthest human outliers differ from each other.
 
The reconstruction looks very human!

Check this out. You saying these guys with prominent cranial brows are neanderthal?

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search...r2=sb-top-search&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-004


The first guy that came to mind when I saw the reconstruction was, Lou Ferigno!



Anyway, if we have differing skin colors and other physical characteristics (depending on race).....why would it be any different with a neanderthal just because he's got differing cranial and skeletal characteristics?

So Neanderthals are just humans with more pronounced facial characteristics? Aborigines have very pronounced facial characteristics, yet the are human. Why not neanderthals?
42.jpg

Here is a aborigines vs. normal human skull:
19.jpg

Here is a human vs. neanderthal skull:
20.jpg

As you can tell the Neanderthal skull is very unique even when we compare with aboriginese.
 
First off, we have found hundreds of neanderthals. DNA degrades so we were only able to recover a small part of the Neanderthal DNA, thankfully we have done this with several individuals.

The comparison is done by comparing hundreds of humans together. We then compare each of these humans to the Neanderthal DNA. Since we are comparing the Neanderthal DNA to hundreds of humans this makes it far less likely that the Neanderthal happened to be more different from one human by chance. We have done this genetic analysis with multiple Neanderthals and have found the same results.

As of 2008, this analysis has been done to 18 neanderthal sequences. Some studies have even compared the Neanderthals together and then compared them to humans and found that the Neanderthals were genetically close, the humans were grouped together, and the humans and neanderthals are separate.
Fossil Hominids: mitochondrial DNA

That creationist article pretends that this was done to only one Neanderthal, also all these Neanderthals differ from humans far more than even the farthest human outliers differ from each other.


Well.....more than half of those neanderthals were burials!


The Neandertal fossil evidence shows that the Neandertal practice is in complete accord with the Genesis record. At least 345 Neandertal fossil individuals have been discovered so far at 83 sites in Europe, the Near East, and western Asia. Of these 345 Neandertal individuals, 183 of them (53 per cent) represent burials—all of them burials in caves or rock shelters. Further, it is obvious that caves were used as family burial grounds or cemeteries, as the following sites show:

Krapina Rock Shelter, Croatia—75 (minimum) Neandertals buried.
Arcy-sur-Cure caves, France—26 Neandertals buried.
Kebara Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel—21 Neandertals buried.
Tabun Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel—12 Neandertals buried.
La Freesia Rock Shelter, France—8 Neandertals buried.
Shanidar Cave, Iraq—7 Neandertals buried.
Maude Cave, Galilee, Israel—7 Neandertals buried.
Gutter Cave, Monte Circa, Italy—4 Neandertals buried.
Tsar 'Ail Rock Shelter, Lebanon—3 Neandertals buried.

It is understandable why burial in caves was common in ancient times. Graves in open areas must be marked so that future generations can return to pay homage to their ancestors. However, grave markers or reference points can be changed, destroyed, or moved. Directions to the grave site can become confusing over time. Landscapes can change, and memories of certain features can become clouded. Just as Abraham did not always live in one place, so the Neandertals may have moved seasonally following herds of game. Since caves are usually permanent, it would have been easy to locate the family burial site if it were in a cave. One could be sure that he was at the very spot where his ancestors were buried.

Most anthropologists recognize burial as a very human, and a very religious act. But the strongest evidence that Neandertals were fully human and of our species is that at four sites Neandertals and modern humans were buried together. In all of life, few desires are stronger than the desire to be buried with one’s own people. Jacob lived in Egypt, but wanted to be buried in the family cemetery in the cave of Machpelah. Joseph achieved fame in Egypt, but wanted his bones to be taken back to Israel (Genesis 50:25, Exodus 13:19, Joshua 24:32). Until recently it was the custom to have a cemetery next to the church so that the church family could be buried together. For centuries, many cities had separate cemeteries for Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Jews so that people could be buried with their own kind.



https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/human-genome/recovery-of-neandertal-mtdna-an-evaluation/
 
So Neanderthals are just humans with more pronounced facial characteristics? Aborigines have very pronounced facial characteristics, yet the are human. Why not neanderthals?
View attachment 67191772

Here is a aborigines vs. normal human skull:
View attachment 67191773

Here is a human vs. neanderthal skull:
View attachment 67191774

As you can tell the Neanderthal skull is very unique even when we compare with aboriginese.


So what? And here, I just found that this support my previous question: why would a neanderthal be any different from any humans just because he's got differing carnial or skeletal structures? Did you see the photos of two African tribesmen?


What is it that makes a Neandertal a Neandertal in contrast to an anatomically modern Homo Sapiens? G.A. Clark (Arizona State University) states a problem: ‘That researchers cannot distinguish a “Neandertal” from a “modern human” might seem surprising to some, but there is little consensus on what these terms mean’.14

Although anthropologists have yet to agree on a formal definition of the Neandertals, there is a set of physical characteristics that are used in referring to a classic Neandertal morphology. They are:

The skull is lower, broader, and elongated in contrast to the higher doming of a modern skull.
The average brain size (cranial capacity) is larger than the average modern human by almost 200 cubic centimetres.
The forehead is low, with heavy brow ridges curving over each eye.
There is a slight projection at the rear of the skull (occipital bun).
The cranial wall is thick compared to modern humans.
The facial architecture is heavy, with the mid-face and the upper jaw projecting forward (prognathism).
The nose is prominent and broad.
The frontal sinuses are expanded.
The lower jaw is large and lacks a definite chin.
The body bones are heavy and thick and the long bones somewhat curved.

Any one of these characteristics, several of them, or all of them could be found in some humans living today, or even perhaps all of them might be found in some humans living today. There is nothing profoundly distinct about them. In fact, when the first Neandertal was discovered in 1856, even ‘Darwin’s bulldog’, Thomas Huxley, recognized that it was fully human and not an evolutionary ancestor. Donald Johanson, in his book, Lucy’s Child, writes:

From a collection of modern human skulls Huxley was able to select a series with features leading “by insensible gradations” from an average modern specimen to the Neandertal skull. In other words, it wasn’t qualitatively different from present-day Homo Sapiens.15


This same gradation from Neandertals to modern humans can also be seen in the fossil record. We are not referring to an evolutionary transition from earlier Neandertals to later modern humans. We are referring to morphological gradations between Neandertals and modern humans both having the same dates and living at the same time as contemporaries representing a single human population. Whereas evolutionists have chosen to divide these humans into two categories—Neandertals and anatomically modern Homo Sapiens, individual fossils are not always that easy to categorize. There is a wide range of variation among modern humans, and there is variation within the Neandertal category as well. A number of fossils in each group are very close to that subjective line, and could be categorized either way. These fossils constitute a gradation between Neandertals and modern humans, demonstrating that the distinction made by evolutionists is an artificial one.



https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/human-genome/recovery-of-neandertal-mtdna-an-evaluation/


All you have to do is look at various races - even today as we speak - and you'll see various differences....... and yet we're all homo sapiens!
 
Well.....more than half of those neanderthals were burials!


The Neandertal fossil evidence shows that the Neandertal practice is in complete accord with the Genesis record. At least 345 Neandertal fossil individuals have been discovered so far at 83 sites in Europe, the Near East, and western Asia. Of these 345 Neandertal individuals, 183 of them (53 per cent) represent burials—all of them burials in caves or rock shelters. Further, it is obvious that caves were used as family burial grounds or cemeteries, as the following sites show:

Krapina Rock Shelter, Croatia—75 (minimum) Neandertals buried.
Arcy-sur-Cure caves, France—26 Neandertals buried.
Kebara Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel—21 Neandertals buried.
Tabun Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel—12 Neandertals buried.
La Freesia Rock Shelter, France—8 Neandertals buried.
Shanidar Cave, Iraq—7 Neandertals buried.
Maude Cave, Galilee, Israel—7 Neandertals buried.
Gutter Cave, Monte Circa, Italy—4 Neandertals buried.
Tsar 'Ail Rock Shelter, Lebanon—3 Neandertals buried.

It is understandable why burial in caves was common in ancient times. Graves in open areas must be marked so that future generations can return to pay homage to their ancestors. However, grave markers or reference points can be changed, destroyed, or moved. Directions to the grave site can become confusing over time. Landscapes can change, and memories of certain features can become clouded. Just as Abraham did not always live in one place, so the Neandertals may have moved seasonally following herds of game. Since caves are usually permanent, it would have been easy to locate the family burial site if it were in a cave. One could be sure that he was at the very spot where his ancestors were buried.

Most anthropologists recognize burial as a very human, and a very religious act. But the strongest evidence that Neandertals were fully human and of our species is that at four sites Neandertals and modern humans were buried together. In all of life, few desires are stronger than the desire to be buried with one’s own people. Jacob lived in Egypt, but wanted to be buried in the family cemetery in the cave of Machpelah. Joseph achieved fame in Egypt, but wanted his bones to be taken back to Israel (Genesis 50:25, Exodus 13:19, Joshua 24:32). Until recently it was the custom to have a cemetery next to the church so that the church family could be buried together. For centuries, many cities had separate cemeteries for Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Jews so that people could be buried with their own kind.



https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/human-genome/recovery-of-neandertal-mtdna-an-evaluation/

Notice that in most of your references that Neanderthals were buried together and not with humans. That shows that they were highly separate with humans. They were very similar to humans and were highly intelligent and it is not surprising that they did burials. High intelligence only proves humanity if you assume only humans are highly intelligent.

The evidence shows that neanderthals were highly intelligent yet socially, physiologically and genetically distinct. Multiple Neanderthals have been compared to humans and each other and in these studies we find that Neanderthals differ from humans so much that they are far outside the human range. Each neanderthal has been compared to hundreds of humans.

Your source only looks at a Neanderthal with few genetic sequences recovered. Since then we have mapped the Neanderthal genome and have gotten better at recovering Neanderthal DNA.

Since then we have been able to compare hundreds of thousands of DNA sequences between multiple neanderthal and hundreds of humans. We have found the Neanderthal differences to be outside the human range. There are on average 200 differences in Neanderthals compared to the human range of 0 to a maximum of 100. We found an Unknown hominid in Siberia that is even more different from humans than even neanderthals, about 400 differences.
43.jpg
Pairwise nucleotide differences from all pairs of complete mtDNAs from 54 present-day and one Pleistocene hominid, six Neanderthals and the Denisova hominin are shown.
The complete mitochondrial DNA genome of an unknown hominin from southern Siberia : Article : Nature
 
'The Institute for Creation Research'?
(since this is the 'Religion' section, can't really say any more/deservant)

Well you could always review the references, just a thought.
 
Well you could always review the references, just a thought.
Well I can quote ICR for one:

http://www.icr.org/how-we-do-research said:
ICR’s Approach to Scientific Investigation

The Institute for Creation Research is Unique among scientific research organizations. Our research is conducted within a Biblical worldview, since ICR is committed to the absolute authority of the inerrant Word of God. The real facts of science will always agree with biblical revelation because the God who made the world of God inspired the Word of God.

All origins research must begin with a Premise. ICR holds that the Biblical record of primeval history in Genesis 1–11 is Factual, historical, and clearly understandable and, therefore, that all things were created and made in Six Literal days. Life exists because it was created on Earth by a living Creator. Further, the biblical Flood was global and cataclysmic, and its after-effects therefore explain most of the stratigraphic and fossil evidence found in the earth’s crust.
It is within this Framework that ICR research is conducted...
What can one say in answer to Premise-based research and foregone conclusions.

OTOH, "psychotic" Darwin lead an incredibly full personal and Intellectual life. 10 Kids, Lots of Travel, app 50 incredible publications in his 50 adult (of 73 years).
Please check the Wiki Entry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin
and bibliography
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin_bibliography


EDIT:
Below is INANE NONSENSE by American.
NOT an answer to EITHER ICR's 'research'/own website/credo I cited, NOR Darwin's actual Bio/work I took the trouble to post.
If this is American's Cheap shot Empty posting style, we're done.

You're OFF my 'friends' list, and I only keep you off 'Ignore' to be able to Bury yet more of your wasted bandwidth entries.
A shame after all these years, but these last few Infantile posts are all I needed to see.
 
Last edited:
Well I can quote ICR for one:

What can one say in answer to that... NON-scientific ADMISSION.

OTOH, Darwin lead an incredibly full personal and Intellectual life. 10 Kids, Lots of Travel, app 50 incredible publications in his 50 adult (of 73 years).
Please check the Wiki Entry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin
and bibliography
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin_bibliography

I'm glad to see you fell for it. You people are too easy. Did you forget that this is the religious forum?
 
So what? And here, I just found that this support my previous question: why would a neanderthal be any different from any humans just because he's got differing carnial or skeletal structures? Did you see the photos of two African tribesmen?

The problem with the analogy of the tribesman is that these are only a few individuals why have very a-typical skulls. In the case of neanderthals, there are hundreds of individuals who all have atypical skills in the same way. There is a difference between rare differences and a whole population that is on average very different.

Some tribes may vary differently from normal humans but I showed that this difference is much smaller than that between neanderthals and humans.

Also, these tribesmen do not have DNA that is far outside human genetic diversity. You never refuted my genetic claims.

Neanderthal brains have a different shape than normal human brains and we know this by looking at the insides of their skulls. The way that your brain is constructed is very important because different regions different parts of your intellect.

In fact neanderthal brains are about as large as human brains at 1473 cubic centemeters, but their structure is very different. Neanderthal brains have much larger areas of the brain devoted to body control and vision and less area devoted to social interaction and complex cognition. If you factor out the areas for vision and body control, the ratio of the human brain to neanderthal brain is about 1300 ccs to 1100 ccs on average which is a big difference. This is strong evidence for large mental differences between our species as a whole. Their brains were structured differently with a larger ratio going to non-intellectual things.
Neanderthal brain focussed on vision and movement | University of Oxford
Science Shows Why You’re Smarter Than a Neanderthal | Science | Smithsonian
 
Last edited:
The problem with the analogy of the tribesman is that these are only a few individuals why have very a-typical skulls. In the case of neanderthals, there are hundreds of individuals who all have atypical skills in the same way. There is a difference between rare differences and a whole population that is on average very different.

Some tribes may vary differently from normal humans but I showed that this difference is much smaller than that between neanderthals and humans.

Also, these tribesmen do not have DNA that is far outside human genetic diversity. You never refuted my genetic claims.

Neanderthal brains have a different shape than normal human brains and we know this by looking at the insides of their skulls. The way that your brain is constructed is very important because different regions different parts of your intellect.

In fact neanderthal brains are about as large as human brains at 1473 cubic centemeters, but their structure is very different. Neanderthal brains have much larger areas of the brain devoted to body control and vision and less area devoted to social interaction and complex cognition. If you factor out the areas for vision and body control, the ratio of the human brain to neanderthal brain is about 1300 ccs to 1100 ccs on average which is a big difference. This is strong evidence for large mental differences between our species as a whole. Their brains were structured differently with a larger ratio going to non-intellectual things.
Neanderthal brain focussed on vision and movement | University of Oxford
Science Shows Why You’re Smarter Than a Neanderthal | Science | Smithsonian

hmm you go to all that trouble to prove why they are different even down to the minute measurements.

now go look up the difference between human dna and monkey's and you will see that we are no where closely related to each other by
the same genetic standards.

they use to say 98% now it is down to 95% and while some would look at that and go there is proof of evolution.
I would say otherwise.

this means that there are 150m DNA base pair differences between the two of them.
now we are talking a whole different ball game.

if you want to follow this logic further we share about 40% of our dna with a banana, so I guess that means at one point in time
we have an ancient ancestor that was a banana and decided it wanted to start eating banana's instead of being one.
 
hmm you go to all that trouble to prove why they are different even down to the minute measurements.

now go look up the difference between human dna and monkey's and you will see that we are no where closely related to each other by
the same genetic standards.

they use to say 98% now it is down to 95% and while some would look at that and go there is proof of evolution.
I would say otherwise.

this means that there are 150m DNA base pair differences between the two of them.
now we are talking a whole different ball game.

if you want to follow this logic further we share about 40% of our dna with a banana, so I guess that means at one point in time
we have an ancient ancestor that was a banana and decided it wanted to start eating banana's instead of being one.

In every post you show the world how little you actually know about the science of biology.
 
hmm you go to all that trouble to prove why they are different even down to the minute measurements.

Yes, I show that their brain is different and so is their DNA.

Neanderthals are genetically distinct from humans. It is in their DNA.
43.jpg
The complete mitochondrial DNA genome of an unknown hominin from southern Siberia : Article : Nature

now go look up the difference between human dna and monkey's and you will see that we are no where closely related to each other by
the same genetic standards.

they use to say 98% now it is down to 95% and while some would look at that and go there is proof of evolution.
I would say otherwise.

this means that there are 150m DNA base pair differences between the two of them.
now we are talking a whole different ball game.

Evolutionists predicted that we are closely related to apes as early as Darwin because of morphological similarities. When we sequenced the Chimp DNA we found that their DNA was closely related as well.

The difference between humans and chimps depend on the way you measure. If we only look at single-nucleotide differences, then there is a 99% similarity. However if you also look at differences between humans and chimps that are duplications (e.g. humans have a duplication of a gene chimps don't) of existing code then we get the 96% difference. Many would argue that duplications are not really important because these differences don't represent any differences in new information. it is just the same information copied.
Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds
CB144: Human/chimp genome difference

96% similarity is still really close and the better figure 99% is even closer. You are acting like there is a lot of distance when it really is close.

if you want to follow this logic further we share about 40% of our dna with a banana, so I guess that means at one point in time
we have an ancient ancestor that was a banana and decided it wanted to start eating banana's instead of being one.

No, if evolution is true then we share a common ancestor with bananas billions of years ago. The only way the common ancestor would have been a banana is if bananas had not evolved at all since the common ancestor.

If you want to invent your own ridiculous version of evolution where bananas eat each other and then evolve into people then go ahead be my guest. But please don't insist that this is what evolutionists believe because we don't believe that.
 
I agree, but he created a religion all his own that allowed for the disallowance of God.
that was the main reason for it.

He was a Christian. He was troubled by the "disallowance of God" factor to the point of sitting on his theory for more than a decade before publishing in a rush because others had come to very similar conclusions.
 
He was a Christian. He was troubled by the "disallowance of God" factor to the point of sitting on his theory for more than a decade before publishing in a rush because others had come to very similar conclusions.

I will also point out that biology is not a religion. Biology also includes the study of the theory of evolution. To attempt to call it a religion says a lot about the person making that claim.
 
So Neanderthals are just humans with more pronounced facial characteristics? Aborigines have very pronounced facial characteristics, yet the are human. Why not neanderthals?
View attachment 67191772

Here is a aborigines vs. normal human skull:
View attachment 67191773

Here is a human vs. neanderthal skull:
View attachment 67191774

As you can tell the Neanderthal skull is very unique even when we compare with aboriginese.


So what if there is a difference? Like I said, other humans from various races have significant differences from each other!


Just look at the photos of the two skull - the shape is what's different! And it's not even that a big deal different! Look at the significant differences between a Caucasian and a Negroid - yet, they're both homo sapiens. My point is, the so-called "neanderthal" still looks very human!
 
Moderator's Warning:
This thread has drifted far outside the scope of the Religious Discussion Forum, and accumulated too many borderline violations. Closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom