Not solely. In fact, one of the common creationist complaints since the 50s is that evos misrepresent Neanderthals.

The idea that the neanderthal might be very similar looking to homo sapien sapiens was put forward by Carleton Coon (an old school Darwinian (as opposed to the new synthesis)) in his 1939 depiction.

In 1955 Camille Arambourg analysed Boule's Neanderthal and came to a conclusion quite different from the slouching sub-human. This was elaborated on in 1957, when W.L. Straus and A.J.E. Cave discovered signs of arthiritis in the La Chapelle skeleton but agreed that it would have walked upright and would have been little different from Modern Man.

edit: Source

This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 09-January-2006 12:15 AM

I think that you greatly overestimate the degree to which scientists take creationist complaints into account in their work.

In any case, our current representations could be very inaccurate - we really don't know how much hair they had, for example, unless I'm mistaken. These reconstructions are always taken with a grain of salt among scientists.

If we say that Neanderthal and Cro-Mag (and Flores for that matter) are all the same species, then clearly the range of morphology we consider viable would include Homo Erectus.

although creationists probably would, i don't think it neccessarily follows from the logic.

It sounds like, by arguing that Neanderthals are just a form of people, you are infact endorsing gradual speciation.

heh.

---

אָרַח

Which is why there is no excuse for evos continually depicting Neanderthals in the ape to human transition so famous in textbooks and excessively ape-like. Once again, we see scientists showing that what is being taught is wrong, but it taking decades for those errors to leave college courses and textbooks.

Which is why there is no excuse for evos continually depicting Neanderthals in the ape to human transition so famous in textbooks and excessively ape-like.

Let me rephrase that in a more accurate manner for you

quote:

---

Which is why there is no excuse for people continually depicting Neanderthals in the ape to human transition so famous in textbooks and excessively ape-like.

---

And you're right, there is no excuse. People that depict Neanderthals in this manner are sloppy reserachers, who allow themselves to be influenced by pop culture images rather than primary research.

Once again, we see scientists showing that what is being taught is wrong, but it taking decades for those errors to leave college courses and textbooks.

Indeed, I turn once again to one of the most prominent evos for a quote here, Gould:

quote:

---

...mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks...

---

He was referring to Herr Haeckel, but the same principle applies.

No 'evo' conspiracy, just the usual sloppy standards in education texts I'm afraid. Personally, I wish it were an evo conspiracy, it would probably be easier to solve.

---

I take it that you concede that evolutionists have also been trying to set the record straight on Boule's nonsense entering pop culture, and that the evo trend for this started in the 30s and gained serious weight in the 50s?

This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 09-January-2006 01:01 PM

Let's get back to the thread that I find most interesting :)

There is not enough differences in Neanderthals to claim them as a different species, imo

Okay. I accept that. After all, the line which differentiates one species from another is arbitrary. We have tests to help us draw the line right, but not all of those tests are useful in all situations.

So, Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens, same species. And previously you were suggesting that Flores (Hobbits) were also the same species, just at a different extreme.

Also, some suggestions of giant hybrids from the David & Goliath thread, but I won't hold you to that if you don't want to include them.

This brings me to a question I asked before, but which you might have missed -

If Neanderthals, Cro-Mag and Flores all fit within the acceptable differentiation within a species, couldn't we also include Homo Erectus in that same group?

Homo Erectus is less different from Cro-Mag or Neanderthal, than Neanderthal is from Flores, etc. Why not just make that one big group?

Which is why there is no excuse for evos continually depicting Neanderthals in the ape to human transition so famous in textbooks and excessively ape-like. Once again, we see scientists showing that what is being taught is wrong, but it taking decades for those errors to leave college courses and textbooks.

Good point.

Why do evos do this ?

Answer: Because there is no convincing evidence for human evolution - they need the excess to pad and fudge their needs.

Darwinists would also like us to forget the fact that the Neander valley was named after Yachim Neander - a Creationist who wrote some of the greatest hymns in the history of the Church.

Ray

Darwinists would also like us to forget the fact that the Neander valley was named after Yachim Neander - a Creationist who wrote some of the greatest hymns in the history of the Church.

I'll write that down in my BlackOps Darwinian manual.

Darwinists would also like us to forget the fact that the Neander valley was named after Yachim Neander - a Creationist who wrote some of the greatest hymns in the history of the Church.

I didn't know that, but now that I do, I don't see why you'd think that's a fact I'd want anyone to forget. It's a neat little factoid. Spread it around, if you like. Why would you think anyone would care?

This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-10-2006 10:33 PM

I don't see why you'd think that's a fact I'd want anyone to predict.

Is "predict" a typo ?

I don't get it.

Crashfrog:

Ray, you're pushing the envelope again.

Your friend, AdminJar

Is evolution gradual ?

Yes or No will do.

Ray

This message has been edited by AdminJar, 01-10-2006 09:37 PM

Psssst! Froggie! Ixnay on the eadingspray! We've got an intercontinental conspiracy to maintain here!

Is "predict" a typo ?

Yes. Sorry; meant "forget".

Is evolution gradual ?

What do you mean by "gradual"? Sometimes it is; sometimes it isn't.

Yes or No will do.

What on Earth makes you think you just asked a yes or no question?

Darwinists would also like us to forget the fact that the Neander valley was named after Yachim Neander - a Creationist who wrote some of the greatest hymns in the history of the Church.

Um, actually, I'm pretty sure none of us could give a damn if you remember that or not.

Why do evos do this ?

Actually, they don't. Book publishers do. Your side of the debate frequently mistakes the actions of book publishers as some sort of scientific baseline.

Textbook publishers are only tangientially interested in passing on information (accuracy really isn't much of a factor). If they can sell a textbook that contains no fact, they will do so. If they can sell one that contains nothing but facts, they will do so. It's the selling that matters, not the content.

Good point. Why do evos do this ?

At the turn of the 20th Century a man named Boule depicted Neanderthal as being brutish. As I mentioned in Message 31, this is an error that has been corrected by evos since the late 30s, and in earnest since the 50s. Pop cultural images are a difficult beast to kill.

Coragyps (re: messages 38 and 41), there has been a couple of suspensions recently over certain members posting too many irrelevant one-liners to various topics.

While the evo-biased minnemooseus is amused by those two comments, the ever cranky Adminnemooseus is not (find discussion of bipolar moose starting here).

So cut it out, you old fart geologist idiot. :)

Any replies to this message should go to the "General..." topic, link below.

Adminnemooseus

- AM resolves to never use the term "idiot" without following it with a :).

- AM also resolves to post that "Any replies..." sentence more often, as people often can't seem to figure it out on there own.

- Lastly, AM also resolves to try to remember to post the "signature" containing the "links below".

---

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts. Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to: General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links: Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting