Comparisons of Neandertal mtDNA with modern humans and modern chimpanzees

For anybody who hasn't really followed the argument, the question as to whether the neanderthal dna findings would justify a claim that the neanderthal was "about halfway between us and chimpanzees" is not crucial to the case I would try to make. That's just a figure of speech. What the findings DID indicate is that neanderthals made no detectable contribution to the genetic pool of modern man, and were so far removed from modern man as to preclude interbreeding.This in fact answered the huge question of how modern humans and neanderthals had managed to live in close proximity to eachother for protracted periods of time without any evidence of interbreeding.Of course, in order to be descended from something, at some point, you have to be able to interbreed with the something. The findings clearly rule out the neanderthal as an ancestor for modern humans.Now, the point I would make from all of this, is that evolutionists are studiously ignoring an obvious deduction. The problem is, that the neanderthal was the most advanced (or the most like us) of all the hominids. If we couldn't be descended from the neanderthal, it seems clear enough there's nothing else we COULD have been descended from.I would argue that this rules out the idea of modern man having evolved and leaves three possibilities:

• Modern man was created here from scratch, recently.
• Modern man was brought here from somewhere else.
• Modern man was genetically re-engineered from the neanderthal.
  

Obviously without a time machine, I don't have a perfect way of choosing one of the three. If I HAD to bet it, my money would be on the third choice.Now, the one argument anybody could try to make against all of that would involve what is known as the "archaic homo sapiens", and what that amounts to seems to depend on who is telling it.
{Image linked to source}Some of the skulls classified as archaic homo sapiens do not appear much different from neanderthal skulls; you wouldn't figure it would be any easier for modern man to be descended from something like that than from the neanderthal.
{Image linked to source}The skull at the left above is said to be the most complete skull of an "archaic homo sapiens" ever found and, to compound the problem, virtually everybody with anything to say about 'archaic homo sapiens" is claiming that it evolved from homo erectus, which is much further from us than the neanderthal. The DNA findings would appear to preclude that.The only real remaining question in my mind is what exactly the following two pictures amount to: {Click images for full size; [source]}One is said here to be a neanderthal and the other an archaic homo sapiens.The archaic hs skull may be an artists rendition (if the skull noted early is the most complete ahs skull as claimed); nonetheless it remains highly unlikely (to me at least) that you could evolve from a real (more typical) neanderthal like this: {Click image for full size; [source]}to one of the images above with the more compact jaws.That seems like a species difference, which you're not going to bridge and, again, there's no believable way to picture evolving from homo errectus to something like that.Again the basic problem: Scientists now claim that the gap between the neanderthal and modern man cannot be bridged (by evolution) due to the extent of the DNA difference. Which, if any, of the other gaps involved in the supposed rise of modern man from hominids then remains bridgable? {{AdminSylas has reduced large images, but added links for full size. Nice pics!}}[This message has been edited AdminSylas, 05-03-2004]

Basically, somebody who wanted to go on believing that modern man had evolved would have to come up with some new hominid, closer to us (than the neanderthal) in both time and morphology, to claim as a human ancestor. Moreover, since neanderthal works and remains are all over the map and very easy to find, the works and remains of the new hominid type should by all rights also be very easy to find, in fact they should be all over the place, IF such a thing had ever existed. The fact that nothing like that has ever been found indicates that no such closer hominid ever existed.

The first phrase is true, and the second is false. The findings do not give any indication that interbreeding was precluded. They only indicate that there was no detectable genetic contribution made. These are different claims.

​

The paper indicates that the difference between Humans and Neandertals is less than the difference between Western and Eastern varieties of the common chimpanzees... and they are completely interfertile, and yet also with distinct gene pools because interbreeding does not usually occur.

I posted this the other day and you supposedly read it. Here it is again: http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0BFU/11_86/70362289/p2/article.jhtml?term= {Link fixed... AdminSylas}

"...Following the discovery of the Neanderthal DNA, the German scientists compared it to the DNA of humans living today. (No early modern human DNA has ever been uncovered.) A clear difference was apparent between the two types of DNA. So marked was that difference that the Germans concluded that Neanderthals were an entirely separate species of human. A species is a group of organisms that have common characteristics and cannot breed with another species.
Because of the distinct difference in DNA, any attempts at interbreeding by Neanderthals and the early modern humans would have failed to yield offspring, the scientists reasoned."

Again, James Shreeve made an overwhelming case for the impossibility of crossbreeding between neanderthals and modern man and this paper is generally acepted as definitive on the subject at this point. The dna findings basically just confirmed Shreeve's analysis. AdminSylas: Edited to fix a 404 error in the link. Error was caused by the link construction code, not by redwolf himself.[This message has been edited AdminSylas, 05-03-2004]

More to the point, we do have the remains of such hominids; many of them. Redwolf even mentions some, but his discussion is flawed by various other errors. I'm sure we'll discuss this some more as the thread continues.

Nonetheless, it seems clear enough that that does not save the picture for purposes of evolution.When they used to draw homonid progressions leading up to modern man (which you say you don't like), the final two things before modern man were homo erectus, and neanderthal, it seeming obvious to scientists that the neanderthal was the closest (morphologically) hominid to us, and then erectus, and then the guys further down and back.Depending on whose picture of archaic homo sapiens you use, you are either still trying to claim that modern man descended from something essentially identical to the neanderthal, which has been coercively disproven by the combination of the dna studies and Shreeve's study, or you are trying to claim that something marginally different from us descended from homo erectus, which is a great deal more apelike than the neanderthal, which nobody should believe in light of the recent findings.Moreover, there aren't "many" of these. The one skull in terribly bad shape is said to be the most complete, and they appear to be rare. Too rare for modern man to be descended from them.

>Did you read that bit?No. I stopped reading at the point of the German scientists claiming that interbreeding would not be possible. I was trying to look at several such articles and was in too much of a hurry.Nonetheless, the one or two skeletons which anybody is making any such claims for could be anything and do not come close to answering the mail for the problem which Shreeve notes, i.e. that you had the two groups living close to eachother for very long periods of time, and that if interbreeding was possible, there should be crossbreed skeletons all over the place; they should be very easy to find.It's also interesting that the one skeleton anybody is claiming as a crossbreed skeleton is that of a child; that may be as long as such crossbreeds ever lived.

Are members allowed to post on the 'proposed new topic' area?

The reason I ask, is that I thought I'd posted a request for a thread on the subject of evolution and paranormal phenomena yesterday, and I can't find any trace of it. Either I missed something in trying to post it or it fell into some sort of bitbucket. Could you possible see if you see that anywhere?

>I've checked, and this new thread does not show in your list of posts...That's another sort of a question I've had. Most forums have some sort of way to see recent posts and replies for the given user and I don't see that here, and that could be because a lot of what I see on evcforum is in terribly small fonts, at least on firebird. Do you have such a feature?