Or it could be proof of a common Builder. Interpretation of evidence.

If someone comes and tells us that this evidence wasn't interpreted from the outset with the point of view that evolution is an absolute fact, it would concern me.

And gezz, is that an Appeal to Ridicule in the title of this thread?

No, it couldn't. Here's why:

Your common "Builder" is omnipotent, and therefore, his agency is unfalsifiable. There is no possible obervation that could disprove his agency, because anything can be explained away with his magic.

Evolution doesn't get to fall back on magic. Evolution is falsifiable.

For example: evolution makes the very risky claim that all life descends from a common ancestor, and is therefore all related, and that therefore, there is a 'family tree' pattern to the relationships of the various lifeforms on Earth. Because we know that genes are the mechanism of inheritance, it follows that morphological similarities would map pretty cleanly onto genetic similarities. We would expect a horse to have more in common genetically with a donkey than say, a watermelon. If we compared the DNA of a horse, a donkey, and a watermelon, and found the horse to have more in common genetically with the watermelon than the donkey, well...that'd kill evolutionary theory dead, right there on the spot. Evolution would be falsified then. But creationism wouldn't be, because you always have magic to fall back on. You don't have to work within any set of rules, certainly not the laws of physics or chemistry or biology, or even logic. Anything goes!

Likewise the statement that humans and chimps are closely related. This statement predicts strong genetic similarities. If we aren't genetically very much like chimps, the hypothesis is dead. Guess what? Our genes are very similar to those of chimps. And slightly less similar to those of gorillas, and slightly less still to orangutans, and then gibbons, and then monkeys...all these gradations of genetic similarity are exactly what evolution predicts. But with an ominpotent god, any similarity or difference can be hand-waved away with magic; god's artistic imperative.

A classic non-biological example is starlight. We know how to tell how far away stars are by measuring their redshift, and from this we know that some stars are billions of light years away, which means that the light had to travel for billions of years to reach us, which means the universe has to be billions, not thousands of years old. No problem for the YEC, he just invokes magic of some kind to get around this. God stretches light or bends time or something to create the illusion of distance for just those stars that are more than 6000 light years away. When the laws of physics get in the way, ignore them!

Your "Builder" is unfalsifiable. There can be no proof of his existence because you've defined him such that there can be no disproof. So, no: It could not be proof of a common Builder.



Of course it was, Wes. Do you really think we're still at the point where we're trying to figure out whether evolution is true? Of course not. We're way past that. The question's been settled. We've moved on.

Do you really think when NASA sends probes out to Neptune, they have to figure out whether Neptune goes around the sun or the earth? No. It's been settled for a long time that Neptune goes around the sun. We don't have to re-establish this each time we shoot stuff into space. No need to reinvent the wheel. Science builds on what it already knows.

Which apes? Chimps have 98.4% genetic identity with us; gorillas have 97.7%; orangutans have 96.4%; gibbons have 95%.

Neanderthals have 99.7%. That's more than chimps have.



Generally.



Cro-Magnon man = fully modern humans. Yes, there is now evidence that Neanderthals mated with the species that Cro-Mags were a part of, possibly the Cro-Mags themselves. That is the whole point of the article.



Absolutely identical.



That's exactly right. "Cro-Magnon Man" is a cultural designation, not a biological one. The Cro-Mags were the first modern humans in Europe.



There is no "first appearance." There is a gradual morphing from Homo erectus into archaic Homo sapiens into modern Homo sapiens.



The very earliest modern human fossils are the Omo remains in Ethiopia, about 195,000 years old. You're probably thinking of the 95,000 year old Qafzeh fossils from Israel. There's no coincidence about the Middle East. Humans evolved in east Africa and migrated out of Africa around 160,000 years ago. The middle East would've been their first stop.



Neanderthals were fully formed 130,000 years ago and as with humans, there are gradations into more primitive forms going as far back as 500,000 years.

And of course, there had been Homo erectus all throughout Africa and Asia millions of years before.

Matt, apparently the most recent common ancestor was much more recent than H. habilis.

WTF is that supposed to mean? It doesn't make any sense. They have found 4% of what we consider uniquely human DNA is also present in Neanderthal DNA.

Considering you are not permitted to "believe" (not that scientific fact ever required belief) in evolution or that human antiquity goes back further than 6000 years WesMordine, why are you even asking questions when you have no intention of taking in the answers or will just dismiss it as unbiblical?


Only ridiculing the ridiculous concept spread by the scientifically illiterate that we are separate from the animal kingdom when we are quite clearly part of it.

You missed the point there MDanel93. We share 35% of our DNA with daffodils (assuming that figure is correct and you didn't just make it up) because if you go back far enough, we do share a common ancestor.

Scoff all you want but there is no better explanation from the religious side and evolution has actual evidence to support it.

How do you know it is impossible?


Who is saying otherwise?


Cro-Magnons are modern humans and that term hasn't been used for about 40 years by anthropologists. If you read the study beyond the first sentence you wouldn't be stating this. Always the same crap with you isn't it? You are so predictable.


Actually no. Modern humans originated out of Africa. Neanderthals were first seen in the middle east.


Male bovine excrement. Shanidar - in Iraq - contains the most important NEANDERTHAL burials ever to have been found. It contains the so-called flower burial showing that they had ritual in their lives. I highlighted that in the other thread about ancestor species having ritual, but you ignored that too despite blundering in to educate us with your apparent extensive experience on the subject.

Did Neanderthals show any religious aspect or show signs of spirituality? Did they make any religious icons?

Spirituality is what separates humans from the rest of the animals.

There are slight physiological differences, but not genetic, and for that reason anthropologists tend to refer to them as "archaic humans".


It probably is but due to a lack of evidence, and the fact that Neanderthal and Habilis was excellent tool users, there is a tentative acceptance of the theory. However that is always going to be open to debate.

Yes. The Shanidar 4 burial in Iraq (a place that 1oldminer thinks Neanderthal never visited) contains elements of ritual. They were also the first hominid species to bury their dead. Other burials have grave goods such as worked animal bones. Some even have seeds from plants known to have medical properties.


Arguably yes. Bearing in mind the apparent ritual, there are a number of non-functional artefacts found at Neanderthal sites that we do not see from previous hominid species. Painted shells, objects modified that appear to have no functional purpose are generally considered to be ritualised in some way.


Clearly not if the Neanderthal had it too.

Did the Neanderthals have a language. Either spoken or written?