Talk:Neanderthal

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

See also talk:Homo neanderthalensis.

Contents

Caveman

Thought by evolutionists to represent some sort of "caveman". In fact, fits well within the normal height-weight ratios of modern humans


How does the fact that they were physically similar to modern humans in some characteristics preclude them from having lived in caves? Chrysogonus 07:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

You need to consider the connotation of caveman, not just its denotation.
  • denotation: a human being who lives in a cave : cave-dweller
  • connotation: a primitive (practical subhuman) creature having the appearance of homo sapiens and yet not really a person
This is rough, of course, or I'd simply add it to the article. Do you get my drift? --Ed Poor 07:50, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

So why use the term "caveman" in the article? In what way does the height/weight ratio of the neanderthals have a bearing on whether they were modern humans or not? Can you link to some evolutionist researh in which neanderthals are described as subhuman? Chrysogonus 08:10, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

No, I can't. I don't know enough about human origins to do that. You sound like you know more about this than I do. May I offer you some writing tasks to volunteer for? ;-) --Ed Poor 08:58, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Good job on this, too bad it isn't going to last long.Prof0705 14:29, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Don't mess with this article!

I wrote 90% of this article and it now falls under my protection:


  • I will only allow additions with credible references:
Good: accredited news agencies, science journals, university websites and research papers
Bad: blogs, 100 year old books, AiG, CMI,...
  • I will not allow creationist material in this article: this one's for science, if you're a YEC, go to a debate page or go vandalize the Dinosaur article

MiddleMan

95%? Give me a bit more credit thatn that, it took me a while to get this article properly started. Your work on the article is superb, but I claim th eright to assist with this project. Your work is excellent though, in transforming my text to a full article and I wonder if you would be interested in doing the same for Homo stevendavy

Is 90% ok? But, yeah, of course you can edit, anyone can edit this, as long as it's properly sourced.

MiddleMan

90%, Ah, go on then, but I am only letting you off on account of the funky photos. stevendavy

Here goes your article. I hope you have the strength and power to defend your version. Leopeo 10:20, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

What's this about it being under your protection? All articles on Conservapedia are subject to being edited by others. And what's wrong with AiG and CMI as sources? Just because they have a different worldview to you is no reason to malign them.
And what's with the (offensive) distinction between "science" and "creationist material"? Since when does the atheistic worldview have a monopoly on science?
Philip J. Rayment 10:28, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
I think his claim of "Under his protection" is based on user:conservative's protecting the articles that he writes, the majority of, without allowing other editors, non sysops, to make changes.--TimS 10:32, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
TimS has it right, I guess. And definitely not "All articles" are open to being edited.
P.S. Fortunately, science is not monopolized by a religious or areligious group/worldview. Many scientists are Christians. But they do science, not religion. Leopeo 10:37, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Some articles (too many) are locked to prevent vandalism or liberal edits, but none are limited to a single author (some essays excepted).
Origins science does tend to be monopolised by one religion: atheism. Even many of the Christians working in science have been bluffed into thinking atheistically.
Philip J. Rayment 10:52, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Obviously not. And not. But this is not the place for that kind of discussion. Leopeo 10:56, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Then why start it here? Philip J. Rayment 10:59, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Good question, only you know the answer. Leopeo 04:01, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Why did someone change the opening to this article? It was well written and factual. The reference to Mousterian tool tradition is accurate. Shouldn't the editor give some explanation as to why parts have been removed?Prof0705 11:32, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Society in anatomy

I see alot of items concerning society being included in the anatomy section. Could someone more wiki-savvy than I clear that up? Prof0705 10:50, 14 May 2007 (EDT)


Minor fix...all doneJoyousOne 10:50, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Copyright of images

What is the copyright status of the images in the article? A quick glance would suggest to me that they have simply been copied from a web-site. Philip J. Rayment 11:02, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is incorrect

CPWebmaster, the Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is not the correct name for the neanderthal. It is Homo neanderthalensis. Neanderthalensis and Sapiens are different species. Please correct.--TimS 11:04, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

This article really should be renamed Homo neanderthalensis. The Homo sapien neanderthalensis classification was largely based on Willian King's 1864 observations and conclusions that Neanderthals were very closely related to modern humans. Current research into Neanderthal DNA has revealed no evolutionary link between the two species, therefore many anthropologists tend to classfy Neanderthals as a seperate species. Prof0705 11:14, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

The Smithsonian Institution classifies neanderthal as Homo neanderthalensis http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/neand.htm.--TimS 11:35, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I wasn't going to comment because I should be in bed by now, but would an acceptable compromise be to name the article either "Neanderthal Man" or "Neandertal Man" (there's justification for both) and then explain the scientific name(s) in the body of the article? Philip J. Rayment 11:45, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps but it does sidestep the scientific naming of the organism. --TimS 11:46, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
How does it "sidestep" it? It would still be included, and in more detail; it just wouldn't be in the title. Philip J. Rayment 10:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
The issue is what the correct naming is. When you are using a scientific name for an organism like Homo sapiens, you list it as genius then species. The title here is incorrect, if we remove it then continue to use Homo sapiens neanderthalensis we would still be wrong. What CPWebmaster did was basically reclassify that species Neanderthal is. He has placed it on the same level as Asian, White, Black ect. If this were true then the extinction of Neanderthal would have also provided the extinction of the whites in the same areas.--TimS 11:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
You think that Homo sapiens is a genius?
Seriously, I haven't checked the references, but I think I'm correct in saying that secular scientists have at some time in the past classified Neanderthal Man as fully human (i.e. Homo sapiens Neanderthalis), also that some people still consider him that, and possibly even that some of that second group are secular scientists.
So wouldn't it be better to explain all that (or whatever the precise story is) in the body of the article, and not "take sides" by choosing one of the titles for the article title?
Philip J. Rayment 11:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
He meant "genus", not "genius".--Conservateur 00:43, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
That's a four-month-old message you are replying to. And I knew that anyway; it was my humorous way of pointing out his spelling error. Philip J. Rayment 08:43, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
Homo is the genius, sapiens is the species. The way this article reads is Homo (genius) Sapiens (species), Neanderthalis (subspecies). That classification was changes upon DNA evidence and more understanding of physiological data. Look at my link to the Smithsonian's classification.--TimS 11:31, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Homo neanderthalensis already exists here, and is protected. I suggest the articles be merged (I couldn't figure out the tag). Human 19:12, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

And I have a suggestion re:nomenclature. Since things are still being discovered and debated in the scientific community, why not call the article something like "neanderthal man" and address the naming issues there? Human 19:16, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

History according to Creationists

"Malnutrition and longer life spans could cause features similar to those seen in Neanderthal skeletons." If malnutrition was a cause of features then the features would not be passed down to their offspring. Only genetic mutation would cause this, thus speciation. Please explain this stance for as of now it A. shows that neanderthal was speciated B. that the statement is incorrect about nutrition causing the features and that they were homo sapians if they had the same nutritional avaliblity as the rest of man kind.--TimS 11:46, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

The claims that Neanderthals could speak exactly as modern humans is still hotly debated by physical anthropologists. Stating this as a fact is grossly misleading. In addition, many of the cranial features of neanderthals are NOT seen in modern humans. Mainly the abscence of a chin, the extreme prognathic midface, the larger brows, and the much lower cranial vault. The occipital bones protrude alot, and sport a depression caled the suprainiac fossa for the attachment of much larger neck muscles. There also exists a retromolar gap. Prof0705 12:01, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree. CPWebmaster is pulling from the AIG website which has trouble finding empirical evidence for their claims on Neanderthal. Their mtDNA claim is refuted by what I posted below. They have not even updated to the new science evidence.--TimS 12:03, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

OK, how do fossils prove the use of complex syntax in spoken language? Also the claim that Neanerthals used tools to create complex tools is kinda misleading as well. Neanderthals didn't make complex tools. Almost all Neanderthal lithics are in the form of scrapers, flakes, and retouch points. None of these are "complex" tools.Prof0705 12:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

mtDNA

In 1999, scientists successfully extracted a 345 base pair sequence of mtDNA from a second Neandertal, a 29,000 year-old fossil of a baby recently discovered in Mesmaiskaya cave in south-western Russia. (Ovchinnikov et al. 2000, Höss 2000) The results of this study were similar to the previous ones, putting the Mezmaiskaya specimen outside the range of modern human mtDNA.

In addition, the two Neandertals are fairly similar, differing from each other in 12 base pairs. The difference is greater than that usually found between pairs of modern Europeans or Asians (only 1% of whom differ in 12 or more places), but comparable to the differences between modern Africans (37% of whom differ by 12 or more).

The distance between Mezmaiskaya and a particular modern human sequence known as the reference sequence (Anderson et al. 1981) was 22, compared to 27 for the first Neandertal. (However, no figures are given for the minimum, average and maximum distances between Mezmaiskaya and modern humans; it is unclear whether Mezmaiskaya is in general closer to modern humans than Feldhofer is.)

The phylogenetic analyses of Ovchinnikov et al. show the two Neandertals grouped together, and separated from all modern humans. As with the first specimen, Mezmaiskaya also appears to be equidistant from all groups of modern humans, strengthening the conclusion that Neandertals are not closely related to modern Europeans.

Because this second individual was discovered about 2,500 km (1,500 miles) from the first, it provides very strong confirmation of the previous results.

The fact that its mtDNA was also fairly close to that of the first Neandertal makes it much less likely that Neandertals and the ancestors of modern humans were both part of an interbreeding population with a large amount of mtDNA genetic variation that has been mostly lost:

"In particular, these data reduce the likelihood that Neanderthals contained enough mtDNA sequence diversity to encompass modern human diversity" (Ovchinnikov et al. 2000)

Interestingly, the preservation of the Mezmaiskaya specimen appears to be much better than that of the Feldhofer specimen. It is so good, in fact, that there is a possibility that its entire mtDNA genome may be able to be sequenced, and there is even a possibility that some of its nuclear DNA may be retrievable.

mtDNA from a third Neandertal In 2000, scientists announced the sequencing of a third Neandertal mtDNA specimen from a cave at Vindija, Croatia (Krings et al. 2000). When the three Neandertals are compared with modern humans, all three of them cluster together, and apart from all modern humans. This conclusion is reinforced by a study by Knight (2003). Knight excluded from the comparison sites in the mtDNA genome which are known to have mutated more than once, and which are therefore poor indicators of phylogenetic relationships. His study strongly confirmed earlier ones showing deeply divergent histories for modern human mtDNA lineages and the known Neandertal ones.

Like modern humans, Neandertals had low genetic diversity compared to apes. The diversity of the three Neandertal mtDNA sequences (3.73%) is lower than that of chimpanzees (14.82+/-5.7%) and gorillas (18.57+/-5.26%), and similar to that of modern humans worldwide (3.43+/-1.22%). If modern humans are sorted into continental groups, the diversity of the three Neandertals is similar to (within one standard deviation of) that for Africans, Asians, native Americans and Australian aboriginals, and Oceanians. Modern Europeans, who live in approximately the same region as the Neandertals, have less diversity than the Neandertals.

Still more Neandertal mtDNA Schmitz et al. (2002) reported on a fourth Neandertal mtDNA sequence from the second Neandertal fossil found at Feldhofer, the site in Germany at which the first Neandertal fossil was found. It was closely related to the previous Neandertal mtDNA sequences. Serre et al. (2004) were able to sequence mtDNA from four other Neandertal fossils, along with mtDNA from five early modern humans. The four Neandertals all had mtDNA similar to those found in the previous Neandertals. Serre and his colleagues found no evidence of mtDNA gene flow between modern humans and Neandertals in either direction, but could not rule out the possibility of limited gene flow. Interestingly, the mtDNA sequences from the Vindija Neandertals, which have a less extreme Neandertal anatomy than the classic Neandertals, and are considered transitional between modern humans and classic Neandertals by some scientists, were no closer to modern humans than the rest of the Neandertal fossils.

Is the Neandertal outside the human range? Yes.

Note that because two modern human sequences are 24 bases apart, while the smallest Neandertal/human difference is only 22, does not mean the Neandertal sequence is within the range of modern humans. To use an analogy, suppose we measured the height of 994 adult humans, and they varied from 4'8" to 6'8" (a difference of 24 inches). Suppose we then found a skeleton which was 8'6" in height. No one would claim that it fell within the modern human range because it was closer to the nearest human (22 inches) than the tallest human was from the shortest human (24 inches).

Note also that the two figures (22 and 24) are measuring very different things, making it invalid to compare the two figures. Just as the Neandertal was compared against 994 modern humans, any of those humans could be similarly compared against the other 993 humans. We could compute the minimum, average, and maximum distance from that human to the other humans, just as was done for the Neandertal. If we calculated those values for all the humans, we could then calculate minimum, average and maximum values of all the individual minima, averages and maxima, and compare those values against the equivalent values for the Neandertal.

We do not know from the Krings et al. 1997 paper the distribution of minimum distances of humans from other humans. The smallest such value is 1. The largest such value might, I suspect, be as much as 5. The same value for the Neandertal is 22, well outside the human range.

For average distances of humans to other humans, we know the average value is 8.0. The minimum average distance will be a little less; the maximum average value must be at least 12 (this can be deduced from the fact that there are two humans 24 apart) and less than 24; I would guess it might be about 16 for a highly atypical human. For the Neandertal, the value is 27, again well outside the human range.

For maximum distances, the maximum such value is 24, but for most humans, the maximum distance to any other human will be less than that. The value of 24 is highly atypical, because it is taken between the two individuals who have indepently diverged farthest from mitochondrial Eve, and is the maximum of nearly half a million (994 * 993 / 2) comparisons among modern humans. For the Neandertal, the value is 36, again well outside the human range.

In other words, for all three measurements (minimum, average and maximum distances to other humans), the Neandertal measurement is much larger than the maximum value of the same measurement from a sample of 994 modern humans, and even further from the average value. The Neandertal is not merely outside the human range, but well outside it.

--TimS 11:53, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Respect! MiddleMan

Logic

From CPWebmaster's talk page

When it comes to origins, AIG is obviously more valid than the Smithsonian. I am aware that Homo neanderthalensis is the "accepted" species, but this is merely hopeful thinking by evolutionists. In reality, Homo neanderthalensis is HUMAN. I placed it under a sub-species because I did not want it to conflict with the human article. CPWebmaster 11:49, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

If homo neanderthalensis is human as you said above, then why not list it with Homo sapiens? CPWebmaster, I can not understand why you would perceive AIG as more valid than the Smithsonian. There are thousands more scientists working and submitting to the Smithsonian than AIG. This provides a more critical environment for research. AIG struggles to have PhDs write articles within the scope of their discipline. How many times have you seen a physicist write about biology at AIG? The point is that if you plan to use taxonomy to describe an organism then you must follow taxonomy rules to describe the organism. Meaning if you wish to say that Neanderthal was a subspecies of Homo sapiens then you need to list Neanderthal as Homo sapiens. Otherwise you need to place it back with homo neanderthalensis.--TimS 12:01, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't know why I'm even trying to correct this article. You cannot use logic against religious conviction. No matter what we say he is still going to put a creationist slant on the article. Prof0705 12:23, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Do I even have to mention that based on a taxonomy the way this article is listed Neanderthal is of the same level as European, African, Asian, ect. If this is the case then why did they die out while Europeans thrived? If you place any of the other sub races of Homo sapiens into the environment they survive. (This is assuming that Neanderthal came about due to the tower of Babel, like the other races of man according to YECs)--TimS 13:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure that I follow this point, but one answer is that they did survive. There is evidence of similarities with modern humans which suggests that modern humans are, in part, descended from Neanderthals. Also, one YEC idea is that their distinctive features were due to diet and conditions, not genetics, which would suggest that they were not a separate group that died out, but are humans, and humans are still here. Philip J. Rayment 10:07, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
I am aware this was and is considered as a possibility, but as far as I am aware the eveidence would not be aligned with this hypothesis. Despite the large number if Neanderthal remains that have been found, I seem to remember there have only ever been two examples of cross breeds, and there is no evidence that these individuals would have fertile, in the absence of quarter breeds.User:stevendavy 10:07, 21 Sep 2007 (EDT)
By "this hypothesis", I assume that you are referring to the idea that they interbred with humans, not the second part of my post which says that they are humans.
You may be correct about the evidence, but it's really an argument from silence, with so little evidence to go on. Yes, there are quite a few Neanderthal fossils, but you can only tell so much from skeletal remains and there is little DNA evidence and no other evidence that's useful for determining such things. In other words, there's also not much evidence that they were not fully human.
Philip J. Rayment 22:30, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
The suggestion that they were human seems extremely controversial indeed. Whilst there is some evidence the two could interbreed, they no more make them the same species as a donkey and a horse. I would suggest the suggestions about comparable size can also be compered to whether donkeys and horses would be considered the same species.Stevendavy 13:30, 06 September 2007 (EDT)
Even secular scientists at one time (or more than once, I think) considered them human. Now that doesn't mean that it's not "extremely controversial", but it puts it in context, that the controversy is over which side of a quite fine line they fall. As for the comparison between the donkey/horse differences, I would remind you that "species" is a somewhat-artificial distinction anyway. I'm not sure of your point about the size difference between donkeys and horses, as true horses come in a range of sizes, from smaller than the average donkey to larger. Size is not a determinant of species, except in cases such as fossils where the prime determinant (interfertility) is not available. But again, the donkey/horse comparison shows that using size as a determinant can be quite misleading. Philip J. Rayment 22:34, 23 September 2007 (EDT)


There is an issue about the YEC diet claim, If we are to follow the YEC timeline then Humans lived in the same areas as Neanderthals at the same time so we would show a difference among all of the remains instead of a particular group. If it was based on diet and not genetics than how is what I posted above with mtDNA found in Neanderthal remains explained? Their physiology is much different than a human, not something that could come from diet (You do not get eyebrow ridges, or extra length of ribs from diet)--TimS 11:17, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Just to add if you and CPWebmaster claim that Neanderthal were humans then you should add them to the races article.--TimS 11:26, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
You mean the Race article I presume? No, I wouldn't add them there, for the following reason. Creationists don't recognise that there are different races. We are all one race—the human race. So Neanderthals were not a different race. The article does list some "races", as they were formerly believed to be, but first, it doesn't say who believed this (I suspect an evolutionary basis), and second, for whatever reason, Neanderthals were, as far as I know, never considered as separate race, so it wouldn't be appropriate to add them to a list of what is actually a historical record. Philip J. Rayment 11:38, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
That is the point I am making Philip. If this were the case then CPWebmaster is wrong in labeling this page as Homo Sapiens Neaderthalensis. This is why it should either be Homo Neaderthalensis or just Homo Sapiens. To add the other delineator would mean that it would be a race of human.--TimS 11:47, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

editing

By-the-by, going in and pulling the creationist part above the evolutionist part is kinda pathetic and childish.Prof0705 12:28, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I would have to agree, it is a bit sophomoric. Not to mention the statement of taxonomic labeling.--TimS 12:32, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Somebody found some talking fossils apparently.

Remind me not to spend hours on an article ever again! P.S. please don't stone ban me for expressing my opinion (see First amendment)

Just 2 days after I wrote this article, using only reliable sources, it's already been vandalized beyond recognition, look! It even has quotes of questionable origin already!

Do we really have to have this "but creationist assert this and quote mine that, and the flood ..." thingy in every article, there's plenty of that on other pages.


I did not claim this article for myself, I just set some guidelines for other editors to keep it factual and respectable (most people out there aren't YECs you know!)

Why the f*ck are there no dates in the intro anymore? Do they threaten the emotional comfort of your little medieval sheltered world? You think you're making Jesus proud through ignorance?

And yes, of course that picture of neanderthal men came from a website: I can't exactly go take a picture of a living neanderthal myself, now can I?

And it's "Homo neanderthlalensis", not "Homo sapiens neanderthalensis" as in separate species, Tims is a molecular biologist, what are you?

What's wrong with writing an article according to the current scientific consensus? Sure I could make something up too, maybe even twist the facts just enough to make everything fit in with Egyptian mythology! But I chose to follow the experts instead.

If the reader is a YEC he's not gonna believe this article anyway!

AiG more credible than the Smithsonian? Yeah, of course a bunch of uneducated hillbillies AiG's YECs are more credible than the Smithsonian's accredited biologists and archaeologists when it comes to science! MiddleMan

Middleman, I agree with you. I thought this was conservapedia not YECpedia. No one has said that being a conservative means rejecting science as a whole. What CPWebmaster did would be considered vandalism if the POV was change.--TimS 13:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I tried to add some stuff and keep it scientific, but I was reverted by the ConservativeChristianYoungEarthAntiScience Aganda. Just give up, this site is a joke anyway. The only reason I know about it is a student of mine actually used it as a source in writing a paper. Prof0705 13:45, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Is it that your information has been removed or merely that creationist viewpoints have been added as well? I hope both viewpoints are allowed to stand and I hope it is done in a way that is respectful to the work that each of you has put into the article. Learn together 14:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Unfortunatly, no, the overlords have erased information that is scientific in nature and replaced it with their own ideas.Prof0705 14:27, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I have created separate articles now, with links to one another at the bottom: one for YECs and one for science, I will revert all creationist material on the evolutionary version, however I don't care about what's being written in the creationist version, feel free to add whatever "alternative worldviews" you want to that one!

YEC: here.

Evo: here

stick with one article please. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 15:42, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

But this one's too crappy. And that one page would have to be called Homo neanderthalensis. MiddleMan

P.S. this particular page (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) should be deleted for this to avoid confusion.

MiddleMan

Your naming will never survive based upon how you have constructed it. You'll need to have separate sections with 'Creationist' in one title and 'Evolutionist' in the other. Also the article called 'Creationist' view appears to be merely a copy of the current article and is replete with information that does not match Creationist thought. You may wish to consider a different strategy if you wish to have any chance of success. Learn together 15:08, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

If you don't like it (the creationist version) in its current form you can always edit it.

Evolution is the dominant theory, the default setting, creationism is an alternative for a minority. MiddleMan

I am still wanting to see what CPWebmaster's logic is based on what I listed above for the genius and species of Homo Neanderthalensis.--TimS 14:44, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Don't worry, these 3 pages seem to act like coupled photons: whatever you type on one talk page, instantaneously appears on the other two as well! MiddleMan

"No other organisms, either living or fossil, made tools to make other complex tools, buried their dead, had controlled use of fire, practiced religious ceremonies, used complex syntax in their spoken grammar, and played musical instruments, yet we know from their fossils that Neanderthal engaged in all." I still want to know how a fossilized piece of bone can tell you about complex syntax. Last time I checked fossils don't talk.Prof0705 17:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Just a quick note, nobody will come to an "encyclopedia" like this and search for Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Instead, they'll look for Neanderthal or Neandertal. They both redirect to the 'creationist' Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Thus, MiddleMan's 'scientific' version will only be seen by a) who reads this talk page or b) from the Hominid category. Leopeo 04:12, 15 May 2007 (EDT)


"And yes, of course that picture of neanderthal men came from a website: I can't exactly go take a picture of a living neanderthal myself, now can I?". You appear to be justifying using a presumably-copyright photograph on the basis that you are unable to take your own photograph of real Neanderthals. That is not justification for using copyright photographs. And my question also pertained to the map. If the images are copyright and used without permission, they will have to go, regardless of your inability to supply an alternative. Will you do the right thing or will I delete them? Philip J. Rayment 10:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

There are lots of pics without sources on this website, yet only one the ones that hits a sore spot among YECs is removed, besides the sysop who removed it didn't say anything about copyrighting, he stated "This is nothing like Neanderthals would have looked like. in reality they looks a LOT more like aps, with curved, bent hands, etc."

Interestingly, I addressed this (sadly widespread) myth in the article itself (it's also the reason why I said 100 year old books are bad sources), so if he would just have taken the time to actually read the article... MiddleMan

Response in point form:
  • There being other such pictures doesn't justify these.
  • If you had brought others to my attention, I would have done the same to them. I'd invite you to now except that I gather that you are no longer around.
  • It was not because of the pictures themselves that I started questioning this; it was solely because of the copyright issue.
  • I don't know where CPWebmaster made that comment that you attribute to him; I haven't seen it, and it certainly wasn't in the edit comment for the deletion.
As no evidence was forthcoming that there was permission to use the images, I have now deleted them from the article.
Philip J. Rayment 09:38, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

transitional fossil?

"Neanderthal Man is not considered to be a direct ancestor of modern humans, but their remains are examples of transitional fossils along a subsidiary branch, an evolutionary dead end."{{fact}}

A transitional fossil to what? Extinction? Somehow this seems an incorrect usage. There is no linkage from one form to another. Perhaps the following wording should be employed?

"Neanderthal Man is not considered to be a direct ancestor of modern humans, but formed along a subsidiary branch that ended in extinction."{{fact}}

Learn together 02:51, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

You're quit right, I changed it accordingly. MiddleMan

Advice to evolutionists

I was going to write a piece here with the title above, but because this sort of issue has come up so often, I decided to create a sub-page of my user page to hold it instead. It relates particularly to this dispute, so I urge editors here to read my comments at User:Philip J. Rayment/Advice to evolutionists. I will, however, make some further comments on this page to some specific points. Philip J. Rayment 10:01, 15 May 2007 (EDT)


Philip I read and understood your points in your article. The issue I think that has to be presented is that this website claims that it is Conservative in nature not exclusively YEC. Therefore to edit strictly in a YEC POV would be falsifying the claim of the website. Even Andy has stated that this website is not specifically YEC.
No, Conservapedia does not have a specifically YEC agenda. But our rules do not allow the kind of speculation-as-fact claims that are found on Wikipedia and other sites concerning an old earth or evolution or any other predominantly liberal ideology. Thanks.--Aschlafly 08:03, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
So to claim that it is would be misleading. My issue with this page is the incorrect naming style used. If you are going to use scientific terminology then you need to get it right. If what CPWebmaster is true then this article should be moved under Homo sapiens. If not then he needs to correct it.--TimS 11:09, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for reading it.
I wasn't suggesting editing in a YEC POV. I was pointing out that despite the YEC point of view that will not allow articles to be edited in an evolutionary POV, evolutionary editors continue to edit in an evolutionary POV rather than a more neutral POV that should (hopefully) be acceptable to both sides.
Philip J. Rayment 11:28, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
You know that timelines of the earth are geological based not evolutionary based. If we were to edit on a neutral POV then the edits that CPWebmaster did would have been reverted since they strictly removed scientific data to cause the article a more creationsit POV.--TimS 11:33, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Advice to Young Earth Creationists

You've got your YEC box in my article (Homo Neanderhalensis, without the sapiens), don't you prefer it's clear presentation of creationist objections over the usual chaotic torrent of out-of-context quotes, unsound "facts" and numerous AiG links that make up most YEC sections on this site? You yourself linked to Dr. John Hartnett once, who actually has a Ph. D (I still think he's nutts though), don't you understand that that single link, has, to me (and other "evolutionists"), far more value than all the quotes and AiG links in the Dinosaur article combined?

Just look at the Dinosaur article, it's a complete mess composed of contradicting sections and contradictions within sections, out-of-context-quotes, and the kind of "scientific facts" that any college freshman can debunk on a spare afternoon. And in the end the article reads like a debate and doesn't really tell the reader anything about actual dinosaurs. That's what I meant by "go vandalize the Dinosaur article".

If you're going to add YEC stuff, then keep it separated from the rest of the article (don't make one sentence contradict the next one), don't use quotes (no scientist uses quotes), and only add points which have a reasonable chance of surviving the debunk attempts of a college freshman, you have to know what you're talking about before posting it, if necessary, do some research on the math or the science behind it.

Don't question every scientific theory down to the very laws of physics, and don't say every theory is just a theory (you trust science when you fly on an airplane, use GPS, watch tv, and you trust scientist's calculations regarding the highly explosive chemical processes that take place under the hood of your car, don't you?)

And if you're going to question a scientific theory then be consistent, meaning you can't use other science, related to that theory, somewhere else:

- if you question carbon half lives, you also question nuclear physic, meaning you question nuclear power, and A-bombs as well, and even question highschool chemistry.

- if you question the value of the speed of light, you question relativity and thus you can't trust your GPS system either, you'd also question quantum mechanics.

Finally, try to link to non-creationist websites and accredited scientists (like John Hartnett, for example), and never, ever use the Bible as a reference: if your theories are correct you should be able to find evidence outside of the Bible.

Then, maybe YECs won't be ridiculed all the time... MiddleMan

What I have seen too many times is evolutionary baseed information being removed because it isn't "factual" and at the same time the YEC sections getting bigger and bigger. As far as I know YEC isn't a "fact" either, but I rarely see any of that stuff being edited out.Prof0705 12:16, 15 May 2007 (EDT)


There are a number of articles with creationist views that I'm not happy with, but would have a fight on my hands if I tried altering them, so I'm not going to defend everything, but parts of your message still warrants a response.
"You yourself linked to Dr. John Hartnett once, who actually has a Ph. D". As do lots of creationists. This sort of anti-creationist loaded language is part of the problem.
Despite my comments above, I think the Dinosaur article is actually quite reasonable (apart from needing more information about the dinosaurs themselves). If you were still around, I'd invite you to point out specific problems, because all you've done so far is throw mud.
"(no scientist uses quotes)". Incorrect.
"...don't say every theory is just a theory..." I haven't seen anyone do that.
Much of your comment on science ignores the difference between operational science and origins science.
"Finally, try to link to non-creationist websites and accredited scientists... ". What's wrong with linking to creationist web-sites with accredited scientists?
"never, ever use the Bible as a reference: if your theories are correct you should be able to find evidence outside of the Bible". We can't use the Bible as a reference for what Christians believe? And often the best evidence is documented eye-witness testimony, which is what the Bible is, so it is often the only available evidence; why overlook it just because bibliosceptics don't like it?
Philip J. Rayment 10:34, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

There is no evidence to suggest that Neanderthals could not speak like modern humans.

This seems a bit of a lame quote. There's no evidence to suggest that T Rex could not speak like modern humans either, should we therefore conclude that they could talk? Chrysogonus 17:44, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm guessing that came from a suggestion that I made here, and if you read that, you might have a better understanding of why it's worded that way. But yes, it was only an off-the-cuff suggestion on my part, and it could be improved. Do you have a suggestion that does justice to what it's trying to say? Philip J. Rayment 22:35, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

The view that Neandertals could speak, or at least could speak in the same way modern humans can, is not held by most paleoanthropologists today. Reconstructions of Neandertal supralaryngeal vocal tracts show that they would not have been able to form many of the sounds necessary for human speech[1]. I would edit the article myself, but it appears to be locked. PeterAS 23:40, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

I've removed the <ref> tags from your post, as this is a talk page and there is no <references /> section.
Your linked article requires a subscription to read, so I haven't read it.
Did you read the link in my post just above yours? It has some background to this matter. One point it mentions is that the article previously claimed that Neanderthals could talk, but evolutionary editors here questioned that on the basis of the unfeasibility of being able to determine that from skeletal remains. But when it suits them, evolutionists want to claim that you can determine such things!
Okay, so most paleoanthropologists don't hold that Neanderthals could speak. Most are also evolutionists, so they are hardly unbiased in this matter.
I notice, though that the paper you referenced was replying to someone else, as though there was disagreement on the issue.
I suggest that you propose here a better wording, but one that doesn't assume the evolutionary myth, and it can be added to the article if it's reasonable.
Philip J. Rayment 01:38, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

Philip, thanks for removing the reference tags. I'm still in my first 24 hours of editing a wiki, so I have a few things to learn about formatting.

The paper I referenced was replying to two papers by Boe et al. (1999, 2002) which went against the prevailing theory in the paleoanthropological community regarding Neandertal speech. This Lieberman (2007) paper refutes Boe et al. (1999, 2002) analysis of speech capabilities quite handily in my view, nullifying much of the professional arguments for Neandertals having fully modern human speech capabilities. However, I'm willing to admit that there are some paleoanthropologists that still maintain that Neandertals had fully modern speech, or at least the physical tools necessary for producing it. However, the claim that "There is no evidence to suggest that Neanderthals could not speak like modern humans" certainly isn't true. I'll work on rewording the statement in question to reflect both sides of the professional debate, and I'll post my proposal here later. PeterAS 09:59, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

Still trying....

Why cannot I access and view the previous versions of the articles? How big of a fit am I going to have to have? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 07:18, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't know, I'm not having a similar problem. What exactly are you doing and what exactly are you getting? Philip J. Rayment 07:21, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Check my user talk. I had requested of CPAdmin1 to have a chance to review the materials he deleted before the fact. He wasn't having a bit of it. The lack of cooperation around here should be gone now, due to the example of the past two days. Evidently not. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 07:29, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Never mind...I got it. I wanted to see this [[2]] since it got deleted and redirected without any notice or discussion. Since I don't know much of what I am doing with the technical wiki, I had to fumble around removing redirects and un-deleting pages, etc. There should be a nicer way to accommodate everyone. But then some people, they don't want to be nice. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 07:33, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
There is a nicer way. As long as the article is not actually deleted, but just has the content removed, you can look at any old version from the edit history; you don't have to remove redirects or anything to do that. If you need to know how to do that, I can explain further. Philip J. Rayment 07:37, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Unfortunately, what I found was deleted and blanked pages, which I had to restore once I removed all the re-directs, and still the discussion seems to have been lost. I know how to blank and protect pages, Philip. I am just peeved because some other Sysop took it upon himself to delete and merge without any discussion whatsoever. Maybe I am wrong in thinking such things shouldn't happen under cover, and unilaterally, but I don't think so. Hopefully whilst I am at the office, the whole process won't be repeated, and the other pages deleted! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 07:50, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
I don't see why you had to remove the redirects and restore them just to see what was on them, but moving on, what discussion seems to have been lost? Philip J. Rayment 08:04, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

How many redirects?

I've just got to ask: How many times has Neanderthal been maliciously redirected to, say, User:Aschlafly? I never vandalize, but if I was that type it would be so tempting. :-P - PostoStudanto 17:32, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Well, why not try it and see what happens? Don't you have something more worth-while to do than Troll? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 17:55, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
I already undid subtle vandalism he committed in the "Simpsons" article. --transResident Transfanform! 17:57, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Primates category

If, as the article clearly states, Neanderthals were human, than they were not "primates." people are not monkeys. I'd change it myself, but the page is locked. StephenE 16:41, 22 July 2009 (EDT)

Page Proposal

I'd like to propose adding the following section on Neanderthal Dating Errors from CreationWiki to this page:

http://www.creationwiki.org/Neanderthal#Dating_Errors

I wrote that specific section on May 6, 2012:

http://www.creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Neanderthal&action=history

I propose it be added above the History sections and after the Society section. --Jzyehoshua 14:59, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

Personal tools