Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
725 bytes added ,  15:46, May 14, 2007
Line 77: Line 77:     
: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?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:45, 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?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:45, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
::Perhaps but it does sidestep the scientific naming of the organism. --[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:46, 14 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.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:46, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
686

edits

Navigation menu