E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Rodrigo De Balbin Behrmann
A researcher from the University of Bristol removes samples from Tito Bustillo Cave in Spain. The stalactite is painted with a red figure that dates back 29,000 to 36,000 years.
When archaeologists tried out a new technique to determine the age of Spain's most famous Paleolithic cave paintings, they were surprised to discover that the paintings were thousands of years older than previously thought — so old that it's conceivable they were painted by Neanderthals.
The technique just might change the way we think about the paintings, and the way we think about our long-extinct, long-maligned Neanderthal cousins as well.
"Neanderthals, of course, have had this bad press for a long time," the University of Barcelona's Joao Zilhao, a member of the research team, told reporters. "But the research developments over the last decade have shown that this is probably not deserved."
The findings being reported today represent just an initial step in an "ongoing program" to date hundreds of European cave paintings more accurately, said the University of Bristol's Alistair Pike, lead author of a paper published in the journal Science. It's still too early to say conclusively whether Neanderthals were behind at least some of the artistry. However, Pike and his colleagues are confident that the earliest paintings go back at least 40,800 years. That time frame matches up with the earliest evidence of the presence of anatomically modern humans in Europe. It's also thousands of years earlier than the previously accepted maximum age, based on carbon dating.
"We were not expecting these results," Zilhao said. "When we put this project together, the idea was to improve the chronology of rock art, and particularly in the case of Spain."
Penn State archaeologist Dean Snow, who wasn't part of the research team but has worked on some of the same cave paintings that were recently put to the test, was impressed by the results. "The basic findings are the sorts of things you could take to the bank," he told me. But he also acknowledged that the latest findings produce "three or four new problems that we didn't have before."
"Now, with these older dates, we have to entertain the possibility that there might have been some Neanderthal involvement in some of these paintings," Snow said. "We've never really seriously considered that before."
Pedro Saura
Hand stencils and the outlines of animals dominate "The Panel of Hands" in Spain's El Castillo cave. One of the stencils has been dated to earlier than 37,300 years ago, and a red disk goes back at least 40,800 years, making them the oldest cave paintings in Europe.
Rodrigo De Balbin Behrmann
Six-foot (2-meter) paintings of horses in Spain's Tito Bustillo Cave overlay earlier red paintings that, from dating elsewhere in the cave, might be older than 29,000 years.
How the tests were done
The tests were conducted on 50 Paleolithic paintings in 11 Spanish caves, including the famous pictures of horses and human hands at the Altamira and El Castillo caves. In the past, the paintings have been dated using radiocarbon tests, but Pike's team used a different technique that analyzed the proportions of uranium, thorium and related elements in the calcite deposits that formed above and below the paintings. Those proportions vary over time, due to radioactive decay, and can tell you how long it's been since the calcite was formed.
That's an interesting approach for several reasons: First, the scientists don't have to depend on getting a reading from the paint itself, which may be contaminated or may not even be amenable to carbon dating. Also, the calcite deposits are scraped away, using a knife or a drill, until the pigment just begins to appear beneath it. "That does two things," Pike explained. "It means we stop before we damage the painting, and secondly it proves to us and our audience that these things are directly above the art itself."
The scientists can thus be confident that the age they get will be the minimum age for the artwork. In some cases, the scientists could sample flowstone deposits beneath the layer of paint to get a maximum age as well.
The tests took advantage of the state of the art in mass spectrometry, which means the scientists didn't require much of a sample. The scrapings amounted to as little as 10 milligrams, which is about the weight of a grain of rice. "Perhaps 20 years ago, we would have needed a whole gram of material, and now we need one-hundredth of that size," Pike said.
That minimizes the impact on the caves, which is a sensitive topic for the officials in charge of the caves. "Getting permission to work in a cave is really difficult," Snow explained. "The bureaucratic and political difficulties of getting this work done are substantial."
Pike and his colleagues pioneered this process years ago, in a project aimed at verifying the dates for 12,800-year-old cave engravings in England's Creswell Crags, but the tests reported today represent the highest-profile application of what's known as uranium-series disequilibrium dating.
What the tests found
The uranium tests, like previous radiocarbon tests, showed that there was wide variation in the age of the paintings. The El Castillo paintings yielded a time frame stretching from 22,600 years ago all the way back to at least 40,800 years ago. That farthest-back age is particularly telling. Previously, archaeologists had thought the paintings went back to about 38,000 years. The new tests push the age back to near the time when modern humans were first thought to have inhabited the area, around 42,000 years ago.
Pike said that raises three scenarios: El Castillo's modern humans might have developed their cave-painting skills during their migration out of Africa, and put it to use when they arrived in Europe. After all, communities of Homo sapiens who lived in Africa and the Near East showed evidence of artistic behavior going back as far as 75,000 to 100,000 years. Another possibility is that humans started painting cave walls soon after their arrival in Europe — perhaps as the result of cultural competition with the native Neanderthals, who are known to have inhabited the region as far back as 250,000 years ago. Or the Neanderthals themselves could have created the first paintings, and Homo sapiens picked up the artistic habit while Homo neanderthalensis faded away.
Pedro Saura
The "Corredor de los Puntos" lies within Spain's El Castillo cave. Red disks here have been dated to between 34,000 and 36,000 years ago, and elsewhere in the cave to 40,800 years ago, making them examples of Europe's earliest cave art.
Zilhao said the Neanderthal vs. Homo sapiens debate could shed light on the roots of our own culture. "Cave painting is of course one of the most exquisite examples of human symbolic behavior," he said. "And that's what makes us human."
Although cave art has not previously been linked to the Neanderthals, Zilhao pointed out that the past few years have provided ample evidence that the species had an artistic bent. In 2010, he led a research team and fellow researchers suggested that Neanderthal cave-dwellers wore ornaments and painted their bodies with mineral-based pigments. Other researchers have found a perforated bear bone that may or may not have been shaped as a flute for Neanderthals, as well as bird feathers that may have been used as Neanderthal ritual objects or fashion statements.
Pike et al. via Science
This hand stencil in Spain's El Castillo cave dates back at least 37,300 years, based on uranium-series testing, and could conceivably show a Neanderthal hand outline.
The researchers noted that the earliest paintings were not figurative works, but instead reflected simpler motifs such as dots, disks and lines. For example, the 40,800-year-old painting in the El Castillo cave was a large red disk, probably created by blowing pigment onto the rock surface. Nearby, there was the red outline of a hand, most likely made by placing the hand on the rock and blowing pigment over it. That stencil was found to be at least 37,300 years old.
"What's really exciting about the possibility that this is Neanderthal art is that anyone, because it's open to the public, can walk into El Castillo cave and they can see a Neanderthal hand on the wall," Pike said.
Just how possible is that?
"In probabilistic terms, I would say there is a strong chance that these results imply Neanderthal authorship," Zilhao said. "But I will not say we have proven it, because we haven't, and it cannot be proven at this time. It's just, you know, my gut feeling."
What lies ahead
Pike said further tests would show whether Zilhao's gut feeling was correct.
"I think it's a fairly straightforward thing to prove if they were painted by Neanderthals. ... All we have to do is go back and date more of these samples, and find a date that predates the arrival of modern humans in Europe," he told me.
The research team is currently concentrating on hand stencils and red disks, which appear to be the oldest types of cave paintings in Spain. If the minimum dates turn out to be significantly older than 42,000 years, that would be strong evidence that Neanderthals were involved, Pike said.
Snow said the big issue with uranium-series dating has to do with the accuracy of the process. "You've got to have measurement capabilities that are really, really precise," he said. "They can't tolerate anything like the kind of sloppiness and standard error that we had to tolerate in the past, using carbon dates."
He said it was a good sign that the research team ran multiple tests on succeeding layers of calcite and got back results that showed a consistent progression of dates. This suggests that uranium-series dating can go back to time frames where carbon dating becomes less reliable. "For the profession, part of the excitement is going to be that we've got some technologies that are going to be viable for sites in the 30,000- to 50,000-year range," Snow told me.
Zilhao said the research could eventually smash our stereotypical view of the Neanderthal tribe — which died out more than 20,000 years ago. Scientists suspect that the Neanderthals fell victim to competition with us Homo sapiens types, but they also have found that the species contributed to our genetic heritage through interbreeding.
"This evidence is, at least to my mind, sufficient for us to think about Neanderthals as fundamentally human beings that were simply, if you want, racially distinct. This is quite visible in aspects of their skeletons," Zilhao said. "What will change with the demonstration, if it comes, that Neanderthals were also the first cave artists? I guess [it would be] corroboration of the already-existing evidence, and perhaps if you want a catchphrase, the last nail in the coffin of the notion of Neanderthals as the archetypal 'dumb.'"
Update for 9:30 p.m. ET: University of Arizona geochemist Warren Beck got back to me with his outside perspective on the uranium-series test, and in a word, he thinks it's an "improvement" on previous methods when it comes to figuring out the age of rock art. It doesn't render radiocarbon dating totally obsolete: If you're trying to nail down the chronology of a charcoal drawing on a cave wall, carbon dating is what you want. But if you're trying to determine the age of a painting left behind in red ochre, or if you're working with paintings that go back further than, say, 40,000 to 45,000 years, "this is the way to do it," Beck told me.
Beck thought Pike and his team took "a very conservative approach here." Because the samples were taken from calcite deposits that formed over the paint in the Spanish caves, the team could be significantly underestimating the actual ages of the paintings themselves. "They could be substantially older," Beck said. That's one of the reasons behind Zilhao's gut feeling about Neanderthal involvement.
A few of today's reports about the research have included skeptical comments from Eric Delson, a paleoanthropologist at Lehman College and the American Museum of Natural History in New York. "There is no clear evidence of paintings associated with Neanderthal tools or fossils, so any such evidence would be surprising," Delson told The Associated Press' Seth Borenstein. He said his view was that Neanderthals were moving away from these caves around 41,000 years ago.
Delson told Reuters' Sharon Begley that the oldest Homo sapiens in Europe "may date from 45,000 to 42,000 years ago. ... There is no need to hypothesize that Neanderthals created these paintings." Could further tests by Pike and his team change Delson's mind? "The evidence will become very straightforward if we have these dates of 45,000 years or so," Pike said. Which is another way of saying, "Stay tuned."
More about ancient cave art:
- Prehistoric kids left marks in caves
- Ancient cave paintings in peril again
- Cave paintings of horses based on reality
- Oldest cave art focuses on female sex organs
- Gallery: Ancient rock art from around the world
In addition to Pike and Zilhao, the authors of "U-Series Dating of Paleolithic Art in 11 Caves in Spain" include D.L. Hoffmann, M. Garcia-Diez, P.B. Pettitt, J. Alcolea, R. De Balbin, C. Gonzalez-Sainz, C. de las Heras, J.A. Lasheras and R. Montes. The 11 caves that were sampled are Pedroses, Tito Bustillo, Las Aguas, Altamira, Santian, El Pendo, El Castillo, La Pasiega, Las Chimeneas, Covalanas and La Haza.
Alan Boyle is msnbc.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding the Cosmic Log page to your Google+ presence. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
I want to know what kind of paint they used that lasted 40,000 years! I could use that kind of high grade stuff for my house and never need to paint again!
From the Article
See thats an ongoing problem with any type of dating, especially when you get into talking tens of thousands, millions and billions of years. There is a lot of assumption and presumptions going on here. Let me give you examples.
A swimming race illustrates the simple principles involved in measuring time. This swimmer is competing in a 1,500 metre race and we have an accurate, calibrated wristwatch. We note that at the instant the swimmer touches the edge of the pool our wristwatch reads 7:41 and 53 seconds. How long has the competitor taken to swim the 1,500 metre race?
When I have asked an audience this question they have looked at me incredulously and said, “Starting time?” You cannot know how long the swimmer took unless you knew the time on the wristwatch when the race started. Without the starting time it is impossible to establish the time for the race. Note: Impossible.
Actually, knowing the starting time is still not enough. During the race you have to watch the swimmer and count how many laps he has swum so you know that he has done 1,500 metres. And you have to check to make sure he touches the edge at the end of each lap. Without these observations you cannot be sure that the time is valid. That is why you need at least two, sometimes three judges to measure the time of the race to the standard needed to enter the record books.
It would make no difference how accurate or high-tech the wristwatch was. You could talk about the tiny quartz crystal and the piezoelectric effect used to provide a stable time base for the electronic movement. You could describe the atomic workings of the quartz oscillator and how it resonates at a specific and highly stable frequency, and how this is used to accurately pace a timekeeping mechanism.
But without reliable witnesses the accuracy of the watch makes no difference. You can only establish the time for the race if it was timed by two or more qualified eyewitnesses who observed the start, the progress and the finish.
This illustrates the whole problem with the radioactive dating of geological events. Those who promote the reliability of the method spend a lot of time impressing you with the details of radioactive decay, half-lives, mass-spectroscopes, etc. But they omit discussion of the basic flaw in the method: you cannot measure the age of a rock using radioactive dating because you were not present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and you did not monitor the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.
If you check this educational page by the US Geological Society you will see that they spend all their time talking about the technicalities of radioactive decay. But they do not even mention the basic problem that you cannot know the radioactive concentrations that existed in the rock in the past.
In other words, the fatal problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make. And that is what geologist do, they make up an assumed geological history for rock depending on the numbers that come from the geochronology lab (see Dating secrets).
Sounds like a "Young Earth" argument ... I guess the assumption you're making here is that radioactive decay rates could have varied over time, which is a big assumption to make. As usual, TalkOrigins provides a reality check:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html
As far as the composition of the paint ... Here's what the paper says: "In many cases, paintings lack organic pigments or binders suitable for accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon dating." Wikipedia says the pigments included red and yellow ochre, hematite, manganese oxide and charcoal. Charcoal would be amenable to carbon dating. Ochre is a clay containing mineral oxides. The hand stencils are generally done with red ochre. Here's more about how hand stencils were done:
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/hand_paintings_rock_art.php
So happy that we have Marmaduke to point out what all the scientists appear to have missed. Dinosaurs were around a mere 6000 years ago! Never mind what is known by those who have actually received a scientific education; all we have to do is raise some obscure questions and ignore the mountains of converging evidence for the Theory of Evolution.
If it ain't in a Bronze age fairytale then it makes my head hurt and I don't wanna think about it! Waahhh wahhh!
The only ancient drawings that exist of humans and dinosaurs together are the ones where Fred is using the Brontosaurus to dig in the quarry....but I guess then you have to consider the 60's as being ancient:)
There is no reasoning with bible thumper young earth types. They remind me of the father from the movie "Paul".
I may be wrong but I thought horses came at a later date.
Maybe some joker with spray paint did it.
Horses have been around for millions of years.
I have been fascinated by several things about Neanderthals for a while: their social organization seems to have been good enough for seriously handicapped or injured members to survive even when they can't take care of themselves. Several skeletons with this sort of evidence. The flutes have been interesting as well. Several flutists have readily identified the objects from models and point out that the wear is on the parts of the holes that would have indicated that fingers had caused it. I think maybe the Neanderthals did get bad press that they didn't deserved. My guess is that they were out-competed by tiny fractions of a percent by Cro-Magnon and that interbreeding accelerated the process.
Agreed American01, why should we waste our time listening to these people with advanced degrees who spend their entire lives studying these subjects in excruciating detail. What do they know, right?
Absolutely.
I watched a great program on UK TV once on human evolution. They covered what we know about Neanderthals today and it's quite impressive.
It begged the question though, given they were so successful for so long, why did they die out and we survive? From what I remember, they thought that it was a combination of things that gave us enough of an advantage to out compete them. They had a larger body mass, so they required more energy than we do to survive, they also had a narrower diet than us. So when times got tough through climate change or whatever we had the edge over them.
I think the coolest thing though was what they said about the two species intelligence. They though that Neanderthal children reached adulthood earlier than our own. So the thinking is that this might mean that although they had a brain that was either as big or bigger than our own, it wasn't as complex. There is evidence that they could talk, but the shape of their throat might mean that they are are not capable of creating the range of complex sounds that we are.
So the thinking went that the biggest advantage homo sapiens had is our ability to not only to communicate, but to transfer complex ideas. They can see that in how quickly new technologies spread between the two species. In modern humans ideas seem to have been transferred from group to group, whereas Neanderthals did not seem to mix in this way.
That's from memory, hopefully it's right!
Exactly...we can go to church and read a few things of da interwebz and I would know more than some book worm.
Let's make this simple: The cave paintings were accomplished by Human (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) and, possibly as far back as scientific data suggests. However...
It has been demonstrated that Humans coming out of Africa, had some inter-mixing with Neanderthal somewhere in what is now the Middle East.
Neanderthals didn't die out, but likely merged with Humans and thus gave rise to the Caucasian and Asian Races of Man. So, in a roundabout way, Neanderthals had something to do with the finely detailed paintings. And Neanderthal couldn't have been an ignorant brute. After all, Homo Sapiens Sapiens found them acceptable enough to breed. And the fact that the two ancient ancestors were capable of direct fertilization, is proof that Neanderthal was Human. Dissimilar species cannot procreate outside the petri dish.
Neanderthal too, must have contributed some DNA that gave rise to higher IQ's, too. European and Asian technology sped far ahead of the rest of the planet, and soon after merging with Neanderthal.
Neanderthal is still here. Just look in the mirror.
Aliveinsd..............Well I guess this pretty much explains...Picasso!
I have studied Neanderthals writing and the photo with all the big red dots has Neanderthals writing. I decipered it and it says.....For a good time call Olga!
Or the interbreeding could of been the result of war, pillaging, and raping.
I realize that Bible is not always revered as a "source" but... Here is a quote from the Bible that is very interesting: I want to know your opinion on the content... please refrain from sniping at my beliefs and just comment on the passage... Thanks:
Do you think (on it's face) that it "fits" into the narrative the article?
Marmaduke49, you're as senseless as the mutt your moniker has borrowed.
However, a nice cut-and-paste swipe from biblicalgeology.net, the creationist's haven for a rally against science. You seem to have 'control-c' and 'control-v' down to a science.
(Oh, sorry... science is such a dirty word. I do apologize.)
Funny how 'actual' scientists just never quite figured this 'starting point hypothesis' out, eh? Oh, right... giant conspiracy the world over. Right.
I keep forgetting.
If I thought it would help in the slightest I'd correct your hypothesis, but experience has taught me that a creationist cannot be confused with facts if the data contradict their dogma.
It could also explain a an issue of how where the older megaliths built. Remember the Neanderthal where alot stronger than us, and what needed 5 to 6 men could have been done by 1 neanderthal.
It could also explain a an issue of how where the older megaliths built. Remember the Neanderthal where alot stronger than us, and what needed 5 to 6 men could have been done by 1 neanderthal.
Jon-2730330, love your satire, as well as your pragmatism (why bother to try to refute the determinately ignorant, they have achieved that for which they strive).
Sane .....that is eaxctly true of Native american tribes. War between tribes often resulted in taking women and children of the defeated. Occaisional men also captured and adopted into tribes(Raddison, white guy to name one). Many times it was to replace a child or family member that died when very young. Taking of women also supplied new children that would be born. This helped to provide future numbers of tribe to increase making them more powerful. Young children would then be conditioned to be one of the family, however, sometimes documented, that whenever other band members had grievience regarding the other tribe, the captured/adopted ones were easy targets to vent anger upon. It seems whenever an archeologist describes artifacts that are not normally a part of the tribe at the given dig site, they always just say "trade goods" when it is just as likely from war, or the new way of making artifact that the captured person from other tribe now adds to the site.
Those "scientists" are making an assumption by FAITH that Neanderthals painted these animal pictures. No one has ever seen these mythical Neanderthals and no Neanderthals were caught red-handed painting these animal pictures. Since "Seeing is Believing" and since nobody ever saw the Neanderthals, therefore they are mere myths. I have a scientific theory that says that over billions of years and countless volcanic explosions later, by sheer luck, colored pigments were thrown on the rock walls, and the radioactivity caused the pigments to mutate into pictures of animals. No mythical Neanderthal Creators are needed!!! Any superstitious people claiming that MYTHICAL Neanderthal CREATORS made them then Science shall declare them to be Unscientific CREATIONISTS.
KDC...wrote..."Since "Seeing is Believing" and since nobody ever saw the Neanderthals, therefore they are mere myths"....
.So back in 1958 when mom saw a child's muddy finger prints on the refrigerator door made from dirt...and since mom didn't see the finger prints applied......Mom should have assumed the missing bowl of tapioca pudding was a mere myth...
For all of you thinking these scientist are so bright, the article says, "...our long-extinct, long-maligned Neanderthal cousins..."
Neanderthal's are not extinct. There are hundreds of them walking around in DC.
Religious folks are usually able to come up with some absurd explanation for anything that don't fit into religious dogma, but in the case of different species of man and how that could possibly fit in with a god, all I hear is is dead silence. It as if they they go blind, deaf, and dumb at the mere idea.
Likening the age of the Earth to the starting time of a race is extremely stupid. Hell, the analogy doesn't fit the scenario. 1) Rocks don't swim - we don't have to watch rocks constantly to know the speed at which they age; 2) We've got a damn good idea about the age of the Earth - independent data from multiple disciplines agree to within a tenth of a percent, so we know the starting time pretty well; and 3) all we really need is the (steady and constant) decay rate of isotopes, and the amount of the isotopes present in a sample to date the sample.
This is 100% true and independently verifiable; therefore it has nothing whatsoever to do with "faith". If we took our worldview based only on faith, we wouldn't know a thing.
Flame: my interpretation of the quote is that Neanderthals could have interbred with homo sapiens.
A recent DNA study indicates that many people today have some neanderthal DNA. Those with the highest proportion tend to have white skin and red hair. Amusingly enough, for racial purity folks, the only people with no neanderthal DNA are those with black skin.
Neanderthals did not die out, they just interbred with homo sapiens until there were not enough 'pure' neanderthals. Although I do not have red hair, my wife consider me a prime example of a modern neanderthal.
Marmaduke- You say "When I have asked an audience this question they have looked at me incredulously". By audience do you mean the curious group of people grouped around you on that street corner as you stand on your soapbox and spout the mumbo jumbo you are spouting here? You quite deserve the incredulity of your "audience" when you come up with this swimming analogy. You have quite an imagination, but no real scientific chops.
were thousands of years older than previously thought — so old that it's conceivable they were painted by Neanderthals.
We usually use the term "Neanderthal" when we try to call someone an idiot. However, Can somebody explain to me why their paint is still good after thousands of years, and the "great" paint that I put in some parts around my house is already gone after 2 years?
I guess we are the dumb ones, unable to even make paint that would last more than 2 years without cracking or fading away.
This is amazing!!
Irrespond, love your comment about the paint lasting now days vs back then!
Ireaspond: That's just "smart" business practice.
@KDC---really? I mean, really? Do you really only believe in things you can see? You can't see air, or gravity... or Jesus or God for that matter. And on the other hand, do you believe everything you see? You must think Criss Angel or David Blaine can really levitate. What a totally simplistic and strange way you must see the world...
I suppose Neanderthals could be responsible but all too often it's either Smilinpimps or Crackerdust.
Marmaduke, while it's not clear exactly which site you cut/pasted your inane argument about the 1500 meter swim race, I'll guess you got it from: http://creation.com/radioactive-dating-fatal-flaw
That's the problem with people like you and many right wingers in general - capable only of cutting/pasting or forwarded emails that contain fraudulant information that supports your prejudices. If you can't formulate an argument on your own, then go back to the children's table; this discussion is for adults.
Paint is ground up pigment in a medium, which could be fish oil, or egg white, etc. It doesn't have to latex or acrylic based material, " like you paint your house with ". Cosmetics (paint) like lipstick used to be made with whale blubber and pigment, and other paint's were made with the oils of seeds and nuts. The anchovies (fish) of the Pacific ( West Coast of North and South America) were harvested for their oil for paint, NOT as a pizza topping.
Pigments in paints vary. Chromium, for instance will give you yellows. Iron oxide will give you brown, lead oxide will give you white. So basically for you paint critics, mix some fish oil with some rust, and you have a paint, not requiring much in the way of technology demands.
Oils like those from a seal, or fish would have been common to Neanderthal people, as they are to Eskimos. Oil lamps, where the oils were of animal origin are prehistoric. Mix some soot with the oil and you have cosmetics, or paint if you prefer. The cave paintings were probably illuminated with animal oil in a stone container and a burning wick, just like a seal oil lamp would heat and light an Eskimo hunting shelter.
The concept that the Earth is 6000 years old, and that swimming races can't be timed accurately are really, really idiotic concepts.
A neanderthal, given a shave and dressed in a suit with briefcase would attract absolutely no attention walking down the street.
As for carbon dating, Christian scientists did highly "scientific" experiments with uncontaminated diamonds and carbon dating identifies them to be 6000-10,000 years old. Yet, you howling jays discredit these studies as fanatic religious nuts. We can make diamonds with extreme pressure-the type put on carbon when the entire world was covered with the Genesis flood, 4,500 years ago.
The neanderthals were offspring of Noah and his three sons. They were survivors who were rebuilding the world's civilization that was destroyed in the Flood. The moral of this event is to serve notice that God will most certainly destroy those of you who defy, mock, and and generally conduct yourselves like most of you are doing in these comments. Jesus Christ WILL be back, and this time, with a sword. Sooner, rather than later.
Neanderthals interestingly enough had larger cranial capacities than us - which 'might' indicate equal or even greater cognitive abilities.
Their downfall probably largely resulted from their physical size and isolation. Such size and muscle mass would require a high protein diet, and when competing with another race of equally adept hunters who required less protein and had better technology due to their migration and intermingling... they must have been at a rather severe disadvantage.
If history has shown anything, it's that the smaller more adaptive species have a long-term advantage over large species. Large species might dominate a niche, but throw that niche out of whack just a little bit - and their size becomes turns from an advantage to a burden.

Trolllololol
...... Christian "scientists" did highly "scientific" experiments, indeed.
wildjoe, the moral of the Noah flood myth is that your God is a moron. He creates man and endows him with curiousity and free will. Then he sets up an experiement (Forbidden fruit in Paradise), guaranteed to make man fail. And when man does what any sane person would expect, your God gets pissed and condemns not only him but all of his descendents.
Here's a little something for you to ponder: You have within your body genetic markers that trace your ancestry back to a single tribe in Africa. Yes, Adam and Eve were, well, black! How do you like those apples?
Hypothesis: Some potentially lethal diseases are genotype specific (sickle cell anemia for one...only Blacks are affected). It is possible that a virulent disease on the order of small pox, but only affecting the Neanderthal genotype could have caused the eventual extinction of the group. Combine that with interbreeding and with the Sapients and absorption into their culture and it's not all that difficult to understand the Neanderthal disappearance over a relatively short period of time.
A "vengeful and a jealous god" who seemingly can't get it right the first time and then gets super impatient and takes it out on the creation? Yeah, I hear you. Sounds like the god of an abusive husband who takes his anger out on the wife and kids. Like God is saying to man as he smites them, "See what you make me do?" Where's the love?
Watch "cave of forgoten dreams" it can be found on netflix
I wondered how long it would be before the Bible-thumping whack-jobs would show up claiming the planet is only 4,000 years old. We didn't even make it until post number two. Who taught these people to use a computer?
You'd think they would deny their existence because many scientific theories (yaknow, just a theory) are crucial to their operation.
Sorry Marmaduke had to hit the IA button I can't take that kind of drivel!
So easy a cave man could do it.
I keep hearing about the "mountains of evidence" supporting evolution... but that's all anyone says. What are the "mountains of evidence" and why do the "mountains of evidence" change three or four times every years when the old mountains were proven to be wrong by the latest "discovery?"
These people are just speculation on how old the art is and who may have done it. I think this is more about keeping their money funding going.
How do they even know it's 36000 years old?
This is as bad as the religious zealots believing that one man created the universe and people, and yet, there were these dinosaurs and people before Adam and Eve.
As for the paint, they used berries and other kinds of foods with oil in them to paint with back in the day. The women even used fruits for make-up as well.
Is your google broken Timothy?
I'd love to post these mountains for you, but there simply isn't enough room. So here, follow these links and do some learning:
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
These are all solid sources in which you can follow the links to the appropriate cited scientific studies and papers. Have fun.
Disclosure: I am a huge fan of the bible. Most people don't understand that it is heavily poetic and allegorical which makes the meanings much deeper than any man can fully understand.
Timothy1Mil's post, I am no fan of. He comes off as a bit naive. He thinks the theory of evolution changes 3-4 times per year???? I have not heard that. I am afraid to address him directly, as it is clear this is not a rational man, nor is this a man who bothers to educate himself. If he wants to understand the mountains of evidence, he should read a book on the subject, and not depend on newsviners to give him a years worth of education in a few seconds.
Human beings have always destroyed the planet. Such a shame these early cave dweller gangs diminished the natural beauty of these caves with graffiti.
Thank you for replying Mr Boyle. I am very familiar with talkorigins website. I did review your link.
I can not post links yet because of being a new user, but I tried ot get them to stay on here by adding ## in front and behind them. Youll have to copy and past, since i cant do a direct link yet.
There is now powerful independent confirmatory evidence that at least one episode of drastically accelerated decay has indeed been the case, building on the work of Dr Robert Gentry on helium retention in zircons. The landmark RATE paper, though technical, can be summarized as follows:
When uranium decays to lead, a by-product of this process is the formation of helium, a very light, inert gas which readily escapes from rock.
Certain crystals called zircons, obtained from drilling into very deep granites, contain uranium which has partly decayed into lead.
By measuring the amount of uranium and ‘radiogenic lead’ in these crystals, one can calculate that, if the decay rate has been constant, about 1.5 billion years must have passed. (This is consistent with the geologic ‘age’ assigned to the granites in which these zircons are found.)
There is a significant amount of helium from that ‘1.5 billion years of decay’ still inside the zircons. This is at first glance surprising for long-agers, because of the ease with which one would expect helium (with its tiny, light, unreactive atoms) to escape from the spaces within the crystal structure. There should surely be hardly any left, because with such a slow buildup, it should be seeping out continually and not accumulating.
Drawing any conclusions from the above depends, of course, on actually measuring the rate at which helium leaks out of zircons. This is what one of the RATE papers reports on. The samples were sent (without any hint that it was a creationist project) to a world-class expert to measure these rates. The consistent answer: the helium does indeed seep out quickly over a wide range of temperatures. In fact, the results show that because of all the helium still in the zircons, these crystals (and since this is Precambrian basement granite, by implication the whole earth) could not be older than between 4,000 and 14,000 years. In other words, in only a few thousand years, 1.5 billion years’ worth (at today’s rates) of radioactive decay has taken place. Interestingly, the data have since been refined and updated to give a date of 5680 (+/- 2000) years.
Im not sure if you are familiar with RATE group. If you get a chance read about science, done by scientists who are also qualified and specialized in the appropriate fields to make such claims.
... ####
####
#### ( 3 parts to this of radiometric dating )
#### ( scroll down in this one to review case studies of samples taken and their date issues )
#####
####
#####
Dont let the word creation give you an automatic bias. That is peoples problems today. There seems to be no open mindedness any more. Its like, oh your one of those people, what you have to say is irrelevant. I think that is a very judgemental point of view and some one who is scared to hear oppositional view. People today dont want to hear anything objectional to their views, and if anything is different your automatically wrong. Taking away the credibility of these scientists just because they believe in God, or Believe in a younger world is not grounds for automatic dismissal of what they have to say. They bring great questions and answers to the table and many experiments to show their points.
###There is a rebuttal website to your talkorigins, and that one is trueorigins.org###
######
Im not a scientist. I do admit that, I leave that to the professionals. Only thing I can do is see what claims are made for dating rocks using radiometric techniques, then I see what other scientists have to say about the dating methods. If they say there are issues, then I say lets see what they are and why. I dont discredit anyone just because they done believe the way I do, or the way the main stream world, or any side believes. If you have supporting evidence to show something different, then they have the right to show it. There are many cases where these scientists ( ones who believe in God) have got the main stream scientists to revise their statements, omit, and retract certain ones. You can be skeptical , but there is great debate going on here between RATE group, and so many other scientists who are showing issues with radiometric dating.
Marmaduke, you have already been chastised for cutting and pasting from the creationis website. We're not interested in reading the same old rehashed garbage.
Its always changing stoopid. As science moves on in time, they get new insights from evidences they find. Of course the biggest issue with evidence and science is the assumptions, presumptions that go along with it.
I remember when I was a kid the age of the universe was I think 5 million or 50 million years old. regardless I remember millions, then hundreds of millions, then we get into a billion, few billion, now we are around 13 billion . The point being here, is that views are changed all the time. Assumptions are being made all the time. Numbers like these have to made to make it fit with in a certain World view with out any notion of there being a God. There is plenty of evidence out there for people to read and study to keep them busy for the rest of their lives, and this debate between Old age, young age, God or no God, Religions, right wing, left wing, liberal , conservative arguments will go on forever, or as long as human life exists. Thing to do is to find what seems to most logical and true to each of us, and be happy with that. I have spent too much time on comment threads, and forums , at least 15 years now. Nothing has changed, its the same arguments, just different people.
Thats ok gumps , your not interested in science, and it seems so many close minded people are here. Are you afraid of someone giving an oppositional view ? How dare you criticize the science of qualified scientists who have the right to show errors and flaws in others science experiments? You dont want to hear any other views because your so sure of yours. I am eager to see oppositional views and see what the evidence is. You can believe what you want, but I see the flaws and problems with dating, and I will make sure people know about it.
I find it funny, that people talk about not being narrow minded and accepting other peoples views , escpecially when it comes to civil rights, or respecting each other.. So when it comes to science and scientists showing data that gives rebuttal, or shows different views, you can toss all that out the window. Are you not showing some massive censorship and bigotry. Your tossing a two edged sword here. Its your alls way or no way at all. Now who has their fingers in their ears and eyes shut.
Marmaduke:
When I was a kid, we only had a black and white t.v. Since then, the televisions have improved, so there is now color, they are smaller, higher resolution, 3D, etc. It does not mean that the physics behind wireless broadcasting has changed. Your argument applied here, would imply that conclusion. But no, it is people's understandings that have changed and improved. The basic theory as to why television works has remained the same.
Regarding your RATE idea, I found it interesting, so I googled it to learn more. I found this:
http://home.nctv.com/jackjan/item14.htm
If you happen to do some research on a website that you seem to oppose so much, you would find that scientists from that website do infact show that the color of adam and eve would be dark in nature. But this doesnt change anything. So what if they are dark, adam and eve can be dark or white or pink, but it doesnt change anything. Did you know black parents can have white babies, and white parents can have black babies ? Its happened a few times, although rare it is documented. Regardless of all of that, the human body does evolve to environment .. Adaption to surroundings. natural selection, micro evolution.. Regardless of eye shape, skin color change, hair changing, size of body, we are still human beings, and thank God for creating such wonderful beings to be able to adapt to their environments and having a chance to survive.
Marmaduke, first of all, learn the difference between "your" and "you're". Perhaps you were home-schooled, given that you've been indoctrinated with this Creationist B.S. but that's no excuse for not proofreading your posts and using proper spelling/grammar.
Now I don't mind someone giving an opposing view, but I do object to you cutting and pasting stuff, trying to pass it off as if it was yours. Why didn't you indicate where you obtained your "information"?
How dare I criticize the science of qualified scientists? How dare I??? And yet, your posts are all about criticising qualified scientists.....
Pot: "Kettle, you're black!"
But wait, isn't that what science is all about? All science must stand up to scrutiny and criticism - that's how science progresses. But you wouldn't know about that, would you?
Marmaduke - alternate opinions are fine. Just please don't try to equate them for one moment with actual research and science.
With regard to the swimming race, I would surmise that Marmie has never heard of a "Stopwatch". This amazing scientific device measures the time length of a specific event relative to a "Zero" start. As soon as the "GO" is given, the timer presses the START/STOP button and the racers commence the competition, either against themselves or other swimmers. At the conclusion, the timer once again presses the START/STOP button, and the ELAPSED time is read on the face of the device. "Freaking Amazing", huh, Marmie?
Oh, yes Marmie, please learn how to use the contraction YOU'RE. Example: That is "YOUR" stopwatch. If you don't know how it works, then, YOU'RE (you are) an idiot.
Jim--great point. You hammered the head of a shiny nail with a golden hammer into a silver plated 2X4.
Someone else said that silence is golden, but duct tape is silver.
Forget proving the bible with science and vice versa. The bible is hugely symbolic. I see the bible as having inerrent truth hidden inside prophecy and poetry and parable.
Here's a quick gem most people don't know. The creation of the Church, also known as the bride/body of Christ, was foretold in Genesis. Note the two events follow the same pattern
1. Adam was put into a deep sleep, and woke up; Jesus was asleep in death, then rose
2. Adam's side was opened to remove the rib; Jesus' side was pierced, allowing the blood and water to pour out.
3. The rib was a foundation for creating Eve; Jesus' blood and water was the foundation for the Church (i.e. symbolizing the ransom sacrifice and cleansing)
4. Eve fell into a sinful state; the church, starting out perfect, fell into the mess it is in today.
5. After Eve was created, she was brought to Adam; the Church may be brought to Jesus through rapture or other means.
The story of Adam and Eve, illustrate future events at the time of writing. The story may, or may not, be literal. But I find one principle as rock solid, personally. That principle I call the Stoopid Principle. It is summarized as follows: The Creator of the Multiverse is so intelligent, He makes humans look like simpletons by comparison. A reasonable assumption to me. If that is the case, we would expect His ideas to appear to us humans as INSANE and utterly ridiculous. In my opinion, spiritual/ultimate truth MUST appear unbelievable and ridiculous, to be authentic. If we could fathom the mind of God, and agree with God, and think God to be reasonable, the WE are as intelligent as God. Impossible. Thank you.
Gee WildJoe, I hope it's later. Some Middle-Eastern looking guy in white robes carrying a sword around these parts might just be introduced to the twelve-gauge terrorist treat. I'd hate to go down in Christian history as the individual who stopped the Second Coming before it really got started.
painting - so simple a caveman can do it.
I'd like to make a comment to marmaduke here about the common occurrence of helium in the universe, as a "basic atom". It is an inert gas, meaning it doesn't react with other atoms. Hydrogen another "basic atom" reacts commonly with other atoms, and as such you get water ( for instance ) two atoms of hydrogen plus one atom of oxygen. And thus the element of water is common to the universe, and by "scientific theory" of fusion and fission, it all leads back to a starting date of The Big Bang, about 13.5 billion years ago. The heavy elements are made in the giant stars, which explode in super novas, scattering this material, and that's how the heavy material got to become a rocky planet, our earth, 4.5 billion years ago or so. NOT 6000 years ago!
Someone wrote..."The neanderthals were offspring of Noah and his three sons."
Actually it was Mr. Steven Douglas(Fred McMurray)not Noah as he often bragged "My Three sons". Great episode where Mike, Robbie and Chip were going to build themselves a boat but the grumpy grandpa(William Frawley) wouldn't let them because they did not include the old goat(William Frawley) in the making of the boat. Grumpy grandpa had lots of names he was always calling the boys, but I don't remember neanderthals being used.
I did this dating method on my own years ago. I once dated a neanderthal. And afterwards, I had to scrape off deposits too.
No sir there is a Big difference. Science is checking science to make sure its being done correct, and also scientists are pointing out that other scientists are using numbers or ideas from assumptions made. What your doing is saying any science that is from scientists who oppose main stream, or are christians, or creationists, are not qualified to have a view at all. That is where I am saying how dare you criticize the science of people who are scientists. The only issues I have with main stream science is they do in fact make assumptions. Needless to say there is no way observational empirical science is used on any type of evidence used from supposed millions and billions of years ago. Its outrageous to make such arrogant assumption to say " we know what happened " when in fact you dont. If you can say yes the the question " where you there to witness this and test the data and know what all the variables were from that time until now were " ? then you have a case for point.
Your not letting science come under scrutiny or criticism, because so many automatically reject it whatever give oppositional views. So you do have scientists trying to show the flaws in dating, and Things blowing into existence from nothing, or non matter turning into matter, and non organic turning into organic, and simple celled life evolving into complex human beings, gaining of complex information, fossils records, the lists go on. There is plenty that is refuted, but you all never look into any of it, because your bias, and reject anything that gives opposition.
As for my grammar, regardless if its your you're you know the intent that was said, no need to try to attack grammar, or try to belittle me or my education ( which is college btw ). Its nothing but a common tactic of people who have nothing better to say in a debate.
And the big bang came from where ? You witnessed it ? How did it come to be ? What was before it ? How did existence come into being from non being ? What caused the explosion and why ? What is it that actually exploded, and how did it get there to begin with ? What was there before it was ? Did time magically start when this cosmic egg magically appeared from no where ?Where did all the matter come from, where is its anti matter counterpart, and dark energy.. How can life come from non life ? How can a complex DNA strand just come into existence from nothing. Show me step by step from the beginning of eternity, to live appearing from nothing, show me the step by step process of the simplest life cell evolving, gaining complex information and slowly changing into human beings.
When you can answer every single one of these questions with observational empirical evidence then you will prove to me your right and I am wrong.
Im sorry I dont live my life by main stream scientists statements of " It could be, perhaps, maybe, its possible, we think, its probably " Im sorry those dont cut it for me, especially when my eternity is at stake.
Also I would like to point out, If God is who he says he is, and can do what ever he wants, then there is no reason what so ever to not believe in a young earth and universe.
If the main stream science was so sound and perfectly true, then there could be no opposition what so ever to contradict them, or give them rebuttal, or show flaws in their data, but there are scientists who do in fact show such issues. This is something I have been watching, studying, debating for over 15 years now. I still stand firm in the faith of God, and still see the same fallacies of man, and their arrogant assumptions.
tstucker0958 with a derail about how 'Neanderthall owns the oil and is holding us up for lots of cash and big jets.' You're suspended for a week for violating #4 of the Code of Honor. Don't hijack topics to smear groups.
wildjoe, first rule:
You're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
Marmaduke, a little remedial English is in order. You wrote:
"No sir there is a Big difference. Science is checking science to make sure its being done correct, and also scientists are pointing out that other scientists are using numbers or ideas from assumptions made. What your doing is saying any science that is from scientists who oppose main stream, or are christians, or creationists, are not qualified to have a view at all. That is where I am saying how dare you criticize the science of people who are scientists."
I will correct the above for you and then respond to the above:
"No sir there is a Big difference. Science is about checking science to make sure its being done correctly. And it's also about scientists pointing out that other scientists are using numbers or ideas from assumptions made. What you're doing is saying that any science that is from scientists who oppose the main stream, or are christians, or creationists, are not qualified to have a view at all. That is where I am saying how dare you criticize the science of people who are scientists."
At least the above is what I think you were trying to communicate. Assuming I translated correctly, I will respond to the above:
All scientific theories are subject to scrutiny and criticism. Any new evidence/observation that is not consistent with a particular theory demands that the evidence be verified (repeatable), and if so, then the theory either must be modified to account for the new evidence, or scrapped altogether and replaced with a new theory that satisfactorily accounts for all observations. That is how science progresses.
Science cares not a whit about political ideologies or religious beliefs. Many scientists who regard themselves as christians have no problem with the age of the earth and universe as being billions of years old; nor do they have a problem with the theory of evolution.
If any of that stuff you copied and pasted from the creationist website had any validity to it then we would be in trouble. First of all, we wouldn't be having this electronic convsersation because the principles that govern the operation of semiconductors rely on theories that you creationists have tried to refute. We would have no nuclear power either, for the same reason. Everything we know about geology is wrong; ditto for astronomy. For example, how is it possible to view objects many millions of light years away if the universe is only 6K years old?
Marmaduke, I don't have to answer all your questions, and I don't care if you're happy or not about it. I happen to be a biological scientist, not an astrophysicist, geologist, nor chemist, so those other branches of science have plenty of intellectual wolves to tear your arguments apart, and I won't get in their way. My particular interest is in the vertebrate eye and its evolution in fishes. The AGE OF FISHES was the Devonian, and that was a mere 400 million years ago, not as far back as the Big Bang, but a long time prior to 6000 years ago.
You are so caught up in yourself, everyone is supposed to "prove to you". Why don't you put your little white lab coat on, write your peer approved hypothesis up, and " you prove to them " that all this science mumbo jumbo is a crock of BS. Now if you don't wish to believe that the single lens eye evolved in fishes hundreds of millions of years ago, and that a photon of light interacts with a molecule of photopigment via (physics) the Stiles-Crawford Effect, that's perfectly fine, as no one is going to be an optometrist for a goldfish anyway. But as fishes predate amphibians and reptiles in biological evolution, " How Chordate animals got their eyes." is pretty interesting, if nothing else, especially to the scientific interests in optics today.
My fundamental stand on people who believe that the earth is only 6000 or so years old, is that they are intellectually challenged, and best left in the care of medical institutions and those professionals who do their studies in the psychiatric fields of interest.
Marmaduke, there is no credible science refuting biological evolution. TheBig Bang and the origin of life are irrelevant questions. We can all agree that the Universe DID begin, and that life DID get started somehow. Heck, maybe God did it, although there are other valid hypotheses. But THEN life evolved.
Marmaduke, evolution is not a "close call." It is not something you can find a little flaw in a radioactive decay rate somewhere and the whole thing falls apart. Biological evolution has layers upon layers of irrefutable evidence supporting it. As scientists we are always open to new information, of course, but the depth and breadth of scientific support for evolution is so immense that it is really hard to conceive how it could suddenly come unravelled, and you are going to need more than just some "suggestive" evidence to do so.
Gump, no need to be so critical of grammar. Im not going to take time to post all punctuation and precise tense of words. You know what I am saying. I could completely mis type every word in a sentence and you would know what I meant. So lets move onto real discussion.
For the rest of you, like i said you all cant answer what I said , so I guess were done.
We're "done" in your own mind, Marmaduke. I pointed out that your questions were irrelevant. Do you have a question that is actually relevant to this article? Then we might get somewhere.
You know 100% for sure with out a doubt that single lens eye evolved in fish that long ago.. Also would you still classify a fish, still a fish ? I have no issues with change with in a species. We see this all the time, and no scientist i know of would dispute that. But where most have issues is to say that fish evolved into a Dog, or a bird or even a human. Thats where your macro evolution comes and has problems..
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. —Gould, S. J., in Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin, ed. John
Maynard Smith, Macmillan, New York, p. 140, 1982
Marmaduke, whether you knew it or not, we were all done with you a long time ago. Some people will cling to their ignorance no matter what information they are given, and unfortunately you are one of them. At least we can all take some comfort in the fact that you only use technology without knowing how it works and that you don't work in a field that requires any scientific knowledge.
By the way, in your quote above, Gould was arguing against gradualistic evolution - he was not arguing against evolution per se. This is a typical Creationist ploy, not unlike Republicans asserting that Al Gore said he invented the internet, which is also false.
If your house was deep inside a cave, and not out in the elements 24/7/365. its paint might last that long, too...
thats the point thought. Species have always been the same species. They have changed in ways to adapt to environment, but no evidence for a species evolving into an entire new one.
Im glad your done with me because this debate is going no where any way. Im not into guessing games, and science that deals with maybes or best guesses. Science is great when used right.
"but no evidence for a species evolving into an entire new one." Wrong again, Marmaduke. Darwin not only observed it but also correctly determined the mechanism: Natural Selection.
Also, it is being observed in Ney York: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckGB5lHyzME
In the video, the researcher is studying gropus of the same species of animals separated due to real estate development; over a short period of time, he's able to identify a member simply by examining it's DNA. Given a longer period of time, and enough variation in environmental pressures, they will develop into different species.
Great point, Frank. Caves usually keep the same temperature all yr. round. They would have been the ideal place to preserve all the artwork. Even some of the petals of the flowers used in the funeral wreaths were found. The local hardy flowers and plants used in the making of the dye would have lasted thousands of yrs. just the way it did in the Egyptian tombs.
Marmaduke -
That's wrong. Why bear false witness against science?
Species have evolved into other species many times, in full view of observers. Well-documented evolution of entirely new species from other species. In fact, there is more evidence for evolution than there is for gravity.
Jim, Marmaduke's issues go beyond evolution vs creation. He's a "young earth" guy, meaning he subscribes to the (false) notion that the earth and universe is only 6K years old. What he refuses to realize is that if this wee the case, everything we know about chemistry, physics, astronomy, geology as well a biology is all wrong, for all of these branches contain data/observations that bear on the age of the earth and universe. Furthermore, we would be in the embarrassing situation of developing all manner of technology, based upon those false theories. The physics governing the operation of nuclear energy, semiconductors, etc. are all based on scientific theories that Marmaduke and others of his ilk would want us to abandon.
None of this matters however to Marmaduke - he will stubbornly cling to his false ideologies no matter what evidence is presented to him. There is no help for people like him.
Gumps whether I believe in young earth or not is irrelevant to issues with evolution.
Jim-3113262
Please give me examples of which ones your talking about . Just saying there are plenty, well documented.
There is nothing stubborn about it. I just have issues with scientists using science based off of assumptions to fit into their agenda. I strongly believe in observational empirical science and there is a lot out there where scientists just use assumptions. Regardless if its dating rocks, or why certain fossils are in certain layers, or why certain fossils are present or not present, or taking a small piece of a fossil and then making an entire diagram of some animal or human that may existed.
This just isnt from scientists who beleive in young earth, or creationists. There are atheists scientists who also will acknowledge there are issues with science. Of course they will be scoffed at and rejected , even ousted because they want agree with main stream views.
Of course people are going to accept main stream views. They risk losing their jobs, grants, and being ridiculed by their peers.
Marmaduke - I am done with you. If you want specific examples, go look them up yourself. You are the one making ridiculous claims, so the burden of proof is on you. Shuklack has given you several references that should cover your reading for a while. Check out Galapagos finches and cicadas and lizards in California. All medicine operates on evolution, and I'm sure you've used antibiotics.
Light speed is a constant, and the universe is around 14 billion years old. If any god created the whole universe just for humans, why did he wait so long? And why was he so wasteful? Nearly all the universe is instantly fatal to life, and 75% of the Earth is hostile to human life.
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster preaches that the Earth is only 300 years old, and the Bible was planted to look older than that to test our faith. That claim is every bit as realistic as a 6000 year old Earth.
Marmaduke,
Can you please read through all of the is link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
It's just one example of us witnessing evolution is real time, but the brilliant thing about this technique is that they can freeze generations. So we they did see genetic changes etc they were able to go back and "replay" the population as it were to see if the changes occurred again.
If you have any question ... ask away.
Marmaduke49 said
"Also I would like to point out, If God is who he says he is, and can do what ever he wants, then there is no reason what so ever to not believe in a young earth and universe."
To be YEC this day and age requires you to ignore almost all branches of science. You might as well argue for a flat Earth - this is how out of touch you are.
Just look how the 'god dun it' corrupts thinking. So sad in 2012 when science is so important.
Marmaduke, it is abundantly clear to us that you do in fact subscribe to the notion of a young earth/universe. And it is in fact relevant to your view of creation vs evolution because all scientists - geologists, chemists, physicists, astronomers, biologists - you name it, all have the same agenda: to further our knowledge.
All your so-called creationist "scientists" do is try to show how main stream scientists are all wrong. And yet they provide no evidence, no observations, no repeatable experiments - that's why they are excluded: they have nothing to offer.
Your God has shown to be irrational and arbitrary - completely incapable of creating the universe that we see around us. Worship him if you want. But don't bother us with you nonsensical views.
Everyone seems to be pretty upset with Marmaduke49's comment, but actually I found it to be quite educational. I learned to never read one of his/her comments again.
guys you all are so full of yourself. THe finches, the e coli, the lizards.. this is all you got ? This is not proving macro evolution at all.
Are you all so deaf to not hear what I said to start off with ? I said we all agree that changes happen with in a species for it to adapt to environment. We witness this, we can use observational empirical science.
What you all are so hard headed to understand that there isnt any good argument for a species turning into another species. Finches are still finches, e coli is still e coli , pepperd moths are still the same, fruit flies are still fruit flies.
Your all the one who needs to show the burden of proof.. You all show me the observational empirical data.
Go read myself ? Can i not make this more clear. I been debating for over 15 years, there isnt one topic or example I havent heard of yet. I have rebuttal for anything you toss my way.
So now big boys, Show me proof, of goo to human mutation .. how a simple cell become humans.. All you can do is avoid the question.. You all are pathetic.
wow you have the gall to say this ? What your accusing scientists who do believe in God of, your not saying the same about main stream science.
Lets take a rebuttal about e coli now
Has E. coli evolved in front of our very eyes? A recent report in New Scientist claims that it has—and is a poke in the eye for creationists. But when we take a look at the facts, is this actually the case? Or is this another example of the emperor trying on new clothes?
To get an idea of the evolutionary presuppositions and interpretations the article is filled with, take a look at the first web comment it inspired:
The New Scientist article, “Bacteria Make Major Evolutionary Shift in the Lab,” starts off, “A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers’ eyes. It’s the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.” But let’s take a look at this “evolutionary innovation,” this “rare and complex new trait” that the evolution god has “created.”
The story starts 20 years back at Michigan State University. Evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski took a single E. coli bacterium and propagated it, using its descendants to “found” 12 laboratory populations that have continued to grow since then.
Lenski’s been watching in the meantime—perhaps not always literally, but nonetheless observing as 44,000 generations of the E. coli have come and gone. Every 500 generations, Lenski pulled a sample of each E. coli population and put it in the deep freeze.
During all this time, the bacteria has mutated (as expected) and “evolved”—and here, of course, is where the controversy begins.
According to Lenski, most of the evolution in the populations was the same: larger cells and faster growth rates, as well as lower “peak population densities,” occurred in each of the populations.
The most notable change happened in just one of the populations: around the 31,500th generation, the bacteria “suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate,” which E. coli cannot normally process. The E. coli that developed the citrate-processing ability then increased in population size and diversity.
Lenski figures that this “citrate-plus” ability was an unusual circumstance. New Scientist explains, “either it was a single mutation of an unusually improbable sort, a rare chromosome inversion . . . or else gaining the ability to use citrate required the accumulation of several mutations in sequence.”
But Lenski wondered: would that same ability have evolved again? He has since “replayed” the evolution from frozen samples, but only the original population of E. coli has supposedly re-evolved the citrate-processing capability, and only from generation 20,000 or later. Thus, Lenski and his team have concluded that something occurred in the single population after generation 20,000 that enabled the citrate processing around generation 31,500.
The New Scientist article closes:
While Darwinists are quick to claim this experiment as support for “evolution” (in reference to full-blown, molecules-to-man evolution), let’s first take a step back and review what “evolution” is, along with the different narratives evolutionists and creationists tell.
“Evolution” (in a biological sense), strictly defined, is simply a change in a population’s gene frequencies over time (as generations come and go). Thus, even mutations that remove genetic information can spread if they confer some reproductive and survival advantage.
Thus, any time a biological population is observed undergoing any sort of heritable change—even a change that keeps genetic information constant or that reduces genetic information—it is “evolution” in action. This evolution “before our very eyes” is usually then touted as proof for molecules-to-man evolution, even though the latter would require a massive increase in genetic information. It’s the old “bait and switch” tactic, as “evolution” shifts meaning from experimentally shown change to unobservable molecules-to-man change.
So what’s really going on in Lenski’s experiment? Actually, nobody really knows! Lenski’s team is still working to understand “just what that earlier change was, and how it made the . . . mutation possible.” They will likely be analyzing the genome of the original E. coli parent and the genomes of its “evolved” offspring. The citrate-processing ability may be due to the activation of a latent function or a beneficial (but not information-gaining) mutation that allows citrate processing.
It’s important for us all to remember that when we read science news that seems to “confirm” evolution, it’s never a true threat to the biblical worldview and the creation account because God’s Word never changes but man’s fallible ideas do.
Furthermore, creationists are just as interested in figuring out how the citrate-processing ability came about in this batch of E. coli. AiG’s Dr. Georgia Purdom is studying the research for an upcoming semi-technical article in the journal Answers In Depth.
FInches
According to an ABC News article1 reporting on the July 14th issue of Science magazine,2 the beaks of Darwin’s finches in the Galapagos Islands have “evolved” yet again. Peter and Rosemary Grant, who have done extensive research on the birds for many years, have found that the medium ground finch now has a smaller beak. They observed that this occurred in a very short timeframe.
Defining terms
The tagline to the news article states: “Finches Named for Charles Darwin on Galapagos Islands Confirming His Theory of Evolution” (italics added)1. Is this really evolution? Certainly not the molecules-to-man evolution Darwin promoted. The author later quotes a geneticist from the Smithsonian saying, “This was certainly a documented case of microevolution.”1 Exactly! Although we don’t endorse using the phrases macro/microevolution, we would agree that this is a small-scale change allowing an organism to adapt to its environment (which is what is meant by the author’s use of microevolution). This idea is even further refined by the Grants in the Science article as character displacement, which is adaptation resulting from competition with another species for limited food resources.2 This very accurately describes what is occurring; however, this small-scale variation within a kind is being misrepresented (as always!) as proof for Darwinian evolution from one kind to another.
Character displacement and the finches
According to the Science article,2 in 1977 beak size in the medium ground finch (Geospiza fortis) began to increase due to a drought which lessened the availability of small seeds as a food source. Only the finches with large beaks could break open the large seeds and survive. At that time, G. fortis had no competition for the large seeds. Then in 1982, the large ground finch (G. magnirostris) settled on the same island and because of its large beak size competed with G. fortis for the large seeds. This still was not enough to change the beak size of G. fortis. In 2003 and 2004, drought conditions caused the food supply to decrease, resulting in the death of a large number of G. magnirostris and G. fortis with large beaks. G. magnirostris seemed less able to deal with the drought as its beak size did not change. Possibly it had lost the genetic information to make a smaller beak. G. fortis apparently still had this genetic information and its beak size has declined since the drought, making it better able to compete for the food sources available. (Although this seems contradictory to what occurred in 1977 when the beak size became larger in response to the drought, the Grants do not have an explanation.)
The Grants were surprised at how rapidly the change in beak size had occurred. Many have extrapolated finch adaptation as evidence that molecules-to-man evolution can occur rapidly. Once again, it’s about defining the word evolution. As creationists, we fully accept the fact that adaptation / natural selection can occur rapidly. In fact, such processes (and perhaps other genetic factors) would have occurred rapidly after the Flood, producing variation within the animal kinds. Such effects are largely responsible for generating the tremendous diversity seen in the living world.3 In addition, as seen with G. magnirostris, natural selection leads to a decrease in genetic information and only those with already-present greater genetic variety, such as G. fortis, can adapt to their environment.4,5
Nothing new under the sun
A professor of biology said this about the finch findings: “It will make its way instantly into general biology textbooks.”6 It’s already there! It is commonly purported as an “Icon of Evolution.” “Icon of Adaptation” or “Icon of Natural Selection” would be more appropriate terminology. The Grants’ research over many years has shown that beak size in finches varies according to many factors—increasing and decreasing over time. It is not directional in any sense, which would be required for molecules-to-man evolution. Adaptation / natural selection has been hijacked and wrongly used by evolutionists as the underlying mechanism of evolution. Rather, it is a mechanism that allows organisms to adapt to their environment in a fallen world.
This is what happened, we discover Neanderthals, we see them as the "others" that "we" destroyed and replaced. They were stupid big ogre neanderthals. incapable of anything and we killed them all. Then, Dr. John Hawks and others, did DNA work and showed that, in fact, "we" interbred, so everybody that has European (and other places) blood are probably related to Neanderthals. All of the sudden, neanderthals are starting to look good. I have been seeing more and more articles showing them in a positive light (go look at the old magazines from the 60s and see how bad they were made out to be). We only see what we want to see. that is called science and is progress.
Mike, you need to read up before making such a comment. The original hypothesis on Neanderthals was flawed - it was based on the first skeleton found. That skeleton had arthritis, as well a a few other ailments. At that time, it was acceptable to compare that species with lower hominids. Scientists today are looking at that species with an unprejudiced and open-minded view. They want to have scientific evidence to back up any assumptions.
Uh...and your point is....? And who says we killed off the Neanderthals, I see them all the time on Geico commercials. You know, it's so easy a cave man can do it. Those guys are working out in Hollywood. I'm pretty sure I had one as a gym teacher in 7th grade.
I might be a little off here, inthe 60s, in England they found a neandithal skeleton minus the lower jaw. Some scientist there made a lower jaw to fit it from a gorrilla jaw bone. It was late 80s or early 90s another anthropoligist found another skeletan with a part or all jaw bone. This skeleton was dated to the same time as the one in England. This threw paliantoligy crazy for a while until it was discovered that the jaw bone in England was a Hoax.
Caffeine Queen, which skeleton are you refering to. I think that they pretty much showed that some ailments have been with us a long.
The dipiction of neanderthals as 'stupid' was more in the mainstream than science/anthropology. I got an anthro degree in 1981 and for some time before that scientists were already aware that they took care of those who were disabled (as evidenced by grave sites where very high amounts of flower pollen were found as well as many objects, utilitarian and otherwise--this denotes that the person buried was highly valued in by the community).
Mike, you are confused. There is a difference between science and pop culture. By saying that you, "have been seeing more and more articles showing them (neanderthals) in a positive light," you are not reporting a change in science (although there might be one). The change you are reporting is in popular culture. Also, we see a lot more than what we "want to see" as you claim. It is true however, that we only see what we are capable of seeing. There is a difference.
These people left a record that was there for over 40k years. The records we leave will only last until a new storage format is implemented in data storage. If someone in the year 100k from now after this civilization has been wiped out and recovered from a new stone-age, I doubt they will be looking at our jpg's. But they will be looking at these same cave drawings, unless we ruin them.
Flame- interesting point and I agree.
Neanderthals equalling dumb brutes was indeed more of a pop-culture determination than a scientific one.
We humans have a tendency to think of ourselves as the pinnacle of development.
We really need to get over ourselves and realize we have a long way to go. Maybe it will take an alien species coming to this planet and giving us a good spanking to realize that we aren't all that special.
mmmmmm....kinky aliens.
Shuklack
yes, and maybe we are a alien hybrid of alien DNA and Neanderthal DNA, and the whole story is locked in our collective DNA, yet we are not advanced enough to "drill" down to it and then decode it and figure it out. They may not want to hear from us, until we have grown up a bit. Most programs that are written have "comment" lines that document the program and tell its story, but does not affect its operation. Maybe our DNA is just an evolving biological program with "comment" lines embedded in our DNA that tells our true origin and as we advance we will decode it and know the whole story. Maybe not just our DNA, but a combination of clues hidden in every plant and creature on this planet just waiting millions of years for us to figure out. Just saying.
culheath, one has to wonder why God put so much energy into creating such a vast universe just for us. If you represent every start in our galaxy by a grain of sand, then you would have a square plot, 30ft x 30ft and 3 ft deep, representing the Milky Way. But to take into account the rest of the stars in the rest of the universe, you run out of sand - there's not enough on this planet! Doesn't that suggest a monumental amount of overkill on God's part?
And, don't even get me started on how the elements on this planet were formed (remnants from ancient stars that exploded billions of years ago)...
Gumps,
The entire notion of invisible controlling agencies seems to be just a legacy and holdover from the childhood survival technique to have existential guidance... the trust that your parents or any adult will protect you from potential dangers.
The best descriptions of it I heard are to be found in this talk:
Why We Believe in Gods
Thanks culheath!
de nada. :)
wonder what type of spray paint they used?
now I understand the urge of graffitti !
It was Krylon Multi-Purpose. They unearthed perfectly preserved empty containers nearby.
Too funny Sal, too funny. You beat me to it.
Wow, older than the cave paintings at Chauvet Cave. That's gonna cheese off the French.
They'll probably get their own uranium-series tests, putting Chauvet back in the running. ;-)
Looks to me like someone put their hand on the rock wall and spray painted it.
Indigenous people in Australia do exactly that - they place their hand on the surface they're painting and spit the pigment out in a fine mist. The cave artist probably did something similar.
I've read that there are prehistoric hand print/hand-stencil cave painting on all continents except Antarctica.
This looks like another "evolution" hoax. Can you and I access these caves? Or, will they be locked up for 40 years like those monkey bones claimed to be our ancestors. Or, how about that pig's tooth used as the basis for an entire species of ape/man? Not even an extinct pig, either. How many years did those "scientists" get in the slammer for creating life in a test tube?(it was a hoax) Was that in 1985?
OK, you can go back to your screaming and yelling-that's your scientific "Method", ha.
Yes, they are open to the public.
It even says that in the article.
*facepalm*
Joe, Joe, Joe .. *sigh* when you say thing like that ... you just make me feel tired all over :c)
... seriously, thought, I know many people whom I would never attempt to convert to a more objective way of thinking ... it is their right, and yours. You are entitled to your beliefs .. and others are just as entitled to theirs. Belief is an act of will .... and a person will believe what they will. There are many who are absolutely certain that 'aliens from outer space' built the pyramids ... some fellow apparently believes the whole universe is a computer program ... I happen to hold the opinon (which I prefer over 'belief') that humans were long ago, as much as now, capable of amazing things ... 40,000 years ago ... 100,000 years ago ... but then perhaps that is from reading all those books I always read .... yes, there is more than one worth reading ...
I would almost swear that those horse figures are zebras by the stripes on their legs. Just incredible.
Prehistoric horses had slight stripes on their legs.
Or maybe they're Okapis.
Never a dull moment. There's always something new and exciting just waiting to be found. New creatures at the bottom of the oceans, new data streaming in from our satellites and rovers in outer space and the planets. Doctors growing body parts from stem cells. Justin Beeber?
These are interesting times we live in.
I'm an art dealer and I find it very moving to see the stencled hand print of one of our earliest forebears. These were people who probably withdrew into the inner sanctums of the caves to escape the weather and to live in peace during the depth of the winter. If those are Neanderthal hand prints indeed they show them to be not that far removed from ourselves. We have to stop all the noise and think about what we are looking at. This is a truly profound moment. One of the problems of living in a world where everything is images is that we become immune to them. Those hand prints are like the first photographs. They take my breat away.
The creator of the Neanderthal cave paintings was immediately panned by his contemporaries as being pedestrian and derivative.
Lol Abma, mental picture of caveman art critics... naked and hairy except for a beret and scarf =P -
"Ug, ugggh ug daaaa ugha da!" Zug clearly was not impressed with the artwork, as he explains in a haughty tone of voice. "Duggg huzzzrga."
Neanderthals were unionized and thus could not compete and died out.
Ive seen cave and rock paintings all over the southwest, and it amazes me how similar a lot of them are, and the colors are still pretty vibrant.
Stranded on a strange an inhospitable planet the last remaining peoples of a dying planet sought refuge amongst the caverns and scribed their journey upon their walls.
The red disks are a diagram of a distant solar system.
= A valid theory as any other
Come on, now, Spitfire: Any civilization with enough moxie for interstellar transportation would have had some kind of a writing system to leave behind. Even if we could not break the code, we would know the code was there.
Uhh....No!
Great plot for a novel but an unlikely scenario. Occam's Razor indicates error, not to mention the Human Genome Project has discovered their connection with us.
Bazinga.
Not really.
Scientific theories actually have evidence supporting them.
Looks like the 3rd picture down has an eye in it. See it?
I wonder if someone could compare the handprints on the wall to what we know about Neanderthal and early human hands. Is there any way to distinguish any traits that could be specifically indentified as belonging to one or the other species?
Beat me to it, Elizabeth!
an excellent question! :c)
Teenage Neanderthal hooligans tagging the neighbors cave :)
Get fingerprints .... "LOL"
What you have there, Spit, is the start of a religion. Your guess is as good as anybody else's. Until evidence can be found. Only then will it become science.
Not sure that's exactly a true statement - as all we have Now is evidence to SUGGEST what Scientist are saying now.
Just like Evolution - we evidence to SUGGEST this might be True - but it is DEFINITELY "NOT" Science FACT.
Spitfire - Funny how something like evolution, which has undergone countless in depth studies and examination from extremely learned people through the years from all over the world, all coming to the same conclusion, is so easily dismissed by you. But at the same time you accept without question, stories written in a book several millenia ago by people without any scientific knowledge or capabilities about how the world or life functions, as the truth about how and why we are here.
...is it remotely possible that creationism/evolution was actually genetic engineering? There are so many deadends in human developement and never thee "missing link".
Myths often have a sliver of truth as the basis. Then the writer(s) take creative liberty.
From Dictionary.com
Theory
noun, plural the·o·ries
1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
3. Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.
6. contemplation or speculation: the theory that there is life on other planets.
7. guess or conjecture: My theory is that he never stops to think words have consequences.
Idiom
8. in theory, ideally; hypothetically: In theory, mapping the human genome may lead to thousands of cures.
Origin:
1590–1600; < Late Latin theōria < Greek theōría a viewing, contemplating, equivalent to theōr ( eîn ) to view
Can be confused: hypothesis, law, theory (see synonym note at the current entry ).
Synonyms
1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.
World English Dictionary
Collins
Theory
— n , pl –ries
1. abstract knowledge or reasoning
2. a speculative or conjectural view or idea: I have a theory about that
3. an ideal or hypothetical situation (esp in the phrase in theory )
4. a set of hypotheses related by logical or mathematical arguments to explain and predict a wide variety of connected phenomena in general terms: the theory of relativity
5. a nontechnical name for hypothesis
6. [C16: from Late Latin theōria, from Greek: a sight, from theōrein to gaze upon]
Word Origin & History
Etymonline
theory
1590s, "conception, mental scheme," from L.L. theoria (Jerome), from Gk. theoria "contemplation, speculation, a looking at, things looked at," from theorein "to consider, speculate, look at," from theoros "spectator," from thea "a view" + horan "to see." Sense of "principles or methods of a science or art (rather than its practice)" is first recorded 1610s. That of "an explanation based on observation and reasoning" is from 1630s.
Cre·a·tion·ism
noun
1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, especially in the first chapter of Genesis.
3. the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born.
Compare traducianism.
Origin:
1840–50; creation + -ism
World English Dictionary
Collins
Creationism
— n
cre'ationist
— n
creation'istic
— adj
Word Origin & History
Etymonline
creationism
1847, originally a Christian theological position that God immediately created a soul for each person born; from creation + -ism. As a name for the religious reaction to Darwin, opposed to evolution, it is attested from 1880.
Please note no where under the definition of theory will you find the words creation, creationism, creationist, or creationistic. This is because being created by God is much more than a simple scientific theory. In addition if you are one of the many evolutionist please explain to me where the human soul originated from and what purpose could it possibly serve in, for, and of an evolved species from the ocean?
We were created by God to evolve into a being capable of possessing all of the gifts He bestowed upon us to create a world filled with His ability to love and live in His peace.
Obviously we have failed at such easy tasks.
Does anything you just said have any relevance?
Perhaps it would help you to look up the word "doctrine" and compare it to the word "theory".
Spitfire, your last statement, "Just like Evolution - we evidence to SUGGEST this might be True - but it is DEFINITELY "NOT" Science FACT.", demonstrates that you have no understanding of the basic principles of the scientific method.
Here's a link that might help you out: http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
Y'all are arguing with an idiot. As Robert Heinlein used to say: from a distance, it's hard to tell the difference. ;p
It originated from the brain and it's a legacy of a survival trait:
Why We Believe in Gods
Love the hand prints (stencils). Reminds me of how a family would mark off the heights of their children on a doorjamb or wall.
My sister's husband always said his relatives were Neanderthals.
I didn't know the Bush family went back that far....
An ancient people (actually proto-monkey) scientists call the Obamanites were kept as house-keepers by the Neanderthals. The Neanderthals often found things "missing" from their camp sites. The Obamanites eventually sued the Neanderthals for "disability".....A few Obamanites survived off of a primitive welfare system instituted by the more liberal Neanderthals. It eventually killed them both off....well, almost all of them.....
really we have to bring modern politics into this. joking or not really. I understand the "religious" argument well not really how you can believe in creationism (sorry young earth) when all the scientific data says otherwise is beyond me. I do believe that something I don't understand created the universe just a heck of a lot longer ago than modern religions spout, and thus humans are not the be all and end all and all living things have a right to exist.
If he has European ancestry then that could very well be true :
http://news.discovery.com/human/mating-with-neanderthals-good-for-human-health-110617.html
Yes, they/we are but they don't have any artistic ability.
Ah ... just a penchant for horse tartar and chablais?
...and they always forget the silverware.
I liked that website. Thanx.
Science blows me away, it's just astounding what we are learning about our world.
Mousesj <<<>>> Most Christians of today accept evolution. The Vatican certainly does. Many anthropologists (and others in related fields) are practicing Christians and some are clergy. <*> <*> <*> Live long and prosper !!!
Do you accept the reality that you will stand before God at the White Throne Judgement? God will ask Jesus if your name is in the Book of Life. Will His answer be yes or no? The answer will be NO because you wouldn't be there in the first place if your name is written in the Book of Life. Then, you will be transferred to a place not of your liking. Make all the jokes you want-it will serve to place you in the most intensive places of Hell.
This is an article on science. If someone doesn't believe in the scientific method, maybe they should stay away from scientific articles. I sure don't read articles on the newest trends in superstition. Go ahead and live your whole life revolving around the day you die but, I say, life is too short for that stupid @!$%# and as far as I know you only get one.
You superstitious folks can keep your petty, vengeful god to yourselves and shove that damn destructive bible straight up your ass for all I care.
I love their favorite argument in favor of superstition: If you are right I lose nothing, if I am right you will burn in hell. I say well, even if they are right hell will be the better place to be because all of the arrogant, judgemental, @!$%#s will be in heaven.
To all those who keep bringing up interbreeding, your slightly out of date. There have been several attempts to find significant Neandertal DNA and mtDNA signatures in modern humans over the last few years and so far it hasn't been found. Though interbreeding may and probably did occur that does not mean that 1. viable offspring were produced (it's unusual for two different species to be able to produce viable offspring) and 2. the offspring would have a selective advantage over its parents and thus propagate itself. Like the vast majority of mutations interspecies breeding is usually a dead end.
Note: Viable in this context refers not just to existence but it's ability to propagate, the mule is the classic example
No, wildjoe, I do not accept your belief as reality.
Thanks for asking.
I've always thought that Neanderthals weren't as appreciated as much they should have been. Maybe attitudes toward them will begin to change.
Neanderthals were human and had feelings even though primal. But they had a gentleness and were able to express themselves. It's been found that at one point they began to honor their dead by creating a chain of flowers to lay on top of them. I'm sure they found many other ways to express their feelings with familes and friends.
We've give modern humans most of the credit because that's who we descended from. Of course modern humans felt a lot of superiority over the Neanderthals and obviously they were or things would have been drastically different. Neanderthals survived for awhile by working with what they had invented. It's not as if things just dropped out of the sky for them to make life easier.
But carbon dating is taking us further and further back to find the truth. I don't understand how anyone could doubt that cave art was first created by Neanderthals and not modern humans.
Some art is created by accident ....
Maybe they spilled some of the red powdery material on their foot and saw the outline of their foot on the ground first .... ??
Regardless , these are surely priceless artifacts ....
To provide a link to the act of Neanderthals using flowers for their dead.
Oops.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-neanderthalensis
I like that Darrah ....
They survived that long by doing something right ....
They may have enjoyed the outdoors more than most ever could dream of doing ....
We should all get out more and enjoy the great outdoors ....
I think it's allot healthier .... : )
I jumped over to your link Darrah ....
Thanks ....
19 deleted, Robert Jewstein with a decades-old joke about blacks. Banned, rereg of Axlegrease007.
Aren't we officious!
I would also SUGGEST there has Never been Neanderthals.
Only enough evidence to mis-interpet findings - as someone else stated there was some evidence to suggest that Neanderthals were simply Humans with Arthritis.
- I will also add - "There is a reason why, There is a MISSING LINK"
Go read a book. And not one that has as much plausibility as Harry Potter please.
Water in to wine, man swallowed by whale only to survive, burning bushes that talk with the voice of god, birth without intercourse, healing hands, 6,000 year old planet in a billion's of year-old solar system, women created as an after thought from a rib because first man was lonely, all facts.
Established scientific theory, magic.
Fantastic.
SpitfireINK
I would also SUGGEST there has Never been Neanderthals.
I would suggest that you dont exist. oh, wait! too late, you do exist! So I guess if you do exist and your here. Then I guess they did exist after all.
SpitfireINK - we have sequenced their DNA you _____t.
That was a Neanderthal with arthritis. Yet another reading comprehension fail. sigh One weeps for schools in the US. Perhaps one should weep for the quality of US students or the lack thereof...
Or are you trolling, Spit?
Very cool. and very old.
"Much of what we hold true is simply a matter of clarity of evidence." - quote me (just now)
Sir, based upon your prior posts you should be the last person to be talking about clarity or evidence.
I just hope they weren't monkeying around when they painted those walls. HAHAHAHAHA
Carbon Dating has been repeatedly proven to be a flawed method of time dating: bushes along highways that are 25,000 years old due to carbon dioxide emissions, etc. If people increased the carbon in the cave via campfires for warmth, cooking, etc., then the numbers will be skewed. Please do real science and get it right!
WAKE UP AMERICA
This isn't carbon dating. That's what the article is about. :|
@Boy Kenny : You have no comprehension of carbon dating. CO2 (carbon dioxide) and Carbon-14* are two completely different substances. You're repeating something you don't understand.
14C is a form of radioactivity and CO2 is a gas in the atmosphere. One could call them apples and oranges but for the fact they are less alike. They're sunshine and a glacier. Radiocarbon dating isn't subject to such errors as you hope. There are other forms of dating that are more effective and can date older artifacts.
Why is your faith so weak that you must deny scientific facts? God made the world and all the physical laws. Why is it so difficult for some Christians to accept them as well? It's difficult to understand their narrow minds.
*Carbon 14 is the basis of Carbon dating (14C)
Boy Kenny, Marmaduke, et al - here's a little video clip that might help you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7tQIB4UdiY&feature=g-all-rec
WAKE UP 'MERICA
Yes, fantastic advice Jimmy-Bob Earl Warren Jr. Please do wake up and stop taking scientific advice from anti-science Luddites. Ignorance is fixable, willful ignorance should be shameful.
They also came to North America and never left, still in Kentucky, archaeologists only need to look!
They are now Tea Party Republicans. congressmen Og and Grog are working on a austerity bill in the House as we speak.
From the evidence presented, I would have to surmise that these cave painters were a darn sight better artists than some of the so-called artists today!
So obviously done by aliens! ;)