----- Original Message -----
From: <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
To: <mortongr@flash.net>
Cc: <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 2:20 AM
Subject: Re: Neanderthal DNA
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2000 21:30:52 -0000 "glenn morton" <mortongr@flash.net>
> writes:
> The foramen is your best evidence. But the incissor shape, if I recall
> correctly, is also found in American Indians.
Which is one of the pieces of evidence that Native Americans are descended
from ancestors in Asia! Course in the case of Neanderthal, when we
christians decide a priori that they can't be our ancestors, the mandibular
foramen evidence is thrown out.
and concerning the mandibular foramen, this is not the only piece of
evidence:
"Differences among the samples clearly show that European samples have
projecting faces directly above the nose as a typical feature, while in the
Near East material the region at nasion projects little and the upper face
tends to be flat. Although statistically significant differences are not
shown in this table, European Neanderthal projections at nasion are
significantly greater than all the other samples, excluding the African Eve
group with a sample size of one. However, the Skhul/Qafzeh sample shows a
statistically significant flatter upper facial region compared to all other
groups (except the African Eves). Thus, while European Neanderthals have
significantly more projecting faces at nasion, the Skhul/Qafzeh sample has a
significantly less projecting region at nasion compared to all the European
samples. The importance of this variable morphology between Europe and the
Near East (or Africa) is that if Skhul/Qafzeh (or the African Eves)
represent the ancestral form, the Upper Paleolithic descendants experienced
a substantial increase in Upper facial projection, moving in the direction
of the European neanderthals whom they supposedly replaced. On the other
hand, if European Neanderthals are the ancestral forms, the upper facial
projection decreased substantially over time. One can ask, is it reasonable
to propose (or to expect) that the hypothesized replacing populations from
the Near East somehow developed the projecting upper faces which
characterize the people they were replacing? Or is it more likely that the
upper facial projection in the Upper Paleolithic is a retention of an
archaic, regional European marker?" ~ David W. Frayer, "Evolution at the
European Edge: Neanderthal and Upper Paleolithic Relationships," Prehistoire
Europeenne, 2:9-69, p. 17-18
So why did early Europeans also get a Neanderthal Nasion projection?
Drinking European water? See, you position must conclude that a whole host
of traits developed fortuitously in early modern Europeans and developed
toward the neanderthaloid condition. Explain that!!!!
Here is the data--once again it is best explained by interbreeding and then
gene swamping:
Fossil Sample Nasion Projection (mm)
Neanderthals 29.3
African Eve 17.8---supposed invader
Skhul/Qafzeh 12.4---supposed invader
Early Upper Paleolithic 21.9
Late Upper Paleolithic 19.3
Mesolithic 19.3
Medieval Hungarians 20.2
~ David W. Frayer, "Evolution at the European Edge: Neanderthal and Upper
Paleolithic Relationships," Prehistoire Europeenne, 2:9-69, Table 2, p. 17
[sarcastic mode on]]
Of course, WE CHRISTIANS KNOW THAT NEANDERTHALS CAN'T BE OUR ANCESTORS THUS
THIS DATA IS TO BE IGNORED.
[sarcastic mode off
> Here there is a logical problem. Premise 1: Blonds resist frostbite.
> Premise 2: Neanderthals resisted frostbite, presumably. Therefore,
> Neanderthals were blond. Invalid logically, with an added problem since
> Inuit meet the problem differently.
Absolutely this is a risky conclusion. But it is an even riskier conclusion
to suppose that the African ancestors were blonde in order to deal with the
severe cold that is found in Africa! That type of reasoning would be met
with laughter throughout the anthropological world. Those traits came from
some where and spread rapidly, but only spread through the reagion of the
Neanderthal homelands.
> This also is problematic, for there are, if I recall correctly, some 20
> mutations that produce the sickling of thalassemia and sickle cell
> disease. Since the heterozygote confers resistance to malaria, one
> expects selection pressure on the gene where malaria is endemic, as it is
> along the northern Mediterranean coast. It did not have to be transfered
> from an African source, but could have arisen independently.
No it is not problematic. This is the BENIN type of sickle cell. It is a
particular mutation which was derived from Nigerians and taken to Portugal
via their voyages. The genetic type relates this to Nigeria. Yes, some
other form could have traveled to Europe but it didn't. So your point is, so
to say, not to the point.
> I cannot disprove this. But I also have to note that the evidences you
> cite are not convincing. That Neanderthal and modern man belong to the
> same genus is clear. But this does not require that they belong to the
> same species. Indeed, though _Canis lupus_, _C. latrans_ and _C.
> familiaris_ seem to be interfertile, they also seem to be different
> species.
Yes they are called a different species. But when it comes to humanity, who
is supposed to be the highest creation of God, are we supposed to be able to
interbreed with other species? I don't really care what you call neanderthal
whether you call him H. sapiens neanderthalensis, or H. neanderthalensis.
The fact that we probably interbred with them has profound theological
implications
>
> As for big noses as breeding grounds for bacteria that anihilated a
> population, I'll take that _cum multis granis salis_.
So do I, but it illustrates that what happened to the American Indians could
have happened to the Neanderthal. Our European bacteria wiped out about 90%
of them, making the continent relatively easy to take away from them.
This also made their genetic contribution to the modern American gene pool
less than it would have been otherwise. YEt we still allow that they are
human and are the same species--something we rule out a priori with the
Neanderthal.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 06 2000 - 07:07:16 EDT