• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evolution answers

ApolloGnomon said:
CroMags and Neandertals would have been, mostly, hunting the same things. The Neandertal toolkit and archaeological record do not suggest they were particularly adaptable to change in diet; even if all the Elk in a valley were killed off the CroMags would still be able to find small game but indications suggest the Neandertals didn't hunt rabbits or eat frogs. The final hold-out population in France seems to have starved off in an area with abundant coastal fishing.
Click to expand...

Neanderthals roamed across Europe and Asia and even co-habited with Cro-Magnon. They made their entry around 300,000 years ago so they were in their native soil well adapted and settled. It was the humans from Africa that were the migrants entering Europe. So it is odd to suggest Neanderthals were displaced by human migrants because of their inability to adapt. Scientists should try to match their theory with the data.
 
justintime said:
Neanderthals roamed across Europe and Asia and even co-habited with Cro-Magnon. They made their entry around 300,000 years ago so they were in their native soil well adapted and settled. It was the humans from Africa that were the migrants entering Europe. So it is odd to suggest Neanderthals were displaced by human migrants because of their inability to adapt. Scientists should try to match their theory with the data.
Click to expand...
You're right of course. You need look no further for proof than the recent history of Native Americans kicking white European ass.
 
justintime said:
Neanderthals roamed across Europe and Asia and even co-habited with Cro-Magnon. They made their entry around 300,000 years ago so they were in their native soil well adapted and settled. It was the humans from Africa that were the migrants entering Europe. So it is odd to suggest Neanderthals were displaced by human migrants because of their inability to adapt. Scientists should try to match their theory with the data.
Click to expand...

They have. You haven't studied it. I have, at an actual university not at googleversity.

The Neandertal archaeological record does not indicate they possessed the capacity for abstract thought shown by even the first CroMagnon groups. We out hunted, out bred, out tooled and out explored them. Evidence of "co habition" is limited to exactly one cave, and even that archaeology is disputed.
 
Justintime, even if your apparently false statement about the misattribution of Neanderthal fossils had been true, do you not see how grand a tribute to science, and how great a slam to biblical nonsense, this would have been? According to your account, scientists corrected a previous assumption, and thereby increased our knowledge. This is something Biblical believers have never done.

This is something that continues to mystify me in arguments such as this. Believers in woo and Biblical literalism and crackpottery bring up instances, real or imagined, in which scientific errors or omissions have been corrected by scientific growth, as if the important thing about those stories was the errors rather than the corrections.
 
justintime said:
Neanderthals roamed across Europe and Asia and even co-habited with Cro-Magnon. They made their entry around 300,000 years ago so they were in their native soil well adapted and settled. It was the humans from Africa that were the migrants entering Europe. So it is odd to suggest Neanderthals were displaced by human migrants because of their inability to adapt. Scientists should try to match their theory with the data.
Click to expand...

Most of the fauna in my backyard are invasive species that are outcompeting native species. It's true for fox squirrels, it's true for house sparrows, it's true for starlings, it's true for rock doves. Why it it outrageous to think that it would be true for a hominid species?
 
dasmiller said:
Most of the fauna in my backyard are invasive species that are outcompeting native species. It's true for fox squirrels, it's true for house sparrows, it's true for starlings, it's true for rock doves. Why it it outrageous to think that it would be true for a hominid species?
Click to expand...

What happened to those same Americans in Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan. Migrant forces are eventually driven out.
 
justintime said:
What happened to those same Americans in Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan. Migrant forces are eventually driven out.
Click to expand...

Military occupation does not equal migration.

And what does this have to do with the topic, anyway? Seriously, now you're evoking Neandertal genes as proof of something (unclear what) but the Bible clearly does not mention Neandertals.
 
ApolloGnomon said:
But Neanderthals don't exist. They prove evolution.
Click to expand...

The theory is inconsistent. Scientists are in a habit always trying to prove things with things that do not exist or are missing. Missing links (evolution), missing Neanderthals, missing mass(dark matter) , missing knowledge, missing definition etc.
 
justintime said:
What happened to those same Americans in Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan. Migrant forces are eventually driven out.
Click to expand...

Let me see if I'm following this:

1) Within the last 50 years, America has withdrawn military forces from some of the countries in which they've had combat operations.

2) ?

3) Therefore, Cro-magnon man could not have out-competed Neanderthals in Europe.

Did I follow that right? Could you, perhaps, elaborate on #2?
 
justintime said:
What happened to those same Americans in Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan. Migrant forces are eventually driven out.
Click to expand...
That is a stupid and simplistic cultural answer to the biological problem of invasive species. Anyone with a grain of sense should realize that invasive species that have few or no enemies will become firmly established, and eventually ineradicable. Drive along any New England highway and look at the fields of loosestrife, wild parsnip, day lilies. The lakes and waterways are forever altered by the invasion of eurasian milfoil and zebra mussels. Starlings, rock doves and house sparrows have displaced native species and adapted to their positions. The progress of invasive species is not like Americans in Afghanistan.
 
ApolloGnomon said:
Military occupation does not equal migration.

And what does this have to do with the topic, anyway? Seriously, now you're evoking Neandertal genes as proof of something (unclear what) but the Bible clearly does not mention Neandertals.
Click to expand...

Military occupation or the difficulty of such mission proves the advantage natives of the land have over invading forces. Neanderthals had the native advantage and were well adapted to Europe. So like America where natives were absorbed not displaced, Neanderthals passed their genes onto the migrant humans and absorbed them.
 
justintime said:
What happened to those same Americans in Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan. Migrant forces are eventually driven out.
Click to expand...

What does this actually mean?

I live in the UK. The Queen can trace her ancestry back to William the Conqueror - and the clue is in his name.

50% of the land area in the UK is owned by direct descendants of the Norman Invasion. The Saxons displaced Celts throughout England (albeit with much interbreeding); the Celts displaced earlier peoples - the Orkney Islands are genetically distinct from the rest of the British Isles, and the population seems to be closer to the original inhabitants than elsewhere in the British Isles.

Then we come to the "New World". It might have escaped your notice, but the majority of the population in North America are descendants of recent migrants. Similarly in Australia. And New Zealand.
 
justintime said:
Military occupation or the difficulty of such mission proves the advantage natives of the land have over invading forces. Neanderthals had the native advantage and were well adapted to Europe. So like America where natives were absorbed not displaced, Neanderthals passed their genes onto the migrant humans and absorbed them.
Click to expand...

Like the indigenous population of Tasmania?
 
justintime said:
Military occupation or the difficulty of such mission proves the advantage natives of the land have over invading forces. Neanderthals had the native advantage and were well adapted to Europe. So like America where natives were absorbed not displaced, Neanderthals passed their genes onto the migrant humans and absorbed them.
Click to expand...

"Cool story, bro!"

Seriously, your comment above does not jive with the actual archaeological record. I've studied it.

Also, the natives in North America were not "absorbed." They were variably exterminated, subject to death by diseases brought from Europe and conquered militarily. The movement of various tribes and Native nations across the US in advance of the European migration also reflects this same pattern of warfare, disease and displacement. The Navajo and Apache, for example were displaced by the Sioux when the Sioux were displaced from the Great Lakes area.

In other words, your very examples disprove you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom