Human evolution News

Neanderthal vs. modern human fashions?

Spread the love

From Colin Barras at New Scientist:

Early modern humans dressed for ice age success – Neanderthals, not so much. An analysis of animal remains at prehistoric hominin sites across Europe suggests modern humans clad themselves in snug, fur-trimmed clothing, while Neanderthals probably opted for simple capes.

Even so, the finding suggests our extinct cousin was far more sophisticated than once thought.

Some researchers argue that Neanderthals didn’t bother with clothes at all, others that they dressed in much the same way as early members of our species. Mark Collard at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, Canada, and his colleagues think the truth lies somewhere in between.More.

A single find would overturn all this. See, for example, Neanderthal artwork found: “Academic bombshell” obliterates “lesser human” theory?

Must be August.

See also: Neanderthal Man: The long-lost relative turns up again, this time with documents

Follow UD News at Twitter!

2 Replies to “Neanderthal vs. modern human fashions?

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    It seems, over the last several years, that Neanderthals are becoming more and more human-like and that the gap between Neanderthals, Humans, and the rest of the supposed ‘march to man’ is becoming wider:

    Neanderthals had human DNA too, suggesting Homo sapiens left Africa earlier than thought – Feb. 2016
    Excerpt: Given the now closely intertwined histories of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens, Dr Castellano added that “it is better to refer to Neanderthals and modern humans as two different human groups, one archaic and one modern, and not different species.”
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/201.....er/7179826

    Early human skull has inner ear “long thought” unique to Neanderthals – July 9, 2014
    Excerpt: Re-examination of a circa 100,000-year-old archaic early human skull found 35 years ago in Northern China has revealed the surprising presence of an inner-ear formation long thought to occur only in Neandertals.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....nderthals/

    So What’s the Deal with the Neanderthal, Their Demise? – 2012
    Excerpt: There is an emerging segment in academia which is getting more vociferous about the prospect of neither the intellectual nor behavioral capacity of the Neanderthal being significantly different or inferior to that of their ‘anatomically modern’ human contemporaries.
    http://exploring-africa.blogsp.....their.html

    “We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh (i.e. nonsense). Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human evolution ought to have been like still colour our debates.”
    Henry Gee, editor of Nature (478, 6 October 2011, page 34, doi:10.1038/478034a),

    (Homo Erectus) Skull “Rewrites” Story of Human Evolution — Again – Casey Luskin – October 22, 2013
    Excerpt: “There is a big gap in the fossil record,” Zollikofer told NBC News. “I would put a question mark there. Of course it would be nice to say this was the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and us, but we simply don’t know.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....78221.html

    No Known Hominin Is Common Ancestor of Neanderthals and Modern Humans, Study Suggests – Oct. 21, 2013
    Excerpt: The article, “No known hominin species matches the expected dental morphology of the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans,” relies on fossils of approximately 1,200 molars and premolars from 13 species or types of hominins — humans and human relatives and ancestors. Fossils from the well-known Atapuerca sites have a crucial role in this research, accounting for more than 15 percent of the complete studied fossil collection.,,,
    They conclude with high statistical confidence that none of the hominins usually proposed as a common ancestor, such as Homo heidelbergensis, H. erectus and H. antecessor, is a satisfactory match.
    “None of the species that have been previously suggested as the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans has a dental morphology that is fully compatible with the expected morphology of this ancestor,” Gómez-Robles said.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....153202.htm

    It is also interesting to note the biased way in which Darwinists try to force the fossil evidence into their preconceived notions:

    Hominids, Homonyms, and Homo sapiens – 05/27/2009 – Creation Safaris:
    Excerpt: Homo erectus is particularly controversial, because it is such a broad classification. Tattersall and Schwartz find no clear connection between the Asian, European and African specimens lumped into this class. “In his 1950 review, Ernst Mayr placed all of these forms firmly within the species Homo erectus,” they explained. “Subsequently, Homo erectus became the standard-issue ‘hominid in the middle,’ expanding to include not only the fossils just mentioned, but others of the same general period….”. They discussed the arbitrariness of this classification: “Put together, all these fossils (which span almost 2 myr) make a very heterogeneous assortment indeed; and placing them all together in the same species only makes any conceivable sense in the context of the ecumenical view of Homo erectus as the middle stage of the single hypervariable hominid lineage envisioned by Mayr (on the basis of a much slenderer record). Viewed from the morphological angle, however, the practice of cramming all of this material into a single Old World-wide species is highly questionable. Indeed, the stuffing process has only been rendered possible by a sort of ratchet effect, in which fossils allocated to Homo erectus almost regardless of their morphology have subsequently been cited as proof of just how variable the species can be.” By “ratchet effect,” they appear to mean something like a self-fulfilling prophecy: i.e., “Let’s put everything from this 2-million-year period into one class that we will call Homo erectus.” Someone complains, “But this fossil from Singapore is very different from the others.” The first responds, “That just shows how variable the species Homo erectus can be.”
    http://creationsafaris.com/cre.....#20090527a

    i.e. It seems clear that the shoddy classification scheme for fossils is the place where Darwinian magicians are pulling the rabbit for human evolution out of their hat.

    “What I saw about the fossil record again,, was that Gould and Eldridge were experts in the area where the animal fossil record is most complete. That is marine invertebrates.,, And the reason for this is that when,, a bird, or a human, or an ape, or a wolf, or whatever, dies,, normally it does not get fossilized. It decays in the open, or is eaten by scavengers. Things get fossilized when they get covered over quickly with sediments so that they are protected from this natural destructive process. So if you want to be a fossil, the way to go about it is to live in the shallow seas, where you get covered over by sediments when you die,,. Most of the animal fossils are of that kind and it is in that area where the fossil record is most complete. That there is a consistent pattern.,, I mean there is evolution in the sense of variation, just like the peppered moth example. Things do vary, but they vary within the type. The new types appear suddenly, fully formed, without an evolutionary history and then they stay fundamentally stable with (cyclical) variation after their sudden appearance, and stasis (according) to the empirical observations made by Gould and Eldridge. Well now you see, I was aware of a number of examples of where evolutionary intermediates were cited. This was brought up as soon as people began to make the connection and question the (Darwinian) profession about their theory in light of the controversy. But the examples of claimed evolutionary transitionals, oddly enough, come from the area of the fossil record where fossilization is rarest. Where it is least likely to happen.,,,
    One of things that amused me is that there are so many fossil candidates for human ancestorship, and so very few fossils that are candidates for the great apes.,, There should be just as many. But why not? Any economist can give you the answer to that. Human ancestors have a great American value and so they are produced at a much greater rate.,,
    These also were grounds to be suspicious of what was going on,,,
    ,,,if the problem is the greatest where the fossil record is most complete and if the confirming examples are found where fossils are rarest, that doesn’t sound like it could be the explanation.”
    – Phillip Johnson – April 2012 – audio/video 15:05 minute mark to 19:15 minute mark
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....age#t=903s

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    OT:

    Early Whale Echolocation Was Fully Formed – August 10, 2016
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....03059.html

Leave a Reply