Human evolution Intelligent Design

They were stringing us a line about Neanderthals

Spread the love

Who apparently made the oldest known string:

Before this find, the oldest known string came from 19,000 years ago. This was discovered in the Ohalo II site near the Sea of Galilee, Israel, and is associated with modern humans. But Hardy says the newly found string was made by Neanderthals, as there were no modern humans in this part of Europe at this time.

This raises the question of whether modern humans learned some of their skills from Neanderthals, says Wragg Sykes.

Hardy thinks the string shows that Neanderthals were as smart as us. They were very similar to us, says Emma Pomeroy at the University of Cambridge, whose team has found evidence that Neanderthals buried their dead. “Neanderthals engaged in complex behaviours that we thought they weren’t capable of ,” she says.

Bruce Bower, “This is the oldest known string. It was made by a Neandertal” at ScienceNews

Neanderthals also fished, we are told elsewhere, but let’s go back to the string for a moment.

Here’s New Scientist on the topic:

A piece of 50,000-year-old string found in a cave in France is the oldest ever discovered. It suggests that Neanderthals knew how to twist fibres together to make cords – and, if so, they might have been able to craft ropes, clothes, bags and nets. “None can be done without that initial step,” says Bruce Hardy at Kenyon College in Gambier, Ohio. “Twisted fibres are a foundational technology.” …

Hardy thinks the string shows that Neanderthals were as smart as us. They were very similar to us, says Emma Pomeroy at the University of Cambridge, whose team has found evidence that Neanderthals buried their dead. “Neanderthals engaged in complex behaviours that we thought they weren’t capable of ,” she says.

Michael Le Page, “Oldest ever piece of string was made by Neanderthals 50,000 years ago” at New Scientist

Paper. (open access)

So will we now formally amend our opinion that Neanderthals were somehow a subhuman or a missing link? The trouble is, Darwinism needs a subhuman; otherise, the human race has no Darwinian beginning.

Is this any help?:

figure7
Figure 7 from the paper.

Is this any help?:

New research adds to growing evidence that our ancestors interbred with Neanderthals at multiple times in history

In recent years, scientists have uncovered evidence that modern humans and Neanderthals share a tangled past. In the course of human history, these two species of hominins interbred not just once, but at multiple times, the thinking goes.

A new study supports this notion, finding that people in Eurasia today have genetic material linked to Neanderthals from the Altai mountains in modern-day Siberia. This is noteworthy because past research has shown that Neanderthals connected to a different, distant location — the Vindija Cave in modern-day Croatia — have also contributed DNA to modern-day Eurasian populations.

University at Buffalo, “Modern humans, Neanderthals share a tangled genetic history, study affirms” at ScienceDaily

Any thoughts as to who will be voted the next subhuman?

See also: Homo erectus skull conclusively dated to 2 million years ago, “nearly human-like” We heard this “nearly human-like” stuff about the Neanderthals for decades and now we are catching up with all these stories about them braiding string, drawing symbols, and burying their dead. How do we know it’s true this time, as opposed to an artifact of not enough excavation yet?

33 Replies to “They were stringing us a line about Neanderthals

  1. 1
    AaronS1978 says:

    The thing is they’re still going to vote this as a non-human even though, it could walk, talk, and act exactly like a human, they are still going to say it’s a non-human

    In fact I thought that was one of the things that they wanted, which was to find another human like species that would show that we weren’t special

  2. 2
    AaronS1978 says:

    Voodoo voodoo economics anyone

  3. 3
    polistra says:

    The picture that begins to emerge is Neanderthals as Betamax. A somewhat superior ethnic group who had better skills, but got knocked down by the more aggressive and monopolistic newcomers who stole the skills.

  4. 4
    Truthfreedom says:

    Before this find, the oldest known string came from 19,000 years ago.

    Look, ‘string theory’ is older than we had thought.

  5. 5
    daveS says:

    Any thoughts as to who will be voted the next subhuman?

    Juggalos perhaps? 🤔

  6. 6
    Seversky says:

    In this case, it’s the popular caricatures and stereotypes that have lagged behind the science

    It is unclear when Neanderthals split from modern humans; DNA studies have produced results ranging from 182 kya[23] to more than 800 kya.[24] The time of divergence of Neanderthals from their ancestor H. heidelbergensis is also unclear. The oldest potential Neanderthal bones are dated to 430 kya, but the classification is uncertain.[25] Neanderthals are known from numerous fossils, especially from after 130 kya.[26] The type specimen, Neanderthal 1, was found in 1856 in the German Neander Valley. After much debate over their validity, Neanderthals were depicted as being primitive, stupid, and brutish for much of the early 20th century. Though knowledge and perception of them has markedly changed since then in the scientific community, the image of the unevolved caveman archetype remains prevalent in popular culture.[27][28]

    Neanderthal technology is thought to have been quite sophisticated. It includes the Mousterian stone tool industry[29][30] and the abilities to create fire[31][32] and build cave hearths,[33][34] make the adhesive birch bark tar,[35] craft at least simple clothes similar to blankets and ponchos,[36] weave,[37] go seafaring through the Mediterranean,[38][39] make use of medicinal plants[40][41][42] as well as treat severe injuries,[43] and use various cooking techniques, such as roasting[44] and smoking.[45] Neanderthals made use of a wide array of food, mainly hoofed mammals,[46] but also other megafauna,[47][48] plants,[49][50][51] small mammals, birds, and aquatic and marine resources.[52] Though they were likely apex predators, they still competed with cave bears, cave lions, cave hyaenas, and other large predators.[53]:120–143 A number of examples of symbolic thought and Palaeolithic art have been inconclusively attributed to Neanderthals, namely possible ornaments made from bird bones[54] or shells,[55] collection of unusual objects including crystals and fossils,[56] engravings,[57] music production indicated by the Divje Babe Flute,[58] and Spanish cave paintings contentiously[59] dated to before 65 kya.[60][61] Some claims of religious beliefs have been made.[62] Neanderthals were capable of articulate speech, though it is unclear how complex their language would have been.[63][64]

  7. 7
    Ed George says:

    I don’t know of any evolutionary biologist who would be terribly upset if Neanderthal is concluded to be no different from humans than the races are from each other. There might be some resistance for egotistical reasons, but it definitely would not affect the validity of evolution, it would just shift current thinking.

  8. 8
    Truthfreedom says:

    @6 Seversky
    Gotta love the ‘science’ class:

    It is unclear when Neanderthals split from modern humans; DNA studies have produced results ranging from 182 kya to more than 800 kya. The time of divergence of Neanderthals from their ancestor H. heidelbergensis is also unclear.

    618 000 years of difference! ‘Unclear’ and ‘unclear’.

    Neanderthals were capable of articulate speech…

    How do you know this? Did they talk to the ‘scientists’?

  9. 9
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    The current thinking is not that they were some kind of “missing link” whatsoever, that’s just wrong. It’s that they were also descended from H. erectus and that we interbred some and then they died out.

  10. 10
    ET says:

    The validity of evolution is in slight changes that just produce different varieties based on the same form- ie microevolution. There isn’t any way to test the claim that humans evolved from non-humans. So that part of evolution is definitely invalid where science is concerned.

  11. 11
    martin_r says:

    this might be a bit off topic, but subhumans and missing link are mentioned, so i would like to add the following:

    a time ago i came across a debate at researchgate.net (mainstream science website)

    Joseph H Bozorgmehr
    Laboratory of Systems Biology and Bioinformatics
    asked a heretic question:

    “Where are all the “common ancestor species” in the fossil record?

    In evolutionary theory, rarely is it stated that one species is directly descended from another but rather that they share a common ancestor species from whom both are descended (one obvious example being Neanderthals and modern humans). However, I have not seen convincing evidence in the fossil record for these common ancestors. For example, the common ancestor of chimps and humans has not been identified, nor has the common ancestor of humans, chimps and gorillas, nor the common ancestor of all of the great apes. We can take this as far back as needs be, like the common ancestor of all mammals, but no fossil evidence has every emerged of the existence of such a creature even though some scientists have speculated what it might have looked like: http://www.mnn.com/earth-matte.....s-revealed So, despite a wealth of fossil evidence out there, why do common ancestors remain so elusive? Is DNA inference sufficient evidence?”

    here is the full debate
    https://www.researchgate.net/post/Where_are_all_the_common_ancestor_species_in_the_fossil_record

  12. 12
    Seversky says:

    Try looking up Bozorgmehr’s academic credentials or find anything about his “Laboratory of Systems Biology and Bioinformatics”. Let us know what you find.

  13. 13
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    @Seversky isn’t that the troll who got banned from like every science blog and also says the holocaust didn’t happen?

  14. 14
    Seversky says:

    Jim Thibodeau @ 13

    @Seversky isn’t that the troll who got banned from like every science blog and also says the holocaust didn’t happen?

    The name rang a bell so after a bit of digging I found this on Larry Moran’s blog Sandwalk:

    Larry Moran Wednesday, May 18, 2011 12:13:00 PM

    Atheistoclast is Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr from Manchester, United Kingdom. He infected other postings on Sandwalk under the name “Reza” [Darwinism and Junk DNA].

    He’s been banned from Pharyngula and was banned from RichardDawkins.net except that he created 95 new identities in order to get around the ban.

    He is a holocaust denier. He used to run a business “selling components – just nuts and bolts – to the Iranian nuclear and missile industries” but it was shut down because of sanctions. Now he rants against British conspiracies.

    I always willing to give someone a chance to make a scientific case but my patience with Atheistoclast has worn out.

    Please don’t respond to him any more.

  15. 15
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    Got banned from multiple ScienceBlogs too, he’s a hostile nut job.

  16. 16
    Truthfreedom says:

    @11 Martin_r:
    Thank you for the link. You have really struck a nerve, look at JT and Seversky’s desperation, again resorting to slander and attacking the man, which has nothing to do with his argument related to the ‘common ancestor’ problem.
    Some words from Bozorgmehr:

    “That shows the problem with evolutionary biology in general: there are too many preconceptions and assumptions, and there is not enough induction. The data is often used to fit in with the existing model rather than determining how the model should take shape. Frankly, I doubt that the “reconstructed” ancestor of all mammals will ever show up in the fossil record no matter how hard we look. I don’t think that can be properly explained in terms of the odds of successful fossilizaton.”

  17. 17
    ET says:

    …he’s a hostile nut job.

    That describes at least 99% of all evolutionists, ie people who think that processes that are blind, mindless and without purpose, produced the diversity of life starting from some unknown populations of prokaryotes. Nice own goal.

  18. 18
    Truthfreedom says:

    @17 ET:

    That (‘being a hostile nut job’) describes at least 99% of all evolutionists,

    This made me lol. And it perfectly describes Dawkins, Myers and Coyne. A bunch of old whackos drowning in philosophical illiteracy.

  19. 19
    Ed George says:

    JT

    Got banned from multiple ScienceBlogs too, he’s a hostile nut job.

    As bad as Joe Gallien? I would find that hard to believe.

  20. 20
    Marfin says:

    SEV & JT What about Gould and Eldridge and punctuated equilibrium , their theory on how to explain the complete lack of transitional fossils , are these guys mainstream enough for you.

  21. 21
    martin_r says:

    Seversky & co.

    honestly, i never heard of Joseph H Bozorgmehr.

    I came across this debate (googled it), because i was asking the VERY SAME QUESTION:

    I put the exact phrase to google

    “WHERE ARE ALL THE COMMON ANCESTORS”

    and this debate showed up… a debate in MAINSTREAM-SCIENCE website !

    As far as i know, in order to register at RESEARCHGATE.NET, you has to be a scientist or similar, lay people can’t register there, i tried, there is a verification process.

    So, WHERE ARE ALL THE COMMON ANCESTORS ???? YOU GUYS NEVER FOUND A SINGLE ONE.

    There are 10,000,000 kinds of species out there, but you never found a single common ancestor…

    I have to admit, i don’t have a formal education in biology, as you may already know, i am a mechanical engineer. But i do lots of study ( i can read, I can read scientific papers as well. )
    (by the way, i asked multiple times, what is your education Seversky? When will you answer that simple question ?)

    God gave me a gift … i can smell all cheaters, don’t matter who it is (well educated, less educated, rich, poor) … and Seversky, you stink a lot, like all evolutionists do …

    So, let me repeat – i don’t know who Joseph H Bozorgmehr is.

    You asked me to look up Bozorgmehr academic credentials.
    I don’t know, perhaps i have misunderstood something (it is clear that English is not my first language), but when you click on Bozorgmehr name on that researchgate.net website, you get this:

    18 Publications
    29,594 Reads
    206 Citations

    and then, a whole list of his scientific publications follows ( looks to me like mainstream science journals )

    just to name a few:

    e.g.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378111919308145?via%3Dihub

    https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2014/MB/C4MB00123K#!divAbstract

    and so on…

    is something wrong with Bozorgmehr’s academic credentials ? I am not an expert, you are…so explain to me…

    By the way, you have changed the subject (again).

    What about the researchgate debate? Do you even listen what this guy is saying?
    Is it a stupid question ?

    WHERE ARE ALL THE COMMON ANCESTORS ??????????

  22. 22
    BobRyan says:

    In order for hypothesis to become theory, the hypothesis must be something that is witnesses, not a guess about what may have happened in the past. The results must also be replicated. Without witnessing an occurrence as it happens and being able to replicate the results, the hypothesis cannot become a valid theory. Macro-evolution has never been witnessed and the results have never been replicated by anyone.

  23. 23
    Truthfreedom says:

    @21 Martin_r:

    God gave me a gift … i can smell all cheaters, don’t matter who it is (well educated, less educated, rich, poor) …

    You ALWAYS put a smile on my face. 🙂
    Let’s pour some more salt in the evolutionist wound:

    WHER ARE ALL THE COMMON ANCESTORS ??????????

    Where are they?

  24. 24
    Marfin says:

    The most honest appraisal by an evolution re the fossil record was made by the late Colin Patterson when he stated is archaeopteryx the common ancestor to birds perhaps yes perhaps no , we will never know as there is no way of putting it to the test.
    So if anyone on the evolution side out there disagrees, please state the test you can put any fossil to,to show its ancestry, If its not testable its not science.

  25. 25
    Ed George says:

    BR

    In order for hypothesis to become theory, the hypothesis must be something that is witnesses, not a guess about what may have happened in the past. The results must also be replicated. Without witnessing an occurrence as it happens and being able to replicate the results, the hypothesis cannot become a valid theory.

    Can you provide a reference for this clam?

  26. 26
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    LIGO has detected crashes between black holes that happened over 1 billion years ago. They didn’t witness the event as it happened. I guess Astrophysics isn’t science. 🙁

  27. 27
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    Nobody alive today saw Tutankhamen go into the tomb, so I guess archaeology isn’t science. 🙁

  28. 28
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    This is just Ken Ham’s “Were you there???” nonsense.

  29. 29
    kairosfocus says:

    JT, that we were not there at origins imposes highly material epistemological constraints on knowledge claims regarding whatever we reconstruct, whatever label we put on the tin. And, if the substance inside is evolutionary materialistic scientism, huge questions are being begged. KF

    PS: The late Philip Johnson in reply to Lewontin:

    For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them “materialists employing science.” And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence.

    [–> notice, the power of an undisclosed, question-begging, controlling assumption . . . often put up as if it were a mere reasonable methodological constraint; emphasis added. Let us note how Rational Wiki, so-called, presents it:

    “Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific “dead ends” and God of the gaps-type hypotheses.” [NB: I am aware that Rational Wiki has backed away, un-announced, from the cat-out-of-the-bag direct phrasing that was in place a few years ago. That historic phrasing is still valid as a summary of what is going on.]

    Of course, this ideological imposition on science that subverts it from freely seeking the empirically, observationally anchored truth about our world pivots on the deception of side-stepping the obvious fact since Plato in The Laws Bk X, that there is a second, readily empirically testable and observable alternative to “natural vs [the suspect] supernatural.” Namely, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity [= the natural] vs the ART-ificial, the latter acting by evident intelligently directed configuration. [Cf Plantinga’s reply here and here.]

    And as for the god of the gaps canard, the issue is, inference to best explanation across competing live option candidates. If chance and necessity is a candidate, so is intelligence acting by art through design. And it is not an appeal to ever- diminishing- ignorance to point out that design, rooted in intelligent action, routinely configures systems exhibiting functionally specific, often fine tuned complex organisation and associated information. Nor, that it is the only observed cause of such, nor that the search challenge of our observed cosmos makes it maximally implausible that blind chance and/or mechanical necessity can account for such.]

    That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

    . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [Emphasis added.] [The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]

    PPS: Contrast, Newton in Opticks, 1704, Query 31:

    As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For [speculative, empirically ungrounded] Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy. And although the arguing from Experiments and Observations by Induction be no Demonstration of general Conclusions; yet it is the best way of arguing which the Nature of Things admits of, and may be looked upon as so much the stronger, by how much the Induction is more general. And if no Exception occur from Phaenomena, the Conclusion may be pronounced generally. But if at any time afterwards any Exception shall occur from Experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such Exceptions as occur. [–> this for instance speaks to how Newtonian Dynamics works well for the large, slow moving bodies case, but is now limited by relativity and quantum findings] By this way of Analysis we may proceed from Compounds to Ingredients, and from Motions to the Forces producing them; and in general, from Effects to their Causes, and from particular Causes to more general ones, till the Argument end in the most general. This is the Method of Analysis: And the Synthesis consists in assuming the Causes discover’d, and establish’d as Principles, and by them explaining the Phaenomena proceeding from them, and proving [= testing, the older sense of “prove” . . . i.e. he anticipates Lakatos on progressive vs degenerative research programmes and the pivotal importance of predictive success of the dynamic models in our theories in establishing empirical reliability, thus trustworthiness and utility] the Explanations. [Newton in Opticks, 1704, Query 31, emphases and notes added]

  30. 30
    Marfin says:

    JT- I did not say you physically had to see something to make it scientific , I said it had to be testable to make it scientific.
    Piltdown man was touted has our ancestor and for 50 years was lauded in books , papers, etc as a magnificent example of a missing link, but once it was tested ,well we all know what happened after that. Please tell me how you know something is what it claims to be if you cannot put it to a test.

  31. 31
    Marfin says:

    Before anyone jumps in and says that I said fossils cannot be tested and then they tested Piltdown man so which is it. What Colin Patterson said was fossils cannot be tested as to their ancestry not that test of various kinds re age,size , shape, chemical analysis etc cannot be done.
    Just to clarify.

  32. 32
    Truthfreedom says:

    @25 Ed George
    So you, an ‘scientist’, do not know the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory?
    This is precious. 🙂
    So you are scientifically illiterate and proud of it.

  33. 33
    Truthfreedom says:

    ___
    @ For the scientifically illiterate (EG, JT et al.):
    Hypothesis: proposed explanation for a phenomenon made as a starting point for further investigation.
    Theory: A well-substantiated explanation acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.
    https://www.diffen.com/difference/Hypothesis_vs_Theory

    Macro-evolution has never been observed. No proof (is a dogmatic inference based on small adaptations: beak sizes, antibiotic resistance…).
    Those of you who have proof, please share them.

Leave a Reply