Neanderthals had shorter, thicker limbs. They did great & were more equipped physically, than homo sapiens, to handle the cold. But, they used far more energy to run and throw. This is why homo sapien won out in the end. Almost all white people have neanderthal DNA remaining. The highest percent neanderthal DNA is found in China. There are some part of Africa where the DNA is neanderthal free, and guess where the BEST long distance runners are from?

Pretty amazing. Remember our ancient ancestors were nearly as smart as we are today, they just lacked technology. Don't think of them as lesser. If you started today and hunted every day with a spear, you would kill a deer before the end of the season. Also remember you could hunt at night.

you'd starve before ya killed one...

& over corn in February with a spotlight & Beagles. I would assume there was no possum sheriff back then.

Speaking just for myself, I wouldnt last long at all. I would be trying to eat anything I could find to survive.

Sigh...

That is sort of correct BB, There is latent Neander DNA in most all humans and it dates to around 100 thousand years. The aberrant stuff that has recently been picked up in Asia is actually Desvonian, which is late Homo Erectus DNA (just around 45kya) and it is most common in Melanisians. The great Kenyan runners have the same amount of Neander DNA as you or I, and their running ability is purely cultural. If you grew up running a 5k at age 5, you would be a damn fast long distance runner today.

We beat Neanderthals out because we have a higher birth rate, are more creative, and they could not handle global warming like we could.

No I wouldn't. I would be okay, but never fast. I am built solely for comfort, not speed. Of course if I grew up chasing down animals for food, my "ass-bone" wouldn't be so big boned. I would probably be more narrow today.

----------- But

I have read and heard several places that part of the African population today are free of neanderthal DNA.

"Neanderthal-derived DNA accounts for an estimated 1�4% of the Eurasian genome, but it is significantly absent or uncommon in the genome of most Sub-Saharan African people."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_human_admixture_with_modern_humans

Obviously that is a wikipedia link and wikipedia is not always correct, but I have heard & read this other places.

I thought homo sapien & neanderthal had the same ancestor, but they developed in different parts of the world, giving rise to different species of "humans". They interbred in Europe/Asia as Homo Sapiens took over. There was little to no interbreeding in Africa.

Is the chart below wrong? Is there an alternative theory? I don't know, and am asking. You obviously know more about this area of study than I ever will. Were the homo sapiens in Africa void of neanderthal accountability partners?

Where did that guy get the pair of Adidas?

Amazing. Kenny Rogers and Mr. Miaggi are part of our evolutionary tree!

Whether one agrees or disagrees with modern human ancestry and history claims and reports, it needs to be understood that all of this falls under historical science. Historical science looks way back and is an educated guess since we cannot use all the steps of the proven scientific method:


Observation: We cannot observe Neanderthals or other assumed early ancestors of man as they were living, just bones and artifacts that have been found. There isn't even a written historical record from that time period to study.

Testing/Analysis/Experiments: Since all we have is bones and tools the only testing that can be done are various age testing or study of tool marks on bones, etc... We cannot analyze a living creature, cannot test or experiment on a living neanderthal, nor can we fall back to recorded observation data done in real time. Plus there are numerous studies that show some errors in commonly used dating methods that should at least require further testing.

Nor can we go back and observe or test Adam and Eve, Noah, Global disasters and the people at the Tower of Babel.

With these two required components missing, any conclusions are still theory, not fact. Perhaps sound theories that make lots of sense to some, but not proven facts. Evolutionary theory has so invaded science that far too often the historical sciences (of which I am a fan and find very interesting) and their conclusions are considered fact when they are actually theories still.

It is a matter of worldview at this point. If you believe in long ages and modern man as descending from on common different species (or a long ages biblical model), then it makes perfect sense to think that Neanderthal or Homo Erectus were different species that died out and that homo sapiens evolved and rose and prospered. It can't be proven, but it makes sense because the science answers it for you.

If, however, you hold a literal Biblical worldview it should be very different. There is but one accurate and authoritative written history of the world, and that is God's Word which Christ upholds. This marks that in the beginning God created mankind in His image along with all of creation in a short time span and that sin did not enter the world before the fall of man in the garden. There are dates, timelines, and real recorded history. But it is still outside of man's physical capabilities to go back in time and observe and to test.

The difference between these worldviews?
For the Secular/Scientific Worldview: Mankind hold the answers and science is the proven tool to answer all questions about the past. It is man who has the ultimate knowledge and answers. The presupposition is that the world is really old and that evolution is true because science has proven it so so everything is seen in that light.

For the Biblical Worldview: God has given us not just his Word but faith and relationship with Him so that we can rely on His Word as forever faithful and true; God has all authority and knowledge; Science is a valuable tool to understand our world but it is not the source of all knowledge or understanding. Science can confirm the Bible in many cases if and only if we start with the presupposition that the Bible is true.

Were Neanderthals a variation of man with intelligence, skills and abilities in God's Image and not a different species? Are there major problems with many of the dating methods used? For some of us yes, for others no.

My point in all of this is that it is a great to study and learn about the past but not to assume theory is fact.

Two quick points.

First, the first creation account was written as a hymn during the Babylonian captivity, as a direct response to the Babylonian creation story. In the Babylonian version, the god Marduk and his friends were evil, and created the world with blood and war. The Jews responded by writing their own version, one where God created the world out of love. It was never meant to be a scientific treatise, and we shouldn't try to stretch it out of shape like that.

We tend to read ancient literature, particularly the literature contained in the Bible, in our western, Greco-Roman philosophical mind. Ancient Greeks taught us to be literal and precise. Jews, on the other hand, were often neither. Thus, to read that an army had 10,000 men simply means "there was a whole lot of them." Like us Southerners, they were good at telling stories and exaggerating.

Second point. God is not constricted to using young earth creationism. God is much bigger than you or I can imagine. God is perfectly capable of setting events in motion and then guiding them along so that A leads to B and then to C. God is perfectly capable of using evolution if he so desires.

Remember, God created time. God's got all the time in the universe, and he can make more whenever he wants. If God wants to take the slow route, he certainly can do so. God very well could have done it all in a week, and he equally well could have done it over several trillion years. We go with the preponderance of evidence, however, and make the best guesses we can.

But like you said, we weren't there, so we don't really know.

I still can't figure out how a man could outlast a kudu in an endurance hunt. More research required on my part.

I am also curious how the hunt was filmed so perfectly. Dang cameraman must have been an ironman athlete as well.

I'm not casting doubt, but it does seem a little unreal given how fast and long I've seen a whitetail deer run.

Good points slugger. I can't believe anyone can run like that.

Alright straycat, we will play your game. Since neanderthals were spread over a VAST area for many years based on the findings of their fossil records, from like ~2,000yrs ago, why isn't there mention of them in the bible.

So, It's ok to pick and choose what parts of the bible we want to believe is accurate?

I disagree wholeheartedly. I believe that the bible was written by God himself through the use of a utensil called Man.

A Kudu and other big four legged critters run at full sprint to evade hunters, they burn all their energy sprinting. After about 5-10 miles of sprinting they are done. But us humans can jog and track them thus never giving them a break. For someone who is in shape a 5-10 mile paced jog and track is nothing. Because that guy is such a good tracker the animal has no chance of escape, everytime it thinks it has a chance to take a break here comes the hunter and the animal has to sprint again.

Now the video was obviously partially staged. If you watch the clips close you will see a lot of rerun footage. But that is exactly how they do it.

BB, Neander DNA is in all humans, Africans included. But it is a lot more complicated than that. I teach an entire semester on this topic so it is a lot more elaborate than what can be discussed here. However between the recent new fossil discoveries, the DNA data , the geologic, and the climate data, its clear that we have been around for a very long time doing really neat things.

I think its pretty cool that we figured out so much stuff all by ourselves. Drives me damn crazy to see those idots on the History Channel trying to tell folks that space aliens or supernatural beings taught us how to do anything. Its insulting.

Thanks Skinny. Only skeptical given how impossible it's felt to catch up with a deer I've jumped.

That was some dang good camera work. Enjoyed the video. Thanks for sharing.

You have to figure terrain too. The African plains and the thick scrub of South alabama are very different to run through.

Have you ever broke out in a run after a deer you've jumped?