More On The Image of Neanderthals

Key discoveries in recent years over the humanity of Neanderthals have proven, they are not “so-dimwitted” after all. In fact, they are quite human like the rest of us.  However, despite recent evidence to the contrary, the myth about this particular group is still alive and well. An interesting discovery was made and published in PNAS and then reported by the BBC…

“Professor Joao Zilhao, the archaeologist from Bristol University in the UK, who led the study, said that he and his team had examined shells that were used as containers to mix and store pigments. Black sticks of the pigment manganese, which may have been used as body paint by Neanderthals, have previously been discovered in Africa. [But] this is the first secure evidence for their use of cosmetics,” he told BBC News. “The use of these complex recipes is new. It’s more than body painting…Some of the sculpted, brightly coloured shells may also have been worn by Neanderthals as jewellery.”

While Chris Stringer of London’s National History Museum says it’s hard to debunk Neanderthals “dimwitted” image but on the other hand, consensus in a certain area, for a certain reason, seems more willing to change. It’s interesting to point out how evolutionists like to use consensus nowadays to defend their story.

It’s widely accepted by archaeologists that the practice of body ornamentation is evidence for modern behavior but since with this discovery has to do with Neanderthals using make-up and jewellery to make themselves look more attractive, they are willing to give up on that notion!

The BBC continues perpetuating the myth that Neanderthals were less evolved intellectually by depicting them in an image that makes them look like a brute! A brute of course doesn’t remind people of having intellectual abilities. It’s time for the BBC not to use those artist misconceptions anymore.

New Scientist puts it this way…

“Add this to other recent evidence that Neanderthals hunted, painted and perhaps even spoke  like anatomically modern humans, and the dumb caveman hypothesis becomes even more untenable.”

Neanderthals could do those things and what we continue to learn from new discoveries about them is the fact that they were not less evolved, rather they were an interesting ancient group of people who got caught up in a story (evolution) which has no foundation!

5 thoughts on “More On The Image of Neanderthals

  1. Michael’s ghostwriter: “Neanderthals could do those things and what we continue to learn from new discoveries about them is the fact that they were not less evolved, rather they were an interesting ancient group of people who got caught up in a story (evolution) which has no foundation!”

    No one has ever said that Neanderthal were less “evolved” than their contemporary homo sapiens sapiens. This is a figment of your imagination. Your problem, Michael, is that you have swallowed the myth that evolution is a linear progression, ascending ever upward from bacteria tio biblical literalist. But guess what? Humans are not any more evolved than slime molds—just differently evolved. Along with a number of other myths abut evolution, creationists can’t seem to flush the myth of “higher and lower” organisms down their mental drains.

    Michael states that Neanderthals “are quite human like the rest of us.” Persuasive genetic evidence from the recent sequencing of several Neanderthal genomes shows that they were not human, but a separate species that branched off about 700kyr ago, and did not thereafter interbred with humans.

    It is only the popular press that portrays Neanderthals as dim witted. And their physiognomy allowed them to survive in climates that humans could not easily tolerate. The jury is still out as to whether Neanderthals possessed language.[1] However, the present consensus is that they did not, and that humans’ contemporaneous language skills may have been the decisive advantage when they began to move into Neanderthal territories in Europe.

    In any case, there seems to be absolutely no connection between this topic and any “new discoveries or comments about creationism.” If you happen to glimpse one, could you please point it out?

    Otherwise, the whole purpose of this post seems to be merely yet another example that scientists, unlike creationists, expand their theories when presented with new evidence.

    [1] Since Michael now passes himself off as competent tyo discuss anthropological subjects, here’s another simple question to establish his qualifications.

    What is the distinguishing characteristic that all human languages have, but that every animal proto-language lacks? (Hint: consider pidgins and creoles.)

  2. “Consensus” is probably too strong a word for Neandertal language ability. They had the same foxp2 allele that humans have. This implies that the common ancestor also had it. (Both human and Neandertal differ in the same two positions from the chimpanzee version.)

    However, the weight of evidence is that the common ancestor did not possess language, and the archeological evidence at Neandertal sites weighs against language.

    So let’s say “current weight of evidence” rather than “consensus.”

  3. Even with the same foxp2 allele, aA modern “feral child” born today will not acquire language if he is not exposed to it before puberty.

    So language was probably invented by children. Truly, “out of the mouths of babes.”

  4. One might wonder why Michael discusses Neanderthals at all in a blog devoted to “new discoveries and comments about creationism.”

    Neanderthals died out 30,000 years ago, long before Michael’s Earth was even created. They were very similar to humans in many ways, yet were not human; the Bible has no explanation foir their very definite existence.

    They had no agriculture or domesticated animals, yet Adam and Eve, the first humans, were already adept at those technologies.

    Maybe that’s the “new discovery” about creationism: it’s totally inconsistent with the evidence.

  5. Pingback: New Research On Neanderthals Puts Old Assumption To Rest « New Discoveries & Comments About Creationism

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s