Was Adam and Eve Neanderthals ?
351775
People knew the Earth was round for as long as there were sailors; it's a common myth that they thought they'd fall off the edge of the world when sea-fairing folks could easily see ships slowly descend over the horizon rather than suddenly just plain vanishing.\n\nIt's really just a straw man arguement that's really taken on a life of its own. Don't buy into it, even if our educational system even falls for it on Christopher Columbus day. *L*
497689
I believe the (scientific) jury is still out on this one.  From what I have read, many (most) later Neanderthal skulls have been found broken by blunt objects.  Many researchers think they were killed by modern humans.  On the other hand, there was a overlap of time by at least a few thousand years where the did co-exist, apparently peacefully.  Some think that their genes simply were absorbed into the larger gene pool of modern humans, but from what I understand there is little evidence for this.\n\nLet me know if you come up with other info.
1125805
No, I don't believe in Adam and Eve because if it were true, how would different races come about?\nAnd yeah, it would be incest.. lol
753449
“Ape-Men”—What Were They?\n\nFOR many years there have been reports that the fossil remains of apelike humans have been found. Scientific literature abounds with artists’ renderings of such creatures. Are these the evolutionary transitions between beast and man? Are “ape-men” our ancestors? Evolutionary scientists claim that they are. That is why we often read expressions such as this article title in a science magazine: “How Ape Became Man.”1\n\n2 True, some evolutionists do not feel that these theoretical ancestors of man should rightly be called “apes.” Even so, some of their colleagues are not so exacting.2 Stephen Jay Gould says: “People . . . evolved from apelike ancestors.”3 And George Gaylord Simpson stated: “The common ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in popular speech by anybody who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys.”4\n\n3 Why is the fossil record so important in the effort to document the existence of apelike ancestors for humankind? Because today’s living world has nothing in it to support the idea. As shown in Chapter 6, there is an enormous gulf between humans and any animals existing today, including the ape family. Hence, since the living world does not provide a link between man and ape, it was hoped that the fossil record would.\n\n4 From the standpoint of evolution, the obvious gulf between man and ape today is strange. Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.” Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes?\n\nHow Much Fossil Evidence?\n\n5 From the accounts in scientific literature, in museum displays and on television, it would seem that surely there must be abundant evidence that humans evolved from apelike creatures. Is this really so? For instance, what fossil evidence was there of this in Darwin’s day? Was it such evidence that encouraged him to formulate his theory?\n\n6 The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists informs us: “The early theories of human evolution are really very odd, if one stops to look at them. David Pilbeam has described the early theories as ‘fossil-free.’ That is, here were theories about human evolution that one would think would require some fossil evidence, but in fact there were either so few fossils that they exerted no influence on the theory, or there were no fossils at all. So between man’s supposed closest relatives and the early human fossils, there was only the imagination of nineteenth century scientists.” This scientific publication shows why: “People wanted to believe in evolution, human evolution, and this affected the results of their work.”5\n\n7 After more than a century of searching, how much fossil evidence is there of “ape-men”? Richard Leakey stated: “Those working in this field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions.”6 New Scientist commented: “Judged by the amount of evidence upon which it is based, the study of fossil man hardly deserves to be more than a sub-discipline of palaeontology or anthropology. . . . the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive.”7\n\n8 Similarly, the book Origins admits: “As we move farther along the path of evolution towards humans the going becomes distinctly uncertain, again owing to the paucity of fossil evidence.”8 Science magazine adds: “The primary scie
1166114
We did evolve from a previous species, one that diverged from an ancestor that was common to apes, but it's possible that the human line was never, strictly speaking, the SAME as an ape...it depends on how severe the genetic mutation was...\n\nddead: I like how you point out all of the hoaxes and don't state that there have been many skeletons found and recorded for Home habilis, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis (while not necessarily man, still the same genus and possibly one that bred with sapiens), and you don't even mention the whole genus Australopithecus, a commonly cited group of ancestors...\n\nEvolution hasn't been proven, but there is a theory and ongoing science to support this theory, part of which is actual physical evidence...Creationists have stories and faith, but I guess that's enough for them...
1062655
Who told you there werent?\nSahelanthropus tchadensis\nOrrorin tugenensis\nArdipithecus ramidus\nAustralopithecus anamensis\nAustralopithecus afarensis\nKenyanthropus platyops\nAustralopithecus africanus\nAustralopithecus garhi\nAustralopithecus aethiopicus\nAustralopithecus robustus\nAustralopithecus boisei\nHomo habilis\nHomo georgicus\nHomo erectus\nHomo ergaster\nHomo antecessor\nHomo heidelbergensis\nHomo neanderthalensis\nHomo floresiensis \nHomo sapiens sapiens\nThese are all hominids and man is a hominid! Henceforth men are members of the ape family\nnote homo erectus, this is when it is thought that apes started walking on two feet....\nHomo neanderthalensis is the ape thought to have started using primitve weapons to kill his quarry or game.
101290
A few points need to be cleared up.\n\n1) We don't know that Neanderthals were a separate species. We know that they left no female line descendants, which is not at all the same thing. There were thoroughly modern human populations in Australia that also left no female line descendants. The evidence suggests they were a different species, but it is a long way from conclusive,\n\n2) Neanderthals weren't pushed away. Modern humans and Nenderthals lived side by side for 20, 000 years or more. Neadnderthals were gradually replaced by modern humans but there is no evidence of them being pushed aside.\n\n3) In reference to Jeremie's claim that humans massacred Nedanderthals, there is no evidence to support such a claim. There has never been a Neanderthal body disocvered with human arrow or spearheds in it or vice versa. Remember, these groups had distinct technologies so if massacres were common we would probably find the evidence. More important is the timeframe for co-existence. If Neanderthals were bieng subject to regular violence they should have vanished rapidly from contact zones. Yet we don't see  that. INsrtead we see inplaces like Isreal that the two populations lived side by side. Which brings us to the next point.\n\n4) There was probably no overt racial discrimination involved in the disappearance of the Neanderthals. As I've ponted out, they co-existed for millenia apparenbtly peacefully. Insetad the Neanderthals appear to have simply lost the reproductive game. For whatever reason they bred slower and/or or recovered slower from catastrophe. Over time the numbers appear to have simply dwindled. The situation between Neanderthals and humans is more akin to the situation with Amish and non-Amish Americans. For the most part the populations co-exist peacefully, but the Amish population does not grow as fast as the majority population. \n\nThe Amish may survive because there is little resoucre competeition. In a situation where the populations compete (not fight) for food and other resources the smaller population will always lose out simply because the ststitsical chance of any person in their group finding a resource is much smaller.\n\n4) By no stretch of the imagination were all Neanderthals the same race. Neanderthals covered a large range, stretching from Islrael and presumably North Africa through western Europe all the way to Asian Russia. That gave them a comparable range to H. sapiens at that time.\n\nNorthern and far Eastern Neanderthals were quite different to modern humans, being short and thick set with protruding, flat noses. In contrast the Middle Eastern Neanderthals had no single features to distinguish them from the modern humans they lived side by side with. They were short bymodern standards, but many were much taller than thuamns in the same area. they tended to be muscular, but many were slim. Their facial features covered a whole spectrum but even themost extreme of them looke dlike some people who are alive today. \n\nIOW the Neanderthals themselves were racially dividied.\n\n\n5) Neanderthals sure didn't die out because of the Ice Age. Neanderthals were a cold adpated species. We are the tropical branch of humanity.  The Neanderthals lived through several the ice ages and thrived. It was only when the last ice age abated and us tropical humans managed to move into Europe that they started to deline.
592258
According to the Bible, yes, Adam and Eve were the original parents of the entire human race.\n\nI like to think that God had a hand in ensuring that their children would not come out genetically flawed. I mean, if God could create the world out of nothing, I'm sure He can make his creations non-flawed for a while. After all, the circumstances sort of required some divine assistance to get His human project off the ground.\n\nThere was also a chapter in Genesis that mentioned that some angels of God came down to earth and took some beautiful women with them and had children with them. That might help explain some of the variety in the bloodlines.\n\nI kind of also think that Adam and Eve weren't the only humans God created. He could have very well created others concurrent or after Adam outside the Garden of Eden. Perhaps He spent more time in creating and developing Adam though. I don't know, it's just a hypothesis.\n\nYou also have to consider the fact that all the other humans aside from Noah and his family died in the great flood. That means that even if the children of Adam were flawed, it would be hard to prove since they all died at that point and stopped having descendants. Hopefully, by the time Noah comes around, there was enough of a variety in the blood mixes that genetic defects were few and diluted among the larger generation. Then the whole repopulating the earth would have to start again, but this time, with Noah and his family. Again, I like to think that God didn't stop creating at that point and helped out Noah and his family by preventing diseases and defects from developing in their inbred descendants.
142926
Oy, tough one. \nAnswer 1: Without female, there is no reference point from which to determine man from woman, so no.\nAnswer 2: Yes, but without female there can be no reproduction, so yes, but the human race would end pretty quickly.\nAnswer 3: If you use the bible as a point of reference, then yes because G-d supposedly made Adam first and then made Eve out of one of his ribs.\n\nMost of these answers depend on what you mean by the question, so try to clarify a bit more next time.
885511
well mythology speaks of adam as the first human on this planet. hence the answer is man. eve was supposed to be fashioned from adam's rib. so probably she came later!
385804
There is numerous concrete fossil evidence of the lineage leading from apes to man, from the fossils of Australopithecus afarenesis, A. africanus, and other Australopithecines which do not appear to be in the line leading to humans, to the early Homo species, such as Homo habilis and Homo erectus, to the archaic Homo sapiens specimens to anatomically modern Homo sapiens sapiens fossils.\n\nPiltdown man was never accepted as valid by most paleontologists, even at the time.  It was popular with a few British archaeologists, because it was found in England, but it was shown to be a hoax consisting of an orang-utan jaw and a human skull inexpertly modified with a file by paleontologists (the very people whom creationists incorrectly try to blaim for the hoax).\n\nNebraska man was also shown to be a pig's tooth by experienced anatomists and paleontologists, rather than the untrained reporters and doctors who forwarded the claim.\n\nOta Benga was a sad case of racism expounded by an explorer a circus promoter and the insanely racist director of the Bronx zoo.  It had nothing to do with actual evolutionary theory, any more than the Branch Davidians in Waco had anything to do with the bible and Christianity.\n\nNone of these cases disproves any of the scientific tenets or proof of evolutionary theory.
338600
Adam was the 1st man.\nEve was the 1st woman.\nJinns and dinosaurs were the 1st creatures.
377031
dunno...\nbut it started with adam and eve...\nbecause of the "man and wife" thing...
267965
FIRST.. WE WERE BROUGHT HERE BY ALIENS. THEY LOOK LIKE US EXCEPT THEY ARE MORE EVOLVED. WE DIDNT CRAWL OUT OF THE OCEAN,DIDNT EVOLVE FROM APES.WE WERE PUT HERE.THEY CANT FIND THE "MISSING LINK" BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ONE.NEANDERTAL MAN WAS NOT THE SHARPEST KNIFE IN THE DRAWER, SO TO UPGRADE THE GEANPOOL WE WERE BROUGHT ALONG AND THE NEANDERTALS DIED OFF. GOD IS A HAND ME DOWN GOD FROM THE ALIENS AND MARY WAS ARTIFICIALLY INSEAMENATED BY A CARD CARRING SPACESHIP FLYING ALIEN..
1168217
I think that Adam and Eve represent a new beginning in Human-kind.  This next part is kinda nuts but i think it happened.  I think that Aliens landed around or in the city of Babylon, which is the place thought to be where the garden of Eden was located.  Anyways the aliens mated with the more ape like homo-sapiens of that time.  Adam and Eve where the children of this relationship.  Maybe this is the reason for the "Missing Link" in the evolution of man. Just a theory, i usually don't bring up because Christians get really upset about that idea.
478676
They did have sisters and it was the only way for the human race to grow and survive it's inconprehensible to us, but times were certainly different then!\n\nGod created Adam and Eve as the first of mankind and it was in His plan for this to happen.
1130310
Adam and Eve were cavepeople, cavedwellers. (cavemen?)\n\nThey discovered caves as a wonderful refuge after being chased relentlessly by God after they ate of the forbidden fruit. After God gave up chasing Adam and Eve, he sent his hoards of hungry dinosaurs after them.