This Is A Neanderthal.

[Guest Stan Norton]

To counter all the silly 'Us and Them' cat-eyed Neanderthal rubbish, here's a photo of a life-size Neanderthal male based on actual remains. 

 

Does anyone seriously consider that sasquatch is a relic Neanderthal? They're not.

[gigantor]

I agree, but would like to point out that remains do not reveal the actual "look" of the specimen, it's an educated artist's conception.

 

Great topic!

Edited May 24, 2014 by gigantor

[Guest Stan Norton]

Forensic reconstruction is a bit more refined than an artist's conception. This model is part of the Natural History Museum's current exhibition on Britain's long human history: they got the real experts in. We can be sure that this is as good a recreation as it is possible to make.

http://www.culture24.org.uk/science-and-nature/science-history/art458956

[gigantor]

I agree it is as good a recreation as it is possible Stan, but how do they know the eyes were blue (or brown or grey or whatever?). Or how could they know it didn't have a mustache? or hair all over it's chest?  etc.

 

It is an educated artist rendering, with the advice of scientists, but some elements are just guesses.

 

In any case, it doesn't matter for the purpose of this discussion unless you are claiming the image above is very accurate in the details of it's cosmetic appearance. I also agree that neanderthals are not sasquatch, but I'm sure we're going to get some dissenting views here shortly.

Edited May 24, 2014 by gigantor

[Guest Stan Norton]

DNA. The Neanderthal genome has been mapped so I think we now have a very good idea of their phenotypic character. DNA results were used by the modeller. Anyway, it's about as good as it gets...let's see who looks in.

[yowiie]

Stan

That guy certainly doesn't 'to look like our yowies in Australia

[JDL]

If you start with the assumption that Neanderthals looked human and apply a human-based forensic overlay to Neanderthal remains, you end up with a Neanderthal that looks pretty human.

 

If you start with the assumption that Neanderthals looked more like chimps and apply a chimp=based forensic overlay to Neanderthal remains, you end up with a Neanderthal that looks more like the Us and Them model.

 

Both approaches start with one key factor.  An assumption.

[Guest Stan Norton]

No actually. The first is not an assumption in any way. It is based upon scientific investigation over many many decades. We have bones. We have DNA. We have material culture. I do wish people would familiarise themselves with the actual reality. Neanderthals were Homo. Fact.

[JDL]

Okay, explain this then.  A Neanderthal skull has huge eye orbits compared to a human skull, and their mid-line is positioned differently in the skull than in a human skull.  With such distinctive differences in eye size and positioning, why do the eyes in the human-based recreation look as small as human eyes and why are they positioned like human eyes?

 

You start with the ASSUMPTION that human forensic reconstruction techniques can be applied to Neanderthal remains, and you get something recognizably human.  There's enough variance in the DNA to allow for significant differences, and material culture provides little other than to indicate that they were much stronger than we.  Their bones are conclusively Homo, but their skull is significantly different from ours, and we know that they sustained regular orthopedic injury.  Being Homo, does not mean being indistinguishable from Homo Sapiens.

 

Assumption and fact are two different things.

[Guest Stan Norton]

I'm sorry but you simply have no idea what you are on about. Neanderthal skulls have slightly bigger orbital openings and from this you infer that they had cat eyes, looked like chimps and sexually abused and ate modern humans? You need to read sources other than weirdo creationist cod science websites.

 

Familiarize yourself with proper archaeological research papers by proper qualified archaeologists and anthropologists. It will dispel silly ideas.

[JDL]

I haven't adopted either your biased perspective, or US and Them's biased perspective.  I consider each equally and find flaws with each.

[Guest Stan Norton]

Look. Mine is not biased in any way. Unless you believe that being knowledgeable about the scientific evidence is akin to bias. I have dug at one of the most important Neanderthal sites in the middle East with leading authorities on that species and their ecology, my wife is a PhD specialising in Neanderthal lithic technology and I am well read on the subject. You want to call that biased? Fine. I'd call that well informed.

[JDL]

I believe you are well informed regarding fields of study that rely heavily on assumption, inference, and hypothesis and very up to date on all of the latest, greatest, and most current assumptions, inferences, and hypotheses.  I also note that the suffix "ology" means "the study of".  I am certain that you and I could go back through the history of data collected and publications on Neanderthals and identify how old assumptions, inferences, and hypotheses have been regularly replaced by new ones decade by decade.

To be truly accurate, this thread should be titled "This is an interpretation by *********** of a Neanderthal's appearance."

[Branco]

Exactly, JDL. BF does NOT look like any single relic human, but has features of old and modern humans, and large apes.  (Wherein lies the problem with science and BF DNA.)

[Guest Stan Norton]

I will guarantee you that no scientific study will ever lend one shred of credibility to anything remotely connected to the them and us position nor any notion of Neanderthals being anything other than our very closest kin.

The bf field is and always has been held back by those suspicious of science. Until those folks learn to simply accept that there are many many people out there who truly are so much better informed than them, we will continue to get nowhere in this debate. Neanderthals looked like us. A lot. Not like a chimp with cat eyes.