Real Science Radio: The Most Informative Neanderthal Show Ever Pt. 2

[6days]

. I'm not particularly concerned about what lay evolutionists believe or don't believe.

What you have demonstrated is that you are not interested in science, scientists, nor in scientific articles that contradict your beliefs.*

"incapable of the complex phonetic vowel-producing range of vocalization that modern homo sapiens posses" is simplified to "incapable of speech" in summaries because it is easier to convey to the public which generally do not concern themselves over such nuances, nor clearly does 6Days

DS....

The fellow you quote initially said the science, or the data, did not support the conclusion Neandertals were capable of speech.


He then incorrectly modelled a Neandertal positioning the hyoid in a way that supported his worldview. *His model and conclusions were wrong. Neandertals appear intelligent....They may have been more intelligent than modern humans, but that is something we dont know.*

 

[6days]

6days, if you had read my posts and the links to papers on the matter, you'd have known that they disprove your idea that scientists believed Neanderthals had no speech capability.*

Likewise...If you had read my posts and links ---Even if you had read your own link, you would have realized how wrong evolutionists have been. It was your link that said its time to give up the notion that Neandertals were inarticulate subhumans. It was your article that decided to bump back the origins of language by hundreds of thousands of years to accomodate the science, (which contradicted evolutionary beliefs), showing Neandertals were intelligent and capable of speech. *


And....its a bit of a strawman when you say "you'd have known that they disprove your idea that scientists believed Neanderthals had no speech capability" *

SOME scientists made that claim. It was only evolutionary scientists who made false claims about dimwitted inarticulate subhuman cavemen. *It is science that forced some evolutionists to admit their beliefs were wrong. EX... the*paleoanthropologist *I already quoted who admits the evidence *"helps cast doubt on previous assumptions that Neanderthals lacked the abilities of modern humans to plan ahead, innovate, and communicate through language, art, and symbolism. There is a growing weight of evidence that we may have underestimated Neanderthal skills and behavior, and that they were not the lumbering, dim-witted cartoon cavemen".


Or the zoologist *I quoted *who seems surprised by the evidence

"To many, the Neanderthal hyoid discovered was surprising because its shape was very different to that of our closest living relatives, the chimpanzee and the bonobo. However, it was virtually indistinguishable from that of our own species. This led to some people arguing that this Neanderthal could speak"*


GC... (and DS) *Why did 'some people start arguing that Neandertals could speak'? *Its obvious...The evidence was showing evolutionary beliefs were wrong.*


In the beginning God created.... *God did not create sub humans, nor did God create through an evolutionary process that involved sub humans.*


*

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

6Days, I've quoted his exact conclusion in his own words at least twice now. No where does he say Neanderthals were incapable of speech.

 

[6days]

6Days, I've quoted his exact conclusion in his own words at least twice now. No where does he say Neanderthals were incapable of speech.

Yes you have quoted him a couple times.
But DS, you are taking that quote out of context and ignoring the history....and apparently ignoring replies.
So, once again.....
Up until about the time of Liebermans article that you quote, many if not most evolutionists thought Neandertals were sub humans and incapable of speech.

Then the hyoid bone (speech ability) was found. Evolutionists were surprised that it was so human like. They assumed that Neandertals had evolved from apes so the hyoid would be somewhat similar to apes...it wasn't.

With the discovery that the hyoid was very humanlike, Some evolutionists suggested perhaps Neandertals were capable of speech. Other evolutionist such as Lieberman resisted that idea.

Bar-Yosef et al.'s assertion that the KMH z hvoid bone demonstrates that Neanderthal hominids were capable of producing human speech is, in fact, not supported by the data of the
studies cited

(Previously linked this)

Lieberman then modelled the hyoid incorrectly in the throat. With his incorrect positioning he made the statement you keep quoting. It seems he was unwilling to give up on his beliefs about Neandertals so he compromised between his beliefs, and the evidence. He ended up 'giving' Neandertals the vocal abilities of babies. Liebermans conclusion was wrong

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Yes you have quoted him a couple times.
But DS, you are taking that quote out of context and ignoring the history....and apparently ignoring replies.

If I have taken anything out of context then don't hesitate to show us.

So, once again.....
Up until about the time of Liebermans article that you quote, many if not most evolutionists thought Neandertals were sub humans and incapable of speech.

Blanket declaration. Have you read the papers prior to lieberman?

Then the hyoid bone (speech ability) was found. Evolutionists were surprised that it was so human like. They assumed that Neandertals had evolved from apes so the hyoid would be somewhat similar to apes...it wasn't.

The hyoid bone is present in many mammals. It allows a wider range of tongue, pharyngeal and laryngeal movements by bracing these structures alongside each other in order to produce variation.[4] Its descent in living creatures is not unique to Homo sapiens, and does not allow the production of a wide range of sounds: with a lower larynx, men do not produce a wider range of sounds than women and 2 year old babies. Moreover the larynx position of Neanderthal was not a handicap to producing speech sounds.[5] The discovery of a modern-looking hyoid bone of a Neanderthal man in the Kebara Cave in Israel led its discoverers to argue that the Neanderthals had a descended larynx, and thus human-like speech capabilities.[6] However, other researchers have claimed that the morphology of the hyoid is not indicative of the larynx's position.[7] It is necessary to take into consideration the skull base, the mandible and the cervical vertebrae and a cranial reference plane.[8][9]

Source^

With the discovery that the hyoid was very humanlike, Some evolutionists suggested perhaps Neandertals were capable of speech. Other evolutionist such as Lieberman resisted that idea.

See the above quote. The question was never whether they had speech, but what kind of speech they had.

Lieberman then modelled the hyoid incorrectly in the throat. With his incorrect positioning he made the statement you keep quoting.

Which was?

 

[gcthomas]

6days, you need to read the actual papers to find what scientists actually think. Of you insist on quoting news articles you only get partial sentences that have been filtered by the university's press release writer, then by the journalist, then the editor.

A common discussion amongst scientists who have had work publicised in the press is how much the nuance their discoveries has been lost.

Read these primary papers and stop quoting from secondary or tertiary sources.

 

[6days]

The question was never whether they had speech, but what kind of speech they had.

Your arguments are getting lamer. Now you are going to try find wiggle room on the definition of speech? We are talking about the humanity of Neandertals and human speech.


Wiki "Speech*is the vocalized form of*human*language....*Each spoken word is created out of the*phonetic*combination of a limited set of*vowel*and*consonant*speech sound units"


The zoologist previosly quoted said "this lead to some people arguing this Neanderthal could speak".*

Can you understand him?*

Evolutionists were wrong...Neandertals could speak..*


Can you undertand the paleoanthropologist previously quoted discussing assumptions that Neanderthals lacked the abilities of modern humans to communicate through language.

Do you really not understand him? Evolutionists believed Neandertals lacked the ability of modern humans to communicate through language...they were wrong.*


Can you understand the cognitive/ linguistic scientist previously quoted who argued that the data didnt support the idea that Neandertals were capable of producing human speech. He was wrong.Evolutionists were wrong.*


Can you understand the physical anthropologist previously quoted “(Neandertals) were believed to be ...incapable of language*or symbolic thought" *Evolutionists were wrong. *


Why were the evolutionists so wrong about Neandertals? Its because their belief system starts out with the faulty assumption / faulty framework that life evolved from a common ancestor, then trying to make evidence fit beliefs **


When we start with the belief that all humanity is a result of a common Designer, and descendants from a created human couple....the evidence fits. We don't need to squirm trying to redefine words.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

6days, you need to read the actual papers to find what scientists actually think. Of you insist on quoting news articles you only get partial sentences that have been filtered by the university's press release writer, then by the journalist, then the editor.

A common discussion amongst scientists who have had work publicised in the press is how much the nuance their discoveries has been lost.

Read these primary papers and stop quoting from secondary or tertiary sources.

I feel like I am beating a dead horse at this point. :deadhorse:

His response is always the same albeit stated differently.

"but this news article stated X" He apparently doesn't understand the objection, or worse he does but chooses to ignore it.

 

[gcthomas]

Can you understand the physical anthropologist previously quoted “(Neandertals) were believed to be ...incapable of language*or symbolic thought" *Evolutionists were wrong. *

Still you only quote from magazine articles where people say what they thought other people thought. Still no scientific papers where anyone says that themselves. It is all heresay so far - no actual direct quotes.

 

[6days]

Still you only quote from magazine articles where people say what they thought other people thought. Still no scientific papers where anyone says that themselves. It is all heresay so far - no actual direct quotes.

Your arguments are just as lame as the ones DS is now making.
Evolutionists were totally wrong about Neanderthals. Even the paper you tried to rescue DS with admitted evolutionists thought Neandertals were "inarticulate sub humans".
Science has proven the humanity of Neandertals... and proven the evolutionist beliefs were wrong.

 

[Jukia]

I feel like I am beating a dead horse at this point. :deadhorse:

His response is always the same albeit stated differently.

"but this news article stated X" He apparently doesn't understand the objection, or worse he does but chooses to ignore it.

6's horse died a long time ago. He cannot afford to examine the underlying research papers. His particular god relies on fear. He is afraid that he might actually think his theology is suspect. He has no interest in the facts.

 

[6days]

6's horse died a long time ago. He cannot afford to examine the underlying research papers. His particular god relies on fear. He is afraid that he might actually think his theology is suspect. He has no interest in the facts.

Jukia... We have looked at the research papers. GC and DS have even posted research papers discussing how evolutionist beliefs of the past were wrong. Biblical creationists were correct about the humanity of Neandertals... Evolutionists were wrong.
Its an exciting time in history as science helps confirm the truth of God's Word.

 

[gcthomas]

Jukia... We have looked at the research papers. GC and DS have even posted research papers discussing how evolutionist beliefs of the past were wrong. Biblical creationists were correct about the humanity of Neandertals... Evolutionists were wrong.
Its an exciting time in history as science helps confirm the truth of God's Word.

Does saying the same thing over and over again make it true, in your mind, even if it means you have to distort and lie all the time to get the 'right' words out?

:hammer:

 

[Jukia]

Does saying the same thing over and over again make it true, in your mind, even if it means you have to distort and lie all the time to get the 'right' words out?

:hammer:

By George, I think you've got it.

 

[6days]

Does saying the same thing over and over again make it true, in your mind, even if it means you have to distort and lie all the time to get the 'right' words out?

:hammer:

I don't expect you to agree GC... but the fact is Neandertal story telling by evolutionists is just another of many failed proofs of evolutionism... and evidence of the truth of God's Word.
Science has shown the humanity and intelligence of Neandertals, contrary to how evolutionists depicted them

 

[gcthomas]

Does saying the same thing over and over again make it true, in your mind, even if it means you have to distort and lie all the time to get the 'right' words out?

:hammer:

I don't expect you to agree GC... but the fact is Neandertal story telling by evolutionists is just another of many failed proofs of evolutionism... and evidence of the truth of God's Word.
Science has shown the humanity and intelligence of Neandertals, contrary to how evolutionists depicted them

Were you being deliberately ironic, or did you manage that subconsciously?

 

[6days]

Were you being deliberately ironic, or did you manage that subconsciously?

The fact is Neandertal story telling by evolutionists is just another of many failed proofs of evolutionism... and evidence of the truth of God's Word.
Science has shown the humanity and intelligence of Neandertals, contrary to how evolutionists depicted them.

Take a look at the various articles posted in this thread... Who was surprised by evidence? It was evolutionists because their assumptions about our origins is wrong.