[granpa]

the biblical reference to nephilim/gibborim and the sons of Elohim is obscure
but is probably related to the giants and heroes (including heracles)
of the greek bronze/heroic age preceding the flood of Deucalion


'Greek Mythology Link' website

neanderthals being caucasians would presumably be sons of Japhet (the son of noah)

This post has been edited by granpa: 26 January 2011 - 03:55 AM

[Moontanman]

granpa, on 26 January 2011 - 03:42 AM, said:

the biblical reference to nephilim/gibborim and the sons of Elohim is obscure
but is probably related to the giants and heroes (including heracles)
of the greek bronze/heroic age preceding the flood of Deucalion


'Greek Mythology Link' website

neanderthals being caucasians would presumably be sons of Japhet (the son of noah)

It is interesting to think of these things, if there was any connection it would mean the bible was at least partly written about things that had to have happened about 50,000 years ago instead of 6,000 as most biblical scholars date the bible. The idea that the bible might be telling us things about a time well before written history is interesting but really needs it's own thread in religion.

[steevey]

The Peon, on 13 September 2005 - 04:59 PM, said:

Are Caucasoids slight hybrids of Homo Sapien and Homo Neanderthalis? Do the genes of Neanderthals still flourish in certain gene pools? These are shocking and taboo questions that most dont wish to face up to. In this thread, I will present one side of the scientific debate which tries to answer that question.

The specific genes that make a Neanderthal a Neanderthal I don't think exist anymore, but the genetic difference between a Neanderthal and the homo sapiens we see today is a difference of only .01%. I guess if you wanted to use that, then you could even say the DNA that flourished in the first organisms on Earth is also flourishing in us.

This post has been edited by steevey: 27 January 2011 - 03:43 AM

[kitkat]

To me it makes more sense to believe that Neanderthals by many future generations became modern humans, no extinction just changes over time. This would also apply to other creatures that were human like prior to modern humans. I have no evidence but it makes more sense.

[SirReal]

Hello.
I am a new member who has been researching this topic intensely for a week now and casually for years. This is how I came upon this site, this thread about Neanderthal interbreeding with mankind in Europe. Recently, 2010, the neanderthal gnome project concluded that indeed some genetic contribution from Neanderthals (outside of the original split) is likely.

http://www.eva.mpg.de/neandertal/

Quote

"An international consortium of researchers has sequenced the genome of our closest relative, the Neandertal.
In a paper released in Science on May 7, 2010 the team reports the sequencing of an initial draft of the genome. The sequence was generated from several Neandertal fossils from Croatia, Germany, Spain and Russia using high-throughput sequencing technologies.

Results indicate that Neandertals are slightly more closely related to modern humans outside Africa. The team also identified several genomic regions that appear to have played an important role during human evolution."

This evidence matches with some (key word - some) of Stan Gooch's ideas. Gooch proposed that Cro Magnon characteristics were dominant but some of the Neanderthal genes did sneak in for that brief period in Europe/Asia 40,000 years ago. Like many of his ideas he took it too far into wildly untrue realms (relating genetics to political affiliation) but the core idea that the two groups did have some significant experience with each other that extended into genetics (the study cited above puts the influence at 1% to 4%) seems to be true. It doesn't seem like much but it does line up with the idea that Neanderthals contributed to the gene-pool for a relatively very short amount of time in Europe/Asia approximately 40,000 years ago.

http://www.newscient...ith-humans.html

http://www.newscient...ost-humans.html

This post has been edited by SirReal: 16 December 2011 - 01:43 PM

[Ophiolite]

kitkat, on 29 October 2011 - 03:57 AM, said:

To me it makes more sense to believe that Neanderthals by many future generations became modern humans, no extinction just changes over time. This would also apply to other creatures that were human like prior to modern humans. I have no evidence but it makes more sense.

How then do you account for the abundant evidence that both modern humans and Neanderthals existed over the same time periods? It does not matter how much sense you think your version makes if it is not supported by evidence it is practically worthless.

[Mike Waller]

I think the opposite of what you do. I think first of all, when early humans entered Europe, they found the neanderthals, and if we look at people today using your logic, they would have mated. Why? Well people have sex with goats, trees, and even leather boots. Why not a new type of hominid ? [/quote]

I once heard somebody remark (or, perhaps, quote), "They say that familiarity breeds contempt, but, from my observation, it mostly just breeds".

[Mike Waller]

During the course of a 30 minute BBC radio interview with Chris Springer a couple of day ago, it was suggested that during the 1960/70s it was generally thought that humans evolved from Neanderthals. Yet I am fairly sure that when I was growing up in the 1950s the then conventional wisdom was that we were descendants of Cro Magnon man, and had not direct relationship with Neanderthals. Am I misremembering, or was there a subsequent switch of view which went unnoticed by me?

[Ophiolite]

Mike Waller, on 16 February 2012 - 06:39 PM, said:

During the course of a 30 minute BBC radio interview with Chris Springer a couple of day ago, it was suggested that during the 1960/70s it was generally thought that humans evolved from Neanderthals. Yet I am fairly sure that when I was growing up in the 1950s the then conventional wisdom was that we were descendants of Cro Magnon man, and had not direct relationship with Neanderthals. Am I misremembering, or was there a subsequent switch of view which went unnoticed by me?

I cannot produce citations on this off hand, but my recollections very much match your own. In short, Springer was talking rubbish.

[chevalier]

You cannot use the terms "white" and "spanish" meaning different races. Spanish is exclusively european and their genetic profile is typically european, no less "white" than italians, the french, the irish, etc...You surely meant to say "hispanic", which is still not racially accurate but wich indicates spanish speaking people of any race or mixed genetic background. The term "cuban" , just like the term "american", cannot be used as racial reference since there are cubans as well as americans of only european descent, as well as african, amerindian, etc... or any kind of combination. So, you probably meant to say: " I am the product of a european and a mixed genetic hispanic from Cuba couple..."

Up until this unfortunate sentence I was enjoying your explanations.

I would like your feed back.

[Zeupater]

LucidDreamer, on 13 September 2005 - 08:12 PM, said:

I don't think Cro Magnum man would have been too keen on breeding with the Neadrathals. We are already biggoted towards people that have almost no genetic differences from us at all. I think when we saw a neandrathal man or woman we killed them if we could. We probably thought it disgusting to think of mating with them and shunned anyone who had a Neanderthal parent. Even still, some genes might have snuck in.

Speak for yourself. Actually, wherever people mix they tend to ... well, mix; including with their genes. In fact, according to the US Census Bureau, in the US the fastest growing demographic group is multi-racial people.

http://www.msnbc.msn...p/#.T4LecJmmi8A