GM>There is that famous reconstruction which creationist have made a
>lot out of, which shows a rather modern looking neanderthal. (I am
>sorry I can't give a citation for this).
>> Gish's "Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record", 1986, at page
>> 205 has four photos entitled:
>> "Two flesh models of Neanderthal Man (Skhul V). From Rusch's Human
>> Fossils, in Rock Strata and the Bible Record, P. A. Zimmerman, Ed.,
>> Concordia Publishing House."
Glenn may be thinking of a reconstruction by Jay Matternes, done for the
October issue of a magazine called Science 81. Or so I'm told; I
haven't been able to find the magazine.
However, you can find illustrations of it at
http://access.digex.com/~medved/evolution/neander.html
No endorsement of the text of this page is implied; it was done by Ted
Holden, a legendary figure on talk.origins.
>> It wouldn't matter. My diagram shows a line from Neanderthals to
>> modern man (assuming H. neanderthalis and H. sapiens were
>> interfertile).
I would be very surprised if they weren't (which doesn't necessarily
mean that they should belong in the same species). Cultural differences
might have been a barrier to actual interbreeding.
>> I understand that H. erectus skulls (Cossack man?)
>> may have been found in Australia (no cracks please! :-)) only 10,000
>> years ago.
This is a common claim of creation scientists, but I don't know of any
mainstream scientists who say that. I have read a few statements by
scientists saying that in spite of primitive features on these skulls,
they are *definitely* Homo sapiens.
-- Jim Foley Symbios Logic, Fort CollinsJim.Foley@symbios.com (303) 223-5100 x9765* 1st 1.11 #4955 * "I am Homer of Borg! Prepare to be...OOooooo! Donuts!!!"