Wow, good to see your copy and paste skills are still intact. Very well done.

====
Refer to my below response in which summarizes that:
1. Neandert(h)als were fully human
2. Dating techiques are based on statistical assumptions of random and spontaneous radioactive decay, thus discrepancies are the rule, not the exception. (The KEY words being "random' and "spontaneous.")
3. If you wish (since I suspect that you created the original post), name a specific specie and I'll go over the one with you. Otherwise, "evidence of man from the Stone age nearly 12,000 years ago" is too vague to address.
====

1. Your posts/links said nothing about a Neanderthal being "fully human":
a. "probably not significantly different from that of modern humans"
b. "slightly enlarged version of a human hyoid"
c. "closely resembles that of humans today"
d. "roughly the same size"
None of these say that Neanderthals = Homo Sapiens. They each claim slight or subtle differences, but NOT equality. Are you claiming there IS no difference?
Also, what did the original post have to ask about Neanderthals? I don't get it.

2. Your article is based on a hoax by Reiner Protcsch, and doesn't threaten carbon dating methods at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiner_Protsch_von_Zieten

3. I had nothing to do with the original post, honest engine. If the original question was too vague to address, why address it? Why not clarify, THEN answer the question instead of throwing around nonsense about carbon dating and Neanderthals?

As stated above in "Deleted postings - Specific information is necessary for arguments"
"Supporting articles, research papers are needed to substantiate your argument. Blogs and your personal opinion do NOT qualify as 'evidence.'"

If you wish to submit any current research claiming that Neandertals were clearly NOT human, go ahead and we will proceed. Otherwise, your further postings will be deleted.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Wow, good to see your copy and paste skills are still intact. Very well done.

====
Refer to my below response in which summarizes that:
1. Neandert(h)als were fully human
2. Dating techiques are based on statistical assumptions of random and spontaneous radioactive decay, thus discrepancies are the rule, not the exception. (The KEY words being "random' and "spontaneous.")
3. If you wish (since I suspect that you created the original post), name a specific specie and I'll go over the one with you. Otherwise, "evidence of man from the Stone age nearly 12,000 years ago" is too vague to address.
====

1. Your posts/links said nothing about a Neanderthal being "fully human":
a. "probably not significantly different from that of modern humans"
b. "slightly enlarged version of a human hyoid"
c. "closely resembles that of humans today"
d. "roughly the same size"
None of these say that Neanderthals = Homo Sapiens. They each claim slight or subtle differences, but NOT equality. Are you claiming there IS no difference?
Also, what did the original post have to ask about Neanderthals? I don't get it.

2. Your article is based on a hoax by Reiner Protcsch, and doesn't threaten carbon dating methods at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiner_Protsch_von_Zieten

3. I had nothing to do with the original post, honest engine. If the original question was too vague to address, why address it? Why not clarify, THEN answer the question instead of throwing around nonsense about carbon dating and Neanderthals?

===
submit any current research claiming that Neandertals were clearly NOT human
===

Well, my question before I pull up the papers is what are you defining as "human"?
I need to know if you are agreeing with this much:
"Neanderthals" = Homo neanderthalensis
"Human" = Homo sapiens

Do we agree here?

OK, I'm assuming you're going to agree, and the scientific definition is what you want to use.

Let's start simple and obvious with some *pictures* of homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis:

Find the skeletal pictures for the below modern day populations, line them up in order by size and claim 'evolution':

The smallest human on record
The largest human on record
Asian descent (from short to tall)
African descent (from short to tall)
Aboriginal descent
Native American descent (from short to tall)
On and on and on ...

That is the identical standard you just used for your 'proof' of human evolution. It's called variation and the above are ALL human.
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Paleoanthropology/Modern_Humans/Population_Variation

Since the basic premise for the theory of evolution is that mutations/genetic recombination (or whatever) combined with natural selection produce new traits and features, why don't you submit an example for a new feature that was proven to arise from an ape or chimpanzee.

Then, we can start a discussion.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

OK, I'm assuming you're going to agree, and the scientific definition is what you want to use.

Let's start simple and obvious with some *pictures* of homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis:

In regard to your comment:

"Also, what did the original post have to ask about Neanderthals? I don't get it."


Please refer to what EC put in the subject line:

"Adam versus Neanderthals"


Does that help you "get it"?

Ah yes! Now I see it!
I totally missed that. NOW i know why you're referencing neanderthals. My bad.