At 09:58 PM 9/11/04 -0600, Andrew wrote: >Couple that with Neanderthal man who doctors familiar with Rickets >identified as normal humans with Rickets and you have a picture of Europe My apologies for this really off-topic message, but this widely-repeated claim is untrue and should be corrected even if it's here. Please consider the following: "The signs of rickets differ from Neandertal fossils in several respects, including: People with rickets are undernourished and calcium-poor; their bones are weak. Neandertal bones are 50% thicker than the average human's. Evidence of rickets is easily detectable, especially on the ends of the long bones of the body. This evidence is not found in Neandertals. Rickets causes a sideways curvature of the femur. Neandertal femurs bend backwards. (Rudolph) Virchow, who first reported the possibility of rickets in a Neandertal (back in the 1800s), did not cite it alone. He said the fossil had rickets in early childhood, head injuries in middle age, and arthritis in old age. It is doubtful that an entire population suffered these same afflictions. (Marvin) Lubenow attributes rickets to a post-Flood ice age, with heavy cloud cover, shelter and clothing, and a lack of vitamin D. But the greatest differences from modern humans, seen in H. erectus, are found mostly in tropical areas. (from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC051_1.html) See also http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.html or http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3431609.stm for more details. Please send any flames via email rather than posting them here. Thank you. John
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC