Random question: If Tarzan was born to normal, modern human parents, then why did he grow up with the features of neanderthal man? He should have homo sapien features.

Me trying to process the question: 0%

*inhale*

As a Christian, I don't believe this, but let me play Devil's advocate (pretend I do): According to the theory of evolution, Neanderthal man was the evolution right before homo sapiens. Neanderthals were short, broad, and had large muscles. They had very simplistic speech and high endurance, and survived off a diet composed primarily of meat. Neanderthals had a very different skull shape to homo sapiens, which Tarzan's physical features display (such as his pointed chin and large forehead). Neanderthal man populated the majority of Earth during the Middle Paleolithic era. Homo sapiens (modern humans) first evolved from a different humanoid species that looked more like monkeys residing in Africa, having lost the extra fur due to the continent's hot climate. During the Upper Paleolithic (about 40,000 years ago), the homo sapiens migrated from Africa to other continents, where they first interacted with the primitive Neanderthals (fun fact: ancient homo sapiens of this period supposedly had very sophisticated speech and were just about as advanced as we are today, bar modern technology). Homo sapiens didn't need nearly as much food as Neanderthals did, since their bodies were smaller and leaner. The Neanderthals all died out due to dwindling food sources, since they were hunting so much. Meanwhile, the homo sapiens survived due to their broader pallet that allowed them to eat not just meat, but also berries, fruit, vegetables, dairy, and grains for similar nutritional value, during the first (I think) ice age.

With that said, it's safe to assume that there wouldn't be any Neanderthals running around when Tarzan takes place (which I would guess is in the 1800s, during the Victorian era [1837-1901] based on the lady's [I forget her name] outfit). Being raised by a different species wouldn't cause Tarzan to literally devolve (the opposite of evolve), as the traits of homo sapiens are literally hardwired into his genetic code since his parents were homo sapiens as well. My question is, why does it look like Tarzan devolved when all he did was hang out with the monkeys?

Again, as a Christian, I don't believe in any of this. I know a lot about this because I've extensively studied evolution to be able to refute it in arguments, which is why I posed the question, simply because Tarzan more closely resembles Neanderthal man than homo sapiens.

I've only read a few words and by guess, and lemme explain. sure, he was born by modern parents, BUT due to being raised in a jungle his body had adapted and change slightly to survive the jungle, as how your skin would darken if you were born where there's lots of sun, or how your skin would lighten in places without much sun.

Well, those would be closer to adaptations. Adaptations occur when a specimen is removed from the environment it has become accustomed to, and has to make slight changes to survive easier. They form at all points of human life, from birth until death. For example, after being born, a baby can no longer rely on its mother for warmth, so the baby's skin adapts to retain more heat and protect against cold weather. Adaptations are minor changes. Only a few of them change the physical appearance of the subject matter. Evolutions, however, are, according to the theories of evolution and natural selection, drastic changes made as the subject is violently and suddenly subjected to a new environment. The theory of evolution states that creatures evolved to suit their own needs (such as different food sources), while natural selection claims that some particular individuals in those species that evolved didn't gain those evolved traits, leaving them at a disadvantage that caused them to die out.

As that is stated, evolutionary traits are not revocable. You can't cause a homo sapien to revert back to the appearance of the homo erectus (a different ancient human ancestor), because homo erectus evolved into homo heidelbergensis (nicknamed "Heidie" for short) because of sudden and violent changes to its surroundings. The first homo sapiens evolved from Heidie in Africa, losing the extra fur sported by Heidie to keep cool. Darker skin tones came later as the sun continued to make things warmer and warmer.

If Tarzan had adapted to the jungle, it wouldn't be in such a way so as to give him the broad, squat stature or large forehead of homo neanderthalensis (the scientific name for Neanderthal man). Adaptations Tarzan would have might include more muscle mass, better endurance, increased grip strength, and a stronger metabolism. What we have here is loteral devolution - that is to say, the exact opposite of evolution (or evolution in reverse).

Again - and I cannot stress this enough - I do not believe any of this. I'm simply using this information because Tarzan was at least conceived from an evolutionist viewpoint. That being the case, Christianity-based human origin logic wouldn't apply to Tarzan, so I have to use evolutionary-based origin logic. I'm just stating facts as they relate to the subject matter (that being Tarzan).

TL;DR: What you're talking about are adaptations, which are smaller changes to minor disturbances in an individual's environment. What I refer to is full-on devolution, or evolution in reverse.

mk. I'm not even gonna bother reading the whole damn passage, I just got home from school. XD

btw moana's face had me dying and the way Ariel looks more like she has zestier intentions with the face swap had me dying XD