Sep 272006
 

This Current Biology article, Revisiting Neandertal diversity with a 100,000 year old mtDNA sequence, Neanderthal and humans have no evolutionary connection. This is the latest study among others in the past that confirms the distinct human ancestry from Neanderthal.

  15 Responses to “Neanderthal is Still an Evolutionary Dead End”

  1. How do Neanderthals fit into the Creation worldview? Did God create two types of human like beings?

    Also, isn’t the reference to 40,000 and 100,000 year old specimens inconsistent with an earth that is meant to be no older than circa 10,000 years?

  2. Hi rahoggid,

    I am going to repeat again: Not all Creationists hold a view that Earth is 10 000 years old.

  3. OK – thanks for the clarification.

    So, how do Neanderthals fit into the Creation worldview? Did God create two types of human like beings?

  4. For about 100 years the world was led to believe Neanderthal man was stooped and apelike. This false idea was based upon some Neanderthals with bone diseases such as arthritis and rickets. Recent dental and x-ray studies of Neanderthals suggest they were humans who matured at a slower rate and lived to be much older than people today. Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man are now considered completely human. Artists’ drawings of “ape-men,” especially their fleshy portions, are often quite imaginative and are not supported by the evidence.

    I am also going to show you some of the flaws in the Neandertal mtDNA Interpretation:

    Sequence differences in modern human mtDNA range from one to 24 substitutions, with the average being eight substitutions. The mtDNA sequence differences between modern humans and the Neanderthal fossil range from 22 to 36 substitutions, with the average being 27. Thus, the few modern humans who have the largest number of substitutions (24) have two more substitutions in their mtDNA than the smallest number (22) between modern humans and the Neandertal individual. In other words, there is a slight overlap. However, by comparing the modern human ‘average’ of eight substitutions and the Neandertal ‘average’ of 27 substitutions, the false impression is given that the Neandertal mtDNA variation is three times as great as that among modern humans. Using averages allows Kahn and Gibbons to write in Science:

    ‘These data put the Neandertal sequence outside the statistical range of modern human variation “‘.(Emphasis added)

    Can you see the problem rahoggid?

    Statistics has been used to cloud a relationship between Neandertals and modern humans. It is improper to use statistical ‘averages’ in a situation where many entities are being compared with only one entity. In one of the cases, 994 sequences from 1669 modern humans are compared with one sequence from one Neandertal. Thus, there cannot be a Neanderthal ‘average’, and the comparison is not valid. Although it may not be the intention, the result of such a comparison could not help but be deceptive. The biochemistry in the experiment is brilliant but the mathematics leaves much to be desired.

    The above shows that facts don’t speak for themselves; they must be interpreted in some framework. Evolutionists have their own framework ‘naturalism/uniformitarianism’ into which they try to fit the data. Christians should use the creation/catastrophe (Flood)/confusion (of languages) framework.

  5. Hi rahoggid,

    You are one of a few atheistic Darwinist who thinks the earth is only 10K yrs old. As a Creationist and IDer I think the earth is probably closer to 4.5by.

    What makes you think the Neanderthals is another type of human? Have you been watching the National Geographic channel where they use those fancy computer generated Neanderthals graphics? You know they aren’t real right? You know the difference between a movie and factual reality right? You’ve bought into the Darwinian creation myth.

    Do you know what the facts are? Did you even read the abstract of the article from Current Biology? inunison has already given you a lot of facts. Let me add my 2 ¢ worth. In case you’ve missed it, Ancient DNA analysis of 12 Neanderthal specimens had already indicated that Neanderthals are genetically distinct from modern humans and have no evolutionary connection to them. The key words there is genetically distinct from humans. So when you say that “Neanderthals is another type of human” , on what do you based that on. It wouldn’t be the Darwinian myth narrative would it?

    I realize that you want the Darwinian narrative to be true but too many obstacles, like facts, stand in the way. We probably have more hominid fossils than any other species. But you know what they say, too much of a good thing? The mythologists just can’t seem to make sense out of all the fossils that they have. There is no way to build a coherent line of descent from the putative LCA to humans. But the Darwinian mythologists won’t let a little thing like facts stand in the way of the myth narrative. So they will just create a line with the Neanderthals as the closest relative to humans. When specifics specimens are not available, well Darwinians have a solution for that too. When the facts are not on your side”. obfuscate. The Darwinian strategy is to throw out multiple hypotheses so says the narrative. First repeat the mantra evolution is a fact 10 times and the say there are many roads to evolution, the multiregional hypothesis, or the out-of-Africa hypothesis, then there is also the African hybridization and replacement model. Trust us rahoggid we are professionals in the field of biology. But we won’t tell you that none of these hypotheses are able to draw a definitive line of descent from LCA to Homo.

    picture taken from RTB Who was Adam

    This is just the beginning of the problem. Because we don’t want you to look at the man behind the curtain while he perform his magic. The Darwinian mystics are constantly tossing these different fossils up in the air and rearranging them in an attempt to keep the narrative alive. e.g. Once upon a time the molecular biologists through molecular comparison have determine that the human and chimp diverged no more than 1.3 mya, but the paleontologist can’t swallow something so ludicrous. Paleontologist claim to have human fossils dating back to 3 mya, Australopithecines dated back 5-6 mya, and the Ramapithecus hominid dated to 13 mya was also in the line to Homo. What to do, what to do” we have all these conflicts. In a stroke of genius the Darwinian mythologist just throw Ramapithecus out of the Homo lineage and change the molecular clock to 7 mya and VOILA. A new myth is born.

    Yup, the Darwinian myth is piled a billion mile high alright. But what is it that piles a billion mile high? It is not factual evidence, I can tell you that.

  6. Firstly, at what point did I say I believed the earth to be circa 10,000 years old? I was asking the question in relation to the YEC belief, as I was not sure whether the Christians on this site were YEC or OEC. I also concur with the 4.5by age of the earth.

    Also, at what point did I state that I was questioning the initial post’s statement? Did I say I did not agree with it? No. Did I dispute the evidence put forward? No. I asked a simple question. “How do Neanderthals fit into the Creation worldview? Did God create two types of human like beings?”.

    Did I say Neanderthals were human beings? No. I said “Human Like”. By this I meant that they have similar physical characteristics to humans – ie. walking upright, hands, etc.

    To expand on my question….if Christians believe that one species cannot evolve into another, humans were made in God’s image and all other life forms were created by God to sustain/support humans, then why would God make another life form, similar to humans in looks and capabilities? And if he did, why did humans not make use of this other life form as we have with cattle and horses? Surely having a life form that is similar to our own type of capabilities – hands, etc – would be of great benefit?

  7. “…if Christians believe that one species cannot evolve into another…”

    “…and all other life forms were created by God to sustain/support humans…”

    Hi rahoggid,

    Will you please show me, from the Christian literature, that this is what we believe. Christians are not denying evolution in a sense of change (variation) within spieces. Do you understand that? What we have problem with is, so called, “Grand Claim of Evolution” that ALL complexity in biology is due to random mutation coupled with natural selection. That is not scientific but philosophical claim!

  8. Inunison, do you understand that the statement “…if Christians believe that one species cannot evolve into another..” is different from “…Christians are not denying evolution in a sense of change (variation) within spieces…”? I did not say that Christians believe that species cannot change over time, I said they believe that one species cannot change into another species (the word species added for absolute clarity!).

    Christians believe that God created all life as it is today in terms of the species, and they have to accept that life can change over time within a species as it has been proven beyond all doubt that it can happen – selective breeding of dogs is just one example.

    Why do you keep avoiding the question? You cannot just say a finding does not support evolution – ie. Neanderthals existed and are similar to humans, but are a different species to humans. You need to also explain how that same finding supports the Christian worldview, as documented in the bible, that is considered to be historical fact. So to repeat the question with improved clarity:

    ….if Christians believe that one life form cannot evolve into another life form, humans were made in God’s image and all other life forms were created by God to sustain/support humans, then why would God make another life form, similar to humans in looks and capabilities? And if he did, why did humans not make use of this other life form as we have with cattle and horses? Surely having a life form that is similar to our own type of capabilities – hands, etc – would be of great benefit? Why did Noah not include this life form on the ark? Surely this would have been a very useful life form to preserve?

  9. Hi rahoggid,

    Did I say you claimed that Neanderthal was human? No, I did not say that. I quoted you saying that you thought Neanderthal was “a type of human” , but in actuality you said “a type of human like being” . Fine, I will grant you that a distinction can be made between those two statements. But my question to you was and is still the same. What makes you think that it was “a type of human like being” ? Why not say it was “a type of chimp/ape like being” ? Lucy was putatively walking upright, hands, etc. If as you said that you agreed with the article that Neanderthal was genetically distinct from humans, why do you persist to imply a link by calling it “a type of human like being” ? As far as we know Neanderthal is closer to Lucy than human, will you now change your statement to “two types of Australopithecine like beings” ?

    You have not supported any of your statements with scientific fact, which you tout to support your faith in Darwinian evolution. You have not address any of the scientific arguments that we’ve made against evolution with counter scientific data. Did you know Darwinists reconstructed the Neanderthal skeleton by incorporating modern human bones to fill in the missing gaps? Please, please, rahoggid, respond to our comments with some of the billion mile high scientific evidence that you have to support Darwinian myth evolution. Otherwise, you can’t blame us for thinking you have an axe to grind with Christianity.

  10. rahoggid,

    We could try to answer your question how Neanderthal fits into the Creation model but how many of our questions have you answered? More importantly you seem to have an axe to grind with Christianity, so I am not what point you are trying to make with this question.

    In any case, why don’t you try to answer some of our questions here in this thread and on the Survival thread? One reason is that if you can answer the questions we’ve posed, and then your question might actually be irrelevant.

  11. Teleologist, the Neanderthal must be close enough to human in characteristics to warrant the point being made that it is not human genetically. Otherwise we could be talking about chimpanzees, which we are not. Maybe my approach is different to others…but I am not qualified to discuss the science of evolution, which is true of the vast majority of Athiests and Christians alike. But if you make a statement that Neanderthals are a different species, and that species is closer to human characteristcs than any other living thing today, and you use this evidence to demonstrates a negative case for evolution, then by definition it must support a positive case for creation. In what way does the existence of the neanderthal provide a postive case for creation? Or at least remain consistent with the biblical account?

  12. Teleologist

    We could try to answer your question how Neanderthal fits into the Creation model but how many of our questions have you answered?

    You originally posted a statement not a question. I asked two basic questions about it. You then went off and wrote loads of stuff supporting the original statement which I never questioned. You seem happy to write loads of stuff on which I have never disagreed with or even questioned, instead of answering the simply questions I asked. Why not just say, that this was one of the life forms killed in the great flood. That would make it consistent wouldn’t it?

    Surely by posting on the web in a public way about your evidence against evolution, you need to accept that people will defend their worldview in different ways. This is my way….ie. understanding how current science supports your alternative worldview to evolution – Creationism as defined in the bible which you consider to be historically factually accurate. It seems everyone is great at finding flaws or issues with the scientific evidence of evolution, but less keen to use that same evidence to support a positive case for creation. I find that interesting.

  13. Hi rahoggid,

    Neanderthal must be close enough to human in characteristics to warrant the point being made that it is not human genetically.

    This is classic Darwinian Speak. Assume they are similar then find out they are not, but they must have been similar in the first place or why would they have made that assumption. No circular reasoning there.

    But if you make a statement that Neanderthals are a different species, and that species is closer to human characteristcs than any other living thing today ” neanderthal provide a postive case for creation?

    I’ve never said that. This is the assumption of atheists and Darwinists. Go back and read what I wrote. As I said before, your erroneous premise led you to the wrong question.

    You originally posted a statement not a question. I asked two basic questions about it. You then went off and wrote loads of stuff supporting the original statement which I never questioned. You seem happy to write loads of stuff on which I have never disagreed with or even questioned

    My original post was just to introduce a science article. In comment #5 I did begin with a statement. It was in response to your comment #1, “the reference to 40,000 and 100,000 year old specimens inconsistent with an earth that is meant to be no older than circa 10,000 years?” In that statement you make no mention of YEC or OEC. I take that to mean you must be the one who thinks that the earth is only 10Ky. I guess you assumed that because I am a Creationist then I must have thought the earth was only 10Ky. You seem to have quite a few misconceptions of Creationists. I wonder if it is that axe thing again.

    However, right after that I did ask a few questions.
    What makes you think the Neanderthals is another type of human?
    Have you been watching the National Geographic channel where they use those fancy computer generated Neanderthals graphics?
    You know they aren’t real right?
    You know the difference between a movie and factual reality right?
    Do you know what the facts are?
    Did you even read the abstract of the article from Current Biology?
    It wouldn’t be the Darwinian myth narrative would it?
    But what is it that piles a billion mile high?

    To be fair maybe not all the questions are all that significant. And my “loads of stuff” was an indirect way of answering your question. Let me repeat, you are asking the question from a false premise. If you take some time to understand that “loads of stuff” then maybe you can form a proper question.

  14. Hi Rahoggid,

    Just for the record and so you know. I am a YEC.

  15. Hi rahoggid,

    I was under impression that your question are answered. In post #4 I gave you YEC view on data interpretation (which I subscribe to) and in post #5 teleologist gave you OEC interpretation. What other question(s) is not answered? I will try to oblige you if you let me know.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.