New Research On Neanderthals Puts Old Assumption To Rest

What has been deemed to be an astonishing implication puts to rest the evolutionary story about Neanderthals and vindicates creationism…

A blogger points out…

“Michael states that Neanderthals “are quite human like the rest of us.” Persuasive genetic evidence from the recent sequencing of several Neanderthal genomes shows that they were not human, but a separate species that branched off about 700kyr ago, and did not thereafter interbred with humans…It is only the popular press that portrays Neanderthals as dim witted. And their physiognomy allowed them to survive in climates that humans could not easily tolerate.

This dedicated blogger who believes in the story of evolution makes the assumption that persuasive genetic evidence from sequencing  had already vindicated his position back in January 2010. He is not the only one as other articles that pertained to this subject have been written. But not so fast!  The research was only beginning when these assumptions were being made. Last week a paper with a more thorough analysis of Neanderthal’s genome which was summarized by science daily said this to the contrary…

“Although we are both hominids, the fossil record told us long ago that we differ physically from Neandertals, in various ways. But at the level of genes and the proteins that they encode, new research published online May 6 in the journal Science reveals that we differ hardly at all.”

“It also indicates that we both — Neandertals and modern humans — differ from the chimps in virtually identical ways…In short, Hannon says, “the news, so far, is not about how we differ from Neandertals, but how we are so nearly identical, in terms of proteins.”

Keep in mind there is more research to go with the Neandertal’s genome because only 60 percent has been recovered so far while a third of it has yet to be sequenced. Also, more research includes gene regulation which could reveal even more similarities which deal with function rather than sequence.

What is more revealing, Europeans and Asians share about 1% to 4% of their nuclear DNA with Neanderthals, indicating that there was substantial interbreeding that went on between the two groups in the past.

This is very important evidence because when a species can interbreed like in this case Neanderthals and modern humans then they are the same species! Creationism vindicated once again!

More articles on Neanderthals published in science

“A Draft Sequence of the Neanderthal Genome” by Green et al.1  Some 55 authors are listed on the paper, including Svante Paabo, who has advanced theories about Neanderthal interbreeding for years.

The NY Times, a militant publication for evolution attempts to keep the old assumption alive by suggesting we are still distinct from Neandertal man. But even in places like John Hawk’s blog who is an  Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin answered his own question if this means Neanderthal man belongs in our species and the answer was a resounding, “yes”.

Neanderthal research through the years has never been a search for unbiased truth about the history of humans rather it was about looking for that evolutionary story using artistic reconstructions as the main prop on how a cell became a specialized complex human being. Fictional stories were invented telling us about how Neanderthals split 650,000 years ago only to encounter modern humans to interbreed with 100,000 years ago.

Logic would seem to indicated that the time span of 550,000 years would have drifted Neanderthals so far apart that interbreeding would have been impossible with modern man. What was our hominid ancestors doing for 150,000 years and then invented agriculture and domestication so recently and so abruptly? Do you see how absurd these evolutionary time frames are in relation to the evidence?

So who were these Neanderthals?  No, they didn’t live 650,000 years ago. They were people who migrated after the Flood, like everyone else. They became a very close-knit tribe which separated themselves from others. Inbreeding of tribes led to accentuated features. Physical characteristics or traits could have been caused by their diet custom or a harsh environment, age, or disease.

Neanderthals did not arise out of such things as population bottlenecks caused by major diseases nor massive murders carried out through the centuries which reduces the gene pool. It explains why the percentage of Neanderthal DNA found in modern humans is small.  In the Book of Genesis it advocates a world of distinct reproductive groups varying within their kinds which we observe today.

The amazing new research reveals what creationism expected so after 150 years of  being taught the wrong things about Neanderthal man because of the storytelling in evolution, it’s time to put the old evolutionary assumption about Neanderthals which is long overdue to rest!

About these ads

16 thoughts on “New Research On Neanderthals Puts Old Assumption To Rest

  1. Michael, you keep on posting stuff you do not seem to know much about …

    could you finally give us your scientific credentials, your line of work, and your place of work ?

    Some of your handful of readers have provided these details the first time you’ve asked: these same readers, however, have asked many, many times for your answers. You do know the answer, but refuse to give this.

    What does that imply ? You seem to have something to hide.

  2. Very interesting post, Michael. I think logic, reason and fair-mondedness indicates that Neanderthals are merely a distinct group of humans rather than some evolutionary relative.

    Evolutionists feeling the usual need to construct fictions in support of their unsubstantiated fable, have proffered various nebulous and distracting ideas about Neanderthals.

    Another example of how Evolutionism hinders comprehension of true history.

  3. We notice that Michael has refused to controvert, or even to dispute, any of Olorin’s reasons why in fact the human eye is a bad design. We may therefore assume that Michael admits that his previous post was in fact a creationist lie perpetrated upon science.

    And then the previous questions remain unanswered as well:

    (1) Blog readership numbers in response to Eelco’s February challenge that your readership asymptotically approaches zero’

    (2) Your qualifications to discuss any scientific subject, in response to the challenge to Olorin.

    (3) A substantive review of Signature in the Cell, promised for August 2009.

  4. A blogger points out[1]…

    “Michael states that Neanderthals “are quite human like the rest of us.” Persuasive genetic evidence from the recent sequencing of several Neanderthal genomes shows that they were not human, but a separate species that branched off about 700kyr ago, and did not thereafter interbred with humans…It is only the popular press that portrays Neanderthals as dim witted. And their physiognomy allowed them to survive in climates that humans could not easily tolerate.“

    That unnamed blogger would be moi. And everything that blogger said remains true, except that a small—not a “significant”— amount of interbreeding was found about 40-70,000 years ago. Michael crows that scientists found some interbreeding—what he tries to hide is the time that they found for this interbreeding. Because it was about 35-65,000 years before life, the universe, and everything was first created, according to his delusion.

    Michael, you can’t just pick and choose among the scientific evidence. You have to take all of it or none.

    Besides, everything else that I wrote in that comment last January remains true. (The provisional truth of science.) Neandertals are still a separate species from Homo sapiens sapiens—us. They were not dim-witted. Our two species diverged more than half a million years ago. And they could tolerate colder climates better than we could. And so on.

    This is very important evidence because when a species can interbreed like [sic] in this case Neanderthals and modern humans [sic] then they are the same species! Creationism vindicated once again!

    Of course, if Michael had actually “studied biology for 18 years,” as he claims, he might know, as all the rest of us do, that some different species can interbreed. Michael has apparently never heard of mules? They result from the interbreeding of two different species.[2] The most common simple definition says that different species cannot or normally do not interbreed.

    The amount of mixed DNA—1 to 4%—is consistent with minimal interbreeding of two separate species. The new results also note that the interbreeding was confined to a specific geographic location—the Mideast and eastern Europe–a small part of the human range, and to a particular time period—40-70kya, also a small interval since the species had separated.

    So, Michael, what is the creationist explanation for the limited geographic range and the short time interval of interbreeding? I thought not.

    We might also ask—nay, demand—why creationists, who maintain that Neandertals are fully and entirely human—did not themselves find this evidence? But we know why—they are allergic to actual research.

    Logic would seem to [sic] indicated that the time span of 550,000 years would have drifted Neanderthals so far apart that interbreeding would have been impossible with modern man.

    Why, Michael? Please recite for us the logic that would say that? Is it in one of Euclid’s Books? Not only is Michael ignorant of biology, he doesn’t know what loic does.

    ,blockquote>So who were these Neanderthals? No, they didn’t live 650,000 years ago. They were people who migrated after the Flood, like everyone else. They became a very close-knit tribe which separated themselves from others. Inbreeding of tribes led to accentuated features. Physical characteristics or traits could have been caused by their diet custom or a harsh environment, age, or disease.

    And, speaking of evidence, prithee, Micahel, vouchsafe to us your evidence that the scientists’ findings of a 650,000 year age for the Neandertals is wrong by a factor of 100 Thsat the period of their interbreeding is wrong for a factor of 10. Please adduce you r evidence that they were a “close-knit” tribe. Please xplain how theuir physical characteristics became so different in a space of less than 4,000 years.

    Once more, Michael, you can’t take only the dribs and drabs of scientific findings that may, with sufficient distortion, be consistent with your preconceived worldview, disregarding everything else that is inconsistent.

    .

    Yet one more reason why scientists call creationists “LIARS FOR JESUS.” The rest of us Christians wish you would stop giving us a bad name.

    =================

    [1] “He is not the only one,” Michael continues. Well, no, Michael. That’s because I didn’t just make all that stuff up. It came from actual scientific sources, which also penetrated the popular press.

    [2] Since Michael may not know this, the species are horses and donkeys. (OK, Michael, a question to redeem yourself: What other animal can result from interbreeding a horse and a donkey? You don’t know that either, do you?)

  5. Neanderthals did not arise out of such things as population bottlenecks caused by major diseases nor massive murders carried out through the centuries which reduces the gene pool. It explains why the percentage of Neanderthal DNA found in modern humans is small. In the Book of Genesis it [sic] advocates [sic] a world of distinct reproductive groups varying within their kinds which we observe today.

    Michael is making up science again. Where did you read that Neandertals[1] arose from a population bottleneck? Or does this result from your own personal delu—uh, research? “Major diseases?” Which ones? “Massive murders?” Do you know something we don’t?

    What creationist principle explains why the Neandertal proportion is what it is? You brought it up—now justify it. Actually, if we assume the creationist position that the present races of mankind were Noah’s children, and if Neandertals originated at anywhere near that time (give or take 1,000 years—roughly between Adam and David), then you have to explain why the Neandertal proportion is not vastly larger—the differences between Neandertal and modern man is a hundred times larger than the genetic differences between any of the present races.

    Would you care to explain that little anomaly? Or will you just put up another post on a different subject, and hope no one notices?

    The amazing new research reveals what creationism expected so after 150 years of being taught the wrong things about Neanderthal man because of the storytelling in evolution,

    The only problem with creationist predictions is that they always come after someone else has already found what you “predicted”. Some prediction. You referred back to your January post on Neandertals—did we see any hint of this “prediction” then, just four months ago? Nooooo.

    Sorry, Michael. We’re still laughing.

    ==============

    [1] We have been spelling it without the “t” for about 10 years now. Answers in Genesis spells it with the old way. Don’t ask me why. Ask Ken Ham.

    PS: I’ll try to get the html tags right this time.

  6. Well, we might not have pushed Michael into answering any questions, but we have made some progress in this post.

    We now have Michael’s picture. Sakes alive,, don’t he look surly!

  7. Tell you what, Michael. There is a theological position that would allow you to maintain your biblical literalism, yet remove the necessity for lying about science all the time.

    Interested?

    In 1857, Philip Henry Gosse wrote a book called Omphalos. It addressed exactly the problem that you face. An Omphalist believes essentially that the Bible is correct in every regard, but that God planted false evidence, and twiddles with scientific instruments to produce false results at every turn.

    Therefore, the Bible can be maintained as true, and science, although internally consistent, presents an illusionary view of the universe.

    You might read Gosse’s book to determine whether it appeals. It would certainly save us a lot of trouble if you could just tell us that you don’t care what science says, it’s wrong. Then you could quit dredging up these stupid half-baked excuses for the scientific evidence.

    You wouldn’t have to lie to us, because God lies to us.

    The only caveat is this. If you accept Omphalism’s tenet that your world is the real one and ours is not, you should temporarily disable it when crossing a street against the light or when approaching a cliff at high rates of speed.

  8. Upson Downes aka Olorin from Minnesota,

    Why are you posting in three different screen names? Your time is running out on two of them…It appears you never encountered a Christian like me before after reading your angle on theological positions.

  9. Olorin,

    “Michael, you can’t just pick and choose among the scientific evidence. You have to take all of it or none.” Is that all you can come with? Your so-called, “Persuasive genetic evidence” has been falsified by the very people whom you admire. It met creationist expectations while surprised many evolutionists. As far as when I said before this discovery was following behavioral patterns of Neanderthals with recent discoveries which later was confirmed by genome research as outlined in my main post. All this confirmed the Bible. Yours??? Where was all them studies you mentioned?

  10. We note that friend Dominic is back with the same content-free comment he used before.

    Apparently her can’t find any more bogus quotes from Karl Popper.

    .

    BTW, Michael. Dom’s comment appears before the following 5 comments, and yet was not there when the last of those 5 comments was posted. So we wonder about the legerdemain of inserting laudatory comments out of sequence for added prominence. Hmmm?

  11. Michael: “Upson Downes aka Olorin from Minnesota, Why are you posting in three different screen names?”

    A short memory? We went through that just 6 days ago, in the comment dated May 5, 2010 at 4:07 pm in your post of May 4.

    Withal, if you really want us to use a single screen name, let us know. You have our address.

  12. Michael: “It appears you never encountered a Christian like me before after reading your angle on theological positions.”

    Well, I have. Although the only one who actually lives in Minnesota is Michelle Bachman, who believes that carbon dioxide makes up 3% of the atmosphere, and that the medical industry accounts for over half the US gross domestic product. That is, her grasp of facts seems to be as precarious as yours.

    Meanwhile, the rest of us seem to have accepted both Jesus and science without any perverse need to set them off against each other.

    I thought the Omphalist approach might offer respite or even surcease from what must be a very difficult campaign. Every day, scientific facts breach the ramparts and must be slain with denial or distortion. They reappear in other guises, accepted by everyone else.

    The Omphalist admits the appearance of the physical world, while denying its fundamental reality. (The Gnostics also—you probably do not remember—denied the ultimate reality iof the physical world, and Christian Scientists deny the reality of disease.)

    At one time, Omphalism enjoyed a certain popularity in England. I have no idea how many followers it may have today, or where you might get in contact with them. You might try the Amazon reviewers who like Gosse’s book–there are at least a few of those. At one time, Omphalists claimed that they could even be scientists—they only just had to cross their fingers behind their backs, so to speak.

    You must admit that such a view would save a lot of bootless fact-bashing. Especially since the bashing surpasses your abilities so often.

    .

    More people might take you seriously if you would stop lying to them about science. You do realize that a major source of atheists is the children of creationists? When the kids realize that their parents have been deceiving them on one subject, they tend to disbelieve everything their parents have told them. See, for example, Laurie Lebo, “The Devil in Dover.”

    FWIW.

  13. Anyone interested in actual scientific expositions of the Neandertal paper have a couple of sources to consider.

    PZ Myers has a review at Panda’s Thumb.

    Noted science writer Carl Zimmer presents an overview at Discover blog The Loom.

    Michael has already mentioned John Hawks’ article “Neandertals Live!”.

  14. Michael: “This is very important evidence because when a species can interbreed like in this case Neanderthals and modern humans then they are the same species! Creationism vindicated once again!”

    Then, by Michael’s definition, humans and chimpanzees are the same species. Although the child would probably be infertile, modern humans can interbreed with chimpanzees.

    Does this also vindicate creationism?

  15. Dom: “Very interesting post, Michael. ”

    Dom uses the wrong word here. He doesn’t mean “interesting”. He means “comforting.”

  16. Socrates Puppette,

    No, I mean ‘interesting'; it is Naturalists and Evolutionists who deny evidence and create fairy stories for comfort.

    Just because you guys cannot see through your own delusions, does not mean no-one else can.

    Down with Naturalism and Evolutionism! Long live free thought, critical analysis and true science!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s