'Your Forefathers Were Not Neanderthals'

IOL ^ | 1-26-2004 | Maggie Fox

[Junior]

There's a problem with analyzing the skeletal features of a child that age -- they aren't fully developed and can lead to false interpretations. That's why there is controversy surrounding that particular find.

[whattajoke]

Have you seen the actual evidence? Most of the fossil evidence for "pre-humans" won't even cover a coffee table

You must have quite a large coffee table.

[whattajoke]

The Earth was created perfect, man rebelled, so God's creation began to degenerate. Genetic mutations + bottleneck effects could have easily lead to degenrate forms of "humanity" after the fall. My faith actually expects to see hominid type forms that are not quite human but close.

Huh? Please explain further.

[whattajoke]

ping the crew, if you see fit.

[tpaine]

Not at all, 'whatever' is just an easy way to inform you that you've been dismissed..

[realpatriot71]

You must have quite a large coffee table.

No, not really, actual "bone evidence" of these "pre-humans" are few and far between and consist most of a chip of "skull" here or a peice of "fermur" there. You want to base your understanding of "human evolution" on a chip here or a bone there - go ahead.

[realpatriot71]

Huh? Please explain further.

It was a simple statement. What did you not understand?

[realpatriot71]

Not at all, 'whatever' is just an easy way to inform you that you've been dismissed..

I see :-) Then I dismiss you as well. Go in peace.

[VadeRetro]

The only answerable question is whether every individual can be unambiguously assigned to one population or the other, based upon morphology. But my understanding is that that's been the case for a long time.

This is mostly true but not totally. The Lagar Velho child was originally thought to be a hybrid. Some now argue that it only shows that very young Neanderthals were less robust-looking and different from us than the adults. There are also some specimens from 90-100kya, the Skuhl site in Israel, which are overall classified as early modern. Nevertheless, one or two have some "Neanderthalish" features which may result from then-current crossbreeding with Neanderthals or may just represent "atavistic" variations within that population.

DNA studies with nuclear DNA would be best, but nuclear DNA is much harder to recover than mtDNA.

[antiRepublicrat]

Kent Hovind-

Oh come on, please bring on papers and arguments from Hovind. I could use a good laugh today.

[PatrickHenry]

ping the crew, if you see fit.

Done, way back at post 26.

[hopespringseternal]

The Bible is a theological work with historical overtones. It is neither a history book nor a biology text.

Two of the most annoying things about this whole debate:

First, question evolution and the response is never to address the points brought up but to burn a bible. Many times, the points have nothing to do with the bible, but are valid scientific questions.

Second, the use of the bible as a basis for scientific truth. The bible is simply not meant as a basis for science.

[antiRepublicrat]

Most of the fossil evidence for "pre-humans" won't even cover a coffee table,

Your coffee table must be a lot bigger than mine.

[ZULU]

"Many times, the points have nothing to do with the bible, but are valid scientific questions."

Name one.

[realpatriot71]

Not at all, 'whatever' is just an easy way to inform you that you've been dismissed.

Correct. The Bible is not a science textbook, and should not be used as such. However, Creation (which science studies), should point back to a Creator and His Word, the Bible. And to a person of faith, Creation does point back to a Creator. Unfrotunately, evolution as a means to origins intentionally uses the "unknown" to promote a specific theory, which works out beautifully because nothing can be shown confidently correct nor incorrect. The theory behind evolution is merely conjecture based on the objective evidence we have today - however - God is never considered, therefore evolution MUST come up with a way for life to have evolved from mere chemicals to rational, thinking minds. What's interesting here is that in order to begin a theory like this, one must first reject a Creator, then comes the conjecture. The devious thing about the theory is that once in place it can then be used to persuade those who believe, not to believe. Evolution attacks faith every chance it gets when ironically it has to be taken on faith itself by its own believers.

[realpatriot71]

see reply #66

[Frapster]

Would Jesus' moral message be any less powerful if humans evolved from single-celled organisms?

Yes, he himself refers to Adam. That would either make him misinformed and finite in his knowledge and therefore less than God or it would make him a liar.

[Gerasimov]

what link? It's more like most of the chain that is missing ... and we have a link here or there, from which evolutionary scientists "construct" the rest of the chain. There is no fossil record that backs up evolution...it's a myth.

[Junior]

Yes, he himself refers to Adam.

I refer to the "Boy Who Cried Wolf." That doesn't necessarily mean the young fellow actually existed. References to Adam could simply be a method of illustrating a point that would be recognizeable to His listeners.

[greenwolf]

If humans and neanderthals ever interbred you'd think there'd be more evidence of it than one or two questionable children's skeletons. That seems to be grasping.