[Ichneumon]

No it cannot possibly be true. Neanderthal man is one of the pillars of evolutionary theory.

No it isn't. But just for laughs, feel free to explain in your own words exactly how you think it is, and why a minor change in the geographic range of Neanderthals would somehow undermine evolutionary theory.

Therefore anything that contradicts the theory is, as an article of faith, false.

You must be thinking of the creatinionists -- evolutionary science follows the evidence where it leads, and if necessary adjusts the theory as indicated by the new discoveries.

[newheart]

You seem to be itching for a fight with a 'creationist'. I'm not sure i qualify. Mostly because I have no idea what your definition of creationist is and I suspect it is largely dismissive. Even then, I am no scientist and certainly not as knowledgeable as you are on these issues.

You are right that Neanderthal man isn't really one of the pillars of evolutionary theory. But that depends on whose perspective you are taking into account. From the scientific community, the answer is no. In the popular mind, Neanderthal Man, thanks to that popular picture of the 'evolution of man' is most certainly thought to be evidence for the veracity of the theory of eveolution. In the popular mind the idea exists that we 'evolved' from apes through Neanderthal Man to modern enlightened technologically superior humanity.

The popular mind has no idea about the work that has been done by William Dembski, Michael Behe,and others. (I do realize that you have probably read them). In the mind of many, if not most, who went to college since the Scopes trial it is simply a commonplace to assume that anyone who challenges macroeconomic evolution theory on any grounds is simply an un-educated fundamentalist bigot.

It certainly is not unreasonable to stand with Darwin, Dawkins and Gould in this dispute. Reasonable minds can disagree. But please remember that Galileo was condemned by people who believed that they had the corner on knowledge and the power to enforce it. From my admittedly limited perspective the paradigm is shifting again. I just hope it does not take the academy 350 years before it issues its apology to Dembski, et al.