CNN: Neandertal is not Your Grandfather (Sorry, Soc)

[A Beautiful Truth]

CNN just reported on a study that promotes the anti-Young earth, anti-evolutionary idea that modern man is not related to Neadertal. This, of course, is bad news for YEC's who try to include primates into Adam's line. YEers seem to only want to use the science that fits their view because they make their view out to be unfalsifiable. That is bad science and bad theology. What a shame--the CNN report is actually a good argument Christians can use against evolutionism, and yet it is a good argument that the YE's are against. What a shame.

I hope ID gets enough guts to shake off YEC and use this argument!

~Charleen

http//www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/01/26/neandertals.ancestor1.reut/

[Amazing Rando]

CNN just reported on a study that promotes the anti-Young earth, anti-evolutionary idea that modern man is not related to Neadertal. This, of course, is bad news for YEC's who try to include primates into Adam's line. YEers seem to only want to use the science that fits their view because they make their view out to be unfalsifiable. That is bad science and bad theology. What a shame--the CNN report is actually a good argument Christians can use against evolutionism, and yet it is a good argument that the YE's are against. What a shame.

I hope ID gets enough guts to shake off YEC and use this argument!

~Charleen

http//www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/01/26/neandertals.ancestor1.reut/

:hrm: Um, what YEC's want to include primates in Adam's line? That what they're against!

[CobraA1]

YEers seem to only want to use the science that fits their view because they make their view out to be unfalsifiable.


I prefer to have a falsifiable theory.

To disprove YEC's:

-Prove, beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt, that an earth that is less than 10,000 years old leads to a contradiction.

Your link is broken, BTW - could you fix it so we could read the article?

[Socratism]

Dear Charlene,

The Neandertal "is a human/is not a human" controversy has been bouncing back and forth at a rapid pace for decades now. It might be wise to wait until it settles down a bit before deciding whether it should be used as some sort of evidence by YECs.

[Solly]

Some people: modern scientists like to present their views as orthodox unquestionable fact

Some other people: Oh no they don't.

some people again: Oh yes they do, and Charleen has just done it, as if the whole scientific community has accepted these new findings.

From the BBC
Researchers collected data on 15 standard "landmarks", or features, on over 1,000 primate skulls. Computer software transformed this data into sets of 3D coordinates for each skull and then superimposed all these sets on top of one another.

Using statistical analysis, they compared differences between modern human and Neanderthal skulls with those found between and within 12 primate species.

The results support the view that Neanderthals were indeed a distinct species.

However, other researchers view Neanderthals as a sub-species or population of Homo sapiens that passed on genes to modern humans either by evolving into them or by interbreeding with them.

The new research shows that differences between Neanderthals and the modern human populations studied are smallest in early Europeans.

Dr Harvati believes this has little significance because the distance is only slightly smaller than that between Neanderthals and living humans.

But John Hawks, assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, US, disagrees: "It does perhaps suggest that they have some characteristics in common," he said.

"It really is an impressive collection of work," said Dr James Ahern of the University of Wyoming.

But Dr Ahern added that, while the Neanderthal specimens used in the study are all male, several of the early modern Europeans the authors compare them with are female skulls.

"We know that males and females differ greatly in their anatomy, and males will look more archaic than females.

"Because of this, I think the difference they observe between the Neanderthals and the Upper Palaeolithic sample is exaggerated," he explained.

"My own view is that the rate of evolutionary change was great enough that when we compare samples we are going to find that they were different because of the time," said Dr Hawks.

"[Neanderthals] existed at an earlier time and hadn't yet acquired all the characteristics that we have today."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3431609.stm

Funny how it's Ok to criticise the dogmatism of YECs yet fall for the same criticism oneself :tongue:

[A Beautiful Truth]

:hrm: Um, what YEC's want to include primates in Adam's line? That what they're against!

You would think YEC's would be against including primates, but they actually think the bi-pedal primates like Neandertal are some of Adam's decendents, instead of an entirely seperate species as many scientists do.

You will also see that YEC's use a definnition of "kinds" to explain the diversity of animal species off the ark.

For example, YEC's believe:

all horses, donkey, zebras were decedents of one horse pair.

all bears--brown bear, black bear, polar bears were dececdents of one bear pair

and much more "diversity in kinds" in order to get the *millions*, I repeat *millions* of land animal species from the limited pairs (thousands) of animal species off the ark.

Given the amount of time they try to explain this diversity, they offer their own brand of rapid evolution. This is why they want to include those bi-pedal primates into Adam's line, it fits into their Bible interpretation.

Perhaps it is easy to see why YEers put such a cap on time--they know that given enough millions of years, the die hard secular evolutionists who want to believe in the evolution of man might be "right", according to the YE interpretation of diversity in kinds.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Dear Charlene,

The Neandertal "is a human/is not a human" controversy has been bouncing back and forth at a rapid pace for decades now. It might be wise to wait until it settles down a bit before deciding whether it should be used as some sort of evidence by YECs.

This is just another, in addition to many other studies that proport that Neandertal was a seperate species. You must remember Mtdna has already supported it, as well as many other discinctions in physiology. THis CNN report is nothing new, and is certainly not surprising.

What is surprising to me is that YEC's will even include primates *less* anatomically similar to man than Neandertal in Adam's line.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Some people: modern scientists like to present their views as orthodox unquestionable fact

Some other people: Oh no they don't.

some people again: Oh yes they do, and Charleen has just done it, as if the whole scientific community has accepted these new findings...

Funny how it's Ok to criticise the dogmatism of YECs yet fall for the same criticism oneself :tongue:

Solly,

I am not sure exactly what this means. If you still think I was being "dogmatic" after you read my response, please explain to me.

Perhaps you thought that I was saying *all* secular scientists accepted the studies that Neadertal did not contribute to the human line.

That was not my point, perhaps I should not have been so general.

But I was trying to make a point--while secular science will admit (not all, but many peer-reviewed respected scientists) that Neandertal was not related to man, (and this is because of more that this one study, believe me, there is much more evidence besides) YECism accepts not only the human evolutionary idea that Neadertal and man are connected, but goes a step further than the evolutionist, and says that Neadertal *was* man. (Egads!)

And again, it is not just Neandertal that YEC's want in the human line, but even less advanced, less physically similar bi-pedal primates. Those who promote human evolution do not even include them as the same species--but that is the YE way--put a lot of leeway into the word "kind" and you have fit "science" into your Bible interpretation.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Your link is broken, BTW - could you fix it so we could read the article?

Let me try again:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/01/26/neanderthals.ancestor1.reut/

[Amazing Rando]

You would think YEC's would be against including primates, but they actually think the bi-pedal primates like Neandertal are some of Adam's decendents, instead of an entirely seperate species as many scientists do.

You will also see that YEC's use a definnition of "kinds" to explain the diversity of animal species off the ark.

For example, YEC's believe:

all horses, donkey, zebras were decedents of one horse pair.

all bears--brown bear, black bear, polar bears were dececdents of one bear pair

and much more "diversity in kinds" in order to get the *millions*, I repeat *millions* of land animal species from the limited pairs (thousands) of animal species off the ark.

Given the amount of time they try to explain this diversity, they offer their own brand of rapid evolution. This is why they want to include those bi-pedal primates into Adam's line, it fits into their Bible interpretation.

Perhaps it is easy to see why YEers put such a cap on time--they know that given enough millions of years, the die hard secular evolutionists who want to believe in the evolution of man might be "right", according to the YE interpretation of diversity in kinds.

Aaaaah. Thanks for clearing up my confusion. I thought that most scientists held than Neanderthals were almost indistinguishable from modern humans- except maybe a bit shorter, hairier, and stockier. Maybe I'm wrong?

[CobraA1]

First of all, the correct address of the CNN article:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/01/26/neanderthals.ancestor.reut/index.html

Second of all, this is an interesting study, but it seems like the results aren't too terribly conclusive - I'm sure the debate will continue.

Third of all, I'm more interested in whether they could interbreed than whether or not they have similar heads.

Last of all, I'd be more interested if this were published in a peer-reviewed journal, where I dould take a closer look at the data and go over the results myself, instead of taking their word for it.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Got it for you, CobraA1:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0308085100

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, indeed a peer reviewed journal

[CobraA1]

Thanks. I'll take a look.

[Socrates]

And again, it is not just Neandertal that YEC's want in the human line, but even less advanced, less physically similar bi-pedal primates.

Hardly a matter of "wanting" anything, but pointing out the clear evidence of hybridization with "modern" Homo sapiens sapiens, their ability to make high-tech superglue, burying their dead, music, excellent manual dexterity, bigger brains than modern people on average ...

Those who promote human evolution do not even include them as the same species--

Many DO call Neandertals Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

but that is the YE way--put a lot of leeway into the word "kind" and you have fit "science" into your Bible interpretation.

Rather, the Rossite way is to misdefine kind as a modern taxonomic species then defend the indefensible fixity of species. And of course, YEC is not just one of many interpretations, but the the text!

[A Beautiful Truth]

Hardly a matter of "wanting" anything, but pointing out the clear evidence of hybridization with "modern" Homo sapiens sapiens, their ability to make high-tech superglue, burying their dead, music, excellent manual dexterity, bigger brains than modern people on average ...

You mislead the public--the evidence is FAR from clear that they bred with human beings. Maybe if you had a certain pair of glasses the evidence would be "clear." As far as the super glue and burying their dead, etc--these are not evidences of spirit expression--only modern man had that capability.


...And of course, YEC is not just one of many interpretations, but the the text!

Now you are really scaring me--YEC=the text. (I have a feeling I know where you would have stood in the days of Galileo)

[Socrates]

You mislead the public--the evidence is FAR from clear that they bred with human beings.

Misleading huh? The evidence for hybridization from morphology is far stronger than claims about highly fragmented DNA claims from one specimen.

Maybe if you had a certain pair of glasses the evidence would be "clear."

My glasses are the propositions of Scripture. Yours are evidently uniformitarian assumptions.

As far as the super glue and burying their dead, etc--these are not evidences of spirit expression--only modern man had that capability.

Wow, I never realised the spirit could be fossilized. Silliness aside, Ross and his devotees blur the difference between humans and animals by restricting it to something scientifically untestable as spirit -- yet they are the ones so enamored by so-called science!

Now you are really scaring me--YEC=the text. (I have a feeling I know where you would have stood in the days of Galileo)

Yes, against the church for trying to twist Scripture with the prevailing "science" of Ptolemaic Cosmology! Alas, the Church, like Ross today, sucked up to the scientific establishment -- the Aristotelians at the universities.

[kofh2u]

Socrates,

Hmmm,....Socrates ... we have no evidence that your name sake ever existed,...true?

I mean, if we do not accept eye witness testimony. Very ancient eye witness testimony, too. Scientific proof, some material evidence, might seem the only proof of things in this age of empiricism,... yet Plato's eye witness accounts of Socrates have been enough to establish the credibility of his existence. And, that is the ONLY proof we have, none of his writings having reached us to verify he ever said what Plato says he said. Right?

It seems to me that MH Sapiens of 40,000 years ago would be little different than ourselves, mentally and physically. In this, it is not difficult to believe the cohabitation and mating would pass down to us, word of mouth, finding tales of giants, and such, common among the ancients, and of course, those few verse in Genesis 6:1-3,4.

As with Plato, we have only one of the required two witnesses, although the present weak empirical evidence does interject the testimony of expert witness which Socrates does not have to support him.

Neverthless, if for argument sake, we might accept that the best rational sense of Genesis 6:1-4 is that this extraordinary situation took place,... and, as we might expect, someone(s) with intelligence realized, as does our intellectual community today, that this was significant and needed to be passed on... then: In this view, Genesis seems very good "proof."

But, as with any hypothesis, we build upon it as though we are correct, then the rest of Genesis 6, all the way through Genesis 9, is the same important ancient report.

In this theory, built upon the postulate of a report on cohabitation with Neadrthal, we assume that the entire Flood story is an analogy. We see that what we are reading tells of a human flood... a flood of Modern Homo Saoiens, one that kills the Neanderthals, a war-lije thing so common to our nature. Neanderthal is now extinct, as we know actually was the case.

We read on, realizing that Sapiens could speak, while Neanderthal's low voice box denied him of language beyond grunts. We see the significance in that Noah named all the animaks, but in the Ark within his skull. We see that the Racial Stock Theory we now embrace is correct, that the three sons of Noah are markers for Mongoloid, Negroid, and Caucasian.

There is more, but you get it, don't you?

I am propose Oscam's Razor as the test of truth here, not the impractical, impossible, and inappropriate scientific empiricism.

Please read the Cosmogony Guidelines as it appears that you do not fall within those restrictions. - DDW

[dizzle]

The references to someone who is OEC and holds to ideas taught by OEC creation ministries as Rossite, or Ross devotees, is just not appropriate. This is in fact asked in this section which is to promote civil discourse between these two camps not to be used at all. The same would be said of anyone who wished to call a YEC a Hammite or Ham or Morris devotee. Pigeonholing of people is not usually helpful.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Misleading huh? The evidence for hybridization from morphology is far stronger than claims about highly fragmented DNA claims from one specimen.

My dear man, is that why the leading paleoanthropologists REJECT the hybridization hypothesis? And why do you think these real scientists reject this hypothesis--I mean, wouldn't they WANT to have this evidence to suppport human evolution? Why would most secular paleoantropologists reject this hybridization evidence since they would love to support a find like this--seeing how many are evolutionists? There is some scholarly integrity there that I wish I found in the YE camp.

And I agree with CobraA1--peer review is important--if I remember right the hybrid study was in a non-peer reviewed publication...

But I know the importance the YE scientists puts on peer review--they only accept peer review by those who wear the same glasses. It is just not right. Why, I've always wondered, do they bother with science anyway since it does not really matter a hill of beans to them to have their science tested.

Wow, I never realised the spirit could be fossilized. Silliness aside, Ross and his devotees blur the difference between humans and animals by restricting it to something scientifically untestable as spirit -- yet they are the ones so enamored by so-called science!

You must have forgotten about the morphological and biochemical evidence that forces even those who want to still believe in human evolution to the place where they admit there is no contribution of these hominids to humans. Unlike the Young Earth creationists, they have not found that missing link.

The irony is just killing me.

~Charleen