Study: Humans, Neanderthals not related

Source: Chicago Tribune Newspaper, 29 Mar 2000:

BRITAIN: Modern humans are not descended from Neanderthals but coexisted with them about 40,000 years ago, scientists said Tuesday

An analysis of DNA extracted from the ribs of a 29,000-year-old Neanderthal infant buried in a cave in southern Russia showed it was too distinct to be related to humans.

"There Wasn't much, if any mixture, between Neanderthals and modern humans," said William Goodwin, of the University of Glasgow "Though they coexisted we can't find any evidence of genetic material being passed from Neanderthals to modern humans."

The study reported in the science journal Nature, also supports the "Out of Africa" theory of modem human evolution-- that modern humans evolved from a common ancestor in Africa and spread across the world around 100,000 years ago.

DNA comparisons also showed that different ethnic groups do not have any links to Neanderthals, Goodwin said.

(End of article)

*WBSG Comment: The significance of this story is in the fact that it comes through the secular press from the often times anti-God/anti-creationism scientific community. While every Christian knows that God created man just they way they are today: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." [Gen 1:27], many in the scientific community have been pushing the "evolution lie" on us for a long time. God says: "in the image of God", the scientific community said: "in the image of Apes and Amebas". I believe God. The Neanderthal "Man" is an extinct species of ape! Nothing more, nothing less.

And while this article does remove one of the falsehoods about the so-called Evolution Theory, it still hasn't got it all the way right yet. For this article, after conceding that humans did not descend from the Neanderthal Man (Ape), they still hang on to the incorrect notion that the descendants of man go back over 100,000 years. But hey, they're coming around.

It is difficult for men who consider themselves to be the "geniuses" of our time to admit that they have fallen for a deception that comes strait from satan's camp - the so-called Evolution Theory of man descending from Apes and even further back in time from single cell Amebas. Even worse than their own confusion, they have pushed the unsupportable lie on generations of school children who believed it because the "scientists" said it was so.

You are hard pressed today to find a creditable scientist to go on the record supporting the Theory of Evolution. But hey, we Christians knew the truth long ago, we read it in our Bibles and we believed God over the predominantly Heathen scientific community

"Modern humans are not descended from Neanderthals but coexisted with them about 40,000 years ago, scientists said Tuesday."

I just taught my child that in the fall.

The Lutheran school that my child attends skipped over it in Social Studies class because they didn't believe that humans came from Neatherthals. I brought it up at the parent-teacher conference and asked why they didn't even acknowledge that they existed.


We don't even know what Adam and Eve looked like back then, btw. Hmmm....

Btw, this article is from the year 2000.

Oops.

I don't know where you come up with these utterly insane conclusions, but scientists have suspected for decades that Neanderthals were indeed a second species of hominid.

You seem to have totally misunderstood the conclusions. They aren't saying that Neanderthals were apes. Far from it!

They are actually saying that there were two different species of hominids and one of them died out.

That actually blows the Biblical idea that God created a single species of hominid clean out of the water.

What you've just reported is just further evidence that the Bible can't possibly be true, yet somehow you are trying to twist it around to make it look like it supports the biblical picture.

It does not.

And the idea that you still believe in the boogieman (Satan) doesn't say much for your own credibility.

The science you've reported here only shatters the Biblical story all the more. But it was already shattered in its own right so there wasn't much left to break.

At school back in England we had a classmate named Ian who was nicknamed "The Missing Link"

Enough said when I told you if you saw him you would have realized that why he was called that!!
One word "Neanderthals"

Good point. However this is old news. Back in the '60's when mitochondrial DNA was first introduced into general conversation from scientific parlance, it was postulated that Neanderthal was unrelated to the human specie and that Cro-Magnard man (so much like us it's unbelievable yet with a greater brain size than we have today) existed at the same time as Neanderthal.

Yet, 40,000 years ago, these superior beings mysteriously appeared out of nowhere, full-blown humans, with apparently no antecedents, which is why there is so much talk about the missing link, which may never be found because it may never have existed.

To make this story short, there is a lot of conjecture about intelligent design, whether by God or an alien race experimenting on our DNA, and evolution being the dominant creationist theory. I tend to think that evolution came later as a fine-tuning of creation (check the evolution of eohippus to the eventual horse of today, and you'll know that evolution is true). God did not create a static universe but one that is changing; as a result, evolution is His tool to fine-tune creation.

Both theories are correct. Where evolutionists go wrong is that they believe the tail is wagging the dog. Where creationists go wrong is thinking that God created a static universe, when in reality He provided the mechanism of evolution to further His creation in a process of fine-tuning to changing conditions. So, let's all relax and enjoy what we have.

I seriously don't understand why Christians think this is good news for the bibilcal picture.

We know with certainty the Neanderthals were tool makers far advanced beyond any 'apes'.

Therefore if they aren't related to modern humans then clearly there were two species of hominids. In fact science has held this for as long as I can remember (at least in theory). They couldn't prove it until now, but they always believed this to be the case.

But this utterly flies in the face of the Biblical account. This would imply that God had created two different species of humans and one of them died out.

I just don't understand why Christians would be jumping on this. It's flies in the face of the Biblical account, it doesn't support it at all.

This is just more proof that the Biblical picture has to be wrong.

It's an opportunity to make science look foolish, that simple. I watched this on the science channel they were talking about exactly what you just said Abra.



Please exchange the word 'scientists' for the word 'GOD' in the above sentence. and read it again.

It would seem that 'If' god gave us brains only to follow antiquated orders than he didn't need geniuses. It would also appear that the christianity has a problem with education and science.

Having been to catholic school I figured out much later why they didn't want me to know about evolution and why they didn't teach it to me....

Good Evening to you too Abra

And the idea that you still believe in the boogieman (Satan) doesn't say much for your own credibility.
^^^^^^ Abra says


Yes I do believe in Satan. I could say the same about your beliefs as well. Who made you any more credible than anyone else on here? Oh, you studied for 30 years and someone hurt your feelings and now you want to tell the world. "The way it is according to Abra" he's credible

perhaps you just listened to the preacher and believed what he told you, then you read it and had your epiphany.

I don't recall suggesting that anyone hurt my feelings.

All I know is that Christians often lie to support their religion and whenever they are called on it all they ever seem to be able to do is insult the person who is calling them on it.

The conclusions that you've drawn in your OP are not those of science.

To suggest that they are is simply untrue pure and simple.



After reading Boo's post I see that the scientific community is already commenting this.

I guess I can't blame you SS, you're no doubt just buying into staus quo.

You really should look into your sources before you believe in them. But then considering some of the things that you beleive I guess that's just not your thing.

No offense truly.

But spreading these kind of false rummors in the name of God just truly isn't every pious.

The answer is quite simple, really.

Neanderthal man looks so different from homo-sapien, or modern day man , for one reason only....

( they both come from the same first man, Adam)

Neanderthal man was that first early man mentioned in the bible,

who lived to be around 900 years of age ,in the beginning !!!


And for man to be around for such a long period of time( 900 years),

man's bone structure would surely change somewhat ,

over such a long lonng lonnnnng period of time.


So, The reason man who followed afterwards,

did not look quite the same as neanderthal man, was/is......

man's life span was already starting to shorten considerably,

from 900 years in the beginning,

to only about 200 years...give or take(also mentioned in the bible).

Also...900 year old men lived right alongside modern homo -sapien man ,

whose life span was already beginning to shorten.

so....when the flood came,

that is why neanderthal man's bones and modern day man's bones ,

are found right next to each other.

Really all makes sense..., if we believe in what the bible says!!!


So....neanderthal man is nothing more than the very first man, who lived to be 900 years of age.

And modern man today (homo-sapiens)...

are just modern man who followed, with a much more shortened lifespan ....

and is why homo-sapien looks no different than modern man today.

Cause both homo-sapien or modern day man today,

( having already a shortened lifespan),

didn't allow for as much bone structural change to take place,

as with the first early man...
called neanderthal man.

Nothing so mysterious or hard to figure out about that at all.

If we believe in what the bible says, that is

All I can say about this is it looks pretty dismal for the proponents of Creationism. Neanderthals were not Homo Sapien. Not yet. Unless now you are just going to start in saying that god required a few tries to get it right.

I would like to have a pet monkey.

This is an excerpt from the Max Planck Institute. They have been chosen to actually conduct the Genome Sequencing of Neanderthal DNA found in V-80. V-80 was the Neanderthal bone that they located in Croatia which had enough viable sample to achieve the full mitochondrial sequence. Now they are doing the entire 3 million base pairs.

From Highlights 48/2006:

Analysis of one million base pairs of Neanderthal DNA
Neanderthals are the extinct hominid group most closely related to contemporary humans, so their genome offers a unique opportunity to identify genetic changes specific to anatomically fully modern humans. We have identified a 38,000- year- old Neanderthal fossil that is exceptionally free of contamination from modern human DNA. Direct high- throughput sequencing of a DNA extract from this fossil has thus far yielded over one million base pairs of hominoid nuclear DNA sequences. Comparison with the human and chimpanzee genomes reveals that modern human and Neanderthal DNA sequences diverged on average about 500,000 years ago. Existing technology and fossil resources are now sufficient to initiate a Neanderthal genome- sequencing effort.

Well written from what sounds like an educated Christian. I may be wrong here but from my perspective the environment is the dog, and life is the tail. The environment moves and life does its best to wag along with it.

Its possible. I honestly have no problem with the theory that something "used" biological evolution as a mechanism to create human. Why not?

I agree, we just have not found any overt tampering yet . . . I see no reason to rule it out, just no reason to rule it in either.

Exactly. To me it doesn't seem necessary. I find the entire process of evolution so magnificent on its own it doesn't require the "intrusion" of some intelligent designer but I know a lot of people need that for some reason. Let them have it. Its just that saying that evolution never took place is not going to fly. Not now in light of this evidence.