Evidence for God from Science

Quick question about Neanderthals, according to young earth creationists, they think that they were fully human, where as old earth creationists like Hugh Ross and company, people whom I support and respect say they were not human but they were either just another fully ape species or they were almost human with the ability to hunt with weapons, form a language and build houses but did not have the intellectual capacity or "image of God" like modern humans do. Now what concerns me is, if Neanderthals can be shown to be almost fully human with the ability to hunt with weapons, form a language and build houses and so on would this give good support for the evolutionary paradigm? Because looking at it from a Biblical perspective why would God create a almost human race who could do almost everything that modern humans can do accept they were lacking slightly in intellectual skills? Would the idea of Occam's Razor in this case fall towards the evolutionary worldview that says that the reason why these Neanderthals were almost human was simply because they were evolving towards becoming fully human? Thanks.

derrick09 wrote:Quick question about Neanderthals, according to young earth creationists, they think that they were fully human, where as old earth creationists like Hugh Ross and company, people whom I support and respect say they were not human but they were either just another fully ape species or they were almost human with the ability to hunt with weapons, form a language and build houses but did not have the intellectual capacity or "image of God" like modern humans do. Now what concerns me is, if Neanderthals can be shown to be almost fully human with the ability to hunt with weapons, form a language and build houses and so on would this give good support for the evolutionary paradigm? Because looking at it from a Biblical perspective why would God create a almost human race who could do almost everything that modern humans can do accept they were lacking slightly in intellectual skills? Would the idea of Occam's Razor in this case fall towards the evolutionary worldview that says that the reason why these Neanderthals were almost human was simply because they were evolving towards becoming fully human? Thanks.

As an OEC I kind of waffle on the subject.. OEC'ers see them mainly as lower primates. I can see the argument both ways. There does seem to be some overlap between humans and Neanderthal. And many believe that their characteristics could have died out (in humans) some 30,000 years ago. DNA would probably answer as no. However, we can see via micro-evolution that man continually adapts to his environment. If our body changes to the environment, causes our skin to change, etc. it doesn't seem to effect how our brains are "wired". Once a human, always a human, although we may look differently and respond differently to our environments. Technically, we are all the same...





Aborigine


We had the same brain capacity, technically it was just shaped differently... How does this prove we evolved from something lower?

Late Neanderthals 'more like us'

Still more proof that they are around..

HAHAHAH dumb & dumber nice one Gman and i love how Vin Diesel is neanderthal HAHAH

This is one part I have a problem with. I can accept a lot of things..But this is one that doesn't make sense. Why make a race very,very similar to humans? What exactly is the purpose? . Are we implying that Humans mated with Neanderthals at one point? Wouldn't this be considered bestiality. I would see a lot of problems in this with creation.

I see this as striking at the heart of the "purpose". What we may see as useless, God may see as a delight. After all, why make chimps and apes that have over 90% similar DNA? (or mammals with ridiculously high similarities?) What purpose does having a primate with very similar structures and some similar behaviors?

At the molecular level, for instance, there are very odd genetic repeats...thousands and thousands of repeated sequences that seem futile, even with this new paradigm of junk DNA not being junk, there does seem to be an awful lot of non0coding sequences that are "leftover". Does this not point back to God? Why or why not?

Sometimes I think we have to be careful as Humans insisting on design....are not some natural formations in the desert very random looking and rather useless? and yet we see them as being beautiful.

anyway...some thoughts....on a loooonnnngggg friday which is finally done!!

I would buy that... I think we could all agree however that the human fossil record is incomplete. There are no transitional fossils or links from early primates evolving to modern humans. Oh yes, there are assumptions, but nothing concrete.

Great stuff Gman, as far as you know if any of these human/chimp intermediates did indeed ever exist would palentologists have already found some of them? From what I've heard the overall fossil record is almost complete and as you say above, the human or ape to human fossil record is still incomplete. Now I know that it's impossible to dig up the entire earth, but as much has been dug over the decades don't you think we would have found some by now? Thanks and GB.

As it is with many of these things, there is probably a lot to be learned from what we do not know. I know that sounds wierd, but when you are digging up stuff out of the ground it isn't perfect science. There could be explanations about Neanderthals that once we know, we'll think, man that was easy. Right now it is a confusing matter all the way around. Not a lot of agreement from any area. In fact based on the alleged ages of the fossils one can question how any genetic material could be acquired to make the claims they are making.

I was making this for another debate I am having, but I'll put this here too.

Neanderthals are not humans

Neanderthal's DNA is too different. It is that difference that allowed scientists to determine that humans may have interbred with Neanderthals. The amount of nuclear DNA that non-Africans have received from Neanderthals is only 1-4%. This agrees with the findings from mtDNA studies, which, because of its smaller size, could not detect any interbreeding.

Africans show no signs of Neanderthal interbreeding. They do not have Neanderthals in their blood. This rules against Neanderthals as being our ancestors. If they were our ancestors, we should have lots of evidence for interbreeding (lots of their DNA in ours). If Noah was a Neanderthal, his genes should be in all human genomes and at high levels.

This information fits well with the Biblical account. Humans originated and stayed in the Mesopotamian/Arabian areas until after the Tower of Babel. At that point, most of the descendants of Japheth and Shem seem to have moved northward and most of Ham's descendants seem to have moved toward Africa.

Some of Japheth and Shem's descendants may have committed bestiality (Ex. 22:19; Lev. 18:23, 20:15-16) with Neanderthals and given birth to viable children. As the nuclear DNA study stated, it would only take a few of these incidents to give the 1-4% Neanderthal signature that we see across European and Asian populations.
http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Gree ... l_2008.pdf
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0002700
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/710.full
http://www.pnas.org/content/100/11/6593.long


Neanderthal morphology and development differ from humans.

Neanderthal Birth canals differ from humans
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/20/8151.full

Baby Neanderthals differ from human babies
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Neanderth ... a014916153

Neanderthals had a different face
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/5/1147. ... c2eac1888a

The Neanderthal's overall skeleton differed from humans in many ways
http://www.illustrationsource.com/stock ... o-sapiens/

Human brains developed differently
http://www.eurekalert.org/images/releas ... io8442.pdf
Also, listen to the 11/10/10 podcast about their brains
http://itunes.apple.com/podcast/science ... d265539001

Neanderthals developed faster than humans. This, along with the fact that their babies had the same thick bones and other anatomical features, rules against these features being caused by living much longer than modern humans.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... 7.full.pdf


Neanderthal "arts" compared to human art. With Neanderthal, it is always guess work.

Neanderthal "carving" 35,000 years old
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3256228.stm

Neanderthal "flute"
http://www.ukom.gov.si/en/media_room/ba ... hal_flute/
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/pdfs/d ... 314-09.pdf

Neanderthal "painting." It's the white shell that may have pigments. 50,000 yrs
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -art-human

Human carving 30,000+ yrs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_man_o ... ein_Stadel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_figurines
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Hohle_Fels
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2679675.stm

Human painting 30,000 yrs
http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/prehist ... ntings.htm

Human flute 40,000 and 30,000 yrs
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ument.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8117915.stm

Human clothes 30,000+ yrs
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 142352.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 233037.htm

Well let's see what I was wondering is, since supposedly scientists think the fossil record is graduated rather than uniform then in some ways enough work has had to be done for them to confidently claim things like this. And if they are confident enough to almost state facts about the fossil record, how likely is it now that they will find true intermediates between species notably humans and apes? Since most of what they have found thus far is either other ape species, or true humans mistaken to be intermediates, or outright hoaxes like java man, how likely is it that they will ever find any true intermediates? They have been digging and looking for these things for hundreds of years now and with all the technology they have along with all the places they have dug how likely is it they will finally find something that will stick? Even latest findings like Ardi didn't hold up to scrutiny so if they can't find anything real within the next few years, won't this alone be a major blow to darwinism?

dayage wrote:I was making this for another debate I am having, but I'll put this here too.

Neanderthals are not humans

Neanderthal's DNA is too different. It is that difference that allowed scientists to determine that humans may have interbred with Neanderthals. The amount of nuclear DNA that non-Africans have received from Neanderthals is only 1-4%. This agrees with the findings from mtDNA studies, which, because of its smaller size, could not detect any interbreeding.

Africans show no signs of Neanderthal interbreeding. They do not have Neanderthals in their blood. This rules against Neanderthals as being our ancestors. If they were our ancestors, we should have lots of evidence for interbreeding (lots of their DNA in ours). If Noah was a Neanderthal, his genes should be in all human genomes and at high levels.

This information fits well with the Biblical account. Humans originated and stayed in the Mesopotamian/Arabian areas until after the Tower of Babel. At that point, most of the descendants of Japheth and Shem seem to have moved northward and most of Ham's descendants seem to have moved toward Africa.

Some of Japheth and Shem's descendants may have committed bestiality (Ex. 22:19; Lev. 18:23, 20:15-16) with Neanderthals and given birth to viable children. As the nuclear DNA study stated, it would only take a few of these incidents to give the 1-4% Neanderthal signature that we see across European and Asian populations.
http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Gree ... l_2008.pdf
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0002700
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/710.full
http://www.pnas.org/content/100/11/6593.long


Neanderthal morphology and development differ from humans.

Neanderthal Birth canals differ from humans
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/20/8151.full

Baby Neanderthals differ from human babies
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Neanderth ... a014916153

Neanderthals had a different face
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/5/1147. ... c2eac1888a

The Neanderthal's overall skeleton differed from humans in many ways
http://www.illustrationsource.com/stock ... o-sapiens/

Human brains developed differently
http://www.eurekalert.org/images/releas ... io8442.pdf
Also, listen to the 11/10/10 podcast about their brains
http://itunes.apple.com/podcast/science ... d265539001

Neanderthals developed faster than humans. This, along with the fact that their babies had the same thick bones and other anatomical features, rules against these features being caused by living much longer than modern humans.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... 7.full.pdf


Neanderthal "arts" compared to human art. With Neanderthal, it is always guess work.

Neanderthal "carving" 35,000 years old
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3256228.stm

Neanderthal "flute"
http://www.ukom.gov.si/en/media_room/ba ... hal_flute/
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/pdfs/d ... 314-09.pdf

Neanderthal "painting." It's the white shell that may have pigments. 50,000 yrs
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -art-human

Human carving 30,000+ yrs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_man_o ... ein_Stadel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_figurines
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Hohle_Fels
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2679675.stm

Human painting 30,000 yrs
http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/prehist ... ntings.htm

Human flute 40,000 and 30,000 yrs
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ument.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8117915.stm

Human clothes 30,000+ yrs
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 142352.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 233037.htm

Yes that is good stuff, and that is the view that RTB holds, and since I support those guys and am a oec still I want to go along with their view but I still for the life of me can't figure out why it would make sense in God's view to create a almost human along with a human. I mean, to the point that the two can mate and have offspring kind of bothers me when you consider occam's razor and that the existence of full blown humans along with almost human neanderthals seems to fit evolutionary models better than it does creation models it could be a major trouble area and a create a major challenge for creation models and for Christian Theism if you were to throw out theistic evolution as a view that can be harmonized with the Bible ( a view that is greatly discouraged by both Oec's and ID proponents) I on the other hand, feel like theistic evolution could be harmonized with the Bible but only as a last resort, ie, only in the event that darwinian macro evolution is proven beyond reasonable doubt even to the point that Oec and ID models are beaten so bad that it's organizations close their doors, then we can go to theistic evolution as a last ditch effort to save Christian Theism. I just hope this neanderthal thing won't be something that could send oec and id models packing. But hopefully with all the good evidence (in other areas) that is coming in from both Oec and ID and the fact that both models can accomodate so much data still shows a lot of promise for oec and id that I for one, for now, can hold off on accepting theistic evolution.

Here we present a virtual reconstruction of a female Neandertal pelvis from Tabun, Israel.

Virtual?

Well from what we have seen from this, is the neanderthal fossil and neanderthal interbreeding thing possibly the best or closest to the best evidence for dawinian macro evolution? Or at least for now?

Well first, no evidence 'belongs' to any one particular view point. The only way I could see it as such would be if you had a testable line of creatures you could demonstrate that this creature evolved from with successive intermediate species.

Just flipping through those articles, I see it repleat with holes, conjecture, and blatantly imposing a worldview onto the evidence. Perhaps some have more confidence that someone can dig up crushed and scattered bones, allegedly 30k years old, and then 'virtually' reconstruct them to determine what the brith canal was like. I'm a little skeptical. Or concluding that a bear bone was made into a flute by a Neanderthal. When in fact we don't know when the bone was made into a flute, or if it was a flute at all.