Real Science Radio: The Most Informative Neanderthal Show Ever Pt. 2

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
The Most Informative Neanderthal Show Ever Pt. 2

This is the show from Friday April 4th, 2014

Summary:



* The guys find something you can really gnaw into: So, Bob & Fred really did stumble upon the most informative interview ever in the study of Neanderthals. Real Science Radio hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams report also on the latest genetic research that shows that Neanderthal are closer to human than a chimp is to a chimp, which powerfully corroborates Dr. Jack Cuozzo's anatomically-based conclusion from the 1990s that Neanderthal were human. Dr. Cuozzo has studied firsthand and x-rayed more Neanderthal skulls than anyone else, ever.

* Two Thumbs Down on Noah; Thumbs Up on God's Not Dead: As a result of watching Ken Ham's program, RSR has decided to recommend against seeing the movie Noah, which portrays Noah as a psychopathic failure and God as worse. However, we highly recommend the movie God's Not Dead!

* Enjoy RSR via SoundCloud: Here's another way to listen to Real Science Radio on your smartphone or iPad. Just click for RSR on the SoundCloud app!


* And from the RSR Caveman Show:

* DNA Doesn't Lie! Neanderthals were MAN: Now that geneticists have sequenced the entire Neanderthal genome, they have proved wrong many of the world's leading evolutionists who had long claimed that Neanderthals were not Homo sapiens. [Update: Of course this corroborates Dr. Jack Cuozzo's creation-based findings from two decades earlier!] The young age of the earth, and that life had to be specially created because it is information based, prove that Man was specially created and that there never was such a thing as an ape/human ancestor. Now, DNA proves that Neanderthal men and women were fully man, that is, they were Homo sapiens, because along with many other indicators, genetically they are closer to modern humans than two living chimps of the same species are to one another!

* Two Chimps Are More Different than Neanderthals Are To Us: Regarding Georgia Purdom's report that, "two modern chimps of the same species will have more DNA variation than Neanderthals or Denisovans have to modern humans," see creation geneticist Dr. Robert Carter in the Journal of Creation 23(1) 2009, p. 40-43, The Neanderthal mitochondrial genome does not support evolution, along with Becquet, C. et al., Genetic structure of chimpanzee populations, PLoS Genetics 3(4):617–626, 2007, as reported at Science Daily and Kaessmann, H., Wiebe, V. and Pääblo, S., Extensive nuclear DNA sequence diversity among chimpanzees, Science, 286:1159-1162, 1999 as reported in a 2007 AAAS news release.

* AiG Keeping RSR Informed: The current edition of the flagship publication of Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis presents a great series of caveman articles by David Menton, John UpChurch, Andrew Snelling, Mike Matthews, and Georgia Purdom, including as Purdom writes, "two modern chimps of the same species will have more DNA variation than Neanderthals or Denisovans have to modern humans." Taking the lead from Answers, RSR co-hosts Bob Enyart (above left) and Fred Williams (right) put themselves in a caveman's moccasins :) to figure out why Neanderthal (and others) lived in caves and why they looked so different. RSR believes that "Homo erectus", Neanderthal, etc., lived in caves only temporarily, to escape bad weather, etc., and they looked so different only because of ethnic differences which were often exaggerated by longevity.



* Preemptively Correcting Evolutionists
: Invariably, when evolutionists get proven wrong on a major prediction, even one in print for decades, atheist and other Darwinist listeners to RSR will claim, "Evolutionists never said such a thing." Even before our RSR Caveman program aired, the guys told an evolutionist about the Neanderthal sequencing, who replied, "Evolutionists never claimed that Neanderthals were a difference species." So, to the evolutionists who post at EvolutionFairytale.com and at the BEL forum at TheologyOnline.com, before you accuse someone of making an error, it would help if you fact checked your own claim. Preemptively today, Bob Enyart's 12-year-old son Michael found this 1995 book and checked it out of his local public library, The Last Neanderthal, a book sponsored by the American Museum of Natural History. The author, paleoanthropologist Ian Tattersall, described as "one of the most respected authorities on the subject," claimed that the word "'human' is extremely ill-defined," and that, "As used here, 'human' ... is more loosely employed to refer to all primates that share a common ancestry uniquely with us, from Australopithecus on." This is science by definition. It reminds us of the evolutionists who argue that we should simply "define" various domestic dog breeds as different species. Thus, like magic, by science by definition they can then prove that speciation occurs commonly. Viola! On classification, Tattersall went on to say that, "in my view and that of a growing number of colleagues, there is no good reason to doubt that the Neanderthals deserve recognition as a species of their own." Except that they were not. And DNA doesn't lie. So Tattersall knew of no good reason, that is, other than that creationists disagreed with him. And since creationists have a better track record regarding scientific predictions, on those grounds alone Tattersall should have been more cautious. For then, he wouldn't have been falsified just a few years later on yet another major prediction from Darwinists. And finally, note the bias he exhibits suggesting that 3-foot tall monkeys like Lucy should be considered "human", while claiming that the human Neanderthal should be an entirely different species!

* "Cavemen" were Ice Age People: 2013 Update: Click to see this "Neanderthal tooth" which was initially dated by the infamously inaccurate "rock layer method" to tens of thousands of years ago. Now, secular scientists have now used reliable scientific methods to date the tooth, and lo and behold, it belonged to a person who lived less than 5,000 years ago! Thank you Lord for a world full of evidence affirming the Holy Scriptures! But back to the ice. But how do you get an Ice Age to start? Old-earth geologists have an impossible time trying to create a scientifically reasonable computer simulation that shows how an Ice Age could begin, for two opposing factors are needed: cold continents and warm oceans. Dr. Walt Brown's Hydroplate theory very directly explains how the Ice Age began!



Today’s Resource: Get the greatest cell biology video ever made! (By buying it here, you'll also help keep Real Science Radio on the air, and you'll get Dr. Don Johnson's book as a bonus!) Learn how the common world view of life's origin, chemical evolution, conflicts with our knowledge of Information Science. Finally, information Science is changing the way millions of people think about all living systems! For after all, most fundamentally, rather than being carbon based, life in information based! (And have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? You just might LOVE IT!!)
 

Jukia

New member
Did you believe Neanderthal to be a difference species than Homo sapien?

they have been given a different species name by those who study them so the general perception would be yes, different. They do appear to be very closely related to H. sapiens given the DNA information.

Are they a separate Biblical kind? Were they on the Ark and died out after the Flood or were they as sinful as H. sapiens and were destroyed in the flood?
 

6days

New member
Delmar said:
Did you believe Neanderthal to be a difference species than Homo sapien
It is interesting to note how evolutionists have danced around that issue. A number if years ago every evolutionist said Neandertals were a different species from us.*Contrary to evolutionist claims, Biblical creationists insisted there was no such thing as different soecies of humans. The Bible tells us that all *humans are one blood.*As science started correcting the false assumptions evolutionists had made....And as science started to reveal the humanity of Neandertals....And as science discovered we are descendants of Neandertals, evolutionists very begrudgingly *started updating their status.*Evolutionists may never admit that creationists were correct all *along about Neandertals. Their poster child of evolutionism ends up supporting the Biblical model. Evidence has forced most evolutionists away from calling Neandertals a different species. Terms such as sub species or cousin are now often used.Biblical creationists know from Gods Word that Neandertals are us...fully human. They are descendants from the first original pair (Adam and Eve) that God created.I enjoyed Jeffersons words....*
Jefferson said:
Preemptively Correcting Evolutionists: Invariably, when evolutionists get proven wrong on a major prediction, even one in print for decades, atheist and other Darwinist listeners to RSR will claim, "Evolutionists never said such a thing." Even before our RSR Caveman program aired, the guys told an evolutionist about the Neanderthal sequencing, who replied, "Evolutionists never claimed that Neanderthals were a difference species." So, to the evolutionists who post at*EvolutionFairytale.com*and at the BEL forum atTheologyOnline.com, before you accuse someone of making an error, it would help if you fact checked your own claim. Preemptively today, Bob Enyart's 12-year-old son Michael found this 1995 book and checked it out of his local public library,*The Last Neanderthal, a book sponsored by the American Museum of Natural History. The author, paleoanthropologist Ian Tattersall, described as "one of the most respected authorities on the subject," claimed that the word "'human' is extremely ill-defined," and that, "As used here, 'human' ... is more loosely employed to refer to all primates that share a common ancestry uniquely with us, from*Australopithecus*on." This is science by definition. It reminds us of the evolutionists who argue that we should simply "define" various domestic dog breeds as different species. Thus, like magic, by science by definition they can then prove that speciation occurs commonly. Viola! On classification, Tattersall went on to say that, "in my view and that of a growing number of colleagues, there is no good reason to doubt that the Neanderthals deserve recognition as a species of their own." Except that they were not. And DNA doesn't lie. So Tattersall knew of no good reason, that is, other than that creationists disagreed with him. And since creationists have a better track record regarding scientific predictions, on those grounds alone Tattersall should have been more cautious. For then, he wouldn't have been falsified just a few years later on yet another major prediction from Darwinists. And finally, note the bias he exhibits suggesting that 3-foot tall monkeys like Lucy should be considered "human", while claiming that the human Neanderthal should be an entirely different species
Sent from Samsung Mobile
 

Daedalean's_Sun

New member
And as science discovered we are descendants of Neandertals

It has revealed no such thing. The consensus amongst anthropologists used to be that Neanderthals were a direct ancestor of modern humans, however as new data became available it was clear they were not direct ancestors, but closely related cousins developed concurrently with modern humans that later went extinct.

ScienceDaily: New Study Shows Neanderthals Were Not Our Ancestors

CNRS International: Neanderthals Not Our Ancestors

CBS NEWS: Neanderthals not human ancestors

Chicago NPR: Neanderthals, our Kissing cousins

etc, etc...
 

Daedalean's_Sun

New member
neanderthal%20neandertal%20muscular%20muscle%20apeman%20rickets%20bones%20fossil%203.jpg


neanderthal_skull_vs_homo_sapiens_skull_event_5_v1.jpg


45894-skulls.jpg
 

6days

New member
Daedeleans_Sun said:
6days said:
..science discovered we are descendants of Neandertals.
It has revealed no such thing.
Science has proven we are descendants of Neandertals. Your links are silly. Two of your links were from 6 years before the Neanderthal genome was sequenced. Your third link from 2010 essentialy agrees with what I said. That article says...Neanderthals mated with humans? We talk with the international team that says “yes!” .......They live in us....Re. The skeletal comparison...more silliness. We could slso compare how similar they are rather than the slight differences. We coukd also compare you to a pygmy....but we dont call you a different species. Or comparevs bullbdog to a great dane...same species.*In order to prop up their beliefs, evolutionists must exaggerate and highlightsimilarities between ape and human ...then exaggerate and highlight differences between humans
 

6days

New member
Jukia said:
When did H. neandethalis arise? When H. sapiens? if we are Neanderthal descendants, was Adam a Neanderthal? What about Noah?
Interesting questions Jukia. There are some things we know for certain... *Other things involve some speculation.We know for certain that God created *Adam and Eve on day 6 of the creation week. We dont know for certain when the worlds various people groups 'evolved' from that first human couple. However, we can be quite certain of how distinct people groups develop.... proceesses such as mutations, sexual selection and genetic drift all contribute to making us who we are. Those factors can make isolated populations unique over the course of several generations. *
 

Jukia

New member
Interesting questions Jukia. There are some things we know for certain... *Other things involve some speculation.We know for certain that God created *Adam and Eve on day 6 of the creation week. We dont know for certain when the worlds various people groups 'evolved' from that first human couple. However, we can be quite certain of how distinct people groups develop.... proceesses such as mutations, sexual selection and genetic drift all contribute to making us who we are. Those factors can make isolated populations unique over the course of several generations. *

So no specific answers to my questions?
 

Shasta

Well-known member
It has revealed no such thing. The consensus amongst anthropologists used to be that Neanderthals were a direct ancestor of modern humans, however as new data became available it was clear they were not direct ancestors, but closely related cousins developed concurrently with modern humans that later went extinct.

ScienceDaily: New Study Shows Neanderthals Were Not Our Ancestors

CNRS International: Neanderthals Not Our Ancestors

CBS NEWS: Neanderthals not human ancestors

Chicago NPR: Neanderthals, our Kissing cousins


etc, etc...

Some genetic studies show evidence of possible inter-breeding. That makes things even more interesting.
 

Delmar

Patron Saint of SMACK
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
they have been given a different species name by those who study them so the general perception would be yes, different. They do appear to be very closely related to H. sapiens given the DNA information.

Are they a separate Biblical kind? Were they on the Ark and died out after the Flood or were they as sinful as H. sapiens and were destroyed in the flood?

I think you would benefit from listening to the show that this thread is about.
 

Daedalean's_Sun

New member
Science has proven we are descendants of Neandertals. Your links are silly. Two of your links were from 6 years before the Neanderthal genome was sequenced.

The Neanderthal Genome Project did not conclude we are the same species, or that they are our descendents as far as I am aware. Have you any credible sources post Neanderthal genome project, that assert we are the same species, or that they are our descendants?





Your third link from 2010 essentialy agrees with what I said.

No it doesn't.

Cousins =/= Ancestors


That article says...Neanderthals mated with humans? We talk with the international team that says “yes!” .......They live in us....

Which would be great if that was your claim, but it's not. Your claim is that they are our ancestors. Being capable of interbreeding does not indicate that they are our ancestors. Interbreeding is perfectly possible among non-ancestors.

And even on that point, There is still dispute amongst researchers whether interbreeding actually did occur.


Re. The skeletal comparison...more silliness. We could slso compare how similar they are rather than the slight differences. We coukd also compare you to a pygmy....but we dont call you a different species.

Pygmy people are still distinctly homo sapien in skeletal structure and genetics, just of smaller stature.

neanderthal-and-human-skull.jpg




Or comparevs bullbdog to a great dane...same species.*

Different subspecies, actually.
 

6days

New member
Daedalean's_Sun said:
6days said:
That article says...Neanderthals mated with humans? We talk with the international team that says "yes!" .......They live in us....

Which would be great if that was your claim, but it's not. Your claim is that they are our ancestors. Being capable of interbreeding does not indicate that they are our ancestors. Interbreeding is perfectly possible among non-ancestors.

Neandertal DNA is in us. They are our ancestors...We are their descendants.

Neandertals are descendants of Adam and Eve.

You and I are descendants of Adam and Eve... And, we (Most European descendants) are descendants of Neandertals.

SOME evolutionists hate admitting we are descendants of Neandertals, because it means Creationists have been correct the past 20+ years on this issue.

SOME evolurionists hate admitting Neandertal DNA is in us because it is an admission that this is yet another things they were wrong on.


Evolutionists were SHOCKED with the 2010 sequencing which showed Neandertals are us.
"Many people alive today possess some Neanderthal ancestry, according to a landmark scientific study.
The finding has surprised many experts, as previous genetic evidence suggested the Neanderthals made little or no contribution to our inheritance."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8660940.stm

"We can now say that, in all probability, there was gene flow from Neanderthals to modern humans," lead study author Ed Green of the University of California, Santa Cruz, said in a prepared statement.

That's no surprise to anthropologist Erik Trinkhaus, whose skeleton-based claims of Neanderthal-modern human interbreeding—previously contradicted with DNA evidence—appear to have been vindicated by the new gene study, to be published tomorrow in the journal Science."


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...bred-dna-gene/[/quote]

John Hawks, assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in the US, told BBC News: "They're us. We're them.
"It seemed like it was likely to be possible, but I am surprised by the amount. I really was not expecting it to be as high as 4%," he said of the genetic contribution from Neanderthals.

David DeWitt, Liberty University cell biologist “Finding Neanderthal DNA in humans was not expected by evolutionists, but it was predicted from a creation standpoint because we have said all along that Neanderthals were fully human: descendants of Adam and Eve, just like us,”
 

gcthomas

New member

6Days - read the link DS provided. There is an ongoing debate with a variety of research on the topic of the shared genes. Is it because of inbreeding? (At a rate of one time per generation for the entire population) or is it due to common ancestry and the distinctive 500 000 year old differentiated African population at the time?

You are too quick to adopt tentative conclusions if they appear to support your case. In this case, they don't, because the date of the putative inbreeding is tens of thousands of years. Whichever way the geneticists fall, it is bad for the special creation of humans.
 

6days

New member
6Days - read the link DS provided. There is an ongoing debate with a variety of research on the topic of the shared genes. Is it because of inbreeding? (At a rate of one time per generation for the entire population) or is it due to common ancestry and the distinctive 500 000 year old differentiated African population at the time?

You are too quick to adopt tentative conclusions if they appear to support your case. In this case, they don't, because the date of the putative inbreeding is tens of thousands of years. Whichever way the geneticists fall, it is bad for the special creation of humans.
Neandertals are human. Their DNA is 99.7% similar to ours. We have neandertal DNA is us.
Yes...there still are evolutionists trying to deny the humanity of Neandertals. But even many evolutionists now admit things such as "Neandertals are us".
The data is consistant with what Biblical creationists have always said about Neandertals. They are simply an extinct people group who are descendants from Adam and Eve.

It was not so many years ago that Neandertals were portrayed as half ape / half human... a dim witted creature. Museums portrayed them as stooped over hairy beasts in attempts to show these people were similar to apes. But, this view of a human who descended from apes is contrary to God's Word.

It took many years but now even most hard core evolutionists acknowledge the humanity of Neandertals. They used tools, cosmetics, musical instruments, buried their dead etc. Their brains are slightly bigger than that of modern humans. Textbooks and museums have slowly made corrections (portrayals exaggerated apelike features in the past because of evolutionary bias).

We now know that Neandertals are distinctly human with a few distinguishing features... not unlike distinct groups of humans that exist today, all descendants from Adam and Eve.

One interesting aspect of this for Christians is that Neandertals were named after being found in the Neander valley.

The valley was named after a young German, Joachim Neander who wrote 60 Christian hyms including one that" is generally regarded as one of the greatest hymns of praise of the Christian church".... Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, the King of Creation (German: 'Lobe den Herren, den mächtigen König der Ehren')

I suspect that Neander would be pleased that Neandertals humanity help confirm the Biblical account of God creating humans distinct from animals.
 
Top