Bobzammel

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid...nd_archaeology


Does this support the Creationist view or does it not affect it at all?
Even if we are left with not finding a link, creationists still need to explain why God would create human-like creatures(At least one Creationist believes they were created as a slave race!).

Baloo

I thought the Neanderthal ancestry of modern homo sapiens had been rejected quite some time ago. It seem this is just a little journalistic sensationalism over a well-placed kick to an already dying (or dead) horse.

In any regard, it would not seem to have any bearing on the evolution-creation debate that I can see.

Ergaster

Oh no--it's not dead by a long shot. Let me just paste my (slightly modified for typos) response here about it I made on another group:

Alas, this is an example of one of those issues in science wherein the sides get so entrenched that it would practically take an act of God to dig them out. The "Neandertals-'R'-Us" versus "Neandertals Died Out" debate is literally decades old. One would have thought that the molecular studies might have made a difference, but they haven't--at least, not to those professionals and interested laypeople whose specialty is Middle to Late Pleistocene paleoanthropology.

This is about the 6th or something (definitely >3) comparative study of Neanderthal DNA, and all the studies seem to show the same thing--that Neandertals are outside the Homo sapiens range of variation. However, according to the Neandertal's-'R'-Us side, there is something "wrong" with every blinkin' one of the studies, including this one.

(For those of us whose interests lie among rather earlier hominins and hominids, and who don't really care whether Neandertals contributed genes or they didn't, it's an interesting debate to watch...)


I do agree that it's probably not much of an issue for creationism, but then again, creationists seem to be able to make "issues" of the most extraordinary things...

JGL53

The Neanderthals were basically just unusually muscular, hairy rednecks.

Good riddance.

Oolon Colluphid

It sure as hell doesn’t support the creationist position. As far as I’ve heard (Klein, Cambridge Encyclopedia, Tattersall, Trinkaus and co), nobody thinks H sapiens evolved from H neanderthalensis (or sapiens neanderthalensis ) anyway. They were cousins. It’s just a question of whether they were first, second, third or whatever cousins. Closely related species can and do interbreed, as (obviously) can subspecies. So this is just faddling about with whether Neanderthals did in fact interbreed with sapiens. In other words, this is typical science: refining the details with more evidence.

Also, creationists seem united in thinking that Neanderthals were human ‘kind’ too. So if anything, finding that they were less closely related to us would cause more trouble for creationists.
Well Neanderthals weren’t a ‘missing link’... try instead something like KNM-ER 15000, the ‘Turkana boy’ H ergaster. There are, in fact, no ‘missing links’ in the hominid fossil record for the least 4my. (At least, none that an open-minded, unbiased person would consider real; but show a creationist a fossil ‘C’, intermediate between A and E, and they’ll ask for B and D... then A½, B½, C½, and so on... .)
That’s what the old Ineffability of God get-out is for!

Cheers, Oolon

RufusAtticus

Actually the problem with the studies is that they don't show that Neanderthal DNA is outside the range of present modern human variation. They show that remnants of Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA are outside the range of present modern human mitochondrial variation. However, the problem with this is that, due to the way coalescence works, Neanderthals could have interbread with the ancestors of modern humans but their mitochondria have since been lost. One also expects ancient samples to be outside the range of modern samples, especially with respect to MtDNA. Mungo Man (?) is a good example of this. In that instance, the MtDNA of an ancient modern human from Austrialia was recovered and compared to modern samples and it was found that the DNA was also outside the range of modern samples, although not as far as the Neanderthal samples.

Nic Tamzek

Sounds like someone took a class from Avise or someone over at UGA...

(sorry, I was just reading Avise's Phylogeography which talks a lot about coalescent theory)

MrDarwin

I have no knowledge of this particular case, but if (1) the hybrid progeny are fertile when one species is the female parent but sterile when that species is the male parent, or (2) the female hybrids are fertile but the male hybrids are sterile (or vice versa) this would definitely skew mitochondrial results. I believe both patterns have been documented in crosses between related animal species (sorry, don't have any documentation handy).

RufusAtticus

Damn you're good. Yes, last fall I took a phylogeography course taught by Avise. It was basically read and discuss his book.

Mageth

Also, creationists seem united in thinking that Neanderthals were human ‘kind’ too.

Or humans with really bad arthritis...