Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Kitagrl

Neanderthal Hybrid Found!

Recommended Posts

"If further analysis proves the theory correct, the remains belonged to the first known such hybrid, providing direct evidence that humans and Neanderthals interbred."

Or it proves that some really bizarre things were occurring before the flood between the sons of God and the daughters of men.

Edited by ASongOfDegrees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I'm pretty sure that the Neanderthal "bone parts" they are finding (this one seemed to be a portion of a jawbone) were usually people with disfiguring bone diseases caused by malnutrition or genetic deformities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I'm pretty sure that the Neanderthal "bone parts" they are finding (this one seemed to be a portion of a jawbone) were usually people with disfiguring bone diseases caused by malnutrition or genetic deformities.

If that were the case they'd have the same DNA (or very close to it) as we do.

Edited by ASongOfDegrees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they were "interbreeding" it means that they were the same "kind" in biblical terms.
"interbreeding" as observed today is always within species, not across species.
Even "mules" are still of the same kind - horses of one sort and another for instance.


And it has been often reported that neanderthal man was simply another group of men.
This should not surprise any Bible believer - it is no different to a caucasian marrying an Asian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they were "interbreeding" it means that they were the same "kind" in biblical terms.
"interbreeding" as observed today is always within species, not across species.
Even "mules" are still of the same kind - horses of one sort and another for instance.


And it has been often reported that neanderthal man was simply another group of men.
This should not surprise any Bible believer - it is no different to a caucasian marrying an Asian.

I knew a lot of "neanderthals" in my day. Especially when I drove OTR trucking.

 

Isn't their DNA too different just for them to be another group of men? The slightest change in DNA would change a human drastically. Kind of like how the slightest change in the earth's position towards or away from the sun would change our planets atmosphere.

 

If anything I would go with some kind of extinct primate with DNA similar towards ours. 

Edited by ASongOfDegrees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't recall seeing any discussion about neanderthal DNA anywhere. This is a personal point of interest with me, and so I am relatively well read on the science of this, but I may have missed that issue.

I do know that the science world is still unresolved on this, with three basic schools of thought:
1. They were a separate species.
2. They were simply another "race" of men (I don't like that term by the way), like Asian, Negro, caucasian.
3. That they were simply men with some sort of health issue giving a disfigurement.

In 2 and 3, which would both fit happily with Biblical creation, there is no reason why we wouldn't see "interbreeding", as they would simply be men.
1 doesn't really make sense in a biblical framework, as they are "pretty sure" that neanderthals had culture etc like men, and so would be a second race of men.
If this article is correct 1 doesn't make sense scientifically either, as cross breeding is always with kinds not across kinds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Has anyone ever taken "speed reading" and/or also taken an advanced writing course? You always put the thought you want people to retain at the beginning and the end (most remembered parts). So, they're pushing the older than the Biblical record yet again.

 

I reject their supposition based on Biblical record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't recall seeing any discussion about neanderthal DNA anywhere. This is a personal point of interest with me, and so I am relatively well read on the science of this, but I may have missed that issue.

I do know that the science world is still unresolved on this, with three basic schools of thought:
1. They were a separate species.
2. They were simply another "race" of men (I don't like that term by the way), like Asian, Negro, caucasian.
3. That they were simply men with some sort of health issue giving a disfigurement.

In 2 and 3, which would both fit happily with Biblical creation, there is no reason why we wouldn't see "interbreeding", as they would simply be men.
1 doesn't really make sense in a biblical framework, as they are "pretty sure" that neanderthals had culture etc like men, and so would be a second race of men.
If this article is correct 1 doesn't make sense scientifically either, as cross breeding is always with kinds not across kinds.

In Kitagrl's one post she mentions she believes the bone parts are from malnourished and deformed humans. If this were the case wouldn't their DNA prove conclusively they are homo sapiens? I'm not an expert on this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Kitagrl's one post she mentions she believes the bone parts are from malnourished and deformed humans. If this were the case wouldn't their DNA prove conclusively they are homo sapiens? I'm not an expert on this.


DNA degrades once the subject has died - fossils rarely have any useful DNA associated with them. I am not aware of any useful DNA associated with neanderthal remains, but if it was available, the testing could indeed be done.

I should say by the way that I also am no expert, just an interested amateur who has done a fair bit of reading in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, glanced at the article again and its saying that basically people like me have 1%-4% "Neanderthal" DNA.  Hm.  Well....as far as I know, primates and humans cannot interbreed.... which means if this bone has any "human DNA" in it at all, then its human, and just probably has something wrong with it, or the DNA is just so ancient that it doesn't match up with modern humans as well.

 

There are probably tribes of people from the Bible days that had differing DNA that got wiped out during great wars or great diseases or things....I'm not sure.

 

But it can't just be "part human"...its either human, or its primate, or its one of those two things and extinct, thus nothing to compare with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they were able to interbreed, then they are the same "kind". It is what is seen without exception in every scientifically supportable study ever recorded.
The things the article record would, and are found today with what are incorrectly called "races". The fact of viable breeding between "races" proves that these "races" are one kind.
And when you find an Asian and a "European" marrying, they often become somewhat outcast in the predominant culture, just as the article suggests in this case.

And if you were to look at people around you today as you walk down the street, you will no doubt see someone with a big strong jawline, and another with a small chin - people are different - and "races" have among them predominant features, which are offend distinguishable from the bone structures.

And in fact the 1 - 4 % DNA differences are not huge - your DNA varies from the person next to you by at least that much - if it didn't then you wouldn't look different to them.
Blond hair has a different DNA profile to red hair. Blue eyes a different DNA profile to brown.
Tall stature has a different DNA profile to short.

The article has been written with the express purpose of promoting evolutionist point of view, while presenting neither conclusive, nor new facts, to present that point of view.

It is propaganda........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed.  Plus any type of article like this, you have to really search to find out exactly how much of a skeleton they actually FOUND....and how much of it they are making up.

 

"Love child"?   Oh brother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most "scientific" articles I've read on Neanderthal all indicate that he was a man with only minor differences from modern man. Many articles even refer to the idea that much of what people think of Neanderthal isn't even accurate and in some cases the bone differences have already been determined to be from disease, not that they were of separate species.

 

A medical examiner can examine the bones of someone recently or long dead and determine their race, sex, age and sometimes other factors and even though those differences exist, it's still clear the bones are human.

 

The same is true with regards to Neanderthal man. Where they actually have signficant skeletal remains to examine, they have determined this is almost identical to modern man. Typically it's only in cases where they have a tiny bone fragment that some "scientist" decides to build a whole model on and then input their own biases into creating a story for them, that we find "discrepencies".

 

Neanderthal man is just that, a man, one among many different forms of man found on the planet even today, whether we look at the Norseman, Chinaman, Australian aboriginal or some other man, they all have their God-given differences but they are all man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some people in some remote places that look closer to "Neanderthal" than others....and its just their genetics.    I'm not saying "Neanderthal" to be mean, I just mean that just because someone has a large jaw or a flat face or heavy features doesn't mean they are some sort of primitive human.

 

Actually evolution is the basis for racism....because in the old days, blacks were considered to be a tad more primitive than whites, which we all know isn't true as we were all created by God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some people in some remote places that look closer to "Neanderthal" than others....and its just their genetics.    I'm not saying "Neanderthal" to be mean, I just mean that just because someone has a large jaw or a flat face or heavy features doesn't mean they are some sort of primitive human.

 

Actually evolution is the basis for racism....because in the old days, blacks were considered to be a tad more primitive than whites, which we all know isn't true as we were all created by God.

I've seen a few people with "Neanderthal" features. Like you say, just men with their own unique difference.

 

While there are obvious differences among men, you are right that the idea that some races are more advanced or more primitive comes from evolution, not Scripture. Differing physical or mental characteristics among men is simply the way God chose to create us. All of God's creation shows variety, whether speaking of birds, trees or anything else. Those who believe in God embrace God's unique creation, those who neglect God choose to create theories they can use to "disprove" God and elevate themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Kitagrl's one post she mentions she believes the bone parts are from malnourished and deformed humans. If this were the case wouldn't their DNA prove conclusively they are homo sapiens? I'm not an expert on this. 

Yes. I don't think they were "malformed" humans. Another "race" of humans most likely. Maybe pre-flood or post flood, but healthy humans that were a little different from those living today.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DNA degrades once the subject has died - fossils rarely have any useful DNA associated with them. I am not aware of any useful DNA associated with neanderthal remains, but if it was available, the testing could indeed be done.

I should say by the way that I also am no expert, just an interested amateur who has done a fair bit of reading in the past.

So if this is the case and I believe you are right than how do these people know we share the same DNA with Neanderthals? And even if we did don't we share some of the same DNA characteristics with other animals? I've heard that dogs has the closest DNA to humans. Why don't they say that we descended from a canine instead? Also, it could be argued that this just means that the same Creator was involved in everything.

 

Again, it sounds like more finding "evidence" to support a theory they are already set on believing no matter what. You find a fossil of some primate with a minute amount of degraded DNA that matches ours then claim this is proof that we descended that primate.

 

This is why I compare evolution to religion. It takes a religious faith to believe in it.

Edited by ASongOfDegrees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is apparently approx 50% similarity in DNA between humans and bananas - but we are not half banana! :D

Talking % on DNA similarity is just misleading -it is more what the differences are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam the first man was so smart he could name every animal and remember there names.

 

Genesis 2:19-20

19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

 

How many names can you remember?

 

The first people were not dumb!

Edited by Eric Stahl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If further analysis proves the theory correct, the remains belonged to the first known such hybrid, providing direct evidence that humans and Neanderthals interbred."

Or it proves that some really bizarre things were occurring before the flood between the sons of God and the daughters of men.

The sons of God and daughters of men were getting married, practicing polygamy probably but otherwise not bizzare. All of the 'neanderthals' skeletal remains I ever read about were shorter than the average person of today; maybe a little stockier but not 'giants'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the flood the oxygen level was 30% and the atmospheric pressure was about double what it is now. They have determined that by the air bubbles trapped in ice and amber and some pre flood stainless steel. That is why animals grew so big before the flood.

Even sharks in the sea were 50 feet long. I don't think a man 9 feet tall was a giant before the flood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the flood the oxygen level was 30% and the atmospheric pressure was about double what it is now. They have determined that by the air bubbles trapped in ice and amber and some pre flood stainless steel. That is why animals grew so big before the flood.

Even sharks in the sea were 50 feet long. I don't think a man 9 feet tall was a giant before the flood.

 

Absolutely.... which is also why life lasted so much longer, it was like permanent hyperbaric therapy!!!!     And why dinos couldn't make it post-flood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the flood the oxygen level was 30% and the atmospheric pressure was about double what it is now. They have determined that by the air bubbles trapped in ice and amber and some pre flood stainless steel. That is why animals grew so big before the flood.

Even sharks in the sea were 50 feet long. I don't think a man 9 feet tall was a giant before the flood.

 

 

Absolutely.... which is also why life lasted so much longer, it was like permanent hyperbaric therapy!!!!     And why dinos couldn't make it post-flood.

 

Wow! I feel silly! Just the other day someone asked me to explain why if dinosaurs were on the ark, why are they not around anymore, and this is the answer I was needing.

 

Back to the topic at hand... it is a scientific impossiblility for Neanderthals and modern humans to be different species, and still be capable of interbreeding. It has been well established already, so I won't beat that dead horse. Following this logic, we can conclude that modern man was of the same species as Neanderthal and whatever else they claim was before that, and therefore destroys the theory of evolution that we evolved from apes. That is why evolution does not work. The scientists need for there to be some kind of missing link in order to justify any position on evolution, otherwise the "theory" doesn't hold water.

 

I agree that arguing percentages is moot. According to this National Geographic article, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html

 

humans and chimpanzees share 96% of their DNA. Yet, being different species, there is no possible way for interbreeding. I believe that the only reason for these articles is to further brainwash the ignorant and hide the Truth from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 498 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...