ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Neanderthals Before Christians

Some calling themselves Christians say "neanderthals" existed before Adam and Eve. Can I get help refuting this silliness?

Join Our Christian Friendship and Take The Wisdom Bible Quiz
 ---JasonX on 5/13/06
     Helpful Blog Vote (10)

Post a New Blog

I would like to recommend the book "Buried Alive" by Dr. Jack Cuozzo. Although I do not agree with all his assertions, his research on actual Neandertal skeletons in European museums appears to be meticulous.
Dr. Cuozzo concludes that classic Neandertal characteristics resulted from three main factors: (1)genetic differences from modern humans,(2)late puberty and maturation, and (3)extreme longevity. Simply put, Neander-
tals were not dim-witted ape-people. They
were genetically superior human beings.
---Bob on 8/26/08

Although I recognize that some genuine Christians believe in pre-adamites, the concept seems very unbiblical to me. I would suggest that Neandertals were early post-flood human beings. I would also suggest that they may have been genetically superior to us and may have lived to great ages. Do not assume that ante-diluvians and early post-diluvians looked exactly like us.
---Bob on 4/15/08

The "Neanderthal" existed, like all humans, after Adam and Eve.
---Kay on 10/16/06

"Those few who hold on to 6,000 year creation do so in denial of objective reality or gross ignorance, but not faith."

I believe in a young earth. I guess you would call me ignorant, huh?
---Kay on 10/16/06

Lohn T; Fundamentalism (and you are not one) has clearly defined parametwers. Through protestantism is covers a broad spectrum of belief, fundamentalism could be called monolithic.

My point about the sparrow was simply about Gods omnipreasence.
---MikeM on 6/2/06

I do not 'argue against' the Bible. I argue against some people intrepretation of the Bible. Literalism is used when is suits someones presuppositions, then dismissed when it does not. In Joshua it says 'sun stand still'- literalism is dismissed. Those few who hold on to 6,000 year creation do so in denial of objective reality or gross ignorance, but not faith.
---MikeM on 6/2/06

This is a straw man argument: You pick a false premise, knock it down, assuming the whole follows. "He marks the sparrows fall, but does not prevent it. Riged fundamentalism accept only other fundamentalist as fellow Christians"

It is faulty on two parts:
1) Makes a false statement about fundamentalism and maligns them en masse (Are you reading my posts on that?)
2) Assumes that death is unnecessary, and that God does not care about humanity.

Both false premises.
---John_T on 5/29/06

Clarification;I argue against YOUR specific intrepretation of scripture, nothing more.
There are two creation accounts, on linier,(E) the other more literal.(Y) I will not be guilty of 'boxing in' God to my finite intrepretation. Jesus is the door, He is not made of wood, doorknob, and a hinge. literalism clearly has limits.
---MikeM on 5/27/06

Mike: If the specifics of creation don't really concern you, then why do you argue so forcefully against God's account of it? Either the Biblical account is true, God is a liar or the Bible is fraudulent. In order to disbelieve the creation account given in Genesis and reaffirmed in Exodus 20, you must, of necessity, believe one of the two latter options. Which one is it with you?
---jerry6593 on 5/27/06

Jerry; God created the earth. what when, how, the specifics do not really concern me. He Created the flower and the weed, the sapian and the Neanderthal. Here is the key; He marks the sparrows fall, but does not prevent it. Riged fundamentalism accept only other fundamentalist as fellow Christians, as I have seen. I am not interested in a litmis test, and so many of many colors exist. Why the sparrow falls I don't know, Everything is part of his eternal orchestra.
---MikeM on 5/26/06

Christians believe and follow Jesus Christ. Jesus believed and taught that the Genesis account of creation, the flood of Noah and even the story of Jonah and the great fish were all true. Are you a Christian?
---jerry6593 on 5/25/06

3n's? Ok. I am going back to work, so a few days to respond. Finally a worthy polemic! I may even have to put in the other glove into the ring!

The 3N did indeed make paintings, tools, and buried their dead. The weight is so overwhelming. The jury is still out on interbreeding, but for now it seems no.
---MikeM on 5/24/06

Not on your life!

We agree that N's were different species than humans, right? Using Genesis, they're subhuman species; only humans are created in the image of God. I say they are apes you do not.

You sau that they made fire, painted, even had religion. I say that the evidence of that is shaky. Post flood human habitation of the places once occupied by Ns or the degree of civilization in the sites is difficult to directly attribute to Ns, or later residents. I choose Genesis
---John_T on 5/24/06

Threw in the towel?
---MikeM on 5/24/06

2.Yes they were far different as mtDNA seems to indicate, but still 'human' as they made fire, painted, even had religion. I am in agreement with them. The exact breakoff point from sapians is not yet known. "Neanderthals were "very good" homebody hunters, sticking close to one region to find bison, deer and other prey. Early modern humans ranged far and wide on their hunts, in contrast, reported University of New Mexico researchers."pp25
---MikeM on 5/24/06

1.Do I disagree with him? no. He works for Max planck, a german research group. My books say much the same thing. "strong consensus has emerged that Neanderthals are a distinct evolutionary entity from our own, that most would view as a different species from modern humans," Genome Quebec Innovation Center researchers conclude Neanderthals could have contributed 0.1% of their genes to modern humans, and possibly none.
---MikeM on 5/24/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Stocks


a DIRECT QUOTE from the article conclusion: "biologically , distinct from living and Holocene humans"

I summarized the quote, saying they were apes; in that you are correct.

However, based on the above quote, my summarization is correct. Please fuss with them, not me, or else find equally rigorious academic articles with opposite opinions. That is the nature of scholarship, is it not?
---John_T on 5/24/06

I agree with them. I know the study. They never said 'Neanderthals are apes,' tou did. If I put the other glove in the ring I will be accused of being pedantic, and all will bail. Several studies are going on, E-Mails between scientist fill the cyber world. The ocean reference is relevant in that subjective presuppositions mean nothing when bounced against objectivity.
---MikeM on 5/23/06

You do not need to fuss with me about the article, and the comparasion with the Pacific is absurd, not funny. It generates more heat than light.

Go to EBSCO Host and look up my peer-reviewed source: Ancient DNA, Late Neandertal Survival, and Modern-Human-Neandertal Genetic Admixture. By: Weaver, T D.; Roseman, C C. Current Anthropology, Oct2005, Vol.46 #4, p677-683 Then fuss with them, OK?
---John_T on 5/23/06

Someone says to me, "I believe with all my heart that the Pacific Ocean does not exist, and you should to, or you will burn."
Am I, MikeM the type to blindfold them, drive them to the end of the pier at Santa Monica, and then take off the blindfold, revealing all that blue water in its grand glory? would I do something like that?
---MikeM on 5/23/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes

I doubt the researcher implied Neanderthals were apes. The mtDNA does show they were seperatewd from what became modern man long ago. What is appearent is an established pre-supposition, facts being of no relevance. "Objective reality pitted against religious faith is of no consequence"-William James. This maxim is no more clear than in this discussion.
---MikeM on 5/23/06

Researchers said, "biologically , distinct from living and Holocene humans" not me. Argue with the peer-reviewed source and publisher. As to your being where Ns were, I do not doubt it, however; it is possible that later humans also used the site, and their activity may be wrongly attributed to the Ns.

Nevertheless, the whole theory is in contradiction to Genesis 4. There was a HIGH pre-flood civilization that included mining, engineering, smelting, metalurgy, music, etc.
---John_T on 5/23/06

John T; "Neandertals were biologically distinct from living and Holocene humans and at least some more ancient modern humans". They died out during the pliesticine. You said apes, you are putting words in the reasearchers mouth. Sorry, Neanderthals had fire, made cave paintings, buried their dead, used tools, and ironiclly, may have had religion, as when they buried their dead they placed 'flowers' and tools in the grave. I have been to two neanderthal sites, one in France, and one in Germany.
---MikeM on 5/22/06

Mike: Your 5/14 post mtDNA does not hold up. Try again!
Ancient DNA, Late Neandertal Survival, and Modern-Human-Neandertal Genetic Admixture. By: Weaver, T D.; Roseman, C C. Current Anthropology, Oct2005, Vol.46 #4, p677-683 says "Analyses of mitochondrial DNA extracted from multiple Neandertal fossils have confirmed abundant skeletal evidence that Neandertals were biologically distinct from living and Holocene humans and at least some more ancient modern humans".
---John_T on 5/22/06

Send a Free Blessings Ecard

Parts of evolution by natural selection are theory, implied evolution, then there is evolutionary law, backed up by 'hard science' -objective research. Much is still not known, but micro-biology, and other hard-sciences 150 years ago confirms both (what some call) micro and macro evolution. My issue is the supposed conflict between science, be it evolution or any other science, and scripture. A lack of knowledge of both leads to this supposed conflict.

Moderator - Even if I wasn't a Christian I would not believe the theory of evolution as I believe it mocks true science.
---MikeM on 5/22/06

Moderator; "As for evolution, read up on the subject and one quickly understands its a myth." Then palentology, biology, archeology, micro-biology, physical anthropology, AND cultural anthropology, chemistry, geology etc. etc. etc., are all myths. Is that the way to maintain faith? Go along with science, accept science when it goes along with what we believe, and dismiss it when it disagrees.

Moderator - You are mixing apples and oranges. Evolution isn't a major science; it's a theory.
---MikeM on 5/22/06

The Catholic 'science' text books untill 1880 STILL taught that the sun and stars went around the earth.-250 years after Galielio. The earth does not move, as the Bible says, they took that literally. My education is in the sciences, and to say the earth is only 6,000 years old is the same as those textbooks. Teaching that to a child is a form of child abuse. People in their homes or a few church's can teach that, or that the earth does not move, but leave it out of serious discussion.
---MikeM on 5/22/06

As usual, people trust the priests of the new revelation and accept that they are always telling the truth.
Is there any evolutionary scientists who have actually performed the test, here on this blog to tell us in detail that what is being said is truth? Am I calling evolutionary scientists liars? Yes, I am, as the history of science shows that when a science can't prove something, they make it up.
---mike8384 on 5/19/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Depression

Well, Grace, God was talking to US, and He does not refer to His own time as "Day and Night". Plus God created day and night not man. During the creation, He set the earth in rotation around its axis and called the light and darkness cycle which has always been 24 hours "day and night". See what I mean? He was talking about earthly days.
---Okebaram on 5/19/06

Okebaram.....I believe man created the concept of a 24 hour day, not God. God moves in his own time and way.
---Grace on 5/19/06

Here's some reasons: people think it would have been to hard for God to literally say "let there be light" and it showed up the same day: No, he would have to have taken 3 billion years trying and failing until he succeeded. Is that right Alan?
---Okebaram on 5/19/06

God didn't need evolution to create the earth. Evolution is a way of trying to explain away God, and it is greatly flawed. By the way when God said he created the earth in 6 days, He wasn't lieing, and He was talking about avtual days (24 hours). Didn't Moses write Genesis? Why do people assume that 6 days means millions of years?
---Okebaram on 5/19/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study

Moderator... I have never indicated here that I believe in evolution as chance. What I think is a possibilityis that God may have used a planned development of species. But you appear to have ruled this out as impossible.

Moderator - That's not what evolution teaches. We can't mix oranges and apples.
---alan8869_of_UK on 5/19/06

Romans 1:20-25 fits this. Removing creation from glory of God. "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made... Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations... And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."
---chris on 5/19/06

Thank you Leon, I totally respect the young-earth creation model, but also find legitimacy in the ruin-reconstruction model as well. I always admit that I do not know, but God does and he will reveal them when we get to Heaven. I also believe that the reconstruction model does have a lot of scriptural evidence and is not based soley on hypothesis.
---chris on 5/19/06

I think there is room within the theory of Evolution to see that it is not mere 'chance' but an actual systematic progression; as in the growth of a fetus, to a baby, into a child, into an adult. The progression of growth (in a human or in the planet) in not left to chance, but moves slowly at the molecular level, it is hard to see except for the outermost changes. God is the driver of the process of human growth, why not earthly growth as well?

Moderator - He's in charge not evolution. Do you know what the theory of evolution is?
---Grace on 5/19/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses

Moderator ... I have read Genesis, thank you, and do not find it to be text book explanation of how God made the world. I know that there are great holes and gaps in the full evolution theory, which is still only that. However there are many scientific fact/observations which show that God had some odd tricks up His sleeve in getting us to our present stage. I do not rule out anything ... except chance.

Moderator - Evolution is exactly that - chance.
---alan8869_of_UK on 5/19/06

Absotively Chris! The theory of evolution subtly (cunningly) shows God as passive (willy nilly) & experimentally reactive, i.e., "Let us see how this will turn out."

The Bible, in stark contrast, shows God as specifically being proactive, definitely in charge of every minute & " intentional detail " of His creation.

Evolution is devilution (confusion)!
---Leon on 5/19/06

What did the people do before they had scripture, as we know it today? Were they lost, left without guidance?
And what of the interpretation of scripture......countless times the scripture (as we know it today) has been translated......often the true meanings of words are changed through translations. Our basic source of understanding is through prayer and God provides us with answers to difficult question such as these.
---Grace on 5/19/06

Chris: Please read to understand Scripture in the context (existing conditions; the whole picture) it's presented. It's very easy to imagine what's not in the Bible as if it were.

Going outside of Scripture for explanations is dangerous & will lead one far from a relationship with God. This is the devil's plan, i.e., to confuse & lead us astray. He always positions the battle for our minds (souls). Don't let him blow your mind with a barrage of garbage. Peace friend....
---Leon on 5/19/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis

Dear Moderator.....I'm not sure what prompted the comment regarding the mixture of Christianity and Paganism. Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religion. Let's take a different approach......God created the earth. Gensis provides us with a process by which the earth was created in stages. Evolution is a creative process over millions of years. I'm not saying that every theory under the heading of Evolution is true, but I'm just wondering if we can see Evolution as a process of creation.

Moderator - Even if I didn't believe one word in the Bible, as a educated person the THEORY of evolution isn't valid.
---Grace on 5/19/06

Mod you say to me "It's an arrogant statement to you because you are ignorant on the subject matter"
I do admit I am ignorant as to how God created the world. But I bow to your superior knowledge because you have obviously been let into all His secrets.

Moderator - Start with the Book of Genesis for this great knowledge and don't listen to people that don't believe in the Bible. As for evolution, read up on the subject and one quickly understands its a myth.
---alan8869_of_UK on 5/19/06

John T: I do not define myself as "new age" or any other type of title. I believe in the teachings of Jesus, and I try to walk this path daily. I believe that science is important, but I don't accept every scientific theory. I get so many different theories and views on a topic and I don't know who to believe, I ask God for the truth. The answers we get from God may challenge us to think differently. I welcome your question, John T, and I'm glad you asked it!
---Grace on 5/19/06

evolution contradicts scripture... it's as simple as that. (unless you want to say that Adam evolved from dirt and breath of life into man)
---chris on 5/19/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Asthma

I understand what Grace is saying. God is all powerful, and can do anything, in whatever way he chooses.
But Mod says "it is not possible" that God used certain methods to create the world and us. I have to confess I find that quite an arogant statement. Was he there, or has he received some special revelation about how God did it, because the detail is not given in the Bible?

Moderator - It's an arrogant statement to you because you are ignorant on the subject matter.
---alan8869_of_UK on 5/19/06

Reading this, and another blog, I need to ask, "Are you a New Ager?"

I am not attacking, rather merely trying to deal accurately with what you write before I jump to conclusions.
---John_T on 5/18/06

Moderator.. and?........I try to find balance. Creationism is to literal (lacking logic), and the scientific theory is is lacking the spiritual essence. Could God's creative process be evolution? In this, we can account for a Divine presence (God) orchestrating (creating) a beautiful, changing, magnificent planet. To me, it seems a wonderful balance. Which brings us back to Adam and Eve....the first humans? Or, perhaps the first Biblical pair?

Moderator - No, Christianity mixed with paganism don't make a wonderful balance. False doctrines ruin people's spirtual life.
---Grace on 5/18/06

Leon - Sorry, I am horrible at explaining my thoughts, but here goes 2. It was not meant to compare. It was meant to demonstrate that sin or evil existed prior to mans fall. If sin existed prior then death did as well. It was a response for Rom.5:12. An attempt to explain that sin and evil did not come into existance at Adams transgression, but "entered" the world.
---chris on 5/18/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Cholesterol

Leon, 1. my point was to be Biblically obvious. The same word is used in Adams account and Noahs. So why do we think it is meant to be translated as "fill" for Adam, when it is obviously "refill" (replenish) for Noah. Especially when the entire phrase is the same "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." I think it was meant to be related.
---chris on 5/18/06

Dear Moderator.....if I may say in response to your 'airplane is a rock' statement, in fact, everything on this planet, comes from this planet (which rock is a part of), including airplanes. God has given us minds which He wants us to use to explore our planet and universe, whether it be to make aircraft or to explore the development/creation of our world. We can always go to God and ask these questions directly, with an open mind, to hear his truth.

Moderator - And?
---Grace on 5/18/06

Whoa Chris! 1.) "Was Noah supposed to fill the earth, not refill?" The answer to your question is biblically obvious... refill .

2.) You're mixing apples & oranges, man (Adam) & a fallen angel (Lucifer/the devil/satan/the serpent). So, your math is faulty (doesn't add up).

Ditto Mod (your reply to Alan...5/18).
---Leon on 5/18/06

Karen..yes, I agree with you, in that God's spirit is everywhere. I was thinking that perhaps Adam and Eve were symbolic in that they had to acknowledge their error(sin) and become aware that their actions generated positive or negative reactions. Perhaps the lesson of Adam & Eve is the one of freedom of choice, and how we manage that freedom, which is something we all struggle with.
---Grace on 5/18/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery

What is neanderthals? If its a human race, then the answer is NO. Adam and Eve were the first humans. If it is an animal that isn't indicated in history, the answer is still probably NO.
---Okebaram on 5/18/06

Genesis 1:26,27,31; 2:7,8,18,21-23; 4:1,2.
---Eloy on 5/18/06

Christians are people of the Bible. The Bible says that Adam was created on day six. It also says that on day one the earth was without form and void. Thus, five days before Adam, the earth was void of everything, including Neanderthals. Even the most rabid evolutionist would not be so nutty as to postulate the evolution of man in less than five days.
---jerry6593 on 5/18/06

2. We use words losely many times because we don't stop to think of the Nature and Character of God. We now have a personal relationship with the Father through the person of Jesus Christ. As to the answer, if God didn't say there was others, then we believe it. We can assume all we want but only God's word is true.
---karen on 5/18/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Bullion

Grace, I would like to bring to light one thing on your statements about Adam and Eve. First of all, when Scripture mentions that we are "in Christ" it is not saying that the Holy Spirit is restricted inside of us. What it is saying is that now we have a personal relationship with Christ. Where before we didn't. God is Spirit and cannot be restricted to a place. He is everywhere. Adam and Eve did have a personal relationship with God before the fall just as true Christians have now.
---karen on 5/18/06

Mod ... "Evolution is a made up false theory that has NEVER been proved and never will be Mod that shows you think you know as much as God.

Moderator - It shows that I am educated on the subject matter and am not ignorant and easily fooled.
---alan8869_of_UK on 5/18/06

Grace asked "Could it be that God used the process of evolution to create the earth?" Mod, you replied "No it's not possible" Mod, with God, all things are and were possible. Why should He not use strange tools, some not known to us, to accomplish the creation? Do you know how He did it?

Moderator - An airplane is a rock since all things are possible with God. Doesn't seem to make sense. Evolution is a made up false theory that has NEVER been proved and never will be.
---alan8869_of_UK on 5/17/06

A word on Evolution.....I see evolution as a process of growth or change. Could it be that God used the process of evolution to create the earth? We all know that God's time is different than earthly, human time. It is evident that it takes many, many human years to grow a magnificent tree, and many more to grow magnificent planet.

Moderator - No it's not possible.
---Grace on 5/17/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Menopause

We should remember that Christianity as a religion is only about 2000 years old....or a little less. We do know that science has told us that the earth is much, much older than this. Adam and Eve were not Christians, as we know it today, since the religion had not even been formed yet. It could be that the story of Adam and Eve is symbolic, rather than literal. Symbolic in that Adam and Eve had a spiritual relationship with God, and became aware of their choices in life, as we all must do.
---Grace on 5/17/06

I dont think this was Noahs flood:

"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."
2 Pet 3:5-7 KJV
---chris on 5/17/06

2- Sin and death existed in a "world" BEFORE Adam and Eve sinned. It was Adam's disobedience which allowed "Death" to enter the newly-formed pristine world. It was Lucifer's disobedience and rebellion which allowed "Death" to enter the original, ancient world. Adam did not live in that previous world. He lived (and sinned) in this one. The previous one was done away with.
---chris on 5/17/06

The Scriptures say that the "serpent" tempted Eve and caused her and Adam to sin. If the serpent tempted the man and woman to sin against God, then the serpent was disobedient and evil before Adam and Eve. If the "serpent" was evil before Adam fell, then the spirit of the serpent would have had to have sinned against God at some point of time BEFORE Adam sinned. If Death comes by sin and the serpent was a sinner before Adam, then Death already existed. cont.
---chris on 5/17/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Penpals

Was Noah supposed to fill the Earth, not refill?

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
(Genesis 1:28 KJV)

"And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth."
(Genesis 9:1 KJV)
---chris on 5/17/06

Very good points Rev_Herb (5/14).

NV_Barbara: I'm sure you know the word "replinish" can mean to initially fill with people or animals or, as you've indicated, can mean to fill up again as you believe. Personally, I believe Gen. 1:28 means to fill, not refill the earth. Believing otherwise, for me, is like saying God didn't get the 1st clay model(s) of man, or whatever He was trying to make, right -- oops!
---Leon on 5/17/06

"Neandertal sequence of the 378 base pairs of hypervariable region I of mtDNA, deduced from several short overlapping products of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR)." New England Journal Volumne 56, PG:43. Starting in 1996 several test on Neanderthals have been taken, all reveal modern man not close to neanderthals.
---MikeM on 5/14/06

The results of Neanderthal DNA sequencing was announced in the Journal Nature (Ovchinnikov, et. al., 2000). The fossil specimen was an infant from the Caucasus region dating to less than 35,000 years ago. A rib was used in the DNA isolation and a 345 base pair sequence was produced. The specimen had 22 base pair differences, compared to 27 for the type specimen, over the 345 base pair sequence. Although the two Neanderthals were separated by 2,500 km, they are closely related in mtDNA lineages.
---MikeM on 5/14/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Accounting

Mike, you waffle on this.

Where is the TISSUE from which mDNA is extracted?
---John_T on 5/14/06

They could be testing some ape that died out many years ago. no wonder the DNA don't match.
---Rev_Herb on 5/14/06

Molly, where in the bible does it say the age of the earth? Adam and Eve were to "replenish" the earth, which suggests to me a pre Adamic race.
I know it doesn't matter as far as our salvation is concerned. I don't think people were simians, or slithered up out of the swamps, however the 'gap theory' is something to consider.
---NVBarbara on 5/14/06

How could these neanderthals live 35,000 years ago when the bible says earth is only 6,000 years old? Someone here is an educated fool, thinking themselves wise! Some unbelievers took themselves some bones and fashioned a man. DNA is only a man made theory.
---Molly on 5/14/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers

At persent testing on Neanderthal and modern human mitochondrial DNA show great dissimilarity. The DNA show a split between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals almost 200,000 years ago. Morphology alone, as well as Mitochondrial evidence shows by 50,000 (genetic markers) they could not interbreed. Testing goes on and on, and there is no 100% agreement from one university to the next, only a general agreement.
---MikeM on 5/14/06


What are the tissues that still remain intact after an alleged 35,000 years?
---John_T on 5/14/06

Maybe, I don't disp[ute man has been around since before the ice age, but how do we know the scientists are telling the truth?
They list various Man's, Java and Peking, yet they are clearly human beings, and would be indistinquishable from modern man.
Don't accept blindly, use the net to research the truh, it's out there.
---mike8384mike6553 on 5/14/06

Copyright© 2017 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.