Monday Creation Science – Humanity’s Family Tree: Homo neanderthalensis

Dear ones, today we have an exciting conclusion to our Monday series through the human family tree. The Neanderthal! Caveman cousin? Diseased humans? Aged men and women living far longer than we do? Before we dig right in, if you’ve missed previous posts in this series, friends, I’ll be sure to link to them at the bottom. What we’ve done is journeyed through the evolutionists idea of humanity’s family tree, pointing out the issues of timing and bone structure along the way. We avoided fossils that are so heavily debated that conclusions still remain to be made. I hope to finish today with the last branch of the tree before modern man, Neanderthal.

Neanderthal is the most common fossil in the family tree, with five hundred found thus far. While only twelve of those are complete fossils, it’s believed there are a total of five hundred individual Neanderthals present in the fossils found. They are unearthed all over the world, with Africa being the only exception. The term fossil is misleading in this case, as none of them have been found completely fossilized. The unique feature of being buried alongside modern man is perhaps why we have been able to uncover so many. Unique in that they have rarely been found not buried next to modern bones, that’s not to say that other groups have not also been found buried together. This is true, although not as common, for all the human groups we’ve discussed previously, except for H. Erectus.

Neanderthals have always been viewed as the caveman idiot, no where near as intelligent as modern man, of course. Fortunately we continue to find more and more evidence to the contrary, including findings suggesting they wore makeup, played musical instruments, hunted intelligently, used tools, and were seafaring. Another important scientific upset has been in the DNA, which was previously announced, and dogmatically concluded, to have been nonexistent in living humans today. That has, of course, been rescinded, due to research actually finding Neanderthal sequences in many living individuals. This is clearly the best evidence that Neanderthals are not ‘cousins’ or missing links between man and ape evolution, but humans with distinctive genetic qualities.

It is the odd qualities found in the Neanderthal bones that set them apart from the modern fossils they have been buried with. Secular views are varied, ranging from genetic disease, to malnutrition. None of the proposed possibilities are without major flaws. At this point, there is no obvious agreement amongst evolutionist scientists as to how these fossils came to look the way they do. This is not to say that the Creation scientists are in agreement either. The divide within the creationist view is where these fossils fit Biblically. For many, the Neanderthal fossils merely represent a genetically unique family group from the dispersion of Babel. For others, these fossils represent the individuals who lived much longer then modern man after the flood.

As we now know, the bones in human skulls continue to grow throughout our lives. This is another bit of research that overturned previously held beliefs that all bones stop growing after puberty. That’s still assumed to be the case for all other bones, although we know bones become more dense with age, and cartilage never stops growing. With this understanding, researchers modeled the current rate of skull growth with ages ranging from two to three hundred years old, and came up with images resembling the Neanderthal fossils. There are some compelling findings in the Neanderthal fossils that suggest they aged slower than modern man, including their teeth and jaws. Dr. Jack Cuozzo details these arguments, while also showing how these fossils are being altered to fit the image evolutionists want in his book Buried Alive which I reviewed here.

To conclude this series, I want to point out that we see the plot-line from evolutionists of a family tree that never existed, taught in schools and museums without facts or scientific evidence. Opinions, conjectures, assumptions, dishonest handling of fossils, and artistic renditions that leave out obvious bone structures that differ from the plot-line, is how we’ve been shown the ‘evolution’ of man. If it’s not observable and repeatable, it’s not scientifically provable. Beloved, these arbitrary stories of fictitious missing links need not be allowed to stand unopposed. As the church, we need to be educating our children, and one another, about these subjects. Especially the youth groups, which desperately need to be preparing the young adults to have an answer for the hope they have within. I pray this series has been a blessing to you all, as always beloved brethren, be good Berean’s, and study to show yourselves approved.

Creation Science – Humanities Family Tree: Introduction

Monday Creation Science – Humanities Family Tree: The Myths

Creation Science – Humanities Family Tree: First Man

Creation Science Monday – The Human Family Tree: Homo Floresiensis

Creation Science Monday – Humanities Family Tree: Homo Naledi

Monday Creation Science – Humanities Family Tree: Dr. Purdom’s Lectures

Author: lnhereford

I am a Christian, wife, mother, podcaster and homeschooler currently traveling the United States with my loving husband and darling daughter!

8 thoughts on “Monday Creation Science – Humanity’s Family Tree: Homo neanderthalensis”

  1. Sister, thank you for this interesting installment and for the entire series! As a non-science type of person, I really appreciated your well-researched yet painless articles. Evolutionists speak with authority but the evidence does not support their theories.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you for your encouragement, brother! I greatly appreciate it, in this area it’s frustrating to see the constant conjectures treated as facts and placed above the very Word of God. It saddens me, when reviewing quotes and articles, how many atheists will say that they know evolution has problems but that it’s better than believing in God.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I recently saw a new critique of Darwinism at Barnes & Noble titled “Darwin Devolves : the new science about DNA that challenges evolution” by Michael J. Behe. I see our library has a copy so I just placed a hold on it. Thanks for the inspiration!

        Liked by 1 person

      2. If I’m not mistaken, I believe it was Behe who coined the term irreducible complexity. If not, he certainly popularized it. That’s so exciting that they had the book in your library, brother, I can’t wait to hear what you think of it! I’ll have to check our local library as well.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. I also saw another book in the library’s collection, “Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design” by Stephen C. Meyer, but I put that one on my must-read list for the future.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. I think you need to take a refresher course on the scientific method. Finding evidence that disproves a hypothesis and leads to surprising conclusions isn’t bad science. Rejecting any evidence that disproves the wanted conclusion IS bad science.

    Please, please, please realize that every “study” you cite STARTS with the conclusion that the world is 6000 years old and puts forward only the evidence that “proves” that conclusion.

    Look at it this way: Conclusion is 6. Hypothesis is 2×3. Evidence ignored or deemed unimportant is 1×6. But, the world isn’t 6. The world is infinitely more complex than 6, but to keep this analogy relatively easy, let’s up the ante to 36. Hypothesis 6×6. Allow 4×9, but ignore 1×36, 2×18, and 3×12.

    You sit here laughing at scientists essentially saying, “6×6=36. Oh wait! 4×9 is ALSO 36!!” And then years later with more information, “3×12 is AGAIN 36!!! What ELSE can equal 36?!?” So they multiply 5 x7 and get 35. The “Conclusionists” who stopped at 6×6=36, but also allowed 4×9 snark at the scientists who found 5×7=35 because clearly they don’t know what they’re doing!

    Your daughter is the perfect age to start designing experiments. Let her make a hypothesis and see where the evidence leads her. Please don’t tell her what the conclusion is and force her to ignore contradictory data!

    Note: the experiment I designed above is “What are the factors of 36.” My hypothesis was that there are only 2 factors of 36 (1×36 and 2×18). My method was to examine the multiplication table for 1-12. I then identified all the factors of 36. My results were: 1×36, 2×18, 3×12, 4×9, 6×6. My conclusion is 36 has 5 factors, not 2. Discussion: My hypothesis was proved incorrect. Sources of error are that my finger slipped while “scrolling” through the table, leaving for a moment when I thought 5×7 is 36.

    Yes, the experiment is silly and purely hypothetical as someone who’s math skills are way beyond factoring, but it’s entirely on grade level for a child just learning to multiply and factor.


    1. Hmm…just realized another source of error, this one with my method since obviously, I cannot have identified 1×36 and 2×18 using a 1-12 multiplication table.

      But, that actually makes the analogy better for comparison to the study of evolution. Wrong methods lead to wonkie results. Looking at just the multiplication table isn’t sufficient for finding the right answer. Though it does prove the Conclusions argument that 36 only has “2” factors.

      In hindsight, I like the method of this argument, though the execution needs more time. I’m at work and trying to do other stuff.


    2. Good morning Catherine, I’m glad to see you back engaging with my posts. I appreciate you taking the time, while even at work, to discuss these matters with me. Let me first start by stating your original sentence is not accurate, nor is it proven within the rest of your comment. Beginning an argument with an arbitrary insult which is inconsistent with the argument itself is an indication that you’ve either misunderstood something, or are refusing to actually engage with the topic. Let’s deal with the accusations, as there seems to be three.

      First, that the scientific method as mentioned in the latter part of my article is connected with the discussion of the Neanderthal DNA thus I don’t understand the scientific method. You’ve reached a conclusion here that does not follow. At no point during the scientific research of the mitochondrial DNA was there a hypothesis that Neanderthal sequences would be found. The scientists began with the assumption that we are not related to the Neanderthal, and the research was begun without a full understanding of Neanderthal sequences. The study itself was not in regards to other people groups assumed to be ancient missing links, but was instead a study of population within modern man. After the research concluded it was afterwards arbitrarily claimed that Neanderthals do not share our DNA as a conjecture, not as apart of the original research. Now, when later research was done targeting the Neanderthal sequences the hypothesis was that there would be no Neanderthal sequences found in living people. That was refuted by the evidence, and to the scientists credit they recognized that previously held assumptions, and they were assumptions in the purest sense of the word, had been incorrect. My point was not to show that the original scientists had been foolish to announce something without all the evidence, but that it was foolish to announce something without having studied it whatsoever. Not just foolish, but dishonest. Later, I mention the scientific method in regards to the historical nature of evolutionism, as historical science can not be studied using the scientific method.

      The second accusation you make is that I have only cited Creationists, which is incorrect. Perhaps you were unable, due to time, to click on each link. You’ve also made the mistake of writing off the scholarly articles I linked simply because they begin with a different worldview as yours. Please don’t ignore the data simply because it disagrees with your presuppositions. Everyone, regardless of their area of expertise, begins with a worldview. All evolutionist scientists begin with the assumption that evolution is true. Contrary to the scientific method of attempting to refute their hypothesis of long ages they spend much of their time attempting to give evidence for it. This, as you state, IS actually bad science. However, I still read their articles without writing them off, as a point of integrity. It’s imperative for intellectual argumentation that we listen to the other side.

      The last accusation you’ve made is that my daughter isn’t being given the opportunity to come to her own conclusions. Unlike public school kids, my daughter is being shown both sides of the argument for evolutionism and creationism. I do not “tell her what the conclusion is and force her to ignore contradictory data”. Instead, when she does experiments, or we discuss the varied scientific arguments for any subject, I either read to her, or play for her, both sides of the arguments. The underlining point in your statement seems to be that Creationists ignore contradictory data, which tells me that you have done very little study into what these scientists are actually saying. They are using the exact same data sets as evolutionists, they come to different conclusions based on their interpretation of the data and their worldview.

      Let me give you an example. When scientists find DNA and other soft tissue within fossilized dinosaur bones the evolutionist says the bones are 65 million years old, all our data shows that soft tissue and DNA can not last long after death. Conclusion? We must not fully understand how DNA and tissue break down. The Creationist scientist looks at the DNA and soft tissue, the Bible verses that suggest a flood wiped out these creatures, sees the data that shows the half life of such material. and decides these bones could not have possibly been there for millions of years. Each side has presuppositions, the authority for their worldview is always going to be apart of their conclusions as every scientist on either side will admit.

      Another great example is the carbon 14 found in diamonds. Evolutionists never tested diamonds for carbon 14 because their belief in millions of years made it a mute point. Carbon 14 can’t last, even in diamonds, for the length it’s believed to take to form them. Creationists start from a different worldview, so they tested the diamonds and found that they do still have carbon 14. You see, Catherine, how both groups begin with assumptions based on authorities outside of the scientific method? For the Creationists it’s the Bible, for evolutionists it’s Darwin.

      I also want to point out that, rather than engage with the point of my post, you’ve chosen instead to make accusatory remarks. This is unfortunate, as you’re worldview would suit a higher level of discussion in this area and would have been much more helpful to my readers. I hope that you’ll review the data in my post, and not ignore it because it’s contrary to your conclusions. Perhaps, when you have more time, you could look into the facts, the assumptions that wrongly led scientists to believe Neanderthals were moronic brutes, the tampering being done to the Neanderthal fossils, the DNA that shows they were fully human, along with the indications behind these facts, and give me your honest opinion of the data.

      I also hope that you will take the same advice you gave me for my daughter, and look at the data that differs from your conclusions. There’s a great deal of it, so much so that secular scientists are beginning to turn towards catastrophism rather than evolutionism. That is what happens when the data is not ignored, the worldview shifts. I use to believe in evolution, that’s all I was taught in school. Ignore the contradictory data? I wasn’t even given that contradictory data! Neither are the school kids of today. However, once I left public education and began to research these things myself I noticed a lot of assumptions, conjectures, and opinions without data. That made me curious, which led me to see that the reason all we are given is circular reasoning of fossil and rock layers, artist renditions of what links might look like, and inconsistent storytelling of how varies fossils made their way to fossilization, was because these are all things that happened in the past. You can not observe the past, therefore I repeat again, natural, or historical, science can not be proven with the scientific method!

      I have to tell you, as I always do, that God is a just Judge. Look at our culture, see how much we all desire justice when wronged, please recognize that the justice we intuitively desire comes from being made in the image of a great and righteous Judge. We all cry out when injustice happens, when criminals go without paying for their crime. But the One who created all things, He has given us Law. We have transgressed that Law, against the highest judge of the land. The judge of all the earth will do right. He will not suffer injustice. Not one single rapist, murderer, slanderer, liar, or thief will go unpunished. The reason we don’t like to hear this is because Gods standard is far higher than ours, He searches the heart of man. He sees every lustful thought, every hateful action, every lie, every idol set up and worshiped. When you lie to a friend they get angry. When you lie to a boss, you could get fired. When you lie to a police officer, they write you a ticket. When you lie to the IRS they take everything you own. When you lie to the Supreme Court they have the power to lock you up and throw away the key, they even have the power to condemn you for treason and take your life. What’s changed in each scenario is the one against whom you’ve transgressed. When we sin against the eternal God the act is eternally sinful, a crime we commit not once, but hundreds of thousands of times in our lifetime. All sin will be paid for, either it was paid for by Christ on that Roman cross, or it will be paid for by you in eternity. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life. The day of salvation is today, Catherine, consider these things even if they are contrary to your worldview. Consider what kind of judge would let criminals go free. Only a corrupt judge would do that. A just Judge must see that justice takes place. Consider, as well, what kind of God would willingly take the punishment upon Himself for those criminals. So that we might be forgiven, free from the bondage of sin and death, adopted as sons and daughters, sanctified in this life, justified in eternity! This is good news. We have sinned against our Creator, we owe a debt we can not pay so Christ paid a debt He did not owe. Please, Catherine, repent of your sins and put your faith in Christ alone.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: