The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube


From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search

The above quote is out of date. Mitochrondrial DNA was sequenced from another Neanderthal specimen in 2000, with similar results. The second specimen did share 19 substiutions with the first, despite the fact that they were found 2500 miles away from each other. It seems pretty clear that at the minimum, neanderthals were pretty reproductively isolated from homo sapiens sapiens.

It is still possible that some interbreeding occurred, and it remains debatable whether they shuold be considered a spearate species or merely a subspecies.

Neither of these conclusions contradicts the creationist model AFAIK - creationists believe that variants with in a kind can occur _extremely_ rapidly, which is key to the ark+flood model.

Neanderthal-human "hybrid"

The claim that "Yet, the 1998 discovery of a Neanderthal-human "hybrid" skeleton at Abrigo do Lagar Velho in Portugual indicates that humans were indeed capable of interbreeding with Neanderthal" appears to be wrong and is contradicted by a major new finding:

which indicates that pretty much all of the tiny handful of remains which anybody had ever thought might represent a human/neanderthal hybrid were basically modern humans.

This is similar to the situation with "intermediate fossils" in which only a tiny number of questionable cases had ever turned up while the theory in fact demanded that the bulk of all fossils be intermediates. As James Shreeve noted, humans and neanderthals had lived in close proximity for long periods of time and hence the lack of evidence of crossbreeding had always been a mystery since much such evidence had been expected:

All of this adds up to an overwhelming argument against the idea of human evolution. In order to be descended from something via any sort of process resembling evolution, at some point, you have to be able to interbreed with the something and the evidence indicates that we could no more interbreed with neanderthals than we could with horses. For this reason, the neanderthal has generally been eliminated as a plausible human ancestor, i.e. the genetic gap is simply too wide:

Neanderthal DNA is generally described as being "about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee". Moreover, all other hominids were further removed from us THAN the neanderthal. That leaves precisely nothing on this planet from which modern man could plausibly have evolved. Evolutionists have not been willing to confront this fact yet. The claim you see generally is that both modern man and the neanderthal must have descended from some more remote ancestor. Nonetheless the claim is basically nonsensical; it's like claiming that dogs could not be descended from wolves and must therefore have evolved directly from fish. Icebear 17:45, 24 December 2007 (EST)


On the CreationWiki page for Neanderthal, examples of flaws in mtDNA studies and the existance of Homo Sapiens-Neanderthalensis hybrid fossils are listed as evidence that the two groups were genetically compatible and interbred. But I've found some information which seems to contradict those theories.

Fossils originally listed as hybrids are now being reconsidered to be Homo Sapiens fossils. Researchers claim that while the fossils show marked inregularities with most Homo Sapiens, the differences are not distinctive enough to label them as hybrids, and could be seen as signs of natural variation within Homo Sapiens.

I've also read that further testing of Neanderthal mtDNA still indicates that the difference between Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens DNA is significant.

There is still possibility that they were capable of interbreeding and did so, but the evidence appears to be minimal.

I think that the page on Neanderthals should be reworked to accommodate these findings.

If there is any evidence which discredits these findings, I'd like to hear of them.

Thanks.--Anima 07:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Article update time

Alright, everyone that believes this article should be updated, please contact me via e-mail So we can collaberate.--Tylerdemerchant 00:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


I think there ought to be some discussion on theories that try to connect Neanderthals with "Wild men" of various mythologies, like Enkidu and the Woodwoses.

I think such analogies are flawed, these wild men in myth are only described as physically different from normal people in being hairy.

Some have also suggested Esau, but he's not Wild Man, only again hairy and possibly red haired. Esau's descendants had Kings before Israel did.

Evolutionist would consider such connection if valid a distant memory imprint type thing, to remains consistent with their belief they died out thousands of years before "recorded" history. But if it could be proven Enkidu was a Neanderthal who lived when the story takes place around 2650 B.C. at the soonest, that would completely ruin their timeline.

I've heard it's been proven Neanderthals probably had Red hair, which woud make the Esau theory worth a 2nd look.--MithirandirOlorin 01:53, 26 May 2011 (PDT)

The oldest Sumerian versions of the epic fo GIlgamesh don't depict Enki as a "Wild man". Even the oldest versions are a few generations after Gilgamesh actually lived, the Akkadian era. But the tradition version are all post Amorite invasion.--MithirandirOlorin 21:08, 27 May 2011 (PDT)


This article doesn't mention the recent evidence found from the Neandertaal genome that indicates that Neandertals interbred with humans. That would be a nice addition to the evidence from the possible Neandertal/human hybrid. More can be found about the new evidence in this paper: Shinydarkrai94 22:32, 20 March 2012 (PDT)

Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten

The link provided to him in the page does not work now. Someone needs to update it. As for Prof. Reiner, he has been established to be a fraud and has done tampering in datings. [1] [2] The Hahnhöfersand Man, was never considered Neanderthal.

Chris Stringer, head of the Human Origins Department at London's Natural History Museum, was misquoted in one British paper as saying Hahnhöfersand was significant in establishing the Neandertal presence in northern Europe, and that without it scientists would have to "rewrite prehistory." Hahnhöfersand was never even considered Neandertal, Stringer tells Archaeology. The redating of the remains has a "negligible" impact on scholarship, he adds. [3]

As for Prof.. Reiner he has been unable to operate his own carbon dating machine and had committed and the correct datings were established by tests done at Oxford. [4] As for his scandals involving the sale of chimpanzee skulls or him being the son of a Nazi does it belong to this page? The page is on Neanderthal man and Prof. Riener has hardly anything to do with it and his biography has even less to do on a page on Neanderthals. It think his scandals could be included in a page about him. EvilFlyingMonkey 07:20, 5 May 2012 (PDT)

Seems like a good suggestion, the Nazi reference in particular wasn't all that applicable, so I removed it. Most of the section seems applicable (I haven't verified the info myself yet) if it does deal with a major change in dating of Neanderthals, but the Nazi claim in particular just doesn't belong here, so I made a page on von Zieten and mentioned it there but removed it here. I don't see what it really has to do with anything. The section also needs better sourcing than a lone article from the Telegraph. --Jzyehoshua 00:47, 6 May 2012 (PDT)
The Telegraph link doesn't work, but the writing appears accurate. I'll provide some updated sourcing. I usually prefer to use major news sources (NY Times, CNN, etc.) but it doesn't appear to have gotten that much media attention, so I'll use what I can I guess. --Jzyehoshua 00:53, 6 May 2012 (PDT)
Okay, I just made the changes! I actually added more detail and a quote because I decided this was a major event after all, as I found more sourcing. The section should be pretty well sourced now. I even found some sources from Nature and Science although without a subscription one can only see short abstract descriptions of a few lines. The whole Nazi thing is gone though as it wasn't really relevant to Neanderthals. --Jzyehoshua 01:40, 6 May 2012 (PDT)
The page still maintains that the said fossil was Neanderthal. Even the quoted text says no such thing.
This, at least, is what Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten - a distinguished, cigar-smoking German anthropologist - told his scientific colleagues, to global acclaim, after being invited to date the extremely rare skull.
They are just saying Prof. Reiner who was proven to be a fraud said so.
Prof Protsch's work appeared to prove that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals had co-existed, and perhaps even had children together. This now appears to be rubbish
Here Thomas Terberger is clearly referring to the specimen as Homo sapiens. He just says Prof Reiners claims would have appeared Homo sapiens and neanderthals lived together in Germany. And it would be better to cite from scientific journals than newspapers. EvilFlyingMonkey 10:59, 16 May 2012 (PDT)


  1. Rudolph Robert Protsch (von Zieten), The Skeptics Dictionary
  2. wp: Reiner Protsch
  3. Insider: Look Before You Date, Archaelolgy
  4. History of modern man unravels as German scholar is exposed as fraud, The Guardian