"Humans and Neanderthals: less different than polar and brown bears (University of Oxford).
This big failure is not really new; evidence has been growing for
years that Neanderthals were fully human. It’s more like a coup de grâce, the final nail in the coffin showing that paleoanthropologists were wrong, wrong, wrong about human evolution, and misled generations of students about Neanderthal Man – and Denisovans, too. The subtitle reads,
considered variations of the same species. In his third book Darwin Devolves, Michael Behe considers them brown bears with “broken genes” – a case of devolution, not evolution.
For the polar bears, the devolution worked out in the Arctic environment, allowing them to subsist on a high-fat diet that would normally be unhealthy for brown bears.
Q: So if modern humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans are all genetically closer than the bears are, does that not demolish the evolutionary tale that they were separate species?
For decades, impressionable students, misled by artwork, have been led to view Neanderthals as dumb brutes not as high on the “fitness” scale as us moderns. They were slotted into their own species, Homo neanderthalensis.
Q: Was there any apology at Oxford for this failure? Any remorse for bad science and false teaching?
A: No; Darwinians just move the boundaries of species a little bit, so that they can keep telling new evolutionary tales.
Q: Is it even proper to talk about “Darwinian evolution” any more, in a world of rampant hybridization, epigenetics and non-random variations?"
CEH
This big failure is not really new; evidence has been growing for
Ancient humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans were genetically closer than polar bears and brown bears, and so, like the bears, were able to easily produce healthy, fertile hybrids according to a study, led by the University of Oxford’s School of Archaeology.Polar bears and brown bears easily hybridize, and could be
For the polar bears, the devolution worked out in the Arctic environment, allowing them to subsist on a high-fat diet that would normally be unhealthy for brown bears.
Q: So if modern humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans are all genetically closer than the bears are, does that not demolish the evolutionary tale that they were separate species?
For decades, impressionable students, misled by artwork, have been led to view Neanderthals as dumb brutes not as high on the “fitness” scale as us moderns. They were slotted into their own species, Homo neanderthalensis.
Q: Was there any apology at Oxford for this failure? Any remorse for bad science and false teaching?
A: No; Darwinians just move the boundaries of species a little bit, so that they can keep telling new evolutionary tales.
Professor Greger Larson, Director of the Palaeogenomics & Bio-Archaeology Research Network (PalaeoBARN) atThese changes to definitions and concepts are way at odds with what evolutionists believed in the 20th century, when genetic mutations were naturally selected and passed on through the germ line.
Oxford and senior author of the study says, ‘Our desire to categorise the world into discrete boxes has led us to think of species as completely separate units. Biology does not care about these rigid definitions, and lots of species, even those that are far apart evolutionarily, swap genes all the time. Our predictive metric allows for a quick and easy determination of how likely it is for any two species to produce fertile hybrid offspring. This comparative measure suggests that humans and Neanderthals and Denisovans were able to produce live fertile young with ease.’
Q: Is it even proper to talk about “Darwinian evolution” any more, in a world of rampant hybridization, epigenetics and non-random variations?"
CEH
Q: ...ye fools, when will ye be wise?
Psalm 94:8
