Human evolution Intelligent Design speciation

Girl’s parents are “two different species”?

Spread the love

Let’s just say, paleontologists need Neanderthals and Denisovans to be “different species.” Otherwise, it’s just a bone:

Eventually, though, Slon realized that there was no mistake. Although the teenager’s mother had Neanderthal DNA, her father, according to the analysis, had been a Denisovan. And that wasn’t all. While analyzing the bone fragment, the paleogeneticist also discovered that the girl’s genetic makeup was remarkably varied as a whole.

Suzi Marsh, “ Geneticists Studying Ancient DNA Discovered A Girl Whose Parents Were Two Different Species” at Boredom Therapy

All this will really do is further cast doubt on the idea of all these separate “species.”

See also: A physicist looks at biology’s problem of “speciation” in humans


This California Story Shows What A Mess The Whole Concept Of Speciation Is In

9 Replies to “Girl’s parents are “two different species”?

  1. 1
    AndyClue says:

    Ah, so nostalgic. “News” from 2018:


    “We knew from previous studies that Neanderthals and Denisovans must have occasionally had children together,”

  2. 2
    News says:

    Thanks, AndyClue at 1. Clearly, “speciation” is a concept that sells Darwinism and does not represent a good look at human history.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    To demonstrate how misleading Darwinists are with evidence, In their misleading ‘reconstructed’ picture of the girl that leads off their article,,,

    ,,, in that misleading ‘reconstructed’ picture, they made the girl look as ‘in-between’ as they could. Accentuating, even exaggerating, the nose, lips, and cheeks to ‘suggest’ chimp-like characteristics that they simply have no way of knowing if they actually existed or not.

    As science writer, and staunch Darwinist, Boyce Rensberger himself wrote, “Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist’s conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence.,,,, Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears (or eyes). Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it…. Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture.”

    Excerpt: In regards to the pictures of the supposed ancestors of man featured in science journals and the news media Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal Science the following regarding their highly speculative nature:, “Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist’s conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears (or eyes). Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it…. Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture.”

    One can see that ‘artistic license’ for human evolution being played out on the following site.

    10 Transitional Ancestors of Human Evolution by Tyler G., March 18, 2013?

    Please note, on the preceding site, how the sclera (white of the eye), a uniquely human characteristic, was brought in very early on, in the artists’ reconstructions, to make the fossils appear much more human than they actually were, even though the artists making the reconstructions clearly can have no possible clue what the colors of the eyes actually were.

    The unrestrained imagination, i.e. ‘artistic license’, that Darwinists take with bone fragments is also clearly illustrated here where 4 different artists produced 4 very “different” looking human ancestors, all based on ‘bone fragments’

    “The (National) Geographic’s art department gave casts of 7 incomplete bone fragments (left) to 4 “candidates” who would be competing for a very prestigious, possibly lucrative, position with a highly respected and well known magazine.
    These “candidates” were told that the bones were from a “female”, (how they know this is a mystery) Homo habilis fossil. They were also told that “she” is a two-million year old (using falsified radiometric dating methods) evolutionary ancestor of man and that they were looking for a “realistic-looking hominid”.
    Wanting to please their possible future employer, these artists “independently” produced the 4 very “different” ancestors you see here.
    Based on these “guidelines”, predetermined results and an artist wanting to land a job, you get the results you see. This is not “empirical science”. It is “metaphysical science” pure and simple!”
    – “Behind the Scenes,” National Geographic 197 (March, 2000): 140

    The ‘misrepresentation’ of the girl in their lead off picture, of how the girl actually looked, is par for the course for Darwinists. Darwinists have a long history of using ‘artistic license’ to try to convey to the general public the false impression that humans evolved from some ape-like creature.

    Piltdown Man, Neanderthal, and ‘Lucy’ are all well known examples of Darwinists using misleading ‘reconstructed’ pictures to try to falsely convey the impression that man evolved from some ape-like creature.

    Piltdown Man, which is now known to be hoax that was perpetuated by a single forger,

    “Piltdown Man was accepted as the real deal. It took 40 years before a team of researchers at the British Museum uncovered the fakes in 1953”

    ,, Piltdown Man, which turned out to be hoax, was used by Darwinists in school textbooks, for over 40 years in the early 20th century until 1953, to try to convince impressionable young school children that man evolved from some ape-like creature.

    A misleading drawing of the fraudulent Piltdown Man accompanied this newspaper article, announcing Pildown’s discover in 1913

    Here is a 1922 textbook drawing with fraudulent Piltdown man

    The news of the Piltdown find, first released in late 1912, caused a sensation and was included in school textbooks for 40 years to promote an atheistic worldview and destroy young people’s faith in GOD.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Likewise, Neanderthals, (which are now known to have interbred with humans and are, therefore, by all rights, to be considered human),

    The Evolution of Neanderthal Spin – Jonathan Witt – November 27, 2019
    Excerpt: So why did they (Darwinists) often depict them (Neanderthals) as ape-like? Darwinism desperately needs to fill in a yawning chasm in the fossil record between the ape-like and the human-like. At one point many hoped Neanderthals could serve as a crucial link in that lengthy stretch of missing chain between the fully ape-like and the fully human. Coached by the Darwinian paradigm, many assumed that Neanderthals did. But those uncooperative cave men refused to stoop, got the big head (average brain size slightly larger even than modern humans), and got caught red-handed in the fossil record behaving in various ways like intelligent humans.
    Neanderthals even appear to have had children with Homo sapiens, with something like one to three percent of their DNA remaining in most modern humans outside of sub-Saharan Africa.,,,

    New method confirms humans and Neanderthals interbred – April 8, 2014
    Excerpt: Technical objections to the idea that Neanderthals interbred with the ancestors of Eurasians have been overcome, thanks to a genome analysis method described in the April 2014 issue of the journal Genetics.?

    Neanderthals, (although giving every indication of being human),,,, misleading drawings of Neanderthals, ever since 1911, have also been abused by Darwinists to try to falsely convey to the general public the false impression that man evolved from some ape-like creature.

    Neanderthals were stereotyped as savages for a century — all because of one French scientist – Sep 20, 2016
    Excerpt: Ever since that scientific description was published in 1911, we humans have told the story of Neanderthals in a way that makes us look good: We were smarter, less savage, better equipped to inherit the Earth than the Neanderthal.,,,
    The dominant narrative about Neanderthals is based on the work of a French paleoanthropologist, Marcellin Boule.
    Boule is one of the premier paleoanthropologists at the beginning of the 20th century.,,,
    ,,, all the different characteristics he could have emphasized, he emphasized the primitive. His conclusion is that this Neanderthal is going to walk with a kind of hunched posture. He’s going to have really divergent big toes, which is considered a more primitive characteristic.
    We look at it today and say, “Geez, that was really biased.”,,,
    Later, in the middle to second half of the 20th century, scientists and anthropologists begin to go back and look at Boule’s original material. They’re starting to reexamine Neanderthals and look at their culture and look at their sophisticated tool use.,,,
    We now say, “Oh, look, they have culture. They bury their dead. They can start fires. We’re interbreeding. They’re more human than we first thought.”
    There was a great publication a couple of months ago that points out Neanderthals carried fire starters. That’s fascinating, right? I think that what happens is we keep saying they’re more like us.
    It’s a very additive thing. We keep adding all these characteristics.
    They’re not so different from us,,,

    Review of “Contested Bones” (Part 3 – Chapter 3 “Homo neanderthalensis”) 2-10-2018 by Paul Giem – video

    Neanderthals walked upright just like the humans of today – February 25, 2019
    Excerpt: An upright, well-balanced posture is one of the defining features of Homo sapiens. In contrast, the first reconstructions of Neanderthals made in the early 20th century depicted them as only walking partially upright.,,,
    Since the 1950s, scientists have known that the image of the Neanderthal as a hunched over caveman is not an accurate one,,,
    When reconstructing the pelvis, the researchers discovered that the sacrum was positioned in the same way as in modern humans. This led them to conclude that Neanderthals possessed a lumbar region with a well-developed curvature.,,,
    “The stress on the hip joint and the position of the pelvis is no different than ours,” says Haeusler. This finding is also supported by analyses of other Neanderthal skeletons with sufficient remnants of vertebrae and pelvic bones. “On the whole, there is hardly any evidence that would point to Neanderthals having a fundamentally different anatomy,” explains Haeusler.

    Darwinists simply have no evidence whatsoever, (save for in their imagination), that Neanderthals were as ‘ape-like’ as they have falsely portrayed them to be for the past century.

    As the following, fairly recent, article noted, “you put a suit and a hat on a Neanderthal and they could slip on the New York subway train and be unnoticed.”

    Neanderthals: They’re Just Like Us! – 2013
    Excerpt: “you put a suit and a hat on a Neanderthal and they could slip on the New York subway train and be unnoticed.”

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    The infamous “Lucy” fossil has also been severely abused by Darwinists, over the last several decades, to try to convey to the general public the false impression that man evolved from some ape-like creature.

    Here is a humorous video that clearly gets this point across. The video shows an evolutionist ‘reconstructing’ the pelvis bone of Lucy in order to match the false Darwinian narrative of human evolution.

    Lucy – The Powersaw Incident- 32:08 mark of video

    Other ‘Lucy’ fossils have been discovered since the infamous ‘powersaw incident’ that show that Lucy could not have possibly walked upright.

    A Look at Lucy’s Legacy by Dr. David Menton and Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on June 6, 2012
    Excerpt: Other analyses taking advantage of modern technology, such as those by Christine Berge published in 1994-25 and 2010-26 in the Journal of Human Evolution, offer a different reconstruction allowing for a unique sort of locomotion. Berge writes, “The results clearly indicate that australopithecine bipedalism differs from that of humans. (1) The extended lower limb of australopithecines would have lacked stabilization during walking;,,,
    Lucy’s bones show the features used to lock the wrist for secure knuckle-walking seen in modern knuckle-walkers.

    Darwinists are simply shameless in their misrepresentation of the actual fossil evidence from ‘Lucy”.

    Despite their ‘reconstruction’ of the Lucy pelvis bone now known to be false, here is the fraudulent ‘reconstruction’ of Lucy, showing her walking upright, that is still displayed by Darwinists in many museums around the world today,

    Lucy – fraudulent reconstruction

    In the interest of being true to the actual fossil evidence itself, here is the ‘anatomically correct’ reconstruction of Lucy.

    Lucy – a correct reconstruction – picture

    As you can see, the anatomically correct reconstruction of Lucy is a far cry from the misleading one that Darwinists present to the general public.

    As well, to this day, Darwinists still use misleading, ‘reconstructed’, pictures in school textbooks to try to convey the false idea that humans evolved from some ape-like creature.

    New York Times Inherits the Spin, Republishes Darwinists’ Error-Filled “Answers” to Jonathan Wells’ – 2008
    Excerpt: And all three of these textbooks include fanciful drawings of ape-like humans that help to convince students we are no exception to the rule of purposelessness.
    Some biology textbooks use other kinds of illustrations ,,,

    Perhaps the most ‘abused’ fraudulent picture by Darwinists, over the past several decades, has been to infamous “March of Progress” drawing, Showing an ape-like creature. gradually morphing into a human.

    March of Progress
    Excerpt: The March of Progress, properly called The Road to Homo Sapiens, is an illustration that presents 25 million years of human evolution. It was created for the Early Man volume of the Life Nature Library, published in 1965, and drawn by the artist Rudolph Zallinger.,,,
    The 15 human evolutionary forebears are lined up as if they were marching in a parade from left to right.

    Yet Henry Gee himself, editor at Nature, stated that, “We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh (i.e. nonsense). Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human evolution ought to have been like still colour our debates.”

    “We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh (i.e. nonsense). Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human evolution ought to have been like still colour our debates.”
    – Henry Gee, editor of Nature (478, 6 October 2011, page 34, doi:10.1038/478034a),

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Despite these continual misrepresentations by Darwinists in their ‘reconstructed’ drawings, the fossil record simply looks nothing like what Darwinists have falsely imagined it to be in their fraudulent drawings.

    As this following recent article, from no less than the American Museum of Natural History, honestly admitted, “most stories of human origins are not compatible with the fossils that we have today.”

    Review: Most human origins stories are not compatible with known fossils – May, 6 2021
    Excerpt: “When you look at the narrative for hominin origins, it’s just a big mess–there’s no consensus whatsoever,” said Sergio Almécija, a senior research scientist in the American Museum of Natural History’s Division of Anthropology and the lead author of the review. “People are working under completely different paradigms, and that’s something that I don’t see happening in other fields of science.”,,,,
    “In The Descent of Man in 1871, Darwin speculated that humans originated in Africa from an ancestor different from any living species. However, he remained cautious given the scarcity of fossils at the time,” Almécija said. “One hundred fifty years later, possible hominins–approaching the time of the human-chimpanzee divergence–have been found in eastern and central Africa, and some claim even in Europe. In addition, more than 50 fossil ape genera are now documented across Africa and Eurasia. However, many of these fossils show mosaic combinations of features that do not match expectations for ancient representatives of the modern ape and human lineages. As a consequence, there is no scientific consensus on the evolutionary role played by these fossil apes.”
    Overall, the researchers found that most stories of human origins are not compatible with the fossils that we have today.  

    Here are a few more notes to drive this point home,

    Neo-Darwinism and the Big Bang of Man’s Origin – Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – February 25, 2020
    Excerpt: “There is a popular image of human evolution that you’ll find all over the place, from the backs of cereal packets to the advertisement for expensive scientific equipment. On the left of the picture there’s an ape — …. On the right, a man … Between the two is a succession of figures that become ever more like humans … Our progress from ape to human looks so smooth, so tidy. It’s such a beguiling image that even the experts are loath to let it go. But it is an illusion.”
    – Bernard Wood, Bernard Wood, Professor of Human Origins at George Washington University,
    “Who are we?” New Scientist 176 2366: 44-47. 26 October 2002:,,,
    A Big Bang at Man’s Origin?
    To repeat the key points quoted above (from Darwinists themselves), we may emphasize that
    1. “differences exist on an unusual scale”
    2. “Homo sapiens appears […] distinctive and unprecedented”
    3. “There is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became what we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense.”
    4. “…we evidently came by our unusual anatomical structure and capacities very recently.”
    5. “…a convincing hypothesis for the origin of Homo remains elusive”
    6. “[W]e should not expect to find a series of intermediate fossil forms with decreasingly divergent big toes and, at the same time, a decreasing number of apelike features and an increasing number of modern human features.”
    7. “No gradual series of changes in earlier australopithecine populations clearly leads to the new species [Homo sapiens], and no australopithecine species is obviously transitional.”
    8. “…early H. sapiens was significantly and dramatically different from earlier and penecontemporary [as well as coexisting] australopithecines in virtually every element of its skeleton and every remnant of its behavior.”
    9. “Our interpretation is that the changes are sudden and interrelated,” “a genetic revolution.”,,,
    “…a rather minor structural innovation at the DNA level” appears to be, for all that can be known at present, a rather unsatisfactory proposal for a comparable origin of some 696 new features (out of 1065) which distinguish man from chimpanzees, 711 from orang, 680 from gorilla, 948 from Gibbon (Hylobathes), presupposing a similar magnitude of different anatomical and other features (“distinctive and unprecedented”) from his supposed animal ancestor, “our closest extinct kin,” not to speak of 15.6% differences on the DNA level between man and his alleged closest cousin, the chimpanzee, which means, in actual numbers, more than 450 million bp differences of the some 3 billion bp constituting the genomes overall.28,,,
    Almost any larger science museum around the globe presents a series of connecting links between extinct apes and humans such as Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Australopithecus afarensis (“Lucy”), Ardipithecus ramidus, Orrorin tugensis and others. For a brief overview on such assumed links see Lönnig (2019).38 I include there a series of references to papers and books that do not simply presuppose evolution and neo-Darwinism as the final truth on the origin of species without any scientific alternative (as is common practice nowadays). Instead, these works critically discuss the relevant details, showing in depth the untenability of the evolutionary scenarios usually given to these would-be links generally put forward as indisputable scientific facts….
    98.5 Percent Human/Chimp DNA Identity?
    Although long disproved, the assertion that human and chimp DNA display approximately 98.5 percent identity is still forwarded in many papers and books. The present state of the art has been clearly articulated by Richard Buggs, Professor of Evolutionary Genomics at Queen Mary University of London. He asks, “What does the data say today in 2018, and how can it be described to the public in an adequate manner?” Key answer: “The total percentage of the human genome that I can know for sure has one-to-one orthology with the chimp genome is 84.4 percent” (“our minimum lower bound”)39, i.e., more than 450 million differences (15 percent of 3 billion bp = 450 million).
    Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, (retired) Senior Scientist (Biology), Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Emeritus, Cologne, Germany.

    Contested Bones: Is There Any Solid Fossil Evidence for Ape-to-Man Evolution? – Dr. John Sanford and Chris Rupe
    Excerpt: We have spent four years carefully examining the scientific literature on this subject. We have discovered that within this field (paleoanthropology), virtually all the famous hominin types have either been discredited or are still being hotly contested. Within this field, not one of the hominin types have been definitively established as being in the lineage from ape to man. This includes the famous fossils that have been nicknamed Lucy, Ardi, Sediba, Habilis, Naledi, Hobbit, Erectus, and Neaderthal. Well-respected people in the field openly admit that their field is in a state of disarray. It is very clear that the general public has been deceived regarding the credibility and significance of the reputed hominin fossils.
    We will show that the actual fossil evidence is actually most consistent with the following three points. 1) The hominin bones reveal only two basic types; ape bones (Ardi and Lucy), and human bones (Naledi, Hobbit, Erectus, and Neaderthal). 2) The ape bones and the human bones have been repeatedly found together in the same strata – therefore both lived at the same basic timeframe (the humans were apparently hunting and eating the apes). 3) Because the hominin bones were often found in mixed bone beds (with bones of many animal species in the same site), numerous hominin types represent chimeras (mixtures) of ape and human bones (i.e., Sediba, Habilis).
    We will also present evidence that the anomalous hominin bones that are of the human (Homo) type most likely represent isolated human populations that experienced severe inbreeding and subsequent genetic degeneration. This best explains why these Homo bones display aberrant morphologies, reduced body size, and reduced brain volume.
    We conclude that the hominin bones do not reveal a continuous upward progression from ape to man, but rather reveal a clear separation between the human type and the ape type. The best evidence for any type of intermediate “ape-men” derived from bones collected from mixed bone beds (containing bones of both apes and men), which led to the assembly of chimeric skeletons. Therefore, the hominin fossils do not prove human evolution at all.,,,
    We suggest that the field of paleoanthropology has been seriously distorted by a very strong ideological agenda and by very ambitious personalities.

    “No known hominin species matches the expected dental morphology of the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans,” relies on fossils of approximately 1,200 molars and premolars from 13 species or types of hominins — humans and human relatives and ancestors. Fossils from the well-known Atapuerca sites have a crucial role in this research, accounting for more than 15 percent of the complete studied fossil collection.,,, They conclude with high statistical confidence that none of the hominins usually proposed as a common ancestor, such as Homo heidelbergensis, H. erectus and H. antecessor, is a satisfactory match. “None of the species that have been previously suggested as the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans has a dental morphology that is fully compatible with the expected morphology of this ancestor,” Gómez-Robles said.”
    – Indiana University, “No Known Hominin Is Common Ancestor of Neanderthals and Modern Humans, Study Suggests” at ScienceDaily (October 21, 2013)

    In short, the primary evidence that Darwinists rely on to try to convince the public that we evolved from some ape-like creature is based upon nothing more than their very own unrestrained imagination.

    Darwinists simply have no hard empirical evidence whatsoever that such a radical ‘transformation of form’ between apes and humans, (or anything else), is even possible, much less do they have any fossil evidence that it actually occurred.


    Genesis 1: 26-28
    Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
    So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.
    God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

  7. 7
    polistra says:

    Whatever happened to “race is just a construct”?

  8. 8
    goodusername says:

    in that misleading ‘reconstructed’ picture, they made the girl look as ‘in-between’ as they could. Accentuating, even exaggerating, the nose, lips, and cheeks to ‘suggest’ chimp-like characteristics that they simply have no way of knowing if they actually existed or not.

    Except that chimpanzees have relatively much smaller noses, much smaller lips, and shallow cheeks. They couldn’t possibly have constructed her to look less “in-between” than they did.

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    Goodusername objects, “Except that chimpanzees have relatively much smaller noses, much smaller lips, and shallow cheeks. They couldn’t possibly have constructed her to look less “in-between” than they did.”

    Okie Dokie, let’s do the side by side comparison

    Human Girl

    Female Chimpanzee

    ‘Reconstructed’ girl

    OK, I’ll give you the nose and cheeks, but the lips and forehead I still hold to be exaggerated.

    But something still doesn’t sit right with me.

    OK, I know what doesn’t sit right with me, her ‘reconstructed’ drawing looks very similar to some of the fraudulently ‘reconstructed’ drawings of homo Erectus that have been put forth by Darwinists over the years

    Homo erectus

    And looking over some of the ‘reconstructed drawings of homo erectus, I immediately wondered why the ‘woke’ crowd has not been screaming bloody murder about the obviously racists overtones of some of the homo erectus ‘reconstructions?

    Apparently, as the racist homo erectus depictions make clear, Darwin’s false racist claims are alive and well in the imaginations of Darwinists and in how they falsely imagine human evolution to have occurred.

    “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla”
    – Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1874, p. 178

Leave a Reply