On Sat, 24 Apr 1999, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
> Given the discovery last week of a possible Neanderthal/Modern human
> hybrid, I have a question for the progressive creationists. The current
> most widely held formulation of this view places the discontinuity
> between animal and human between the Neanderthals(and other early
> hominids) and anatomically modern humans. God, it is claimed, directly
> created anatomically modern man to be special, to have communinion with
> him and to clearly be different than the beasts of the field, like
> Neanderthals and their ilk.
> Over the week I have read other accounts of the discovery and reading
> somewhat between the lines, here is what I expect the scientific reports
> to contain. The skeleton had an anatomically modern human chin (which
> neanderthals did not possess) and other anatomically modern skull
> traits, but his body had the muscle attachments characteristic of
> neanderthals. Neanderthal muscle attachments were different than ours.
> They were extremely strong and some people believe that this evolved in
> response to the way they hunted big game (by getting them to charge and
> at the last minute stepping aside and grabbing the animals fur and
> using short knives to stab the animal and the Neanderthal was carried
> No anatomically modern human has Neanderthal-type muscle attachments.
> If this boy had those types of attachements, then he was a hybrid, no
> doubt. And if he was a hybrid, then here is the question:
> Why would God create Adam as an anatomically modern man with an ability
> to interbreed with the animals? IN the progressive creationist view Adam
> was supposed above the beasts of the field. So why would God create the
> crown of creation in a fashion to be able to produce offspring with
> To me, this possibility destroys the viability of the progressive
> creationist view, as currently formulated. Any comments?
> Foundation, Fall and Flood
> Adam, Apes and Anthropology