RE: Redheads descended from Neanderthals?

From: Glenn Morton (
Date: Tue Jan 29 2002 - 09:15:06 EST

  • Next message: Vandergraaf, Chuck: "RE: Redheads descended from Neanderthals?"

    Hi Walter,
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Walter Hicks []
    Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 7:41 PM


    for lots of creation/evolution information
    personal stories of struggle
    To: Glenn Morton
    Cc: Asa@Calvin. Edu
    Subject: Re: Redheads descended from Neanderthals?

    >Others on ASA thought me to be strange because of my simplistic theory of
    >that God could make more than one universe:
    >But this flies as science in a Christian context??

    Well, it is flying as science in a scientific context, why should we have
    one science for Christians and one for sciences? That is what the YECs do
    by ignoring what modern science shows, and this is causing Christians to
    look silly.

    > To which I ask:
    >Which apologists have "ignored" this "data"? When was it published and has
    >"apologist" refuted the "data"?

    For years I have been noting data which indicates our connection, both
    intellectually, spiritually and genetically with the archaic hominids. And
    apologetical organizations and people, like RTB, simply act as if the data
    doesn't exist. It is one thing to explain why one doesn't accept data, but
    it is entirely unaceptable to treat it as non-existent. RTB claims that all
    the archaic hominids died off before anatomically modern humans appeared.
    This view has never been suggested in the anthropological record and I know
    of only 2 anthropologists who have ever held that there was NO interbreeding
    between the Neanderthals and moderns, and these two now have changed and
    hold that there was some ninor interbreeding between Neanderthals and
    moderns. But I know lots of apologists who hold that there was no
    interbreeding: Wilcox, Wiester, Davis and Kenyon, Hugh Ross etc.

    >I've never heard of this before and I'm not sure that red headed
    neanderthals mean
    >anything more than other established genes.

    When people say they 'never heard of this before', it always makes me think
    that they think they are the judge of what is and isn't knowledge. Have you
    studied anthropology? If not, then there is lots you haven't heard before.
    Indeed there is lots each of us has never heard before. But as to other
    genes showing European connection with the neanderthals. The H-O form of the
    mandibular foramen (the hole in the inside of thejaw where the nerve exits
    and the dentist tries to put novacaine) was possessed by 53% of Neanderthals
    and from their day to ours, the trait has become rarer and rarer and now
    only 1% of Europeans have the trait. But it is almost unknown anywhere else
    in the world. But that 1% extends across the former range of the
    Neanderthals. The same trend is seen with the nasion projection. The
    pattern seems to be one of genetic swamping of the Neanderthals by the
    African invaders. Those of us from NOrth America should be familiar with
    this as genetically the Native American tribes were swamped by the European

    >Is this "data", a "theory", or a "fact"?

    It is a fact that given the factually observed rates of mutation, that it
    would require,statistially, 100,000 years for the gene to accumulate the
    mutations factually observed. What kind of question is this from someone
    who supposedly works in the sciences?

    >Is this email a preemptive criticism of potential ignoring by
    apologists" --- or
    >has it already been observed?

    This fact is too new, but for documentation of abundant ignoring of
    anthropological data, I would point you to

    Morton, G. R. (1996). Response to David Wilcox. Perspectives on Science and
    Christian Faith, 48:3:212

    and my web pages.

    >Finally is the premise really a logical extrapolation of the "data"?

    Don't understand what you are asking.

    >Is it not possible that the author should consider himself to be an
    "apologist" for
    >his area of his (clearly limited) science specialty and his own published
    pet theory
    >-- (which is not universally accepted insofar as I know)?

    Oh, no, my views are universally rejected. And I do believe that I am an
    'apologist', but I am not an apologist who is ignoring this data or other
    anthropological data.

    >But, I could well be wrong (as I often am) -- as a newcomer to this list.
    >Apologies to Glenn in advance, should he think me to be unkind to his email
    and his
    >published theory.

    I have a very thick skin. One needs it if one is going to suggest anything
    out of the ordinary. Anthropologically, however, the facts are on my side.
    Human-like behavior is millions of years old, including art, compassion for
    the sick, control of fire, clothing, tool manufacture, crossing of the ocean
    and definite religious altars are found as far back as 400,000 years with
    some possible things indicating belief systems further back.

    for lots of creation/evolution information
    personal stories of struggle

    Walt Hicks <>

    In any consistent theory, there must
    exist true but not provable statements.
    (Godel's Theorem)
    You can only find the truth with logic
    If you have already found the truth
    without it. (G.K. Chesterton)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 29 2002 - 01:16:09 EST