Rethinking Neanderthal Man

[Presbyterian Continuist]

As the OP I'm going to ask you to tone down the insults. If you don't I'm going to ask the mods to remove your posts. If you can't make a point without insults, it probably means you don't have that good of a case.



I'm not sure what creationists you're referring to. Answers in Genesis has a good article on this is you want to know what some of the more prominent creationists are thinking.

That Matter of the Shrinking Sun

This doesn't sound like an all out abandonment to me at all. In fact it seems that some skeptics are parsing their words very carefully on this issue as well.

I am not ignoring the others who have asked for evidence from me, but seeing that you are the OP, here is where I have decided to respond.

I have drawn my material from "Science Vs Evolution" by Vance Ferrell.

Here is the evidence about our shrinking sun:

EVIDENCE FROM OUR SOLAR
SYSTEM that our solar system is quite young:​

6 - SOLAR COLLAPSE—​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Research studies indicate that our sun
is gradually shrinking at a steady rate of seconds of arc per century.​

At its rate of shrinkage, as little as 50,000 years ago the sun
would have been so large that our oceans would boil. But in
far less a time than 50,000 years, life here would have ceased​

to exist. Recent studies have disclosed that neither the size of the

sun, nor our distance from it, could be much greater or smaller—in
order for life to be sustained on our planet.​

“By analyzing data from Greenwich Observatory in the period
1836-1953, John A. Eddy [Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder] and Aram A.
Boornazian [mathematician with S. Ross and Co. in Boston] have
found evidence that the sun has been contracting about 0.1% per
century during that time, corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about
5 feet per hour. And digging deep into historical records, Eddy has
found 400-year-old eclipse observations that are consistent with
such a shrinkage.”—​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

*“Sun is Shrinking,” Physics Today, September
1979.​

Extrapolating back, 100,000 years ago, the sun would have been​

about twice its present size, making life untenable.

23 - LUNAR RECESSION—​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Scientists have discovered two interesting
facts: (1) The moon is already far too close to the earth,
and (2) it is gradually moving farther away from us. This is
called recession of the moon. Due to tidal friction, the moon is
slowly spiraling outward away from planet earth! Based on the rate
at which the moon is receding from us, the earth and the moon
cannot be very old. This is an important point and can in no way be
controverted. The present rate of recession clearly indicates a young
age for the earth-moon system. If the moon were older—even 20
to 30,000 years old,—it would at that earlier time have been so
close that it would have fallen into the earth!​

“The moon is slowly receding from Earth at about 4 cm [1½ in]
per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. The moon
could never have been closer than 18,400 km [11,500 miles], known
as the​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Roche Limit, because Earth’s tidal forces would have shattered​

it.”—Jonathan Sarfati, Creation Ex Nihilo, September 1979.

Evidence was requested, and there it is.

 

[Calminian]

I am not ignoring the others who have asked for evidence from me, but seeing that you are the OP, here is where I have decided to respond.

I have drawn my material from "Science Vs Evolution" by Vance Ferrell.

Here is the evidence about our shrinking sun:

EVIDENCE FROM OUR SOLAR
SYSTEM that our solar system is quite young:​

6 - SOLAR COLLAPSE—​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Research studies indicate that our sun
is gradually shrinking at a steady rate of seconds of arc per century.​

At its rate of shrinkage, as little as 50,000 years ago the sun
would have been so large that our oceans would boil. But in
far less a time than 50,000 years, life here would have ceased​

to exist. Recent studies have disclosed that neither the size of the

sun, nor our distance from it, could be much greater or smaller—in
order for life to be sustained on our planet.​

“By analyzing data from Greenwich Observatory in the period
1836-1953, John A. Eddy [Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder] and Aram A.
Boornazian [mathematician with S. Ross and Co. in Boston] have
found evidence that the sun has been contracting about 0.1% per
century during that time, corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about
5 feet per hour. And digging deep into historical records, Eddy has
found 400-year-old eclipse observations that are consistent with
such a shrinkage.”—​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

*“Sun is Shrinking,” Physics Today, September
1979.​

Extrapolating back, 100,000 years ago, the sun would have been​

about twice its present size, making life untenable.

23 - LUNAR RECESSION—​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Scientists have discovered two interesting
facts: (1) The moon is already far too close to the earth,
and (2) it is gradually moving farther away from us. This is
called recession of the moon. Due to tidal friction, the moon is
slowly spiraling outward away from planet earth! Based on the rate
at which the moon is receding from us, the earth and the moon
cannot be very old. This is an important point and can in no way be
controverted. The present rate of recession clearly indicates a young
age for the earth-moon system. If the moon were older—even 20
to 30,000 years old,—it would at that earlier time have been so
close that it would have fallen into the earth!​

“The moon is slowly receding from Earth at about 4 cm [1½ in]
per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. The moon
could never have been closer than 18,400 km [11,500 miles], known
as the​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Roche Limit, because Earth’s tidal forces would have shattered​

it.”—Jonathan Sarfati, Creation Ex Nihilo, September 1979.

Evidence was requested, and there it is.

Appreciated. I'd like to see now Papias back up his claim that creationists are abandoning this argument and embarrassed by it.

 

[sfs]

I'm much more interested in seeing support for the claims about genetics (which I know to be in error), but I'll address these anyway.

I am not ignoring the others who have asked for evidence from me, but seeing that you are the OP, here is where I have decided to respond.

I have drawn my material from "Science Vs Evolution" by Vance Ferrell.

Here is the evidence about our shrinking sun:

EVIDENCE FROM OUR SOLAR
SYSTEM that our solar system is quite young:​

6 - SOLAR COLLAPSE—​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Research studies indicate that our sun
is gradually shrinking at a steady rate of seconds of arc per century.​

At its rate of shrinkage, as little as 50,000 years ago the sun
would have been so large that our oceans would boil. But in
far less a time than 50,000 years, life here would have ceased​

to exist. Recent studies have disclosed that neither the size of the

sun, nor our distance from it, could be much greater or smaller—in
order for life to be sustained on our planet.​

“By analyzing data from Greenwich Observatory in the period
1836-1953, John A. Eddy [Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder] and Aram A.
Boornazian [mathematician with S. Ross and Co. in Boston] have
found evidence that the sun has been contracting about 0.1% per
century during that time, corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about
5 feet per hour. And digging deep into historical records, Eddy has
found 400-year-old eclipse observations that are consistent with
such a shrinkage.”—​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

*“Sun is Shrinking,” Physics Today, September
1979.​

Extrapolating back, 100,000 years ago, the sun would have been​

about twice its present size, making life untenable.

Subsequent studies made clear that the result of Eddy and Boomazian was not correct. In particular, historical Mercury transit data studied by Shapiro (Science, 208, 51 (1980)) had better precision, covered a longer period of time and showed a small increase, rather than decrease, over that time. Gilliland (Astrophysical Journal, 248:1144-1155 (1981)), the study cited approvingly in the link Calminian provided earlier, looked at multiple studies and concluded that there was weak evidence for a decrease in the sun's diameter over 265 years. Note first that this result is ten times smaller than the Eddy and Boomazian result -- i.e. that result was wrong. Second, the evidence is there, but too weak to draw any firm conclusions -- so trying to set a limit on the age of the sun is pointless when this estimate could easily be wrong.

More importantly, why would anyone think that this decrease, even if it is real, was a permanent feature of the sun? Galliland does document changes in the sun's diameter with high statistical confidence: a cyclical change that occurs over 76 years and (less certainly) a cyclical change over 11 years (the same cycle as the sun spot cycle). The former cycle covers a 2 arc-second increase and decrease around the mean, while the latter is +/- 1 arc-second; the supposed change per century during the 256 year period is ~1 arc-second. The most obvious possibility is that the longer term change (if it even exists) is just one more solar cycle, but on a longer time scale, perhaps a few hundred years.

Really, this is extraordinarily thin grounds for throwing out all of conventional astronomy (not to mention geology and biology).

23 - LUNAR RECESSION—​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Scientists have discovered two interesting
facts: (1) The moon is already far too close to the earth,
and (2) it is gradually moving farther away from us. This is
called recession of the moon. Due to tidal friction, the moon is
slowly spiraling outward away from planet earth! Based on the rate
at which the moon is receding from us, the earth and the moon
cannot be very old. This is an important point and can in no way be
controverted. The present rate of recession clearly indicates a young
age for the earth-moon system. If the moon were older—even 20
to 30,000 years old,—it would at that earlier time have been so
close that it would have fallen into the earth!​

“The moon is slowly receding from Earth at about 4 cm [1½ in]
per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. The moon
could never have been closer than 18,400 km [11,500 miles], known
as the​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Roche Limit, because Earth’s tidal forces would have shattered​

it.”—Jonathan Sarfati, Creation Ex Nihilo, September 1979.

Evidence was requested, and there it is.

You promised evidence from respected scientists publishing in prominent scientific journals. Sarfati is not a respected astronomer, or an astronomer at all, and Creation Ex Nihilo is not a prominent scientific journal.

 

[Papias]

Cal wrote:

I'd like to see now Papias back up his claim that creationists are abandoning this argument and embarrassed by it.

Yes Cal, it is always reasonable to ask for evidence to back up a claim. I did claim that. I looked into it, and did not find any creationist sites retracting the claim that the sun is shrinking. I seem to have confused that with other creationist claims. So I'll retract my claim that creationists are abandoning that and are embarrassed by it. Thanks for helping me see my mistake.

Oscarr wrote:

Here is the evidence about our shrinking sun:

sfs already gave some good evidence about this, but a couple more pieces of information may be useful.

For the Sun, not only are there a plethora of recent observations refuting any idea of shrinkage, but even the original data point is known to be wrong. Eddy and Boomazian themselves found, upon discussion and checking their data, that the apparent "shrinkage" was simply an error, and that's why they retracted their study - it was never published. The physics today reference appears to be an editorial - not a study - which mentions the whole incident in passing. That would explain why the author isn't Eddy, et al.

It's understandable, perhaps, that someone would repeat something they have heard. However, after the whole thing is shown to be based on nothing, I would hope that no one would knowingly repeat a falsehood.

As Cal pointed out - it looks like creationists are still repeating this. I guess I gave too much credit when I thought they had stopped doing so.

If the moon were older—even 20
to 30,000 years old,—it would at that earlier time have been so
close that it would have fallen into the earth!

“The moon is slowly receding from Earth at about 4 cm [1½ in]
per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. The moon
could never have been closer than 18,400 km [11,500 miles], known
as the ​

Roche Limit, because Earth’s tidal forces would have shattered​

it.”

sfs is correct that this isn't a valid reference. In addition, anyone with a calculator can see how silly this claim is. A recession rate of 4 cm would only produce a location only 1.2 km closer, which is practically the same as where it is now (99.997%).

Scientists have looked at the moon recession idea over and over. Yes, it is receding slowly, and math shows that the recession poses no problems for an old earth. In fact, fossil evidence from coral growth confirms the models. There was also an in-depth discussion of it here - I can try again to look up the thread if you like.

sfs wrote:

I don't think criterion number 3 is appropriate. If someone is publishing respected work in a field, it doesn't matter what kind of degree they have. One of my colleagues was doing cutting edge genetics research for years with just an undergraduate degree in physics.

First of all, thanks for taking the time to post. Sfs is a scientist in the field of genetics, and brings both his expertise as well acess to scientific journals many of us don't have.

I agree, but aren't cases like that rather rare - compared to quacks, who rarely have a real degree (but often have fake ones)? As such, I thought criterion #3 would be useful. However, yes, you are right. Maybe make it a "useful, but not definitive" point? Something to check, but not enough by itself?

Have a nice day-
Papias

 

[sfs]

I agree, but aren't cases like that rather rare - compared to quacks, who rarely have a real degree (but often have fake ones)? As such, I thought criterion #3 would be useful. However, yes, you are right. Maybe make it a "useful, but not definitive" point? Something to check, but not enough by itself?

Mostly, I don't want to be disqualified myself: I do genetics, but my degrees are in English and physics. Non-biology degrees are surprisingly common in genomics. Biologists traditionally didn't (for the most part) have a lot of statistical or computing skills, so when floods of genomic data started arriving around the time of the human genome project, quite a few people moved in from other fields. Our research institute's director has a PhD in pure math, and was a business school professor before he started teaching himself biology.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I'm much more interested in seeing support for the claims about genetics (which I know to be in error), but I'll address these anyway.

I can provide the evidence that I have on genetics, but in order to do it justice, I would not be able to put it in a post. It would be too long. But if you email me at paul90@slingshot.co.nz, I will attach the genetics chapter to my reply.

 

[Papias]

Oscarr, maybe first supply valid references for your first two claims - the "shrinking sun" and the "receding moon"?

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

In fact, Darwin's Origin of the Species has been abandoned, and even Darwin himself died a frustrated man because he could prove his own theories. Neo-Darwinism relies on the mutation theory, which is easily disproved by simple science and observation. No-one has yet been able to mutate an organism to make it better, and no-one has been able to make a live amino acid, even though it has been attempted in laboratories under very controlled conditions and sophisticated equipment. So the same happening by chance is so remote it seems ridiculous even to think about it.

You seem to have given this some thought, I was wondering, how do you account for adaptive evolution. I don't been stone age ape men, I mean things like arctic wildlife, birds adapting to a vast array of climates, marsupials in Australia. I'm a creationist as well so obviously I think God created the requisite molecular mechanisms. If you have rejected mutations as an explanation for adaptive evolution what do you believe to be the cause of adaptive evolution?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You seem to have given this some thought, I was wondering, how do you account for adaptive evolution. I don't been stone age ape men, I mean things like arctic wildlife, birds adapting to a vast array of climates, marsupials in Australia. I'm a creationist as well so obviously I think God created the requisite molecular mechanisms. If you have rejected mutations as an explanation for adaptive evolution what do you believe to be the cause of adaptive evolution?

Creatures do adapt to their environment, but I wouldn't call it evolution. Adaptation is not mutation. Mutations always destroy or degrade the organism, not make it better.

We have all sorts of different races and colours of human beings, but they all have the same genetic makeup. The only way mutations have been caused in humans is through irradiation, and the evidence is, through the observations from Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chenobyl, is that radiation causes mutations that cause sickness and death. There is no evidence that these mutations every caused the humans affected to be healthier or better. Change in the genetic makeup through radiation causes injury and death.

If we look at the different types of the same basic species of birds occurring in different parts of the word, we see that they are the same species with the same genetic makeup, and yet there are differences in them depending on what part of the world in which they live.

Perhaps they didn't change to adapt to their particular environment, but were specifically created in that form to suit that environment in the first place.

It would be an interesting study to find out why some humans are white, yellow, red, or black, seeing that we believe that they all originated from one male-female pair (based on modern discoveries in genetics, which the early Darwinists and evolutionists didn't have). I can't answer that question, but I guess others have good science-based theories to improve my knowledge about it. Have they adapted to their environments, or were they specifically created that way?

One problem I have with adaptation is that if a person develops a dark skin to adapt to a tropical climate, if he has the same genetic make up as everyone else, wouldn't his child be born without the dark skin? I don't know how to answer that question. Maybe someone can, but don't use evolution as an excuse, because it doesn't answer the question adequately.

 

[denominator]

I snipped the quote down to the relevant part, for ease of reading.

Creatures do adapt to their environment, but I wouldn't call it evolution. Adaptation is not mutation. Mutations always destroy or degrade the organism, not make it better.

It would be an interesting study to find out why some humans are white, yellow, red, or black, seeing that we believe that they all originated from one male-female pair (based on modern discoveries in genetics, which the early Darwinists and evolutionists didn't have). I can't answer that question, but I guess others have good science-based theories to improve my knowledge about it. Have they adapted to their environments, or were they specifically created that way?

One problem I have with adaptation is that if a person develops a dark skin to adapt to a tropical climate, if he has the same genetic make up as everyone else, wouldn't his child be born without the dark skin? I don't know how to answer that question. Maybe someone can, but don't use evolution as an excuse, because it doesn't answer the question adequately.

You seem to not understand the basic mechanics of evolution and adaptation.

Evolution via natural selection works on a population, not an individual. In your example of skin tone, each individual's skin tone starts at a basic level due to how much melanin they have. This is genetically coded and that is what will be passed on to the offspring, along with the ability for that skin tone to change based on the environment (some people tan more in the summer than others). If I were to move to a sunnier locale, my skin would darken but my genes would not change.

The reason that populations show different mean skin tones (Africa versus Scandinavia, for instance) is that in different environments, different skin tones will confer an advantage. In Africa, getting too much sun causes cancer and will generally kill off the lighter tones, leaving the dark tones to reproduce. If you took that same population and placed it in Scandinavia, a lack of sun causes Rickets and the darker tones would not survive to reproduce.

So it is the variation in a population that causes evolution, not the adaptation of the individual.

This also shows that rating a mutation as "good" or "bad" depends on the environment. A mutation causing albinism would be very profitable in a low-UV environment, while the exact same mutation would be very detrimental in a high-UV environment.

 

[Calminian]

...This also shows that rating a mutation as "good" or "bad" depends on the environment. A mutation causing albinism would be very profitable in a low-UV environment, while the exact same mutation would be very detrimental in a high-UV environment.

But, while beneficial, wouldn't that also result in a loss of genetic information? That would seem to be a case of a devolution, which seems to be inline with how creationists think. So while it would enable better absorption of vitamin D, perhaps it would also prevent white skinned people from moving back to the equator and thriving there.

The converse might be true for very dark skinned people. My suspicion is that early men were all brown, between the two extremes.

 

[ChetSinger]

...My suspicion is that early men were all brown, between the two extremes.

Me too. If Adam and Eve were mid-brown, with a designed set of melanin-related genes, children from dark to light could've been produced in only a single generation. No mutations are even necessary:

How did different skin colors come about?

 

[denominator]

But, while beneficial, wouldn't that also result in a loss of genetic information? That would seem to be a case of a devolution, which seems to be inline with how creationists think. So while it would enable better absorption of vitamin D, perhaps it would also prevent white skinned people from moving back to the equator and thriving there.

The converse might be true for very dark skinned people. My suspicion is that early men were all brown, between the two extremes.

First and foremost, devolution does not exist and really, shouldn't be a word. It suggests a goal to evolution, and natural selection is random and goal-less.

Secondly, there is no loss of genetic information, only a change. As outlined, reasonably well in the link posted by ChetSinger, genetics is all variation based on the probabilities of the combinations of genes from your parents. We are all unique because there are vastly more possible combinations of genes than there are people.

There is nothing stopping lighter-skinned people from moving to high-UV environments. In fact, due to cultural modifications, people with different skin-tones thrive all over the globe. I was simply discussing how the different skin-tones would have arisen in the our history and making a point about how individual adaptation is different from population evolution.

Me too. If Adam and Eve were mid-brown, with a designed set of melanin-related genes, children from dark to light could've been produced in only a single generation. No mutations are even necessary:

[link removed due to post count violation]

That is actually a fairly reasonable account (albeit very simplified), and not far off from the one given by evolutionary biologists.

I can't actually post the link since I don't have 50 posts yet, but it can be accessed by searching Google for "Smithsonian human skin color variation". It will be the first hit Google finds.

 

[Calminian]

First and foremost, devolution does not exist and really, shouldn't be a word. It suggests a goal to evolution, and natural selection is random and goal-less.

Well it seemed to have gotten the point across. What I mean by that is a loss in the ability to become as diversified as ones ancestors.

For instance, poodles' ancestors were gray wolves (so I've heard), as is true with all domestic dogs. But even the best dog breeder would not be able to breed poodles back into wolves.

There is nothing stopping lighter-skinned people from moving to high-UV environments...

Yes, but they can't develop the brown skin again, to protect them from the sun. That sounds like a loss of information to me.

 

[sfs]

I can provide the evidence that I have on genetics, but in order to do it justice, I would not be able to put it in a post. It would be too long. But if you email me at paul90@slingshot.co.nz, I will attach the genetics chapter to my reply.

Oscarr was kind enough to send the chapter in question (and a couple of others as well). I haven't read the whole thing yet, but I'm afraid that the part I have read is really very poor scientifically.

Start with the very first sentence: "A mutation is damage to a single DNA unit (a gene)." This is wrong on a couple of counts. First, a mutation isn't "damage": it is any change to DNA (or RNA in an RNA virus). Second, it need not involve a single gene. It can be in one gene, in no gene at all (the vast majority of mutations, in fact), or it can involve multiple genes. Not really important mistakes, but not very encouraging.

Skipping through a couple of pages of inaccurate history that are not worth bothering with, I find the real content begins with "Four Special Problems". The first "problem" is that "mutations are very rare". The section quotes a 1970(!) article by Ayala, to the effect that mutations occur between once per 10,000 and once per 1 million generations per gene -- far too few to explain all of the changes evolutionists claim for them.

Besides being out of date, the quotation is accurate. The actual rate of new mutations for humans is about 75 per birth. Since 1.5% of the genome lies in genes, that's just over one mutation in a gene per birth; with 20,000 genes in our genome, that means about 1 mutation per 20,000 births for each gene, within Ayala's estimated range.

Of course, what the chapter doesn't mention is that this is the number per individual. In a population of, say, 20,000 (roughly the ancestral size of the human population), every single gene will on average mutate every single generation. In the same generation, there will be another 1.5 million other mutations not in the genome. Put another way, among human ancestors, every single base in the genome would experience a mutation roughly once per 4000 generation, meaning that every base has had a chance to mutate multiple times since the human and chimpanzee lineages split. To claim that this is too few mutations is patently wrong.

The large number of mutations that are occurring all of the time, in all of us, also makes nonsense of the claim later in the chapter that all mutations are harmful. That claim is simply false.

I'm afraid the chapter goes on this way, filled with misinformation and misleading arguments. You would be better off reading nothing at all than using this as your source on genetics.

Oscarr, if you have specific arguments you want to make about genetics, or specific questions you want to ask, please do so. I work in human genetics and understand the field pretty well. But there is really no point in my going through the rest of the chapter in detail.

 

[sfs]

Me too. If Adam and Eve were mid-brown, with a designed set of melanin-related genes, children from dark to light could've been produced in only a single generation. No mutations are even necessary:

How did different skin colors come about?

While that statement is true in the abstract, the real human genetics of skin color bear no relation to this simple model. Multiple genes (probably at least a couple of dozen) are involved in human skin pigmentation. The general pattern is that sub-Saharan Africans show genetic evidence for long periods (as in hundreds of thousands of years) of purifying selection at pigmentation genes; that is, natural selection weeded out mutations that would have changed pigmentation, even while lots of other mutations accumulated nearby. Outside Africa, there was strong positive selection for lighter skin, and the selection acted on a variant that started as a single copy (i.e. a new mutation). In some cases the mutation occurred early enough that both Europeans and Asians shared the same selected variant, while in others selection occurred for different variants in different populations.

 

[sfs]

Creatures do adapt to their environment, but I wouldn't call it evolution. Adaptation is not mutation.

Individual creatures adapt to new environments by changing their physiology; populations adapt over longer time periods by mutation and natural selection.

Mutations always destroy or degrade the organism, not make it better.

This is false.

We have all sorts of different races and colours of human beings, but they all have the same genetic makeup.

No, they all have different genetic makeups -- not very different, but different nonetheless.

The only way mutations have been caused in humans is through irradiation, and the evidence is, through the observations from Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chenobyl, is that radiation causes mutations that cause sickness and death. There is no evidence that these mutations every caused the humans affected to be healthier or better. Change in the genetic makeup through radiation causes injury and death.

Every human being born has roughly 75 new mutations. This is simply a fact that has been directly observed by comparing the full genome sequences of children and their parents.

It would be an interesting study to find out why some humans are white, yellow, red, or black, seeing that we believe that they all originated from one male-female pair (based on modern discoveries in genetics, which the early Darwinists and evolutionists didn't have). I can't answer that question, but I guess others have good science-based theories to improve my knowledge about it. Have they adapted to their environments, or were they specifically created that way?

Humans did not start as a single male-female pair. We do have a very good idea about how many of the differences in skin pigmentation came about. For example, I am of northern European extraction and have fairly lightly pigmented skin (although not to Scandinavian levels). This is primarily because, like all northern Europeans, I inherited a particular genetic variant in both copies of my SLC24A5 gene. That variant started as a new mutation some thousands of years ago, and has spread rapidly because it was beneficial.

One problem I have with adaptation is that if a person develops a dark skin to adapt to a tropical climate, if he has the same genetic make up as everyone else, wouldn't his child be born without the dark skin? I don't know how to answer that question. Maybe someone can, but don't use evolution as an excuse, because it doesn't answer the question adequately.

If I move to the tropics, I will get a tan, not genuinely dark skin. My children will have exactly the same response to the sun as I and my wife do, and so will their descendants, at least until they intermarry with those carrying variants for darker skin, or experience a mutation for darker skin.

 

[SkyWriting]

I didn't realize creationists had some disagreements about Neanderthal man, and am just now learning where the disagreements lie. Originally I remember hearing creationists say that their bones showed signs of certain diseases which explained their appearance, but many creationists now don't believe that to be an adequate explanation.

Here's an interesting overview of the whole issue.

Those Enigmatic Neanderthals
What Are They Saying? Are We Listening?
by Anne Habermehl, Independent Scholar

But thanks Jack Cuozzo and his book, Buried Alive, this debate has taken and interesting turn. Rather than primitive cavemen, Neanderthals may been our advanced ancestors (either pre-flood or early post flood). They were literally bigger stronger and smarter (which we'd kind of expect given the biblical record).

I'm a new comer to this issue, but am finding it fascinating. I'd be curious of the opinions out there, even of evolutionists.

Al issues about the past are issues of pure faith. Even lab experiments.

 

[SkyWriting]

Well in fairness, they have found some rickets like conditions in some of the neanderthals bones, so it was a reasonable inference. But they're now thinking that the neanderthal conditions may not be the result of diseases, but extremely long ages. IOW's the varying bone formations were not something they were born with, but developed having lived much longer than modern humans. They've found that young neanderthals don't have these conditions.

A splendid example of how all theories are pure fiction. In just a couple sentences you went from one fiction to another. This supposes that future fictions are on the way as you imagine more stories from future information. All pure imagination fueled by discoveries. Its the basis for all science fiction. I know, I read a lot of it. I was in the sci-fi club at my high school.

 

[Calminian]

A splendid example of how all theories are pure fiction. In just a couple sentences you went from one fiction to another. This supposes that future fictions are on the way as you imagine more stories from future information. All pure imagination fueled by discoveries. Its the basis for all science fiction. I know, I read a lot of it. I was in the sci-fi club at my high school.

Comparing your reasoning to Cuozzo's, I'm more compelled by him right now. Since you merely made an assertion and no arguments, that should be sufficient. I do think Cuozzo makes a compelling case. I'd like to hear a compelling rebuttal. For whatever reason you're opting not to make one. But your disagreement with him is duly noted. I can only judge by the arguments I'm hearing, not by merely making an assertion.