This update explores an article that compares the robustness of certain human fossil types and establishes a link with longevity. Though unintended by the author, this helps support my proposal that interbreeding between human types with different longevity started the decline in the lifespan of Adam's descendants. There are seveal places where this offers evidence to support the consequences of day-6 and day-8 DNA merge. This is part of a series of updates to “S1. Genetics supports day-8 man”.
When you read the following very detailed and technical article, look for things that might be consistent with the effects of short life-span DNA being introduced into a population of long life-span DNA, and consequential size changes. Or, you might want to read the following comments first showing you where the support is, and then read the article.
The above article looks at fossils of clearly distinct types of humans, all believed to be descendants of Adam. But it notes 2 types that have generally more robust features, namely Neanderthals and Homo erectus. In trying to explain this robustness, the author, Perter Line, associates this with long lifespans.
Well, you can imagine how that caught my attention! I have been proposing that the age reduction in mankind after Noah was due to the interbreeding of two distinct streams of man as described in Genesis 6:1-4. Verse 4 then describes what seems like a hybrid, of this interbreeding called the Nephilim and you would certainly expect these might men to be robust.
Now, I am currently not certain as to whether the Neanderthals are better pictured as Day-6 men or the hybrid Nephilim or some other spin-off that arose after the scattering at the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11. But what I do believe is that Adam’s perfect DNA in just 10 to 15 generations, could not have mutated or adapted to produce these recognised streams or breeds, sometimes with noted deficiencies. Even today, with all the nations around the world, there is no ‘race’ marker in the human DNA. Yet the author describes significant anatomical differences. So, I assume that there had to be something that inserted new genes into the descendants of Adam that led to these observed breeds.
Note that my belief is in the goodness of what God created. So Adam’s initial perfect DNA would not have led to the variation unless man’s sin so caused it. The Bible records this exact event in Genesis 6, if you can allow yourself to see it. By the way, this is not denying the potential for adaptations through various combination of genes and bottlenecks in small population groups. My argument is not definitive. For example, you could say that Adam’s DNA had far more potential for variations in gene combinations at conception, but as time went by the gene pool became more narrow, and this led to the loss of the Neanderthals. Peter uses this idea in his article to explain how the Neanderthals arose after the scattering.
Returning to the article… In the section on “Differences between skulls of robust humans” the author mentions that these species may just be different sized specimens from the same species, and perhaps subject to different environmental conditions. Well, different sizes is also good for me, since I proposed that as a by-product of the merge of shorter living day-6 DNA and longer living day-8 DNA.
There are several sections on Longevity and Neanderthals. It’s a little confusing to me. First it’s saying that Neanderthals, at least in the first two centuries after the flood, did live longer, but that had to come from the pre-flood longevity. This is used to propose that the robust (bony) features were perhaps needed to support a longer life. (Maybe, maybe not.) But then it goes on to propose that Neanderthals actually lived short lives though they seemed to have features associated with longevity, and that this is evidenced even in their children.
OK, are you confused? Well, there is the post flood
ice-age, and the scattering with further environmental changes, and the ongoing
decrease in life-span, population bottlenecks and the difficulty of knowing
exactly where in all this the fossils are being sourced.
After this the
article starts to examine hormonal issues and deficiencies that might account
for robust features. It recognises growth rates at different stages of
development which might be helpful to me because I propose that live long DNA of
day-8 man mixed with fast growing but live short DNA of day-6 man could generate
the larger Nephilim who are probably the pre-flood precursors to the
Neanderthals. But this is way too deep for me to offer an opinion. The article
moves on to suggest how these things might contribute to loss of longevity, but
even the author sees this as speculative.
Overall, the evidence presented by the author is good and he identifies the speculative parts of his presentation. But some things have to be filtered by your belief or assumptions. If you read the article looking for evidence to support short life-span DNA inter-breeding with long life-span DNA, and consequential size changes, then support is there.