Dramatic discovery in Israeli excavation: A new type of Homo unknown to science

Those are two different finds? Both of Homo longi?

Two different finds and we don’t know yet how the finds are related to current classifications?

Interesting that the quotes from folks at each find include “the archaic humans that lived in our region were the best and most important!” language. :slight_smile: Team Nesher Ramla! Team Longi!

“A new type of homo unknown to science”.

Seriously unfortunate title. At least put the genus in italics…

1 Like

If you watched the video, it’s about Nesher Ramla - bones that Israeli scientists think are unique but they didn’t name them as a new species. They think they are ancestral to Neanderthals, and group a cranium and jawbone piece together with a few other bones found in the Middle East - it gives a Middle East origins to Neanderthals / more humans (I was interested in that for the biblical narrative obviously). That came out early last week but the homo longi finding quickly overshadowed it in the news a few days later. But both a big deal obviously. And interestingly Israeli scientists think they may have something to do with each other.

Or their thunder just got stolen by the papers being published in the same week. :slightly_smiling_face:

I think I also saw an article today that scientists modern humans, Denisovans and Neanderthals all shared the same Denisova cave based on their DNA from cave dirt but were there at different points in history. I think that may be new news too. So lots of stuff happening in that world!


Why is this interesting to you?

Because the more plain reading of scripture is that all humanity spread out from the Middle East after the Tower of Babel. I believe the Neanderthal bones that have been found in the Middle East so far have generally been believed to be migration from Europe. A population ancestral to Neanderthals in the Middle East puts Neanderthal origin back into the Middle East instead of Europe.

I’m just very interested in human migration generally after listening to Jeanson’s talks and then reading Reich’s book.

the plainest reading of Genesis is that it is a collection of fictional ancient stories with zero scientific or historical credibility.

Comparing Jeanson’s talk with David Riech’s book is absurd.


This “plain reading” is at odds with reality.

Neanderthals moved from Africa to the Middle East and then to other parts of the world.

The ancestral population to Neanderthals had African origins.

Jeanson is not someone you should seek for information on early human origins or patterns of migration. That’s not what he majored in. There are resources out there written by actual experts. Consult them.


Jeanson is not a scientist and can’t be trusted interpreting aDNA data as his conclusions are set for him by Answers in Genesis before he even starts to analysis the data. Also he limits himself to mitochondrial DNA and y-chromosomal when whole genome data is available.

1 Like

I don’t think that is has been determined yet. Neanderthals may have evolved from an archaic hominin outside of Africa 700,000 years ago. Perhaps from Homo Erectus.

1 Like

No, that’s not really what the current theory is, as far as I understand it.

The abstract from the paper:

It has long been believed that Neanderthals originated and flourished on the European continent. However, recent morphological and genetic studies have suggested that they may have received a genetic contribution from a yet unknown non-European group. Here we report on the recent discovery of archaic Homo fossils from the site of Nesher Ramla, Israel, which we dated to 140,000 to 120,000 years ago. Comprehensive qualitative and quantitative analyses of the parietal bones, mandible, and lower second molar revealed that this Homo group presents a distinctive combination of Neanderthal and archaic features. We suggest that these specimens represent the late survivors of a Levantine Middle Pleistocene paleodeme that was most likely involved in the evolution of the Middle Pleistocene Homo in Europe and East Asia.


Oops I meant to write the ancestors to Neanderthals after the split with the ancestors of Sapiens from their common ancestor migrated outside Africa.

I actually meant the ancestors of Neanderthals not the Neanderthals themselves. Thanks for catching the error.

I am still failing to see how taking back the origins of Neanderthals to the Middle East supports your “plain reading”, since their ancestry traces back to Africa.

There’s a reason for that, but anyway feel free look it up if you care. I wouldn’t do a good job explaining it.

Maybe because it weakens the idea that humanity’s origin is Africa. Also any evidence that humans with various morphological difference weren’t actually separated for long periods of time in different geographical areas and didn’t originate as separately as what was thought is more in line with the biblical narrative I think.

You are yet to explain how.

You seem to be forgetting these humans (neanderthals, us, erectus etcetera) had ape ancestors, millions of years ago completely disagreeing with your YEC interpretation of scripture. That’s why your mention of these findings as consistent with a YEC perspective is puzzling.

1 Like

Not a valid scientific one.

You explained it quite well as cherry-picking, which practicing scientists view as an unethical practice.

1 Like

No that isn’t the reason. Rather, it is because these parts of the genome doesn’t have recombination, which is true. He reasons that it’s not possible with current methods to analyze the sections with recombination, which is not true. In fact TMR4A does just this.

Yes, it is. It could have been long ago when there could be a presumption of an error made in good faith, but that is no longer the case.

Valerie appears to think that the cherry picking is ethical.

Given his lack of response to those who have pointed out the massive flaws, “claims” is far more appropriate than “reasons.”

Correct. Since that has been pointed out to him and he does not engage with it on any professional or even semi-professional level, it’s plain ol’ cherry picking.

And he has been made aware of that and the paper has not been corrected, so there is no reason to presume that his false claim was made in good faith.

At first, I think he was just ignorant of argweaver and related methods. Subsequently ignoring this is a real problem.

But it’s still a different issue that cherry-picking, which was my main point.

It’s an ethical problem, because there’s no evidence that your assumption of ignorance was correct.

The lack of any response from Jeanson is strong evidence that it was deliberate cherry-picking.

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.