The Neanderthal Problem

[-Chris-]

On 5/11/2026 at 8:24 PM, Percy said:

Some sources say DNA has a half-life

 

Your questions were great and I did a little bit of research on DNA half life. Half-life implies a physical constant, the radioactive decay of an atom. DNA decay is a chemistry change, dependent on the temperature, environment and other factors. I think half-life is a poor term for these changes under these conditions.

 

Quote

By analysing mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from 158 radiocarbon-dated bones of the extinct New Zealand moa, we confirm empirically a long-hypothesized exponential decay relationship. The average DNA half-life within this geographically constrained fossil assemblage was estimated to be 521 years for a 242 bp mtDNA sequence, corresponding to a per nucleotide fragmentation rate (k) of 5.50 × 10^–6 per year. With an effective burial temperature of 13.1°C, the rate is almost 400 times slower than predicted from published kinetic data of in vitro DNA depurination at pH 5.

This paper is the apparent source of the oft-quoted 521 years. Note they mention the temperature and the length of the base pair sequence being measured.

Dry permafrost frozen sources may contain recoverable amounts much older than expected based on this study.
 

[Jim Jam]

There is disagreement if certain extinct members of the genus, namely Neanderthals, should be included as a separate species of humans or as a subspecies of H. sapiens

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20210826223800/http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160111-what-is-it-that-makes-you-a-human-and-not-something-else

 

This shows that what the claims of so-called experts aren't as clear-cut as evolutionists want us to believe

[hybridxer0]

On 7/31/2026 at 7:13 AM, Jim Jam said:

There is disagreement if certain extinct members of the genus, namely Neanderthals, should be included as a separate species of humans or as a subspecies of H. sapiens

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20210826223800/http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160111-what-is-it-that-makes-you-a-human-and-not-something-else

 

This shows that what the claims of so-called experts aren't as clear-cut as evolutionists want us to believe

Agreed, and my issue isn't so much the assumptions made regarding classification or discovery of bones and if they were human-adjacent. Rather, my problem is the dating of when these get placed in the timeline of earth. If we view the lineage information (specifically in the case of Jesus in Luke's account) to be comprehensive regarding direct parentage, then regardless these "humans" found in unique locations that seemingly defy our timeline require further information to determine the way they got there.

 

[Dustparticle]

18 minutes ago, hybridxer0 said:

Agreed, and my issue isn't so much the assumptions made regarding classification or discovery of bones and if they were human-adjacent. Rather, my problem is the dating of when these get placed in the timeline of earth. If we view the lineage information (specifically in the case of Jesus in Luke's account) to be comprehensive regarding direct parentage, then regardless these "humans" found in unique locations that seemingly defy our timeline require further information to determine the way they got there.

 

 

And we should stick with Luke or the Bible account because it makes more sense. The worlds account divides people or nations believing that they are better than one another.

[jdcarlson]

All of the dating assumptions based on "half life" of something are based on less than 100 years of knowledge of changes in atomic structure over time. From the standpoint of statical sampling procedures, a sample of 100 items (in this case years) would not necessarily result in a high degree of reliance of projecting the "occurance rate," or whatever else one is looking for, when the total population is claimed to be hundreds of thousands (as many evolutionists want us to believe the years it took for their theory to work out).

 

I believe that the current level of lack of understanding and real knowledge of "half life" theory and how environmental factors change the result is such that any dates derived by that method are more likely to be wrong than they are to be right.

 

Candidly I only think about that when someone tries to use the "half life" timing theory to establish that something happened to mankind 100,000 years ago. Whenever that comes up and I remind them they are attempting to extrapolate to 100,000 based on a sample of only 100, they soon give up their argument (that is if they have any understand of statistical sampling and error rates of various sample sizes based on total population sampled).

 

Thanks,

 

Jim