A Creationist's Evaluation of Neanderthal (Sidebar 4)

Mystery has enshrouded Neanderthal Man. Evolutionists do not know how to classify him, how to explain his origin, or how to explain his extinction. Are they our ancestors, or our distant cousins? Following is a summary of a novel description and characterization of these people from a Christian orthodontist.

Classification of Neanderthal Man:
Neanderthals were once classified in a separate species from man (Homo neanderthalensis), but are now recognized by most scientists as Homo sapiens. In the evolutionary scheme, they have been identified as either a transition between Homo erectus and archaic man, or as an extinct offshoot of a Preneanderthal common ancestor (Day, 1986). Those who call Neanderthal a link between Homo erectus and archaic man would still classify him as a separate species from man. Those who identify Neanderthal as an offshoot of "Preneanderthal man" would classify him as man (Homo sapiens), but in a separate subspecies from modern man (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis).

Characteristics of Neanderthal Man:
According to Michael Day, "the skeleton (of Neanderthal) provides evidence of a short, thick-set, muscular individual with large hands and feet and a body form not unlike that of cold-adapted modern man" (1986). Neanderthals were somewhat shorter than modern men are, but based on their skeletons and muscle marks, they were very powerfully built. Several characteristics of Neanderthal's skeletal morphology are different from modern man. For example, in the skulls, the size of the brain case was significantly larger than that of the average modern man's (especially in length), they had heavy eyebrow ridges, and enlarged frontal sinuses, larger eye sockets, low foreheads, and they seemed to lack chins. Many of the Neanderthal skulls had teeth that were different in shape from our teeth. The different shape was "taurodont" or bull-like form (meaning that the crown was large and the roots short). They also had extra ridges on some incisors, and more extensive enamel folding of the molars than the average person does today (Cuozzo, 1998). According to Cuozzo, these dental characteristics would have made their teeth more durable than ours are.

Evolutionary assumptions regarding Neanderthals:

1. Their faces were more protruded than ours are because they were more primitive than we are and closer in relationship to the ape. 2. They developed as quickly as we do now, or even more quickly (as apes do), but certainly not more slowly than modern rates of development.

Creationist assumptions regarding Neanderthals:

1. Neanderthals were as fully human as we are. 2. Neanderthals were probably post-Flood people living in a hostile climate. 3. Neanderthals developed more slowly than we do now.

Jack Cuozzo is an American orthodontist who has obtained permission to examine the fossil remains of many of the Neanderthals in several different countries. He has used a novel approach in x-ray that has enabled him to penetrate the mineral deposition of fossilization and to make exact measurements of the bones. His knowledge of the jaw and teeth has also equipped him to evaluate the reconstruction of the skulls. He reports in several papers and a book that there are many errors in the reconstruction of the Neanderthals, and especially in the children's skulls. He believes that some of the errors were intentional to support the model of evolution. Following is a summary of some of his findings.

Neanderthal children developed more slowly than children do today:
Cuozzo was able to examine several Neanderthal children's cranial remains and to take accurate measurements with his cephalometric x-ray unit. He discovered, through personal examination (and through the testimonies of others who had described some bones he could not get access to) that the craniums (brain cases) of the young children's skulls appeared significantly more mature than the jaws and ear regions. In all the skulls, there were apparent age discrepancies: apparent age (e.g. large heads compared to the jaws, strong chewing muscles, worn teeth) and apparent immaturity (e.g. retruded jaws, extremely small jaws in vertical ramus area, infantile ear areas, hard palate angulation, slow skull suturing, no chin development, rounded upper jaws, upright foreheads, and no eyebrow ridges). The evolutionary scientists who had first described the fossils had given them ages based on the tooth eruptions (through the gums) and on root lengths. These ages were determined by the rates at which children's teeth come in today, for the evolutionists believe that the children of the past must have developed at the same rate or faster than children do today. For example, one Neanderthal child (Gibraltar II) was said to be five years old because his sixth-year molars were about to erupt. Cuozzo believes that the ages given to Neanderthal children are wrong.

It has been documented that children are maturing more quickly than children did in the past—even one hundred to two hundred years ago. Cuozzo proposes that the advanced maturation is genetic, and is part of the curse of sin. Immediately after the flood of Noah's time, people were still living for long times (up to 464 years, not including Noah's immediate family)—though these life spans were quickly decreasing. If people in the early Genesis period were developing and aging more slowly, as the Bible and maturity trends suggest, and Neanderthals lived in the Ice Age, as the evidence indicates, then it is natural to assume that the Neanderthals developed and aged more slowly than people do now. Further, Cuozzo provides evidence for the assumption that Neanderthal children developed more slowly than children do today. Cuozzo summarizes the extensive surveys that have been written showing how modern children's skulls and jaws grow and develop. By applying modern children's rates of jaw and cranium development, the Le Moustier youth (a Neanderthal boy supposed to be 16 - 18 years old) had to have been at least 26 years older than Pech de l' Aze (a child who was supposed to be 2 - 2.5 years old). The 26-year difference was determined by conservatively applying the rates of 1) lower jaw lengthening and 2) lower jaw heightening, 3) upper jaw growth, 4) change of lower jaw angle, and 5) protrusion of the face. Each of these growth rates independently gave at least a twenty-six year period for development of "Pech" to Le Moustier. (These two fossils were chosen because of their close proximity of burial and likely close relationship.) Either the Neanderthal children developed 3 - 4 times faster than modern children do (and Le Moustier was a teen), or they developed much more slowly (and Le Moustier was in his 30's). In order for the "Pech" child to grow into the Le Moustier youth in 16 years, he would have had to grow at phenomenal rates that even most evolutionists would likely not accept. In fact, a paper written by scientists at the British Natural History Museum stated that one of the Neanderthal children gave evidence of developing no more quickly than children do today. If Neanderthal children developed at the same rate as children do today, then they must have been much older than has been stated. If their teeth came in at the same rate as children's teeth do today, then they must have developed far, far more quickly than anyone anticipated or will admit. Evolutionists will accept uniformity in tooth eruption (the same teeth erupt at the same time as they did in Neanderthals), but they cannot accept uniformity in facial feature development for it implies that the Neanderthals developed more slowly than we do (Cuozzo 1998).

Misconstructions in Neanderthal skulls:
Other enlightening facts that Cuozzo reported (Cuozzo 1994, Cuozzo 1998) were that several of the Neanderthal skulls had been improperly reconstructed. Some of these reconstructions seem to have been intentional, and certainly gave the impression that the skulls were ape-like in appearance. For example, several of the jaws were drawn or photographed out of their socket (Pech de l' Aze, Le Moustier youth, and La Chapelle-aux-Saints). The lower jaws had been brought forward, giving them a protruded, ape-like appearance. The Gibraltar child's lower jaw had a break that had been misconstructed at an improper angle that made it appear more mature to match his cranial size. The Engis child's skull had been reported as being 24 mm larger than it actually was! This seems to have been done so that the head could be reported as being rapidly developed rather than the jaw being slow in development. The Le Moustier had both jaws brought forward, and his forehead was much shorter in the casts on display in the museum. In describing these and other examples of misconstructions, Cuozzo makes a convincing case that some evolutionary scientists have not represented Neanderthals accurately.

Aging and the Neanderthal morphology:
In his book, Cuozzo (1998) summarizes many studies that have been done in many different countries on the effects of aging on the shape and structure of the head and face. It is his contention that the Neanderthal adults had unusual morphological characteristics because they were very old. The studies have all demonstrated that after we reach adult size, growth of the head and face continues. In the head, the greatest amount of growth is, in almost every instance, in the length of the head. The width expands somewhat, but not proportionally. The height does not increase significantly, and in some cases, it decreases. Skull thickening also occurs in some places. The faces also grow—both longer and wider. The area where the nose meets the forehead is always moving forward. The frontal sinus expands with age, resulting in the formation of eyebrow ridges. The eye sockets also enlarge and move downward and forward. The upper jaw extends forward and down. The nasal bones move forward and up slightly. The lower teeth move forward, and bone fills in under them, making the chin appear flat. The lower jaw descends and moves forward and becomes more square in the back. These descriptions of the effects of aging on the skull are reminiscent of the description of the Neanderthal skulls (above).

Summary:
Neanderthal people have been described as brutish and ape-like, barely standing erect, and likely not capable of language yet (Lubenow, 1992). Their life span was thought not to exceed 50 years (Cuozzo, 1998 p.164). It has been portrayed in literature and in museums that the children were just smaller versions of the adults, and had larger heads and faces than children do today, just as the Neanderthal adults had larger heads and faces that adults do today (Cuozzo, 1998 p.177). It has been said and assumed that Neanderthal children developed at the same rate or somewhat faster than children develop today. Dr. Jack Cuozzo is probably the first Christian who has had permission to view the original fossils of the Neanderthal people. What he has reported is, in many instances, contrary to what has been portrayed. He has found several ape-like misconstructions, he has shown that the Neanderthal children had much smaller facial features that children do today, he has demonstrated the strong likelihood that the Neanderthal children developed more slowly than children do today, and he has given an excellent model for the acquired adult Neanderthal morphology by aging. Using a computer program for enhancement of the head and face due to aging, he has demonstrated that the typical Neanderthal morphology could be attained at present growth rates, in a few hundred years. It is highly likely that the Neanderthal people aged at a slower rate than we do today, so some of the specimens may have been 300 to 500 years old! When all the evidence from the Neanderthal people can be looked at objectively, they support what the Bible says about the long lives of the people in Genesis.

References:
Day, Michael. 1986. Guide to Fossil Man fourth edition. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. p.413-415.

Cuozzo, Jack. 1998. Buried Alive. Master Books, Green Forest, AR.

Cuozzo, John William. 1994. "Neandertal Children's Fossils: Reconstruction and Interpretation Distorted by Assumptions." Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 8(2):166-178.

Lubenow, 1992. Bones of Contention: a Creationists assessment of Human Fossils. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids. p. 62-65.