I think we all know scientists are not looking at it from a biblical perspective or creation perspective,but they are looking at it from an evolution perspective and making it fit into that.Evolution is their religion even if they reject a biblical perspective. I know its not important to Audi but most creation perspectives have an answer when it comes to science and as more is discovered alot of times it validates more of God's word. Now based on the posts Kurieuo made I'm not so sure this is true now,obviously there are different interpretations of the data even in science. Still I think the ones who believe they did mate are the majority when it comes to evolution science.
First of all, scientists shouldn't be practicing science if they're looking at it from a biblical perspective, creation perspective, or an evolutionary perspective.
Letting the evidence speak for itself, is how scientists should perform their work.
I'm not sure I agree,however they are looking at it from an evolution perspective,they always do,it is clear in the link I posted and the links Kurieuo posted they are looking at it from an evolution perspective.But what I'm trying to get at,is how do the different creation interpretations answer this from a biblical perspective? And so far I think we've seen how YEC's address this issue,but not the others.
ACB I think you're broad stroking evolution.
The articles I referenced, sure, they're working within the ToE framework where life all share a common ancestor with some algae. This is very different though from say the "balance selection" spoken of in the first article.
As to us modern humans interbreeding neanders, well, the articles I referenced show the common segments seen can happen quite naturally and would be expected. Therefore, there is no reason to postulate interbreeding and hybrids. Not to mention the many other issues such a scenario needs to overcome including small neander population sizes, migration timings we're aware to, sterility and the like.
The only reason people gravitate to a "we swung with neader scenario", and let's not forget the Denisovans too btw, is because it carries like a nice juicy story to tell. Always makes headlines. Look at the study you quoted. It's like good gossip when so-and-so gets with so-and-so...
I'm more interested in listening to all sides in science, rather than the popular side. And I'll freely admit, the one I'm drawn to, is the one that best conforms with my beliefs on origins. So what? It doesn't mean I can't look at the evidence or do science any more or less than the next person.