Rosa Rubicondior: Refuting Creationism - Why Neanderthals Went Extinct

Wednesday, 29 April 2026

Refuting Creationism - Why Neanderthals Went Extinct - 30,000 Years Before 'Creation Week'

The study shows that regions favourable to Homo sapiens were found to be more highly connected than those of Neanderthals.

Why did the Neanderthals disappear? - UdeMnouvelles

A recent paper in Quaternary Science Reviews by a team led by Professor Arianne Burke of the Department of Anthropology at Université de Montréal, and head of the Quebec-based Hominin Dispersals Research Group, offers fresh insight into why Neanderthals disappeared from Europe around 40,000 years ago. The timeframe alone should be enough to send any self-respecting creationist reaching deep into the catalogue of prepared excuses for dismissing inconvenient facts. What we will not see, of course, is any acknowledgement that science has once again produced evidence that flatly contradicts their beliefs, or even the faintest shadow of doubt about the Bible’s usefulness as a textbook of history or science.

Archaic hominins have always been a major problem for creationists, whose responses range from outright denial, through misrepresentation of the science, to the extraordinary mental gymnastics needed to shoehorn the evidence into a childish Bible narrative of a single ancestral human couple living some 6,000–10,000 years ago.

A recent example is Ken Ham’s assertion, through Answers in Genesis, that Adam and Eve were the ancestors not only of modern humans but also of Neanderthals and Denisovans. That would make Adam and Eve something like Homo heidelbergensis, H. antecessor, or whichever Middle Pleistocene hominin eventually proves to have been the last common ancestor of these lineages. It also neatly ignores the African fossil record and raises the obvious question — even if we ignored the evidence for the age of these archaic humans for the sake of argument — of how their descendants could have spread so widely, diversified so markedly, and then partly disappeared, all within a few thousand years.

Of course, it is nonsense, and is clearly aimed at people who are either unaware of the evidence but vaguely aware of these archaic hominins, or are so eager to clutch at straws that any apologetic will do, however absurd it becomes when placed beside the facts.

“Primitive” people were actually just humans like you and me. pic.twitter.com/NXGQm0sYCW
— Answers in Genesis (@AiG) April 13, 2026

Yes, there are still unanswered questions about the common ancestry of modern humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans, but one thing we can be certain of is that their common ancestor did not live within the absurdly compressed timeframe allowed by the Bible narrative. That is just one of the many ways in which we know the Bible story is wrong — which is precisely why Ken Ham does not want his followers to think too carefully about it.

But if the question of origins is awkward for creationists, the question of extinction is no less so. Why did the Neanderthals disappear, and why did Homo sapiens survive and expand? There are several competing explanations, and, as so often in science, they are not mutually exclusive. Did Neanderthals succumb to climate instability? Were they weakened by inbreeding and low population density in small, scattered groups? Were they outcompeted by H. sapiens, with their wider social networks, more flexible technology and perhaps, eventually, dogs? Or were some Neanderthal populations simply absorbed into the larger and expanding population of H. sapiens through interbreeding?

Now, modelling by Professor Burke’s team suggests that the answer was not a single, simple cause. Climate change and interspecific interaction with H. sapiens were factors, but their importance varied across Europe. The study suggests that a significant difference may have been the resilience of social networks. In regions favourable to H. sapiens, populations appear to have been more strongly connected than Neanderthal populations, giving them a better safety net when climate, resources or local demography became unstable.

This does not mean Neanderthals were isolated, unintelligent or incapable of maintaining relationships between groups. Archaeological evidence shows that they had interregional connections too. But, according to the models, those networks appear to have been more fragile, especially in parts of Central and Eastern Europe. In a world of rapid climatic swings, that difference may have mattered. A better-connected population can share information, exchange partners, move temporarily into allied territories, and recover after local shocks. A more weakly connected population can be left isolated, vulnerable and demographically brittle.

The Elusive Common Ancestor. Modern humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans were not separate creations, but closely related branches of a much older human family tree. The last common ancestor of these groups probably lived during the Middle Pleistocene, perhaps somewhere around 765,000–550,000 years ago, although the exact date, place and fossil identity remain debated.

For many years, Homo heidelbergensis was treated as the most likely candidate: an archaic human species known from Africa and Europe, with a brain size approaching that of later humans and a body plan broadly similar to ours. In the traditional model, African populations of this general type eventually gave rise to Homo sapiens, while Eurasian populations gave rise to Neanderthals and, further east, Denisovans.

That tidy picture has become less certain. Some researchers now regard European fossils once assigned to H. heidelbergensis as early Neanderthals rather than ancestors of both lineages. African Middle Pleistocene fossils have also been variously assigned to H. heidelbergensis, H. rhodesiensis, or the proposed species H. bodoensis, while other researchers prefer to avoid forcing them into a single species name.

Another important fossil is Homo antecessor, known from Atapuerca in Spain and dating to roughly 800,000 years ago. It was once suggested as a possible direct ancestor of modern humans and Neanderthals, but ancient protein evidence now suggests it was more likely a close sister lineage — near the base of the later human family tree, but probably not the direct ancestor itself.

Recent finds from Morocco, dated to about 773,000 years ago, have added another piece to the puzzle. These fossils show a mixture of archaic and more modern features and may represent an African population close to the root of the lineage that later produced Homo sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans.

So the safest conclusion is that the common ancestor was probably not a single identifiable “Adam and Eve” pair, nor even necessarily one neat species known from one fossil site. It was more likely a network of related Middle Pleistocene populations, spread across parts of Africa and possibly western Eurasia, from which the later human lineages gradually diverged.

The paper by Professor Burke’s team was accompanied by an article in UdeMnouvelles, the news medium of the Université de Montréal, by Béatrice St-Cyr-Leroux:

Why did the Neanderthals disappear?
A new modelling study suggests that greater connectivity between groups may have given Homo sapiens the edge over Neanderthals.
Why Neanderthals went extinct and Homo sapiens established a lasting presence in Europe is still not fully understood. The answer is complex and involves multiple factors, but a new study using an innovative approach inspired by digital ecology is providing fresh insights.

The study was led by Ariane Burke, a professor in the Department of Anthropology at Université de Montréal and head of the Quebec-based Hominin Dispersals Research Group. Building on the work of her doctoral students, Benjamin Albouy and Simon Paquin, she adapted models typically used to study the distribution of animal and plant species to prehistoric humans, incorporating available ethnographic and archaeological data.

The research focused on Europe during the last glacial cycle, specifically between 60,000 and 35,000 years ago. During this time, the climate underwent significant fluctuations, alternating between cold (stadial) and warmer (interstadial) periods. It was during this period that the first populations of Homo sapiens appeared in the archaeological record and the last Neanderthals disappeared.

The analysis indicates that neither climate stress nor competition—often-cited explanations—can fully account for the Neanderthals’ disappearance. Instead, their extinction resulted from a complex interplay of climate, geography, demography and interspecific interactions that varied by region.

Modelling ancient patterns

In ecology, species distribution models predict where a species could live based on where it has been observed. Burke and her team applied this logic to ancient hominids, using archaeological sites—rather than observation data from living animals—as “presence points” for Neanderthals and Homo sapiens.

The study involved a series of modelling steps. First, Burke created four habitat suitability models for both species, using tools from conservation biology and geomatics. These models incorporated archaeological data along with a suite of geographical and climate variability indices.

Burke then compared the results of the four models, creating new models that identified “core” regions—geographic areas large and productive enough to support stable populations and, crucially, connected to one another.

Obviously, we don’t have precise demographic data for populations living 35,000 years ago, so we used ethnographic data from better-documented ancient hunter-gatherer groups to set parameters for the geomatics tools and generate these models. For example, these data show that the typical annual territory of a local group of 25 to 50 individuals, moving seasonally and maintaining regional connections with other groups, would be about 2,500 km².

Professor Arianne Burke, lead author.
Département d'anthropologie
Université de Montréal
Montréal, QC, Canada.

Resilience through connectivity

It was at this point in the analysis that differences between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens started to emerge.

For example, regions favourable to Homo sapiens were found to be more highly connected than those of Neanderthals. According to Burke, connectivity is crucial because interconnected populations form networks, allowing members to move to allied, related or partner groups in response to climatic, ecological or demographic shocks.

These networks act as a safety net. They allow for the exchange of information on resources and animal migrations, the forming of partnerships, and temporary access to other territories in the event of a crisis.

Professor Arianne Burke.

Burke was quick to point out that this does not mean Neanderthal groups were incapable of sustaining connections between groups. Archaeological data on the flow of material objects and other evidence indicate that they too developed interregional networks. However, according to the models, the regional connections within the Neanderthal network were relatively tenuous, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe.

Mix of factors

The study also showed that climate variability, or how rapidly and unpredictably conditions change, affected populations more than did absolute temperature or precipitation.

Climate variability appears to have played a major role. So it turns out that humans have been sensitive to environmental variability throughout our history.

Professor Arianne Burke.

However, climate alone cannot explain why the Neanderthals went extinct, since fossil and archaeological evidence shows they survived earlier glacial cycles.

According to Burke, the Neanderthals disappeared due to a complex mix of interacting factors, including climate instability, demographic pressures and social organization. It is also possible that the exact combination of factors that drove their extinction differed between regions.

For example, the study shows that the Neanderthal population in Europe was divided into two groups, one in the west and another in the east.

In Eastern Europe, limited connectivity may have isolated Neanderthal populations as climatic conditions deteriorated. In contrast, on the Iberian Peninsula, at the western edge of their range, better-connected core regions may have enabled populations to persist longer.

But the story may not be so straightforward.

In western areas, the arrival of Homo sapiens may have added further stress, especially for Neanderthal populations that were already demographically vulnerable. Because the two species were capable of producing offspring together, their interactions were likely complex, involving competition, occasional interbreeding and other subtle population dynamics.

Professor Arianne Burke.

Fundamental human need

Burke believes that these ancient dynamics invite reflection on some of humankind’s enduring challenges.

Human migration has always existed, facilitated by mobility and social networks,” she noted. “Even today, despite the complexities of borders, population densities and social inequalities, humans continue to migrate for the same fundamental reasons: to find more favourable areas, reunite with loved ones and join mutual aid networks.

Professor Arianne Burke.

It’s a timely reminder that, today as 40,000 years ago, our survival depends not only on technology and intelligence, but also on our ability to forge and maintain connections.

Publication:
Burke, Ariane; Pomeroy, Emma; Poisot, Timothée; Albouy, Benjamin; Paquin, Simon
Spatial resilience and population replacement in Europe during MIS 3: a comparative study of Neanderthals and H. sapiens
Quaternary Science Reviews (2026) 377, 109850; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2026.109850

Highlights

Geostatistical tools facilitate Species Distribution Model comparison.
Stadial/interstadial events produce contrasting patterns in habitat quality for H. sapiens and Neanderthals.
Overlapping habitat use is predicted across H. sapiens and Neanderthal ranges.
Connectivity between optimal regions is relatively weak for Neanderthals.
Population replacement across Europe was likely not a uniform process.

Abstract
Homo sapiens dispersed out of Africa several times during the Late Pleistocene. The most recent dispersal event, which began around 60,000 years ago, resulted in the permanent establishment of Sapiens populations in Europe, followed by the disappearance of Neanderthals from the archaeological record. Various hypotheses suggest that the process of population replacement in Europe was influenced by climate change, habitat dynamics, demographic processes, and/or competitive exclusion. To test these hypotheses, we use habitat suitability modeling and GIS tools to predict the optimal distribution of Neanderthal and Aurignacian populations in Europe during stadial and interstadial events of Marine Isotope Stage 3 (MIS 3) and reconstruct their regional networks. The models show that while relatively more suitable habitat was available for Homo sapiens under interstadial conditions, both groups were affected by climate change resulting in shifts in the location of optimal regions and concomitant changes in the social networks that connected them.

Our analysis indicates that optimally suitable habitat persisted across the potential ranges of both species despite climate change. Climate stress alone is not indicated as a cause of Neanderthal's extinction, therefore. Several “core” regions are identified that could have sustained a pattern of demographic resilience, allowing populations to rebound and re-expand during climate upturns, notably in southwestern Europe and, in the case of Neanderthals, in southern Iberia. The optimal regions and the networks they form indicate a potential for interaction between Neanderthals and Sapiens across Europe. While their ranges overlap, however, there are subtle differences in habitat preference that mitigate the potential impact of interactions, suggesting that competition for resources may not have been the primary cause of Neanderthal extinction. The results also suggest regional differences in the combination of stressors that could have influenced Neanderthal extinction, with Sapiens potentially playing a more active role in Western Europe, where regional overlaps impinge on the “core” regions. In Southeastern Europe, where regional connection within the Neanderthal network were relatively tenuous, Neanderthal groups may have been more vulnerable to random events and demographic pressures, including genetic assimilation.

A more complex interplay of climate change, population dynamics and demographic factors is suggested to have contributed to the eventual disappearance of the Neanderthals. Ultimately, the study suggests that the process of population replacement in Europe is the result of the complex and regionally differentiated interplay of climate, geography, demography and interspecific interactions rather than a homogeneous, climate-driven process.

Burke, Ariane; Pomeroy, Emma; Poisot, Timothée; Albouy, Benjamin; Paquin, Simon
Spatial resilience and population replacement in Europe during MIS 3: a comparative study of Neanderthals and H. sapiens
Quaternary Science Reviews (2026) 377, 109850; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2026.109850

Copyright: © [year] The authors.
Published by [publisher]. Open access.
Reprinted under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0)

The picture that emerges from this research is not one of a sudden, mysterious disappearance, nor of a simple morality tale in which one “kind” of human replaced another. It is a picture of complex, changing populations living through unstable climates, shifting habitats, demographic pressures and contact with other closely related humans. Neanderthals were not failures, monsters or evolutionary dead ends in any crude sense. They were a successful human lineage that survived for hundreds of thousands of years before their populations became too fragmented, too vulnerable, or too absorbed into the expanding population of Homo sapiens to continue as a separate group.

And, as always, the science is provisional in the best sense of the word. It changes because new evidence is found, new methods are developed and old assumptions are tested against reality. Fossils, archaeology, genetics, palaeoclimate modelling and computer simulations are all being brought together to refine the picture. No sacred text is being protected from awkward facts; no conclusion is immune from revision; no authority is allowed to overrule the evidence.

That is precisely why the creationist response is so feeble by comparison. It begins with a conclusion, then tries to force every fossil, every genome, every date and every extinct human population into a pre-scientific myth written by people who knew nothing of deep time, genetics, archaic humans, Ice Age climates or population biology. When Neanderthals and Denisovans are inconvenient, they are simply declared to be descendants of Adam and Eve, as though saying it loudly enough somehow solves the problem of hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution.

But reality is not obliged to fit into the narrow mythology of Bronze Age pastoralists or the apologetics of modern fundamentalists. Neanderthals, Denisovans and Homo sapiens are part of a long, branching, interwoven human story, written not in scripture but in bones, tools, sediments, climates and DNA. And once again, when science asks what really happened, the answer is not “Genesis”; it is evolution.

Advertisement

Amazon