Have "Humans Interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans"?

1) Human population after Noah, racial and demographic pseudoproblems for creationism, 2)a) Have "Humans Interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans"? b) Just Listening to WLC, 3) Sorry, Duursma, but all languages have the cases of Proto-Indoeuropean, there is no primitive language ... (which is on Φιλολoγικά/Philologica blog), 4) After Flood and Babel : Was There a PIE Unity?, 5) Chiara Bozzone on Caland System - Short Review, Trubetskoyan Comment (which is again on Φιλολoγικά/Philologica blog)

That is claimed by this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj0qx56cwOw

Standard Creationist answer - claiming no merit in finding it myself - is that a Neanderthals and Denisovans are truly human and thus descend from Adam and Eve (which in turn mean they are misdated, but there are standard creationist answers about carbon dating too) and therefore this was no interbreeding of closely related species as claimed in video.

This however means this is clear, and we Creationists agree: Neanderthal and Denisovans are clearly NOT so different species from humans that interbreeding is impossible.

Basically when interbreeding is possible, at least with fertile offspring, then Creationists as much as Darwinists do assume a common ancestor, and Creationists do not think of them as different Biblical Kinds ("each animal after its own kind" - remember).

Darwin assumed that cats and dogs had after last common ancestor some ancestors that could have interbred but did not and eventually the relationship drifted apart and interbreeding became impossible, and so on for carnivores and rodents, for mammals and lizards, for vertebrates and insects.

Note the word "assumed". He had solid proof that finches and doves could drift apart into groups that wouold not directly interbreed, and for dove species I recall it is a question of band species: some of them cannot directly interbreed, according to what he said, but only one interbreed with intermediate and other interbreed with (possibly other) intermediate and these hybrids could perhaps directly interbreed.

I buy that much of Darwinism, and so do as many Creationists as I know of. And we consider finches one "kind" and we consider doves one "kind" - unless turtle doves are another. We do not buy his "argument by extension" that this applies to basically all animals of whatever the kind be.

And we consider that Neanderthal and Denisova skeletons belonged to races of the one human kind too.

A bonus of the video is that you get the correct pronunciation in German of Neanderthal.

As for pubic lice being the same kind as gorilla fur lice, before Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit* mankind had no pubic lice. Possibly no animal had any lice at all: they were created as fertilised eggs and did not hatch until the fall. I wonder if this fact - if it is one - was the thing that inspired George Brassens to the humorous song of a rapist gorilla (his/its victim was a magistrate who had applied death penalty, so you can see Brassens was against death penalty - I am not, but I am for punctiliousness about proving guilt - which was about the only conext in which a rapist gorilla could be made fun ny to anyone). I happen to sit in a library named after him.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Library as mentioned
St Fabricius' Day,
22-VIII-2012

*In a French essay I explained how Latin Rite Christians came to identify it as an apple: in Latin apple was mâlum (long a) and bad thing was malum (short a), and when people started pronouncing all vowels short ... well I guess it was funny for a while to hear "give me an apple" as "give me something bad" ... and at least before Romance languages took other words for apple (the French took the Biblical word for "tree fruit" - pômum) one still had texts where it was spelled the same.