Should Neanderthals be called their own species or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens?

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 6078
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: Should Neanderthals be called their own species or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens?

Postby Philip » Thu Dec 07, 2017 5:55 pm

Rick: If you're right, and non-African humans have DNA of Neanderthals, and Africans don't, then it may prove that Africans are more evolved, and we white people are less human.


Whaddaya mean "WE" - maybe it's just your lineage that's less evolved? Maybe that explains your great height? :P

Image

thatkidakayoungguy
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:44 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male

Re: Should Neanderthals be called their own species or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens?

Postby thatkidakayoungguy » Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:05 am

RickD wrote:If you're right, and non-African humans have DNA of Neanderthals, and Africans don't, then it may prove that Africans are more evolved, and we white people are less human.

Kinda throws a monkey wrench in the Theory of white supremacy, doesn't it?

Exactly. Since whites are equal with blacks and other races we need to think early groups as not subhuman.

DBowling
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age

Re: Should Neanderthals be called their own species or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens?

Postby DBowling » Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:17 am

I believe that Neanderthals (homo sapiens neanderthalensis) and physically modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens) are different and distinct subspecies of homo sapiens.

The easiest way to demonstrate this is to look at the common ancestors for all humans. All humans can trace their genetic lineage to a mitochondrial 'eve' and a y-chromosome 'adam' who lived 150,000 to 200,000 years ago and were species homo sapiens sapiens. (not to be confused with the historical Biblical Adam and Eve who lived around 5000-6000 BC).

As you pointed out, not all humans have the trace geneteic markers that some believe come from humans and neanderthals interbreeding. So if some of the human population do in fact have trace neanderthal genetic markers, I think it is most likely evidence that humans and neanderthals were close enough genetically to have viable offspring on rare occasions.

I do not believe that potentially rare interbreeding between homo sapiens sapiens and homo sapiens neanderthalensis implies that homo sapiens sapiens = homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

thatkidakayoungguy
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:44 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male

Re: Should Neanderthals be called their own species or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens?

Postby thatkidakayoungguy » Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:48 am

DBowling wrote:I believe that Neanderthals (homo sapiens neanderthalensis) and physically modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens) are different and distinct subspecies of homo sapiens.

The easiest way to demonstrate this is to look at the common ancestors for all humans. All humans can trace their genetic lineage to a mitochondrial 'eve' and a y-chromosome 'adam' who lived 150,000 to 200,000 years ago and were species homo sapiens sapiens. (not to be confused with the historical Biblical Adam and Eve who lived around 5000-6000 BC).

As you pointed out, not all humans have the trace geneteic markers that some believe come from humans and neanderthals interbreeding. So if some of the human population do in fact have trace neanderthal genetic markers, I think it is most likely evidence that humans and neanderthals were close enough genetically to have viable offspring on rare occasions.

I do not believe that potentially rare interbreeding between homo sapiens sapiens and homo sapiens neanderthalensis implies that homo sapiens sapiens = homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

But wouldn't the " potentially rare interbreeding" mean they were a diff species? Especially since they had "viable" offspring on rare occasions, and that most if not all male "hybrids" were sterile. However, there could've been many reasons why they didn't interbreed such as cultural reasons, or that any male fertile hybrids were killed off. Which would explain why the Neanderthal Y chromosome never passed on to the present day.
What do you think of other species of human being like the Flores Hobbit and Homo Erectus? Should they be a subspecies of Homo Sapien as well?

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 6078
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: Should Neanderthals be called their own species or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens?

Postby Philip » Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:54 am

I'm not sure what the issue is. If it's somehow shown that humans successfully reproduced with Neanderthals, why would that hurt the validity of scripture? What am I missing?


Hey, some here have asserted humans and fallen angels could produce offspring, so anything's possible, right? RIGHT???

And if it were possible that neanderthals and men could produce offspring, what does that say about the offspring spiritually?

The thing is, none of the assertions are proven - they remain speculative.

thatkidakayoungguy
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:44 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male

Re: Should Neanderthals be called their own species or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens?

Postby thatkidakayoungguy » Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:01 am

Philip wrote:Hey, some here have asserted humans and fallen angels could produce offspring, so anything's possible, right? RIGHT???

And if it were possible that neanderthals and men could produce offspring, what does that say about the offspring spiritually?

The thing is, none of the assertions are proven - they remain speculative.

Which brings us right to the OP: what type of man was Neanderthal? Some think they weren't truly human, others do. Imo evidence shows they were truly human.
But if we entertain the thought that they weren't fully human, what would the spiritual stance be for them? Doomed sinners? Not able to comprehend God so they are under the age of accountability? Spiritually like regular people so in need for a savior they could have faith on? As you said, this is ultimately speculation.

DBowling
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age

Re: Should Neanderthals be called their own species or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens?

Postby DBowling » Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:31 am

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:But wouldn't the " potentially rare interbreeding" mean they were a diff species? Especially since they had "viable" offspring on rare occasions, and that most if not all male "hybrids" were sterile.

When you appeal to the frequency of "most" then you get what we currently see in the data. Assuming for the moment that some humans do have trace amounts of neanderthal genetic material. The trace amounts demonstrate that viable human/neanderthal offspring were the exception, not the rule which is consistent with your observation that 'most' hybrids are sterile.

What do you think of other species of human being like the Flores Hobbit and Homo Erectus? Should they be a subspecies of Homo Sapien as well?

To the best of my knowledge homo erectus and homo floresiensis are both part of the 'homo' family (ie they are hominids), but neither of them are a subspecies of homo sapiens.

Even with the Neanderthals there is disagreement in the scientific community regarding whether they should be classified as homo neanderthalensis or homo sapiens neanderthalensis.
If it is eventually proven that humans and neanderthals did on very rare occasions have viable fertile offspring then I would lean towards homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

I am not aware of any other hominid species that have potentially interbred with humans.

DBowling
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age

Re: Should Neanderthals be called their own species or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens?

Postby DBowling » Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:52 am

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:Which brings us right to the OP: what type of man was Neanderthal? Some think they weren't truly human, others do. Imo evidence shows they were truly human.
But if we entertain the thought that they weren't fully human, what would the spiritual stance be for them? Doomed sinners? Not able to comprehend God so they are under the age of accountability? Spiritually like regular people so in need for a savior they could have faith on? As you said, this is ultimately speculation.


Since I do not believe that neanderthals are humans, then spiritually speaking they would not be 'image bearers of God' and they would not have a soul. They would be in the same spiritual condition as a modern day gorilla.

The more intriguing question for me is what is the spiritual state of pre-Adamic humans (species homo sapiens sapiens)
There are three points in human history that are significant to me at least.
- Around 200,000 years ago we see evidence of the first appearance of physically modern humans (species homo sapiens sapiens) in Africa.
- Around 50,000 years ago we see the beginnings of modern human behavior in humans and it is around that time that humans successfully cross the Red Sea and migrate out of Africa.
- Then around 10,000 years ago we see the beginnings of the Neolithic Revolution and the Birth of Human Civilization in Mesopotamia, which BTW corresponds in time and location with the Biblical Adam and Eve.

So the questions for me become?...
When did species homo sapiens sapiens become an image bearer of God (Gen 1:26-27)?
When did species homo sapiens sapiens become a 'living soul' (Gen 2:7)?
What does it mean to be an image bearer of God?
What does is mean to be a living soul?

Those are the questions that I am working through at the moment.

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 6078
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: Should Neanderthals be called their own species or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens?

Postby Philip » Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:58 pm

DB: If it is eventually proven that humans and neanderthals did on very rare occasions have viable fertile offspring then I would lean towards homo sapiens neanderthalensis.


It probably was rare because most desperate men did not yet know how to ferment grape juice. :pound:

DBowling
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age

Re: Should Neanderthals be called their own species or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens?

Postby DBowling » Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:12 pm

Philip wrote:
DB: If it is eventually proven that humans and neanderthals did on very rare occasions have viable fertile offspring then I would lean towards homo sapiens neanderthalensis.


It probably was rare because most desperate men did not yet know how to ferment grape juice. :pound:

They may not have known how to ferment grape juice yet, but they might have tasted some of those funny looking berries. :P

User avatar
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4337
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: Should Neanderthals be called their own species or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens?

Postby abelcainsbrother » Thu Dec 28, 2017 7:33 pm

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:In biology two species usually can't reproduce and have fertile offspring, but sometimes they can. It seems that for whatever reason, this happened with Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens Sapiens. However, they were rather similar to us genetically and there could've been other factors such as social norms at play to keep the amount of "interbreeding" low.
So, debate continues as to if they're a subspecies of us or a closely related species of human. This is important because it's been proven that most non sub-Saharan African DNA has some Neanderthal in it, and would God create another species of human, or should we disregard the term species for humans when it comes to reconciling theology and biology?
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/
Plz no bullcrap, I want serious answers.
Thank you.



Here is my take on it.Man and woman were created in Genesis 1 and so they were new creations that had never been created before.So based on the word of God we must put all hominids and neanderthals in the former world.They were pre-Adamite races that lived in the former world and they are not and cannot be related to man despite the talk about DNA because the former world perished and plus man and woman were created and so they were new creations and so since they were new it seems to imply that they are not related to hominids or neanderthals.

I have heard a possible theory that neanderhal's have to do with how God changed Cain after he killed his brother Abel.Cain was afraid somebody would try to take him out because he took out his brother and so God changed Cain and gave him a mark and some have suggested that the big brow that neanderthal's have compared to humans is the mark,plus Neanderthals were brutes compared to humans and would probably scare a human just based on their size and strength,which is why God changed Cain to look intimidating so that nobody would mess with him.And it has been suggested that neanderthals died out in Noah's flood.This would put Neanderthals in this world with humans though. Now eventhough I find this theory interesting I just cannot accept it and so do not hold to this view.But it might be something to think about.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

thatkidakayoungguy
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:44 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male

Re: Should Neanderthals be called their own species or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens?

Postby thatkidakayoungguy » Thu Dec 28, 2017 8:23 pm

DBowling wrote:
thatkidakayoungguy wrote:But wouldn't the " potentially rare interbreeding" mean they were a diff species? Especially since they had "viable" offspring on rare occasions, and that most if not all male "hybrids" were sterile.

When you appeal to the frequency of "most" then you get what we currently see in the data. Assuming for the moment that some humans do have trace amounts of neanderthal genetic material. The trace amounts demonstrate that viable human/neanderthal offspring were the exception, not the rule which is consistent with your observation that 'most' hybrids are sterile.

What do you think of other species of human being like the Flores Hobbit and Homo Erectus? Should they be a subspecies of Homo Sapien as well?

To the best of my knowledge homo erectus and homo floresiensis are both part of the 'homo' family (ie they are hominids), but neither of them are a subspecies of homo sapiens.

Even with the Neanderthals there is disagreement in the scientific community regarding whether they should be classified as homo neanderthalensis or homo sapiens neanderthalensis.
If it is eventually proven that humans and neanderthals did on very rare occasions have viable fertile offspring then I would lean towards homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

I am not aware of any other hominid species that have potentially interbred with humans.

All of the female "hybrids" are fertile for some reason.
Another human subspecies that got up with ours is called Altai or Denisovans or something similar to that. https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/denisovan/ these were the east asian counterparts to Neanderthals.
There is an idea among some that even Homo Erectus should be reclassified as archaic Homo Sapiens. This is a minority view and would fit with the findings of potential art made by Erectus people- https://www.livescience.com/48991-homo- ... tools.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Berekhat_Ram
https://www.sciencealert.com/this-neand ... -of-humans https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/ If you can and want to, you might want to check out your DNA to see if you have Neanderthal and/or Denisovan.
There's two other groups that are under debate but it seems there's no DNA extraction from them-Heidelberg Man and Rhodesia Man-they may fall under archaic subspecies of Homo Sapien like Neanderthals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis I dont get how the Swanscombe or however u spell it skull could be made like that it looks like a rock. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rhodesiensis

DBowling
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age

Re: Should Neanderthals be called their own species or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens?

Postby DBowling » Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:44 am

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:Another human subspecies that got up with ours is called Altai or Denisovans or something similar to that.

Thanks for the heads up on the Denisovans.
I did some surfing and it appears that Denisovans are in a similar genetic situation as Neanderthals.
There is debate as to whether Denisovans are their own hominid species or whether they are a subspecies of Homo Sapiens.
And it appears that there is some genetic evidence to suggest that Denisovans possibly interbred with humans (species homo sapiens sapiens)
However, Denisovan physical evidence is no where nearly as developed as Neanderthal physical evidence.

Homo heidelbergensis, Homo Erectus, Homo Rhodesiensis are all classified as their own distinct hominid species as opposed to a subspecies of Homo Sapiens.

I'm more than happy to let scientists classify these extinct hominids however they wish, because from a Biblical/Spiritual perspective it really doesn't matter whether they are their own distinct hominid species or a sub-species of homo sapiens.

None of these other hominid species are species homo sapiens sapiens, and they all went extinct long before the time of Adam and Eve and the fall of mankind (5000-6000 BC). So from my perspective the Spiritual condition of these other hominid species is a non issue because they no longer existed at the point in time when Adam and Eve (who were species homo sapiens sapiens) came to know good and evil and when sin and spiritual death became part of the human condition.

Blessed
Established Member
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 1:01 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Los Angeles, Florida, Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Should Neanderthals be called their own species or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens?

Postby Blessed » Fri Dec 29, 2017 3:16 pm

Scientists say Neanderthals evolved in Europe and were displaced or made extinct ancestors of modern day humans.

If proven Neanderthals had capacity for clothing, farming, tools and weapons etc., this would disqualify Neanderthals from being classified as a monkey's.

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18809
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino

Re: Should Neanderthals be called their own species or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens?

Postby RickD » Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:11 pm

Blessed wrote:
If proven Neanderthals had capacity for clothing, farming, tools and weapons etc., this would disqualify Neanderthals from being classified as a monkey's.

:swhat:
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony


Return to “God and Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest