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.
thatkidakayoungguy
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1089
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:44 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male

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

Postby thatkidakayoungguy » Tue Dec 05, 2017 7:55 pm

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.

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18999
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 » Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:28 pm

Here's some non-bull crap that may be of help.

Reasons.org has some articles on Neanderthals, if you want to sift through them.

http://old.reasons.org/Search?q=Are+Neanderthals+human

They are in the process of transitioning from their old website to their new one, FYI.
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

thatkidakayoungguy
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1089
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 07, 2017 3:16 pm

No one else knows?

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18999
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 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:44 pm

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:No one else knows?

I gave you Hugh Ross! What else do you want, AnswersinGenesis?

:lol:


Fine.

Here's a search from a Christian evolution perspective.

:D
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

thatkidakayoungguy
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1089
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 07, 2017 3:59 pm

RickD wrote:
thatkidakayoungguy wrote:No one else knows?

I gave you Hugh Ross! What else do you want, AnswersinGenesis?

:lol:


Fine.

Here's a search from a Christian evolution perspective.

:D

Hugh and even Ken Ham is fine, but I was wanting other users opinions. Thanks for the link too.
See, what I'm saying is, since it's proved Neanders got it up with early ppl of our subspecies, but only some, and since many think, as on here, Neanders were subhuman or otherwise non human, it throws the bible into a potential loop. How would one get around it is what I was asking, n it seems they were actual humans like u and me, just not our subspecies. Or were they a diff species? Hmm, I'll look at this new link to see.

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18999
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 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:06 pm

Hugh and even Ken Ham is fine...


Ah, some kind of comedian, eh?
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

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18999
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 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:10 pm

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:
RickD wrote:
thatkidakayoungguy wrote:No one else knows?

I gave you Hugh Ross! What else do you want, AnswersinGenesis?

:lol:


Fine.

Here's a search from a Christian evolution perspective.

:D

Hugh and even Ken Ham is fine, but I was wanting other users opinions. Thanks for the link too.
See, what I'm saying is, since it's proved Neanders got it up with early ppl of our subspecies, but only some, and since many think, as on here, Neanders were subhuman or otherwise non human, it throws the bible into a potential loop. How would one get around it is what I was asking, n it seems they were actual humans like u and me, just not our subspecies. Or were they a diff species? Hmm, I'll look at this new link to see.



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?
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

thatkidakayoungguy
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1089
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 07, 2017 4:15 pm

RickD wrote:
thatkidakayoungguy wrote:No one else knows?

I gave you Hugh Ross! What else do you want, AnswersinGenesis?

:lol:


Fine.

Here's a search from a Christian evolution perspective.

:D

https://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-venem ... w-evidence
this link is really good, everyone on here should check it out

thatkidakayoungguy
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1089
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 07, 2017 4:20 pm

RickD wrote:
thatkidakayoungguy wrote:
RickD wrote:
thatkidakayoungguy wrote:No one else knows?

I gave you Hugh Ross! What else do you want, AnswersinGenesis?

:lol:


Fine.

Here's a search from a Christian evolution perspective.

:D

Hugh and even Ken Ham is fine, but I was wanting other users opinions. Thanks for the link too.
See, what I'm saying is, since it's proved Neanders got it up with early ppl of our subspecies, but only some, and since many think, as on here, Neanders were subhuman or otherwise non human, it throws the bible into a potential loop. How would one get around it is what I was asking, n it seems they were actual humans like u and me, just not our subspecies. Or were they a diff species? Hmm, I'll look at this new link to see.



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?

Because a lot of ppl, like on here, keep saying Neanderthals weren't human. It's even in the wording of your question. When ppl on here realize that we and them did have fertile kids, n still continue to think theyre not human, then one would begin to doubt how "special" we are as a creation of God's. Then one might look at non Africans as inferior which is unbiblical, in short we need to expand our useage of the word human to more than Homo Sapiens.
It's also a pet peeve of mine.
PS: imagine this-humans in heaven with us, that aren't us, but still human. So exotic and foreign, but God doesn't care. He looks at the heart of man.

thatkidakayoungguy
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1089
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 07, 2017 4:31 pm

https://answersingenesis.org/human-evol ... sing-link/
this is actually really well done tho its about australiopiths than humans

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18999
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 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:33 pm

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:
RickD wrote:
thatkidakayoungguy wrote:
RickD wrote:
thatkidakayoungguy wrote:No one else knows?

I gave you Hugh Ross! What else do you want, AnswersinGenesis?

:lol:


Fine.

Here's a search from a Christian evolution perspective.

:D

Hugh and even Ken Ham is fine, but I was wanting other users opinions. Thanks for the link too.
See, what I'm saying is, since it's proved Neanders got it up with early ppl of our subspecies, but only some, and since many think, as on here, Neanders were subhuman or otherwise non human, it throws the bible into a potential loop. How would one get around it is what I was asking, n it seems they were actual humans like u and me, just not our subspecies. Or were they a diff species? Hmm, I'll look at this new link to see.



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?

Because a lot of ppl, like on here, keep saying Neanderthals weren't human. It's even in the wording of your question. When ppl on here realize that we and them did have fertile kids, n still continue to think theyre not human, then one would begin to doubt how "special" we are as a creation of God's. Then one might look at non Africans as inferior which is unbiblical, in short we need to expand our useage of the word human to more than Homo Sapiens.
It's also a pet peeve of mine.
PS: imagine this-humans in heaven with us, that aren't us, but still human. So exotic and foreign, but God doesn't care. He looks at the heart of man.

Ok. When I use the term "human", I mean modern humans. If you prefer, Homo sapiens sapiens.

Do you have proof that Homo sapiens sapiens successfully reproduced with Neanderthals, over generations?
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

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18999
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 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:35 pm

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/australopithecus-sediba/its-an-ape-its-a-human-its-its-a-missing-link/
this is actually really well done tho its about australiopiths than humans

My phone won't let me read links from that site.

:(
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

thatkidakayoungguy
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1089
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 07, 2017 4:45 pm

RickD wrote:
thatkidakayoungguy wrote:
RickD wrote:
thatkidakayoungguy wrote:
RickD wrote:I gave you Hugh Ross! What else do you want, AnswersinGenesis?

:lol:


Fine.

Here's a search from a Christian evolution perspective.

:D

Hugh and even Ken Ham is fine, but I was wanting other users opinions. Thanks for the link too.
See, what I'm saying is, since it's proved Neanders got it up with early ppl of our subspecies, but only some, and since many think, as on here, Neanders were subhuman or otherwise non human, it throws the bible into a potential loop. How would one get around it is what I was asking, n it seems they were actual humans like u and me, just not our subspecies. Or were they a diff species? Hmm, I'll look at this new link to see.



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?

Because a lot of ppl, like on here, keep saying Neanderthals weren't human. It's even in the wording of your question. When ppl on here realize that we and them did have fertile kids, n still continue to think theyre not human, then one would begin to doubt how "special" we are as a creation of God's. Then one might look at non Africans as inferior which is unbiblical, in short we need to expand our useage of the word human to more than Homo Sapiens.
It's also a pet peeve of mine.
PS: imagine this-humans in heaven with us, that aren't us, but still human. So exotic and foreign, but God doesn't care. He looks at the heart of man.

Ok. When I use the term "human", I mean modern humans. If you prefer, Homo sapiens sapiens.

Do you have proof that Homo sapiens sapiens successfully reproduced with Neanderthals, over generations?

Personally I dont, but others have, you can see for yourself on google. Its rather well known ppl of Eurasian ancestry have their DNA, up to 4% too.

thatkidakayoungguy
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1089
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 07, 2017 5:24 pm

RickD wrote:
thatkidakayoungguy wrote:https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/australopithecus-sediba/its-an-ape-its-a-human-its-its-a-missing-link/
this is actually really well done tho its about australiopiths than humans

My phone won't let me read links from that site.

:(

I wonder why...

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18999
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 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 5:35 pm

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?
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: No registered users and 4 guests