Co-existance: Did "Cavemen" have Souls?

[hecd2]

Well, they created art (as indicated on cave paintings), and they were advance tool makers on par with the “modern man” of that time.

Cave paintings were produced by anatomically modern humans from about 35,000 years BP. There is no evidence that Neanderthals produced any symbolic artifacts at all, and certainly not the exquisite cave paintings of Europe.

Furthermore the tool technology of anatomically modern humans in the era of the overlap between Neanderthals and H sapiens was more complex than that of Neanderthals. Compare the Mousterian technology of Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthals with the Aurignacian and later Magdelenian toolkits of anatomically modern man although I wouldn’t quibble with the claim that Neanderthals were tool makers.

I don’t think the evidence supports the proposition that Neanderthals had an effectively modern human cognitive ability.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[menofstjoseph]

Cave paintings were produced by anatomically modern humans from about 35,000 years BP. There is no evidence that Neanderthals produced any symbolic artifacts at all, and certainly not the exquisite cave paintings of Europe.

Furthermore the tool technology of anatomically modern humans in the era of the overlap between Neanderthals and H sapiens was more complex than that of Neanderthals. Compare the Mousterian technology of Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthals with the Aurignacian and later Magdelenian toolkits of anatomically modern man although I wouldn’t quibble with the claim that Neanderthals were tool makers.

I don’t think the evidence supports the proposition that Neanderthals had an effectively modern human cognitive ability.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

You are right. All I have read indicate they did not have “modern human cognitive ability” but…

did they have the ability to think abstractly?

Were they capable of rational thought?

Did they have souls in the same way we have souls?

 

[edwest2]

**So if Neanderthals were equals in “humanity” to moderns but also pre-dates them, then doesn’t that mean that a rational “human” group equal to us came before Adam and Eve???

And the older Neanderthals had souls, then Adam and Eve were not first beings to have souls.**

Science cannot answer this question. The Church states as fact that Adam and Eve are the parents of all.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Cave paintings were produced by anatomically modern humans from about 35,000 years BP. There is no evidence that Neanderthals produced any symbolic artifacts at all, and certainly not the exquisite cave paintings of Europe.

Furthermore the tool technology of anatomically modern humans in the era of the overlap between Neanderthals and H sapiens was more complex than that of Neanderthals. Compare the Mousterian technology of Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthals with the Aurignacian and later Magdelenian toolkits of anatomically modern man although I wouldn’t quibble with the claim that Neanderthals were tool makers.

I don’t think the evidence supports the proposition that Neanderthals had an effectively modern human cognitive ability.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Please see here:

paleodirect.com/m153.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

Please see here:

paleodirect.com/m153.htm

Peace,
Ed

And your point is?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[grannymh]

So, what does it mean if these two seperate human species coexisted during the time of the Genisis story.

Did I miss the announcement?

How can there be two separate human species? Are you human species A and am I human species B?

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

The “Twelve Days of Christmas” are meant to be celebrated.

 

[cassini]

Nonsense? There is quite a bit of scientific proof for evolution…Is gravity also nonsense? Is the fact that the universe is expanding nonsense? Is the fact that the Earth is not in the center of the universe nonsense? Are plate tectonics nonsense?

What on earth is an atheist doing on a thread discussing preternatural and metaphysical matters that they do not believe in?

In yesterday’s paper the headlines read 'FROM ICE AGE SIBERIA, A NEW SPECIES OF MAN. ‘The finding means that there were three distinct members of the human family alive at the time - modern humans, Denisovans and Neanderthals.’

Now if all three are humans then they had souls. If all three were humans, then they were all ancestors of Adam and Eve according to Cathiolic dogmas. That said, not for one second does ‘science’ believe this, as the whole exercise is to totally rebut the Catholic dogma.

Now Freethinker, I have read enough scientific research and reasoning to KNOW there is no ‘proof’ for E. Obviously you have not informed yourself of the ‘other side’ as Humani Generis insistes on for us Catholics.

Is gravity nonsense? You ask that as a sort of put-down question. What they call gravity exists of course. But nobody knows what causes gravity. Let me give you a trpical example of today’s science. An apple falls to the ground. This we will CALL gravity. Now what COULD cause an apple to fall to the ground from a tree? In fact there are two possible causes, it could be PULLED to the ground or it could be PUSHED to the ground. You see freethinker, we havent even got the answer to that yet, let alone find out what causes an apple to be pushed or pulled to the ground. Now if man doesn’t even know this, then everything that comes from the PREFERRED CHOICE OF GRAVITATIONAL PULLING is metaphysical and has nothing to do with real science, only makey-up science

Is the fact that the universe is expanding nonsense? The ‘fact’ Freethinker? An expanding universe is based on an interpretation of red-shifts. Unfortunately there are cosmologists and astronomers who read the red-shifts differently and suggestr it could show a revolving stars and earth as a centre of all this activity. So the ‘fact’ is not a complete fact among scientists, merely a theory, but a ‘fact’ among those who decide what is a fact and what is not. Last night I watched a BBC programme on the ten greatest scientific projects ever. He put investigation of the expanding universe among his choice, plus the amazing quest for nuclear fusion being conducted in the USA, the winner as far as I am concerned. My God what amazing science. When he got to expanding universe it was interesting though. The cosmologist said that as the universe expands, then Gravity should be slowing it down. Instead they believe it is speeding up. the opposite to what should be expected. Finally the presenter asked - ‘isn’t this a USELESS science?’ The cosmologist, earning a great salary from it, said it was not, and gave the search for knowledge as the reason.

Is the fact that the Earth is not in the center of the universe nonsense? Again, you are not into real science, only preferred science. After Einstein, The earth can be the centre of the universe, as the moon could, or the sun, or a planet or a star. So you are wrong again, it is not nonsense to say the earth is at the centre of the universe. ‘Scientifically’ it could be.

Are plate tectonics nonsense? Again you treat theory as though it is a fact. Yes we know what causes earthquakes. What caused these causes however belongs to the past so becomes an object of speculation. Given science is totally denuded of preternatural or divine causes, the possibility of a global flood, combined with water bursting out of the deep causing universal corruption to the earth’s crust - as revealed in Scripture - is out, out, out, out, even as a possibility. All evidence for this possibility is dismissed purely because it would support that divine revelation. So, plate tectonics is a necessary science, but not as a means to tell us the past structure of the earth, as it tries to do.

 

[hecd2]

[No message]

 

[Brendan]

Well, they created art (as indicated on cave paintings), and they were advance tool makers on par with the “modern man” of that time.

That actually isn’t “Reason”. Reason is the ability to derive that which is unknown outside of empirical knowledge. To arrive at conclusions from complex premisese?

For example, could they, as Plato did, reason that there must be a Single God?

That is hard to determine from simple archological evidence.

Computers can paint and use complex tools, but are not reasoned creatures. A computer can analyze, it can react, it can compute, but it cannot contemplate.

And THAT is the hallmark of a spiritual soul.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Which is one of the largest question marks about the horizontal theory of evolution, that all existing species originated out of prehistoric adaptation.

Modern cows don’t reproduce with horses, nor whales with sharks, nor seals with porpoise, etc.

Genes change over time, over time there are major changes that render the animals incapable of breeding. Tiger and Lions for example have close enough DNA that they can produce offspring, mutual breeding is frequently possible in the same Genus (as Tigers and Lions do),

You are right. All I have read indicate they did not have “modern human cognitive ability” but…

did they have the ability to think abstractly?

Were they capable of rational thought?

Did they have souls in the same way we have souls?

They buried their dead which is interesting at least

Science cannot answer this question. The Church states as fact that Adam and Eve are the parents of all.

Peace,
Ed

Of course Adam and Eve are parents of all (evolution validates that there must have been an original pair of humans), however the question is if some people have slight amounts of Neanderthal DNA

Actually they can EG Ligers

 

[grannymh]

I’m afraid this isn’t right, otherwise there would be no such things as ligers, tigons and mules. Interspecific hybrids are common, and are frequently fertile.

Brief comment before I leave for Christmas celebrations.

Regarding: Separate species simply cannot breed and produce viable offspring.
Not only does the concept of species have fuzyy edges, but it also goes to the other extreme of huge differences between species. For example: butterflies do not breed with elephants. In my humble opinion, the difference between a pre-human and a fully complete human nature is as huge (pun intended) as the elephant’s difference from the butterfly landing on its trunk.

Blessings for the holidays,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

The “Twelve Days of Christmas” are meant to be celebrated.

 

[hecd2]

They buried their dead which is interesting at least

Possibly, even though there is still controversy around that. What is clear is that the evidence for ritual burial such as grave goods etc is weak (Lewis-Williams, The Mind in the Cave, p81, Thames & Hudson).

Of course Adam and Eve are parents of all (evolution validates that there must have been an original pair of humans)

It doesn’t do that I’m afraid - and in fact the evidence is rather strong that the effective population leading to modern humans hasn’t dropped below about 1000 since the divergence of human and chimp lineages. There is nothing about evolutionary theory, or in the evidence, that leads to the conclusion that there must have been an original pair of humans.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Logic101]

I was reading this interesting PowerPoint presentation that showed that ape-men and cavemen is fraud:

To read more go here; answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/TOC.asp

And then download PowerPoint Files: Facts About Apemen.

Did they have soul?

So if Cavemen didn’t even exist than the soul question……fad…es…aw…a…y…

 

[Pieman333272]

It doesn’t do that I’m afraid - and in fact the evidence is rather strong that the effective population leading to modern humans hasn’t dropped below about 1000 since the divergence of human and chimp lineages. There is nothing about evolutionary theory, or in the evidence, that leads to the conclusion that there must have been an original pair of humans.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Though I may have misread you, I think you misinterpreted the statement. The first H. h. sapiens could be a single pair (Monogenism). Catholics believe that, and that those are the first humans, Adam and Eve (or their names in a different language, lol), to whom God gave the first immortal soul (in a body).

Isn’t Monogenism still a valid hypothesis in Paleoanthropology and Evolution of Humans?

 

[rossum]

Though I may have misread you, I think you misinterpreted the statement. The first H. h. sapiens could be a single pair (Monogenism). Catholics believe that, and that those are the first humans, Adam and Eve (or their names in a different language, lol), to whom God gave the first immortal soul (in a body).

Isn’t Monogenism still a valid hypothesis in Paleoanthropology and Evolution of Humans?

No, I’m afraid Monogenism isn’t valid any more. There is enough variation in our DNA to tell us that the minimum size of population is between about 1,000 and 15,000 breeding pairs. That figure is valid back to our divergence from the Chimpanzees. Of course science cannot tell us how many of that population had souls, since souls do not fossilise. It is perfectly possible that only two of a population of 20,000 had souls. As I understand the Catholic doctrine of Monogenism, it requires two human souls; it is less interested in the number of human, and near-human, bodies.

As an example, we can show scientifically that we are all descended from a single pair, Mitochondrial Eve’s parents. However they were not the only biological humans alive on Earth at the time.

rossum

 

[Windfish]

Though I may have misread you, I think you misinterpreted the statement. The first H. h. sapiens could be a single pair (Monogenism). Catholics believe that, and that those are the first humans, Adam and Eve (or their names in a different language, lol), to whom God gave the first immortal soul (in a body).

Isn’t Monogenism still a valid hypothesis in Paleoanthropology and Evolution of Humans?

Relevant blog posts which may help (I recommend reading the older one first):

thomism.wordpress.com/?s=monogenism

 

[grannymh]

Possibly, even though there is still controversy around that. What is clear is that the evidence for ritual burial such as grave goods etc is weak (Lewis-Williams, The Mind in the Cave, p81, Thames & Hudson).
It doesn’t do that I’m afraid - and in fact the evidence is rather strong that the effective population leading to modern humans hasn’t dropped below about 1000 since the divergence of human and chimp lineages. There is nothing about evolutionary theory, or in the evidence, that leads to the conclusion that there must have been an original pair of humans.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

on the other hand, the particular evidence cannot rule out the possibility of monogenism.

Would you and others be so kind as to bring the particular evidence
to my nitty-gritty of materials and methods thread in the Back Fence Forum where it can be discussed in depth.

It is my intention to respect this Forum’s ban on evolution discussions.

Blessings on this beautiful Christmas Day,

granny

 

[grannymh]

So, for the sake of this discussion, ASSUME that it is a FACT, they lived side-by-side with us, would these rational beings been bystanders to the Fall of Man and its effects on Salvation history (just as a dog, chicken or porcupine would have been) or were they equals to us in their ability to receive God’s graces?

Did they have souls?

As far as I could tell, the link is an article by writer John Noble Wilford, August 29, 1995. It appeared to be a summary. No matter. There is plenty of new research regarding Neanderthals. However, to assume that they were rational beings or as the OP says “a separate, possibly equal, manner of man” raises the question as to what should readers assume is the meaning of men.

The final OP question is “Did they have souls?”

Out of curiosity, would one answer philosophically according to Catholic teaching?
Or is the OP asking for the kind of imaginative thinking exhibited in the movie “One Million Years B.C.” staring Raquel Welch in the presumably latest Neanderthal fashion?

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

The “Twelve Days of Christmas” are meant to be celebrated.

 

[cthulhubryan]

I have actually posted a similar question quite some time ago, but wasn’t as direct as I should have been so I didn’t get a satisfactory answer. I thought I would reintroduce it.

So, for the sake of this discussion, ASSUME that it is a FACT, they lived side-by-side with us, would these rational beings been bystanders to the Fall of Man and its effects on Salvation history (just as a dog, chicken or porcupine would have been) or were they equals to us in their ability to receive God’s graces?

Did they have souls?

homo sapiens and homo neandertalensis are designations of man.

There is no real way of knowing the answer to this question this side of heaven. However, there is evidence that the species did intermarry and share DNA which leads to a very plausible concept that the species were closely related enough for breeding and so therefore it is a theologically ‘safe’ answer that yes they had souls.

There is no possible major Error from this position due to the lack of the continued existence of other species of man. Also, it does extend theological charity to these now extinct races.

Yet another question to ask in heaven.

 

[grannymh]

However, there is evidence that the species did intermarry and share DNA which leads to a very plausible concept that the species were closely related enough for breeding and so therefore it is a theologically ‘safe’ answer that yes they had souls.

With respect to other Christian faiths, Catholicism considers that only the direct descendents of Adam and Eve have spiritual souls which call these direct descendents to share, through knowledge and love, in God’s own life.

Neanderthals may have a few genes, just like my cousin Chilly Chimp, which are similar to humans, but that in no way means that both Neanderthals and our chimp cousins have immortal, non-material, eternal souls. Early hominids (Neanderthals and other similar non-human species) along with the chimps were not the reason that Jesus Christ hung bleeding on a Cross.

There is no possible major Error from this position due to the lack of the continued existence of other species of man. Also, it does extend theological charity to these now extinct races.

I am assuming that your referral of other species is to pre-human anatomies (hominids) which eventually decomposed or became prized fossils. Regardless of how many species of hominids existed at a point in pre-history, human nature is the only one which is spirit/matter, rational/corporeal, soul and body. It is only Adam who committed the sin, a major error, which broke the relationship with God, Himself.

Catholicism has always extended charity to non-human animals. According to another poster, it was an adaptation of Descartes extreme dualism which led to the modern disrespect of animals.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

The “Twelve Days of Christmas” are meant to be celebrated.