Neanderthals

[itsjustdave1988]

Somebdy asked this question at my church, and I told him I’d post it here:
In church teaching about creation, where does Neanderthal man come in?

There’s no Catholic doctrine regarding Neanderthal man. They may have existed, but they are not considered “man” in the sense referred to by Scripture and Tradition, the deposit of Catholic faith. All doctrines pertaining to man have the modern man in mind, that is those referred to by science as homo sapiens sapiens.

Catholicism traditionally holds to the rule of teaching, expressed by St. Augustine"not to make rash assertions, or to assert what is not known as known." [In Gen. op. imperf. ix., 30, cited in *Providentissimus Deus, 18]. The Church has learned to take a “wait and see” view regarding scientific theories, and speaks doctrinally when such views are deemed to be seriously contrary to the Catholic faith.

In those instances where the claims of science are seriously contrary to Catholic faith, St. Augustine teaches the following:

“Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be [false].”(De Gen. ad litt. i. 21, 41, cited by Providentissimus Deus, 18) "

Our faith is based upon the inspired Word of God which “did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation.” (St. Augustine, ibid., ii., 9, 20). Consequently, I think its good to keep in mind this quote, attributed to St. Augustine:

“In the gospel one does not read that the Savior said: 'I am sending you the Paraclete who will teach you how the sun and the moon turn.” He wanted to form Christians, not mathematicians."

(Fr. Ignace de la Potterie, anthology readings cited in Fr. Leonard Obloy, *Introduction to Sacred Scripture, *Second Edition, 1989).

**
**

 

[The_Barbarian]

I’d be interested in seeing where the Church teaches that Neandertals are not men as pertains to Scripture and tradition.

 

[DylanO]

Somebdy asked this question at my church, and I told him I’d post it here:
In church teaching about creation, where does Neanderthal man come in?

Kathrin

Neanderthals were humans descended from Adam and Eve, you should read the book by orthodontist, Dr. Jack Cuozzo called Buried Alive - The Startling Truth about Neanderthal Man. Here is his website: jackcuozzo.angelfire.com/

 

[hecd2]

Hello RPP, you seem to have disappeared. It’s uncomfortable to make a firm statement like “Neanderthals had 23 chromosomes” only to be asked how it is that you know, isn’t it? On the other hand, if there is genuine evidence that Neanderthals had 23 chromosomes, I’d be fascinated to hear it.

Alec

I’d be interested in that reference.

The two papers on sequencing of autosomal DNA that I am aware of make no reference to chromosome number:

Green et al, Analysis of one million base pairs of Neanderthal DNA, Nature 444, 330 - 336 (2006)
Noonal et al, Sequencing and Analysis of Neanderthal genomic DNA, Science 314, 1113 - 1118 (2006)

I am not saying that Neanderthals didn’t have 23 chromosomes - in fact, I’d say that it is likely that they did for reasons that you have not so far alluded to - but the DNA analysis of Neanderthal DNA certainly does not and cannot tell us that Neanderthals has 23 chromosomes…

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Neanderthals were humans descended from Adam and Eve, you should read the book by orthodontist, Dr. Jack Cuozzo called Buried Alive - The Startling Truth about Neanderthal Man. Here is his website: jackcuozzo.angelfire.com/

Has Cuozzo any training in palaeontology? Does he have even one peer reviewed palaeontological paper? No.

What he has to say is demonstrably wrong.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

Perhaps I’m simply confused but the article was not certain whether sapiens and neanderthalensis interbred it said probably not but could not be certain. IS it possible for two different species to breed?

Yes and no.

A species is something that can mate and have viable (fertile) offspring. German Shephers and beagles are different breeds of the same species. Horses and donkeys are different species… their offspring are infertile.

 

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

I’d be interested in seeing where the Church teaches that Neandertals are not men as pertains to Scripture and tradition.

I don’t think any such teaching exists.

It’s OK to try and learn about natural science and theorize about things, because there is nothing under the sun that will contradict religion.

 

[zian]

23

Not to nitpick too much, but that would be 23 pairs of chromosomes.

 

[Antegin]

Early biblical and extra canonical writings have to be interpreted with the audience in mind. This wasn’t Carl Sagen explaining sub atomic theory to like minds. These people were more akin to the Nomadic Beduoin tribes. They needed to tell the same stories over and over again so that from early childhood, all members of the tribe memorized all the sacred stories of the tribe.

In Genesis there, there are stories of the “sons of God” mating with the “son of man” which have been interpreted as humans and angels mating. The extracanonical books call these offspring nephalim. The description is of a hybrid, gigantic and steril. (Like the Liger, Male Lion/Female Tiger, grows to be 50% larger than the Lion and is steril.)The hybrids were wiped off the face of the earth by the great flood.

 

[Camron]

Neanderthals had their own history, they came and went. Whether or not they were men, fallen, unfallen, good, bad, we might never know.

I have wondered if the things in the Bible described as the Nephilim might actually be Neanderthal.

Fascinating really. Oh, and they had larger brains, not smaller ones. Perhaps they were simply less aggressive than sapiens? The idea of the knuckle-dragging brute is false. They could speak too- it was first hypothised that they could not- then a skeleton was found that revealed the tiny bones necessary for speech. They also buried their dead.

Even more impressive, they apparently buried their dead in a fetal position. This seems to indicate that they at least had some kind of primitive awareness of “rebirth” or some “life after death” concept.

Perhaps it was their higher evolved brains that recounted the stories that gave modern men their first tales of the Golden Age, of the time when “gods liked men”, of the time-before-time, of myth and legend?

The world of men will never know.

 

[Mattcos]

This is very interesting. When I took Geology 150 at WSU we talked about the Homo Neanderthals. I believe in the articles we read, there was quite a bit of speculation that the two groups were in competition for scarce resources. As a result of this competition Homo Sapien wiped out Neanderthals. This then left Homo S. at the top of the food chain. As far as Neanderthals being the off spring of Angles and humans, I don’t know, however, I doubt that the off spring of an angle would live in a cave.

Matt Cos

 

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

Angels are spirit. They don’t mate with anybody.

 

[jphod]

Yes and no.

A species is something that can mate and have viable (fertile) offspring. German Shephers and beagles are different breeds of the same species. Horses and donkeys are different species… their offspring are infertile.

(i should have written … successfully, as relates to fertile offspring))
Being unable to ascertain with absolute certainty whether neander… and sapien could successfully breed, at least that is what has been implied. What other criterion are used to determine if two like creatures are indeed different species? What then is the minimum required variance in DNA between two very similar species to arrive at certainty that they are indeed two distinct species.

 

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

(i should have written … successfully, as relates to fertile offspring))
Being unable to ascertain with absolute certainty whether neander… and sapien could successfully breed, at least that is what has been implied. What other criterion are used to determine if two like creatures are indeed different species? What then is the minimum required variance in DNA between two very similar species to arrive at certainty that they are indeed two distinct species.

I’m not sure, but I would guess that the anthropologists are just going on physiognomy. The builds of Neanderthals are so radically different in so many ways that it’s really unlikely that they’re just a different race of humans. You can’t really tell an Asian skeleton from an African or European. (Well, anthropologists probably can, but you have to be an expert. The differences are not discernable to an untrained eye.) Breeds of dogs and horses aren’t really the same thing… they’ve been deliberately manipulated. In the wild, when two animals look significantly different, they generally can’t successfully breed.

 

[hecd2]

Not to nitpick too much, but that would be 23 pairs of chromosomes.

Sure. I think we are talking about chromosome count rather than number of chromosomes in somatic cells. Or maybe we were talking about germline cells. In any case the meaning was clear. he question I had was how did RPP know that te number was 23. h hasn;t really been able to answer.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

I’m not sure, but I would guess that the anthropologists are just going on physiognomy. The builds of Neanderthals are so radically different in so many ways that it’s really unlikely that they’re just a different race of humans. You can’t really tell an Asian skeleton from an African or European. (Well, anthropologists probably can, but you have to be an expert. The differences are not discernable to an untrained eye.) Breeds of dogs and horses aren’t really the same thing… they’ve been deliberately manipulated. In the wild, when two animals look significantly different, they generally can’t successfully breed.

More recently scientists have been going on DNA. Both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA extracted from Neanderthal remains shows that they do not, genetically, intersect with Homo sapiens. There is no evidence for interbreeding with Homo sapiens even though their ranges overlapped. So Neanderthals do seem to be a different species of hominim.

Alec
hjttp://www.evolutionpages.com

 

[Antegin]

As far as Neanderthals being the off spring of Angles and humans, I don’t know, however, I doubt that the off spring of an angle would live in a cave.

Matt Cos

Angels are spirit. They don’t mate with anybody

These would be misinterpretations of the ancient texts. The precise interpretations were ‘sons of God’ and sons of men. The giants who were the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men were the Nephalim. The misconception that Angels mate with human is a variation on the demigogue story line not unlike the daliences of Juno/Zeus in Greek/Roman mythology. Such stories are found nowhere in sacred texts but romance and mythology are rife with them.

More recently scientists have been going on DNA. Both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA extracted from Neanderthal remains shows that they do not, genetically, intersect with Homo sapiens. **There is no evidence for interbreeding with Homo sapiens **even though their ranges overlapped. So Neanderthals do seem to be a different species of hominim.

Actually, I believe the absence of Neanderthal nuclear and mitochondrial DNA in the human genome proves they are two different species, but interbreeding could have occured and because of the inabilty of hybrids to breed, evidence of the cross species mating would never exist short of a living specimen.

 

[jphod]

Actually, I believe the absence of Neanderthal nuclear and mitochondrial DNA in the human genome proves they are two different species, but interbreeding could have occured and because of the inabilty of hybrids to breed, evidence of the cross species mating would never exist short of a living specimen.

Perhaps this is not a sensible question but …
in other evolution threads it was written how litlle difference their exists between the DNA of humans and of apes, just how much difference is their between human and neanderthal? What is the difference in the DNA between the two that is significant?

Why would a "living " specimen be necessary?

 

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

Why would a "living " specimen be necessary?

I think what the poster meant to say was that, while a hybrid may have existed, it would be extremely unlikely to find their remains, as they were “one-offs.” (Unless, of course, this happened all the time.)

 

[abu_kamoon]

OK, I’ll explain it to you. The so-called Neanderthalls were people just like us. Had the Chinese been wiped out thousands of years ago, people today whould be speculating about them.

Your problem is in believing in evolution. If you believe that we “evolved” from some simian creature, you try to figure where did the “Neanderthalls” fit in. If you accept the idea that we were created, and that all humanity originated from two individuals, it’s obvious that the “Neanderthalls” were destroyed in the Flood that evolutionists don’t believe in.