Pope Francis: ‘Evolution … is not inconsistent with the notion of creation’

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimR-OCDS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thorolfr said:
Neanderthals were also Homo sapiens. All humans today are Homo sapiens sapiens whereas Neaderthals were Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.
Click to expand...
So how did the homo sapiens neanderthalensis nterbreed with homo sapiens?
 
Thorolfr said:
Did Neanderthals have souls?
Click to expand...
How would we ever know for certain one way or the other?

Now red heads have no souls…

Just kidding, as I am a red head, but some people used to actually believe that.
 
Monkey1976 said:
There is ample evidence for deliberate burials with grave goods - also artwork and objects which could have had spiritual/religious significance - which might reflect a moral conscience as well as recognition of a higher power. Based on all that, I see no reason to say that Neanderthals didn’t have rational souls.
Click to expand...
But they could have buried their dead to keep from drawing predators too; we don’t know.

I think Neanderthals were plausible candidates for ensoulment, but I don’t think they actually were. I think only modern man had ensouled people because I think this happened after the Toba event and the survivor was modern man, not modern man.
 
Faith1960 said:
But they’re not homo sapien sapiens.
Click to expand...
It is possible for two different species to interbreed. For example, a male donkey and a female horse can interbreed and produce an offspring which is called a mule even though donkeys and horses have a different number of chromosomes. But mules are usually infertile as a result.

In the case of Homo sapiens sapiens interbreeding with Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, the male partner was usually the Neanderthal while the female partner was usually the Homo sapiens sapiens. The offspring of female Neanderthals and male homo sapiens sapiens might have been infertile.
No evidence of Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA has been found in modern humans.[11][12][13] This would suggest that successful admixture with Neanderthals happened paternally rather than maternally on the side of Neanderthals.[14][15] Possible hypotheses are that Neanderthal mtDNA had detrimental mutations that led to the extinction of carriers, that the hybrid offspring of Neanderthal mothers were raised in Neanderthal groups and became extinct with them, or that female Neanderthals and male Sapiens did not produce fertile offspring.[14]
Click to expand...
Recent studies found the presence of large genomic regions with strongly reduced Neanderthal contribution in modern humans due to negative selection,[4][9] partly caused by hybrid male infertility.[9] These large regions of low Neanderthal contribution were most-pronounced on the X chromosome—with fivefold lower Neanderthal ancestry compared to autosomes—and contained relatively high numbers of genes specific to testes, meaning that modern humans have relatively few Neanderthal genes that are located on the X chromosome or expressed in the testes, consistent with the known fact that male infertility is affected by a disproportional large amount of genes on X chromosomes.[9] It has also been shown that Neanderthal ancestry has been selected against in conserved biological pathways, such as RNA processing.[9]
Click to expand...
Genes affecting keratin were found to have been introgressed from Neanderthals into modern humans (shown in East Asians and Europeans), suggesting that these genes gave a morphological adaptation in skin and hair to modern humans to cope with non-African environments.[4][9] This is likewise for several genes involved in medical-relevant phenotypes, such as those affecting systemic lupus erythematosus, primary biliary cirrhosis, Crohn’s disease, optic disk size, smoking behavior, interleukin 18 levels, and diabetes mellitus type 2.[9]
Click to expand...
In a 2013 study, researchers found Neanderthal introgression of 18 genes—several of which are related to UV-light adaptation—within the chromosome 3p21.31 region (HYAL region) of East Asians.[16] The introgressive haplotypes were positively selected in only East Asian populations, rising steadily from 45,000 years BP until a sudden increase of growth rate around 5,000 to 3,500 years BP.[16] They occur at very high frequencies among East Asian populations in contrast to other Eurasian populations (e.g. European and South Asian populations).[16] The findings also suggests that this Neanderthal introgression occurred within the ancestral population shared by East Asians and Native Americans.[16]
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_human_admixture_with_modern_humans
 
Faith1960 said:
Ed, even in your article is says “humans and neanderthals” interbred, meaning neanderthals werent human.
Click to expand...
The argument I’m making is (a) different species cannot interbreed, and (b) the fact the some modern humans have Neanderthal DNA means they could interbreed with homo sapiens sapiens. That’s it.

Ed
 
edwest2 said:
The argument I’m making is (a) different species cannot interbreed, and (b) the fact the some modern humans have Neanderthal DNA means they could interbreed with homo sapiens sapiens. That’s it.

Ed/QUOTE

But the neanderthals werent human. Your article even more or less says so.
Click to expand...
 
edwest2 said:
The argument I’m making is (a) different species cannot interbreed
Click to expand...
So horses and donkeys which can interbreed and produce mules are not a different species even though they have a different number of chromosomes?
 
Thorolfr said:
So horses and donkeys which can interbreed and produce mules are not a different species even though they have a different number of chromosomes?
Click to expand...
There really isn’t a consistent, universal, no-exceptions-possible way to define a “species”. Yes, horses and donkeys can produce mules, but mules are generally infertile. Lions and tigers can interbreed, but there are still good odds that the offspring won’t be fertile. But grizzlies and polar bears - as well as coyotes and wolves - can interbreed, and their offspring are almost universally fertile and breed true with each other.

A “species” is simply a bucket into which biologists can put groups of animals with similar traits.
 
Obviously, Neanderthals and humans alive today produced fertile offspring. That’s why we still have some of their DNA.

Ed
 
hen
Monkey1976 said:
There really isn’t a consistent, universal, no-exceptions-possible way to define a “species”. Yes, horses and donkeys can produce mules, but mules are generally infertile. Lions and tigers can interbreed, but there are still good odds that the offspring won’t be fertile. But grizzlies and polar bears - as well as coyotes and wolves - can interbreed, and their offspring are almost universally fertile and breed true with each other.

A “species” is simply a bucket into which biologists can put groups of animals with similar traits.
Click to expand...
Based on the above, then shouldnt the neanderhal/human coupling resulted in infertility?
 
Faith1960 said:
They werent human, though.
Click to expand...
what does homo sapien mean?

“Wise man” the nomenclature for the human species.

We are homo sapien sapien and neanderthals are Homo sapiens neanderthalensis

They were human - they were just different from us. And maybe as a northern European not really so different from me.
 
Faith1960 said:
They werent human, though.
Click to expand...
Yes, they in fact were. Just as we have different racial types today with the most noticeable differences being facial angle and facial construction, Neanderthals fit the profile of a racial group. Pygmies aren’t human?

Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Yes, they in fact were. Just as we have different racial types today with the most noticeable differences being facial angle and facial construction, Neanderthals fit the profile of a racial group. Pygmies aren’t human?

Ed
Click to expand...
In your link the writer said humans and neanderthals.
 
edwest2 said:
I don’t find Ken Miller credible.

Ed
Click to expand...
I would love to know why.

Have you read his two books? Any particular statements or views of his you can point us to? What about Francis Collins, Denis Lamoureux? Have you read their books?

I can give you another dozen other examples of Bible-believing top-rank biologists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top