Reconciling Humani Generis with the human genetic data showing that there never were just two first parents

  • Thread starter Thread starter Allyson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Freddy said:
I guess everyone who uses the term Homo neanderthalensis which is their sub species name.
Click to expand...
Do all hominid subspecies lack rational souls simply because someone chooses to label some sub species as irrational? Reality is independent of the thinking mind. Physical differences do not evidence the kind of soul animating beings whose bodies could possess either irrational or rational souls.
Freddy said:
We are not descended from Neanderthals and they are not decended from us.
Click to expand...
Why do some continue to post articles of faith as science facts? The strongest statement for your claims is “presently, evidence suggests that”.

Did the Neanderthals interbreed with other sub species? If the result of reproduction with a human is a Neanderman then Neanderthals are not extinct but continue in us.

The DNA evidence suggest they did. One of the few tenants of whatever “speciation” really means is that different species cannot successfully interbreed. If Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens successfully reproduced then the subspecies designation for both appears just as meaningless as species.
 
Last edited:
There is a great difference between what God can do and what science can do. I was researching a miracle where the Church called in experts. I looked at their qualifications. They were indeed exactly the right people to explain what happened. It was impossible. That was their conclusion. No one could do what actually happened. That is precisely the case here.
 
That is exactly right. Neanderthals being classified as different from us means they were less human than we are. Interbreeding shows that is not true.
 
Allyson said:
Exactly, a creation account - i.e. good theology - would not be excluded. Intelligent design as a theological position
Click to expand...
Rewritten correcting punctuation:
Exactly, a creation account, i.e., good theology, would not exclude intelligent design as a theological position.
Click to expand...
I think this horse is dead.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
I give you - The Zombie Horse. It can never die no matter what you do and what you say. Why? Because convincing men that they are just chemicals, just biological robots, advances an idea. An idea that must be promoted regardless of multiple attempts to destroy and bury it.

Ad nauseum — and I do mean nauseum.
 
o_mlly said:
My readings indicate the acids were easy. The brick wall is the proteins.
Click to expand...
Have you read up about the RNA world? RNA is chemically active, unlike DNA. RNA can replace protein-based enzymes. Google “ribozymes” for more.
 
gama232 said:
Do not mix scientific data with God creating from nothing.
Click to expand...
God may have created some things from nothing, but we know that he did not create fish, birds and animals from nothing. “Let the waters bring forth…” “Let the earth bring forth…”

That was not creation from nothing, that was creation from the previously existing waters and earth.
 
Please send me the box that contains the ingredients for making life on a stove top.
 
o_mlly said:
Rewritten correcting punctuation:
Click to expand...
More word games. If beating a dead horse is your kink, then who am I to stop you, but do not do violence to my words by ignoring the meat of my response.

Also, hyphens are correct punctuation when you want to add emphasis, which I did. 😉
Allyson said:
40.png
o_mlly:
If those who continue to pursue the “primordial soup” hypothesis are successful then success would not necessarily exclude creation accounts (second causes) but would uphold the intelligent design hypothesis, i.e., life from only life.
Click to expand...
Exactly, a creation account - i.e. good theology - would not be excluded. Intelligent design as a theological position - not ID science/Creation Science - is fine as a metaphysical proposition that does not want to manipulate the science to an agenda. A believer should not fear what science can tell us, and we should not warp science to fit our view. Rather, it should draw us to a deeper understanding.
Click to expand...
You conveniently left off my critique of ID science, and twisted my meaning in the first sentence. The meaning of the first sentence was that a “primordial soup” does not exclude a creation account. Your rewrite has nothing to do with my thoughts.

You must really hate that I can make the distinction between a theological proposition that God is an intelligent designer and ID science/creation science. They are not one and the same. lol
 
gama232 said:
There is a great difference between what God can do and what science can do.
Click to expand...
I am not sure where you think I would disagree with this proposition. Science is not creating life- from non-life; once branch of science happens to study the origin of life. How God did it, does not prevent the human mind from attempting to put the story together.

Do you understand what I am saying?
 
o_mlly said:
Do all hominid subspecies lack rational souls simply because someone chooses to label some sub species as irrational?
Click to expand...
It is like you ignore the parts of a post that answer what you are complaining about.
Freddy said:
And I’m not suggesting the Neanderthals were not rational. The evidence suggests that they were.
Click to expand...
o_mlly said:
The DNA evidence suggest they did. One of the few tenants of whatever “speciation” really means is that different species cannot successfully interbreed. If Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens successfully reproduced then the subspecies designation for both appears just as meaningless as species.
Click to expand...
gama232 said:
That is exactly right. Neanderthals being classified as different from us means they were less human than we are. Interbreeding shows that is not true.
Click to expand...
To quote myself…
Allyson said:
Yes. Given enough separation between two populations of birds that were once one species, when they meet again, they can be genetically different enough to not interbreed or only produce infertile offspring like when you cross a horse with a donkey. They create a mule, but all mules are sterile regardless of the biological sex.
40.png
gama232:
Then Neanderthals, who are supposedly separate from modern humans, are able to pass their genetic material on to some of us via interbreeding? How is that possible?
Click to expand...
So, when Neanderthals and Human met 500,000 years after their divergence from a common ancestral population they were at the edge of being able to successfully hybridize. Some of these offspring were fertile and some were sterile. This is what happens with Ligers. Typically, males are sterile if they exist at all. (See Haldane’s Rule).

On Neanderthal’s specifically: Neanderthal fertility problems - Cosmos Magazine
gama232 said:
Then Denisovians are being added to the mix:
Click to expand...
Yep. They are a genetically distinct population from Neanderthals and modern humans, but we only know them through their genes extracted from a few small bones. We do not have any idea of what they looked like.
gama232 said:
And Neanderthals walked upright like we do:
Click to expand...
Many hominids walked upright. It is a calling card we look for in identifying potential human ancestors. Not all of them are ancestors, and not all of them interbred with modern humans. It is also not new news that Neanderthals walked upright. That was understood before I was born.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
gama232 said:
That is exactly right. Neanderthals being classified as different from us means they were less human than we are. Interbreeding shows that is not true.
Click to expand...
“Less human than” is an interesting way to put it. That is not necessarily what the science is saying, though I will grant that many naturalists in the 19th century certainly wanted to say so. Modern science shows that they were a genetically distinct cousin species to us. It makes no value judgment about their humaness in philosophical terms. In some ways, they were potentially biologically superior. They had a bigger brain and a more robust frame. That brain was bigger in particular in the visual area.
 
Neanderthals have a different scientific classification, just like other alleged homonids/homonims. The interbreeding should not have occurred based on the classification. Biologically superior to the point that they died out? That is the final test of superiority. Us equal to and smaller brain, less robust types are still here.

I suggest you do a thorough analysis of global skull shapes and sizes.
 
gama232 said:
The interbreeding should not have occurred based on the classification.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. See my discussion that I re-quoted.
gama232 said:
Biologically superior to the point that they died out? That is the final test of superiority.
Click to expand...
No actually, superiority does not necessitate that a species survives indefinitely. That is a common misunderstanding. That said, they may have had other traits that made them more susceptible to the climate changes that pre-ceded their demise. It could also be as simple as a numbers game. They never had our numbers in population growth that we can see in the archaeological record.
gama232 said:
Us equal to and smaller brain, less robust types are still here.

I suggest you do a thorough analysis of global skull shapes and sizes.
Click to expand...
Modern human do not match Neanderthals in brain shape or average size. Nor do we have their more robust features like the prominent brow or the wide chest. I am not sure that I am the one who needs to study up on this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top