S
- Status
S
samiam1611
Guest
I don’t care if you get off topic (I am the OP.) It was just a random headline on my home page when I opened Internet Explorer, I just copied and pasted and hit submit. I did not think this many people would respond! (Do you think it is the title of the thread that got people’s attention, or the article itself?
)
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Both.I don’t care if you get off topic (I am the OP.) It was just a random headline on my home page when I opened Internet Explorer, I just copied and pasted and hit submit. I did not think this many people would respond! (Do you think it is the title of the thread that got people’s attention, or the article itself?
G
grannymh
Guest
In my humble observation, neither Neandertal populations nor the Homo sapiens populations have sufficient evidence to be considered the same human nature as you and me. The word human indicates rational/corporeal, material/non-material, spirit/matter, body/soul. While material aspects (genes) of the human anatomy can have the same functions as other species, one must not overlook the presence of a God created immortal soul with intellect and will.
S
samiam1611
Guest
About that species stuff:
Animals can be 2 different species and reproduce
Ex: A horse crossed with a donkey = mule. (Horses and donkeys are 2 different species I’m sure you know.)
Most mules are infertile… BUT:
A female mule that has estrus cycles and thus, in theory, could carry a fetus. Pregnancy is rare, but can occasionally occur naturally as well as through embryo transfer. Since 1527 there have been more than 60 documented cases of foals born to female mules around the world.
(Wikipedia)
Maybe our ancestors worked something like that.
Animals can be 2 different species and reproduce
Ex: A horse crossed with a donkey = mule. (Horses and donkeys are 2 different species I’m sure you know.)
Most mules are infertile… BUT:
A female mule that has estrus cycles and thus, in theory, could carry a fetus. Pregnancy is rare, but can occasionally occur naturally as well as through embryo transfer. Since 1527 there have been more than 60 documented cases of foals born to female mules around the world.
(Wikipedia)
Maybe our ancestors worked something like that.
S
samiam1611
Guest
While there is certainly differences between them and us, species is really a biological term, unrelated to soul and other nonmaterial things. err, concepts.
It is more about genetics and that sort of thing.
This article has me thinking about dogs: they are same species as wolves, but they are a different subspecies. Maybe humans and neanderthals are kind of like that.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
We certainly don’t know whether Neanderthals were or were not human in those respects. Nobody can affirm or deny whether they had souls the same as ours. But since it appears they had some expectation of life after death, one might be safer assuming they did than that they did not.
G
grannymh
Guest
And which one was Adam with a soul? Or are you a descendant of a Neandertal other than Adam?
Just joking.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
What evidence is there for that?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Again, I’m not an anthropologist, and i don’t study these things. But I do read and sometimes retain something of what I have read. I do recall reading that some Neanderthal burials were interpreted, at least, by those in the business as suggesting such a belief. I can’t recall the exact details, but they were things like positioning, loads of pollen from now-gone flowers, useful objects, the sorts of things they interpret in the same way in early homo sapiens burials.
And, of course, the skeletal remains were interpreted as being those of Neanderthals, not Nordic blacksmiths. But who knows?
A
antonivs
Guest
Ridgerunner,Again, I’m not an anthropologist, and i don’t study these things. But I do read and sometimes retain something of what I have read. I do recall reading that some Neanderthal burials were interpreted, at least, by those in the business as suggesting such a belief. I can’t recall the exact details, but they were things like positioning, loads of pollen from now-gone flowers, useful objects, the sorts of things they interpret in the same way in early homo sapiens burials.
And, of course, the skeletal remains were interpreted as being those of Neanderthals, not Nordic blacksmiths. But who knows?
You may be thinking of the Neanderthals they found buried in the Shanidar Cave in Iraq who were buried with flowers:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanidar_Cave
G
grannymh
Guest
From the link:
“The remains seemed to Zeder to suggest that Neandertals had funeral ceremonies, burying their dead with flowers (although the flowers are now thought to be a modern contaminant),”
Note: The issue of contaminants is huge including accidental ones in labs.
The above link burying their dead gives interesting reasons for a burial, not all of them related to a belief in an afterlife whatever that means.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Maybe that, but there were others as well.
M
MugenOne
Guest
I’m going back to my older posts on the same topic.
Scientists have traditionally considered modern man the only species to invent and use symbols. Our cousins the Neanderthals are thought to be savage and inferior and incapable of engaging in symbolic activities, such as culture, imagination, painting, etc. Recently, archeologists have discovered a handful of Neanderthals artifacts like jewelries and painted horse bones dated 50,000 years ago-10,000 years before modern humans made their way to Europe from Africa. They also found natrojarosite on seashell, a red pigment which was used as cosmetic in those days. If you look at ethnic groups from Africa to Oceania, you will see examples of shells of these with natural perforations used as ornaments. The one thing these findings make clear is that Neanderthals were behaviorally modern. The groups we call Neanderthals and modern human were not different species, therefore, I’m not surprised that despite anatomical differences there are no intelligent , cultural, and social differences.
It’s crazy to say modern man got their symbolic activies from the local Neanderthals. Prior to entering Europe, modern humans did not have pierced or grooved mammal teeth and perforated bivalve shells. Once they entered and settled in Europe, they started having ornaments.
Scientists have traditionally considered modern man the only species to invent and use symbols. Our cousins the Neanderthals are thought to be savage and inferior and incapable of engaging in symbolic activities, such as culture, imagination, painting, etc. Recently, archeologists have discovered a handful of Neanderthals artifacts like jewelries and painted horse bones dated 50,000 years ago-10,000 years before modern humans made their way to Europe from Africa. They also found natrojarosite on seashell, a red pigment which was used as cosmetic in those days. If you look at ethnic groups from Africa to Oceania, you will see examples of shells of these with natural perforations used as ornaments. The one thing these findings make clear is that Neanderthals were behaviorally modern. The groups we call Neanderthals and modern human were not different species, therefore, I’m not surprised that despite anatomical differences there are no intelligent , cultural, and social differences.
It’s crazy to say modern man got their symbolic activies from the local Neanderthals. Prior to entering Europe, modern humans did not have pierced or grooved mammal teeth and perforated bivalve shells. Once they entered and settled in Europe, they started having ornaments.
J
John7
Guest
wikipedia
Neanderthal cranial capacity is thought to have been as large as that of a Homo sapiens, perhaps larger, indicating their brain size may have been comparable, as well. In 2008, a group of scientists created a study using three-dimensional computer-assisted reconstructions of Neanderthal infants based on fossils found in Russia and Syria, showing that they had brains as large as modern humans’ at birth and larger than modern humans’ as adults
hmm…roughly 1600cc vs. us at ~1300cc
but to be sure cranial cap not necc. indicator of intelligence
“Brain size reduction in modern humans over the past 40,000 years is well-documented,”
newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2008/09/09/neanderthal/
Neanderthal cranial capacity is thought to have been as large as that of a Homo sapiens, perhaps larger, indicating their brain size may have been comparable, as well. In 2008, a group of scientists created a study using three-dimensional computer-assisted reconstructions of Neanderthal infants based on fossils found in Russia and Syria, showing that they had brains as large as modern humans’ at birth and larger than modern humans’ as adults
hmm…roughly 1600cc vs. us at ~1300cc
but to be sure cranial cap not necc. indicator of intelligence
“Brain size reduction in modern humans over the past 40,000 years is well-documented,”
newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2008/09/09/neanderthal/
A
Ahimsa
Guest
It doesn’t follow necessarily that, since Neanderthals were “behaviorally modern”, that they were, therefore, the same species as Homo sapiens. It’s quite possible that two separate species of Homo could have developed similar behavior and intellectual abilities.
There’s evidence of perforated bivalve shells created by Homo sapiens in Africa and Middle-East by 70,000 BCE to 50,000 BCE (the latter date being the time of their creation by Neanderthals in Europe).
G
grannymh
Guest
I agree with you.
I often wonder if the popular merging of Neandertals and humans is a way of eliminating the reality of two, real, sole parents of humanity.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
…most likely due to the bulkier body size (helpful in colder climates) of Neanderthals, compared to Homo sapiens.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
I think the idea of Adam and Eve, as the first parents of humans, is compatible with the idea of Neanderthals contributing genetic material to Homo sapiens.
G
grannymh
Guest
I also see that possibility. Nonetheless, there has to be a point where God creates the spiritual soul making the genetic material into the first parents of the separate human species.
- Status