e05488 No.659248
How do christians explain the neanderthals and how they constituted a clearly different species from homo sapiens?
73b047 No.659255
>>659248
What's there to explain? We (I'm speaking as a Catholic here) aren't required to believe there has been only one human species.
42da97 No.659257
>>659248
>Neaderthals are a different species
>We crossbred with Neaderthals though
Choose one and only one.
>a clearly different species from homo sapiens?
This isn't even certain, even if so it's just another hominid species, who cares.
e05488 No.659258
>>659255
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_neanderthalensis
There is huge evidence they existed, if this is true it would mean not all humanity descended from Adam but rather different species interbreed
42da97 No.659260
>>659258
>different species interbreed
Please stop discussing Neanderthals and human lineage if you don't know shite.
e05488 No.659261
42da97 No.659263
>>659261
You still don't get it do you?
There was no interspecies breeding.
They either were humans with large skulls or they were not humans and unable to interbreed.
e05488 No.659268
>>659263
It’s pretty clear that human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ape chromosomes. This is why we have 46 pairs of chromosomes and all the other apes have 48. Normal chromosomes have a centomere and ends capped with telomeres. It was reasoned that IF two chromosomes had fused, evidence for such an event would be found in a chromosome with two centomeres and teleomeres where they did not belong. That is exactly what was found in human chromosome 2. It was subsequently discovered that chimpanzee chromosomes 12 and 13 contained the same genes as human chromosome 2 and if placed end to end the positions of those genes matched those of the human chromosome. Those chromosomes in the other apes also lined up in a similar fashion. The fusion event has been confirmed. In just the last few years science has gained largely complete genomes of two other human species, those of Neanderthal and Denisovans.
Pic unrelated but is Australopithecus Afarensis
da0b3b No.659270
>>659248
What if Adam and Eve meant the first men, not a single couple but the entire original humanity?
Woah mind blown.
What if Cain and Abel were agricultural people (who developed fake religions) vs nomadic people (who kept the true knowledge of God) during the stone age.
B-but literalism.
Nothing changes, nothing. Adam and Eve disobeyed God and fell, Cain killed Abel. Except it was many people and not just two.
In allegory a character can mean many.
20cac2 No.659273
I suspect that the neanderthals were the 'sons of god' who mated with the daughters of men and the hybrids they produced are the nephilim.
e05488 No.659281
>>659273
Probably, Neanderthals were more muscular than Sapiens, were better adapted to cold climes and had larger brains
73b047 No.659284
>>659258
You didn't get my point.
Both H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis, different species, can be human, because humanity is something that needn't be constrained to only one species; humanity can consist of several different biological species, like H. sapiens or H. neanderthalensis.
H. sapiens would then be just one more species of humans, not anymore special than other species of humans.
d5eaa7 No.659285
>>659258
>>659261
>unironically using wikipedia
Oh….this thread will be GLORIOUS like all the others
[-]
e05488 No.659287
>>659284
Chimps and bonobos share 99% of DNA with humans, can they become humans as well? If yes at which point?
73b047 No.659290
>>659287
The traditional, Scholastic definition of a "human" is "any rational (i.e. it has intellect and will) animal". Anything that fits this definition is a human, anything that doesn't isn't.
No matter how similar some animal is to us, as long as it's not rational it's not a human. There are two components in the definition I posted, chimpanzees and bonobos don't fit one of them so by definition they aren't human. Neanderthals, on the other hand, probably do.
e05488 No.659291
>>659290
>rational
Mentally retarded/down people are not humans?
73b047 No.659293
>>659291
They are, and that's precisely why we consider their lack of rationality a disorder. It's in the essence of a human to be rational, so when someone lacks that, it's a handicap, a defect, a lack of something that by nature of humanity should be there.
e05488 No.659294
>>659293
How do you know they are without having a genetic definition? The fact that some races are more rational than others would also be a point for racism
73b047 No.659295
>>659293
(And that's also why we don't consider lack of rationality in a chimpanzee, or a giraffe, or a snail to be a disorder - it's not in the nature of these organisms to be rational like in the case of humans. However, if a giraffe doesn't have a tail or one ear, this is a defect, because it's in the nature if a giraffe to have a tail, two ears, etc.)
78d035 No.659298
>>659258
Or the first human was the neanderthal and h. sapiens cross-breed… and all the ones without the micro-amount of neanderthal DNA aren't human…
73b047 No.659299
>>659294
>How do you know they are without having a genetic definition?
In the same way I know that a person without a right eye is a human with a defect in one of the natural characteristics of humans (said characteristic being having a right eye) rather than non-human.
>The fact that some races are more rational than others would also be a point for racism
You either have intellect and will and are rational, or you don't and consequently are not rational. "Rationality" is something that you either have or not, not something that comes in degrees.
072c3e No.659300
>>659248
>clear;y constituted a different species
>clearly could reproduce viable offspring who could then reproduce
>clearly different species.
a45ded No.659301
>>659285
While I do find his use of wikipedia to be bit laughable, they do often use sources that can be easily tracked if one knows where to look. Researchgate would probably yield more credible info
a45ded No.659312
Reminder that the father of modern taxonomy, a devout Christian, postulated that there were no distinct anatomical differences between man and his fellow primates, and that they were practically the same thing.
87eec7 No.659360
>How do christians explain the neanderthals and how they constituted a clearly different species from homo sapiens?
God created them. How do atheists explain them?
a45ded No.659373
>>659248
But to answer your question accurately, we must understand what your "Adam" is. That is, what's your baseline for what man is at his core? Is he an artist, a philosopher, a prophet, a hunter, or a worker. Each will give you a drastically different outlook on his place in nature.
bfcac8 No.659459
>>659360
millions of years of random gene mutation through breeding
287433 No.659460
Why do you think this would bother us?
a45ded No.659461
>>659460
Because more often than not the ones raising hell over it are creationists (young and/or old)
bfd03d No.659498
>>659268
>MUH SCIENTISM
>The likelihood of a fusion is just as likely as a gene mutation to form two "end" sequences.
>the genetic information on C2 is complicated to the point that if the "supposed" fusion occurred at any other point in the sequence humanity couldn't exist as the genetic information would be borked
>another issue with fusion is that it would need to predate the point when "humans" became separate from generic apes, what would be the implications therefore if other "humans" that were not Sapiens Sapiens did not have 46?
>Fusion has never been confirmed, it's just the popular theory of this age
>evidence of fusion has not been substantiated in fossil record
>evidence of fusion is not substantiated in modern humans, it is considered the "norm" to have 46 but no genetic studies have been performed to determine if there is a group of 48s somewhere
>C12 and C13 do not contain the same data
What's the point in being sapient if it's wasted on trying to make us on equal ground with unaware animals?
a45ded No.659500
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>659498
>What's the point in being sapient if it's wasted on trying to make us on equal ground with unaware animals?
<"I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?"- Ecclesiastes 3:18-21
You speak from man's hubris. Such a notion of being a blessed beast should be a humbling thought. That out of all creatures that creepeth upon the earth, swin in the sea, or soar through the sky, YHVH chose man to bear His image.
bfa568 No.659505
>>659248
>They pretty much hybrids
>Mainly breed with female humans
>rather tall compared to humans in ancient standards (humans by average are growing taller as time progress)
>All of them kinda just 'dwindled' despite having more natural advantages, which nature would've 'selected' than humans
Yep. They were the nephilims
690d39 No.659514
539365 No.659560
>>659258
>implying Neanderthals weren't the sons of Cain
a45ded No.659563
>>659560
What would even lead one to this conclusion? More importantly, what of other more peculiar forms?
42da97 No.659612
>>659268
>Not addressing my point
If the Neanderthals were a different species, a.k.a. a different kind of animal, then we couldn't interbreed.
If it was possible to interbreed with Neanderthals, they were nothings else than another kind of Asian/Negro/Caucasian/whatever and nothing special about it.
>>659290
>The traditional, Scholastic definition of a "human" is "any rational (i.e. it has intellect and will) animal"
That's some top-tier quality bullcrap if I ever read one.
The traditional, scholastic definition of a human is any animal specimen belonging to Homo sapiens.
>>659495
>Homo Sapiens
Triggered.
d5eaa7 No.659617
>>659500
>I said in mine heart
Why does everyone forget THIS important part? It was solomons personal thought when he had faith crisis. It goes well with book "wisdom of solomon", where same thing is stated BY UNBELEVERS!
We are not "blessed beasts", we are unique creation and I am reporting you for this garbage you are posting.
34f6b6 No.659626
>>659495
Human races are ecotypes and clines, you imbecile.
How do stormcucks manage to ruin taxonomy, when it ends up so fuzzy and subjective at times, is beyond me.
2eb3e8 No.659762
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>659248
OP, this may not directly answer your question, but hopefully it will help explain some things.
a45ded No.659770
>>659617
>We are not "blessed beasts", we are unique creation
Either way we are given status and responsibility above all beasts, but we should not forget where we come from. Humility is key, do not confuse hubris with God's word.
fe5b73 No.659828
>>659617
<It was solomons personal thought
Have you considered that because of ecclesasties 1:1
>THE words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.
That the "Preacher" why is the P capitilized? Perhaps because it is a name for God? who is the son of David, king in jerusalem, could be Jesus the King of kings and Lord of lords? Have some more scripture supporting that men are beasts revelation 16:3
>And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.
ezekiel 18:4
>Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
exodus 11:7
>But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.
pslams 49:12
>Nevertheless man being in honour abideth not: he is like the beasts that perish.
isaiah 56:9-12
>All ye beasts of the field, come to devour, yea, all ye beasts in the forest.
>His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber.
>Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.
>Come ye, say they, I will fetch wine, and we will fill ourselves with strong drink; and to morrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant.
(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) 04a4dc No.659836
>>659612
>The traditional, scholastic definition of a human is any animal specimen belonging to Homo sapiens
500 years before modern taxonomy? Very doubtful.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomism
a45ded No.659867
>>659828
>(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
<was banned for posting verses from the Bible to back his claim
d8cbb8 No.659883
>>659867
He said that "men are beasts" before posting scripture that clearly distinguishes between the two. Nothing banworthy over, but don't pretend he was right.
No beast is a man, they are exclusive categories. You can only be looking at one or the other. See 1 Corinthians 15:39 as if I even had to give you a reference for that. The entire Bible already reaffirms the separation of man and beast, as plain as day.
a45ded No.659892
>>659883
>separation of man and beast
In terms of his responsibility and purpose, yes they are separate.
>Corinthians 15:39
I'd say this begs the question of where one would draw the line between them. The supposed gap between man and beast seems to have been bridged by the fossil record.
d8cbb8 No.659894
>>659892
>The supposed gap between man and beast seems to have been bridged by the fossil record.
You again huh? Still posting fossils as if I never got you to admit there must be some level of uncertainty in identification. And every little bone fragment can't be placed into one mathematically proven category with absolute certainty as if we had a living specimen on our hands. Nope, you're still just posting fossils as if they were live specimens.
a45ded No.659899
>>659894
And that's where stone tools come in handy. They at least show (roughly) the level of cognition these beings are working on. The more sophisticated the technique used the shape these tools, the more intelligent the beings associated with them can be inferred to be.
But of course you're going to act like we will never have a clue what they were like, and that you win by default.
d8cbb8 No.659904
>>659899
I'm only interested in correctly identifying living beings correctly. If you're looking at the remains of something, what problem does it solve to figure out what it was, and how would you ever verify that categorization scientifically. Well, that is never necessary to do because all they are doing is creating categories, so they fit them by default.
So since they never verify any of these things, all of these "scientific" categorizations are arbitrary. You can define what you want and create whole system that make it look like you know what you are talking about when it comes to bone fragments, but without any concrete proof you are just treading water
a45ded No.659915
>>659904
So basically you're going to continue saying that man and beast are separate and claim that none of this fossil evidence goes against it because they're dead?
76bca1 No.659927
ITT: Same shit, different day. There are multiple threads up for this same subject.
Mods need to get to pruning.
3133b2 No.660736
God do I hate these threads. Data wise we don't actually know shit about them, so no point arguing about them until we do. What we do know is the little Neanderthal DNA thats survived into some modern human genomes is found in noncoding DNA regions, or at best gave us a few coding genes that are practically useless. Reason for why its like that should be obvious if you got an elementary grasp of how natural selection works.
97b154 No.660797
>>659560
That implies that homo sapiens aren't the sons of Cain. Cain was the farmer, Abel was the Shepard. Only Sapiens farm.
bf163e No.660800
There's a simple answer, there are two creation accounts of man. The first being on the 6th day Genesis 1:26 in which they're given a paleolithic diet Genesis 1:29-31 and were charged with filling the earth. Genesis 1:28 The second was the creation of Adam and through him Eve. He was taught farming and other things that will be used to build civilization. The people that Cain is afraid of in Genesis 4:14-15 are the hunter gathers from the first creation account. And it removes the stupid need for incest.
bbe638 No.660831
>>659248
Reminder evolution is just a theory and is neither proved by repeatable experiments nor from a mathematical model.
It's just third grade science, merely built upon clues and hypothesis by observing fossils and similarities between species.
38ad20 No.661285
>>659248
Why do I need to?
38ad20 No.661287
>>659828
>posts bible verses
>(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
WHATTHEACTUALWINNIETHEPOOH?!?!?!
>>659883
being wrong was a bannable offence now?!
what manner of retardation is this?
5559c0 No.661295
>>661287
And what? Devil used bible verse to tempt Jesus. That degenerate filth deserved what he got.
034fac No.661299
>>661295
But they weren't done with their discussion! How are we supposed to debate people and change their minds if we just wontonly ban them from speaking? Thats seems counter-productive to the command Love thy neighbor that Jesus relays to us.
Instead of just banning him one vould have rebuked him, as he may have been taking verses out of context. Now christians look cowardly as they can't have productive discourse with people they don't agree with.
898072 No.661322
>>659290
So what about negros
267ce1 No.661374
>>661299
It's as if you don't know our hafizposting friend and his retarded heresies he spouts on these boards. What is heresy, is heresy and should be banned. Period… And quoting bible verses to support this trash doesn't change the fact. I can use all the quotes from the bible that calls humans "gods" and "children of God" and use it to justify Mormonism.
d5eaa7 No.661399
>>659290
>The traditional, Scholastic definition of a "human" is "any rational (i.e. it has intellect and will) animal". Anything that fits this definition is a human, anything that doesn't isn't.
No, traditional definition of "human" is being descendant of Adam. In fact, "Adam" or "Descendant of Adam" is how humans are called in numerous languages. Everything else, that is characteristic for humans, like being made in image and likeness of God and so on is inherited from Adam.
898072 No.661411
>>661399
I think it's quite accurate though that the Father, who is formless, would make us in His image by granting us that gift of reason- that which animals do not have. This is what makes us human. I also believe that the form which we currently hold was the most fitting form He thought to put us in- after He had made it He said "it is good." Granted I am an old earth creationist and I believe it entirely possible that the 7 days God created the world in could have been any number of our years or even minutes as a day is a thousand years and a thousand years a day to Him. By this I also mean that "Let the Earth produce" related to some possible directed evolution and this is how God made our current forms, which were pleasing to him. At some point he decided to breathe the Life of reason into that form and make us truly us- made in his image and unique beings, though we still have this animal shell (until eternity, that is.)
That's my current take on it. It makes sense to me at least because God could have continued on simply existing and being without creating us or anything but he chose to- so it seems reasonable that he could have directed evolution because it was fun. We are made in his image, after all. I hope somewhere in my spewing drivel you get a point out of it.
d5eaa7 No.661427
>>661411
I'm also Old Earth, I just stated that his definition of "human" is wrong according to Christian perspective. We dont know at the end what "makes human". well, we do, its being made in Image and likeness of God that is an unique human trait, but the meaning of it is not really defined in the scripture, so it was always shrouded with mystery. Yes, rationalism IS part of that, but there are more to it, such as free will, dominance and so on. Only thing we know about it that we inherited it from Adam. Now if God formed Adam from literal dirt or already developed specie (I think that St. Theophan the Recluse had such opinion) doesnt really matter to me, but at the end we are descendants of Adam and through him, we inherited Image and likeness of God.
Or perhaps I didnt really understood what you said and just posted a wrong thing…
898072 No.661442
>>661427
No, no, that makes sense to me though I am a prot no relation to VITAMIN K
I still have to wonder though, shitposting about negroids aside, how much human are they? I have videos on another hard drive of them simply delighting in evil deeds and it disgusts me. I've grown up with them and many times they act just like animals, in both smell and behavior. I don't want to say salvation is denied to them, but I also find them physically revolting. Is their animal simply too strong for their will or is their will too weak for their animal? I say this in contrast to whites, asians, and pre-islamic arabs who contributed greatly to math before islam had them inbreeding themselves into a genetic stupor.
(USER WAS WARNED FOR BREAKING RULE 2) d8cbb8 No.661498
>>661287
>being wrong was a bannable offence now?!
I said it was not banworthy, dude. I've been banned for posting Bible verses also and it's wrong, but that doesn't put me on the same team with that guy. Plus he said in his own words that men are beasts. It's not like his post was pure Bible (mine that got banned were).
6cf845 No.665780
>>660800
bump for further consideration of this interesting post and the potential for discussion to be borne from it
d5eaa7 No.665781
>>665780
no it isnt. Every human is descendant of Adam. And stop bumping dead and retarded threads
404f94 No.665818
>>659248
The same way tiggers do
404f94 No.665821
>>665815
I miss seeing posts like these on /pol/. The internet has become pussified lately.
6afd68 No.665837
>>665815
>WE WUZ SUMERIANS N SHIET
404f94 No.665838
>>665837
White Sumeria isn't even controversial.
2c025a No.665842
>>665815
Don't false flag.
e2d23f No.665843
76bca1 No.665846
>>665815
The line of Negroid races is well-documented in the Bible, they are descendants of Ham who migrated south of the Sahara. Your post is brainlet-tier.
Man I hate Mormons.
e2d23f No.665847
>>665846
No this post is brainlet tier, i am older than you i think i know this beter
6afd68 No.665851
>>665838
When the people referred to themselves as the "Unsagiga" ("black haired") then it essentially torpedoes the "muh ancient aryan" crap.
1d41fe No.665869
>>659268
>It was reasoned that IF two chromosomes had fused, evidence for such an event would be found in a chromosome with two centomeres and teleomeres where they did not belong. That is exactly what was found in human chromosome 2
Classic evolutionist fallacy of engaging with data with all his a priori naturalist biases. You have come to your conclusion simply because you had already PRESUPPOSED that such a fusion must have occurred, and so such a similarity must mean such a 'fusion' happened. This does not follow.
When you point out this mistake, evolutionists will inevitably bombard you with more 'evidence' ('muh chimps!'), not realizing that it is their presupposition of naturalism and evolutionary theory that fills in the blanks when they observe natural phenomena.
2bce8b No.665870
>>665815
Lol, isn't this what mormons believe, that darker skinned races are "cursed" by God?
Intense heresy