RZehr wrote:I'd like if we could keep this Neanderthal thread on Neanderthals in a young earth, Bible context. Instead of sidetracking on the topic of the age of the earth, and the veracity or literalism of the Bible. I'm welcoming theories and ideas that could explain their existence or who they may have been within a young earth timeline. I recognize that for those of you who do believe in a ancient world this may be pointless and/or silly.
Sorry for bunny trailing your thread.
I think they are humans like us and still exist among us.
0 x
Soloist, but I hate singing alone Soloist, but my wife posts with me Soloist, but I believe in community Soloist, but I want God in the pilot seat
RZehr wrote:I'd like if we could keep this Neanderthal thread on Neanderthals in a young earth, Bible context. Instead of sidetracking on the topic of the age of the earth, and the veracity or literalism of the Bible. I'm welcoming theories and ideas that could explain their existence or who they may have been within a young earth timeline. I recognize that for those of you who do believe in a ancient world this may be pointless and/or silly.
I apologize for getting off into that other issue a bit in the process of giving my understanding of it, which I could have summed up by just saying that I believe that they were people just like us - created in the image of God, people for whom Christ died.
0 x
Congregation: Gospel Haven Mennonite Fellowship, Benton, Ohio (Holmes Co.) a split from Beachy-Amish Mennonite.
Personal heritage & general theological viewpoint: conservative Mennonite Brethren.
RZehr wrote:I'd like if we could keep this Neanderthal thread on Neanderthals in a young earth, Bible context. Instead of sidetracking on the topic of the age of the earth, and the veracity or literalism of the Bible. I'm welcoming theories and ideas that could explain their existence or who they may have been within a young earth timeline. I recognize that for those of you who do believe in a ancient world this may be pointless and/or silly.
Sorry for bunny trailing your thread.
I think they are humans like us and still exist among us.
Neto wrote:
I apologize for getting off into that other issue a bit in the process of giving my understanding of it, which I could have summed up by just saying that I believe that they were people just like us - created in the image of God, people for whom Christ died.
Apology accepted! Exactly like us? I'm really not familiar with this. But don't they have some sort of different DNA? If so, is it really any significance? Or does their difference in DNA fit within the norms of human DNA? Sort of like saying people with red hair have different DNA, which is true, but they are still the "same" as everyone else. It is just rarer than other hair colors.
So you believe that their differences were only cosmetic/physical in the same way humans vary today?
Apology accepted! Exactly like us? I'm really not familiar with this. But don't they have some sort of different DNA? If so, is it really any significance? Or does their difference in DNA fit within the norms of human DNA? Sort of like saying people with red hair have different DNA, which is true, but they are still the "same" as everyone else. It is just rarer than other hair colors.
So you believe that their differences were only cosmetic/physical in the same way humans vary today?
The results showed that Neanderthal DNA is 99.7 percent identical to modern human DNA
So... close but how close is .3? that seems a little complicated to explain but I would say we know its close enough to breed and produce offspring. With that in mind, I would conclude we are the same species just possibly the spacing represents genetic decay.
0 x
Soloist, but I hate singing alone Soloist, but my wife posts with me Soloist, but I believe in community Soloist, but I want God in the pilot seat
RZehr wrote:I'd like if we could keep this Neanderthal thread on Neanderthals in a young earth, Bible context. Instead of sidetracking on the topic of the age of the earth, and the veracity or literalism of the Bible. I'm welcoming theories and ideas that could explain their existence or who they may have been within a young earth timeline. I recognize that for those of you who do believe in a ancient world this may be pointless and/or silly.
I don't think you can reconcile Neanderthal's and "young earth" theology. At least not in any scientifically-legitimate way.
By the way. I don't "believe" in an ancient world. It's not something I believe in one way or the other. Rather, I accept that the great (if not universal) preponderance of scientific evidence supports the theory of an ancient earth. Should new scientific evidence emerge pointing in a different direction I would readily accept it, and would expect scientific theories and timelines to be adjusted accordingly. That's how science works. What we know about the natural world today is radically different from what we knew 100 years ago. And what we know 100 years from now will be just as different from what we know today.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Apology accepted! Exactly like us? I'm really not familiar with this. But don't they have some sort of different DNA? If so, is it really any significance? Or does their difference in DNA fit within the norms of human DNA? Sort of like saying people with red hair have different DNA, which is true, but they are still the "same" as everyone else. It is just rarer than other hair colors.
So you believe that their differences were only cosmetic/physical in the same way humans vary today?
The results showed that Neanderthal DNA is 99.7 percent identical to modern human DNA
So... close but how close is .3? that seems a little complicated to explain but I would say we know its close enough to breed and produce offspring. With that in mind, I would conclude we are the same species just possibly the spacing represents genetic decay.
By way of reference, human DNA is 98.8% identical to chimpanzee DNA (or 1.2% different).
Species and subspecies definitions are somewhat flexible. There isn't any specific cutoff point in terms of DNA percentages at which point you would declare two populations to be different species. Speciation happens when two populations become isolated, and then genetically drift apart. But there isn't any magic cutoff line when scientists declare a new species has emerged.
Last edited by Ken on Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Ken wrote:
I don't think you can reconcile Neanderthal's and "young earth" theology. At least not in any scientifically-legitimate way.
Obviously I am rejecting the way science is currently measuring the age of the earth. Hopefully in 100 years they are more accurate. So if you lay aside any points that arise based on the age of the earth as science is measuring it now, what else do we know about Neanderthals? Surely we know something besides what type/age of rock their fossils were found in.
Ken wrote:
I don't think you can reconcile Neanderthal's and "young earth" theology. At least not in any scientifically-legitimate way.
Obviously I am rejecting the way science is currently measuring the age of the earth. Hopefully in 100 years they are more accurate. So if you lay aside any points that arise based on the age of the earth as science is measuring it now, what else do we know about Neanderthals? Surely we know something besides what type/age of rock their fossils were found in.
We know a tremendous amount about Neanderthals. We know their age and population range based on hundreds of archaeological sites discovered across Europe. We know about their food sources based on analysis of things like teeth, tools, weapons, and campsites. We know how some of them died based on the types of injuries discovered in their skeletons. We know about their morphology. We know about their genetics and have completely reconstructed the Neanderthal genome from DNA found in archaeological sites. There is endless information on Neanderthals in sources like National Geographic and Smithsonian, as well as more scientific journals or even Wikipedia. Very little of which has to do with the type/age of rocks in which Neanderthal fossils were found.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Rzehr, I think your question was addressed in Jack Cuozzo's book, Buried Alive. I believe it was published by Master Books. I used to have a copy in my library but have not seen it for a number of years. IIRC his hypothesis is that Neanderthal skulls look exactly like what you would expect in a very old Homo Sapiens - like 400-500 years worth of aging. That theory does not add up if their DNA is as different from ours as what scientists tell us.
Peregrino wrote:Rzehr, I think your question was addressed in Jack Cuozzo's book, Buried Alive. I believe it was published by Master Books. I used to have a copy in my library but have not seen it for a number of years. IIRC his hypothesis is that Neanderthal skulls look exactly like what you would expect in a very old Homo Sapiens - like 400-500 years worth of aging. That theory does not add up if their DNA is as different from ours as what scientists tell us.
We also have fossils of Neanderthal children and infants. Which also show the same morphological differences from modern humans. I haven't read Jack Cuozzo's book. But if that is his assertion, it seems rather unsupported by the evidence.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr