Neanderthals - Were they our ancestors?

[Philip]

(Haha - note the early man-bun!)

Here's a series of position analyses concerning the Neanderthal data, as assessed by Reasons to Believe:

https://www.reasons.org/search-results? ... tal&mode=0

[RickD]

The real question, is it Neanderthal or Neandertal.

[DBowling]

Sorry... just had to do it...

I love these commercials
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8o_YqzMBoo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdZaywl ... oo&index=4

[Philip]

Rick: The real question, is it Neanderthal or Neandertal.

I bet Rick's wife can answer that one!

[RickD]

Amazing! Never before seen lost video of a look into Neanderthal language, and how it almost evolved into what we now consider modern English:

[Philip]

I remember that dude - he was in the Kentucky Fried Movie - he threw the car transmission in the kung fu sequence.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

(Haha - note the early man-bun!)

Here's a series of position analyses concerning the Neanderthal data, as assessed by Reasons to Believe:

https://www.reasons.org/search-results? ... tal&mode=0

The "African Neanderthal" or Rhodesia Man is considered to be the direct ancestor of all the races of today. Classical Neanderthal Man is more of a cousin human lineage. Some intermixing happened but not much but they too come from the Heidelberg Man and Rhodesia Man humans.

[abelcainsbrother]

(Haha - note the early man-bun!)

Here's a series of position analyses concerning the Neanderthal data, as assessed by Reasons to Believe:

https://www.reasons.org/search-results? ... tal&mode=0

No! Neanderthals were one of many different races in the Pre-Adamite world.When that world perished nothing survived it and all life died until God restored the earth for this Adamite world and made this world we now live in.When these Pre-Adamite races were discovered it was like a fulfilled bible prophecy at the time,yet history has been altered because of evolution so that you think we only have one world going back 4.6 billion years instead of two different worlds with a gap between them. Even if you do research on Neanderthals there is no consensus on them,as a matter of fact it is not clear about why they even went extinct,as there are different theories as to why.Much speculation.Re-examine the evidence and instead of looking at it from an evolution perspective look at it from a two different kinds of worlds with a gap between them perspective,instead.

How do you have man-like creatures that are before man,more like each other than man is in this world,with man in this world? Answer - Evolution.

Now,how do you have man-like creatures before man,that are more like each other than man is in this world,with man? You don't because there were two different worlds with different races in them.

[DBowling]

No! Neanderthals were one of many different races in the Pre-Adamite world.When that world perished nothing survived it and all life died until God restored the earth for this Adamite world and made this world we now live in.When these Pre-Adamite races were discovered it was like a fulfilled bible prophecy at the time,yet history has been altered because of evolution so that you think we only have one world going back 4.6 billion years instead of two different worlds with a gap between them. Even if you do research on Neanderthals there is no consensus on them,as a matter of fact it is not clear about why they even went extinct,as there are different theories as to why.Much speculation.Re-examine the evidence and instead of looking at it from an evolution perspective look at it from a two different kinds of worlds with a gap between them perspective,instead.

It makes no sense to look at thing from a gap perspective because both Scripture and science directly contradict the gap theory.

And Neanderthals are part of the scientific contradiction.

Let's begin with the OP.
Are Neanderthals the ancestors of humans (species homo sapiens sapiens)?
No... Neanderthals and humans (species homo sapiens sapiens) coexisted for about 150,000 years.
Which kind of shot down the theory that humans evolved from Neanderthals.

The fact that Neanderthals and humans coexisted for around 150,000 years is also one of the multitude of scientific evidences that directly contradicts the Gap theory.

Neanderthals lived in Eurasia from around 450,000 years ago to about 40,000 years ago.
Humans (species homo sapiens sapiens) first appeared in Africa around 200,000 years ago and all humans currently living on the planet are descended from these earliest humans.

So from a scientific perspective there is no gap between Neanderthals and Humans. Neanderthals and Humans coexisted for about 150,000 years from the first appearance of humans in Africa (200,000 years ago) to 40,000 years ago when Neanderthals went extinct.

The very same science that shows that humans did NOT evolve from Neanderthals also shows that there was no chronological gap between Neanderthals and Humans (species homo sapiens sapiens).

[thatkidakayoungguy]

this boils to sematics: were neanderthals a variant of human or not? anatomically, genetically, n culturally they r a human. r they the same species or subspecies? no.

[DBowling]

this boils to sematics: were neanderthals a variant of human or not? anatomically, genetically, n culturally they r a human. r they the same species or subspecies? no.

Yes it is semantics...
Some people refer to different hominid species as "humans".
Some people (like myself) limit the term "human" to our species... biologically modern humans (ie species homo sapiens sapiens)

That is why when I use the term human in discussions like this, I make sure that I define how I am using the term human (ie species homo sapiens sapiens)

[Philip]

Which poses a question, DB - how can there be Neanderthal DNA in humans?

[DBowling]

Which poses a question, DB - how can there be Neanderthal DNA in humans?

If there is a small amount of Neanderthal DNA in some humans of European descent, then there is only one way that I can think of that it got there. Evidently on rare occasions Humans and Neanderthals were able to mate and produce viable offspring. The small amount of DNA is evidence that viable Human/Neanderthal offspring would have been the exception rather than the rule, but there is some genetic evidence to indicate that it may have happened.

Now if my understanding of the timing of the Biblical Adam is correct, then any intermingling between Humans and Neanderthals took place tens of thousands of years before God breathed into the mouth of Adam and Adam became spiritually alive.

And dates for the ancient Mesopotamian cities of Eridu and Uruk (Also known as Enoch - See Genesis 4:17) do validate the Septuagint time frames that we find in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies.
So I think I am on a pretty solid Scriptural and archaeological foundation in dating the historical Biblical Adam somewhere between 5000 and 6000 BC.

[Philip]

DB: Now if my understanding of the timing of the Biblical Adam is correct, then any intermingling between Humans and Neanderthals took place tens of thousands of years before God breathed into the mouth of Adam and Adam became spiritually alive.

Now, I'm tracking with you on the likely timing. Yet, if a creature has human DNA, even intermingled - is it not human?

Other question, when you reference Adam becoming "spiritually alive" - are you asserting that he was already previously existing and then so spiritually imbued? I thought you accepted Adam - while not necessarily the first human (but the first of Christ's line) - that he was however instantly created from dust, and Eve from Adam's rib - in which neither of them existed before they were instantly created in God's image (and not previously existing hominids or evolved creatures)?

[DBowling]

DB: Now if my understanding of the timing of the Biblical Adam is correct, then any intermingling between Humans and Neanderthals took place tens of thousands of years before God breathed into the mouth of Adam and Adam became spiritually alive.

Now, I'm tracking with you on the likely timing. Yet, if a creature has human DNA, even intermingled - is it not human?

Other question, when you reference Adam becoming "spiritually alive" - are you asserting that he was already previously existing and then so spiritually imbued? I thought you accepted Adam - while not necessarily the first human (but the first of Christ's line) - that he was however instantly created from dust, and Eve from Adam's rib - in which neither of them existed before they were instantly created in God's image (and not previously existing hominids or evolved creatures)?

Genesis 2:7 lists two steps...
1. The Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground.
2. Then the Lord breathed into his mouth the breath of life.
... it is only after the man had received the breath of life that the man became a 'living soul'.
The implication being that the man was not a 'living soul' prior to receiving the breath of life.
And of course there is the well known linguistic relationship in both the OT and NT between 'breath' and the 'Spirit'.

Now it is interesting to see how Paul deals with this principle of being formed from dust in 1 Cor 15:44-49

44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.

Paul makes a couple of points that are interesting to me...
in verse 44 Paul says that Adam "became" a living soul. Again pointing out that he was not always a living soul.
The other interesting point is that Paul seems to be telling us that we are 'earthy' in the same way that Adam was 'earthy'. And Paul is defining the mortal body that is 'sown a natural body' as the the 'earthy' body that we all share with Adam.

Which brings us to Psalm 103:14
In this verse David uses the same vocabulary that Moses uses in Genesis 2:7 (ie 'formed' 'dust') to make the point that all men are formed from dust.

So if Paul tells us that we are all earthy just like Adam was earthy, and David tells us that we are all formed from dust, then it could be possible (I am not positive or dogmatic on this) that Moses' use of the phrase "formed from dust" was a reference to the mortality of Adam's earthy body. Which would explain why God placed the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden as an antidote to Adam's natural/earthy/mortal status.

Now, none of this is original to me. I was introduced to this principle in John Walton's book, The Lost World of Adam and Eve. I'm still working through what Moses, David, and Paul might have thought "being formed from dust" meant.

I am totally ok with interpreting Genesis 2:7 as a specific creation account for the historical Biblical Adam.
However, I am also open to John Walton's interpretation that Moses is using the phrase "formed from dust" similarly to how David and Paul use it to describe the inherent mortality of all of mankind... including Adam.

Pot stirred