Neanderthal DNA

An article in today's NY Times detailed a plan by German scientists
to reconstruct the Neanderthal genome (for reference, please see the
Science section, written by Nicholas Wade).

This poses some interesting ethical and religious questions. First, it
would seem to confront Creationists: if we humans have always existed
in our current form (in God's image), then who are these Neanderthals
who generally conform to our appearance, but have some significant
biological differences? If they are a 'lost tribe' of humans, then
what accounts for the differences in both neurological and physiological
differences that have led scientists to classify them as a different
species (based on mitochondrial DNA evidence)?

Furthermore, the current stance of most mainstream religions (and,
explicitly in Christianity) is that humankind (homo sapiens) reflexts
the culmination of Creation (irrespective of one's position on Young or
Old Earth theories). Consequently, as humans are obligated to treat
all other humans with a certain dignity, other animals are not subject
to the same treatment; that is, the prohibition on murder does extend
to a fellow human, but not to a bear, chimp, or cardinal. Would this
be extended to a Neanderthal and on what Biblical basis would this
be justified?

Nemesio

I would say that from my view of Christianity this poses no problems. Sure, Neanderthal man existed before Homo sapiens. Sure, he was intelligent and social. But, he wasn't human. He didn't, by my beliefs, have a soul, because God only gave humans souls.

Scientists can create cells, they can modify DNA, but I very much doubt they'd be able to make a fully conscious Neanderthal man, and if they did, I reckon God would consider them human and give them a human soul anyway (especially as it would have to be implanted into a human mother) so it would probably have human character anyway.

That's just what I think, but I don't expect a lot of people would agree. Anyway, it's an interesting question.

Originally posted by borissa
Sure, Neanderthal man existed before Homo sapiens.

Did he exist in the Garden of Eden, subject to Adam's rule?

Originally posted by Nemesio
An article in today's NY Times detailed a plan by German scientists
to reconstruct the Neanderthal genome (for reference, please see the
Science section, written by Nicholas Wade).

This poses some interesting ethical and religious questions. First, it
would seem to confront Creationists: if we humans have always existed
in our current form (in God's ...[text shortened]... e extended to a Neanderthal and on what Biblical basis would this
be justified?

Nemesio

Some very interesting moralistic questions. I agree that the reproduction of a neanderthal man would not undermine christianity in any way, the same way that the dinosaurs of hakaman's thread do not disprove god. Rationality, of course, does have something to say though, once you have god, and therefore miracles etc, then you have no need of logical deduction, since miracles are by nature not logical.

It would be an interesting scientific endeavour, and I'm sure that alot could be learned about our evolution, simply from mapping the DNA. I don't know what rights these people would have. Perhaps something akin to the Delta double negatives of "Brave New World"?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Some very interesting moralistic questions. I agree that the reproduction of a neanderthal man would not undermine christianity in any way, the same way that the dinosaurs of hakaman's thread do not disprove god. Rationality, of course, does have something to say though, once you have god, and therefore miracles etc, then you have no need of logical d ...[text shortened]... ple would have. Perhaps something akin to the Delta double negatives of "Brave New World"?

Don't you wish that every time some rabid fundies got to yammering you could just slip them a soma tablet?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Some very interesting moralistic questions. I agree that the reproduction of a neanderthal man would not undermine christianity in any way, the same way that the dinosaurs of hakaman's thread do not disprove god. Rationality, of course, does have something to say though, once you have god, and therefore miracles etc, then you have no need of logical d ...[text shortened]... ple would have. Perhaps something akin to the Delta double negatives of "Brave New World"?

Scot: " ..... once you have god, and therefore miracles etc, then you have no need of logical deduction, since miracles are by nature not logical."

"Miracles are by nature not logical"

Miracles cannot be explained by humans. This however does not mean they are "not logical" and they are certainly not "not logical" by their very nature.

Your statement that once you have God you don't need logical deduction is beyond the scope of my understanding. Could you please elaborate on this ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe


Miracles cannot be explained by humans. This however does not mean they are "not logical" and they are certainly not "not logical" by their very nature.

Sure they are. What is a miracle if not a nomological impossibility?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Scot: " ..... once you have god, and therefore miracles etc, then you have no need of logical deduction, since miracles are by nature not logical."

"Miracles are by nature not logical"

Miracles cannot be explained by humans. This however does not mean they are "not logical" and they are certainly not "not logical" by their very nature.

Your stateme ...[text shortened]... deduction is beyond the scope of my understanding. Could you please elaborate on this ?

The alternative to miracles being 'not logical' is that they are 'logical'.
Are you suggesting miracles are logical?

If so, could you give me some examples of 'miracle logic'?
(This should be a hoot.)

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Scot: " ..... once you have god, and therefore miracles etc, then you have no need of logical deduction, since miracles are by nature not logical."

"Miracles are by nature not logical"

Miracles cannot be explained by humans. This however does not mean they are "not logical" and they are certainly not "not logical" by their very nature.

Your stateme ...[text shortened]... deduction is beyond the scope of my understanding. Could you please elaborate on this ?

Logic dictates that you cannot make a woman from the rib of a man.

Originally posted by Nemesio
An article in today's NY Times detailed a plan by German scientists
to reconstruct the Neanderthal genome (for reference, please see the
Science section, written by Nicholas Wade).

This poses some interesting ethical and religious questions. First, it
would seem to confront Creationists: if we humans have always existed
in our current form (in God's e extended to a Neanderthal and on what Biblical basis would this
be justified?

Nemesio

Facinating Nem.Couldn't they simply go to the General Forum to see Neanderthals?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Logic dictates that you cannot make a woman from the rib of a man.

Thats right, logic dictates that all living beings came from nonliving matter or at least that is what science has observed in the past.

Originally posted by whodey
Thats right, logic dictates that all living beings came from nonliving matter or at least that is what science has observed in the past.

It is an interpolation, but one that makes logical sense, and is statistically probable.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
It is an interpolation, but one that makes logical sense, and is statistically probable.

The same can be said for the existence of God.

Originally posted by whodey
The same can be said for the existence of God.

Don't forget Muffy!

Originally posted by whodey
The same can be said for the existence of God.

What?
That the notion of god makes logical sense and is statistically probable?
What are you smoking?
A supernatural creator makes as much logical sense as fairies in the bottom of the garden, the flying spaghetti monster, or ... muffy!