Originally posted by RJHindsThose who believe that Neanderthals were a subspecies of human call them Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, while those who believe they were a separate species call them Homo neanderthalensis.
Who ever wrote that article show their extreme ignorance by stating neaderthals are not human. Neanderthals are just as human as negros and caucasians that have adapted different physical types from each other.
Modern humans are Homo sapiens sapiens, so I think it is clear that Neanderthals are NOT the same as modern humans.
As far as your "missing link" comment, it is fairly established that the latest Neanderthals lived c. 30,000 years ago. There is some evidence that they may have lived as recently as 24,000 years ago, but this evidence is circumstantial, not being direct physical evidence (tools and fire methods vs. bones or DNA).
Originally posted by SuzianneThe 30,000 and 24,000 years are obvious exaggerations to suit the evolutionists' claim. Neanderthal is just a term like Caucasian or Mongolian that divides humans into physical categories. It is really no different from the many terms used to divide wolves and dogs which are all of the same kind.
Those who believe that Neanderthals were a subspecies of human call them Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, while those who believe they were a separate species call them Homo neanderthalensis.
Modern humans are Homo sapiens sapiens, so I think it is clear that Neanderthals are NOT the same as modern humans.
As far as your "missing li ...[text shortened]... circumstantial, not being direct physical evidence (tools and fire methods vs. bones or DNA).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race
Originally posted by RJHindsNo. Neanderthal is either a separate species or a subspecies of humans. It is NOT merely a race of humans.
The 30,000 and 24,000 years are obvious exaggerations to suit the evolutionists' claim. Neanderthal is just a term like Caucasian or Mongolian that divides humans into physical categories. It is really no different from the many terms used to divide wolves and dogs which are all of the same kind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race
And oh, by the way, don't worry your head over people calling Neanderthals a "missing link" or anything else. The Neanderthal line is an evolutionary dead-end. Nothing evolved from it. Cro-Magnon man (or Homo sapiens sapiens) evolved on a parallel track, not evolved from Neanderthals.
2 edits
Originally posted by SuzianneHumans are not divided up into species. They are called races instead of species. 😏
No. Neanderthal is either a separate species or a subspecies of humans. It is NOT merely a race of humans.
And oh, by the way, don't worry your head over people calling Neanderthals a "missing link" or anything else. The Neanderthal line is an evolutionary dead-end. Nothing evolved from it. Cro-Magnon man (or Homo sapiens sapiens) evolved on a parallel track, not evolved from Neanderthals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)
Biologists once classified races as subspecies, but today scientists question even the concept of race itself. Certain issues in human taxonomy remain topics of debate today.
Originally posted by RJHindsSo you conveniently ignore the fact we KNOW a LOT about Neanderthals, including DNA. It turns out we share less than 4% of the genes between us and them.
Humans are not divided up into species. They are called races instead of species. 😏
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)
Biologists once classified races as subspecies, but today scientists question even the concept of race itself. Certain issues in human taxonomy remain topics of debate today.
We have more in common with chimps DNA wise and I doubt you call chimps human.
So why do you insist on calling Neandertals human? We competed for the same territory at times and food but we won and they lost.
There were in no way human, even their brain was different, a lot bigger than ours, indicating real intelligence but in different ways that we will most likely never know just what that difference really is.
So once again you poo poo science because it doesn't agree with your personal dogma. Neandertals aren't even MENTIONED in the bible so what is your beef with not calling them human? They were not humans suffering from rickets or any of that crap. The first ones found and the last ones found, their fossils, were very close physically, they would have died out a lot earlier if a generation thousands of years older was identical with humans with rickets or other degenerative diseases.
They were on a different line of the tree than us but shared a common ancestor from an even earlier time. Go back far enough and you find the branch that connects us with chimps but that is a lot further back in time than the branch that separated humans and Neanders.
Originally posted by RJHindsOk, I'm done beating my head against a brick wall.
Humans are not divided up into species. They are called races instead of species. 😏
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)
Biologists once classified races as subspecies, but today scientists question even the concept of race itself. Certain issues in human taxonomy remain topics of debate today.
Feel free to continue on in your ignorance.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseDid you mean to write this? 4%?
So you conveniently ignore the fact we KNOW a LOT about Neanderthals, including DNA. It turns out we share less than 4% of the genes between us and them.
The fact is that Neanderthals and modern humans share more than 99.5% of their genes. Some estimates are as high as 99.9%.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15732243/#.UK0Ds9fNl8H
Another interesting read on Neanderthal genome sequencing, with links to related articles:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061116083223.htm
Originally posted by Suzianneas one of the few lady posters in spirituality can i ask you to offer your perspective on whether ladies should be allowed to become elders in the church, i know not what your stance is, but it doesn't matter your comments might be insightful regardless - thanks in advance - Robbie.
Did you mean to write this? 4%?
The fact is that Neanderthals and modern humans share more than 99.5% of their genes. Some estimates are as high as 99.9%.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15732243/#.UK0Ds9fNl8H
Originally posted by sonhouseWhere do you come up with all this crap?
So you conveniently ignore the fact we KNOW a LOT about Neanderthals, including DNA. It turns out we share less than 4% of the genes between us and them.
We have more in common with chimps DNA wise and I doubt you call chimps human.
So why do you insist on calling Neandertals human? We competed for the same territory at times and food but we won and ...[text shortened]... mps but that is a lot further back in time than the branch that separated humans and Neanders.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI belong to the Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church has allowed female ordination since 1974, and the church I go to currently has a female priest.
as one of the few lady posters in spirituality can i ask you to offer your perspective on whether ladies should be allowed to become elders in the church, i know not what your stance is, but it doesn't matter your comments might be insightful regardless - thanks in advance - Robbie.
According to Wikipedia:
The Episcopal Church ordains women to the priesthood as well as the diaconate and the episcopate. The current Presiding Bishop (elected 2006) of the Episcopal Church is Katharine Jefferts Schori, the first female Primate in the Anglican Communion.
Of course I believe in the value of women as elders in the church.
Originally posted by SuzianneThe Episcopal Church is the Church of England in America.
I belong to the Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church has allowed female ordination since 1974, and the church I go to currently has a female priest.
According to Wikipedia:
The Episcopal Church ordains women to the priesthood as well as the diaconate and the episcopate. The current Presiding Bishop (elected 2006) of the Episcopal Church is Katharin ...[text shortened]... in the Anglican Communion.
Of course I believe in the value of women as elders in the church.
"The Church was organized shortly after the American Revolution when it was forced to separate from the Church of England, as Church of England clergy were required to swear allegiance to the British monarch, who is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_Church_(United_States)
Originally posted by RJHindsSinging to the choir, my friend.
The Episcopal Church is the Church of England in America.
[b]"The Church was organized shortly after the American Revolution when it was forced to separate from the Church of England, as Church of England clergy were required to swear allegiance to the British monarch, who is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_Church_(United_States)[/b]
Or did you really think I did not know this?
My point is that The Episcopal Church ordains women and has a woman as their current Presiding Bishop, while the CoE does not.
Originally posted by SuzianneThe Episcopal Church is much more liberal and suits your psychology.
Singing to the choir, my friend.
Or did you [b]really think I did not know this?
My point is that The Episcopal Church ordains women and has a woman as their current Presiding Bishop, while the CoE does not.[/b]
