Human-Animal Hybrids

[The Barbarian]

We are hybrids.  Almost all of us have DNA of at least one other human subspecies.

11 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

No, we're NOT!

By definition, we are.

Hybrid

Definition
noun, plural form: hybrids
(reproductive biology) The offspring resulting from the cross between parents of different species or sub-species

Most people of European descent, for example have a few genes that are from Neanderthals.    Many in South Asia and Oceania have some genes from Denisovans.

11 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

This is the MAJOR DYSFUNCTION of the theory of Evolution when it comes to genetics!

This is not part of evolutionary theory.   It's just genetics.   One of the most common reasons some people don't like evolution, is they don't know what  it is.

11 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

We were created in the IMAGE OF GOD!

But the image is in our minds and souls.   God doesn't have a nose or fingernails.    Jesus says God is a spirit, and He tells us that a spirit has no body. 

11 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

How in the world could there be "human subspecies?!"

Neandertals, for example were once thought to be a different species of human, but genetically, they are close enough to qualify as a subspecies.   There were other species of humans like H. ergaster, but Neandertals are more closely related to modern humans.

11 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

There's NO SUCH THING! All we REALLY have are misread fossil evidence!

Really no point in denying the facts.   We've sequenced enough of Neandertal DNA to be sure of this. 

[Retrobyter]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

God says there is.  

Genesis 2:7  And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

I believe Him.

Shalom, The Barbarian.

It's good to believe God. It's also good to know what He was saying! THAT WORD that was translated as "soul" IS that Hebrew word "nefesh" which means "an air-breathing creature!" It was NOT our definition of "soul!"

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Precisely because a soul is not material.   

This is WRONG! Being an "air-breathing creature," it IS a physical being! It is material!

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Science can only see the physical universe.   Man is different than the other animals because God directly gives man an immortal soul.  

This, too, is wrong, because an "air-breathing creature" is ONLY "immortal" when that individual is resurrected to immortality!

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Jesus says otherwise...

Luke 23: 42 And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom.  43 And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.

 

 

That Greek word paradeisos, transliterated into the word "paradise," means a "park of trees!" He was talking about the New Jerusalem at best, and He may not have even been  talking about THAT "park!"

[Retrobyter]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

We are hybrids.  Almost all of us have DNA of at least one other human subspecies.

By definition, we are.

Hybrid

Definition
noun, plural form: hybrids
(reproductive biology) The offspring resulting from the cross between parents of different species or sub-species

Most people of European descent, for example have a few genes that are from Neanderthals.    Many in South Asia and Oceania have some genes from Denisovans.

Shalom, The Barbarian.

You are ASSUMING that Neanderthals and Denisovans are subspecies of modern man. That PHILOSOPHY is in keeping with the evolutionary theory, which is itself a PHILOSOPHY, not pure science! As a person EXPECTS to find, whether in the fossil records or in genetics, that's what he or she WILL find! He or she is BIASED to finding what he or she expects!

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

This is not part of evolutionary theory.   It's just genetics.   One of the most common reasons some people don't like evolution, is they don't know what  it is.

But, do YOU know what it is? It is the humanistic philosophy of "pulling oneself up by his bootstraps!" The very idea that time and chance could have the same outcome as creation is like comparing the typing of millions of monkeys on keyboards to eventually produce the works of Shakespeare! It DOESN'T WORK!

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

But the image is in our minds and souls.   God doesn't have a nose or fingernails.    Jesus says God is a spirit, and He tells us that a spirit has no body. 

Nope. Sorry, but that's not what the image of God is about. Don't you think that God already knew what Yeeshuwa` would look like?

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Neandertals, for example were once thought to be a different species of human, but genetically, they are close enough to qualify as a subspecies.   There were other species of humans like H. ergaster, but Neandertals are more closely related to modern humans.

Really no point in denying the facts.   We've sequenced enough of Neandertal DNA to be sure of this. 

Well, that's your take on it, but you may want to reconsider. When first discovered, doctors recognized that the Neanderthal was an old man suffering from rickets!

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

You are ASSUMING that Neanderthals and Denisovans are subspecies of modern man.

I have to admit that I'm more like the Neanderthal than I am like the anatomically modern human.   Other than a high cranium and a chin, I'm short, muscular, big shoulders and chest, prominent nose, shorter legs.   Genetically, I'm predominately Northern European, which fits the type.

There was considerable interbreeding of these human populations, which would indicate that they are subspecies (races) of one human species.   There are no biological human races today, but there were then.

2 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

As a person EXPECTS to find, whether in the fossil records or in genetics, that's what he or she WILL find! He or she is BIASED to finding what he or she expects!

That's the point; we didn't expect to find this.  Fossil record suggests that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals diverged into separate species a long time ago.   But the genetic data indicates that they are merely subspecies of H. sapiens.  Creationism, which is a religious philosophy, requires that facts be changed to fit the belief.   Science requires that one's belief be changed to fit the facts.

2 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

But, do YOU know what it is? It is the humanistic philosophy of "pulling oneself up by his bootstraps!"

Nope.  That's another odd misconception that creationists have about science in general and biology in particular.   The same laws of nature fit all of them.

2 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

The very idea that time and chance could have the same outcome as creation is like comparing the typing of millions of monkeys on keyboards to eventually produce the works of Shakespeare! It DOESN'T WORK!

That was Darwin's great discovery; it isn't random.    See what I mean?   If you know more about what evolution is, you'd be more effective talking about it.

Jesus says God is a spirit, and He tells us that a spirit has no body. 

2 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Nope. Sorry, but that's not what the image of God is about.

Sorry, I'll go with Jesus on this one.

2 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

When first discovered, doctors recognized that the Neanderthal was an old man suffering from rickets!

No, you got that wrong, too.   The "rickets" idea was much later, by a man named Virchow, and he got it wrong.   You see, people with rickets have weaker bones than most, and all the Neandertal skeletons are much more robust than modern human skeletons.   Even worse for his idea:

Many adult Neandertal have prominently bowed radii and femora and this bowing appears to be present in some immature Neandertal. However, it is always an accentuation of the normal curvature of the radial of the femoral diaphysis, and it never assumes the irregular curvature associated with rickets. None of their humeri, ulnae, tibiae, or fibulae are unusually curved. . . .

This discussion should make it apparent that Ivanhoe's statement that "most features of the characteristic Neanderthal morphology are the result of a form of rickets" is without empirical basis.

https://ncse.ngo/creationists-and-neandertal

Again, some reading of the scientific literature and even a little museum time looking at the evidence would make you better able to discuss this issue.

Keep in mind, even if anatomically modern humans are different species than Neandertals, the fact that we have some Neandertal genes indicates that we are the result of interbreeding, which makes us hybrids.

 

 

Edited April 4, 2023 by The Barbarian

[Retrobyter]

8 hours ago, Mr. M said:

I still stand by my statement made just ahead of your post, that Gen 5:3 expresses heredity.

Shalom, Mr. M.

Another verse that suggests heredity is Luke 3:38:

Luke 3:38 (KJV)

38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

While that's not precisely true, we do have this from GaVriy'eel earlier:

Luke 1:26-35 (KJV)

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And the angel came in unto her, and said,

"Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women!"

29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30And the angel said unto her,

"Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end."

34 Then said Mary unto the angel,

"How shall this be, seeing I know not a man (I've never had sexual relations with a man)?"

35 And the angel answered and said unto her,

"The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

And, as any geneticist could tell you, this could not possibly be a clone, and half of the DNA for this Individual came from the CREATIVE POWER of the RUWACH HAQODESH 'ELOHIYM - the HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD, NOT from another human being!

[Retrobyter]

8 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

I have to admit that I'm more like the Neanderthal than I am like the anatomically modern human.   Other than a high cranium and a chin, I'm short, muscular, big shoulders and chest, prominent nose, shorter legs.   Genetically, I'm predominately Northern European, which fits the type.

Shalom, The Barbarian.

But, don't you see?! The jagged, diagonally cut loincloth, the spear with a stone head, even the demeanor of the person suggests a LEADING assumption! One is being LED to believe that the Neanderthal was a more "primitive" race than "modern man!" This is the SAME NONSENSE that caused Hitler to make his attempt to extinguish the "primitive races" in favor of the Arian race!

8 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

There was considerable interbreeding of these human populations, which would indicate that they are subspecies (races) of one human species.   There are no biological human races today, but there were then.

Again, more nonsense. This is WHY there are racists! I've known some black-skinned individuals that looked very much like a gorilla, but they were JUST AS HUMAN AS YOU AND I! There's only ONE human race! And, YHWH God, who LOVES variety, gave everyone a unique look! Even "identical twins" have some distinguishing mark that perhaps only their mother might recognize, but they are NOT exactly the same! Those who look more "Neanderthal-ish," still sprang from Adam and Chavah!

We know what brings out certain traits within a family or a people: They are isolated from the rest of humanity, and they interbreed until they've "weeded out" a particular gene or set of genes. They have BECOME what looks like a different subspecies, but the truth is that they are STILL 100% human! These traits do not show that they existed before or after other pockets of human beings! All it shows is the GREAT VARIETY of an all-knowing God! It's the "this came before that"assumption that needs to be DROPPED!

8 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

That's the point; we didn't expect to find this.  Fossil record suggests that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals diverged into separate species a long time ago.   But the genetic data indicates that they are merely subspecies of H. sapiens.  Creationism, which is a religious philosophy, requires that facts be changed to fit the belief.   Science requires that one's belief be changed to fit the facts.

... Putting "science philosophy" at a supposed higher plane than "religious philosophy!" You're still not getting it: It takes JUST AS MUCH FAITH to believe in the "science philosophy" as it does to believe in "religious philosophy!"

8 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Nope.  That's another odd misconception that creationists have about science in general and biology in particular.   The same laws of nature fit all of them.

Of course, but the THEORY of Evolution is just that - a THEORY! It can NEVER be proved scientifically, because NO ONE WAS PRESENT to watch it happen! Furthermore, NO ONE can replicate the process! It is NOT one of those "same laws" that apply!

8 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

That was Darwin's great discovery; it isn't random.    See what I mean?   If you know more about what evolution is, you'd be more effective talking about it.

Jesus says God is a spirit, and He tells us that a spirit has no body. 

The SAME SCRIPTURES also say,

John 1:1-14 (KJV)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

So, God as the Word who was Spirit (a WIND), was MADE FLESH, and this obviously was talking about the Man Yeeshuwa` ("Jesus"), who is the Messiah of God ("the Christ of God")!

8 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Sorry, I'll go with Jesus on this one.

But, you're not. Yeeshuwa` said the following in red,

Mark 10:2-9 (KJV)

2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him,

"Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?"

tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them,

"What did Moses command you?"

4 And they said,

"Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away."

5 And Jesus answered and said unto them,

"For the hardness (fierceness) of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 

7 "'For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh': (Genesis 2:24)

"so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Yeeshuwa` uncompromisingly believed the Genesis account! Why can't you?

8 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

No, you got that wrong, too.   The "rickets" idea was much later, by a man named Virchow, and he got it wrong.   You see, people with rickets have weaker bones than most, and all the Neandertal skeletons are much more robust than modern human skeletons.   Even worse for his idea:

Many adult Neandertal have prominently bowed radii and femora and this bowing appears to be present in some immature Neandertal. However, it is always an accentuation of the normal curvature of the radial of the femoral diaphysis, and it never assumes the irregular curvature associated with rickets. None of their humeri, ulnae, tibiae, or fibulae are unusually curved. . . .

This discussion should make it apparent that Ivanhoe's statement that "most features of the characteristic Neanderthal morphology are the result of a form of rickets" is without empirical basis.

https://ncse.ngo/creationists-and-neandertal

Again, some reading of the scientific literature and even a little museum time looking at the evidence would make you better able to discuss this issue.

Keep in mind, even if anatomically modern humans are different species than Neandertals, the fact that we have some Neandertal genes indicates that we are the result of interbreeding, which makes us hybrids.

Regardless of this discussion, the truth is that the Neanderthal or "Neandertal" is just another group of HUMAN BEINGS. They came from the same parents who were created by fiat in Genesis 1-2.

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

But, don't you see?! The jagged, diagonally cut loincloth, the spear with a stone head, even the demeanor of the person suggests a LEADING assumption!

Those are artifacts found with Neanderthals.   We know they wore worked animal skins and had paleolithic tools including stone spearheads mounted on wooden shafts.   No projectile weapons, though, and no tailored skins so far as we know.   All evidence-based.

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

One is being LED to believe that the Neanderthal was a more "primitive" race than "modern man!"

Well, boxer briefs are a relatively modern thing, yes.  

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

This is the SAME NONSENSE that caused Hitler to make his attempt to extinguish the "primitive races" in favor of the Arian race!

No.  You assume that "primitive" man was less intelligent than modern humans.   We have no reason to think that Neanderthals were less intelligent than anatomically modern humans.  They were very culturally conservative, but we have evidence that they could produce tools as advanced as the antomically modern people of the same time.

There was considerable interbreeding of these human populations, which would indicate that they are subspecies (races) of one human species.   There are no biological human races today, but there were then.

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

Again, more nonsense. 

Nope.   There is only one human race today.   At one time, there were several subspecies of human, but today there is only one race.   Race today is merely a cultural construct.  

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

Those who look more "Neanderthal-ish," still sprang from Adam and Chavah!

Of course.  Why would it bother you if Adam wasn't of our particular subspecies?   It wouldn't matter to God.

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

They have BECOME what looks like a different subspecies, but the truth is that they are STILL 100% human!

Subspecies of any species are still 100% of that species.   Neanderthals are still considered by some to be a different species of human.   Some creationists have said that they are just a species of ape.   But the evidence indicates that they are just a subspecies of H. sapiens.  Genetically different than people living today, but close enough that they hybidized with our subspecies and left their genes in our genome.

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

Putting "science philosophy" at a supposed higher plane than "religious philosophy!"

You might thing you are, but you don't seem to realize that science is merely a method based on evidence while your "science philosophy" is based on something quite different.

That's another odd misconception that creationists have about science in general and biology in particular.   The same laws of nature fit all of them.

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

Of course, but the THEORY of Evolution is just that - a THEORY!

Perhaps you don't know what "theory" means in science.   A theory is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly confirmed by evidence.   A hypothesis is a testable prediction about something in the physical world. When those predictions are verified over and over, it becomes a theory.   But evolution is both an observed fact and a scientific theory.   We see evolution happening constantly.  Would you like to learn about some examples?

(assumption that evolution works by time and chance)

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

That was Darwin's great discovery; it isn't random. 

Jesus says God is a spirit, and He tells us that a spirit has no body. 

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

The SAME SCRIPTURES also say,

Yes, because God has no body, His Son became man, and only then had a body.   But as you see, Jesus clearly shows that a spirit has no body.  

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

Yeeshuwa` uncompromisingly believed the Genesis account!

I'm sure you want to believe it.   The difference is, I am willing to accept it His way.

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

Regardless of this discussion, the truth is that the Neanderthal or "Neandertal" is just another group of HUMAN BEINGS.

Yep.  Still human.  While some scientists still think they genetically different enough to be an separate species, the evidence convinces me that we and they are different subspecies of the same H. sapiens taxon.    The fact that we hybridized with them to produce modern humans supports my conclusion.

"Neandertal" and "Neanderthal" are both acceptable spellings.  The name comes from the location where the first one was found.   The Neander river valley, "das Neandertal" was the location.

 

Edited April 5, 2023 by The Barbarian

[BeyondET]

On 4/3/2023 at 9:03 PM, The Barbarian said:

No, they don't.  And it would be just as likely to make us weaker.

We are hybrids.  Almost all of us have DNA of at least one other human subspecies.   

When someone has a bone marrow transplant, they take on the donors DNA. Basically like a hybrid of the other person at the DNA level. Quite fascinating how each person has unique DNA yet is interchangeable. The transplant will replace a person's DNA with the donor's.

Edited April 6, 2023 by BeyondET

[BeyondET]

17 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, The Barbarian.

But, don't you see?! The jagged, diagonally cut loincloth, the spear with a stone head, even the demeanor of the person suggests a LEADING assumption! One is being LED to believe that the Neanderthal was a more "primitive" race than "modern man!" This is the SAME NONSENSE that caused Hitler to make his attempt to extinguish the "primitive races" in favor of the Arian race!

Again, more nonsense. This is WHY there are racists! I've known some black-skinned individuals that looked very much like a gorilla, but they were JUST AS HUMAN AS YOU AND I! There's only ONE human race! And, YHWH God, who LOVES variety, gave everyone a unique look! Even "identical twins" have some distinguishing mark that perhaps only their mother might recognize, but they are NOT exactly the same! Those who look more "Neanderthal-ish," still sprang from Adam and Chavah!

We know what brings out certain traits within a family or a people: They are isolated from the rest of humanity, and they interbreed until they've "weeded out" a particular gene or set of genes. They have BECOME what looks like a different subspecies, but the truth is that they are STILL 100% human! These traits do not show that they existed before or after other pockets of human beings! All it shows is the GREAT VARIETY of an all-knowing God! It's the "this came before that"assumption that needs to be DROPPED!

... Putting "science philosophy" at a supposed higher plane than "religious philosophy!" You're still not getting it: It takes JUST AS MUCH FAITH to believe in the "science philosophy" as it does to believe in "religious philosophy!"

Of course, but the THEORY of Evolution is just that - a THEORY! It can NEVER be proved scientifically, because NO ONE WAS PRESENT to watch it happen! Furthermore, NO ONE can replicate the process! It is NOT one of those "same laws" that apply!

The SAME SCRIPTURES also say,

John 1:1-14 (KJV)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

So, God as the Word who was Spirit (a WIND), was MADE FLESH, and this obviously was talking about the Man Yeeshuwa` ("Jesus"), who is the Messiah of God ("the Christ of God")!

But, you're not. Yeeshuwa` said the following in red,

Mark 10:2-9 (KJV)

2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him,

"Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?"

tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them,

"What did Moses command you?"

4 And they said,

"Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away."

5 And Jesus answered and said unto them,

"For the hardness (fierceness) of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 

7 "'For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh': (Genesis 2:24)

"so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Yeeshuwa` uncompromisingly believed the Genesis account! Why can't you?

Regardless of this discussion, the truth is that the Neanderthal or "Neandertal" is just another group of HUMAN BEINGS. They came from the same parents who were created by fiat in Genesis 1-2.

Identical twins are the only people in the world that share Identical DNA. Each person is unique except indenticals though it can be acquired by other means, bone marrow transplant.

 

these verses say, to them that believe, which were born again as sons of God not of blood or of will.

John 1

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Edited April 6, 2023 by BeyondET

[BeyondET]

Eccl 12

6Remember Him before the silver cord is snapped and the golden bowl is crushed, before the pitcher is shattered at the spring and the wheel is broken at the well,

7before the dust returns to the ground from which it came and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

8“Futility of futilities,” says the Teacher.

“Everything is futile!”