OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 20, 2014, 08:23:27 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Cloning Neanderthal Man: spiritual ramifications  (Read 4117 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
simplygermain
beer-bellied tellitubby
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA - Northwest, Baby!
Posts: 771


Zechariah 11:7


WWW
« on: January 22, 2013, 12:13:44 PM »

Source of the discussion: http://rt.com/usa/news/birth-neanderthal-church-cloning-455/

Ok... So this got me wondering about the Orthodox teaching on the lineage of Cain. Do we have any Holy Fathers that had opinions on this?

I understand that there are a few Talmudic Orthodox Jewish Rabbis that teach that Cain's line ended and that it was the Neanderthal line.

And if there are patristic opinions on this, in light of this cloning technology and being on the cusp of man re-creating hybrid Neanderthals, what are the spiritual or societal ramifications we can digest from it?
Logged

I believe, help Thou my unbelief!! - St. John of Krondstadt

http://Http://hairshirtagenda.blogspot.com

 Witega: "Bishops and Metropolitans and even Patriarchs have been removed under decidedly questionable circumstances before but the Church moves on."
Hiwot
Christ is Risen!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 1,959


Job 19:25-27


« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2013, 12:51:01 PM »

interesting topic simplygermain, I got nothing of use to you on this subject, although I am interested to know why those Rabbis teach that, It seems to me if anyone should be implicated as of being descendant of Cain it should be the Homo sapien. also funny how the guy's name who is thinking of doing the cloning is Church. lol
Logged

To God be the Glory in all things! Amen!

Only pray for me, that God would give me both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but truly will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one. St.Ignatius of Antioch.Epistle to the Romans.
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,378



WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2013, 01:34:06 PM »

I don't think that we can ever know whether the line of Cain was the neanderthal man. I don't even know what the neanderthal man is, regardless of what science says. Not saying it's not true, but since I can't verify it for myself and I see a lot of errors that science makes, I am very skeptical.

Cloning is definitely not something humans should do, in any case. It's against human nature and degrades the value of life.

So, personally, I keep these things simple.
Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,205


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2013, 05:45:03 PM »

Dr. Church has stated that RT and Der Speigel  mistranslated his intent. "I’m certainly not advocating it,” Church said. “I’m saying, if it is technically possible someday, we need to start talking about it today.”http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/01/harvard_professor_blasts_neanderthal_clone_baby_rumor_web
Logged
simplygermain
beer-bellied tellitubby
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA - Northwest, Baby!
Posts: 771


Zechariah 11:7


WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2013, 06:49:41 PM »

Dr. Church has stated that RT and Der Speigel  mistranslated his intent. "I’m certainly not advocating it,” Church said. “I’m saying, if it is technically possible someday, we need to start talking about it today.”http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/01/harvard_professor_blasts_neanderthal_clone_baby_rumor_web
So... Let's begin the conversation.
Logged

I believe, help Thou my unbelief!! - St. John of Krondstadt

http://Http://hairshirtagenda.blogspot.com

 Witega: "Bishops and Metropolitans and even Patriarchs have been removed under decidedly questionable circumstances before but the Church moves on."
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,429


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2013, 11:50:49 PM »

If Neanderthal man isn't considered a human and cannot participate in the Sacraments, then pretty much all of us are screwed, because science has also shown that EVERY single human OTHER than Black people and some Asians have Neanderthal DNA inside of them. My thoughts are that "humans" are defined by species' which belong to the Homo genus, since the species of the Homo genus are the only species in the history of Earth which appear to have souls.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,153


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #6 on: January 23, 2013, 12:18:32 AM »

If Neanderthal man isn't considered a human and cannot participate in the Sacraments, then pretty much all of us are screwed, because science has also shown that EVERY single human OTHER than Black people and some Asians have Neanderthal DNA inside of them. My thoughts are that "humans" are defined by species' which belong to the Homo genus, since the species of the Homo genus are the only species in the history of Earth which appear to have souls.

Of course, Science says we evolved from..... that evolved from.... that evolved from......
DNA....  There can be many similarities between many living things.

Science has also a "belief", that they pass as a "theory", such as the big bang, and again, evolution.   These things conflict with our scriptures and belief systems

Neanderthals would fit the bill.  With the horrible errors in carbon dating, to the plausibility of vitamins, calcium levels, and diet affecting the appearance of them, I have to doubt Science claims.   We have been taught from early on in school about DNA, evolution, etc., and we accept it as fact.   But they really do throw out some wild ones, and often.


With evolution in mind, they classify things in categories.  They put the man formed in God's image and group them with other animals.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Maximum Bob
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,463


Personal Text? We can have personal text?


« Reply #7 on: January 23, 2013, 01:02:32 AM »

There's a part of me that is very intrigued by this, but how does one create a life we can't reasonably guarantee the viability of just for the purpose of experimentation. Not that we can guarantee the viability of any conception but from what I've read the chance of an initial success here would significantly less.

I would also bet if they really were dong it they would have no trouble finding a surrogate.
Logged

Prov. 3: 5-6 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths.
Psalm 37:23 The Lord guides a man safely in the way he should go.
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,268



« Reply #8 on: January 23, 2013, 01:16:25 AM »

These things conflict with our scriptures and belief systems

No, they don't. At least, they don't have to. Many Christians and atheists make them conflict when they don't have to.

Metropolitan Kallistos talks about the issue in this video. Fast forward to 1:29:30 and watch through to 1:35:43.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F7h-TStNd8&feature=gv

« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 01:18:38 AM by Andrew21091 » Logged
simplygermain
beer-bellied tellitubby
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA - Northwest, Baby!
Posts: 771


Zechariah 11:7


WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 23, 2013, 02:17:46 AM »

I will definitely watch the video tomorrow. Meanwhile I can't help but think that I haven't ever come across anything orthodox that truly negates Neanderthals as being human. As I understand it Neanderthals are simply a section of humanity that could not adapt any further. This sounds like microevolution not macroevolution.

It it possible that this is the pre-flood human? Is it possible that this is the corrupt humanity makes with a sign by God, not able to procreate with the new male humans that had adapted? So many questions.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 02:21:25 AM by simplygermain » Logged

I believe, help Thou my unbelief!! - St. John of Krondstadt

http://Http://hairshirtagenda.blogspot.com

 Witega: "Bishops and Metropolitans and even Patriarchs have been removed under decidedly questionable circumstances before but the Church moves on."
OrthoNoob
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 994



« Reply #10 on: January 23, 2013, 03:20:54 AM »

If Neanderthal man isn't considered a human and cannot participate in the Sacraments, then pretty much all of us are screwed, because science has also shown that EVERY single human OTHER than Black people and some Asians have Neanderthal DNA inside of them. My thoughts are that "humans" are defined by species' which belong to the Homo genus, since the species of the Homo genus are the only species in the history of Earth which appear to have souls.

Can "The Homo genus" be defined with reference to some non-arbitary, objective reality?
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #11 on: January 23, 2013, 03:47:25 AM »

Can "The Homo genus" be defined with reference to some non-arbitary, objective reality?

Yup - the very objective and non-arbitrary fossil record.

The non-homogenous Homo genus shrank to a single species (ours) ages ago.

Not long ago, I've seen an experiment a scientist did with a bunch of amateur creationist enthusiasts: he gave them a pile of primate skulls all originating from different strata excavated from the same valley in Africa. Interestingly, each of them was able to arrange them in roughly the correct chronological order, but they had difficulty in establishing which ones were human and which weren't, because they all looked so very much alike and yet belonged to different species. DNA analysis can pretty much tell them apart - with a high degree of accuracy. 
« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 04:05:31 AM by Romaios » Logged
Ansgar
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: More than an inquirer, less than a catechumen
Jurisdiction: Exarchate of orthodox churches of russian tradition in western Europe
Posts: 2,941


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« Reply #12 on: January 23, 2013, 03:58:06 AM »

If Neanderthal man isn't considered a human and cannot participate in the Sacraments, then pretty much all of us are screwed, because science has also shown that EVERY single human OTHER than Black people and some Asians have Neanderthal DNA inside of them. My thoughts are that "humans" are defined by species' which belong to the Homo genus, since the species of the Homo genus are the only species in the history of Earth which appear to have souls.

Of course, Science says we evolved from..... that evolved from.... that evolved from......
DNA....  There can be many similarities between many living things.

Science has also a "belief", that they pass as a "theory", such as the big bang, and again, evolution.   These things conflict with our scriptures and belief systems

Neanderthals would fit the bill.  With the horrible errors in carbon dating, to the plausibility of vitamins, calcium levels, and diet affecting the appearance of them, I have to doubt Science claims.   We have been taught from early on in school about DNA, evolution, etc., and we accept it as fact.   But they really do throw out some wild ones, and often.


With evolution in mind, they classify things in categories.  They put the man formed in God's image and group them with other animals.
Howe exactly does DNA conflict with scriptures?
Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,821


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #13 on: January 23, 2013, 04:01:00 AM »

As I understand it Neanderthals are simply a section of humanity that could not adapt any further.
Neanderthals are generations removed from homo sapiens, proceeding down a different line.

They could have adapted further, but died out.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
stavros_388
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Nelson
Posts: 1,215



« Reply #14 on: January 23, 2013, 08:02:14 AM »

Somewhere, deep down, this prospect scares me. Yet, my curiosity is strong... a live neanderthal would be a pretty incredible thing to see.
Logged

"The kingdom of heaven is virtuous life, just as the torment of hell is passionate habits." - St. Gregory of Sinai

"Our idea of God tells us more about ourselves than about Him." - Thomas Merton
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #15 on: January 23, 2013, 09:13:59 AM »

These things conflict with our scriptures and belief systems

No, they don't. At least, they don't have to. Many Christians and atheists make them conflict when they don't have to.

Metropolitan Kallistos talks about the issue in this video. Fast forward to 1:29:30 and watch through to 1:35:43.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F7h-TStNd8&feature=gv



It can go either way, but lets not make it a debate.
Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #16 on: January 23, 2013, 09:15:30 AM »

As I understand it Neanderthals are simply a section of humanity that could not adapt any further.
Neanderthals are generations removed from homo sapiens, proceeding down a different line.

They could have adapted further, but died out.

Unless you had said this question in the 1970's.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 09:23:13 AM by Kerdy » Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #17 on: January 23, 2013, 09:16:26 AM »

Somewhere, deep down, this prospect scares me. Yet, my curiosity is strong... a live neanderthal would be a pretty incredible thing to see.

Right up to the point he wants to know why he can't vote and drive a car.  Those darn teenagers. Cheesy
Logged
stavros_388
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Nelson
Posts: 1,215



« Reply #18 on: January 23, 2013, 10:17:05 AM »

Somewhere, deep down, this prospect scares me. Yet, my curiosity is strong... a live neanderthal would be a pretty incredible thing to see.

Right up to the point he wants to know why he can't vote and drive a car.  Those darn teenagers. Cheesy

Please tell me you aren't referring to me!  Smiley
Logged

"The kingdom of heaven is virtuous life, just as the torment of hell is passionate habits." - St. Gregory of Sinai

"Our idea of God tells us more about ourselves than about Him." - Thomas Merton
stavros_388
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Nelson
Posts: 1,215



« Reply #19 on: January 23, 2013, 10:18:08 AM »

As I understand it Neanderthals are simply a section of humanity that could not adapt any further.
Neanderthals are generations removed from homo sapiens, proceeding down a different line.

They could have adapted further, but died out.

Unless you had said this question in the 1970's.

Only because science isn't dogmatic, and leaves itself open to advancement and correction based on evidence.
Logged

"The kingdom of heaven is virtuous life, just as the torment of hell is passionate habits." - St. Gregory of Sinai

"Our idea of God tells us more about ourselves than about Him." - Thomas Merton
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,366


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 23, 2013, 12:53:23 PM »

The scientific definition of "human" (let's say, those organism of the genus Homo) need not correspond to the Christian definition of "human" (which might include intelligent life-forms on a planet orbiting Sirius).

If we clone Neanderthals and it turns out Neanderthals lack that "breath-of-God" given to Adam, then that would be interesting to know.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 12:54:18 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
OrthoNoob
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 994



« Reply #21 on: January 23, 2013, 01:42:16 PM »

Can "The Homo genus" be defined with reference to some non-arbitary, objective reality?

Yup - the very objective and non-arbitrary fossil record.

The non-homogenous Homo genus shrank to a single species (ours) ages ago.

Not long ago, I've seen an experiment a scientist did with a bunch of amateur creationist enthusiasts: he gave them a pile of primate skulls all originating from different strata excavated from the same valley in Africa. Interestingly, each of them was able to arrange them in roughly the correct chronological order, but they had difficulty in establishing which ones were human and which weren't, because they all looked so very much alike and yet belonged to different species. DNA analysis can pretty much tell them apart - with a high degree of accuracy. 

First of all: I know rather little about science, so my question was genuine, not rhetorical, just to make that clear.

Second of all: I don't understand how the fossil record specifies a particular level of classification. According to Wikipedia, "Homo is the genus of great apes that includes modern humans and species closely related to them." That's fine, but how close is close enough to get into the same genus vs just the same subfamily? I don't see how that's anything but a taxonomical choice someone made somewhere along the line for ease of classification. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it does make it odd that we would base our theological definition of "human" on it.
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #22 on: January 23, 2013, 02:49:21 PM »

First of all: I know rather little about science, so my question was genuine, not rhetorical, just to make that clear.

So do I. I didn't intend to provide a rhetorical answer to a rhetorical question, though.

Second of all: I don't understand how the fossil record specifies a particular level of classification. According to Wikipedia, "Homo is the genus of great apes that includes modern humans and species closely related to them." That's fine, but how close is close enough to get into the same genus vs just the same subfamily? I don't see how that's anything but a taxonomical choice someone made somewhere along the line for ease of classification. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it does make it odd that we would base our theological definition of "human" on it.

I found this:

Quote
There are no hard and fast rules that a taxonomist has to follow in deciding what does and what does not belong in a particular genus. This does not mean that there is no common ground among taxonomists in what constitutes a "good" genus. For instance, some rules-of-thumb for delimiting a genus are outlined in Gill.[4] According to these, a genus should fulfill three criteria to be descriptively useful:

    monophyly – all descendants of an ancestral taxon are grouped together;
    reasonable compactness – a genus should not be expanded needlessly; and
    distinctness – in regards of evolutionarily relevant criteria, i.e. ecology, morphology, or biogeography; note that DNA sequences are a consequence rather than a condition of diverging evolutionary lineages except in cases where they directly inhibit gene flow (e.g. postzygotic barriers).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus

For instance, the wolf and the dog both belong to the genus Canis. Both species being extant, you can compare them without necessarily looking into their DNA. For the Genus Homo, that's no longer possible. You can only compare fossils and DNA sequences. I should think that's reliable enough, though. Suppose all wolves were gone, one could still look at a wolf's skeleton and compare it to a dog's. They would look pretty similar. Now, if you were to compare their DNA's, you'd see that they are similar, but not quite the same species.

By the way, I have no idea how theology fits into all this. I just have a hunch that classic "creationism" is not an answer, but a naive and dismissive way of ignoring what science actually has to say.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 03:04:59 PM by Romaios » Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,153


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #23 on: January 23, 2013, 04:49:03 PM »

If Neanderthal man isn't considered a human and cannot participate in the Sacraments, then pretty much all of us are screwed, because science has also shown that EVERY single human OTHER than Black people and some Asians have Neanderthal DNA inside of them. My thoughts are that "humans" are defined by species' which belong to the Homo genus, since the species of the Homo genus are the only species in the history of Earth which appear to have souls.

Of course, Science says we evolved from..... that evolved from.... that evolved from......
DNA....  There can be many similarities between many living things.

Science has also a "belief", that they pass as a "theory", such as the big bang, and again, evolution.   These things conflict with our scriptures and belief systems

Neanderthals would fit the bill.  With the horrible errors in carbon dating, to the plausibility of vitamins, calcium levels, and diet affecting the appearance of them, I have to doubt Science claims.   We have been taught from early on in school about DNA, evolution, etc., and we accept it as fact.   But they really do throw out some wild ones, and often.


With evolution in mind, they classify things in categories.  They put the man formed in God's image and group them with other animals.
Howe exactly does DNA conflict with scriptures?

Read my post again. I said evolution does and the big bang.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,153


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #24 on: January 23, 2013, 05:04:41 PM »

These things conflict with our scriptures and belief systems

No, they don't. At least, they don't have to. Many Christians and atheists make them conflict when they don't have to.

Metropolitan Kallistos talks about the issue in this video. Fast forward to 1:29:30 and watch through to 1:35:43.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F7h-TStNd8&feature=gv



Our scriptures and the church teaching conflicts with evolution.

We are formed in the image of God.  Period.  We did not evolve.  Man was made from the dust in his image.  Our rib given to woman.  I can't validate Science by bending/contorting our scriptures AND the understanding + interpretation of the scriptures through almost all of Jewish and later Christian history.

Darwin's death was in 1882... Considering his evolution was taught in his lifetime, and for the sake of argument, it was at least 1820 years since the death & resurrection of our God that Christians believed that man was formed in his image and did not evolve.   

Really his message didn't catch on much until much much later.

The big bang is arguable, except one has to dismiss Science's inception, and believe that God existed and caused what Science "sees" as a big bang.  Science argues that the big bang happened, never crediting God.  As a Christian, I don't have an issue thinking Science is just seeing evidence of a "sudden creation".

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth". 
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Ansgar
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: More than an inquirer, less than a catechumen
Jurisdiction: Exarchate of orthodox churches of russian tradition in western Europe
Posts: 2,941


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« Reply #25 on: January 23, 2013, 05:46:19 PM »

If Neanderthal man isn't considered a human and cannot participate in the Sacraments, then pretty much all of us are screwed, because science has also shown that EVERY single human OTHER than Black people and some Asians have Neanderthal DNA inside of them. My thoughts are that "humans" are defined by species' which belong to the Homo genus, since the species of the Homo genus are the only species in the history of Earth which appear to have souls.

Of course, Science says we evolved from..... that evolved from.... that evolved from......
DNA....  There can be many similarities between many living things.

Science has also a "belief", that they pass as a "theory", such as the big bang, and again, evolution.   These things conflict with our scriptures and belief systems

Neanderthals would fit the bill.  With the horrible errors in carbon dating, to the plausibility of vitamins, calcium levels, and diet affecting the appearance of them, I have to doubt Science claims.   We have been taught from early on in school about DNA, evolution, etc., and we accept it as fact.   But they really do throw out some wild ones, and often.


With evolution in mind, they classify things in categories.  They put the man formed in God's image and group them with other animals.
Howe exactly does DNA conflict with scriptures?

Read my post again. I said evolution does and the big bang.
You said:
Quote
We have been taught from early on in school about DNA, evolution, etc., and we accept it as fact.

In the way you are putting it, it could very easily come look as if you're questioning the existence of DNA.
Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #26 on: January 23, 2013, 05:48:36 PM »

Return to discussing theological consequences of possible existence of non homo sapiens sapiens sentient species or I'm going to merge it with the Great Evolution Thread.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,474



« Reply #27 on: January 23, 2013, 05:56:43 PM »

I think this falls under the "what if there are aliens" category  Lips Sealed
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #28 on: January 23, 2013, 05:58:49 PM »

I think this falls under the "what if there are aliens" category  Lips Sealed

Dog-head people?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Ansgar
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: More than an inquirer, less than a catechumen
Jurisdiction: Exarchate of orthodox churches of russian tradition in western Europe
Posts: 2,941


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« Reply #29 on: January 23, 2013, 06:06:33 PM »

I think this falls under the "what if there are aliens" category  Lips Sealed

Dog-head people?

Homo Canis?
Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,366


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #30 on: January 23, 2013, 06:16:33 PM »

I think this falls under the "what if there are aliens" category  Lips Sealed

Dog-head people?

Homo Canis?
Snoop Dog (Homo cannabis)
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #31 on: January 23, 2013, 07:20:32 PM »

Return to discussing theological consequences of possible existence of non homo sapiens sapiens sentient species or I'm going to merge it with the Great Evolution Thread.

Now a Buddhist would have no trouble admitting that the Homo insipiens insipiens (=non sapiens sapiens) must nevertheless have been a sentient being.

IIRC a Christian Saint was once described as insipiens sapiens. Some mongrel!

"The Great Evolution Thread" sounds like a tsunami.  laugh
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #32 on: January 23, 2013, 07:22:38 PM »


"The Great Evolution Thread" sounds like a tsunami.  laugh

It is a tsunami:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,4959.0.html
« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 07:23:21 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
OrthoNoob
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 994



« Reply #33 on: January 23, 2013, 08:33:52 PM »

First of all: I know rather little about science, so my question was genuine, not rhetorical, just to make that clear.

So do I. I didn't intend to provide a rhetorical answer to a rhetorical question, though.

Second of all: I don't understand how the fossil record specifies a particular level of classification. According to Wikipedia, "Homo is the genus of great apes that includes modern humans and species closely related to them." That's fine, but how close is close enough to get into the same genus vs just the same subfamily? I don't see how that's anything but a taxonomical choice someone made somewhere along the line for ease of classification. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it does make it odd that we would base our theological definition of "human" on it.

I found this:

Quote
There are no hard and fast rules that a taxonomist has to follow in deciding what does and what does not belong in a particular genus. This does not mean that there is no common ground among taxonomists in what constitutes a "good" genus. For instance, some rules-of-thumb for delimiting a genus are outlined in Gill.[4] According to these, a genus should fulfill three criteria to be descriptively useful:

    monophyly – all descendants of an ancestral taxon are grouped together;
    reasonable compactness – a genus should not be expanded needlessly; and
    distinctness – in regards of evolutionarily relevant criteria, i.e. ecology, morphology, or biogeography; note that DNA sequences are a consequence rather than a condition of diverging evolutionary lineages except in cases where they directly inhibit gene flow (e.g. postzygotic barriers).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus

For instance, the wolf and the dog both belong to the genus Canis. Both species being extant, you can compare them without necessarily looking into their DNA. For the Genus Homo, that's no longer possible. You can only compare fossils and DNA sequences. I should think that's reliable enough, though. Suppose all wolves were gone, one could still look at a wolf's skeleton and compare it to a dog's. They would look pretty similar. Now, if you were to compare their DNA's, you'd see that they are similar, but not quite the same species.

That's fine, but "genus" is still a fairly artificial classification. The genetic relationships are real, but the fact that you draw the line here and not there as to what's a family, subfamily, and genus is purely arbitrary.

All of this is to say that I highly doubt there is a Form of Hominid.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 08:34:41 PM by OrthoNoob » Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #34 on: January 23, 2013, 09:45:57 PM »

That's fine, but "genus" is still a fairly artificial classification. The genetic relationships are real, but the fact that you draw the line here and not there as to what's a family, subfamily, and genus is purely arbitrary.

All of this is to say that I highly doubt there is a Form of Hominid.

That's like saying one could consider the wolf to be a dog breed, because it's the arbitrary whim of some taxonomist to classify wolves as a different species of the Canis genus. I don't think that goes, though.
 
It would probably take a clone to convince you... Even then, you might still view it as a curious breed of man or ape.

I can imagine someone insisting that the wolf is but a wild dog who lives in the forest.
Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #35 on: January 23, 2013, 09:52:33 PM »

As I understand it Neanderthals are simply a section of humanity that could not adapt any further.
Neanderthals are generations removed from homo sapiens, proceeding down a different line.

They could have adapted further, but died out.

Unless you had said this question in the 1970's.

Only because science isn't dogmatic, and leaves itself open to advancement and correction based on evidence.
Not gonna go down this broken road.
Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #36 on: January 23, 2013, 09:56:51 PM »

I think this falls under the "what if there are aliens" category  Lips Sealed

Dog-head people?

Homo Canis?
Egyptian Mythology.  I love Stargate!
Logged
OrthoNoob
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 994



« Reply #37 on: January 24, 2013, 01:44:51 AM »

That's fine, but "genus" is still a fairly artificial classification. The genetic relationships are real, but the fact that you draw the line here and not there as to what's a family, subfamily, and genus is purely arbitrary.

All of this is to say that I highly doubt there is a Form of Hominid.

That's like saying one could consider the wolf to be a dog breed, because it's the arbitrary whim of some taxonomist to classify wolves as a different species of the Canis genus.

Well, no. I think "a group of animals capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring" is fairly non-arbitrary and defines a species rather well. It's the higher levels that are somewhat arbitrary, insofar as they entail saying "90% genetic similarity is in, 89% is out" (for example).

It would probably take a clone to convince you... Even then, you might still view it as a curious breed of man or ape.

Convince me of what? What I'm disputing is that we can define "human" theologically as "a member of the genus Homo." I don't think a clone of a Neanderthal would convince me of that.
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #38 on: January 24, 2013, 02:45:58 AM »

It would probably take a clone to convince you... Even then, you might still view it as a curious breed of man or ape.

Convince me of what? What I'm disputing is that we can define "human" theologically as "a member of the genus Homo." I don't think a clone of a Neanderthal would convince me of that.

Convince you that hominids are different species in the genus Homo, closely related but different from Homo sapiens, that is to say us.

Theologically this is really a non-issue. It's like creationists trying to figure out whether Heb. min (= 'kind') in Genesis 1 referred to genera, species or breeds of plants and animals, so as to decide whether microevolution occurred or not. 
« Last Edit: January 24, 2013, 02:48:07 AM by Romaios » Logged
Velsigne
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 444



« Reply #39 on: January 24, 2013, 02:58:10 AM »

The scientific definition of "human" (let's say, those organism of the genus Homo) need not correspond to the Christian definition of "human" (which might include intelligent life-forms on a planet orbiting Sirius).

If we clone Neanderthals and it turns out Neanderthals lack that "breath-of-God" given to Adam, then that would be interesting to know.

Wouldn't be interesting if you read "Pet Cemetery" when you were a kid.  It took me about 15 years to recover from that book.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,436



« Reply #40 on: January 24, 2013, 03:17:41 AM »

I think this falls under the "what if there are aliens" category  Lips Sealed

Dog-head people?

Homo Canis?
Egyptian Mythology.  I love Stargate!

Nick . . .

We'll weep together.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Shiranui117
Formerly known as "Wandering Sheep"
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: ACROD/OCA
Posts: 150


PUDDI PUDDI!


« Reply #41 on: January 24, 2013, 03:20:23 AM »

Neanderthals seem to be simply a subset of Homo Sapiens. One definition of a "species" is the ability for two members of that species to breed and produce fertile offspring, who in turn will be able to create further fertile offspring. Given that the Neanderthals bred into Homo Sapiens on a very large scale, I think we can call Neanderthals just another kind of human. So therefore, it's perfectly conceivable that Neanderthals could have souls and be Christians.
Logged
OrthoNoob
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 994



« Reply #42 on: January 25, 2013, 03:36:58 AM »

It would probably take a clone to convince you... Even then, you might still view it as a curious breed of man or ape.

Convince me of what? What I'm disputing is that we can define "human" theologically as "a member of the genus Homo." I don't think a clone of a Neanderthal would convince me of that.

Convince you that hominids are different species in the genus Homo, closely related but different from Homo sapiens, that is to say us.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that. The question, though, is whether that has any theological or philosophical significance.
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,205


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #43 on: January 25, 2013, 10:02:48 AM »

FYI: Wolves are not wild dogs. They cannot digest starches. News on this was online this week via Google news ...http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/23/16662504-how-dogs-adapted-to-our-starchy-diet
Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #44 on: January 26, 2013, 03:36:09 PM »

Neanderthals seem to be simply a subset of Homo Sapiens. One definition of a "species" is the ability for two members of that species to breed and produce fertile offspring, who in turn will be able to create further fertile offspring. Given that the Neanderthals bred into Homo Sapiens on a very large scale, I think we can call Neanderthals just another kind of human.

This is completely wrong - genetic research proved that there was no interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans. That is to say, no extant human population has inherited any specific Neanderthal genetic traits. If interbreeding occurred (highly unlikely, given that Neanderthals would have looked at least as (un)attractive to our ancestors as their reconstructed portraits look to us), the offspring was obviously not viable.       
« Last Edit: January 26, 2013, 03:47:34 PM by Romaios » Logged
Tags: cloning  cain 
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.161 seconds with 72 queries.