Early Modern Human and other...Humans types?

[Tristan Johan]

I like to follow along with the latest research and discoveries of archeologists trying to understand the primordial origins of humanity. And it seems like there are so many varieties of life forms that preceded and to a lesser extent existed alongside modern humans. The evidence that keeps getting reported is that these life forms, which are similar to us, yet also distinctly not like us, used tools, and kept trinkets (jewelry?) or arts and crafts-type items with them.

I don't care about whether people believe in the theory of...the "E" word. I am curious as to what peoples thoughts are about these life-forms were, particularly in relationship to us. Australopithecus, Erectus, Neandrathalensis, Habilis. Were these life forms human, in your opinion? Do you think they had emotional feelings, or even something resembling a soul? Indications are that Neanderthalensis was a contemporary life form alongside anatomically modern humans (a cousin or sibling race?), and DNA there have been recent reports that DNA analysis indicates that Neanderthalensis genetic make-up is part of modern humanity's genetic code. And I recently read that there was another contemporary life form called Denisovans, which I've not heard of. Anatomically modern humans were capable of producing offspring with these different yet similar life forms.

So, what do you think? I'm asking this with genuine curiosity, and no malice. What are your personal, individual perspectives on what these life forms were, mentally, emotionally, spiritually? Were they at their core essentially human?

 

[Faulty]

I assume you're talking about discoveries like this.

Sex with early mystery species of humans seen in DNA, UW researcher says | Nation & World | The Seattle Times

You're slipping into the world of Genesis 6, fallen angels, nephilim, the book of Enoch, and giants.

What you are describing isn't new to those who take a literal biblical approach to these accounts, but I'm almost afraid ofwhat you'll dig up around here.

 

[Living in the Light]

Well, I'm sure some on CF will depict Adam and Eve as well-groomed, perfect physical specimens resembling Zac Efron and Katy Perry.

One has to remember that the early humans were dwellers in a tropical environment who depended on their superior intelligence for survival rather than massive teeth, claws, and strength to protect themselves. Man was, in a sense, one of the most defenseless creatures in the jungle/forest. The emotion of fear (childlike), I suspect, was extremely intense since early man was learning and not knowing what hazard would come next -- a wild beast, eating a poisonous plant, injuring himself, and not knowing what to do and not to mention the unpredictable weather conditions. Most likely, his spirituality was finely tuned since he had to depend on God rather than his own experience -- experience was nil.

So it has been a long, painful, rocky road for mankind. How fortunate that much of the hard work of survival has been discovered. Where does God fit into modern man's existance? For many, I think they feel they are so sophisticated and super-intelligent that God is irrelavant, but those who are wise know better. There is so much to learn even after thousands, and thousands, and thousands of years. God IS relavant!

 

[Tristan Johan]

I assume you're talking about discoveries like this.

Sex with early mystery species of humans seen in DNA, UW researcher says | Nation & World | The Seattle Times

Yes, research along those lines.

You're slipping into the world of Genesis 6, fallen angels, nephilim, the book of Enoch, and giants.

I looked at it briefly, after you mentioned it. I am a bit dismayed by the brevity of the material, and the wording of it.

What you are describing isn't new to those who take a literal biblical approach to these accounts, but I'm almost afraid ofwhat you'll dig up around here.

I feel more aggravated for the sense of scarcity of information in areas of knowledge.

 

[Tristan Johan]

Well, I'm sure some on CF will depict Adam and Eve as well-groomed, perfect physical specimens resembling Zac Efron and Katy Perry.

One has to remember that the early humans were dwellers in a tropical environment who depended on their superior intelligence for survival rather than massive teeth, claws, and strength to protect themselves. Man was, in a sense, one of the most defenseless creatures in the jungle/forest. The emotion of fear (childlike), I suspect, was extremely intense since early man was learning and not knowing what hazard would come next -- a wild beast, eating a poisonous plant, injuring himself, and not knowing what to do and not to mention the unpredictable weather conditions. Most likely, his spirituality was finely tuned since he had to depend on God rather than his own experience -- experience was nil.

So it has been a long, painful, rocky road for mankind. How fortunate that much of the hard work of survival has been discovered. Where does God fit into modern man's existance? For many, I think they feel they are so sophisticated and super-intelligent that God is irrelavant, but those who are wise know better. There is so much to learn even after thousands, and thousands, and thousands of years. God IS relavant!

If we're going to talk about Adam and Eve as real existing people (I'm not making assumptions up or down about their existence), do you think they were Homo Sapiens (archaic), or Homo Sapiens Sapiens (anatomically modern)? Or further back?

 

[Living in the Light]

If we're going to talk about Adam and Eve as real existing people (I'm not making assumptions up or down about their existence), do you think they were Homo Sapiens (archaic), or Homo Sapiens Sapiens (anatomically modern)? Or further back?

My best guess here is Homo Sapiens (archaic). I interpret the Adam and Eve story as a moral story rather than a literal story.

 

[Tristan Johan]

My best guess here is Homo Sapiens (archaic).

Do you mean to say that the Adam and Eve and/or the HS Archaic being the appearance of humanity? Just wanting to clarify.

I interpret the Adam and Eve story as a moral story rather than a literal story.

Excellent, thank you! Any thoughts or speculation on some of the other life-forms prior to or contemporary with these guys?

 

[Living in the Light]

Do you mean to say that the Adam and Eve and/or the HS Archaic being the appearance of humanity? Just wanting to clarify.

I do not have enough scientific knowledge to comment any further on this, but I will say that primitive man would have similarities of modern humans.

I feel as though you are trying to trap me on something rather than having an honest exchange. If I'm wrong, forgive me please.

Excellent, thank you! Any thoughts or speculation on some of the other life-forms prior to or contemporary with these guys?

No. It's been awhile since I have taken the historical geology course called "History of Life."

 

[ALoveDivine]

Well I think these hominids were basically highly advanced and very complex apes. In no way can they be considered human. Although our physiology and even of our behavior may be similar, the dividing line between human and nonhuman is spiritual. Human beings have a spirit, the hominids did not.

Further, I don't have a problem with biological evolution, that is, genetic variation over time acted upon by environmental change. However I don't believe in Darwinism, which is basically an ideology that takes biological evolution and turns it into a metaphysical philosophy of sorts.

God made humans with a physiological and genetic makeup much like the apes, yet gave us a spirit which is what ultimately distinguishes us.

 

[Tristan Johan]

Well I think these hominids were basically highly advanced and very complex apes. In no way can they be considered human. Although our physiology and even of our behavior may be similar, the dividing line between human and nonhuman is spiritual. Human beings have a spirit, the hominids did not.

Further, I don't have a problem with biological evolution, that is, genetic variation over time acted upon by environmental change. However I don't believe in Darwinism, which is basically an ideology that takes biological evolution and turns it into a metaphysical philosophy of sorts.

God made humans with a physiological and genetic makeup much like the apes, yet gave us a spirit which is what ultimately distinguishes us.

Very interesting answer. Thank you. And it helps that you articulated a difference between the ideas of evolution; genetic variation, and biological evolution with odd metaphysical philosophy underpinning it.

I've been going back and reviewing the characteristics of a variety of species that are generally assembled as a family tree for Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Scientists who study these life-forms are interested in the use of tools, the use of fire, capability of vocal communication, burying their dead.

Review of a world history book that covers world history talks about Australopithecus using tools, and having a place where they would bring food that they've hunted down. But then, plenty of animals have nests that they bring food to. I've read some curious anecdotal stuff regarding the intelligence of crows.

The harnessing of fire as a tool is a huge game changer. The regular use of, and ability to produce it artificially is regarded as profoundly significant.

Homo Erectus, which I've seen shown in the family tree paradigm as branching from a "great-grandparental" life-form, is thought to have exercised controlled use of fire. There is some small indication of the ability to start fire themselves.

I'm going to skip verbal communication now, and go straight to burial. Burial seems to indicate thought about spiritual matters, belief of a soul/spirit that continues past the point of death. Fear that the soul/spirit will return to haunt them, belief that the soul/spirit goes to a dream/nightmare world (death as a more extreme version of sleep to the primitive mind?) hope that the soul/spirit will continue in a better place. Is burying the dead the sign of humanity?

A quick search indicates (disputed) evidence that Neanderthalensis may have been the first life-form to bury their dead. Family tree depictions I've come across place them as what I'm loosely calling a "sibling" life-form. I've also seen them grouped within the general category of archaic Homo Sapiens along with Heidelbergensis. Heidelbergensis I've seen placed as a "parental" life-form to both Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Neanderthalensis. Heidelbergensis is also speculated alternatively as having been first to bury their dead.