Relatives of Modern Man

[SQLservant]

Hi all,

Time for another of my pointless "what do you think" threads! We, as proponents of theistic evolution, acknowledge other Homo species to be biologically related to us. While opinions on the literalness of Adam vary, what do you believe about the "humanity" of the most recent species, e.g. H. heidelbergensis, H. neanderthalensis, and H. sapiens idaltu? Do you believe these to be fully human and imago Dei, or was that gift bestowed upon us sometime later?

I'll start. I'm not the most knowledgeable about the subject, but the idea that the species I mentioned above were in fact one species, Archaic Homo sapiens, seems most appealing, though I haven't really decided where I stand on the humanity of these. I suppose that they must be, since denying them that would be, in effect, judging the humanity of other races.

What about you?

 

[gluadys]

Hi all,

Time for another of my pointless "what do you think" threads! We, as proponents of theistic evolution, acknowledge other Homo species to be biologically related to us. While opinions on the literalness of Adam vary, what do you believe about the "humanity" of the most recent species, e.g. H. heidelbergensis, H. neanderthalensis, and H. sapiens idaltu? Do you believe these to be fully human and imago Dei, or was that gift bestowed upon us sometime later?

I'll start. I'm not the most knowledgeable about the subject, but the idea that the species I mentioned above were in fact one species, Archaic Homo sapiens, seems most appealing, though I haven't really decided where I stand on the humanity of these. I suppose that they must be, since denying them that would be, in effect, judging the humanity of other races.

What about you?

I don't think we can have any assurance in assigning the imago Dei to any species including Homo sapiens.

It is simply not a biological concept.

It could well be that the other species in our genus were also made in the image of God. It could equally well be that the earlier generations of our species--those who lived say, more than 60,000 years ago, were not and that God did not make any human in the image of God until much later.

There is certainly no way to assess the spiritual nature of any anthropoid creature from fossil remains.

 

[SQLservant]

Certainly. This is more a thought experiment and a "just for fun" thread, rather than a serious theological/anthropological discussion. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what the answer is, but I thought it could be fun to have a discussion about.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I've always been interested in prehistoric animals, but only in the last year or so did I start having any interest in human evolution. It's now my pet subject.

I think that first traces of humanity - might - have started with Homo Heidelburgensis, because they are currently thought to be the last common ancestor of both modern humans and Neanderthals. Neanderthals were very similar to modern humans in terms of intelligence, artistic ability and brain size - and I find it very unlikely that these traits all evolved independantly over and over again. We probabaly inherited them from an earlier form of human.

I used to think there were clear distinctions between upright apes like the Australopithecines and early humans like Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis, but now I'm not so certain. In fact the more I learn the less certain I am. I'm no closer to understanding what makes us human than I was a year ago.

 

[KhaosTheory]

My personal belief from a theistic point of view is that the "imago dei" was given to the first sentient hominid species whichever one that turns out to be.

Of course this is just speculation and it's very hard to tell from fossils which species were sentient.

We've found stone tools and housing structures of ancient hominids but then again we've seen chimps use stones and sticks as well...

So I'll have to admit that my belief is untenable as a valid theory since we observe a slow gradient in increasing intelligence over the ages with no clear line separating unintelligent apes from sentient ones.

 

[Keri]

I used to be a young earth creationist. It wasn't even until two years ago that I allowed myself to learn about anthropology. As for the question, I'm still not sure. I do believe God made all things, but when, how much was allowed to develop on its own, I still don't know. God can and did create, surely He was able to create something with the ability to evolve further.

 

[KTskater]

I think that we should look more into the cultural practices of the Homo species to determine their connection to their Creator. We see a distinct change from simple survival culture with H. erectus, to one that has hints of a spiritual nature in H. heidelbergensis and H. neaderthalensis. The burying of their dead is a red flag that something has changed drastically. H. heidelbergensis probably didn't create art, but materials that could have been used to create paint have been found, and the Neanderthals definitely had art. Language (which is consistently taught in anthropology classes as one of the few things that makes humans "human") is thought to have been developed by H. heidelbergensis, who took the vocalization of H. ergaster and created a more advanced culture.
They are not AMHS, however, I think that when something drastic appears in the culture of human ancestors, especially that which isn't directly linked to survival (i.e. hunting), it should be a sign to us that something has changed from earlier species.