Ancient Humans Had Sex With A Mystery Species (Not Neanderthals Or Denisovans)

A new, improved sequencing of ancient human relative genomes reveals that Homo sapiens didn't only have sex with Neanderthals and a little-understood line of humans called Denisovans. A fourth, mystery lineage of humans was in the mix, too.

As reported by the news arm of the journal Nature, new genetic evidence suggests that several hominids — human relatives closer than humans' current living cousin, the chimpanzee — interbred more than 30,000 years ago. This group of kissing cousins included an unknown human ancestor not yet revealed by the ancient DNA record.

"It's implied it could be something like Homo erectus or similar," said Carles Lalueza-Fox, a paleogenomics researcher at Pompeu Fabra University in Spain, who was not involved in the research, but who was present at a talk on the findings given by lead author David Reich of Harvard Medical School at a meeting on ancient DNA sponsored by the Royal Society in London on Nov. 18. Homo erectus is an extinct species of human that originated in Africa and spread into Asia. [See Images of Our Closest Human Ancestor]

Neanderthals are an extinct group of humans who lived between about 30,000 and 130,000 years ago. Despite their reputation as bone-headed dummies, Neanderthals were likely as advanced as modern humans in areas such as tool-making, though they were probably less socially adept.

Denisovans are a far more mysterious group. These early humans lived in Siberia and probably split off from the branch of the human family tree that would eventually give rise to Neanderthals about 300,000 years ago. Little is known about how Denisovans lived and what they looked like.

Interesting review on Amazon:

This book is the first book I have ever read which routinely cites Wikipedia and YouTube. Is this going to be a trend? It may tend to discredit his scholarship. His gratuitous (and often funny) criticisms of black people also tend to bring his serious thinking in to disrepute. For example in a discussion of prognathism he cites Mike Tyson biting a piece out of Evander Holyfield's ear. LOL.

Fuerle is a bit of a crank. The version of Out of Africa that he attacks is is also an extreme crank theory. Responsible scientists like Cavalli-Sforza don't actually believe that all modern attributes evolved in Africa. Fuerle attacks essentially a straw man.

Main stream anthropology currently believes that there was a migration out of Africa about one or two million years ago. This first migration is not controversial. The Out of Africa theory does not refer to this migration of Home Erectus but to a more recent second migration of Homo Sapiens that took place about 100,000 years ago. That there was some sort of migration of Africans or at least African genes is also not controversial because modern humans have gracile (tropical) bodies. Neanderthals had much more robust bodies. Almost everyone attributes the long legs and light skeletons that we have today to an infusion of genes from tropical Africa around 50,000 to 150,000 years ago.

However most main stream aanthropologists recognize that the tropical body of 100,000 years ago did not bring about a modern mind. Cavalli-Sforza refers to an another event of about 50,000 years ago in the Middle East when the true modern mind emerged. Cultural artifacts suddenly arose that were clearly different from any created before in either Europe or Africa. This is the mainstream viewpoint. Fuerle misrepresents current thinking. He creates a strawman that he can demolish.

Fuerle cites many studies and presents many theories. Most of the time he is correct but at least some of the time he is flat out wrong. His discussion of Toba and ice ages is very wrong. Even Al Gore has a better grip on paleoclimate than Fuerle.

Finally Fuerle is an anti-semite. To me this is evidence of a man who is consumed by political agendas not a man who is objective. He finishes his book with a number of virtually unreadable political chapters. Far from being sensible and well reasoned ideas that proceed logically from the material in the early chapters he virtually froths at the mouth.

The verses state they were created after their kind, not that they can’t reproduce with anything outside their kind..

They were created after their kind and they procreate after their kind. That's what makes a kind a kind--procreation is constrained within the kind. Your wild speculation is unfounded.

Besides, we have no clue what method might have been used to produce any potential hybrid offspring. For all we know, it may not have been physical reproduction at all.

You've been indulging in too much science fiction.

Angels in heaven don't marry...

You suggest that angels who are cast out of heaven can break, as it were , their vow of chastity and start procreating. First, all angels and Satan are still in heaven. They have not been cast out heaven yet. That doesn't happen until Revelation 12:9 which coincides with the start of the persecution (tribulation) of the saints. Consequently, any theories involving post-heaven angelic beings procreating with men are non starters, because they are still in heaven. Second, after they are cast out, they will endure for only a short while until they are bound in hell or cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 19:20, Matthew 25:41).

The passage from Matthew 22:24-30 is specifically talking about "raising up seed" and states that angels do not raise up seed. Resurrected believers do not procreate because they will be like the angels of God when they (the resurrected believer) are in heaven. Fallen angels do not die like humans do and have an opportunity to be saved and resurrect. Fallen angels will spend eternity in the lake of fire which was made specifically for satan and his angels.(Matthew 25:41)

The Sons of God mated with the daughters of men and produced "mighty men of old, men of renown." It doesn't say they were giants. And if it had, it simply means they were very large men, not some new creature, for creation has ceased. God rested after day 6.

“They were created after their kind and they procreate after their kind. That’s what makes a kind a kind—procreation is constrained within the kind. Your wild speculation is unfounded.”

What wild speculation? The text says nothing about procreation being constrained, does it? Surely you can provide a citation for that, if it isn’t just your own “wild speculation”.

Also, while you are at it, see if you can find a verse mentioning these kinds and constraints in relation to men, or angels, since they are the ones seemingly involved in the potential union. Whatever animals or plants may be constrained to do doesn’t have a direct bearing on the question.

“You’ve been indulging in too much science fiction.”

If you automatically deem a non-physical, non-carnal act of reproduction “science fiction”, then I’m afraid you’ll have some issues with a major plot point in the New Testament.

“You suggest that angels who are cast out of heaven can break, as it were , their vow of chastity and start procreating.”

I suggest we don’t know whether or not, from the text, whether this is a prohibition intrinsic to their nature, or a command. If it’s intrinsic, then you could argue that there is no way they could. If it’s a commandment, then obviously disobedient angels might be able to disobey it.

“First, all angels and Satan are still in heaven. They have not been cast out heaven yet. That doesn’t happen until Revelation 12:9 which coincides with the start of the persecution (tribulation) of the saints.”

That’s one possible interpretation of things, but as it is a prophetic text, it can represent a future event, recount a past event, or even represent a long compound narrative stretching from the past to the future. There are all types of those prophecies in the Bible.

Also, note that in Revelation 12:4, it says Satan drew down 1/3 of the stars, or angels from heaven, prior to the birth of Christ. The prophecy seems to describe two separate events, an initial rebellion, or fall of Satan and one third of the angels, and a subsequent war in heaven, at the end of which Satan and the angels are permanently banished to Earth. There are certainly plenty of other passages in the Bible supporting the fact that Satan and demons are free to walk the Earth at this time, and no solid indication that this wasn’t already the case in the time of Genesis.

“The passage from Matthew 22:24-30 is specifically talking about “raising up seed” and states that angels do not raise up seed.”

No, that is incorrect. The passage speaks of raising seed, because it was part of the Old Testament law that is being referenced by the Sadducees. It was the duty of brothers to marry such widows in order to give them children, and the Sadducees used that peculiar scenario, taken to the point of absurdity with seven brothers, to try and “stump” Jesus about the law and resurrection.

The key question is who the wife will “belong” to in heaven, since she had married all seven brothers, according to God’s law. Jesus cut the Gordian knot by revealing that, just like the angels in heaven, we will not marry. He never states that angels do not “raise seed”, or that they do “raise seed” for that matter.

“The Sons of God mated with the daughters of men and produced “mighty men of old, men of renown.” It doesn’t say they were giants.”

It calls them “nephilim” in the Hebrew. This is the same term used to describe the giant inhabitants of Canaan by the scouts in Numbers 13:33. It’s also used in that manner in quite a few apocryphal works, such as Enoch and Jubilees, which specifically tell of angels creating giants. The interpretation of nephilim as meaning giant, and the Sons of God being angels is the ancient, traditional interpretation of these verses, and not some innovation or personal speculation.

“And if it had, it simply means they were very large men, not some new creature, for creation has ceased. God rested after day 6.”

Well, yes, giants are very large men, but according to the Bible, at least when we read the descriptions of the post-flood giants, they are larger than any we see produced through normal human reproduction. As for it being a new creature or not, it seems a moot point, since they are in the Bible, described as existing, one way or another. You can’t wish them away by inventing rules precluding their existence.

“They were created after their kind and they procreate after their kind. That’s what makes a kind a kind—procreation is constrained within the kind. Your wild speculation is unfounded.” What wild speculation? The text says nothing about procreation being constrained, does it? Surely you can provide a citation for that, if it isn’t just your own “wild speculation”.

It doesn't say that it doesn't. (Two can play this game.)

If you automatically deem a non-physical, non-carnal act of reproduction “science fiction”, then I’m afraid you’ll have some issues with a major plot point in the New Testament.

John 1: 11, 12: He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 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: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of men, but of God. This "plot point" as you call it, is being born of the Spirit, born again.

To me, it seems the final expulsion of Satan in that prophecy corresponds to the events of Revelation 9, with Satan as the star that falls from heaven with the key to the bottomless pit. If that is the case, it pinpoints his descent to Earth in the larger timeline of the tTo me, it seems the final expulsion of Satan in that prophecy corresponds to the events of Revelation 9, with Satan as the star that falls from heaven with the key to the bottomless pit. If that is the case, it pinpoints his descent to Earth in the larger timeline of the tribulation, but it also reveals there are some demons or spirits who seem to have previously fallen from grace before Satan’s final rebellion. After all, they are already imprisoned in the bottomless pit when Satan arrives to free them.ribulation, but it also reveals there are some demons or spirits who seem to have previously fallen from grace before Satan’s final rebellion. After all, they are already imprisoned in the bottomless pit when Satan arrives to free them.

The angel of the bottomless pit is NOT Satan. He is Apollyon (Abaddon) (see both Revelation 9:11 AND Revelation 20:1) He has the keys to the bottomless pits and he binds and cast Satan into the pit. Satan does not bind Satan (himself).

The creatures from the bottomless pit (Revelation 9) are doing God's will. They are his agents, not Satan's.

(I wrote) “The passage from Matthew 22:24-30 is specifically talking about “raising up seed” and states that angels do not raise up seed.” (You wrote) No, that is incorrect.

I quoted the precise language from Matthew 22. "Raise up" means both to plant and tend seed.

As for it being a new creature or not, it seems a moot point, since they are in the Bible, described as existing, one way or another. You can’t wish them away by inventing rules precluding their existence.

Hardly moot. God rested from his creation on the seventh day. He has created no new kinds since the beginning. Kinds procreate within kinds.

A note on Bible interpretation

1. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, both old and new testaments. (2 Timothy 3:15)
2. The Bible does not contradict itself. If it does, then it is not God’s word. If one of several verses appears to say something different (at odds) with the other verses on a subject, then that one is not correctly understood. The text should not be changed to make it “fit.” Instead, one should harmonize all references by comparing scripture with scripture. (2 Corinthians 2:12,13)

Sons of God

John 1: 11, 12: “He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 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: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
[believers are sons of God, “begotten” of God]

Hebrews 1:5 “For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?”
[God never called an angel his son; he does call those who are “born again” his sons]

Hebrews 1:14 “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?”

[angels are ministering “spirits” sent forth on behalf of believing men “heirs of salvation” in Christ]

The Bible could not be clearer: angels are NOT the sons of God. They are spirits. Only believing men are sons of God.

Genesis 6:2, Job 2:1, Job 38:7 do not contradict. Specifically in Job 38:4 God is speaking to Job. If he is calling angels “sons of God”, then he is contradicting what he said in Hebrews 1:5 (spoken by Paul under the guidance of the Holy Spirit [God]). It is up to us to properly reconcile these verses, while not making God a liar. If we do not fully understand a verse (say Job 38:7), then the solution is not to rewrite it and make it contradict other verses, which is what the Septuagint, NIV, NLT do.

Job 38:7: 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

“When” can refer to time attendant before, during or after. The “morning stars” don’t have be angles, but could be lights in the firmament personified. And Adam and Eve, when they walked with God, and their believing offspring, even after the fall, all surely “shouted for joy.” (Job is post flood, probably a contemporary of Abraham, which puts his time frame approximately 2000 years after creation.)

I am a son of God. God is my Father and I am his son, an heir of salvation, because I have been given this power and authority by believing on his name (Jesus). Angels will never be his sons.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.