[_ Old Earth _] Did Adam and Eve evolve from an ape-like ancestor?

[Dave Slayer]

Did Adam and Eve evolve from an ape-like ancestor?

 

[lordkalvan]

Did Adam and Eve evolve from an ape-like ancestor?

When you say 'Adam and Eve', do you mean the individuals as described in Genesis? If so, beyond the description in genesis, what evidence do you have that these individuals existed as described at all and, if they did, why would you think that they evolved from ape-like ancestors?

 

[Barbarian]

We are ape-like. It would be surprising if their parents weren't.

 

[Dave Slayer]

Why do many Christians insist that Adam was allegorical?

Why do many Christians insist that Adam and Eve were allegorical? Was Abraham allegorical? Why would Jesus die for an allegory?

 

[lordkalvan]

Re: Why do many Christians insist that Adam was allegorical?

Why do many Christians insist that Adam and Eve were allegorical? Was Abraham allegorical? Why would Jesus die for an allegory?

People have died for a scrap of coloured bunting. People have died for faiths that I'm sure you would regard as false. Your point does not follow.

 

[Guest]

Re: Why do many Christians insist that Adam was allegorical?

People have died for a scrap of coloured bunting. People have died for faiths that I'm sure you would regard as false. Your point does not follow.

I am not so sure Dave was attempting to make a point. Though I have not been here long, his history does seem to be one of asking questions and sparking discussion rather than making points.

 

[lordkalvan]

Re: Why do many Christians insist that Adam was allegorical?

People have died for a scrap of coloured bunting. People have died for faiths that I'm sure you would regard as false. Your point does not follow.

I am not so sure Dave was attempting to make a point. Though I have not been here long, his history does seem to be one of asking questions and sparking discussion rather than making points.

As Dave never (or very rarely) follows up his OPs, it's difficult to know when he is making a point or not. Maybe I was wrong in regarding the question he posed as rhetorical.....

 

[Barbarian]

Re: Why do many Christians insist that Adam was allegorical?

There's nothing in evolutionary theory that requires Adam and Eve to be allegorical.

 

[Dave Slayer]

Re: Why do many Christians insist that Adam was allegorical?

There's nothing in evolutionary theory that requires Adam and Eve to be allegorical.

Perhaps this should have been posted in the theology forum. Anyways, do you believe Adam and Eve were real humans? The following verse seems to indicate that Adam and Eve were indeed real humans.

Genesis 2:23 (KJV)
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

I find it hard to believe Adam and Eve were just allegorical if Adam says "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh:".

 

[Barbarian]

Re: Why do many Christians insist that Adam was allegorical?

H. habilis were real humans. H. antecessor, H. neandertalis, H. erectus, H. ergaster, etc. All members of Homo are real humans. At what point did God step in and give two humans an immortal soul and make them different from all other animals? Don't know. Why would it matter? If we never evolved beyond H. erectus, would it matter to God?

 

[Dave Slayer]

Re: Why do many Christians insist that Adam was allegorical?

H. habilis were real humans. H. antecessor, H. neandertalis, H. erectus, H. ergaster, etc. All members of Homo are real humans. At what point did God step in and give two humans an immortal soul and make them different from all other animals? Don't know. Why would it matter? If we never evolved beyond H. erectus, would it matter to God?

It may not matter. However, I do not believe in human evolutuion from common ancestors. I believe God made animals as animals and human as humans. Perhaps I believe wrong, but I am willing to take these beliefs to the grave with me. If I am wrong, I will find out someday. But by then, it won't matter.

 

[Crying Rock]

Re: Why do many Christians insist that Adam was allegorical?

H. habilis were real humans. H. antecessor, H. neandertalis, H. erectus, H. ergaster, etc. All members of Homo are real humans. At what point did God step in and give two humans an immortal soul and make them different from all other animals? Don't know. Why would it matter? If we never evolved beyond H. erectus, would it matter to God?

With the exception of Habilis, I agree. Perhaps future discoveries will change my mind concerning Habilis. Regardless, I'm convinced, with the evidence at hand, that Ergaster, Erectus, Heidelbergensis, and Neanderthal were fully human, and, of course, H.s.s.

 

[lordkalvan]

Re: Why do many Christians insist that Adam was allegorical?

With the exception of Habilis, I agree. Perhaps future discoveries will change my mind concerning Habilis. Regardless, I'm convinced, with the evidence at hand, that Ergaster, Erectus, Heidelbergensis, and Neanderthal were fully human, and, of course, H.s.s.

What is your definition of 'fully human'? Is a donkey 'fully horse'?

 

[Barbarian]

Re: Why do many Christians insist that Adam was allegorical?

By definition, "human" is anyone in the genus Homo. One could nitpick about "fully human." I guess anatomically modern humans would certainly qualify, except some racists still consider only "Caucasian" (whatever that is) to be "fully human."

 

[lordkalvan]

Re: Why do many Christians insist that Adam was allegorical?

By definition, "human" is anyone in the genus Homo. One could nitpick about "fully human." I guess anatomically modern humans would certainly qualify, except some racists still consider only "Caucasian" (whatever that is) to be "fully human."

Indeed; it just seems to be an unusual choice of phrase that could be understood in several ways. As there are some scientists who believe chimpanzees should be reclassified from Pan troglodytes to Homo troglodytes, this would make chimps humans too. Would CR, or others, therefore regard chimps as 'fully human' too?

 

[Crying Rock]

Re: Why do many Christians insist that Adam was allegorical?

With the exception of Habilis, I agree. Perhaps future discoveries will change my mind concerning Habilis. Regardless, I'm convinced, with the evidence at hand, that Ergaster, Erectus, Heidelbergensis, and Neanderthal were fully human, and, of course, H.s.s.

What is your definition of 'fully human'...

Intriguing question, LK, and I attest up front that most of my remarks will be philosophical, versus scientific, in nature. I'll throw out a few criteria that I think define humans (in the majority of cases...there are always exceptions):

1. Ability to walk upright.

2. Ability to adapt to environmental conditions: fire manufacture; tool manufacture; shelter manufacture; hunting; etc…

3. Ability to plan ahead: i.e.- raft travel to Flores.

I’ll leave it at that for now and let others post what they think defines a human.

 

[Barbarian]

Re: Why do many Christians insist that Adam was allegorical?

Intriguing question, LK, and I attest up front that most of my remarks will be philosophical, versus scientific, in nature. I'll throw out a few criteria that I think define humans (in the majority of cases...there are always exceptions):

1. Ability to walk upright.

Hmm... that would put theropod dinosaurs, chickens, H. sapiens, and oropithecus as human. Chimps, too.

2. Ability to adapt to environmental conditions: fire manufacture; tool manufacture; shelter manufacture; hunting; etc…

So by that standard, either chimpanzees are human, (if only some of that is needed) or Tasmanians are not human (if all of it is needed)

3. Ability to plan ahead: i.e.- raft travel to Flores.

That would put chimps as human. They often show forsight, such as preparing tools before traveling to foraging areas.

 

[lordkalvan]

Re: Why do many Christians insist that Adam was allegorical?

Intriguing question, LK, and I attest up front that most of my remarks will be philosophical, versus scientific, in nature. I'll throw out a few criteria that I think define humans (in the majority of cases...there are always exceptions)....

As your philosophical determination of 'fully human' clearly encompasses criteria that can cross species' boundaries, is it your argument, therefore, than any member of the genus Homo is 'fully human', as Barbarian suggests?

 

[Crying Rock]

Re: Why do many Christians insist that Adam was allegorical?

Intriguing question, LK, and I attest up front that most of my remarks will be philosophical, versus scientific, in nature. I'll throw out a few criteria that I think define humans (in the majority of cases...there are always exceptions)....

As your philosophical determination of 'fully human' clearly encompasses criteria that can cross species' boundaries, is it your argument, therefore, than any member of the genus Homo is 'fully human', as Barbarian suggests?

Except for H. habilis, yes. I have not seen sufficient archeological evidence to convince me H. Habilis was human: no unambigous evidence of controlled fire; tool manufacture, hunting with weapons, ability to plan ahead, etc...Some are of the opinion that Habilis manufactured stone tools, but now that Habilis is known to have coexisted with Erectus/ Ergaster, many think the manufactured tools thought to be attributable to Habilis should now be assigned to Ergaster/ Erectus.

From an archeological perspective, when we research a site we are looking for criteria that indicate human behavior: fire manufacture; stone and bone tool manufacture (not just smashed up rocks with no pattern); shelter manufacture; hunting with weapons; etc…

I've not seen any unambiguous evidence of creatures performing these activities prior to Ergaster/ Erectus.

CR wrote:

1. Ability to walk upright.

2. Ability to adapt to environmental conditions: fire manufacture; tool manufacture; shelter manufacture; hunting; etc…

3. Ability to plan ahead: i.e.- raft travel to Flores.

I’ll leave it at that for now and let others post what they think defines a human.

Any other criteria that you would add to the list above?

 

[Crying Rock]

Re: Why do many Christians insist that Adam was allegorical?

CR:

2. Ability to adapt to environmental conditions: fire manufacture; tool manufacture; shelter manufacture; hunting; etc…

B:

So by that standard, either chimpanzees are human, (if only some of that is needed) or Tasmanians are not human (if all of it is needed).

Which of these abilities did Tasmanians not possess?