Updated book on Who was Adam?

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 1, 2015

Human evolution, Intelligent Design, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Beginning our religion coverage this week (a bit late), from Christian Post:

Ten years after publication of Who Was Adam? by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, 13 new chapters detail the new scientific evidence on the origins of humankind in a second edition.

Rana and Ross are scholars affiliated with Reasons to Believe, which also published the new edition of Who Was Adam? RTB works to spread the Gospel by showing how science supports the truths found in Scripture. Rana and Ross both have doctorate degrees in the physical sciences, biochemistry and astronomy, respectively.

Reasons to Believe. Astronomer/apologist Hugh Ross. Biochemist/apologist Fazale Rana. They describe their position as Old Earth Creationism:

We think that the days in Genesis 1 are long, finite periods of time. Because of this view, we accept the scientific dates for the Earth’s age and life’s antiquity.

But we are Creationists. And as such, we are skeptical that evolution can account for life’s origin, history, and design. We reject human evolution and believe in a historical Adam and Eve.

From CP’s interview with Fuz Rana:

CP: After the book was published there was an announcement of a major archaeological find, Homo naledi, in South Africa. What, if anything, from that discovery would you have included in the book if the news had come before publication?

This hominid is just another in a long list of recent fossil finds that have forced anthropologists to rewrite the human evolutionary story. Every time a new hominid is discovered, it throws the evolutionary paradigm into chaos, and H. naledi is no exception.

If a scientific theory is a good one, new discoveries should provide affirmation and greater clarity. On the other hand, if new discoveries continually shake up the human evolutionary tree it is a sure sign that the evolutionary paradigm is in trouble.
More.

See also: Before you bet on homo Naledi, read this.

Homo Naledi now questioned at Berkeley

and

Human evolution, the skinny

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Well, at least it looks like we're on the same page regarding the point I raised at the end of my #17. Perhaps I'll take a look at the video in the OP in the next few days.daveS_{November 2, 2015
November
11
Nov
2
02
2015
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

Neanderthals, apparently, according to Dr Ross, who he claims were soulless animals.
That is another baseless assertion from him. Neanderthals, among others, were 100% human. The differences between neanderthals, erectus etc. and us is most likely due to the fact that they were to live for centuries.
But when one examines a classic Neanderthal skull, of which there are now a large number, one cannot escape the conviction that its fundamental anatomical formation is an enlarged and developed version of the Homo erectus skull. As in Homo erectus, it has the bun-shaped protrusion in the occiput, the heavy brow ridge, the relatively flattened crown that from the rear presents a profile like a gambrel roof. Its greatest breadth is low, just above the ears, and the absence of a jutting chin is typical. - Harry Shapiro

H. heidelbergensis and H. Neanderthalensis crania are generally H. erectus-like but with a slight increase in face size and relative brain size. In contrast, H. sapiens represents a shift in craniofacial architecture, with a retracted, smaller face, and a more spherical vault.

Consider also that, in the same way that the Babel dispersion may have led to different groups of people taking different subsets of genes for certain traits (for example, blood types), the dispersion may also have led to different groups taking different subsets of genes for variation in bony characters. Hence, as the people groups migrated away from Babel, variants of robust humans, such as H. erectus, H. heidelbergensis and Neandertals, arose through a combination of genetic variation in bony characters and local environmental factors, in a similar way that other ‘racial’ characteristics of people groups became established. As time went by some traits became dominant in some people groups (possibly through natural selection, but more likely through genetic drift due to inbreeding), but were absent, or close to absent, in others. The presence or absence of a chin may be one such bony character state that is under genetic control. Most robust humans tend to have an undeveloped or absent chin, indicating this trait was much more frequent in earlier human populations. There are still extant people without a well-defined chin, indicating that this is a part of normal human variability. However, the trait has certainly decreased in today’s population
And as for all the other "primitive" humans, they're most likely ALL morphologically varied Homo erectus:
The Dmanisi sample, which now comprises five crania, provides direct evidence for wide morphological variation within and among early Homo paleodemes. This implies the existence of a single evolving lineage of early Homo, with phylogeographic continuity across continents.
Such variation is in line with what is readily observable today:
One of the dominant theories of our evolution is that our genus, Homo, evolved from small-bodied early humans to become the taller, heavier and longer legged Homo erectus that was able to migrate beyond Africa and colonise Eurasia. While we know that small-bodied Homo erectus – averaging less than five foot (152cm) and under 50kg – were living in Georgia in southern Europe by 1.77 million years ago, the timing and geographic origin of the larger body size that we associate with modern humans has, until now, remained unresolved. But a joint study by researchers at the Universities of Cambridge and Tübingen (Germany), published today in the Journal of Human Evolution, has now shown that the main increase in body size occurred tens of thousands of years after Homo erectus left Africa, and primarily in the Koobi Fora region of Kenya. According to Manuel Will, a co-author of the study from the Department of Early Prehistory and Quaternary Ecology at Tübingen, “the evolution of larger bodies and longer legs can thus no longer be assumed to be the main driving factor behind the earliest excursions of our genus to Eurasia”. Researchers say the results from a new research method, using tiny fragments of fossil to estimate our earliest ancestors’ height and body mass, also point to the huge diversity in body size we see in humans today emerging much earlier than previously thought.

It’s possible to interpret our findings as showing that there were either multiple species of early human, such as Homo habilis, Homo ergaster and Homo rudolfensis, or one highly diverse species. This fits well with recent cranial evidence for tremendous diversity among early members of the genus Homo.” “If someone asked you ‘are modern humans 6 foot tall and 70kg?’ you’d say ‘well some are, but many people aren’t,’ and what we’re starting to show is that this diversification happened really early in human evolution,” said Stock.
It's highly unlikely that our present form could sustain anyone past 200 years so there's a good chance that Adam and Eve didn't just interbreed with neanderthals (i.e. "large" H. erectus) who were fully human but WERE Neanderthals or some variation of them.Vy_{November 2, 2015
November
11
Nov
2
02
2015
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

Vy,
That’s not exactly a surprising biblically baseless assertion from him. Dave, you’re yet to specify which humanlike nonhuman creatures Adam, Eve and family could’ve possibly interbred with.
Neanderthals, apparently, according to Dr Ross, who he claims were soulless animals. Edit: And he has acknowledged the possibility that humans and Neanderthals did interbreed. Edit: Anyway, my only point in bringing this up was to confirm that our DNA derives exclusively from Adam and Eve. There were no other "founders" of humanity besides them. Agreed?daveS_{November 2, 2015
November
11
Nov
2
02
2015
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

Wait, how did we got onto the subject of Noah?
Well, on the subject of the most recent ancestors of humans (Y-chromosonal Adam and whatnot), biblically speaking, Noah would come before Adam.
what I meant was that Adam and Eve had children, then this group interbred without mixing with any other compatible “nonhuman primates” that might have been present.
Again, what other "compatible “nonhuman primates”"?
In fact, it seems Ross believes in such humanlike, but not actually human creatures:
And leading ‘progressive creationist’ Hugh Ross teaches something similar when he says that “bipedal, tool-using, large-brained primates roamed Earth for hundreds of thousands (perhaps a million) years”.
That's not exactly a surprising biblically baseless assertion from him. Dave, you're yet to specify which humanlike nonhuman creatures Adam, Eve and family could've possibly interbred with.Vy_{November 2, 2015
November
11
Nov
2
02
2015
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

Thanks for clearing that up, Collin.daveS_{November 2, 2015
November
11
Nov
2
02
2015
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

Dave, You have to read or watch Ross and Rana so you can understand their theory. Noah is important because he would be the last male ancestor of all men. But there were several women on the Ark that were not daughters of Noah's wife, so she was not the last female ancestor, Eve was. This is their theory.Collin_{November 2, 2015
November
11
Nov
2
02
2015
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

I am YEC but oncve helped RTB organize a big meeting in my church. If the bible is the evidence for adam then the bible is clear that it was not long ago and if it was there would be more people by now. Why use Genesis if one rejects it for obvious conclusions? It shows a deesire to join Christian belief with a respect for mans intellect where same intellect rejects the bible. It doesn't work. Genesis is true or not and clear about these things.Robert Byers_{November 1, 2015
November
11
Nov
1
01
2015
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT}

Wait, how did we got onto the subject of Noah? I thought we were talking about Adam and Eve, the primordial humans. As to my use of the word "species", what I meant was that Adam and Eve had children, then this group interbred without mixing with any other compatible "nonhuman primates" that might have been present. In fact, it seems Ross believes in such humanlike, but not actually human creatures:
And leading ‘progressive creationist’ Hugh Ross teaches something similar when he says that “bipedal, tool-using, large-brained primates roamed Earth for hundreds of thousands (perhaps a million) years”.
although they were supposedly extinct by the time Adam and Eve were created.daveS_{November 1, 2015
November
11
Nov
1
01
2015
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

Is it plausible that these two people were the only two humans on the planet for some time, and that we are all descended from them
In light of the events (really THE event) that occurred during Noah's life, I'm not quite certain of what you're asking.
with no genetic contribution from any other species?
What other "species"?Vy_{November 1, 2015
November
11
Nov
1
01
2015
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

Is it plausible that these two people were the only two humans on the planet for some time, and that we are all descended from them, with no genetic contribution from any other species?daveS_{November 1, 2015
November
11
Nov
1
01
2015
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

I think refuting or even demonstrating the plausibility of the Adam and Eve hypothesis ... would be significant
The Darwinists are doing just fine pointing out this fact though they prefer to use just-so-stories in explaining why they aren't referring to the biblical ~~Adam and Eve~~ Noah and his wife, Namaah or Emzara, according some sources.Vy_{November 1, 2015
November
11
Nov
1
01
2015
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

There is, however, strong archaeological and historical evidence that the book of Genesis is many books in one.
And this evidence is where exactly? Gilgamesh epic style stories?
he Adam and Eve in one verse or chapter are not necessarily the same Adam and Eve in another.
Are you still referring to the biblical Genesis?Vy_{November 1, 2015
November
11
Nov
1
01
2015
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

Mapou,
You atheists are not shooting at just one target. You’re just picking the low hanging fruits and then erroneously conclude that you have accomplished something significant.
I think refuting or even demonstrating the plausibility of the Adam and Eve hypothesis Reasons to Believe gives would be significant. Why wouldn't it be?daveS_{November 1, 2015
November
11
Nov
1
01
2015
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

Vy,
???
Well, I was hoping some experts would give a layperson-friendly explanation of the evidence for (or refutation of) the hypothesis Ross and Rana give. It won't be me.daveS_{November 1, 2015
November
11
Nov
1
01
2015
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

daveS:
Is there good evidence showing Adam and Even were an actual couple, and that all humans descended exclusively from them?
No there isn't. This is just one of the interpretations of the first few chapters of Genesis that we see coming from both Protestant and Catholic sources. There is, however, strong archaeological and historical evidence that the book of Genesis is many books in one. The Adam and Eve in one verse or chapter are not necessarily the same Adam and Eve in another. My own interpretation is that proto-humans first appeared on earth many millions of years ago. They could have been mere experimental prototypes without souls. As you can see, there are many possible interpretations of Adam and Eve. You atheists are not shooting at just one target. You're just picking the low hanging fruits and then erroneously conclude that you have accomplished something significant. You're just preaching to your own choir. The big surprises are just around the bend. Wait for them.Mapou_{November 1, 2015
November
11
Nov
1
01
2015
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

Thanks
You're welcome.
I’m not competent to answer the question I posed
???Vy_{November 1, 2015
November
11
Nov
1
01
2015
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

Vy,
@Dave, you might be interested in this (feel free to ignore everything in there that irks your self-refuting Atheistic and naturalistic worldview).
Thanks. I'm not competent to answer the question I posed, but at least the Reasons to Believe people are stating a specific hypothesis that can be investigated. And I guess Gauger thinks it isn't implausible, while others disagree.daveS_{November 1, 2015
November
11
Nov
1
01
2015
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

If a scientific theory is a good one, new discoveries should provide affirmation and greater clarity. On the other hand, if new discoveries continually shake up the human evolutionary tree it is a sure sign that the evolutionary paradigm is in trouble.
Hmm, from "new discoveries should support a good scientific theory" to "OTOH, new discoveries blah blah blah evolutionary paradigm . . .". I guess that's the only "shaken" secular paradigm on their radar. RTB, like other GTE ... um ... theistic Darwinists, are quite comfortable being selectively skeptical of everything but their moyboys. When it comes to the moyboys, they seem to prefer a "feed_me_more, it's_all_settled_science" "scriptura sub scientia" attitude. Maybe this updated version of their book focuses on something other than promoting their compromisationalist interpretation of Genesis and bashing of biblical Creationists. @Dave, you might be interested in this (but feel free to ignore everything in there that irks your self-refuting Atheistic and naturalistic worldview).Vy_{November 1, 2015
November
11
Nov
1
01
2015
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

From the article:
The good news is that there is scientific evidence that suggests Adam and Eve were real people, and that all of humanity arose from a primordial pair.
I assume that would date Adam and Eve at about 200,000 years or roughly 10,000 generations ago. Is there good evidence showing Adam and Even were an actual couple, and that all humans descended exclusively from them?daveS_{November 1, 2015
November
11
Nov
1
01
2015
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply