Does “Full Humanity” Predate Homo Sapiens? (Part 4 - Pre-Adamism)
A little over two years ago, I started writing a series on whether Full Humanity predates Homo Sapiens. It was basically a review of Glenn Morton’s theories on humanity. I found (and continue to find) them fascinating. He wrote of pre-homo sapien humanoid species that manifested features that would appear to us as being uniquely human. Making the case has allowed him to suggest that Adam and Eve were alive 5.5 million years ago, and that Noah’s flood was shortly thereafter. Though I am not inclined to agree at this time, the arguments seemed reasonable enough to review. I then wrote the following three articles. Now, please keep in mind that my thinking haschanged a bit since then. In particular, while Morton may yet convince me that full humanity dates back 5.5 million years, I am now thinking that Adam, Noah, and the Tower of Babel all occurred more recently, around 10,000 years ago. So, as you read the articles below, you will see me entertaining the notion of Genesis’s history of humanity taking place when Morton suggests; I am no longer so much on the fence, but that does not undo my point, which is that Morton is being reasonable. In fact, in Genesis 2:4-7 - Moses Recorded the Evolution of Man (Part 3), I write about Genesis 2:7 occurring in two parts: evolution of man, followed by God breathing new life into Adam. I believe Morton’s approach may well provide a basis for dating the first part. So, while I do intend to revisit some aspects of my reasoning, I still recommend reading the posts below before going with this one:
Does “Full Humanity” Predate Homo Sapiens? (Part 1 - Altars)
Does “Full Humanity” Predate Homo Sapiens? (Part 2 - Neanderthals)
Does “Full Humanity” Predate Homo Sapiens? (Part 3 - Language)
Back from the articles? My original motivation in reviewing Morton’s theory was in my attempt to date Adam. However, I now believe Adam was fairly recent, having lived as recently as 10,000 years ago. So why continue with this analysis? Because I do not believe Adam was created on Day 6 in Genesis. I believe God created mankind on Day 6 some time before Adam, and I think that Morton’s rationale for dating humanity may well assist me in that. However, I must tread lightly. According to the following article (http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/a-bare-bones-account-of-human-evolution), mankind did not culturally flourish until perhaps 50,000 years ago. Therefore, this trek to date humanity as such must explain why mankind did not flourish for so long. One explanation is that the Tower of Babel occurred 5.5 mya, and conferred such confusion on mankind (as intended by God) that it lasted until 50,000 years ago. Another explanation is that Day 6 ended 50,000 years ago, but God’s creative actions, the ones focused specifically upon mankind itself began 5.5 mya. (I actually believe all of Creation in Genesis 1 was centered on man, based on my study of Genesis 2:4-7, but mankind itself did not appear until 5.5 mya, and then God continued to work until He rested 50,000 years ago.)
In their interchange on March 20 1997 (http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199703/0134.html), Glenn Morton and Stephen Jones exchanged the following (I have remormatted slightly to make the exchange a bit clearer):
GM: As I have mentioned, there are a few fossils which have Homo-like affinities from 4.2 MYR ago. You seem to forget that.
(see Brigitte Senut and Christine Tardieu, “Functional Aspects of Plio-Pleistocene Hominid Limb Bones: Implications for Taxonomy and phylogeny”,in Eric Delson, editor, Ancestors: The Hard Evidence, pp 193-201)
SJ: I don’t “forget that” at all. As Glenn himself says, they are “fossils which have Homo-like affinities from 4.2 MYR ago”. They are *the beginnings* of such “Homo-like affinities”, mainly in the upper arm bones. Indeed, the Fossil Hominid FAQ regards these as “Australopithecus anamensis”. “This species was only named in August 1995. The material consists of 9 fossils, mostly found in 1994, from Kanapoi in Kenya, and 12 fossils, mostly teeth found in 1988, from Allia Bay in Kenya (Leakey et al.1995). Anamensis existed between 4.2 and 3.9 million years ago, and has a mixture of primitive features in the skull, and advanced features in the body. The teeth and jaws are very similar to those of older fossil apes. A partial tibia (the larger of the two lower leg bones) is strong evidence of bipedality, and a lower humerus (the upper arm bone) is extremely humanlike. Note that although the skull and skeletal bones are thought to be from the same species, this is not confirmed.” (Foley J., “Fossil Hominids FAQ”, April 16, 1996). What Glenn needs is “fossils which have” *advanced “Homo-like affinities from” ie. *5.5* “MYR ago”, and ideed millions of years before.
Actually, Morton has an explanation for this, which I will get to later. In the meantime, even going back 4.2 mya has some interesting implications that SJ and GM explored further down…
SJ: There is of course not even a scrap of Biblical or anthropological evidence for these claims by Glenn.
GM: Could this have been modern man? no. Anatomically modern people do not appear until 120,000 years ago.
SJ: Agreed. So on Glenn’s theory, Adam and Noah were not even “Anatomically modern people”?
GM: that is correct! Where in the Bible does it say that a man must look like me to be a man? Pygmys certainly don’t look exactly like me. Some South american Indians actually have blue-colored private parts.
SJ: Glenn needs to face reality. “Pygmys” and “South american Indians” are *all* “Anatomically modern people”. If “Adam and Noah were not even `Anatomically modern people’” then they cannot be our representatives (Rom 5:14; 1Cor 15:22).
GM: “Aside from these examples, there is little evidence that any of the other visible differences among the world’s people provide any advantage…”~Boyce Rensberger, “Racial Odyssey,” in Elvio Angeloni, Editor, Annual Editions Physical Anthropology 94/95 (Sluicedock,Guilford, Conn.: The Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc., 1994), p.40-45, p. 43.
GM (cont’d): So I would say that there is no requirement, biblical or otherwise for someone to look like me to earn the title, human.
In other words, Morton argues that the creation of man does not necessitate the completion of his evolution. The mere capacity for characteristics such as speech, worship, bipedalism, and others, are a combination of traits so uniquely human that as far back you can find such combination, you are looking at humanity. The fact that this capacity was further developed over the succeeding millions of years does not negate the humanity of those who came before. As far as that goes, I would have to agree. However, SJ’s scripture references are worthy to give one pause.
Romans 5:14 - Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
1 Cor 15:22 - For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
The connection between these verses and the requirement for anatomical similarity is the implication that sin did not reign until Adam. This is true. Therefore, mankind doesn’t start until Adam? With that I disagree. As I write in Genesis 2:4-7 - Moses Recorded the Evolution of Man (Part 3), I do not believe God conferred upon Adam “new life” until after Day 7. This leaves Day 6 open to go back as far as necessary… even 5.5 million years. Therefore, the scriptural basis for humanity pre-dating Adam, and in fact going back millions of years, in my opinion, is there.
SJ and GM then go on to debate whether Adam could be a homo erectus if he couldn’t even breed with a homo sapien. Because I believe Adam was a homo sapien, I will skip that interchange. Homo Erectus does not need to be capable of inter-breeding with us to be our ancestors, and in fact be human. That said, there is no reason to believe they couldn’t interbreed… the argument only reqyures they be our ancestors and have an otherwise uniquely human combination of traits in my opinion, and nothing in the interchange appears to contradict that, even this statement made by SJ, which I am actually inclined to agree with:
SJ: Personally, based on the neolithic elements in Genesis 4 and the problem of stretching the Genesis 5 genealogies too much, I am coming to the view that Adam was probably Proto-Neolithic, ie. between 20,000 - 10,000 years ago. This means he may not be the physical ancestor of all men living today. But nowhere does the Bible actually say that he was.
Well, if he means biologically living, then I agree. However, I believe the “life” breathed into him in Genesis 2:7 was the abundant life that comes with righteousness… believing what God says and obeying him. This makes him the spiritual ancestor of all men. However, given SJ’s realization that Adam was the first physical man, I find it interesting that he still draws a line of what it means to be human that so much more recent than GM does. Further down:
GM: Since there is evidence of neanderthal religion, they surely had an awareness of God and they didn’t look like me either.
SJ: That “neanderthal” buried his dead and may have had a primitive “religion”, is not necessarily evdienece of “an awareness of God’.
Their interchanges are so interesting in a rather dry way. Entailed in just these two statements is an odd agreement that capacity to believe God is a requirement for being human, that Adam was the first person to know God, and that full humanity starts with Adam. It is basically a mutual rejection of Pre-Adamite theory, the theory that humanity pre-dates Adam. In my opinion, it is that agreement that gets them into trouble, because they cannot agree on the chicken and the egg (capacity to worship vs. full humanity): SJ believes Adam must have been recent (as do I), and so full humanity does not include anyone before Adam. However, this forces SJ to reject as human species who may otherwise have had the capacity to know God. GM on the other hand believes full humanity must have been ancient, and so Adam must have been ancient. Both reject Pre-Adamism. In my opinion, Adam was not the beginning of full humanity, but merely the first human to whom God personally introducted Himself… this awakened in Adam something that mankind was previously capable of, but that God had never tapped. My conclusion? Morton’s evidence for dating humanity is reasonable, but it does not date Adam; Jones’ evidence for dating Adam is reasonable, but it does not date humanity.
Their mutual rejection of Pre-adamism is interesting. They are both clearly aware of the theory, yet neither believes it. The interesting thing is that by accepting Morton’s arguments on the dating of humanity, and Jones’ arguments on the dating of Adam, I appear to be converging on a form of Pre-Adamism. However, I arrived here based on scripture, Genesis 2:4-7 as cited above. And now I see the science, a la Morton and Jones, unwittingly confirming it.
April 14th, 2011 at 6:46 am
I now believe that Babel occurred around 2700 BC, around 100 years after the flood, which I believe was in 2807BC.