>That is a most astounding comment. Is this "suggestion" taken seriously by
>paleoanthropologists? Are references from the authors you listed available?
>
Consider these points I posted earlier to the evolution reflector. Homo
erectus, below the neck is almost identical to us.
Time-Life's The First Men(1973 p. 14) said about
Home Erectus,
His bones were heavier and thicker than a modern man's,
and bigger bones required thicker muscles to move them.
These skeletal differences however are not particularly
noticable. "Below the neck", one expert noted, "the
differences between Homo-Erectus and today's
man could only be detected by an experienced
anatomist."
"Hard on the heels of these species comes Homo ergaster, which, as the 'Turkana
Boy' attests, is postcranially altogether more modern. "~Ian Tattersall, The
Fossil Trail (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), p.231
Look around the world at the various peoples. Yes there is postcranial
variations in skeletal features, but most of the differences are in the
skull and especially the face. This has been the case throughout history.
Most of the variation in the genus Homo occurs in the skull and face.
As to the references, Here they are. These come from Wolpoff and Caspari's
Race and Human Evolution. They compile a lot of those issues around page
250-254. I have not checked these out. I have ordered them but not received
them yet. But Wolpoff is a careful researcher and I have found him trustworthy.
Helmut Hemmerer, 1969 "A New View of the Evolution of Man, Current
Anthropology 10(2-3): 179-180
John T. Robinson, 1967, Variation and Taxonomy of hte Early Hominids,
Evolutionary Biology 1:69-100
Richard Leakey, 1989, Recent fossil finds from East Africa in J.R. Durant
ed. Human origins, Clarendon Press, p 57
E. Aguirre, 1994, Homo erectus and Homos sapiens: one or more species? in J.
L. Franzen ed 100 years of Pithecanthropus, The Homo erectus Problem.
Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckberg 171:333-339
Jan Jelinek, 1978, Homo erectus or Homo sapiens? Recent Advances in
Primatology 3:419-429, p. 427-428
J. Jelinek, 1981, Was Homo erectus already Homo sapiens? Les Processus de
l'Hominisation. CNRS International Coloquium, No. 599:85-89
M.H. Wolpoff, A. G. Thorne, J. Jelinek, and Zhang Yinyun 1993, The case for
sinking Homo erectus: 100 years of Pithecanthropus is enough! in J. L.
Franzen ed 100 years of Pithecanthropus, The Homo erectus Problem. Courier
Forschungsinstitut Senckberg 171:772-773.
I would caution you though. The feeling for sinking Homo erectus is not a
consensus view of anthropologists
>I like the comment. It fits into Genesis 1: 26-30 very well, where the
>implication is that God created human beings as *human* from the outset, in
>His image to have dominion over the earth. These were the "adam" in my view,
>with no Adam at their head. Gen. 1 knows nothing of Adam.
>
>In your post of July 2 you stated that you felt more comfortable with Adam,
>being the head of the whole human species from the very start. You said, "I
>feel much better if Adam was the progenitor of all." Where, in your view,
>does Adam fit into the one-species picture, assuming that human species is
>only one species, and Homo sapiens at that? Would Adam (and Eve) be the
>first human(s) who walked upright on two legs out of the jungle onto the
>savannah?
No.Adam would not be the first bipedal ape. It is at the creation of man
that God got involved, IMO. My view has been described as "nauseating" by
one gentleman on the ASA listserv, but it does fit the facts of science and
the description of events in Genesis 2. Let me explain.
Apes have 48 chromosomes, man has 46. IF man evolved from the apes, it
entailed a Robertsonian fusion, a fusion of four chromosomes to two. Now
some YECs say that this chromosome difference is a reason to believe that
man did not evolve from the apes, but they can't explain the pseudogenes,
which are broken genes found at the same location in different species. A
gene consists of:
control region--coding region A--noncoding region--coding region B
When the gene is copied so that it can be turned into a protein the
noncoding region is removed, and a tail stuck onto it. The control region
provides the instructions for this. Thus the processed gene looks like:
coding region A--coding region B--tail
Once in a while this is re-inserted into another chromosome in its process
state. Because the control and noncoding region is gone, the gene will not
work. It is broken and serves no purpose.
What is the importance of this to Adam? Humans share pseudogenes with
chimps, gorillas, orang and Old World Monkeys. Edward Max describes this
situation,
"In our studies aimed at
investigating the basis for allergy we discovered a sequence that
resembled the epsilon immunoglobulin gene except that it had no
introns, it had multiple crippling mutations, it had on its end a
sequence of almost continuous "A"s (looking like a slightly
mutated poly(A) tract), and it was located on a different
chromosome (chromosome 9) from that of the functional gene
(chromosome 14) (Max et al. Cell 29:691, 1982; Battey et al. PNAS
79:5956, 1982). Our evidence suggested that this processed
pseudogene also existed in chimpanzee DNA, and subsequent
detailed investigations from other laboratories (Kawmura and
Ueda, Genomics 13:194,1992) demonstrated nearly identical
pseudogenes exist in chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan and Old World
monkeys. As in the case of all DNA insertions shared by different
species (see other examples below), the argument that these
sequences were not created independently but descended from a
common ancestral insertion is bolstered by the demonstration that
the insertions occurred in the same position in the DNA of each
species, i.e., the DNA that surrounds the insertion is very
similar between species--as close to identical as might be
expected given the occurrence of mutations that are not selected
against. "
For a thorough discussion see:
http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/molecular%2Dgenetics.html
Since designers do not design broken things, one can not claim common design
for the pseudogenes. They prove our evolutionary origins. Yet the Bible
claims divine intervention in the creation of man. Here is what nauseated
that gentleman.
I proposed that Adam was the product of a chromosomal fusion taking his
chromosome count from 48 to 46. But, the problems killed him. He was born
dead. God intervened, fixed him up, taught him to speak and showed him that
there was no one with whom he could mate. Because he was the only one of
his kind, God removed part of Adam's side and created Eve. I think this is
an important point. One of the draws of the young-earth creationists is
that they say there is no way that the creation of Eve can be compatible
with evolution.
"Theistic evolution contradicts the Bible both historically
and doctrinally. As to the historical approach, there is one fact
which should forever settle the matter for Bible-believing
Christians. There is a fact which cannot possibly be wrested and
fitted into an evolutionary interpretation. It is expressly stated
in Scripture that Eve was formed from a portion of the side of
Adam, which the Lord removed for that purpose. This is usually
said to be a rib, for the term is so translated in the King James
version of the Bible. Since the Bible plainly states that the
first woman was formed from a part taken from the side of the first
man, we are given a detail of creation which cannot be forced into
any theory of evolution."
~Bolton Davidheiser,Evolution and Christian Faith, (Grand Rapids: Baker
Bookhouse,1969), p. 168-169
Davidheiser is wrong. I just showed how it can be compatible. Is it an
apetizing view? No. Does it fit the facts? Yes.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm