Questions: E.Q., the Evolution of Souls, the language of Adam and Eve

GLEN:
>Here is what the article in nature says about the EQ of Liang Bua
>"The brain mass for LB1, calculated from its volume26, is 433.2 g; this
>gives an encephalization quotient (EQ) range of 2.5ñ4.6, which compares
>with 5.8ñ8.1 for H. sapiens, 3.3ñ4.4 for H. erectus/ergaster and 3.6ñ4.3
>for H. habilis, and overlaps with the australopithecine range of
>variation." P. Brown et al, "A New Small Bodied Hominin from the late
>Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia," Nature 431(2004): 1060

ED: E.Q. is one measurement, but there are other differences between
brains to also consider since different genes code for different proteins
or different sugars utilized by the brain that further facilitate its
function. After the chimp and human genomes were compared such a
difference was noted in a sugar that the human brain utilizes, I believe.

Also, if "souls" are thought of as being introduced at a specific point in
evolution after a measurable increase in E.Q. has occurred (i.e., at a
definite point in primate evolution), then one is left to muse over the
scene of a soulless primate mother giving birth to a son (Adam) and
daughter (Eve) with souls, cuddling and suckling them, loving them,
raising them, etc. That same soulless primate mother would then be the
"Mother" of "The Mother of All Living." That soulless primate mother
might also have given birth to other children prior to Adam and Eve, or
perhaps after them, but those "other" children who are the biological
sisters and brothers of Adam and Eve, would be "soulless?"

Or should Christians who are evolutionists consider that entire
populations evolved "souls" instead of just a singular "Adam" and a
singular "Eve?" The Christian philosopher/apologist, Swineburne argues
that even apes have "souls." Though Koko the ape was once asked where she
thought she would go after she had died and allegedly she signed in
response the rather literal reply, "comfortable hole, bye."

Evolutionists point out that the primate-to-human transition lay along a
continuum, and the "first" human is probably not something we could put
our fingers on exactly, even if we watched a couple million years of
digitized video tape coverage of each and every primate birth beginning
with the earliest primitive ape species and watching it right up till the
first species of archaic homo sapiens arrived on the scene. So we would
only recognize clear differences between the the beginning species and
later varieties of its descendants after a couple million years of
physical and social evolution had definitvely separated one species from
the other. For instance, I doubt that at any time any infant arose out of
the womb with the ability to speak, since that has to be learned even
today -- feral children or children raised alone in closets with an
extreme minimum of human contact, being cases in point. Which reminds me,
Matt Ridley (author of several bestsellers, including GENOME) mentioned
that a few Christian kings had tried raising a child without allowing
anyone to speak to that child, since mankind's present languages had all
been "corrupted" at "Babel." The kings hoped that the child would grow up
speaking the "original pure language that Adam and Eve spoke," but instead
the child could not speak at all.

>
>
Received on Sat Nov 6 00:10:03 2004