Were Adam and Eve homo sapiens?

quote:

---

max

​

So you are defining humans as those who were around 6000 years ago, then concluding that humans have been around for 6000 years.

​

I am arguing that it has taken hundreds of thousands of years for humans to get to the point (physically and socially) where humans were 6000 years ago.

---

My arguement is that speech endowed humans like today, as opposed to skeletal formation classifications, is 6000 years old. This has not been overturned as of now.

quote:

---

Your only evidence that humans came into existence 6000 years ago is that thats when we started writing stuff such that modern humans can read it (stone/continually rewriting/etc).

---

This oft repeated counter is bogus: there was NO writings 5,500 years ago - the first picture writings on granite pyramids are less than 5,500 years old. Nor do the evidences tended for modern humans prior to 6000 indicate speech, including alledged cave markings & drawings as per carbon datings only, irrigation, communities, common burials, fireplaces, etc. Speech has definitive imprints not subject to this type of grey area retreats, such as names - of a city, king, war, etc; an array of ethnic songs or poetry recalled; a diety; sacrifices; imprints of different speeches/languages from different areas and periods; varieties of foods, fruits and vegetations; varied and differing cultures and traditions, etc: none of these require 'writings' to be evidenced. One must be critically fastidious in demanding such proof - and examine them with a total suspicion - if the enquirey is genuine and not agenda-based. It is an issue of pivotal importance.

quote:

---

Will you agree with me that it takes a lot more than just the ability to communicate to have pyramids, writings etc? A civilization where every member has to work all day long in order to get the food they need to survive probably can't build pyramids. They probably won't be too concerned about developing a written language when they don't have the time, nor need to read or write.

---

Let me give you the benefit of the doubt here, even though this seems most improbable: what are you saying? I say its improbable because pyramids require more than oral communication - it requires drawings (blueprints), maths and intelligence: modern man today could'nt build a pyramid without speech and writings. And we have no complex structures for any period before 6000: the fulcrum and operable factor here!

quote:

---

You seem to be assuming that once a being can speak that the ability and desire to write are going to happen at the same time. This is why others have cited the development of the larynx and the 40,000 plus year history of human speech.

---

Yes, only the examples which require no proof are tended! No other life forms seemed to develop a larnyx, nor do we have grads of grunts and elevated speech imprints throughout the last 120K years: it all co-incidently aligns with a document called Genesis. I thought you saw oral speech sufficient to erect pyramids - how about some other imprints just 50K years ago -or am I being too demanding?

quote:

---

doddy

​

I've already explained why other organisms didn't develop speech but hominids did - much the same reason that only elephants gained a prehensile nose. Why are you not claiming that an elephants trunk is bestowed, as no other animal, despite billions of years, has developed it.

---

That's a reasonable point - but it works against your premise: it does not overturn that speech is an exclusive attribute for humans - because only elephants have trucketed noses. Nor does it overturn that life forms possess attributes bestowed/acquired specifically, as opposed developing them via time-factored adaptation: elephants had trunkated noses as far as all time is concerned, and their only variances appear to be maybe smaller trunks and within a certain 'kind' (grouping) of that life form. The leap to cross-species via millions of years appear contradicted here, and aligning with Genesis' adaptation limited to a certain 'kind' - and not generically. It also indicates that speech endowed humans are not the result of adaptation from other life forms 120K years ago - but co-incidently synchronised with genesis. Is not the latter a terrible premise!

quote:

---

Evolution does not have any set "aim" or "goals". It is not a process with the intent to create as many smart creatures as possible, or as many talking creatures as possible, or as many creatures with long noses as possible. The only criteria is survival, and that can be solved in a myriad of ways, only one of which is intelligence and speech.

---

Fine. But how does this help you: the only criteria it fails in is 'survival' of any species!

You were, for the sake of argument, assuming that speech evolved from grunts and hisses. Then, you point out that if this were true, other animals would have speech, and because they don't, evolution didn't create speech. I merely point out that there is a problem in the step where you assume that animals should have speech if speech was evolved.Of course it doesn't prove that speech did in fact evolve, but it does successfully defend your argument that it couldn't. It was not meant to support my claim, but to counter yours. But your premise that elephants have existed for all time is indeed incorrect, as many threads on this forum have endeavoured to show. We shall not get into it here, but perhaps it would be better if you don't make creationist assertions and I don't make evolutionist ones, as that will quickly derail this thread.I can do nothing here until you accept evolution as true, because the disagreement between yourself and myself stems from that, so any debating we can do here is pointless. I have shown you enough fossil evidence to support the idea that there were humans, who could speak, before 6000 years ago, but you haven't accepted it because of your distrust of palaeontology. I have shown you extrapolations about what the world population and health would have been like 10,000 years ago and before, but you do not accept it because of what the Bible tells you. Thus, this isn't getting anywhere.

---

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today! Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

​

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

Where are you trying to get?IamJoseph's position, Message 7 and Message 21, is that Adam and Eve were homo sapiens.Do you agree or disagree?If you agree that Adam and Eve were homo sapiens, what brings you to that conclusion? If not, what do you feel Adam and Eve were?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Are you saying that you disagree with IamJoseph's position, Message 7 and Message 21, that Adam and Eve were homo sapiens.If you disagree, what do you feel Adam and Eve were?If you agree that Adam and Eve were homo sapiens, what brings you to that conclusion?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

If you agree that Adam and Eve were homo sapiens, what brings you to that conclusion?

---

The species categories we use today is new and arbitrary in relation to darwin's preferred research quest. Genesis' categorising is differently perspected: humans are classed as a 'kind' (category) with exclusive speech - nothing else impacts here. This does not invalidate our current categorising criteria at all, but from another POV, humans are correctly differentiated by genesis in its nominating of the only unique factor separating humans from all other life forms. It seems genesis is assuming a big picture view, from a zoomed out creational lens.

quote:

---

doddy

​

I can do nothing here until you accept evolution as true, because the disagreement between yourself and myself stems from that, so any debating we can do here is pointless.

---

What is evolution? To me, its one of the processes we see - no different from rain and gravity. So its fine to give this process a name, as representing 'changes' in life forms; its an academic, virtual reference, with no actual position existing. I mean we cannot capture a thing called evolution or its source, same as we cannot capture the equation or source of gravity in a lab. The issue of evolution becomes precarious when we consider that all systems in the universe are 'intergrated'; here we have to give evolution a place in a larger system.As a process, I see more credibility in the host 'seed' than anything else being responsible for reproduction and all graduations, and that this needs no cross-species factor impacting for its viability. The issue of cross-species enters the picture in the quest to track the source and thread of life, from an evidential scientific methodology. However, there is also another factor which propells this quest: science and anything appearing in a theology become mutually exclusive, and sometimes this can lead to an agenda-based error in deriving a scientific conclusion.What may be the problem here, is that when darwin encountered imprints of graduations in his research on life forms appearing in nature, he concluded that genesis was wrong, and his new found data correct. But another view could have been taken from the same research findings - without any conflict with genesis. This refers to the grads encountered by darwin can be limited to certain groupings of life forms, without cross-species, as stated in genesis. This validates darwin and genesis, excepting only in the tresholds of the graduations concluded by darwin's cross-species. But had darwin founded in alignment with genesis, it would conflict with the quest for a theology negating premise. I believe that in the latter mentioned quest, to promote cross-species and show it as a polar opposition to genesis, the cross-species premise had to be pursued, and controversial conclusions were made of the research data (retrovirus, etc). There is a blatant zeal to contradict anything in a theology - and this is understandable to a very large degree (there is hardly any science in most theologies), and the OT became cast in the same green bag. This even that Genesis is correct to a far positioned extent, contradicting only one aspect of darwin's theory.I think it calls for playing Devil's Advocate here, and assume that genesis is correct. What is the resultant premise, if there is no cross-species grads, and only 'within-species' grads (disregard the species categorising ratios here)? I think only one conclusion becomes pertinent here, and non-surprisingly, it is the only unacceptable one for a large sector of science, R & D grants, and vocational career status: Creationism remains intact! Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

These words do not mean anything. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

I agree with that, but I think for different reasons.I do not agree that they were the FIRST Homo sapiens, should they even exist at all, because Homo sapiens has existed for far longer than 6000 years, as has speech. However, I do believe that when Genesis was written, Adam and Eve were intended to be as human as those doing the writing, just as James Bond is human (but not real).Really, we're not debating the original question, but a side question.

---

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today! Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

​

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

quote:

---

doddy

​

I do not agree that they were the FIRST Homo sapiens, should they even exist at all, because Homo sapiens has existed for far longer than 6000 years, as has speech.

---

Genesis says they were the first life form with speech, the only values given them in the reference to 'kind'; this has nothing to do with today's species categorising criteria. That speech is proven before the genesis dating is not conclusive by any means - not even as a theory. We have not a name or any history before 6000 - which is not dependent on writings.

What about the talking snake? Obviously we don't have direct evidence of speech before the invention of writing. This is inevitable, and gives us no warrant to supppose the two originated at the same time. We do, on the other hand, have archaeological evidence testifying to impressive achievements way before 6000, which couldn't have been achieved without communication.Or do you propose that civilisation arose before language?

quote:

---

Really, we're not debating the original question, but a side question.

---

I realize that, hence my question.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

IamJoseph,Since this is a science forum, evidence outside the Bible is necessary in supporting assertions.General Note to Participants:
Since everyone participating seems to agree that Adam and Eve were probably homo sapiens, I see no problem in discussing whether they were the first homo sapiens or not if that has been claimed.BUT, do not get bogged down in correcting comments or assertions not related to the topic that are perceived as incorrect.Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.

​

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.Thank you

Which chapter and verse says that?What does that have to do with whether or not they were Homo sapiens or if they even existed?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I would assume that since the man called the animals names he was speaking.Enjoy

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."