Where Did Humans Come From?

[tampasteve]

That's a consequence of common descent. As Darwin pointed out, there are many transitional populations that are difficult to classify, because they have not evolved sufficiently from other populations to say for sure whether or not they are a separate species. Humans and Neandertals are like that. We are certainly different races, but it's a matter of opinion whether or not we are different species. If creationism were true, this would not be the case; there would be nice divisions between species.

Well, not really. We can see that evolution is happening all the time, so I don't subscribe to the idea that every species was created in the 7 days (even if one subscribes to a literal 7 days). I don't even subscribe to the idea that Gen. 1 is entirely literal. I was using the idea not so much to debunk the general idea of some sort of evolution, but rather to present the fact that we often don't have as clear cut an idea as it is presented by science.

How many hominid fossils do you think we have? You might be surprised at the growing number of them. Here's a list of the important ones:
List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia

So the answer is "a few". Far to many of the "species" on that table are based off of a handful of fossils. Even the relatively un-contentious "Homo Habilis" is based off of 4 fossils. Be clear that I am not arguing that there were not other hominins, I am just saying the tree is not as clear as we are often presented.

 

[FaithT]

Forgive me if I don’t participate in this thread very much. The subject matter is delving into over-my-head-territory, but I am the OP and am reading the discussion.

 

[FaithT]

Wow. I don't know who Edward Feser is but I reached the same conclusion.

I don't know where he stands on evolution. I myself am OEC (Old Earth Creationist).

As you know, incest is avoided this way.

Edward C. Feser is an American traditionalist Catholic philosopher. He is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College in Pasadena, California.

 

[The Barbarian]

How many hominid fossils do you think we have? You might be surprised at the growing number of them. Here's a list of the important ones:
List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia

So the answer is "a few".

One hundred and ninety-three in that list. And that's just the important ones. No one really knows how many total.

 

[FaithT]

How many hominid fossils do you think we have? You might be surprised at the growing number of them. Here's a list of the important ones:
List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia



One hundred and ninety-three in that list. And that's just the important ones. No one really knows how many total.

But aren’t these fossils primarily fossil fragments?

 

[BobRyan]

The Bible says God created humans in Gen 1 and 2. I believe the Bible.

Eve was made from the rib of Adam - and neither of them had any genetic defects which means their children were perfect.

There is no "hominid- then - man made from the dust of the ground" support in Genesis 1 or 2.

7 Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living person

God was not a hominid
Dust is not a hominid.

The seven day timeline we see for all life on planet Earth in Gen 12:1-3 (from Gen chapters 1-2) is supported in legal code - in Ex 20:11

It is well known among Scripture experts that the first five books of the Bible,
were written 500 years after the rest of the Pentateuch. .

It is well know among Bible scholars that the Bible says "All scripture is given by inspiration from GOD" as the source, and author and that Jesus Christ credits Moses as the author of both Exodus and Genesis.

BTW - Pentateuch is the name for the first five books of the Bible.

 

[The Barbarian]

The important thing is that there is a huge difference between modern humans and other huminids. This huge difference is the human spirit.

The issue is, we don't know when that happened. If Adam and Eve were H. erectus, would that matter at all in any way? I don't see how.

 

[Lost4words]

My great great grandad said that humans come from McDonalds!! He said he seen loads coming out from there! Woof!

 

[The Barbarian]

But aren’t these fossils primarily fossil fragments?

A complete skeleton is almost never found. Lucy, for example, was missing parts of one side, and most of the hand and foot bones. Since primates are symmetical, that wasn't a major issue. And we do have the hand and foot bones of Australopithecines.

 

[FaithT]

The issue is, we don't know when that happened. If Adam and Eve were H. erectus, would that matter at all in any way? I don't see how.

BTW, I like your tag line.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I was curious as to how divided posters are on this topic. As a former Catholic, now Lutheran, (who is still unsure if I’m in the right church) I learned from the writings and some communication via email with Edward Feser, that humans may have started as part of a population of hominids but that God gave Adam and Eve souls, making them human. Then their offspring interbred with these other hominids and so on. I’m probably oversimplifying Feser’s theory and it’s been a long time since I’d read it, but what are your thoughts on this idea?
Or do you believe we came from Adam and Eve, whose children interbred with one another and so on?
Other theories?

I think Feser is incorrect to attempt to force-fit his interpretation as an "actual answer." The truth of it is that we can't know whether or not there was a historical Adam and Eve ...

But to top it off, this whole issue doesn't have to be one that causes us severe spiritual headaches. Just let the Bible be what the Bible is: theological and prophetic writing, and let modern science be science ...

 

[The Barbarian]

I think Feser is incorrect to attempt to force-fit his interpretation as an "actual answer." The truth of it is that we can't know whether or not there was a historical Adam and Eve ...

I personally believe that there was a literal Adam and Eve. This is in no way inconsistent with what we have learned of human descent.

 

[FaithT]

I personally believe that there was a literal Adam and Eve. This is in no way inconsistent with what we have learned of human descent.

Can you explain further? I assume you mean when God gave man ahis soul, he became human? What’s your opinion then, on Adam being created from dust and Eve from his rib?

 

[Andrewn]

The issue is, we don't know when that happened. If Adam and Eve were H. erectus, would that matter at all in any way? I don't see how.

I don't think Adam and Eve were H. erectus. But the humans mentioned in Gen 1 could have been H. erectus.

The biblical story of Adam, Eve, and their descendants suggests a much more recent environment. Agriculture, animal domestication, and certain features of building started between 11,000 and 9,000 B.C. in northern Syria/Iraq. This, in my view, is a reasonable time frame for the story that is told symbolically in Gen 2.

 

[The Barbarian]

The issue is, we don't know when that happened. If Adam and Eve were H. erectus, would that matter at all in any way? I don't see how.

The biblical story of Adam, Eve, and their descendants suggests a much more recent environment.

Wouldn't seem so. We have remains of buildings, tools clothing and and so on, tens of thousands of years ago.
This Mysterious Ancient Structure Was Made of Mammoth Bones (Published 2020)
Science | AAAS
Evidence of Fur and Leather Clothing, Among World's Oldest, Found in Moroccan Cave | Science| Smithsonian Magazine

Agriculture, animal domestication, and certain features of building started between 11,000 and 9,000 B.C. in northern Syria/Iraq. This, in my view, is a reasonable time frame for the story that is told symbolically in Gen 2.

So who was doing all that building and making before?

 

[The Barbarian]

Can you explain further? I assume you mean when God gave man ahis soul, he became human? What’s your opinion then, on Adam being created from dust and Eve from his rib?

I figure humans existed before Adam and Eve. They were the first two given living souls by God. I don't see the figurative language in Genesis to be a literal description. For one thing, if Eve was cloned from Adam, she would have only one x chromosome, and thus be male rather than female.

 

[Andrewn]

But to top it off, this whole issue doesn't have to be one that causes us severe spiritual headaches. Just let the Bible be what the Bible is: theological and prophetic writing, and let modern science be science ...

In the NT, Christ's salvation is viewed in contrast to Adam's fall. Thus Adam and Eve are central in the history of salvation and cannot be disregarded without disregarding Christ himself.

 

[FaithT]

I figure humans existed before Adam and Eve. They were the first two given living souls by God. I don't see the figurative language in Genesis to be a literal description. For one thing, if Eve was cloned from Adam, she would have only one x chromosome, and thus be male rather than female.

Good point but some may argue that her being cloned from Adam and the chromosome outcome is a miracle. And when people argue that something is a miracle, how can it be refuted?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I personally believe that there was a literal Adam and Eve. This is in no way inconsistent with what we have learned of human descent.

Well, as I tell other much more literalist Christian brethren, if that works for you, then go with it!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In the NT, Christ's salvation is viewed in contrast to Adam's fall. Thus Adam and Eve are central in the history of salvation and cannot be disregarded without disregarding Christ himself.

Yeah, I'm fully aware of that issue, and I've also been aware for quite some time that it is a major theological issue for many people. In fact, it was one of the first issues I encountered when I began studying the Bible.

As it so happens, though, it's not an issue for me and I don't think it need be by any kind of necessity.