On Fri, 11 Oct 1996 19:29:00, Glenn Morton wrote:
>SJ>"If Adam was a different species from all humans today, with...only a
>rudimentary language, how could God justly charge him with
>disobedience and impute to us his original sin? (Rom 5:12-19; 1Cor
>15:21-:22)".
GM>I disagree with the assumptions of your question. No one KNOWS
what sort of language habilis had.
This is true, but no one "KNOWS" anything (in an absolute sense]
about the pre-historic past. The question is, what does the evidence
indicate? Glenn's 5.5 mya Homo Habilis Adam theory depends on human
language and technology being *fully developed* from the very
beginning of hominid development. But the evidence points to an
*emerging* language facility in hominid precursors to man:
"...while nothing marks us off more clearly from other animals than
our ability to speak, and to understand grammatically complex
spoken language, these abilities did not appear suddenly and without
any forerunner in the course of our recent evolution. They have
evolved from natural systems that were already largely in place...The
acquisition of language...was spread over a long period of
evolutionary time." (Wills C., "The Runaway Brain: The Evolution
of Human Uniqueness", Harper- Collins: London, 1994, p289)
GM>Everyone KNOWS that habilis had the equipment in the brain for
>speech.
"Everyone KNOWS" no such thing. H. habilis had *some* of "the
equipment in the brain for speech". For example, he had a Broca's
area:
"Ralph Holloway examined the shape of the brain of skull 1470, a fine
example of Homo habilis found east of Lake Turkana in 1972 and
determined to be almost 2 million years old. He detected not only
the presence of Broca's area, impressed on the inner surface of the
cranium, but also a slight asymmetry in the left-right configuration
of the brain, an indication that Homo habilis communicated with more
than the pant-hoot-grunt repertoire of modern chimpanzees." Leakey
R., "The Origin of Humankind", Phoenix: London, 1994, p129)
But, as I have repeatedly pointed out (but which Glenn ignores with
"an overwhelming silence" <g>), much *more* "equipment" is needed
before a fully human complex language is possible:
"The more deeply the language capabilities of the brain are
investigated, the more one astonishing fact emerges. It is not just
Broca's area in the frontal lobe and Wernicke's area in the temporal
lobe that take part in language production and comprehension-
virtually every part of the brain is involved! Any explanation for the
evolution of our ability to speak and understand language must take
this immensely significant fact into account. Indeed, it appears that
the pathways involved in language production and comprehension are
not all just simply recent elaborations of connections within the
cortex but often run through the very deepest and, according to some
authors, the most primitive parts of the brain. Language ability is not
an add- on like fancy hubcaps on a car. The evolution of this ability
has involved long-term and deep-rooted changes in the very
organization of the brain itself." (Wills C., "The Runaway Brain: The
Evolution of Human Uniqueness", Harper-Collins: London, 1994,
p290)
GM>We do KNOW that modern humans with less gray matter, are quite
>capable of complex speech since they speak English and other
>languages.
Yes, but these are "modern humans". While a *normal* H. habilis may
have had more "gray matter" than an *abnormal* H. sapiens, there is
no evidence that this was *the right type* of "gray matter" for
"complex speech".
GM>If habilis had speech, God could justy charge him with
>disobedience.
No. It would need to be the *right type* of "speech", ie. a complex
syntactic language. Theere is no evidence that Habilis had anything
more than a proto-language:
"I suspect, therefore, that only with the evolution of Homo habilis
did some form of spoken language begin. Like Bickerton, I suspect
that this was a protolanguage of sorts, simple in content and
structure, but a means of communication beyond that of apes and of
australopithecines." (Leakey R., "The Origin of Humankind", Phoenix:
London, 1994, p129)
>SJ>The more important questions are Homo. habilis' "rudimentary
>language" and his lack of species-solidarity with Homo. sapiens.
>This latter is a fatal theological problem with his view.
GM>Species is a quite maleable term. Species at one end of a
>distribution are unable to mate and produce fertile offspring with
>the similar animal at the other end of the distribution (frogs in
>Texas and frogs in New England). But the Texas animals are able to
>mate with Louisiana ones, Louisianans are able to mate with Virginia
>frogs, Virginia frogs are able to mate with Boston frogs. They are
>all the same species.
Agreed. But this example of a "ring species" is a special case of a
incipient species in the process of aquiring full reproductive
isolation:
"Populations actually in the process of speciation are seen in
certain gulls of the genus Larus that occupy a U-shaped range around
the North Pole, with the two ends of the loop overlapping in Great
Britain, where the western end of the loop is occupied by the
European lesser black-backed gull (L. fuscus), a medium-sized gull
with a dark-gray mantle. Populations of the dark-mantled birds
intergrade gradually eastward into those of the herring gull (L.
argentatus), a light-mantled species of Siberia and North America.
The herring gull extends across the Atlantic Ocean to England and
Scandinavia, where it coexists with the lesser black-back. The
British species also differs ecologically: the lesser black-backed
gull breeds inland on moors and is migratory; the herring gull breeds
on cliffs and is resident. The pitch and frequency of their calls
are different. Here, then, are two gulls at opposite ends of their
geographical range that still belong to the same gene pool if a
mutant can be imagined as passing from gull to gull round the North
Pole but that in Europe have become adapted to different ecological
niches. The gulls are an example of both geographical and ecological
isolation." (de Beer G., "Evolution", Encyclopaedia Britannica,
Benton: Chicago, 15th edition, 1984, 7:17)
GM>Similarly, if habilis and sapiens are unable to mate but habilis
>was able to mate with erectus and erectus with archaic homo sapiens,
>and archaic homo sapiens was able to mate with us, then in one sense
>we are a single unit, just separated in time.
Even if "habilis" was our ancestor and therefore "in one sense we are
a single unit, just separated in time", the same could be said of any
of our ancestors, including Pikaia! :-) The point is that "habilis"
never could "mate with us" (ie. Homo sapiens) - we are entirely
separate species. The whole point of Adam being our representative
is that he had to be Homo sapiens like us:
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one MAN, and death
through sin, and in this way death came to all MEN..." (Rom 5:12. My
emphasis)
"For if, by the trespass of the one MAN, death reigned through that
one MAN, how much more will those who receive God's abundant
provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life
through the one MAN, Jesus Christ." (Rom 5:17. My emphasis)
"For just as through the disobedience of the one MAN the many were
made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one MAN the many
will be made righteous." (Rom 5:19. My emphasis)
"For since death came through a MAN, the resurrection of the dead
comes also through a MAN." (1Cor 15:21. My emphasis).
This is the real show-stopper to Glenn's Homo habilis Adam theory. I
give full credit to Glenn for taking Genesis 1-11 seriously - most
theistic evolutionists would dismiss as "concordist" any attempt to
harmonise Genesis 1-11 with modern science. But Glenn's desire to
harmonise Noah's Flood with the geological evidence for the infilling
of the Mediterranean basin 5 mya has led him to embrace an extreme
"old-Adam" position which is irreconcilable with the basic
theological thrust of the New Testament, namely that Adam had to be
fully MAN, in order to be our representative.
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------