Glenn: <<"The only way to fit the scriptural account with the scientific observations
is to have Adam and Eve be Homo habilis or Australopithecus" (Morton
G.R., "A Theory for Creationists," 1996. http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/synop.htm) >>
Stephen: But Donald Johanson whom Glenn quotes below to support his case,
admits that anthropologists have no clear set of physical criteria as to what
is "human":>>
Not really important. So Adam was perhaps 'human' or perhaps not according to physical criteria selected. That one cannot define where humanness begins is interesting but irrelevant for this discussion.
You are appealing too much to personal statements about an issue you have found to be yet unresolved. But its impact on whether or not Adam was Homo Habilis or not is not affected by the outcome of this discussion. It would merely redefine what Adam really was. But that as well is irrelevant.