For YECs: Were Adam and Eve... apish-looking humans?
One of the things that has hooked me in recent days to YEC literature is the below research paper on AiG:
Baraminological Analysis Places Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Australopithecus sediba in the Human Holobaramin
I was surprised by the honesty, and I really appreciated it. For example:
“Finally, despite the morphological discontinuity demonstrated here, the genetic similarity between humans and nonhumans is astonishingly high (Wood 2006) and the australopiths are surprisingly human in their appearance. Why should this be? It would be easy to attribute their similarities to a common designer, but such an attribution would be trivial.”
The author remarks there is a genetic similarity which shouldn’t trivially just be put down to ‘common design’, and that surprisingly some much more apish looking skeletons (Au. sediba) would also fall into the ‘human’ kind. He further points out that australopiths seem to fall into a separate kind of their own, separate to humans and apes, and are ‘surprisingly human in appearance’!
What are people’s thoughts on this? What does this say about the morphological characteristics of the single-pair ancestors of the ‘human kind’? And where do other australopiths, who according to this paper don’t fit into the ape kind, fit into all of this? And why do they look ‘surprisingly human’?
It’s strange to think that theistic evolutionists and OECs may sometimes speculate Adam and Eve were some kind of australopith, when the YEC answer in purely morphological terms might not be hugely far off... if Adam and Eve has to have the genetic information necessary to be the ancestor of au. sediba?
Posted Mar 12, 2020, 6:20 AM UTC