Re: Human skull evolution

Glenn R. Morton (
Sun, 07 Jun 1998 18:54:51 -0500

At 06:09 AM 6/8/98 +0800, Stephen Jones wrote:
> Glenn
> On Wed, 03 Jun 1998 21:32:48 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
>>There is a report tonight on the AP Wire in the science
>>section which describes a relatively modern looking skull found in strata
>>dating 1 million years old. While the skull has brow-ridges like erectus,
>>it has modern human facial features. The importance of this lies in the
>>time at which the morphological transistion from erectus to sapiens began.
> Thanks for the information. I was unable to access the article at the above
> web site. Have you got an exact web address, or can you post the article?
> Thanks.

To access the AP you need to go through a newspaper like the Fort Worth
Star Telegram. There is no direct access without going through that. And I
try never post an entire article because of copyright laws. Quoting is on
thing reproducing the entire article is another.

>>Those who hold to the view that anatomically modern man was created by God
>>directly and separately from Homo erectus around 100,000 years ago need to
>>explain why erectus had begun the transition to the modern human skull
>>shape 1 million years ago.
> Who believes that "anatomically modern man was created by God directly
> and separately from Homo erectus around 100,000 years ago"?

Oh, I hesitate to do this but what the heck. Everytime I say something
about what our leaders are teaching you get mad at me. Hugh Ross believes
something very close to the above. He writes:

"While bipedal, tool-using, large brained hominids roamed the earth at
least as long ago as one million years, evidence for religious relics and
altars dates back only 8,000 to 24,000 years. Thus the secular
anthropological date for the first spirit creatures is in complete
agreement with the biblical date.
"Some differences, however, between the Bible and secular anthropology
remain. The Bible not only would deny that the hominids were men, it also
would deny that Adam was physically descended from these hominids. Even
here, support from anthropology is emerging. New evidence indicates that
the hominid species may have gone extinct before, or as a result of, the
appearance of modern man. At the very least, 'abrupt transtions between
[hominid]species' is widely acknowledged." ~ Hugh Ross, The Fingerprint of
God, (Orange: Promise Publishing, 1991), p. 159-160.

When did this occur? Less than 60,000 years ago.

However, the dates for these finds are well within the biblically
acceptable range for the appearance of Adam and Eve -- somewhere between
10,000 and 60,000 years ago according to Bible scolars who have carefully
analyzed the genealogies. Since the oldest art and fabrics date between
25,000 and 30,000 years ago, no contradiction exists between anthropology
and Scripture on this issue." Hugh Ross, "Art and Fabric Shed New Light on
Human History," Facts & Faith, 9:3 (1995)p. 2


"If this is the case, we should see biologists' date for "Adam and Eve"
drop from a maximum of about 200,000 years ago to a date within the
biblical range of about 10,000 to 60,000 years ago."Hugh Ross, "Chromosome
Study Stuns Evolutionists," Facts & Faith, 9:3,(1995) p. 3

And David Wilcox:

"Both cultural and physical evidence suggests an abrupt establishment of
the image about 100,000 years ago." ~ David L. Wilcox, "Adam, Where Are
You? Changing Paradigms in Paleoanthropology," Perspectives on Science and
Christian Faith , 48:2( June 1996), p. 94

> Certainly this is true of "special creation" and it may be true of some
>versions of "Progressive creation." But it is not necessarily true of PC.
>Erickson says that in PC the original created unit could be "as broad as
the >order or as narrow as the genus":
> "More adequate is the position termed progressive creationism. According
> to this view, God created in a series of acts over a long period of
> time. He created the first member of each "kind." That grouping may
> have been as broad as the order or as narrow as the genus. In some
> cases it may have extended to the creation of individual species. From
> that first member of the group, the others developed by evolution. So,
> for example, God may have created the first member of the cat family.
> >From it developed lions, tigers, leopards, and just plain pussycats.
> Then God created another kind There may well have been overlaps
> between the periods of development, so that new species within one kind
> continuing to arise after God created the first member of the next kind.
> Note that between the various kinds there are gaps not bridged by the
> evolutionary development." (Erickson M.J., "Christian Theology, " Baker:
> Grand Rapids MI, 1985, pp383-384)

I like this range of possibilities. If the created unit is the order, then
we were evolved from the first monkey!!!! After all, they and we humans
are all in the order "Primate". So since you are citing Erickson as an
authority, I presume that you believe that we, the chimps, gorillas and
monkeys all descended from the same, originally created unit---Adam, the
monkey. Stephen, I think we finally agree on something. :-)


Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information