# pictures of Adam and Eve / Theistic Evolution



## Scott (Jun 21, 2007)

Can anyone point me to any art which depicts the creation story from a theistic evolution perspective? All of the ordinary pictures of Adam and Eve involve normal looking people. In the Theistic Evolution perspective, they should be Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon or otherwise. In any event, they should look like a cross between a monkey and a person and should have monkey-like faces, be hairy, stoop like a monkey, etc.


----------



## Poimen (Jun 21, 2007)

Scott:

Can't help you with the pictures but I wonder if theistic evolutionists believe that Adam & Eve didn't look like ordinary human beings. Couldn't they say (as I have heard) that by God's providence they had evolved from lower forms of humanity and were just as you and I?


----------



## Scott (Jun 21, 2007)

The ones I have seen address the issue specifically have identified specific group, I can't remember whether it was Cro-Magnon or Neandertahal, but it was something like that.


----------



## SRoper (Jun 21, 2007)

I believe the current consensus in anthropology is that Neanderthals are an evolutionary dead-end contemporary with and not an anscestor of modern man (although some hold that interbreeding took place). I don't think a Cro-Magnon would look any different than a modern European.


----------



## Ravens (Jun 21, 2007)

I think that a good many Theistic evolutions simply don't believe in an Adam or an Eve.


----------



## Scott (Jun 21, 2007)

SRoper said:


> I believe the current consensus in anthropology is that Neanderthals are an evolutionary dead-end contemporary with and not an anscestor of modern man (although some hold that interbreeding took place). I don't think a Cro-Magnon would look any different than a modern European.



Here is one artist rendering of Cromagnon that I found:






It would be interesting to substitute them into some sacred art.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 21, 2007)

The problem with all a lot of this is the image we have in mind depends upon one's interpretation of bone fragments.

For instance, here is one rendering of a "Neanderthal" child:








http://www.ifi.unizh.ch/staff/zolli/CAP/Gib2.htm

If we are to say that a Neanderthal is a different species based upon morphology, than what do we do when we figure that they looked pretty much like humans? 

By the way, I went to law school with a classic Neanderthal. He said so himself. Stocky, arms longer than normal, thick neck, monobrow. He is now one of the top environmental lawyers in the country. When future paleontologists dig up his bones and his gold Rolex, they might think that Washington DC was home to a variety of hominid species who worshiped obelisks and wrote indecipherable prose honoring some god called "The Agency". 

Hmm, they'd be pretty much right too....


----------



## SRoper (Jun 21, 2007)

Scott, that picture is certainly not Cro-Magnon; it's probably supposed to be Australopithecus. Cro-Magnon is pretty much synonymous with European "anatomically modern human." See for example Evidence for a genetic discontinuity between Neandertals and 24,000-year-old anatomically modern Europeans.

There was a picture in a National Geographic a while back that showed an artist's interpretation of a Neanderthal dressed in a business suit. He looked like he could have been within the normal variation of human.


----------

