# Was Primordial man conscious? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 10, 2014, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247 "2014-08-10T17:02:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Mickiel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/0ea827/32.png) [@Mickiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mickiel)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/261 "2014-08-15T14:59:38Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Nope, you don’t get to rename religion “science” by stealing a few buzzwords. The only thing getting tarnished here is science, and the only one tarnishing it in this thread is you. This thread is growing, and true knowledge of God is growing. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/262 "2014-08-15T15:06:31Z")
> [@Mickiel](#): > > This thread is growing, and true knowledge of God is growing. Only in your rather vivid imagination. You have made some rather wild claims, people have asked questions, you have misused common scientific terms, you have linked to a few woo websites…and so far your support base seems to be zero. All manure-no flower. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/263 "2014-08-15T15:07:54Z")
> [@Mickiel](#): > > We accept scientific archaeology, the only way to know about primordial man, and yet we can’t accept biblical archaeology as another way to know about man? How far back in history, year-wise, did “primordial man” live? ---
**Author:** ![Mickiel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/0ea827/32.png) [@Mickiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mickiel)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/264 "2014-08-15T15:19:16Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > How far back in history, year-wise, did “primordial man” live? I don’t know; I have seen figures of 7 million years; [http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2004-12-10-wonderquest\_x.htm](http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2004-12-10-wonderquest_x.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Mickiel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/0ea827/32.png) [@Mickiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mickiel)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/265 "2014-08-15T15:34:18Z")
Now, I view this topic from a twofold belief; I believe in God, and I believe in science ; and I believe science came from God, and is destined to return to him. In fact, I think the origin of science, was a search for the divine; a search for the truth about God. Science just changed its purpose, and I think religion is the cause of it changing its course. Religion was the cause of the scientific revolution. Science got tired of " Church regulated science", and this is where much of the resentment we see in religion took some of its birth. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/266 "2014-08-15T15:41:29Z")
> [@Mickiel](#): > > I don’t know; I have seen figures of 7 million years; > > [USATODAY.com - How old is man? Depends on how you're counting](http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2004-12-10-wonderquest_x.htm) And approximately when do you think your “Adam” made the scene? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/267 "2014-08-15T15:55:44Z")
> [@Mickiel](#): > > I don’t know; I have seen figures of 7 million years; > > [USATODAY.com - How old is man? Depends on how you're counting](http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2004-12-10-wonderquest_x.htm) Your definition of ‘man’ is fairly odd then. You should probably limit your question to (quote from your article): > [@](#): > > 2.4 to 1.5 million years ago.Homo habilis. Bipedal and similar to the australopithecines but with smaller back teeth. Definitely an early man. Possibly able to talk, judging from a bulge (Broca’s area) in the cranium (visible in only one skull) that is essential for speech. Habilis was about 4 feet (1.2 m) tall. It’s still going to be highly speculative wrt ‘conscious’, though the possible ability to talk and use tools, make fire etc would indicate some level of consciousness and higher cognitive ability. Though you seem to want to make some sort of religious point based on my skim through of the thread, if you actually want to have a discussion that’s meaningful you should toss out the religious baggage and do what people are asking you to do…define your terms to set the parameters of the debate. Personally, if you are talking about ‘Primordial man’, my own vote would be to discuss [H. sapiens](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human). At the max I’d go with genus Homo as the maximum baseline…but it’s your thread. If you want something meaningful to come out of it though you really need to define your terms. ---
**Author:** ![Mickiel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/0ea827/32.png) [@Mickiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mickiel)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/268 "2014-08-15T15:56:39Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And approximately when do you think your “Adam” made the scene? I don’t know; I have seen estimates that range from 6,300 years ago, but in my view, it was much longer than that ; I think between 30 to 40,000 years ago. Its just hard to say, but we know he was before ancient Egypt, some 4-5,000 years ago, but men were in the ancient nile over 120,000 years ago. So I really don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/269 "2014-08-15T15:57:23Z")
> [@Mickiel](#): > > I don’t know; I have seen figures of 7 million years; > > [USATODAY.com - How old is man? Depends on how you're counting](http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2004-12-10-wonderquest_x.htm) Did “Adam” appear that far back? ---
**Author:** ![Mickiel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/0ea827/32.png) [@Mickiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mickiel)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/270 "2014-08-15T16:00:19Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Your definition of ‘man’ is fairly odd then. > > You should probably limit your question to (quote from your article): > > It’s still going to be highly speculative wrt ‘conscious’, though the possible ability to talk and use tools, make fire etc would indicate some level of consciousness and higher cognitive ability. Though you seem to want to make some sort of religious point based on my skim through of the thread, if you actually want to have a discussion that’s meaningful you should toss out the religious baggage and do what people are asking you to do…define your terms to set the parameters of the debate. > > Personally, if you are talking about ‘Primordial man’, my own vote would be to discuss [H. sapiens](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human). At the max I’d go with genus Homo as the maximum baseline…but it’s your thread. If you want something meaningful to come out of it though you really need to define your terms. I can go with genus Homo, that’s fine by me, but I will not toss out religion; no. There is no need to, its unavoidable because our history has a definite spiritual backround; but many here do not know how to separate spirituality from religion, and religion is involved in this. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/271 "2014-08-15T16:01:31Z")
> [@Mickiel](#): > > I don’t know; I have seen estimates that range from 6,300 years ago, but in my view, it was much longer than that ; I think between 30 to 40,000 years ago. Its just hard to say, but we know he was before ancient Egypt, some 4-5,000 years ago, but men were in the ancient nile over 120,000 years ago. So I really don’t know. If you are talking about [Y-chromosomal Adam](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam), it’s more like: > [@](#): > > The age for the Y-MRCA has been variously estimated as 188,000,[2] 270,000,[3] 306,000,[4] and 142,000 years.[5] A paper published in March 2013 reported an older estimate of 338,000 years.[6] Then two simultaneous reports in August 2013 provide younger estimates, one suggested 180,000 to 200,000 years,[7] and another, based on the genome sequence of nine different populations, indicated the age between 120,000 and 156,000 years.[8] ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/272 "2014-08-15T16:03:31Z")
> [@Mickiel](#): > > I don’t know; I have seen estimates that range from 6,300 years ago, but in my view, it was much longer than that ; I think between 30 to 40,000 years ago. Its just hard to say, but we know he was before ancient Egypt, some 4-5,000 years ago, but men were in the ancient nile over 120,000 years ago. So I really don’t know. _Now_ we’re finally getting somewhere! Since it is your claim that anything before “Adam” is “primordial man” then, in your view, humans were unconscious approximately 30 to 40 thousand years ago. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/273 "2014-08-15T16:08:37Z")
> [@Mickiel](#): > > I can go with genus Homo, that’s fine by me, but I will not toss out religion; no. There is no need to, its unavoidable because our history has a definite spiritual backround; but many here do not know how to separate spirituality from religion, and religion is involved in this. Only if you make the arbitrary limitation that ‘conscious’ = religious and further that ‘conscious’ = religious+Abrahamic religion. So, again, you need to define your terms. There is pretty good evidence that ‘Primordial man’, even Homo Habilis had some level of consciousness, depending on what that term means. Otherwise, religion really doesn’t matter or is just an arbitrary way of setting what is or isn’t ‘conscious’, so will boil the debate down to, presumably, when Christ was born (or perhaps when the Abrahamic religions first started). ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/274 "2014-08-15T16:09:34Z")
So Adam was the first and only human to be able to stand up, look around, and observe (correctly!) that their parents were big dummies? I’m jealous. If you really believe in evolution you should be skeptical of major changes that happen in a single generation. The parents and the offspring should generally be able to interbreed and be mutually intelligible. As far as I understand even the duplication and fusion of entire chromosomes doesn’t mess with that often, like with human chromosome 2 which is a fusion of two primordial ape chromosomes. ---
**Author:** ![Mickiel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/0ea827/32.png) [@Mickiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mickiel)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/275 "2014-08-15T16:15:58Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Only if you make the arbitrary limitation that ‘conscious’ = religious and further that ‘conscious’ = religious+Abrahamic religion. So, again, you need to define your terms. There is pretty good evidence that ‘Primordial man’, even Homo Habilis had some level of consciousness, depending on what that term means. Otherwise, religion really doesn’t matter or is just an arbitrary way of setting what is or isn’t ‘conscious’, so will boil the debate down to, presumably, when Christ was born (or perhaps when the Abrahamic religions first started). No, Consciousness equals God, not religion or Abraham. See, you are not able to separate God from religion, which is a whole different thread. God has nothing to do with religion, but religion has something to do with God as far as humanity can figure out. Homo Habilis was not conscious in my view, just highly instinctual. I don’t need to define terms, if I could, I need to remove the tendency here to equate God to religion. ---
**Author:** ![Mickiel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/0ea827/32.png) [@Mickiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mickiel)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/276 "2014-08-15T16:17:05Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > _Now_ we’re finally getting somewhere! Since it is your claim that anything before “Adam” is “primordial man” then, in your view, humans were unconscious approximately 30 to 40 thousand years ago. I think so, yes! ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/277 "2014-08-15T16:21:58Z")
> [@Mickiel](#): > > No, Consciousness equals God… No, it does not. Go find another word, because “consciousness” already has a perfectly valid and accepted definition. Quit stealing words. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/278 "2014-08-15T16:27:21Z")
Wait, are you trying to prove the existence of God here? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/279 "2014-08-15T16:30:53Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > _Now_ we’re finally getting somewhere! Since it is your claim that anything before “Adam” is “primordial man” then, in your view, humans were unconscious approximately 30 to 40 thousand years ago. > [@Mickiel](#): > > I think so, yes! That’s plain ridiculous. As I pointed out upthread, unconscious individuals would not have been consistently able to feed, shelter, and reproduce themselves. The pain of childbirth alone would have woken the women up. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247/280 "2014-08-15T16:33:20Z")
> [@Mickiel](#): > > I agree, which is why I disagree with the effort here by some to tarnish religion, as if if a person is interested in spiritual things, it eliminates his scientific views from being valid. If I have scientific views on Primordial man, and I have spiritual views on the same subject, they do not cancel each other out. They can coexist and dovetail; that is not impossible. Nonsense. A scientist’s religious view are irrelevant ONLY because and if the scientist does not allow those views to bias his scientific work. Real science follows the evidence, and ONLY the evidence. What YOU are doing is the complete opposite. You are bringing your own unsupported religious or spiritual views into the picture, and instead of following the data alone, you are attempting to shove the data into the frame of your own religious prejudices. You start with a conclusion driven only by what you WANT to be true, and then try to make the data fit that conclusion, just like each and every creationist has ever done. A real scientist takes the data first and foremost, and then draws a conclusion based only on that, even if it contradicts everything he holds most dear. For you to claim that you are holding yourself to that standard is not only utterly ludicrous and just plain wrong, but highly insulting to the scientific field, and all those who actually DO have the courage to abandon their prejudices. You don’t get to give yourself a name and its associated reputation that you have not earned. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-primordial-man-conscious/695247.md?page=15)