
Although I'm not a scientist and have taken only one physical anthropology course, I feel compelled to share what I've learned about human origins. In the same way complementarians tie traditional gender roles to a faithful reading of Scripture, I've seen some evangelicals assert that a truly serious reading of Scripture requires a belief in a literal Adam and Eve.
I echo Peter Enns' recent criticism of Al Mohler's claim that the only way to respect the Bible and have a solid faith is to read Genesis literally:
I am writing [...] for the sake of those who are living with the consequences of what Mohler says they must believe–those who feel trapped in Mohler’s either/or rhetoric, that to question a literal interpretation of Scripture concerning creation puts one on the path to apostasy.
Driven by his precommitment to biblical literalism, Mohler leaves his audience with an impossible false choice between a Christian faith that must remain in intellectual isolation in order to survive and an intellectual life that has no place for Christian faith.
I consider myself a follower of Jesus and a serious reader of Scripture, so it's painful to be told I don't take my faith seriously because I do not believe Adam and Eve literally existed.
To me, the fossil record shows Adam and Eve could not literally exist. My brief summary touches on the gradual cultural and cognitive developments, because those may indicate where to place a literal Adam and Eve. Here is an excellent, more in-depth interactive website from the Smithsonian.
"Hominids" are species after the last common ancestor of humans and living apes. They walk upright, do not use their teeth as tools, and have bigger brains. A "genus" is one taxonomical level above "species," and Australopithecus is the first hominid genus we know included species that developed tools. First found in Kenya, they existed an estimated 4.2 to 1 million years ago, but show no evidence of culture. Australopithecus even coexisted with our genus, Homo.
Homo appeared roughly 2 million years ago. Homo habilis, discovered in Tanzania, were the first stone toolmakers. Homo erectus were the first travelers beyond Africa. Experts don't think they developed language, but evidence shows they cared for their elderly and weak.

Early archaic Homo sapiens appeared about 500,000 years ago. Their culture is more sophisticated, with structures, stone industries, and exploitation of natural resources.
Late archaic Homo sapiens, the last group before modern humans, includes European and West Asian Neandartals. There is evidence of flowers placed at burial sites. However, language development is doubtful. Interestingly, Neandartals lack descendants; they're an evolutionary dead end.
Modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens, appeared about 120,000 years ago, and I'm sure we're well aware of our own capabilities.
The line from the first hominids to modern humans is not clear, though. The below "family tree" notes the transformation wasn't linear, but rather a multi-faceted, meandering process. Tracing a direct line even within our own genus isn't even possible yet.
Where do we place Adam and Eve? They could be Homo habilis, the first species to make stone tools. However, there's little evidence of advanced culture.
What if they were Homo erectus, with brain size comparable to modern humans? But, Homo erectus didn't develop language, and this disregards earlier hominids who were toolmakers. Or, Adam and Eve could have been Neandertals, but Neandertals were an evolutionary dead end. However, do their burial rituals mean they had an understanding of death?
If we designate Adam and Eve as Homo sapiens sapiens, our species, what about Neandertals and the early archaic Homo sapiens, the latter having structures and stone industries?
It's hard to pinpoint a literal Adam and Eve in the fossil record, as cultural and cognitive abilities emerged gradually. Culture does not suddenly appear; rather, as we have seen, it develops over time.
Did God suddenly infuse a species with His image? With gradual fossil evidence, some lines seem arbitrary. Or did the capacity to bear God's image develop gradually like culture? What about those on the continuum?
Another problem is that Genesis 4:1 says, “Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil.” The first evidence of agriculture was around 8000 B.C.E., and genetic changes required to domesticate plants took 2,000 to 3,000 years.
If Cain were the first agriculturalist, this leaves too little time for all humans to be Adam and Eve's descendents. Also, based on the emergence of agriculture, Cain would have been alive 10,000 years ago, yet modern Homo sapiens appeared 120,000 years ago. What about those before Cain? And was his wife, also mentioned in Genesis 4, created ex nihilo?

A literal reading of Genesis 2:19 brings another impossibility. Donald Miller, in Searching for God Knows What, estimates Adam named up to 50 million species:
It would have taken nearly a year just to name the species of snakes alone. Moses said that Eve didn't give birth to their third child till Adam was well into his hundreds, which means they would have had Cain and Abel some thirty or so years before, which also means either it took Adam more than a hundred years to name the animals, or he and Eve didn't have sex for a good, long, boring century.
How do Christians handle problems in pinpointing a literal Adam and Eve, like fossil records, agricultural history, and naming millions of animals? What are the theological implications?
I don't have a clear answer, and honestly it's often unsettling. However, I do know that all truth is God's truth, even (especially) science. I trust God reveals Himself through nature. I cannot continue to insist Adam and Eve literally existed in the face of glaring logical inconsistencies and a continuum that raises disturbing moral issues. I wish literalists would be willing to engage with me and others in this camp, rather than summarily label us heretics.
Any thoughts? Anyone know why every depiction of Adam and Eve is a lily-white couple, even though evidence shows they probably had very dark skin? Interesting...
Credit - First Photo
Credit - Second Photo
Credit - Third Photo