At 09:10 AM 10/14/1999 -0500, John_R_Zimmer@rush.edu wrote:
>What Glenn is asking the reader to do is associate early H. erectus with
Adam,
>and Noah's flood with the Mediterranean infill, even though this creates a
gap
> that distorts the 'direct descent' appearance of the genealogies, ignores
the
>JEDP
>analysis of the stories, and tears apart the various stories of Noah
>(for example, the 'founding of nations' must have occurred in Mesopotamian
>prehistory). Glenn's approach also throws any Genesis 1:26-30 correspondence
>to after Adam.
I never saw you defend the JEDP theory when I said that there were no
existing JEDP documents, and that none of those sources were mentioned in
other ancient Hebrew writings, you didn't respond. If I am correct then
there really is very little physical evidence of the JEDP concept. So I
would simply say, that one does not have to conform to imaginary evidence.
As to the founding of the nations in Mesopotamian preshistory, 5.5 myr ago
IS in Mesopotamia's prehistory. Everything that occurred back to 4.5
billion years is in the prehistory. What you meant to say I believe is
that it must have occurred in the Neolithic prehistory of Mesopotamia. I
don't see a deep need for that in the Bible or in the data.
>
>If we recognized Glenn's 'match', then how would it increase our appreciation
>of the Bible or the events in evolutionary history?
Oh, it might make them historically true rather than mythical. But if only
the mythical will satisfy, then I agree that my view won't satisfy.
>Second, should we consider H. erectus as human?
>
>I said:
>
>>I think that the label 'H. erectus' by archeaologists says it all. It
>>is not only the 'pace of innovation' that separates sapiens from erectus.
>>There are anatomical differences as well. But most important is this
>>question: Is it more appropriate to regard H. erectus and habilis as the
>>'intention of man' corresponding to Gen 1:26 than as Adam?
>
>Glenn said:
>
>>Perhaps you are unaware of how many anthropologists really think erectus
>should be sunk into our species--Homo sapiens.
>
>A series of quotes followed, many from the 'multi-regional hypothesis
>camp', who would like to extend the definition of H. sapiens to include
>H. erectus.
>
>My reply:
>
>The delicate issue of whether anatomically modern humans could breed
>with H. erectus is one that flows from the definition of a biological
>species. I do not consider Gen 1:26-30 to be constrained by modern
>definitions of 'species'. H. erectus is 1. prior to H. sapiens, 2.
>looked different 3. may well have behaved differently than H. sapiens
>and 3. is considered to be ancestral to H. sapiens.
SEveral things. First, if you really knew what anthropologists were saying
you wouldn't assert some of the stuff you do. Even those who believe in the
out of africa view believe that humans may have mated with other 'species'
of humans. STringer, the main advocate of out of africa wrote:
"Economic competition for the avalable resources would be the mechanism of
replacement of one population by another where there was coexistence,
perhaps coupled in some areas with a small degree of interbreeding (in
which e.g. a few Neanderthal genes would have been taken into the much
larger modern human gene pool." Stringer and Gamble, In Search of the
Neandertals, (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1993), p. 72
He also said similar things in 1992 (Stringer, C.B. 1992
Replacement, continuity and the origin of Homo sapiens. In G. Brauer and
F.H. Smith (eds) Continuity or replacement? Controversies in the evolution
of Homo sapiens. Balkema: Rotterdam, pp. 9-24)
So even those who are out of Africa advocates believe in some interbreeding.
Finally as to those first Homo sapiens of 100 kyr ago of whom you are so
proud to be allied. They were not like you or I. They had brow ridges (as
did Neanderthal and erectus).
Their ulna was archaic (like the archaic populations of those they were
'replacing') (S. E. Churchill et al, "Morphological Affinities of the
Proximal Ulna from Klasies River Main Site: Archaic or Modern?" Journal of
Human Evolution, (1996) 31:213-237, p 214)
The category of H.
>erectus, while challenged, is still regarded as credible in recent
>publications on evolutionary descent.
Of course it is still regarded as credible. Anthropologists do not define a
species as those who can interbreed. Why? because they can't interbreed
the bones they find. They use the species level distinction for
populations that have a set of traits that distinguish them from other
populations. It has little to do with interbreeding.
>
>Neither do I desire to rely on definitional terms. The correspondence
>between Gen 1:26 and H. erectus and habilis is evocative, not definitional.
I think this lack of willingness to define what you mean gives your views
an appearance of ad hoc-ness.
>The evidence of language (which I think H. erectus had), awareness of
>something beyond nature or the religious impulse (I think they had this
>as well), fire, foresight and so forth, for H. erectus is - to me -
>different than the evidence of these capacities for H. sapiens. It
>is my sense that anthropologists use these terms as 'handles' to
>grasp a gestalt that is more than the sum of definitions. I believe
>that this is why the category of H. erectus will remain useful in
>archaeology.
The term 'gestalt' is rarely used in anthropological literature. I don't
think they are really caring about gestalt.
>
>I've enjoyed our exchange and am glad to have reached a position where
>our differences can be expressed with integrity. Thank you.
I too have enjoyed and appreciated it. But then I always love a good debate.
:-)
>My final question for Glenn:
>
>Philosopher Leslie Stevenson proposed that every worldview either directly
>or indirectly addresses four questions:
This is easy and I will answer each by itself.
>
>Where did our world come from?
God designed the world before the Big Bang. He designed it with a crucified
Christ. THat is why Christ is called the lamb slain from the foundation of
the world. This planning period is described in Genesis 1. Nothing was
accomplished immediately, just plans. After this, the world was created,
i.e. the plans set in motion. The Big Bang occurred, evolution occurred and
finally we arose. We were not due to chance in the sense that most
anti-evolutionists use the word. God designed the biological polymer
sequence spaces such that we would eventually arise even if our mutations
are governed by chance. This is like rigging the dice. Thus we were the
plan of God and his original plan, when set in motion in the very
beginning, led to us inexoriably.
>
>Where did humans come from?
Man's body is clearly related to the apes. Pseudogenes prove that. But the
Bible says that we are also a special creation of God. I believe God took a
still-born ape, fixed him up and created man (see
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/synop.htm). IN this way, we are both
evolved and the result of a miraculous creation (as the Bible indicates).
>
>What went wrong?
Adam and Eve sinned.
>
>What is the proposed solution?
Jesus Christ.
>
>How does your {Biblical:natural} association of {Adam:early H. erectus}
>and {Noah's flood:Mediterranean infill} increase our appreciation of
>the complementarity of the Genesis text and the evolutionary sciences
>in regards to these four questions?
Increasing appreciation is not my goal. I don't give a flip if anyone
appreciates my views. I really don't. I do want my views to match the data
and in that way, I appreciate the views even if no one else does. There is
an elegance in having something that is not falsified by the observational
data and having something which doesn't require me to do mental gymnastics
to believe the Bible is true when everything it says about history and
science is false. Without some sort of grounding in reality, apologetics is
useless. I firmly believe that God lead me where I am today. I can only
go where I believe he leads, regardless of what the result is and
regardless of who beleives what I say.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution