<<To relegate all evidence of human activity from times prior to 50 kyr, one
must ignore a lot of data.>>
This assumes, of course, that the data IS evidence of "human" activity! We are
once again in realm of interpretation and imagination.
But a lot of it isn't controversial. The Neanderthal burials, for example, are
not in dispute. It is the MEANING of the burials. And they are nothing like
the ritualistic burials of modern man. Further, imagination and interpretation
are in dispute. What were the ibex horns on top of a nine-year old Neanderthal
at Teshik Tash? Icons? Or, as Jelinek believes, simply digging tools that were
discarded when the burial was complete?
Hard evidence of humanity? I don't think so.
Imagination and interpretation is not "hard evidence." For example, regarding
the "evidence" of Neanderthal bear "worship," that proves to be less than
acceptable:
"More recent advances in Paleolithic archaeology have focused less on the
finer reading of the actual record itself than on the potential deficiencies
of earlier work (were those features at Terra Amata--or Olduvai--really
structures? Is there really any evidence for Neanderthal "bear cults"?)"
[Tattersall, p. 242]
Imputing interpretations to data that which it doesn't support, is just as
destructive as ignoring data altogether. Why does this happen? Well, most of
the scientific "experts" are operating not only with a bias, but with a desire
to be "first" in discovery of the human "smoking gun." They snipe at each
other constantly over this, which is very revealing. The human element [sic]
is simply too great to take much of this interpretation at face value.
So there is no hard evidence for "human" activity very long ago. There are
stories and hopes, perhaps, but that's it.
What does exist, and cries out for explanation, is a huge, "enigmatic" gap
between modern man and his predecessors. Everyone at least accepts this.
Modern man is so unlike what came before. The question is: How did this
happen? Right now, naturalism can't explain it. I don't think it ever will,
but that's my bias.
Jim