> Regarding the evidence for recent, modern man, especially vis-a-vis tool
> making, I quote Dr. Jeffrey Goodman [note, his use of the terms "explosion"
> and "sudden appearance" is NOT something I put him up to]:
>
> "One of the great moments in mankind's history, extolled in book after book,
> is the first appearance of modern man in Europe 40,000 years ago. This
> extraordinary physcial and cultural phenomenon was the cave-painting
> Cro-Magnon man, anatomically indistinguishable from ourselves; his sudden
> appearance in Europe has long been considered to be the world debut of fully
> modern Homo sapiens sapiens on a worldwide basis." [...]
I have a question. Goodman's analysis seems to ignore the existence of
archaic homo sapiens as far back as 500,000 years ago, and fully modern
homo sapiens fossils dated 120,000 years ago in Africa. These would
indicate that the "appearance of modern man in Europe 40,000 years ago"
is, indeed, an extraordinary _cultural_ phenomenon, but NOT an
extraordinary physical phenomemon. (Physically, it was simply migration.)
I understand how an extraordinary physical phenomenon can be seen,
_prima_facie,_ as something which "resists naturalistic explanations."
(I'm familiar with the arguments that 4 million years is too short a time
to evolve from australopithecus to modern humans, no need to repeat those
arguments here.) But could you elaborate on how that argument can be made
for cultural developments?
Thanks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why should I have to WORK for everything? |
That's like saying I don't DESERVE it." | Loren Haarsma
--Calvin (_Calvin_and_Hobbes_) | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu