On Sun, 07 Jul 1996 21:21:08, Glenn Morton wrote:
GM>Stephen Jones wrote:
>
>>Also, I draw a distinction between Genesis 1 man and Genesis 2 Adam.
>>Glenn regards the "man" of Genesis 1:26-27 and the "Adam" of Genesis
>>2 as one and the same. Therefore, when he finds evdidence of
>>tool-making in Homo habilis, he concludes that the Adam of Genesis 2
>>was a Homo habilis.
GM>It is more than just tool making.
OK. But "tool-making" is the feature usually associated with H.
habilis:
"Habilis, "handy man", was so called because of evidence of tools
found with him. Habilis existed between 2.5 and 1.5 million years
ago" (Jim Foley, Hominid FAQ)
GM>I would once again like to point out that Homo habilis had the
>same brain structures which allow us to speak. These are impressed
>on the inside of their crania as are ours. While you have always
>dismissed speech in habilis
Not so! I accept that H. habilis was capable of rudimentary speech
and have posted same. For example, on Sun, 15 Oct 95 21:23:22 EDT I
posted to the Group a response to Glenn:
----------------------------------------------------------
"Glenn is claiming that Noah was H. Habilis, who the Hominid FAQ says
"existed between 2.5 and 1.5 million years ago", and who had an
"average brain size" of 650 cc", and was only "capable of rudimentary
speech".
----------------------------------------------------------
GM>Dean Falk, one of the leading authorities on the brain
>structure of fossil man believes they could speak. Since she has
>actually looked at the fossil material and you and I haven't, I
>would defer to her opinion.
This is a bit simplistic! :-) Other anthropologists have "looked at
the fossil material" and disagree with Falk. Indeed, her opinion
appears to be a minority one, according to Leakey:
"Although the view that language was a relatively rapid development
coincident with the emergence of modern humans is widely supported,
it does not completely dominate anthropological thinking. Dean Falk,
whose studies of the evolution of the human brain I referred to in
chapter 3, defends the proposition that language developed early:
`If hominids weren't using and refining language, I would like to
know what they were doing with their autocatalytically increasing
brains,' she wrote recently.' " (Leakey R., "The Origin of
Humankind", Phoenix: London, 1994, p126)
and is at best controversial, according to Nelson & Jurmaine:
"Could the Zhoukoudian erectus speak? Their hunting and
technological skills would suggest they possessed some kind of
symbolic communication. If the skull was, in fact, used as a symbol
as we have speculated, then symbolic communication is even more
suggestive. However, this is a subject on which there is little
agreement Some anthropologists argue that the tools used by H.
erectus assumes speech capability; others study the evolution of the
skull and how the brain (e.g., Broca's area) was affected, and
conclude speech began quite early in hominid evolution (Falk, 1987).
Still others believe that speech did not originate until the Upper
Paleolithic, or at least cannot be proved until then (Davidson and
Noble, 1989). At this point, we agree with Falk when she says,
"Unfortunately, what it is going to take to settle the debate about
when language originated in hominids is a time machine Until one
becomes available, we can only speculate about this fascinating and
important question" (1989, p. 141)" (Nelson H. & Jurmain R.,
"Introduction To Physical Anthropology", West Publishing Company:
St. Paul, Fifth Edition, 1991, p483)
GM>She writes:
>
>"But monkeys don't have language and humans do. Are [141/142] there
>morphological manifestations of human brains that (a) correlate with
>functional lateralizations including language and (b) are capable of
>leaving traces in the hominid fossil record? Indeed there are. Shape
>asymmetries of the frontal and occipital lobes, known as petalias, exist
>in human brains (and to a lesser degree in brains of monkeys and apes) and
>are statistically associated with handedness in humans. Further, a
>characteristic sulcal pattern associated with Broca's speech area in left
>frontal lobes is present in human but not in ape brains. Both humanlike
>petalis and the pattern of sulci associated with Broca's area have been
>detected on endocranial casts (endocasts) from the early part of the
>hominid fossil record.
>
>"The oldest evidence for Broca's area to date is from KNM-ER 1470, a
>H.habilis specimen from Kenya, dated at approximately two million years
>ago. From that date forward, brain size 'took off,' i.e., increased
>autocatalytically so that it nearly doubled in the genus Homo, reaching
>its maximum in Neanderthals. If hominids weren't using and refining
>language I would like to know what they were doing with their
>autocatalytically increasing brains (getting ready to draw pictures
>somehow doesn't seem like enough)."~Dean Falk, Comments, Current
>Anthropology, 30:2, April, 1989, p. 141-142.
I don't deny that Habilis may have had a rudimentary speech. R.
Leakey believes that Habilis had a "protolanguage of sorts":
"All the discussion of hominid evolution so far in this book points
to a major change in hominid adaptation when the genus Homo appeared.
I suspect, therefore, that only with the evolution of Homo habilis
did some form of spoken language begin. Like Bickerton, I suspect
that this was a protolanguage of sorts, simple in content and
structure, but a means of communication beyond that of apes and of
australopithecines." (Leakey R., "The Origin of Humankind", Phoenix:
London, 1994, p129).
But just having a Brocas area is not proof of same. Human speech is
a whole *system* involving the larynx, ear and brain in several
areas:
"In contrast to animals, man possesses several language centres in
the dominant brain hemisphere (on the left side in a clearly
right-handed person)....The foot of the third frontal convolution of
the brain cortex, called Broca's area, is involved with motor
elaboration of all movements for expressive language. Its
destruction through disease or injury causes expressive aphasia, the
inability to speak or write. The posterior third of the upper
temporal convolution represents Wernicke's area of receptive speech
comprehension. Damage to this area produces receptive aphasia, the
inability to understand what is spoken or written as if the patient
had never known that language. Broca's area surrounds and serves to
regulate the function of other brain parts that initiate the complex
patterns of bodily movement (somatomotor function) necessary for the
performance of a given motor act. Swallowing is an inborn reflex
(present at birth) in the somatomotor area for mouth, throat, and
larynx. From these cells in the motor cortex of the brain emerge
fibres that connect eventually with the cranial and spinal nerves
that control the muscles of oral speech. In the opposite direction,
fibres from the inner ear have a first relay station in the so-called
acoustic nuclei of the brain stem. From here the impulses from the
ear ascend, via various regulating relay stations for the acoustic
reflexes and directional hearing, to the cortical projection of the
auditory fibres on the upper surface of the superior temporal
convolution (on each side of the brain cortex). This is the cortical
hearing centre where the effects of sound stimuli seem to become
conscious and understandable. Surrounding this audito-sensory area
of initial crude recognition, the inner and outer auditopsychic
regions spread over the remainder of the temporal lobe of the brain,
where sound signals of all kinds appear to be remembered,
comprehended, and fully appreciated. Wernicke's area (the posterior
part of the outer auditopsychic region) appears to be uniquely
important for the comprehension of speech sounds. The integrity of
these language areas in the cortex seems insufficient far the smooth
production and reception of language. The cortical centres are
interconnected with various subcortical areas (deeper within the
brain) such as those for emotional integration in the thalamus and
for the coordination of movements in the cerebellum (hindbrain )."
(Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edition, Benton: Chicago, 1984,
17:485)
Leakey points out that "the brain architecture that underlies
language is much more complex than was once thought" and that
having a Brocas area is only "a signal, albeit an uncertain one, of
emerging language ability":
"The brain architecture that underlies language is much more complex
than was once thought. There appear to be many language-related
areas, scattered throughout several regions of the human brain. If
such centers could be identified in our ancestors, we would be in a
good position to decide the language issue. However, the anatomical
evidence of the brains of extinct humans is restricted to surface
contours; fossil brains yield no clue to internal structure.
Fortunately, one brain feature related in some fashion both to
language and to the use of tools is visible on the surface of the
brain. This is Broca's area, a raised lump located near the left
temple (in most people). If we could find evidence of Broca's area
in fossil human brains, this would be a signal, albeit an uncertain
one, of emerging language ability." (Leakey R., "The Origin of
Humankind", Phoenix: London, 1994, p128)
GM>A being who speaks must be considered human in the sense of
>Genesis 2.
Only if he "speaks" in the way that only H. sapiens does:
"One of the most important factors that differentiates humans from
other species is our ability to communicate symbolically and orally
through language, an activity that, as far as we know, is specific to
humans. Chimpanzee achievements with sign language (discussed in
Chapter 11) are truly remarkable. Even when these intelligent apes
occasionally sign to other chimps, such a display in no way compares
to the crucial reliance humans place on symbolic communication.
Furthermore, what chimpanzees or any other animals achieve with human
assistance is quite different from what humans, as a species, develop
by themselves." (Nelson H. & Jurmain R., "Introduction To Physical
Anthropology", West Publishing Company: St. Paul, Fifth Edition,
1991, p12)
GM>Your quotation of Kidner deals only with tools.
Kidner mentions more than "tools":
"The second picture, that of palaeontology, a mosaic of many
fragments, depicts a species fashioned over perhaps a million years
or more into the present human form, showing the outward
characteristics of modern man upwards of twenty thousand years ago,
not only in his bodily structure but in his practice of making tools,
using fire, burying his dead, and, not least, creating works of art
comparable with those of any period. Even at this remote time the
apparent forerunners of our chief racial groups seem to be
distinguishable, and the species had already spread widely over the
world, displacing another type of hominid, 'Neanderthal Man', whose
own relics, rough as they are, indicate that tools, fire and burial
had been in use for long ages before this. On the other hand, the
first known signs of pastoral and agricultural life and, later, of
metal working (e.g. by hammering copper or meteoric iron; cf. on
4:19- 24) are much more recent, appearing in the Near East, on
present evidence, somewhere between the eighth and fifth millennia BC
at earliest." (Kidner D., "Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary"
Tyndale Press: London, 1967, p26)
GM>What most >christians don't deal with is the evidence for speech
among the >earliest fossils of the genus Homo.
See above. The "evidence for speech" (ie. fully human speech) among
the earliest fossils of the genus Homo", is inconclusive and
controversial. If anything, the actual cultural evidence favours a
comparatively recent origin of language:
"The time at which language evolved is one of the basic issues in
this debate. Was it early, followed by a gradual enhancement? Or
did it originate recently and suddenly? Remember, the question has
philosophical implications, relating to how special we view
ourselves. These days, many anthropologists favor a recent, rapid
origin of language-principally because of the abrupt change in
behavior seen in the Upper Paleolithic Revolution. Randall White, a
New York University archeologist, argued in a provocative scientific
paper almost a decade ago that evidence of various forms, of human
activity earlier than 100,000 years ago implies "a total absence of
anything that modern humans would recognize as language."
Anatomically modern humans had evolved by this time, he concedes, but
they had not yet "invented" language in a cultural context. This
would come much later: "By 35,000 years ago, these populations . . .
had mastered language and culture as we presently know them."
White lists seven areas of archeological evidence that, in his view,
point to dramatic enhancement of language abilities coincident with
the Upper Paleolithic. First, the deliberate burial of the dead,
which almost certainly began in Neanderthal times but became refined,
with the inclusion of grave goods, only in the Upper Paleolithic.
Second, artistic expression, which included image making and bodily
adornment, begins only with the Upper Paleolithic. Third, in the
Upper Paleolithic there is a sudden acceleration in the pace of
technological innovation and cultural change. Fourth, for the first
time regional differences in culture arise an expression and product
of social boundaries. Fifth, the evidence of long-distance contacts,
in the form of the trading of exotic objects, becomes strong at this
time. Sixth, living sites significantly increase in size, and
language would have been necessary for such a degree of planning and
coordination. Seventh, technology moves from the predominant use ne
to include other raw materials, such as bone, antler, and clay,
indicating a complexity of manipulation of the physical environment
which is unimaginable in the absence of language."
(Leakey R., "The Origin of Humankind", Phoenix: London, 1994,
pp125-126)
and
"Overall, then, the anatomical evidence indicates an early evolution
of language, followed by gradual improvement of linguistic skills.
However, the archeological evidence for tool technology and artistic
expression for the most part tells a different story. Although, as
I've said, language does not fossilize, the products of human hands
can, in principle, give some insight into language. When we talk
about artistic expression, as we did in the previous chapter, we are
aware of xnodern human minds at work, and that implies a modern level
of language. Can stone tools also furnish an understanding of the
language capacities of the toolmakers? This was the task Glynn Isaac
faced when he was asked to present a paper on the origin and nature
of language at the New York Academy of Sciences in 1976. He looked
at lhe complexity of stone-tool industries from their beginning more
than 2 million years ago to the Upper Paleolithic Revolution 35,000
years ago. He was not interested as much in the tasks that people
performed with the tools as in the order the toolmakers imposed on
their implements. Imposition of order is a human obsession; it is a
form of behavior that demands a sophisticated spoken language for its
fullest elaboration. Without language, the arbitrariness of
human-imposed order would be impossible. The archeological record
shows that the imposition of order is slow to emerge in human
prehistory-glacially so. We saw in chapter 2 that Oldowan tools,
which date from 2.5 million years ago to about 1.4 million years ago,
are opportunistic in nature. Toolmakers apparently were concerned
mostly with producing sharp flakes without regard to shape. The
so-called core tools, such as scrapers, choppers, and discoids, were
by-products of this process. Even the implements in Acheulean tool
assemblages, which followed the Oldowan and lasted until about
250,000 years ago, display imposition of form only minimally. The
teardrop-shaped handaxe was probably produced according to some form
of mental template, but most of the other items in the assemblage
were Oldowanlike in many ways; moreover, only about a dozen tool
forms were in the Acheulean kit. From about 250,000 years ago,
archaic sapiens individuals, including Neanderthals, made tools from
prepared flakes, and these assemblages, including the Mousterian,
comprised perhaps sixty identifiable tool types. But the types
remained unchanged for more than 200,000 years a technological stasis
that seems to deny the workings of the fully human mind.
Only when the Upper Paleolithic cultures burst onto the scene 35,000
years ago did innovation and arbitrary order become pervasive. Not
only were new and finer tool types produced but the tool types that
characterized Upper Paleolithic assemblages changed on a time scale
of millennia rather than hundreds of millennia. Isaac interpreted
this pattern of technological diversity and change as implying the
gradual emergence of some form of spoken language. The Upper
Paleolithic Revolution, he suggested, signaled a major punctuation in
that evolutionary trajectory. Most archeologists agree generally
with this interpretation, although there are differences of opinion
over what degree of spoken language earlier toolmakers had-if any.
Unlike Nicholas Toth, Thomas Wynn, of the University of Colorado,
believes that Oldowan culture in its general features was apelike,
not human. "Nowhere in this picture need we posit elements such as
language," he notes, in a jointly authored article in the journal
Man, in 1989. The manufacture of these simple tools required little
cognitive capacity, he argues, and therefore was not human in any
way."
(Leakey R., "The Origin of Humankind", Phoenix: London, 1994,
pp134-135)
The bottom line is that *only* Homo sapiens had a *proven*
complex language capacity and that suddenly emerged only 35,000 years
ago. This is broadly compatible with the picture in Genesis 2-11.
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones |
| Perth, West Australia v (My opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------