Glad you liked it. :-)
>Unfortunately, you didn't deal with the main point of the post, which
>is that you assemble very weak assertions and pile them up to make the
>whole look stronger than they are.
>
In science, as in math, chains of logic are used. Now one is certainly
free to criticise the details of the logical chain. But as I said, you
seem to like broad brush statements like,"...you assemble very weak
assertions and pile them up to make the whole look stronger than they
are." This statement avoid the details and is proof of the criticism I
sent your direction. If you want to criticize the logical chain, tell me
in detail what observational fact I got wrong. And cite the source.
>As I have examined each of your assertions, for which you provided
> lenghty , I'm mystified by another of your favorite tacks:
>
><< The thing I notice is that never do the anti-evolutionists like Jim
> ever examine the details of any science.>>
>
See above.
>No, the problem is we don't draw the same conclusions you do, and it
> drives you crazy. Here are some experts who disagree with you:
>
>Walker & Shipman, "The Wisdom of the Bones" @ 293, on the erectus
> Nariokotome boy:
>
>"For all of his human physique and physiology, the boy was still an
> animal--aclever one, a large one, a successful one--but an animal
> nonetheless...[T]here was no human consciousness within that human body.
>He was not one of us."
I am impressed. Finally a book other than Tattersall. I am proud of you
Jim. :-)
Tell our readers what this statement is based upon. It is based upon the
idea that erectus didn't speak. If erectus had no language, then I would
have to agree with Walker and Shipman that there was nothing there. I
find their evidence against speech weaker than the case for speech. This
is one of those presuppositional areas that David Tyler was talking
about. If you agree that erectus had speech, then you could not fit him
into your Biblical view. If Erectus did not have speech, I could find
other ways to handle the fossil record of the hominids, but they would not
be as satisfying. But my view could adjust somewhat. Yours can't adjust
at all.
Here are some experts who agree with me
"Planning of this sort requires a language. Primitive though they
may have appeared, with their heavy brow ridges, low skiulls, and large
chinless jaws, these men had relatively large brains, which were often
within the range of modern humans. it seems likely that their brains had
become sufficiently developed for language to be possible.
"Instruction in toolmaking and the use of fire would certainly be
facilitated by the use of language, although perhaps conceivable without
it. The tools used by Homo erectus had become more elaborate than those of
the australopithecines, and Homo erectus hunted large mammals, which
probably demanded planning and collective action.
"Some articles by Philip Lieberman and his associates to be discussed
later in this chapter have suggested that Neanderthal communication was
deficient. Homo erectus was lower on the evolutionary ladder than
Neanderthals;so perhaps, if Lieberman et al. are right, use of language by
Homo erectus was even more rudimentary. The view taken here, however is
that some sort of language was probably spoken by Homo erectus."~Victor
Barnouw, An Introduction to Anthropology: Physical Antrhopology and
Archaeology, Vol. 1, (Homewood,Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1982) p. 147
Dean Falk:
As Phillip Tobias first suggested, Homo habilis appears to have had a
Broca's speech area in its brain and, as such, was probably capable of
some form of rudimentary humanlike language."~Dean Falk, Braindance,(New
York: Henry Holt and Co., 1992), p. 50
Schick and Toth:
"These early stone tool makers appear to have been preferentially right-
handed, suggesting that by two million years ago Oldowan hominid brains
were becoming more lateralized and specialized for different activities,
with the left hemisphere devoted more to time sequencing, language, and
controlling the dominant right hand for manual activites like hammering
and tool use; the right hemisphere devoted more to spatial perception and
mental mapping of the environment. This was a pattern that would continue
in the genus Homo to the present."~Kathy D. Schick and Nicholas Toth,
Making Silent Stones Speak, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1993), p. 220
Clive Gamble:
"Consequently I would seek the 'origins' of language in the
colonization of those environments which required its unique properties to
elaborate and maintain social life rather than basing the argument on the
appearance, anywhere, of art. If the two coincide then so much the
better, but don't be surprised if they won't."~Clive Gamble, Timewalkers,
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), p. 174
The colonization of most of the Old World took place by 1.8 million years
ago by Homo erectus. He had colonized from Georgia to Java to Africa and
to Pakistan. He needed a language.
>The same conclusion is drawn by James Shreeve, "The Neanderthal Enigma"
> (1995) @21, quoting Tim White on erectus "monotony":
>
>"Nothing happens for hundreds and hundreds of thousands of years. And
> that's NORMAL for the animal. Human behavior isn't like that." [Emphasis
>in original]
>
>Shreeve goes on: "Australopithecus afarensis, Homo habilis, Homo
> erectus--if you look closely, each seems a little less human, a little
>less noble than we thought...They were animals. They lie below the
>gartel."
>
>Now, are you going to say "these people never examine the details of
> any science"? Or are you going to admit that we can look at the same
>data you look at, and reach different conclusions?
No. I am saying that you aren't examining the details. Are you having
trouble distinguishing between self and others? :-)
I might point out that most of the "stability" of erectus tools are due to
the Acheulian hand ax. It was a remarkably constant feature of the
landscape for over 1 million years. However listen to this:
"Like a discus, the hand ax spun horizontally as it rose, but changed
its orientation in midair. On reaching its maximum altitude, it rolled
onto its edge and descended in a perpendicular position, its spinning
motion appearing to decline. Then, with a thud, it landed point first,
slicing deeply into the thawing earth. In both throwing bouts, regardless
of thrower, the hand ax repeated this flight pattern when thrown
discus-style. It landed on edge forty-two out of forty-five throws,
thirty-one of which were point first. The average throw was about
one-third the length of a football field (almost 102 feet), and usually
accurate to within two yards right or left of the line of
trajectory."~Eileen M. O'Brian, "What was the Acheulean Hand Ax?"
Natural History, July, 1984, p. 22
**
"Excavators, however, recover hand axes in abundance, mostly at sites that
are within or alongside what were once (and may still be) watercourses or
wetland environments. For example, at the Acheulean site of Olorgesailie
(one of the East African sites southwest of Nairobi, Kenya, in the
Eastern Rift Valley), hundreds of large hand axes were deposited about
four hundred thousand years ago in what appears to have been a shallow
stream bed. Elsewhere across the landscape, hand axes are rare, although
they are occasionally found in some numbers in prehistoric cave sites.
This suggests that during some activity that took place near water, hand
axes were used and lost with astonishing frequency."~Eileen M. O'Brian,
"What was the Acheulean Hand Ax?" Natural History, July, 1984, p. 18
O'Brien suggests that the hand ax was thrown at big game from a distance.
The heavy sharp object falling on a big animal would do a lot of damage,
kill the animal, and provide supper.
"This is consistent with evidence that big-game hunting appears for the
first time in the archeological record along with Homo erectus."~Eileen M.
O'Brian, "What was the Acheulean Hand Ax?" Natural History, July, 1984, p.
23
So why is the hand ax so stable? Because the laws of physics remained the
same. the erectus like us, are not smart enough to alter the center of
gravity laws and aerodynamical rules. In fact the Russian space shuttle
looks a lot like the american version because of the laws of aerodynamics.
In a thousand years a shuttle shape will still be able to glide.
Their usefulness to the erectus is witnessed by the amount of time needed
to find a suitable rock and the time needed to shape it.
><<At the risk of sounding like Steve Clark (who displeases you),
> finding the interrelationships between previously unrelated facts is
>what science is all about.>>
>
>Yeah, the key word is "facts." But when you assume, e.g., that erectus
>empathy is a "fact," you are begging the question.
Obviously I disagree here.I gave the observational evidence that 1808 was
able to survive for a long time in a dangerous environment, From that one
must ask why? Reasonable hypothesis can be constructed. Surviving alone
is less probable. And surviving at a water hole, given what we can observe
today at a water hole makes this extremely unlikely. Are you aware that
crocodiles inhabit water holes in Africa and chomp on anything near the
water's edge? How could a sick hominid lay near the water's edge and not
be a croc's lunch?
> You are doing what Roger Lewin says you are doing--making up a story,
>but the strength of that story, depends on its foundations. I see rather
>a pile of weak assertions, not a foundation of strength. On this, I am
>more in agreement with Ian Tattersall, Walker & Shipman, and James
>Shreeve than with Glenn Morton.
Then construct a reasonable scenario in which 1808 can survive alone in
that condition for the weeks necessary for the ossification of the woven
bone.
We know:
1. the periosteum was torn away from the bone.
2. This occurred late in life because of a core of normal bone.
3. This condition, however it occurred, is very painful and debilitating
and makes movement slower.
4. hominids cannot live more than a week and a half without water.
5. water holes in Africa contain crocodiles and hyenas and lions come to
drink there.
6. it would take several weeks at least for the 1/2 inch woven bone to
ossify.
How can you account for these facts if there was no care of 1808 and she
was alone?
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm