Recently, Jim Bell wrote:
>So you see,I was talking about the kind of complex language necessary to plug
>what appears to be a gaping (aping?) hole in your theory.EVEN IF we grant the
>"capability of language" (e.g., Falk) or "some kind of language" (Morton,
>above) to Neanderthal, your theory demands much more, stretching back to homo
>erectus and complex lingual capacity.That's clearly what I was talking about,
>and you missed it.
>
>But with that kind of language the culture would have been more complex than
>we find it. That's called predictability, a word you like so much. Well, your
>theory fails on this point.
Jim is absolutely correct that my theory requires "Man" (defined as having the
image of God) to extend back to that time period. I disagree that they must
of necessity had a complex culture. Many modern primitive cultures like the
Fuegians I mentioned the other day, have a life style similar to that of the
Neanderthals. Yet the Fuegians are fully human and as intelligent as you or
I.
The Kanapoi Fossils
In human origins the fossils are divided into three genera: Australopithecus,
Paranthropus, and Homo. Paranthropus is generally believed to be off the line
of evolution to modern man. The australopithecines are believed to be
ancestral to Homo. Generally, it is believed that the earliest example of Homo
is from around 2.4 myr with the appearance of Homo habilis (Christopher Wills,
The Runaway Brain, (New York: Harper Collins,1993), p.132.)
However, occasional finds of fossils with definite Homo affinities are found
long before the 2.4 Myr time frame.
There is a very humanlike humerous found in strata of 4.4 million years
ago. It has the museum number KNM-KP 271. Lubenow writes:
"The humeral fragment from Kanapoi, with a date of about 4.4 million,
could not be distinguished from Homo sapiens morphologically or by
multivariate analysis by Patterson and myself in 1967 (or by much more
searching analysis by others since then)." William W, Howells "Homo
erectus in human descent: ideas and problems," _Homo erectus: Sigmon and
Cybulski ed. Univ. of Toronto Press, 1981, pp 79-80 cited by Lubenow, Bones of
Contention p. 56-57
Having looked at Oxnard's multidimensional plots, this humeri is remarkably
human-like. Anthropologists don't talk about this humerus very much because it
doesn't fit any theory that is proposed. Out of 21 anthro books I consulted,
only four had the word "Kanapoi" in the index. One of those was referring to
the locality named Kanapoi, leaving only three books which discussed the
humerus at all. One of the three, (Leakey, the Making of Mankind) said it
should be left alone and not discussed. Bernard Campbell (Human Evolution)
said that the humerus was very manlike. Oxnard, (_Uniqueness and Diversity in
Human Evolution_) went further:
"This techniques also confirms the extreme similarity of the Kanapoi
specimen and modern man (fig. 76), a finding that is already well known,
of course, from the studies of Patterson and Howells (1967)." Charles
Oxnard, _Uniqueness and Diversity in Human Evolution: Morphometric Studies
of Australopithecines_ University of Chicago Press, 1975, p. 98.
Is the humerus an australopithecine humerus? Oxnard continues in the next
paragraph from the one cited above talking about two australopithecine humeri
being totally unique:
"The different morphological uniquenesses of the Kromdraai and East
Rudolf fossils may also imply functional uniquenesses; these early hominids
are equipped with distal humeri unlike those of any extant form. But although
Kromdraai is the more human, its direction of departure from man is towards
the orangutan. And although East Rudolf is totally unique, its nearest living
analog is again the orangutan. The significance of these findings are
difficult to assess but, when viewed in relation to some of the other findings
in this book, they are not so totally out of line as to be incompatible." ~
Charles Oxnard, _Uniqueness and Diversity in Human Evolution: Morphometric
Studies of Australopithecines_ University of Chicago Press, 1975, p. 98
Senut and Tardieu agree that the Kanapoi humerus should be placed in the genus
Homo. They write:
"The group exhibiting modern hominid features may represent early Homo
(KNM-KP-271, Gombore IB 7594, A.L. 333W-29)."Brigitte Senut and Christine
Tardieu, "Functional Aspects of Plio-Pleistocene Hominid Limb Bones:
Implications for Taxonomy and phylogeny",in Eric Delson, editor, Ancestors:
The Hard Evidence, pp 193-201, p. 195
They recognize the Kanapoi humerus as belonging to the genus Homo not
Australopithecus. Interestingly, 30 years after the Kanapoi humerus was found
more material with Homo affinities has now been found. Peter Andrews writes:
"In striking contrast to the dental similarities of the Kanapoi
specimens with fossil apes, the postcrania tell a different story. They
come from the upper level at Kanapoi, in contrast to the type specimen
which comes from the lower level. Included here is the distal humerus
which was found 30 years ago and which has been placed in stratigraphic
context by examination of old photographs of the site. This fossil bone
was recognized early on to be more advanced than australopithecines and
was found to group morphologically with Homo, a surprising conclusion
because the Kanapoi deposits are not only much older than any deposits
containing fossils of early Homo but are also older than many
australopithecines sites. The present discoveries reinforce that
conclusion, however, for a partial tibia found at the same level as the
humerus also shows some Homo-like characters, particularly in its overall
length (estimated because the midshaft is missing)."~Peter Andrews,
"Ecological Apes and Ancestors," Nature 376, Aug. 17, 1995 pp 555-556.
The interesting thing about the new tibia is the size. The australopithecines
were about 3.5 feet tall, the size of a chimp. (Donald Johanson and James
Shreeve, Lucy's Child, p. 86-87). Homo habilis was about the same height.
(Ibid 207-208). But Homo erectus was much taller:
"Less complete hominid fossils support the same general contrast in
body shape between small early australopithecines and larger, later Homo.
These include the Australopithecus africanus STS 14, which was about the
same size and shape as A. L. 288-1, as well as several other early Homo
individuals. The average estimated stature of six African Homo erectus
individuals dated to between 1.7 and 0.7 million years ago is 170 cm, tall
even by modern standards. Avalailable pelvic remains of other early Homo
are similar to the pelvis of KNM-WT-15000, suggesting that they also had
relatively narrow body breadths. "~Christopher B. Ruff, "Climatic
Adaptation and Hominid Evolution: The Thermoregulatory Imperative,"
Evolutionary Anthropology, 2:2 (1993), p. 53-60, p. 56
(170 cm is 5'7")
Meave Leakey et al, note of this tibia:
"The tibia, KNM-KP29283, is larger than the largest from Hadar (A.L.
333-42). The middle of the shaft was not recovered. We estimate that
between a third and a half of the total length of the bone is missing.
Using regression equations based on humans, the estimated body weight of
this individual is 55 kg." [121 pounds]~M.G. Leakey et al, "New
four-million-year-old hominid species from Kanapoi and Allia Bay, Kenya",
Nature, 376, August 17, 1995, p. 566.
The tibia indicated the owner was bipedal. But more importantly, the
tibia's owner was taller than either Australopithecus or Habilis and
intermediate between the Australopithecines and Homo Erectus. For those who
will quickly say that their conclusion about the length is erroneous, let me
point out that there are all sorts of relationships between bone diameter,
length and weight of the individual which can be used to estimate the missing
part.
Now, here is where things stand at the moment. The older Kanapoi
discovery was prior to my book. But the new one was after. My initial
copy of the book was registered with the Library of Congress on 10-16-94
and a second revised copy on 5-2-95. This was clearly before the second
discovery. All in all I am pleased but I want to be sure of things before
I claim confirmation. The obvious out would be to say the tibia and
humerus are from large australopithecines. But this seems unlikely since
Oxnard stated of the Australopithecine humeri:
"The different morphological uniquenesses of the Kromdraai and East Rudolf
fossils may also imply functional uniquenesses; these early hominids are
equipped with distal humeri unlike those of any extant form. But although
Kromdraai is the more human, its direction of departure from man is
towards teh orangutan. And although East Rudolf is totally unique, its
nearest living analog is again the orangutan. The significance of these
findings are difficult to assess but, when viewed in relation to some of
the other findings in this book, they are not so totally out of line as to
be incompatible." Oxnard, p. 98
Now, there has been some talk in the literature of two genera at Hadar,
Ethipia. Kanapoi is in Kenya. Senut and Tardieu note:
"However, we think that we could isolate two different groups at Hadar, and
these differences would suggest the presence of two hominid genera in the
Ethiopian Pliocene."
"Could the two groups simply suggest sexual dimorphism? After
examination of hundreds of modern non-human, male and female wild specimens,
we do not think so. Among extant hominoids, we can easily (except for
Hylobatidae) differentiate the males from the females on the basis of bone
robusticity, but sexual dimorphism does not seem to affect the morphology of
the epiphysis. In Plio-Pleistocene hominids, articular areas seem different
enough to be allocated to distinct forms-genera or species. Moreover, from
East Turkana there are several distal humeri of various sizes exhibitng
exactly the same morphological pattern (KNM-ER 739, KNM-ER 1504, KNM-ER 3735).
Alternatively, could the two groups simply represent two species of the same
genus? The differences observed here are larger than between Pan troglodytes
and Pan paniscus or between Hylobates lar and H. concolor, ofr example. Thus,
we suggest thta the two Hadar groups may belong to the different genera Homo
(A.L.333W-29) and Australopithecus (A.L. 137-48A., A.L. 288-1M, A. L. 288-1S,
A. L. 322-1)."~Brigitte Senut and Christine Tardieu, "Functional Aspects of
Plio-Pleistocene Hominid Limb Bones: Implications for Taxonomy and
phylogeny",in Eric Delson, editor, Ancestors: The Hard Evidence, pp 193-201,
p. 195-196
(A.L. 288-1 is Lucy; Australopithecus afarensis)
Concerning the knee joint they write:
"Thus on the basis of the meniscal features, two groups equivalent to
those separated by osteological features can be distinguished among
Plio-Pleistocene hominids. One is fully modern and called Homo including
KNM-ER 1481 A and B, KNM-ER 1476 B, KNM-ER 1472, A.L. 333-4, and A. L.333x-26.
The other, more chimpanzee-like one, is attributed to Australipithecus,
including A. L. 129-1a and -1b and A.L. 288-1AP and -1AQ (Australopithecus
afarensis, in our definition) and probably KNM-ER 1500 A and B."~Brigitte
Senut and Christine Tardieu, "Functional Aspects of
Plio-Pleistocene Hominid Limb Bones: Implications for Taxonomy and
phylogeny",in Eric Delson, editor, Ancestors: The Hard Evidence, pp 193-201,
p. 198
They concluded:
"From these results, it appears that in early Homo the laxity of the
elbow joint was combined with the solidity of the knee joint. In early
Australopithecus, the opposite is seen: the laxity of the knee joint combined
with the solidity of the elbow joint. That means that suspension or climbing
could have been important for Australopithecus (and especially A. afarensis)
and that its bipedalism was probably different from ours. Thus, these
hominids were probably not exclusively terrestrial bipeds as previously
proposed. This paper suggests, moreover, that just over 3 million years ago
two types of hominid were present in Ethiopia. This was also suggested by
Tuttle (1983), Olson(1981), Schmid (1983), and Coppens (1981,1983), who
proposed to name some of the chimp-like Australopithecus afarensis 'Pre-
Australopithecus.'"
Susman et al. have suggested that the two forms recognized at Hadar
could represent different adaptations for male and female Australopithecus.
The former could have been more terrestrial and the latter more arborial. But
they point out that it is difficult to be certain. For us, the two forms
might, represent two genera; one could be tentatively allocated to a modern
type called Homo and the other to Australopithecus."~Brigitte Senut and
Christine Tardieu, "Functional Aspects of Plio-Pleistocene Hominid Limb Bones:
Implications for Taxonomy and phylogeny",in Eric Delson, editor, Ancestors:
The Hard Evidence, pp 193-201, p. 199
The stuff by Senut and Tardieu is 11 years old. If anyone knows anything
which would confirm or deny what they are saying from more recent literature,
I would be interested.
While I will not claim this as confirmation of my view, yet, it does make me
quite optimistic. What I have suggested is the only way to fit the current
available anthropologic data into a Biblical framework without having to
believe in an emergent or incipient imageo dei.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm