>Well, if were gonna have it my way, let's not change the subject.The post was
>not about flutes (that's why I put that part in a parenthesis, like this!)but
>about the way you use evidence.
>
>Every time you point to a datum as evidence of full humanity, you are
>contradicting the experts you cite. They all believe in incipient humanity.
>They see this stuff as ascending in complexity. And the record, of course,
>backs them up on this. Why are Acheulian tools less complex than Mousterian
>flake tools, Glenn? Is that what your theory predicts?
Yes, I believe that if you had a flood, the survivors would be unable to
retain the technology from the pre-flood world. It would have to be
re-developed. The Acheulian tools are less complex than Mousterian tools
because no one had yet invented Mousterian techniques.
Why are Mousterian tools less complex than Neolithic tools? Because no one
had invented grinding stone agains stone to make tools in the neolithic
fashion. That does not make the Acheulians less human than the neolithic
farmers.
Why are Neolithic tools simpler than Chalcolithic (copper) tools? Because no
one had invented the techniques which make copper a useful metal. But this
does not make the Chalcolithic people more human than the Neolithics.
Why are Chalcolithic tools simpler than our tools today? Are the Romans less
human than you or me? Well their tools were so much simpler if we used your
line of reasoning we would have to conclude that the Romans are less human.
>
>This is, as I see it, the black hole in the Mortonian corpus. The criticisms
>of sloppy science, especially vis-a-vis geology, are all good. But the fully
>human homo erectus, etc., is just not supportable.
>
>Now, let's talk about the "stone age" people you're so fond of. Your argument
>appears to be something like this: "Look! They are living simple lives! With
> simple language! So I guess you don't think they're human, right? You wanna
>put them in zoos?"
>
>That old Mortonian understatement again. The flaw in your argument, ofcourse,
>is the confusion of capacity with practice. Any one of these fully human
>beings has the capacity to move beyond their tribal restrictions. They've
> done it. The most famous example, of course, was Ishi. Surely you've read
>about him.
>
Yes, I know about lots of tribal members and their kin who have moved beyond
their tribal restrictions. So, what makes you think that a Neandertal, whose
brain is larger than yours, and who makes flutes, and fine stone tools, would
be unable to do it if he could but have the chance? The only thing I see is
your prejudice against evolution.
>Could homo erectus be equally engaged? Hardly.Didn't have the brain capacity,
Wait a minute. There was that guy reported in science who had a brain capacity
(as I caluclate it from the data they give) of 108 cc. This is the size of a
rhesus monkey. However this guy with the pea sized brain was taking an honors
degree in mathematics and was socially normal. I think you need to read this
article. Here is a quotation:
"'There's a young student at this university," says Lorber, 'who has an IQ of
126, has gained a first-class honors degree in mathematics, and is socially
completely normal. And yet the boy has virtually no brain.' The student's
physician at the university noticed that the youth had a slightly larger than
normal head, and so referred him to Lorber, simply out of interest. 'When we
did a brain scan on him,' Lorber recalls, 'we saw that instead of the normal
4.5-centimeter thickness of brain tissue between the ventricles and the
cortical surface, there was just a thin layer of mantle measuring a millimeter
or so. His cranium is filled mainly with cerebrospinal fluid."~Roger Lewin,
"Is Your Brain Really Necessary," Science, Dec. 12,1980, p. 1232.
A millimeter thick layer on the inside of a human skull would give
approximately 108 cc volume for the actual brain.
Some people who have had to have an entire hemisphere of their brain removed
are perfectly normal and make A's in class. (this is documented in my book).
This guy had the cranial capacity of half the normal human brain, ca. 690 cc
which is less than that of tiniest Homo erectus brain. This is getting into
the Australopithecine range. Come on. With examples like this you can not
deny that there was ENOUGH brain in an erectus head to do the same thing.
Apparently brain organization is more important than quantity.
>the physical apparatus,etc.But suppose you want to argue the point (would I
>be surprised?)...you CAN'T! Your theory demands that they already exercised
>that capacity, IN PRACTICE. So for you to use the "stone age" people example
>is actually an argument against yourself.
I think I just did argue the point. You are wrong in saying I CAN'T--see
above.
>
>So, you're welcome to it. Keep it up.
>
>But in the meantime, as I pointed out about a week ago, you have NO EVIDENCE
>of your full humanity theory. It is based upon ABSENT or HIDDEN evidence.
>Any evidence you do use all falls into the incipient category.
>
So a flute does not count as an indication that a Neanderthal was human? The
making of whistles by archaic homo sapiens (not modern ones) does not count as
an indication of being human? The making of a statue of a naked lady does not
indicate humanity? When was the last time you saw a dog make a statue of a
naked female dog?
>To paraphrase the great Sam Goldwyn, "You've gone where the hand of man has
>never set foot."
That is what I intended to do. No one else in Christian apologetics is
telling our children the details of what they will find if they take an
anthropology course. Thus I am going somewhere that others have not gone
before.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm