On Mon, 02 Sep 1996 20:28:32, Glenn Morton wrote:
[continued]
GM>Stephen further wrote:
SJ>See above. I find this a bit rich, coming from Glenn :-) There
>is *not one* scientific authority anywhere who believes that Homo
>habilis existed 5.5 million years ago:
GM>Obviously you had not received my "Early Man (Homo) at 4.2 myr"
>yet. While they do not say homo habilis, there are experts who
>beleive that some species of our genus was actually there at that
>time. Sorry, Stephen you are wrong again.
I have since received Glenn's "Early Man (Homo) at 4.2 myr" post and
I have no problem with the general thesis that:
"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"
Nelson & Jurmain, note that KP 271 was: 1. dated by "faunal
correlation" (ie. "no radiometric dates exist for this site"); 2.
"too fragmentary to allow much elaboration" but that "it appears
hominid"; and 3. "no archeological traces" were found:
"Kanapoi (Kan'-a-poy) Located close to Lothagam on the southwest side
of Lake Turkana, Kanapoi was also surveyed by members of the Harvard
University research project. In 1965, they found one hominid bone at
this site, the lower end of an upper arm bone, or humerus. Dating of
Kanapoi, also by means of faunal correlation, gives a date of
approximately 4 mya. Like Lothagam, the hominid material is too
fragmentary to allow much elaboration, except to note that it appears
hominid. Also like Lothagam, surface surveys at Kanapoi revealed no
archeological traces." (Nelson H. & Jurmain R., "Introduction To
Physical Anthropology", West Publishing Company: St. Paul MN, Fifth
Edition, 1991, p413).
Later on they say:
"Prior to 4 mya the fossil hominid (or "hominoid") remains from East
Africa (which is all there is anywhere) are extremely scrappy,
represented by only two molars, one cranial bone, two fragmentary
jaws, and one arm bone...The best that can be said about this
material is that it is hominoid, and in some cases, `hominid-like.'
It is not until 4-3 mya that we get the first definite collection of
hominid fossils." (Nelson H. & Jurmain R., 1991, p431)
However, they do concede the possibility of the minority view of
Senut and Tardieu that "early members of genus Homo may also have
been present at Hadar and Laetoli":
"Regarding the first question of possible multiple taxa (i.e., more
than one species) at Hadar and Laetoli, some of the initial analyses
by the primary researchers at Hadar did indeed suggest this
possibility (Johanson and Taieb, 1976). Once all the Hadar material
was evaluated, as well as comparisons made with the Laetoli fossils,
this view was rejected (in favor of simply grouping all the fossils
into one obviously variable, sexually dimorphic species). Not all
paleoanthropologists, however, are convinced of this latter
interpretation. Two French paleoanthropologists, Brigette Senut and
Christine Tardieu of the University of Paris, have suggested from
analyses of postcranial remains (especially the elbow and knee) that,
along with a primitive australopithecine, early members of genus Homo
may also have been present at Hadar and Laetoli (Senut, 1981; Senut
and Tardieu, 1985). For some researchers, then, there is good reason
to think more than one species has been sampled at Hadar-and perhaps
at Laetoli as well. However, these claims have yet to be
substantiated. Moreover, on the basis of detailed dental comparisons
(White et al., 1981), there appears to be no reason to "split" the
samples into different taxa." (Nelson H. & Jurmain R., 1991, p435)
None of this supports Glenn's view that this was in any sense a
developed member of the genus Homo. Even at 4.2 mya, *1.3 million
years after* Glenn's putative 5.5 million-year old Adam, this would
still be only "early members of genus Homo". I therefore stand by
what I said: "Glenn...claims that Adam was a 5.5 million-year old
Homo habilis, without a scrap of scientific or Biblical evidence!
There is *not one* scientific authority anywhere who believes that
Homo habilis existed 5.5 million years ago".
Even if we grant the facts that Glenn cites in his "Early Man (Hopmo)
at 4.2 myr" post , namely: 1. the hominid to which the fossilised
lower left humeral fragment known as KNM-KP 271 belonged, had an
upper arm similar to Homo sapiens; and 2. it lived 4.2 million years
ago; it does not not support Glenn's theory that Adam was a "Homo
habilis" who "existed 5.5 million years ago". Apart from a huge 1.3
million year gap, all it would show is that an unknown hominoid had
an upper arm similar in shape to modern man. Glenn seems to be
claiming that if a homoinoid had one part of a bone that was similar
to modern man, then the rest of its body and brain must also be
similar to modern man?
Indeed, find a delicious irony in this. Here is the evolutionist
Glenn citing quotes from the YEC Lubenow for support of his
evolutionist view, while I, the creationist, am quoting from
evolutionists to support my progressive creationist view! :-)
Lubenow points out that the humerus fragment KP 271 is dated 4.4 MYA,
yet it is more similar to modern humans than any other hominoid. He
extrapolates this to claim that the rest of the hominoid was a "true
human", and therefore "the concept of human evolution" is either
falsified (because then "true humans" would "have lived before the
australopithecines") or it is unfalsifiable (because "evolutionists
ignore the morphology of fossils that do not fall into the proper
evolutionary time period"):
"Even though KP 271 is shaped exactly like Homo sapiens, the time
element is wrong. What determines that? The concept of human
evolution. The concept of human evolution decrees that it is
impossible for true humans to have lived before the
australopithecines-even though the fossil evidence would suggest
otherwise-because humans are supposed to have evolved from the
australopithecines. According to the basic principles of the
philosophy of science, a theory must be falsifiable if it is a
legitimate scientific theory. How could the theory of evolution be
falsified? Supposedly if fossils are found that are woefully out of
order from what evolution would predict. Many such fossils have been
found. KP 271 is just one of them...However, evolutionists ignore
the morphology of fossils that do not fall into the proper
evolutionary time period. They wave their magic wand to change the
taxon of these fossils. Thus, it is impossible to falsify the
concept of human evolution. It is like trying to nail jelly to the
wall. That evolutionists resort to this manipulation of the evidence
is a "confession" on their part that the fossil evidence does not
conform to evolutionary theory. It also reveals that the concept of
human evolution is a philosophy, not science. To the evolutionist
there is but one primary fact in the universe evolution. Everything
else is just data. The value of this data does no depend upon its
intrinsic quality but upon whether or not it supports evolution and
its time scale. Good data is that which supports evolution. Bad
data is that which does not fit evolution, and it is to be
discarded." (Lubenow M.L., "Bones of Contention: A Creationist
Assessment of the Human Fossils", Baker Books: Grand Rapids Mi,
1992, p57)
If Glenn uses the sources quoted by Lubenow, and extrapolates from
the KP 271 humerus fragment to claim that "Early Man (Homo)" existed
"at 4.2 myr", and by this he means a "true human", capable of: 1.
Understanding and being fully accountable for a complex language
command of God:
"You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must
not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when
you eat of it you will surely die." (Gn 2:16-17);
2. Understanding complex spoken specifications for building a huge
triple-deck wooden ark:
"So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and
coat it with pitch inside and out. This is how you are to build
it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet
high. Make a roof for it and finish the ark to within 18 inches
of the top. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower,
middle and upper decks." (Gn 6:14-16)
and then building it.; and 3. Immediately after the Flood planting a
vineyard and making wine:
"Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. When he
drank some of its wine..." (Gn 9:20-21);
then Glenn has to deal with Lubenow's argument, ie. that "the
concept of human evolution decrees that it is impossible for true
humans to have lived before the australopithecines...because humans
are supposed to have evolved from the australopithecines."
However, both Lubenow and Glenn ignore the modern evolutionary
concept of "mosaic evolution", which is indeed in the title of one of
Lubenow's references that Glenn appears to have overlooked: "Henry
M. McHenry, "Fossils and the MOSAIC NATURE OF HUMAN EVOLUTION,"
Science 190 (31 October 1975):428" (Lubenow M.L., "Bones of
Contention: A Creationist Assessment of the Human Fossils", Baker
Books: Grand Rapids MI, 1992, pp53,269n. My emphasis)
The concept of "mosaic evolution" is particularly used by
evolutionists to explain the unneven rates of development of
different hominoid traits, as Gould has pointed out:
"Ironically, the metaphor of the ladder first denied a role in human
evolution to the African australopithecines. A. africanus walked
fully erect, but had a brain less than one-third the size of ours
(see essay 22). When it was discovered in the 1920s, many
evolutionists believed that all traits should change in concert
within evolving lineages-the doctrine of the "harmonious
transformation of the type." An erect, but small-brained ape could
only represent an anomalous side branch destined for early extinction
(the true intermediate, I assume, would have been a semierect,
half-brained brute). But, as modern evolutionary theory developed
during the 1930s, this objection to Australopithecus disappeared.
Natural selection can work independently upon adaptive traits in
evolutionary sequences, changing them at different times and rates.
Frequently, a suite of characters undergoes a complete transformation
before other characters change at all. PALEONTOLOGISTS REFER TO
THIS POTENTIAL INDEPENDENCE OF TRAITS AS "MOSAIC EVOLUTION."
Secured by mosaic evolution, A. africanus attained the exalted status
of direct ancestor. Orthodoxy became a three-runged ladder: A.
africanus-H. erectus (Java and Peking Man)-H. sapiens." (Gould
S.J., "Bushes and Ladders in Human Evolution", in "Ever Since
Darwin", Penguin: London, 1977, p58. My emphasis)
as well as two anthropology texts:
"With the expose of the Piltdown forgery in the early 1950s, the path
was completely cleared for the nearly unanimous recognition of the
australopithecines as early hominids. With this acceptance also came
the necessary recognition that hominid brains had their greatest
expansion after earlier changes in teeth and locomotory systems. In
other words, THE RATES OF EVOLUTION IN ONE FUNCTIONAL SYSTEM OF
THE BODY VARY FROM OTHER SYSTEMS, THUS DISPLAYING THE MOSAIC
NATURE OF HUMAN EVOLUTION." (Nelson H. & Jurmain R., "Introduction
To Physical Anthropology",West Publishing Company: St. Paul MN,
Fifth Edition, 1991, p428. My emphasis)
and:
"The calculation of evolutionary rates based on changes in morphology
may be subject to serious error resulting from THE PHENOMENON OF
MOSAIC EVOLUTION-THAT IS, ALL PARTS OF AN ORGANISM DO NOT
CHANGE IN THE SAME TIME PERIOD. For example, the foot and pelvis of
the fossil ancestors of man were clearly transformed from quadrupedal
to bipedal types in a relatively short time. The skull, particularly
the braincase, of the hominids changed relatively little until the
erect bipedal structure had been perfected; then it changed rapidly
relative to further changes in the pelvis and foot." (Buettner-
Janusch J., "Physical Anthropology", John Wiley & Sons: New York,
1973, p25. My emphasis).
I am happy to accept the evidence Glenn provides in his post "Early
man (Homo) at 4.2 myr". Glenn is reluctant to "claim it as
confirmation" of his "view", namely that Adam was a 5.5 mya Homo
habilis, but notes that the alternative "way to fit the current
available anthropologic data into a Biblical framework" would be to
"believe in an emergent or incipient imageo dei".
Well, I am not reluctant at all! :-) I claim *all* the data in
Glenn's own "Early Man (Homo) at 4.2 myr" post as: 1. disconfirming
his 5.5 mya Adam position and 2. as further positive confirmation of
my Pre-Adamite view that indeed posits "an emergent...imageo dei".
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------