On Sat, 14 Sep 1996 15:49:01, Glenn Morton wrote:
>PD>So we see evidence for speech somewhere within your model of man's
>evolution. Language is good evidence for intellect, and intellect is
>good evidence for, and is a good correlation with, God-given humanness.
>This we observe in ourselves today. Do you agree that, putting your 5+
>million origin date aside, Adam and Noah possessed that same God given
>humanness in terms of intellect and spirit that we possess today? If
>not, on what basis do you draw your conclusion?
SJ>You are touching on a crucial theological problem with Glenn's 5.5
>MYA Homo habilis Adam theory/model. If Adam was a different species
>from all humans today, with only 1/3rd our cranial capacity and
>only a rudimentary language, how could God justly charge him with
>disobedience and impute to us his original sin? (Rom 5:12-19; 1Cor
>15:21-:22).
GM>It depends upon whether or not he understood the consequences. I
>notice that you conveniently ignore the data I cited of people with
>brains as small as 108 cc 1/10th of our cranial capacity, who appear
>to be normal human beings.
I do not "conveniently ignore the data" that Glenn "cited" of *one
individual* who it was claimed had a brain capacity of only 108cc. I
have ordered the article by Roger Lewin, "Is Your Brain Really
Necessary," Science, December 12,1980, pp1232-1233, and will see what
it says.
But Glenn "conveniently ignores" :-) that I also said: "If Adam was a
different species from all humans today" and with "only a rudimentary
language" then "how could God justly charge him with disobedience and
impute to us his original sin?"
GM>Does this mean that if one is otherwise normal but has a small
>brain which is the size of a rhesus monkey, he is free from the
>imputation of sin?
See above. I am happy to set aside for the moment the criterion
"1/3rd our cranial capacity", because anthropology does not view
brain size as conclusive evidence of intelligence:
"Brain size certainly is related to the evolution of intelligence. The
fossil record and comparative anatomy of living primates are
interpreted to support the view that larger brains go with the more
intelligent primates. But the critical question-at what brain size did
hominid intelligence become great enough to create culture?-cannot
be answered by examining the gross size of the brain. Until we know
a great deal more than we do about the detailed function of brain
structure in all the primates, we can only guess and appeal for our
answer to the archaeological record of toolmaking." (Buettner-
Janusch J., "Physical Anthropology: A Perspective", John Wiley &
Sons: New York, 1973, p306)
and
"A belief that brain size is an important criterion for defining the
Hominidae has persisted. Cranial volume is a trait much
overemphasized by anthropologists and others. As noted earlier, the
brain-to-body ratio is very high among all the primates relative to
most other mammals. We are still not certain what relationship exists
between amount of brain and so-called higher functions Furthermore,
the brain consists of many structures, only some of which are
concerned with such high-level activities as speech, intellect,
toolmaking, and anthropology. The range in cranial volume found in
modern man is large-from 850 to 1700 cubic centimeters (cm^3). The
smaller end of the range is not correlated with mental insufficiency.
Anatole France, a distinguished modern French literary artist, had a
relatively small brain, with a volume estimated at 1000 cm^3."
(Buettner-Janusch J., "Physical Anthropology: A Perspective", John
Wiley & Sons: New York, 1973, p245)
The more important issue is that according to Glenn, Adam was "a
different species from all humans today", ie. Homo habilis and
according to anthropology H. habilis had "only a rudimentary
language":
"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. My emphasis.)
"The change in the shape of the basicranium is to be seen in the
earliest-known Homo erectus specimen, skull 3733 from northern
Kenya, dating from almost 2 million years ago. According to this
analysis, this Homo erectus individual would have had the ability to
produce certain vowels, such as in boot, father, and feet. Laitman
calculates that the position of the larynx in early Homo erectus
would have been equivalent to that in a modern six-year-old.
Unfortunately, nothing can be said of Homo habilis, because none of
the habilis crania discovered so far has an intact basicranium. My
guess is that when we do find an intact cranium of the very earliest
Homo, we will see the beginnings of the flexion in the base. A
RUDIMENTARY CAPACITY FOR SPOKEN LANGUAGE surely
began with the origin of Homo." (Leakey, 1994, p132. My
emphasis.)
"Those who wish to maintain humans as special will welcome
evidence that points to a recent and abrupt origin of language. Those
who are comfortable with human connection to the rest of nature
will not be distressed by an early, slow development of this
quintessentially human capacity. I conjecture that if, by some freak of
nature, populations of Homo habilis and Homo erectus still existed,
we would see in them GRADATIONS OF REFERENTIAL
LANGUAGE..." (Leakey, 1994, p138. My emphasis.)
The Bible clearly says that Adam is our representative, so that when
he died, we did too:
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by
sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Rom
5:12); "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made
alive." (1Cor 15:22)
I repeat my other two parts of my three-part question for Glenn to
answer:
"If Adam was a different species from all humans today, with...only a
rudimentary language, how could God justly charge him with
disobedience and impute to us his original sin? (Rom 5:12-19; 1Cor
15:21-:22)".
GM>Are you saying that sinfulness is determined by the size of the
>brain? If that is true then Neandertal is more sinful than we!
No. See above. Glenn's red herring noted! :-)
SJ>I have read somewhere that at best Homo habilis would have had the
>mind of a 6 year old today. No human court would hold a 6 year-old
>accountable for his actions, so why should God? The whole point of
>Adam being our representative and/or federal head is that he was
>essentially the same as us.
GM>Stephen, would you get the article "Is your Brain Really
>Necessary?" from Science? You never seem to deal with things like
>this.
See above. I have ordered the article. On the contrary, I deal with
*everything* that Glenn raises. I again point out that "...with only
1/3rd our cranial capacity" was only *one* part of a *three*-part
question. The more important questions are Homo. habilis'
"rudimentary language" and his lack of species-solidarity with Homo.
sapiens. This latter is a fatal theological problem with his view.
GM>It says:
>"'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 or so layer of brain inside a cranium yields 108 cc of actual
>brain. This is the size of a rhesus monkey, and yet this young man above is
>as sinful as you or I.
Yes. The point is that he is Homo sapiens and he has fully developed
language and other mental capacities. Is Glenn here claiming that
Homo habilis: 1. could have attended "university"; 2. could have "an
IQ of 126"; 3. could have "gained a first-class honors degree in
mathematics, and 4. would be "socially completely normal"?
GM>I went to the library today and found the following. Whatever
>makes man a spiritual being, it is ABSOLUTELY NOT the size of his
>brain:
[...]
"~Bryan Kolb, Brain Plasticity and Behavior, Mahwah, New Jersey:
>Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. 1995), p. 87-88
[...]
"~Aaron Smith, "Early and Long-Term
>Recovery from Brain Damage in Children and Adults: Evolution of Concepts of
>Localization, Placticity, and Recovery,", in C.R. Almli and S. Finger,
>editors, Early Brain Damage: Research Orientations and Clinical Observations,
>1, 299-323, p. 308...p. 310
>
>Let me note that if 95% of a normal 1350 cc cranium is ventrical, that leaves
>about 67 cc for the brain itself. This is smaller than any of the hominid
>brains.
See above. It appears that a *Homo sapiens* brain can make a
remarkable "Recovery from Brain Damage" by using the 5% he has left.
It doesn't follow that other species of the genus Homo could do the
same with even a greater quantity of brain 5%. It seems that in the
case of the brain, *quality* is more important than *quantity*.
[...]
"~Aaron Smith, "Early and Long-Term
>Recovery from Brain Damage in Children and Adults: Evolution of Concepts of
>Localization, Placticity, and Recovery,", in C.R. Almli and S. Finger,
>editors, Early Brain Damage: Research Orientations and Clinical Observations,
>1, 299-323, p. 308
>**
>
>These college graduates have the brain size of an Australopithecus. Are they
>not human, Stephen? Your insistence that a being with a small brain can not
>be human evicts the above cited people from the human race. How do you think
>they feel about that?
Glenn blusters on, trying to turn a rational debate into an emotional
tear-jerker. :-) First it was his "wife's uncle with a brain size
much smaller than yours or mine, who has limited language ability",
who Glenn tried to get me to assert was "not fully human". Now it is
my alleged "insistence that a being with a small brain can not be
human" which then "evicts the above cited people from the human
race"! Where's my tissues? :-)
Nowhere have I said that *Homo sapiens* with "a small brain can not
be human". Even *Homo habilis* I didn't say was not "human". In
fact I explicitly denied that H. habilis was "non-human" and said
that "H. habilis could...be regarded as in a sense `human', but not
*fully* human."
Glenn tries (unconsciously?) to erect a smoke-screen on the brain
size point in order to obscure the other two points I raised, namely:
1. how could a H. habilis Adam with only a "rudimentary language" be
held responsible for disobeying God's verbal command? and 2. how
would we Homo sapiens be represnted by another species of hominid?
SJ>Glenn's theory fails on theological as well as scientific grounds.
GM>I also noticed that you ignored my documentation that some form of
>Homo exists as far back as 4.2 myr. This is something you have
>chided me about since the beginning.
See my previous messages, where I have answered Glenn's "Homo exists
as far back as 4.2 myr" post. I will still "chide" Glenn until he
produces a full anatomically modern hominid 5.5 million years ago
with a language, culture and technology that is evidenced of Adam and
Noah in the early chapters of Genesis, which all the available
paleoanthropological data indicates is only 50-100 kya.
GM>Are you not going to congratulate me for a possible successful
>prediction of my theory?
Is Glenn really serious that a fragment of a human-like *elbow bone*
that is dated 4.2 mya is "prediction" of his "theory" that Adam was a
5.5 mya H. habilis? When paleoanthropologists regard it at best as
only indicative of the earliest *beginnings* modern man? I think
a little bit more is needed before Glenn can claim it is a *unique*
prediction of his 5.5 mya Homo Habilis Adam/Noah theory. Indeed,
the same data better fits my Pre-Adamite Genesis 1 Homo/Genesis 2
Adam model.
GM>Or are you going to continue to ignore it as you ignore the above
>sinful, small-brained HUMANS?
See above. I "ignore" nothing. But I wonder if Glenn will practice
what he preaches and stop ignoring the other two parts of my
three-part question? Here they are again:
"If Adam was a different species from all humans today, with...only a
rudimentary language, how could God justly charge him with
disobedience and impute to us his original sin? (Rom 5:12-19; 1Cor
15:21-:22)."
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------