On Sat, 21 Sep 1996 14:17:22, Glenn Morton wrote:
GM>A new art object has been found at Jinmium, Australia and it was
>most likely not made by Homo sapiens. This is a good day for my
>viewpoint. The technical report for this find will be published in
>Antiquity in the December Issue.
I had already posted a brief newspaper report on this dated 26 Sep 96
Re: Early artefacts & rock art discovered in North Western Australia.
I am only posting about once a week these days, so much of may mail
may "cross in the post" when fast-breaking stories occur.
If Glenn is claiming that these rock carving/paintings and/or
artefacts were "most likely not made by Homo sapiens" and
therefore this is "a new successful prediction" for his "view" (ie.
that Adam was a 5.5 mya Homo habilis), then I beg to differ for the
following reasons:
1. I cannot recall him making any such "prediction". And even if it
is granted that he did (which I don't), it does not uniquely apply to
his "view". The same facts would fit most Pre-Adamite views (eg.
Pearce's two-`Adam' model), which posited Adam being descended from
hominid ancestors. I repeat what I posted earlier:
"It is important to note that theories `simply cannot be given
predictive credit for everything they agree with,' as Brady says:
`Theories, qua theories, simply cannot be given predictive credit for
everything they agree with. They can never be uniquely responsible
for an entire canon (of known facts in field) but share this with any
number of possible contenders....' (Brady R., "Dogma and doubt", 17
Biological J. Linnean Soc. 79, 91, 1982, in Bird W. R., "The Origin
of Species Revisited", Vol. II, Regency: Nashville, 1991, pp131-132)
"...scientific theories could not be logically proven in terms of their
predictions and consequences, and there seemed to be no rigorous
way of even deciding to what degree these unprovable but
scientifically essential theories were confirmed. But the worst was
yet to come. As it turns out, any given collection of empirical data is
always consistent with and can be explained by any number of
distinct, alternative theories....Some of the alternative theories may
be simple and some dreadfully complex, but multiple alternatives are
always possible. This is true no matter how large a set of data one
has. We may be able to think of only one theory consistent with all
the relevant data (or maybe no one can think of any), but that has to
do only with our abilities not with the logic of the situation."(Ratzsch
D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the
Creation-Evolution Debate", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill.,
1996, pp110-111)
2. There is no evidence that this was *not* Homo sapiens:
"Lord Colin Renfrew, of Cambridge University, said: `It's a very
exciting discovery ... We should remember that human remains have
been found in Australia in recent years going back to about 30,000
years and already there have been suggestions that rock art was being
produced in Australia as early as 30,000-35,000 years ago, which
would make it as early as the earliest rock art known elsewhere, for
instance in Europe. So to push that back to 60,000 would be very
exciting indeed. What it would mean, think, would be that our own
species, HOMO SAPIENS, reached Australia earlier than had been
thought." (Leech G., "Challenge to the evolution of man", The
Australian, Monday September 23, 1996, p1. Elipses in original).
3. Even if (and Oh what a big if! <g>) it is established that Homo
erectus or archaic Homo sapiens made the art and artefacts 176,000
years ago, how does that help Glenn's claim that 5.3 million years
before Homo habilis built a three-decker Ark?
GM>The Dallas Morning News, Sept 21, 1996, p. 14A has a story this
>morning about a sandstone monolith which is engraved by thousands of
>circles and dates to 75,000 years ago. This is more than twice the
>age of any European cave painting and 15,000 years older than the
>second oldest Australian art.
The actual date range for the *art* is between 58-75K:
"The engravings were dated at between 58,000 and 75,000 years old and
the sediment in which the artefacts were discovered at more than
116,000 years old. ("NT find rewrites history", The West Australian,
Monday September 23,1996, p5); "The engravings were dated as being
between 58,000 and 75,000 years old and the sediment in which the
artefacts where discovered dated to more than 116,000 years old."
("New clues in NW to first Aborigines", Sunday Times: Perth, Western
Australia, 12 September 1996, pp1-2).
The thermoluminescence dating method used has error bars of 12-18K
years:
"The technique used to date sedimentary layers at the Jinmium site is
thermoluminescence (TL). It is a useful method but one that
archaeologist Dr Richard Fullagar acknowledges has shortcomings.
While he stands by the group's results, he says there are varying
degrees of problems with all dating technologies. `There are
problems with the dating, that's true,' Dr Fullagar told the British
Broadcasting Corporation. `When we are talking about 116,000
years-which in fact is the date above the lowest artefact-it has a
plus or minus 12,000 years....The director of the Australian National
University's Quaternary Dating Research Centre, Dr Rainer Grun,
thinks the margin for error using TL should be closer to 18,000
years.' (Leech G., "Experts at odds over archaeological dating", The
Australian, Monday September 23, 1996, p5)
Even if the TL dates stand up, which is in doubt, it might be that
this art is only 58-18=40K years old.
It is important to realise that the at least one referee for
Antiquity, one of the leading archaelogy journals, was
strongly against publication:
"...one referee recommended against publication, citing "unsound
scientific practice." (Blair T., "Cradle Rocks", Time, October 7,
1996, p80)
"Stories have been current behind the scenes for months concerning
the reports of referees for Antiquity which were fiercely critical of
the Jinmium dating." (Rothwell N., "Politics etched in stone", The
Australian, Monday September 23,1996, pp1,4)
So Glenn's hitching of his wagon to this star might be premature.
GM>Digging at the base of the rock they found red ochre (whose only
>known use was for painting)
Red ochre is also used for ceremonial body ornamentation (as a symbol
of blood):
"Other rites, according to the area, included piercing of the nasal
septum, tooth pulling (in New South Wales this was central in
initiation), and the blood rite, which involved bloodletting from arm
vein or a penis incisure-the blood being used for anointing or sipping
(red ochre was used as a substitute for blood in some cases... In
central Australia, body decoration and elaborate headdresses on
ritual occasions, using feather down, blood, and ochres, were
especially striking." (Berndt R.M., "Australian Aboriginal Culture",
Encyclopaedia Britannica, Benton: Chicago, 15th edition, 1984,
2:426,428).
Ochre (ie. powdered haematite) may have had other non-artistic uses:
"A more controversial find comes out of Australia. At two sites,
fragments of stone tools and chunks of hematite were discovered and
dated at 53,000 to 60,000 years old. Since hematite was ground into
a powder by some early humans for use as a paint, the
anthropologists who dated the finds concluded that early Australians
"were probably painting rock walls" that long ago. Their claim has
been disputed, however, by Stanford anthropologist Richard Klein.
He argues, "Similar hematite fragments have been found in many
Neanderthal sites and sites of comparable age in Africa without
evidence for art." (Morell V., "The Earliest Art Becomes Older-and
More Common," Science, 267 (1995), pp. 1908-1909)
GM>and stone tools which date to between 116,000 to 176,000 years
>BP. Previously, mankind was believed to have inhabited Australia no
>earlier than 60,000 years ago. This find doubles or even triples
>the time that Australia has been inhabited.
That is if the TL dates stand up. Australia's foremost
anthropologist, Dr Rhys Jones, has his reservations:
"However, one of Australia's foremost anthropologists, Dr Rhys Jones.
of the ANU, said discussion about the appearance of hominids in
Australia as much as 176,000 years ago or as little as 116,000 years
ago-based on the existing dating evidence-had to remain hypothetical
for the moment. Dr Jones is not convinced about the accuracy of the
dating technique used by the archaeologists and Dr Tacon. He was
unwilling to venture too far into what the findings will mean for
theories about the evolution and spread of modern man- unless he can
be sure of the veracity of the dating. The core of Dr Jones's
uncertainty is that the markers dating-quartz grains-could have been
eroded, or weathered, from the sandstone outcrop at different times
to the grains chipped away by the rock artists. Analysis of the
wrong quartz grains can give an artificial picture of the site's
history, Dr Jones says." (Leech G., "Challenge to the evolution of
man", The Australian, Monday September 23, 1996, pp1,5)
GM>The article says:
>"Scholars have long identified cave and rock art as a defining characteristic
>of modern Homo sapiens, one of the cultural manifestations possibly reflecting
>the last transitions of the species to fully modern form. But the new dates
>suggest that modern humans might not have been able to migrate to Australia
>early enough to be these artists."
I find this strange. Anatomically modern humans have existed at least
as far back as 100K years:
"Several other Neanderthal and modem human sites have since been
dated with TL, and the one at Qafzeh remains not only the most
sensational but the surest. Key sites in the Levant have also been
dated by a `sister' technique called electron-spin resonance (ESR).
Large mammal teeth found near the Qafzeh skeletons came back with an
ESR date even older than Valladas's thermoluminescent surprise. The
skeletons were at least 100,000 and perhaps 115,000 years old.
`People said that TL had too many uncertainties,' Bernard
Vandermeersch told me. `So we gave them ESR. By now it is very
difficult to dispute that the first modern humans in the Levant were
here by 100,000 years ago.'" (Shreeve J., "The Neanderthal Peace",
Discover, September 1995, p76)
Rock art in the range of 58-75K fits easily within this time-frame.
GM>The find has tremendous implications for the origins issue.
>First there is the issue of human-ness. Those familiar with the views I
>advocate know that I have spent much time saying that fossil men who do not
>look like us (e.g. Neanderthal, archaic Homo sapiens, and Homo erectus) have
>behaviors which are like ours and that these behaviors qualify them as
>human.(see the evolution archives at http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution
>and http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/DMD.htm )
If these are Homo sapiens, then of course they are "human"! :-) Even
if they were "Neanderthal, archaic Homo sapiens, and Homo erectus", I
would accept them as "human" but not fully "human".
GM>Other apologists disagree with this view. Hugh Ross believes:
Note that Glenn says "Other apologists" but then quotes only *one*
"Hugh Ross". :-) It is not sufficient for Glenn to claim that
because his 5.5 mya Homo habilis Adam theory fits some facts better
than *one* apologist (albeit a prominent one). What Glenn must try
to show is that: a) his theory *at every point* fits *all* the known
facts; b) it fits them better than *any other* theory proposed to
date; and c) it does not contain even *one* fatal flaw.
I claim that:
a. Glenn's theory does not fit all the known facts of either the
Bible or science (eg. there is no Biblical warrant, nor is there any
scientific evidence whatsoever, for advanced humans existing 5.5
mya);
b) A Pre-Adamite model of Adam being the comparatively recent
end-point of a development process through the genus Homo, eg. H.
habilis (2.5-1.5 mya) -> H. erectus (1.8-0.3 mya)-> Archaic H.
sapiens (0.5-0.2 mya)-> H. sapiens neanderthalensis? (0.2-0.035) ->
Anatomically modern H. sapiens -> (0.1-0.04) Cro-Magnon man & Adam
(0.04-). Examples of such Pre-Adamite models include, Pearce:
"Finally, when man is created, the speech of God is again referred
to: `Let us make man in our own image.' The two sides to man's
nature are distinct. His body comes from the earth like the animals,
but his life, psyche, comes from God's breath. Take first the
sentence, `God formed man of the dust of the ground.' The word
`formed' implies a process. Was this a long process linking with
Genesis I when the animals were also made of the earth? `God said,
Let the earth bring forth the living creature'' (Gen. 1:24).
Perhaps the words in the second chapter are a comment upon this, 'Out
of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field." Notice
that the same verb formed" is used. The word `formed" concerning man
could be a comment upon his cellular ancestry, while the inbreathing
of God-which is not said of the animals - could refer to man's
spiritual nature by which he is distinguished from the animals."
(Pearce E.K.V., "Who Was Adam?", Paternoster: Exeter, 1969, p129)
and Kidner
"If, as the text of Genesis would by no means disallow, God initially
shaped man by a process of evolution it would follow that a
considerable stock of near-humans preceded the first true man, and it
would be arbitrary to picture these as mindless brutes. Nothing
requires that the creature into which God breathed human life should
not have been of a species prepared in every way for humanity, with
already a long history of practical intelligence, artistic
sensibility and the capacity for awe and reflection." (Kidner D.,
"Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary" Tyndale Press: London,
1967, pp28-29)
c) Glenn's 5.5 mya Homo habilis Adam theory contain a fatal flaw,
namely that it posits that Adam was not even the same species as us
(ie. not a "man" in the full sense of the word), whereas
theologically he has to be for him to be our representative:
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death
through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all
sinned (Rom 5:12); "For since death came through a man, the
resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam
all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." (1Cor 15:21-22)
GM>"In the case of the cave drawings and pottery fragments, the
>degree of abstractness suggests the expression of something more than
>just intelligence. Certainly no animals species other han human
>beings has ever exhibited the capacity for such sophisticated
>expression. However, the dates for these finds are well within the
>biblically acceptable range for the appearance of Adam and Eve --
>somewhere between 10,000 and 60,000 years ago according to Bible
>scolars who have carefully analyzed the genealogies. Since the
>oldest art and fabrics date between 25,000 and 30,000 years ago,
>no contradiction exists between anthropology and Scripture on
>this issue." Hugh Ross, "Art and Fabric Shed New Light on Human
>History," Facts & Faith, 9:3 (1995)p. 2
>Thus Hugh Ross come out for the view that IF mankind is older than 60,000
>years then the Bible is wrong. If it turns out that
I do not necessarily agree with Ross, but nowhere does he say that
"IF mankind is older than 60,000 years then the Bible is wrong". If
it turns out that "the appearance of Adam and Eve" was 100,000 years
ago, then it would be his current *interpretation* that was wrong.
GM>Ross believes that art is conclusive of humanity, I believe that
>it is simply indicative of humanity. Humans who produce no art or
>produce art only on perishable materials like wood, are still human.
>This australian art object puts Hugh Ross in the posistion of
>choosing whether to change his views about the hominids or say that
>the Bible is wrong, or say that this is not art.
Actually, Ross does not say that "art is conclusive of humanity", in
fact he says the exact opposite. He clearly states that some art may
not be indicative of "the human spirit":
"Burial of dead, use of tools, OR EVEN PAINTING do not qualify as
evidence of the spirit, for non-spirit beings such as bower birds,
elephants, and chimpanzees engage in such activities to a limited
extent." (Ross H., "Creation and Time", NavPress: Colorado Springs
CO, 1994, p141. My emphasis.)
"Neither are the PAINTING and fabric discoveries conclusive evidence
of the human spirit. Certain bird species are capable of weaving.
Some create elaborate nests. Some even adorn their nests with
colorful objects that serve no apparent purpose but decoration. In
the case of the cave drawings and pottery fragments, the degree of
abstractness suggests the expression of something more than just
intelligence. Certainly no animal species other than human beings
has ever exhibited the capacity for such sophisticated expression. "
(Ross H, "Art and Fabric Shed New Light on Human History", Facts &
Faith, Reasons To Believe: Pasadena CA, Vol. 9, No. 3, Third
Quarter 1995, pp1-2. My emphasis.)
Although I clarify what Ross really says, this does not mean that I
agree with him on this. My version of the Pre-Adamite model would
see early art as indicative of an emerging image of God.
[continued]
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------