> Glenn is going to love this.
>
> In the latest Facts & Faith, Hugh Ross deals with the so-called
>Neanderthal "flute" and other matters. There is a nice picture of the bone
>with holes, too. The article is a good one, entitled "The Meaning of Art
> and Music."
>
> One important point he makes, which bears repeating, is how difficult
>it is to say that "art" is associated with biblical humanness. "Most of us
>have seen chimpanzee art that compares favorably with modern art. Bower birds
>are known to decorate their nests." But we don't really consider birds human,
>or even incipient humans, do we? (Well, there might be a few...)
>
Jim, Thanks for telling me this. In September, I met Hugh Ross.They had
specifically e-mailed me asking me to come to a meeting Hugh was having in
town. I went an hour early to see if I could talk to him. I was lucky. I gave
him a picture of the flute and told him that he was wrong in what he was
saying about anthopology. He told me that that was why he never got into the
anthropology issues; it was way out of his field. I wanted to tell him that
someone was writing about anthro in his newsletter. But I was polite. I am
glad that he is actually saying something about it. But this is getting silly
when a being that makes flutes and engages in art is not to be considered
human. Get real.
> Ross mentions a debate going on about "spirit art," art that would
>indicate "shaman-like" awareness, and thus true humanity. The debate is
>detailed in Bower, "Visions on the Rocks," Science News, vol. 150 (1996)
> pp. 217-217. But note: neither group suggests that spirit art dates back
> earlier than 27,000 years.
>
> As for the "flute":
>
>"The three Slovenian archeologists who made the discovery addressed, and
>reasonably dismissed, the idea that the holes might have been bored by the
>teeth of a large carnivore rather than by a bipedal primate.However, the seem
>to overlook some more obvious considerations.The bone was found near a hearth
>with charcoal and many burnt fragments of animal bones. One of the holes goes
>all the way through the bone and the other does not. These facts suggest at
>least some likelihood that the bone was an instrument for lighting fires
> (by twirling a twig in or through one of the holes with a bow).The holes may
>result from the bone's use as a hammer head or an axe head. Other
>possibilities abound. Most importantly, the researchers apparently did not
>construct a bear femur flute according to this bone's specifications to test
>whether or not it is capable of producing music....
This is silly. Only mankind makes a tool with which to make another tool. NO
other animal does that. We have neanderthal hypothesised to make a bone
fire-making tool, in order to make another tool, fire, so he can cook or keep
warm or have light. That was a man by anyone's definition, like it or not.
If we find a transistor radio with Neanderthal are we going to conclude that
animals now make transistor radios? Remember, if he is not a man with a human
spirit, then he is an animal.
Furthermore, I have called a knowledgeable friend. My understanding is that
bone is never used for starting fire. The coefficient of friction is too low.
>
>"[W]e may also question to what degree of certainty music an be declared a
>manifestation of the spirit. Some music may simply express the soulishness we
>share with bird and mammal species. Neurobiologists Albert Yu and Daniel
>Margoliash have just published a paper documenting the amazing musical
>abilities of zebra finches [Yu and Margoliash, "Temporal Hierarchical Control
>of Singing Birds," Science, vol. 273 (1996) pp. 1871-1875], advancing the
>theme of a recent book on bird songs by C. K. Catchpole and P.J.B. Slater
>[Catchpole and Slater, Bird Song: Biological Themes and Variations
> (Cambridge,
>UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995)]." (Facts & Faith, Vol 10, No. 4,
>Fourth Quarter 1996 at p. 11).
>
What musical instruments do zebra finches make andplay? Do they have jam
sessions with each other playing the blues when a cat eats a friend? Can I buy
their CD? I can not honestly believe that Christians are going to sink to this
level in order to avoid what is staring them in the face!!!!!
>***
>
>In a sidebar:
>
>"Ironically, as the three Slovenian archeologists annonced their flute
>discovery, two American anthropologists, Jeffrey Schwartz and Ian Tattersall,
>published their research on thirteen Neanderthal skulls.They found huge nasal
>bones, much larger sinus cavities than modern humas, and no tear ducts. Such
>features not only differ radically from humans, but they also appear unique
>among all land mammals yet discovered. This skeletal evidence provides one
>more proof, perhaps the strongest indicator to date, that modern humans
> cannot be Neanderthals' descendants." (Ibid.)
You should have seen my wife's uncle Cecil's nose! It was BIG. But as far as
we could tell, Cecil was human having fathered a beautiful daughter with a
quite human wife. He was at least able to interbreed.
I am aware of this supposed" proof" of Neanderthal's different species hood.
Since we do not procreate with our noses, and the size of a nose does not
determine the spiritual nature of the individual. Are you aware that
Orientals have shovel-shaped teeth? Europeans don't. Would you say that this
feature makes them a separate species?
I wouldn't, and neither does the nose make the Neanderthal a separate species.
There is much evidence of interbreeding between moderns and Neanderthal in
Eastern Europe.
"The most recent comparative study of these human remains
was that by Smith. He was able to trace a morphological
continuum between H. sapiens neanderthalensis and H. sapiens
sapiens and found no evidence for mass migration in southeastern
central Europe. Similar conclusions were reached by Frayer, who
studies the Mladec sample in more detail. On the basis of
evidence from our region alone, a hypothesis of local evolution
would be acceptable. At present, there is opposition between the
gradualist models of the Neandertal-modern man transition and the
migration models, which are based primarily on comparison of the
West European, Near Eastern, and african evidence."~Jiri Svoboda
and Katalin Siman, "The Middle-Upper Paleolithic Transition in
Southeastern Central Europe (Czechoslovakia and Hungary), Journal
of World Prehistory, 3:3(1989), p. 283-322, p. 285-286
"A distinct morphological continuum exists between H. sapiens
neanderthalensis and H. sapiens sapiens in South-Central Europe.
This is supported by the consistent pattern of change between
early Neandertals (Krapina, Ganovce, Ochoz, Subalyuk) and late
Neandertals (Vindija, Kulna, Sipka, Sala?) in certain features in
the earliest H. sapiens sapiens specimens."~Fred H. Smith, "Upper Pleistocene
Hominid Evolution in South-Central Europe: A Review of the
Evidence and Analysis of Trends," Current Anthropology,
23:6(1982), pp. 667-703, p. 685
Jim, this is all getting very silly on Hugh's part.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm