><<Let's see if you live up to the standard you want me to follow.
>
>Your hero, Ian Tattersall, whom you always cite as an authority for who is a
>nd
>who is not human among the fossils was quoted saying that the Jinmium,
>Australia Art find dated to 75,000 years "offers remarkably early evidence
> of
>modern human behavior...">>
>
>I LOVE it! Glenn has at least lived up to HIS standards by NOT quoting in
>full! Here is the FULL quote, from the Ross article:
>
>"The fragment lay in a stratum determined by thermoluminescence (TL) to be
>58,000 to 75,000 years old. Ian Tattersall of New York's Museum of Natural
>History, comments, '[The Austrailian discover] offers remarkable early
>evidence of modern human behavior...if these new dates are accurate.'"
>
>How convenient to leave out the IF! In Glenns' world, that means Tattersall
>has "thrown in the towel." In the real world, that means he is adopting a
>[gasp!] "wait and see" attitude on the accuracy of the dating (there is
> much
>current controversy in the scientific world over the so-called "rock art."
Jim, I knew you would raise that issue because it is such a perfect red
herring. I chose to cease quotation where I did because Hugh Ross has an
elipsis there. I do not know where Hugh gets his quotation of Tattersall from
and do not know if only one word or 10 paragraphs intervene in the quotation
ellipsis. I do not know if it was Tattersall who said the part after the
elipsis. I have seen elipses hide many a sin so I chose to quote exactly what
I could be sure went together. If Hugh had quoted in full, then I would have
also.
> But
>in Glenn's world, it is proof positive. No doubts, no strings.)
>
>Well, Glenn, since you're now such a Tattersall fan, I can assume that you
>believe in the replacement theory (one you recently called "extremist"),
> but
>which is now backed up by the latest evidence, viz:
>
><<Evidence from mitochondrial DNA has been used to establish early modern
>human's migrations from Africa and around the world. This has led to the
>coining of the term 'African Eve' and these early studies have been
>subject to large amounts of criticism. However, new studies have helped
>confirm our recent African origin and this latest study has managed to
>resolve much more detailed and localised population migration. The study
> shows
>that modern humans had left the Middle East by 50,000 years and entered
> Europe
>by 35,000 years. IN ADDITION IT ALSO COULD FIND NO
>EVIDENCE OF NEANDERTHAL DNA AND SO CONCLUDED THAT NO INTERBREEDING HAD
>OCCURRED. These dates fit in very well with the 'Replacement' hypothesis of
>modern human origins The study also showed signs of the influx of Middle
>Eastern farmers in the Neolithic. Richards, M., Corte-Real, H., Forster,
> P.,
>Macaulay, V., Wilkinson-Herbots, H., Demaine, A., Papiha, S., Hedges,
> R.E.M.,
>Bandelt, H.-J. & Sykes, B. (1996) Paleolithic and Neolithic lineages in the
>European mitochondrial gene pool. American Journal of Human Genetics. 59
> (1).
>185 - 203. [L.O.C. RB155.AME]>>
Considering that we had to have shared many genes with Neanderthal, I wonder
if they would be able to recognize what a Neanderthal mitochrondrial gene
looked like anyway. We share a lot of genetic material and genes with
chimpanzees also and if the sequence is identical, how would you know which
being it came from? I will look up these references unless someone else is
already familiar with them.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm