<<So now I must quote 2 full pages to avoid your ridiculous charge of
selective quotation? This is nothing more than a hungry lawyer wanting me to
quote beyond the fair use rules so that you can point out to Shreeve that I
have violated his copyright and you and he can then sue the pants off of me.>>
I don't want your pants. Do you have any money?
Nah, I just wanted to clear up what may have been a false impression about
Shreeve's views. No big deal. You agree when you write:
<<I agree that Shreeve does not believe that neanderthals were human>>
That was the main point. So keep your pants.
Although you continue to think that the language issue is "moot." It isn't,
of course, but remains the subject of vigorous debate. This you fail to note.
You cite the Kebara skeleton, for example, but don't discuss it fully. My
expert says:
"What there is of this bone looks pretty modern, but the problem is that only
a small part of the whole hyoid actually ossifies; what this element's
long-disappeared cartilaginous portion looked like is anyone's guess. However
the hyoid argument works out, however, when you put the skull-base evidence
together with what the archaeological record suggests about the capacities of
the Neanderthals and their precursors, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that
articulate language, as we recognize it today, is the sole province of fully
modern humans." [Ian "I Threw in the Towell" Tattersall, The Fossil Trail, p.
212]
Even those who favor seeing language as an evolving capacity admit the
evidence is subject to widely variant interpretation. Leakey says, "Clearly
the hypotheses about the nature and timing of the evolution of language are
about as divergent as they could be--which means that the evidence, or some of
it, is being incorrectly read." [The Origin of Humankind, p. 137]
So, far from being "moot," as you would like us to believe, the issue remains
wide open.
<<Neanderthal was the first to bury their dead and use flowers as happened at
Shanidar Cave.>>
You continue to oversell this evidence as well. From Shreeve:
"The demotion of Monte Circeo from human sacrament to hyena fodder was indeed
only the latest in a string of recent Neandertal behavioral deflations. New
looks at old evidence were suggesting that the Neandertals left no unambiguous
trace of ritual activities, circular or otherwise. They spoke crudely (if they
spoke at all) and lacked foresight, organizational ability, efficient fire
techniques, hunting prowess, and emotional depth. If Rob Gargett, a young
archaeologist in Berkeley, was to be believed, they may not even have buried
their dead." (p. 91)
Once again, this is Shreeve's report on a particular view. But it is out
there, held by well known experts, and makes another issue far from "moot."
Shreeve, Leakey, Tattersall and many others do not find Neanderthal
"awareness" of the same kind as modern man. Why not? Because he wasn't like
us. We are homo divinus--true spiritual beings, who unequivocally demonstrated
that aspect when we exploded onto the scene in the recent past.
Glenn turns theological:
<<Jim, Do non-Fallen beings make clothing? Are you saying that non-spiritual
creatures engage in making the one thing we wear which marks our Fall?>>
They do if they're cold. Or are you saying "Clothes make the man"?
<<If so, I would suggest that you are ignoring an inportant aspect of the
Bible.>>
Which aspect? If pre-Adamite hominids made clothes for themselves, what of it?
Since these are not homo divinus,the Fall has nothing to do with them. I
think you are engaging in a selective view of the evidence along with an
insular view of Biblical hermeneutics to create a subjective opinion that
lines up with a particular theory. IOW, forcing the evidence to fit the
hypothesis, rather than letting it speak for itself (Bacon would sizzle).
Jim