Ross's definition is fluid. A year ago Ross said that art was definitely an
indication of the human spirit.
"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 than
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
Now that he must deal with art older than 60,000 years, he is changing:
"The conclusion that art expression can only come from the spirit
of man is the one I would debate.""The Meaning of Music and Art",
Facts & Faith, 10:4, 4th qtr. 1996, p. 6
What this means is that the 60,000 year limit is overriding the observational
data. He felt comfortable using art as a definiton of humanity when it fit
his preconceived idea. Now he must reject it.
>
>GM>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.
>
>Let's face it - it could have been anything. But with a hole
>drilled right through it,
Stephen, you didin't read what I wrote the back is half gone. Ross is wrong
about a hole drilled through it unless you think the hole took out the entire
back side of the bone.
it would seem to be a strange "flute".
>Unless they can find other proven flutes or whistles that use the
>same basic design, or they build a replica that works, it seems
>unjustified to claim it *is* a "flute".
They have see Marshack The Roots of Civilization p. 147ff
Also:
"In addition, dance and song leave no traces at all, and such things as
reed-pipes, wooden instruments, and stretched-skin drums will have
disintegrated; however, a few musical instruments have survived from the Upper
Palaeolithic--there are about 30 'flutes', spanning the Aurignacian and
Gravettian (18), the Solutrean (3) and the Magdalenian; a handful come from
Hungary, Yugloslavia, Austria and the USSR, but most are from France, with 14
from the supersite of Isturitz alone. The majority are broken; the French
ones are made of hollow bird-bones, while the eastern specimens are of
reindeer or bear-bone; they have between three and seven finger-holes along
their length, and are played like penny-whistles rather than true flutes.
Experiments with a repolica by a modern musicologist have revealed that, once
a whistle-head is attached to direct the air-flow, one can produce strong,
clear notes of piccolo-type, on a five-tone scale. "~Paul G. Bahn and Jean
Vertut, Images in the Ice, (Leichester: Windward, 1988), p. 68-69
Once again, I have to point out, inspite of previous cases of pointing this
out, that there are numerous flutes. [To Darrin Brooker: He will say that
these are not flutes either or repeat the claim that there are no other
flutes and so we can't be sure. I answer the same questions over and over
with him. Watch over the next few months]
>Ross is pointing out that "music may simply express the soulishness
>we share with bird and mammal species." The question of *making*
>"musical instruments" is another matter altogther, and clearly involves
>intelligence and hands. I agree with Ross here. The ability to
>appreciate music and even to make it may be lower level than we think.
>I once saw a Jaques Costeau (?sp) film where fish were swimming around
>an underwater loundspeaker playing waltz music. It may have been trick
>photography but they seemed to be continually changing direction in time
>with the music. Circuses play music that their animals seem to dance to.
Fish will swim around you when you are scuba diving fixing a propeller on a
boat. I have personally seen this.
>
>[..]
>
>JB>"...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.)
>
As I pointed out to Jim tonight:
The book on the facts of life, which was given to me as a 12 year old, says
nothing about tear ducts being used for procreation so I think this is a
non-sequitur.
Neanderthal was well adapted to very cold climates. His body shape was an
extreme form of that owned by eskimoes. As such one can think of lots of
reasons a human population might experience strong natural selection against
tear ducts. In a glacial climate water on the skin freezes. If the water is
being pumped to the eyes, frezzing them shut, or building up ice layers which
interfere with sight, a being without them might be better able to see the
next meal.
The big nose is often discussed by anthropologists. Carlton Coon believed
that it was due to the need in a glacial climate to moisten and warm the very,
very cold air. This warming prevented the air from refrigerating the arteries
going to the brain. See Erik Trinkhaus and Pat Shipman, The neanderthals, p.
317-318
>GM>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.
>
>Glenn trivialises the point in order to avoid it! :-) What about
>"...much larger sinus cavities than modern humas, and no tear ducts"?
>I am sure that anthropologists like Tattersal are well aware of the
>normal range of Homo sapiens' noses! Neandertal Man's nose was way
>outside the range of even the largest H. sapiens' nose:
>
>"Compared to moderns, the Neandertal face stands out. It projects,
>almost as if it were pulled forward. This feature can be seen when the
>distance of the nose and teeth from the orbits is compared with moderns.
>(It would appear that Neandertals were blessed with an extraordinary
>large nose which, in the flesh, must have been a monumental sight.)"
>(Nelson H. & Jurmain R., "Introduction To Physical Anthropology",
>West Publishing Company: St. Paul MN, Fifth Edition, 1991, p517)
>
>Schwartz and Tattersall's point is that H. neanderthalensis' was
>not "modern humans" ancestor, and therefore if true: 1. Biblically he
>could not be a descendant of Adam, and 2. all Glenn's arguments about
>Nenderthal flutes, etc., are besides the point.
>
They are not the only ones who have something to say about neanderthal noses.
"Specific details in the shape
of the nose and brows, and particular features of the back of the skull and
the femur that are shared by neandertals and modern humans in central Europe,
all indicate genetic continuity during the long period over which a major
anatomical change from fully Neandertal to fully modern human occurred."~Erik
Trinkaus and Pat Shipman, The Neandertals, (New York: Vintage Books, 1992), p.
415
>GM>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.
>
>Glenn should go back and read the quote again. It's much, much, more
>than "the size of a nose".
>
And I know that there are differences, See what Carlton Coon said about this
above.
>GM>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
>
>This is not as definite as it sounds. While Smith offers Mladec
>fossils as "an example of local continuity", nevertheless he
>admits that their browridges are "reduced from the Neandertal
>pattern" and their midface, forehead and postcranium "are not
>specifically Neandertallike in a single feature":
>
Of course they are reduced. These guys are on the way to becoming modern men
either by interbreeding or evolution.
>GM>"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
>
>Is this really Glenn (the nemesis of old sources) quoting something
>dated *1982*? :-)
>
Yes, because it is the most recent study of the fossils from Eastern Europe
that I am aware of.
>Nelson & Jurmain point out this is only an "opinion" of Smith, while
>acknowledging he is "a specialist in this area":
>
>"There are several basic questions to bear in mind as we examine the
>Neandertal event more closely. Did the anatomically modern humans
>of Europe evolve from Neandertals? In central Europe, for example,
>it is the opinion of Fred Smith, a specialist in this area, that
>"morphological continuity between Neandertals and the [early
>modern humans] is clearly documented by the available information"
>(Smith F.H. & Frank S., eds, "The Origin of Modern Human", 1984,
>p192, in Nelson & Jurmain, 1991, p519)
>
>However Smith, a Multiregionalist, does not insist that this is the
>only interpretation:
>
>"Dr. Fred Smith takes the view that variation in Vindija G3 skull
>features points to a trend continuing on to the later anatomically
>moderns of the upper levels. Does Vindija support the proposition
>that the origin of H. sapiens sapiens could have occurred here in
>Central Europe? As we have already mentioned, Smith does not insist
>upon it and suggests anatomically moderns could have come from
>elsewhere. But he does believe there is morphological and genetic
>continuity between the lower and upper levels of the cave." (Nelson
>& Jurmain, 1991, p523)
>
>In fact Smith is a moderate, and seems to be open to the Replacement
>(ie. Out of Africa) Theory:
>
>"Smith, one of the supporters of multiple origins, takes a more
>moderate view. He maintains that local continuity can be seen at the
>Vindija site (p. 523). However, while he thinks the evidence favoring
>replacement is equivocal and not as convincing as proponents
>suggest, their views should be seriously considered. A basic problem
>in this debate is the interpretation of evidence, which was noted in
>this chapter's Issue." (Nelson & Jurmain, 1991, p534)
>
I think there had to have been interbreeding in order to account for the data.
Gunter Brauer proposed a hybridization and replacement model. ~Gunter Brauer,
"The Evolution of Modern Humans: a Comparison of the African and non-African
Evidence," in Paul C. Mellars and Chris B. Stringer ed. The Human Revolution.
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989), pp. 123-153, p. 124.
>Indeed, it appears that Smith may have changed his mind since and now
>may believe that H. neanderhalensis was the ancestor of *archaic* H.
>sapiens, not *modern* H. sapiens:
>
>"The Recent African Evolution hypothesis (advocated by Stringer and
>Andrews, among others) resembles the preceding model, but there
>are important differences. Modern humans evolved in Africa perhaps
>as much as 200 kya. This transition occurred only in Africa, where
>humans appeared earlier than anywhere else. They imply that the
>African origin of moderns was a biological speciation event; that is,
>modern humans were a new species and, therefore, they could not
>interbreed with archaic sapiens (Smith F.H., et al., "Modern Human
>Origins", Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 1989, 32:35-68).
>Modern humans migrated to Eurasia, Europe, and the Far East,
>completely displacing local archaic populations. There was no
>interbreeding, obviously, since archaics and moderns were of different
>species" (Nelson & Jurmain, 1991, p533)
Smith may have changed his mind, I don't know. But Neanderthal the ancestor
of archaic Homo sapiens? Absolutely not. The absolutley oldest Neanderthal
is dated at 230,000 years and the oldest archaic appear maybe as early as
600,000 years ago. Most authorities say that classic neanderthal appears
about 125,000 years ago.
>
>GM>Jim, this is all getting very silly on Hugh's part.
>
>Not really. If the "thirteen Neanderthal skulls" that Schwartz and
>Tattersall examined included those from the sites cited by Glenn, then
>it will force a reevalution of the claimed Neandertal features found in
>later H. sapiens fossils in the same site. Some of these similarities may
>just be due to convergence due to similar ways of life, ie. coping with
>Ice-Age cold, etc. For example, Eskimos have a larger brain size than
>other H. sapiens:
>
>"Finally, the brain size of Neandertals, on the average, larger than that
>of contemporary H. sapiens. The modern average is 1400 cm3 and
>for Neandertals, 1520 cm3. The larger size may be associated with
>the metabolic efficiency of a larger brain in cold weather. The Inuit
>(Eskimo) brain also averages larger (about that of Neandertals) than
>other present world populations." (Nelson & Jurmain, 1991, p517)
>
>If there is one thing that Hugh Ross is, it is not "silly".
So are you saying that Eskimos are not human?
>
>On Fri, 06 Dec 1996 23:03:02, Glenn Morton wrote:
>
>GM>My friend called me back tonight and we discussed Hugh's
>>suggestion that the Neanderthal flute was a fire making tool. This
>>friend studies primitive technology and can manufacture a stone
>>tool with great ease. He told me that he had never heard of bone
>>being used in this fashion. Two sticks, one pointed, rotated
>>rapidly and upright, the other laid horizontal and stationary is
><the normal manner of making fire.
>
>Well, I've got a book Wilkinson P., ed., "Early People",
>HarperCollins, 1992 reprint, p16 which under the heading "The
>Coming of Fire" has a *picture* of a bow drill which appears made
>of bone. The text says:
>
>"Bow drill
>On this modern model of a bow drill, the leather bow makes
>it easy to turn the drill fast and generate enough heat to
>start a fire"."
>
>In the picture, the the bone is the bow and the leather cord is the
>bowstring. The bone has holes right through at the ends, through
>which the leather cord is anchored. Please note, I am *not* saying
>that the `flute' *was* a fire drill.
So what are you saying?
>
>GM>He and I have discussed the neanderthal flute on numerous
>>occasions. He has examined the photos. He pointed out that IF the
>>bone had been used for fire-making, it would show scorch marks
>>along the edges of the holes. There are none.
>
>Only if the bone came in contact with fire. If it was part of a
>bow-drill or fire-lighting guide, it wouldn't necessarily make
>contact with fire. Even if it did, it would only be the first
>sparks. Besides, the "flute" is only about 10 cm (4 inches) long,
>so there could be a lot missing.
>
>Also please note that I would have no problem whatsoever if it
>turns out to be a flute. I am just testing Glenn's claim that it
>*is* a flute.
>
You sure seem to have a lot of problem with it and with most of everything
else I write. It is not my claim that this is a flute. why don't you give
credit to someone like Bonnie Blackwell (Science News Nov 23, 1996)
>GM>His discussion raised another issue in my mind. If this
>>technique were used a lot among primitive peoples, there should be
>>many examples of this. There aren't.
>
>The same argument applies to Glenn's claim that it was a flute!
>Maybe it was just the Neandertal's equivalent of doodling! :-)
Stephen do you have a serious interest in these issues or are you simply in it
to ridicule and cast aspersions of dishonesty?
>
>GM>Jim, Hugh Ross should stick to astronomy or spend the time to
>>learn anthropology before speaking about it. This is becoming a
>>very sad affair in my mind; especially since I was the one who
>>showed him the Neanderthal flute. I had hopes that Hugh would deal
>>more honestly with the data, especially since he told me he didn't
>>know much about anthropology.
>
>This advice that "Hugh Ross should stick to astronomy or spend the time to
>learn anthropology before speaking about it", is coming from a
> *geophysicist*,
>who claims that a Homo habilis/erectus built a three-decker Ark 5.5 mya!
> :-)
Stephen, The smiley on internet is used to indicate a joke. Everytime you
make a statement like above you include it. It somehow doesn't seem
appropriate.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm