On 08 Jan 97 13:04:00 EST, Jim Bell wrote:
>SJ>...His calculations suggested that the 16 descended from one man
>living betwecn 51,000 to 411,000 years ago." (Michael Hammer, "A
>Recent Common Ancestry for Human Y chromosomes," Nature, 378 (1995),
>pp. 376-378)
>
>"...The divergence they observed was so small as to shrink that
>date projection to somewhere between 37,000 and 49,000 years ago."
>(L. Simon Whitfield, John E. Sulston, and Peter N. GoodFellow,
>"Sequence Variation of the Human Y Chromosome," Nature 378, 1995, pp
>379-380 ). This newest date for man's progenitor has come within the
>range of Biblically determined dates for Adam....between 7,500 and
>60,000 years ago." (Ross, 1996, p4).
>
>Now Ross may be wrong, but he is basing his view on scientific
>evidence, which Glenn no doubt knows about, but fails to mention.
>JB>I think this data is important re: Glenn's charges against Hugh.
>Thanks.
That's OK. I think Ross and Johnson are teachers sent by God (Eph
4:11). BTW, PJ's speaking schedule web page says:
"...Professor Johnson is teaching during the spring semester of 1997,
so his travel time is limited. In summer 1997, InterVarsity Press
will publish his new book, tentatively titled Defeating Darwinism."
I, for one, can hardly wait! :-)
On Wed, 08 Jan 1997 19:54:25, Glenn Morton wrote:
[...]
GM>Come on guys. While I am flattered that you all think I know
>everything, am I to be accused of dishonesty if anything escapes my
>notice, I forget something or if I don't mention every article
>published anywhere? This seems a little harsh to me.
No one is accusing Glenn of "dishonesty". I said "...which Glenn no
doubt knows about, but fails to mention...", which is one of the
three alternatives he mentions, namely: "I don't mention every
article published".
GM>I don't see why Stephen would make such a crack and you agree with
>it, Jim. On numerous occasions I have retracted statements I made
>which were factually wrong. This is an example of what is so wrong
>with the conservatives approach to the creation evolution issue.
>They ascribe evil motives to the opponent. Witness the names John
>Woodmorappe calls me such as "intentionally decietful" in his book
>and lots of other things in his reply to my review at...Are you
>all saying I am "intentionally deceitful"?
Surely this can't be a play for the `sympathy vote'? No one is
accusing Glenn of " evil motives". For the record I assume that
Glenn is quite sincere, but like us all, he emphasises what seems
important to him, and downplays what's not. Maybe Glenn might even
be a little less quick to criticise others like Hugh Ross, who does
the same thing, but from a creationist perspective.
On Thu, 09 Jan 1997 00:09:34, Glenn Morton wrote:
[...]
>SJ>Firstly, we should all keep in mind that Glenn believes that Adam
>was a Homo habilis/erectus who lived 5.5 million years ago, which is
>definitely "about anthropology...totally incorrect." In picking
>fault with Hugh Ross, for being allegedly "about anthropology...
>totally incorrect" Glenn could ponder Mt 7:3: "Why do you look at
>the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to
>the plank in your own eye?" :-)
GM>Thanks for the advice.
That's OK, but it wasn't *my* "advice"! :-) In any event, I presume
from Glenn's dismissive response he is simply going to ignore and
keep berating Hugh Ross and other `Christian apologists' for having
view that are "about anthropology...totally incorrect", while himself
proposing a view that is itself "about anthropology...totally
incorrect".
SJ>Secondly Ross is not as rigid on the "60,000 years" as Glenn
>makes out. In his recent Facts & Faith, Ross said it could be "even
>earlier":
GM>this is the first time ross has ever said that.
Well, there's always a "first time"! :-)
SJ>Now Ross may be wrong, but he is basing his view on scientific
>evidence, which Glenn no doubt knows about, but fails to mention.
GM>You know what I think about this implicit charge that I am being
>dishonest. You owe me an apology if you can not prove this
>sentence.
See above. I do not "charge" that Glenn is "being dishonest".
Glenn himself by the last of his 3 options: "if I don't mention
every article published anywhere" seems to tacitly admit that he
knew about Ross's article but failed to mention it. This is borne
out by Glenn's use of the exact same article in his summary of his
argument on the DMD publishing web page::
"Hugh Ross also limits the gaps in the genealogies to no more than
60,000 years (Ross, 1996, p. 4)"
The reference is given in Glenn's bibliography as:
"Ross, Hugh, 1996, "Searching for Adam," _Facts and Faith_, 10:1.'
This is the exact same article that I quoted when I said that "Glenn
no doubt knows about, but fails to mention" it. So there seems to
be now "no doubt" that Glenn did know about the article but failed
to mention it. I don't say this is "dishonesty" (they are Glenn's
words), but it does seem to fall short of Glenn's own standards that
he so rigorously applies to others.
>GM>2. There is no evidence for language prior to 40,000 years ago.
>
>Fact: The first evidence for the brain structures which are
>involved in speech are dated to 2.0 million years and come from the
>1470 skull.
So what? Just having incipient "brain structures which are involved
in speech", namely Brocas areas, does not prove that Homo habilis
could speak. The *whole system* has to be in place, eg. speaking
centres, hearing centres, larynx, skull spaces, etc, before
meaningful speech is possible.
SJ>This does not mean that Homo erectus had "language" (in any full
>sense of the word):
>GM>"...('paleoneurologists') are notorious for our disagreements, we
>do seem to agree that early hominids may have been capable of
>language....."~Dean Falk, "Comments", Current Anthropology 30:2,
>April 1989, p. 141
SJ>Glenn neglects to mention what I have pointed out before, namely
>that Falk's is a minority view among anthropologists:
>
>"Although the view that language was a relatively rapid development
>coincident with the emergence of modern humans is widely supported,
>it does not completely dominate anthropological thinking. Dean
>Falk...defends the proposition that language developed early:"
>(Leakey R., "The Origin of Humankind", Phoenix: London, 1994, p126)
GM>And richard Leakey must be in this minority also: You cited him
>not me:
SJ>"All the discussion of hominid evolution so far in this book
>points to a major change in hominid adaptation when the genus Homo
>appeared. I suspect, therefore, that only with the evolution of
>Homo habilis did some form of spoken language begin. Like
>Bickerton, I suspect that this was a protolanguage of sorts, simple
>in content and structure, but a means of communication beyond that
>of apes and of australopithecines." (Leakey R., "The Origin of
>Humankind", Phoenix: London, 1994, p129)
GM>And even the critic says there was some language which I cited
>below:
Yes - "some form of spoken language". But even conceding this (there
is no evidence of it apart from Brocas area), kills Glenn's 5.5 mya
Homo erectus Adam/Noah theory. Skull 1470 is only 2 mya:
"This fossil, known by its museum acquisition number of 1470, was
found in Kenya in 1972. It lived almost 2 million years ago and
is the most complete early specimen of Homo habilis; it shows
significant brain expansion and reduction in tooth size, compared
with the australopithecines." (Leakey R., "The Origin of
Humankind", 1994, pp27-28)
not the 6.0-5.5 mya that Glenn's theory needs.
>GM>3. He said that Neanderthal had no capacity for speech.
>
>One of the most vocal critics of Neanderthal speech capabilities
>wrote:..."...the archaeological evidence of Neanderthal culture,
moreover, is consistent with their having some form of
language...."~Philip Lieberman, "On the Kebara KMH 2 Hyoid and
Neanderthal Speech," Current Anthropology, 34:2(April 1993):
172-175, p. 174
SJ>Yes, "some form of language", but not necessarily a complex
>language like modern Homo sapiens:
GM>So? As I have mentioned many times, my wife's retarded uncle
>speaks a simplifed language but he is spiritual.
As Berlinski said of one of Dawkin's statements:
"It is painful to see this advanced as an argument." (Berlinski D.,
"The Deniable Darwin", Commentary, June 1996, p21) :-)
GM>4. He said that anatomically modern humans are not found on any
>continent until 25-30,000 years ago..Fact:.."Border Cave has
>provided...bones whose assignement to Homo sapiens sapiens is
>undisputed. The deposits containing the fossils are clearly older
>than the 50,000-40,000- years-ago range..."~Richard G. Klein, The
>Human Career, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1989), p.
>353
SJ>If Hugh Ross really said "anatomically modern humans", then he is
>wrong. But the problem is that what Ross means by "human" is
>different from what an anthropologist would mean by it:
>
>"...differences, however, between the Bible and secular
>anthropology remain. By the biblical definition, these hominids may
>have been intelligent mammals, but they were not humans. Nor did
>Adam and Eve physically descend from them." (Ross H. 1994, p141)
>GM>...he is so influential and so wrong.
SJ>This "so wrong" is from the person who claims that Adam was a Homo
>habilus/erectus who lived 5.5 mya! :-)
GM>Your use of a smiley is wrong. This is not a joke coming from
>you. You do this far too often.
I do not claim that my "smiley" means a "joke". I am deadly serious,
but I try to say it with a smile. But I note that Glenn simply
ignores what I say about Ross being "so wrong", when Glenn himelf
claims that Adam may even have been an Australopithecine:
"The only way to fit the scriptural account with the scientific
observations is to have Adam and Eve be Homo habilis or
Australopithecus. Bones of Australopithecines are found as long ago
as 5.5 million years ago (Chamberlain, 1991, p. 139). The earliest
habilis is from around 2.4 million years ago. A small population of
habilis could have lived considerably earlier than 2.4 million years
ago." Morton G.R., "A Theory for Creationists", DMD Publishing Co,
web page)
SJ>Ross' ministry is blessed by God, so it must be right in what
>matters most. Glenn really should acknowledge this. Even if Ross
>is "wrong" in his downplaying of the emergent humanity of the genus
>Homo, this is a comparatively minor detail.
GM>ICR claims that they are Blessed by God and so it must be right
>in what matters most. They are actually more influential than Ross.
>and you should acknowledge that!
Well, actually I do believe that the "ICR" is "blessed by God" and
is "right in what matters most". But that does not mean that I
believe everything that they (or Hugh Ross) say.
GM>But more importantly, it is not ethically correct to do wrong in
>the pursuit of right.
Agreed, but who exactly is Glenn alleging is not "ethically correct"?
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------