On Wed, 8 Jan 1997 10:04:25 -0500, Bill Hamilton wrote:
>SJ>BTW "Orientals" developing "squatting facets on their tibia"
>sounds like an example of *Lamarckian* evolution, since it would no
>doubt be difficult even for Dawkins to claim that squatting conveyed
>a reproductive advantage?
BH>Or it could be that orientals squat _because_ they happen to have
>squatting facets on their tibia. Then it's simply a case of a group
>of people using to advantage a characteristic of their race.
I think this is an important point, with a much more general
application. How many so-called `evolutionary' novelties actually
arose *first* and the animal adapted to them? For example, what if
the giraffe developed a long neck and long legs and had to adapt to
eating from taller trees?
On 08 Jan 97 13:04:20 EST, Jim Bell wrote:
>SJ>...At this point, we agree with Falk when she says,
>`Unfortunately, what it is going to take to settle the debate about
>when language originated in hominids is a time machine Until one
>becomes available, we can only speculate about this fascinating and
>important question' (1989, p. 141)"
JB>This is important, as Glenn has castigated Ross for saying "this
>is the way things are" without discussing contary evidence. Yet
>Glenn is certain speech existed in early hominids. No doubt about
>it, says Glenn, despite the contrary evidence, which he dismisses.
>Sauce for the goose!
Agreed. While no doubt some form of rudimentary "speech existed in
early hominids" Glenn, to support his 5.5 mya Homo erectus Adam/Noah
theory must maintain they possessed *highly developed* speech. No one
(not even Dean Falk) would support that.
SJ>If the plumbing is different, ie. no tear ducts, then these are
>not "superficial differences". As for being "meaningless to
>procreation", they would show that 'procreation" did not occur
>between Neandertals and anatomically modern humans.
JB>Right. This was the import of the Tattersal study.
Yes. If Glenn claims that Homo sapiens and Neandertal man were
capable of interbreeding, he has to explain how major structural
differences can co-exist between them without mixing.
SJ>...this kills stone...dead his 5.5 mya Noah theory. A necessary
>corollary of Glenn's theory is that after the Flood, all technology
>was lost, otherwise he cannot explain the total lack of
>archaeological evidence for 5 mys. But as the title of his paper
>indicates, Oakley is using the "Makapansgat pebble" to show that
>"Higher Thought" was only emerging "3.0-0.2 Ma B.P."
GM>This is a good point again. The "technological dark age" is part
>of Glenn's theory that has no proof, but the ABSENCE of proof to
>prove it. This a major problem I have with his theory.
It is on the face of it incredible. According to Glenn's
"technological dark age" corollary of his 5.5 mya Noah theory, Noah
and his family completely forgot all their technology, and it took
his descendants longer to regain it than they took to develop it in
the first place!
JB>Interestingly, I ran across a verse that never jumped out at me
>before. Genesis 4:22 speaks of Tubal-cain, and is literally
>translated "he was the father of all metal workers in bronze and
>iron." This definitely implies a passing of the torch, without any
>"dark age" (which, of course, has no textual support in Genesis).
>You cannot be a father without offspring.
Agreed. According to Glenn's "technological dark age" corollary, this
all ended with the Flood with no "passing of the torch".
Incidentally, this means a prediction of his theory would be the
evidence of bronze and iron artefacts pre-5.5 mya. How far out of
touch he is with contemporary archaeology can be seen by the
the excitement generated by the discovery of a cache of primitive
stone tools 2.5 mya:
"The world's oldest tools - a cache of hammer stones and rudimentary
knives about 2.5 million years old-have been found in Ethiopia.
Anthropologists unearthed 3000 sharp-edged, stone-cutting tools used,
perhaps, to sharpen sticks or cut meat, and battered cobbles that
could have been used to crack shells or bones. They said the
mysterious pre-human creatures who fashioned the implements were
"surprisingly sophisticated" tool-makers. The tools' find pushed
back the origins of technology by at least 250,000 years, the
scientists said. ("Dawn of cutting edge", The West Australian,
Friday January 24, 1997, p1)
OTOH Gn 4:22 fits in well with a Young Adam view. Pearce writes:
"The discovery of metals was made by Tubal-Cain (Gen. 4:22). He
must have discovered the rich copper and iron ores in that area, for
we know that native copper and iron were used later at Catal Huyiik
by 6000 B.C. This was before the days of smelting in the Bronze Age
of 4000 B.C. The copper was beaten out cold, and so was the iron
ore. This iron ore was haematite containing 70 per cent iron, the
richest ore obtainable, but because it was so tough to beat out
without the knowledge of iron smelting, it soon fell out of use, and
had to await the advent of the great Hittite smelters C.1500 B.C. in
this same area of Asia Minor (Josh. 17:19 and 3:10)." (Pearce
E.K.V., "Who Was Adam?", 1969, pp48-49)
On Wed, 08 Jan 1997 19:52:49, Glenn Morton wrote:
[...] See above.
>GM>Jim, you use the term "contrary evidence " in a funny manner.
>You and Stephen cite people who say nothing can be proven and then
>say that is "contrary evidence" In point of fact, you have not
>cited any evidence pro or con. The LACK of a Brocas area would be
>contrary evidence for speech in early hominids. Yet the case is
>that these early hominids do have brain assymetry, Broca's area,
>and Wernicke's area all of which today are evidence of speech
>abilities. Thus, their existence is evidence IN FAVOR of speech.
I am interested in Glenn's claim that "these early hominids do
have...Wernicke's area". I would appreciate details of that.
I cannot speak for Jim, but I for one do not claim that the presence
of "Brocas area" is "contrary evidence for speech in early hominids".
Quite the opposite, I regard it as evidence of an *emerging* speech
capacity in these early members of the genus Homo. But Glenn is
claiming it is evidence of *developed* speech in same.
[...]
>SJ>If the plumbing is different, ie. no tear ducts, then these are
>not "superficial differences". As for being "meaningless to
>procreation", they would show that 'procreation" did not occur
>between Neandertals and anatomically modern humans.
>GM>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.
Such argumentation might have been OK in a "a 12 year old"! :-) As
Glenn must know, major structural differences between otherwise
morphologically similar fossils occupying the same area at the same
time, is sufficient evidence for palaeontologists to infer their
inability to interbreed and hence that they are separate species:
"If fossil species show striking structural differences, however, it is
generally a safe presumption that they were incapable of
interbreeding. Were this not the case it is unlikely that the differences
would have been maintained through the course of evolution."
(Twinkle D.W., "Species and Speciation", Encyclopaedia Britannica,
1984, 17:451)
>GM>Neanderthal was well adapted to very cold climates. His body
>shape was an extreme form of that owned by eskimoes.
Yes, I have in fact pointed out the same thing (if Glenn had read my
posts! <g>), as an argument against the regional continuity
hypothesis. If a Neandertal body shape is a result of convergence,
then arguments that Homo sapiens with a similar body shape, living in
a similar cold climate as Neandertals, must be descended from
Neandertals, lose their force.
GM>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.
Perhaps. I suspect that this may well turn out to be a major
difference in `plumbing' design, not accessible to normal
microevolutionary variation. But in any event, if this plumbing
redesign had such a "strong" selective advantage, yet was not passed
on to Homo sapiens, who was living in a similar cold climate, then it
is strong evidence that H. sapiens did not interbreed with H.
neandertalensis.
>JB>This is a good point again. The "technological dark age" is part
>of Glenn's theory that has no proof, but the ABSENCE of proof to
>prove it. This a major problem I have with his theory.
>GM>I think you are being totally unfair here Jim. I have never ever
>said that this aspect of my views was proved. It can't be and I
>have admitted it many times it. My view is consistent with the
>evidence.
What "evidence" exactly is Glenn's "technological dark age" "view"
"consistent with"?
On Thu, 09 Jan 1997 00:08:16, Glenn Morton wrote:
>SJ>...A necessary corollary of Glenn's theory is that after the
>Flood, all technology was lost, otherwise he cannot explain the
>total lack of archaeological evidence for 5 mys..."
>GM>I don't see how your conclusion fits.
While there is no mention in his web page about this, I presume it is
in his book? In any event, Glenn himself has posted to the Reflector
that a "loss of technology which would certainly occur". On 28 Sep
1995 Glenn posted Re: Glenn's Gap (was a guide ...
-------------------------------------------------------
"I am proposing that after the flood a small group of people (Noah's
descendents) lived in a rather primitive state due to the loss of
technology which would certainly occur. I am proposing that Africa
eventually became their home. Thus with very few people, the odds
that anyone would be fossilized is quite small. Assuming that they
ended up where the food was plentiful (a rain forest) the
decomposition rate of things in the jungle is incredible. Anything
dead left in one of these places is eaten within days. (Even here, a
few days ago a friend said he found a dead mouse in his pool and
threw it over his fence onto his driveway.. He forgot to go pick it
up later that day. When he saw it the next day, the fire ants had
eaten everything except bone and fur. In the jungle there would be
more scavengers which would take care of the bones.)
Anyway, a small population could live unnoticed for quite a while
especially if they left no stone tools. This is seen in the European
fossil record. The first Stone tools appear 200, 000 years before
the first fossil men in Mediterranean Europe.(see Chris Stringer and
Clive Gamble, In Search of the Neanderthals, (New York: Thames and
Hudson,1993), p. 64) If it werent for the stone tools found in Europe
at an early date, no evidence of humans in MEditerranean Europe would
exist at all. The lack of fossils from a small population in a
tropical forest would be very unlikely to be found."
-------------------------------------------------------
The fallacy here is that: 1. the "stone tools" in "Europe" were
"found"; and 2. Glenn's gap is 5 million years.
Besides, I doubt if geneticists would agree that a small population
could survive for 5 myr. Either they would have to get larger (in
which case they would be noticed) or if they remained small they
would tend to become extinct due to genetic load and in-breeding. In
any event, why would they remain a small population for such a
long time?
Also, while there might be a loss of technology after the Flood,
there would not be a loss of intelligence. Yet the archaeological
record shows an emerging mental capacity, not just an emerging
technological capacity. Besides, unless Glenn is claiming that Homo
habilis/erectus first arose 11 mya, his view is claiming that it
it took longer for Noah's descendents to regain their technological
capacity, than it did for Noah's ancestors to gain it in the first
place.
>GM>As I have pointed out over the past two years to you a small
>population can live for a long time and not appear in the fossil
>record.
And I have "pointed out" to Glenn that humans are unlikely to "live
for a long time" especially 5 mys "and not appear in the fossil
record", for the following reasons:
1. man is a large land mammal. Unlike birds, his large bones and
skull tend to be preserved;
2. man buries his dead, which has assisted his fossiisation;
3. unlike animals man made hard artefacts, such as stone tools,
weapons, cave art, etc.
[...]
>SJ>Glenn also ignores my posts which indicate that Marshack is not
>now claiming that the "golan Venus" is the first example of art.
>He is now claiming that for an etching dated only 54 kya,000-year
>old, from Quneitra, Israel" (Discover, July 1996, p26)
>GM>See my post on my previous response to this ridiculous and
>sophmoric charge.
This merely proves my point! :-) Glenn continues to "ignores my
posts" on this point.
>SJ>BTW, in a previous post, Glenn, in order to salvage his 5.5 mya
>Noah theory, claimed that the Golan Venus was not the work of
>adults. Now he is claiming it is "sexy". Which is it to be?
>GM>No Stephen this is totally wrong. on
---------------------------------------------------------
>Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 15:18:37 From: ...Glenn Morton...Subject:
>Art and boats of H. erectus...
SJ>No doubt, but presumably this "small stone figurine of a woman"
>was the best that an *adult* could do, 330 kya.
GM>...And who said it was made by an adult? And who said it
>was the best that they could do? Do you have knowledge of this
>that other people don't have? I know lots of modern ADULTS who are
>ashamed of how poorly they sculpt and draw. Their art, while
>extremely crude is not the best that humans can produce, but
>theirs, some day might be the only examples PRESERVED. Does this
>make them sub-human? Get real Stephen.
---------------------------------------------------------
GM>This is far from claiming it was not the work of an adult. It was
>merely a counter to your statement that this was the best an adult
>could do.
If Glenn claims the Golan Venus was "sexy", then he has answered
his own first question: "who said it was made by an adult?" The
answer is, Glenn does! :-)
[...]
>SJ>Here is a good example of Glenn's straining at gnats and
>swallowing camels! :-). That *modern* "Orientals...develop
>squatting facets on their tibia" is an example of minor regional
>sub-specific variation.
>GM>So neanderthal noses arent that?
No - "neanderthal noses" are a major feature that Shreeve believes
>SJ>They are still all members of the species H. sapiens and no doubt
>when they mate with Occidentals the "squatting facets on their
>tibia" would show up in their mixed-race descendants. But in the
>case of tear ducts, if *all* Neandertals lacked them and *all*
>contemporaneous H. sapiens had them, then that is evidence
>bordering on proof that H. neandertalensis and H. sapiens never
>interbred, which strongly indicates they couldn't interbreed, ie.
>they were different species.
No answer to this point?
SJ>BTW "Orientals" developing "squatting facets on their tibia"
>sounds like an example of *Lamarckian* evolution, since it would no
>doubt be difficult even for Dawkins to claim that squatting
>conveyed a reproductive advantage?
>GM>No it is not Lamarkism because a Chinese raised here does not
>develop squatting facets.
Then it isn't an inherited trait, and therefore isn't *any* sort of
"evolution".
>JB>6. Why no mention of "shaman art," the only truly religous
>art, which is AT MOST only 27,000 years old?
>
>GM>Sorry, Science News, Oct. 5, 1996, which you cited, says 33,000
>years ago. You should read more carefully.
>SJ>The man who winks at 4 million years (plus), finds a mere 4,000
>years as significant? Give us a break! :-)
>GM>More ridicule?
No. Irony. But this counter-attack by Glenn serves its purpose by
enabling him to evade this point also.
>GM>...By the way, body painting is also highly correlated with
>religious ritual in primitive societies. It is religious art. The
>first evidence of body painting is from 1.5 million years or so.
>SJ>That's interesting. What "body" complete with "painting" has
>been recovered that is dated "1.5 million years or so'?
[...]
GM>"At Terra Amata, which was occupied around 300,000 B.P., de Lumley
>(1969:49) reports a number of ochre specimens recovered from the
>two occupation layers associated with the pole structures uncovered
>at the site. Specimens of red, yellow, and brown were recovered
>and the range of color variations suggests the ochre may have been
>heated. De Lumley also reports that the ends of some of the
>specimens were worn smooth suggesting they had been used in body
>painting.
Apart from the fact this is "300,000" (not "1.5 million") years ago,
I have no problem if this "ochre...had been used in body
painting", but it could equally have been used for non-religious art
or dance.
GM>"Clearer evidence of ochre use comes from Becov in Czechoslovakia.
>This cave site, occupied ca.250,000 B. P....Whether or not
>the rubbing stone was actually used in the preparation of ochre
>powder is uncertain..."
Not necessarily "body painting" nor "from 1.5 million years or so".
GM>"The presence of worked ochre in Bed II at Olduvai Gorge suggests
>that the beginning of this 'attack' may even predate the appearance
>of Homo erectus and begin instead with Homo habilis or the
>australopithecines more than 1.5 million years ago."~D. Bruce
>Dickson, The Dawn of Belief, (Tuscon: The University of Arizona
>Press, 1990), p. 44
"1.5 million years ago" but Not necessarily "body painting".
>SJ>...If there was "rape and intermarriage" we would expect a much
>stronger merging of features. That Neandertal man and a.m. Homo
>sapiens co-existed in the same area (eg. Israel) for tens of
>thousands of years indicates that if... there were any children,
>they were sterile hybrids, like mules.
>GM>Maybe, but in eastern Europe there appears to be such evidence.
This may have been convergence due to two similar but
different species adapting to the same harsh environment. Glenn
correctly points out that modern eskimoes living in the Arctic
exhibit Neandertal-like features.
>GM>Second features like shovel-shaped teeth on orientals and Native
>Americans today corresponds with shovel-shaped teeth on Asiatic
>Homo erectus.
>SJ>This is not conclusive for regional continuity: "shovel-shaped
>teeth" are not only found 'on orientals and Native Americans
>today":
>GM>No but it may be evidence of interbreeding.
Agreed. But without other, stronger evidence, it is probably just
convergence.
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------