On Thu, 09 Jan 1997 00:07:24, Glenn Morton wrote:
[...]
GM>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.
This is the first I have heard that "the back is half gone". Without
the back it would be impossible to tell if the holes went all the way
or half-way through, or even if it had a back. So unless another
similar bone is found at the right time and place, or unless they
build a replica and it plays, it would be difficult to say with any
certainty that it was a `flute'. Neandertals used bone for many
things:
"The Neanderthals lived in a variety of environments ranging from the
relatively arid Middle East to the cold central European region.
They lived by hunting in central and eastern Europe, where groups of
them probably joined together to hunt large animals such as mammoths.
These animals provided them not only with meat and hides but also
with large bones, which were used as fuel for fires in areas so cold
that trees would not grow, and also could be used as supports and
frames for tents." (Scarre C., ed., "Past Worlds: The Times Atlas
of Archaeology", 1995 reprint, p64)
>SJ>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".
>GM>They have see Marshack The Roots of Civilization p. 147ff
I doubt if it is for sale or even in our State Library. Perhaps
Glenn could quote what Marshack said above? It is interesting that
the actual discoverers of the `flute' are not as definite about it
being a flute as Glenn is:
"Since similar artifacts date from the upper palaeolithic exclusively
and are believed to be musical instruments, the possibility that the
find could be the oldest musical instrument found in Europe cannot be
ruled out. Of course, it must be first proved that the holes are
man-made, and in this particular case it would probably be
Neanderthal man who was responsible. The next likely explanation is
that the holes were made by some large carnivore even though traces
of teeth on the bone have not yet been discovered." (Turk I., Dirjec
J. & Kavur B., "The oldest musical instrument in Europe discovered in
Slovenia?", 5 December 1996,
http://www.zrc-sazu.si/www/iza/piscal.html)
>GM>..."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
I have no problem with these "penny-whistles" - they are "Aurignacian
and Gravettian (18), the Solutrean (3) and the Magdalenian" which are
cultures associated with anatomically modern Homo sapiens. It is
Glenn's claim that this is: 1. "flute" (which conjures up quite a
different picture); and 2. that Neandertal man made and played it,
that I am querying.
[...]
>SJ>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.
>
>GM>Fish will swim around you when you are scuba diving fixing a
>propeller on a boat. I have personally seen this.
I am sure Jaques Costeau has "personally seen" that too! ;-) But he
obviously thought the fish were doing something different from that.
[..]
>JB>"...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..This skeletal evidence
>provides one more proof, perhaps the strongest indicator to date,
>that modern humans cannot be Neanderthals' descendants." (Ibid.)
>GM>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.
And as I answered elsewhere, 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. 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.
This in fact is an argument *against* the regional continuity
hypothesis: 1. If a Homo sapiens living today converge to a similar
body shape as ancient Neandertals, because it is the optimum for a
cold climate, then the Neandertaloid features of ancient Homo
sapiens, living in a cold climate may not be the result of descent
from Neandertals; 2. if this tear-ducts 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.
>GM>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
Agreed. But if natural selection did not `discover' it in
anatomically modern Homo sapiens, then this is evidence that it was
not in his genome and hence he was not descended from H.
neandertalensis.
[...]
SJ>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.
>GM>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
Agreed. These are arguments in favour of regional continuity. But
no one is denying that H. sapiens and H. Neandertalensis are both
members of the same genus, who shared a common genetic ancestor, so
one would expect some similarities. But OTOH, if Neandertal and
modern humans co-existed for milennia in Israel without clear
evidence of merging, then this is proof positive that they could not
interbreed.
[...]
SJ>Glenn should go back and read the quote again. It's much,
>much, more than "the size of a nose".
GM>And I know that there are differences, See what Carlton Coon said
>about this above.
He didn't say much at all in Glenn's passing allusion. Perhaps Glenn
could post Coon's quote?
[...]
SJ>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":
SJ>Of course they are reduced. These guys are on the way to becoming
>modern men either by interbreeding or evolution.
Since "interbreeding" is preumably a part of "evolution", this is
tautologous. Besides, according to Lubenow, "Mladec" is dated at
"65,000 y.a." ("Bones of Contention", 1992, p67), and Nelson &
Jurmain even say "the Mladec...skulls" are "about 33 ky" (Nelson H. &
Jurmain R., "Introduction To Physical Anthropology", 1991, p536), yet
man had already appeared (according to Glenn) 60-90 kya earlier:
--------------------------------------------------------
GM>and predates Modern man first found at 120,000 years at Klasies
>river Mouth South Africa.
--------------------------------------------------------
If modern man existed before Neandertal man, then the latter cannot
be the former's ancestor:
"Since anatomically modern humans existed in Africa and elsewhere
well before the Neandertals, "The Neandertal Problem" is still very
much an unresolved problem in contemporary paleoanthropology."
(Lubenow M.L., "Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of the
Human Fossils", Baker Books: Grand Rapids MI, 1992, p73)
>GM>"..."~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
SJ>Is this really Glenn (the nemesis of old sources) quoting
>something dated *1982*? :-)
GM>Yes, because it is the most recent study of the fossils from
>Eastern Europe that I am aware of.
I'll have to remember that answer: "Yes, because it is the most
recent..." (fill in the subject) "...that I am aware of"! ;-
SJ>"Smith, one of the supporters of multiple origins, takes a more
>moderate view....while he thinks the evidence favoring replacement
>is...not as convincing as proponents suggest, their views should be
>seriously considered.." (Nelson & Jurmain, 1991, p534)
GM>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.
I actually would have no problem if the multiregional hypothesis were
true. But as Nelson & Jurmain point out: "A basic problem in this
debate is the interpretation of evidence..." (p534). Proponents of
the replacement theory do not find the evidence for " interbreeding"
compelling:
"Proponents of the multiregional evolution model emphasize they have
documented a continuity of anatomic morphologies between the archaic
and modem residents of different regions; they insist these
morphologies would be unlikely to evolve independently in any
invading people. For that argument to hold true, it must also be
shown that the cranial features in question are truly independent of
one another-that is, that natural selection would not tend to favor
certain constellations of functionally related features. Yet we know
powerful jaw muscles may impose changes on the mandible, the
browridge and other points on the skull; circumstances that promoted
the evolution of these features in one population might do so again
in a related population. Other paleontologists also dispute the
evidence for continuity. They argue modern populations are not
linked to past ones by morphological characteristics that evolved
uniquely in the fossil record. Instead fossils and modern
populations are united by their shared retention of still older
ancestral characteristics. The continuity seen by believers in
multiregional evolution may be an illusion." (Wilson A.C. & Cann
R.L., "The Recent African Genesis of Humans", Scientific American,
Vol. 266, No. 4, April 1992, p27)
[...]
GM>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.
Yes, sorry. I meant the other way around - that archaic Homo sapiens
was the ancestor of Neandertal.
[...]
SJ>If there is one thing that Hugh Ross is, it is not "silly".
GM>So are you saying that Eskimos are not human?
No and nor is Hugh Ross. My point was that Hugh Ross might be wrong,
but he is not "silly".
On Fri, 06 Dec 1996 23:03:02, Glenn Morton wrote:
>GM>My friend...told me that he had never heard of bone being used
>in this fashion..
SJ>Well, I've got a book Wilkinson P., ed., "Early People"...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.
GM>So what are you saying?
That it could be.
>GM>...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.
SJ>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 fireI 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.
GM>You sure seem to have a lot of problem with it and with most of
>everything else I write.
I have no "problem" with the `flute' if it turns out to be one.
Glenn seems to be surprised that I "have a...problem with...most of"
what he writes. Glenn writes many controversial things and he does
it in a particularly provocative way, including openly attacking fine
Christians like Hugh Ross. I agree with some things that Glenn
writes, and where possible I try to build a consensus. But it is the
nature of this medium that we highlight and discuss the things we
continue to disagree on.
GM>It is not my claim that this is a flute....
Well, we are agreed on that, then! :-)
>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.
SJ>The same argument applies to Glenn's claim that it was a flute!
>Maybe it was just the Neandertal's equivalent of doodling! :-)
GM>Stephen do you have a serious interest in these issues or are you
>simply in it to ridicule and cast aspersions of dishonesty?
According to Glenn, anyone who disagrees with him automatically does
not have "a serious interest in these issues" or "is simply in it to
ridicule and cast aspersions of dishonesty"! I believe in applying a
sceptical test to everything ("Test everything. Hold on to the
good." -- 1Th 5:21), and only believing that which passes the test.
Why shouldn't the `flute' be a bit of bone "doodling" or a failed
attempt at something other than a flute? Neandertals, may have had
to try many ideas and failed many times before they got something
right. Glenn himself has a similar idea in claiming that the Golan
Venus may not have been the work of adults or might not have been the
best that H. erectus could do:
---------------------------------------------------------
>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.
---------------------------------------------------------
[...]
SJ>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! :-)
SJ>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.
I note Glenn's effort to avoid *what* I say, by counter-attacking me
personally on *how* (allegedly) I say it. But he is wrong about
smileys:
"Writers frequently approach electronic mail as a friendly
conversation, but recipients frequently view email as a
cast-in-stone business letter. You might have had a wry smile on
your face when you wrote the note, but that wry smile doesn't cross
the network...inserting a "smiley" face into a message denotes "said
with a cynical smile." (Krol E., "The Whole Internet User's Guide &
Catalog", O'Reilly & Associates: Sebastopol CA, Second Edition,
1994, p105).
And he is wrong about "Homo habilis/erectus built a three-decker Ark
5.5 mya:
"Walker believes that the boy's species, Homo erectus, lived in
groups with strong social ties. However, even though they nurtured
helpless infants and supposedly tended their sick they lacked the
facility for speech. In a challenging conclusion he writes: "The
boy could not talk and he could not think as we do. For all his
human physique and physiology, the boy was still an animal-a clever
one, a large one, a successful one-but an animal nonetheless."
(Bunney S., review of Walker A. & Shipman P., "The Wisdom of Bones",
New Scientist, Vol. 150, No 2031, 25 May 1996, p46)
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------