On Thu, 09 Jan 1997 00:09:08, Glenn Morton wrote:
>JB> As for the "flute": "The three Slovenian archeologists who
>made the discovery addressed, and reasonably dismissed, the idea
>that the holes might have been bored by the teeth of a large
>carnivore rather than by a bipedal primate. However, the seem to
>overlook some more obvious considerations. The bone was found near
>a hearth with charcoal and many burnt fragments of animal bones.
>One of the holes goes all the way through the bone and the other
>does not.
SJ>IMHO this almost certainly rules it out as a flute, or even a
>whistle. I am not a musician, but AFAIK wind instruments rely on
>asymmetry of hole spacing for musical effect. Something with a hole
>drilled right through it sounds like an ornament with a cord passed
>through it, or some sort of implement.
GM>I don't know how many times I must say this but there is no hole
>drilled all the way through it...
See above. This is the first I have heard that "there is no hole
drilled all the way through it". The photo in Hugh Ross' article
(F&F, 10:4, p6) looks like it goes all the way through. The web page
is ambiguous:
"The excavations of Ivan Turk and Janez Dirjec in 1995 in the fifth
Mousterian level yielded the femur of a young cave bear with four
artificial holes on the posterior side: two of them complete and two
partially preserved..." (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).
If Glenn can show that none of the holes went all the way, then I
will concede that it might be a bone whistle.
>JB>...Most importantly, the researchers apparently did not
>construct a bear femur flute according to this bone's specifications
>to test whether or not it is capable of producing music....
SJ>This is exactly what I suggested to Glenn. It is difficult to
>understand why they don't carry out this simple test.
[...]
GM>Of course you will make this same charge again Because you made it
>before;
Its not a "charge". It's a proposed scientific "test".
[...]
SJ>Indeed, the evidence is that anatomically modern humans
>actually existed *before* Neanderthals:
>
>"The researchers found that the modern human fossils from Skhul and
>Qafzeh were older than most of the Neanderthal fossils, by as much as
>40,000 years. If these results are correct, Neanderthals can not be
>ancestors of modem humans, as the multiregional evolution model
>demands...Instead of being the product of an evolutionary trend
>throughout the Old World, modern humans are seen in the alternative
>model as having arisen in a single geographical location . Bands of
>modern Homo sapiens would have migrated from this location and
>expanded into the rest of the Old World, replacing existing premodern
>populations..." (Leakey R., "The Origin of Humankind", 1994,
>pp86-87).
GM>No. The oldest neanderthal is from Pontnewydd England and
>Ehringsdorf Germany
These are contentious. "The oldest neanderthal...from Pontnewydd
England" is in fact only a "mandible" and "teeth" (Lubenow M.L.,
"Bones of Contention", 1992, p170). It could be archaic homo sapiens.
As for the Ehringsdorf fossils, Nelson H. & Jurmain say that:
"Complex stratigraphy makes dating difficult; possible last
interglacial; Uranium Series dating give various dates: 225 kya, 60
to 120 kya, and 115 kya. Best estimate: last interglacial."
(Nelson H. & Jurmain R., "Introduction To Physical Anthropology",
1991, p557).
The last interglacial they date as "125 kya": "With the onset of the
Riss-Wurm interglacial, about 125 kya, we encounter the complex
situation of the Neandertals" (Nelson & Jurmain, 1991, p519). This
is confirned by their heading on their section on Neandertals, which
says: "Neandertals (125-30 kya)" (Nelson & Jurmain, 1991, p516)
GM>and predates Modern man first found at 120,000 years at Klasies
>river Mouth South Africa.
Indeed. So if the earliest "Modern man" was "first found at 120,000",
and Neandertal dates from 125 kya, in a totally different part of
the world, the conclusion is that modern man cannot have descended
from Neandertals:
"The fossil evidence concerns the 1987-88 dating by
thermoluminescence and electron-spin resonance techniques of modern
looking fossils from a cave called Jebel Qafzeh in Israel at one
hundred thousand years of age, considerably older than Neandertal
fossils from neighboring caves that were dated by the same techniques
at sixty thousand years. Previously these cave populations had been
interpreted in a manner to suggest that modern humans came after
Neandertals and so were descended from them. The new dating
indicates that modern humans and Neandertals may have existed side by
side and that they apparently maintained their distinctiveness for
thousands of years. (Stringer C. B. et. al, "ESR Dates for the
Hominid Burial Site of Es Skhul in Israel," Nature, 338, 1989,
pp756-758), (Valladas H. et. al, "Thioluminescence Dating of
Mousterian Proto-Cro-Magnon Remains from Israel and the Origin of
Modern Man," Nature 331, 1988).
The only other early modern human fossils are found in southern
Africa, and are also dated, though less accurately, at one hundred
thousand years of age. The best data seems to be from the Klasies
River Mouth Cave, 270 miles east of Cape Town, where University of
Chicago anthropologist Richard Klein has found humanlike upper and
lower jaws, cranial fragments, isolated teeth, and limb bones These
anatomically modern fossils date from between one hundred fifteen
thousand years and eighty thousand years ago (Lewin R., "In the Age
of Mankind", 1988, pp128-29). Stringer suggests that these recent
findings place the source of modern humans in Africa and the source
of Neandertals in Europe, and warrant a separate, nonhuman
designation for Neandertals (Homo neandertalensis). (Stringer C. B.,
"The Emergence of Modern Humans," Scientific American, December 1990,
pp102-103)
(Templeton J.M. & Herrmann R.L., "Is God the Only Reality?",
Continuum, 1994, pp134-135)
GM>Modern man predates Neanderthal only in the Middle East.
See above. The point is that the earliest place we have fossils of
"Neandertals" and "modern man" together, the latter "predates"
the former. In fact, "only in the Middle East" is a real problem for
the regional continuity hypothesis. The Middle East is central
geographically and it would be expected the European Neandertals
would have originated there or migrated through there on their way
to Europe. In this case Neandertals should predate modern humans in
the Middle East and not in Europe. The evidence suggests that
anatomically modern humans originated in Africa about 150-120 kya
then migrated north to the Middle East, and Neandertals originated in
Europe then migrated south to the Middle East, and they both met in
Israel.
GM>"If the Neanderthals did split from the lineage leading to modern
>humans, then the Ehringsdorf date of 230,000 years ago also gives a
>minimum age for the beginning of the separate lineage of modern
>people."~Chris Stringer and Clive Gamble, In Search of the
>Neanderthals, (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1993), p. 66
Since Stringer does not believe that "Neanderthals did split from the
lineage leading to modern humans", I presume that this is his
statement of his multiregionalist opponents' position.
>GM>...I met Hugh Ross....I gave him a picture of the flute and told
>him that he was wrong in what he was saying about anthopology.
SJ>This from the person who is "saying about anthopology" that: 1
>Homo habolis/erectus lived 5.5 mya; and 2. that he had the
>technology to build a 3-decker Ark; 3. afterwards he forgot all that
>technology; 4. following a gap of 5 my he began to regain the
>technology!
GM>Stephen why do you take this type of sneering approach?
When faced with a contradiction in his own position, Glenn invariably
counter-attacks by trying to shoot the messenger! I am not
"sneering", but even if I was, the points above are still a valid
summary of Glenn's position. It is inconsistent of Glenn to say that
Hugh Ross "was wrong in what he was saying about anthopology", when
Glenn's own position is "wrong... about anthopology".
>GM>...But this is getting silly when a being that makes flutes and
>engages in art is not to be considered human. Get real.
SJ>A lot of time and trouble would be saved if Glenn tried to
>understand what Ross means by "human". He defines humanity
>primarily by its *spiritual* qualitities, rather than artistic or
>technological:
GM am not sure ross understands his view and which view am I supposed
>to understand?
Ross has been quite clear and consistent in his view that, human
spiritual. The quote that I often cite in this context :
"In Genesis 1, God speaks of adham (male and female), and only
adham, as being made in His image. The point is emphasized by
repetition. As humanity's story unfolds through subsequent
chapters, we discover that what makes humans different is a
quality called "spirit." None of the rest of Earth's creatures
possesses it. By "spirit" the Bible means awareness of God and
capacity to form a relationship with Him." (Ross H., "Creation
and Time", 1994, pp140-141)
actually appears word-for-word in Ross' 1991 book "The Fingerprint
of God" (p138)
GM>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:
There is nothing wrong with "changing", if that means adjusting one's
theories to the evidence. When evolutionists do they call it
"self-correction", and claim it is a virtue. But when a creationist
does it, it is bad! :-)
But in any event. is *Glenn* who says that "art was definitely an
indication of the human spirit". What Ross is talking about here is
not "art" but "the degree of abstractness" that "suggests the
expression of something more than just intelligence." Ross clearly
thinks some "art" is not sufficiently abstract enough to be evidence
of "the human spirit".
Personally I think Ross may be partly right and partly wrong in this.
I would regard early hominid art (eg. Golan Venus), music (eg.
Neandertal `flute'), etc. *if proven* as evidence of an emerging
image of God. I would regard Upper Paleolithic art (eg. Lascaux and
Altamira caves) as evidence of the fully emerged (or near fully
emerged) image of God.
GM>"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.
Actually, I agree with Glenn here! Ross' paradigm is reaching breaking
point. If the Jinmium art is much greater than Ross' "60,000 year
limit" (as seems possible), then Ross will either have to stretch the
Biblical genealogies further to breaking point, or else he will have to
admit that some art was produced by what Ross would call `non-
humans'. What a pity that Glenn won't see this because he claims he
doesn't read my posts any more! :-)
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------