On Thu, 09 Jan 1997 00:06:23, Glenn Morton wrote:
[...]
>GM>...We are taxonomically called Homo sapiens sapiens. Neanderthal
>is called Homo sapiens neaderthalensis....We and Neanderthal are
>taxonomically viewed merely as different varieties. Just because
>Tattersall choses to go against the prevailing taxonomy is no reason
>for me to do so.
>SJ>There is nothing hard and fast about this. It is indeed just "the
>prevailing taxonomy". Neandertal man has been repeatedly
>reclassified:
>
>"Ever since the first discovery of Neanderthal remains...they have
>been classed as a different species from humans, then put in with
>humans, and later demoted again...." (Wills, 1994, p55)
>
>If Tattersal's lack of tear ducts finding is confirmed, H. sapiens
>neandertalensis' classification will doubtless change back again:
>
>"Gould S.J., "A Novel Notion of Neanderthal," Natural History, June
>1988, p20 ... Stringer S., "The Dates of Eden," Nature, 331, 18
February 1988, p565 ... Lubenow M.L., "Bones of Contention, 1992,
p68)
[...]
>GM>I do not think that the change is "doubtless" if Neanderthal had
>no tear ducts. Tear ducts are not usually considered an important
>enough trait. (This is getting quite redundant)
What reference has Glenn got to back up this assertion? Obviously
Tattersal, a leading anthropologist with the New York's Museum of
Natural History,, thought they were.
GM>Besides, Neanderthal made flutes--humans make flutes.
This is debatable. It may not be a musical instrument at all. At best
it was a whistle.
GM>Neanderthals made jewelry--humans make jewelry.
This is a tautology. Since "Neanderthals" are "humans" by virtue of
being in the genus Homo, this reduces to `Neanderthals made
jewelry--Neanderthals make jewelry'.
GM>In fact, the earliest upper paleolithic culture, the Aurignacian,
>is found in Neanderthal areas not in areas inhabited by Homo sapien.
>Straus et al say
>
>"The new dates for the appearance of the so called Aurignacian
>technology in northern Spain are far older than any from the rest of
>Western Europe including SW Germany....all these sites should be
>redated with multiple determinations to obtain the best possible
>estimates of age. Single dates published as 'finite', but that are
>older than c.30ka bp, should probably be considered as minima. At
>most, there would seem to be a difference of ca. 5 ka between the
>oldest Aurignacian dates in Central and Eastern Europe (regions
>between which there is no clear temporal cline) and those of
>northern Spain. Even this relatively short amount of time for the
>supposed 'spread' of Aurignacian people or ideas across ca. 2300 km
>from SE to SW Europe may prove illusory."(~Lawrence G. Straus James
>L. Bischoff and Eudald Carbonell, "A Review of the Middle to Upper
>Paleolithic Transition in Iberia", Prehistoire Europeenne,
>3(January, 1993):11-27, p 14)
I cannot see how the above quote supports Glenn's claim that "the
Aurignacian, is found in Neanderthal areas not in areas inhabited by
Homo sapien..." All it seems to be saying is that the dates of the
Aurignacian period need to be recalibrated.
AFAIK, the Aurignacian culture is believed to be the work of
Cro-magnon man:
"Best known of western European sapiens is unquestionably Cro-Magnon
of southern France. Associated with an evolved Aurignacian
industry..." (Nelson H. & Jurmain R., "Introduction To Physical
Anthropology", 1991, p538)
"Cro-Magnon, members of a race of early human beings, representatives
of Homo sapiens sapiens, who flourished in southern Europe during the
last glacial age...Artifacts left by the race demonstrate clearly
that Cro-Magnons had mastered the art of making many useful
instruments of bone and ivory as well as of stone...They were also
skilled in carving and sculpturing with bone. A number of colored
paintings left on the walls of caves (see Cave Dwellers) is further
evidence of their culture, which centered in the Aurignacian
period...." ("Cro-Magnon," Microsoft Encarta, 1993)
"Far more is known about the culture of these early Cro-Magnons than
about any other prehistoric humans. Beautifully made stone tools as
well as artifacts of bone and wood belonging to the Upper Paleolithic
AURIGNACIAN, PERIGORDIAN, and MAGDALENIAN traditions have been
identified from numerous sites in Europe." (Mann A. & Minugh N.,
"Cro-Magnon man", Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, 1995)
GM>This means that it may have been Neanderthal who invented the
>Upper paleolithic cultures of which you say is evidence of the human
>spirit! Therefore I expect that you will now include Neanderthal as
>a member of spiritual humanity.
Firstly, AFAIK, there is no evidence that "Neanderthal...invented the
Upper paleolithic cultures". Second, I do not say that "Upper
paleolithic cultures...is" *conclusive* "evidence of the human
spirit", in the Biblical sense of being able to form a relationship
with God. Third, if Neandertal man turns out to have major
structural differences from Homo sapiens, eg. lack of tear-ducts,
etc., then he is not a member of our species and by definition would
not be included "as a member of spiritual humanity."
>GM>The opinion of paleolithic art experts says that this is art and
>is man-made. But the fact that these experts disagree with you and
>Mr. Jones is quite silly of them.
SJ>Au contraire! As I pointed out, even Marshack seems to have
>recently given up on the Golan Venus. Here is the whole brief
>article again:
>
>The creation of the first artistic images is usually credited to
>early Europeans, who some 33,000 years ago began carving vulvas and
>animals on rock and ivory in France and Germany. The discovery of
>this 54,000-year old, three inch wide engraved flint may change that
>perception. The flint was excavated near the Syrian town of
>Quneitra; in the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights...Marshack...says
>it's most likely the artist was a more modern human since known
>Neanderthal artifacts to date, aside from tools, have been limited
>to things like beads and worked ivory. Marshack doesn't know what
>the image represents....he says. "If I am correct, and this is an
>early depiction, then you have evidence that art did not begin in
>Europe...." ("Early Etchings", Discover, Vol. 17, No. 7, July
>1996, p26)
SJ>Fron Glenn there has been an "overwhelming silence" about this.
>He seems to be in denial mode. :-)
GM>Steven, I have answered this till I am blue in the face. Do you
>not read my responses? He does not deny the Golan Venus which was
>made by H. erectus or Archaic Homo sapiens. The fact that Marshack
>does not mention every single piece of art in the world is not
>evidence that he rejects them all. Your logic is flawed.
This is what I mean by "denial mode". Glenn's response "that
Marshack" did not mention the Golan Venus because he "does not
mention every single piece of art in the world" is transparently
feeble! :-) Apart from the fact that the Golan Venus had nothing to
do with Neandertal man, Glenn totally fails to get to grips with the
fact that Marshack is now claiming a 54 kya engraving "as evidence
that art did not begin in Europe". The Golan Venus is not just any
"piece of art in the world" - Marshack previously claimed it was *the
earliest* "piece of art in the world". If Marshack still believed
the 230 kya Golan Venus was the earliest "piece of art in the world",
he would quote that "as evidence that art did not begin in Europe",
not something 180 kya later.
GMBesides art earlier than this is now known to occur at Jinmium
>Australia dated from 75,000 years ago up to 176,000 years ago.(B.
>Bower,"Human Origins Recede in Australia," Science News Sept 28,
>1996, p. 196)
As previously posted, these dates are highly controversial:
"David Price of the University of Wollongong in New South Wales used
TL to date the Jinmium deposits. On relatively young sediments, he
found that the technique correlated well with ages produced by a
second method, radiocarbon dating. But it is the older sediments
that have generated controversy. Bert Roberts of La Trobe University
in Melbourne is concerned that these sediments may be contaminated
with pieces of rubble from very old bedrock nearby. The "clocks" in
the bedrock could have been set to zero long before the sediments
into which they fell. And since TL is performed on about 1000 grains
of sediment at a time, these contaminants could skew the analysis,
giving a much older age for the entire sample. `The only way to
resolve the problem is to do dating of single grains,' says Roberts.
Only OSL is suitable for single-grain work. Along with Ann Wintle of
the University of Wales and Andrew Murray at Riso National Laboratory
in Denmark, Roberts has just finalised procedures to analyse single
grains from Jinmium with OSL. He claims this will settle the dispute
once and for all, as grains of different ages will be "cleanly
separated from one another". That analysis will begin early next
year and take several months to complete, so the Jinmium thriller
will remain a nail-biter for a good while yet. (Dayton L. & Woodford
J., "Australia's Date with Destiny", New Scientist, Vol. 152, No.
2059, 7 December 1996, p31)
>GM>I have only seen one article critical of the object and lots
>supporting it. Look below:
>Against:
>Andrew Pelcin, "A geological Explanation for the Berekhat Ram
>Figurine," Current Anthropology,Dec. 1994, 35:5, p. 674-675. He
>never actually examined the object.
SJ>Also add to "Against":
>
>"Early Etchings", Discover, Vol. 17, No. 7, July 1996, p26! :-)
>GM>Discover is NOT a peer reviewed scientific Journal. No scientists
>would go to the mat over what they say.
Glenn changes the rules mid-stream. He previously said "article" but
to eliminate the competition he now raises the bar to "a peer
reviewed scientific Journal." However, he seems to have forgotten
that he included in his "In favor" articles, "Desmond Morris, The
Human Animal", which is hardly a "peer reviewed scientific Journal."
Besides, if Marshack was quoted correctly by Discover (and there
would be an immediate letter to the editor if he wasn't), then it is
evidence of what he now believes.
SJ>BTW how does Glenn know that "Pelcin...never actually examined the
>object"?
GM>If Pelcin had examined the object he would not make a statement
>like:
>
>"Microcsopic examination of the grooves, particularly those that
>delineate the head and arms compared with grooves on unworked pieces
>of scoria excavated fro the bed would demonstrate whether there had
>been hominid modification of the scoria pebble in question. Until
>such a comparison is made, the symbolic nature of the scoria pebble
>from berekhat Ram should not be cited as indisuputable evidence
>either for or against the existence of symbolic art prior to the
>Upper Paleolithic." Andrew Pelcin, "A geological Explanation for the
>Berekhat Ram Figurine," Current Anthropology,Dec. 1994, 35:5, p. 675
This only implies that he had not examined it *under a microscope*,
not that he had "never actually examined the object". Indeed, he may
even have examined it under a microscope, but since he is a
geologist, not an archeologist, he could not comment professionally
on it.
GM>{To Darrin Brooker: I just spent 10 minutes looking for the
>article to answer this one point. Don't act as if answering Stephen
>is a simple thing to do! When he is so discourteous as to dump 19
>posts on us at once. Why do I do this? I am honestly beginning to
>wonder.
Maybe Glenn needs to get a better filing system? :-) My "19 posts"
were mostly answers to Glenn's posts, and required a *huge* amount of
research on my part. But unlike Glenn, I am not complaining. I would
have thought Glenn was doing it to discover the truth - that's why I
do it.
GM>For all the effort I get to have Jim and Stephen imply that I am
>dishonest, Woodmorappe implies the same. I am only human and this
>does get to me occasionally. No one on the conservative side seems
>to care very much about actual data and they search for one article
>which can be forced to support their position}
See previously. Glenn is not the only one who has made an "effort",
and I have not implied he is "dishonest". Glenn complains about real
or imagined aspersions cast upon him but he quite free to say things
like: "No one on the conservative side seems to care very much about
actual data", which could be read as him saying that we on the
anti-evolution are all "dishonest".
>GM>In favor see:
>
>Alexander Marshack, "On the "Geological' Explanation of the Berekhat
>Ram Figurine," Current Anthropology, 36:3, June, 1995, p. 495;
SJ>Which article itself suggested that a "late Middle Paleolithic
>incised composition from the site of Quneitra, Israel" (the same
>one mentioned in the "Early Etchings" article above), be "addressed"
>instead in "the debate on possible pre-Upper Paleolithic symboling":
>
>"Until publication of these analyses, the debate on possible
>pre-Upper Paleolithic symboling may perhaps best be addressed not by
>suppositions at a distance but through the microscopic analysis of a
>late Middle Paleolithic incised composition from the site of
>Quneitra, Israel. I pointed to the Quneitra analysis in my recent
>criticism of the Eurocentric presumption that there was a
>punctuated, apparently genetic "species" shift in symboling capacity
>at the Middle/Upper Paleolithic transition" (Marshack 1994:386-87)
>(Marshack A., "On the `Geological' Explanation of the Berekhat Ram
>Figurine," Current Anthropology, 36:3, June, 1995, p495)
GM>Stephen, this frustrates me. Above you asked how I knew that
>Pelcin had not examined the object. I spent 10 minutes looking for
>the article and you already had your answer in the above citation
>where Marshack says that Pelcin hadn't examined it. Why do you ask
>such questions when you can answer them yourself?
Glenn is starting to blame others for his own problems. I am not
responsible for Glenn's filing system (or lack of it) - I can find
the article in about 10 seconds. But where exactly does it say that
"Pelcin had not examined the object"? The "above citation" doesn't
even mention "Pelcin". It might imply that he had not conducted a
"microscopic analysis" of it, but that is not the same as "not
examined the object".
GM>As to Marshack believing that the 54000 year old Quenetra object
>is the oldest art consider:
>"Finally, Edwards accepts Marshack's contention that the fine
>engraved lines on an ox rib from the Acheulian layer at the site of
>Pech d l'Aze in France appear to be similar to the 'meander' symbol
>or iconographic unit of notation that becomes an important element
>in the cave art of the Upper Paleolithic period. If this engraving
>is a meander symbol, it suggests that the complex cognitive
>development claimed for Homo sapiens sapiens near the end of the
>Pleistocene epoch was presaged in the mental and cultural lives of
>Homo erectus sometime before 300,000 B. P."~D. Bruce Dickson, The
>Dawn of Belief, (Tuscon: The University of Arizona Press, 1990), p.
45-46
This *1990* quote has the same problem as Marshack's 1994 article
above. It is superseeded (or at least modified) by his 1996 statement
about the Quneitra object. But in any event, these are just
"Marshack's contentions". Nelson & Jurmain mention Marshack's views
non-commitally:
"In addition to their reputation as hunters, western Europeans of the
Upper Paleolithic are even better known for their art. Marshack
(1989) has traced Upper Paleolithic art to the Neandertal Mousterian
period. He believes that the beginnings of artistic expression
started with Neandertals and developed from their work to the
brilliant art of the Upper Paleolithic. Solutrean tools may be an
example of this. No one is quite sure who made them or where they
came from, but stone knapping developed to the finest degree ever
known. Using a pressure-flaking technique, they made beautiful
parallel-sided lance-heads, sensitively flaked on both surfaces, with
such delicate points they can be considered works of art that never
served a utilitarian purpose." (Nelson & Jurmain, 1991, pp541-542)
[...]
SJ>Renfrew, in a recent archaeology book I read at a newstand, says
>that only the neck is incised. The arms may not be. Therefore it
>may not be a figurine at all, just a bit of rock that someone made
>a couple of cuts at to see what it was like underneath, and then
>abandoned.
What book and I doubt that Renfrew drew the conclusion you are.
I will go into town sometime and get its name. Whether or not
Renfrew drew the conclusion that I am, is neither here nor there.
The point is that if this piece of volcanic rock had both an incised
neck as well as two incised arms, then that would be strong evidence
that it was an attempt to depict a human form. But Christians" that
Glenn "too often runs into" *do* "think the Bible has" a "touchstone
with reality", and that's the main reason I suspect they would oppose
Glenn's Homo habilis Adam theory.
[...]
GM>Stephen,one fact can be historically documented. Until I started
>talking about all the details of anthropology here, no you and Jim
>weren't even aware of these details. Why is it that Christians
>don't talk about such things unless they are forced to?
I have on many occasions thanked Glenn for his thought-provoking
posts. He has contributed greatly to my understanding by the
research I have had to put in to argue a different point of view.
The reason why "Christians don't talk about such things unless they
are forced to" is for the same reason that the Talk origins crowd
take no notice of Glenn's web page. In both cases, it is on the
margins of their perception. Atheists/agnostics think the Bible is
just ancient mythological literature and therefore reconciling it
with science is like reconciling the Babylonian creation-myths with
science. Christians, OTOH, start with Jesus Christ. If He was
right, then they know there is an answer to the Bible-science
problem, even if they don't know what it is. If Jesus was wrong,
then they are wrong anyway. There is no requirement that Christians
know *how* God created - only that He did create.
SJ>I am not sure that the bow or guide part of a fire drill would
>necessarily have "scorch marks" on it. In any event, Ross does not
>say that it definitely *was* used in lighting fires, just that it was
>one alternatuve: "....." (Ross H, "The Meaning of Art and Music",
>Facts & Faith, Vol. 10, No. 4, 1996, pp6,11)
GM>But Hugh has no data to support his contention. It is not
>acceptable to make hypotheses with no data to back them up.
Ross *has* got "data". He states it: "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." One might disagree with Ross' conclusion, but that is not the
same as saying he has "no data to support his contention".
[...]
>GM>Why should this be the case? Shouldn't Christians strive to the
>highest levels of excellence and get their facts straight?
SJ>So says the man who claims that Noah was a Homo habilis (or is it
>erectus) and built a 3-decker Ark 5.5 mya, and then forgot
>everything until only about 30 kya, he regained the ability to make
>a bone whistle! :-)
GM>Stephen, this is just ... never mind.
I wonder what Glenn was going to say "this is just ..."? Maybe the
"30 kya" is wrong (Glenn can substitute 300 kya if he likes for the
"bone whistle"), but otherwise it *is exactly* his position
[...]
>GM>Ross is silly to call a being that manufactures musical
>instruments, manufactures jewelry, engages in underground mining and
>built stone walls and paved areas, AND left evidence of the worship
>of bears(like the Chippewa and Ainu of recent times), a
>non-spiritual non-human. By this criteria, you aren't human either.
>(You don't worsip bears do you?)
SJ>Ross may be *wrong* on this,
GM>He is!
By truncating my message, Glenn gives the impression that I thought
Hugh Ross was "wrong on this". That wasn't my point at all, which
was to point out that even if Ross was *wrong* (which I didn't
concede) it would not make him *silly*:
SJ>Ross may be *wrong* on this, but that does not make him "silly".
>Glenn believes that Adam was a Homo erectus who lived 5.5 mya. I
>think Glenn is wrong in this, but I don't think he is silly.
As I have pointed out, a major cause of Glenn's disagreement with
Hugh Ross is they each mean something different by the word
"human":
"In the Genesis creation account...human beings who in addition to
the soulish features of birds and mammals are also endowed by God
with spirit that they can form a relationship with God Himself) are
distinguished from other animals..." (Ross H., "Creation and Time",
1994, p61)
"In Genesis 1, God speaks of adham (male and female), and only adham,
as being made in His image...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, 1994, p141)
Until Glenn gets to grips with what Ross means by the word "human",
he is wasting his time and ours by attacking Ross over a different
definition of the word "human":
"What then is `human'? There may well be as many definitions as
there are human beings!" (Nelson & Jurmain, 1991, p13)
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------