>GM>I have suggested that the flood be identified with the filling of the
>>Mediterranean basin 5.5 million years ago which occurred just prior to the
>>first appearance in the fossil record of hominids. The earliest hominid is
>>found in Lothagam, Kenya in strata dated to 5.5 million years ago. Hominids
>>were on the earth and could have observed the in filling of the
>>mediterranean basin.
>
>This cannot be sustained. Thge "Lothagam" "hominid" is in fact a just
>a small fragment of fossilised lower jaw with two or three teeth.
>There is a picture of it in the National Geographic, September 1995,
>p43. Meave Leakey calls it only "a possibly hominid mandible":
I will stick with the consensus of the experts. Most authorities hold that
this is a hominid and was a form of Australopithecine.
>Nelson and Jurmain point out that "No radiometric dates exist for
>the site, but its date of around 5.5 mya was based on faunal
>correlation and that caution must be used in making phylogenetic
>judgments for these fragmentary discoveries:
>
>"Lothagam (Loth'-a-gum) Located on the southwest side of Lake
>Turkana in northern Kenya, this site was first explored by a Harvard
>University team in the middle 1960s. No radiometric dates exist for
>this site, but faunal correlation suggests a date of around 5.5 mya.
>While surveying the area in 1967, the Harvard 1986). Caution must
>be used in making phylogenetic judgments for any of these
>fragmentary late Miocene discoveries. As we go back ever closer to
>the hominid- African pongid divergence (see pp. 366-367), the
>distinguishing characteristics become more difficult to nail down-
>especially when dental remains are all that we have." (Nelson H. &
>Jurmain R., "Introduction To Physical Anthropology", West Publishing
>Company: St. Paul MN, Fifth Edition, 1991, p413)
>
Stephen, a phylogenetic judgment is a judgement relating to its place in the
phlyogeny, the line of descent. That has nothing to do with whether it is
or isn't a hominid.
>Buettner-Janusch, in an admittedly older book, consider the Lothagam
>fragment as Australopithecine"
>
>"A Lothagam jaw, a molar crown fragment from Baringo, and teeth and
>mandibles from Omo, all of which are assigned to the
>australopithecines... because of their morphology, carry
>unexpectedly early dates as determined by the K/Ar method. The
>Lothagam Jaw is probably 5,000,000 years old." (Buettner-Janusch J.,
>"Physical Anthropology", 1973, p268)
>
>"The discovery of the Lothagam jaw and the provisional description
>of it as intermediate in some ways between Australopithecus and
>Ramapithecus add to our confidence that the latter is indeed a
>hominid ancestor. The Lothagam jaw is probably best kept in the
>genus Australopithecus." (Buettner-Janusch J., "Physical
>Anthropology", 1973, p274)
>
>Lubenow acknowledges that the Lothagam fragment is of questionable
>quality of the fossil and there are diagnostic problems with mandible
>fragments:
>
>"Another fossil found in the same general area, the Lothagam mandible
>fragment, KNM-ER 329, is dated at 5.5 m.y.a. A case could be made
>that this fossil also is truly human. However, the quality of the
>fossil is questionable, and there are legitimate diagnostic problems
>in dealing with mandible fragments." (Lubenow M.L., "Bones of
>Contention", 1992, p269)
Interesting, Lubenow opens the possiblity that the fossil is human, which,
if true, would prove my model of the Flood, and blunt your constant
criticism of my view that there is no evidence of humans living that long ago.
>"The only way to fit the scriptural account with the scientific
>observations is to have Adam and Eve be Homo habilis or
>Australopithecus." (Morton G.R., "A Theory for Creationists", DMD
>Publishing Co., 1996, http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm)
>
>Which is both anthropologically untenable (hominids at this date did
>not possess the language or technology to build a 3 decker Ark), and
>theologically untenable (Adam must be one of us, ie. Homo sapiens, to
>be in any meaningful way our representative - Rom 5:14; 1Cor 15:22,
>45).
>
Where dose the Bible say man must be HOMO SAPIENS? I cant find the term
HOMO SAPIENS in my Bible.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm