<<Art, religion, carpentering, domestiction of animals, all exist in all
forms
of hominid back through Homo erectus. If that is not sufficient for you,
if
you require a face to face chat with them, then I can't provide that.>>
No, it is not sufficient for me, or anyone else who knows modern man. Art
and religion? Of the type modern man would produce (i.e., a true descendent
of Noah)? I don't think so. And what happened to all the art and religion
in the 3 million years before Homo erectus? Were they just too darn busy?
<<So please cease misrepresenting the modernity of the bodies of Homo
erectus.>>
When I said ape-like, I was referring well back before erectus. I think you
knew that. Here is how Leakey describes some of your Noahic descendents:
"Other fossils of individuals from the area indicated that not only were
many of them bigger than Lucy, standing more than 5 feet tall, but also
that they were more apelike in certain respects--the size and shape of the
teeth, the protrusion of the jaw--than the hominids that lived in South and
East Africa a million years or so later. This is just what we would expect
to find as we moved closer and closer to the time of human origin." [Origin
of Humankind, p. 30]
Now, since you like to use the Leakeys as the standard, I'll ask you the
same question you asked me: You know more about this than Leakey? You are
prepared to go sit with him and tell him these were NOT ape-like creatures
at all, but fully functional modern humans, with the capacity to worship
God and create shaman art and talk among themselves?
Do let's go see him.
<<The only thing attesting to modernity of mind is behavior. All the
archaics
did things which are quite modern.>>
This is where your blind spot is. How you can say this with a straight
keyboard is beyond me.
<<Jim you need a logic class. Absence of evidence is NEVER evidence of
absence.>>
This is, of course, one of your favorite phrases, since there IS no
evidence. You use it all the time to get rid of nasty problems. However, in
archeaology it is a working rule. Read some of your books more carefully.
For example, Leakey, in discussing the replacement theory, states: "Given
the absence of evidence, we are forced to look for possible alternatives to
the proposed one of violence. IF NONE EXISTS, then that competing
hypothesis becomes stronger, though unproved." [Origin of Humankind, p. 98.
Emphasis added]
No wonder Leakey does no field work in Texas.
Anyway, absence of evidence is one way cases are made in the archaeological
world. And it becomes an overwhelming obstacle to a hypothesis when the
absence is striking. In our case, it is striking in the extreme. No modern
activity for (under your hypothesis) 4.5 million years. None. Zip. (By
modern, I mean Noahic, not speculative pebbles, not body pits). And yet you
want us to believe we were around ALL that time, refusing to innovate?
It seems, even with my noted gifts of persuasion and charm, I can't
disabuse you of these notions. I guess now I'll have to get tough with you.
;-)
Jim