As I have noted many times, Jim, a small population of humans could survive
for millions of years in a tropical jungle and leave no trace of themselves.
This is because the acidic soils dissolve the skeleton in about 1 year.
Because of this, there is absolutely NO fossil record of Chimpanzees or
Gorillas. The oldest chimp skeleton is about 400 years old, yet we know
they lived on early longer ago than 400 years. The fact that Homo erectus
was quite widespread when they first appear, says that they lived a long
time before this.
As to the place of the piths, I am not sure where they should be placed. I
am not opposed to there humanity but there is little evidence of it, except
for the A. robustus, who apparently was the first creature to use fire.
I will not attempt to defend the piths human status.
>
><<Now, this would certainly imply that someone with very modern foot
>morphology was walking around 3.7 million years ago at Laetoli. The
>assumption is that it was Australipithecus but it might have been someone
>else. Back to 3 million years ago, the foot morphology is identical to ours
>
>and shows NO transitional features.>>
>
>Well, then they were certainly just like us. What art, similar to what a
>man produces, did they leave behind to demonstrate this?
>
As I said, I am not going to defend the piths. But there is a very good
chance that Homo erectus will be found much earlier due to the fact that he
was so widespread 2 million years ago. This is not of the nature of making
up evidence as it is of making a prediction.
>Since I had just given you the citation to Origin of Humankind, I assumed
>you knew who I was referring to. Big assumption, I guess. Here it is again:
>
><<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]
>
So? Where in the Bible does it say that NO MAN SHALL HAVE ANY APELIKE
CHARACTER? 98% of your genetic material is identical to that of a
chimpanzee. I would say that you are quite apelike! So you are not human?
I always suspected as much. :-)
>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?>>
>
>Richard Leakey wrote the book Origin of Humankind. Are we clear now? OK,
>respond to the quote.
>
I already did. I was referring to the phonolite pebble which was a manmade
piece of art spoken of by Mary Leakey and you suddenly changed to Richard.
Good tactics in a courtroom but poor ones when dealing with scientific matters.
><<You listed a set of criteria you wanted before you would believe in the
>humanity of archaic man. I supplied every one of them yet now you say it
>is
>not enough.>>
>
>You've supplied nothing of the kind. Please listen again: What I'm telling
>you (and what every other expert in the world would tell you if you didn't
>insist on being the cheese) is that the art of modern man, in both scope
>and breadty, is NOTHING LIKE anything produced before.
>
So nothing that the pre-europeanized Tallensi produced is anything like the
scope and breath of Upper Paleolithic art. I must conclude that you don't
think that these poor souls who lived in 1940 were human.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm