You can call him Heidelbergensis if you want, but you must be aware that
the only description of this being's morphology calls him H. erectus.
Emanuel Vlcek, "A New Discovery of Homo erectus in Central Europe,"Journal
of Human Evolution, (1978) 7:239-251,
>>The hybridization and
>>replacement view was proposed by Gunter Brauer (1989).
>>
>And differs little from multi-regionalism. Most MR theorists don't doubt
>a recent wave of modrnisation amongst human populations, they just don't
>agree with replacement without hybridisation. Brauer is MR by any
>reasonable standard.
The difference is that Brauer represents an middle position. The extreme
replacement people claim almost total anihilation of the older populations.
that is unlikely. The extreme MR people have evolution occurring
everywhere with diffusive gene flow. Hybridize and Replacement takes a
model that is much like the one that occurred when the Native Americans
were swamped and replaced by Europeans here in North America. There was
hybridization, but at least in one case 99% of the Native American
Y-chromosomes have been replaced.
>Clara, who had done much of the analysis, estimates that some 99 percent
of the people who identify themselves as Ahnishinahbaeojibway have
Europoean patrilines. Clara, who had done much of the analysis, estimates
that some 99 percent of the people who identify themselves as
Ahnishinahbaeojibway have Europoean patrilines. " ~ Milford Wolpoff and
Rachael Caspari, Race and Human Evolution, (New York: Simon and Schuster,
1997), p. 363-364
The Ojibway were hybridized and replaced, and only 1% of the original Y
chromosomes still exist today after only 400 years. The Ojibway people were
human.
>
>>How long were populations of mankind isolated? Not long enough for
>>certainty of speciation. What always amazes me is the view that
>>neanderthal, being isolated, somehow makes him different. At the most,
>>Neanderthal was isolated from the rest of humanity for 800,000 years.
>Is
>>this long enough to cause speciation and thus making them different and
>not
>>subject to the plan of salvation? NO!!!
>>
>Point taken. I've always found such a view a bit odd too, since if a
>group of hominids migrated somewhere in the first place what's keeping a
>fresh group coming in? I have espoused a late H. sapiens origin at
>times, but the material you've dug up has made me think again.
I am delighted. The elimination of Neanderthals from humanity is so foreign
to what their actual behavior showed that I find it apologetically flawed.
N's were human in every sense of the word. I have noted the apparent
sacrifice of a bear at Bruniquel in which Neanderthals went deep into a
cave built a square structure out of stalagtites and then burned a bear in
the middle of it. I don't think they went to the trouble just for a
cook-oout. They needed artificial lighting, planning, and motivation..
Religion would provide an acceptable motivation.
>I see little evidence prior to the moderns, as the artefacts you cite
>are currently in the doubtful category. Let's just say the archeological
>signal for religiosity prior to c.60 kya is weak - I don't agree with
>Hugh Ross, that's just the age of the oldest rock paintings here in Oz.
>If it evolved then its stirrings must have been prior to that of course
>since all current humans have religion, even atheists [in the negative
>only.]
Remember taphonomy. Cave walls slough off, and erode in other ways. But
cave walls are less subject to erosion than are exposed surfaces on the
surface of the land. We don't find 30,000 year old art outside of caves
(there is one or two possible cases with special circumstances protecting
the art). Are we to assume that only cave dwellers engaged in art? No.
Both cave dwellers and surface dwellers did art, only the cave art has
survived. The bone carvings of animals and venus figurines are only found
in regions with alkaline soil. Bone is destroyed by acid and preserved in
alkaline soils. Are we to presume that only the people who lived on
alkaline soils engaged in portable art? No. Similarly, we can not assume
ipso facto that the lack of early cave art means man didn't engage in art.
Bednarik writes:
"The almost complete restriction of 'cave art' to caves is certainly not a
function of cultural selection, but one of geomorphological selection. By
attributing this distributional bias to the wrong 'crucial common
denominator of the phenomenon category' the authors succumb to the most
common error in interpretational archaeology. So-called 'cave art' is not
found in caves because it was only produced in caves, but because it
survived only in caves-infact only in certain limestone types and
speleoclimatic conditions. The first Pleistocene rock art found in Germany
only confirms the problem: cave walls in the Alpine region were frequently
reduced to cryoclasts, especially in the final Wurm stadial, which is not
the case in the Franco-Cantabrian region. The arguments about the
geographical distribution of 'cave art' and the comparison with that of
portable art are logically wrong and scientifically invalid, yet they
continue to be repeated. They are reminiscent of the frequent
archaeological claim that the distribution of the Upper Palaeolithic female
figurines indicates the geographical extent of a tradition. What it does
indicate, at the very best, is the extent of the area in which they were
preserved: with few exceptions the figurines consist of calcium carbonate
(ivory or limestone) which has survived only in high-pH, carbonate-rich
soils (loesses or cave deposits). Thus the crucial common denominator of
this category of phenomenon in respect to distribution is condition of
preservation, not the geographical extent of a tradition." ~ Robert G.
Bednarik, "Palaeoart and Archaeological Myths," Cambridge Archaeological
Journal, 2(1) (1992):27-57, p. 28
>> These people developed unique morphological
>>differences from the rest of humanity. But they still have the image of
>>God, inspite of this isolation. Isolation does not remove the image of
>God.
>>
>Which is what? I suspect it's a reference to our position over creation
>rather than something inbreathed by God.
The image of God was something inbreathed by God.
>PS
>Still no hope of a more recent Flood? Make a bold prediction of a
>"recently" emptied Mediterranean.
Alas, No. If I only had a more recently emptied Mediterranean, I would be
home free and famous. Unfortunately making such a bold prediction would go
against positive evidence of normal salinity conditions in the sediments of
the Mediterranean for the past 5.5 myr. I have looked at that evidence and
there is no way that it was emptied more recently. And if I could spin to
to do that, I would, but I can't.
Afterall "H. antecessor" got to Spain
>somehow...
Possibly by sea. At Flores Indonesia, H. erectus seems to have crossed
several bodies of water to get to that island. This was 700,000 years ago,
about the time of Antecessor. BTW, evidence of this type of ocean crossing
says a lot about who these people were.
If pain in child-birth and sweating are signs of the curse
>then Australopiths just don't make the grade as cursed hominids.
Which is why I have in general (with occasional lapses) argued that the
genus Homo is much more ancient than currently believed. By 1.8 million
years ago erectus was spread from Java to Georgia to Africa. this implies
a long history prior to this time.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm