>Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 08:36:57 -0600
>To: "Adam Crowl" <qraal@hotmail.com>, asa@calvin.edu
>From: "Glenn R. Morton" <grmorton@waymark.net>
>Subject: Re: Descendants of Wolves, Bovines and Adam
>
>At 04:41 AM 11/15/98 PST, Adam Crowl wrote:
>>>There is thus NO significant difference in spirituality,
>>>speciation etc. between us and the Homo erectus who built an altar at
>>>Bilzingsleben Germany 400,000 years ago!!!
>>
>>I'd call the archaic Europeans H.heidelbergensis. And I'm not sure
>>that's an altar.
>>
How recent is that report of an altar? I've seen a recent report that
casts substantial doubt on that "Venus" carving from c. 300kya that you
mention in your books. I can't remember where I found the reference - it
was either Science or Nature.
>
>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,
>
A bit before post-erectus hominids became known as heidelbergensis
amongst most researchers. Morphology, not names, is what matters anyway.
>
>>>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.
Requires very rapid speciation - which seems unlikely amongst
late-maturing mammals like us. Too few generations. That's the case
against the "Splitters" in general, and extreme replacement is more a
Splitter view. Point made and noted, thanks for your research on this
Glenn.
The extreme MR people have evolution occurring
>everywhere with diffusive gene flow.
Very unlikely if local features are to be retained, let alone evolved.
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.
>
I was wondering about just that point...
>"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.
>
That's an incredibly rapid "submersion" of out-liers into the general
dominant gene-pool. I get the impression that Neanderthals were lower in
population density across Europe, than the Newcomers.
>>
>>>How long were populations of mankind isolated? Not long enough for
>>>certainty of speciation.
>>>
>>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..
That particular "cultic site" has been reinterpreted for some time as
doubtfully intentional. Maybe, maybe not - the jury is still out.
>Religion would provide an acceptable motivation.
>
Physical evidence needs to be clearer. It is stunningly clear with late
moderns, but hazy with earlier hominids. Ochre mining seems to have
strong cultic associations and it is very archaic.
>
>>I see little evidence prior to the moderns, as the artefacts you cite
>>are currently in the doubtful category.
>
>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.
Good point. Wood carvings would be a fantastic find, and incredibly
rare.
>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.
Points I never knew about carvings being so short-lived except in the
right soils.
[good quote from...
> Robert G.
>Bednarik, "Palaeoart and Archaeological Myths," Cambridge
Archaeological
>Journal, 2(1) (1992):27-57, p. 28]
Amazing how much is made from so little evidence. We have such little
insight into the past.
>
>>> 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.
Why? What motivates you to interpret it so? The need to set humans
apart? If anything is a sign of the Image then I'd say language [real
language]is a strong candidate - I know you'll have objections to that
idea since some humans don't speak. However speech seems to define what
we are in the Genesis tale. Onkelos even translated "and Adam became a
living soul" as "became a speaking being", so that awareness is quite
ancient. Our Creator is Logos, so his image should involve Word...
>>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.
>
What is the evidence? >
>
> 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.
>
Jeez Glenn you're talking about ~ 4 million years more history! Come on.
If Noah could build an Ark that size back then, I'd say that
technological advance would mean that humans have gone off-planet and
probably colonised the Galaxy by now. Gives a whole new meaning to
"hosts of Heaven"...
Adam
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com