My main criticism of Glenn's approach is that - while it appears
to 'match' the evolutionary record - it ignores or does not 'match'
the social and literary context of the Genesis stories (which, to
me, pertains to Mesopotamian prehistory). A concordist
'match' must (in my view) increase appreciation of both aspects.
That means that the items that point to a very early Adam (for Glenn)
really correspond to Gen. 1:26, the declaration of intention to
create man (for me) in a two tiered resemblance between Genesis 1
and the evolutionary record.
So let's continue these lines of thought:
First, could the names of Tigris and Euphrates rivers be applied to
rivers flowing about 6 My ago into the dry Mediterranean basin? I
say no - first - because no one at the time could name them the
Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. Also, I say no because we have always
historically related the T and E rivers to drainage to the Persian Gulf.
My comment said:
>One of the funny things about the evolutionary sciences is that data
>can be interpreted in more than one way. I think that the evolution of
>talk can be separated from the evolution of 'the capacity for language'
>or 'language as a modelling system'. Dean Falk is talking about the
>capacity for language, not speech per se - as would be required to name
>the rivers flowing into the 'dry' Mediterranean basin.
Glenn said:
>Having discussed some of these things with Dean, she is NOT arguing for
language capacity with no language. She is arguing that they did have some
form of language. You are wrong here.
My comment:
There is no 'capacity for language' without some 'format of language'.
However, that format may not have been speech - as we know it -
as would be required to name the two rivers entering the dry Mediterranean
basin from the east. The enlargement of the Broca area is evidence
for a 'capacity of language' not a 'format of language'. I concur with
Armstrong, Stokoe and Wilcox that the 'format of language' responsible
for our 'capacity for language' was manual brachial gesture.
Next issue, how did H. erectus differ from H. sapiens? Can H. erectus
be called 'the intention of man'?:
I said:
>Steven Mithen's Prehistory of the Mind gives a good example of what is
>going through the heads of many evolutionary anthropologists today. He argues
>that with H. erectus, knowledge was context dependent. However, with
>humans, knowledge started to 'flow' across contexts. In sum, we don't
>think like H. erectus.
Glenn's reply:
>Mithen does not represent what is going on in the heads of anthropologists
today. He totally ignores any data that contradicts his thesis with nary a
mention of it. See my review of Mithen's book PSCF Dec 1997 p. 273. Mithen
claims that man never worked in bone until the upper paleolithic--wrong(
ivory spear points are found 400 kyr in Spain), claims that there are no
grave goods in any paleolithic burial---wrong. He claims that the oldest
art is 33,000 years old--wrong (Ignores the 70+/- kyr Tata plaque from
Hungary), claims that early man could not make multicomponent tools--wrong
(at Schoningen Germany around 400 kyr ago they made multicomponent tools
i.e. handles for their stone tools)
Mithen's book is rarely referenced in later books.
My comment:
It seems to me that Mithen is fairly well respected. I agree that his
book is too speculative for other anthropologist to reference. But he
is addressing an issue that is critical for understanding the human
evolutionary record: How do you account for the lack of change in
artifacts prior to the Upper Paleolithic? Lack of preservation?
Or a fundamentally different way of thinking?
The next issue is whether the late Archean and Proterozoic could have
had total cloud cover, and whether that aethetically matches day 4.
I said:
>While I admit that the issue of the extent of cloud cover during
>the Archean and Proterozoic is a matter of debate - the driver of the
>greenhouse effect is not. It is carbon dioxide. The atmosphere of
>Venus, for example, is over 90% CO2. That's why the sulfuric acid
>clouds are there. Sulfur rich aerosols have been implicated in
>the formation of clouds on Earth.
Glenn replied:
>No, the sulfuric acid clouds are there because there is sulfur and water in
the atmosphere. THere is no requirment that sulfur accompany CO2.
So are you saying that the earth had clouds of H2SO4 for the first four
billion years? I think the geochemical data would contradict this.
My reply:
You cannot deny that high levels of carbon dioxide imply a strong
greenhouse effect. A strong greenhouse effect 1. raises atmospheric
temperatures and 2. increases cloud cover (on Earth). Did I claim
that the Earth ever had sulfuric acid clouds as does Venus? Read
what I said again. Carbon dioxide is responsible for the strong
greenhouse effect on Venus.
The implications of the greenhouse effect during the Archean and
Proterozoic is still a matter of investigation in science. The
faint sun paradox is still being researched. However, it is no
big stretch to claim that total cloud cover could well have
existed at first (or photochemical haze - another possibility)
then diminished, due to loss of atmospheric CO2 and other
greenhouse gases, during this period of time.
Which leads to the related issue:
I said:
>Note that the phrases discussing 'what the sun, moon and stars do'
>tell us the importance of the epoch and place the observer on the
>surface of the planet. Thus the two tiered pattern is seen in
>day 4.
Glenn retorted:
So, the observer was the first tetrapod? That is when the clouds would have
cleared (at least according to Ross)
My reply:
I think that the clouds or haze would have cleared prior to the Precambrian
as carbon burial resulted in an atmosphere rich in O2 (which would
have reacted with compounds producing photochemical haze).
I also think that the issue is not 'who is the observer' so much as:
Do the descriptions of 'what the sun, moon and stars do' convey the
importance of this epoch to humanity? A passage from total cloud
cover to partial cloud cover would be experienced as the appearance
- or creation - of the sun, moon and stars from the perspective of
someone on the Earth's surface. I think that this conveys
the importance of this epoch in a way that a Neolithic would
comprehend.
Ray