Hi Walter,
-----Original Message-----
From: Walter Hicks [mailto:wallyshoes@mindspring.com]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 7:41 PM
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
To: Glenn Morton
Cc: Asa@Calvin. Edu
Subject: Re: Redheads descended from Neanderthals?
>Others on ASA thought me to be strange because of my simplistic theory of
thinking
>that God could make more than one universe:
>But this flies as science in a Christian context??
Well, it is flying as science in a scientific context, why should we have
one science for Christians and one for sciences? That is what the YECs do
by ignoring what modern science shows, and this is causing Christians to
look silly.
> To which I ask:
>Which apologists have "ignored" this "data"? When was it published and has
any
>"apologist" refuted the "data"?
For years I have been noting data which indicates our connection, both
intellectually, spiritually and genetically with the archaic hominids. And
apologetical organizations and people, like RTB, simply act as if the data
doesn't exist. It is one thing to explain why one doesn't accept data, but
it is entirely unaceptable to treat it as non-existent. RTB claims that all
the archaic hominids died off before anatomically modern humans appeared.
This view has never been suggested in the anthropological record and I know
of only 2 anthropologists who have ever held that there was NO interbreeding
between the Neanderthals and moderns, and these two now have changed and
hold that there was some ninor interbreeding between Neanderthals and
moderns. But I know lots of apologists who hold that there was no
interbreeding: Wilcox, Wiester, Davis and Kenyon, Hugh Ross etc.
>I've never heard of this before and I'm not sure that red headed
neanderthals mean
>anything more than other established genes.
When people say they 'never heard of this before', it always makes me think
that they think they are the judge of what is and isn't knowledge. Have you
studied anthropology? If not, then there is lots you haven't heard before.
Indeed there is lots each of us has never heard before. But as to other
genes showing European connection with the neanderthals. The H-O form of the
mandibular foramen (the hole in the inside of thejaw where the nerve exits
and the dentist tries to put novacaine) was possessed by 53% of Neanderthals
and from their day to ours, the trait has become rarer and rarer and now
only 1% of Europeans have the trait. But it is almost unknown anywhere else
in the world. But that 1% extends across the former range of the
Neanderthals. The same trend is seen with the nasion projection. The
pattern seems to be one of genetic swamping of the Neanderthals by the
African invaders. Those of us from NOrth America should be familiar with
this as genetically the Native American tribes were swamped by the European
invaders.
>Is this "data", a "theory", or a "fact"?
It is a fact that given the factually observed rates of mutation, that it
would require,statistially, 100,000 years for the gene to accumulate the
mutations factually observed. What kind of question is this from someone
who supposedly works in the sciences?
>Is this email a preemptive criticism of potential ignoring by
apologists" --- or
>has it already been observed?
This fact is too new, but for documentation of abundant ignoring of
anthropological data, I would point you to
Morton, G. R. (1996). Response to David Wilcox. Perspectives on Science and
Christian Faith, 48:3:212
and my web pages.
>Finally is the premise really a logical extrapolation of the "data"?
Don't understand what you are asking.
>Is it not possible that the author should consider himself to be an
"apologist" for
>his area of his (clearly limited) science specialty and his own published
pet theory
>-- (which is not universally accepted insofar as I know)?
Oh, no, my views are universally rejected. And I do believe that I am an
'apologist', but I am not an apologist who is ignoring this data or other
anthropological data.
>But, I could well be wrong (as I often am) -- as a newcomer to this list.
>Apologies to Glenn in advance, should he think me to be unkind to his email
and his
>published theory.
I have a very thick skin. One needs it if one is going to suggest anything
out of the ordinary. Anthropologically, however, the facts are on my side.
Human-like behavior is millions of years old, including art, compassion for
the sick, control of fire, clothing, tool manufacture, crossing of the ocean
and definite religious altars are found as far back as 400,000 years with
some possible things indicating belief systems further back.
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
=============================
Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 29 2002 - 01:16:09 EST