Glenn Morton wrote:
>Dick, you still don't seem to understand. We are not necessarily speaking
>of hominid vs ape at the chromosomal fusion. We are talking about non-human
>vs human.
What an ape is should not be that difficult. The "pith" in
Australopithicus means "ape." More human-like than gorillas and
chimps, but nonetheless catagorized in the ape family. Homo erectus
lies within the family of man, being in the genus Homo, yet outside,
living prior to the arrival of our species, Homo sapiens, (or Homo
sapiens sapiens if you believe Neanderthals are a sub-species). Are
you suggesting an intermediate link between ape and man? What do you
call it?
In your view, does tchadensis predate or postdate Adam of Genesis?
> A hominid is strictly defined by certain taxonomical features.
>We humans have those features (and thus we are hominids) but we also have
>spirituality, which is not going to leave much of a fossil record except in
>the form of altars made with durable material.
I thought that you had placed Adam of Genesis as the first hominid,
parented by true apes, but changed by God's own hand to be human, not
just a hominid. Adam would have been the first biological human
being in that scenario, possessing all the traits of present-day
humanity. Where do the intermediates fit in?
If you are saying there is a date certain when a family of apes gave
birth to a "hominid" child, and another date certain when a family of
hominids produced a "spiritual" human being, what dates would you
suggest? Not holding you to anything, just approximate dates would
do fine. If these dates are different, which one is Adam?
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 15 2002 - 12:42:48 EDT