Re: The compassionate Homo erectus

Glenn Morton (GRMorton@gnn.com)
Tue, 06 Aug 1996 20:33:35

>I didn't mean to say someone was caring for her.Fighting off predators is
>caring for YOURSELF. Animals do that out of a sense of SELF-preservation.
>That was my point. My last sentence sloppily could have given the
>impression that they had her welfare in mind. Sorry about that.
>
I already dealt with this in part. No one on the African plain wants to
live near the predators. Predators come to the watering holes. If you
don't believe this then build a house near a water hole and see how
comfortable you about going outside.

Thus they would not set up camps near the water. This requires that the
Homo erectus comrades carry water some distance. As Walker and Shipman
pointed out, this means they had a recepticle for carrying the water. Can
you name a single animal that carries water in any type of recepticle? I
am aware of no such example. This once again

><<To be fair to Glenn, you ought to enumerate those assumptions, so
> they can
>be responded to.>>
>
>Who wants to be fair to Glenn?
>

:-)

Jim Bell listed the assumptions he didn't like.
These are:

>Oh, OK. The speculators assume:
>
>1. 1808 had a certain disease which...
>2. ...caused a certain clotting pattern which...

This is what your forensic experts in those courtrooms do every day. If
you were a prosecutor, you would use this type of medical information to
convict a person. If you were a defence attorney, you would use such
information to gain an acquittal. Are you now telling me that your
profession, (lawywers) are lying to us poor citizens in the jury box?

>3. ...took place in a certain environment which...

The details of the rocks can be used to determine the environment of
deposition of any strata. This is accmplished by comparing modern
deposits with what is observed. Sand with cross bedding and scorpion
tracks preserved on the bedding planes is only found in desert
environments. Strata with mud cracks, fish fossils, bird and mamal tracks
are found only at the edge of the sea or a lake. Environment is simple.
You just have to dig a little deeper that you want to.

>4. ...was necessarily antithetical to survival and...

I used to do diving like you saw at the olympics. (well, not quite like
that). When I was 35, I did my last dive. I did a gainer and landed on
the diving board. My foot was rammed to within 3 inches of my kneecap.
The bone was broken in 4 places. The pain was the most excruciating I had
ever had. Morphine could not quell it.(You can wiggle your toes at times
like that) Later I asked the doctor why the pain had been like that. He
told me that the leg bones have a sheath of nerves surrounding them. When
you mess with these nerves, like I had, you get the same fun pain that a
bone cancer patient gets. The ripping of the periosteum would have the
same effect on the nerves of the leg as my broken leg had on mine.

***Let me assure you. 1808 would have had serious difficulty moving***

>5. ...only causes this pattern over an extended period of time
> because...

So you believe that ossification and bone growth takes place
instantaneously? My leg took 6 months to fully heal, at least that is
what my doctor told me. But since you know that it is a quick process, I
must conclude that the doctor was simply taking my money for all those
months. Would you consider taking my case to sue the old Doc for my
fraudulently taken money? You can have half since you can also be the
expert witness for our side.

>6. ...it did not evolve like everything else, so...

Who said that this deformity evolved?

>7. ...it was impossible for 1808 to help herself and...

I would bet you couldn't help yourself with the pain I experienced with my
broken leg. 1808's pain couldn't be much less.

>8. ...she was all alone, thus...

I told you in the other note, Walker and Shipman do not think she was
alone.

>9. ...leaving no alternative but a Homo Nightingale to help her.
>

>This I find to be a rather large leap of the imagination. I'm not
> against such
>leaps, because I like stories as much as the next guy. I just wouldn't
> base my
>scientific judgments on them.
>
>Too often, that is just what evolutionists do. They reach a wall of
>inexplicability, and substitute a story. Very often, that story is
> nothing more than a variation on a single theme: "There must have been
>some adaptive advantage. Let's think of one..."
>

Inexplicable means unexplainable. If evolutionists have reached the wall
of inexplicability here, then I am sure that a creationist like you has
not reached that wall. What is your explanation of these facts?

glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm