>I need some clarification, Glenn. It seems to me this part of your theory is
>dependent on "lost evidence." Am I right?
No. I have heard it put that way before but that is entirely the wrong way to
look at what has not been confirmed. Look at Stephen Hawking's work. His
theory requires that a Hawking radiation be observed. It has not been
observed yet. That is "lost" evidence also. The entire theory of black holes
requires that a characteristic spectrum of electromagnetic energy be released
as an emitting object falls into a black hole. The electromagnetic signal
should become lower and lower frequency. (a down chirp). There should be
gravitational radiation. None of this has been detected.
But this is not "lost" or wrong information. These are predictions. All
theories (all good theories) make predictions which then can be verified or
refuted. My theory makes two predictions.
1. Man made objects should be found on the Mediterranean floor. This is a
prediction, not "lost evidence". No other theory has any reason to tell
someone to look there.
2. Some form of mankind will be found at an older age than currently
acknowledged. I would prefer it to be Homo erectus. Homo habilis would do.
My view would require that Homo have existed all the way back to the 5.5 myr
flood. So far I would not claim verification on these two predictions.
If some form of Homo is not found prior to 2 million years, or someone can
look enough on the Mediterranean sea floor, then my theory is wrong. period.
However, my view would need for Neanderthal and some other form of Homo to
possess a language ability back to the 5.5 myr time frame. I think the data
supports such a contention.
>For example, in order to say
>"possibly", you must believe in the ability to pass on, orally, a tradition
>(there is no written tradition, of course). But there is no evidence for the
>complex mode of lingual communication necessary for this to occur, either
>anatomically or mentally. No expert to my knowledge believes there was such
>complex communication back then. The beginnings of lingual capacity,
> perhaps, but not modern language. 30K years ago is the "first time we can be
>sure that people possessed articulate speech, whereas there is no way in
>which we can be certain of this in the case of any earlier group."
[Tattersall @245]
Not true Jim. You have made this assertion before, I have cited experts and
you either 1) don't remember from the last time, 2) didn't read any of my
replies, or 3) are chosing to ignore them. I am assuming it is number 2.
You don't know of any experts who disagree with your position because I have
never seen you quote anyone who disagrees with you. I presume that means
that you don't read anyone who disagrees with your position. There are lots
of experts who believe early hominids had language. For those who might want
the dates: Neanderthals lived 230,000 to 30,000 BP. Erectus lived 1.8 myr to
300,000 BP. Archaic Homo sapiens lived from approx. 500,000 years to 120,000
years.
Dean Falk, one of the world's leading authorities on hominid brains wrote:
""Although those of us who study hominid brain evolution ('paleoneurologists')
are notorious for our disagreements, we do seem to agree that early hominids
may have been capable of language. What accounts for this unusual agreemeent
is the strength and convergence of biological/comparative evidence that favors
an early origin for language."~Dean Falk, "Comments", Current Anthropology
30:2, April 1989, p. 141
Brian Hayden an anthropologist at British Columbia wrote:
"Given the previous arguments on the symbolic connotations of complex
technology, social organization, rituals and the use of coloring agents, there
is no compelling reason to believe that Neandertal language was fundamentally
less complex than fully sapient language, although it may not have been as
developed and probably had a different grammar."~Brian Haden "The Cultural
capicities of Neandertals ", Journal of Human Evolution 1993, 24:113-146, p.
131
For those who believed that Neanderthal had a poorly positioned larynx, Haden
notes that even if this were true, the consequences are not bad. He writes
"Not only had the most significant-indeed the only significant change in brain
morphology related to speech areas occurred millions of years earlier at the
Homo habilis level of evolution, but as Fremlen has so effectively point out
in response to the minimalist view of Neandertal layrngeal areas:
...et seems emprebeble theth ther speech wes enedeqwete bekes ef the leck ef
the three vewels seggested. The kemplexete of speech depends en the
kensenents, net en the vewels, es ken be seen frem the generel
kemprehensebelete ef thes letter."~Brian Haden "The Cultural Capacities of
Neandertals ", Journal of Human Evolution 1993, 24:113-146, p. 131
And "Finally, Le May has shown that modern men, with the same speech
physiology as Neandertals, have normal modern speech."~Brian Haden "The
Cultural Capacities of Neandertals ", Journal of Human Evolution 1993,
24:113-146, p. 132
However, the critics of the language abilities of Neanderthal predicted that
the hyoid bone of the Neanderthal would be different from modern peoples.
Since none had been found, you would call that lost data. But it wasn't. It
was a prediction. In 1990 a Neandertal hyoid was found that was anatomically
like yours. If you can speak then so could Neanderthal. Arensburg wrote:
"The relatively few morphological and metric changes that
have occurred in the hyoid during the last 60,000 (and perhaps
90,000) years have been observed in other visceral bones. There is a
marked similarity among the middle ear ossicles of Middle
Palaeolithic Neanderthals, early anatomically modern humans, and
present-day populations. Together, the evidence from the hyoid and
middle ear ossicles suggests that the osseous elements derived from
the embryonic branchial arches show less rapid evoluitonary changes
than bones derived from dermal or enchondral tissues. A related
inference would be that the associated larynx beneath the hyoid has
scarcely changed in position, form, relationships or size during the
past 60,000 years of human evolution. If indeed this inference is
warranted, the morphological basis for human speech capability
appears to have been fully developed during the Middle Palaeolithic,
contrary to the views of some researchers."~B. Arensburg et al, "A
Middle Paleolithic Human Hyoid Bone," Nature, 338, April 27, 1989, p.
758-760m p. 759-760
If this neanderthal could talk there is no reason to believe that those from
230,000 years ago couldn't. Thus we have language back to 230,000 years ago.
Schepartz believes that Neanderthal could speak. He writes:
"If there was a significant change in language abilities with the origin
of modern Homo sapiens, it leaves no trace in the aspects of the
paleoanthropological record examined here. Specifically, there are no data
suggesting any major qualitative change in language abilities that
corresponds to either 200,000-100,000 BP (the suggested earliest date for
modern Homo sapiens origins proposed by single origin models) or 40,000-30,000
BP (the suggested date for the appearance of modern Homo sapiens in Western
Europe.
"The proposed quantitative shift or 'explostion' in the use of
ornamentation and later art during the European Upper Paleolithic is a
continuation and intensification of a symbolic capacity that is evident for
earlier populations of hominids. This shift in the frequency of symbolic
evidence marks a change in the use of symbolism (rather than its evolution)
for a limite geographic region that is unrelated to the origin of anatomically
modeern Homo sapiens."~L. A. Schepartz, "Language and Modern Human Origins,"
Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 36:91-126(1993), p. 119
Even the critics of Neanderthal speech believe that older even earlier archaic
sapiens were able to speak. This would have language at least going back
500,000 years ago. Schepartz notes of Laitman the critic's study:
"The basicranial line studies of Laitman et al. therefore reach the same
conclusion as the supralaryngeal vocal tract reconstruction studies:
Neandertals were different from modern humans in their speech capabilities.
These basicranial line studies also conclude that other archaic sapiens (or
erectus?) fossil specimens were capable of modern human speech."~L. A.
Schepartz, "Language and Modern Human Origins," Yearbook of Physical
Anthropology, 36:91-126(1993), p. 106
Walker and Shipman believe that mankind had a language fully developed as
early as 60,000 years ago at the colonization of Australia. They note:
"Considering the complexity of the problems that had to be solved to build
suitable ships, accomplish such voyages, and survive, reproduce, and populate
a new continent--problems that caused high death rates among English
immigrants and deportees who tried to recolonize Australia in the nineteenth
century-- I find it hard to imagine that the people who first colonized
Australia lacked full language."~Alan Walker and Pat Shipman, The Wisdom of
the Bones, (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1996), p. 289
Even the most vocal critics of early language development admit that some form
of language existed 1.5 myr ago:
"But Laitman's studies left the case for language in erectus equivocal, for
15K's larynx probably rested in a position very similar to that of a young
modern human child. Toddlers speak proto-language, so the boy's ability to
vocalize might have been developed to a similar degree."~Alan Walker and Pat
Shipman, The Wisdom of the Bones, (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1996), p. 281
Now don't grab ahold of this as if this proves your point. What the boy had
even if they are correct, was a language. You asserted that you knew of no
expert who believed early man had a language until 30,000 years ago. I have
just given you lots of experts so you can improve you knowledge in these
areas.
Your assertion that you know of know experts who believe that language
occurred prior to 30,000 years ago says more about your reading list than
anything else. I have given you 7 experts who say that some kind of language
existed long before 30,000 years ago.
>
>Also, farming was a recent event, as in 10 - 20,000 years ago (e.g., Lambert,
>"Field Guide to Modern Man" p. 196). But Cain and Noah, for example, were
>farmers. Is this, too, a matter of "lost evidence"? What experts believe
>farming was present millions of years ago?
>
>We see man in early Genesis with a sophisticated system of worship, language,
>farming and technology. To deal with that, you don't point to any evidence
> of same. Rather, you argue for incipient humanity. A bit of data here, one
> there,as a "sign" that there was "humanity" in these hominids. Even
>accepting this as signs of humanity, mankind, according to the biblical
>records at issue, was much more than incipient. And the only man that meets
>that standard appeared suddenly, explosively and...RECENTLY.
>
>"In all evolution there is no transformation, no 'quantum leap' to compare
>with this one. Never before has the life-style of a species, its way of
>adapting, changed so utterly and so swiftly. For some fifteen million years
>members of the family of man foraged as animals among animals. The pace of
>events since then has been explosive...an instant on the evolutionary time
>scale..." (Pfeiffer, "The Emergence of Society," McGraw-Hill 1977, pp.
> 28-29)
>
>So it seems to me quite a leap from (say for the sake of argument) Broca's
>area, to the conclusion that homo erectus or neanderthal was as fully
>sophisticated as the man presented in Genesis.
No. But I do know a few things about Neanderthal and erectus. Neanderthal
built brick walls, stone pavements, tents, flutes, made jewelry, worked wood,
invented the hafted tool (which is still in use today) tanned hides, buried
their dead, and made tools from stone of which has been said, "...even today,
there are few students of lithic technology that ever achieve a Neandertal's
level of expertise in producing good Levallois cores or flakes, while the
number of contemporary flinknappers that have successfully mastered the
technique for prodicing good Levallois points probably number less than a
score."~Brian Haden "The Cultural Capacities of Neandertals ", Journal of
Human Evolution 1993, 24:113-146, p. 118
If you seriously want to believe that a languageless brute who accomplished
all of this also played the flute, go ahead. I find your position
incredulous.
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm