On Sat, 07 Dec 1996 18:09:08, Glenn Morton wrote:
[...]
GM>You are correct that animals do dress up their homes, but they do
>not make any type of symboling art in which the art REPRESENTS an
>object. The Makapansgat pebble has two naturally occuring faces on
>it. One looks like an australopithecus, the other like humans.
>This pebble was picked up and carried for at least 3 miles back to a
>cave. The reason we know this is that the closest source for this
>kind of pebble is 3 miles NE of the cave. The object REPRESENTS
>something, a hominid face.(K. P. Oakley, "Emergence of Higher
>Thought 3.0-0.2 Ma B.P.", Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, 292,
>205-211 (1981), p. 205-206)
As I have pointed out, but which Glenn ("the overwhelming silence")
Morton :-) just ignores, this kills stone (no pun intended!) dead his 5.5 mya
Noah theory. A necessary corollary of Glenn's theory is that after the
Flood, all technology was lost, otherwise he cannot explain the
total lack of archaeological evidence for 5 mys. But as the
title of his paper indicates, Oakley is using the "Makapansgat
pebble" to show that "Higher Thought" was only emerging "3.0-0.2 Ma
B.P."
[...]
>GM>The next piece of art is the golan Venus which we have talked
>about. Microscopic analysis proves that it was man-made. It
>represents the female form.
Glenn also ignores my posts which indicate that Marshack is not now
claiming that the "golan Venus" is the first example of art. He is
now claiming that for an etching dated only 54 kya,000-year old, from
Quneitra, Israel (see "Early Etchings", Discover, Vol. 17, No. 7,
July 1996, p26)
I found this interesting quote from an archaeological article:
"Even so, the long dispute over whether people lived in the Americas
in pre-Clovis times is littered with sites that testify to nature's
uncanny ability to flake and fracture stone (bone too, for that matter)
in ways that mimic primitive human artefacts. These mimics are
known as geofacts, and they don't just trap the unwary: in the 1960s,
Louis Leakey was snared at the now infamous Calico site in
California, a hillside of water-laid boulders and chert blocks thought
to contain artefacts dating back to between 50 000 and 80 000 years
ago. It didn't....it isn't enough to prove a specimen could be an
artefact; one must also prove that it could not be a geofact. But
this is easier said than done particularly with specimens as crude as
these, and where nature has had such splendid opportunities for
mischief." (Meltzer D., "Stones of contention", New Scientist, 24
June 1995, pp33-34)
>GM>Your question about bid-brained art would be relevant IF birds were
>drawing pictures of other birds or birds in sexy poses.
The "Golan venus" is hardly a bird in a sexy pose! :-) In fact,
most (if not all) the figurines depict women in advanced states of
pregnancy, so they probably functioned more as a fertility `aid':
"These so-called "Venus figurines" have been found right across
Europe from Spain to Russia, and date from c 25,000- 15,000 BC.
They are always faceless, and heavily pregnant. They seem to show
the importance placed on reproduction and the survival of the
species. " (Wilkinson P., ed., "Early People", HarperCollins: Pymble
NSW, 1992 reprint, p25)
BTW, in a previous post, Glenn, in order to salvage his 5.5 mya Noah
theory, claimed that the Golan Venus was not the work of adults. Now
he is claiming it is "sexy". Which is it to be?
>GM>4. No mention of the lack of tear ducts in Neanderthal skulls.
>So?? big deal. Orientals squat a lot and their legs have
>slightly different shapes than ours. They develop squatting facets
>on their tibia (see F. Wood Jones, Habit and Heritage, pp. 49-50.)
>When I was in China and we sould stop on the side of a road to eat
>lunch, all the Chinese squated on their haunches and contentedly
>munched lunch. After about 5 minutes of doing the same, I was in
>incredible pain. But the Chinese and I are of the same species. But
>I am beginning to wonder about you. :-)
Here is a good example of Glenn's straining at gnats and swallowing
camels! :-). That *modern* "Orientals...develop squatting facets on
their tibia" is an example of minor regional sub-specific variation.
They are still all members of the species H. sapiens and no doubt
when they mate with Occidentals the "squatting facets on their tibia"
would show up in their mixed-race descendants. But in the case of
tear ducts, if *all* Neandertals lacked them and *all*
contemporaneous H. sapiens had them, then that is evidence bordering
on proof that H. neandertalensis and H. sapiens never interbred,
which strongly indicates they couldn't interbreed, ie. they were
different species.
BTW "Orientals" developing "squatting facets on their tibia" sounds
like an example of *Lamarckian* evolution, since it would no doubt be
difficult even for Dawkins to claim that squatting conveyed a
reproductive advantage?
>JB>5. Why do you confuse nose size with nasal sinus cavity size?
GM>I am not confusing anything. These superficial differences are
>just that. They are meaningless to procreation. The continuity
>from Neanderthal to sapiens is well documented in eastern europe.
If the plumbing is different, ie. no tear ducts, then these are
not "superficial differences". As for being "meaningless to
procreation", they would show that 'procreation" did not occur
between Neandertals and anatomically modern humans.
>GM>GM>6. Why no mention of "shaman art," the only truly religous art,
>which is AT MOST only 27,000 years old?
>
>Sorry, Science News, Oct. 5, 1996, which you cited, says 33,000
>years ago. You should read more carefully.
The man who winks at 4 million years (plus), finds a mere 4,000
years as significant? Give us a break! :-)
>GM>I, and others view the Golan Venus as the first evidence of
>religious art. By the way, body painting is also highly correlated
>with religious ritual in primitive societies. It is religious art.
>The first evidence of body painting is from 1.5 million years or so.
That's interesting. What "body" complete with "painting" has been
recovered that is dated "1.5 million years or so'?
[...]
>GM>Furthermore, I have called a knowledgeable friend. My
>understanding is that bone is never used for starting fire.
>The coefficient of friction is too low.
JB>Gee, Glenn, just a few short messages ago you "cried" because,
>among other things, Hugh Ross cited "a guy I never heard of." I
>guess what's good for the goose is only good for the gander when
>YOU get to decide who is the goose!
>It is this reflector that's getting goosed, methinks. ;-)
>GM> This is a misrepresentation, Jim. But I will ignore it.
Why? Glenn complains when others give uncheckable sources, but it is
OK for him to do it.
>GM>Tell me what is wrong with my friends points about the lack of
>scorch marks around the flute holes. Above you said, and I quote,
>
>GM>GM>A good answer on the fire making thesis...
>
>GM>You can't have it both ways Jim. Although Lawyers like to do that.
>My answer was his answer and you thought it was good. Now you don't
>like the fact that he is not famous. He will be so disappointed by
>that.
>
>GM>The whole area of continuity vs replacement is something that is
>highly polarized. The issue seems to be too often put as either
>total replacement of parallel evolution to modern human form among
>different regions. I don't believe that either extreme is correct.
>There was probably more replacement than continuity, but it is
>difficult to avoid some continuity. There are two reasons for this.
>As mankind has moved into the territory of others there has never
>been a reluctance to rape and intermarry regardless of what the
>people look like to each other.
This is just the point. If there was "rape and intermarriage" we
would expect a much stronger merging of features. That Neandertal
man and a.m. Homo sapiens co-existed in the same area (eg. Israel)
forp tens of thousands of years indicates that if they did "rape" and
there were any children, they were sterile hybrids, like mules.
Second features like shovel-shaped teeth on orientals and Native
>Americans today corresponds with shovel-shaped teeth on Asiatic
>Homo erectus.
This is not conclusive for regional continuity: "shovel-shaped
teeth" are not only found 'on orientals and Native Americans today":
"Milford Wolpoff, the strongest proponent of the multiregional-
evolution hypothesis, told an audience at the 1990 gathering of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science that "the case
for anatomical continuity is clearly demonstrated." In northern Asia,
for instance, certain features, such as the shape of the face, the
configuration of the cheekbones, and the shovel shape of the incisor
teeth. can be seen in fossils 750,000 years old; in the famous Peking
Man fossils, which are a quarter of a million years old; and in modern
Chinese populations. Stringer acknowledges this, but he notes that
these features are not confined to northern Asia and therefore cannot
be taken as evidence of regional continuity." (Leakey R., "The Origin
of Humankind", Phoenix: London, 1994, p88)
>GM>Also, Tattersall is one of the extremists.
So was Charles Darwin once! :-)
[...]
>GM>Let me suggest that alcoholic brews have been around for a
>while. Processing plants and seeds by smashing them creates a
>doughy mass which if left out for a while will ferment. The
>earliest plant processing tools are found at around 60,000 years ago
>in Australia.
If Noah lived 5.5 mya, and got drunk on wine (Gn 9:20-21), then
according to Glenn's theory "alcoholic brews have been around for"
*over 5 million years*!
GM>My proof might not be too far away since the first colonizers of
>Australia may not have been anatomically modern humans. The archaic
>ones may have been making beer, tequila or something equivalent.
There is good evidence that "the first colonizers of Australia" may
in fact have been descendants of H. erectus:
"Believed to have lived 10 kya, Kow Swamp fossils are noted for
their robustness: sloping forehead, thick bones, heavy supraorbital
torus, and so on. It is strange that humans living 30 kya should be
more gracile than those living 20 ky later." (Nelson H. & Jurmain R.,
"Introduction To Physical Anthropology", West Publishing Company:
St. Paul, Fifth Edition, 1991, p539)
"Most of these people of the Willandra lakes region were slender,
with high-domed, thin-walled skulls. They appear, in fact, to have
been more slender-boned than the present-day inhabitants of the
region, the Bagundji tribe. There is one exception in the form of a
single find that was given the designation W.L.H. 50, a skull and
some postcranial fragments of what was apparently a very large and
heavy-boned male. These fragments were discovered on the surface
of one of the lakes where they had been exposed by a flash flood, so
it is not possible to say how old they are. But they are heavily
mineralized, even more so than any of the other finds in the area. The
skull is enormously thick with a pronounced and continuous
browridge and a low and sloping forehead. When it is viewed from
above there is a severe postorbital constriction, so that it looks from
that angle like a typically flask-shaped skull of Homo erectus. Yet the
skull is much larger, with a cranial capacity of about 1,300 cubic
centimeters. At Kow Swamp, the skeletal remains of about fifty
individuals with features like those of W.L.H. 50, although not as
extreme, have been found...Larger than most present-day aborigines,
they typically had thick-walled, sugar-loaf-shaped skulls, a shape also
found in some present-day tribes. There has been a great deal of
argument about whether their unusual skull shape could have been
due to deliberate deformation, and it seems likely that some of it may
be. Yet, these people were strikingly different from the majority of
the peoples of the Willandra lakes and the other gracile peoples
whose remains have been found elsewhere in Australia." (Wills C.,
"The Runaway Brain: The Evolution of Human Uniqueness",
HarperCollins: London, 1994, pp148-149)
Ironically, it is the YEC, Lubenow who has pointed this out, and the
linkage between then and the Ngandong (Solo River) fossils (which
have recently been redated to 27,000 years):
"The most dramatic illustration of this condition of the fossil
record is the Kow Swamp, Australia, fossil material initially
discovered in 1967 and published in 1972 in Nature. (Thorne A G. &
Macumber P. G., "Discoveries of Late Pleistocene Man at Kow Swamp,
Australia," Nature 238, 11 August 1972, p316-319). (The Cohuna
cranium, having the same morphology, was discovered in Kow Swamp in
1925.) Others that are included in the group known as robust,
erectus-like Australian fossils are the Talgai cranium discovered in
1886, the Mossgiel cranium discovered in 1960, and the Cossack skull
discovered in 1972. Newer Australian sites yielding robust fossils
include Willandra Lakes and Coobool Crossing. The Java Solo fossils
from the Ngandong Beds exhibit this same robust, erectus-like
morphology. Their date is highly controversial, but a date of less
than 10,000 y.a. based on the associated artifacts is justified.
(Oakley K.P., "Man the Tool-maker", sixth ed., University of
Chicago Press: Chicago, 1976, p80). These discoveries, however, are
just the tip of the iceberg. At least four other locations near Kow
Swamp are said to contain material of similar robust (Homo erectus)
morphology but have not yet been explored in detail. Two of these
sites are at Gunbower and Bourkes Bridge. (Thorne & Macumbe, p316).
A third site is near the Murray River, and a fourth is at Lake Boga.
(Thorne A.G., "Mungo and Kow Swamp: Morphological Variation in
Pleistocene Australians," Mankind, 8:2, December 1971, 87, p152).
The evolutionists' response has been interesting and predictable.
Although these robust Australian fossils are said in the literature to have
Homo erectus features...the evolutionist has waved his magic wand and
called them Homo sapiens because of the very late date. Since Homo
erectus long ago was supposed to have evolved into Homo sapiens, it
is simply unthinkable that any Homo erectus fossils could still be
around so recently. Thus, any thinking person would know that these
fossils are Homo sapiens, no matter what they look like. The most
common explanation now given by evolutionists for this erectus-like
morphology is cranial deformation...We are asked to believe that
evolution produced the Homo erectus morphology in the Lower and
Middle Pleistocene, but that cranial deformation was responsible for
this very same Homo erectus morphology after these individuals had
allegedly evolved into Homo sapiens in the Upper Pleistocene."
(Lubenow M.L., "Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of the
Human Fossils", Baker Books: Grand Rapids MI, 1992, p132-133)
>GM>However, If a flute made by a Neanderthal won't convince you of
>their humanity, then neither will a Bud can. Afterall, some people
>have trained their dogs to drink a Bud with them. So Bud-drinking
>does not prove spirituality anymore than horses eating loco weed
>proves that horses are seeking the meaning of life from drug
>experiences. And when I lived in Louisiana, every morning my cat,
>when let out, would race to my neighbor's herb garden, eat something
>and come staggering out of the vegetation. Don't know what it was,
>but she sure liked it. I think she was having a metaphysical
>experience.
Glenn seems to now have adopted Hugh Ross' definition of humanity,
ie. "spirituality"? :-) He is indeed correct that some claimed
manifestations of "spirituality" aren't.
Happy New Year!
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------