GM>As for the "flute":
JB>"...One of the holes goes all the way through the bone and the
>other does not. These facts suggest at least some likelihood that
>the bone was an instrument for lighting fires (by twirling a twig in
>or through one of the holes with a bow).The holes may result from the
>bone's use as a hammer head or an axe head. Other possibilities
>abound. Most importantly, the researchers apparently did not
>construct a bear femur flute according to this bone's specifications
>to test whether or not it is capable of producing music....
>
>This is silly. Only mankind makes a tool with which to make another
>tool. NO other animal does that. We have neanderthal hypothesised
>to make a bone fire-making tool, in order to make another tool,
>fire, so he can cook or keep warm or have light. That was a man by
>anyone's definition, like it or not. If we find a transistor radio
>with Neanderthal are we going to conclude that animals now make
>transistor radios? Remember, if he is not a man with a human
>spirit, then he is an animal.
Glenn just ignores Ross' definition of "human". Ross would no
doubt grant Glenn's point that "Only mankind makes a tool with which
to make another too" and that "NO other animal does that", but Ross
would not see that as a manifestation of "a quality called `spirit'."
Ross is making an important point here but Glenn, seems not to even
comprehend it.
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.
Let's face it - it could have been anything. But with a hole
drilled right through it, it would seem to be a strange "flute".
Unless they can find other proven flutes or whistles that use the
same basic design, or they build a replica that works, it seems
unjustified to claim it *is* a "flute".
JB>"[W]e may also question to what degree of certainty music an be
>declared a manifestation of the spirit. Some music may simply
>express the soulishness we share with bird and mammal species.
>Neurobiologists Albert Yu and Daniel Margoliash have just published
>a paper documenting the amazing musical abilities of zebra
>finches...
GM>What musical instruments do zebra finches make andplay? Do they
>have jam sessions with each other playing the blues when a cat eats
>a friend? Can I buy their CD? I can not honestly believe that
>Christians are going to sink to this level in order to avoid what is
>staring them in the face!!!!!
Ross is pointing out that "music may simply express the soulishness
we share with bird and mammal species." The question of *making*
"musical instruments" is another matter altogther, and clearly involves
intelligence and hands. I agree with Ross here. The ability to
appreciate music and even to make it may be lower level than we think.
I once saw a Jaques Costeau (?sp) film where fish were swimming around
an underwater loundspeaker playing waltz music. It may have been trick
photography but they seemed to be continually changing direction in time
with the music. Circuses play music that their animals seem to dance to.
[..]
JB>"...two American anthropologists, Jeffrey Schwartz and Ian
>Tattersall, published their research on thirteen Neanderthal
>skulls.They found huge nasal bones, much larger sinus cavities than
>modern humas, and no tear ducts. Such features not only differ
>radically from humans, but they also appear unique among all land
>mammals yet discovered. This skeletal evidence provides one more
>proof, perhaps the strongest indicator to date, that modern humans
>cannot be Neanderthals' descendants." (Ibid.)
GM>You should have seen my wife's uncle Cecil's nose! It was BIG.
>But as far as we could tell, Cecil was human having fathered a
>beautiful daughter with a quite human wife. He was at least able to
>interbreed.
Glenn trivialises the point in order to avoid it! :-) What about
"...much larger sinus cavities than modern humas, and no tear ducts"?
I am sure that anthropologists like Tattersal are well aware of the
normal range of Homo sapiens' noses! Neandertal Man's nose was way
outside the range of even the largest H. sapiens' nose:
"Compared to moderns, the Neandertal face stands out. It projects,
almost as if it were pulled forward. This feature can be seen when the
distance of the nose and teeth from the orbits is compared with moderns.
(It would appear that Neandertals were blessed with an extraordinary
large nose which, in the flesh, must have been a monumental sight.)"
(Nelson H. & Jurmain R., "Introduction To Physical Anthropology",
West Publishing Company: St. Paul MN, Fifth Edition, 1991, p517)
Schwartz and Tattersall's point is that H. neanderthalensis' was
not "modern humans" ancestor, and therefore if true: 1. Biblically he
could not be a descendant of Adam, and 2. all Glenn's arguments about
Nenderthal flutes, etc., are besides the point.
GM>I am aware of this supposed" proof" of Neanderthal's different
>species hood. Since we do not procreate with our noses, and the
>size of a nose does not determine the spiritual nature of the
>individual. Are you aware that Orientals have shovel-shaped teeth?
>Europeans don't. Would you say that this feature makes them a
>separate species?
>
>I wouldn't, and neither does the nose make the Neanderthal a
>separate species.
Glenn should go back and read the quote again. It's much, much, more
than "the size of a nose".
GM>There is much evidence of interbreeding between moderns and
>Neanderthal in Eastern Europe.
>
>"The most recent comparative study of these human remains
>was that by Smith. He was able to trace a morphological
>continuum between H. sapiens neanderthalensis and H. sapiens
>sapiens and found no evidence for mass migration in southeastern
>central Europe. Similar conclusions were reached by Frayer, who
>studies the Mladec sample in more detail. On the basis of
>evidence from our region alone, a hypothesis of local evolution
>would be acceptable. At present, there is opposition between the
>gradualist models of the Neandertal-modern man transition and the
>migration models, which are based primarily on comparison of the
>West European, Near Eastern, and african evidence."~Jiri Svoboda
>and Katalin Siman, "The Middle-Upper Paleolithic Transition in
>Southeastern Central Europe (Czechoslovakia and Hungary), Journal
>of World Prehistory, 3:3(1989), p. 283-322, p. 285-286
This is not as definite as it sounds. While Smith offers Mladec
fossils as "an example of local continuity", nevertheless he
admits that their browridges are "reduced from the Neandertal
pattern" and their midface, forehead and postcranium "are not
specifically Neandertallike in a single feature":
"Smith offers another example of local continuity from Mladec (Fig.
17-58) of Czechoslovakia One of the earlier European moderns, at
about 33 ky, the Mladec 5 skulls (2 female, 3 male), display a great
deal of variation, partly due to sexual dimorphism Although the skulls
(except one of the females) possess a prominent supraorbital torus,
they are reduced from the Neandertal pattern and show a division at
the approximate position of the middle of the orbit, a modern trait.
Also modern is the reduction of the occipital projection, which has
been called a hemi- bun. Reduced midfacial projection, a higher
forehead, and postcranial elements "are clearly modern H sapiens in
morphology and not specifically Neandertallike in a single feature."
(Smith F.H. & Frank S., eds, "The Origin of Modern Human", 1984,
p174, in Nelson & Jurmain, 1991, p536)
GM>"A distinct morphological continuum exists between H. sapiens
>neanderthalensis and H. sapiens sapiens in South-Central Europe.
>This is supported by the consistent pattern of change between
>early Neandertals (Krapina, Ganovce, Ochoz, Subalyuk) and late
>Neandertals (Vindija, Kulna, Sipka, Sala?) in certain features in
>the earliest H. sapiens sapiens specimens."~Fred H. Smith, "Upper
>Pleistocene Hominid Evolution in South-Central Europe: A Review of the
>Evidence and Analysis of Trends," Current Anthropology,
>23:6(1982), pp. 667-703, p. 685
Is this really Glenn (the nemesis of old sources) quoting something
dated *1982*? :-)
Nelson & Jurmain point out this is only an "opinion" of Smith, while
acknowledging he is "a specialist in this area":
"There are several basic questions to bear in mind as we examine the
Neandertal event more closely. Did the anatomically modern humans
of Europe evolve from Neandertals? In central Europe, for example,
it is the opinion of Fred Smith, a specialist in this area, that
"morphological continuity between Neandertals and the [early
modern humans] is clearly documented by the available information"
(Smith F.H. & Frank S., eds, "The Origin of Modern Human", 1984,
p192, in Nelson & Jurmain, 1991, p519)
However Smith, a Multiregionalist, does not insist that this is the
only interpretation:
"Dr. Fred Smith takes the view that variation in Vindija G3 skull
features points to a trend continuing on to the later anatomically
moderns of the upper levels. Does Vindija support the proposition
that the origin of H. sapiens sapiens could have occurred here in
Central Europe? As we have already mentioned, Smith does not insist
upon it and suggests anatomically moderns could have come from
elsewhere. But he does believe there is morphological and genetic
continuity between the lower and upper levels of the cave." (Nelson
& Jurmain, 1991, p523)
In fact Smith is a moderate, and seems to be open to the Replacement
(ie. Out of Africa) Theory:
"Smith, one of the supporters of multiple origins, takes a more
moderate view. He maintains that local continuity can be seen at the
Vindija site (p. 523). However, while he thinks the evidence favoring
replacement is equivocal and not as convincing as proponents
suggest, their views should be seriously considered. A basic problem
in this debate is the interpretation of evidence, which was noted in
this chapter's Issue." (Nelson & Jurmain, 1991, p534)
Indeed, it appears that Smith may have changed his mind since and now
may believe that H. neanderhalensis was the ancestor of *archaic* H.
sapiens, not *modern* H. sapiens:
"The Recent African Evolution hypothesis (advocated by Stringer and
Andrews, among others) resembles the preceding model, but there
are important differences. Modern humans evolved in Africa perhaps
as much as 200 kya. This transition occurred only in Africa, where
humans appeared earlier than anywhere else. They imply that the
African origin of moderns was a biological speciation event; that is,
modern humans were a new species and, therefore, they could not
interbreed with archaic sapiens (Smith F.H., et al., "Modern Human
Origins", Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 1989, 32:35-68).
Modern humans migrated to Eurasia, Europe, and the Far East,
completely displacing local archaic populations. There was no
interbreeding, obviously, since archaics and moderns were of different
species" (Nelson & Jurmain, 1991, p533)
GM>Jim, this is all getting very silly on Hugh's part.
Not really. If the "thirteen Neanderthal skulls" that Schwartz and
Tattersall examined included those from the sites cited by Glenn, then
it will force a reevalution of the claimed Neandertal features found in
later H. sapiens fossils in the same site. Some of these similarities may
just be due to convergence due to similar ways of life, ie. coping with
Ice-Age cold, etc. For example, Eskimos have a larger brain size than
other H. sapiens:
"Finally, the brain size of Neandertals, on the average, larger than that
of contemporary H. sapiens. The modern average is 1400 cm3 and
for Neandertals, 1520 cm3. The larger size may be associated with
the metabolic efficiency of a larger brain in cold weather. The Inuit
(Eskimo) brain also averages larger (about that of Neandertals) than
other present world populations." (Nelson & Jurmain, 1991, p517)
If there is one thing that Hugh Ross is, it is not "silly".
On Fri, 06 Dec 1996 23:03:02, Glenn Morton wrote:
GM>My friend called me back tonight and we discussed Hugh's
>suggestion that the Neanderthal flute was a fire making tool. This
>friend studies primitive technology and can manufacture a stone
>tool with great ease. He told me that he had never heard of bone
>being used in this fashion. Two sticks, one pointed, rotated
>rapidly and upright, the other laid horizontal and stationary is
<the normal manner of making fire.
Well, I've got a book Wilkinson P., ed., "Early People",
HarperCollins, 1992 reprint, p16 which under the heading "The
Coming of Fire" has a *picture* of a bow drill which appears made
of bone. The text says:
"Bow drill
On this modern model of a bow drill, the leather bow makes
it easy to turn the drill fast and generate enough heat to
start a fire"."
In the picture, the the bone is the bow and the leather cord is the
bowstring. The bone has holes right through at the ends, through
which the leather cord is anchored. Please note, I am *not* saying
that the `flute' *was* a fire drill.
GM>He and I have discussed the neanderthal flute on numerous
>occasions. He has examined the photos. He pointed out that IF the
>bone had been used for fire-making, it would show scorch marks
>along the edges of the holes. There are none.
Only if the bone came in contact with fire. If it was part of a
bow-drill or fire-lighting guide, it wouldn't necessarily make
contact with fire. Even if it did, it would only be the first
sparks. Besides, the "flute" is only about 10 cm (4 inches) long,
so there could be a lot missing.
Also please note that I would have no problem whatsoever if it
turns out to be a flute. I am just testing Glenn's claim that it
*is* a flute.
GM>His discussion raised another issue in my mind. If this
>technique were used a lot among primitive peoples, there should be
>many examples of this. There aren't.
The same argument applies to Glenn's claim that it was a flute!
Maybe it was just the Neandertal's equivalent of doodling! :-)
GM>Jim, Hugh Ross should stick to astronomy or spend the time to
>learn anthropology before speaking about it. This is becoming a
>very sad affair in my mind; especially since I was the one who
>showed him the Neanderthal flute. I had hopes that Hugh would deal
>more honestly with the data, especially since he told me he didn't
>know much about anthropology.
This advice that "Hugh Ross should stick to astronomy or spend the time to
learn anthropology before speaking about it", is coming from a *geophysicist*,
who claims that a Homo habilis/erectus built a three-decker Ark 5.5 mya! :-)
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------