>Stephen Jones reminds us:
>
><< Some anthropologists argue that the tools used by H.
>erectus assumes speech capability; others study the evolution of the
>skull and how the brain (e.g., Broca's area) was affected, and
>conclude speech began quite early in hominid evolution (Falk, 1987).
>Still others believe that speech did not originate until the Upper
>Paleolithic, or at least cannot be proved until then (Davidson and
>Noble, 1989). At this point, we agree with Falk when she says,
>`Unfortunately, what it is going to take to settle the debate about
>when language originated in hominids is a time machine Until one
>becomes available, we can only speculate about this fascinating and
>important question' (1989, p. 141)">>
>
>This is important, as Glenn has castigated Ross for saying "this is the way
>things are" without discussing contary evidence. Yet Glenn is certain speech
>existed in early hominids. No doubt about it, says Glenn,despite the contrary
>evidence, which he dismisses.
>
>Sauce for the goose!
>
Jim, you use the term "contrary evidence " in a funny manner. You and Stephen
cite people who say nothing can be proven and then say that is "contrary
evidence" In point of fact, you have not cited any evidence pro or con. The
LACK of a Brocas area would be contrary evidence for speech in early hominids.
Yet the case is that these early hominids do have brain assymetry, Broca's
area, and Wernicke's area all of which today are evidence of speech abilities.
Thus, their existence is evidence IN FAVOR of speech.
>Another reminder:
>
><<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.>>
>
The book on the facts of life, which was given to me as a 12 year old, says
nothing about tear ducts being used for procreation so I think this is a
non-sequitur.
Neanderthal was well adapted to very cold climates. His body shape was an
extreme form of that owned by eskimoes. As such one can think of lots of
reasons a human population might experience strong natural selection against
tear ducts. In a glacial climate water on the skin freezes. If the water is
being pumped to the eyes, frezzing them shut, or building up ice layers which
interfere with sight, a being without them might be better able to see the
next meal.
>This is a good point again. The "technological dark age" is part of Glenn's
>theory that has no proof, but the ABSENCE of proof to prove it. This a
> major problem I have with his theory.
>
I think you are being totally unfair here Jim. I have never ever said that
this aspect of my views was proved. It can't be and I have admitted it many
times it. My view is consistent with the evidence. Your rhetoric is going to
excess here. I don't mind normal criticism, but I do mind being totally
misrepresented with your full knowedge,
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm