>This is just another example of Glenn trying to disqualify rivals so
>he doesn't have to consider their arguments. Even granted that some
>of "Wilcox's views" may be wrong and "His material...outdated",
>his central claim that "modern humans that apparently replaced the
>Neandertals were, in less than half their tenure, walking on the
>moon" is surely beyond dispute?
LESS than half the time? Oh no. The earliest Neanderthal known is dated at
230,000 years ago. The last is 33,000 years ago for a 197,000 year tenure
for the Neanderthal. (see Christopher Stringer and Clive Gamble, _In Search
of the Neanderthals_, p. 69)
Modern man appeared in Africa, maybe at Omo 130,000 years ago. Johanson writes:
"Chris believes that Omo I may be the oldest modern skull and skeleton
because its postcranial bones are more modern in morphology than any specimens
from Klasies. The uranium series dating technique, which was applied to
shells from the same sediment layer where the skull was found, produced an age
of 130,000 years."~Donald C. Johanson, Lenora Johanson, and Blake Edgar,
Ancestors, (New York: Villard Books, 1994), p. 239
This gives modern man a 130,000 year tenure. Let's do the division:
130,000/197,000 = 65% which is more than half. Thus, Wilcox is wrong in his
assertion that modern man has walked on the moon in LESS THAN HALF the
tenure that Neanderthal walked on the earth. Some books mark the early
neanderthal as being 150,000 years old so I gave Wilcox a break by using the
older date.
Sorry Steve but that is the way the math works out. I hope you don't think I
rigged the laws of division to "disqualify a rival" I really am not that
powerful.
The whole thing wrong with Wilcox's math is that he was using outdated
material which had not yet included the new knowledge that modern man lived
prior to 50,000 years.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm