I think she is dead. This will truly be an interesting trip.
>
>BTW, I missed where she called it "art." Where was that, Glenn? I did see
>where she said an "anthropomorphic interpretation" is "open to question."
By comparing it to the Makapansgat pebble, anyone who know the
anthropological literature knows That they are talking about the earliest
possible piece of art. Desmond Morris writes,
Known as the Makapansgat Pebble, after the site where it was found, it
is thought to be the most ancient art object in the world. What makes it so
extraordinary is that the cave where it was discovered was not occupied by
prehistoric man but by the early man-apes known as the Australopithecines.
they may not have been capable of fashioning a model head themselves but they
were at least able to see one in the natural surface-weathering on a pebble and
to be so impressed by the image that they were moved to carry it home with
them, over a long distance."Desmond Morris, The Human Animal, (New York: Crown
Publishing, 1994), p. 186-188.
>
>Where was the word "art" in there? I must have missed it.
It was implicit in the term Makapansgat, to which the term art is often
referred.
>
><<Not at the same rate, but where in the Bible does it say that man must be
>
>constantly innovative and progressive in order to be human? Where?? You
>seem to act as if this is the end all and be all of the definition of
>spirituality. It isn't.>>
>
>It is:
>
>"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." [John E. Pfeiffer -The Emergence of Society- pp. 28-29]
>
Gee, your Bible is quite different from mine. I didn't know there was a
Book of Pfeiffer. What religion did you say you belong to?
I asked for where in the Bible it was, If you don't know what the Bible is,
then I suggest using a dictionary. :-)
>"Homo sapiens, however, is emphatically not an organism that does what its
>precesessors did, only a little better; it is something very--and
>potentially very dangerously--different. Something extraordinary, if
>totally fortuitous, happened with the birth of our species...the true
>enigma of human evolution." [Tattersall-The Fossil Trail- p. 246]
Gee, another Biblical book, called the Fossil Trail? My my, you have a
different Bible, or, you are liberally adding to the Scripture in order to
hold your view.
>
>Your record of "humanity" looks nothing like this. Why is that? Because it
>is not a record of HUMANity.
If Leakey is correct, then my erecti are HUMAN. Leakey writes:
"'I am increasingly of the view that all of the material
currently referred to as homo erectus should in fact be placed
within the species sapiens [which would]project Homo sapiens as a
species that can be traced from the present, back to a little
over two million years.'
see Milford Wolpoff and
Rachael Caspari, Race and Human Evolution, (New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1997), p. 252
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm