On Mon, 23 Jun 1997 22:20:27 -0500, Glenn Morton wrote:
>GM>I have suggested that the flood be identified with the filling of the
>Mediterranean basin 5.5 million years ago which occurred just prior to the
>first appearance in the fossil record of hominids. The earliest hominid is
>found in Lothagam, Kenya in strata dated to 5.5 million years ago. Hominids
>were on the earth and could have observed the in filling of the mediterranean
>basin.
SJ>This cannot be sustained. Thge "Lothagam" "hominid" is in fact a just
>a small fragment of fossilised lower jaw with two or three teeth.
>There is a picture of it in the National Geographic, September 1995,
>p43. Meave Leakey calls it only "a possibly hominid mandible":
GM>I will stick with the consensus of the experts. Most authorities hold that
>this is a hominid and was a form of Australopithecine.
I have no problem if the "`Lothagam' hominid" was from "a form of
Australopithecine". But I have cited "experts" who think it was (see below)
and others who think it may not be.
SJ>Nelson and Jurmain point out that "No radiometric dates exist for
>the site, but its date of around 5.5 mya was based on faunal
>correlation and that caution must be used in making phylogenetic
>judgments for these fragmentary discoveries:
>(Nelson H. & Jurmain R., "Introduction To Physical Anthropology", 1991, p413)
GM>Stephen, a phylogenetic judgment is a judgement relating to its
>place in the phlyogeny, the line of descent. That has nothing to do
>with whether it is or isn't a hominid.
I note you just ignore the date problem. If the jaw fragment dates after
"5.5 million years ago" then the ape or hominid to which it belonged
"could" not "have observed the in filling of the mediterranean
basin."
Of course "a phylogenetic judgment...relating to its place in the phlyogeny,
the line of descent...has" something "to do with whether it is or isn't a
hominid". If its not in the "hominid" "phlyogeny" then its not a "hominid".
Besides all this, there is no evdience that Australopithecines were anywhere
near the Mediterranean. All the fossils dated c. 5 mya have been found only
around the Great Rift Valley, over 1,000 miles from the Mediterranean.
SJ>Buettner-Janusch, in an admittedly older book, consider the Lothagam
>fragment as Australopithecine"... (Buettner-Janusch J.,
>"Physical Anthropology", 1973, p268...p274)
SJ>Lubenow acknowledges that the Lothagam fragment is of questionable
>quality of the fossil and there are diagnostic problems with mandible
>fragments:...(Lubenow M.L., "Bones of Contention", 1992, p269)
GM>Interesting, Lubenow opens the possiblity that the fossil is human,
>which, if true, would prove my model of the Flood, and blunt your constant
>criticism of my view that there is no evidence of humans living that
>long ago.
This is your usual word-play on the ambiguity of the word "human". I
grant that in one sense, all members of the genus Homo are "human",
but this does not mean they were *fully* human:
"...could these advanced Acheuleans be described as human? In a
strict legalistic sense, I suppose they must be considered ex officio
humans, as members of the genus Homo. But that's not to say that we
would intuitively recognize them as such if we were to encounter a
group of them while out for a stroll on the savanna. In the absence of
an agreed functional definition to tell us what is human and what is
not, everyone has to make up his or her own mind; what is certain,
however, is that even the latest Acheuleans were far from fully human
as we are today." (Tattersall I., "The Fossil Trail", 1995, pp242-243)
Since "Lubenow" is a YEC who believes that we can only "go back
as much as 10,000 to 15,000 years for the creation event" (Lubenow
M.L., "Bones of Contention", 1992, p205), he neeeds to shoehorn all
hominid evidence into either ape or "human" categories. For him
there can be no in-between. He therefore defines "Hominid" as
"human" in the sense of "those who are descendants of Adam":
"Hominid. The word is used by the evolutionist community to mean
"humans and their evolutionary ancestors." It includes the genus
Homo, the genus Australopithecus, and all creatures in the family
Hominidae. As an evolutionist term it is meaningless in a creationist
worldview. The creationist counterpart would be the term human. I
use the term human to refer to those who are descendants of Adam."
(Lubenow M.L., "Bones of Contention", 1992, p12)
Glenn, although you are no longer a YEC, there are parallels
between their situation and yours. You claim that the Flood was the
infilling of the Mediterranean 5.5 mya and that therefore Adam had to
have lived before then. To support this, anything that is human-like
that existed 5.5 mya is taken by you as evidence of the existence of
full humanity 5.5 mya. To achieve this you must emphasise the
similarities of early hominds to modern man and deemphasise their
differences. This is *exactly* the same technique that YECs use.
They have to shoehorn everything that looks remotely human-like into
their timeframe of 15-10 kya. You have to shoehorn everything that
looks remotely human-like into your timeframe of 5.5 mya.
SJ>Which is both anthropologically untenable (hominids at this date did
>not possess the language or technology to build a 3 decker Ark), and
>theologically untenable (Adam must be one of us, ie. Homo sapiens, to
>be in any meaningful way our representative - Rom 5:14; 1Cor 15:22,
>45).
GM>Where dose the Bible say man must be HOMO SAPIENS? I cant find
>the term HOMO SAPIENS in my Bible.
This is just a quibble. Of course the *name* "HOMO SAPIENS" isn't
in the "Bible" since the term was only coined by Linnaeus in the
18th century. But the *reality* that "man" in the Bible (with the
possible exception of the category "man" in Genesis 1) is what we
call Homo sapiens.
Indeed, the whole pattern of Christian redemption is based on our
solidarity with Adam and Christ as our representatives (Rom 5:14;
1Cor 15:22). If Adam was a different species (as Homo habilis and
Homo erectus were), or indeed a different genus (as Australopithecus
was), then there is no solidarity between Homo sapiens and him. We
would not then be "one blood" with Adam as we are with "all nations
of men" that "dwell on all the face of the earth" (Ac 17:26). You
might have purchased some sort of harmony between the Flood and
geology, but at the expense of theology.
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------