Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Sunday, April 25 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1421
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 21:47:08 -0600
From: PostMaster <Mailer-Daemon@navyouth.org>
Subject: Message Not Delivered: evolution-digest V1 #1420
The message you sent could not be sent to the following recipient(s):
SMTP:bgmsm@navyouth.org
Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Saturday, April 24 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1420
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 08:16:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Rich Daniel <rwdaniel@dnaco.net>
Subject: Re: Evolution: dead man walking
On April 8, Cummins wrote:
[...]
> Okay, I'll give you this one. There was no visible light until energy
> decoupled from matter, at which point, the energy expanded at the speed of
> light and didn't hang around for us to detect as background radiation thus
> the Big Bang model doesn't really predict background radiation so I don't
> need to appeal to diffused energy from stars to explain it...
You misunderstand. The universe is very much larger than you imagine.
The cosmic microwave background radiation that we see today has not been
bouncing around in the interstellar gas for the last 13 billion years;
it comes to us directly in a straight line from the edge of the visible
universe.
Many people think Big Bang theory has the initial universe shrunk down to
a very small point. Not so. It was instead a very large volume of matter
with maximum density. For all we know, it might even have been infinitely
large.
If the CMBR came from stars or interstellar dust, it would be stronger
in the galactic plane. It's not.
Rich Daniel rwdaniel@dnaco.net http://www.dnaco.net/~rwdaniel/
- ------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 17:29:46 GMT
From: "David J. Tyler" <D.Tyler@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: Criticisms of "Darwin's Black Box"
An interesting article has appeared on the Leadership University
site. Source:
http://www.leaderu.com/science/disilvestro-dbb.html
It opens as follows:
- - ---------------------------
Rebuttals to Common Criticisms of the Book Darwin's Black Box
by
Robert DiSilvestro, Ph.D. Biochemistry Associate Professor, Human
Nutrition, The Ohio State University
Criticisms:
# 1. This is a new version of the God of the gaps.
# 2. Gene duplication provides the complexity.
# 3. Evolution can create systems from genes that are already around
for other purposes.
#4. Some steps of evolution are no longer seen, but were there before
a system looked irreducibly complex.
#5. Some seemingly complex systems initially worked at a simpler
level, which eventually evolved to a more complex, even an
irreducibly complex system.
#6. We have examples of criticism 5 (simpler versions of more
complex biological systems).
#7. Today, we can see examples of genetic evolution that support some
of the above criticisms.
#8. "I don't know how it could happen" doesn't equal "It couldn't
happen."
The book Darwin's Black Box, by biochemistry professor Michael Behe,
has challenged the idea that Darwinian evolution explains many of the
complex biochemical systems we see today. Instead, Behe proposes,
these systems are the result of intelligent design. The book's message
has been received with great enthusiasm by many people, including many
evangelical Christians. On the other hand, much of the biological
research community has dismissed the book. This dismissal is based on
various criticisms. Sometimes, the criticisms are made fairly simply,
while at other times, they are dressed up with many complex
biochemical details. Whether the objections sound complicated or not,
the most common objections distill down to about eight basic
criticisms. I contend that these criticisms are flawed. Below, I
provide a very short summary of the basic ideas of the book, and then
briefly describe the eight main criticisms and give my rebuttals to
them.
- - -------------------------------
Hope this is of interest.
Regards,
David J. Tyler.
- ------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 16:07:34 -0700
From: Brian D Harper <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: My last word
At 05:21 PM 4/21/99 EDT, Kevin wrote:
>In a message dated 4/21/99 12:02:52 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
>bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu writes:
>
>> >To my knowledge, no one said that Wells did not have the RIGHT to raise
>> >objections. What we were saying is that his lack of knowledge of the
>> >peppered moth and his lack of experience in biological field work (and
>> >apparantly in scientific research in general), not to mention his more
>> >political ambitions, has led him to make foolish accussations that he
>> >cannot
>> >support, yet stubbornly clings to even after more knowledgeable and
>> >experienced people have explained how and why he is wrong. We do not
>> >object
>> >to Wells because he has the wrong credentials; we object to Wells because
>> >he is a fool.
>> >
>>
>> How nice for you. I have no expertise in industrial melanism,
>> biological field work etc. I do know something, however, about
>> experimental methods. Nothing Wells has said in this regard
>> strikes me as foolish. In fact, quite the opposite.
>>
>
>Then I guess you haven't been paying attention to what Don Frack has been
>saying.
>
Well, as I indicated previously, I have only scanned Don's posts. I received a
copy of Majerus book today. I'll look at it first and then go back and look
at Don's posts again.
[...]
>> BH:===
>> >>
>> >> What occurred to me originally was that a photograph of a moth
>> >> sitting on an exposed tree trunk will reinforce not only the
>> >> idea of increased visibility due to coloration but also increased
>> >> visibility due to being out in the open on an exposed tree trunk.
>> >>
>> >
>>
>> KO:===
>> >If you did not already know that the moths were resting on tree trunks,
>how
>> >could you distinguish that from say a large diameter bough? The point is
>> >still, though, that the PLACE mattered little, only the color contrast.
>> >
>>
>> Interesting. Below you give differences in hunting styles which
>> show that the place does matter. Of course, this would matter
>> little wrt the central claim that bird predation is the cause
>> for the differential success of the two colorations. Nevertheless,
>> it is an indication that place *might* matter.
>>
>
>Look again at what I said: I said the place matters little, I didn't say it
>didn't matter at all.
OK. Nevertheless, it seems that Majerus disagrees:
#"If the relative fitness of the morphs of the peppered moth does depend
#on their crypsis, the resting position is crucially important to the estimation
#of fitness differences between the morphs. This is particularly the case
#in changing or intermediate habitats with respect to pollution, because in
#such habits the distribution of lichens on trees is likely to be more
#heterogeneous than in very unpolluted or very polluted habitats. It is
#therefore valuable to consider, albeit briefly, on which parts of trees
#lichens of different types seem to grow in different situations."
# -- Majerus p. 123
>By the way, the differences in hunting styles do not
>increase the probability that place would matter. Pattern recognition
>predators can still be fooled by camouflage; the classical experiments and
>the more recent follow-up experiments demonstrated that when the moths did
>rest on trunks that pattern recognition predators still preferentially took
>moths whose color had the highest contrast with the background. As such,
>since camouflage is even more effective against movement/color contrast
>predators, you would expect the preferential predation would be even stronger
>in the canopy.
>
>>
>> Has anyone demonstrated
>> empirically that selective predation occurs where moths normally
>> rest?
>>
>
>According to Majerus, yes; the details and references are in his book.
>
Perhaps you could help me out a little. What I've found so far seems
to contradict what you say. For example:
#"Although observations of peppered moths being taken from natural resting
#positions are still lacking and are urgently needed, it is highly probable
#that predation levels are significant." -- Majerus
and then a little later on the same page:
#"Yet, surprisingly, experiments to show formally that the degree of crypsis
#of the different peppered moth forms does affect the level of predation
#inflicted on them by birds have never been carried out." --Majerus
>>
>> As another possible influence of location, would you happen to
>> know off hand whether lichens grow better on tree trunks as opposed
>> to branches?
>>
>
>It depends upon the species, but generally no.
>
Once again, it seems that you disagree with Majerus.
[...]
>
>>
>> Please accept my humblest apologies if I am acting overly
>> foolish :).
>>
>
>For someone who criticizes others for discourtesy in their writings, you can
>be very sarcastic when you want to be.
Well, I guess you've probably caught me on that one ;-).
[...]
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"All kinds of private metaphysics and theology have
grown like weeds in the garden of thermodynamics"
- - -- E. H. Hiebert
- ------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 20:53:12 -0400
From: Tim Ikeda <tikeda@sprintmail.hormel.com>
Subject: Re: Criticisms of "Darwin's Black Box"
David,
Thanks for the URL. I've seen DiSilvestro's comments before.
Rather general and too non-specific, IMHO. For example, the section
about gene duplication doesn't seem terribly detailed. There are
many papers in the literature which describe mechanisms and models
of divergence in gene families. It's not as if this is a mechanism
without precedent.
Overall, a condensed rehash of Behe's arguments.
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tikeda@sprintmail.hormel.com (despam address before use)
- ------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 22:17:45 EDT
From: Biochmborg@aol.com
Subject: Re: My last word
In a message dated 4/23/99 3:04:39 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu writes:
> >
> > Look again at what I said: I said the place matters little, I didn't
say
> > it didn't matter at all.
>
> OK. Nevertheless, it seems that Majerus disagrees:
>
> #"If the relative fitness of the morphs of the peppered moth does depend
> #on their crypsis, the resting position is crucially important to the
> #estimation
> #of fitness differences between the morphs. This is particularly the case
> #in changing or intermediate habitats with respect to pollution, because in
> #such habits the distribution of lichens on trees is likely to be more
> #heterogeneous than in very unpolluted or very polluted habitats. It is
> #therefore valuable to consider, albeit briefly, on which parts of trees
> #lichens of different types seem to grow in different situations."
> # -- Majerus p. 123
>
Since I do not have a copy of Majerus' book, I can only speculate as the the
context of that quote. It sounds like Majerus is discussing the relationship
of lichen coverage to crypsis. In that case, place would have an effect ONLY
if crypsis were largely dependent upon lichen coverage and ONLY if lichen
coverage varied from place to place. According to Don's posts (including
reprints of posts sent to him by Majerus) crypsis is not necessarily
dependent upon lichen coverage, though it was undoubtably a factor in
England. Yet considering that Majerus is convinced that "that the rise and
fall of the carbonaria form of the peppered moth has resulted from changes in
the environments in which this moth lives", that these changes "have come
about as a result of changes in pollution levels which have altered the
relative crypsis of the forms of this moth", and that the "main, if not the
only selective factor that has lead to changes in the frequencies of the
forms over time is differential bird predation", it would seem to me that
even if lichen grows differently on branches than on trunks, the research
presented by Majerus in his book (according to Don Frack and Majerus) show
that they played only a very small role in crypsis, and that place indeed
played little or no role in the fitness of the morphs. This leads me to
believe that the quote you give above is the beginning of a discussion that
will ultimately conclude with something like "in fact the resting place is
not crucial to fitness estimation after all." Otherwise Majerus' strong
claim connecting crypsis, pollution and bird predation -- without adding
resting place qualifiers -- makes no sense. And it makes even less sense
when you consider that Majerus is the leading proponent of the canopy as the
normal resting place of the moth. Obviously he must believe that crypsis and
selective bird predation is just as important there as on the trunk. But you
have his book; what does he say?
>
> >> Has anyone demonstrated
> >> empirically that selective predation occurs where moths normally
> >> rest?
> >>
> >
> > According to Majerus, yes; the details and references are in his book.
> >
>
> Perhaps you could help me out a little. What I've found so far seems
> to contradict what you say. For example:
>
> #"Although observations of peppered moths being taken from natural resting
> #positions are still lacking and are urgently needed, it is highly probable
> #that predation levels are significant." -- Majerus
>
> and then a little later on the same page:
>
> #"Yet, surprisingly, experiments to show formally that the degree of
crypsis
> #of the different peppered moth forms does affect the level of predation
> #inflicted on them by birds have never been carried out." --Majerus
>
This is what Don Frack said in his first post on the peppered moth, posted by
me under the title "Peppered Moths - in black and white (part 1 of 2)":
"Finally, Coyne's reference to a 'mystery' of where peppered moths rest
appears to contradict Majerus, who refers to his and others experiments on
branch-related resting sites - apparently the most common location.
Experiments with moths attached to these locations support the cryptic
advantage of earlier studies from trunks." In other words, Don is saying
that Majerus is saying that there have been experiments done on branch
resting sites and that these experiments confirm those of the trunk resting
sites. They may not be "formal" experiments in which direct observation of
birds taking moths from branches confirm the experimental setup, but they
seem good enough for Majerus.
>
> >>
> >> As another possible influence of location, would you happen to
> >> know off hand whether lichens grow better on tree trunks as opposed
> >> to branches?
> >>
> >
> >It depends upon the species, but generally no.
> >
>
> Once again, it seems that you disagree with Majerus.
>
Maybe, maybe not. The above quote merely raises the possibility that lichens
might grow differently on different parts of the tree, and you cut off the
quote right at the point where he is just about to reveal if that was true
and to what extent it was true. And these lichens may be one of those
species that does grow differently in different places (Majerus is not making
a general statement about all lichens). Also, if you look more closely at
what Majerus said, the only time you would expect lichen coverage to be
heterogeneous is when the tree was in transition between a very unpolluted
state and a very polluted state. Even so, since Majerus is convinced by the
research that crypsis and selective bird predation plays as important a role
in the canopy resting places as it does on the trunk, he must also believe
that even if lichen coverage is heterogeneous, it has little affect on
fitness as determined by crypsis.
Kevin L. O'Brien
- ------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 21:45:26 -0500
From: "Glenn R. Morton" <grmorton@waymark.net>
Subject: Re: Neanderthal/Human Hybrid?
John Lynch wrote:
> Am I the only one wondering how we know the _spleen_ of a 25,000 old
> skeleton is modern?
I interpreted the part about the spleen, as reporter stupidity. Spleens
are not part of the skeleton and can't be part of the skeletal material.
In fact, I have never heard a discussion of the spleen from any anthro
text or article.
- - --
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm
- ------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1420
********************************
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 10:52:20 -0500
From: "Glenn R. Morton" <grmorton@waymark.net>
Subject: This week's anthropological discovery
The past six weeks have been good to my views. First there was the
proof of paternal mtDNA inheritance which had the effect of moving the
date of mitochondrial Eve back to a time of at least 400,000 years.
(see http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199903/0294.html )
This time is prior to when there were anatomically modern people on the
earth. This means that Eve was NOT an anatomically modern human! And
this removes the 'support' progressive creationists have claimed for
their view that mankind was created 100 kyr ago in a morphological form
just like ours.
Then there was the dental development discoveries from Atapuerca Spain
in which children 800 kyr ago had a modern human dental development,
which means that mothers had to care for their children in a
characteristically human fashion. (J. M. Bermudez de Castro, A. Rosas,
E. Carbonell, M. E. Nicolas J. Rodriquez and J. L. Arsuaga, "A Modern
Human Pattern of Dental Development in Lower Pleistocene Hominids from
Atapuerca-TD6(Spain)," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 96(1999):4210-4213)
Last week was the discovery of a possible Neanderthal/modern human
hybrid which, if true, destroys the modern progressive creationist view
of God creating Adam 100,000 years ago (more on that in another post).
And these discoveries fit very nicely into an upcoming article in
Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith June 1999, "Dating Adam" in
press.
This week's discovery of a a new species of Australopithecus who made
stone tools and hunted meat give support to a speculation I advanced in
the earliest versions of Foundation, Fall and Flood. There I had
speculated that it might become necessary to consider Australopithecine
as human in the spiritual sense. Since that time I had backed off from
that possibility. Last week's discovery has shown something new about
Australopithecines--they made stone tools and they hunted. (see
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/042399sci-human-fossil.html).
The evidence for stone tools is in the form of antelope bones with stone
tool cut marks found in association with the Australopithecine skeletal
material. When animals are butchered by stone tools, cut marks are found
on the bones where the stone tool was used to cut muscle away from the
bone. Their presence on bones aged 2.5 myr alone with the
Australopithecus is strong evidence of hunting.
Now, this site is one of two that shows that Australopithecus used
tools. The other is at Swartkrans, South Africa where bone tools were
found in association with possible fire use. (B. A. Wood, "Evolution of
Australopithecines,"in S. Jones et al, editors, The Cambridge
Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1992), p. 239). There is also the 3 myr old Makapansgat pebble which
was a rock with a naturally occuring face on it which resembled an
Australopithecus. The rock was made of precambrian banded iron formation
and did not belong in a limestone cave. Someone carried it at least 3
miles back to the limestone cave. It has been interpreted as an ability
to recognize art and recognize self.
It appears that cultural remains are associated with Australopithecus.
So what is the theological status of them? Given the low level of
culture it will be very difficult to give a definitive answer to that.
But Christians do need to keep the possibility open that they may fall
into humanity. This would not be inconsistent with taxonomical data as
many anthropologists over the years have argued that Australopithecus
should be classified as a member of our genus, Homo. John Robinson, a
very well respected member of the south African Anthropological
community, wrote in 1967):
"If variation is properly taken into account and due attention is paid
to diagnostic criteria, the obvious conclusion appears to be that the
hominids are not a taxonomically diverse group. On the contrary the
group seems to have been taxonomically compact with with two major
lineages only. One is less progressive and comprises the genus
paranthropus, which appears to have become extinct in the Middle
Pleistocene. The other is a much more progressive line, which at all
times after it was recognizably different from the former was adapting
to its environment in a manner that involved culture as a very prominent
part of the adaptation. this line includes what currently is regarded
as Australopithecus (sensu strico) and Homo. Since it is a line
occupying one adaptive zone, I consider it reasonable to use a single
generic name for it, and this would have to be Homo, according to the
Code. Also, being a single lineage, its taxonomy is largely a matter of
taste since no completely separate taxa, differentiable by means of
properly diagnostic charactes, can be found in it. However, since two
more or less separate groups can be defined within the lineage, two
species could be made without serious difficulty. The first would
include the more primitive stage, in which the full characters of the
genus were being achieved, in which the brain is relatively small, the
primitive type of internal mandibular contour is still present and the
cultural level achieved is not especially advanced. this would properly
be named H. transvaalensis. Some authors have recently suggested
something similar to this but refer to the species thus defined as H.
africanus by simply substituting Homo for Australopithecus. However,
this is not proper since the trivial name africanus is preoccupied as
far as the genus Homo is concerned (having been used by Broom for Boskop
Man), hence it may not be used here, and the next senior trivial name,
transvaalensis, must be used instead, as Mayr realized a long time ago.
"The second species, representing the stage in which most of the
obvious physical change had already occurred and evolution consisted
chiefly of realization of the cultural potential, hence the most obvious
change being cultural, would be H. sapiens, this name having taxonomic
precedence over H. erectus. It is obvious, however, that the characters
of the one species grade into the other, hence with sufficient material
known, some specimens would be difficult to classify. Some workers
might prefer to make more species and others may prefer to have only a
single species; this is a matter of tast and I have here suggested what
appears to me to be most meaningful.
"I suggest, therefore, that the time has come to sink the genus
Australopithecus Dart, 1925 into the synonymy of the genus Homo
Linnaeus, 1758. On this interpretation the family Hominidae includes
the genera Paranthropus Broom 1938, and Homo. If the above
interpretation is correct, then there can hardly be justification for
having two subfamilies. There can also be very little justification
either for using the term 'australopithecine.'" ~ John T. Robinson,
"Variation and the Taxonomy of the Early Hominids," Evolutionary Biology
1(1967):69-100, p. 97-98
And 50 years ago, the world-famous taxonomist, Earnst Mayr, argued for
only one genus of hominids. He did this at the famous Cold Spring
Harbor symposium in which the plethora of hominid fossil names were
reduced to two, Australopithecus, and Homo. Mayr wrote:
"Being left with one species of gorilla and one species of chimpanzees,
we are confronted by the question whether or not they are sufficiently
different to justify placing them in different genera. A specialist of
anthropoids impressed by the many differences between these species may
want to do so. 0ther zoologists will conclude that the differences
between the two species are not indicative of a generic level of
difference when measured in the standards customary in most branches of
zoology. To place these two anthropoids into two separate genera defeats
the function of generic nomenclature and conceals the close relationship
of gorilla and chimpanzee as compared with much more different orang
and the gibbons. Recognizing a separate genus for the gorilla would
necessitate raising the orang and the gibbon to subfamily or family rank
as has indeed been done or suggested. This only worsens the inequality
of the higher categories among the primates.
"The same is true for the fossil hominids. After due consideration of
the many differences between Modern man, Java man, and the South African
ape-man, I did not find any morphological characters that would
necessitate separating them into several genera. Not even
Australopithecus has unequivocal claims for separation. This form
appears to possess what might be considered the principal generic
character of Homo, namely, upright posture with its shift to a
terrestrial mode of living and the freeing of the anterior extremity for
new functions which, in turn, have stimulated brain evolution. Within
this type there has been phyletic speciation resulting in Homo sapiens.
" Ernst Mayr, "Taxonomic Categories in Fossil Hominids," Cold Spring
Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, 15(1951)pp109-117, reprinted
in William White Howells, Ideas on Human Evolution, (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1962), pp 241-256, p. 245
While most christian apologists don't dig deeply enough to ever learn of
these facts and issues, they are still issues and will raise their head
again as more cultural data is found in association with
Australopithecus.
For now, I still prefer to hold that Noah was a yet undiscovered member
of our genus as currently defined. But I certainly could be wrong.
- --
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 10:53:44 -0500
From: "Glenn R. Morton" <grmorton@waymark.net>
Subject: A question for progressive creationists
Given the discovery last week of a possible Neanderthal/Modern human
hybrid, I have a question for the progressive creationists. The current
most widely held formulation of this view places the discontinuity
between animal and human between the Neanderthals(and other early
hominids) and anatomically modern humans. God, it is claimed, directly
created anatomically modern man to be special, to have communinion with
him and to clearly be different than the beasts of the field, like
Neanderthals and their ilk.
Over the week I have read other accounts of the discovery and reading
somewhat between the lines, here is what I expect the scientific reports
to contain. The skeleton had an anatomically modern human chin (which
neanderthals did not possess) and other anatomically modern skull
traits, but his body had the muscle attachments characteristic of
neanderthals. Neanderthal muscle attachments were different than ours.
They were extremely strong and some people believe that this evolved in
response to the way they hunted big game (by getting them to charge and
at the last minute stepping aside and grabbing the animals fur and
using short knives to stab the animal and the Neanderthal was carried
along).
No anatomically modern human has Neanderthal-type muscle attachments.
If this boy had those types of attachements, then he was a hybrid, no
doubt. And if he was a hybrid, then here is the question:
Why would God create Adam as an anatomically modern man with an ability
to interbreed with the animals? In the progressive creationist view Adam
was supposed above the beasts of the field. So why would God create the
crown of creation in a fashion to be able to produce offspring with
beasts?????
To me, this possibility destroys the viability of the progressive
creationist view, as currently formulated. Any comments?
- --
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 18:18:49 -0500
From: "Glenn R. Morton" <grmorton@waymark.net>
Subject: Who invented the Upper Paleolithic? Can you say Neanderthal?
Until the past few years, evidence seemed to indicate that the upper
paleolithic culture, the culture which was associated with anatomically
modern man, had been invented by modern man. This is a view that many
progressive creationists have taken (see Wilcox, PSCF, 48(1996):88-96)
The art, the upper paleolithic tools (Aurignacian), the life style all
were supposed to be created by Adam's descendants, not the beasts of the
field--neanderthals and their ilk. IN fact, Wilcox says that the
Neanderthals were not inventive at all. (see Wilcox, PSCF, 48(1996):92)
Thus, the prediction of the progressive creation position is that
Anatomically modern man should be the inventive one, and should have
brought the Aurignacian tools and modern behavior with him when he
invaded Europe. But this is not what the current evidence suggests.
I might note that there are two aspects of the upper paleolithic
culture. First there are the tools made by the Upper Paleolithic peoples
which are different from those of the middle Paleolithic. Secondly,
there are seasonal hunting patterns that were believed to be
characteristic of the Upper Paleolithic. IN such hunting patterns,
different prey was caught at different times, with planning for the
migratory habits of the animals. It has been felt that Neanderthal was
incapable of such long range planning. These differences in tools and
behavior were believed to indicate an invasion of anatomically modern
people who replaced the Neanderthals. This view fit well into the
progressive creationist theological view. But an article in the Journal
of Human Evolution this year has cast doubt on all that.
Over the past few years evidence has been accumulating that indicates
that the earliest occurrence of Aurignacian tools occurred in Spain
which was the very last place occupied by anatomically modern man;
indeed, it was not occupied by anatomically modern man until after
34,000 years BP which is the date of the earliest anatomically modern
human. This fossil was found across the continent, far distant from
Spain. It was found in eastern Europe. (Fred H. Smith, "Upper
Pleistocene Hominid Evolution in South-Central Europe: A Review of the
Evidence and Analysis of Trends," Current Anthropology,
23(1982):6:667-703, p. 680). If the upper Paleolithic tools were
imported from Africa with anatomically modern men, we should expect to
find the oldest Aurignacian tools in the Middle East and then in
Europe. That is not what we find.
What we find is that the modern tool kit first appears in Neanderthal
territory far from anatomically modern men. What is more, we find that
there is a gradual transition of technologies from Mousterian (Generally
considered Neanderthal) technology to Aurignacian (generally considered
Anatomically modern human) technology. And this gradual transition also
occurs in the last place the progressive creationist would expect--deep
in Neanderthal Spain, 40,000 years ago!
Anne Pike-Tay et al write in a recent article:
"AMS 14C dates of ca. 40,000 B.P. from El Castillo in Cantabria and
38,000 B.P. from L'Arbreda and the Abric romani in Catalunya represent
the earliest unequivocal Aurignacian appearances in western Europe."
Anne Pike-Tay et al, "Seasonal variations of the Middle-Upper
Paleolithic Transition at El Castillo, Cueva Morin and El Pendo
(Cantabria, Spain)," Journal of Human Evolution, 36(1999):283-317, p.
284
Further, she notes the transitional nature of the Middle to Upper
Paleolithic boundary. They write:
"At these and other Cantabrian sites, Middle Paleolithic tool types are
present in early Upper Paleolithic assemblages, while early Upper
Paleolithic tool types appear in Mousterian assemblages (not as a result
of post-depositional mixing, but of in situ technological development
and continuity). Similarly, Aurignacian tool types are associated with
Gravettian assemblages and vice versa.. . . Overall, we find the
technological transition from the Mousterian to the EUP to be more of a
quantitative change than a qualitative one, marked by a progressive
decrease in the umber of sidescrapers and an increase in the number of
endscrapers and burins."Anne Pike-Tay et al, "Seasonal variations of the
Middle-Upper Paleolithic Transition at El Castillo, Cueva Morin and El
Pendo (Cantabria, Spain)," Journal of Human Evolution, 36(1999):283-317,
p. 290
After an analysis of the season of death of butchered animals in several
early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) sites in Spain, she and her colleagues
concluded that not only was this region transitional in tool types from
the Middle Paleolithic to the early Upper Paleolithic, it was also
transitional from ancient to modern behaviors. Thus, the Neanderthals
may have actually been the first modern-behaved people on the planet.
"It would appear, that, like the tool forms, the efficient techniques of
hunting that became pervasive in the Upper Paleolithic made their first
appearances in the Middle Paleolithic of Cantabria." Anne Pike-Tay et
al, "Seasonal variations of the Middle-Upper Paleolithic Transition at
El Castillo, Cueva Morin and El Pendo (Cantabria, Spain)," Journal of
Human Evolution, 36(1999):283-317, p. 312
Cantabria was one of the last places occupied by anatomically modern
men, and yet modern behavior is found where the archaic humans, were
their strongest. This data does not support the progressive creationist
position as currently formulated.
- --
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm
------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1421
********************************