[continued]
On Thu, 24 Jun 1999 21:00:10 -0500, Glenn Morton wrote:
>GM>I would also point out a disturbing sequence of events. Your
>>report, dated May 8, says that Trinkaus reported the result in a meeting the
>>week of May 1. Stringer had not seen the data until that meeting.
>SJ>Where does Glenn get that from? See below.
GM>I documented it.
Glenn did *not* document that " Stringer had not seen the data until that
meeting". See below.
>GM>But on April 25, Stringer told the AP PRIOR to the May 1st meeting, "Dr. Chris
>>Stringer, an expert on Neanderthals at the Museum of Natural History
>>in London, who is a leader of the out-of-Africa forces, said that he was
>>willing to consider the Portuguese findings with an open mind. He
>>told The Associated Press that the current evidence was not sufficient to
>>convince him of Dr. Trinkhaus's hybrid interpretation." John Noble,
>>New York Times, April 25, 1999
>>http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/042599sci-human-fossil.html
>>
>>The original AP report was on the 16th of April so long before
>>Stringer had seen the data, he was rejecting it. Don't blame him if it would
>>mean that everything he has written about Neanderthal would be wrong.
>>So before he had even seen the data, Stringer was telling the press
>>that the data was insufficient to convince him. That sounds quite the
>>opposite of an open mind.
>SJ>Glenn should make sure of his facts before he starts casting
>>aspersions. As the Science News article I posted said, the fact is that the
>>fossil was actually found in *November 1998*:
GM>The fossil was found in November. But only the team reporting the
>discovery had seen it prior to the May 1 meeting. Stringer
>hadn't seen it. That is pretty much normal procedure. The team didn't
>report their results to their peers until then.
Glenn is now switching horses midstream from "Stringer had not seen the
*data* until that meeting" to ". "Stringer hadn't seen it" (ie. "the *fossil*")
until that meeting.
If Stringer had seen "data" *about* the fossil "on April 25...prior to the
May 1st meeting", then he could still say with perfect honesty "that he was
willing to consider the Portuguese findings with an open mind" but that
"the *current evidence*" (ie. that he was aware of) "was not sufficient to
convince him of Dr. Trinkhaus's hybrid interpretation".
In any event, Stringer explained in his email that Trinkaus is his friend
and scientific collaborator and that he knew about the data before the
press got hold of the story:
CS>Stephen, Thanks. You can imagine I have already spent a lot of time dealing
>with this, so I cannot answer every e-mail in detail or I would end up doing
>nothing else! But a couple of points. Erik Trinkaus and Paul Pettitt are
>friends and scientific collaborators, so the idea that I knew nothing about
>this until April is wrong. However, I WAS asked to respect an embargo on
>commenting in detail, although I gave up on that once the major publicity
>blitz happened.
GM>Everyone knew about the find. I knew about it from reports in January
>of this year. But those press reports said nothing about
>the nature of the fossil.
Glenn is assuming that Stringer, one of the world's leading
paleoanthopologists, was restricted to press reports! And even if he was
(which is highly unlikely) he could still say that "the *current evidence*"
(ie. that he had seen in "press reports") "was not sufficient to convince him
of Dr. Trinkhaus's hybrid interpretation".
But in fact, as Stringer has confirmed, he knew about the fossil in some
detail.
GM>Here is the first report in English I know
>of about the child. Notice it said nothing special. When I saw it, I didn't
>even pay much attention to it. I didn't put it in my data base.
This is bizarre. Glenn assumes that because he a geophysicist didn't think it
"special" that Professor Chris Stringer, one of the world's leading
paleoanthropologists, and an acknowledged expert in Neandertals, would
not think it special!
GM>>report<<
>Posted 4 January 1999, 5 pm PST
>
>Ancient Child Burial Uncovered
> in Portugal
>
>In a rock shelter in rural Portugal, archaeologists last month made a
>rare find: a skeleton of a young child, apparently of our
>own lineage, whose body was drenched in red ochre and buried with
>ceremony perhaps 28,000 years ago. Researchers say
>the skeleton is the first Paleolithic burial--and, once dated, may
>prove to be the oldest well-preserved fossil from early
>modern humans--to be found on the Iberian peninsula. And it is from a
>pivotal era, one which saw the last of the Neandertals
>and the first modern humans in southern Iberia.
>Although the skull was pulverized, the lower jawbone, complete with
>teeth, is intact, and the protruding chin clearly marks
>the child as an anatomically modern human, says Joao Zilhao of the
>University of Lisbon, Portugal's director of antiquities and
>leader of the excavation team.
[...]
The article says that this "is the first Paleolithic burial" and "may
prove to be the oldest well-preserved fossil from early modern humans"
on the Iberian peninsula, and "it is from a pivotal era, one which saw
the last of the Neandertals" and yet Glenn does not think that a
paleoanthropologist and Neandertal expert like Chris Stringer would not
think this "special"?
GM>Other researchers are excited by the news. Paleoanthropologist
>Erik Trinkaus of the University of Washington, St. Louis,
>rushed to Portugal this week to examine the skeleton.
Glenn does not thinl this is "special" but his own article says that
"Other researchers are excited by the news" and that "Paleoanthropologist
Erik Trinkaus...rushed to Portugal...to examine the skeleton."
GM>And if the ages
>hold up, the find will be highly significant, says
>anthropologist Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London.
>"We have very little material [from] this critical
>period" in Iberia, he says.
But the most bizarre thing about Glenn's claim that it was nothing special
for Chris Stringer to notice it, is that *Chris Stringer* is actually
mentioned already in Glenn's first press report about it and saying that
"if the ages hold up, the find will be highly significant"!
[...]
GM>Stringer was interviewed but didn't see the skeleton.
As previously pointed out, Glenn has now switched his story from
"Stringer had not seen the *data* until that meeting" to "Stringer was
interviewed but didn't see the skeleton until that meeting."
The point is that Stringer didn't need to see the skeleton to truthfully say
"that he was willing to consider the Portuguese findings with an open mind.
He told The Associated Press that THE CURRENT EVIDENCE was not
sufficient to convince him of Dr. Trinkhaus's hybrid interpretation." (my
emphasis).
But it turns out (as would be expected) that Stringer knew more about the
skeleton than what the public knew through press reports.
However, Stringer says in his email that he has seen only "limited data"
and gives some further tests that would be more diagnostic of Neandertals:
CS>>3. Do adequate comparison samples of early modern human and Neanderthal
>remains exist do justify Trinkaus's diagnosis of a hybrid at Lagar Velho?
>
>We lack other child skeletons of this completeness and age (both age at
>death and dating from this time period), so comparisons are inevitably
>limited. However, I would like to stress that the hybrid hypothesis is
>certainly still plausible from the limited data I have seen. But it would be
>strengthened if, for example, study of the inner ear bones, upper central
>incisors or occipital region eventually show more diagnostic Neanderthal
>features.
GM>Body proportions, reflected in
>>femorotibial lengths and diaphyseal robusticity plus tibial condylar
>>displacement, as well as mandibular symphyseal retreat and
>>thoracohumeral muscle insertions, align the skeleton with the
>>Neandertals.
>SJ>It will be interesting to see how specifically Neandertaloid these
>>features are. Presumably Stringer and Schwartz and the other unconvined
>>paleoanthroplogists are aware of it and do not find it compelling.
>>The latest New Scientist, says:
>>
>>"But Stringer cautions against reading too much into this one
>>discovery. "If the skeleton is that of a hybrid, it [still] cannot answer the
>>questions of how common such matings were, whether hybrids were
>>fertile and whether their genes ever penetrated into early modern populations,"
>>he says. And despite recent revelations, the DNA evidence still suggests that
>>interbreeding cannot have been widespread. "The evidence does fit with
>>Neanderthals representing a deep and separate lineage to that of all modern
>>humans," he says." (Norris S., "Family Secrets," New Scientist, Vol.
>>162, No 2191, 19 June 1999, p44)
GM>This was 4000 years after the last Neanderthal.
Glenn does not know that. What he knows is that it was "4000 years after
the last" *fossilised* "Neanderthal" found.
Besides, Chris Stringer in his email says there could be problems with
the dates:
CS>[First, a technical comment on dating which is relevant below. There is good
>evidence that radiocarbon years do not equal calendar years, and that
>radiocarbon dates at this time may underestimate real years by some ten
>percent]
CS>---Is the date of the last real Neanderthals in Iberia really that certain?
>>Couldn't they have hung on as late as 25,000 BP?
>
>We simply don't know at present. Certainly it looks like they were still
>around at 28-30,000 radiocarbon years (= 30-33,000 calendar years?), but
>many sites remain undated or poorly dated, and this is the first decent
>skeletal find from this time period in the region.
GM>The continuation of the
>Neanderthal traits in this child as well as in modern
>Europeans (H-O mandibular foramen, large noses, occipital buns) show
>that there was some genetic transfer.
This shows nothing of the sort. Trinkaus himself says above that modern
humans can share "the anatomical characteristics of Neandertals".
Neandertals and modern humans are closely related and presumably share a
much higher proportion of their genes than chimps, with whom we share
98% of our genes. One would expect a lot of similar features.
The Cell article above showed that the Neandertal individual's mtDNA was
more closely related to Africans than to modern Europeans:
"The Neandertal sequence, when compared to the mitochondrial lineages
from different continents, differs by 28.2 + 1.9 substitutions from the
European lineages, 27.1 + 2.2 substitutions from the African lineages, 27.7
+ 2.1 substitutions from the Asian lineages, 27.4 + 1.8 substitutions from
the American lineages and 28.3 + 3.7 substitutions from the
Australian/Oceanic lineages. Thus, whereas the Neandertals inhabited the
same geographic region as contemporary Europeans, the observed
differences between the Neandertal sequence and modern Europeans do
not indicate that it is more closely related to modern Europeans than to any
other population of contemporary humans." (Krings M., Stone A., Schmitz
R.W., Krainitski H., Stoneking M. & Paabo S., "Neandertal DNA
Sequences and the Origin of Modern Humans," Cell, Vol. 90, July 11,
1997, p24).
GM>While
>Neanderthals were a deep separate lineage of humans, so were the
>Australian aborigines who are now believed to have
>inhabited your country 80,000 years ago.
I agree with Glenn that "Neanderthals were a deep separate lineage of humans"
but I disagree that "Australian aborigines" are. The OoAH holds that:
"The progeny of the people who found Australia 50,000 years ago, and the
descendants of the tribes who poured down the Americas 12,000 years
ago, as well as the heirs to all those other settlers of Europe, Africa and
Asia, share a common biological bond. They are all the children of those
Africans who emerged from their homeland only a few ticks ago on our
evolutionary clock. They may have diverged geographically since then, and
developed superficial variations, but underneath our species has scarcely
differentiated at all. We may look exotic or odd to our neighbours in other
countries, but we are all startlingly similar when judged by our genes."
(Stringer C. & McKie R., 1997, p169)
GM>And even though Neanderthals
>may have split off from the rest of the hominids
>600,000 years ago, that does not rule out interbreeding. Coyotes and
>wolves/dogs split 1 million years ago and they can still
>produce fertile offspring.
See above. Glenn here contradicts his earlier claim that:
GM>They believe that Neanderthals were so different that they were an
>entirely separate species. And if a separate species, then by definition,
>Neanderthals and humans could not interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
The fact is that "Coyotes and wolves/dogs" *are* separate species even though
they can still interbreed. The point is that they rarely do so.
>GM>This morphological mosaic indicates admixture between
>>regional Neandertals and early modern humans dispersing into southern
>>Iberia. It establishes the complexities of the Late Pleistocene
>>emergence of modern humans and refutes strict replacement models of
>>modern human origins.
>SJ>If it only "indicates" it, it hardly "establishes" it!
>GM>Stephen, do you understand genetics? You get certain traits through
>genetics.
It is the proponents of the MR/RCH who do not understand genetics:
"In other words, we are expected to believe that a wafer-thin population of
hominids, trudging across continents gripped by Ice Ages, were supposed
to be ready to mate with people they would have found extraordinarily
odd-looking and who behaved in peculiar ways. Cavalli-Sforza, for one,
does not buy this. 'Proponents of the multi-regional model simply do not
understand population genetics,' he states. 'They use a model that requires
continuous exchange of genes, but it requires enormous amounts of time to
reach equilibrium. There has been insufficient time in human history to
reach that equilibrium.' The spread of modern humans over a large fraction
of the earth's surface is more in tune with a specific expansion from a
nuclear area of origin, he adds. (Stringer C. & McKie R., 1997, pp139-
140).
>GM>Neanderthal muscle insertion points are
>genetically controlled. There are no modern humans that I am aware of
>that have that type of insertion.
This is simply false. Trinkaus does not claim that these "muscle insertion
points" are uniquely Neanderthal. In fact he says in his book that:
"Rare individuals among modern humans may share one, or even a few, of the
anatomical characteristics of Neandertals" (Trinkaus E. & Shipman P., 1993,
p412)
>GM>If there are none, then
>the only explanation is that the child got those Neanderthal muscle
>insertions via his heritage. Please cite data rather than your
>opinion.
*I* have cited data and *Glenn* has cited his opinion!
>GM>On Sci.paleoanthropology the other day, someone suggested that
>blond hair and blue eyes might have been a
>Neanderthal trait. No other peoples throughout the world have blond hair
>and blue eyes EXCEPT peoples who live in the
>former Neanderthal territories or are descended from the same..
This "descended from the same" begs the question. AFAIK there is no
evidence that Neandertals had blond hair and blue eyes, although it is
possible, if not probable. But if they started off brown and lost their skin
pigment from living in cold Northern European lattitudes with less sun,
then it is likely that their closely related cousins the Early Modern Humans
lost theirs too, by a similar mechanism.
[...]
>>GM>Now, I would like to point out that in my note to the reflecton on
>>April 24, 1999, I ... mentioned that:
>>
>>"Neanderthal muscle attachments were different than ours...No anatomically
>>modern human has Neanderthal-type muscle attachments.
>
>>If this boy had those types of attachements, then he was a hybrid, no
>>doubt."
>>
>>Trinkaus et al are reporting that this child INDEED HAD SOME OF THE
>>CHARACTERISTICALLY NEANDERTHAL MUSCLE ATTACHMENTS!!!!!!
>>
>>This child is a hybrid.
SJ>Glenn is going beyond the evidence. It does not actually say that
>these were "characteristically neandertal muscle attachments." If these
>muscle attachments really were unique to neandertals then Stringer (who
>is a world authority on Neandertals), Schwartz and the other
>anthropologists and would not still be unconvinced.
GM>Stephen, Trinkaus is also a world class authority on Neanderthal.
>Stringer is more of an expert on early modern humans.
Actually Stringer's original *specialty* was Neandertals, as revealed in
his book "African Exodus". Trinkaus is a world authority on Neandertals
too. As Stringer points out in his email, they are both "friends and
scientific collaborators".
GM>But Stringer is not the God of Anthropology. If you believe him so much,
>why don't you believe him when he says mankind evolved?
Again I take Glenn's bluster as an indication that his argument is in
trouble. He is like the old preacher whose sermon notes said:
`Argument weak here. SHOUT!'
GM>You have a selective belief system that chooses an expert who
>agrees with you and then you elevate his statment on
>that issue to dogma. You think that if you can find one expert to agree
>with you you can ignore anything against that view
Not really. But what I find interesting about Glenn's personal criticisms of
those he disagrees with, is that they are a reflection of Glenn himself!
GM>Consider what Trinkaus says about muscles.:
Note here Glenn "chooses an expert who agrees with" *him*! If it's OK for
Glenn, why isn't it OK for those who disagree with Glenn?
GM>"First, the muscle and ligament attachment areas are consistently
>enlarged and strongly marked. This implies large, highly
>developed muscles and ligaments capable of generating and sustaining
>great mechanical stress." ~ Erik Trinkaus, "Hard Times
>among the Neanderthals," Natural History, 87:10(Dec. 1978), p. 58-63, p.
>58
Nothing above says that this is unique to Neandertals, however. We
already Know this child was strongly muscled, so it goes without saying he
had strong ligaments.
Stringer believes this child might be stocky because he was cold-adapted
like modern day Eskimos:
CS>The limb proportion data provide the main
>evidence in support of a Neanderthal ancestry for LV 1, and this still
>remains a very plausible explanation for it. I am keeping an open mind until
>the studies of this child are completed. But I do think the other
>possibility, that this boy is an early modern showing a cold adapted body
>shape, has been dismissed too quickly. There is evidence that the polar
>front was diverted down to the Portuguese coast about 2-3000 calendar years
>before this boy was alive. At that time, the average temperature in the
>region could have fallen by at least 7 degrees and there may have been
>icebergs floating off the North Portuguese coast. So to me, this is the
>other most plausible explanation, and it should not be eliminated without
>consideration. If Erik had included skeletons of 4-year old modern human
>Inuit/Eskimo in his comparisons, they may well have been very similar in
>body shape to LV 1. More research on both the skeleton and the
>palaeoclimatology will be required to determine the most likely explanation.
GM>"Most of the robustness of Neanderthal arm bones is seen in muscle and
>ligament attachments. All of the muscles that go from
>the trunk or the shoulder blade to the upper end of the arm show massive
>development. This applies in particular to the
>muscles responsible for powerful downward movements of the arm and, to a
>lesser extent, to muscles that stabilize the shoulder
>during vigourous movements.
Interestingly this alleged hybrid had *normal* arm bones!
GM>"Virtually every major muscle or ligament attachment on the hand bones
>is clearly marked by a large roughened area or a crest,
>especially the muscles used in grasping objects. In fact, Neanderthal
>hand bones frequently have clear bony crests, where on
>modern human ones it is barely possible to discern the attachment of the
>muscole on the dried bone." ~ Erik Trinkaus, "Hard
>Times among the Neanderthals," Natural History, 87:10(Dec. 1978), p.
>58-63, p. 58-60
And it had small hands too!
GM>After arguing strenuously agianst the possibility, Stephen wants us to
>believe:
Frankly I do not "want" anyone to believe anything that I say. I would
rather they made up their own minds on the *evidence* that I present.
>SJ>But having said all that, I personally am open to the possibility
>>that these muscle attachments *could* be uniquely diagnostic of
>>neandertals and hence that this *could* turn out to be a Neandertal-CroMagnon
>hybrid.
GM>Then why do you fight against it. You are no more open than
>Stringer. You just want to appear open.
Whose fighting? This is a *debate*! We are *supposed* to present our
different sides to such questions. Glenn works on the principle that:
`When I want your opinion, I'll give it!'
And now it is not just Stringer who is not "open" it is me! Glenn really
is wasting his talents here. He should open up shop as a mind-reader!
>SJ>But even if this were the case, I would not attach a great deal of
>>importance to it. If Neandertal features can show up in a CroMagnon
>>body, then where are all the other examples? At best it would show
>>that Neandertals and CroMagnons rarely interbred, even though they
>>could. That would underline the very real differences between
>>Neandertals and early modern humans, and would really represent the
>>last hurrah of the Multiregional/Regional Continuity hypotheses.
GM>No, it could reflect the population numbers. Today most men in American
>Indian tribes have European Y chromosomes.
>Why? Because Europeans overwhelmed the sparse populations of Native
>Americans.
[...]
GM>Does this mean that Native american men were unable to leave offspring
>or only rarely mated with women? Of course not.
>There was lots of intermarriage but Europeans overwhelmed their genetic
>contribution.
I am not sure what Glenn's point is here. The original native Americans and
the later ones were all Modern Humans.
GM>Stephen quotes Carl Henry.
>SJ>"Be that as it may, it is the ethico-religious fact about man which
>>marks him off most conspicuously from the animals. Only an age
>>secular in spirit could concentrate its interest in Homo on
>>morphological structure seeking to understand man's origin and
>>nature by focusing solely on prehuman and sub-human forms, then
>>naming man for the brute, and finding his imago at last among the
>>beasts."
>(Henry C.F.H., "Science and Religion," in Henry C.F.H., ed.,
>"Contemporary Evangelical Thought: A Survey", 1968, p282)
GM>We have a rare moment of agreement. It is the spirit not the looks that
>set us apart from animals.
I am glad that Glenn and I can agree on something!
Stringer points out that what symbolic capacity Neandertals had did not
appear until they had contact with Modern Humans:
CS>>5. Has your opinion of late Neanderthal abilities ("Neanderthals had the
>>capacity for emulation, for change, but not for symbolism", Stinger and
>>Gamble, In Search of ..p 207) changed as a result of the debate on Arcy sparked
>>by d'Errico and Zilhao?
>
>I am certainly prepared to grant the Neanderthals some symbolic (and
>language?) capacity, but I still think it is no coincidence that this is
>first manifested when modern humans were dispersing into Europe - this would
>support the idea of some contact and exchanges between the populations.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------