Dave wrote:
"I think something is being overlooked here. As I understand Ross's gang,
they hold that all types of creatures are basically direct creations of
God, so that any evolutionary development has to be micro rather than
macro. So, if Neanderthal, erectus, habilis, etc., are different species,
then they were created apart from /Homo sapiens/. I am guessing that /H.
s. sapiens/ would be rejected as indicating that there were other human
beings when there are only hominids."
I am sure that their view is that people/mankind/human beings are a unique
creation, as are all of the other hominids and other animals. But human
beings also have to be unique in some way that is different than animals.
They are emphasizing this in distinguishing human beings from all of the
other hominids, whether they be homo sapiens, homo erectus,
australopithecine sp. or other. They need ( and perhaps it is theologically
necessary) to have a disconnection, between humans and the rest of the
animals.
What I don't know yet is how they do this. What distinguishes human beings
from other homo sapiens that are anatomically identical? They have
mentioned behavioral differences, specifically evidence of worship, but I
don't know yet what they mean by this, or when this was supposed to occur,
and why that distinguishes humans from other anatomically identical species
that exhibited similar behavior, (burying the dead, cave painting, etc.)
Dick said:
"But just using the terminology indicates either that is what you believe,
or you haven't the foggiest notion of what you are talking about."
True I have no idea what I am talking about. But this issue, the origin of
man, is crucial, and is partly why I am on this forum. I am searching for
answers, I am trying to learn. So, I am going to ask some honest questions.
Are there not fossils, dating back more than 200kya that are nearly
identical to modern humans, with some feature of homo erectus, but in
Europe? Does no one call them archaic homo sapiens? Has it been decided
whether or not Neanderthals should be classified homo neanderthalis, or homo
sapiens neanderthalis? Is there evidence or not for genetic mingling
between neanderthal and sapiens? If there is some more definitive
information on this I am willing to learn.
The truth is though, that whether or not homo sapiens sapiens is an accepted
or appropriate term or not, is besides the point. Ross wants to
distinguish human beings from other hominids. What remains to be seen is
exactly what he means by human beings, and when they were in existence
100kya, earlier than that, or only more recent.
Dont assume that because I am posting what they are saying that I am
endorsing their view.
Dick said:
"And what "evidence" will they include? How about the evidence that shows
man and ape share some of the same genetic code? Think they'll work that
in? They had better read a little from Leaky, Johannson and Wolpoff before
they make monkeys out of themselves."
They claim they will use the latest genetic evidence yes. I have not yet
heard what they are going to say about it. I will pass it on, but I doubt
you will listen to anything they have to say Dick. I would like to hear
constructive, rational corrections/criticisms of what they have to say, ad
hominems are inappropriate and are not constructive.
Dick said:
"Do you think they want criticism? God forbid they might actually learn
something in the process!"
I dont know. I think anyone that is honest with themselves knows that there
is always something to learn. It is not possible for any of us to know
everthing.
Received on Wed Mar 2 09:29:32 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 02 2005 - 09:29:32 EST