[slightly munged--hopefully you can make it all out--TMG]
Hi Glenn, you wrote:
GRM: Define human--someone that that looks like you and I? Someone with
a modern forehead? It is hard to know what you mean by the term, human,
when you won't define it.
Do I look like an anthropologist? Australopithicines have been defined
as apes by better qualified than you and me. Teeth has a lot to do with
it. Brain complexity, not mere size. Ability to vocalize. Apes
don't make stone tools or build houses out of mammoth bones and
hide or track reindeer herds or make bone flutes. All those things are
hallmarks of man.
Glenn O. Morton is my name (O for Obfuscator)
Suspicions confirmed.
GRM: No, if the dam collapse was deep enough (and there is evidence from
paleontology that it had to be at least 3000 feet deep) it might have
only taken a year to fill the Med. Secondly, I now see your definition
of human--someone that looks like us. Do you have prejudicial feelings
towards H. erectus or A. afarensis?
Okay, in the year that the Mediterranean was filling up who would have
been stupid enough to drown? Just stroll north or south. What, me
prejudiced? Some of my best friends'
>>> Only apes lived at that time in geological history. <<<
GRM:That is interesting that you should say that. I think recognizing
art is a human thing--seeing a face in a naturally carved stone is a
human thing--not an ape thing. Apes don't keep items like that, yet an
Australopithecus saw a rock which had a face on it and he carried it
several miles back to his rockshelter. When was this? More than 3
million years ago. It is called the Makapansgat pebble.
Why should that be surprising? You surmise farming, raising livestock,
tents, musical instruments and metal working two and a half million
years before that! I'm sure any verification of that would make
the front page of Nature.
GRM: The first manufactured artwork is a 1.6 million year old phonolite
pebble into which a face was pecked. Mary Leakey discusses it in her
reports on the Olduvai Gorge excavations.
And Homo erectus, a hominid, was alive and well by that time. No
quarrel from me.
GRM:Now, clearly this is not evidence of sin, but it is evidence of
human-like behavior. And another human-like behavior--only mankind makes
stone tools and they were in existence as long ago as 2.6 million years.
Why do you call them apes? No animals chips stone except mankind. I
think my point is that you are a sapienist.
Add that to my list of faults. I don't know any undisputed
stone tools dating that far back. What's your source?
>>> Even if a split between what has since become human from what
eventually became chimpanzees did occur at 6 million years ago, the line
which became human were still apes long after the split. No biological
=C3=A2=E2=82=AC=C5=93humanoids=C3=A2=E2=82=AC=C2=9D occur in the fossil
record earlier than 2.2 million years ago. This puts a massive split of
over 3 million years between your
=C3=A2=E2=82=AC=C5=93flood=C3=A2=E2=82=AC=C2=9D to the advent of our
genus R20;Homo.R21; I would like to hear your argument as to how
=C3=A2=E2=82=AC=C5=93sin=C3=A2=E2=82=AC=C2=9D spread from non-humans to
humans.<<<
GRM:Two responses. Are you at all aware of the imperfections of the
fossil record? Go look at the gaps between the first and second
occurrence of fossil animals. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gaps.htm.
Some fossil animals lived on earth for millions of years and during that
interval didn't leave a single fossil for us to find. Yet we know they
were here on earth during the interim. Secondly, your view is weak
because it claims that humans are a very late creature, but the
archaeological evidence says that human behavior goes way back. It is
our behavior, not our looks that makes us human.
So the problem is missing human fossils? You're waiting to find
a hominid fossil dated earlier than 5 mya? So your whole thesis rests
on finding evidence of humans who had to have lived over 3 million years
earlier than can thus far be confirmed. Why wouldn't you simply
accept the judgment of paleontologists who make their living at it?
>>> =
<http://www.wsu.edu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/
afarensis/af=
arensis-a.html> Australopithecus ramidus 5 to 4 million years BC
<http://www.wsu.edu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/
afarensis/af=
arensis-a.html> Australopithecus afarensis 4 to 2.7 million years BC
<http://www.wsu.edu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/
africanus/af=
ricanus-a.html> Australopithecus africanus 3.0 to 2.0 million years
BC
<http://www.wsu.edu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/robustus/
rob=
ustus-a.html> Australopithecus robustus 2.2 to 1.0 million years BC
<http://www.wsu.edu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/habilis/
habi=
lis-a.html> Homo habilis 2.2 to 1.6 million years
BC
<http://www.wsu.edu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/erectus/
erec=
tus-a.html> Homo erectus 2 to 0.4 million years BC
<http://www.wsu.edu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/h-
sapiens/h-=
sapiens-a.html> Homo sapiens- 400,000 to 200,000
years BC
HS neandertalensis 200,000 to 30,000 years BC
<http://www.wsu.edu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/h-
sapiens-sa=
piens/h-sapiens-sapiens-a.html> Homo sapiens sapiens
<http://www.wsu.edu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/h-
sapiens-sa=
piens/h-sapiens-sapiens-a.html> 130,000 years BC to present<<<
GRM: You seem not to understand that most of this is a relatively smooth
transitional sequence.
What causes you to think I don't understand that? Did I say
anything about a jerky sequence?
There is no major break between anyone from erectus on. Even those
supposedly modern humans at 160 kyr (not 130) were quite similar to the
creatures we called archaic homosapiens. The earliest of them were quite
similar to the erectines. Homo habilis had a fully human birth pattern.
We know that from the ratio of the birth canal to the adult head size.
Like us, they tripled their brain size AFTER birth. Apes double after
birth. The importance of this is that extended maternal care was needed
for the infant compared with the Chimps. THat is one of the things which
makes us human. But, habilis was not very different from the
Australopithecines (although they didn't seem to have the head size
tripling after birth). And there are some anthropologists who beleive
that they could speak.
Or make vocal sounds. Chimps can make sounds and recognize speech.
There is a really good case for speech in H. habilis:
They're hominids.
"Some physical anthropologists, among them anatomist Philip
Tobias of the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa,
believe that Homo habilis was capable of articulate speech, on
the grounds that Broca's area is developed in early Homo's brain,
but not in that of Australopithecus." ~ Brian M.
Fagan, The Journey From Eden, (London: Thames and Hudson, 1990),
p. 87
Course, you get to ignore this again just like the last time I talked
about this.
I read just fine. Hominids can talk, apes don't.
Another expert:
" But what concerns us here is the surface structure of the
cerebral cortex. During the summer of 1982, Simon Kasinga and I
cast the braincase of the oldest skull representing Homo habilis.
And guess what. Unlike any of the australopithecine endocasts,
this one (from specimen KNM-ER 1470) appeared to be humanlike in
the revealing convolutions of its left frontal lobe. As Phillip
Tobias first suggested, Homo habilis appears to have had a
Broca's speech area in its brain and, as such, was probably
capable of some form of rudimentary humanlike language." ~ Dean
Falk, Braindance,(New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1992), p. 50
GRM: So, you are saying that these guys were apes.
Read my human lips. Homo habilis is in our genus Homo. I
didn't say hominids weren't humanlike. When you find a
Broca area in a brain of one of Lucy's playmates, you've
got something.
What were they doing with the equipment for speech? BTW, this is as you
say, over 2 million years ago.
Homo habilis (if there really is a Homo habilis, there is some dispute
over that category) dates to 2.2 mya. Okay, speech equipment.
This and some gaps in the record takes me back to my time frame.
It does? There is no evidence of farming earlier than 10,000 years ago.
And you surmise farming 5.5 million years ago. How far a stretch is
that?
Statistically speaking, the origin of a taxonomic group is around
1/3
older than the earliest fossil found.
It is simply a guess that a taxonomic group came into existence earlier
than any evidence can be found. No one could possibly know that.
in the case of H. habilis that would say they probably originated
around 3 million years ago. But recall that this is a statistical value.
Sometimes it is longer and sometimes it is shorter. But it is very
unlikely that the first specimen is the first habilis who was ever on
earth.
Throw in two or three million years more, and Bob's your uncle,
here's Jubal giving harpsichord lessons.
GRM: Wooden flutes? Won't survive even 100 kyr. Wont survive even a
millennium unless on the bottom of the sea. I was in Tibet last month
and saw nomads there, the first time I have actually been face to face
with nomads. I can assure you, looking at their material possessions,
that very little evidence of their existence at that spot will exist in
100 years. What do you expect? Statues of D. Fischer signed by the
artist?
Copper artifacts survive very well. Pottery endures. Find any of these
items dating beyond a hundred thousand years?
GRM:As to you not knowing any digging, why not simply look at a geologic
map. Try the Geological Map of the Arab World, map 4 Ar Riyad, published
by the Arab Organisation for MIneral Resources Rabat Morocco, 1987. That
has the results (in map form) of all the 'digging' as you call it.
Even the archaeologist who excavated the central cities of Mesopotamia
didn't notice water-laid clay deposits until Wooley told them to
go back and look. Why would anyone make note of clay deposits when
you're drilling for oil?
GRM:See, you and I disagree on what makes us human. You are under the
misapprehension that looks is what makes us human. I beleive it was
behavior which makes a human. I know some pretty ugly people who behave
as humans do (including you???).
You wouldn't have known that if you hadn't met me last
year at the ASA conference.
I just documented that one of those 'non-humans' had a well developed
Broca's area which is involved in speech. And as I said, some
anthropologists believe that Broca's area got bigger BECAUSE of speech.
And that would mean that earlier non-sapiens would have had some form of
language.
Who said there was no vocalization prior to Homo sapiens? And who
besides you attributes cognitive speech to any other genus?
GRM: Without a doubt, people don't like the timing of my views, but
then, I don't like the timing genetics gives for the human race. Our
genes would require 5.2 million years to gather the mutations we observe
in the human race. Anyone who wants to have the biological descent from
Adam, simply has to move back that far. There is no way around it. So,
it seems, the choice is to have Adam very early to account for genetics
(http://home.entouch.net/dmd/hegene.htm ) or we say Adam is father to
only a portion of humanity.
Ah, did I detect a light bulb switching on somewhere? Was Adam a
Semite? Yes. Are Filipinos Semites? Not that I know of. Want more
examples?
GRM: I guess I like the facts to actually fit a theory rather than do
that accommodation thing and declare that something is true even if the
facts contradict it. I must freely confess that things would be much
easier if I would tell people what they want to hear.
Amen to that, brother. I wish often that somebody better qualified than
me had it all figured out so I could just stand up and shout,
=E2=80=9CMe too.=E2=80=9D Instead, I sit here and groan,E2=80=98Why
me=E2=80=9D?
>>> At least it should be apparent (to nearly everyone but you and Hugh
Ross) that Adam cannot be aligned with the man/ape split using the
commonly-accepted anthropological date as I have argued for twenty
years. Placing Adam in the flow of mankind, rather than at the apex,
puts Bible, science and history all together. <<<
GRM: Actually doing what you do violates the laws of physics, but, hey,
what is a violation of physics when one gets to see the Library of
Congress on a daily basis?
Genesis says God created Adam. Then God fashioned Eve using one of
Adam's body parts. I don't know how He did either of
those things. Do you?
GRM: Counting is not what is correct. When you count up the forces
requried for 8 people to pole a huge boat up a river against the flood
and compare it with the energy output available, you find that you can't
do it.
Do you know what a sucker bet is? A guy tells you he can push a quarter
through his ring. You look at the ring which is smaller in diameter
than the quarter and surmise it can't be done. Do you take the
bet? Of course not. First of all, you don't gamble. Next,
it's a sucker bet. That means he can do it, only you
don't immediately see how.
I see Noah's ark like that. We know what modern boats look
like. The measurements in Genesis are too large for a typical wooden
vessel. We don't know where the boat landed. My guess is that
if we could travel back in time and could see the event with our own two
eyes we would understand it.
>>>> Now to your questions:
Where in the Bible does it tell us what Adam looked like?
Where does it say that sin emanated from non-human ancestors?<<<
GRM: That isn't an answer. Please answer the question.
Nowhere, master.
>>>> Where in the Bible does it say that the image of God is reserved
>>>> for
those who look like us?
Well, it does imply that the
=C3=A2=E2=82=AC=C5=93image=C3=A2=E2=82=AC=C2=9D is for humans.<<<
GRM: What is a human? by your definition, looks is everything.
Do I tell an oil man where to drill, or would I leave that to someone
like you? Yet, you presume to know more than paleo anthropologists do
about what constitutes humanity. I don't.
GRM: Well, Dick, here is a quote from Niles Eldredge:
"Mankind was up and walking close to 4 million years ago, and quite
possibly a good bit earlier than that." ~ Niles Eldredge and Ian
Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1982), p. 7
He meant forerunners to mankind and you know it.
The great taxonomist Ernst Mayr also beleived that:
"Though Mayr had not examined any of the fossils himself, he
ventured to suggest a sweeping revision: everything from the
earliest ape-man to the latest modern man ought to be included in
the genus Homo--possibly even within Homo sapiens. Pat
Shipman, The Evolution of Racism, (New York: Simon and Schuster,
1994), p. 185
I bolded part of that so your tired old eyes could see it.
Mayr retired in 1975. He was an eminent evolutionary biologist.
However, have we unearthed any additional fossils in the last thirty
years? Do you detect any push to adopt Mayr's idea? In fact,
the number of species that have been discovered between H. sapiens and
the Australopithicines have increased.
"The dawn of humankind occurred 5 to 7 million years
ago, when the ancestors of apes and humans went their
separate evolutionary ways. But the fossil record of this
split is scarce.Claire Ainsworth, "Ancient Ethiopian
Shakes the Evolutionary Tree," New Scientist, July 14, 2001,
Did I say differently? The man/ape split is thought to be about six
million years ago. That's the branch point. E2=80=9CHuman
beings,=E2=80=9D of which you and I are bad examples, don't
extend beyond 2.2 million years ago. And man near the junction of the
Tigris and Euphrates occurred no earlier than 7,000 years ago. Those
are the humans that interest me.
Oh, the answer to the sucker bet is that the guy puts the ring on his
finger first and then pushes the quarter with his finger.
Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
<http://www.genesisproclaimed.org> www.genesisproclaimed.org
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jun 13 03:17:33 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jun 13 2006 - 03:17:33 EDT