Re: asa-digest V1 #676

Glenn Morton (
Fri, 19 Dec 1997 21:58:54 -0600

At 10:04 AM 12/19/97 -0700, John W. Burgeson wrote:
>And Glenn wrote: Thus your hypothesis would require that modern men
>buried their pets but not themselves. Interesting."
>Or maybe they disposed of human bodies differently. Could be!

Absolutely. I left out this possibility on purpose because every time I
mention this with creationists, they claim that humans MUST have buried
their kith and kin. But in reality primitive peoples RARELY bury their
dead. They let them lay and move on. Eduardo isn't one of the ones that I
can recall having denied the ability of humans to dispose of their bodies
by other means.

However, even if they did dispose of their dead by other means, we still
should find some of them if there were lots of them around. We find dogs,
wolves, bison, bears etc etc. etc. etc. in the paleontological record and
they didn't bury THEIR dead. We do find some neanderthals and all Homo
erectus's who were NOT buried in graves. Why do we find non-grave erectus
and Neanderthals but not a single non-grave anatomically modern human? So
burial is not the only means of having a body preserved. Surely someone
would have died in a river flood and been buried. Surely someone of them
would have been buried in a landslide. Surely some one of them should have
fallen into a deep anoxic lake and been buried by sediment. Since we don't
find any examples of fossil anatomically modern humans prior to 130 kyr ago
we can conclude a) that they weren't here, or b) they were INCREDIBLY lucky.


Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man


Foundation, Fall and Flood