>>I have criticized Ross' views on Neanderthal and H. erectus many times
>>the past (see Fall 1996 Evolution Reflector archives). He considers
>>to be nothing more than bipedal mammals. The new twist in this book
>>that Ross tells us why he created these bipedal mammals. It seems
>>created these beings to prepare the animal world for the coming shock
>Now that is creative. I was partial to God placing these sub-humans
>on the ark to muck out the stables, sparing Noah and his family this
>unpleasant task :>).
lol. Very insightful ;-) But seriously Ross' view is really a bit silly
since Aboriginal artwork has been dated to 60 kya here in Oz, and that
means a common origin atleast ~ 100 kya. 60 kya is ridiculous. If
Glenn's right about that 400 kya site then our origins go back to at
least ~ 500 kya - that's if those other hominids were sons of Adam.
There's nothing against the idea that other spiritualised human/oids
lived here prior to the "age of Adam". The Bible is silent on that
>>Probably the most damning thing I can say about the book is that Ross
>>selectively cites data that supports his views . He cites the date for
>>last common male ancestor of between 35,000 to 47,000 BC (p. 111)
>>comes from Whitfield et al, (1995) without mentioning that the
>>preceeding article, by Hammer, (1995) reaches a conclusion from
>>part of the Y-Chromosome that the last common ancestor lived 188,000
>>ago with 68% confidence .
>As I remember, the reason for the huge discrepancy in estimates was
>there was no difference found in Y-chromosome DNA samples. In other
>the Y-chromosome is virtually identical in all males. With no rate of
>divergence to measure, how could you estimate a date of divergence?
>anything new been published on this?
Another study to add is the one that used modern levels of mtDNA change
and got a coalescence time of just 6 kya! Naturally no one takes the
implications of that seriously, but it illustrates just how careful we
must be with these dating techniques. They need physical correlates, and
that's what human biogeography can supply.
>>The fact is that many modern Christians, not Ross, are now beginning
>>to accept the idea that Adam was the progenitor of only part of the
>>race (Fischer,1996), the combination of the two concepts would be very
>>for racial relations.
>I can't speak for Ross, but I can speak for Fischer. I had no
>striking a blow for or against race relations. My intention was to
>the historical integrity of Genesis 2-11. As I have stated in this
>these chapters are integral to Jewish history. It is the history of
>people beginning with Adam. In Accadian, the name "Adamu," was a
>popular namesake with both Accadians and Sumerians apparently, as
>this name appears repeatedly on clay tablets of census lists found by
>Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
>"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago."
Wish the Aussie dollar wasn't so weak - I'd buy your book in a flash. Do
you have any Australian distributors Dick?
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com