RE: New genetic data and mankind's ancestry

From: Glenn Morton (
Date: Sun Mar 11 2001 - 04:27:43 EST

  • Next message: John W Burgeson: "Presbyterian Association on Science ..."

    Hi Peter,
    You wrote:

    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: []
    >Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 4:13 PM
    >To: ASA list; Glenn R. Morton
    >Hi Glenn, you wrote (I quote your comments as << ... >>):
    ><< In that outline we have much agreement. I would probably disagree
    >with the late date you would advocate for the origin of soulish humans.
    >The date estimate I gave for the origin of soulish humans is ~2 million
    >years ago, as I wrote: "In this evolutionary descent are included the
    >bodily, as well as the psychological or soulish aspects (cf. the
    >expression 'living souls' used in Genesis 1:20 for animals)", implying
    >that for this time "H", we have only the paleoanthropological data,
    >presumably the start of the biological genus Homo.

    I stand corrected, I should then say that I disagree strongly with the late
    date you advocate for the origin of spiritual humanity. There are possible
    objects of religious worship as far back as 1.6 myr but most definitely
    altars exist from 400,000 years ago at Bilzingsleben, Germany.

    >My reference to the 'newest genetic data' was to Rogers A.R. "Order
    >emerging from chaos in human evolutionary genetics (commentary)",
    >Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 98 (2001), 779-780.
    >You quoted this paper yourself [<> Sun, 18
    >Feb 2001 16:41:29 -0000, ASA list V1#2002]. It is more recent than Zhao
    >Z., et al., PNAS 97 (Oct.10, 2000), 11354, which you quote above.
    >Furthermore, Zhao analyzes just one stretch of DNA, whereas Rogers's
    >comment reviews all the relevant literature (including Zhao). His
    >conclusion appears to be reliable.

    Let me look him up again.

    >I defined "S" purely theologically. As for it's possible dating, I
    >suggested 100,000 years ago (mainly on the basis of cultural finds), but
    >with a very large margin of uncertainty.

    Specifically WHAT cultural finds? 100,000 years ago, anatomically modern
    man was doing exactly the same things as Neanderthal. No difference! So,
    WHAT cultural finds?

     Of course, since A.Held and I
    >submitted our PSCF paper (published Dec.1999) suggesting this, many
    >newer discoveries have been made. I don't insist on this time. But
    >remember, if the human "soul" has an evolutionary history before time
    >"S" (creation of the "spirit"), we might expect some evidence of culture
    >before that time. I think it's rather difficult to reliably interpret
    >the spiritual implications of cultural findings.

    You should look at the data on Bilzingsleben:

            "But Mania's most intriguing find lies under a protective shed. As he
    opens the door sunlight illuminates a cluster of smooth stones and pieces of
    bone that he believes were arranged by humans to pave a 27-foot-wide circle.
            "'They intentionally paved this area for cultural activities,' says Mania.
    'We found here a large anvil of quartzite set between the horns of a huge
    bison, near it were fractured human skulls.'" ~ Rick Gore, "The First
    Europeans," National Geographic, July, 1997, p. 110

    That sounds like an altar from that day in age, approximately 400,000 years
    ago--much before 100,000 years. And there is art from that site (Robert G.
    Bednarik, "On Lower Paleolithic Cognitive Development," 23rd Chacmool
    Conference Calgary 1990, pp 427-435, p. 432; R.G. Bednarik, "Comments",
    Rock Art Research 5:2(1988): 91-107, p. 98)

    The occupant of the site was H. erectus. "The skull fragments of the
    Bilzingsleben man can be classified, as far as the morphology is concerned,
    as belonging to the forms of Homo erectus." ( Emanuel Vlcek, "A New
    Discovery of Homo erectus in Central Europe,"Journal of Human Evolution,
    (1978) 7:239-251, p. 250; see also D. Mania and U. Mania and E. Vlcek,
    "Latest Finds of Skull Remains of Homo erectus from Bilzingsleben
    (Thuringia)", Naturwissenschaften, 81(1994), p. 123-127, p. 125)

    And while I personally don't claim this as proven yet, there has been one
    claim in the literature to the effect that H. erectus drew a picture of a
    vertebrate animal at Bilzingsleben. Since you are German, here is the German
    that I had translated by a friend for me:
    "Bei den Ausgrabungen auf dem altsteinzeitlichen Wohnplatz bei Bilzingsleben
    an der Wipper im Thuringer Becken sind nun tatsachlich symbolhafte Zeichen
    und sogar figurale Darstellungen entdeckt worden, die mit einem Alter von
    wenigstens 250000 Jahren dem Ursprung der kunst schon weit naher kommen. Es
    handelt sich durchweg um Ritzungen und Schnittlinien auf Knochen. So sind
    eine Rippe in Jeweils drei Ansatzen parallele und auBerdem divergierend
    angeordnete Linien PlanmaBig eingeschnitten worden. Auf einem anderen groBen
    Knochenstuck erkennt man u.a. hakenformige Zeichen, und einige Linien sind
    sogar schon als Darstellung eines groBen Wirbeltiers zu deuten. Erscheinen
    uns diese Manifestationen auch aBerst primitive, so sind sie doch schon
    Ausdruck einer spezifisch geistigen Auseinandersetzung der Menschen mit
    naturlichen und gesellschaftlichen Umwelt. Ihnen liegen bestimmte Emotionen
    und Vorstellungen zugrunde; sie zeugen von hohem Abstraktionsvermogen und
    der Fahigkeit, mittels gegenstandlicher (und sicher auch sprachlicher)
    Ideen, Weltauffassungen zu formulieren und auszutauschen. Produzent dieser
    fruhen Kunst war der Homo erectus, noch vot dem Neandertaler! Dieser erweist
    sich somit als vollwertiger Mensch mit relativ weit entwickeltem
    gesellschaftlichem und eben auch schon kunstlerischem BewuBtsein. Ohne
    Zweifel gibt es auch im Material anderer und zwar noch weit alterer
    Fundstellen bisher unerkannte Zeugnisse kunstlerischer Betatigung." ~ von
    Feustel, in H. Muller?Beck and G. Albrecht eds. 1987 Die Anfange der Kunst
    vor 30,000 Jahren. pp 60-63

    There is also a H. erectus village which is quite human-like:

    At Bilzingsleben each hut opened to the south had a hearth in front of the
    door See Figure 5 ~ D. Mania and U. Mania, "Latest Finds of Skull Remains
    of Homo erectus from Bilzingsleben (Thuringia)" Naturwissenschaften,
    81(1994):123-127, p. 127

    "Five to 8 m from the dwelling structures, an artificially paved area with a
    diameter of 9 m was found. According to the archaeological evidence, special
    cultural activities may have been carried out there." ~ D. Mania and U.
    Mania, "Latest Finds of Skull Remains of Homo erectus from Bilzingsleben
    (Thuringia)" Naturwissenschaften, 81(1994):123-127, p. 124

    >Hawks et al.'s paper was accepted Sept.15, 1999. Thus, it doesn't
    >reflect all of the most recent genetic data, either.

    Now we are getting a bit picky about the latest data. Does this mean that if
    tomorrow I find an article which is 2 days later than Rogers et al, that
    says that there is no bottleneck that you will change your mind until the
    day after tomorrow you can find an author who will once again agree with

    >mtDNA is just one of the systems considered, its different mode of
    >evolution, and not just a low diversity, being taken into consideration.
    >And it's not straightforward to conclude from a lack of a Drosophila
    >bottleneck to humans.

    You make unsupported claims like this. WHat different mode of evolution?
    Drosophila mtDNA is probably under selection just as is human mtDNA. If you
    have strong selective pressure, then the variation decreases and this gives
    the appearance of there being a smaller Ne (effective breeding population).
    One can't claim that reduction in heterozygosity alone means a bottleneck
    unless one can also show that the system is selectively neutral.

    ><< Now as to the points at which man became Man, we can only look at the
    >archeological remains. >>
    >It depends whether you are talking about time "H" (which you are doing)
    >or "S".

    No, I don't accept your H and S definitions. I believe that if a being built
    an alter, as did H. erectus, then he is spiritually human. Otherwise what is
    the purpose of the altar?

    >I don't propose theology to determine which facts are acceptable. But
    >the interpretation of the facts, and especially the determination of
    >their theological implications, is not easy. Maybe you are right, after
    >all, in placing "S" at ~2 Myr ago or earlier, but I doubt it.

    Human compassion starts then (the care of KNM-ER 1808 who had
    hypervitaminosis A and yet survived for quite a while meaning someone took
    care of them).

    Human art is found at 1.6 myr ago (the Olduvai phonolite pebble) A
    narcisistic picture of a human face--I think that is a very human thing to
    do. Mary Leakey said it was man-made. Phonolite is extremely hard but a face
    had been pecked into it with another rock.

    They were able to plan ahead by several days (such planning is prerequisite
    for understanding and obeying a moral imperative See Morton, G. R. (1999)
    Planning Ahead: Requirement for Moral Accountability, Perspectives on
    Science and Christian Faith, 51:3:176-179

    Broca's area of the brain, an area which is associated with our speech
    ability is found enlarged on their endocasts (but unenlarged on A.

    They were the first people to 'fill the earth' from Africa, to Europe to
    much of Asia as long ago as 1.8 myr.

    ><< Agreed, but how big is your founding population size? 10,000 Adams
    >and Eves?
    >Doesn't that stretch the Scripture just a wee bit? Is the Bible really
    >referring to a menage-a-decamille? >>
    >When I talk of population sizes of even 10,000 for points "S" or "A", I
    >am never implying more than one Adam and Eve, and these belong to point
    >"A" only, much later than "S". I imply theologically genuine humans
    >starting with "S", and a theologically genuine human population at the
    >time of Adam and Eve, "A". Both populations would be so-called
    >"pre-Adamites". (By the way, I wrote that a one-couple bottleneck could
    >accommodate at most two different allelic gene lineages. It should have
    >been four, two in each person, for autosomes.)

    Agreed, and if you are going to have that situation, you need to move it
    way, way back in time. It can't have occurred within the past 100,000 years.
    But if we don't have that situation--a single pair, then how on earth can we
    say that the Bible is true? Jesus' genealogy goes through Adam. Is that
    genealogy as false as the genealogy of the Japanese emporer who is
    supposedly the descendant of the Sun God? If it is false, what does that do
    to the claims that Jesus is the second Adam? THere wasn't a first one in
    this case.

    ><< ... What we see in the modern population are several genetic systems
    >that take us back much further than the 100,000 years or so that you
    >want. While I agree that there are possibilities that can explain that,
    >those possibilities, can't possibly explain the archeological record
    >which shows a continued population explansion from 2 million years ago
    >to the present. There simply isn't a time when archeological sites
    >dissappear for several thousand generations! And if you try to say that
    >these sites were due to non-humans, then you must explain why these
    >non-humans were behaving in a very human-like fashion. >>
    >I was talking about the distinction between the multiregional model and
    >the recent-out-of-Africa one. The multiregional model now seems to be
    >more or less ruled out: Takahata N., Lee S.H., Satta Y., "Testing
    >multiregionality of modern human origins", Molecular Biology and
    >Evolution 18 (2001), 172-183 concluded (on the basis of DNA sequence
    >data from 10 X-chromosomal regions, 5 autosomal regions, 1 Y-chromosomal
    >region, and mtDNA) that the multiregionality theory is probably wrong.
    >For the scientific and theological interpretations of archeological
    >finds see above.

    I didn't see any interpretation of the archaeological finds above. You
    merely mentioned that Adam is associated with unspecified 'cultural items'.
    What are you talking about? Why, if we came from a bottleneck don't we see
    the population thin out and disappear for a while in the archeolgoical

    As to supposedly ruling out multiregionalism, one must explain why Mungo man
    had a pre-anatomically modern human mtDNA---meaning that he had to have
    gotten it from a maternal line that goes back at least 300,000 years
    according to my calculations. His mother was not your Eve, yet he himself
    was anatomically modern.

    You must explain the characteristically Neanderthaloid muscle attachements
    in the Lager Velho child from Portugal. The supposed replacement don't have
    those types of attachements yet this kid did, and yet he too was mostly a
    modern human. There was interbreeding.

    You must explain why the earliest humans in Europe resemble the Neanderthals
    more than the supposed Out-of-Africa invaders. In fact, I never see anyone
    like you really discuss the evidence below. Below, within each chart, the
    data is arranged basically in an order from more ancient to more recent. If
    there was no mixing of Neanderthals with modern humans (multiregionalism)
    then one would expect that the earliest Europeans (Early Upper Paleolithic
    in the chart) would resemble the Skhul/Qafzeh peoples who are the supposed
    invaders. Yet in Central Europe on trait after trait the earliest 'modern
    humans' more closely resemble the Neanderthals. Why is this if there wasn't
    any mixing????

     Fossil Sample Meric Index

    European Neanderthals 79.6
    Skhul/Qafzeh (invaders) 83.1 the invaders don't resemble their
    Early Upper Paleolithic (kids) 77.6 who are the guys on this line
    Late Upper Paleolithic 78.0
    Mesolithic 78.0
    Medieval 80.4
     ~ David W. Frayer, "Evolution at the European Edge: Neanderthal and Upper
    Paleolithic Relationships," Prehistoire Europeenne, 2:9?69, Table 8, p. 35
    Fossil Sample Nasion Projection (mm)

    Neanderthals 29.3
    African Eve 17.8
    Skhul/Qafzeh 12.4 The invaders
    Early Upper Paleolithic 21.9 the kids of the invaders--more like
    Late Upper Paleolithic 19.3
    Mesolithic 19.3
    Medieval Hungarians 20.2
     ~ David W. Frayer, "Evolution at the European Edge: Neanderthal and Upper
    Paleolithic Relationships," Prehistoire Europeenne, 2:9?69, Table 2, p. 17
    mandibular foramen
    European H-O Normal
                                 Foramen Foramen
                                 % %

    Neanderthal 53 47
    African Eves 0 100
    Skhul/Qafzeh 0 100 The invaders
    Early U. Paleolithic 18 82 How did kids evolve this
    Neanderthal trait?
    Late U. Paleolithic 7 93
    Mesolithic 2 98
    Medieval Europeans 1 99
     ~ David W. Frayer, "Evolution at the European Edge: Neanderthal and Upper
    Paleolithic Relationships," Prehistoire Europeenne, 2:9?69, Table 7, p. 31

    In order to account for this data and still believe that there was no
    mixing, you must believe that the mere fact that the Africans invaded Europe
    made them look like the Neanderthals. That of course is a silly idea. But no
    OoA people I know of really deal with this data at this level of detail.

    Wolpoff and Hawks recently did a study of Skulls from Eastern Europe and
    compared them on numerous traits with the African invaders. Here is what
    they found:

            “The average pairwise difference between Mladec 5 and the Neandertal sample
    is 14.8, and between Mladec 5 and the Skhul/Qafzeh sample, 14.0—virtually
    the same. On the other hand, for Mladec 6 the corresponding comparisons are
    7.8 and 11.6, so it is closer to the Neandertal sample.” Milford H. Wolpoff,
    John Hawks, David W. Frayer, and Keith Hunley, “Modern Human Ancestry at the
    Peripheries: A Test of the Replacement Theory,” Science 291(2001):293-297,
    p. 296

    They also showed that the Wilandra Lakes 50 specimen resembled H. erectus
    more than modern humans, yet it also is a modern human.

    They conclude:
    “We do not doubt that many prehistoric groups were replaced by others, but
    we conclude that the hypothesis that all living humans descended from a
    single geographically isolated group during the Late Pleistocene is false,
    and that the replacement explanation for the origin of these early modern
    Australians and Europeans can be ruled out.” Milford H. Wolpoff, John Hawks,
    David W. Frayer, and Keith Hunley, “Modern Human Ancestry at the
    Peripheries: A Test of the Replacement Theory,” Science 291(2001):293-297,
    p. 296

    Wishing this data away, doesn't make it go away. It is contrary to your

    >Adam and Eve were not "the original pair", nor were they the entire
    >population of some bottleneck. And what anciently coalescing gene
    >lineages passed through them has neither scientific nor theological
    >relevance. Such genetic lines are at most telling us something about the
    >population dynamics of the pre-Adamites, but not about Adam and Eve.

    I gather from this that Adam and Eve are irrelevant to genetic history. In
    which case, why on earth don't you simply say that the Bible is wrong.
    Afterall, there is nothing in your thesis that supports anything the Bible
    says about Adam and Eve that I can see.

    ><< Unless you believe in a large amount of transspeciation event gene
    >flow, genes do tell us about population ages. Only if there is a huge
    >interbreeding population which speciates, can the older genes traverse
    >the population bottleneck. And to claim that 10,000 breeding couples is
    >Adam and Eve is certainly something I never have seen in any
    >commentators book. >>
    >I don't claim the human species originated with Adam, see above. Adam
    >and Eve were not the first human couple. They were an individual couple
    >in a historical personal relationship with God, illustrating the
    >fundamental reality of the human fall.

    So why do you ignore Bruinquel and Bilzingsleben where the 'pre-Adamites'
    were trying to have a relationship with some god? Consider this Neanderthal

            "The cave of Bruniquel in southern France has just produced fascinating new
    evidence. Several hundred metres in from the cave entrance, a stone
    structure has been discovered. It is quadrilineal, measures four by five
    metres and has been constructed from pieces of stalagmite and stalactite. A
    burnt fragment of a bear bone found in it was radiocarbon analysed,
    yielding a 'date' of greater than 47 600 years BP. This suggests that the
    structure is the work of Neanderthals. It is located in complete darkness,
    which proves that the people who ventured so deep into the large cave system
    had reliable lighting and had the confidence to explore such depths.
    Bruniquel is one of several French caves that became closed subsequent to
    their Pleistocene use, but were artifically opened this century." ~ Robert
    G. Bednarick, "Neanderthal News," The Artefact 1996, 19:104

    To quote A. Held and P. Ruest,
    >PSCF 51 (Dec.1999), 231: "Thus, we postulate that Adam was not the first
    >genuine human, but that he belonged to the human species already 100,000
    >years old. In spiritual terms, he was the typical representative of the
    >old (fallen) human species, both before and after his time, just as
    >Christ is the risen 'firstfruits' of the new humanity of those 'born of
    >the Spirit', both before and after his time on earth", with Footnote 75:
    >"Romans 5:12-21.

    So, exactly what were the residents of Bilzingsleben doing with an altar?
    Also what of the Neanderthal altar found at Bruniquel, France, where the
    remains of an apparently sacrificed bear was found? This dates to a time
    prior to when anatomically modern people were in Europe, so it isn't an H.
    sapiens altar. Archaeology is against your view.

    In this context, physical descent is irrelevant, for
    >the old humanity (not necessarily for old Israel), just as it is for the
    >new. Adam's being called 'the first man' does not refer to biological
    >genealogy, as can be seen in Christ's being 'the second man' and the
    >'last Adam' (1 Corinthians 15:45-47). John 3:8." Then we speculated
    >about the particular task which was the object of God's special call of
    >Adam: "What distinguishes Adam from earlier humans? We believe he was
    >called to deal with the problem of evil, death and corruption in
    >creation, to open for humanity the way into spiritual communion with
    >God. Adam is called 'the first man', Jesus 'the second man' (both not in
    >a biological sense!); only Adam (before the fall) and Jesus had the
    >undisturbed communion with God intended for humans. The biblical
    >genealogies cover the time from 'the beginning' to Jesus Christ, the
    >'last Adam', who became a 'life-giving Spirit', originating a new,
    >spiritual humanity."

    So what were the Neanderthals at Bruniquel and the H. erectus at
    Bilzingsleben dealing with with their altars?

    ><< None of your terms are objective for the traits you want them to
    >measure. One can't measure Gen 1:28 human-ness on a scale of 1 to 10.
    >One can't measure Adamness in a scale using Adamic units. Thus, you have
    >defined a very very fuzzy set of definitions with which anyone can see
    >what they want to see rather than what data requires. ONly if you define
    >S as being anatomically modern do you even have a prayer of scientific
    >objectivity. But then some anthropologists have pointed out that there
    >is NO definition of anatomically modernness in all of anthropological
    >literature! >>
    >Time "H", the origin of the genus Homo, can be scientifically defined -
    >more or less. But times "S", the origin of the spiritual dimension in
    >humans, and "A", Adam and Eve, cannot be defined scientifically - in
    >principle. They are given by the Bible and must be theologically
    >interpreted. We may try to harmonize the biological history and the
    >biblical history, and I think this makes sense. I think it is possible
    >to show that the two histories are not in conflict, but we cannot use
    >such a harmonization to scientifically prove that the Bible is correct -
    >I get the impression that this is what you want to do.

    What I want most of all is consistency in the way we Christians deal with
    data at our jobs in science and how we deal with it in out theology efforts.
    We get really, really sloppy with data when we put on our theological hats.
    We would be fired if we were that sloppy at our jobs (at least I would be,
    they don't give tenure at oil companies).

    And I am always amazed that even those not in our faith see the importance
    of historicity to Christianity when we Christians run from it as a chicken
    runs from foxes. I am reading this for a review.

    "Until the eighteenth century, scepticism in Western Europe had been largely
    silent when the historical plausibility of the New Testament was in
    question. The generation of Gibbon and Voltaire was the first openly to cast
    doubt on the authenticity of stories of a virginal conception, or of a human
    form which could walk on water. Such profanities continued to shock the
    pios, but they inevitably planted irremovable worries, and worries which
    grew to doubts, in the literalist mind. How much of this actually
    *happened*? Since Christinaity purports to be a religion rooted in
    historical reality, these questions are of more than peripheral concern. The
    Creeds, as conventionally understood by the huge majority of Christians
    since the earliest days, had spoken of a Deity who chose to become incarnate
    at a particular juncture in human affairs, at a particular time and
    place--in the city of Nazareth, of a woman called Mary. The miraculous
    birth, as foretold to prophets, took place at Bethelehem at a definable
    date--in the reign of Herod hte King. These do not at first sight read like
    Myths. We are not told that Perseus rescued Andromeda at a particular date,
    when So-and-so was king. The Gospels in their very rootedness to a
    verifiable history, entwine into their story not merely narratives about
    Jesus but thoughts and claims about Dog Himself. In the Fourth Gospel, in
    particular, Jesus is quoted as saying that no one comes to the Father,
    except through Him, that He is the Way, the Truth and the LIfe. Such claims,
    if made by an historical personage who subsequently rose from the dead,
    would compel an awestruck belief. But supposing such words had not been
    said? Supposing the Gospels, like every other written papyrus in the ancient
    world, were products of a purely human and collective endeavour? Supposing
    they reflected not so much a literalist reality in the year 30 AD as the
    faith and beliefs of Christian communities in the year 60, 80, 100 AD?
    Supposing they came from communities which had only the haziest memories of
    Jesus Himself, and were written from the point of view of people who were
    deeply immmersed in a mystery-cult with 'Jesus' as its focus? Then the
    historical Jesus might turn out, on impartial historical investigation, to
    be a figure very different from the Jesus of Faith. And if this were the
    case, would not Christianity begin to look like all the other religions in
    human history, a human construct, rather than a divine revelation?" A. N.
    Wilson, God's Funeral, Ballantine Books, 1999, p. 131-132.

    Because the history of Jesus is intimately wrapped up with the history of
    the Jewish people and indeed the genealogy of Jesus is intimitately wrapped
    up in people you now say are not real,like Noah, what does that say about
    Jesus and his message? If Jesus' genealogy is fictional, it undermines his
    claim to be the Son of God in my mind. If it is false, what else about Jesus
    is false?

    ><< The menage-a-many is not a workable Biblical viewpoint. If that is
    >happened, then pure and simply, the bible is wrong. >>
    >The "menage-a-many" is your straw man, not my idea, see above.

    It is my criticism of your view.

    When I
    >wrote "Old separate gene lineages can happily coexist in an undivided
    >population evolving through a speciation process happening later", I was
    >implying that old separate gene lineages cannot be used directly to date
    >a speciation event, especially if other gene lineages coalesce at other
    >times. Even if, in the extreme, you want to believe that Adam and Eve
    >were the first human couple, but biologically evolved through a 2-person
    >bottleneck, there still may be allelic gene lines coalescing much
    >earlier (although you then would expect most gene lines to coalesce at
    >time "A"). Your conclusion that "the bible is wrong" doesn't follow.

    Why, it says that Eve is the mother of all living (Gen. 3:20). She isn't
    under your view. Pure and simple that makes that statement wrong. I don't
    know how else to define a false statement other than as wrong, wrong, wrong
    or false, false false. Either she is the mother of all living or she isn't.
    And with your view, she isn't.

    ><< The population expansion after the last glaciation is due to the
    >of farming whose antecedents go back to just after the last glaciation.
    >Yes, this is a major reason usually associated with it. It may not be
    >the only one. And what caused those people to begin farming?

    Economic necessity, certainly NOT spirituality. The populations had risen to
    the point where it was more and more difficult for huntering to support
    them. Plants became a bigger and bigger part of the diet. And they
    gradually began to do things to make sure that next year the wild plants
    they liked were plentiful. Things like scattering seed around. But this
    made the food more plentiful and thus the population even more plentiful.
    But it had more profound consequences for prey animals. Colin Tudge writes:

            “In short, we can envisage that human beings who supplemented their own
    survival by farming, albeit on a small scale, could easily drive other
    species into oblivion, perhaps by hunting them even more vigorously after
    they had become rare. A full-time hunter is unable to do this. The full-time
    hunter is liable to die out as prey becomes scarce.” Colin Tudge,
    Neanderthals, Bandits, and Farmers: How Agriculture Really Began, (London:
    Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1998), p. 20

    But the part time farmer can live through the lean times to go kill the rare
    animal again. Tudge continues:

            “But the argument makes even more sense if we suppose that the first people
    in the Americas and Australia were also manipulating the environment; that
    they were hobby farmers. If they were hobby farmers then, as I have argued,
    they would have been even more destructive predators. They could easily, and
    perhaps gleefully, have pursued the more spectacular creatures to
            “In other words, I suggest that some degree of farming helped to underpin
    the Pleistocene overkill—and indeed makes it more plausible.” Colin Tudge,
    Neanderthals, Bandits, and Farmers: How Agriculture Really Began, (London:
    Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1998), p. 24

     Once the overkill occurred (and it occurred everywhere man was in the late
    Pleistocene, he had to find a new food source. His hobby, as Tudge calls it,
    became his occupation. Thus was mankind sucked into the black hole of
    farming in order to feed himself. Farming was not a blessing. It was a
    curse. They needed more people to farm than to hunt, but more people
    increased the need for farming. This put mankind on a treadmill that we
    haven't escaped yet. But the physical effects of farming were awful. The
    skeletons of the earliest farmers show that they were sicker, lived shorter,
    harder lives than their ancestors had.

    “Surviving skeletal evidence shows that the hunter-gatherers of the Upper
    Paleolithic were well nourished and lived healthy lives. In contrast, the
    skeletons of early farmers from all over the world show signs of
    malnutrition and stunted growth, arthritis, and other signs of wear and tear
    caused by hard manual work. Excessive tooth wear, disease and reduced life
    expectancy. Early farmers in Greece and Turkey averaged 5 feet 3 inches tall
    for men, 5 feet 1 inch for women: their Paleolithic hunter-gatherer
    ancestors had averaged 5 feet 10 inches and 5 feet 6 inches respectively,
    taller even than the well-nourished modern inhabitants of those countries.
    After the Indians of the Ohio and Illinois valleys adopted farming c. AD
    1000 they experienced increased levels of malnutrition, tooth decay, and
    osteoarthritis and, while over 5 percent of the population had lived beyond
    the age of 50 before the adoption of farming, only 1 percent did so
    afterwards. Infant mortality also increased.” John Haywood, The Illustrated
    History of Early Man, (London: PRC Publishing Ltd., 2000), p.104-106

    Now, what exactly does spirituality have to do with this process? Nothing!

    ><< Flies are quite procreative and they have none of these skills. To
    >that a population increase indicates a divine command means that flies
    >truly the favored of God... >>
    >Yes, flies, among other creatures, were blessed by God and told to
    >multiply (Genesis 1:22). And so were humans (v.28). But to say that any
    >population increase indicates a divine command reverses the logic
    >illicitly. That, in the case of humans, the population expansion
    >commanded in Gen.1:28 was presumably linked to human-specific faculties
    >is based mainly on theological reasoning and has nothing to do with

    You were the one who was implying that the population expansion indicated a
    change in the spiritual position. Remember I asked you why the awareness of
    God would make everyone start having sex?

    As to the bottleneck: The mechanics of fly mtDNA is apparently similar to
    that of humans. Assume that both started in 100,000 BC. Humans have had then
    about 5000 generations, but flies have had 100,000+ generations. Surely we
    would expect more variation in their mtDNA than we see, yet they have the
    same 'bottleneck appearance as do the humans. Why? Probably selection. Yet
    you want to say that the lack of mtDNA diversity in humans means bottleneck
    but the lack of mtDNA diversity in flies has nothing what so ever to do with
    the situation. It has everything to do with the situaation.

    ><< Are you aware that there is a whole school of anthropologists that
    >believe that H. sapiens refers to all hominids from 2 million years to
    >the present?... Milford Wolpoff... writes: "No speciation events seem to
    >separate us from our immediate ancestors,... our lineage at the origin
    >of Homo sapiens some 2 million years ago..." ... Richard Leakey wrote:
    >"... all of the material currently referred to as homo erectus should in
    >fact be placed within the species sapiens ... back to a little over two
    >million years." ... >>
    >There are splitters and lumpers. The biospecies status of fossils cannot
    >be ascertained, much less their theologically defined species status.

    Then I would say that you have just admitted that you can't prove anything
    about your thesis and that it is mostly speculation as to where you draw the
    adamic, spiritual lines in the anthropological record. If you can't define
    the theological status of the species, then what you offer is a speculation
    based upon no data! So why exactly are you arguing so strongly that Adam was
    late if you can't really define their theological status? Upon what basis do
    you think you have a logical ground upon which to stand?

    I define spirituality in the archaeological record via cultural items found.
    If I find an altar, then I believe that the people were worshipping and thus
    were spiritual. I have hard evidence that there was spirituality at LEAST as
    far back as 400,000 years ago.

    You also ignore my point here. From the neck down, H. erectus is almost
    identical to you. Only the skull is really different. And there is an almost
    smooth set of transitions between the earliest H. erectus skulls and our
    own. There is no severe break and no clear place to mark the difference.
    What is called early anatomically modern man 100,000 years ago is really an
    arbitrary point in a continuum. Even the earliest 'anatomically modern
    humans' had archaic cranial traits. Where do we draw the line? But it is
    here in the skull that you place an arbitrary morphological boundary of
    theological importance. Skull shape has nothing to do with spirituality. My
    wife had an uncle who was Downs. His skull was very different. Does that
    make him not human? Of course not! He was an usher in his church for about
    40 years.


    for lots of creation/evolution information
    personal stories of struggle

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 11 2001 - 04:22:38 EST