Re: Oldest Stone Tools and Intelligence

Glenn Morton (
Tue, 04 Mar 1997 19:36:09 -0600

At 07:45 PM 3/4/97 EST, Jim Bell wrote:
>Sheesh, Glenn, it's not like you've been waiting to spring old news on me or
>anything, is it? You must have been pacing up and down your living room,
>muttering, "I wish that Jim Bell would post another message, heh heh. Won't HE
>be surprised. Heh heh. Where'd I put the Nyquil?"

Well, I had to try. You wouldn't have expected anything less. :-)

>What it comes down to, I think, is this:
><<I consider the last statement equivalent to your saying that spiritual man
>was only 34,000 years old or less.>>
>Well, you're wrong.
>There, that clears that up. Sorry you had to wait all this time for the
>answer, but it was obvious. Don't ever dicker with a lawyer over words, my
>friend. Think of all that pacing you could have saved.

I figured you had simply forgotten since you went on your trip. How is your
new book going?

><<By the way, doess anatomically modern man found 120,000 years ago bear the
>image of God or is he merely an animal that looks like you and me? You never
>answered that question either. You ran from it like a rooster from a fox.>>
>It's more how I walk away from those guys who scream on the corner of
>Hollywood and Vine all day. ;-).
>We talked about the lack of African archaeology, etc. Remember? Be patient.
>120,000 is RECENT, and modern man explodes on the scene. What's the problem?

The problem was that you had clearly stated a belief that mankind became
spiritual at 30 kyr or so. As I gather, you have now changed and believe
that mankind was created 120,000 years ago. If that is correct, then you
have a more defendable position than your old one. congratulations.
><<So why are there some spiritual humans who even in this century, are living
>with stone age technology.>>
>You've used this tired chestnut so many times I'm beginning to think YOU
>should be the one roasting on an open fire. I've answered it as many times:
>capacity, lad, capacity. Remember our friend Ishi? He could learn, he was
>anatomically modern, brainwise and every other way, just like your modern,
>stone-age-tool buddies.
>And again I remind you that tribal enclaves are not the same as an entire
>species. You keep making category mistakes, and it leads you into all sorts of

Why? Maybe Homo erectus and Archaic homo sapiens are simply tribal enclaves
but thaey look a little different than we do.

>The bottom line remains: Pushing back activities like stone tools and spear
>making work against your theory.
>Now take a slug of Nyquil and get some sleep.

I bet you want me to take a lot of it. :-)


Foundation, Fall and Flood