From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Progressive Creationism Part 6
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:16:36 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Oct4.224609.639@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
|     It helps to put the fossil evidence in perspective,
|however, for not all fossils claimed to be human are
|necessarily so.  Skeletal materials found at sites from
|historical times are essentially the same as those of modern
|man, called *Homo sapiens* ("thinking" or "discerning man").
|But as one goes back beyond historical times there are
|increasing differences.  Cro-Magnon man, who is prehistoric
|and whose remains have been found scattered widely
|throughout western Europe, was similar to people who exist
|today.  He used bone and stone tools and made cave paintings
|of animals and other features of his world.  Slightly
|farther back (on the order of 100,000 years) is the so-
|called Neanderthal man.  He also used tools and buried his
|dead. 

There is some overlap between modern Homo sapiens and Neanderthal.
Modern H. sapiens can be traced back to more than 100,000 years.
[And Cro Magnon is considered 'indistinguishable' from living humans,
not merely similar].

|  Still farther back are a number of other
|essentially "modern" types found in France, Germany, and
|England, dating from perhaps 250,000 years ago, according to
|the most accepted calculations.

The dating of the oldest known specimens of 'archaic' Homo sapiens
now stretch back to about 300,000 years (a minor change).

|but the chief reason for
|their being regarded as humans is that they apparently
|walked upright, hence are designated *Homo erectus*.  Most
|anthropologists would call *Homo erectus* the first truly
|modern man.

Fairly accurate, but I believe that some African H. erectus are known from
well over 1 million years ago.  Also, the association of H. erectus with
the crude stone tools of the paleolithic types is essentially certain.

|     In the interim what may Christians, who hold to the
|truthfulness of Genesis and who still want to be honest (ED.
|NOTE: !!!) where scientific data is concerned, conclude?
|One scientist, Robert A. Erb of Valley Forge, Pennsylvania,
|concludes that fossil "man" is not necessarily man and that
|Christians do themselves a disservice when they regard all
|such as Adam's descendants.  

Actually, I would tend to agree with this part.  The vernacular 'human'
is probably best reserved for Homo sapiens, or even 'modern Homo sapiens.

Still this does not get him much, 100,000 to 300,000 is *still* an order of
magnitude above what he is willing to accept as the oldest figure for Adam.

|historical Adam  and would tend to date him near the
|beginning of the Neolithic (new stone) age in the Near East
|(about 8,000 B.C.).  Indeed, this step in the creative work
|of God may be the cause of what is known as the Neolithic
|Revolution, with the domestication of plants and animals,
|the building of cities, the invention of pottery, the
|beginnings of writing and such things.  That Adam does not
|belong to the Upper Paleolithic age of 30,000 years ago is
|suggested by:  ...

Hmm, humanity is defined by *cultural* characteristics???
[Just a nit, but I think that  30,000 years bp is already Mesolithic,
not Upper Paleolithic - I am fairly certain that all 'modern' Homo
sapiens finds are associated with post-paleolithic technologies].

In this regard the difference between 'modern' Homo sapiens and the eraly
forms is illuminated in the rate of *change* in technology.  An essentially
identical stone tool technology is found at *all* Homo erectus sites,
for a span of more the a *million* years with *no* noticable change.
Then come the 'archaic' Homo sapiens and Neandethals, with a slightly
more sophisticated stone technology.  This lasted with little change
until 'modern' Homo sapiens entered the picture - a period of about 300,000
years in most areas of the world.

In the 200,000 to 300,000 years since then we have gone from stone tools to
space ships!  Even prior to the agricultural revolution, however, the rate
of change was staggering (compared to the prior stasis).  Any given stone
tool technology only lasted a few thousand years *at* *most*.  Furthermore,
extensive *regional* specialization (local cultures) first becomes pronounced
at this time.

So, the real break is between 'modern' Homo sapiens and those that went
before.

|     The conclusion is that, while the earth and universe
|may indeed be quite old (on the order of billions of years),
|there is no need to insist that man is millions of years
|old.  His creation by God may be as recent as genealogies
|seem to indicate."

Only if you use *learned* behavior, rather than intrinsic capabilites or
anatomical features to define what is meant by 'human'.  This has the
unfortunate side effect of making the Australian Aborignes sub-human
(Since thier culture lacks all of the distinguishing features that Boice
lists for his Adamic 'first human').
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com