|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Glenn Morton hypothesis: The Flood could ONLY have happened 5 million+ years ago | |||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome to the fray mpb1
GRMorton (Glenn Morton) has continually brought up his argument that his vast geological studies prove conclusively (in his mind at least) that the Flood could NOT have occurred any more recently than FIVE MILLION YEARS AGO. THE REASON: He says the Flood would not have been sustainable and that the waters would have been dumped into a nearby sea within a few weeks... Why wouldn't the flood dump into nearby seas at any past age? This seems like a "special pleading" logical fallacy (applies to {A} but not to {B} because {B} is special)
Are there any (non-YEC) geological studies online (or offline) that anyone is aware of that would dispute his claim that the Flood COULD NOT have occurred more recently than five million years ago? Not that I am aware of. Best answer would come from one of the geologsts around here, like roxrkool (click for message list to reply on), but all (non-YEC) geology studies (double negative coming) do not dispute that the flood "could not have happened" - at any time in the past (if you get my drift).
I don't know geology (or anthropology for that matter), but for a number of reasons, I don't buy his arguments. Few people do. Yet he has spent the last 10+ years developing his ideas (online @ http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm), and he kind of argues his points incessantly ... Which doesn't make them any more valid than the first time, does it?
With this in mind, he has expanded his study to anthropology to prove that modern man lived as far back as five million years ago. He justifies this belief using evidences of tools and religion, which he believes date back that far. He's off by a few million years. Seehttp://www.mnh.si.edu/...ro/humanorigins/ha/ances_start.html http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/hab.html for some basic background. From the last link: quote: This is the earliest recognized evidence of tool use in the fossil record, and the earliest Homo habilis is ~2.5 million years ago. The earliest recognized evidence of religion is with the Homo neanderthalensis and Cro-Magnon (Homo sapiens) less than 0.5 million years ago. On the other hand going back 5 million years takes us to before Australopithicus and before Ardipithecus ramidus and very close to the (current thinking) split from the chimpanzee line. Not that chimpanzees don't have religion or use tools ... or that some don't argue that chimpanzees belong in the Homo family. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Since I have NEVER EVER CLAIMED that anatomically modern man lived 5 million years ago, I am NOT off by a few million years. Neither did mark say "anatomically modern man" ... nor do my comments pertain to "anatomically modern man" but to the first evidence of tool use and religious artifacts. So what IS your position on this issue. Rather than complain about being misrepresented, I would think you would want to say what your position is. Enjoy ps - welcome to the fray. Edited by RAZD, : subtitle, added information compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I am in too many frays. I know the feeling. I've had to cut back recently too, and pretty well confine my efforts to this forum.
When I look at anthropology, I see evidence which would reasonably be interpreted as evidence of religion among the archaic hominids. If one is a christian and believes that one of the things which marks us as human is our religious sense, then clearly those archaic hominids would have religion. This falls into the camp of presupposition leading conclusions, rather than conclusions following the evidence. On the other hand I can agree that lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack, and thus the need for science to verify evidence for religion could miss some of that evidence, certainly it would miss any evidence that would not fossilize or leave a record in some way (cave paintings, for example).
The absolute farthest back one can push religion in any form is 600 kyr ago, ... I would point out evidence cited on my page http://home.entouch.net/dmd/religion.htm Normally posting bare links is frowned on here, but I can see that a lot of people are already familiar with your position and it can help shorten the post lengths in some cases. I did a google on {earliest burial} and the first site listed was interesting, on ASA3.org, seems it is authored by someone named Glen Morton ... I had bookmarked a Book Review (broken now) to The Neanderthal's Necklace: In Search of the First Thinkers By Juan Luis Arsuaga, in Discover magazine where I got these quotes (posted on another site):
quote: So I can go to 300,000 years based on the evidence of burials as religious behavior. Of course this is a different species line than one that leads to anatomically modern humans, so now we have the issue of having at least two species of religious hominids - and that can be taken as evidence for religion in their common ancestor, or at least a pre-disposition for religion in the common ancestor. And if we make that argument, then there is the issue of religious behavior in chimpanzees (which some people think belong in the hominid genus) and gorillas: Error: Active domain connection for this domain not found
quote: So if we make the common ancestor argument for Neander and Cro-Magnon, we should (logically) make the same argument for the common ancestor for chimp, gorilla and human. The other part of the argument involved tool making. The oldest evidence we have of preserved tools - stone ones - come with Homo habilis at 2.5 million years, and ancestral (supposedly) for both Neander and Sapiens.
Adam could have been an australopithecine for all I care. H.floresiensis, regardless of whether or not he is a deformed H. sapiens or a descendant of A. garhi, had enough intelligence in his chimpsized brain to do many of the things we humans do--stone tools, mastery of fire, and hunting big (for them) game and all of this collectively screams intelligence. Add to that the recent evidence of chimps making wood spears with sharpened points to hunt - spears that would not likely fossilize as such even if they were buried with the manufacturer. And if we make the argument for religious behavior based on common ancestor then we should also make if for tool making behavior -- these are behaviors after all and not part of the fossils of the species (although culturally transmitted behavior can be positively selected similar to genetic mutations). On the other hand, all we may have is evidence for the cultural transmission of behavior by these ancient common ancestors, while the tool and religious behavior has come late in the picture. Enjoy. ps -- type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quote boxes are easy compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Added by edit: It seems that we may have somehow lost a RAZD message. yep. I'll try to recreate it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It seems my original reply was lost (see Message 64 by Adminnemooseus).
I would absolutely disagree that Neanderthals have no input to modern human lineages. It is true only that they seem to have no mtDNA input, but that does not rule out nuclear DNA input which much recent evidence seems to support. Consider this: “For the past few years Bruce Lahn, a geneticist at the University of Chicago, has been studying genes potentially involved in human cognition, in particular one called microcephalin.... one variant of microcephalin appeared about 40,000 years ago and has since swept through the population ... On the basis of sequence differences between the old and new versions of the gene, he concluded that the two are so different that they must have diverged at least 1 million years ago (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 103, p 18178).” ... Then there is the Melanocortin-1 gene, which produces red hair. I agree that until we have y-chromosome comparisons between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens that interbreeding is not ruled out. There is also evidence that speaks for it but not conclusively (child fossil and could be sterile):
BBC - 404: Not Found
quote: and (same evidence): Page not Found | NYCEP
quote: Don't know what's happened to this one since. As far as I am concerned the jury is out but the likelyhood is low that any significant flow of genes occurred. Yes, I am aware of the microcephalin and the Melanocortin-1 gene information. I am also aware of evidence of several bottlenecks in the Homo sapiens line, one ~70k years ago and one ~130k years ago (and others older and of disagreements about them):
BBC - 404: Not Found
quote: Bottlenecks change the rates at which mutations are selected. I have a great deal of skepticism whenever genetic analysis articles talk about times when genes first evolved, as they are based on an average rate of fixing genes and do not take in variations. See Human - Chimp split 4 million years ago? I also have trouble with the claims that such genes could come from H. neanderthalensis when there is no evidence that they carry the genes. One could equally claim that the asiatic genes come from interbreeding with H. habilis in those areas. Red hair itself is not a difficult mutation to derive independently, especially as we also have blond hair that is NOT explained by the neander populations AND the two seem to be linked. This also gets into the area of sexual selection within the human populations, with the evidence being for greater sexual selection within female features for younger appearing females and bare appearing skin in females. Blonds appear bare compared to dark hair, red less so, then brown and black. Sexual selection also explains a higher rate of fixation of genes in females than males, and this relates to the difference in the "genetic times" of "mitochondial eve" and "y-chromosome adam" -- another reason to distrust genetic information timelines. But I'm ranting ...
"The gene is certainly older than 50,000 years and it could be as old as 100,000 years," she said. "An explanation is that it comes from the Neanderthals-the other people that were here before modern man came out of Africa." This puts it smack in that ~70k year bottleneck timeline. Another explanation is that it was in low proportion in the H. sapiens population before the bottleneck event, but happened (luck of the draw) to be in sufficient proportion in the survivors that it could then spread in the resulting population while there was less active selection against new mutations (as occurs in recovery periods).
I don't think I am making an argument for religion based upon common ancestor. That seems to be your position, not mine. I am arguing it based upon EVIDENCE, what is found in the record. Correct it is my argument. But the evidence of a disposition for religious behavior in both neander and sapiens and in both chimps and humans speaks to being evidence for a disposition for religious behavior in their common ancestors. Behavior can be learned and transmitted horizontally, but only if there is a disposition for that behavior. A herbivore is not going to learn to eat flesh from observing carnivores.
... past that, I don't have evidence, but as you said, somethings don't fossilize. And somethings don't appear in the genetic sequences either, that we can assign to different aspects of behavior. All we have are the relatively recent bits of evidence of DNA and catscans of brain activity showing similarities. I think that hits the points I thought I posted last night. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I also have trouble with some of this from the first post:
Message 1 by mark (mpb1): Glenn Morton hypothesis: The Flood could ONLY have happened 5 million+ years ago THE REASON: He says the Flood would not have been sustainable and that the waters would have been dumped into a nearby sea within a few weeks... Is this his mis-interpretation of your position? I don't see why it would apply after 5M years and not before. Thanks. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Razd wrote: "Is this his mis-interpretation of your position? I don't see why it would apply after 5M years and not before." The Bible says that the flood lasted 1 year, covered high hills, and landed an ark on the Mountains of Turkey. I looked for some place where this could happen. ... So, to answer the initial question, the only place which fits the flood's description is from 5.5 million years ago. Short answer, the position as described by mark
Message 1 by mark (mpb1): Glenn Morton hypothesis: The Flood could ONLY have happened 5 million+ years ago THE REASON: He says the Flood would not have been sustainable and that the waters would have been dumped into a nearby sea within a few weeks... Is not really what you are arguing at all, but a chopped up mixture of parts of the argument for and against floods in different areas.
No other place in the world matches the Biblical description except the Infilling of the Mediterranean. ... That means that the wall separating the Atlantic Ocean from the Mediterranean basin collapsed at a depth of about 3000 feet! That would be catastrophic and explain why there is only 1/10 of an inch of separation between the desert deposits and the deep sea deposits on the bottom of the Med. ... The geologic data is incredibly good to say that this event happened as described. It is 5.5 million years ago, just about the time that the earliest hominids appeared on earth--something I find to be an interesting coincidence. The only problem I have is that those earliest hominids were not near the Mediterranean ... much closer to the Red Sea ... at least the ones that have been found. If we can find a hominid fossil in those sediment layers that would be a different story eh? Danakil Depression - Wikipedia
quote: Of course that is only 3.5 to 4.0 million years ago or so. Ardipithecus - Wikipedia
quote: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Amazing hominid haul in Ethiopia
quote: Still in Ethiopia (Not the Med. and not Turkey?), so I have a little problem with the link between them. Enjoy. ps -- type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quote boxes are easy Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix one quote box (had qs at beginning, /quote at end) - Oh, the irony, considering what is just above this "edited by" message. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks. I'll just hit some points here.
I actually think the jury is almost in on it. There is some interbreeding but the gene flow is quite small. There were few neanderthals and if a large number of Africans came into Europe, their genetic heritage would be swamped. Are you aware that among some Native American tribes, their genes today are far more likely to resemble Europeans than Native Americans? This is after only 400 years of a massive immigration to the Americas followed by interbreeding with the few remaining North Americans. Indeed, here is an amazing statistic. The amerind story is complicated by (1) massive loss of populations due to diseases, (2) isolation of indians on reservations or at least "away" from colonies and settlements (3) classification of anyone with 1/4 indian heritage as indian, with associated racist discrimination against "half-breeds" so that all mixed blood descendants are also concentrated on reservations (or with tribes before reservations. On the other side of it many Americans do have some indian blood as well. I am 1/16th from both sides. Proportions of populations do count in this, but I think you are overstating the population differences at contact between neander and sapiens: it wasn't until near the end that sapiens had swamped the neander populations and not long before neander became extinct. As to the amount of gene flow, the mtDNA evidence shows there was no matrilineal gene flow from neander, that only leave patrilineal, and that can only be determined by comparison of y-chromosomes.
But, there is even more evidence of the interbreeding. I presume that we can agree that the anatomically modern humans brought their traits with them from Africa when they invaded Europe. And I presume that we can agree that they didn't acquire new traits (blue eyes, red hair etc), SIMPLY by being in Europe. If their descendants acquired the traits of the Neanderthals, they didn't do it by standing next to them, but through lying next to them and doing what comes naturally when in that position with one of the opposite sex, (e.g. having sex). Aren't you assuming these "European traits" exist in the neander stock? Is there any evidence for this? Or is it only assumed because suddenly we have different traits in the sapiens lineage and interbreeding explains it? My impression is that these traits originated in the Caucasian area of russia. National Geographic You'll have to explore the map and click on the gene lines to see the descriptions for the flow of human history based on the genetic information. Click on the time bar at the top to see the different areas of expansion based on genetic data. These show sapiens coming from the east-north-east to the areas where they interacted with neanders, areas that still have "European traits" in the people left behind? Click on the time bar for 45k to 50k and you will see a line marked "K U US" when you hover over it. Click and select "K" then the others. Click on the time bar for 40k to 45k and you will see lines approaching the neander areas. Click on the time bar for 35k ti 40k to see the lineages that interacted with the neanders, the Cro-Magnons. Follow their lineage back and you will see what I mean. See if you can find M207 which predates M173 where they first (possibly) interacted with neanders. Many of these lineages show european traits without interacting with neander areas and the population flow was from them towards the neander areas. Thus I find it problematic to ascribe these features to being caused by hybridization with neander.
YOu an see that even today, some Europeans have this form of foramen. Frayer's article gives trait after trait like this in which the earliest anatomically modern Europeans were in between the Neanderthals and the real African invaders. Interesting but not conclusive. Where are the comparisons with populations where the invaders came from - between africa and europe? Places that have the European traits noted above. I am waiting for y-chromosome comparisons on DNA to see if they show any hints of interbreeding. If they don't then it makes it very unlikely: you need a scenario where only female children of matings of male neander and female sapiens survive. Of course full genetic comparison can rule it out entirely too. Enjoy. ps - if you use {table data}it makes the tables come out as they are typed:
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024