Kofh --
It has taken some time for me to get to this to the degree that I felt it deserves. Your basic premise is that:
"About 40,000 years ago an appreciable population explosion in Modern Homo is evidenced in the fossil rocks."
That is the flood.
As you know I have problems with this as an analogy, and it is based on problems in two basic areas.
(1)
Factual:
The evidence to actually match population shifts against archaeological records is very slim and in dispute. For instance not everyone agrees on what population levels were at different times in the past. I have been looking for this information and just not finding it with any great agreement in timing and numbers -- it seems pretty speculative at this point. In at least one case (
Searching for the elusive first humans) there is no overlap between the demise of
H neander and the population explosion of
H sapiens:
Anatomically modern humans occur in Africa over 100,000 years ago, but their technology was no different from that of Neanderthals who survived to at least 30,000 years ago. Art is only found sporadically from 40,000 years ago to 20,000 years ago, after which time it is clear that there is a major expansion of populations, and the rapid development of food production in some parts of the world.
The population explosion of
H sapiens was possibly 10,000 years after the demise of
H neander, which also followed about 10,000 years of co-existence. This would mean the demise would not be related to the population explosion.
Usually in human history a population explosion has accompanied a new technology -- tool making, metallurgy, nomadism, agriculture, industrial, etc. - more than by expansion into a new area. Expansion only allows the same population densities as before in a larger area so population is proportional to area, while new technologies allow greater population densities everywhere, and usually by factors.
Obviously there can be many interpretations of the data, and at this point
I don't think anyone can say for sure what was going on back then. Was it all conflict or was there cooperation? Some people think some fossils show there was interbreeding and others say the DNA data tells us there wasn't (an speculative solution that would allow both would be that offspring were sterile ... 'mules'). We also know from our history with the natives in North America that the diseases brought along for the ride can be as devastating (if not more so) than the battles.
There is also evidence that
H ergaster\erectus was the first hominid to leave Africa (
Dmanisi fossils), followed by
H neander, and that both were in place when
H sapiens moved into their areas.
The 'flood' scenario does not unequivocally match the data for populations, nor does it match the usual pattern and reason for population explosions. The analogy is flawed on a factual basis.
(2)
Philosophical:
The concept of a people flooding an area is not the usual expression used by those involved -- usually it is one of conquest and heroics, overcoming monsters and such. The conquest of the American West, for instance, is not portrayed as a flood (a much more rapid displacement of the native population than the period of fossil overlap of
H neander and
H sapiens would allow).
Most particularly those involved in the rapid expansion across new lands are not a few surviving members of a flood managing to husband the survival of all flora and fauna in the process.
If people are the flood they cannot also be the survivors of the flood. The analogy breaks down on a philosophical basis.
I also see no reason or benefit to it, but that is my opinion.
Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel
AAmerican
.Zen
[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
™ Version 4.2