By Glenn R. Morton
This is the last of this series before moving into a
historical reading of Genesis 2 and 3. In this post I am going to explain how
spotty the fossil record is to answer an objection I have heard to my
views. After the first part of this
post, I am going to go into what the Bible indicates, or hints at about what
species Adam and Eve might have been. I think you will find something novel in the 2nd half of this post. As
usual if you haven't read the previous posts, outlining the reasons I believe
that Adam and Eve must be ancient, you should start at part 1 of this series,
and possibly my view of how Genesis 1 can be read in a historically/scientific
manner. If you don't read the whole series of When Did Adam Live? you won't
understand why such an old Adam is required by the data. My next post will be a
way to read Genesis 2 and 3 historically.
One of the objections to my view of an ancient Adam and Eve
is the small brains of the early hominids. I covered that in a previous post. I
covered the fact that our genes show an incredible age, with some being 5 million years old in another post. Thus, if we are to have a real Adam and Eve,
we must place them back in the 5-6 million year time frame. But an ancillary
objection is that some would grant that H. erectus might be capable of carrying
the image of God, but surely not Australopithecus and besides, they say, the
oldest H. erectus is from 1.9 Myr ago.
H. erectus, it is said, wasn't alive 5.3 million years ago. But could he have been? This question can only be answered by looking
at the fossil record.
The first question is, "Is the earliest H. erectus the
very first erectus ever on earth? If it
were, then there would likely have been no further erectines in history, since
this one got killed. Colin Tudge
observes,
"Logic dictates, too, that the oldest known fossils
cannot possibly be the oldest
representatives of their kind.
Fossilization is a rare event, after all; and when animals first appear,
they are rare. The earliest fossil bones
are therefore likely to date from a time when their erstwhile owners were
already common. Logic similarly dictates
that if an animal is particularly unlikely to form fossils--as primates seem to
be--then paleontologists are particularly unlikely to find the very earliest
types. In fact, this logic can be
translated into a mathematical formula (see Robert D. Martin,
""Primate Origins: Plugging
the Gaps,"" Nature, May 20, 1993, pp 223-234). The fewer fossils there are (relative to the calculated number of extinct
species), the older the group is liable
to be, relative to the number of fossils found."1
So, how far back was the very first H. erectus? To answer
that, we must ask how rare fossilization is.
Consider what Foote et al,
"The number of living species that have been described
is about 1.5 million...If we focus on the paleontologically important groups,
present-day diversity is about 180,000 species. ...Suppose we assume that the
present-day level of diversity was attained immediately at the beginning of the
Cambrian Period and has been maintained since then. Then 25 percent of 180,000
species, or 45,000 species became extinct and were replaced by new species
every million years. In rough terms, the
Phanerozoic is 550 million years log. this leads to an estimate that there have
been 180,000+(45,000 X 550) or about 25 million species. Comparing this with the 300,000 described
fossil species implies that between 1 percent and 2 percent of species are
known as fossils."2
Ok, one might say I cherry picked a quote, but this concept
of the rarity of fossilization is wide-spread. Prothero goes through the
calculation in other ways:
"Let us start with some simple estimates. We have
already estimated that there are 1.5 million described species, or as many as
4.5 to 10 million described and undescribed species of organisms alive on Earth
today. How many species are known as
fossils? It turns out that there are
only about 250,000 described species of fossil plants and animals presently
known, or only 5% of the total for species living today."3
He then goes on to
focus on marine invertebrates. Marine
invertebrates are the best animals to get fossilized. They can't run from a landslide of
sediment(turbidites) coming to cover them. Such things happen at earthquakes
and when sediment accumulates so much that the pile sloughs off some of its
mass.
"Let us just focus on nine well-skeltonized phyla of
marine invertebrates and see if we come up with better estimates. These nine phyla are the Protista,
Archaeocyatha, Porifera, Cnidaria, Bryozoa, Brachiopoda, Mollusca,
Echinodermata, and Arthropoda (excluding insects). In these groups, there are about 150,000
living species, but more than 180,000 fossil species. To translate these
numbers into completeness estimates, we need to know the turnover rate of
species and the number of coexisting species through time. Different values have been used for each of
these variables, but the results of the calculations are remarkably similar.
Durham estimated that about 2.3% of all the species in these nine phyla were
fossilized. Valentine gave estimates that ranged from 4.5% to 13.6%. No matter which method we use, we must
conclude that 85% to 97% of all the species in these nine well-skeletonized
phyla that have ever lived have never been fossilized."4
So, 85% of species living in the best place to be fossilized
are not fossilized. What are the
implications to hominids living on the African plain? First, it says that there are very likely
species of hominids which have never been found and will never be found because
they were not fossilized. Secondly, this
data says that animals can live for millions of years on earth and leave no
trace of their existence whatsoever?
Why do I say they can live millions of years and leave no
evidence? Well, the average life time of
mammalian species is about 3 million years.5 If 95% of mammal species that have
ever lived were never fossilized, and if their lifespan in the geologic record
was 3 million years, then each of these species lived on earth for 3 million
years and didn't leave a trace.
Secondly, the 3 million years is an average. Some species live longer
and some shorter, so it is easily comprehendable that H. erectus could have
lived as far back as 5.3 million years and not left a trace.
Many well documented species and genera did live on earth
for millions of years never leaving a trace.
How do we know this? Because we
know the time gap between the first and second fossil of many genera. and
familes. Remember genera and families
have many species within their ranks. When we find, say, that the first example
of a Tyrannosaurus species and the second example of a Tyrannosaurus species
are separated by 20 myr.6 it means
that possibly hundreds of Tyrannosaurus species lived and died without leaving
a trace on earth. If this can happen with a monster like Tyrannosaurus it most
assuredly can happen with the hominids.
I am only going to illustrate this further with a few
example because if one doesn't understand the issue from the above, they never
will. If the fact that 85% of marine shelled invertebrates were never fossilized
and lived their lives never leaving a trace of their existence, and probably
only 98% of terrestrial mammals were never fossillized. and lived their lives
without leaving a trace, doesn't make one think it is possible for H. erectus
to live 3 million years without leaving a fossil, then nothing will make them
think that is possible. Below are some
of the examples of gaps between the first and second occurrence of a species of
a family and how long the animal lived on earth while leaving no trace of
itself.
Dinosaurs lived 15 million years without leaving a
fossil--Big Ugly Dinosaurs. The earliest discovered dinosaur dates to 243 MY
and the second from 228 Myr. 15 Myr without a known fossil.7
The earliest bird, Archaeopteryx (147 Myr) precedes the 2nd
known fossil of birds(139 Myr) by 8 Myr.
I couldn't find anything to change this gap while researching for this
article.8
The earliest evidence that grass was on earth comes from
Myanmar amber and is dated 100 Myr old.
The second fossil of grass is dated 55 Myr, so grasses lived on earth
for 45 million years without a trace.9
Tribosphenic mammals, named for their strange teeth, are
first found in the middle Jurassic dated about 167 Myr ago. The next trace of this group is from the
early Cretaceous, about 143 Mry ago.10
Again, this group lived on earth for 25 million years, without a trace
and people think H. erectus couldn't live on earth without leaving a trace for
a mere 3 million years.
Turtles have big shells and should be easy to find in the
fossil record, but the earliest African turtle known dates to 205 Myr and the
second African fossil of turtles is from 145 Myr, meaning they lived in Africa
for 60 Myr leaving no record of themselves.11
And H. erectus couldn't live for 3 million years without a trace? That
position sounds quite unreasonable.
I love to eat crawfish, and their fossil history is quite
interesting. The earliest fossil of a
Crawfish claw is from Antarctica dated 290 Myr. This find is right at the
bottom of the Permian Age. From then
until 124 Myr ago, there is no actual fossil of crawfish at least that I can
find. 166 Myr without a body fossil.
But, there are Lower Triassic burrows in Antarctica dated about 245 Myr
that provide some evidence that they were still around. That is a 65 Myr
without fossil or burrow. Babcock et al say:
"Discovery of an Early Permian claw from Antarctica
extends the fossil record of crayfish by ~65 m.y. and demonstrates that decapod
crustaceans had radiated into freshwater habitats by late Paleozoic. Burrows in Lower Triassic rocks of Antarctica
are among the oldest apparently constructed by crayfish. Their morphology is similar to modern
crayfish burrows, and this demonstrates that burrowing behavior was established
early in the evolution of this group.
The new discoveries show that the earliest Permian crayfish were
distributed in high paleolatitudes of southernmost Pangea, where they lived in
freshwater lakes fed by glacial meltwater.
Modern crayfish habitat, used as a guide to crayfish temperature
tolerance, indicates that summer temperatures of streams and lakes near the
South Pole that supported the crayfish probably reached 10-20 C during
Permian-Triassic interglacial intervals."12
The next evidence of crawfish I can find is at 124 myr. Shen
Yanbin found a fossil crawfish in NE China.
"Shen Yanbin at the Nanjing Institute of Geology and
Paleontology said the oldest fossil crayfish found in China dates to 124
million years ago, while the oldest one found in North America can only be
traced back 100 million years." 13
More burrows are found in Australia at 115 Myr:
"Studying the fossil burrows gives us a glimpse into
the ecology of southern Australia about 115 million years ago, when the
continent was still attached to Antarctica," says Martin, a senior
lecturer in environmental studies at Emory and an honorary research associate
at Monash University in Melbourne. " 14
To sum up the history of crawfish they lived for 166 million
years without a trace, appeared briefly at 124 myr ago, then disappeared for 9
myr, then appeared briefly. Only after 30 Myr ago is the fossil record of
crawfish widespread and consistent.
I have used these gaps, which are different than the gaps
young-earther's speak of, to illustrate that a hominid of relatively large
brain size, like that of H. erectus could live for millions of years not
leaving a trace. Secondly the abysmal
chances of being fossilized at all suggests that it is likely we have never
found the parent species of H. erectus because only 1-2% of animals are
fossilized. Turned around, we have a
97-98% chance of NOT having H. erectus's ancestor. I once built a database of fossil vertebrates
and then looked for fossils of modern species listed in that database, and it
was about 3%. That means 97% of today's
living creatures never left a fossil that we have found. Thus, to claim that H. erectus appeared 2
million years ago and couldn't have been in existence 5 million years ago is
not a solid argument.
Thus, if one wants a larger brained creature to be the
species that Adam founded, fine, use the above line of logic.
Johnny-come-Lately, The Curse, Brain-size, Pain and Sweating
Above I have spent some time defending the big brained
scenario for what species Adam and Eve were.
Some people might prefer that view.
Below, I am going to use a Biblical reason for why I believe Adam and Eve had a brain-size
about half our present value or smaller.. At this point I am shifting to look
not at the scientific evidence but at the Biblical evidence. I think one of the
interesting possible interpretations of Scripture has been totally overlooked
for millennia. Most didn't have the
scientific knowledge to understand what it said, but for the past 100 years we
have and no one seems to have seen it.
Both the woman's curse and the man's curse in Genesis 3 involve a future
big brain!
Most liberal Christians (defined as not believing there is
any scientific/historical information in Genesis 1-4), place Adam within the
past 10,000 years. Such a position for Adam makes an utter laughing stock of
everything done and said in Genesis 3. That is, assuming they believe Adam was
an individual rather than a population.
I call this the Johnny-come-lately Adam because he is really too late in
time, even by Biblical evidence. Let's
look at some of the things Johnny- come-lately Adam is too late for.
Sally-come-lately Eve is too late for pain in childbirth to
mean anything.
Pain in Childbirth Genesis 3:16:To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in
childbirth," (NASB)
If someone cursed me right now with having trouble walking,
it would mean nothing. I already HAVE trouble walking from side
effects of a drug trial. Or if they cursed my hair to turn gray when it is
already gray, or as a friend said, 'it would be the same as if He cursed you
with ugliness." LOL, So, big deal.
That must be how Sally-come-lately Eve felt when God told
her she would have increased pain in childbirth. Sally-come-lately Eve would
say: "Big Deal. Big Guy! Haven't you heard millennia of screaming women in labor who are cursing what their husbands did to them?"
Thus, the curse is no curse at all!
Further Gen 3:20 says Eve was "Mother of all living."
Sally-come-lately Eve certainly couldn't have been the mother of all the other
women alive with her, 10,000 years ago in the Neolithic. Nor could she be the
mother of all living until maybe the
last century or two. Why? The other day I spoke about Tasmanians being isolated
from the rest of humanity from about 12,000 years to 1642 AD.15 To say Eve was
the mother of all living 10,000 years ago would have been a farce, yet that is
what the liberal position on Genesis does to it. It makes everything a farce. Let's go back to looking at the pain in
childbirth issue.
Pain in childbirth arises from the size of the baby's head
vs the size of the birth canal.
Bipedalism requires that the legs be close enough together so that the
person can walk without a waddle. But this causes the pelvic opening to be
small. Intelligence requires large brains and thus large cranial sizes. These
two conflicting features lead to the tight fit of the infant through the birth
canal. Wendy Trevathan wrote a book advocating that the problems relating to
human deliveries and produced selective
pressures which led to the nearly universal human practice of midwifery.
Further, the change from the ape style birth to the human style birth required
that the large brained infant be born prematurely and spend much of what would
be neonatal time outside the womb, increasing the intelligence of the infant, who has a world of sensory perception while the brain is developing.
"The human pattern of pre-and post-natal brain growth
and development is very unusual relative both to other mammals and to other
primates. At birth, human babies' brains
are small--only about 30% of their adult size, as opposed to about 50% in other
primates--although their gestation time is long for an animal of their body
size. Unlike other living species,
humans maintain the pre-natal rate of brain growth for approximately a year
after birth, resulting in an unusually large brain size relative to body
size."16
Basically we are born a year too early. Most other primates
with small brains, give birth to infants with brains 1/2 of the adult size, but
if humans did that, no woman would be able to walk, or, alternatively no child
would survive birth. Thus, human infants are born with brains 1/3 the size of
the adult and yet still it is a tight fit through the birth canal.
"A modern human baby, with its large skull, negotiates
the birth canal by entering with the head oriented transversely. It then rotates 90 degrees into a sagittal
position before exiting the canal facing
the sacrum, that is, with its back toward the mother's face. A human mother is therefore in a bad position
to assist in delivery, since her infant is exiting 'down and back,' away from
her helping hands. Furthermore, pulling
an emerging human infant up toward the mother's breast would bend it against
the normal flexion of its body and would possibly result in injury. Interestingly, the human delivery pattern is
very different from that of nonhuman primates, in which there is no fetal
rotation (babies are sagitally oriented throughout birth) and newborns exit the
canal face-to-face with their mothers.
In this pattern, mother monkeys and apes routinely assist in delivery by
reaching down and pulling emerging infants up and toward their chests in a
curve that matches the normal flexion of the babies' bodies." 17
So monkey and apes can pull their own babies out of the
birth canal, human mother's can't. they need help in bad situations. How long has this birth pattern been in
existence? At least since the time of H. habilis 2.4 million years ago . The
famous Lucy (AL 288-1) didn't have this problem. Ruff comments.
"It has been cogently argued by Tague & Lovejoy
(1986), based on the obstetric pelvis of AL 288-1, that birth in
Australopithecus afarensis would have occurred with the fetal cranium in a
transverse orientation throughout, i.e., without the pelvic rotation
characteristic of modern humans, and that secondary altriciality of the infant
need not have been present. In contrast,
based on the relatively small size of the birth canal of KNM-WT 15000, it has
been argued that secondary altriciality must have been present in Homo erectus,
i.e., that the infant must have been born in a relatively helpless state. Furthermore, the anthropoid shape of the
pelvic inlet/outlet in this male juvenile, even allowing for growth to
adulthood and sexual dimorphism in pelvic shape, indicates that a transverse
non-rotational birth mechanism would have been highly improbable." 18
Because of this data, it makes much more sense that Eve have
been a small brained hominid because
otherwise there is no meaning to the curse of increasing her pain in
childbirth. She would have already had
it.
Johnny-come-lately Adam is too late for his curse too
Genesis 3:19 says: By the sweat of your brow you will eat
your food.
It is fascinating that Adam is cursed with sweat. A Johnny come lately Adam couldn't be cursed
with sweat because he already had the human sweating mechanism. Adam would say, "Big Deal, Big Guy! Have
you seen what all humans have to do to earn a living here in the hot Neolithic summers?"
The rest of this section is from an old web page of mine on
sweat. It is no longer up:
Dean Falk, one of the world's leading authorities on hominid
brains, advanced a theory in which the hominid brain could not grow any bigger
than the cooling system attached to it. The theory originated from a comment by
her mechanic. She writes:
"It was an 'aha' experience, if ever I've had one, and
the weirdest combination of events led to it. First, the engine in my 1970
Mercedes needed major surgery. I took it to Walter Anwander (a whiz) in
Lafayette, Indiana, who completely rebuilt the engine. One day, while
enumerating the wonders beneath the hood (about which I definitely needed schooling),
Walter pointed to the radiator and told me 'the engine can only be as big as
that can cool.' I didn't think much about it at the time." 19
The brain, like that engine, can only be as big as the
cooling system it has. If the brain overheats, the brain is ruined just like
overheating a car engine will ruin it. In the brain the blood acts as the
coolant. The brain has several emissary veins which go from the interior of the
skull to the skin of the face. These veins are part of the "radiator"
system. When a person is cold, blood flows from the cranium outward in these
veins. But when a person exercises and becomes overheated, the blood flow
reverses and blood flows into the cranium. The reason for this reversal is that
the skin of the face (the brow included) acts as a radiator, cooling the blood
which then enters the brain to cool that organ. Some of the veins are preserved
in the skulls of extinct hominids (and man) in the form of emissary foramina (a
foramina is a hole in the skull 20. Thus a record of the size and number of
emissary foramina are preserved in ancient skulls for anthropologists to
examine. Falk notes:
"It was beautiful. For the past two million years, the
increase in frequencies of emissary foramina kept exact pace with the sharp increase
in brain size in Homo. Clearly, the brain and the veins had evolved rapidly and
together. I saw that Cabanac's letter was right and that I had unwittingly
charted the evolution of a radiator for the brain in my earlier work on
emissary foramina. As Anwander had said about my car, the engine can only be as
big as the radiator can cool. Apparently, the same is true for heat-sensitive
brains."21
But emissary veins are only part of the cooling mechanism in
mankind. Sweat is the reason that the facial skin cools and the cooling of the
skin cools the blood destined for the brain. What do we know about sweat?
The human sweating system is unique among mammals. Bernard
Campbell describes the function of sweat glands:
"The sweat glands fall into two groups: the apocrine
and eccrine glands. The apocrine glands secrete the odorous component of sweat
and are primarily scent glands that respond to stress or sexual stimulation.
Before the development of artificial scents and deodorants, they no doubt
played an important role in human society. In modern man these glands occur
only in certain areas of the body, in particular in the armpits, the navel, the
anal and genital areas, the nipples, and the ears. Surprisingly enough, glands
in the armpits of man are more numerous per unit area than in any other animal.
There is no doubt that the function of scent in sexual encounter is of the
greatest importance even in the higher primates and man. "The eccrine
glands, which are the source of sweat itself, have two functions in primates.
Their original function was probably to moisten friction surfaces, such as the
volar pads of hand and foot to improve the grip, prevent flaking of the horny
layer of the skin, and assist tactile sensitivity. Glands serving that function
are also found on the hairless surface of the prehensile tail of New World
monkeys and on the knuckles of gorilla and chimpanzee hands, which they use in
quadrupedal walking. Glands in these positions are under the control of the
brain and adrenal bodies, and in modern man an experience of stress may produce
sweaty palms.
"The second and more recently evolved function of the eccrine glands is the lowering of body temperature through the evaporation of sweat on the surface of the body. The hairy skin of monkeys and apes carries eccrine glands, but they are neither so active nor so numerous as in man. Modern man is equipped with between two and five million active sweat glands, and they play a vital part in cooling the body. The heat loss that results from the evaporation of water from a surface is enormously greater than that which could be expected to occur as a result of simple radiation. The fact that sweat contains salt necessitates a constant supply of the mineral if man is to survive in a tropical climate.
"It has been observed that like almost all mammals, primates sweat very little. Even hunting carnivores, such as dogs, lose heat by other means, such as panting. Sweating has evolved as a most important means of heat loss in man, a fact that is surely correlated with the loss of his body hair. The apparent importance in human evolution of achieving an effective means of heat loss indicates without doubt that early man was subject to intense muscular activity, with the production of much metabolic heat; he could not afford even the smallest variation in body temperature. With such a highly evolved brain, the maintenance of a really constant internal environment was a need of prime importance in human evolution."22
"The second and more recently evolved function of the eccrine glands is the lowering of body temperature through the evaporation of sweat on the surface of the body. The hairy skin of monkeys and apes carries eccrine glands, but they are neither so active nor so numerous as in man. Modern man is equipped with between two and five million active sweat glands, and they play a vital part in cooling the body. The heat loss that results from the evaporation of water from a surface is enormously greater than that which could be expected to occur as a result of simple radiation. The fact that sweat contains salt necessitates a constant supply of the mineral if man is to survive in a tropical climate.
"It has been observed that like almost all mammals, primates sweat very little. Even hunting carnivores, such as dogs, lose heat by other means, such as panting. Sweating has evolved as a most important means of heat loss in man, a fact that is surely correlated with the loss of his body hair. The apparent importance in human evolution of achieving an effective means of heat loss indicates without doubt that early man was subject to intense muscular activity, with the production of much metabolic heat; he could not afford even the smallest variation in body temperature. With such a highly evolved brain, the maintenance of a really constant internal environment was a need of prime importance in human evolution."22
With this need to dissipate heat in order to maintain a
constant brain temperature, hair becomes a problem. Hair traps the sweat and
hinders evaporation. Zihlman and Cohn relate:
"How might early hominids have dissipated the heat load
generated internally, as well as externally from the sun? One way is through
the skin. The skin of modern humans contrasts with that of other, nonhuman
primates in four features: 1) humans have a great density (over two million) of
functioning eccrine sweat glands over the entire body surface; 2) loss of the
apocrine sweat glands has been associated with hair loss, and has occurred
except in the ano-genital and axillary regions; 3) hair follicles are diffuse
and hair shafts are noticeably reduced in size; 4) skin pigment ranges from
dark to light.
"How might these features be interpreted in a functional and evolutionary way? There is the remarkable thermo-regulatory function of eccrine sweat glands. Sweating can deliver two litres of water to the skin surface in two hours and carry off almost 600 calories of heat. Hair tends to trap moisture, so that sweat evaporation is more effective with reduced hair. Interestingly, the number of hair follicles in humans is similar to that in chimpanzees and gorillas, but the much reduced size of hair shafts in humans gives a hairless appearance."(23)
"How might these features be interpreted in a functional and evolutionary way? There is the remarkable thermo-regulatory function of eccrine sweat glands. Sweating can deliver two litres of water to the skin surface in two hours and carry off almost 600 calories of heat. Hair tends to trap moisture, so that sweat evaporation is more effective with reduced hair. Interestingly, the number of hair follicles in humans is similar to that in chimpanzees and gorillas, but the much reduced size of hair shafts in humans gives a hairless appearance."(23)
Why do we have hair on our head? Zihlman and Cohninform us:
"Hair retention on the head is probably important in
protecting the scalp from the sun's ultraviolet rays and may assist in
stabilizing the temperature of the brain. Human populations are variable in the
amount of body hair present, but in all of them the skin surface is hairless
enough to permit efficient heat loss from sweating."(24)
Radiatively, hair on the top of the head absorbs the solar
heat and re-radiates most of it. An absorbing layer can reduce by half the
amount of energy reaching the top of the skull.
When is it likely that mankind needed this cooling mechanism
for heat removal? Probably fairly early. For modern men even moderate exertion
on the savanna increases the heat production by 100% over the resting levels.
Since Homo erectus was as large as we are(25) similar exertions on the plains
would yield similar heating. Even the smallest Homo erectus has a brain which
is over twice as large as that of the chimpanzee which can get by without
sweating. Homo erectus would need to sweat. Since he needed to sweat, then he
needed to be relatively hairless as we are.
If he were relatively hairless, then the Homo erectus who
lived in Georgia (former USSR)(26) would
have been ill-equipped to handle the winter temperatures below zero Fahrenheit
which occur from time to time in that area. He would have needed clothing.
Because of these considerations, Anthropologists like Brian Fagan were forced
to conclude,
"For Homo erectus to be able to adapt to the more
temperate climate of Europe and Asia, it was necessary not only to tame fire
but to have both effective shelter and clothing to protect against heat loss.
Homo erectus probably survived the winters by maintaining permanent fires, and
by storing dried meat and other foods for use in the lean months."(27)
This is a very human set of behaviors and Homo erectus was
found in European Georgia 1.6 million years ago.
Now to tie up the final item, pain in childbirth. Among
mammals there are two patterns of brain growth. The first pattern is called
altriciality. In this pattern the animal is born helpless and extremely
immature. The brains of altricial animals are usually half the size of the
adult's, and double in size by adulthood. Because of this it takes lots of
parental effort to raise the young. Animals following this pattern usually have
litters and perform this care for multiple offspring at once. Cats, with their
blind and helpless kittens are altricial. The other pattern is precocial. In
this pattern the offspring are usually born single and from birth are able to
get around quite well. Their brains are nearly adult size at birth. The are
alert and all their organs are functioning. An example of this pattern is the
horse, the wildebeest etc., where the young will run with the herds within
minutes.
Now, according to Walker and Shipman(28), altricial species
almost never have bigger brains than precocial species. The reason is that for
all mammals save one, the brain grows rapidly during gestation but then grows
less rapidly after birth. There is a kink in the graph of brain size vs. time
which occurs at birth. Altricial species whose immature state at birth and
subsequent slow down in the rate of growth forever remain behind the more
maturely born precocial species.
What humans seem to have accomplished is the trick of
keeping the brain growing at the embryonic rate for one year after birth.
Effectively, if humans are a fundamentally precocial species, our gestation is
(or should be) 21 months. However, no mother could possibly pass a year old
baby's head through the birth canal. Thus, human babies are born
"early" to avoid the death of the mother. Walker and Shipman write:
"Humans are simply born too early in their development,
at the time when their heads will still fit through their mothers' birth canals.
As babies' brains grow, during this extrauterine year of fetal life, so do
their bodies. About the time of the infant's first birthday, the period of
fetal brain growth terminates, coinciding with the beginnings of speech and the
mastery of erect posture and bipedal walking." (29)
This pattern of growth has huge implications. Every other
primate doubles their brain weight from birth to adulthood. But due to the
early birth of humans, we triple our brain's birth rate. Our last 12 month of
fetal growth rate of the brain occurs outside the sensorially deprived womb.
The vast quantities of sensory input during the first year of life affects the
rate and nature of the neural connections. Because of this year of
helplessness, parents must provide close physical and emotional support for the
infant. Unlike chimp babies who can cling to their mother's fur, human infants
cannot even hang on to mother in spite of having the hand reflex. The mother
has no fur because she sweats and she sweats because of a big brain which is
why she gives birth to her child early. This early birth then requires the
mother to care for the infant and increases the bond between mother and child
which partially makes us human.
So, what is the birth pattern in Homo erectus? It is human.
Shipman and Walker(30) point out that the adult Homo erectus cranial capacity was
950 cc. If they followed the ape-like pattern of doubling their brain size
after birth, they would need to be born with a brain size of around 400 cc.
Following the discovery of a nearly complete Homo erectus skeleton, the
approximate size the erectus birth canal is known. A head with a 400 cc brain
is 10 cm too big to fit through the birth canal. Estimates place the maximum
fetal brain size able to fit through the erectus birth canal at just 231 cc(31).
Homo erectus had a human pattern of birth and must have endured similar pain in
childbirth.
A study of Homo
rudolfensis which lived eight hundred thousand years earlier than the
1.6-million-year-old Homo erectus studied by Walker and Shipman above, also had
a human birth pattern of trebling its brain size from birth to adulthood. Homo
rudolfensis stood about 5 foot 8 inches tall and was quite human in form below
the neck(32). Steven M. Stanley showed that the birth canal of a Homo rudolfensis
would only be able to pass a fetal head of about 210 cc. The adult of this
species had brain sizes in the range of 760 to 900 cc. This data would strongly
imply that pain in childbirth of the type experienced by human mothers extends
back at least 2.4 million years to the initial appearance of Homo
rudolfensis.(33) The birth pattern means that Homo rudolfensis children would
also be born as helpless as any human or erectus baby which would require long
periods intensive care. This would lead to an intense period of bonding between
mother and child as also occurs among humans. And the enlarged brain would most
likely have meant hairlessness among the rudolfensis also. In short, this birth
pattern means they had many of our traits which are theologically associated
with the Fall.
To close, it would appear that there is a single underlying
cause of God's curse for the man and woman and it is an increase in brain size.
This increase also caused the loss of hair requiring clothing when mankind
eventually inhabited northern climes. Homo erectus is found in European Georgia
1.77 million years ago. Without fire or clothing, he would have been unlikely to
survive the more severe winters in that area.
The fact that Homo erectus and Homo rudolfensis were saddled
with the problems given to Adam and Eve after the fall has theological
implications for the status of Homo erectus and Homo rudolfensis, the time
during which Adam lived as well as who is eligible for salvation. I have long
contended that humanity in the theological sense is much older than most
Christians are willing to admit. If sweat and increased pain in childbirth and
clothing are not signifying of humanity and the Fall, what then does
theologically separate us from mere animals?
It is also intriguing to me that the ancient Hebrew writer
would choose as a curse for man and woman, two different maledictions which can
be caused by a single phenomenon--an increase in brain size. This single cause
also would require the loss of hair and the subsequent need for clothing. There
is no way that the Hebrew writer could have had the knowledge to purposefully
construct this tale. Is this a fortuitous conjunction of statements or is it
divine inspiration? I firmly believe God inspired the writer and while the writer didn't
understand it, we can today.
Johnny-come-lately is too late for Language creation
Genesis 2:19-20 says:
19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the
field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he
would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its
name.
20The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of
the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a
helper suitable for him. (NASB)
This verse describes language creation. When I learned Mandarin, I went around China
pointing and saying in Chinese, "How do you say that in
Chinese?" They would tell me the
word and thus I learned Mandarin. In
Adam's case, he was creating the language and God showed him something and
asked Adam to give it a name. But
regardless of the difference, this is language creation. A Neolithic farmer had no need of all this. He already had a language. Are we really expected to ignore what the Bible says about
language here and blithely believe that Adam was a 10,000 years ago, farmer, who
already had all the farm animals words down? He would have known the words for cows, sheep pigs etc? Thus, what is this all about in that setting--not much that I can think of. Besides language is much older than 10,000 years ago.
Our language requires both brain and vocal cord structures
so as to allow us to make the sounds we do.
One mistake that is often made is that if some fossil species couldn't
make all the sounds we make, therefore they couldn't have a language at
all. That is poppycock, they couldn't
have a language like ours, but it doesn't rule out all possible languages.
Lieberman claimed that Neanderthals couldn't have had a language because they
couldn't make all our vowel sounds. It is all based upon his reconstruction of
the Neanderthal vocal tract, Campbell
writes of this issue,
"His reconstructions have been challenged. It has to be admitted that reconstructing
voiceboxes from the angle of skulls on vertebral columns, basicranial
morphology, and the shape of mandibles is bound to lead to controversy. More recently the hyoid bone, which forms the
Adam's apple, has been studied in detail in the Kebara Neanderthal., There is no significant difference from
modern examples, and it is suggested that the larynx beneath the hyoid has also
been unchanged for at least the past 60,000 years. "Speech and
language require more than a voicebox.
Lateralization of the brain is also a necessary but not sufficient
requirement, with Broca and Wernicke's areas controlling speech in the dominant
hemisphere. In particular Broca's area,
as Passingham shows, controls the sequencing of the vocal cords and directs
them according to context. This adds up
to extreme vocal skills. The earliest
brain cast showing Broca's area comes from the 1470 Homo habilis skull from
Koobi Fora. Indications of asymmetry,
and hence lateralization in the brain, have been traced through preferred
handedness in the manufacture of stone tools as well as endocasts of the brain
of Homo erectus to 1.5 Myr."(34)
I chose this quote because it talks both about the fact that
the Neanderthal hyoid bone (critical to language) is identical to ours and because
it talks about the earliest evidence for the language center of the
brain--Broca's area. In all other areas of paleontology if two species descended
from a common ancestor have the same trait, it is usually claimed that the
parent species had that trait and gave it to the two daughter populations. Neanderthal and modern human vocal tracts
contain identically shaped hyoid bones, yet some want to say we can talk but
they can't, and neither can the parent species.
We, cats, dogs, bats, dolphins, etc have 5 fingered hands because we are
all descended from an animal that had the pentadactyl plan. Same with us and the Neanderthal's hyoid
bone. We both descended from a being with this shaped hyoid bone. It really is
too much to think it evolved this way independently in two different lineages.
Given the Bruniquel religious site, deep in a cave, it is
pretty clear that Neanderthals had language 176,000 years ago and even the
worst case anthropologists believe humans developed language 50,000 years ago
at the explosion of blade technology and art in Europe. So, no matter how one cuts the matter, Adam
is far to late to be creating a language when he grew up with one.
Secondly, one must ask why the KNM-ER 1470 H. habilis had an
enlarged speech center in his brain.
What was he doing with it? Some
have suggested this guy had language.
"Leakey (1994) supposed that a protolanguage might have
been produced by Homo habilis on the grounds that Broca’s area and cerebral
asymmetries in modern human brain were found on the skull of Homo habilis 2
million years ago [9,15]. "
"However, developed brain function including the presence of language areas was just one aspect of physiological requirements for language ability, a larynx structure similar to modern humans is also essential. In fact, a fully descended vocal tract is required to emit vowels [i], [u] and [a], which are the base of modern human language. Until around 300,000 years ago, the curvature of the skull base of Archaic Homo sapiens reached the level of modern people so that the vocal tract could emit a full range of human speech, which met another key requirement for humans to acquire language skills"(35)
"However, developed brain function including the presence of language areas was just one aspect of physiological requirements for language ability, a larynx structure similar to modern humans is also essential. In fact, a fully descended vocal tract is required to emit vowels [i], [u] and [a], which are the base of modern human language. Until around 300,000 years ago, the curvature of the skull base of Archaic Homo sapiens reached the level of modern people so that the vocal tract could emit a full range of human speech, which met another key requirement for humans to acquire language skills"(35)
One must have a fully descended vocal tract to have a
language like ours, but who says they had to have a language like ours? The Khoi-San use clicks in their language to
encode information. People say it is very hard to learn this language.(36) The Jul'hoan language has 48 click consonants and about that many non-click consonants. That many clicks could easily encode lots of information. Mandarin and Vietnamese use tones to encode
information. Mandarin has 4 or 5 if you include the neutral of the ma for
questions, and Vietnamese has 6-8 different tones. With these tones, the same sound can have different meanings. Ma with an even tone means mother. Ma with a rising tone means hemp. Ma with a down and up tone is horse. Finally Ma with a sharply falling tone is means scold. There are a couple of other ma's but then context or what is called a measure word makes it clear what is meant. A measure word is like our "A murder of" Crows. "A murder of" is the measure word Yi ding mao is a cat; yi mao ding is a hat. All this to say, there are a variety of ways information can be encoded, and while our speech is marvelous, it isn't the only possible way of communication.
Further, the speech area of the brain is near the hand
control region of the brain and habilis may have had a sign language. Broca's
area is next to the facial motor cotex. Next to it on each side is the tongue
and hand motor cortex areas. Some say
our language started out as a form of sign language. How else does one explain
this:
"Positron emission tomography, or PET, scans of human
volunteers show that Broca's area is involved in various activities, including
making hand gestures or thinking of making hand gestures."(37)
To conclude, Johnny-come-lately Adam had no need to create a
language because it might have existed.
Johnny-come-lately Adam and Eve too late for Clothing
Because of the big brains, H. erectus, Neanderthals and H.
Sapiens living in colder climates had to have clothing millions of years prior
to Neolithic Adam and Eve. They were as hairless as we are, and they had bigger
brains than we have. The Biblical account indicates that Adam and Eve didn't
know they were naked. Anyone in Neolithic times would have known they were
naked. Late Adam and Eve just ignore everything said in the Scripture.
Neanderthals had to have clothing to live in glacial age
Europe:
"The life of a Neanderthal band in the intensely cold
environments of the Europe of 75,000 years ago can never have been easy. The
means to survival were fire, some form of skin clothing and adequate winter
shelter, and an ability to store food.
It is probably no coincidence that some of the densest Neanderthal
populations lay in the sheltered river valleys of the Perigord region in
southwest France."(38)
Further, there is good evidence that they sewed
close-fitting clothing.
"In the Mousterian horizon of Combe Grenal, Professor
Francois Bordes has recovered bone needles, indicating beyond doubt that
classic Neanderthal men made tailored fur clothing. The severity of the periglacial climate would
not have permitted men to survive unless they were capable of making
sophisticated clothing."(39)
Not only that archaeologists have found what certainly
appears to be the remains of a Shaman's cape,
"But the Neandertals' true humanity revealed itself in
the actions of their souls. At the
50,000-year-old site of Hortus in southern France, two French archaeologists in
1972 reported the discovery of the articulated bones of the left paw and tail
of a leopard. Their arrangement
suggested that the fragments were once the remnants of a complete leopard hide
worn as a costume."(40)
A lot of people don't know the potential evidence that H.
erectus was spread far afield from Africa by 1.8-1.4 million years ago.
Tattersall reports the following controversial sites for Acheulean tools, which
if they are correct, H. erectus was spreading abroad. Tattersall names the
following places:(41)
'Ubeidiya has yielded Acheulean tools dated to 1.4 Myr.
Longupo found stone tools dated at 1.9 Myr
Riwat Pakistan stone tools 1.6 Myr
Dmanisi mandible 1.8 myr
Longupo found stone tools dated at 1.9 Myr
Riwat Pakistan stone tools 1.6 Myr
Dmanisi mandible 1.8 myr
Since they have found several H. erectus skulls at Dmanisi
since Tattersall wrote that, I would argue that the Dmanisi hominids also had
to have clothing of some sort. We know that they too were hairless. The January average temperature of that area
dips down to about 5 C below 0. A
hairless man, like erectus or us, would freeze to death in such temperatures
without clothing. Thus, we can say that
some form of clothing has existed for 1.6 million years, at least.
Johnny-come-lately
views of Adam and Eve simply ignore Genesis 3.
Moral choices, rationality, religion and Johnny-come-lately
Adam
Genesis 2:16-17 You are free to eat from any tree in the
garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”
This simple statement says many things about man. It says
that he knew enough to make moral choices. It also says he had to have an
understanding of logic and consequences--that is, rationality. If Adam is a Neolithic farmer he is too late
for the start of that as well. And that means religion. Logic and rationality
are required for the production of a stone tool.
"The removal of an individual flake is a simple action
requiring only minimal organisational ability.
In order to manufacture all but the most rudimentary stone tools,
however, flake removals must be related to one another in a fashion yielding
the appropriate configuration or pattern.
If a stone artefact presents a pattern of flake removals that could only
have been organised by means of reversibility and/or conservation, then it must
be concluded that the maker possessed operational intelligence. I will show that the later Acheulean
artefacts from the Isimila Prehistoric Site present such patterns."42
It took a lot of foresight, logic and rational thought, not
to mention an aesthetic sense, to create the West Tofts hand-axe, the tool of
H. erectus and archaic H. sapiens for about a million years or more. See picture.
“Even the Lower Palaeolithic hand-axe makers showed interest
in fossils. A hand-axe discovered at West Tofts, Norfolk, England has a mollusc
shell prominently displayed in the middle of one of its sides. Obviously the
maker of this tool had seen the fossil shell that lay embedded in the flint,
but, more significantly, he must have worked around the shell in order that,
when he had finished flaking the tool, the fossil would be in the centre. This
is not the only hand-axe to have such a natural form of in-built decoration.
Another, found at Swanscombe, Kent, England, has the fossil of a sea-urchin
visible on its surface, and again all the indications are that this was both
recognised and valued by the tool-maker. “43
Logic and rationality certainly preceded Johnny-come-lately
Adam. Moral choices
Conclusion
The late placement of Adam in history, the view preferred by
many modern commentators makes an utter mockery of everything said in Genesis
2-3. Nothing said or proclaimed there is
true. This should not be the view of
people who think that the Scripture contains the way of Salvation. How can such a false book (in their view)
really be trusted to tell us the metaphysical truths that we are unable to
verify. If so much stuff that we can
verify is false, what guarantee do we have that the theology and metaphysics of
Scripture is real? This is why a
historical reading of Genesis is necessary--it is necessary for the
trustworthiness of scripture.
Next: Eden and the Flood
Next: Eden and the Flood
References
1.Colin Tudge, The Time
Before History, (New York: Scribner, 1996), p. 172
2. Michael Foote et al, Principles of Paleontology, (New York, W. H. Freeman and Co., 2007), p 23
3. Donald R. Prothero, Bringing Fossils to Life: An Introduction to Paleobiology, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013), p.21.
4. Donald R. Prothero, Bringing Fossils to Life: An Introduction to Paleobiology, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013), p.21.
5. Steven M. Stanley, "Evolution of Life: Evidence for a New Pattern", Great Ideas Today, 1983, (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1983), p. 11
6. https://www.nature.com/articles/381689a0
7. https://www.livescience.com/25246-oldest-dinosaur-fossils-discovered.html8. Paul C. Sereno and Rao Chenggang, "Early Evolution of Avian Flight and Perching: New Evidence from the Lower Cretaceous of China," Science, Feb. 14, 1992,
9.https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150209130730.htm see also William L. Crepet and Gwen D. Feldman, "The Earliest Remains of Grasses in the Fossil Record," American Journal of Botany, 78(1991):7: 1010-1014, p. 1010
10. JOHN J. FLYNN, J. MICHAEL PARRISH, BERTHE RAKOTOSAMIMANANA, WILLIAM F. SIMPSON & ANDRÉ R. WYSS, "A Middle Jurassic mammal from Madagascar." Nature 401, 57 - 60 (2 September 1999) ;John J. Flynn et al, “A Middle Jurassic Mammal from Madagascar,” Nature, 401(1999):57-60, p. 60
11.https://www.nature.com/articles/369055a0 see also Eugene S. Gaffney and James W. Kitching, "The Most Ancient African Turtle," Nature, 369, May 5, 1994, p. 55
12.Loren E. Babcock et al, "Paleozoic-Mesozoic Crayfish from Antarctica: Earliest Evidence of Freshwater Decapod Crustaceans," Geology 26(1998):6:539-542, p. 539
13.http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2017-07/13/content_30094413.htm14.https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080206175537.htm see also here15 Jared Diamond, “The Evolution of Guns and Germs,” in Evolution: Society, Science and the Universe, ed by A. C. Fabian, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 60
16. P. Shipman and A. Walker, "The Costs of Becoming a Predator," Journal of Human Evolution, 18, 373-392, p. 385.
17.Bernard G. Campbell and James D. Loy, Humankind Emerging, (New York: HarperCollins, 1996), p. 272
18.Christopher B. Ruff, "Climate and Body Shape in Hominid Evolution," Journal of Human Evolution (1991), 21, 81-105, p. 93
19. Dean Falk, 1992 Braindance,(New York: Henry Holt and Co.) p. 156
20.Dean Falk, 1992 Braindance,(New York: Henry Holt and Co.) p. 153
21. Dean Falk, 1992 Braindance,(New York: Henry Holt and Co.) p. 159
22. Bernard Campbell, 1974. Human Evolution, (Chicago: Aldine Publishing). p 280-282
23. Adrienne L. Zihlman, and B. A. Cohn, 1986, "Responses of Hominid Skin to the Savanna," South African Journal of Science, 82:2, p. 307-308.
24.Adrienne L Zihlman,. and B. A. Cohn, 1988, "The Adaptive Response of Human Skin to the Savanna" Human Evolution, 3:5(1988):397-409. p404.
25.Ruff, Christopher B., 1993, "Climatic Adaptation and Hominid Evolution: The Thermoregulatory Imperative," Evolutionary Anthropology, 2:2, p. 53-60, p 56
26. Larick, Roy and Russell L. Ciochon, 1996, "The African Emergence and Early Asian Dispersals of the Genus Homo."American Scientists, 84(Nov/Dec, 1996).p 548-550
27. Brian M. Fagan, 1990. The Journey From Eden, (London: Thames and Hudson) p.76
28. Alan Walker, and Pat Shipman, 1996, The Wisdom of the Bones, (New York: Alfred Knopf). , p.220-222
29. Alan Walker, and Pat Shipman, 1996, The Wisdom of the Bones, (New York: Alfred Knopf), p. 222
30.Shipman, P. and A. Walker, 1989. "The Costs of Becoming a Predator," Journal of Human Evolution, 18, 373-392, p. 388-389
31. Alan Walker, and Pat Shipman, 1996, The Wisdom of the Bones, (New York: Alfred Knopf), p. 226-227
32. Stanley, Steven M., 1998, Children of the Ice Age, (New York: W. H. Freeman), p. 164
33. Stanley, Steven M., 1998, Children of the Ice Age, (New York: W. H. Freeman), p. 160-163
34. Clive Gamble, Timewalkers, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), p. 172
35. 34.L Chen, Y Liu, J Chen, X Li, Z Di,On the Interaction of Information and Matter: The Case Study about the Language and Brain https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/201812.0365/v1
36. Merritt Ruhlen, The Origin of Language, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1994), p. 141
37. Erik Trinkaus and Pat Shipman, The Neandertals, (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1993), p. 353-355
38.Brian M. Fagan, The Journey From Eden, (London: Thames and Hudson, 1990), p.83
39.J. B. Birdsell, Human Evolution, (St. Louis: Rand McNally, 1972), p. 283
40.James R. Shreeve, The Neandertal Enigma, (New York: William Morrow and Co., 1995), p. 52
41.Ian Tattersall, "Out of Africa Again...and Again?" Scientific American April, 1997, p. 60-67
42.Thomas Wynn, "The Intelligence of Later Acheulean Hominids," Man, 14:371-391, p. 375
43.Richard Rudgley, Secrets of the Stone Age, (London: Century, 2000), p. 190-191
2. Michael Foote et al, Principles of Paleontology, (New York, W. H. Freeman and Co., 2007), p 23
3. Donald R. Prothero, Bringing Fossils to Life: An Introduction to Paleobiology, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013), p.21.
4. Donald R. Prothero, Bringing Fossils to Life: An Introduction to Paleobiology, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013), p.21.
5. Steven M. Stanley, "Evolution of Life: Evidence for a New Pattern", Great Ideas Today, 1983, (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1983), p. 11
6. https://www.nature.com/articles/381689a0
7. https://www.livescience.com/25246-oldest-dinosaur-fossils-discovered.html8. Paul C. Sereno and Rao Chenggang, "Early Evolution of Avian Flight and Perching: New Evidence from the Lower Cretaceous of China," Science, Feb. 14, 1992,
9.https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150209130730.htm see also William L. Crepet and Gwen D. Feldman, "The Earliest Remains of Grasses in the Fossil Record," American Journal of Botany, 78(1991):7: 1010-1014, p. 1010
10. JOHN J. FLYNN, J. MICHAEL PARRISH, BERTHE RAKOTOSAMIMANANA, WILLIAM F. SIMPSON & ANDRÉ R. WYSS, "A Middle Jurassic mammal from Madagascar." Nature 401, 57 - 60 (2 September 1999) ;John J. Flynn et al, “A Middle Jurassic Mammal from Madagascar,” Nature, 401(1999):57-60, p. 60
11.https://www.nature.com/articles/369055a0 see also Eugene S. Gaffney and James W. Kitching, "The Most Ancient African Turtle," Nature, 369, May 5, 1994, p. 55
12.Loren E. Babcock et al, "Paleozoic-Mesozoic Crayfish from Antarctica: Earliest Evidence of Freshwater Decapod Crustaceans," Geology 26(1998):6:539-542, p. 539
13.http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2017-07/13/content_30094413.htm14.https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080206175537.htm see also here15 Jared Diamond, “The Evolution of Guns and Germs,” in Evolution: Society, Science and the Universe, ed by A. C. Fabian, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 60
16. P. Shipman and A. Walker, "The Costs of Becoming a Predator," Journal of Human Evolution, 18, 373-392, p. 385.
17.Bernard G. Campbell and James D. Loy, Humankind Emerging, (New York: HarperCollins, 1996), p. 272
18.Christopher B. Ruff, "Climate and Body Shape in Hominid Evolution," Journal of Human Evolution (1991), 21, 81-105, p. 93
19. Dean Falk, 1992 Braindance,(New York: Henry Holt and Co.) p. 156
20.Dean Falk, 1992 Braindance,(New York: Henry Holt and Co.) p. 153
21. Dean Falk, 1992 Braindance,(New York: Henry Holt and Co.) p. 159
22. Bernard Campbell, 1974. Human Evolution, (Chicago: Aldine Publishing). p 280-282
23. Adrienne L. Zihlman, and B. A. Cohn, 1986, "Responses of Hominid Skin to the Savanna," South African Journal of Science, 82:2, p. 307-308.
24.Adrienne L Zihlman,. and B. A. Cohn, 1988, "The Adaptive Response of Human Skin to the Savanna" Human Evolution, 3:5(1988):397-409. p404.
25.Ruff, Christopher B., 1993, "Climatic Adaptation and Hominid Evolution: The Thermoregulatory Imperative," Evolutionary Anthropology, 2:2, p. 53-60, p 56
26. Larick, Roy and Russell L. Ciochon, 1996, "The African Emergence and Early Asian Dispersals of the Genus Homo."American Scientists, 84(Nov/Dec, 1996).p 548-550
27. Brian M. Fagan, 1990. The Journey From Eden, (London: Thames and Hudson) p.76
28. Alan Walker, and Pat Shipman, 1996, The Wisdom of the Bones, (New York: Alfred Knopf). , p.220-222
29. Alan Walker, and Pat Shipman, 1996, The Wisdom of the Bones, (New York: Alfred Knopf), p. 222
30.Shipman, P. and A. Walker, 1989. "The Costs of Becoming a Predator," Journal of Human Evolution, 18, 373-392, p. 388-389
31. Alan Walker, and Pat Shipman, 1996, The Wisdom of the Bones, (New York: Alfred Knopf), p. 226-227
32. Stanley, Steven M., 1998, Children of the Ice Age, (New York: W. H. Freeman), p. 164
33. Stanley, Steven M., 1998, Children of the Ice Age, (New York: W. H. Freeman), p. 160-163
34. Clive Gamble, Timewalkers, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), p. 172
35. 34.L Chen, Y Liu, J Chen, X Li, Z Di,On the Interaction of Information and Matter: The Case Study about the Language and Brain https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/201812.0365/v1
36. Merritt Ruhlen, The Origin of Language, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1994), p. 141
37. Erik Trinkaus and Pat Shipman, The Neandertals, (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1993), p. 353-355
38.Brian M. Fagan, The Journey From Eden, (London: Thames and Hudson, 1990), p.83
39.J. B. Birdsell, Human Evolution, (St. Louis: Rand McNally, 1972), p. 283
40.James R. Shreeve, The Neandertal Enigma, (New York: William Morrow and Co., 1995), p. 52
41.Ian Tattersall, "Out of Africa Again...and Again?" Scientific American April, 1997, p. 60-67
42.Thomas Wynn, "The Intelligence of Later Acheulean Hominids," Man, 14:371-391, p. 375
43.Richard Rudgley, Secrets of the Stone Age, (London: Century, 2000), p. 190-191
No comments:
Post a Comment