The Collectively Unconscious Intelligence Designer(s)
Aron-Ra
most guys were named John. At some point in high school, I noticed that
many of my underclassmen, seemingly half the Freshman student body (both
male and female) were all named Chris. Most of the remaining boys were
named either Jerry or Steve. Most of the remaining girls were named some
variant of Elizabeth, (Beth, Lizbeth, Liza, Lisa, Elsbeth, etc.) and nearly
everyone's little brother was named Jason.
Now of course there are always plenty of Rebeccas, Jessicas, and Jennifers,
and way too many guys named Dave. But none of those other names are as
popular now as they once were, and nearly everyone who gave their kids those
names thought they were being original. All of them thought they were the
only ones giving their kids the same name as everyone else's kids, and
nobody noticed until they yelled their son's name in a playground, and a
dozen other boys turn to look. How many other guys thought they were just
as original as I thought I was when they all named their sons Connor just
like I named mine? How many people prior to WWII had named their girls
Shirley all at once? Does anyone even know any teenagers with that name
now? Now how many Britneys and Ashleys and Jamies are in that particular
demographic?
This tendency for everyone in a given society to do the same thing at the
same time is a phenomenon known as the "Collective Unconscious", and it is
an interesting pattern that extends beyond simple fads and fashions.
Somehow, revolutionary discoveries, concepts and inventions are also
products of the collective unconscious. As most of us are aware, Charles
Darwin just barely published his theory of evolution before Alfred Russel
Wallace came to the identical conclusion; even though each man was initially
ignorant of the other's research.
We had lived without them for thousands of years, but somehow the idea to
invent the first toilet occurred simultaneously to two distant strangers at
the same moment. It was first patented as a "water closet" by one John
Harrington, but it was supposedly also invented by another man,
appropriately named "Crapper". If you think that's funny, think about this:
The reason we call a certain supportive undergarment a "bra" is because it
was originally patented by Philip D. Brazier. But "Fill-up the brazier"
isn't the joke. At the same time as Brazier was shaping his design, another
designer had the same firm support on his mind, and just happened to be
abreast of the same solution. His name was Otto Titsling, and he could have
used that name to endorse the product even better.
So apparently, two guys who didn't know each about other both invented the
"John" (or crapper) at the same time, and two other guys who were also
ignorant of each other both invented the brazier / tit-sling at the same
time, but that's not all. Alexander Graham Bell got his patent on the
telephone only a couple of hours ahead of Graham Nash; a total stranger with
the same name who was also working on the same project at the same time.
And so it goes; both sides of World War II were in a race to invent the
jet,- not just build it, but *invent* it; -to manifest a technology that had
never been realized, but was simultaneously / originally conceived by two
different men, unbeknownst to each other, on two different continents who
were in conflict and out of communication. Eli Whitney wasn't the only one
to invent the cotton gin when he did either. Someone else invented the same
thing at the same time, and faded into obscurity because he just didn't get
the patent fast enough. The Wright Brothers were just barely the first to
achieve powered flight as others were rapidly, coincidentally and
simultaneously stumbling on the same realizations in concert as if fate
herself had decreed that the aeroplane was gonna git built in 1903, even if
she had to inspire a team of independent inventors to concoct one.
Now, I am not arguing for the existence of the fates, nor of any
supernatural muses. All I am saying is that a culmination of common stimuli
can incite similar ideas in any number of like-minded, and like-motivated
individuals. When the moment is right, more than one will notice it. I
think that the industrial revolution and the socio-political yearning for
egalitarian society, (which is a revolution in itself) and a number of other
"modern" ideas were all bound to occur to a to a collection of nations at
about the same time anyway. They didn't all have to follow anyone else's
lead, they only seem to because somebody had to be first, even if there was
a very close second in nearly every case.
What I am leading up to is this: We have all heard the estimate that all
humanity arose from one individual, who most-likely lived in Africa a couple
hundred thousand years ago, (at the very least). Associated with that is
the Out-of_Africa theory, which is that intellectually and culturally modern
humans [those capable of abstract thought and artwork] arose, again, in
Africa some 70,000 years ago. But I am not so sure about that, at least not
about the exclusively-African origin of abstract conceptual cognizance.
At that time, the Cro-Magnon ancestors of the Lascaux painters weren't in
Europe yet, but they were already "out-of-Africa" and in the Middle-East at
least. And as I understand it, just 5,000 years before then, there were
already Asians making their own (albeit slightly less impressive) abstract
artistic artifacts, and just 5,000 years after then, Australia was already
hosting the first Aborigines, and they weren't sending anyone back to Africa
for the latest cultural developments. Now I admit, 5,000 years is certainly
enough time to hurry your little black ass out of Africa, go all through the
sub-continent of Asia, and get yourself to the land down under, while along
the way, spreading your newly-acquired cultural discoveries of mathematics,
religious ideas, and neat-looking wavy lines on rocks, to inspire everyone
else along the way. But I don't think that's how it happened.
Homo erectus, (by various names) was already living all over the equatorial
and southernmost regions of the Eastern hemisphere many tens of thousands of
years before anyone ever scrawled their geometry in the stones of Blombos in
68,000 BCE. Their brains were in the same range as ours are now, and I feel
fairly confident that Java man, Peking man, and Mungo man all became "man"
in the same manner, but (I think) they each did it on their own,
independently. Abstract art in various forms arose even amongst Neandertals
before we got the idea, and we clearly didn't get it from them, so why
couldn't the other sons of Pithecanthropus do the same? I mean, the Mexica,
[the Aztecs] invented writing all on their own without ever knowing anything
about Sanskrit or Cuneiform, right? And the building style used in Macchu
Piccu and the Anasazi pueblos in the West, and that the ancient cities of
Ugarit and Jericho in the Middle-East, both arose independently also, did
they not?
So while everyone who is still alive is indeed descended from the same
uber-grandma, who probably lived in Africa a quarter million years ago, (or
so) not everyone who has ever lived could make that same claim. Homo
erectus may have first appeared in southern Asia; and [personally], I think
that our collective philosophical contemplative intellect and aesthetic
notions arose not from any one fountain, but from three to five different
sources in different places, independently, and unbeknownst to any other
cultures; yet all of these followed functionally similar courses, which
inevitably grew even more similar over time, once people began to meet and
mingle their ideas. Then as time wore on, cultures continued to mingle, and
some family lines occasionally ended, eventually the daughters of our most
recent Mitochondrial Eve were the only ones left.
Of course that still gives us a few too many "Adams" for some people's
liking, and more than one fruit of knowlege to eat from. But hasn't it
always been that way?
Tom
"Aron-Ra" <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:B6Odne5Dc5S...@comcast.com...
=; even though each man was initially
> ignorant of the other's research.
>
> We had lived without them for thousands of years, but somehow the idea to
> invent the first toilet occurred simultaneously to two distant strangers
at
> the same moment. It was first patented as a "water closet" by one John
> Harrington, but it was supposedly also invented by another man,
> appropriately named "Crapper".
This has a *grain* of truth in it, but not much more than that:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_377.html
If you think that's funny, think about this:
> The reason we call a certain supportive undergarment a "bra" is because it
> was originally patented by Philip D. Brazier. But "Fill-up the brazier"
> isn't the joke. At the same time as Brazier was shaping his design,
another
> designer had the same firm support on his mind, and just happened to be
> abreast of the same solution. His name was Otto Titsling, and he could
have
> used that name to endorse the product even better.
No such man existed. Mentioned in the previous link also.
Also, Thomas Hooker didn't invent prostitution, and Jacques Strappe didn't
invent the athletic supporter. :)
John Harshman
Aron-Ra wrote:
I don't think we need to invent anything like that. All the Shirleys,
for example, can be explained quite easily by the existence of Shirley
Temple.
> As most of us are aware, Charles
> Darwin just barely published his theory of evolution before Alfred Russel
> Wallace came to the identical conclusion; even though each man was initially
> ignorant of the other's research.
Actually, Darwin hadn't published yet, which caused all sorts of commotion.
> We had lived without them for thousands of years, but somehow the idea to
> invent the first toilet occurred simultaneously to two distant strangers at
> the same moment. It was first patented as a "water closet" by one John
> Harrington, but it was supposedly also invented by another man,
> appropriately named "Crapper". If you think that's funny, think about this:
> The reason we call a certain supportive undergarment a "bra" is because it
> was originally patented by Philip D. Brazier. But "Fill-up the brazier"
> isn't the joke. At the same time as Brazier was shaping his design, another
> designer had the same firm support on his mind, and just happened to be
> abreast of the same solution. His name was Otto Titsling, and he could have
> used that name to endorse the product even better.
That's spelled Brassiere. And Titzling, for that matter.
I think you are on the right track with "common stimuli". But not all
these people were as isolated as you imply. The Wright Brothers, for
example, were corresponding with other aeronautical pioneers, and
benefitting from the work of still others, which they had read.
> What I am leading up to is this: We have all heard the estimate that all
> humanity arose from one individual, who most-likely lived in Africa a couple
> hundred thousand years ago, (at the very least).
No, we may have heard that theory, but it's a garbled form of the real
theory. Mitochondrial Eve is just that, the woman whose mitochondria
were the ancestors of all our current mitochondria. Other individuals
living before, during, or after Eve were the ancestors of the various
other parts of our genomes. Simple chance, if nothing else, determines
that if you trace back the ancestry of any fragment of a genome, it will
eventually all run back to a single person. That's called coalescence.
> Associated with that is
> the Out-of_Africa theory, which is that intellectually and culturally modern
> humans [those capable of abstract thought and artwork] arose, again, in
> Africa some 70,000 years ago. But I am not so sure about that, at least not
> about the exclusively-African origin of abstract conceptual cognizance.
>
> At that time, the Cro-Magnon ancestors of the Lascaux painters weren't in
> Europe yet, but they were already "out-of-Africa" and in the Middle-East at
> least.
No, that's not true. What reference do you have for that assertion?
> And as I understand it, just 5,000 years before then, there were
> already Asians making their own (albeit slightly less impressive) abstract
> artistic artifacts, and just 5,000 years after then, Australia was already
> hosting the first Aborigines, and they weren't sending anyone back to Africa
> for the latest cultural developments.
Again, what references do you have? None of that is true as far as I know.
> Now I admit, 5,000 years is certainly
> enough time to hurry your little black ass out of Africa, go all through the
> sub-continent of Asia, and get yourself to the land down under, while along
> the way, spreading your newly-acquired cultural discoveries of mathematics,
> religious ideas, and neat-looking wavy lines on rocks, to inspire everyone
> else along the way. But I don't think that's how it happened.
>
> Homo erectus, (by various names) was already living all over the equatorial
> and southernmost regions of the Eastern hemisphere many tens of thousands of
> years before anyone ever scrawled their geometry in the stones of Blombos in
> 68,000 BCE. Their brains were in the same range as ours are now, and I feel
> fairly confident that Java man, Peking man, and Mungo man all became "man"
> in the same manner, but (I think) they each did it on their own,
> independently.
That's called the multiregional theory. The genetics doesn't seem to
back it up. Also, it's genetically absurd as you state it. There needs
to be at least some gene exchange between populations for any
multiregional theory to work. In complete isolation all you get is
separate species. They may evolve similar characters, but their
underlying genetic architecture will almost always be different, and
they won't interbreed. By the way, Mungo Man is much younger than was
first announced. And what evidence do you have for H. erectus or H.
neanderthalensis producing anything you could call "art"?
> Abstract art in various forms arose even amongst Neandertals
> before we got the idea, and we clearly didn't get it from them, so why
> couldn't the other sons of Pithecanthropus do the same? I mean, the Mexica,
> [the Aztecs] invented writing all on their own without ever knowing anything
> about Sanskrit or Cuneiform, right?
Far as I know, the Aztecs never invented writing. The Maya did, though.
So your point remains. However, cultural convergence and genetic
convergence are two different things.
> And the building style used in Macchu
> Piccu and the Anasazi pueblos in the West, and that the ancient cities of
> Ugarit and Jericho in the Middle-East, both arose independently also, did
> they not?
>
> So while everyone who is still alive is indeed descended from the same
> uber-grandma, who probably lived in Africa a quarter million years ago, (or
> so) not everyone who has ever lived could make that same claim. Homo
> erectus may have first appeared in southern Asia; and [personally], I think
> that our collective philosophical contemplative intellect and aesthetic
> notions arose not from any one fountain, but from three to five different
> sources in different places, independently, and unbeknownst to any other
> cultures; yet all of these followed functionally similar courses, which
> inevitably grew even more similar over time, once people began to meet and
> mingle their ideas. Then as time wore on, cultures continued to mingle, and
> some family lines occasionally ended, eventually the daughters of our most
> recent Mitochondrial Eve were the only ones left.
That much is correct. Whatever the scenario for human origin there must
be a single mtEve who lived in some single place. However, the apparent
discovery that Y-Adam also lived in Africa (though not at the same time)
again supports the OOA theory.
Aron-Ra
"Tom" <t_j_m...@yahoo.somethi.ng> wrote in message
news:rF6rc.10376$tY....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Aron-Ra" <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:B6Odne5Dc5S...@comcast.com...
> =; even though each man was initially
> > ignorant of the other's research.
> >
> > We had lived without them for thousands of years, but somehow the idea
to
> > invent the first toilet occurred simultaneously to two distant strangers
> at
> > the same moment. It was first patented as a "water closet" by one John
> > Harrington, but it was supposedly also invented by another man,
> > appropriately named "Crapper".
>
> This has a *grain* of truth in it, but not much more than that:
> http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_377.html
Thanks for that. I being dis-illusioned. Doesn't detract from the main
point though.
> If you think that's funny, think about this:
> > The reason we call a certain supportive undergarment a "bra" is because
it
> > was originally patented by Philip D. Brazier. But "Fill-up the brazier"
> > isn't the joke. At the same time as Brazier was shaping his design,
> another
> > designer had the same firm support on his mind, and just happened to be
> > abreast of the same solution. His name was Otto Titsling, and he could
> have
> > used that name to endorse the product even better.
>
> No such man existed. Mentioned in the previous link also.
That's too bad. I really liked that story.
> Also, Thomas Hooker didn't invent prostitution, and Jacques Strappe didn't
> invent the athletic supporter. :)
I've never heard of them. But its still funny.
Louann Miller
<ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>All of them thought they were the
>only ones giving their kids the same name as everyone else's kids, and
>nobody noticed until they yelled their son's name in a playground, and a
>dozen other boys turn to look. How many other guys thought they were just
>as original as I thought I was when they all named their sons Connor just
>like I named mine?
(similar examples)
A few people have caught on. Some of the pregnancy books that I had
suggested that prospective parents look up the top 10 baby names for
that year (several places online) and carefully avoid them.
Louann
John Harshman
Louann Miller wrote:
Ooh! Frequency-dependent selection! The dynamics of that could be quite
complex.
Aron-Ra
"John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:40AD08D6...@pacbell.net...
And all the Connors in my son's age group might be explained by (1) the
Highlander movies, (2) the Terminator movies, and (3) Riverdance, and other
recent Irish cultural revivals in the U.S. But that doesn't change the fact
that we all thought we were being original, even though many of us clearly
weren't.
Excuse me. By "all humanity" I meant everyone who is alive right now. I
should have clarified.
> > Associated with that is
> > the Out-of_Africa theory, which is that intellectually and culturally
modern
> > humans [those capable of abstract thought and artwork] arose, again, in
> > Africa some 70,000 years ago. But I am not so sure about that, at least
not
> > about the exclusively-African origin of abstract conceptual cognizance.
> >
> > At that time, the Cro-Magnon ancestors of the Lascaux painters weren't
in
> > Europe yet, but they were already "out-of-Africa" and in the Middle-East
at
> > least.
>
>
> No, that's not true. What reference do you have for that assertion?
I don't remember where I read it, but was there not evidence of Cro-magnon
in the Middle-East around 50,000-60,000 years ago?
> > And as I understand it, just 5,000 years before then, there were
> > already Asians making their own (albeit slightly less impressive)
abstract
> > artistic artifacts, and just 5,000 years after then, Australia was
already
> > hosting the first Aborigines, and they weren't sending anyone back to
Africa
> > for the latest cultural developments.
>
>
> Again, what references do you have? None of that is true as far as I know.
The Blombos artifacts were popularly dated to around 70,000 years ago.
There was another article posted to this forum just last week (IIRC)
referring to some Javanese(?) necklaces estimated at 75,000 years old. And
of course Mungo man was dated at 65,000 years old last I head. If all this
is correct, then so is my statement above.
That's fine. I'm not talking about genetics. I'm talking about the
establishment, or the discovery, or the awakening, (whatever you want to
call it) to such concepts as geometry, mathematics, and abstract design.
Different people in different places started building thier own versions of
pyramids at about the same time, without any inspiration from any other
group, and I think art and jewelry, geometry and religion also began the
same way, independant of any single source. I propose that various tribes
of already genetically-similar tribes began thinking on similar lines
independantly, rather than inheriting or spreading this kind of thought from
just one source. I mean, it seems likely to me that Aboriginal Australian
culture could have evolved entirely without any influence from Africa.
> By the way, Mungo Man is much younger than was
> first announced. And what evidence do you have for H. erectus or H.
> neanderthalensis producing anything you could call "art"?
Uniformly hollowed shells, presumeably for use as jewelry, and caches of
ochre in Neandertal caves, presumably used for body painting.
> > Abstract art in various forms arose even amongst Neandertals
> > before we got the idea, and we clearly didn't get it from them, so why
> > couldn't the other sons of Pithecanthropus do the same? I mean, the
Mexica,
> > [the Aztecs] invented writing all on their own without ever knowing
anything
> > about Sanskrit or Cuneiform, right?
>
>
> Far as I know, the Aztecs never invented writing. The Maya did, though.
> So your point remains. However, cultural convergence and genetic
> convergence are two different things.
Then that is the source of your confusion. I'm not talking about genetics.
With the Blombos discovery, there were assumptions that the first notions of
culture originated there, and were spread to every other tribe in the world
from there. I don't think that is the case.
If you read through my comments again, you'll see that I agree with the
genetic origin of everyone alive today. But obviously mtEve wasn't the
central grandmother for everyone who has ever lived; and even though she
lived around 130,000 years earlier, she still wasn't the single common
ancestor of every other genetically-similar tribe who was around 70,000
years ago.
Hank
A boy in an Indian tribe asked his father one day about how they named
their people. His father explained, "Well son, when the father of the
new child steps outside, and he usually names the child for the first
thing he sees that morning. Thus, we have people with names like Little
Fawn, Running Bear, Screaming Eagle, etc. Why do you ask, Two Dogs
Humping?"
--
Assimilate a pitiful little species like you? I think not! - Q of Borg
John Harshman
Aron-Ra wrote:
> "John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:40AD08D6...@pacbell.net...
>
>>
>>Aron-Ra wrote:
[snip]
>>>What I am leading up to is this: We have all heard the estimate that
>>>
> all
>
>>>humanity arose from one individual, who most-likely lived in Africa a
>>>
> couple
>
>>>hundred thousand years ago, (at the very least).
>>>
>>
>>No, we may have heard that theory, but it's a garbled form of the real
>>theory. Mitochondrial Eve is just that, the woman whose mitochondria
>>were the ancestors of all our current mitochondria. Other individuals
>>living before, during, or after Eve were the ancestors of the various
>>other parts of our genomes. Simple chance, if nothing else, determines
>>that if you trace back the ancestry of any fragment of a genome, it will
>>eventually all run back to a single person. That's called coalescence.
>>
>
> Excuse me. By "all humanity" I meant everyone who is alive right now. I
> should have clarified.
That's not the problem. I knew that was what you meant, and it's wrong,
for exactly the reasons I explained. MtEve is the single ancestor of
only a small bit of each of us, and probably no other bits.
>>>Associated with that is
>>>the Out-of_Africa theory, which is that intellectually and culturally
>>>
> modern
>
>>>humans [those capable of abstract thought and artwork] arose, again, in
>>>Africa some 70,000 years ago. But I am not so sure about that, at least
>>>
> not
>
>>>about the exclusively-African origin of abstract conceptual cognizance.
>>>
>>>At that time, the Cro-Magnon ancestors of the Lascaux painters weren't
>>>
> in
>
>>>Europe yet, but they were already "out-of-Africa" and in the Middle-East
>>>
> at
>
>>>least.
>>>
>>
>>No, that's not true. What reference do you have for that assertion?
>>
>
> I don't remember where I read it, but was there not evidence of Cro-magnon
> in the Middle-East around 50,000-60,000 years ago?
That would postdate the African origin of H. sapiens, so doesn't seem to
help your point in any way.
>>>And as I understand it, just 5,000 years before then, there were
>>>already Asians making their own (albeit slightly less impressive)
>>>
> abstract
>
>>>artistic artifacts, and just 5,000 years after then, Australia was
>>>
> already
>
>>>hosting the first Aborigines, and they weren't sending anyone back to
>>>
> Africa
>
>>>for the latest cultural developments.
>>>
>>
>>Again, what references do you have? None of that is true as far as I know.
>
> The Blombos artifacts were popularly dated to around 70,000 years ago.
> There was another article posted to this forum just last week (IIRC)
> referring to some Javanese(?) necklaces estimated at 75,000 years old. And
> of course Mungo man was dated at 65,000 years old last I head. If all this
> is correct, then so is my statement above.
Only the Javanese necklace (if there is one, and if the date is
accurate) would postdate the supposed date of spread from Africa. Right?
And Mungo Man's date was just wrong.
Quite possible, though the timescale makes it unnecessary. People invent
the same things at different times all over the place. There are enough
examples that are well attested without speculating examples for which
there is no evidence.
If you aren't talking about evolution, I have no major quarrel with your
thesis except that there's no evidence or need for it (in terms of old
stone-age technologies).
>>By the way, Mungo Man is much younger than was
>>first announced. And what evidence do you have for H. erectus or H.
>>neanderthalensis producing anything you could call "art"?>>
>
> Uniformly hollowed shells, presumeably for use as jewelry, and caches of
> ochre in Neandertal caves, presumably used for body painting.
It's possible, though not as clear as one might hope. I'd be cautious.
The Neanderthal "burial with flowers" turned out not to be.
>>>Abstract art in various forms arose even amongst Neandertals
>>>before we got the idea, and we clearly didn't get it from them, so why
>>>couldn't the other sons of Pithecanthropus do the same? I mean, the
>>>
> Mexica,
>
>>>[the Aztecs] invented writing all on their own without ever knowing
>>>
> anything
>
>>>about Sanskrit or Cuneiform, right?
>>>
>>
>>Far as I know, the Aztecs never invented writing. The Maya did, though.
>>So your point remains. However, cultural convergence and genetic
>>convergence are two different things.
>
> Then that is the source of your confusion. I'm not talking about genetics.
> With the Blombos discovery, there were assumptions that the first notions of
> culture originated there, and were spread to every other tribe in the world
> from there. I don't think that is the case.
The problem with this particular thesis is that if the OOA theory is
true, the H. sapiens that left Africa would have taken a pretty fancy
culture with them, with no need to pick it up later from H. erectus
populations.
Depends on what you mean by "genetically similar". If you're talking
about the inhabitants of Eurasia before the African diaspora, sure. They
aren't Homo sapiens and would have an entirely different mtEve. If
you're talking about H. sapiens of 70,000 years ago, apparently limited
to Africa, you're also right but for a different reason, in that even in
the same species the mtEve of 70Kya would be a considerably older female
than the one of today. That's how coalescence works. But again, there's
no need to suppose that any group of modern humans moving into an area
took major features of its culture from local non-H. sapiens
predecessors, simply because they would already have had the kinds of
things you are talking about. They may have taken other stuff, though:
local knowledge of what to eat and what to avoid, for example.
John Wilkins
That's not the punchline I heard. Of course, there's also One Man
Bucket...
--
John S Wilkins PhD - www.wilkins.id.au
a little emptier, a little spent
as always by that quiver in the self,
subjugated, yes, and obedient. -- Seamus Heaney
Aron-Ra
>
>
> Aron-Ra wrote:
>
> > "John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:40AD08D6...@pacbell.net...
> >
> >>
> >>Aron-Ra wrote:
> [snip]
>
>
> >>>What I am leading up to is this: We have all heard the estimate that
> >>>
> > all
> >
> >>>humanity arose from one individual, who most-likely lived in Africa a
> >>>
> > couple
> >
> >>>hundred thousand years ago, (at the very least).
> >>>
> >>
> >>No, we may have heard that theory, but it's a garbled form of the real
> >>theory. Mitochondrial Eve is just that, the woman whose mitochondria
> >>were the ancestors of all our current mitochondria. Other individuals
> >>living before, during, or after Eve were the ancestors of the various
> >>other parts of our genomes. Simple chance, if nothing else, determines
> >>that if you trace back the ancestry of any fragment of a genome, it will
> >>eventually all run back to a single person. That's called coalescence.
> >>
> >
> > Excuse me. By "all humanity" I meant everyone who is alive right now.
I
> > should have clarified.
>
>
> That's not the problem. I knew that was what you meant, and it's wrong,
> for exactly the reasons I explained. MtEve is the single ancestor of
> only a small bit of each of us, and probably no other bits.
I understand what you're saying, but my comment still isn't "wrong" for the
very reasons you mentioned in your previous post. "Simple chance, if
nothing else, determines that if you trace back the ancestry of any fragment
of a genome, it will eventually all run back to a single person."
> >>>At that time, the Cro-Magnon ancestors of the Lascaux painters weren't
> >>>
> > in
> >
> >>>Europe yet, but they were already "out-of-Africa" and in the
Middle-East
> >>>
> > at
> >
> >>>least.
> >>>
> >>
> >>No, that's not true. What reference do you have for that assertion?
> >>
> >
> > I don't remember where I read it, but was there not evidence of
Cro-magnon
> > in the Middle-East around 50,000-60,000 years ago?
>
>
> That would postdate the African origin of H. sapiens, so doesn't seem to
> help your point in any way.
At a constant rate of migration, if it takes 20,000 years for Cro-magnon
tribes to slowly radiate from Israel to France, then it should have taken at
least that long to go from Blombos to Cairo. Israel should only be a
two-week venture from there, but some people say that just that distance
would take 40 years to cross.
> > The Blombos artifacts were popularly dated to around 70,000 years ago.
> > There was another article posted to this forum just last week (IIRC)
> > referring to some Javanese(?) necklaces estimated at 75,000 years old.
And
> > of course Mungo man was dated at 65,000 years old last I head. If all
this
> > is correct, then so is my statement above.
>
>
> Only the Javanese necklace (if there is one, and if the date is
> accurate) would postdate the supposed date of spread from Africa. Right?
> And Mungo Man's date was just wrong.
Whether that necklace predates the Blombos equivelent or not, Neandertal
jewelry certainly does, and they aren't even the same species, so the point
should still stand.
> The problem with this particular thesis is that if the OOA theory is
> true, the H. sapiens that left Africa would have taken a pretty fancy
> culture with them, with no need to pick it up later from H. erectus
> populations.
Well, you've got me there. Without a 65,000 year-old Mungo man, I don't
have much cause to speculate anymore. However, I am still curious about
shell and bead necklaces; If Neandertals, and other contemporary folks
developed jewelry independantly, as I suggest, or was that a family
tradition beginning with H. erectus? (for which we have no physical
evidence, and aren't likely to.)
John Harshman
Aron-Ra wrote:
You understand that each different fragment will trace back to a
different person, right? That's what was wrong with what you said. At
least what your words meant is that all the fragments trace back to the
same single person. If that's not what you thought, then it was just bad
phrasing.
>>>>>At that time, the Cro-Magnon ancestors of the Lascaux painters weren't
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>in
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Europe yet, but they were already "out-of-Africa" and in the
>>>>>
> Middle-East
>
>>>at
>>>
>>>
>>>>>least.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>No, that's not true. What reference do you have for that assertion?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I don't remember where I read it, but was there not evidence of
>>>
> Cro-magnon
>
>>>in the Middle-East around 50,000-60,000 years ago?
>>>
>>
>>That would postdate the African origin of H. sapiens, so doesn't seem to
>>help your point in any way.
>>
>
> At a constant rate of migration, if it takes 20,000 years for Cro-magnon
> tribes to slowly radiate from Israel to France, then it should have taken at
> least that long to go from Blombos to Cairo. Israel should only be a
> two-week venture from there, but some people say that just that distance
> would take 40 years to cross.
Those people have all sorts of other weird beliefs too. There is no
constant rate of migration. You particularly have to consider that some
parts of that potential range are, at various times in this story,
glaciated or cold and inhospitable. In general, north-south movements
will tend to be slower than east-west movements, for the reasons
discussed by Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs, and Steel.
>>>The Blombos artifacts were popularly dated to around 70,000 years ago.
>>>There was another article posted to this forum just last week (IIRC)
>>>referring to some Javanese(?) necklaces estimated at 75,000 years old.
>>>
> And
>
>>>of course Mungo man was dated at 65,000 years old last I head. If all
>>>
> this
>
>>>is correct, then so is my statement above.
>>>
>>
>>Only the Javanese necklace (if there is one, and if the date is
>>accurate) would postdate the supposed date of spread from Africa. Right?
>>And Mungo Man's date was just wrong.
>>
>
> Whether that necklace predates the Blombos equivelent or not, Neandertal
> jewelry certainly does, and they aren't even the same species, so the point
> should still stand.
Not according to the dates you attached to them. I don't know much about it.
>>The problem with this particular thesis is that if the OOA theory is
>>true, the H. sapiens that left Africa would have taken a pretty fancy
>>culture with them, with no need to pick it up later from H. erectus
>>populations.
>>
>
> Well, you've got me there. Without a 65,000 year-old Mungo man, I don't
> have much cause to speculate anymore. However, I am still curious about
> shell and bead necklaces; If Neandertals, and other contemporary folks
> developed jewelry independantly, as I suggest, or was that a family
> tradition beginning with H. erectus? (for which we have no physical
> evidence, and aren't likely to.)
I don't know.
Matt Silberstein
(John Wilkins) wrote:
>Hank <Ha...@Company.com> wrote:
>
>> Louann Miller wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thu, 20 May 2004 17:05:35 +0000 (UTC), "Aron-Ra"
>> > <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >All of them thought they were the
>> > >only ones giving their kids the same name as everyone else's kids, and
>> > >nobody noticed until they yelled their son's name in a playground, and a
>> > >dozen other boys turn to look. How many other guys thought they were just
>> > >as original as I thought I was when they all named their sons Connor just
>> > >like I named mine?
>> >
>> > (similar examples)
>> >
>> > A few people have caught on. Some of the pregnancy books that I had
>> > suggested that prospective parents look up the top 10 baby names for
>> > that year (several places online) and carefully avoid them.
>>
>>
>> A boy in an Indian tribe asked his father one day about how they named
>> their people. His father explained, "Well son, when the father of the
>> new child steps outside, and he usually names the child for the first
>> thing he sees that morning. Thus, we have people with names like Little
>> Fawn, Running Bear, Screaming Eagle, etc. Why do you ask, Two Dogs
>> Humping?"
>
>That's not the punchline I heard. Of course, there's also One Man
>Bucket...
The best version I heard was in a Bob and Ray routine, they talked
about the Winebago Indian named "Charles Evens Hughes", named after
the first person they see after the birth. As Ray said: "what the
Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court was doing there was not quite
clear."