Rise of agriculture
Mark Isaak
agriculture arose independently in the Middle East, China, New Guinea,
eastern North America, Central America, northern South America, the
Andes, western Africa, and the Upper Nile. Now, agriculture did not
arise simultaneously at all these places, but it was not far from
simultaneous compared with the couple hundred thousand years that
humans have been humans.
Why so many different origins at nearly the same time? Were
conditions for agriculture not good enough until 10,000 years ago?
Could agriculture also have arisen multiple times more than 50,000
years ago but been forgotten about? Were the origins really not
independent, but instead the idea was spread by trade? Was
agriculture taught to the various groups by space aliens?
I suspect the answer involves a combination of changed climate, trade,
and other factors I don't know about. I would appreciate input by
people who know more about the subject than I do.
_Guns, Germs, and Steel_ is nearing the top of my reading list but is
not quite there yet. Does it answer this question?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Ken Shackleton
Mark Isaak wrote:
> According to an illustration in _Science_ 301 (11 July 2003): 181,
> agriculture arose independently in the Middle East, China, New Guinea,
> eastern North America, Central America, northern South America, the
> Andes, western Africa, and the Upper Nile. Now, agriculture did not
> arise simultaneously at all these places, but it was not far from
> simultaneous compared with the couple hundred thousand years that
> humans have been humans.
>
> Why so many different origins at nearly the same time? Were
> conditions for agriculture not good enough until 10,000 years ago?
> Could agriculture also have arisen multiple times more than 50,000
> years ago but been forgotten about? Were the origins really not
> independent, but instead the idea was spread by trade? Was
> agriculture taught to the various groups by space aliens?
>
> I suspect the answer involves a combination of changed climate, trade,
> and other factors I don't know about. I would appreciate input by
> people who know more about the subject than I do.
>
> _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ is nearing the top of my reading list but is
> not quite there yet. Does it answer this question?
Check this out.....
http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/agron342/diamondmistake.html
It does offer some insight into the question, it is another work by
Jared Diamond.
Matt Silberstein
<eci...@earthlinkNOSPAM.next> in
<eradd1tir21n3g5ck...@4ax.com> wrote:
>According to an illustration in _Science_ 301 (11 July 2003): 181,
>agriculture arose independently in the Middle East, China, New Guinea,
>eastern North America, Central America, northern South America, the
>Andes, western Africa, and the Upper Nile. Now, agriculture did not
>arise simultaneously at all these places, but it was not far from
>simultaneous compared with the couple hundred thousand years that
>humans have been humans.
>
>Why so many different origins at nearly the same time? Were
>conditions for agriculture not good enough until 10,000 years ago?
>Could agriculture also have arisen multiple times more than 50,000
>years ago but been forgotten about? Were the origins really not
>independent, but instead the idea was spread by trade? Was
>agriculture taught to the various groups by space aliens?
>
>I suspect the answer involves a combination of changed climate, trade,
>and other factors I don't know about. I would appreciate input by
>people who know more about the subject than I do.
I think that question of trade is very interesting. 15K years ago,
excepting Australia, Tasmania, and a few isolated islands, all people
were connected somewhat. Maybe no great trade routes, but some contact
with the tribe next door for all values of next door.
>_Guns, Germs, and Steel_ is nearing the top of my reading list but is
>not quite there yet. Does it answer this question?
No.
--
Matt Silberstein
Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers.
Cliff on Cheers
Ray Martinez
Why so many different origins at nearly the same time? Were
conditions for agriculture not good enough until 10,000 years ago?
Could agriculture also have arisen multiple times more than 50,000
years ago but been forgotten about? Were the origins really not
independent, but instead the idea was spread by trade? Was
agriculture taught to the various groups by space aliens?
RAY MARTINEZ:
SPACE ALIENS ???!!!
Look at the moronic God-senseless quackery an atheist will resort to so
that he doesn't credit God.
Where are you Shane and your villification of christians who believe in
the existence of extraterrestials ?
Are your insults directed at Mark Isaak as well ?
MARK:
What is the evidence for space aliens ?
Lurkers:
Mark Isaak believes man evolved from an ape, so I guess space aliens is
conducive with the former.
Ray Martinez
Ken Shackleton
Ken Shackleton wrote:
> Mark Isaak wrote:
> > According to an illustration in _Science_ 301 (11 July 2003): 181,
> > agriculture arose independently in the Middle East, China, New Guinea,
> > eastern North America, Central America, northern South America, the
> > Andes, western Africa, and the Upper Nile. Now, agriculture did not
> > arise simultaneously at all these places, but it was not far from
> > simultaneous compared with the couple hundred thousand years that
> > humans have been humans.
> >
> > Why so many different origins at nearly the same time? Were
> > conditions for agriculture not good enough until 10,000 years ago?
> > Could agriculture also have arisen multiple times more than 50,000
> > years ago but been forgotten about? Were the origins really not
> > independent, but instead the idea was spread by trade? Was
> > agriculture taught to the various groups by space aliens?
> >
> > I suspect the answer involves a combination of changed climate, trade,
> > and other factors I don't know about. I would appreciate input by
> > people who know more about the subject than I do.
> >
> > _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ is nearing the top of my reading list but is
> > not quite there yet. Does it answer this question?
>
> Check this out.....
>
> http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/agron342/diamondmistake.html
>
> It does offer some insight into the question, it is another work by
> Jared Diamond.
When I first read this it really struck a chord with me. I have often
replied [tongue somewhat in cheek] that it's the farmers' fault
whenever being asked about causes for the ills of the world.
I cannot think of any problem today that cannot be traced back to our
invention of agriculture and the changing from a nomadic to a sedentary
lifestyle.
Lt. Kizhe Catson
> MARK ISAAK:
>
> Why so many different origins at nearly the same time? Were
> conditions for agriculture not good enough until 10,000 years ago?
> Could agriculture also have arisen multiple times more than 50,000
> years ago but been forgotten about? Were the origins really not
> independent, but instead the idea was spread by trade? Was
> agriculture taught to the various groups by space aliens?
>
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> SPACE ALIENS ???!!!
>
> Look at the moronic God-senseless quackery an atheist will resort to so
> that he doesn't credit God.
So you're arguing that God gave agriculture to all those different
peoples 10kya?
> Where are you Shane and your villification of christians who believe in
> the existence of extraterrestials ?
>
> Are your insults directed at Mark Isaak as well ?
>
> MARK:
>
> What is the evidence for space aliens ?
>
> Lurkers:
>
> Mark Isaak believes man evolved from an ape, so I guess space aliens is
> conducive with the former.
-- Kizhe
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121371147.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> MARK ISAAK:
>
> Why so many different origins at nearly the same time? Were
> conditions for agriculture not good enough until 10,000 years ago?
> Could agriculture also have arisen multiple times more than 50,000
> years ago but been forgotten about? Were the origins really not
> independent, but instead the idea was spread by trade? Was
> agriculture taught to the various groups by space aliens?
>
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> SPACE ALIENS ???!!!
>
> Look at the moronic God-senseless quackery an atheist will resort to so
> that he doesn't credit God.
Ray, it's obvious from the context that Mark's mention of "space aliens" was
faceious.
>
> Where are you Shane and your villification of christians who believe in
> the existence of extraterrestials ?
Where did Shane ever "villify" Christians who believe in exraterrestrials?
>
> Are your insults directed at Mark Isaak as well ?
What insults, and why should he direct them at Isaak?
>
> MARK:
>
> What is the evidence for space aliens ?
Ray, the very next paragraph says:
"I suspect the answer involves a combination of changed climate, trade,
and other factors I don't know about. I would appreciate input by
people who know more about the subject than I do."
Thus showing that Mark was not claiming there are aliens involved.
>
> Lurkers:
>
> Mark Isaak believes man evolved from an ape, so I guess space aliens is
> conducive with the former.
Mark Isaak has the ability to cite a large amount of evidence that shows
that humans and other apes evolved from a common ancestor. Why do you feel
it's a controversial to accept that evidence?
DJT
Robert Grumbine
Mark Isaak <eciton...@earthlink.nest> wrote:
>According to an illustration in _Science_ 301 (11 July 2003): 181,
>agriculture arose independently in the Middle East, China, New Guinea,
>eastern North America, Central America, northern South America, the
>Andes, western Africa, and the Upper Nile. Now, agriculture did not
>arise simultaneously at all these places, but it was not far from
>simultaneous compared with the couple hundred thousand years that
>humans have been humans.
>
>Why so many different origins at nearly the same time? Were
>conditions for agriculture not good enough until 10,000 years ago?
>Could agriculture also have arisen multiple times more than 50,000
>years ago but been forgotten about? Were the origins really not
>independent, but instead the idea was spread by trade? Was
>agriculture taught to the various groups by space aliens?
>
>I suspect the answer involves a combination of changed climate, trade,
>and other factors I don't know about. I would appreciate input by
>people who know more about the subject than I do.
I'll posit that it takes us-level and us-style intelligence to
invent agriculture. And then focus on more the climatological
side of things.
Once you've limited the field to us-sorts, you've made a profound
limitation with respect to climate. The last 700 ky have been periods
of climatic oscillations, ice ages, with a period of something like
100 ky (it varies) and warm spans of something like 10 ky (that also
varies). Us-sorts are, what, 100 ky to 300 ky? We span at most
3 interglacials, then, and possibly only 1 -- the current one, in
which we definitely did invent agriculture.
First part, then, is why invent agriculture during an interglacial
rather than an interglacial? It isn't because you're under an ice sheet
during a glacial, of the regions listed, only perhaps Eastern North
America and the Andes would be ice covered. A major contributor is
likely to be the greatly expanded area of desert -- many of the areas
were likely more desertified than present. This is only partly
countered by current areas of desert (Sahara, for instance) being
wetter during glacials.
A second aspect of glacial climate is that it was substantially less
stable than the current interglacial period. Keep in mind that even
in our current 'nice' phase of the last, say, 12 ky, there have been
several drought or cold phases long enough and severe enough to collapse
civilizations. Not hard to see that if the extremes were more extreme,
or extremes were more frequent, it would be hard to establish agriculture
in the first place.
There was an impressive decline in individual health and longevity
associated with developing agriculture. Given that, another requirement
is that the food supply made available by agriculture be large enough
and stable enough to grow a population large enough to outweigh the loss
of the ability to move to happier hunting (foraging) grounds.
I've just been reading on flint knapping, in a mainly how-to book by
an archeologist. Hard hammer knapping (whack a well-chosen stone in
a well-chosen way with another stone) would appear to go back to
H. erectus, so, if it were sufficient for agriculture, anywhere and
time erectus was around, it could have happened. Since they go much farther
back, I'll make the guess that hard hammer knapping is insufficient to
produce the tools needed for agriculture. Next techniques are soft
hammer (whacking stone with wood, antler -- takes more force in the blow,
but has advantages in shapes you can make, it seems) knapping, and pressure
flaking (taking well-chosen, and probably worked, material, like antler,
to a more or less point and pushing judiciously at the edge of your
blade-to-be). This doesn't show up until more like 50 kya, so such
tools are too recent to have been available for any but the current
interglacial.
But the neolithic revolution itself, part of which was agriculture,
was also partly a tool technique change -- instead of using knapped
stone, tools moved to ground stone. If anyone has a good scientific
reference on the transition, please do provide. In the mean time, I'll
go to rampant speculation. Knapping can only be done on a fairly limited
set of materials. 'stone' is far from sufficient. It must be stone in
amorphous (glassy) state, or at worst, microcrystalline. If not for
this, whacking the stone just breaks it along cleavage planes, which
will not give you an edge. This is why the trade in flint, chert,
obsidian, jasper, and the other such -- they're more or less rare, and
worth trading across hundreds of miles.
With neolithic stone grinding, you can shape any reasonably solid
stone into tools (not very sharp edges, for reasons above, but many
tools don't have or want sharp edges). This leads to a great increase
in the availability of tools. Since you don't have to put an edge
on it (knapping is intrinsically edge-based), you also have an increase
(I'll submit) in the available range of tools.
The climate stuff, I know. The tool stuff, I've just started
to read a little about, and the little I have is not for the right
time period.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Matt Silberstein
<pyram...@yahoo.com> in
<1121371147.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>MARK ISAAK:
>
>Why so many different origins at nearly the same time? Were
>conditions for agriculture not good enough until 10,000 years ago?
>Could agriculture also have arisen multiple times more than 50,000
>years ago but been forgotten about? Were the origins really not
>independent, but instead the idea was spread by trade? Was
>agriculture taught to the various groups by space aliens?
>
>RAY MARTINEZ:
>
>SPACE ALIENS ???!!!
>
>Look at the moronic God-senseless quackery an atheist will resort to so
>that he doesn't credit God.
>
>Where are you Shane and your villification of christians who believe in
>the existence of extraterrestials ?
>
>Are your insults directed at Mark Isaak as well ?
No, because Mark was joking.
>MARK:
>
>What is the evidence for space aliens ?
>
>Lurkers:
>
>Mark Isaak believes man evolved from an ape, so I guess space aliens is
>conducive with the former.
>
>Ray Martinez
--
j
> _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ is nearing the top of my reading list but is
> not quite there yet. Does it answer this question?
What do you mean "not quite there yet." ?
Were you watching the PBS series last Tuesday ? If not try to see a
rerun, it got right into the subject.
Herb Huston
Ken Shackleton <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote:
}Ken Shackleton wrote:
}> http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/agron342/diamondmistake.html
}>
}> It does offer some insight into the question, it is another work by
}> Jared Diamond.
}
}When I first read this it really struck a chord with me. I have often
}replied [tongue somewhat in cheek] that it's the farmers' fault
}whenever being asked about causes for the ills of the world.
}
}I cannot think of any problem today that cannot be traced back to our
}invention of agriculture and the changing from a nomadic to a sedentary
}lifestyle.
On the other hand, agriculture made Usenet possible.
--
-- Herb Huston
-- hus...@radix.net
-- http://www.radix.net/~huston
Herb Huston
j <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:
}Mark Isaak wrote:
}> _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ is nearing the top of my reading list but is
}> not quite there yet. Does it answer this question?
}
}What do you mean "not quite there yet." ?
He probably has a queue of books to be read, and this book hasn't yet
reached the head of the queue yet.
}Were you watching the PBS series last Tuesday ? If not try to see a
}rerun, it got right into the subject.
He might be too busy reading.
Jim Guillory
"Mark Isaak" <eci...@earthlinkNOSPAM.next> wrote in message
news:eradd1tir21n3g5ck...@4ax.com...
> According to an illustration in _Science_ 301 (11 July 2003): 181,
> agriculture arose independently in the Middle East, China, New Guinea,
> eastern North America, Central America, northern South America, the
> Andes, western Africa, and the Upper Nile. Now, agriculture did not
> arise simultaneously at all these places, but it was not far from
> simultaneous compared with the couple hundred thousand years that
> humans have been humans.
>
> Why so many different origins at nearly the same time? Were
> conditions for agriculture not good enough until 10,000 years ago?
> Could agriculture also have arisen multiple times more than 50,000
> years ago but been forgotten about? Were the origins really not
> independent, but instead the idea was spread by trade? Was
> agriculture taught to the various groups by space aliens?
>
> I suspect the answer involves a combination of changed climate, trade,
> and other factors I don't know about. I would appreciate input by
> people who know more about the subject than I do.
How about population density as a factor? Hunter/gatherer groups can't get
very large before they run out of local food sources. Perhaps rising
populations after the last ice age forced people to look for alternate food
sources.
Regards,
Jim
eNo
news:BwBBe.116361$yV4.103707@okepread03...
I think that makes sense. The article that Ken Shackelton
linked(http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/agron342/diamondmistake.html)
makes a strong argument that the additional quantity of food came at the
cost of quality. The diet wasn't as balanced (too heavy on the carbohydrate
side, Atkins anyone?) and this showed in decreased longevity and reduced
physical height.
--
`昂,,,,喊`昂,,,,喊`昂,,,,喊`昂,,,,喊`昂,,,,喊
,,喊`昂,,,,喊`昂,,,,喊`昂,,,,喊`昂,,,,喊`昂,,
eNo
"Test everything; hold on to the good."
r norman
You all are edging on exactly what Diamond was pointing out. Of
course, he was not original in pointing these things out, but he is a
very readable source for them.
There were significant climate changes in the post-glacial period that
caused substantial reorganization of human ecology and social
groupings. Diamond points out (although I doubt this is original)
that hunting gathering is in many habitats a form of subsistence
living that doesn't allow for surplus labor or large cities. I
believe there are other environments where hunting gathering provides
such an ample food source that there is no motivation for social
organization. Agriculture of certain foodstuffs in certain
environments requires coordinated and synchronized labor and social
organization to store and distribute surplus food.
At least that is what I remember of the book and from the first
episode of the TV series.
Don Cates
wrote:
Like he said...
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" - PN)
Fred
news:a7vdd1hoafknodt5p...@4ax.com...
> There were significant climate changes in the post-glacial period that
> caused substantial reorganization of human ecology and social
> groupings. Diamond points out (although I doubt this is original)
> that hunting gathering is in many habitats a form of subsistence
> living that doesn't allow for surplus labor or large cities. I
> believe there are other environments where hunting gathering provides
> such an ample food source that there is no motivation for social
> organization. Agriculture of certain foodstuffs in certain
> environments requires coordinated and synchronized labor and social
> organization to store and distribute surplus food.
I agree. Agriculture requires a complex social organization, cities, a
complex distribution of labor and social position, and awareness of the
cycle of the year. It seems that our ancestors were not sufficiently evolved
to support such societies until some 10,000 years ago.
Charles
> Ken Shackleton wrote:
<snip>
> >
> > Check this out.....
> >
> > http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/agron342/diamondmistake.html
> >
> > It does offer some insight into the question, it is another work by
> > Jared Diamond.
>
> When I first read this it really struck a chord with me. I have often
> replied [tongue somewhat in cheek] that it's the farmers' fault
> whenever being asked about causes for the ills of the world.
>
> I cannot think of any problem today that cannot be traced back to our
> invention of agriculture and the changing from a nomadic to a sedentary
> lifestyle.
This may be true. I read the article you linked to and it made a lot
of sense. I also caught the part of the first episode of _Guns, Germs,
and Steel_ on PBS on Monday, but I missed the other eps.
However, allow me to turn your statement around a bit: I cannot think
of any modern achievement today that cannot be traced back to our
invention of agriculture and the changing from a nomadic to a sedentary
lifestyle.
I definitely think Jared Diamond's on to something with his thesis, but
I disagree with his qualitative assessment. Yes, there are lots of
problems plagueing the world today, but I think it's a leap to call
agriculture "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race"
because we have problems. It seems to me the criteria for calling
agriculture a mistake would require balancing all human achievements
which can be attributed to agriculture versus the problems.
Additionally, how would I compare the world we have now with a
hypothetical one where humans stayed hunter-gatherers for the last
10,000 years? Surely such a world would also have different problems
to balance its successes. All I can do is speculate, but wouldn't such
a world still have some significant amount of misery? Hunter-gatherer
societies wouldn't have overpopulation worries, but wouldn't that mean
there'd have to be some enforced population control? The article
mentions that H/G societies necessarily practiced infanticide because
monthers couldn't have children close together (less than 4 years
apart) because they couldn't be managed in a nomadic society. Would
10,000 years of H/G socities mean 10,000 years of infanticide in the
absense of reliable contraception? Would every twin birth mean you'd
have to kill one of the babies?
And then there's the obvious point that in a world of hunter-gatherers,
most of us wouldn't exist (well, all of us wouldn't exist simply
because history wouldn't have happened the same way, but for sake of
argument let's say we could form today's H/G societies with a subset of
the people who exist today). I'll make a wild conjecture that H/G
societies might only support 1% of today's current population of 6.4
billion people. So 99 out of 100 people currently alive, wouldn't be.
Of course, I can't be sure that we wouldn't be better off as
hunter-gathers without agriculture, but my point is that we can't be
sure that we wouldn't be. And the game's not over yet. Human misery
has been proportionately on the decline in the last century or so, and
it looks like our children and grandchildren just might make it out
alive and better off, as long as we continue to work on solving all
those problems that still plague us. Personally I think increased
conservation and environmentalism efforts coupled with development of
cheap, renewable energy sources will be a winning combination that can
eventually allow everyone to get close to a lifestyle Americans
currently enjoy (maybe not *quite* as decadent; Americans would
definitely have to give up all those SUV's). Of course this won't be
easy, but I think it's still achievable, with a lot of hard work. You
can put me in the category of "cautiously optimistic."
Let me add a further point. It's easy for us to look back and say
agriculture was a "mistake" because it led to a lot of human suffering,
but didn't it also lead to the extreme proliferation of our species?
By nature's standards, we're an extremely successful species.
*Individual* quality of life may have been worsened (and from the looks
of it, we've already reversed this trend for much of the world today),
but the species has triumphed. From the essay and Diamond's analysis,
we can see natural selection in action:
1. Ice age ends. The environment gets milder, and flora and fauna
that humans depend on for sustinence increase.
2. Hunter-gatherer societies have increased food supplies, leading to
increases in population.
3. H/G societies reach the point where they can no longer sustain
their increasing population levels.
4. Some tribes choose to limit population growth. Other tribes
develop agriculture to maintain food production for their population.
5. Tribes with agriculture outcompete tribes that stay
hunter-gatherers. Due to larger populations agriculture tribes can
force H/G tribes into smaller and smaller niches while they take over
more resources.
6. Agriculture tribes dominate all over, leading to civilization.
Put yourself in the shoes (mocasins?) of those tribespeople 10,000
years ago who had to choose between agriculture and population control.
Even if you knew more people would suffer, wouldn't you pin your hopes
to agriculture? Population control only works if every other tribe
picks that strategy. If even one turns to agriculture, they will grow
and outcompete every other tribe (given the right location, with the
right combination of resources). It seems to me that I as a
prehistoric tribesman would choose agriculture on the hopes that my
descendants may eventually live better than me, rather than gamble on
remaining a hunter-gatherer and possibly having no descendants at all.
Can we fault those tribespeople for not anticipating overpopulation
10,000 years later?
In short, all I'm saying is that we shouldn't judge agriculture so
harshly because it led to lots of bad things. Yes, agriculture may
have led to starvation, war, tyranny, class hierarchies, and
subjugation of women. Agriculture may also have led to science,
democracy, justice, the Internet, and having a really good chance of
living to see your grandchildren grow to adulthood. Sometimes you
gotta take the bad with the good.
Charles
r norman
The first part of your last statement seems fine, the second does not.
Why do you think there was something different about the human species
say 15,000 or 20,000 years ago compared with 10,000 years? It was not
a sudden evolutionary change or spurt that caused the development of
agriculture and organization into cities; it was a change in the
culture.
shane
> MARK ISAAK:
>
> Why so many different origins at nearly the same time? Were
> conditions for agriculture not good enough until 10,000 years ago?
> Could agriculture also have arisen multiple times more than 50,000
> years ago but been forgotten about? Were the origins really not
> independent, but instead the idea was spread by trade? Was
> agriculture taught to the various groups by space aliens?
>
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> SPACE ALIENS ???!!!
>
> Look at the moronic God-senseless quackery an atheist will resort to so
> that he doesn't credit God.
It must be sad to go through life like Ray. Insensible to humour and
tongue in cheek statements.
>
> Where are you Shane and your villification of christians who believe in
> the existence of extraterrestials ?
Ray will probably regret asking for my appearance, as once again he has
asserted without evidence. Can he provide a reference for my
"villification[sic] of christians who believe in the existence of
extraterrestials." Of course not, as I have not actually done so. I
believe Ray is referring to the "Why do Christians believe in Aliens?"
thread, where I entered the thread AFTER Ray posted this;
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Martinez:
Does your predictible buffoonery concerning christians include Francis
Crick you hypocrite ?
The evo god advocated space aliens were responsible for life on this
planet = the nonsense a God-senseless moron must resort to in order to
have a first cause.
RM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now let us look at a definition of vilify, from the online "onelook
dictionary;
Quick definitions (vilify)
# verb: spread negative information about
Now Ray obviously thinks that advocting space aliens as being
responsible for life on earth is not positive information, but rather
thinks it is negative. So he has spread negative information about
Francis Crick in his post, which means guess what, Ray was the one doing
the vilifying. Hands up anybody who was surprised at Ray being guilty of
what he, wrongly, accuses others of, anybody, anybody, anybody, I didn't
think there would be.
The point of my response to Ray in that thread, was to show that he had
made a statement about Crick without giving a reference, or any evidence
that the statement was true. In spite of being asked to supply a
reference he never did. Does anyone here, other than Ray actually
believe Francis Crick said that space aliens WERE RESPONSIBLE for life
on earth, emphasis mine? Or rather that Crick sad that space aliens MAY
heve been responsible ...?
>
> Are your insults directed at Mark Isaak as well ?
>
Not having insulted previously, there obviously can be no "as well". It
certainly comes as no surprise that Ray continues to insult and
misrepresent the views of others others.
> MARK:
>
> What is the evidence for space aliens ?
>
> Lurkers:
>
> Mark Isaak believes man evolved from an ape, so I guess space aliens is
> conducive with the former.
>
Lurkers, please post a response if you think Ray makes sense here.
> Ray Martinez
>
--
shane
And the truth shall set you free.
Paul J Gans
One thing the PBS show did point out, though it was
easy to miss, is that an early death *after* child producing
age does not exert nearly the evolutionary pressure as
death *before* child producing age.
Folks may not have lived as long in agricultural communities
but agriculture allowed a lot more of them *to* live. The
result was for the times a huge population explosion.
----- Paul J. Gans
Fred
> >> There were significant climate changes in the post-glacial period that
> >> caused substantial reorganization of human ecology and social
> >> groupings. Diamond points out (although I doubt this is original)
> >> that hunting gathering is in many habitats a form of subsistence
> >> living that doesn't allow for surplus labor or large cities. I
> >> believe there are other environments where hunting gathering provides
> >> such an ample food source that there is no motivation for social
> >> organization. Agriculture of certain foodstuffs in certain
> >> environments requires coordinated and synchronized labor and social
> >> organization to store and distribute surplus food.
> >
> >I agree. Agriculture requires a complex social organization, cities, a
> >complex distribution of labor and social position, and awareness of the
> >cycle of the year. It seems that our ancestors were not sufficiently
evolved
> >to support such societies until some 10,000 years ago.
> >
>
> The first part of your last statement seems fine, the second does not.
>
> Why do you think there was something different about the human species
> say 15,000 or 20,000 years ago compared with 10,000 years? It was not
> a sudden evolutionary change or spurt that caused the development of
> agriculture and organization into cities; it was a change in the
> culture.
Our species has evolved over its time. It was not born with the ability to
track the cycle of the year, and there were no such calendars in the
beginning of the species. I think that in the past 10,000 years or so our
ancestors became able to comprehend the relationship of the cycle of the sun
to events on earth. The end of the ice age made the climate amenable to
acting on this enhanced ability. I do not necessarily pin the date to 10,000
years ago as opposed to 15,000. However, much farther past and there was no
ability to recognize such a cycle. The rise of agriculture enabled and
resulted from such understanding. I agree with you that it was change in
culture. However, such drastic a change in culture did not occur in a
vacuum. Mankind had to evolve to take advantage of agriculture. Earlier
societies did not have cities, distribution of labor, or people free from
mundane work in order to keep track of the cycles of time in nature unitl
mankind and society had evolved to support it.
As an alternative, are you perhaps suggesting that were the climate amenable
that our ancestors could have adapted their culture to agriculture, cities,
etc. 50,000 years earlier? I am not.
Rowan Malin
Indeed. This has always struck me (at least in popular accounts) as an
overlooked (or at least under-emphasized) part of natural selection.
There's always the "fittest" or "best suited" part explained in a
relative way, but there is much less mention of the fact that it's the
*reproduction* that counts. You have to live long enough to produce
youngsters! Even if you're the best suited individual in your
environment, it matters not if you don't have kids!
Of course, there are ongoing contributions made by the the
non-reproducing members of a species (grandparents etc.), but it's
always been my understanding that these are regarded and taught as
somewhat minor and less important. I would welcome some education in the
current thinking of the significance of this.
Thanks,
Rowan
mvil...@hotmail.com
> In article <1121371478.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> Ken Shackleton <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
[snip]
> }
> }I cannot think of any problem today that cannot be traced back to our
> }invention of agriculture and the changing from a nomadic to a sedentary
> }lifestyle.
>
> On the other hand, agriculture made Usenet possible.
>
If a society never developed agriculture (for whatever reason),
resulting in division of labor and the resulting technological
innovations allowed by it, then another society will.
The latter society will then kick the crap out of the former society.
Now if we can only find some historical examples of this...hmm...
none
mvil...@hotmail.com wrote:
> If a society never developed agriculture (for whatever reason),
> resulting in division of labor and the resulting technological
> innovations allowed by it, then another society will.
>
> The latter society will then kick the crap out of the former society.
Putting aside the question of why they would want to do that, there
were no technological innovations for waging war until relatively
recently. The development of practical firearms came along only a few
hundred years ago. Before that the agricultural society and the nomads
were both using spears, swords, bows and arrows, and clubs. No
advantage to either side.
> Now if we can only find some historical examples of this...hmm...
Probably not any. Were the Aztecs ever in conflict with Apaches? Were
the ancient Egyptians ever invaded by an HG tribe? Motivated by what?
Doug Chandler
shane
>
> mvil...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>If a society never developed agriculture (for whatever reason),
>>resulting in division of labor and the resulting technological
>>innovations allowed by it, then another society will.
>>
>>The latter society will then kick the crap out of the former society.
>
>
> Putting aside the question of why they would want to do that, there
> were no technological innovations for waging war until relatively
> recently. The development of practical firearms came along only a few
> hundred years ago. Before that the agricultural society and the nomads
> were both using spears, swords, bows and arrows, and clubs. No
> advantage to either side.
>
Not quite true as i understand it, examples of ancient technological
innovations, that gave one side a great advantage
iron weapons,
Greek fire,
the longbow
>
>>Now if we can only find some historical examples of this...hmm...
>
>
> Probably not any. Were the Aztecs ever in conflict with Apaches? Were
> the ancient Egyptians ever invaded by an HG tribe? Motivated by what?
>
So what is your explanation of the English take-over of Australia? just
one of a huge number of other examples.
> Doug Chandler
>
--
shane
Robert Grumbine
That's why Atilla, Ghengis, Timur the Lame (Tamerlane), etc. are such
scarcely known figures.
>Now if we can only find some historical examples of this...hmm...
Matt Silberstein
<prig...@aol.com> in
<1121420480.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>mvil...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> If a society never developed agriculture (for whatever reason),
>> resulting in division of labor and the resulting technological
>> innovations allowed by it, then another society will.
>>
>> The latter society will then kick the crap out of the former society.
>
>Putting aside the question of why they would want to do that,
Which is irrelevant since we have so much evidence of people doing it.
The why is worth examining, but don't need to know it to know it is
done.
> there
>were no technological innovations for waging war until relatively
>recently.
For what meaning of recent? Is having enough food stored up so your
people can fight for two weeks a technological innovation?
>The development of practical firearms came along only a few
>hundred years ago. Before that the agricultural society and the nomads
>were both using spears, swords, bows and arrows, and clubs. No
>advantage to either side.
Actually the bulk of the story is agricultural people kicking the snot
out of non-agricultural people. Sometimes non-agricultural people
would take the technology the agriculturalists had developed. The
Romans had better weapons than the Germans, they had better
organization (because they had more food), there is a reason they
build a large empire. The Mongols used the food from agriculture even
if they were not farmers.
>> Now if we can only find some historical examples of this...hmm...
>
>Probably not any. Were the Aztecs ever in conflict with Apaches? Were
>the ancient Egyptians ever invaded by an HG tribe? Motivated by what?
So, you think the Aztecs only encounters tribes that had agriculture?
Or perhaps we just don't know about them.
none
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> Which is irrelevant since we have so much evidence of people doing it.
That was the question under discussion. What evidence?
> Actually the bulk of the story is agricultural people kicking the snot
> out of non-agricultural people.
There you go again. Who? When?
> Sometimes non-agricultural people
> would take the technology the agriculturalists had developed.
And what technology was that? A new shape of spearhead?
> The Romans had better weapons than the Germans, they had better
> organization (because they had more food), there is a reason they
> build a large empire. The Mongols used the food from agriculture even
> if they were not farmers.
Well, the Mongols were travelling a long way from home and they had
to eat. Of course they took food wherever they could find it. Tell us
what agricultural people kicked the snot out of the Mongols.
> >> Now if we can only find some historical examples of this...hmm...
> >
> >Probably not any. Were the Aztecs ever in conflict with Apaches? Were
> >the ancient Egyptians ever invaded by an HG tribe? Motivated by what?
>
> So, you think the Aztecs only encounters tribes that had agriculture?
There is a big difference between "conflict" and "encounter." Put some
thought into it. It's not that difficult.
Doug Chandler
Matt Silberstein
<he...@there.com> in <c5Gdnf_VRtI...@comcast.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Our species has evolved over its time. It was not born with the ability to
>track the cycle of the year, and there were no such calendars in the
>beginning of the species.
That sentence is a bit confused. Species are not born and we are
pretty much genetically like what we were at the "beginning" of or
species. Do you mean that our non-H sapiens ancestors did not have
these abilities?
>I think that in the past 10,000 years or so our
>ancestors became able to comprehend the relationship of the cycle of the sun
>to events on earth.
So you think that 10,000 years ago we did not have the same
genetically constrained intellectual potential? Any support for this?
I ask because people were pretty much spread over the world by 10,000
year ago. If this genetic ability was new then it means that it was
only in a small group. Is that your claim?
[snip]
r norman
Others here are more up on physical anthropology and recent human
anthropology, but my impression is that over the last several tens of
thousands of years there has been no significant human evolution.
Possibly the frequency of very minor cosmetic alleles (I literally
mean cosmetic -- eye/hair/skin color and stuff that might be involved
in sexual selection) has changed in specific populations. But you are
talking about new intellectual capabilities. For me, knowing what I
do about the pace of genetic change (many thousands of generations),
the pace of geological change (a few thousand years for ice ages) and
ecological change (centuries and decades) and the pace of cultural
change (a generation or less) the answer is simple. Climate change
and ecological changes prompted changes in human social behavior.
Culture enables the cumulative storage of information and when the
critical mass of knowledge reached a certain level, new patterns of
cultural organization became possible. Growth of cultural knowledge
and ability, like all other growth, is exponential which has the funny
property that, no matter when you look at it, the recent past always
seems like an enormously rapid change whereas the more distant past
seems virtually static.
If others have facts and evidence to show I am wrong about human
genetic and evolutionary changes over the last say 30,000 to 50,000
years, then I will happily acknowledge my error and learn something
interesting.
Matt Silberstein
<prig...@aol.com> in
<1121430718.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>
>> Which is irrelevant since we have so much evidence of people doing it.
>
>That was the question under discussion. What evidence?
Are you asking me for evidence of one culture overcoming another? Look
at the expansion of the Bantu peoples in Africa as a start.
>> Actually the bulk of the story is agricultural people kicking the snot
>> out of non-agricultural people.
>
>There you go again. Who? When?
Did the Aztecs start in place?
>> Sometimes non-agricultural people
>> would take the technology the agriculturalists had developed.
>
>And what technology was that? A new shape of spearhead?
Copper smelting, bronze making, iron making. Written communication.
Taxation.
>> The Romans had better weapons than the Germans, they had better
>> organization (because they had more food), there is a reason they
>> build a large empire. The Mongols used the food from agriculture even
>> if they were not farmers.
>
> Well, the Mongols were travelling a long way from home and they had
>to eat. Of course they took food wherever they could find it. Tell us
>what agricultural people kicked the snot out of the Mongols.
The Mongol Empire was an agricultural one after the initial attacks.
>> >> Now if we can only find some historical examples of this...hmm...
>> >
>> >Probably not any. Were the Aztecs ever in conflict with Apaches? Were
>> >the ancient Egyptians ever invaded by an HG tribe? Motivated by what?
>>
>> So, you think the Aztecs only encounters tribes that had agriculture?
>
>There is a big difference between "conflict" and "encounter."
So you think that they left the hunters alone and just built their
empire from farmers. Doesn't make sense to me but maybe I am slow.
> Put some
>thought into it. It's not that difficult.
Oh, we are going to use insult as an argument. I don't want to play
that game.
Matt Silberstein
(Robert Grumbine) in <11df5l2...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
>In article <1121412104....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> <mvil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Herb Huston wrote:
>>> In article <1121371478.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Ken Shackleton <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> }> http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/agron342/diamondmistake.html
>>[snip]
>>
>>> }
>>> }I cannot think of any problem today that cannot be traced back to our
>>> }invention of agriculture and the changing from a nomadic to a sedentary
>>> }lifestyle.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, agriculture made Usenet possible.
>>>
>>
>>
>>If a society never developed agriculture (for whatever reason),
>>resulting in division of labor and the resulting technological
>>innovations allowed by it, then another society will.
>>
>>The latter society will then kick the crap out of the former society.
>
> That's why Atilla, Ghengis, Timur the Lame (Tamerlane), etc. are such
>scarcely known figures.
They borrowed technology from the farmers and their empires were
farming empires. The farming *society* one. (Hint: how many people
speak Mongol or Turkish? Arab is your better example.)
>>Now if we can only find some historical examples of this...hmm...
--
Herb Huston
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
}Herb Huston <hus...@radix.net> wrote:
}>In article <1121371478.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
}>Ken Shackleton <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote:
}>}Ken Shackleton wrote:
}>}> http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/agron342/diamondmistake.html
}>}>
}>}> It does offer some insight into the question, it is another work by
}>}> Jared Diamond.
}>}
}>}When I first read this it really struck a chord with me. I have often
}>}replied [tongue somewhat in cheek] that it's the farmers' fault
}>}whenever being asked about causes for the ills of the world.
}>}
}>}I cannot think of any problem today that cannot be traced back to our
}>}invention of agriculture and the changing from a nomadic to a sedentary
}>}lifestyle.
}
}>On the other hand, agriculture made Usenet possible.
}
}One thing the PBS show did point out, though it was
}easy to miss, is that an early death *after* child producing
}age does not exert nearly the evolutionary pressure as
}death *before* child producing age.
I've traced my family tree back to about 1600 on most lines and haven't
found a single ancestor who died before child producing age.
}Folks may not have lived as long in agricultural communities
}but agriculture allowed a lot more of them *to* live. The
}result was for the times a huge population explosion.
One that continues today aided and abetted by the Bush administration,
which panders to superstitious dolts, and the hierarchy of the Roman
Catholic Church, which confuses humans with gorillas.
Herb Huston
Rowan Malin <rowan_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
}Paul J Gans wrote:
}> One thing the PBS show did point out, though it was
}> easy to miss, is that an early death *after* child producing
}> age does not exert nearly the evolutionary pressure as
}> death *before* child producing age.
}>
}> Folks may not have lived as long in agricultural communities
}> but agriculture allowed a lot more of them *to* live. The
}> result was for the times a huge population explosion.
}
}overlooked (or at least under-emphasized) part of natural selection.
}There's always the "fittest" or "best suited" part explained in a
}relative way, but there is much less mention of the fact that it's the
}*reproduction* that counts. You have to live long enough to produce
}youngsters! Even if you're the best suited individual in your
}environment, it matters not if you don't have kids!
That's why Mary Stuart, was more evolutionarily successful than Elizabeth
Tudor, her first cousin, once removed, who had her beheaded in 1587.
}Of course, there are ongoing contributions made by the the
}non-reproducing members of a species (grandparents etc.), but it's
}always been my understanding that these are regarded and taught as
}somewhat minor and less important. I would welcome some education in the
}current thinking of the significance of this.
This thinking has changed, and there is now a "grandmother theory" of human
evolution, especially maternal grandmothers. There's a news story about it
at
http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20040913/LI_002.htm
An anthropologist named Kristen Hawkes formulated the theory after studying
the Hadza, hunter-gatherers in Tanzania. The grandmothers gather food for
the weaned children while their daughters were breast-feeding the newborns.
According to the theory the daughters/mothers can breast-feed for a shorter
time and produce more offspring helping to ensure that the grandmothers'
genes get passed along to later generations. Hawkes published in _Nature_
sometime last year. The grandmother theory is still controversial.
VoiceOfReason
Having not read the book (or seen the whole series yet) one thing I
wonder about is the impact of having parents and grandparents live
longer in a sedentary environment. I would think that it would
substantially improve opportunities for passing on knowledge to the
young, giving them an advantage over previous generations of nomads.
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> Of course, there are ongoing contributions made by the the
> non-reproducing members of a species (grandparents etc.), but it's
> always been my understanding that these are regarded and taught as
> somewhat minor and less important.
Big fat hairy guess comming.
I should think the specific importance of such things would
be highly variable, changing from culture to culture, from
climate to climate, from survival strategy to strategy.
In some conditions, grand parents (or other elders, or inded
any handy aged or learned person) would be very important.
For example, if the strategy required a lot of skills to be
passed on to youngsters, the grandparents are very important.
Or gran and gramps could stay back at the base camp, look
after the kiddies, keep the fires burning, do work that was
less physically demanding, and so on. Thus they might free
up the younger folk to go out and hunt giraffes or whatever.
In other conditions, the grandparents might be less important,
possibly temporarily. For example, if food is very short (or
other resources) then the grandparents might get "left on
the ice" to keep the resources for those who may still breed.
And, of course, there will be all kinds of middle paths and
exceptions and sub-optimal strategies that work for a while
or are only slightly sub-optimal, and so on.
Socks
VoiceOfReason
> mvil...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > If a society never developed agriculture (for whatever reason),
> > resulting in division of labor and the resulting technological
> > innovations allowed by it, then another society will.
> >
> > The latter society will then kick the crap out of the former society.
>
> Putting aside the question of why they would want to do that, there
> were no technological innovations for waging war until relatively
> recently.
!?!
> The development of practical firearms came along only a few
> hundred years ago. Before that the agricultural society and the nomads
> were both using spears, swords, bows and arrows, and clubs. No
> advantage to either side.
It's an advantage if the other group hasn't developed the technology
yet! Imagine the first tribe to develop the atlatl, the bow & arrow,
metal, etc.
VoiceOfReason
> In article <db7atf$mea$6...@reader2.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
> }Herb Huston <hus...@radix.net> wrote:
> }>In article <1121371478.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> }>Ken Shackleton <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> }>}Ken Shackleton wrote:
> }>}> http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/agron342/diamondmistake.html
> }>}>
> }>}> It does offer some insight into the question, it is another work by
> }>}> Jared Diamond.
> }>}
> }>}When I first read this it really struck a chord with me. I have often
> }>}replied [tongue somewhat in cheek] that it's the farmers' fault
> }>}whenever being asked about causes for the ills of the world.
> }>}
> }>}I cannot think of any problem today that cannot be traced back to our
> }>}invention of agriculture and the changing from a nomadic to a sedentary
> }>}lifestyle.
> }
> }>On the other hand, agriculture made Usenet possible.
> }
> }One thing the PBS show did point out, though it was
> }easy to miss, is that an early death *after* child producing
> }age does not exert nearly the evolutionary pressure as
> }death *before* child producing age.
>
> I've traced my family tree back to about 1600 on most lines and haven't
> found a single ancestor who died before child producing age.
I presume if you had found one, you'd probably be posting far less
frequently. :-)
> }Folks may not have lived as long in agricultural communities
> }but agriculture allowed a lot more of them *to* live. The
> }result was for the times a huge population explosion.
>
> One that continues today aided and abetted by the Bush administration,
> which panders to superstitious dolts, and the hierarchy of the Roman
> Catholic Church, which confuses humans with gorillas.
Confuses humans with gorillas? WTFO?
Fred
news:1121420480.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Putting aside the question of why they would want to do that, there
> were no technological innovations for waging war until relatively
> recently.
The crossbow, the long bow, the stirrup, the onager, greek fire, siege
weapons, ...
>The development of practical firearms came along only a few
> hundred years ago. Before that the agricultural society and the nomads
> were both using spears, swords, bows and arrows, and clubs. No
> advantage to either side.
When new cultures overswpt older ones, there were many reasons. Advantage in
weaponry was often significant. Iron age societies had tremendous advantage
over people using copper or bronze weapons. When stirrups were inveneted,
they provided tremendous advantage. The long bow provided tremendous
advantage to the English. Organization could also provide a tremendous
advantage, such as to the Greeks, Romans, and Mongols.
tgde...@earthlink.net
So what would be your objection to using existing technology to have
say 300 million people living a good life somewhen in the future?
There's some weird underlying premise in saying "but 95 out of 100
people currently alive wouldn't be". Every time someone successfully
practices birth control, some human who might be alive in the future
isn't. Do you think that women should bear children every year or two
as long as they are able, so that no potential life goes unborn?
I don't think we can fault our ancestors for their choices (I think
Diamond was being hyperbolic with the title), but it is important to
understand how much of the bad stuff is simply a result of competition
for resources driving population growth, and population growth driving
competition for resources.
Having come to the point where infanticide is not necessary, our
choices are now indeed subject to the judgment of future generations.
-tg
Fred
message news:24cfd1p6n4grbn02v...@4ax.com...
> >Our species has evolved over its time. It was not born with the ability
to
> >track the cycle of the year, and there were no such calendars in the
> >beginning of the species.
>
> That sentence is a bit confused. Species are not born
What metaphor do you prefer for the emergence of a new species?
> and we are
> pretty much genetically like what we were at the "beginning" of or
> species.
Genetically, we are similar. I agree. When you were born, do you have the
same abilities as you have now, even though you are genetically identical to
that time?
> Do you mean that our non-H sapiens ancestors did not have
> these abilities?
No, I am restricting myself to this species.
> >I think that in the past 10,000 years or so our
> >ancestors became able to comprehend the relationship of the cycle of the
sun
> >to events on earth.
>
> So you think that 10,000 years ago we did not have the same
> genetically constrained intellectual potential? Any support for this?
> I ask because people were pretty much spread over the world by 10,000
> year ago. If this genetic ability was new then it means that it was
> only in a small group. Is that your claim?
No. I am not talking about genetic ability in the same sense as you. It
takes time to evolve to learn to take advantage of innate inability. Do you
think that if an alien, for want of an example, were to provide a solar
calendar to the first members of our species that they would have been able
to comprehend it and make use of it and find a need for it? I do not.
Fred
> >As an alternative, are you perhaps suggesting that were the climate
amenable
> >that our ancestors could have adapted their culture to agriculture,
cities,
> >etc. 50,000 years earlier? I am not.
> >
>
> Others here are more up on physical anthropology and recent human
> anthropology, but my impression is that over the last several tens of
> thousands of years there has been no significant human evolution.
When people typically consider physics, they separate space from time,
rather than thinking in terms of space-time. I consider that this is what
you are doing here. You claim that there has been no significant evolution,
but you are thinking only in terms of space, of the quality of the genetic
pool. I recommend that you also think in terms of time, and the temporal
aspect of the gene pool. A baby has the same genetic material when it grows
to be an adult, but the effect of evolution over time changes the person's
ability to relate to the environment tremendously.
> Possibly the frequency of very minor cosmetic alleles (I literally
> mean cosmetic -- eye/hair/skin color and stuff that might be involved
> in sexual selection) has changed in specific populations. But you are
> talking about new intellectual capabilities. For me, knowing what I
> do about the pace of genetic change (many thousands of generations),
> the pace of geological change (a few thousand years for ice ages) and
> ecological change (centuries and decades) and the pace of cultural
> change (a generation or less) the answer is simple.
For an individual, 20 years is significant enough to enable tremendous
changes in a single genetic example. For the species as a whole, this time
frame is much larger. Still, there is an effect, I consider.
> Culture enables the cumulative storage of information and when the
> critical mass of knowledge reached a certain level, new patterns of
> cultural organization became possible.
As you grew from one day old to 20 years old, your culture changed
tremendously, did it not? I agree that your cumulutaive storage of
experience was a large factor. As well, I claim that your ability to relate
to your store of information also changed. As a baby, you could not
understand the environment to the degree that you could at 20. Experience is
important, but ability evolves over time as well.
Ken Shackleton
Charles wrote:
> Ken Shackleton wrote:
> > Ken Shackleton wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > > Check this out.....
> > >
> > > http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/agron342/diamondmistake.html
> > >
> > > It does offer some insight into the question, it is another work by
> > > Jared Diamond.
> >
> > When I first read this it really struck a chord with me. I have often
> > replied [tongue somewhat in cheek] that it's the farmers' fault
> > whenever being asked about causes for the ills of the world.
> >
> > I cannot think of any problem today that cannot be traced back to our
> > invention of agriculture and the changing from a nomadic to a sedentary
> > lifestyle.
>
> This may be true. I read the article you linked to and it made a lot
> of sense. I also caught the part of the first episode of _Guns, Germs,
> and Steel_ on PBS on Monday, but I missed the other eps.
>
> However, allow me to turn your statement around a bit: I cannot think
> of any modern achievement today that cannot be traced back to our
> invention of agriculture and the changing from a nomadic to a sedentary
> lifestyle.
I agree with this entirely. Agriculture has a cost, but it has also
made all out technological advances and achievements possible.
Agreed again...and the ratio may even be smaller than 1%.
If I had to choose between either feeding [through agricluture] or
killing my children, I will choose to feed them every time.
>
> In short, all I'm saying is that we shouldn't judge agriculture so
> harshly because it led to lots of bad things. Yes, agriculture may
> have led to starvation, war, tyranny, class hierarchies, and
> subjugation of women. Agriculture may also have led to science,
> democracy, justice, the Internet, and having a really good chance of
> living to see your grandchildren grow to adulthood. Sometimes you
> gotta take the bad with the good.
Good points, and I live in a rural community....I do get a perverse
thrill by pointing out the ills of farming to farmers when the subject
comes up.
>
> Charles
r norman
The changes you describe are all very real and extremely important.
However, none of them are in the genes. Biological evolution, by
definition, is strictly limited to changes that can be passed
genetically from one generation to another. The changes must be
genetic. There is a different name for information passed from parent
to child outside the gene pool -- that is culture. (Yes, I am
bypassing the epigenetic phenomena passed through the maternal
cytoplasm). There is a different name for information accumulated by
an organism throughout life -- that is learning.
So, yes, culturally acquired knowledge and experientially acquired
knowledge tremendously alter the ability of any individual to survive
and have children. The ability to acquire knowledge through culture
and experience is part of our evolutionary heritage but the specific
knowledge is not. It is important, certainly, but it is a different
subject.
Ken Shackleton
Herb Huston wrote:
> In article <db7atf$mea$6...@reader2.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
> }Herb Huston <hus...@radix.net> wrote:
> }>In article <1121371478.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> }>Ken Shackleton <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> }>}Ken Shackleton wrote:
> }>}> http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/agron342/diamondmistake.html
> }>}>
> }>}> It does offer some insight into the question, it is another work by
> }>}> Jared Diamond.
> }>}
> }>}When I first read this it really struck a chord with me. I have often
> }>}replied [tongue somewhat in cheek] that it's the farmers' fault
> }>}whenever being asked about causes for the ills of the world.
> }>}
> }>}I cannot think of any problem today that cannot be traced back to our
> }>}invention of agriculture and the changing from a nomadic to a sedentary
> }>}lifestyle.
> }
> }>On the other hand, agriculture made Usenet possible.
> }
> }One thing the PBS show did point out, though it was
> }easy to miss, is that an early death *after* child producing
> }age does not exert nearly the evolutionary pressure as
> }death *before* child producing age.
>
> I've traced my family tree back to about 1600 on most lines and haven't
> found a single ancestor who died before child producing age.
If they died before leaving offspring, then they wouldn't really be
your ancestor...would they? Or are you saying that back as far as 1600,
you have no recorded instances of childhood death anywhere in your
family tree?
Charles
> Charles wrote:
<snip>
> > And then there's the obvious point that in a world of hunter-gatherers,
> > most of us wouldn't exist (well, all of us wouldn't exist simply
> > because history wouldn't have happened the same way, but for sake of
> > argument let's say we could form today's H/G societies with a subset of
> > the people who exist today). I'll make a wild conjecture that H/G
> > societies might only support 1% of today's current population of 6.4
> > billion people. So 99 out of 100 people currently alive, wouldn't be.
> >
> So what would be your objection to using existing technology to have
> say 300 million people living a good life somewhen in the future?
> There's some weird underlying premise in saying "but 95 out of 100
> people currently alive wouldn't be". Every time someone successfully
> practices birth control, some human who might be alive in the future
> isn't. Do you think that women should bear children every year or two
> as long as they are able, so that no potential life goes unborn?
As I said above, this was a wild conjecture. My point was that there's
no way to decide whether humans remaining hunter-gatherers would have
been objectively better than the way history turned out. One
quantitative measure could be the raw numerical difference in existing
human life on Earth after 10,000 years. This measure ignores the
individual quality of life Diamond mentions, as his measure ignores the
quantity of life. My point was simply that neither measure is
adequate, and there's no way to construct an objective measure. It all
depends on what the person measuring values most. I might value the
quality of life of my descendants in the far, far (100+ generations)
future more than my own or my immediate descendants, for example.
I wasn't arguing that this is in any way a proscription for what we
should do now or in the future. We of course have more knowledge today
about overpopulation, and less drastic population control alternatives
than infanticide. Many people in industrialized nations now make use
of reliable contraception to limit the number of kids they have, and
improve their subjective quality of life. As I mentioned in the
previous post, it's not inconceivable that concerted effort in
environmentalism coupled with development of cheap, clean, renewable,
engery sources might enable everyone in the world to have a lifestyle
equivalent to middle-class Americans (in the sense of freedom of
movement, expression, access to information, access to technology, and
amount of personal time). Given current population trends in
industrial nations, population control might be a natural result of
people choosing to have fewer kids and spend more time pursuing
whatever interests them. I am definitely not against voluntary
contraception.
> I don't think we can fault our ancestors for their choices (I think
> Diamond was being hyperbolic with the title), but it is important to
> understand how much of the bad stuff is simply a result of competition
> for resources driving population growth, and population growth driving
> competition for resources.
I agree with this point. I think I was reacting to the tone of the
article in my post. My main point was that agriculture is not *only*
responsible for bad stuff. There has been lots of good stuff too. And
science and technology (which arguably would not have been possible at
our level without agriculture) may enable us to break the vicious cycle
of population growth and competition, ensuring a brighter future for
all the world's descendants. I admit I'm an optimist, but as I said
before, this won't be possible without a lot of hard work and pragmatic
problem solving now and in the future.
> Having come to the point where infanticide is not necessary, our
> choices are now indeed subject to the judgment of future generations.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Charles
Fred
news:1121444887.6...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I agree with this point. I think I was reacting to the tone of the
> article in my post. My main point was that agriculture is not *only*
> responsible for bad stuff. There has been lots of good stuff too. And
> science and technology (which arguably would not have been possible at
> our level without agriculture)
I agree that this is arguable. I wonder if the opposite is arguable. How is
it possible that science and technology could have evolved to our current
level of development in the same amount of time without agriculture?
Fred
> >For an individual, 20 years is significant enough to enable tremendous
> >changes in a single genetic example. For the species as a whole, this
time
> >frame is much larger. Still, there is an effect, I consider.
> >
> >> Culture enables the cumulative storage of information and when the
> >> critical mass of knowledge reached a certain level, new patterns of
> >> cultural organization became possible.
> >
> >As you grew from one day old to 20 years old, your culture changed
> >tremendously, did it not? I agree that your cumulutaive storage of
> >experience was a large factor. As well, I claim that your ability to
relate
> >to your store of information also changed. As a baby, you could not
> >understand the environment to the degree that you could at 20. Experience
is
> >important, but ability evolves over time as well.
> >
>
> The changes you describe are all very real and extremely important.
> However, none of them are in the genes. Biological evolution, by
> definition, is strictly limited to changes that can be passed
> genetically from one generation to another. The changes must be
> genetic.
I believe that we are talking about the same thing, but that only I think
so. All of these changes are in the genes. Are you suggesting that if a
child born 50,000 years ago were somehow frozen in a glaciar such that he
could be revived today that he would have no problem growing up and
competing in modern society at a level equal to his current peers? Do you
think that his brain would have no problem learning modern language and
modern science?
>There is a different name for information passed from parent
> to child outside the gene pool -- that is culture.
There is also increased societal ability to relate to nature, as well as
only peripherally relevant experience itself.
> So, yes, culturally acquired knowledge and experientially acquired
> knowledge tremendously alter the ability of any individual to survive
> and have children. The ability to acquire knowledge through culture
> and experience is part of our evolutionary heritage but the specific
> knowledge is not. It is important, certainly, but it is a different
> subject.
Different subject from what? Do you think that when you were born you were
able to learn a language at that time as sophisticated as your current
language? Do you think that you would have been able to track the motion of
the skies to understand the cycle of the year if only someone would have
shown you how? Do you think that our species, when it first emerged, was
capable of developing or manipulating a language as sophisticated as our
current language? Do you think that it was able to track the motion of the
heavens that defines the cycle of the year, lacking only cultural experience
to yet do so? If so, do you have any evidence, or are you just speculating?
If not, then I claim that the difference is genetic.
Ken Shackleton
No problem whatsoever....he is us.
>
> >There is a different name for information passed from parent
> > to child outside the gene pool -- that is culture.
>
> There is also increased societal ability to relate to nature, as well as
> only peripherally relevant experience itself.
>
> > So, yes, culturally acquired knowledge and experientially acquired
> > knowledge tremendously alter the ability of any individual to survive
> > and have children. The ability to acquire knowledge through culture
> > and experience is part of our evolutionary heritage but the specific
> > knowledge is not. It is important, certainly, but it is a different
> > subject.
>
> Different subject from what? Do you think that when you were born you were
> able to learn a language at that time as sophisticated as your current
> language? Do you think that you would have been able to track the motion of
> the skies to understand the cycle of the year if only someone would have
> shown you how? Do you think that our species, when it first emerged, was
> capable of developing or manipulating a language as sophisticated as our
> current language? Do you think that it was able to track the motion of the
> heavens that defines the cycle of the year, lacking only cultural experience
> to yet do so? If so, do you have any evidence, or are you just speculating?
> If not, then I claim that the difference is genetic.
Are confusing the development of child to adult with the development of
culture over the millenia? Anatomically modern humans that existed
50,000 years ago were us....no significant differences in intelligence
or inate capabilities.
Fred
news:1121457640.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Different subject from what? Do you think that when you were born you
were
> > able to learn a language at that time as sophisticated as your current
> > language? Do you think that you would have been able to track the motion
of
> > the skies to understand the cycle of the year if only someone would have
> > shown you how? Do you think that our species, when it first emerged, was
> > capable of developing or manipulating a language as sophisticated as our
> > current language? Do you think that it was able to track the motion of
the
> > heavens that defines the cycle of the year, lacking only cultural
experience
> > to yet do so? If so, do you have any evidence, or are you just
speculating?
> > If not, then I claim that the difference is genetic.
>
> Are confusing the development of child to adult with the development of
> culture over the millenia? Anatomically modern humans that existed
> 50,000 years ago were us....no significant differences in intelligence
> or inate capabilities.
I think that you have side-stepped the crux of my question. Do you think
that you are more intelligent now or that you have more innate capabilities
now than you had on the day that you were born? If not, then what is the
difference between you now and on the day you were born? Do you have any
greater ability to interact with and relate to your environment now than on
the day that you were born? If you do, then the fact that you are us is
insufficient to explain the difference between you now and you then. The
difference between you now and you then cannot be simply attributed to your
development or adoption of culture, as you seem to be suggesting in your
first sentence above, as you did not have the mental development to accept
or adopt the greatest part of the culture of your parents on the day of your
birth, did you? There was another factor in addition to your genes that was
necessary before your mental development enabled you to achieve your innate
capabilities.
floyd
Mark Isaak wrote:
> According to an illustration in _Science_ 301 (11 July 2003): 181,
> agriculture arose independently in the Middle East, China, New Guinea,
> eastern North America, Central America, northern South America, the
> Andes, western Africa, and the Upper Nile. Now, agriculture did not
> arise simultaneously at all these places, but it was not far from
> simultaneous compared with the couple hundred thousand years that
> humans have been humans.
>
> Why so many different origins at nearly the same time? Were
> conditions for agriculture not good enough until 10,000 years ago?
> Could agriculture also have arisen multiple times more than 50,000
> years ago but been forgotten about? Were the origins really not
> independent, but instead the idea was spread by trade? Was
> agriculture taught to the various groups by space aliens?
>
> I suspect the answer involves a combination of changed climate, trade,
> and other factors I don't know about. I would appreciate input by
> people who know more about the subject than I do.
>
> _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ is nearing the top of my reading list but is
> not quite there yet. Does it answer this question?
Diamond is a generally good populariser, and I like his books, although
I disagree with him on a number of specifics. In some cases (e.g.
Martin's "Overkill/Blitzkreig hypothesis") he takes a side on
controversial topics without discussing alternatives, and that bothers
me, but I still assign one of his books and a few articles to my intro
students. It's impossible to provide a broad overview (which is his
goal) *and* the necessary details all in one book that is intended for
popular consumption.
In _Guns, Grems and Steel_ he does offer one really useful insight into
why agriculture and the resultant technological societies appeared
where and when they did. That insight largely revolves around the
major axes of the continents. Plants are adapted to specific regimes
of daylight and seasonality, so it is easier for agriculture to spread
East and West than North and South, because day lengths and seasons are
consistent along a single latitude. The book is worth reading for that
insight, even if there was nothing else, but there is a great deal
more. He also discusses non-food products of our domesticates (e.g.
traction, transportation and textiles) that are often left out of
introductions to the topic, so that's another point in his favour.
But to get back to your question about why agriculture arose when and
where it did...
First there's a time scale issue. Remember that cultural evolution
proceeds much, much faster than biological evolution (Boyd and
Richerson 1985, 2005), so the (at least 8) independent origins of
farming aren't really "simultaneous" when viewed at their proper
chronological scale. (100,000 years may be a geological blink of the
eye, but it's still too long to wait for a cup of coffee. Different
phenomena need to be understood at their own appropriate scale; this
issue gets into my critique of Gould's [1980] claims about cultural
evolution though, and that's a topic for another post.)
First, during the Pleistocene, there actually were episodes of
domsetication; both the dog and the bottle gourd were domesticated
prior to 30KYA. Although these events are certainly not farming, they
do demonstrate that the process of domestication itself was not
prohibited by Pleistocene climate. However, in much of the Old World,
while domestication was possible, sedentary settlement was not.
Sedentariness is a necessary prior condition for agriculture. In order
to be "farming" in any recognisable form, people need to be doing more
to the plants than just occasionally scattering seeds; watering,
fertilising, weeding, and protecting the plants from predators are all
parts of farming that make it recognisably different from simple
predation on wild plants. Holocene climate change led to increased
evaporation and therefore increased rainfall and resulting increased
lake and river levels. As permanent and reliable sources of fresh
water became more available, biotically diverse communities spread
beyond the tropics. The diverse biota were also seasonally available.
Because of increased river levels, anadromous fish (salmon and eel, for
example) were available at different times of year in much higher
quantities than they had been in the Pleistocene, and drying and
smoking could be used to preserve them, so that it was efficient to
catch more than could be immediately consumed. Of course a ton of
stored food is hard to transport on foot, so seasonal camps were
necessary in order to make efficient use of those seasonal surpluses.
In some areas, migratory ungulates were available at times of year when
the fish were not, as were fruits and grasses. In a few locations, a
community could remain in one place pretty much year round (Bailey and
Milner 2003, Waddell 1998, Wenke 1999).
Sedentariness has an effect on fertility. Mobile women can support at
most two children who are not yet grown enough to keep up with the
migrating community. In most modern foraging societies (and I know
that using modern foragers as an ethnographic analogue is not without
complications, e.g. Binford 1978) birth spacing of at least 3-5 years
is pretty typical, but in sedentary societies, selection for wide birth
spacing is relaxed and faster reproduction is favoured, so sedentary
populations tend to grow faster than replacement rate.
Larger populations put a strain on resources, and as environments fill
in, techniques of extracting more calories per unit of land are
necessary. Agricultural and pastoral economies are one solution to the
conflict between a densely populated local landscape and a surrounding
landscape that is less productive. As long as the balance between
calories spent and calories returned favours staying put and working
harder over moving elsewhere, that's what people will do.
Population reached this level of saturation at different times in
different places. Areas that had been occupied longest necessarily
reached saturation earlier.
Trade was involved in some cases. Europe, for example, appears to have
received at least the *idea* of agriculture, if not a migration of
farmers (that's a very contentious topic right now) from Southwest
Asia. The only species domesticated prehistorically in Europe are
oats, poppies and reindeer (and possibly flax and bees, I can't recall
for certain off-hand). But those domesticates were added to the
wheat/rye/barley/lentil/cow/sheep/goat package that was introduced
earlier. The same appears to be true of Egypt, where the camel, ass,
cat and grapes were added to the southwest Asian agricultural package.
In Eastern North America, Mexican maize, beans and squash were
introduced, but only after the eastern North Americans had
independently developed domesticated sunflowers, rushes, sumpweed,
pumpkins and possibly turkeys (which were also domesticated in Mexico,
and I'm not sure if they were introduced or independently
domesticated).
I read recently, but can't recall where, (possibly Nature a month or so
ago,) that cattle were idependently domesticated in the Indus valley.
It appears that the cattle of India are genetically distinct from the
southwest Asian cattle. Still, contact between Harappan farmers and
people farther west and east can't be ruled out, so whether there was
transmission of ideas, migration of people, or trade of goods, I can't
say for sure. All are possible sources of the spread of agriculture.
In any case, once agriculture gets going, farming societies tend to be
expansionist (Rindos 1980, 1984) so sorting out trade in products,
transmission of ideas and movement of people is really complicated, but
once it's going, it tends to spread as quickly as climate, continental
axes, available domesticates (not all continents are equal in number of
domesticable species) and cultural factors will allow. The whole of
Oceania seems to have been colonised in less than 900 years after the
first agricultural populations got to Fiji and Samoa, for example.
Once a fast-growing, cold tolerant strain of maize was produced, it
spread throughout North America east of the Mississippi in only about a
century or two. That's much faster than the wheat/cow/sheep complex
spread into Europe from SW Asia (which took close to 5000 years, for a
much smaller area).
One possible reason for the difference in rate of spread was
differences in the relative productivity of wild foods in each area,
compared to domesticates. Foraging is a lot less work, really. The
whole "nasty brutish and short" idea is nonsense; farmers have it a lot
harder. So really there is a ballance between population density,
environmental productivity and probably some (ultimately unrecoverable
I suspect) cultural factors like resistance to change and xenophobia
that influenced the rate of spread.
And I just realised how long this post is and I haven't even touched on
a tenth of what I want to say. Sorry, everybody needs a "pet" topic,
and this is one of mine. I hope it was informative at least.
________________
References Cited
Bailey, G.N. and N. J. Milner
2003. Coastal hunters and gatherers and social evolution: marginal or
central?, Before Farming: the Archaeology of Old World
Hunter-Gatherers. 3-4 (1), 1-15
Binford, L. R.
1978. Nunamiut ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Boyd, R., and P. J. Richerson
1985. Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press
Boyd, R. and P. J. Richerson
2005. The Origin and Evolution of Cultures, Oxford University Press
Gould, S. J.
1980. Sociobiology and the Theory of Natural Selection. in Philosophy
of Biology edited by Michael Ruse. 1989. Prentice-Hall Inc. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ. pp. 253-263.
Rindos, D.
1980. Symbiosis, instability, and the origins and spread of
agriculture: a new model. Current Anthropology 21(6): 751-72.
- 1984. The Origins of Agriculture: An Evolutionary Perspective. New
York: Academic Press.
Waddell, J.
1989. The Prehistoric Archaeology of Ireland. Galway University Press,
Galway.
Wenke, R. J.
1999. Patterns in Prehistory (4th ed.) Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
John Harshman
We all know that the (embryological) developmental process, under the
control of all manner of evolved feedback loops, doesn't stop at birth,
and that our brains in particular continue to develop until long after.
But you seem to be making some kind of analogy between individual
development and the evolution of the human species. This analogy just
isn't valid. There is no causal connection, and trying to compare them
just isn't fruitful. We have no evidence that human intelligence has
evolved during the last 50,000 years. Greater technological and cultural
sophistication is not such evidence, unless you think the !Kung are not
as smart, or as "evolutionarily advanced", as the residents of
Johannisburg. On the other hand, I would consider the Lascaux paintings
(and other similar artifacts) to be good evidence that our ancestors
were as inherently bright as we are today. The invention of agriculture
was therefore not the result of some increase in intelligence.
Mark Isaak
<jdg...@cox-internet.com> wrote:
>
>"Mark Isaak" <eci...@earthlinkNOSPAM.next> wrote in message
>news:eradd1tir21n3g5ck...@4ax.com...
>> According to an illustration in _Science_ 301 (11 July 2003): 181,
>> agriculture arose independently in the Middle East, China, New Guinea,
>> eastern North America, Central America, northern South America, the
>> Andes, western Africa, and the Upper Nile. Now, agriculture did not
>> arise simultaneously at all these places, but it was not far from
>> simultaneous compared with the couple hundred thousand years that
>> humans have been humans.
>>
>> Why so many different origins at nearly the same time? Were
>> conditions for agriculture not good enough until 10,000 years ago?
>> Could agriculture also have arisen multiple times more than 50,000
>> years ago but been forgotten about? Were the origins really not
>> independent, but instead the idea was spread by trade? Was
>> agriculture taught to the various groups by space aliens?
>>
>> I suspect the answer involves a combination of changed climate, trade,
>> and other factors I don't know about. I would appreciate input by
>> people who know more about the subject than I do.
>
> How about population density as a factor? Hunter/gatherer groups can't get
>very large before they run out of local food sources. Perhaps rising
>populations after the last ice age forced people to look for alternate food
>sources.
This does not impress me as a reason. If food shortage was an
important aspect of life after the ice age, then surely it was an
important aspect of life during the ice age. And population density
can be controlled by customs such as later marriage and infanticide,
too.
Another question comes to mind: Has any culture adopted agriculture
and then abandoned it again? (I mean going back to hunter/gathering,
not to working with computers).
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
r norman
>
>I believe that we are talking about the same thing, but that only I think
>so. All of these changes are in the genes. Are you suggesting that if a
>child born 50,000 years ago were somehow frozen in a glaciar such that he
>could be revived today that he would have no problem growing up and
>competing in modern society at a level equal to his current peers? Do you
>think that his brain would have no problem learning modern language and
>modern science?
>
That is exactly what I am suggesting. I don't know if that is true
for 50,000 years, though. I was hedging about the time. I am pretty
sure about 10 to 30 thousand, though. I will let others correct me if
I am wrong. I am quite certain about 3 to 5 thousand.
Fred
news:EfVBe.3501$Rv7....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
How do you know this to be a fact?
>There is no causal connection, and trying to compare them
> just isn't fruitful.
How can you know this? Have you searched for fruit?
>We have no evidence that human intelligence has
> evolved during the last 50,000 years.
Are you suggesting that language 50,000 years ago was just as complex as it
is today? I wonder how you define intelligence.
> Greater technological and cultural
> sophistication is not such evidence, unless you think the !Kung are not
> as smart, or as "evolutionarily advanced", as the residents of
> Johannisburg. On the other hand, I would consider the Lascaux paintings
> (and other similar artifacts) to be good evidence that our ancestors
> were as inherently bright as we are today. The invention of agriculture
> was therefore not the result of some increase in intelligence.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
r norman
wrote:
<snip a lengthy post>
>And I just realised how long this post is and I haven't even touched on
>a tenth of what I want to say. Sorry, everybody needs a "pet" topic,
>and this is one of mine. I hope it was informative at least.
>
Please, no apologies. We all need good information clearly presented.
Learning about all sorts of topics outside our own areas from people
who clearly demonstrate they know what they are talking about is a
very important port of this news group. It is worth wading through
all the crap here to find presentations like this. Thank you very
much.
Fred
news:1121460028.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> One possible reason for the difference in rate of spread was
> differences in the relative productivity of wild foods in each area,
> compared to domesticates. Foraging is a lot less work, really. The
> whole "nasty brutish and short" idea is nonsense; farmers have it a lot
> harder.
Interesting post. Although farmers had it hard, I think that it is clear
that society as a whole had it easier. I think that a greater yield per acre
in a predictable location of stable food fosters the type of cultural
enhancements that would not be possible for society without agriculture.
Walter Bushell
"none" <prig...@aol.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Putting aside the question of why they would want to do that, there
> were no technological innovations for waging war until relatively
> hundred years ago. Before that the agricultural society and the nomads
> were both using spears, swords, bows and arrows, and clubs. No
> advantage to either side.
<snip>
Innovations previous to a few hundred years ago, horses and metals,
bronze and iron. Iron and horses triumph over vast numbers of warriors
without either as the history of the New World show.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
Fred
Do you have any opinion as to why the current complex monotheistic religions
only recently appeared in western societies? Could they have appeared 50,000
years ago, but for a happenstance of history that kept them waiting in favor
of other religions that no for no particular reason have now unexplicably
disappeared?
Walter Bushell
"VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
Yeah, this is getting into Jabbers category.
Walter Bushell
hus...@radix.net (Herb Huston) wrote:
> I've traced my family tree back to about 1600 on most lines and haven't
> found a single ancestor who died before child producing age.
Truism of the Month category?
Herb Huston
Oooo, I've hooked one. Do I keep him or throw him back?
} Or are you saying that back as far as 1600,
}you have no recorded instances of childhood death anywhere in your
}family tree?
One of my aunts died at Johns Hopkins University hospital in 1921 of spinal
meningitis. She was not quite six years old.
r norman
A number of people have been trying to convince you for some time now
that there were enormous cultural changes that have occurred during
that time. That is the happenstance of history that kept them in
waiting. What are the alternative religions that have "unexplicably
disappeared"? There is no shortage of alternatives to monotheism
present in the world, today. Are you seriously suggesting that,
sometime in the last 50,000 years, a genetic mutation suddenly
rendered the entire human species susceptible to believing in
monotheism?
floyd
[Blush] You're quite welcome. Thanks for the kind words.
floyd
Remember that those enhancements that are not possible without
agriculture *also* include epidemic diseases (which can not flourish in
low-density populations), accumulated garbage and the resulting
attraction of rodents and pollution of drinking water, human waste
disposal problems, inequality, hereditary wealth, decreased health
(it's only in the past century that modern medicine has extended
average lifespan to greater than Pleistocene figures, and that only in
the industrialised countries), crime and institutionalised systems of
punishment, large scale warfare, etc. etc. etc.
One of the things I like most about Diamond's books is that he points
out that agriculture was *not* a universally beneficial achievement.
Like all evolutionary changes, agriculture required trade offs, and the
good comes with the bad. You are correct that, from a Darwinian
perspective, agriculture was absolutely beneficial, since it led to
increased reprodctive success, but in terms of the amount of labour
performed by all but the nobility (however that is defined) increased
quite dramatically. Even today, in marginal environments like the high
Arctic, the Kalihari and the Australian Outback, foragers put in fewer
hours of work than their farming/industrialised neighbors. In adition,
foraging is apparently much more sustainable. Crop failure and the
resulting mass famines are not a problem for people who can simply pack
up and move away. Farmers become tied to the land, and even when the
land fails to produce, it is difficult to leave.
It's certainly true that without agriculture, we would have no
Bluetooth phones, no internet, no seat warmers and adjustable headrests
with surround sound stereos in our cars, etc. I love all those things
just as much as the next tech fetishist, and would not be willing to
give them up for a return to flint-knapping and chasing impalas across
the savannah, don't get me wrong. But the good comes with the bad and
it's just as fallacious to ignore one as the other. This isn't utopia,
and it's not hell, and neither is a foraging economy. Both have their
good and bad points.
Ray Martinez
The point of my response to Ray in that thread, was to show that he had
made a statement about Crick without giving a reference, or any
evidence
that the statement was true. In spite of being asked to supply a
reference he never did. Does anyone here, other than Ray actually
believe Francis Crick said that space aliens WERE RESPONSIBLE for life
on earth, emphasis mine? Or rather that Crick sad that space aliens MAY
heve been responsible ...?
RAY:
I did post a reference/link about Crick - you even re-pasted it in a
reply to me here:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/884982f5a8efc973?dmode=source
I provided what you wrongly assert here:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/59c4c2a2d69bf02f?dmode=source
I did show that Francis Crick postulated the crackpot theory of space
aliens as is common knowledge.
You evaded the link and its embarrassing facts about Crick.
Here is the specific page if you want it again:
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist11.htm#Rocket%20Sperm
Now tell me Shane and any Darwinist for that matter:
Why are you suddenly silent in making fun of christians who have
extraterrestial beliefs (albeit none say space aliens are repsonsible
for life on this planet) but will not give Mark Isaak and Crick the
same treatment ?
Romans says God turns you into a sophisticated moron as a penalty for
denying Him Creator status.
Isaak and Crick evidence the claim very nicely.
You evos have zero credibility and show how evil you are to advocate
space aliens rather than accept the massive evidence for God.
Suddenly your pseudo rational minds are quacks. Please do not ever
again go ad hom on anyone for perceived irrational beliefs until you
justify space aliens with solid scientific evidence.
All the talk your kind does about "scientific evidence alone is our
basis" .....space aliens ?
LOL !
LOL !
Ray Martinez
floyd
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Romans says God turns you into a sophisticated moron as a penalty for
> denying Him Creator status.
What do you have to do for Him to turn you into an unsophisticated
moron?
Fred
This is highly misleading. I have not only agreed with but promoted this
very idea. I don't not think that this is the entire story, however.
>That is the happenstance of history that kept them in
> waiting. What are the alternative religions that have "unexplicably
> disappeared"?
The ancient Greek religions have disappeared, as have tremendously numerous
others.
>There is no shortage of alternatives to monotheism
> present in the world, today.
In the west, there are no religions that compete at all well with
monotheistic religions. If you disagree, please name a dozen. In case you
missed it, note above that I did limit my comparison of monotheistic
religion to the west.
>Are you seriously suggesting that,
Do you think that I am not serious? No, of course you know that I am
serious. The problem seems to be that you are not understanding what I am
trying to say. I note that you have not responded to my question about the
difference in a single person's life over time. As well, your following
interpretation of my meaning is very different from what I mean.
> sometime in the last 50,000 years, a genetic mutation suddenly
> rendered the entire human species susceptible to believing in
> monotheism?
This is not what I have been saying. I am not talking about genetic
mutations at all. When you were a newborn, did you or could you in any
conceivable way believe in monotheism or in any religion whatsoever? Of
course not. Now that you have evolved through sufficient time in your life,
you have the potential to believe in religion were you to so desire. Was it
a genetic mutation in you since your birth that enabled this change? No. So,
what was it? That is what I am saying, that our species had to grow up, and
that as it has aged more has become possible.
floyd
There is some evidence that the so-called "Fremont" society of the US
Great Basin area gave up agriculture when the Summer monsoons shifted
farther south, around 700 years ago. It's not clear if they left the
area or instead stayed put and shifted to a foraging economy. It *is*
clear that even when they were farming, they also maintained a hunting
and gathering segment of their economy, so it's likely that only the
relative proportions of foraging:farming changed.
Other than that, I can't think of any examples off the top of my head
of a society that dropped agriculture from its economic strategies and
still persisted. It wouldn't surprise me if there were other examples,
I just can't think of any just now.
Fred
>
> > > One possible reason for the difference in rate of spread was
> > > differences in the relative productivity of wild foods in each area,
> > > compared to domesticates. Foraging is a lot less work, really. The
> > > whole "nasty brutish and short" idea is nonsense; farmers have it a
lot
> > > harder.
> >
> > Interesting post. Although farmers had it hard, I think that it is clear
> > that society as a whole had it easier. I think that a greater yield per
acre
> > in a predictable location of stable food fosters the type of cultural
> > enhancements that would not be possible for society without agriculture.
>
> Remember that those enhancements that are not possible without
> agriculture *also* include epidemic diseases (which can not flourish in
> low-density populations), accumulated garbage and the resulting
> attraction of rodents and pollution of drinking water, human waste
> disposal problems, inequality, hereditary wealth, decreased health
> (it's only in the past century that modern medicine has extended
> average lifespan to greater than Pleistocene figures, and that only in
> the industrialised countries), crime and institutionalised systems of
> punishment, large scale warfare, etc. etc. etc.
>
> One of the things I like most about Diamond's books is that he points
> out that agriculture was *not* a universally beneficial achievement.
Of course there are trade offs. Furthermore, which are good and which are
bad is not absolute and objective.
> Like all evolutionary changes, agriculture required trade offs, and the
> good comes with the bad. You are correct that, from a Darwinian
> perspective, agriculture was absolutely beneficial, since it led to
> increased reprodctive success,
Which accounts for its extremely widespread adoption.
> but in terms of the amount of labour
> performed by all but the nobility (however that is defined) increased
> quite dramatically.
Don't forget the warriors. However, I agree that agriculture is quite labor
intensive. Some forms are more intensive than others. For example, rice
enables the greatest density of population, but is the most demanding of the
primary grains.
> Even today, in marginal environments like the high
> Arctic, the Kalihari and the Australian Outback, foragers put in fewer
> hours of work than their farming/industrialised neighbors. In adition,
> foraging is apparently much more sustainable. Crop failure and the
> resulting mass famines are not a problem for people who can simply pack
> up and move away. Farmers become tied to the land, and even when the
> land fails to produce, it is difficult to leave.
Your examples are located on the fringes of the planet. It seems to me based
on an analysis of history that any population in an area where it would have
constant interaction with other groups, such as in central Europe or Asia,
would surely be absorbed by other, larger populations that have a basis in
agriculture. Therefore, their easier life is only true were they able to
live in complete isolation from the rest of the world, an option that has
lessened over time. The Mongols might seem to be an exception, as they were
not agriculturalists, but no one would claim that life was anything but much
harder there than elsewhere, and they were eventually absorbed by
agricultural communities. In islands such as the South Pacific, where the
weather was relatively nice and neighbors were relatively few, such life
styles were more possible.
> It's certainly true that without agriculture, we would have no
> Bluetooth phones, no internet, no seat warmers and adjustable headrests
> with surround sound stereos in our cars, etc. I love all those things
> just as much as the next tech fetishist, and would not be willing to
> give them up for a return to flint-knapping and chasing impalas across
> the savannah, don't get me wrong. But the good comes with the bad and
> it's just as fallacious to ignore one as the other. This isn't utopia,
> and it's not hell, and neither is a foraging economy. Both have their
> good and bad points.
Which points are good and which are bad is quite subjective, and each person
has a personal opinion.
Herb Huston
VoiceOfReason <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
}Herb Huston wrote:
}> In article <db7atf$mea$6...@reader2.panix.com>,
}> Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
}> }Herb Huston <hus...@radix.net> wrote:
}> }>In article <1121371478.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
}> }>Ken Shackleton <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote:
}> }>}Ken Shackleton wrote:
}> }>}> http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/agron342/diamondmistake.html
}> }>}>
}> }>}> It does offer some insight into the question, it is another work by
}> }>}> Jared Diamond.
}> }>}
}> }>}When I first read this it really struck a chord with me. I have often
}> }>}replied [tongue somewhat in cheek] that it's the farmers' fault
}> }>}whenever being asked about causes for the ills of the world.
}> }>}
}> }>}I cannot think of any problem today that cannot be traced back to our
}> }>}invention of agriculture and the changing from a nomadic to a sedentary
}> }>}lifestyle.
}> }
}> }>On the other hand, agriculture made Usenet possible.
}> }
}> }One thing the PBS show did point out, though it was
}> }easy to miss, is that an early death *after* child producing
}> }age does not exert nearly the evolutionary pressure as
}> }death *before* child producing age.
}>
}> I've traced my family tree back to about 1600 on most lines and haven't
}> found a single ancestor who died before child producing age.
}
}frequently. :-)
Far, far less.
}> }Folks may not have lived as long in agricultural communities
}> }but agriculture allowed a lot more of them *to* live. The
}> }result was for the times a huge population explosion.
}>
}> One that continues today aided and abetted by the Bush administration,
}> which panders to superstitious dolts, and the hierarchy of the Roman
}> Catholic Church, which confuses humans with gorillas.
}
}Confuses humans with gorillas? WTFO?
Whatever the main biological function of human copulation, it
isn't conception, which is just an occasional by-product. In
these days of growing human overpopulation, one of the most
ironic tragedies is the Catholic Church's claim that human
copulation has conception as its natural purpose, and that the
rhythm method is the only proper means of birth control. The
rhythm method would be terrific for gorillas and most other
mammal species, but not for us. In no species besides humans
has the purpose of copulation become so unrelated to conception,
or the rhythm method so unsuited for contraception.
-- Jared Diamond, _The Third Chimpanzee_, page 78.
Actually, of course, the Church allows another method of contraception
besides periodic continence: total abstinence. This is known as "rhythm
and blues." Also, bonobos are close seconds to humans at severing
copulation from conception.
Herb Huston
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
}In article <1121436599.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
} "VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
}> Herb Huston wrote:
}> > In article <db7atf$mea$6...@reader2.panix.com>,
}> > One that continues today aided and abetted by the Bush administration,
}> > which panders to superstitious dolts, and the hierarchy of the Roman
}> > Catholic Church, which confuses humans with gorillas.
}>
}> Confuses humans with gorillas? WTFO?
}
}Yeah, this is getting into Jabbers category.
Too small. I'm throwing this one back.
r norman
wrote:
>In article <11dfeog...@corp.supernews.com>,
> hus...@radix.net (Herb Huston) wrote:
>
>> I've traced my family tree back to about 1600 on most lines and haven't
>> found a single ancestor who died before child producing age.
>
>Truism of the Month category?
I seemed to detect perhaps more than a trace of sarcasm in that line.
floyd
DOH! I forgot the Morioris of the Chatham Islands. They also
abandoned agriculture after settling there. I'll probably remember a
few others as soon as I send this, but I won't post them because it's
Friday night and I want a beer.
John Harshman
There have historically been people who thought there was some kind of
analogy. Racial senescence, for example, used to be such a theory.
Nobody ever managed to come up with any evidence in its favor. Evolution
and development work by entirely different processes. If you want to
suggest there's a connection, by all means go ahead. But at least
present some evidence that there is, or some reason why there should be.
>>There is no causal connection, and trying to compare them
>>just isn't fruitful.
>
> How can you know this? Have you searched for fruit?
No. Then again I'm pretty sure that sunspots are not caused by
fluctuations in the price of cornflakes, even though I have not
researched this question at length.
>>We have no evidence that human intelligence has
>>evolved during the last 50,000 years.
>
> Are you suggesting that language 50,000 years ago was just as complex as it
> is today? I wonder how you define intelligence.
There's no real way for us to tell, but I suspect it was. If you claim
it wasn't, what evidence are you prepared to offer?
>>Greater technological and cultural
>>sophistication is not such evidence, unless you think the !Kung are not
>>as smart, or as "evolutionarily advanced", as the residents of
>>Johannisburg. On the other hand, I would consider the Lascaux paintings
>>(and other similar artifacts) to be good evidence that our ancestors
>>were as inherently bright as we are today. The invention of agriculture
>>was therefore not the result of some increase in intelligence.
>
> You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
As are you. But are you prepared to justify them in any way?
John Harshman
> "r norman" <NotMyRealEmail@_comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ngdgd1ptu25066a4k...@4ax.com...
[snip]
>
>>sometime in the last 50,000 years, a genetic mutation suddenly
>>rendered the entire human species susceptible to believing in
>>monotheism?
>
>
> This is not what I have been saying. I am not talking about genetic
> mutations at all. When you were a newborn, did you or could you in any
> conceivable way believe in monotheism or in any religion whatsoever? Of
> course not. Now that you have evolved through sufficient time in your life,
> you have the potential to believe in religion were you to so desire. Was it
> a genetic mutation in you since your birth that enabled this change? No. So,
> what was it? That is what I am saying, that our species had to grow up, and
> that as it has aged more has become possible.
In what sense does "grow up" or "age" apply to a species? What is the
mechanism by which species grow up or age? Do all species do this, or
only Homo sapiens? And how do you know the answers to any of these
questions?
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121469628....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
snipping
> Now tell me Shane and any Darwinist for that matter:
>
> Why are you suddenly silent in making fun of christians who have
> extraterrestial beliefs (albeit none say space aliens are repsonsible
> for life on this planet) but will not give Mark Isaak and Crick the
> same treatment ?
Because neither Isaak or Crick seriously suggested that "space aliens" are
responsible for life on this planet.
>
> Romans says God turns you into a sophisticated moron as a penalty for
> denying Him Creator status.
No, Romans does not say that. That's your rather odd and unsupported
assertion from a mis-reading of the Greek (most likely by way of Gene
Scott).
>
> Isaak and Crick evidence the claim very nicely.
Except that neither Isaak or Crick say what you claim, and the "claim" you
refer to does not exist in the Bible.
>
> You evos have zero credibility and show how evil you are to advocate
> space aliens rather than accept the massive evidence for God.
There is no massive evidence for God. There's no evidence for "space
aliens" either.
>
> Suddenly your pseudo rational minds are quacks. Please do not ever
> again go ad hom on anyone for perceived irrational beliefs until you
> justify space aliens with solid scientific evidence.
Why should they justify space aliens when they don't seriously suggest they
exist. And why is it you may practice ad hominem, but accuse others of the
same thing?
>
> All the talk your kind does about "scientific evidence alone is our
> basis" .....space aliens ?
Where did either of the two seriously mention space aliens?
Snip the laughter of a maniac
DJT
Walter Bushell
"Fred" <he...@there.com> wrote:
<snip>
> In the west, there are no religions that compete at all well with
> monotheistic religions. If you disagree, please name a dozen. In case you
> missed it, note above that I did limit my comparison of monotheistic
> religion to the west.
Wicca includes a least a dozen religions, perhaps many gross. Of course,
some people do not include Christianity as a monotheistic religion. I
believe that Islam does not, IIRC Mohammed proclaimed the popular forms
of Christianity to be "pagan and idolatrous".
r norman
We may be talking about the same thing but we sure are using different
words.
Evolution is about a change in the GENETIC composition of a
POPULATION. It does NOT refer to the developmental change in one
individual during its lifetime. You seem to be using evolution in a
very generic way, referring to general growth and development.
Unfortunately, that is not the way a biologist uses the technical
term.
Also, individuals do grow up. I don't know what you mean when you say
"our species had to grow up."
About religion. Christianity had a rather heavy hand forcing people
to convert. A large number of Americans were slaughtered in the
process. Also, European cultures tended to force children into
"proper" schools where they would learn "proper" ideas. That
eliminated local culture including language and religion -- which was
in fact the major idea. In fact, the missionaries at the time of the
Conquistadores ran around quite determinedly destroying any books or
codices or other material evidence of the "pagan cultures" they
discovered. In the good ol' USofA, educators trying to "enlighten the
noble savage" forcibly removed native American children from their
homes to be sent to boarding schools thereby obliterating as much as
possible all traces of their family culture. Is it any wonder that
there are few "western" religions that compete in the americas?
Europe tended to do the same thing although a bit earlier in history.
Since we are supposedly talking about Jared Diamond's ideas, all this
amounts to is the fact that guns, germs, and steel tend to trump
non-monotheistic spirituality. Or even monotheistic. The crusaders,
on their way to "liberate" the holy lands, practiced by slaughtering
Jews.
Fred
> In what sense does "grow up" or "age" apply to a species?
Species are born, they evolve through their life, and then they die. The
members of a species are born, they evolve through their life, and they die.
It does not seem so farfetched that they follow analogous patterns
throughout their lives.
>What is the
> mechanism by which species grow up or age?
As with members of a species, each species evolves through its time of life.
>Do all species do this, or
> only Homo sapiens?
Of course. This sounds like a joke questin.
>And how do you know the answers to any of these
> questions?
How does anyone know the answer to any questions?
Fred
> We may be talking about the same thing but we sure are using different
> words.
And different definitions for the words.
> Evolution is about a change in the GENETIC composition of a
> POPULATION.
This statement is not true. In the remaining part of this paragraph you
provide more context in which I am able to see your point.
>It does NOT refer to the developmental change in one
> individual during its lifetime. You seem to be using evolution in a
> very generic way, referring to general growth and development.
> Unfortunately, that is not the way a biologist uses the technical
> term.
Why is it unfortunate? I did not realize that you are limiting the usage of
the word evolution to the way that biologists commonly use it. Are
physicists disallowed to use the word evolution, for example, or have we
somewhere agree to limit the use of the word?
> Also, individuals do grow up. I don't know what you mean when you say
> "our species had to grow up."
As an example, has culture changed over time among the members of our
species? This change requires time. Our species had to evolve over time to
achieve what it has to date. I use evolution in the sense of change over
time. I do not limit it to culture, however, and do not restrict it to such
an extremely limited range of context as you seem to be doing.
> About religion. Christianity had a rather heavy hand forcing people
> to convert. A large number of Americans were slaughtered in the
> process. Also, European cultures tended to force children into
> "proper" schools where they would learn "proper" ideas. That
> eliminated local culture including language and religion -- which was
> in fact the major idea. In fact, the missionaries at the time of the
> Conquistadores ran around quite determinedly destroying any books or
> codices or other material evidence of the "pagan cultures" they
> discovered. In the good ol' USofA, educators trying to "enlighten the
> noble savage" forcibly removed native American children from their
> homes to be sent to boarding schools thereby obliterating as much as
> possible all traces of their family culture. Is it any wonder that
> there are few "western" religions that compete in the americas?
> Europe tended to do the same thing although a bit earlier in history.
> Since we are supposedly talking about Jared Diamond's ideas, all this
> amounts to is the fact that guns, germs, and steel tend to trump
> non-monotheistic spirituality. Or even monotheistic. The crusaders,
> on their way to "liberate" the holy lands, practiced by slaughtering
> Jews.
You seem to have missed my entire point. You are taking for grarnted the
origination of Christianity, yet this is my entire point. How did it ever
come to be, and why did it take such time? Yes, people adopted it, as you
say, but do you think that did so thinking that it was complete bunk with no
redeeming qualitites at all, or were they able to see some benefits to
acceccpting it other than saving their lives?
Tom McDonald
> "Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> message news:24cfd1p6n4grbn02v...@4ax.com...
<snip>
>>
>>So you think that 10,000 years ago we did not have the same
>>genetically constrained intellectual potential? Any support for this?
>>I ask because people were pretty much spread over the world by 10,000
>>year ago. If this genetic ability was new then it means that it was
>>only in a small group. Is that your claim?
>
>
> No. I am not talking about genetic ability in the same sense as you. It
> takes time to evolve to learn to take advantage of innate inability. Do you
> think that if an alien, for want of an example, were to provide a solar
> calendar to the first members of our species that they would have been able
> to comprehend it and make use of it and find a need for it? I do not.
Of course our first ancestors would have understood the idea of
seasonal changes, to include the movements of the sun and the
moon. They may not have grokked a pictoral calendar (although
they were certainly capable of doing so if the conventions the
aliens used were explained to them).
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Hunter/gatherers are
intimately familiar with quite subtle changes in their
environment. At least the ones that lived to be our ancestors
did; I can't speak for the stupid ones.
Had they not known about changes in, for instance, the length of
the day, or the phase of the moon they would have most likely
failed to reproduce. These astronomical changes were related to
the availability of animal and plant resources, as well as
seasonal weather patterns.
I am curious as to what evidence you have that suggests the
first Homo sapiens, much less the first Homo sapiens sapiens, had
to learn this stuff over a very, very long time.
--
Tom McDonald
http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/
Tom McDonald
>
>
>>One possible reason for the difference in rate of spread was
>>differences in the relative productivity of wild foods in each area,
>>compared to domesticates. Foraging is a lot less work, really. The
>>whole "nasty brutish and short" idea is nonsense; farmers have it a lot
>>harder.
>
>
> Interesting post. Although farmers had it hard, I think that it is clear
> that society as a whole had it easier. I think that a greater yield per acre
> in a predictable location of stable food fosters the type of cultural
> enhancements that would not be possible for society without agriculture.
>
>
I think that farming fostered cultural changes (enhancements is
a value judgment, and not useful here) that would not have been
*necessary* for a society without agriculture.
If there had not been a need to intensify production of food and
other materials for living, there would have been no need for the
kind of hierarchical society, military specialization,
concentration of population, organization of society to produce
large-scale public works, etc.
r norman
>"r norman" <NotMyRealEmail@_comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:f0ogd15kojppkqj9p...@4ax.com...
>
>> We may be talking about the same thing but we sure are using different
>> words.
>
>And different definitions for the words.
>
>> Evolution is about a change in the GENETIC composition of a
>> POPULATION.
>
>This statement is not true. In the remaining part of this paragraph you
>provide more context in which I am able to see your point.
>
>>It does NOT refer to the developmental change in one
>> individual during its lifetime. You seem to be using evolution in a
>> very generic way, referring to general growth and development.
>> Unfortunately, that is not the way a biologist uses the technical
>> term.
>
>Why is it unfortunate? I did not realize that you are limiting the usage of
>the word evolution to the way that biologists commonly use it. Are
>physicists disallowed to use the word evolution, for example, or have we
>somewhere agree to limit the use of the word?
>
Physicists are allowed to use whatever words they want in whatever way
they choose. They certainly did weird things to up, down, color,
strangeness, and charm, not to mention that delicious cheesy thing
formerly known as quark. When you talk about particle physics in a
forum devoted to discussion of physics and use those words in the
ordinary language sense, when you insist on using them in that sense
even though clearly everybody misunderstands what you are saying, and
then when you insist that you have a right to use ordinary language
when you are in fact discussing the technical subject, then you are
wrong.
When you talk about evolution in a forum devoted to a discussion of
evolution and use the word evolution in the ordinary language sense,
when you insist on using that word even though clearly everybody
misunderstands what you are saying, and then when you insist you have
a right to use ordinary language when you are in fact discussing
evolution, then you are wrong.
Yes, we agree to use the word "evolution" in the technical sense when
we discuss the technical content of the subject called evolution.
Even granting the confusion over word usage, I still don't think you
get it. People tell you that a 50,000 year old human, if suddenly
brought to life (actually, if brought into the world as a newborn
baby) would be indistinguishable from a modern human in appearance,
demeanor, intelligence, and abilities. Do you still claim otherwise?
Do you have any evidence that the genetic composition of humans has
changed significantly, other than perhaps some superficial appearance
aspects, in that time?
I will leave the subject of Christianity alone because I personally do
happen to think it is complete bunk with no redeeming qualities at
all, to put it rather crudely using your words.
Tom McDonald
It's not a matter of food shortage alone, although when humans
were thin on the ground, food shortages were relatively short and
acute, not protracted and chronic.
As populations increase in a given area, the come up against the
limit of the land's carrying capacity. For other animals, that's
it. For humans, that's the start of something else. The answer
(since we love sex, and we really hate to die) is to intensify
food production.
In North America, part of this change involved using a wider
range of flora and fauna, although this is probably not as big a
change as we once thought it was. This didn't involve
horticulture even, but it did allow for somewhat larger populations.
Over time, population pressure would lead either to
impoverishment and ill health, or finding ways to make the same
amount of ground produce more food. Since hunter/gatherers were
well aware that seeds grew into the plants that produced them,
intensification by intentionally growing them was a fairly
obvious choice.
We don't know if the early horticulturists liked the idea of
tying part of their sustenance to a particular crop at a
particular place. However, we know that, as far as I know
universally, hunter/gatherers and pastoralists really, really
dislike going into farming.
>
> Another question comes to mind: Has any culture adopted agriculture
> and then abandoned it again? (I mean going back to hunter/gathering,
> not to working with computers).
In North America, the Anishnabe (Ojibwa, Chippewa) had been
agriculturalists before they were pushed west by white folk
pushing on red folk who pushed on other red folk who pushed on
them. They gave up agriculture, although they often practiced a
limited sort of horticulture. Their main food, etc., sources were
gained by hunting and gathering.
Robert Grumbine
John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Fred wrote:
[snip]
>> I think that you have side-stepped the crux of my question. Do you think
>> that you are more intelligent now or that you have more innate capabilities
>> now than you had on the day that you were born? If not, then what is the
>> difference between you now and on the day you were born? Do you have any
>> greater ability to interact with and relate to your environment now than on
>> the day that you were born? If you do, then the fact that you are us is
>> insufficient to explain the difference between you now and you then. The
>> difference between you now and you then cannot be simply attributed to your
>> development or adoption of culture, as you seem to be suggesting in your
>> first sentence above, as you did not have the mental development to accept
>> or adopt the greatest part of the culture of your parents on the day of your
>> birth, did you? There was another factor in addition to your genes that was
>> necessary before your mental development enabled you to achieve your innate
>> capabilities.
>
>We all know that the (embryological) developmental process, under the
>control of all manner of evolved feedback loops, doesn't stop at birth,
>and that our brains in particular continue to develop until long after.
>But you seem to be making some kind of analogy between individual
>development and the evolution of the human species. This analogy just
>isn't valid. There is no causal connection, and trying to compare them
>just isn't fruitful. We have no evidence that human intelligence has
>evolved during the last 50,000 years. Greater technological and cultural
>sophistication is not such evidence, unless you think the !Kung are not
>as smart, or as "evolutionarily advanced", as the residents of
>Johannisburg. On the other hand, I would consider the Lascaux paintings
>(and other similar artifacts) to be good evidence that our ancestors
>were as inherently bright as we are today. The invention of agriculture
>was therefore not the result of some increase in intelligence.
Fred seems to be wanting to bring back orthogenesis or some such.
Anyhow, my recent reading on flint knapping has given me yet another
data point for 'yes, the ancestors really were bright'. I'll speak to
my own original ignorance, though I suspect it's shared.
Initial thought about 'stone age' was partly bafflement that edged
stone tools showed up before ground stone tools (this remains). But
also the thought of 'how hard can it be to whack out a basic arrowhead
or lower paleolithic 'hand axe'?' Turns out, very. Even for the lower
paleolithic hand axe (some question marks as to what they were actually
used for, but modern test strongly suggests that it wasn't as an axe),
substantial control is required in just identifying workable materials.
Most stones cannot be knapped. Many that can be are shrouded by
unworkable material around the workable part -- you have to identify
that inside this otherwise boring rock is workable material.
Once you have workable material, you have to ... work it. This is
not a matter of simply whacking your target rock with some other rock.
Apparently, the whacker needs to be comparable mass to the whackee.
The line of whacking must be chosen carefully; too shallow a blow or
too steep a blow can shatter your target rock. Striking too far back
from the target point, again can shatter (and shatter-bits are not good
bits). If you're lucky, you simply get nothing for your efforts.
The target point itself has to be chosen well, as well. Not only the
right distance from the edge of the rock (3-6 mm), struck at the right
angle, but also chosen such that the shock cone can slice away material
that will be useful to have slice away. Choose wrong, and all you
do is bash stone, and never leave a suitably modified core.
To be a lower paleolithic knapper requires pretty good field geological
knowledge (i.e., being able to identify the rocks worth working with,
or, adding a skill, to trade reasonably for good ones), and a very good
practical knowledge of three dimensional geometry to visualize the
intersections of the shock cones (from your blows) with the rock you're
working, including to make allowances for internal cleavage planes
or heterogeneities within the rocks.
... And that's for the easy stuff -- hard hammmer flaking.
Oldowan industry dates with early H. erectus, and down to Acheulean and
Mousterian (Early H. neanderthalensis to early H. sapiens, with
some large error bars as the 1994 text seems to be including neanderthal
with H. sapiens -- in any case, Mousterian is shown between 40 and 125 kya,
Acheulean clearly H. erectus-available, but anywhere on the chart
between 125 kya and 2 Mya.) With Mousterian, tools are getting more
complex, but the techniques are mostly more of the same.
Soft hammer and pressure flaking are much more intellectually
difficult (as I read the book). The basic ideas of hard hammer
are not difficult to grasp. Soft hammer and pressure ... very
much more difficult, or so I read it. We'll see what happens when
I start attempting to knap.
_Flintknapping: Making & Understanding Stone Tools_, John C.
Whittaker, University of Texas Press, Austin, 1994.
ISBN 0-292-79083-x
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
John Vreeland
I've heard a few over the years, including an oral history that was
verified genetically, but all these stories have one thing in common:
something changed that forced the people to give up agriculture; they
didn't just give it up as a bad job. Either the climate changed or the
people were compelled to leave their fertile lands.
John Harshman
> "John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:eSYBe.3569$Rv7....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>In what sense does "grow up" or "age" apply to a species?
>
> Species are born, they evolve through their life, and then they die. The
> members of a species are born, they evolve through their life, and they die.
> It does not seem so farfetched that they follow analogous patterns
> throughout their lives.
I'm afraid the problem here lies in the word "evolve". Individuals do
not evolve in the modern sense (though originally what we call
development today was called evolution -- never mind, the meanings of
words change over time). People do not evolve. Homo sapiens evolves.
>>What is the
>>mechanism by which species grow up or age?
>
>
> As with members of a species, each species evolves through its time of life.
Is growing up synonymous with evolving? Why should that be? Do species
become adult species? If so, how do you tell when a species is adult?
>>Do all species do this, or
>>only Homo sapiens?
>
> Of course. This sounds like a joke questin.
No. I'm trying to make sense of what you are saying. I have to probe its
boundaries.
>>And how do you know the answers to any of these
>>questions?
>
>
> How does anyone know the answer to any questions?
There is a bundle of methods called science which I find helpful in this
regard. It involves finding evidence and testing hypotheses. However,
I'm not sure that we have a hypothesis to test so far, rather than a
vague analogy between growth and evolution.
Fred
wrote in message news:WUZBe.3293$wN3....@fe07.lga...
> Of course our first ancestors would have understood the idea of
> seasonal changes, to include the movements of the sun and the
> moon.
I wonder why you believe this. Do you have some evidence for this, or are
you just speculating?
> I'm not sure what you're getting at. Hunter/gatherers are
> intimately familiar with quite subtle changes in their
> environment.
All modern hunter/gatherers have evolved over a large amount of fime.
> Had they not known about changes in, for instance, the length of
> the day, or the phase of the moon they would have most likely
> failed to reproduce.
Why must this follow? Dogs can reproduce without this knowledge.
> These astronomical changes were related to
> the availability of animal and plant resources, as well as
> seasonal weather patterns.
Dogs get along just fine without this knowledge. Why must they have needed
it?
> I am curious as to what evidence you have that suggests the
> first Homo sapiens, much less the first Homo sapiens sapiens, had
> to learn this stuff over a very, very long time.
Our ancestors, before our species came to be, were much like other animals.
The progenitors of our species were not sapient in the same way that we are
now. Do you think that one day our species came to be and that these animals
instantly went from having no concept of a past or a future, as with other
animals, to understanding something as complex as a pattern that takes a
year to repeat? Do you think that our species developed this ability
instantly? If not instantly, do you think that it happened within a couple
of years? I think that it took a long time.
Fred
> Even granting the confusion over word usage, I still don't think you
> get it. People tell you that a 50,000 year old human, if suddenly
> brought to life (actually, if brought into the world as a newborn
> baby) would be indistinguishable from a modern human in appearance,
> demeanor, intelligence, and abilities. Do you still claim otherwise?
I didn't realize that if people tell me so that I am supposed to recognize
the immediate and obvious truth value of their statements. Thank you for
being so kind as to let me know that when "people" make statements I should
immediately accept what they say.
> Do you have any evidence that the genetic composition of humans has
> changed significantly, other than perhaps some superficial appearance
> aspects, in that time?
I think that it is time to drop this subject. I have stated NUMEROUS times
that I do not think that this has anything at all to do with genetic
composition, but you seem to ignore what I say and respond to something
else.
TomS
<qe9gd1pm5ic4stvd9...@4ax.com>, Mark Isaak stated..."
[...snip...]
>Another question comes to mind: Has any culture adopted agriculture
>and then abandoned it again? (I mean going back to hunter/gathering,
>not to working with computers).
Would you count fishing? Some recent societies have taken up
fishing as a principal means of earning a living.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"What power of mental vision enabled your master Plato to discern the ...
process which ... the deity adopted in building the structure of the universe?
..a system that seems to be the result of idle theorizing rather than of real
research" Cicero: De Natura Deorum 1.8.19
John Harshman
The problem here is your word usage. You are throwing around "evolution"
and "growth" indiscriminately to refer to what happens to individual
people and what happens to species, and to refer to cultural,
developmental, and perhaps (this isn't clear) genetic changes. Nobody
can tell at any given moment what the heck you are talking about, and
you seem to have no interest in clarifying.
What we have established is that you don't think that a baby born 50,000
years ago, transported to the modern world, and raised by a modern
family, would turn into an adult like a modern adult. We're all trying
to figure out why you have this opinion. If it has nothing to do with
genetics, then I'm stumped.
floyd
That's to be expected, really. If it was working better for them than
any available alternative, they'd have stuck with it. But the same is
almost certainly true of why they took up farming to begin with; some
combination of climate, population and other, less easily quantified
historical, social and cultural factors were certainly involved.
But as a counter example, I do recall Turnbull (1961) mentioning that
the government of Zaire (Congo) had attempted to get the Mbuti to start
farming, even offering them land, but after a few years, most abandoned
it to go back to the forest. Turnbull describes coming across a few of
those abandoned farms while travelling through the forest. The land
the government assigned to them was mainly patches in the tropical
forest, where soil quality was low and unproductive, and although
Turnbull doesn't discuss it in much detail, the ratio of calories spent
to calories returned was almost certainly better for mobile foraging
than for sedentary farming.
People are generally smart enough to figure out "which job pays better"
and to go with that. The high returns per unit of land that are
possible with agriculture usually make it a better deal when land is a
limiting resource or when the local wild biota is not very productive.
Food, even when it requires more work, is a necessity, and people are
smart enough to try to get the highest caloric returns on their energy
investment. If that's through farming, they'll farm, if it's not, they
won't. The Morioris left Aotearoa (New Zealand) where their ancestors
and their cousins continued farming successfully, but the Chatham
Islands were too far south for taro, tuber and paper mulberry
cultivation to be productive and they gave it up.
But this "science by anecdote" approach is obviously pretty sterile
(and IMO one of the worst aspects of contemporary archaeology, but
that's a topic for a whole post in itself and I've already consumed
tooo much bandwidth in this thread! ;-) You're right that something has
to change to upset the selective ballance for people to alter their
economic system. Whether that "something" is a climate shift, local
overpopulation, government interference or some other factor is an
empirical issue that needs to be addressed on a case by case basis, but
I agree that there is always some change in the selective environment
that inspires the shift. Sometimes the change is "external" to the
social group (e.g. climate), and sometimes it's "internal" (e.g.
introduced or invented technology) and the boundaries between what is
"internal" and what is "external" are pretty fuzzy and permeable.
[/logorhea]
shane
> SHANE:
>
> The point of my response to Ray in that thread, was to show that he had
>
> made a statement about Crick without giving a reference, or any
> evidence
> that the statement was true. In spite of being asked to supply a
> reference he never did. Does anyone here, other than Ray actually
> believe Francis Crick said that space aliens WERE RESPONSIBLE for life
> on earth, emphasis mine? Or rather that Crick sad that space aliens MAY
>
> heve been responsible ...?
>
> RAY:
>
> I did post a reference/link about Crick - you even re-pasted it in a
> reply to me here:
>
Poor Ray, so many claims so easily refuted. The link Ray posted, as I
pointed out at the time, is not to a direct Crick statement, nor even to
a book written by Crick, it is to a review of a Crick book. As the quote
is not referenced, in all likelihood it does not appear in the actual
book but is a paraphrase of what someone believes Crick is saying. It is
stretching things a little for Ray to then say that the words he quotes
are Crick's, they are not said to be in the link Ray posted.
Now maybe Ray knows from another source that Crick said ET's WERE
RESPONSIBLE for life on earth, But that is implausible, as wouldn't Ray
then cite the more accurate source? My conclusion, which Ray can quite
easily show to be wrong, is that Ray has never read Cricks book, has no
idea if the material he quotes is accurate or not and is therefore most
likely spreading at best, a slanted opinion, and at worst, lies, about
Crick. But does Ray care? Will he go and do some research into Cricks
actual words, or will Ray ignore all this and imagine it never happened?
Over to you, Ray, can you provide a reference or any evidence that the
statement you made about Crick is true?
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/884982f5a8efc973?dmode=source
>
> I provided what you wrongly assert here:
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/59c4c2a2d69bf02f?dmode=source
>
> I did show that Francis Crick postulated the crackpot theory of space
> aliens as is common knowledge.
>
No the link that Ray posted shows nothing about Crick's position. It is
merely notes from a book review. Ray should quote, or cite Cricks actual
words if you want to make a comment about Crick.
> You evaded the link and its embarrassing facts about Crick.
>
Evaded the link, yeah right, at face value you would think that i had
not answered Ray in the other thread. Well in order to show that Ray is
plain lying, here is my response to Ray's posting of the above link in
the "...Aliens ..." thread;
"Ray appears to think that the comments in the above linked site, which
is merely a review of Crick's book(s), is evidence of Crick's position.
I rather suspect that Ray has not read Crick's book(s) and so may be
guilty of spreading lies...."
So Ray where is that evasion, where is the embarrassment, and most
importantly where in that link are the facts about Crick.
> Here is the specific page if you want it again:
>
> http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist11.htm#Rocket%20Sperm
>
See comments about this site above. Ray, apparently, just does not get
the point, this is not a site you would use to quote Crick or establish
his position on a subject. It is a site you would use to quote opponents
of Crick, and establish their position with respect to Crick.
> Now tell me Shane and any Darwinist for that matter:
>
> Why are you suddenly silent in making fun of christians who have
> extraterrestial beliefs (albeit none say space aliens are repsonsible
> for life on this planet) but will not give Mark Isaak and Crick the
> same treatment ?
>
I would be very interested in why Ray thinks I have made fun (note the
change here from the previous RM post, at that time i was supposed to be
"vilifying" them, now i am "making fun" of them) of christian in the
manner he says, as I have always been silent on the subject of
christians who have extraterrestial beliefs. In simplistic terms belief
in god is an extraterrestial belief, as god resides in heaven, not
earth; and i do not make fun of christians because of their beliefs. So,
ISTM, Ray has used an incorrect premise and, not surprisingly, arrived
at an incorrect conclusion. But perhaps Ray is correct, I wonder why he
is then so reticent in submitting any evidence to show that he is
correct, modesty perhaps?
As for Mark Isaak and Francis Crick, well i will treat them the same way
as christians, I will not make fun of them if they have extraterrestial
beliefs, not that I have any reason to think that they have such beliefs.
> Romans says God turns you into a sophisticated moron as a penalty for
> denying Him Creator status.
>
Well someone named Romans may say that, but if Ray is saying that the
biblical book of Romans does so, then he again will need to provide a
little bit of support for the assertion.
> Isaak and Crick evidence the claim very nicely.
>
Hands up all those who think that Ray is making any sort of sense here?
As Ray has not given any evidence that either Mark Isaak or Francis
Crick are the way Ray believes they are, I think it best to characterise
Ray's claim as assertion without evidence.
> You evos have zero credibility and show how evil you are to advocate
> space aliens rather than accept the massive evidence for God.
>
I wonder who Ray is talking to here. Just who has been shown to
"advocate space aliens rather than accept the massive evidence for God",
certainly no-one that I am aware of, by any evidence that Ray has
produced.
> Suddenly your pseudo rational minds are quacks. Please do not ever
> again go ad hom on anyone for perceived irrational beliefs until you
> justify space aliens with solid scientific evidence.
>
If only Ray could point out the ad hominem attacks he was talking about,
as i couldn't see any in my previous post; but perhaps i did not look
far enough afield and Ray meant this one;
<start re-post>
Josephus:
You fucking asshole piece of shit coward.
This is a CLOSED topic but your rage made you ignore what everyone else
respects.
Now, I suppose I will have your guilt shifted upon me for blowtorching
your stupid ass as the violator of the rule will undoubtedly be held
less detestable than the person pointing out the wrong.
Your kind will undoubtedly be more upset with my choice of words than
your inexcusable violation of this closed topic.
As for your content: Read all my posts in this thread as I unfold
WHERE in the Bible I quote.
Fuck you,
Ray Martinez
<end re-post>
> All the talk your kind does about "scientific evidence alone is our
> basis" .....space aliens ?
>
Does anyone, and I include Ray in this, know what that is all about?
> LOL !
>
> LOL !
>
Ahhh, if only Ray spent less time in laughing and more time in research
or explaination.
> Ray Martinez
>
--
shane
And the truth shall set you free.
Ray Martinez
Its over.
Ray Martinez
"and the truth shall set you free" --Jesus Christ, N.T.
context of quote: the gospel/way of faith apart from the works of
Mosaic law to relate to God.
Mark Isaak
wrote:
>Lurkers:
>
>Mark Isaak believes man evolved from an ape, so I guess space aliens is
>conducive with the former.
>
>Ray Martinez
Ray, did becoming a creationist deprive you of a sense of humor, or
did your lack of humor cause you to become a creationist? If the
former, I highly recommend, for your own welfare, that you reject
creationism immediately. If the latter, I highly recommend, for their
own welfare, that everyone else reject creationism immediately.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Dana Tweedy
> You know Shane the board is wholly fed up with our petty flame war.
You know Ray, you don't speak for "the board". Also most people seem to be
fed up with you, not shane.
>
> Its over.
Ray again takes the "Bold Sir Robin" position.
>
> Ray Martinez
>
> "and the truth shall set you free" --Jesus Christ, N.T.
>
> context of quote: the gospel/way of faith apart from the works of
> Mosaic law to relate to God.
Ray, why do you think you understand the context of anything in the Bible?
DJT
Ray Martinez
Ray, did becoming a creationist deprive you of a sense of humor, or
did your lack of humor cause you to become a creationist?
RAY:
Show me any indicator that you were joking when you advocated what
Crick advocated ?
I suppose this is the only out you have now, after the fact.
But, if you say, it was humorous, then I must accept at face value and
advise that you keep your day job.
BTW, I falsified your theory in my last post to Richard Clayton in our
closed debate.
When are you going to post it on T.O. ?
RM
Tom McDonald
> In message <Mk_Be.169$LC6...@fe06.lga>, Tom McDonald
> <tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net.lga.highwinds-media.com> writes
>
>>>Another question comes to mind: Has any culture adopted agriculture
>>>and then abandoned it again? (I mean going back to hunter/gathering,
>>>not to working with computers).
>>
>> In North America, the Anishnabe (Ojibwa, Chippewa) had been
>>agriculturalists before they were pushed west by white folk pushing on
>>red folk who pushed on other red folk who pushed on them. They gave up
>>agriculture, although they often practiced a limited sort of
>>horticulture. Their main food, etc., sources were gained by hunting and
>>gathering.
>>
>
> descended from agricultural societies which were disrupted by the
> effects of Old-World diseases.
There is some archaeological evidence that there was at least
one culture in the Beni province of Bolivia that practiced
intensive irrigation agriculture, and had some large centers,
perhaps ceremonial, perhaps residential. Some evidence suggests
that this culture existed between about 1400 and 1700 AD.
If this is so, then it is highly likely that some modern h/g
and/or horticulturalists in the area descended from folks who
were settled agriculturalists.
This link takes you to an article from Science, 4 FEBRUARY
2000 VOL287:786-789. It also has a map and some images to orient you: