Are You a Precious Snowflake ? Or Old Dinosaur ?

[Gary]

Are You a Precious Snowflake? Or Old Dinosaur?

Understanding the Slight Cultural Differences to Lessen the Great Divide

Column by Doug Herman.

Some snowflakes are directly related to old dinosaurs. Strange as it seems, some actually
live under the same roof! Not sure how that is possible, what with global warming and
climate change, but they do. Are YOU a snowflake? Or perhaps you’re an old dinosaur, whose
extinction is long awaited by his heirs – I mean snowflake relatives.

Consider the simple act of driving: First thing a snowflake will do, after starting the
car, is check Facebook, Twitter or Instagram. Most snowflakes hold their lectronic binkie
everywhere they go. Called a smart phone, most snowflakes rarely put it down, except to
shower. Maybe not even then, since newer cellphones have now become waterproof and
attachable at the wrist.

To American snowflake patriots, driving while texting is a a sacred Constitutional right,
like the 2nd Amendment of Snowflakedom. Somewhere in the Constitution it is clearly
stated: The Right to Bear Cellphones, Shall Not Be Infringed! Thus most snowflakes hold
tightly to their iPhones while pulling into traffic. Oblivious to everyone else and
endangering themselves and others, they speed along every American highway with cellphones
grasped firmly in hand.

continued --

http://tinyurl.com/yayj4dww

http://www.strike-the-root.com/are-you-precious-snowflake-or-old-dinosaur-understanding-slight-cultural-differences-to-lessen-great

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 16:28:56 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Gary <c...@ubn.com>:

Jonathan? Is that you?
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Gary]

Nope. Whoever he is. I'm Gary. I'm just looking for an interesting group.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Saturday, 14 October 2017 21:35:02 UTC+1, Gary wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 12:10:38 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 16:28:56 -0400, the following appeared
> >in talk.origins, posted by Gary <c...@ubn.com>:
> >
> >>Are You a Precious Snowflake? Or Old Dinosaur?
> >>
> >>Understanding the Slight Cultural Differences to Lessen the Great Divide
> >>
> >>Column by Doug Herman.
> >>
> >>Some snowflakes are directly related to old dinosaurs. Strange as it seems, some actually
> >>live under the same roof! Not sure how that is possible, what with global warming and
> >>climate change, but they do. Are YOU a snowflake? Or perhaps you’re an old dinosaur, whose
> >>extinction is long awaited by his heirs – I mean snowflake relatives.
> >>
> >>Consider the simple act of driving: First thing a snowflake will do, after s

> >Jonathan? Is that you?
>
> Nope. Whoever he is. I'm Gary. I'm just looking for an interesting group.

This group is to discuss evolution with people who
don't believe in it. HTH

[Gary]

I'm sort of undecided. I believe evolution is right in many ways. But I do not have a
lot of confidence in their theory of how man became man. My big problem -- I do not
think man has existed on Earth for 200,000 years. 40,000 ? Maybe.

[Ernest Major]

So do you think that it's the identification, or the dating, of older
fossils and tool sites that is in error? Do you also think that the
diversification rates of mt and Y haplotypes are grossly underestimated?

--
alias Ernest Major

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Oct 15, Gary wrote
(in article<ab27uclm4ub9rv7ka...@4ax.com>):

and what data leads you to this opinion?
> 40,000 ?

and what data leads you to this opinion?
> Maybe.

And what data do you have a problem with?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 16:34:48 -0400, the following appeared

Perhaps you should stop emulating him, and find a *relevant*
group. T.o ain't it...

[jillery]

So what do you think is the theory of how man became man?

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Oct 15, jillery wrote
(in article<b9a7uchalgdqiuoeo...@4ax.com>):

I suspect that there was a woman involved somewhere along the line.

[Gary]

I've read several. My reason for joining this group is my hope to find direction to some
good sources.

[Gary]

Over the years, I've read where evolutionists claimed mans existence has been a lot of
years. What I wonder about is this --- If man has been here (and evolved) for forty
or two hundred thousand years, why did he only gain intelligence about 4,000 to 5,000
years ago ? That is when he began to leave messages.

[Gary]

I have no idea. I suppose it is the lack of written records prior to 4,000 years ago.
Yet man is suppose to have been evolved for 40 to 200 thousand years.

[Ernest Major]

Is that you Bill?

I'll ask the same question. How long should take for a population of a
few thousand hunter-gatherers spread out over a subcontinental area with
technology consider of stone tools and fire and perhaps a few other
simple products such as bags woven from vines to develop modern
technology. Show your work.

Have you considered the concept of social capital? That the capabilities
of a society is based not only on the inherent abilities of its members,
but also on its accumulated infrastructure and knowledge.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

On 15/10/2017 20:06, Gary wrote:

Apart from the strange concept that humans only became intelligent
4-5,000 years ago, cave art is rather older than, as are petroglyphs in
Australia, and no doubt other human production of symbols.

I refer you to the concept of social capital again.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Oct 15, Gary wrote

(in article<1ua7uclv861r87fiu...@4ax.com>):

who wrote it, where was it written, and how many is ‘a lot of years’.

> What I wonder about is this --- If man has been here (and evolved) for
> forty
> or two hundred thousand years, why did he only gain intelligence about 4,000
> to 5,000

how do you define ‘gain intelligence’? and what in Christ Jesus’ name
do you think allowed the various stone and pottery-handling techniques of the
Neolithic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic), or even the Paleolithic
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic) eras? Softly falling rain?

>
> years ago ? That is when he began to leave messages.

son, there are cave drawings from the _Paleolithic_, 15,000-25,000 years
back!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_Altamira_and_Paleolithic_Cave_Art_of_Nor
thern_Spain
If that’s not ‘messages’, what the hell is!

[jillery]

Do you know Bill? He's another poster with the same mistaken idea.

You conflate intelligence with knowledge. Knowledge is proved and
retained intelligence. You are correct that the dissemination of
knowledge was dramatically increased in breadth and speed by the
invention of reading and writing and something upon which to write
that is durable and easy to manipulate and transport and store.

And before all that, humans needed to invent agriculture, in order to
support the number of people required to make reading and writing
useful as a means of transporting ideas.

There are television productions on the history of technology which
illustrate how new inventions are dependent on prior inventions. One
is James Burke's "Connections". Another is Jacob Bronowksi's "Ascent
of Man" Both are available on DVD. Perhaps your local library has
them.

[Mark Isaak]

Why do you follow fake news websites?


--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[Gary]

The cave art displays a mentality roughly equal to a three year old of today.

[jillery]

Either you have never seen Altamira cave paintings, or typical
three-year-old's paintings. From the cited article:

************************************************
Due to the supreme artistic quality, and the exceptional state of
conservation of the paintings, Sautuola was even accused of forgery,
************************************************

You would be lucky to have the talent displayed at Altamira.

[Gary]

You're right. Maybe I used the wrong phrase. I think the intelligence might well
have existed in early man (5 to 40 thousand years ago) but he had not acquired enough
knowledge to improve his life. Why not ? I'm sure several reasons are possible.
I would suggest the lack of a fluent language. Can we even "think" without a
language ? I doubt it.

My thought is that about 5,000 years ago, Aliens (of some sort) came to Earth. They
probably were sort of human themselves. Seeing humans drag around the caves with the
lack of "knowledge" of an ape -- they decided to teach him a human language and raise him
to an advanced level.

With the knowledge acquired with this language -- man begin to read and write. Then to
leave records. About a thousand years later -- he began to build pyramids. Then --
4,000 years later -- he put a man on the moon. After laying around for about 40,000
years -- he sure covered a lot of ground in 4,000.

All thanks to Aliens who brought him out of his human/animal period (of 35,000 years)

That is one way the Aliens may have helped man. There could be others. I have no
idea -- what they did -- but I really believe that Aliens helped early humans advance.
My reading tells me that evolutionists believe man has been evolved for from 40,000 to
250,000 years. Fine ! But why did it take them so long to become smart enough to
make records. (Or ... do anything worth recording).

Just few personal thoughts on the subject.

[Gary]

Art -- cave or otherwise -- does not require intelligence. Only a lot of colors and a
mental picture to reproduce.

>I refer you to the concept of social capital again.

Wiki has a lot on the subject. I'll read it later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 15:06:22 -0400, the following appeared

You are laboring under a serious misapprehension; actually,
several of them, the most egregious being that humans
weren't intelligent before 5kya.

[Ernest Major]

Have you tried to produce it yourself?

>
>> I refer you to the concept of social capital again.
>
> Wiki has a lot on the subject. I'll read it later.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital
>

Be careful; I wasn't using the term in precisely the same sense. I was
referring to the whole capital of a society - institutions,
infrastructure and information.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Mark Isaak]

The cave art displays far more sophisticated talent than I myself am
capable of. FAR more. And I am quite a bit older than three years old.

[jillery]

Yes, language was very important to help spread knowledge. But I'm
not sure why you think ETs are more likely, for which there is no
evidence, than small changes to FOXP2 gene and others, which are known
to exist.

[Gary]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 17:18:20 +0100, Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 16/10/2017 17:07, Gary wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 21:45:29 +0100, Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 15/10/2017 20:06, Gary wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 13:08:18 -0400, Wolffan <aklwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2017 Oct 15, Gary wrote

>>>>> and what data leads you to this opinion?
>>>>>> 40,000 ?
>>>>>
>>>>> and what data leads you to this opinion?
>>>>>> Maybe.
>>>>>
>>>>> And what data do you have a problem with?
>>>>
>>>> Over the years, I've read where evolutionists claimed mans existence has been a lot of
>>>> years. What I wonder about is this --- If man has been here (and evolved) for forty
>>>> or two hundred thousand years, why did he only gain intelligence about 4,000 to 5,000
>>>> years ago ? That is when he began to leave messages.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Apart from the strange concept that humans only became intelligent
>>> 4-5,000 years ago, cave art is rather older than, as are petroglyphs in
>>> Australia, and no doubt other human production of symbols.
>>
>> Art -- cave or otherwise -- does not require intelligence. Only a lot of colors and a
>> mental picture to reproduce.
>
>Have you tried to produce it yourself?

As a kid, I was given a set of oils. I enjoyed painting until I got older and more
interested in other things. I think what painting I did was at least equal to cave
paintings.

>>> I refer you to the concept of social capital again.
>>
>> Wiki has a lot on the subject. I'll read it later.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital
>>
>
>Be careful; I wasn't using the term in precisely the same sense. I was
>referring to the whole capital of a society - institutions,
>infrastructure and information.

OK, my mistake.

[Gary]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 09:16:33 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 15:06:22 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Gary <c...@ubn.com>:
>
>>On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 13:08:18 -0400, Wolffan <aklwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2017 Oct 15, Gary wrote
>>>(in article<ab27uclm4ub9rv7ka...@4ax.com>):
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 15:02:37 -0700 (PDT), Robert

>>>> > This group is to discuss evolution with people who
>>>> > don't believe in it. HTH
>>>>
>>>> I'm sort of undecided. I believe evolution is right in many ways. But I do
>>>> not have a
>>>> lot of confidence in their theory of how man became man. My big problem -- I
>>>> do not
>>>> think man has existed on Earth for 200,000 years.
>>>
>>>and what data leads you to this opinion?
>>>> 40,000 ?
>>>
>>>and what data leads you to this opinion?
>>>> Maybe.
>>>
>>>And what data do you have a problem with?
>>
>>Over the years, I've read where evolutionists claimed mans existence has been a lot of
>>years. What I wonder about is this --- If man has been here (and evolved) for forty
>>or two hundred thousand years, why did he only gain intelligence about 4,000 to 5,000
>>years ago ? That is when he began to leave messages.
>
>You are laboring under a serious misapprehension; actually,
>several of them, the most egregious being that humans
>weren't intelligent before 5kya.

I see no reason to believe they were. What did they leave behind besides a few cave
paintings ? In my opinion the only thing they passed on was --- religion.

I would suggest that the only thing they left for future generations was the stories they
told their children about their contacts with the Aliens, Stories the children passed
along with the suggestion that the Aliens were "gods".

[Bill]

Invoking aliens to explain human development is a waste of
time since there is no way to know. The hypothesis is also
unnecessary in that humans had plenty of time to develop to
skills evidenced in ancient structures. They needed no help.

The whole idea is based on assuming that our ancestors were
primitive when they started building complex structures.
That, in turn, is based on the standard view of history that
human civilization began with Sumer 6-7,000 years ago. This
history ignores anomalies like Gobekli Tepe built about
12,000 years ago.

If Gobekli Tepe was the end of a period during which
sophisticated stone work was developed, we can safely assume
that human technical development began much earlier. We can
further assume that agriculture and domestication of animals
developed at the same (or even earlier) time.

Since all this was during or at the end of an ice age, a
lack of evidence should be expected (sea level rise would
have wiped out most of what existed before then). So, no
aliens needed, humans had plenty of time to progress
technically and socially.

Bill

[jillery]

A difference is cavemen didn't use paint-by-numbers.

>>>> I refer you to the concept of social capital again.
>>>
>>> Wiki has a lot on the subject. I'll read it later.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital
>>>
>>
>>Be careful; I wasn't using the term in precisely the same sense. I was
>>referring to the whole capital of a society - institutions,
>>infrastructure and information.
>
>OK, my mistake.

[Gary]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 17:27:57 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 16:32:18 -0400, Gary <c...@ubn.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 17:18:20 +0100, Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On 16/10/2017 17:07, Gary wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 21:45:29 +0100, Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>>>> Apart from the strange concept that humans only became intelligent
>>>>> 4-5,000 years ago, cave art is rather older than, as are petroglyphs in
>>>>> Australia, and no doubt other human production of symbols.
>>>>
>>>> Art -- cave or otherwise -- does not require intelligence. Only a lot of colors and a
>>>> mental picture to reproduce.
>>>
>>>Have you tried to produce it yourself?
>>
>>As a kid, I was given a set of oils. I enjoyed painting until I got older and more
>>interested in other things. I think what painting I did was at least equal to cave
>>paintings.
>
>
>A difference is cavemen didn't use paint-by-numbers.

I never have, either.

[Gary]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 15:45:57 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>jillery wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 12:03:43 -0400, Gary <c...@ubn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 19:36:12 -0400, jillery
>>><69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 15:06:22 -0400, Gary <c...@ubn.com>

What you say is interesting. And let me repeat -- I am trying to learn more about this
subject. I'll check out Gobekli Tepe.

Let me give one reason this subject of the ancient civilizations interest me. It is
because I wonder why almost all religions seem to have a basic belief that their gods came
from "up there". Why not from the Earth -- that they thought flat ? Or under the
Earth ? Why "up there" -- unless they had seen something fly off "up there" ?

[Bill]

I have no idea. But consider that modern humans developed
the technology we take for granted now in around 200 years.
Before that there was little we would recognize as even
minimally technically sophisticated - for thousands of
years.

We know what could have been done even 100,000 years ago
but, since an ice age probably erased everything, most of
the evidence is gone. Our present age shows what has always
been possible, no need for alien intervention.

Because humans have been around long enough to build
elaborate societies 10's of thousands of years ago, we can
suppose that the less advanced people might have believed
the most advanced humans were gods. Evidence for this
possibility is at least attainable.

Bill

[raven1]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 16:28:56 -0400, Gary <c...@ubn.com> wrote:

What the hell are you babbling about, and why do you think it's
relevant here?

>Are You a Precious Snowflake? Or Old Dinosaur?
>
>Understanding the Slight Cultural Differences to Lessen the Great Divide
>
>Column by Doug Herman.
>
>Some snowflakes are directly related to old dinosaurs. Strange as it seems, some actually
>live under the same roof! Not sure how that is possible, what with global warming and
>climate change, but they do. Are YOU a snowflake? Or perhaps you’re an old dinosaur, whose
>extinction is long awaited by his heirs – I mean snowflake relatives.
>

[Robert Carnegie]

Clouds, and rain, snow, thunder and lightning,
may be sufficient explanation for a perceived need
to pay attention to the people in the sky and not
offend them.

And anyway you're overlooking the god of the sea,
the god of the underworld, the god of the forest,
maybe others.

If you don't actually see gods around then they must
be living somewhere inaccessible like that, right?

Offhand, I don't know how confident scientists are
that there weren't a lot fewer smart people and more
dummies a hundred thousand years ago. However, there's
a notion that we got intelligent in order to keep track
of our social network of friends, rivals, and enemies.

More generally, you may be interested to read some
of the articles at, <http://www.talkorigins.org>

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 21:33:02 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by raven1
<quotht...@nevermore.com>:

>On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 16:28:56 -0400, Gary <c...@ubn.com> wrote:
>
>What the hell are you babbling about, and why do you think it's
>relevant here?

He managed to convert it to an on-topic discussion, even if
it took a while.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 16:32:19 -0400, the following appeared

I know you don't; to you, increasing intelligence is
indicated by increasing technical expertise. It's not. The
people who invented the integrated circuit were almost
assuredly no more intelligent than those who invented the
steam engine (or for that matter, the war chariot); they
simply had a greater fund of knowledge to draw upon.

In fact, an argument could be made (and has) that greater
intelligence was required *before* high tech became
available, simply because the less intelligent would have
had poorer survival rates prior to social "safety nets".

(And no, jonathan, that observation doesn't make me a
"Nazi", so piss off.)

> What did they leave behind besides a few cave
>paintings ? In my opinion the only thing they passed on was --- religion.

Your opinion is incorrect; the ability to create
sophisticated tools, even if metalworking hadn't been
invented yet, is sufficient evidence of intelligence;
manufactured clothing, baskets and pottery is another. And
despite your disparagement of cave art it *is* art, and
shows quite clearly that Paleolithic humans weren't simple
beasts, but people.

>I would suggest that the only thing they left for future generations was the stories they
>told their children about their contacts with the Aliens, Stories the children passed
>along with the suggestion that the Aliens were "gods".

A von Daniken, fan, huh? OK, that's *your* problem, not
mine.

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <9sccuc1lojedvjton...@4ax.com>,

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> In fact, an argument could be made (and has) that greater
> intelligence was required *before* high tech became
> available, simply because the less intelligent would have
> had poorer survival rates prior to social "safety nets".
>
> (And no, jonathan, that observation doesn't make me a
> "Nazi", so piss off.)

I think even more important than the lack of safety-nets was the fact
that there was much less specialization, meaning each individual needed
to be skilled at everything. One specialization became more prevalent,
intelligence was less critical for the individual as long as there were
enough intelligent individuals to maintain the group as a whole.

Andre

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.

[Bill]

The phenomenon is explained here:

http://misplacedfacts.org/entropy.html

Bill

[Gary]

That is interesting.

[Gary]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 17:51:59 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Gary wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 15:45:57 -0500, Bill

I can't find anything where our ancestors built civilizations prior to about 3,000 BC.

[Gary]

I am not a total "true believer" in ETs, but it does seem a reasonable explanation that
fills in some things about out history.

[Gary]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:01:01 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 16:32:19 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Gary <c...@ubn.com>:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 09:16:33 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 15:06:22 -0400, the following appeared
>>>in talk.origins, posted by Gary <c...@ubn.com>:

I read his Chariots of the Gods several years ago. Don't remember much about it.

[jillery]

Either way. So what about ETs are reasonable to you? What things do
you think ETs fill better than non-ET explanations? Be specific.

[Mark Isaak]

Are you aware that early civilization caused lifespans to *decrease*?
Perhaps the fact that earlier humans did not develop civilization
indicates that they were smart enough not to.

[Bill]

You haven't looked hard enough. Gobekli Tepe has been dated
to around 11600 years ago. Because of its complexity and the
skill required to build it, we can assume that they had
agriculture, the domestication of animals and a
sophisticated social structure. This site deserves more
study and affects how we should think about history.

What's even more interesting is that the accepted view is
that civilization originated with Sumer which didn't develop
for another 6000 years or so.

Going even further, science and technology as we understand
it now, didn't change until about another 6000 after Sumer.
All of this leads to other interesting avenues of thought,
even if we don't think about it.

>
> Are you aware that early civilization caused lifespans to
> *decrease*? Perhaps the fact that earlier humans did not
> develop civilization indicates that they were smart enough
> not to.
>

At times human life spans have been considerable less than
now, even as late as the early 20th century. It does not
follow that civilization is a factor. During the 20th
century millions died violently and yet the human population
increased and the average life span increased and the
standard of living improved for most. What to make of that I
wonder ...

Bill

[Gary]

Right now I have no firm beliefs. I am simply trying to find answers. But I do "lean"
toward ETs. I am one of those rare birds --- "a seeker after truth". Unlike most
people -- I have not had the truth since childhood :-)

[jillery]

How you describe it is unimportant. So what is it about ETs that you
"lean toward" them?

"Seekers after truth" who rely on vague platitudes like "lean toward"
are a dime a dozen. You will do yourself a big favor if you think
through what you believe and be specific.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 12:38:58 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Andre G. Isaak"
<agi...@gm.invalid>:

>In article <9sccuc1lojedvjton...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> In fact, an argument could be made (and has) that greater
>> intelligence was required *before* high tech became
>> available, simply because the less intelligent would have
>> had poorer survival rates prior to social "safety nets".
>>
>> (And no, jonathan, that observation doesn't make me a
>> "Nazi", so piss off.)
>
>I think even more important than the lack of safety-nets was the fact
>that there was much less specialization, meaning each individual needed
>to be skilled at everything. One specialization became more prevalent,
>intelligence was less critical for the individual as long as there were
>enough intelligent individuals to maintain the group as a whole.

Valid point, IMHO. Jonathan seemed to think that noting a
fact was equivalent to endorsing a particular set of actions
related to that fact; in this case the eugenics practiced by
Nazi Germany in their futile attempt to "improve the breed".
Of course, jonathan tends toward monomania...

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:14:19 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Gary <c...@ubn.com>:

>On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:01:01 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 16:32:19 -0400, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by Gary <c...@ubn.com>:
>>
>>>On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 09:16:33 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 15:06:22 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>in talk.origins, posted by Gary <c...@ubn.com>:
>
>>>>>Over the years, I've read where evolutionists claimed mans existence has been a lot of
>>>>>years. What I wonder about is this --- If man has been here (and evolved) for forty
>>>>>or two hundred thousand years, why did he only gain intelligence about 4,000 to 5,000
>>>>>years ago ? That is when he began to leave messages.
>>>>
>>>>You are laboring under a serious misapprehension; actually,
>>>>several of them, the most egregious being that humans
>>>>weren't intelligent before 5kya.
>>
>>>I see no reason to believe they were.
>>
>>I know you don't; to you, increasing intelligence is
>>indicated by increasing technical expertise. It's not. The
>>people who invented the integrated circuit were almost
>>assuredly no more intelligent than those who invented the
>>steam engine (or for that matter, the war chariot); they
>>simply had a greater fund of knowledge to draw upon.

[Crickets...]

>>In fact, an argument could be made (and has) that greater
>>intelligence was required *before* high tech became
>>available, simply because the less intelligent would have
>>had poorer survival rates prior to social "safety nets".
>>
>>(And no, jonathan, that observation doesn't make me a
>>"Nazi", so piss off.)
>>
>>> What did they leave behind besides a few cave
>>>paintings ? In my opinion the only thing they passed on was --- religion.
>>
>>Your opinion is incorrect; the ability to create
>>sophisticated tools, even if metalworking hadn't been
>>invented yet, is sufficient evidence of intelligence;
>>manufactured clothing, baskets and pottery is another. And
>>despite your disparagement of cave art it *is* art, and
>>shows quite clearly that Paleolithic humans weren't simple
>>beasts, but people.

[Crickets...]

>>>I would suggest that the only thing they left for future generations was the stories they
>>>told their children about their contacts with the Aliens, Stories the children passed
>>>along with the suggestion that the Aliens were "gods".

>>A von Daniken, fan, huh? OK, that's *your* problem, not
>>mine.

>I read his Chariots of the Gods several years ago. Don't remember much about it.

It's a fantasy, one which is filled with "facts" taken out
of context and with cherry-picked "data"; your contentions
regarding aliens as teachers mimics it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:56:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Andre G. Isaak wrote:
>
>> In article <9sccuc1lojedvjton...@4ax.com>,
>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>>> In fact, an argument could be made (and has) that greater
>>> intelligence was required *before* high tech became
>>> available, simply because the less intelligent would have
>>> had poorer survival rates prior to social "safety nets".
>>>
>>> (And no, jonathan, that observation doesn't make me a
>>> "Nazi", so piss off.)
>>
>> I think even more important than the lack of safety-nets
>> was the fact that there was much less specialization,
>> meaning each individual needed to be skilled at
>> everything. One specialization became more prevalent,
>> intelligence was less critical for the individual as long
>> as there were enough intelligent individuals to maintain
>> the group as a whole.

>The phenomenon is explained here:
>
>http://misplacedfacts.org/entropy.html

There are also many things explained here:

http://www.theonion.com/

[Bill]

Von Daniken's conclusions are less important than the
curiosities he elevated to common knowledge. Same with
Sitchin and Velikovsky. What matters is not their
interpretations but the phenomena they popularized. That, at
least, is useful. Also very entertaining.

Bill

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 19:40:02 UTC+1, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
> In article <9sccuc1lojedvjton...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> > In fact, an argument could be made (and has) that greater
> > intelligence was required *before* high tech became
> > available, simply because the less intelligent would have
> > had poorer survival rates prior to social "safety nets".
> >
> > (And no, jonathan, that observation doesn't make me a
> > "Nazi", so piss off.)
>
> I think even more important than the lack of safety-nets was the fact
> that there was much less specialization, meaning each individual needed
> to be skilled at everything. One specialization became more prevalent,
> intelligence was less critical for the individual as long as there were
> enough intelligent individuals to maintain the group as a whole.

I am in doubt that this argument stands up if we're
talking about a "birth of civilisation" event -
specifically that "each individual needed to be
skilled at everything" when for a start, it seems
to me that roles in un-civilised communities were
and are divided between men and women. And if you're
the person with special knowledge then you may teach
it to your own offspring but not to others.

And until recently, chimpanzees weren't doing so badly,
and they are bright chaps but not in our league.

[Mark Isaak]

From the fact that civilization is a factor, it follows that
civilization is a factor in poor health. Civilization crowds more
people together (allowing diseases to spread more easily), keeps people
near their wastes, and often diminishes the variety of nutrients they get.

[Bill]

There are plagues and epidemics and wars and genocide and
still the human population increases, human life spans
increase. Civilization increases the number of opportunities
for people to correct the disasters they create. The
evidence is not in your favor.

A bigger and more immediate threat are cameras on every
corner, the FCC tinkering with Net Neutrality, facial
recognition software and a multitude of similar tactics
civilization provides to keep us healthy and happy.

Bill

[jillery]

Aside from the fact that civilization makes it so much easier to find
enough people to play bridge, it does have some other advantages.

From an evolutionary standpoint, even if what you say above is
correct, civilization still has an advantage in that it supports much
larger numbers of individuals. If those individuals are closely
related, the overall biological fitness of the collective civilization
is greater than the average individuals' fitness living alone, or even
in a small village. One can think of civilization as a giant extended
family, with the economics of a hive.

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Oct 16, Gary wrote
(in article<bq79ucp61se7qjs21...@4ax.com>):

> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:37:04 -0400, Wolffan<aklwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2017 Oct 15, Gary wrote

> > (in article<1ua7uclv861r87fiu...@4ax.com>):

> >
> > > On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 13:08:18 -0400, Wolffan<aklwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 2017 Oct 15, Gary wrote
> > > > (in article<ab27uclm4ub9rv7ka...@4ax.com>):
> > > >

> > > > > On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 15:02:37 -0700 (PDT), Robert
> > > > > Carnegie<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Saturday, 14 October 2017 21:35:02 UTC+1, Gary wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 12:10:38 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 16:28:56 -0400, the following appeared

> > > > > > > > in talk.origins, posted by Gary <c...@ubn.com>:
> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Are You a Precious Snowflake? Or Old Dinosaur?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Understanding the Slight Cultural Differences to Lessen the Great
> > > > > > > > > Divide
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Column by Doug Herman.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Some snowflakes are directly related to old dinosaurs. Strange as it
> > > > > > > > > seems, some actually
> > > > > > > > > live under the same roof! Not sure how that is possible, what with
> > > > > > > > > global warming and
> > > > > > > > > climate change, but they do. Are YOU a snowflake? Or perhaps you’re
> > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > old dinosaur, whose
> > > > > > > > > extinction is long awaited by his heirs – I mean snowflake
> > > > > > > > > relatives.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Consider the simple act of driving: First thing a snowflake will do,
> > > > > > > > > after s

> > > > > > > > Jonathan? Is that you?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nope. Whoever he is. I'm Gary. I'm just looking for an interesting
> > > > > > > group.

> > > > > >
> > > > > > This group is to discuss evolution with people who
> > > > > > don't believe in it. HTH
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm sort of undecided. I believe evolution is right in many ways. But I
> > > > > do
> > > > > not have a
> > > > > lot of confidence in their theory of how man became man. My big problem
> > > > > --
> > > > > I
> > > > > do not
> > > > > think man has existed on Earth for 200,000 years.
> > > >
> > > > and what data leads you to this opinion?
> > > > > 40,000 ?
> > > >
> > > > and what data leads you to this opinion?
> > > > > Maybe.
> > > >
> > > > And what data do you have a problem with?
> > >

> > > Over the years, I've read where evolutionists claimed mans existence has
> > > been
> > > a lot of
> > > years.
> >

> > who wrote it, where was it written, and how many is ‘a lot of years’.

> > > What I wonder about is this --- If man has been here (and evolved) for
> > > forty
> > > or two hundred thousand years, why did he only gain intelligence about
> > > 4,000
> > > to 5,000
> >

> > how do you define ‘gain intelligence’? and what in Christ Jesus’ name
> > do you think allowed the various stone and pottery-handling techniques of
> > the
> > Neolithic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic), or even the Paleolithic
> > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic) eras? Softly falling rain?

> > >
> > > years ago ? That is when he began to leave messages.
> >

> > son, there are cave drawings from the _Paleolithic_, 15,000-25,000 years
> > back!
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_Altamira_and_Paleolithic_Cave_Art_of_N
> > or
> > thern_Spain
> > If that’s not ‘messages’, what the hell is!
>
> The cave art displays a mentality roughly equal to a three year old of today.

oh? Really? O-kay, that establishes just how far out to lunch you are.

[Gary]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 16:28:56 -0400, Gary <c...@ubn.com> wrote:

>Are You a Precious Snowflake? Or Old Dinosaur?
>
>Understanding the Slight Cultural Differences to Lessen the Great Divide

I want to thank all of you who have commented on my posts. Some have been very helpful.
I'm sorry I started off so much "off topic". I will return in the future when I have a
thought about the topic of origins of natural reality.

Until then --- thanks again.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 14:46:41 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

I'll grant "entertaining". Useful, not so much, except as an
example of chicanery.

[Bill]

As I said, what people say something means doesn't
necessarily mean they know what it is. I don't give the
ancient aliens hypothesis any credit because it's
unnecessary; other explanations are more plausible.

Even so, these people did popularize strange and interesting
phenomena that we might not know about otherwise. I suggest
ignoring their claims while pondering their evidence.

Bill

[Mark Isaak]

I will take the actual evidence over the word of someone who eschews
evidence at every opportunity.

Of course civilization is not an unmitigated disaster. From the
beginning it allowed populations to increase, albeit at some expense to
the health of individuals. With the innovation of public sewage
systems, the worst problems went away, and my guess is that at that
point civilization became healthier than its lack.

> A bigger and more immediate threat are cameras on every
> corner, the FCC tinkering with Net Neutrality, facial
> recognition software and a multitude of similar tactics
> civilization provides to keep us healthy and happy.

Those are merely the biggest threats that have captured your attention.
There are bigger ones. Global climate change, financial crash, and
nuclear war come to mind.