| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
Forget Hatty, she's off her trolley. You seemed to have joined her. Always room for one more on top.
| The main implication is that Cro-Magnon must have made his debut as a fully terrestrial animal at about that time. |
How can any species -- especially one as distinctive as Cro-Magnon -- arrive fully formed? Even a partly terrestrial animal would leave fossils. I thought we had established that his fossils had been erased as the reason there are no fossils. Not that he arrived by space ship and set down in Hudson's Bay.
| Before that he must have been permanently located in the sea and on its shoreline. - - |
No, no.. If that was the case we'd find his fossils on the shore line or in the shallow seas or wherever.
| Had he ventured far inland, he would have left a fossil trail... |
Right, so we know he didn't do this.
| so the sea was his environment and he never left it, until he was forced to do so by the advancing ice following the first of Mick's pole shifts. |
No, no, advancing ice would merely mean he would relocate a little way south. Good grief, glacial ice only advances a mile a year or whatever. I'm sure the old chap could have managed that.
| In fact, if Mick's pole positions are correct, not only can we be positive that Northern Canada was the location of this momentous event, but I believe only Hudson Bay would have fulfilled all the criteria. |
Possibly but in AE you have to prove it. I suppose I'd better tell you the correct answer so you can do this. It goes like this
1. Glaciation destroys fossils
2. Since glaciation destroyed all the fossils it follows that glaciation got them all.
3. But that means in turn that Cro-Magnon must have had a direct relationship with the ice otherwise we're reduced to special pleading claiming that it was a fluke that he lived in areas later covered by ice..
4. Only one human culture has a direct relationship with ice -- the Esquimaux.
5. Therefore Cro-Magnon started off as Esquimaux..
The next step is to decide which ice these Esquimaux were attached to. And since we know exactly when Cro-Magnon left the ice (ie when his fossils start turning up in areas that were not glaciated) and we know exactly when the ice last stopped spreading (ie the last time his fossils were erased) you'll be able to work everything out with superb promptitude.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| How can any species -- especially one as distinctive as Cro-Magnon -- arrive fully formed? |
I envisaged him evolving on the shores of Hudson Bay but remaining by the sea as that provided all his needs.
| No, no.. If that was the case we'd find his fossils on the shore line or in the shallow seas or wherever. |
So did that region escape glaciation after the pole shifted towards North America?
| No, no, advancing ice would merely mean he would relocate a little way south. Good grief, glacial ice only advances a mile a year or whatever. I'm sure the old chap could have managed that. |
In my model he would remain in Hudson Bay, cut off from the rest of the Arctic Ocean by sea ice (even before the pole shift) then after the pole shift Hudson Bay would eventually freeze up, due to the advancing glaciation, forcing Cro-Magnon inland to look for new food sources.
| 3. But that means in turn that Cro-Magnon must have had a direct relationship with the ice otherwise we're reduced to special pleading claiming that it was a fluke that he lived in areas later covered by ice.. |
If it was his relationship with the ice rather than the sea that kept him in Northern Canada prior to 40,000 BP, he could have wandered off whenever he wished...was he afraid to step off the ice?
Why would a pole shift cause him to move south...why would he not just move further round the Arctic, but stay with the ice he knew and loved?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Look, none of this is part of my thesis which merely requires anatomically-modern-humans to be in Northern Canada before 40,000 BP and nowhere else. Feel free to extemporise on their travails before this date. (Though remember, whatever you posit, all their fossil and archaeological remains must be destroyed.) |
It's not just evidence from Israel (or Africa for that matter -- eg Klasies River) that you need to dispute, but from China and Australia too. For example, 'Mungo Man' (and woman) are dated by bone, teeth enamel and sand deposits -- using Uranium dating, OSL and ESP. They were dated by two independent labs to around 62 000BP in the late 1990s by these methods. This was obviously a challenge to the Out of Africa model and the dates have been forcefully estimated downwards ever since, although both original teams stand by their figures.
You don't, I assume, have any modern human remains dating before 40 000BP in Canada?
I have no problem with a position that is wary of carbon dating beyond calibration, or that is critical of other dating techniques (uranium dating for example) per se. But, to be honest, I am wary in principle of a position that disputes any dating method that can measure before 40 000BP to support a theory that relies on no dating measure being able to find a date prior to 40 000BP, because it has a self-serving component that is hard to ignore. Why am I wrong?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Once again I admire the ingenuity of your argument, Chad, and even acknowledge that I broadly agree with a lot of it but there are formidable objections in detail.
| I envisaged him evolving on the shores of Hudson Bay but remaining by the sea as that provided all his needs. |
Look, you have to forget Hudson's Bay and other very specific local aids to assist in your argument. Hudson's Bay, along with the entire geography of Northern Canada, is a product of the Ice Age (or whatever you care to call it). It didn't come into existence until c 12000 BP. Thirty thousand years after the events we are dealing with.
No, no.. If that was the case we'd find his fossils on the shore line or in the shallow seas or wherever.
So did that region escape glaciation after the pole shifted towards North America? |
You must remember that I compiled this theory before Pole Shifts entered the equation but in any case it is no use trying to solve one revisionist problem by recourse to another revisionist theory. The public will never buy it and we don't need it. All you do is draw in lines east-west across an imaginary world map and mark in Glacial Ice, Polar Ice, Edge of Ice etc and then shift them up and down as Ice Ages come and go.
Just envisage the position by using the polar bear's experience currently. He goes back and forth as the ice edge comes and goes (with the seasons) and comes and goes (with the Ice Ages). It's all one to him.
But observe the pattern of his fossil remains relative to the greatest and latest extent of the glaciers. That will solve your Cro-Magnon fossil problem. [Task One]
| In my model he would remain in Hudson Bay, cut off from the rest of the Arctic Ocean by sea ice (even before the pole shift) then after the pole shift Hudson Bay would eventually freeze up, due to the advancing glaciation, forcing Cro-Magnon inland to look for new food sources. |
This is special pleading. If Cro-Magnon can exist in the Arctic he can exist in the Arctic. Sure, some populations might be dealt lethal blows but the species would surely survive anything thrown at them locally.
| If it was his relationship with the ice rather than the sea that kept him in Northern Canada prior to 40,000 BP, he could have wandered off whenever he wished...was he afraid to step off the ice? |
Yes. Again like the polar bear. The ice was his home.
| Why would a pole shift cause him to move south...why would he not just move further round the Arctic, but stay with the ice he knew and loved? |
Exactly. Now you have to think of a factor that would upset this cosy assumption around 40,000 BP. [Task Two] Clearly, since we know from the (lack of) fossil evidence that Cro-Magnon had never left the ice in the entirety of its existence as a species, this something will have to be a factor never available before in... er... the History of Man.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| It's not just evidence from Israel (or Africa for that matter -- eg Klasies River) that you need to dispute, but from China and Australia too. For example, 'Mungo Man' ... They were dated by two independent labs to around 62 000BP in the late 1990s... |
Even if the date of 60,000 BP is correct, it doesn't affect the argument. 'Mungo Man' has been proven to be a genetic dead end. His particular lineage has (like that of the Neanderthals) been shown not to have persisted into the genetic makeup of any group of Modern Man alive today...not even in the fossil remains of Australian Aboriginals from 8,000 BP.
It looks like he was merely a close relative who got off the bus the stop before us.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Even if the date of 60,000 BP is correct, it doesn't affect the argument. 'Mungo Man' has been proven to be a genetic dead end. His particular lineage has (like that of the Neanderthals) been shown not to have persisted into the genetic makeup of any group of Modern Man alive today...not even in the fossil remains of Australian Aboriginals from 8,000 BP |
No, he is modern man -- anatomically modern man.
Are you referring to the mtDNA testing? It strikes me as circular reasoning: The Out of Africa theory posits that all humans are descended from one African living about 200 000BP (or these days about 130 000BP....but when another anatomically human is found whose mtDNA signature 'pre-dates' Eve's....instead of concluding Out of Australia or just dropping Out of Africa or conceding that the mtDNA isn't a an infallible test....the human in question is simply stripped of their human status? With this reasoning, I don't see how you're ever going to get past Out of Africa let alone get to an Out of Canada!
But it is worth noting that yours is a position beyond even the Out of Africist Colin Groves who did the testing who said:
[it's] "not improbable, just extremely interesting" that rare, ancient mtDNA lineages would persist for some time after Eve's signature began its sweep across the world...
Should our test for modern humans routinely ensure they are descended from the Eve mtDNA before we include them in our species?! But I am pretty certain that the 'orthodoxy' accepts Mungo Man as human.....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| No, he is modern man -- anatatomically modern man. |
No, he isn't modern man -- merely anatomically similar.
| Are you referring to the mtDNA testing? It strikes me as circular reasoning: |
I wouldn't dispute the ability of geneticists to establish the relatedness or otherwise of any two or more populations. Where I do draw the line is when they start analyzing mutations within the samples to establish when these population diverged... and which is the older.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| No, he isn't modern man -- merely anatomically similar. |
Chad - please can you reference that for me? I've got books and internet sites here that call him 'modern man'; what is your source?
| I wouldn't dispute the ability of geneticists to establish the relatedness or otherwise of any two or more populations. |
Well in the case of Mungo man they might yet....just not with mtDNA....
| Where I do draw the line is when they start analyzing mutations within the samples to establish when these population diverged... and which is the older. |
Agreed.
This is probably the wrong thread for it - but what dating method dates the glaciation events? I'm guessing that the same set of dating methods overlap with those dating human remains (by the deposits).....is that correct?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| Chad - please can you reference that for me? I've got books and internet sites here that call him 'modern man'; what is your source? |
Claire -- what exactly needs referencing? What I said was simply a statement of fact. All we have is pile of bones which are similar to those of Modern Man.
What makes you and me what we essentially are? Is it our skeletal structure...or is it the structure and functionality of our brains and the way we interact with each other and our environment? ... None of this can be deduced from bones.
Forget Africa and her Mitochondrial Eve...the genetic evidence, for what it.s worth, shows no direct relationship between Mungo Man and Modern Australians of any kind. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest Mungo Man was anything other than a close relative of Modern Man with a familial resemblance.
PS. It's a waste of time asking me to come up with facts and figures to support my arguments...I'm still pretty new to all this (having only recently taken my brain out of storage, after decades in moth balls). I try to rely on logic rather than accumulated data...but I'm happy to change my opinion when my logic is proved flawed. (As Mick and Ishmael frequently demonstrate.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Claire -- what exactly needs referencing? What I said was simply a statement of fact. |
It isn't a statement of fact though -- it's inaccurate ... this is Modern Man in the way we're using the word on this thread.... and that can be referenced. I could just choose to ignore it, but I am looking for a reason to ignore it. All skeletons are piles of bones; I think we need to go beyond that. If not the dating, then the morphology -- but what exactly makes Mungo Man different from Modern Man? Some of the skull is missing: that might be significant?
| Forget Africa and her Mitochondrial Eve...the genetic evidence, for what it.s worth, shows no direct relationship between Mungo Man and Modern Australians of any kind. |
What caught my eye was this: (Mungo Man is LM3):
"In 1995, Professor Svante Pddbo and a colleague Hans Zischler, working at the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics in Berlin, announced in the journal Nature they had discovered an mtDNA insert on chromosome 11. The insert is quite rare, but widespread in living humans around the globe, including Africans. Minor variations on the original theme revealed it is less than a million years old. Improbably, the extinct mtDNA lineage from which the insert was derived has now turned up in the skeleton of an anatomically modern Australian. After 60,000 years, LM3's bones have yielded up their astonishing secret to modern science."
There is a significant portion of the Australian anthropological community who believe that Mungo Man fits well into a transitional fossil record as part of a multi-regional theory for Modern Australians.
PS. It's a waste of time asking me to come up with facts and figures to support my arguments...I'm still pretty new to all this (having only recently taken my brain out of storage, after decades in moth balls). I try to rely on logic rather than accumulated data...but I'm happy to change my opinion when my logic is proved flawed. (As Mick and Ishmael frequently demonstrate.)
|
Either you're making statements of fact or it's a waste of time asking you to come up with them!
This makes no difference to Mick or Ishmael's logic, I have a high regard for both of theirs. You use logic to come up with theories, but then you look for evidence to support it. I'm asking how this evidence (of Mungo Man) fits.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Possibly but in AE you have to prove it. I suppose I'd better tell you the correct answer so you can do this. It goes like this
1. Glaciation destroys fossils
2. Since glaciation destroyed all the fossils it follows that glaciation got them all. |
This is a silly question I know but someone needs to ask it: Canada has plenty of dinosaur fossils.... why wouldn't human fossils survive in the same way?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
I am in the process of preparing answers to your previous posts, Claire, but given its importance perhaps I could slip in a quickie here and ask for a Canadian dinosaur fossil? This would indeed destroy the entire theory with one bound so I await your answer with trepidation..
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| ...but what exactly makes Mungo Man different from Modern Man? |
I think you have already answered that yourself when you wrote:
| There is a significant portion of the Australian anthropological community who believe that Mungo Man fits well into a transitional fossil record... |
How can he be transitional and fully modern at the same time?
| You use logic to come up with theories, but then you look for evidence to support it. I'm asking how this evidence (of Mungo Man) fits. |
See above.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I am at a loss to understand why the two of you are arguing over ol' Mungo. Here's the relevant snipperoonie (yes, it's England vs Ukraine tomorrow) from Wiki
| The age of 40,000 years is currently the most widely accepted age for the Mungo Man and makes it the second oldest anatomically modern human remains found outside of Africa to date. |
In other words Mungo is just, yawn, another Aborigine of the approved age for modern human entry into Australia. Note the importance of the second half of the sentence, which seems to indicate that only the Israeli finding is now holding the classical Out-of-Africa thesis together.
A word, by the way, about Wiki. This is of tremendous help to Applied Epistemologists and not only because of its handiness for looking up stuff. It almost invariably represents the latest orthodox view on any given matter and can therefore be quoted in this context with some confidence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| I am in the process of preparing answers to your previous posts, Claire, but given its importance perhaps I could slip in a quickie here and ask for a Canadian dinosaur fossil? This would indeed destroy the entire theory with one bound so I await your answer with trepidation |
Well I don't have any specific ones....I just thought there were loads there....
http://www1.travelalberta.com/en-ca/index.cfm?pageid=66
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
