MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
A Sample Treasure Hunt Level : Level One (Life Sciences)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I agree that those two are the only two "major" ethnic/cultural groups, but there have been and are some interesting sub-cultures such as the gauchos of the pampas. --- minor point.

Yes, cowboys reinforce my point about nomads being non-primitive. Thank you for mentioning it. Perhaps no one has noticed how much like nomads they are, but no one suggests that they are anything other than a specialised off-shoot of, and dependent on, normal society.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

But chromosomes can vary in human beings...

Yes, but in such cases the person is almost always infertile (Klinefelters's, Turner's syndrome, etc.) One man with Down Sydrome has been reported to have fathered a child. A few women with Down Sydrome have given birth to normal babies, but the number is small. I don't think it's significant.

What could be more significant? Chromosomal disorders are not 'supposed to' arise at all...
...and when they do, no one with an odd number is supposed to be fertile.
...and when they do, they arise instantly.

If species can evolve different numbers of chromosomes -- and the number is used in the definition of 'species' -- then they must be able to "smooth out the wrinkles" in reproduction that occur in the transition. So a) how can we say a pair of chromosomes was not lost or gained shortly before they were first checked and b) how can we say the difference constitutes a new species when it started out as no more or less odd than any other kind of chromosomal screw-up and did not make the first individuals infertile?
Send private message
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
You need to visit the optometrist, old son.


Me too then. They look the same to me. Hollywood thought so too for a generation.
Send private message Send e-mail
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

DPCrisp wrote:
[What is your experience of escaping horses? Is it not true that they will run around rather than run away? Aren't they intensely social and unlikely to isolate themselves? What are the chances of a breeding group breaking away from the herd, or that individual escapees would meet up?

Interesting questions, Dan. Yes they are intensely social. It is quite unlikely that a single horse would try to escape without significant motivation. The most likely scenarios are:
1. Horses were just abandoned to fend for themselves by their owners - for whatever reason - death in the family, whatever.
2. A mare with foal at foot wanders off because there is a gate open and the foal goes "exploring". This happened to me. Fortunately in 21st century Victoria she was easy to track down and recover but imagine what it would have been like in early 19th century conditions when you are pioneering the country and there are no gates and fences.
3. A stallion can smell a mare in heat a mile away if the wind is in the right direction. If an already escaped mare who is in heat turns up, the stallion will leap fences and break fences to get to her. Once out he thinks to himself "I've got my own herd now. Bugger everything else." and he goes.

In range horses, the alpha mare manages the herd but the stallion actually gives the herd its social cohesion. A stallion will not normally keep more than ten breeding mares in his "family" and will often drive off other mares who may want to join. As a herd develops colts turn into stallions and try to steal one or more mares to start their own family. Initially unsuccessful they go off like adolescent gangs hooning around the countryside. Then with increasing strength, character and fighting skills a young stallion succeeds and he takes some of the (usually) younger mares and starts his own family. This is a common (but obviously not universal) pattern with grazing animals. Kangaroos are much the same.

In the wild, wouldn't this mean the size range can increase quickly?

Not necessarily. The bigger the horse the more feed it needs. In range conditions there is a natural tendency to shrink down to an optimal size, say about 14-15 hands, which is still big enough for both fight and flight.


How much is 2 hands compared to the full range of sizes?
A hand is 4.5 inches. A horse's size is traditionally given by the height in hands from the ground to the top of the withers (For non-horsey people that is, more or less, its shoulder) So to give you context, a Shire Horse or Percheron or Clydesdale would often be 16 or 16.5 hands. A typical race horse would be between 15 and 16 hands and most of the cow ponies that you see in western movies are between 14 and 15 hands. Shetland ponies are 11 hands and below.
Send private message Send e-mail
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
They look fookin' identical


I had some images lined up for you to compare, but I can't get the forum software to let me paste them in. (If anybody can give me some useful tips on this I would be grateful.)
Anyway, when I can get it working, eventually, you will see that I am right and you are wrong.

And furthermore the Mongols turn out to be big camel herders, so not "totally hippocentric" (to use Dan's colourful phrase)
Send private message Send e-mail
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick. Are the images on the Web? Just send me the URLs.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mongol or Plains Indian?

(The Clarity of Imprecision)

Send private message
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael's picture is of a young warrior from, I would guess, the Sioux, Apache or Comanche (or whatever) or somebody masquerading as such.

Yeah I thought about just giving the URLs but I wanted to put the images side by side because it is really obvious when you look at them together just how different they are.

Maybe there is another issue here altogether. Orthodoxy says that mankind gets into North America across the Bering Straits. So perhaps we expect the Native Americans to look like the Mongols.
But they don't, to my eyes - at all. Suppose then that Orthodoxy is wrong. What then?
Send private message Send e-mail
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

(The Clarity of Imprecision)


And there I was, thinking that you didn't do metaphysics, Ishmael !!!
Send private message Send e-mail
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

berniegreen wrote:
Mick Harper wrote:
You need to visit the optometrist, old son.


Me too then. They look the same to me. Hollywood thought so too for a generation.


This post has been garbled. The attributions should be the opposite way round.
Send private message Send e-mail
EndlesslyRocking



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mongolians and native North Americans do not look the same.

Mongolians:
http://www.indigenouspeoplesoftheamericas.com/

http://danny.oz.au/travel/mongolia/women.html

http://www.wlotus.com/GaryTepfer/gt032.htm
(I bet she has some European in her.)

http://www.wlotus.com/GaryTepfer/gt034.htm

http://www.wlotus.com/GaryTepfer/gt035.htm

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2004/200401132f_hr.jpg


Indians:

If you scroll down below the picture on this page, there is a big list of other pictures:
http://www.firstpeople.us/photographs/Chief-Washakie-Shoshoni-1880.html

http://www.indigenouspeoplesoftheamericas.com/

http://www.wwu.edu/depts/skywise/indian/inuit_thumb.jpg



Here's Amos Two Bulls - authentic native?
http://www.indigenouspeoplesoftheamericas.com/images/070307214743_Amos_Two_Bulls_LG.jpg
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

berniegreen wrote:
Yeah I thought about just giving the URLs but I wanted to put the images side by side because it is really obvious when you look at them together just how different they are.


How different they are.

Compared to what?

What then?


Well...no matter what then you won't make Indians look less like Mongolians than they do. Cause they do. Ask any six year old.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

No one says they look "the same". It is claimed only that they look alike, by which is meant that they resemble one another more than they resemble South Asians or Caucasians or Negros. They are about as alike to one another as Mongolians are alike to Koreans or Japanese: Variations on a theme.

Zulus look different from pygmies, yet the two groups still look "alike".
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

This guy...

http://www.wlotus.com/GaryTepfer/gt035.htm

...looks just like one of the homeless natives at the shelter near my office.
Send private message
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:

How different they are. Compared to what?


Each other, of course

Well...no matter what then you won't make Indians look less like Mongolians than they do. Cause they do. Ask any six year old.


I am not too sure about the reliability and/or discrimination of six year olds.

Look, if you and Mick want to think that these guys look like each other, that's okay. Go ahead. But you're wrong fellers ! Ask Julie Roberts.
Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Jump to:  
Page 4 of 6

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group