| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
If you don't mind I won't go into matters of faith right now. But it might assist if you explained what it is about the following statements that require faith, as opposed to accepting a somewhat feeble line-of-reasoning. Please do not say why you disagree with them, only why they are matters of faith. I'll remind you again what they are
o Man evolved from apes in Africa
o A 'mitochondrial Eve' mothered the human race
o The progeny of her seven daughters populated the world in 50,000 to 100,000 years
o They crossed mountain ranges, deserts and jungles in their great journey
o They exterminated hominids and lots of megafauna on their way. |
I still do not understand your insistence that orthodoxy requires evolution from apes in Africa. There is no connection as far as I can see. Apes existed in North America, Asia, the East Indies....why is Africa so important? There is no reason why (assuming they are ancestral, which I don't think orthodoxy insists on anyway) the next species along might not have shifted to Africa.
| Would it help if I wrote proto-apes, or common ancestors of man and apes............... Or missing links? |
Well, 'missing links' is completely different. If you believe Man originated in Africa and you are missing a link with whoever he evolved from then you'd have to have a missing link in Africa. That's unavoidable isn't it? Orthodoxy (as far as I am aware) is correctly agnostic on the question of Man's relationship to the Apes. There is no reason for the common ancestor to be in Africa though. We are 'proto-apes' of course so that one doesn't arise.
| Come on, don't wriggle, we all know that orthodox theory requires man and apes to have common ancestry in Africa. |
You're asking me about what orthodoxy thinks...a subject I am not always completely au fait with. As I say above, there is no special reason for it though if you took a poll perhaps they'd vote overwhelmingly in favour of it (it being the kind of neat solution these people go in for). I just don't know.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| Maybe I'm just thick but I still don't see how any given population 'concentrates' mutations. |
"Mental block" or "block head"? I'm not sure which.
Without a lot of work, I can't see a population increasing the concentration of mutations either. But decreasing it is simple: one branch of the family goes off somewhere else and that population from then on has fewer variations to work with: everyone is more closely related than back home where there's everything from first cousins to four-hundredth cousins.
| Since it is agreed that everyone must have the same number of generations back to putative Eve the only variation is in number of ancestors. |
Where mitochondrial DNA is concerned, there is only a number of generations; other ancestors are irrelevant. These things are not in the cell nuclei, they have nothing to do with sexual reproduction; they are passed only from the mother in the ovum from which all the child's cells develop.
| Are you not just as likely to lose a mutation by exogamy as gain one? |
You will not gain or lose any mutations in mitochondria by any kind of -gamy.
| if there is a mere correlation between a blood group and an undesirable trait then we would expect that blood group to be merely reduced, not eliminated. After all, we're talking about a relatively tiny number of generations. |
Not that I am arguing for anything in particular here: we're also talking about a relatively tiny number of individuals 'at the start', where it's easier for the reduction to reach zero. A fifty-fifty chance of dying means, out of a hundred, forty-odd or fifty-odd survive; but one person with fifty-fifty chances either stays completely alive or goes all the way dead. You can only do statistical approximations on large samples.
| Can two people really "lead the way" into South America and can the Panama bottleneck really stop anybody else from following these two? |
"Leading the way" smacks of the wrong model. It's because no body goes and nobody leads that the numbers are sure to be small.
In one sense, I suppose Panama is narrow enough, there being no room for more people to settle what is already settled.
In another sense, we know there are always traders and explorers and they don't live where they pass, so Panama is no obstacle to them. But equally, they don't live where they go: Panama is no obstacle to them going home again either.
But in the fullness of time, there had to be some people crossing the isthmus and the water, especially in the last 5 centuries. So the first question must be about the integrity of the data: what do they do to ensure they sample the original inhabitants and avoid subsequent influences? How does anyone know whether they've done the right job?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
This is pure teleology, Dan, and it is unworthy of you.
Try this: Fire was man's greatest technological asset for countless millennia in a cool climate. He loved it and he carried it with him wherever he went. |
Huh? You said:
5. Fact. The primary value of fire to man is heat, not cooking.
6. Proposition. Once the primate had learned to create and control fire, he started to have mastery over his environment. It was the essential step that eventually led to his standing on the moon. He became man.
and I just wanted clarification on how fire for warmth was instrumental in humans conquering places that were already warmer than where they lived. i.e. why did they have to wait for fire?
Is fire essential to man going places or not?
(I find it rather more striking that man landed on the moon within 50,000 years of that first "Gone Fishin" sign.)
| But only man can create, control and utilise fire. |
No, that's what Mick is saying: hominids used fire -- for three halves of a million years -- but were clearly not Man by any other measure.
| The one thing all humans have in common and which separates them from all other terrestrial life forms is the mastery of fire. |
Can we still be humans in this sense, then, since the majority of us now do not have control of fire? Mustn't the essence of humanity have changed?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Xerxes
In: The Forest of Dean
|
|
|
|
OK, I'm beginning to get the message. (Sorry it took so long, having a brain that is less than the size of a planet is obviously a bit of a handicap in the AEL.)
I can now see that Lodgepole Pine is actually a gum tree (barking up, for the purposes of) and modern man, whom I fondly imagined to be part of the animal kingdom is well, um, miraculous actually. The secret of his miraculous appearance on earth is not likely to be revealed to the likes of innocent enquirers like me. But I can deduce that if it is not the responsibility of an Almighty Being, it must all be down to a passing Vogon.
I don't do miraculous. And so in the words of the immortal Douglas Adams (who knew all about this stuff):
'So long, and thanks for all the fish'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| The secret of his miraculous appearance on earth is not likely to be revealed to the likes of innocent enquirers like me. |
True, but there's no reason why you shouldn't get there by diligent enquiry.
| But I can deduce that if it is not the responsibility of an Almighty Being, it must all be down to a passing Vogon. I don't do miraculous |
Surely a more obvious deduction is that you have to find by diligent enquiry some circumstance that systematically removes evidence. Hence when the circumstance is removed the appearance becomes 'miraculous'.
| having a brain that is less than the size of a planet is obviously a bit of a handicap in the AEL |
This is true. One acquires this by diligent enquiry. As opposed to the 'faith' method wherein you just learn rote stuff from an Authoritative Source.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| modern man... I fondly imagined to be part of the animal kingdom |
Absolutely. And that's partly why I couldn't see what you were suggesting: you likened the initial expansion of mankind, which we want to understand in the same terms as any other animal, to the behaviour of Europeans in recent times, which is the epitome of mankind-as-a-non-animal.
Mick's point about Authoritative Sources applies here first and foremost. What we say must stand up by itself. If you want to challenge or probe in order to understand or expose contradiction, please do! In the end, only what stands up to scrutiny will be left (regardless of who said it or how much they said that was wrong).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
The most frequent responses to holders of unfamiliar theories is "You must be nutters (or worse)". It doesn't matter how often the holders of these theories demonstrate that they are perfectly rational (indeed rather knowledgable), people invariably sooner or later turn to the 'you must be nutters (or worse)' explanation.
Many of you will remember our recent experience on the Time Team forum where everybody was perfectly happy to argue on a fairly technical (and indeed rather friendly) basis until it was obvious that...um...what's the most neutral way of describing the situation?...we weren't going away. Then just about everybody accused us of just about everything -- except that we were merely mistaken.
Xerxes appears to have gone the same way but perhaps it's still early days.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Xerxes
In: The Forest of Dean
|
|
|
|
| Xerxes appears to have gone the same way |
Cheer up! I'm just a lot more more cautious than I was, that's all. Whether or not it was written by a nutter, THOBR is still one of the best and certainly most thought-provoking books I have read in a very long time. AE strikes a resonant chord in me, and nothing will alter that.
The trouble with the miraculous stuff for the origin of modern man is that, even if it were true, it still leaves you with the question of how the miracle makers evolved or were they created too? There's a posh name for that sort of regression -- I'm sure Dan will know it.
So I'm no longer rushing forward with propositions (although I've still got plenty). I'll just sit out and watch for a while, if that's OK with you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| The trouble with the miraculous stuff for the origin of modern man is that, even if it were true, it still leaves you with the question of how the miracle makers evolved or were they created too? There's a posh name for that sort of regression -- I'm sure Dan will know it. |
Actually it's not us that introduces 'miracles'. Draw a graph with years 5 million BP to 2000 AD along the X-axis and Technological Advance along the Y-axis. You get (virtually) a horizontal line from 5 million to 30,000 BP and (virtually) a vertical line from 30,000 BP to 2000 AD. It doesn't matter whether you're Orthodoxy, Crazy or Us....you have to explain that. Or rather you first have to draw the graph which tends to be unique to us.
| So I'm no longer rushing forward with propositions (although I've still got plenty). I'll just sit out and watch for a while, if that's OK with you. |
It's not OK. In matters of the intellect you're either perpetually on the qui vive or you're finito. That's just the way it is I'm afraid. Sayonara.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Xerxes wrote: | | The trouble with the miraculous stuff for the origin of modern man is that, even if it were true, it still leaves you with the question of how the miracle makers evolved or were they created too? |
No one here is arguing for the miraculous. We tend to be rather unforthcoming with our various theses, prefering to see others follow the breadcrumbs. Sometimes the clues appear to point to conclusions none of us advocate. But that's for you to see past -- if you can.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Xerxes
In: The Forest of Dean
|
|
|
|
There's nothing wrong with my qui vive, mate. The point is that when I came to the AEL I expected some tough talk and challenging arguments -- and I found those. What I never expected to find are arcane theories that are jealously guarded and which do not allow the possibility of fresh, radical ideas. Have I got that right? Or is this all part of the initiation into the inner sanctum?
The topic under discussion is 'Where are all the Neanderthals?' But it appears that AEists already know the answer to that: modern man wiped them out ('five-finger exercise') aided no doubt by whoever donated the anti-grav machines that built Stonehenge. So why invite people to contribute to the topic?
I have very little difficulty with Mick's graph, it's the product of the exponential increase in mankind's social and technological evolution. Exponential curves look like that. And I would welcome the chance to discuss how this works, with a few clear, simple examples. But it seems to me that minds are already made up; that too much has already been invested in the arcane theories; and that it is just too wearisome for AEists to have to keep correcting silly ideas.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| What I never expected to find are arcane theories |
Since you don't know what they are, how do you know they are arcane?
| that are jealously guarded |
On the contrary we keep promising to share them with you.
| and which do not allow the possibility of fresh, radical ideas. |
That has certainly not been our experience. They are already fresh, radical ideas of course.
| Have I got that right? Or is this all part of the initiation into the inner sanctum? |
You don't get spoon-fed, but other than that everyone is welcome. Since this is a public forum we normally take anybody who seems keen to, yes, an inner sanctum where it is easier for everybody to loosen their stays.
| The topic under discussion is 'Where are all the Neanderthals?' But it appears that AEists already know the answer to that: modern man wiped them out ('five-finger exercise') |
The fact that one disappeared following the advent of the other would seem to make that conclusion all-but-irresistible. However, as far as I know, nobody here actually argues that since the evidence is just not there.
| aided no doubt by whoever donated the anti-grav machines that built Stonehenge. |
Why do you keep doing that? You conduct an entirely reasonable discourse then suddenly introduce something weird.
| So why invite people to contribute to the topic? |
Same reason you invited us to contribute to your topic about the trees. It's how these things are grown. Did we not hurl ourselves into your topic as best we were able?
| I have very little difficulty with Mick's graph, it's the product of the exponential increase in mankind's social and technological evolution. Exponential curves look like that. And I would welcome the chance to discuss how this works, with a few clear, simple examples. . |
Clearly the nub of the argument is why this exponential increase occurred c 30,000 BP. Since it is the only time in the human/humanoid story this has ever happened, it is clearly the single most important question in the whole of pre-history. But just ask questions in a neutral kind of way if you think it is worth exploring.
| But it seems to me that minds are already made up |
All minds are made up. We at least have a record of changing ours from time to time.
| that too much has already been invested in the arcane theories |
How on earth can you know the degree of investment in theories you have never heard of?
| and that it is just too wearisome for AEists to have to keep correcting silly ideas |
Have we appeared wearisome in correcting "silly ideas"? Correcting orthodox ideas that we think are silly is our raison d'etre so I certainly hope not. Attention, gang! Drop the weary-willy posture!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Xerxes wrote: | | ...Or is this all part of the initiation into the inner sanctum? |
You got it.
| The topic under discussion is 'Where are all the Neanderthals?' But it appears that AEists already know the answer to that... |
Actually... this particular question is one which I think none of us have any well developed notions... well... except for that one detail. Over to you Mick.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | I'd like to build actual computer simulations for competing scenarios: One, where the larger population is fragmented into small communities that are periodically re-mixed; another, where the larger community is generally cohesive and static. |
What about this scenario?
Suppose that there exists a large island with a population of at least 1,000,000 or so. Some geological event causes this island to break up into 5 smaller islands (Islands 0 - 4) of equal population.
After the geological event, a committee of some sort establishes the following rules:
- No women may leave their island.
- Children stay with their mother and are citizens of the island on which they were born.
- Men may leave their island when they reach maturity to go marauding on other islands and leave their genes there but with the following restrictions:
- No man on island 0 may leave island 0.
- No man on island 1 may leave island 1
- Island 2 men can visit island 1
- Island 3 men can visit 2 and 1
- Island 4 men can visit 3, 2, and 1
(i.e. no man may visit Island 0 and a man can only visit an island if it is a lower number than his own.)
What would you expect the populations of these islands to look like after a long, long time? I suppose the populations of Island 0 and 4 would look alike. 1 would be the most diverse, followed by 2, then 3. Correct?
What about the following scenarios - what if the population of the big island contained the following before the geological event:
A) Everyone has blond hair and blue eyes and is very tall.
B) Everyone is dark and very short.
C) The population is a big motley hodgepodge of phenotypes.
Would you expect the same results in A, B, and C or should we assume that some phenotypes are more likely to vary over time? Does the law of large numbers hold in respect to phenotype? Or could a single mutation on island 0 cause those people to look vastly different than those on island 4 after a long, long time has passed?
If some scientists came along a very, very, long, long time after the geological event and did not know that the 5 populations were originally one, would they correctly figure out that the population of a given island has been around for exactly as long as the population of any other given island?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Komorikid wrote: | Xerxes wrote:
| OK, I can believe that, but WHAT DID THE MAMMOTHS EAT? |
This is one of the fallacies of palaeontology. Geography DOESN'T Lie. Where do we find the descendants of Mammoths and why?
We find them in tropical and semi-tropical environments. Why? Because these are the only geographical environments that can support the AMOUNT of vegetation needed for their species to survive and propagate. |
The mammoths probably ate what the bison on the prairies eat now. In the summer they eat grass. In the spring and fall they eat partially frozen grass. In the winter they eat frozen grass.
There used to be a bigger species of bison that wandered around with the woolly mammoth: http://www.beringia.com/02/02maina8.html
Whatever caused the older species of bison to become extinct probably caused the woolly mammoth to become extinct.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
