8
   

Sex and Evolution

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Nov, 2013 09:08 am
@Setanta,
Actually your wr wr wrong Set. You are basing all that on Solutrean being a fixed -in-time culture. Soluteran ws always considered merely a transitional culture where techniques of the Post Aurignacian in a sub culture that was the Gravettan. The Gravettan/Solutrean culture has a shadowy presence in the de( and re glaciating regions of Europe) and etended from 32K to a 22K "transitional time" when many (maybe not all) of lter technologies were developed. The use of pressure flaking and "core" manufacture used a tool called the burin which was nothing more than a bone "Chiisel'. These tools were found in the Gravettan/Solutrean transition as were the examples of flaked cores . Thinking as a Paleoanthropologist (which we neither have any creds), the periods of culture are just as variably located in space as are the temporal/ spatial locations of what we consider the "Pleistocene'. The Pleistocene varied in its manifestation at varying times for different latitudes. For example, some Paleoclimatologists say that Greenland is only now coming out of the Pleistocene.

I accept the data of the Amerind/European child DNA of 24500YBp. I haave no reason to doubt it, its been done with multiple samples. I am also open to any doors of NA colonization it may suggest. Ill bet that it will be at a center of increased haplogroud "X" interest an detective work.
I merely suggest that we should always hold loosely onto our pet theories, they may be flat wrong as more data comes in.

Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Nov, 2013 11:08 am
@farmerman,
Right at the moment, for me, the most important question of cultural artifacts is what idiot devised the foil seal that i'm having to pluck at with my fingernails to get the coffee opened so i can make a cup of joe.

No, i'm not wrong--Solutrean is a specific term for an array of cultural artifacts (not just stone tools) which succeeded the Aruginacian. You are using the term loosely, much too loosely. Whereas i don't claim to be an archaeologist, pre-history is a part of history, too, and this is a subject to which i have given a great deal of attention. In addition to having made stone tools using a bi-facial, pressure flake method, their culture also produced a wide array of small bone, antler and wooden artifacts which are characteristic. For example, they made needles, and i believe i am correct in saying that needles were not seen before the Solutreans. They made fish hooks, and i believe it is correct to say that previously, gaffs were used--attempting to "set the gaff" by pulling sharply on the fishing line so that a long sliver of stone, wood, bone or antler would lodge in the fish's throat. Fish hooks were a dramatic improvement on this method. They also made burins for carving. Their carving on wood, bone and antler are also characteristic cultural artifacts.

You are incorrect to say that burins were used in pressure-flake tool production. They used a long piece of wood, bone or antler to spall the stone, rather than striking it directly with the hammer stone. This is using a punch, not a burin. The hammerstone would be used to rough out the flake to be worked, and then spalls would be removed with a punch--using a hammerstone to strike the punch rather than striking with the hammerstone directly on the core or flake to be worked. A burin-like tool would be used to remove very small, very precise spalls for edge finishing. (I tried to find a good video for this, but every one i've looked at so far the knappers are "cheating"--they are using steel point tools.) Technically speaking, though, a burin is an engraving tool. The tools for edge finishing are sometimes referred to as billets.

You imply a lack of precision in the definition of the term Solutrean, as though it were just a vague label. That is incorrect. Their array of cultural artifacts, with which they are identified had not appeared previously; and in some cases, especially with regard to their stone tool technology, did not appear afterward for quite some time. The Magdalenian culture, which succeeded the Solutrean, used a much less sophisticated, one might say a more primitive tool-making technique. It is precisely because their cultural artifacts are unique, and appear only within a range of about 5000 years, that they are strictly distinguished from the Aurignacian which preceded them, and the Magdalenian which succeeded them. Of course, the Solutrean is also specifically located in one region of western Europe. I have no idea what leads you to claim (apparently just on the authority of your say-so) that the Solutrean is some kind of loose term for a transitional culture. Transitional between what and what? If it was just a transitional culture, why did the Magdalenian produce much less sophisticated stone tools?

As for any connection between the Solutrean and the Clovis technologies, that has always been one part of the hypothesis which i found ridiculous. I don't believe in cultural diffusion as it is classically described by archaeologists. Many technologies, techniques and designs in the manufacture of cultural artifacts have appeared widely separated in space, and often widely separated in time. To me it is ridiculous to assume that only one man or woman will have an idea and act upon it, with all others being merely imitators. I think there is very good reason to assume that the Clovis technology was developed independently, simply based on the fecund inventiveness of humans.

I'm sorry, but once again, i consider you to be engaged in sloppy assessments. This find is interesting. But it has nothing to do with the Solutreans, who did not yet exist, and it says absolutely nothing about culture or technological development among prehistoric Europeans and Asians.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Nov, 2013 12:06 pm
@Setanta,
WE agree to disagree. Heres a synoptic chart of how cultures are presently looked at
If you look at the Gravettan artifacts you can see the emerging artifact styles that became further and further refined . Yes the burins were used and they were made of bone and were used to do pressure flaking

Im not going to debate the issue because I think that, if the team that sequenced this kid have indicated that this baby's mDNA is unique enough to consider another haplogroup, maybe Ill pay attention until someone affirms or is able to refute any connection between the haplogroup and, ultimately a Beringean crossing. I would NOT base an argument against by a measely2500years (or even3500 years if you accept other cultural dates) Remember we were through a a progressive 4th stage (Wurm/Weichseillian ) Glacial stage, (Which was broken into 2 major advance areas and several mini advancses and retreats.


Theres nothing sloppy about data, if its collected correctly and verified. Conclusions hve no reason to be made until more of the haplogroup is found in the area approaching Beringea and correct dates can be put to them. After 40 years Im always putting away old pet theories
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Nov, 2013 12:16 pm
@farmerman,
What is sloppy is your attempt to tie this find to the Solutrean culture, and your attempt to suggest that Solutrean culture was just some kind of vague phase. If that were true, why was the Magdalenian tool-making technology so inferior to the Solutrean? Once again, there is nothing about this find which ties it to the Solutreans. There is nothing about this find which tells us anything about the technological sophistication of any stone age culture. I have not objected to the significance of the DNA evidence for the prevalence of ancient European MtDNA in Amerindian populations. The Solutrean hypothesis is not my "pet theory." What i object to is you getting on your horse, and riding off shouting: "The Solutreans are coming, the Solutreans are coming." There ain't no there there.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Nov, 2013 01:40 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:


On a , perhaps, more interesting note, I saw Nick Wades article in the NYT that DNA extracted and sequenced from a 24500 year old childs skeleton near Lake Baikal in E Siberia, showed it to contain a mDNA mix of European and Amerind genes.This provides yet another explanation for theAPPARENT "Solutrean" source for PaleoAmerican tools. The obvious answer is that,
no Solutreans took a boat ride across the Atlantic. Instead, a hybrid population (haplogroup X according to Planck Institute) containing specific genes that were part European an part Amerind genes (Also discounting the belief that Amerinds were a group that separated from one of the Asian haplogroups and migrated Eastward across Beringea. Instead, this finding suggests that the group containing Amerinds were already separated .


This is what I actually said. I added the word APPARENT since the quotes around Solutrean were not noted. I was actually making FUN of the Solutreans First theory and posing a hypothesis that, based upon DNA data, shows that there was a heretofore unknown haplogroup that accounts for what the paleo Indians and their descendents would actually sequence out as.


You were guilty of making a snap judgement about what I was pointing at and (yur still incorrect about The "hard edge" times for cultures, That's never been a case, they all blend into each other and you can see that point typology for the Gravetta, and then to the Gravetta/Solutrean were already doing pressure flaking and were probably getting better and better .
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Nov, 2013 01:55 pm
@farmerman,
I didn't make a snap judgment about anything. Do i need to quote myself yet again until it sinks in with you that i said at the outset that i didn't claim that you had said that? Jeeze . . .

To dispense again with your bullshit, the Solutrean hypothesis is not my pet theory. I find it interesting because it challenges the land bridge hypothesis, which, for about 50 years, has been treated as revealed truth, as though it were holy writ. It (the Solutrean hypothesis) asks two basic questions which i consider worth asking.

The first is why there is ancient European MtDNA in Amerindian populations in both continents. This find appears to answer that question.

The second question is why there are stone tool finds in archaeological sites in eastern Canada, Pennsylvania and Virginia which pre-date the timeline in the land bridge hypothesis. I claim no expertise in dating methods, and don't have the data from those finds, so i don't know the answer to that one. One thing i do know, though, is that the find you have referred to does not answer that question.

As for the Gravettian tool culture, it pre-dates the Solutrean. It is traditionally dated from about 32,000 ybp to 22,000 ybp. Just as with the Aurignacian, it ends as the Solutrean begins. You can quibble about dates and "hard edge" times for cultures, but it may surprise you to learn that archaeologists take these things into consideration. The Solutrean culture is dated as it is because the earliest finds of their characteristic cultural artifacts do not date to any earlier than 22,000 ybp. I have no reason to assume that you are any more expert in these matters than the authors of books which i have read. I'm not just going to take your word for it.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Nov, 2013 02:15 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
Pennsylvania and Virginia
Meadow Croft and Cactus Hill are still only "possible ages" , the stratigraphy on Meadowcroft had had some questionable data and C14 at Cactus Hill was based on questionable material


Quote:
I have no reason to assume that you are any more expert in these matters than the authors of books which i have read. I'm not just going to take your word for it


Im glad that you learnt about the Gravettian. However, go deeper and look around at the Gravettian/Solutrean.

My point wasn't that there wasn't an agreed upon timeline for the Solutrean, it is, however, not indicative of how technologies emerge. If you look at the Gravettian lithic material you can see the beginnings of crafted flaking along the edges of the shaped cores (and the increasing use of fire tempering to make the points more workeable. (This was continued and advanced in the Solutrean )
JEEZUS you can be (------). We talk about "common ancestry " and when organisms split off from ancestral forms, don't you think that the samething happens in cultures?.
It didn't just happen that, at 22000 YBP there was a flaked point culture , that POOFED into being. If you believe it did, you haven't been paying attention to anything that's been said on these evolution threads. ANYWAY I DONT OWN ANY FUCKIN HORSES.


Jpsy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 26 Nov, 2013 12:27 am
@gungasnake,
Oh no, I get so sick of these "God of the Gaps" arguments. Because science does not have an answer for something YET, creationist rejoice with glee "that automatically means God is responsible!" WRONG. There were many more "gaps" in the past that have been successfully solved (like the discovery of DNA and embryology), and the number of gaps is continuing to decrease. I would love for you to talk about the discoveries in embryology regarding evolution. That would not be so easy to discredit.
Oh man, this is an interesting topic and I was hoping for a good discussion with people who respect the scientific method and the scientific process. I may start a new thread on this topic, but I ask you to please keep creationism vs. evolution arguments to this thread and not mine.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Nov, 2013 05:02 am
@Jpsy,
Good Luck with that. You wont scare away the religiously convinced and Ive found that they don't really understand the meaning of "evidence" and they think a "theory" is just a guess.

Welcome to the boards and hope to read some of your posts.
BTW, gungasnake is one of a few convinced members whose bought into a pretty complete Biblical Account and hes "Certain" that evolution is a communist plot and is therefore doomed to history.

0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Nov, 2013 05:57 am
@farmerman,
Well, i've already said that i didn't know the veracity of the dating on those finds. I've also already said that the Solutrean hypothesis is not my "pet" theory.

You can keep your snotty remarks about what i "learned" to yourself. As it happens, i went upstairs to check the dates on the Gravettian, before i posted anything. I'm getting tired of you assuming some sort of mantle of authority when i have no reason to assume that you are an authority on these subjects. I haven't claimed that it just happened, and "poof," there was the Solutrean. Apparently you miss the point that the Solutrean is defined by the artifacts, and the appearance of the culture is dated by the artifacts which have been found. The entire point of that, which also seems to have escaped you, is that none of those artifacts appear until thousands of years after the find to which you referred earlier.

You are the one who keeps babbling about this find and the Solutreans, not me. You are the one who is making an issue about how culture develops, and you've got a gall to try to suggest that i don't understand this. You are the one who is being obtuse here.

To restate my comments about the find to which you earlier referred. It has nothing to do with the Solutreans. It appears to be a plausible explanation for ancient European MtDNA in Amerindian populations. It tells us nothing about what tool making technologies this child's culture possessed, nor, for that matter, what they subsequently invented of adopted, nor from whom.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Nov, 2013 06:10 am
@Setanta,
Man, you are certainly loaded up for something today. If its a fight you want, Im sirta done with your fould habits and poor manners. If you want to mix it up, PM me and well carry it on. Im not gonna start an interminable set of pages like APisa and his "fight du jour"

Its fuckin childish set.

If you looked at the dates of the Gravettian you will see it overlaps the Solutrean and that knapped and flaked artifacts have "developed" over time , they didn't just POOF out of the air at 22K.
I think youre smart enough to catch the significance of gradual appearance of cultural artifacts.

Go **** yourself , that is my holiday wish to you you imperious fuckin douche bag.
If you ever want to discuss things in a mutually civil fashion, Ill probably be here . Till then , see my above wishes.

PS Thanks for the Birthday wish you fuckin prick
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Nov, 2013 07:03 am
@farmerman,
I haven't said that the Solutrean just "poofed" into existence. That's your strawman to have something to argue about. I've just pointed out that the culture is dated by the appearance of the artifacts--i haven't claimed it is some absolute date. If you didn't make up some **** about what you claim i'm saying, you'd have nothing to argue against. You've got some wild hair up your ass about the Solutreans and you want to make it look as though it's my problem. It's not, it's your problem.

The find of the child's remains appear to provide an explanation for the ancient European MtDNA in Amerindians. The find has nothing to do with the Solutreans. The find tells us nothing about the technology of the culture from which the child came. The find tells us nothing about the technology of the people who would become Amerindians.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Dec, 2013 07:29 am
Are you two trying to avoid Sex and Evolution?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Dec, 2013 09:17 am
Another take on the subject of inbreeding (and why God invented sex to prevent the mutations inherent in asexual reproduction from destroying complex species within a few generations):

Google image search on 'spanish hapsburgs':

https://www.google.com/search?q=spanish+habsburgs&client=opera&hs=54W&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=z_W6UuqBK8S72wXVhIGoDQ&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=972

http://cdn.pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/files/2013/01/th.jpeg

http://www.historytoday.com/sites/default/files/charlesii_0.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSS4BeavQURhzbj4me_7KHVaZCB49h6mKSMxv4F_mDMK1w1LGHr

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQXFfxdoUFUF9N19rM8j97laZ7I26MjHEpGi9WxnU_udmUNRVfZ

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CLvdvGXpkX8/T1Ete5ivVQI/AAAAAAAA6WQ/nxSIOl1JBOc/s1600/1b%2BAnne%2Bd%2527Autriche%2BReine%2Bde%2BFrance.jpg

http://www.stanford.edu/group/fam/cgi-bin/family/medialink/250px-Alonso_S%C3%A1nchez_Coello_002.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sqbSvxwNgNY/T2CqxwDyOBI/AAAAAAAA64E/5YlOMz-hu6U/s640/1d%2B1609%2BBartolom%25C3%25A9%2BGonz%25C3%25A1lez%2By%2BSerrano%2B%25281564%25E2%2580%25931627%2529%2BMargaret%2Bof%2BAustria%252C%2BQueen%2Bof%2BSpain%2B%25281584%25E2%2580%25931611%2529%2B1609.jpg

http://images.uncyclomedia.co/illogicopedia/en/thumb/7/78/Gastrove.PNG/180px-Gastrove.PNG


In other words, sort of like the Adams family or the Frankenstein monster(s)....


spendius
 
  0  
Reply Wed 25 Dec, 2013 09:29 am
@gungasnake,
Try a pictorial history of gargoyles gunga. That lot are the toffs.
0 Replies
 
secondusername
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jan, 2014 01:18 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
Sex and Evolution


Sex. Is always good. Evolution. Is up to you, me, anyone to believe such a word.
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Jan, 2014 06:37 pm
@secondusername,
Evolution is no longer being defended by anybody with brains or talent or anything like that, basically just what I'd call academic dead-wood such as you observe here...
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jan, 2014 08:26 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Evolution is no longer being defended by anybody with brains or talent or anything like that, basically just what I'd call academic dead-wood such as you observe here...

I love watching you just blatantly make **** up. It's so cool.
spendius
 
  3  
Reply Tue 28 Jan, 2014 05:04 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
I love watching you just blatantly make **** up. It's so cool.


Judging from what I have seen gunga was merely saying the obvious. People with brains and talent are looking at bright new futures and not old bloody fossils.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Sex Affairs and Public Figures - Discussion by Thomas
Pre cum and ejaculate - Question by Chelsea120
Does every woman have her price...? - Question by nononono
sexodus - Discussion by gungasnake
Why Judaism rejected homosexuality - Discussion by gungasnake
am i addicted to masterbation? - Question by 23Flotsofquestions
Hairfall and sex - Question by out-mounty
I'm 31 and bad at sex - Question by BadAtSex
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Sex and Evolution
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/23/2020 at 02:21:04