0
   

Global Warming: Junk Mathematics

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2004 08:22 pm
Neanderthals and homo sapiens co-existed at the same time. There is absolutely no one in the scientific community suggesting we evolved from Neanderthal man.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2004 09:01 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Neanderthals and homo sapiens co-existed at the same time. There is absolutely no one in the scientific community suggesting we evolved from Neanderthal man.


Do you at least understand the point I've made here regarding humans, neanderthals, and more remote hominids such as homo heidelbergensis?

Einherjar utterly refuses or is unable to grasp it and there's really not anything more I can say on the topic. To me the logic in question is entirely the same thing as noting that if A > B and B > C, then A > C.

The one basic fallicy which underlies modern mathematics is the notion that there is such a thing as proving something. In reality, there is only such a thing as proving something to somebody's satisfaction. If the audience is either too dense or too ideologically committed to some other way of thinking to buy off on the proof, then you haven't really proven anyting to them regardless of the quality of your logic.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2004 09:03 pm
gungasnake wrote:
If the audience is either too dense or too ideologically committed to some other way of thinking to buy off on the proof, then you haven't really proven anyting to them regardless of the quality of your logic.


Keep in mind Gunga that many are thinking this very same thing about what you are saying.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2004 09:05 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Neanderthals and homo sapiens co-existed at the same time. There is absolutely no one in the scientific community suggesting we evolved from Neanderthal man.


But there is a heated argument inside physical anthropology as to whether or not they cross bred. I'm betting they didn't but there is at least one fossil remains, from Spain, that some think suggests they might have.
0 Replies
 
Magus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2004 09:07 pm
It's hard to prove anything to a delusional... they have their own personal set of criteria in determining what they choose to "believe".
Rather than wasting your time, it's simpler to nod your head and simulate agreement, then go on your way unimpeded.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2004 09:58 pm
Acquiunk wrote:


...But there is a heated argument inside physical anthropology as to whether or not they cross bred. I'm betting they didn't but there is at least one fossil remains, from Spain, that some think suggests they might have.


The one or two questionable neanderthal remains have now been subjected to DNA testing and all they were is more neanderthals.

To my knowledge, nobody is arguing over whether or not they crossbred. The plain fact is they didn't. James Shreeve ("Neanderthal Peace") noted:

Quote:


Whatever the tools suggest, the skeletons of moderns and Neanderthals look
different, and the pattern of their differences is too consistent to dismiss.
As anthropologist Erik Trinkaus of the University of New Mexico has shown,
those skeletal differences clearly reflect two distinct patterns of behavior,
however alike the archeological leavings may be. Furthermore, the two
physical types do not follow one from the other, nor do they meet in a fleeting moment
before one triumphs and the other fades. They just keep on going, side by
side but never mingling. In his behavioral approach to bones, Trinkaus purposely
disregards the features that might best discriminate Neanderthals and moderns
from each other genetically. By definition, these traits are poor indicators
of the effects of life-style on bone, since their shape and size are decided by
heredity, not by use. But there is one profoundly important aspect of human
life where behavior and heredity converge: the act that allows human lineages
to continue in the first place.

Humans love to mate. They mate all the time, by night and by day, through all
the phases of the female's reproductive cycle. Given the opportunity, humans
throughout the world will mate with any other human. The barriers between
races and cultures, so cruelly evident in other respects, melt away when sex is at
stake. Cort� began the systematic annihilation of the Aztec people--but that
did not stop him from taking an Aztec princess for his wife. Blacks have been
treated with contempt by whites in America since they were first forced into
slavery, but some 20 percent of the genes in a typical African American are
"white." Consider James Cook's voyages in the Pacific in the eighteenth
century. "Cook's men would come to some distant land, and lining the shore
were all these very bizarre-looking human beings with spears, long jaws,
browridges," archeologist Clive Gamble of Southampton University in England
told me. "God, how odd it must have seemed to them. But that didn't stop the
Cook crew from making a lot of little Cooklets."

Project this universal human behavior back into the Middle Paleolithic. When
Neanderthals and modern humans came into contact in the Levant, they would
have interbred, no matter how "strange" they might initially have seemed to each
other. If their cohabitation stretched over tens of thousands of years, the
fossils should show a convergence through time toward a single morphological
pattern, or at least some swapping of traits back and forth.

But the evidence just isn't there, not if the TL and ESR dates are correct.
Instead the Neanderthals stay staunchly themselves. In fact, according to
some recent ESR dates, the least "Neanderthalish" among them is also the oldest.
The full Neanderthal pattern is carved deep at the Kebara cave, around 60,000
years ago. The moderns, meanwhile, arrive very early at Qafzeh and Skhul and never
lose their modern aspect. Certainly, it is possible that at any moment new
fossils will be revealed that conclusively demonstrate the emergence of a
"Neandermod" lineage. From the evidence in hand, however, the most likely
conclusion is that Neanderthals and modern humans were not interbreeding in
the Levant.

Of course, to interbreed, you first have to meet. Some researchers have
contended that the coexistence on the slopes of Mount Carmel for tens of
thousands of years is merely an illusion created by the poor archeological
record. If moderns and Neanderthals were physically isolated from each other,
then there is nothing mysterious about their failure to interbreed. The most
obvious form of isolation is geographic. But imagine an isolation in time as
well. The climate of the Levant fluctuated throughout the Middle
Paleolithic--now warm and dry, now cold and wet. Perhaps modern humans
migrated up into the region from Africa during the warm periods, when the climate was
better suited to their lighter, taller, warm-adapted physiques. Neanderthals,
on the other hand, might have arrived in the Levant only when advancing
glaciers cooled their European range more than even their cold-adapted
physiques could stand. Then the two did not so much cohabit as "time-share"
the same pocket of landscape between their separate continental ranges.

While the solution is intriguing, there are problems with it. Hominids are
remarkably adaptable creatures. Even the ancient Homo erectus- -who lacked
the large brain, hafted spear points, and other cultural accoutrements of its
descendants--managed to thrive in a range of regions and under diverse
climatic conditions. And while hominids adapt quickly, glaciers move very, very
slowly, coming and going. Even if one or the other kind of human gained sole
possession of the Levant during climatic extremes, what about all those millennia that
were neither the hottest nor the coldest? There must have been long stretches
of time--perhaps enduring as long as the whole of recorded human
history--when the Levant climate was perfectly suited to both Neanderthals and modern
humans. What part do these in-between periods play in the time-sharing scenario? It
doesn't make sense that one human population should politely vacate Mount
Carmel just before the other moved in.

If these humans were isolated in neither space nor time but were truly
contemporaneous, then how on earth did they fail to mate? Only one solution
to the mystery is left. Neanderthals and moderns did not interbreed in the
Levant because they could not. They were reproductively incompatible, separate
species--equally human, perhaps, but biologically distinct. Two separate
species, who both just happened to be human at the same time, in the same
place....

0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Oct, 2004 07:31 am
gungasnake wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Neanderthals and homo sapiens co-existed at the same time. There is absolutely no one in the scientific community suggesting we evolved from Neanderthal man.


Do you at least understand the point I've made here regarding humans, neanderthals, and more remote hominids such as homo heidelbergensis?

Einherjar utterly refuses or is unable to grasp it and there's really not anything more I can say on the topic. To me the logic in question is entirely the same thing as noting that if A > B and B > C, then A > C.

The one basic fallicy which underlies modern mathematics is the notion that there is such a thing as proving something. In reality, there is only such a thing as proving something to somebody's satisfaction. If the audience is either too dense or too ideologically committed to some other way of thinking to buy off on the proof, then you haven't really proven anyting to them regardless of the quality of your logic.



Your argument:

Neanderthal man was unable to interbreed with humans because of genetical incompatibility. True
Neanderthal man must therefore (on those grounds alone) be excluded as an ancestor of modern man. False

It can be determined on basis of phenotypes that Homo Heidelbergensis was less similar genetically to modern man than was neanderthal man. False

Since this is the case, and neanderthal man was excluded as a possible ancestor of modern man solely on the basis of genetical incompatibility, Homo Heidelbergensis must also be excluded as a possible ancestor for the same reasons. Correct logic, but reasoned from false premises.

Now tell me, can you think of any reason why a rat could not teoretically evolve innto something like an elephant?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Oct, 2004 10:05 am
Einherjar wrote:


It can be determined on basis of phenotypes that Homo Heidelbergensis was less similar genetically to modern man than was neanderthal man. False


I claim this one is obviously true, despite the fact that nobody has tried to extract DNA material from heidelbergensis bones or teeth or radiocarbon date a heidelbergensis specimen, at least to my knowledge and internet sources appear to confirm this, e.g.

http://www.archaeology.org/9709/newsbriefs/dna.html

Quote:

While DNA from a pre-Neandertal form, like the Homo heidelbergensis from Atapuerca, will probably never be recovered, it would be interesting to compare DNA from early Homo sapiens and Neandertals from Southwest Asia where the two coexisted for such a long period.


and I would GUESS this is because scientists ASSUME that pre-neanderthal remains would be outside the range olf radiocarbon dating and would not provide DNA material.

I would also GUESS that they are wrong, and that they will shortly be seriously embarassed when some creationist study group actually does produce either a rc date or a DNA study from heidelbergensis remains.

I say again, it is totally obvious that you could not have heidelbergensis sitting there which is obviously much older than neanderthals and much more apelike and yet, at the same time, somehow magically have it be genetically more similar to modern humans. That's absurd.
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Oct, 2004 10:37 am
gungasnake wrote:
Einherjar wrote:


It can be determined on basis of phenotypes that Homo Heidelbergensis was less similar genetically to modern man than was neanderthal man. False


I claim this one is obviously true, despite the fact that nobody has tried to extract DNA material from heidelbergensis bones or teeth or radiocarbon date a heidelbergensis specimen, at least to my knowledge and internet sources appear to confirm this, e.g.


What does radiocarbon dating have to do with anything? Anyway, as I have previously stated, Junk DNA plays a role in genetic compatibility, and would have made Neanderthals less compatible with humans than our common ancestor. Besides, few genes can have a major impact on appearance, and combinations of very different genes can lead to similar results. Apearance alone is insuficient to determine that neanderthals were more similar to humans genetically than heidelbergensis were.

Quote:
http://www.archaeology.org/9709/newsbriefs/dna.html

Quote:

While DNA from a pre-Neandertal form, like the Homo heidelbergensis from Atapuerca, will probably never be recovered, it would be interesting to compare DNA from early Homo sapiens and Neandertals from Southwest Asia where the two coexisted for such a long period.


How does that, or for that matter anything in the source you just provided, refute any of my points?

Quote:
and I would GUESS this is because scientists ASSUME that pre-neanderthal remains would be outside the range olf radiocarbon dating and would not provide DNA material.


There are other ways of dating fossils than radiocarbon, so if heidelbergensis did not live recently enough to be dated by the radiocarbon method it can still be dated. And I interpret the comment to mean that one does not expect to find a heidelbergensis speciment that contains preserved DNA of a testible quality.

Quote:
I would also GUESS that they are wrong, and that they will shortly be seriously embarassed when some creationist study group actually does produce either a rc date or a DNA study from heidelbergensis remains.


I have no reason to dispute the reasearchers asessment, do you?

Quote:
I say again, it is totally obvious that you could not have heidelbergensis sitting there which is obviously much older than neanderthals and much more apelike and yet, at the same time, somehow magically have it be genetically more similar to modern humans. That's absurd.


Heidelbergensis could definately have junk DNA much more similar to human junk DNA than the junk DNA of neanderthals. That would not show up in phenotypes, but would still have an effect on genetic compatibility.

Either way the point is mute, as noone has sugested that humans evolved from heidelbergensis in only a few generations.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Oct, 2004 11:14 am
What you're saying is entirely like claiming that modern dogs could not be descended from wolves (for whatever reasno), therefore they must be descended directly from fish. Again in my view, that's preposterous. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one since I can't really think of anything else to say on the topic.
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Oct, 2004 11:56 am
Where did the directly come from? Nobody is claiming that humans evvolved in the course of a single generation. Dogs would be descended "directly" from fish, meaning there would be no species in between, if you just failed to consider anything in between a separate species.

Now, can you come up with any reason why something such as a rat could not evolve innto something more like a cow? Do you object to evolution on any grounds not related to the fossil record? (which supports evolution)
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 07:59 am
Did anybody read this article?


http://www.ironcircus.com/natgeo1.jpghttp://www.ironcircus.com/natgeo2.jpg
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 11:22 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Did anybody read this article?


No, sorry. Sad From what I read I agree with it though. (picture number two in your above post)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 04/22/2021 at 04:18:08