Help support TMP


"Darwin Day" Topic


1657 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Animals Plus Board

Back to the Science Plus Board


Areas of Interest

General

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Recent Link


Featured Ruleset

Toying With Destruction


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Showcase Article

Transporting the Simians

How to store and transport an army of giant apes?


Featured Profile Article


Current Poll


47,751 hits since 2 Feb 2009
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?


TMP logo

Membership

Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 

crhkrebs06 Apr 2010 5:21 p.m. PST

Still, you'd rather believe in our self-destruction as more probable than some "act of God" originating in the cosmos; even though life on our planet has been destroyed/decimated numerous times before we ever showed up….

That makes no sense as it is a stochastic relationship between humans killing themselves off and previous mass die offs. Therefore there is no correlation.

Ralph

crhkrebs07 Apr 2010 5:34 a.m. PST

I guess there'd be a way of calculating what the percentage chance of one within 26 light-years is;…..

We can try:

radius of Milky Way is 50,000 ly
area of Milky Way disk =3.14 x 50,000 x 50,000= 7.8x10^9 ly^2

at a radius of 26 ly
area of this space =3.14 x 26 x 26= 2.1x10^3 ly^2

therefore a piece of space that can kill us by gamma radiation is an area roughly 4.0x10^6 times smaller than the Milky Way

If a super nova occurs once every 50 years in the Milky Way then it should occur once every 50 x 4.0x10^6 years in this 26 ly radius area. This means once every 2.0x10^8 years.
However, there are some serious errors in this calculation.

a) the Milky Way is not a disk. It bulges as we go to the center.

b) the 26 ly distance could be calculated like a sphere instead of a circle

c) the density of suns per ly^2 is not even. The density increases as you move towards the galactic center.

all these should skew the 2.0x10^8 number even higher.

Plus, Doug, the article you link to describes Hypernovae which fire the gamma burst in a directional fashion. Therefore the sun has to go Super nova and NOT radiate in every direction, but aim it's gamma burst directly at the Earth. I'd assume this really increases the improbability of the situation.

I haven't finished my first coffee yet so I need someone to check the math.

Ralph

gweirda07 Apr 2010 5:40 a.m. PST

"…I need someone to check the math."

good luck with that… ; )


don -who hasn't finished his coffee either…

crhkrebs07 Apr 2010 6:00 a.m. PST

By the way Doug, in 2.0x10^8 years we won't be here.

a) We've died out as a species.

b) We've left the Earth and are space. (This begs the question on how we would survive a gamma blast anyway)

c) We've evolved and are not Homo Sapiens anymore.

Any more? Either way it won't be "us".

Ralph

Daffy Doug07 Apr 2010 2:40 p.m. PST

it is a stochastic relationship between humans killing themselves off and previous mass die offs. Therefore there is no correlation.

I wasn't making a correlation. You have "faith" that we'll kill ourselves off first. The "mass die-offs" can occur at any time for a variety of reasons. We could be killing ourselves off, or gotten over ourselves in time, and it wouldn't make any difference if at that time another mass die-off occurred which totaled the human race.

I appreciate your assertion that we won't "be" anymore. Spoken like a true pragmatist. Not a whiff of any metaphysical possibilities as reality. IF we are not simply bio creatures: IF we "do this mortality thing", rather than merely finding ourselves accidentally experiencing it, then all your calculations are meaningless. This world won't be here. But then even biblical writers said as much ("heavens and earths pass away and there will be new heavens and a new earth", etc.). A NC cannot pass away. Everything deriving from it is just as immortal (even if only "recyclable")….

I bet that if your math is at all close, that the "once every billion years" is verified.

crhkrebs07 Apr 2010 3:17 p.m. PST

I'm confused. 2.4 Mya our genus developed from H. Habilus. Now H.Habilus and all the other Homo are gone. Where were their "metaphysical possibilities"? In another 2.5 My H. Sapiens will be gone and a new Genus may have developed. We will be where H. Habilus is now.

And why do you think the Earth will be gone in under a billion years? It'll be around a lot longer than that.

Ralph

RockyRusso08 Apr 2010 10:46 a.m. PST

Hi

I think he is considering your immortal soul, Ralph, as still being around.

One of those "difficult to test the variables" sort of thing.

R

Daffy Doug08 Apr 2010 2:10 p.m. PST

Where were their "metaphysical possibilities"?

Did they think like "us"? Evidently not. Our "style" of thinking came along all at once less than a million years ago. Now we are the only species that does this kind of metaphysical thinking as far as we can tell/know.

If our style of thinking is the only one that has a "soul" and ergo is immortal then TFW didn't see fit to get us "here" any earlier than less than a million years ago. The rest of the infinite multiverse has an infinite amount of immortal souls doing the same kind of thing as we are.

Do immortal souls become sapient at some point? Or are they created from the getgo? If sapience is a progressive quality, then perhaps you and I were homo habilus a grundle of times. And the descendants get an evolved dose of genetic memory which also improves the resulting species' quality of survival. Just look at how much more mental power we have than what we have ever needed for survival.

And why do you think the Earth will be gone in under a billion years? It'll be around a lot longer than that.

I didn't mean Earth would be gone in a billion years; I was referencing that "once in a billion years" a supernova aimed at Earth happens)….

crhkrebs09 Apr 2010 4:14 a.m. PST

Just doin' my part keepin' Doug real:

Where were their "metaphysical possibilities"?
Did they think like "us"? Evidently not.

Evidently? What evidence?

I wasn't making a correlation.

Yes you were. Please re-read your sentence.

If our style of thinking is the only one that has a "soul" and ergo is immortal …….

Ergo? Sorry, I missed that leap. Please explain.

Do immortal souls become sapient at some point? Or are they created from the getgo?

On a Science board shouldn't you worry that they actually exist first?

The rest of the infinite multiverse has an infinite amount of immortal souls doing the same kind of thing as we are.

Again, you are on a Science board. This sentence contains two scientifically unproven (perhaps unprovable) suppositions.

I was referencing that "once in a billion years" a supernova aimed at Earth happens)….

Again, you're playing too loose with the facts. "Once in a billion" is the rough probability of a supernova occurring in our neighbourhood (radius of 26 ly). Correct? A super nova which discharges all it's gamma radiation unidirectionally is a hypernova, a much rarer beast. One that just happens to aim it's gamma radiation directly AT the Earth must be much rarer still. Correct?

Otherwise, the Earth would have been blasted 4 times already. No one is remotely suggesting this. Some scientists (look them up, they either work for the University of Kansas, or for NASA) suggest this may have been the cause of ONE mass die off(at 440 mya), with most of their colleagues disagreeing at this time.

Ralph

gweirda09 Apr 2010 7:04 a.m. PST

Ralph,
I recall this post:
"@gweirda and @RAF,

Doug's arguments are sometimes tough nuts to crack. And once they are cracked open I find that there is nothing inside. YMMV."

Seems like a good time for this (3:00 – 3:10):
YouTube link

; ) don

Doug,
Your position is entirely subjective, ie: you think something therefore it has validity. As Rocky has (repeatedly) pointed out: that makes discussion/debate pointless. Fun, perhaps, on a rainy day (or a sunny one where one is avoiding work in the gaming-cellar…) but tiring, nonetheless.

I'd rather knock heads with you on aircombat gaming! ; ) don

ps- it's still for sale, if you'd like to get some hands-on flying experience: link

pps- not the exact one I flew, but the same type.

Daffy Doug09 Apr 2010 1:36 p.m. PST

Evidently? What evidence?

Lack of evidence is lack of imaginative sapience like we have. No burial rituals, no asthetics, no multipart tools, no "fire control".

Ergo?

"Souls" are immortal. Without any evidence of a soul existing there is no immortality, just recycling.

And "on a science board": ALL of our concepts are from the same origin, ERGO scientific in origin. Just because many concepts baffle empirical science doesn't mean that said-concepts are unscientific: our science "tools" just suck at detecting many things or studying many concepts.

All suppositions are testable. If our science can't test many of our suppostions and concepts, that points out the shortcomings of our science at this point.

One that just happens to aim it's gamma radiation directly AT the Earth must be much rarer still. Correct?

Evidently. I will agree since I have no reason to disagree.

But you already pointed out the much more common cosmic dangers to Earth's survival. Added together, the chances are we will be erased by an "act of God" before we ever wipe out ourselves and the Earth with us. One war with nukes was quite enough to satisfy nearly everybody. I haven't seen much danger of nuclear holocaust in the last 65 years, have you?…

Daffy Doug09 Apr 2010 1:39 p.m. PST

Gweirda: not another flying boat fan! It flies, tho, so in that single respect it is beautiful….

crhkrebs09 Apr 2010 4:13 p.m. PST

Gweirda, you accurately characterized Doug's response before he actually responded. Well done.

Assuming "souls" exist, and then assuming the speculated souls are immortal, and then stating these suppositions with confidence DOES NOT make them facts, Doug. No matter how often you use "ergo". On a Science board, back up your statements.

Otherwise the nuts are empty.

Ralph

crhkrebs10 Apr 2010 6:11 a.m. PST

Doug, let's take one of your unsubstantiated statements "of fact".

Lack of evidence is lack of imaginative sapience like we have. No burial rituals, no asthetics, no multipart tools, no "fire control".

Hmmmmm.

A quick survey of the literature of Neanderthalis and Floresiensis burial sites will show that you are mistaken on your first two comments. Check the Shanidar Cave complex burials for instance.

Multi-part tools? What are you talking about? Bows and arrows? Do you have evidence that H Sapiens were using them BEFORE the H. Neanderthalis and H. Floresiensis died out. I doubt it.

Same with fire producing capabilities (which is what I assume you mean). I bet you will find that by the time we have indisputable evidence of H. Sapiens making fire (friction sticks and flints) the H. Neanderthals are dead. Neanderthals most certainly did use fire, however one cannot tell what their fire making skills were.

As their cranial volume/body mass ratio is equivalent to the H Sapiens Sapiens, I have heard no one (besides those least informed) make a statement championing our vast mental superiority. It will come to a shock to you Doug, but most Paleontologists now think it was H Sapiens much wider food tolerance and preferences that caused us to out survive our nearest cousins.

You are, once again "typing from the hip", writing down your ideas, and presenting them as "fact" without checking their validity ahead of time. You are simply repeating outmoded information that we were taught when we were children. Much has been discovered since.

Open a textbook and quit looking for science in "Quest for Fire" and Sci-Fi books.

Ralph

Daffy Doug10 Apr 2010 7:45 p.m. PST

I never read Quest for Fire or saw the movie version. I did read Clan of the Cave Bear. Dreck.

All I was saying is that between c. 800K and 45-50K years ago the first artifacts of sapience appear: burials, asthetics, ritual, complex tools, use of fire. I never said Homo sapiens were the only smart hominids. Without the evidence of sapience we'd have to assume the lack of it. Sapience just appears in "an eyeblink of evolutionary time".

What was the point again? Oh, yeah, a huge brain that thinks far beyond the needs of survival just suddenly appears without a trace of evolutionary development. Why?…

crhkrebs11 Apr 2010 7:02 a.m. PST

I never said Homo sapiens were the only smart hominids.

Not in so many words. You did say, "Did they think like "us"? Evidently not."

When I asked, "what evidence?", you replied with the quote above.

Without the evidence of sapience we'd have to assume the lack of it.

1) Even you must see what a poor philosophical statement that is. Are you saying that the absence of evidence means evidence of absence?

2) There actually is evidence of sapience in non Sapiens Homo representatives. Like I said look up the Shanidar Cave complex. Google American anthropologist Ralph Solecki of Columbia University and Shanidar IV.

Clearly Neanderthals exhibit all the signs of sapience that you expressed above. Even art, which you missed. Remember the beautiful paintings in the Lascaux Caves are very new, and occurred well after the Neanderthals had died out.

What was the point again?

To show Doug that, "Boldly stating a deeply held, yet unsubstantiated, conviction does not automatically elevate it to being a verifiable fact!" Especially on a Science Board.

…….a huge brain that thinks far beyond the needs of survival just suddenly appears without a trace of evolutionary development. Why?…

Saying, "…without a trace of evolutionary development", shows an appalling ignorance of paleontology, Doug. Just because you seem to be unaware of the development of brain size and capabilities doesn't mean others are. Rocky must be rolling his eyes over that gaffe.

But, I'll take a page from your book. Isn't it obvious? Because the Invisible Purple Space Pixies have willed it thusly. Therefore, we can use our TOTALLY UNIQUE intellect to contemplate the inevitable Pixification of the Universe!! We are all ONE with the Pixie.

(And, of course, so we can call ourselves a Church and retain our tax exempt status.)evil grin

Ralph

gweirda11 Apr 2010 8:34 a.m. PST

The timing of brain development aside (its alleged "suddenness"), the idea of it being "far beyond the needs of survival" is only a problem if evolution is seen as a means of gaining an answer to a question* -which it isn't. Mutation (ie: chance) just dumps stuff out there and evolution deals with how that "stuff" acts/interacts in the environment. If something benefits reproduction it has better odds of being passed along, if it is detrimental it stands a good chance of being lost, and if it is neutral it can just go along for the ride.

The reproductive advantage of brainpower (ie: figuring stuff/behavior out) is, I think, reason enough to justify it being "passed along". Any "excess" of said brainpower is just along for the ride -though how one would judge imagining a unicorn as being somehow an outlying, unjustified "excess" use of the same brainpower that allows one to formulate the future behavior of falling rocks I don't see.


*The way science presents evolution has only itself to blame for creating this way of thinking. Watch almost any show on nature and the script has poor phrasing/word choice that frames evolutionary development as a sort of "Need a way to reach that leaf? or Having a hard time digging beneath that root?" problem that is acted upon by reaching into the genetic grab-bag (or the NC's pan-dimensional Wal-mart of facets) and pulling out what is needed: "Oh boy, this glow-in-the-dark lure is just the thing I needed/wanted to attract my prey…thanks, Pixies!" Worse still, I've had to show junk like that in science classes (subbing) where it carries an even greater aura of "rightness" by reason of being part of a science curriculum…aack. It's an uphill battle, to be sure -also aware of the day of the week for this post…

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP11 Apr 2010 9:03 a.m. PST

Good lecture from Dawkins about just the chance of this and that, and the probeblility that this or this happend

link

Daffy Doug11 Apr 2010 9:20 a.m. PST

I never said Homo sapiens were the only smart hominids.

Not in so many words. You did say, "Did they think like "us"? Evidently not."

When I asked, "what evidence?", you replied with the quote above.


Meaning, that lack of sapience means "they" (the non sapient hominids) did not think like "us" (all the sapient hominids). That's all.

1) Even you must see what a poor philosophical statement that is. Are you saying that the absence of evidence means evidence of absence?

It certainly does. Is there a single example of sapience like ours in the extant animal "kingdom"? Any burials or rituals indicating belief in an afterlife? Any multipart tools? Any "great apes" using fire lately? These artifacts are how we trace our virtually instantaneous appearance on the world stage, arising from the mass of hominid species predating said-appearance. If there was any higher intelligence going on before c. 800K years ago then it EVIDENTLY wasn't of any higher an order than the capacity of elephants and other higher mammals to "mourn" for a dead member of their group.

Saying, "…without a trace of evolutionary development", shows an appalling ignorance of paleontology, Doug. Just because you seem to be unaware of the development of brain size and capabilities doesn't mean others are. Rocky must be rolling his eyes over that gaffe.

It isn't a gaffe anymore than Marc Hauser using "in an eyeblink of evolutionary time" to describe the sudden appearance of our type of thinking, i.e. our brain power. Nowhere have I said "Homo Sapiens (Sapiens) are the only sapient hominids to ever live." So your repeated bringing up of other hominid artifacts doesn't address anything. ALL of that sapient, artifact-leaving activity is part of the "boom" of sapience. There is virtually nothing to trace, speaking in evolutionary terms, when the time frame of sapience is so short as to be a mere "eyeblink" in the whole of Earth's evolutionary history. "We" (including our extinct cousins) have been thinking this way for less than a million years, with no perceivable evolution in our thinking power/character since our appearance: "blink", man! here we are. You have yourself admitted that we haven't been around long enough to prove that intelligence/sapience is a successful "tool" of survival.

(And, of course, so we can call ourselves a Church and retain our tax exempt status.)

Indeed we are in agreement here. I won't be donating to the Church of the Pink Pixie, unless or until it uses my donations in ways that impress and gratify me (but never for religious reasons, i.e. the dogma promising blessings from TFW if I do, and curses from the same if I don't)….

Daffy Doug11 Apr 2010 10:16 a.m. PST

Mutation (ie: chance) just dumps stuff out there and evolution deals with how that "stuff" acts/interacts in the environment. If something benefits reproduction it has better odds of being passed along, if it is detrimental it stands a good chance of being lost, and if it is neutral it can just go along for the ride.

Your mantra seems to be "the randomness of existence". "Along for the ride" brushes aside the question of "how"? How can something manifest without a Cause. If the universe IS the cause, then all of these "random" factors could be anything but random factors: everything could be by Design and our puny opportunities for perception would never be able to tell. What appeared to those doomed carpenter ants as a random "act of God" was in fact a chainsaw that cut through and dropped their home. The only random quality was the fact that my cousin chose that dead wood to cut; he could just as easily have passed it up.

Our sapience isn't answered by random chance. The very existence of our sapience has to originate from something; and in order to appear in the first place (especially "in an eyeblink of evolutionary time") there has to be a source possessing the very quality that we observe. You get only nothing from nothing….

gweirda11 Apr 2010 11:29 a.m. PST

"Our sapience isn't answered by random chance. The very existence of our sapience has to originate from something…"

Why? What makes "sapience" different from "blue"?

You continue to assert that brainpower is somehow/someway different and special -yet your only support is that you think brainpower is kewl.

tiny. tiny, Doug – I would never ride with you in an airplane if I thought that that was the foundation of your thinking. You would, IMO, make for a really bad/dangerous pilot…


ps- this assertion/statement, of course, has no effect on my ability to change my mind on a whim! ; )

crhkrebs11 Apr 2010 6:10 p.m. PST

I love reading this stuff:

"We" (including our extinct cousins) have been thinking this way for less than a million years, with no perceivable evolution in our thinking power/character since our appearance: "blink", man! here we are.

I can get scientific "loopiness" and grammatical "loopiness" at the same time.

Good entertainment after painting Aztecs all day.

Oh and by the way, they are Invisible Purple Space Pixies you grovelling infidel!

Ralph

crhkrebs12 Apr 2010 10:53 a.m. PST

It isn't a gaffe anymore than Marc Hauser using "in an eyeblink of evolutionary time" to describe the sudden appearance of our type of thinking,…..

There is a big difference between "an eyeblink in evolutionary time" and "just suddenly appears without a trace of evolutionary development." Technically, evolutionary time has been going on as long as life has been on this planet. Homo Habilis started our lineage about 2.4 Mya. I'm not sure if that is an "eyeblink" or not.

On a side note, this month's Scientific American: The Brain tells of a dig in Spain, where they have found the first Neanderthal "jewelry". This consists of painted, perforated sea shells that were worn as a necklace and date from about 55 thousand years ago. In Northern Africa, at the same time, Homo Sapiens were also wearing shell jewelry, but none were living in this part of Spain yet. Therefore, Neanderthals independently developed this aesthetic without our influence. The researchers mention that this is more proof of Neanderthals engaging in complex and abstract thinking.

Ralph

Daffy Doug12 Apr 2010 12:50 p.m. PST

Why? What makes "sapience" different from "blue"?

Nothing. If the universe had no "trait" for "blue" in it, there would be no "blueness", would there?

You continue to assert that brainpower is somehow/someway different and special -yet your only support is that you think brainpower is kewl.

It is special and kewl, to possess a trait that is self-aware and aware of everything surrounding itself. "Blueness" and "hardness" are not capable of either, or any perceptions at all.

tiny. tiny, Doug – I would never ride with you in an airplane if I thought that that was the foundation of your thinking. You would, IMO, make for a really bad/dangerous pilot…

I don't get the comparison: how does my respecting the uniqueness (even the "humaniqueness") of sapience make me a risk as a pilot?…

Daffy Doug12 Apr 2010 1:02 p.m. PST

There is a big difference between "an eyeblink in evolutionary time" and "just suddenly appears without a trace of evolutionary development."

You shouldn't have any trouble "charting" that development for me then. But if Marc Hauser, et al. the experts in human evolutionary biology can't do better than to use such analogies and refer to the Paleolithic as "an evolutionary eyeblink", I don't think that there is much in the way of evidence of an evolutionary path TO sapience: it just suddenly is there in the record of artifacts.

The stone tools are there with Habilus, but the multipart tools and burial ritual and art depictions of beliefs in aesthetical concepts are only in the recent record.

Homo Habilis started our lineage about 2.4 Mya. I'm not sure if that is an "eyeblink" or not.

Wouldn't that be "three eyeblinks"? (if the Paleolithic is an "eyeblink", from c. 800K to 45-50K years ago) But there isn't any traceable development for sapience before the late Paleolithic.

Therefore, Neanderthals independently developed this aesthetic without our influence. The researchers mention that this is more proof of Neanderthals engaging in complex and abstract thinking.

Cool. And to remind you: I have never assumed or asserted that Homo Sapiens (Sapiens) was the only sapient hominid – and I will add here, or even the smartest: I've harped on how intelligent WE are, and assumed that to be the chief reason for our sole survival: but in fact, as you all have brought up, other factors such as adaptation of diet also played a part. The key point is that SAPIENCE ("humaniqueness" in thinking) only appeared virtually instantaneously, when measuring its appearance in an evolutionary time scale….

crhkrebs12 Apr 2010 4:01 p.m. PST

You shouldn't have any trouble "charting" that development for me then.

You don't have good Museums within driving distance? If you are ever on Toronto, I'll take you to the Royal Ontario Museum.

The key point is that SAPIENCE ("humaniqueness" in thinking) only appeared virtually instantaneously, when measuring its appearance in an evolutionary time scale…

Depends on the definition of instantaneous, doesn't it? Look, you will agree that sapience is a manifestation of greater and greater mental capabilities. The hominids went from small monkey like creatures with monkey sized brains to modern day humans. That took millions of years. Brains got bigger, as with the skulls to contain them, (also the female pelvis, in order to birth the bigger headed individuals).

Sapience probably didn't happen in an "Eureka" moment. Maybe speech came first, maybe close focus stereo vision to behold objects held by our increasingly dexterous hands. Each successive ape-creature had greater frontal lobe areas (the areas responsible for abstract thought). Eventually the brain case/body mass proportions began to approximate modern Mans. Archeological evidence has it's limitations. We can only infer obvious examples of abstract thought. It has to be hard to nail down when "sapience" actually occurred.

Ralph

Daffy Doug12 Apr 2010 5:06 p.m. PST

You don't have good Museums within driving distance? If you are ever on Toronto, I'll take you to the Royal Ontario Museum.

A museum? I've been to plenty of natural history museums. I don't recall ANY detail asserting that this aesthetic artifact came before that one, or that this multipart tool came from a significantly separated time frame from any of the rest, etc. So, NO evolutionary trace of sapience; just "boom" there it is.

The hominids went from small monkey like creatures with monkey sized brains to modern day humans.

Seems to be what occurred alright.

Sapience probably didn't happen in an "Eureka" moment.

Arthur C. Clarke sure liked to think that it did evil grin

Archeological evidence has it's limitations. We can only infer obvious examples of abstract thought. It has to be hard to nail down when "sapience" actually occurred.

That's right. But what we do have so far indicates a "boom" not a long, slow process in the area of thinking that defines our type of thinking. Abstract thought always produces physical artifacts with us. And as you have pointed out, our "cousins" (no longer with us) also produced the same kinds of artifacts. It is hard for me to imagine a sapient Habilis gazing thoughtfully across the savanna, noting the aesthetics of his surroundings and the members of his group, and wondering about what death means to those no longer with them, etc., and NOT show some artifacts of that level of thinking….

RockyRusso13 Apr 2010 9:20 a.m. PST

Hi

Multi part is a difficult idea here. Define multipart!

Lets say an axe with a handle. First is the stone flaked or core. Does either, taking a raw bit and shaping it, constitutute "multi" as in multiple steps to prepare? Or do you need a wooden handle? If the latter, why would handle or lacing survive so that you knew it had a handle?

Oh, and "blue" described as a frequency of light project or reflected is a matter of physics not vision. Before eyes developed, blue still existed.

I think, again, you are locked into the old biblical special creation idea.

Nice idea, being special, but not long on some sort of objective proof.

Rocky

Daffy Doug13 Apr 2010 10:07 a.m. PST

How is saying "Blueness has to be a trait of the universe or else it cannot exist" somehow biblical thinking? The universe cannot manifest something out of nothing. If "blueness" wasn't a trait inherent in the universe it would not exist (eyes to see it or not).

"Multipart" is evident in the artifact. Knapped flint is obviously not just picking up a rock. Shaped to be attached to a (no longer existing) handle would also be obvious. Burial artifacts include what? Supposedly these things go back to c. 800K years ago….

crhkrebs13 Apr 2010 11:25 a.m. PST

Oh no. I'm about to disagree with Rocky and agree with Doug.

Oh, and "blue" described as a frequency of light project or reflected is a matter of physics not vision. Before eyes developed, blue still existed.

Don't think so. Blue does not describe any thing in physics. 450 nanometers does. That frequency exists, irregardless of any creatures who can experience them.

The colour "Blue" is a manifestation of our brains perception of 450nm.

It's like the difference between vibrations and "sound". Air vibration is in the realm of physics and can be measured for frequency, amplitude, etc. "Sound" is the psychological interpretation of having air vibrations strike our hearing apparatus.

As for:

I think, again, you are locked into the old biblical special creation idea.

Nice idea, being special, but not long on some sort of objective proof.

Rocky's correct!

Ralph

crhkrebs13 Apr 2010 12:46 p.m. PST

It is hard for me to imagine a sapient Habilis gazing thoughtfully across the savanna, noting the aesthetics of his surroundings and the members of his group, and wondering about what death means to those no longer with them, etc., and NOT show some artifacts of that level of thinking….

Maybe not Habilis, but I can for Neanderthalis.

Just asking, someone stands in the Savannah and notices the aesthetics of his surroundings and contemplates his friends and family and then thinks about his mortality, what sort of artifacts would you expect to see from that situation? grin

Ralph

138SquadronRAF21 Apr 2010 9:17 a.m. PST

That does raise an interesting concept of selfhood. Granted that Neanderthalis is a evolutionary dead-end. Did the concept of self and reserence for the dead arrive in one of the preceeding speicies and if so when?

What is the evolutionary impulse to show reverence for the dead?

Does this show an early evolution of religion and if so what are the impuses that drive it. Presumably the atavistic response to natural phenomena is "Goddidit" but what other benefits would it confer on evolution.

Fnny if we can't cope with the science and/or like kool-aid the answer is still "Goddidit"

Elliott

crhkrebs21 Apr 2010 10:16 a.m. PST

Did the concept of self and reserence for the dead arrive in one of the preceeding speicies and if so when?

I don't believe there is any evidence for any of this outside of H. Neanderthalis and H. Sapiens.


What is the evolutionary impulse to show reverence for the dead?

Many possible reasons:

a) Within animals that live in social groups (like us) you have kinship and familial ties. Therefore, one would have reverence for dead family members and important dead personages. Imagine the tribes best hunter or shaman dying. Living in a social network gives us evolutionary "fitness". The interactions between these individuals are the offshoot.

b) The evolutionary development of the frontal lobes. This is where we have our "What if" thoughts. There is good survivability in having these thought processes:

"Can the cave bears reach our cave complex?".

"Do we have enough seeds for next years plantings?"

"What if we don't have enough food in the winter?"

"What if the reindeer herds do not return next year?"

If you don't have these thoughts, you are impairing your survivability. From here, it's not a big jump to have:

"What happens to the Sun when it disappears over the horizon?"

"What happens when we die?"

"Where did this all come from?" (this would come from Doug's ancestor.)

We like to look for patterns and cause and effect. If we can't find a suitable cause, we outright invent one. IMO, that's how religion starts, or that Goddidit! It's a form of shared pariedola.


Ralph

Daffy Doug21 Apr 2010 11:29 a.m. PST

The window when "humaniqueness" shows up in the artifacts record is c. 800K to 45-50K years ago. I don't recall how old Neandertals are, but Homo Sapiens are relatively recent. What species of hominids would have been burying their dead aesthetically and making multipart tools 800K years ago?…

Daffy Doug21 Apr 2010 11:32 a.m. PST

"Where did this all come from?" (this would come from Doug's ancestor.)

But not Ralph's? Are you saying that your pragmatic mind is a sudden phenomenon of nature without evolutionary antecedents?…

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP21 Apr 2010 11:34 a.m. PST

"I don't believe there is any evidence for any of this outside of H. Neanderthalis and H. Sapiens"

Actualy we see it in Elephants.

crhkrebs21 Apr 2010 2:23 p.m. PST

What species of hominids would have been burying their dead aesthetically and making multipart tools 800K years ago?…

I don't think there are any burial sites found that are anywhere near that old, Doug. That's quite a bit to ask.

The oldest remains in the Shanidar Caves site are 60,000 thousand years ago. They are Neanderthal.

I don't know what you mean by multipart tools. Both Rocky and I asked. You didn't have a coherent answer. Perhaps you can Google it yourself.

But not Ralph's? Are you saying that your pragmatic mind is a sudden phenomenon of nature without evolutionary antecedents?…

You don't take compliments well. It is pragmatic to ask, "Where did this all come from?" It's also pragmatic to anticipate a non-supernatural answer.

Actualy we see it in Elephants.

Would that be aesthetic burials or multi-part tools? evil grin

Ralph

138SquadronRAF21 Apr 2010 2:39 p.m. PST

Interestingly I have observed cats that are part of the family unit mourn/miss deceased felines and humans for tat matter. There attention span tends to be short and does not go one for months bt does appear to occur based upon a small unscientific survey.

Daffy Doug21 Apr 2010 6:01 p.m. PST

I know firsthand about mourning animals. We had two grey kitties, brother and sister. My brother played rough and broke the leg on one of them: it had to be put down. Less than two weeks later the sibling had to be put down as well: it stopped eating and just lay around. But it left no artifacts to indicate aesthetic imaginings about the afterlife.

For some reason the "window" of artifact evidence for human sapience is given by Marc Hauser as 800K to 45-50K years ago. What the artifacts for earlier than c. 60K years ago are I don't know. Perhaps only multipart tools. (These are no mystery: I've defined them before: obvious evidence of having been formed/worked; as opposed to a bone or rock being picked up as-is. No animals except "us" – the sapient hominids first appearing during that period – have ever created complex tools….)

crhkrebs21 Apr 2010 6:36 p.m. PST

Perhaps only multipart tools. (These are no mystery: I've defined them before: obvious evidence of having been formed/worked; as opposed to a bone or rock being picked up as-is. No animals except "us" – the sapient hominids first appearing during that period – have ever created complex tools….)

Well, what is it? Complex tool or evidence of being worked? What's multi-part? Why complicate things by making up your own nonsensical terms?

For your info, Homo Habilis (2.4mya) was always thought to be the first tool maker. That's why he is named so, Doug. Now tools at the Smithsonian have been found to be even older. How these tools fit in to your definition is of no interest to me.

obvious evidence of having been formed/worked; as opposed to a bone or rock being picked up as-is.

I laughed out loud when I read this. Please elucidate how an unworked stick, bone or rock used "as is" by someone 60,000 years ago could be determined as such? Of course all tools are "worked". Otherwise they'd just be sticks, bones and rocks lying around on the ground.

Jeez!

Ralph

crhkrebs21 Apr 2010 6:58 p.m. PST

By the way, pets moping due to the deaths of their friends do not indicate sapience to the level of abstract thought. Now if your cat "buried" his "friend" with his favourite ball of yarn, so he has something to play with in the kitty afterlife, I'd be very impressed.

Neanderthals and humans buried each other with such mementos and relics. Burial sites of other Homo species have not been found, (most are too old), therefore we don't know what they were buried with.

Ralph

Daffy Doug22 Apr 2010 10:30 a.m. PST

Well, what is it? Complex tool or evidence of being worked? What's multi-part? Why complicate things by making up your own nonsensical terms?

I didn't make the term up; I am quoting.

"Although anthropologists disagree about exactly when the modern human mind took shape, it is clear from the archaeological record that a major transformation occurred during a relatively brief period of evolutionary history, starting approximately 800,000 years ago in the Paleolithic ear and crescendoing around 45,000 to 50,000 years ago. It is during this period of the Paleolithic, an evolutionary eyeblink, that we see for the first time multipart tools; animal bones punctured with holes to fashion musical instruments; burials with accoutrements suggesting beliefs about aesthetics and the afterlife; richly symbolic cave paintings that capture in exquisite detail events of the past and the perceived future; and control over fire…" (Marc Hauser, Scientific American Sept 2009 page 46)

Obviously "multipart" distinguishes a mere conveniently-shaped rock found in the area of occupation from a "worked" stone like one that has been knapped and shaped to have a (no longer existing) wood handle fixed to it….

Daffy Doug22 Apr 2010 10:36 a.m. PST

Now if your cat "buried" his "friend" with his favourite ball of yarn, so he has something to play with in the kitty afterlife, I'd be very impressed.

That was my point in bringing it up: there is no sapience evidenced in cats that mourn. Nor are elephants evidencing sapience when they mourn either (or when they mimic their trainer and reproduce a sketch of an elephant)….

crhkrebs26 Apr 2010 5:57 p.m. PST

Dr. Larry Dossey ex-Chief of Medical Staff of Dallas Hospital now publishes anti-scientific essays, this one from the Huffington Post.

link

Dossey quotes famous scientific ignoramus Jeremy Rifkin with:

[T]he scientific method [is] an approach to learning that has been nearly deified in the centuries following the European Enlightenment. Children are introduced to the scientific method in middle school and informed that it is the only accurate process by which to gather knowledge and learn about the real world around us … The scientific observer is never a participant in the reality he or she observes, but only a voyeur. As for the world he or she observes, it is a cold, uncaring place, devoid of awe, compassion or sense of purpose. Even life itself is made lifeless to better dissect its component parts. We are left with a purely material world, which is quantifiable but without quality … The scientific method is at odds with virtually everything we know about our own nature and the nature of the world. It denies the relational aspect of reality, prohibits participation and makes no room for empathic imagination. Students in effect are asked to become aliens in the world.

He then proceeds to claim that teaching children the scientific method is a form of child abuse!!!!

Here is P Z Meyers response:

There is absolutely nothing in that description that fits my conception of the scientific method. It's utter nonsense written by someone who doesn't understand science in the slightest, but is familiar with cartoon stereotypes of the scientist as heartless robot. Seriously, has this guy never heard of Richard Feynman? Neil deGrasse Tyson? Roy Chapman Andrews? Any of the biologists I know? We become part of the world by understanding that world as it actually is, unwarped by the superstitious illusions people like Dossey want to impose on it.

As usual, the complaint is an indignant claim that scientists will tell you that science is the only "accurate process by which to gather knowledge and learn about the real world", which is true. Instead of saying what it is not, though, just once I'd like to see one of these clowns tell me plainly and clearly what his alternative is. Dossey does not.

It's probably just as well. His latest book is on the "Power of Premonitions", and he's also written books on the power of prayer. He's a credulous magic man, in other words.

scienceblogs.com/pharyngula

Does this Bleeped texte never end?

Ralph

crhkrebs26 Apr 2010 7:04 p.m. PST

I didn't make the term up; I am quoting.

OK.

…..when the modern human mind took shape, it is clear……..starting approximately 800,000 years ago in the Paleolithic ear and crescendoing around 45,000 to 50,000 years ago. It is during this period of the Paleolithic, an evolutionary eyeblink……

Allow me to disagree with Dr. Hauser. A period of 750,000 years out of a species that only goes back 195,000 years is HARDLY an "evolutionary eyeblink". Even if we go back to the emergence of Homo Habilis at 2.4 mya, the 750,000 years is a third of the entire time our Genus has existed! Again HARDLY an "evolutionary eyeblink".

No physical Anthropologist would call it so either. Perhaps you can dredge one up.

BTW, Dr. Hauser is an animal Psychologist. He teaches at the Psychology Dept. at Harvard. A quick look at his publications and research interests indicate he does no Physical Anthropology. That is NOT a slight against him. But it does explain his trouble with chronology and his clunky definition of "multi-part" tools.

I got a chance to study under Dr. Anne Zeller, Prof. and Chair Emeritus at the University of Waterloo. She is our version of Marc Hauser, but also a specialist in the study of primate and Human evolution.

link

What Hauser calls a multi-part tool is more accurately called a complex tool. A true multi-part tool is something made from MULTIPLE PARTS to function. Therefore, a bow and arrow, a drum with a skin diaphragm, a sail on your canoe are all multi-part tools. These are all very new in human evolution and play no part in this discussion.

Ralph

Daffy Doug27 Apr 2010 8:15 a.m. PST

Hauser's use of the term "multipart" fits, the way I understood him. He refers to a pencil as a multipart tool, specifically it is made from four materials resulting in a single tool, a writing instrument: and he goes on to illustrate our unique way of thinking by pointing out how many other uses we make of pencils that have nothing to do with writing – something that no other animal would even think of doing (much less coming up with the pencil from four materials in the first place). So when he says that some of the early evidence of our unique way of thinking is the appearance of multipart tools I gather that he is referring to archeological artifacts that are evidently or even obviously the stone remains of previously multipart tools, where the sinew and wood parts are gone….

138SquadronRAF27 Apr 2010 12:47 p.m. PST

Does this 'bleep' never end?

Well this is one of the longest running threads on the TMP. So that has to count for something.

The greatest change that it has brought about is an ever greater conviction in me that Ceationism is disservice to humanity and ID is not a science in any way that I understand the term.

138SquadronRAF27 Apr 2010 12:49 p.m. PST

Almost at the 1,500 post limit gentle reader…..

Daffy Doug28 Apr 2010 10:20 a.m. PST

There's a limit? "Know your limits, and exceed them", was a T-shirt slogan my long-distance running son once wore….

Hexxenhammer28 Apr 2010 1:20 p.m. PST

In celebration of 1500 posts, here's They Might Be Giants:

Science is Real

Science is real
From the Big Bang to DNA
Science is real
From evolution to the Milky Way
I like the stories
About angels, unicorns and elves
Now I like those stories
As much as anybody else
But when I'm seeking knowledge
Either simple or abstract
The facts are with science
The facts are with science

Science is real
Science is real
Science is real

Science is real
From anatomy to geology
Science is real
From astrophysics to biology
A scientific theory
Isn't just a hunch or guess
It's more like a question
That's been put through a lot of tests
And when a theory emerges
Consistent with the facts
The proof is with science
The truth is with science

Science is real
Science is real
Science is real

Science is real

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34