Applied Anthropology

flowperson said:
Yes Q, I read it and knew about your version of mutation and evolution.

DNA and RNA has also been "engineered and manipulated" the past thirty years to manipulate life forms into behaving and evolving in certain ways. I tend to believe that only G-d should have those sorts of privileges, but then we are seeing before our eyes that many of our scientists and those who direct their activities are already "playing G-d". What do you really think is going on at places like the Howard Hughes Medical, and the Beckman institutes around North America, not to mention our research Universities. We're way past the point of saying all change is a result of mutations caused by radiation and synthetic substance interventions, although some assuredly are.

Your version may be "right" and then again it may not be. It is certainly partiallty "right" or the Governmant wouldn't be having you do the work you do. Me, I tend to believe in other versions based upon my experience and reading.

Vive' la difference !

flow....;)
Click to expand...
Lol, It isn't my "version". It is taken from various articles in the Science fields. So much for science, eh?
 
Q...Scientific findings only stand upon their own merit and reproducibility by others. That's why there's so much conflict in science. A prime example would be the emerging conscensus on the reality of global warming. Oh, there are those who still deny the reality of it, but clarity on the issue is emerging in our lifetime. But in this particular case it has taken thirty five years of observation, study, and noticing the emergent patterns in the data to get to this point in time.

Genetics and Archaeology/Anthropology are just so much different . In the study of Genetics, even scientists will readily admit that we are only scratching the hide of the elephant, without even knowing that what we're dealing with IS an elephant. Archaeology/Anthropology findings are mostly based upon interpretive opinions concerning locales and artifacts, and it is rare when global opinion converges on something like, say, the importance to culture in the past and now of the pyramids of the sun and moon near Mexico City.

We both stated opinions on the limited information that we cited, which are the opinions of scientists. We are not scientists. We are speculating, and trying to extend understanding of the studies beyond that which was intended by those who wrote the studies. Certain patterns based on the information are evident only to us, for the purposes of this discussion. For instance, I find it interesting and fascinating that the female oriented artifacts and skeletal remains found at Dolni Vestonice show noteworthy distortions of form on the left side of their bodies. That makes me go "huh?".

In my case I only stated that my beliefs are that the Dolni Vestonice data suggest a pattern for some of the emergent beliefs of Europeans as far back as 26,000 years ago. That's all there is to it for now. Let's just leave it there, but I'm sure that you may find it necessary to have the last word. There is no winning or losing in these exercises, only the possibility of reaching the goal of conscensus. That's when science really begins to have meaning for us all.

So be it.

flow....:rolleyes:
 
flowperson said:
Q...Scientific findings only stand upon their own merit and reproducibility by others. That's why there's so much conflict in science. A prime example would be the emerging conscensus on the reality of global warming. Oh, there are those who still deny the reality of it, but clarity on the issue is emerging in our lifetime. But in this particular case it has taken thirty five years of observation, study, and noticing the emergent patterns in the data to get to this point in time.

Genetics and Archaeology/Anthropology are just so much different . In the study of Genetics, even scientists will readily admit that we are only scratching the hide of the elephant, without even knowing that what we're dealing with IS an elephant. Archaeology/Anthropology findings are mostly based upon interpretive opinions concerning locales and artifacts, and it is rare when global opinion converges on something like, say, the importance to culture in the past and now of the pyramids of the sun and moon near Mexico City.

We both stated opinions on the limited information that we cited, which are the opinions of scientists. We are not scientists. We are speculating, and trying to extend understanding of the studies beyond that which was intended by those who wrote the studies. Certain patterns based on the information are evident only to us, for the purposes of this discussion. For instance, I find it interesting and fascinating that the female oriented artifacts and skeletal remains found at Dolni Vestonice show noteworthy distortions of form on the left side of their bodies. That makes me go "huh?".

In my case I only stated that my beliefs are that the Dolni Vestonice data suggest a pattern for some of the emergent beliefs of Europeans as far back as 26,000 years ago. That's all there is to it for now. Let's just leave it there, but I'm sure that you may find it necessary to have the last word. There is no winning or losing in these exercises, only the possibility of reaching the goal of conscensus. That's when science really begins to have meaning for us all.

So be it.

flow....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Indeed.
 
Kindest Regards, Flow!
flowperson said:
Hi Juan... This material is something that I ran across quite some time ago and has figured prominently in my understandings of ancient people in Europe. But it still seems to me, though not as popular as the cave art of France, to be more of a diverse and cogent explanation for how certain of our religious traditions and beliefs got going.

Take your time to read through it all and take a close look at the illustrations and diagrams. I believe that you'll see my point to it all, even though it may not be the "correct" one.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much for the link. I had stumbled across this site a time or two earlier looking for photos, and hadn't taken the time to look at it more closely. He has brought together a very diverse collection of paleolithic material. Thank you very much for the reminder. :)
 
A rather interesting program on NOVA last night updating some of the research into hominid brain development...what separates humans from other apes? The program is titled: Ape Genius

The biological gap between us and our great ape cousins is small. At last count, only 1.23 percent of our genes differ from those of chimpanzees. But mentally, the gap between us and them is a Grand Canyon.
On an average day in the life of the human species, we file thousands of patents, post tens of thousands of Internet videos, and think countless thoughts that have never been thought before. On a good day, chimpanzees are lucky to exploit rudimentary tried-and-true techniques, such as using stone tools to crack nuts.
Not only do we innovate more than the other great apes, we are vastly better at sharing ideas with one another. The majority of recent behavioral studies focus on information-transmission rather than invention. All of the great apes can learn new tricks by imitating a human or another ape. But only humans go one step further and routinely teach each other. Teaching may be the signature skill of our species, and researchers are now zeroing in on three particular mental talents that make it possible.
OUR UNIQUE TALENTS
Mind-reading. Humans are exceptionally skilled at thinking about what's on other people's minds. A teacher, for example, needs to understand what a student knows and doesn't know. Researchers used to believe that chimpanzees lacked this talent entirely. Although recent experiments at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany are showing that chimps share at least a bit of this skill, humans are clearly head and shoulders above the great apes in mind-reading savvy.
The Triangle. Watch a human parent building a block tower with a child and you'll see a special skill at work. Let's call it the Triangle; its three points are the adult, the youngster, and the tower. Both adult and child are not only focused on the same object, they know the other is focused on it too. The Triangle is the foundation for teaching—a mentor and pupil must jointly pay attention to the lesson at hand. Amazingly, humans seem to be the only great apes that possess this mental skill.
Impulse control. Whereas mind-reading and the Triangle are cognitive skills, the third mental talent that sets us apart from our kin is emotional. We seem to have much greater control over our emotions, and being less reactive and impulsive is a good way to get to the head of the class.
Researchers discovered all three of these distinguishing human talents by observing human and ape behavior, sometimes with solid, carefully controlled experiments. But what's going on under the biological hood? What brain mechanisms are responsible for the mental and behavioral differences between them and us? Biologically inclined researchers are starting to answer these questions, and the clues they are finding, while still patchy and nascent, are tantalizing.
Click to expand...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/apegenius/human.htm

In 2003, Rebecca Saxe of MIT ran studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI, a non-invasive technology that creates a kind of movie of brain activity. The studies revealed an area perhaps half the volume of a sugar cube above and behind the right ear.
This brain region appears to have a remarkably specific function. When I am thinking about who a friend believes will be the next American president, this area in my brain is highly active. But when I am thinking about whether my friend is thirsty—another internal state, but not a belief—this brain region is quiet. Saxe's discovery—one of the most surprising in cognitive science in the last decade—begs a question: Do the other great apes have their own version of this brain area, and if so, what is it doing?
Click to expand...
NOVA | Ape Genius | What Makes Us Human? | PBS

Q: Can you describe the experiment you do to look at theory of mind in young children?
Saxe: The standard paradigm is you have a puppet, Sally, who has a ball, and she puts the ball one place. And then she leaves, and you tell the child that Sally can't see or hear what's happening. And while Sally's out of the room, the ball's hidden someplace else. The question is, when Sally comes back in, where is she going to look for her ball? To figure that out, you need to know where she thinks the ball is. She's going to look for it where she first put it, because that's where she thinks it is, even though it's really in the other place.
Q: So what happens when you test this with, say, three-year-olds?
Saxe: Three-year-olds are amazing! The thing that's amazing is not that they fail, because there're lots of things three-year-olds can't do. The thing that's amazing is how convinced they are about their wrong answer! They're so sure that she's going to look for her ball where it really is because she wants it, and that's where it is. They'll show their confidence by betting tokens. If you give them 10 tokens, they'll bet all 10 tokens that she's going to look for it where it really is. The other thing that's amazing is that it's not a local cultural phenomenon; it's been found all over the world. It's been found in hunter-gatherer societies. It's been found in the Peruvian mountains. Three-year-olds are committed to the mistaken notion that human action is best predicted by what's really true. And so the achievement in psychological development is to realize that we should predict human action by what people think rather than by what's really true.
Click to expand...
-emphasis mine
NOVA | Ape Genius | The Ape That Teaches | PBS
 
Stone Age Graveyard | Online NewsHour | August 14, 2008 | PBS

Stone Age burial ground in the Sahara desert, two distinct "types" of humans dating from 6 and 10 thousand years ago. Also notes climate change in North Africa, global warming isn't just from human activities and is "normal" part of the geologic process.

Green Sahara — National Geographic Magazine

Paul Serano, Gobero Preserve, Niger

Dinosaur Expedition 2003 :: Paul Sereno's Dinosaur Expedition to The Sahara Desert in Niger Africa

People of the Green Sahara home page
 
Last edited:
Mice from stem cells

Two teams of Chinese researchers working separately have reprogrammed mature skin cells of mice to an embryonic-like state and used the resulting cells to create live mouse offspring.

The reprogramming may bring scientists one step closer to creating medically useful stem-cell lines for treating human disease without having to resort to controversial laboratory techniques. However, the advance poses fresh ethical challenges because the results could make it easier to create human clones and babies with specific genetic traits.
Click to expand...

Chinese Scientists Reprogram Cells to Create Mice - WSJ.com

This raises implications of made-to-order humans, for everything from spare parts to super-soldiers to slaves...
 
Hey Juan, have you read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond? It was also a miniseries on PBS I think. Highly recommended!

Chris
 
Ancient Migration: Coming to America
http://www.nature.com/news/ancient-migration-coming-to-america-1.10562

For most of the past 50 years, archaeologists thought they knew how humans arrived in the New World. The story starts around the end of the last ice age, when sea levels were lower and big-game hunters living in eastern Siberia followed their prey across the Bering land bridge and into Alaska. As the ice caps in Canada receded and opened up a path southward, the colonists swept across the vast unpopulated continent. Archaeologists called these presumed pioneers the Clovis culture, after distinctive stone tools that were found at sites near Clovis, New Mexico, in the 1920s and 1930s.

As caches of Clovis tools were uncovered across North America over subsequent decades, nearly all archaeologists signed on to the idea that the Clovis people were the first Americans. Any evidence of humans in the New World before the Clovis time was dismissed, sometimes harshly. That was the case with the Washington-state mastodon kill, which was first described around 30 years ago1 but then largely ignored.

Intense criticism also rained down on competing theories of how people arrived, such as the idea that early Americans might have skirted the coastline in boats, avoiding the Bering land bridge entirely. “I was once warned not to write about coastal migration in my dissertation. My adviser said I would ruin my career,” says Jon Erlandson, an archaeologist at the University of Oregon in Eugene.
Click to expand...

and

While geneticists open up intellectual frontiers, archaeologists are searching for ways to test the migration theories in the field. Direct evidence for coastal migration will be hard to come by, because a rise in the sea level since the end of the last ice age has flooded the ancient coastlines. But researchers are turning up indirect evidence in many locations. Last year, for example, Erlandson demonstrated that humans lived on California's Channel Islands as far back as 12,200 years ago9, which shows that they must have mastered the use of boats before that time.

And at the Monte Verde site in Chile, researchers have found evidence that the ancient occupants were fans of seafood10. “Monte Verde has ten different species of seaweed at the site,” Dillehay says. “Somebody was intimately familiar with seaweeds and the microhabitats where they could be found.” That lends support to the idea that the earliest Americans were seafarers, he says.

Dillehay's recent findings, which came 30 years after the first excavations at Monte Verde, show that previously studied sites can become potential gold mines, says Waters. Because so many sites were either dismissed or forgotten during the 'Clovis-first' era, Waters says that “the field can really be pushed forward by going back and taking a look at sites that were put up on a shelf”. He is already planning to reopen sites in Tennessee and Florida, where evidence of pre-Clovis mammoth hunting was uncovered in the 1980s and 1990s.

Geneticists and archaeologists agree that the death of the Clovis theory has injected the field with excitement and suspense. “There's a sense that there was something before Clovis,” says Jenkins, whose coprolite study shook the field four years ago. “But what it was and how it led to the patterns that we see in North and South America — that's a whole new ball game.”
Click to expand...

emphasis mine, -jt3
 
Not sure which find you are referring to?

The only that comes to mind is Kennewick Man:

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwo...-native-tribes-continue-fight-reburial-160780

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwo...-inslee-turn-kennewick-man-over-tribes-160848


Not so much a cover up as cultural superiority complex and politics being used by local scientists to force their way on the local Native tribes. I had lost track of the story, but I saw something the other night where dna was extracted from a tooth of Kennewick Man and discovered that he indeed shared more in common with the local Native Americans than with the "Viking" or Ainu he was supposed to be closer in relation to. Previous assumptions were based on skull shape, which apparently for ancient finds is not nearly as accurate as it has been portrayed regarding more recent cadavers (murder victims, etc.).

Interesting story all around, looks like the Ancient One will finally be repatriated and given a proper burial by the local tribes afterall.
 
In my experience that is typical to how science operates due to internal politics.

But then I've been saying that all along...the whole "science changes" line fails to note the internal politics that entrenches dogma and refuses to yield to conflicting evidence...even to the point of threatening to ruin careers.

But what do I know? I'm just a dumbass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top