Evolutionary biology, Africa & OUTRAGE

[Waverly]

Aw, Viv, hello to you too. *grope*

Witch Fuehrer: I believe I just presented you with an explanation for the dominance of western Europe. If you would persist in believing otherwise, you should probably find some support for that stance.

You also misunderstand current out of Africa theory, confusing it with the Afrocentric version taught to school children. No, there was not a neat, uniform migration of fully adapted homo sapiens leaving Africa to make their way in the rest of the world. That our oldest ancestors lived there is not in doubt. From there, humans migrated, adapted to environs, intermixed, and migrated again. It would be impossible to say at which geographic local humans became the most like our modern iteration, but it is important to keep in mind we vary precious little from race to race. To overlook the propensity of humans to breed with anything they can get their hands on is a mistake, and this leads to a high level of homogenisis.

[Witch King]

Originally posted by Waverly:
<STRONG>Aw, Viv, hello to you too. *grope*

Witch Fuehrer: I believe I just presented you with an explanation for the dominance of western Europe.

You also misunderstand current out of Africa theory, confusing....</STRONG>

To your first point: yes. I said I agreed, not disagreed, you should probably re-read and strive for understanding this time, as opposed to having your eyes glaze over, which in turn makes nonsense babble forth from thy mouth like a river of gruntboy-esque articulations.

To your second point: no. I don't misunderstand it at all, I advise you to catch up on your reading:

Cite: Last few "Scientific Americans" & "Discovery"s.
Guns, Germs & Steel.

Vivian: *more stimulating grope* Hey there baby. My life is pretty fine about now, though the job is STRESSFUL. Been fishing lately?

[Waverly]

So as a cite, you think merely telling someone ‘oh, here and there’ is exact enough. I fail to see how this demonstrates an understanding of the material involved, particularly if you cannot paraphrase it into your own words. As I subscribe to both Scientific American and Discover magazines, I think it is safe to say you are bluffing. Rather than play semantic games with the ‘out of Africa’ phrase, why don’t you take a look at my explanation and point out errors as well as back up your contentions with some facts. You know what facts are… those pesky things that people who spout off with no knowledge of the subject at hand get smacked with.

[Weasel]

Originally posted by Witch King:
<STRONG>
Weasel: Wow, you're still around, I'm amazed, though obviously I shouldn't be. I didn't follow your Mars comment though...How's life with you Weasel, things pretty good?

-==-==--=-=-
damn hobbit</STRONG>

My comment goes back further than the period you are discussing. (How life got started on the earth in the first place.. Rock hits earth ripping out a piece which become the moon.)

Life is so so. The election takes most of my time nowadays.

[Vivien]

Originally posted by Witch King:
<STRONG>
Vivian: *more stimulating grope* Hey there baby. My life is pretty fine about now, though the job is STRESSFUL. Been fishing lately?</STRONG>

Is it just recently stressful?

Been fishing lately? *wonders if there's a hidden message, but can't quite figure it out as she's not used to making herself read between the lines*


Either it means something about fishing for ...compliments?

Hmm....not really I offer niceness and 'fish' look for the same

OR, you could be making conversation!

So, then I would say:
No, I haven't been fishing lately, mainly because it's cold and icy, yet not icy enough that one can drive on the ice without worrying over the cracking sounds

[ThorinOakensfield]

Originally posted by Witch King:
<STRONG>

Thorin: Dame hobbit slew me once, a looong time ago... Are you still a greedy bastard of a dwarve?

</STRONG>

Most likely.

[Minerva]

Originally posted by Witch King:
<STRONG>Minerva: You are my most precious ancient enemy. Avast! Stand back, and draw thy blade!
</STRONG>

Am I? I didn't know that...

[fable]

Originally posted by Minerva:
<STRONG>Am I? I didn't know that... </STRONG>

Quite a compliment. He could have claimed you were his most inexpensive ancient enemy, sort of a foe armored in rhinestones.

[AbysmalNature]

Hi WitchKing, Don't know you but I will try to answer what I think from what I have learned. First premise the Western Europeans were not supremely superior in terms of resources culture whatever, the fact that the Europeans colonized first is a article of random chance. There have been other possibilities, there is some evidence that the Incans were beginning to build ships for the crossing of oceans, ten years or more perhaps it would have been the Incans. Also not well know but before Portugal even got started the Chinese were already exploring on their own campaign of expansion, they had already reached the tip of South Africa way before Henry the Navigator had even started. Then the Chinese Emperor died and the accountants forbidded the ships to go any further. So it is historical chance that it was not the other way around. Also there is a lot of evidence to support the Chinese having discovered America before the Vikings, on the western coast, similiarities in writing and so forth.

As to your second question, it is probably both, probably some common ancestor came out of Africa and we separate evolution depending on the environment we evolved in, however the fact we can crossbreed suggests
to me that we came out of Africa relatively recently, rather than earlier and then evolved some minor differing racial characteristics.

[Omar]

@WitchKing

Question2: these last couple of years or so a new theory about the origin of life has been introduced in astronomy, stating that life originated in one place in our Galaxy and spread out from that birth place to other parts. The thought behind this is the fact that the chance for life developing on a planet is VERY small, making the chance of life developing in different parts of the Galaxy, independent of each other, even smaller. Tests with bacteria have been conducted, and it appears that bacteria can survive "lift-off" from one planet, and an impact on another planet, provided that they are properly shielded within the meteorites used for interstellar travel. Last year a project has been set up here in Holland at Leiden University that'll be dealing with this theory in more detail...

[Gwalchmai]

Waverly: Sounds like environmental determinism if you ask me, and I probably agree, though not the way you present it. I would say the extra 100,000 years of history in the Old World had a lot to do with building up enough population pressure to force certain technological achievements - ship building, guns, toilet paper, that kind of thing. In so far as the population is an aspect of the environment....

As I understand it, at the time the Spanish came into Peru, the Inca were in the middle of civil war between two ruling brothers. The Spanish were able to take advantage of the chaos and could make their conquest. If the Incas had firmer political control at the time, Pizzaro probably wouldn’t have stood a chance and the politics of South America might have had a very different look. Nevertheless, this doesn’t account for the decimating affects of disease on the American populations, which was really the European’s greatest weapon - arguable bourn of high population densities as well.

[Waverly]

Gwalch, that argument works best for the new world, and we should both be able to agree that the western hemisphere was not the only focus of expansionism. Even when looking only there, I’m not sure I would agree that the new world suffered any type of time penalty. It’s not like folks meandered over during the iron age. At the time people first crossed over into N. America, the people of Europe would not have been recognizably more advanced.

As for population driving advancement, India succumbed to British rule despite having a large, long standing population. I believe they simply weren’t driven the way the Europeans were to militarize or be conquered.

Your point about disease is a very good one. I believe it was not only the large population centers, but the trade and contact between them that gave Europeans the advantage in resistance.

Re-reading: I think we mostly agree, though I would put the pressures of potentially hostile neighbors and the means to combat them through militarism and technology higher on the list than simply population density.

[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: Waverly ]

[Minerva]

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>Quite a compliment. He could have claimed you were his most inexpensive ancient enemy, sort of a foe armored in rhinestones.</STRONG>

He could, indeed. We know what this particular Witch King is capable of.

[Gwalchmai]

Waverly: You make some good points, but I may not have explained myself well enough. I’m saying that the technological advancement that allowed peoples of the Old World to travel to the New World first had nothing to do with the length of occupation of each respective region, but rather with the population density. True, about 12000 years ago when the New World was first being populated, the relative technologies were about equal (Clovis lithic technology compared to some similar Stone Age technology in the Old World), but the relatively few small bands of humans who came across the Bering Strait were a miniscule population compared to major population zones in the Old World. The Old World had a huge head start on its population. The greater population density pressured Old World peoples to create greater and greater technologies to cope. Agriculture solved their problems for a while, but also gave rise to larger populations. Eventually expansion of territory was the chosen option, giving rise to greater mobility and antagonism. Therefore ships and guns.

Meanwhile in the New World, humans were spread out, population less dense. The carrying capacity of the land was not immediately stressed, and there was no impetus for technological advancement. State level societies developed much later. Humans tend to resist change, and will usually opt for less-complex organizational systems if they can. An example would be how sedentary tribes along the Missouri were willing to become nomadic hunters and gatherers on the Great Plains again as soon as the horse was introduced by the Spanish (moving into territory decimated by disease and moving out of territory that was being pressured by expansion from the east). Without the population pressure early on, stale level societies developed later, and were technologically behind the times by A.D. 1500.

On the other hand, you appear to claim that some peculiar Old World climate, geography, and distribution of resources gave rise to a more aggressive and expansionist group of cultures. I would disagree. The New World had its share of comparable climates, geographies, and resources, and the cultures were certainly antagonistic enough. Maya, Inca, Olmec, Moche, and Aztec cultures were certainly capable of conquering, with lots of fun looting and pillaging.

[KidD01]

Originally posted by Witch King:
<STRONG>Kid###: Hey man, hope things are well with you. Never besmirch the True Name of a goat.

Thorin: Dame hobbit slew me once, a looong time ago... Are you still a greedy bastard of a dwarve?

Weasel: Wow, you're still around, I'm amazed, though obviously I shouldn't be. I didn't follow your Mars comment though...How's life with you Weasel, things pretty good?

Minerva: You are my most precious ancient enemy. Avast! Stand back, and draw thy blade!

-==-==--=-=-
damn hobbit</STRONG>

@Goat Lover : Still crreping around here, alas I got lesser time to SPAM now