Vestiges for Peter B.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
Many of the early deities were female.

---

Big deal. Many of the dieties were male. But the real clincher is that you can't go back much beyond 7000 years ago without guessing.

quote:

---

I can understand why you wouldn't want to think that this were possible.

---

How the hell do you know what I want to think possible?

quote:

---

You come from a chauvinistic culture.

---

And hence I too am chauvinistic...

quote:

---

Even in the animal kingdom females are mostly in charge. I.E. Insects, many of the big cats, Elephants, etc...

---

No, not mostly in charge, but sometimes in charge, which essentially is what I said. There is a big mix of social structures in the animal kingdom, as our little buddies the apes and monkeys demonstrate.

quote:

---

You're thinking of modern Wicca which (bad pun) has very little to do with it's anicent counterpart because they had to basically start from scratch because of centuries of persecution by the Church which caused the lost of many of the old practices, rituals, and rites.

---

I am thinking of modern Wicca because there is no ancient counterpart. Like you said, it was started from scratch. That makes it new, not old. There is no continuity of ritual or tradition.

quote:

---

If Wicca only existed since the 1970's then why did the Church murder so many innocent people who they thought were practicing witchcraft over the centuries starting when they first invaded Europe?

---

Pretty much anything non-Christian, or even just peculiar, counted as witchcraft. Of course there were native religions which got persecuted. This doesn't mean that there was a WICCA!!!! spanning back 23,000 years.

quote:

---

I just visited your home page and it explains why you are saying this.

​

The main graphic there speaks volumes of what you think of women.

---

You should look deeper.Why would I adopt the moniker of "Hell's Handmaiden" if I hate women as much as you seem to think? Why not "The Devil's Alter Boy" instead? That way I can maintain my masculinity and my misogyny.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

Yeah, but what about hair on humans ... now there's a vestigial
trait that speaks of a common ancestry with them other
hairy critters .... like all mammals.

Originally posted by John:Big deal. Many of the dieties were male. But the real clincher is that you can't go back much beyond 7000 years ago without guessing.Archeologists seem to think better of that.How the hell do you know what I want to think possible?I visited your site.And hence I too am chauvinistic... Apparently.No, not mostly in charge, but sometimes in charge, which essentially is what I said. There is a big mix of social structures in the animal kingdom, as our little buddies the apes and monkeys demonstrate.Mostly in charge.I am thinking of modern Wicca because there is no ancient counterpart.Yes, there is and there is plenty of real evidence to suppose it despite the Churches best efforts to eradicate it.http://moonraven.salemconnection.net/...history/ancient.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_chr.htm
http://www.virtualavalon.com/wakingdragon/W101.htm Like you said, it was started from scratch. That makes it new, not old. There is no continuity of ritual or tradition.There is very little, but there is still some influence.Pretty much anything non-Christian, or even just peculiar, counted as witchcraft. Of course there were native religions which got persecuted. This doesn't mean that there was a WICCA!!!! spanning back 23,000 years.You're ignorance is amazing.You should look deeper.There really isn't all that much depth to your site.Why would I adopt the moniker of "Hell's Handmaiden" if I hate women as much as you seem to think? Why not "The Devil's Alter Boy" instead? That way I can maintain my masculinity and my misogyny.By the fact that you had used it in the first place. That and the graphic as well speak for themselves.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-11-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
Yeah, but what about hair on humans ... now there's a vestigial
trait that speaks of a common ancestry with them other
hairy critters .... like all mammals.

---

Humans have about the same hair density as chimpanzees it just doesn't grow as long on most people. The Ramos Gomez brothers are an exception.
http://www.circusfolks.com/apub/poleballet.jpgEvery sebaceous gland on your face has a hair in it somewhere and as you can see from the picture of Larry Ramos Gomez it has the potential to grow. Nobody quite understands what the function of sebum is in humans either but it certainly helps to sell soap and shampoo and lots of products for treating acne.Hair follicles in non-hairy skin do have a "function" that most people don't realize. There is population of keratinocytes in a region of the follicle called the hair bulge that contains the stem cells for producing hair when it grows in its next cycle. Bob Lavker has shown convincing evidence that when shallow wounds occur these stem cells can produce epidermis and stratum corneum(the lop layer of the skin) to help the final stage in wound healing which is regeneration of the stratum corneum. I can find the reference if you want. The paper was in Cell sometime in 2000 IIRC.Randy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
Yeah, but what about hair on humans ... now there's a vestigial
trait that speaks of a common ancestry with them other
hairy critters .... like all mammals.

---

I have a hard time thinking of things as vestigial since structures, or parts of structures, seem to always get co-opted for other purposes; but hair does point to common ancestry.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
Archeologists seem to think better of that.

---

Really? Which ones? [quote]How the hell do you know what I want to think possible?I visited your site.[quote] You are judging me based on very little information. My site covers a very limited range of topics. I am not sure which of them makes you think I am chauvinistic. Or is this all based on the pretty picture?

quote:

---

And hence I too am chauvinistic...

​

Apparently.

---

And your preferred method of debate is personal attack? I am chauvinistic why? I disagree with your interpretation of pre-history? That is absurd.An honest evaluation would require that you contact the people who know me

quote:

---

Mostly in charge.

---

Bare, unsupported assertation.Let's look at nature.Non-human primates, our closest relatives, exhibit pretty much every social structure observed in humans and, I am sorry to say, also with a strong tendency toward male dominance. As analogies go, that is the best we've got. I don't argue that it is right or that it justifies relegating women to an inferior status. In other words, the facts are not my fault. It is a lot more reasonable to assume similar cultural development in humans-- that there were many various cultures-- than to assume that human pre-history was exclusively female dominated. But analogy doesn't prove anything either. We really don't know, which has been my oint all along.You want to go further back on the evolutionary tree? Fine.Mammals also exhibit a huge variety of social structures, many of them male dominant. But what does it matter? The further away from humans we get the more guessing is involved. There are hundreds of millions of years of evolution involved. Go back far enough you find asexually reproducing cells.Genetically, a Y-chromosome is a broken X-chomosome so you can call those cells female I suppose, but it does not follow that 500 million years later, human society was female dominant. Nor does it follow that the reverse is true.It seems to me that I am not the one arguing chauvinistically. All I argue is that there really isn't any information that would solve this question.

quote:

---

I am thinking of modern Wicca because there is no ancient counterpart.

​

Yes, there is and there is plenty of real evidence to suppose it despite the Churches best efforts to eradicate it.

---

The real evidence is that there were countless local religions, not one big Wiccan religion. Wicca is a compilation. Compiling bits and pieces of those religion into one does not mean there was an ancient counterpart to Wicca.

quote:

---

http://moonraven.salemconnection.net/...history/ancient.html

---

From the above site: Wicca is a relatively modern attempt (approximately 50 years old) at reviving and reconstructing the old pre-Christian religions of Europe. In a mythopoetic sense it is many centuries old. However, the Witch of 200 years ago would not recognize what is called "witchcraft" today. Modern Wicca may have some of its roots in some of the local folk-magic and "family witchcraft" of mid 20th Century England. It does have traceable roots in the Golden Dawn magical society of late 19th century England, some of Aleister Crowley's magickal work and some Ceremonial Magic dating back to Elizabethan times. For a modern history of English Wicca, the reader can most profitably consult the works of Janet and Stuart Farrar and Doreen Valiente.And again:Up until recently, the earliest known remnants of human society that give us any clues to the spiritual dimension of prehistoric man are those belonging to the Gravettian-Aurignacian cultures of 2500-1500 BCEAnd we get to Lascaux cave. This is where the guessing starts. The caves demonstrate that there was some form of cognitive activity going on and that it was probably religious/magical. What that religion was is pure speculation.Even if there were hard evidence of female primacy, all it demonstrates is that such a social structure existed at this particular site. It does not prove anything larger.The same with the female figurines. They are all over the place, but that is about all that anyone knows. All the rest is make-believe.How about this: In Egypt, the Hebrews had known the worship of the Goddess as Isis or Hathor. For four generations they had been living in a land where women held a very high status and the matrilineal descent system continued to function at most periods.This just glosses right over the male deities in the pantheon-- like the creator Atum.I really like this one too: According to the legends of the Faerie, Witchcraft and magick began more than 35 thousand years ago, when the last ice age in Europe began and small bands of nomadic hunters followed the free-running reindeer and bison herds. They were armed with but primitive weapons ( Stone Age, remember?), and had to lure or chase the animals over a cliff or into a pit to kill and eat them. As Starhawk says,"...some among the clans were gifted, could "call" the herds to a cliff side or a pit, where a few beasts, in willing sacrifice, would let themselves be trapped."I think it need no comment.

quote:

---

http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_chr.htm

---

Why are you posting a link to Religious Tolerance .org? Do I have a problem with Wicca?

quote:

---

http://www.virtualavalon.com/wakingdragon/W101.htm

---

Nice story, but there ain't no supporting data. In particular:

quote:

---

This early beginning of religo-magic came to be, and so a priesthood was born. These few where known as Wicca or "Wise Ones".

---

How does the author know this? He is speaking of a time tens of thousands of years prior to written history. And then religion doesn't change until Christianity? Don't you think that is a little over simplified?

quote:

---

Like you said, it was started from scratch. That makes it new, not old. There is no continuity of ritual or tradition.

​

There is very little, but there is still some influence.[quote] The same could be said of any religion. All religion has connections to its culture and history. This doesn't make Wicca any more like religion in 23000 bc than is, say, Hinduism. Too much time has passed.

​

quote:

---

Pretty much anything non-Christian, or even just peculiar, counted as witchcraft. Of course there were native religions which got persecuted. This doesn't mean that there was a WICCA!!!! spanning back 23,000 years.

​

You're ignorance is amazing.

---

​

As is your lack of actual information.

​

Why would I adopt the moniker of "Hell's Handmaiden" if I hate women as much as you seem to think? Why not "The Devil's Alter Boy" instead? That way I can maintain my masculinity and my misogyny.

​

By the fact that you had used it in the first place. That and the graphic as well speak for themselves.
[/B]

---

What?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

Originally posted by John:Let's look at nature.

​

Non-human primates, our closest relatives, exhibit pretty much every social structure observed in humans and, I am sorry to say, also with a strong tendency toward male dominance. As analogies go, that is the best we've got. I don't argue that it is right or that it justifies relegating women to an inferior status. In other words, the facts are not my fault. It is a lot more reasonable to assume similar cultural development in humans-- that there were many various cultures-- than to assume that human pre-history was exclusively female dominated. But analogy doesn't prove anything either. We really don't know, which has been my oint all along.You are limiting your example.Mammals also exhibit a huge variety of social structures, many of them male dominant. But what does it matter? The further away from humans we get the more guessing is involved. There are hundreds of millions of years of evolution involved. Go back far enough you find asexually reproducing cells.In hunter/gatherer societies the males mostly just did the hunting while the did the rest. It is most likely that the first farmer was female as well.Genetically, a Y-chromosome is a broken X-chomosome so you can call those cells female I suppose, but it does not follow that 500 million years later, human society was female dominant. Nor does it follow that the reverse is true.Early human agricultual was mainly female dominate because it was the women who did the work.The real evidence is that there were countless local religions, not one big Wiccan religion. Wicca is a compilation. Compiling bits and pieces of those religion into one does not mean there was an ancient counterpart to Wicca.The Church has done quite a good job of misinformation.Why are you posting a link to Religious Tolerance .org? Do I have a problem with Wicca?Apparently you do since you are going by what misinformation the Church has put out about it.How does the author know this? He is speaking of a time tens of thousands of years prior to written history. And then religion doesn't change until Christianity? Don't you think that is a little over simplified?Occum's Razor.As is your lack of actual information. There are none so blind....What?Exactly my point.

This is the best you can do?

quote:

---

You are limiting your example.

---

Yeah, damn straight. Its called selecting an applicable analogy.

quote:

---

In hunter/gatherer societies the males mostly just did the hunting while the did the rest. It is most likely that the first farmer was female as well.

---

Where are you getting your information? In hunter-gatherer societies that have survived long enough to be studied, this simply isn't true. Eating is pretty much a fend-for-oneself proposition-- the Aboriginals of Australia for example.Division of labor seems to have started when hunter-gatherers settled into permanent villages, often associated with farming. No one knows how that division of labor was organized. The data does not exist.

quote:

---

Early human agricultual was mainly female dominate because it was the women who did the work.

---

Unsupported assertation. Prove it.

quote:

---

The Church has done quite a good job of misinformation.

---

So where is the truth? I should just believe you? Accept your assertions on faith?

quote:

---

Apparently you do since you are going by what misinformation the Church has put out about it.

---

Yet you cannot prove a word of what you say.

quote:

---

How does the author know this? He is speaking of a time tens of thousands of years prior to written history. And then religion doesn't change until Christianity? Don't you think that is a little over simplified?

​

Occum's Razor.

---

Do not multiply entities beyond neccessity. How, exactly, does this translate into 'cut out most of the information'?

quote:

---

There are none so blind....

---

That's just what I used to hear in Bible School. Come on, now. You can do better than that.

quote:

---

Exactly my point.

---

You didn't make a point, not a cogent one anyway. Hence, the question.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:Unsupported assertation. Prove it.http://www.mythome.org/mythevol.htmlFemale dominated pantheons :
This was once very common; the Goddess as a shared diety among hundreds of cultures is cited by writers like

​

C. Jung Introduction to a science of Mythology
J F. Campbell Myths To Live By 1988
Shahrukh, Husan

​

The Goddess , 1997
The Woman's Companion to Mythology , 1997

​

Gimbutas, Marija Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe
Walker, Barbara J. Women's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets

​

There is nothing gentle about matriarchies since they too lived near the land, and no child would grow up not knowing that animals and plants were killed for food (and seeing it done often as not). There is no modern nonsense about the balance of nature, of the benign nature of Mother Earth.
All these neolithic farming people were one harvest away from starvation. And when the harvest was poor, they did starve. Hungry wild animals would kill their livestock, their children, themselves if the opportunity arose.
For example, 5000 years before today lions apparently were in most areas of central Europe and Asia. Thus the same Mother Earth that provided cereals, grasses, and animals that people ate, and used also provided the famines, the predators and the sickness. The Goddess was not some abstract idea, she was a creator and a destroyer. Anyone could see the process going on day by day.
And in the powerful Knossos empire, a matriarchy, accounting and taxes were 'invented' and used as any patriachy would, to redistribute income from those that have income to the government, the priesthood, and in a 5000 years before today version of the trickle down effect, the desperately poor.

​

As monotheism replaced pantheism and male priests replaced female ones the characteristics of the god or gods became more the assertive male, less the assertive female.http://www.aristasia.co.uk/heritage.html
http://www.humanevolution.net/a/matrilineal.htmlThat's just what I used to hear in Bible School. Come on, now. You can do better than that.I guess that it influenced you more than you realized. Thus that is why you chose the image you did on your web site of women being demonic temptresses.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nos482:
[B][i]Female dominated pantheons :
This was once very common; the Goddess as a shared diety among hundreds of cultures is cited by writers likeC. Jung Introduction to a science of Mythology
J F. Campbell Myths To Live By 1988
Shahrukh, HusanThe Goddess , 1997
The Woman's Companion to Mythology , 1997Gimbutas, Marija Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe
Walker, Barbara J. Women's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets [/b][/quote]Perhaps you misunderstand what is required to prove a postulate. You need evidence, not the say-so of the authors of popular press books.

quote:

---

http://www.aristasia.co.uk/heritage.html

---

The article starts with at the beginning of recorded history. Extrapolating backwards past a few generations is not valid. 23000bc is quite a few generations.Interesting also is that though the creation myth cited has a female creator, the culture was far from matriarchal. Why not extrapolate backwards from there? IE. There is no necessary one to one correlation with mythology and social structure.

quote:

---

http://www.humanevolution.net/a/matrilineal.html

---

Interesting, but not very applicable.

quote:

---

I guess that it influenced you more than you realized.

---

I am so glad you know me so well.

quote:

---

Thus that is why you chose the image you did on your web site of women being demonic temptresses.

---

Stuck on that aren't you?Has it occurred to you that I don't see it the way you do?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

Originally posted by John:Perhaps you misunderstand what is required to prove a postulate. You need evidence, not the say-so of the authors of popular press books.I bet that if I had a time machine and took you back then you would still not want to believe it.The article starts with at the beginning of recorded history. Extrapolating backwards past a few generations is not valid. 23000bc is quite a few generations.We have examples of writings going back 10,000 years.I am so glad you know me so well.What is there know?Has it occurred to you that I don't see it the way you do?Of course, I don't see women in that demeaning context as primarily sex objects to tempt men as you have shown.Does this sound familiar?"When ought the cops let me bonk her?"This is about an article on your web site about lowering the age of consent.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-11-2002]

Dear SLPx,Sorry for skimming your post to quickly. I missed that you refered to this small muscle. However, as long as this muscle (and the other one you refered to) do not demonstrate signs of atrophy --yes you have to show me the references where they demonstrate that these muscles are atrophic-- these muscles are not vestiges.
I like you to have alook at the following Nature paper on alleged vestigal muscles in the horse. They turned out to be crucial in dampening of vibrations (Wilson et al, Nature 414, p895, 2001, and the comments on this topic by Alexander in the same issue).Best wishes, (and remember: there are no vestiges, science will proof that)Peter

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
I bet that if I had a time machine and took you back then you would still not want to believe it.

---

You'd lose that bet.But you don't have a time machine, yet still pretend to have some information.

quote:

---

We have examples of writings going back 10,000 years.

---

Right..... No webpage found at provided URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/334517.stmNote that the writing is dated to 5500 years ago. Where do you get your information?

quote:

---

Of course, I don't see women in that demeaning context as primarily sex objects to tempt men as you have shown.

---

Interesting fantasy but very very wrong. All of it you assigned to me right from the start. But you can't let lack of information get in the way. Who needs data when you are pissed off, right?

quote:

---

Does this sound familiar?

---

Yep, sounds like the rest of the slander you've been spewing. And why all this vitriol?'cause I questioned your mythology. I'll assume its OK to question the Christians since you have done so on this forum. But your mythos are special? No, sorry. They aren't.

quote:

---

This is about an article on your web site about lowering the age of consent.

---

Actually, it is about the chaos and irrationality of US age of consent legislation. But I bet you didn't read it.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

Dear SLPx,Once more sorry for addressing the wrong topic. (for my comments see below)Dear SLPx,
Sorry for skimming your post to quickly. I missed that you refered to this small muscle. However, as long as this muscle (and the other one you refered to) do not demonstrate signs of atrophy --yes you have to show me the references where they demonstrate that these muscles are atrophic-- these muscles are not vestiges.
I like you to have alook at the following Nature paper on alleged vestigal muscles in the horse. They turned out to be crucial in dampening of vibrations (Wilson et al, Nature 414, p895, 2001, and the comments on this topic by Alexander in the same issue).Best wishes, (and remember: there are no vestiges, science will proof that)Peter

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

This is about an article on your web site about lowering the age of consent.

---

​

Actually, it is about the chaos and irrationality of US age of consent legislation. But I bet you didn't read it.

---

I happen to fully agree with John's article. Maturity is the deciding factor and it's a state of mind, not a number.I also have a friend who was found guilty of stat rape. The judge said he would have thrown the case out if the law permitted. Unfortuantely she was 6 weeks underage and her parents had layed charges, legally he was guilty. He did get the minimum though (a fine), but the record stays with him for live.------------------
compmage