Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8960 total)
123 online now:
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,189 Year: 937/23,288 Month: 937/1,851 Week: 60/321 Day: 22/38 Hour: 8/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   When Earth’s population was 10,000 persons
celestialGyoud
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 564
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 46 of 194 (603012)
02-02-2011 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Taq
02-01-2011 4:32 PM


Re: Only stable families constitute a stable society
Taq writes:

So how did they innoculate their children against diptheria?

-

If diphtheria had caused a big problem in those days then at least 90% percent of the Ethnic groups in Europe would have disappeared; however that is not what reality tells us.

Up to the present time no evidence demonstrated from real facts was presented on why it would have been impossible for Humans to have reached a population of 1 million persons in less than 20 thousand years, when the population was 10,000

-

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Taq, posted 02-01-2011 4:32 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Taq, posted 02-02-2011 11:01 AM celestialGyoud has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8213
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 47 of 194 (603025)
02-02-2011 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by celestialGyoud
02-02-2011 9:39 AM


Re: Only stable families constitute a stable society
however that is not what reality tells us.

Since when have any of your statements been grounded in reality? Every one of your posts is made up from whole cloth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by celestialGyoud, posted 02-02-2011 9:39 AM celestialGyoud has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by celestialGyoud, posted 02-02-2011 12:21 PM Taq has responded

  
celestialGyoud
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 564
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 48 of 194 (603035)
02-02-2011 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Taq
02-02-2011 11:01 AM


Re: Only stable families constitute a stable society
Taq writes:

however that is not what reality tells us.

Every one of your posts is made up from whole cloth.

-

That is another reason why you should come up with something better.

Especially because whoever brings up a theory (that places human beings living on the Earth 70 thousand years ago) should be able to explain it regardless of other persons words

-


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Taq, posted 02-02-2011 11:01 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Taq, posted 02-02-2011 12:38 PM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8213
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 49 of 194 (603039)
02-02-2011 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by celestialGyoud
02-02-2011 12:21 PM


Re: Only stable families constitute a stable society
Especially because whoever brings up a theory (that places human beings living on the Earth 70 thousand years ago) should be able to explain it regardless of other persons words

The fact that we find modern human skeletons that are 70,000 years old indicates that there were modern humans around 70,000 years ago. We tend to call this "evidence", something which you seem unfamiliar with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by celestialGyoud, posted 02-02-2011 12:21 PM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8213
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 50 of 194 (603040)
02-02-2011 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by celestialGyoud
01-24-2011 1:48 PM


CrazyDiamond7,

In the OP you stated:

"The real fact is that regardless of disease, natural disasters, wars and famine, human population has never stopped growing."

You have not demonstrated this fact. It is made up out of whole cloth. If this is your theory then you should be able to cite the evidence that supports it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by celestialGyoud, posted 01-24-2011 1:48 PM celestialGyoud has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by celestialGyoud, posted 02-02-2011 2:25 PM Taq has responded

  
celestialGyoud
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 564
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 51 of 194 (603056)
02-02-2011 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Taq
02-02-2011 12:43 PM


If their population ever stopped growing ....
Taq writes:

You have not demonstrated this fact.

-

In regards to the Ethnic groups in Europe, if their population would have ever stopped growing then it could also be true that their growth is very dependent on technological advances;

However, there is a huge flaw that many don't want to see; Consider that most of our current technological advances have ocurred within the last 200 years,

one could even go back to the last 1,000 years and it would still prove that the natural selection theory (in regards to the origin of this most recent version of Human beings) is incorrect.

-


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Taq, posted 02-02-2011 12:43 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Taq, posted 02-02-2011 2:30 PM celestialGyoud has not yet responded
 Message 53 by Coyote, posted 02-02-2011 2:33 PM celestialGyoud has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8213
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 52 of 194 (603058)
02-02-2011 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by celestialGyoud
02-02-2011 2:25 PM


Re: If their population ever stopped growing ....
However, there is a huge flaw that many don't want to see; Consider that most of our current technological advances have ocurred within the last 200 years,

one could even go back to the last 1,000 years and it would still prove that the natural selection theory (in regards to the origin of this most recent version of Human beings) is incorrect.

How is one related to the other?

If I took a modern human baby and transported it to an island where it never came into contact with modern technology or any knowledge garnered over the last 5,000 years would that child be able to rediscover quantum mechanics in it's lifetime?

At the same time, if that baby grew up in modern society with access to modern knowledge could that baby grow up to be a scientist who studies quantum mechanics?

Obviously, this has nothing to do with natural selection directly.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by celestialGyoud, posted 02-02-2011 2:25 PM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 487 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 53 of 194 (603060)
02-02-2011 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by celestialGyoud
02-02-2011 2:25 PM


Re: If their population ever stopped growing ....
Consider that most of our current technological advances have ocurred within the last 200 years

But some of the most important ones occurred much earlier:

(Click on the image to enlarge; those Acheulean handaxes were hot stuff for tens of thousands of years!)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by celestialGyoud, posted 02-02-2011 2:25 PM celestialGyoud has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by celestialGyoud, posted 02-02-2011 3:01 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
celestialGyoud
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 564
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 54 of 194 (603064)
02-02-2011 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Coyote
02-02-2011 2:33 PM


Re: If their population ever stopped growing ....
Coyote writes:

Consider that most of our current technological advances have ocurred within the last 200 years

But some of the most important ones occurred much earlier

-

That is another reason why the technology subject is now obsolete to offer any answer of value to the O.P.,

knowing that the left behind prototypes has nothing to do with ancestry

-


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Coyote, posted 02-02-2011 2:33 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Taq, posted 02-02-2011 3:12 PM celestialGyoud has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8213
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 55 of 194 (603065)
02-02-2011 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by celestialGyoud
02-02-2011 3:01 PM


Re: If their population ever stopped growing ....
knowing that the left behind prototypes has nothing to do with ancestry

How do we know that? Evidence please.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by celestialGyoud, posted 02-02-2011 3:01 PM celestialGyoud has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by celestialGyoud, posted 02-02-2011 3:51 PM Taq has responded

  
celestialGyoud
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 564
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 56 of 194 (603070)
02-02-2011 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Taq
02-02-2011 3:12 PM


What differentiates human prototypes from alleged ancestry
Taq writes:

knowing that the left behind prototypes has nothing to do with ancestry

How do we know that?

-

That a skeleton of left behind prototypes, dated at 30,000 years, has nothing to do with ancestry is evident; Were they placed on the Earth to constitute families, there would be found bodies of at least 2 families in a certain place,

because humans tend to gather the dead bodies of their parents or children not too far from one another.

The search engine does often bring up cemeteries dated at about 4,000 or 5,000, but not at 30 or 40,000

-


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Taq, posted 02-02-2011 3:12 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Taq, posted 02-02-2011 4:07 PM celestialGyoud has responded
 Message 60 by Coragyps, posted 02-02-2011 5:32 PM celestialGyoud has not yet responded
 Message 62 by Theodoric, posted 02-02-2011 7:57 PM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8213
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 57 of 194 (603072)
02-02-2011 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by celestialGyoud
02-02-2011 3:51 PM


Re: What differentiates human prototypes from alleged ancestry
That a skeleton of left behind prototypes, dated at 30,000 years, has nothing to do with ancestry is evident; Were they placed on the Earth to constitute families, there would be found bodies of at least 2 families in a certain place,

How do you determine if two bodies are from two families? What evidence are you using?

because humans tend to gather the dead bodies of their parents or children not too far from one another.

What about nomadic people who migrate large distances in a single year? How did you determine that all of our ancestors followed the same practices as we do? Evidence please.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by celestialGyoud, posted 02-02-2011 3:51 PM celestialGyoud has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by celestialGyoud, posted 02-02-2011 4:14 PM Taq has responded

  
celestialGyoud
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 564
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 58 of 194 (603075)
02-02-2011 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Taq
02-02-2011 4:07 PM


Re: What differentiates human prototypes from alleged ancestry
Taq writes:

That a skeleton of left behind prototypes, dated at 30,000 years, has nothing to do with ancestry is evident; Were they placed on the Earth to constitute families, there would be found bodies of at least 2 families in a certain place,

How do you determine if two bodies are from two families?

-

The rest of the sentence clears up that it's a tendency;
not a determined thing.

-


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Taq, posted 02-02-2011 4:07 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Taq, posted 02-02-2011 5:10 PM celestialGyoud has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8213
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 59 of 194 (603083)
02-02-2011 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by celestialGyoud
02-02-2011 4:14 PM


Re: What differentiates human prototypes from alleged ancestry
The rest of the sentence clears up that it's a tendency;
not a determined thing.

Then all we have is your unevidenced assertion that 30,000 year old humans are not our ancestors.

However, DNA can tell us if these 30,000 year old humans were our ancestors. Guess what? That work has been done.

quote:

A 28,000 years old Cro-Magnon mtDNA sequence differs from all potentially contaminating modern sequences.

Caramelli D, Milani L, Vai S, Modi A, Pecchioli E, Girardi M, Pilli E, Lari M, Lippi B, Ronchitelli A, Mallegni F, Casoli A, Bertorelle G, Barbujani G.

Dipartimento di Biologia Evoluzionistica, Università di Firenze, Firenze, Italy.

Abstract
BACKGROUND: DNA sequences from ancient specimens may in fact result from undetected contamination of the ancient specimens by modern DNA, and the problem is particularly challenging in studies of human fossils. Doubts on the authenticity of the available sequences have so far hampered genetic comparisons between anatomically archaic (Neandertal) and early modern (Cro-Magnoid) Europeans.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We typed the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) hypervariable region I in a 28,000 years old Cro-Magnoid individual from the Paglicci cave, in Italy (Paglicci 23) and in all the people who had contact with the sample since its discovery in 2003. The Paglicci 23 sequence, determined through the analysis of 152 clones, is the Cambridge reference sequence, and cannot possibly reflect contamination because it differs from all potentially contaminating modern sequences.

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The Paglicci 23 individual carried a mtDNA sequence that is still common in Europe, and which radically differs from those of the almost contemporary Neandertals, demonstrating a genealogical continuity across 28,000 years, from Cro-Magnoid to modern Europeans. Because all potential sources of modern DNA contamination are known, the Paglicci 23 sample will offer a unique opportunity to get insight for the first time into the nuclear genes of early modern Europeans.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18628960


So I have evidence that 30,000 year old modern humans in Europe have descendants in Europe today. What evidence do you have to the contrary?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by celestialGyoud, posted 02-02-2011 4:14 PM celestialGyoud has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by celestialGyoud, posted 02-03-2011 11:22 AM Taq has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5423
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 60 of 194 (603087)
02-02-2011 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by celestialGyoud
02-02-2011 3:51 PM


Re: What differentiates human prototypes from alleged ancestry
because humans tend to gather the dead bodies of their parents or children not too far from one another.

Really? And you know this for *most* cultures of 20,000 years ago how, exactly? Is that why the Parsis of India let vultures eat their dead? Individually?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by celestialGyoud, posted 02-02-2011 3:51 PM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by frako, posted 02-02-2011 6:55 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020