Notices
Results 1 to 61 of 61
Like Tree10Likes
  • 2 Post By MeteorWayne
  • 4 Post By KALSTER
  • 2 Post By Strange
  • 2 Post By John Galt

Thread: Did humans originate in America?

  1. #1 Did humans originate in America? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
    I was reading an interesting book titled American Genesis by Jeffrey Goodman, he claims to have evidence that the first human beings were the American Indians and that they originated in North America, 500,000 years ago and then spread to the rest of the world.

    Interestingly Louis Leakey after studying stone artifacts in California claimed man may have been in the Americas over 200,000 years ago. Of course this is unorthodox interpretation of evidence. But just interested if anyone knows about these theories, or the work of Goodman?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Hadn't heard of him...tried google scholar no hits--meaning he doesnt' really do science. Other links took me to him being considered the founder of something called "psychic archeology." Sorry that was enough for me.

    Leakey, as amazing as he, was has been gone a long time and well before modern techniques of dating things--I think we can excuse him for getting a lot of date estimates wrong.


    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Hadn't heard of him...tried google scholar no hits--meaning he doesnt' really do science. Other links took me to him being considered the founder of something called "psychic archeology." Sorry that was enough for me.

    Leakey, as amazing as he, was has been gone a long time and well before modern techniques of dating things--I think we can excuse him for getting a lot of date estimates wrong.
    I agree Goodman did ruin his career by advocating psychic archeology in the 80s but he was just investigating it, the man is actually far from a crank, I know its silly to try and argue from authority, but the man does have multiple degrees and a PhD in anthropology. He claims to have found a stone which looks carved, its been dated at something like 150,000 years.

    As for Leakey, he did not get the dates wrong. It is to do with this controversy here:

    Calico Early Man Site - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    They have found many scrapers (stone artifacts) which look human carved. They have been dated at 200,000 to even 500,000 years old. When you look at these scrapers they look too clean cut to be geofacts, but some argue they were shaped naturally by the river. As I understand it, there still hasn't been an overall conclusion on this issue, though most scientists seem to go with the geofact theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Cool beans. Thanks for the link! Sad to read the last paragraph.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    24
    Most of the Evidence from different fields of Archaeology point to Africa as being to Origin of Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Maybe the artifacts are from another offshoot of our 'family' like Neanderthal is, but i mean another version like Erectus or something. Chimps can use stone tools, why not another strain of Homo family?

    Could have been some random time travelers stuck in the middle of nowhere, scratching a petty living with no understanding of living in the wilderness??? Pseudoscience forum :-P
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    Human MIGHT have been around the world 500,000-years ago (might be in America too) but went extinct everywhere else except in Africa at around 70,000-years ago (then restart again as Homo-Sapien). The cause of extinction is believed to be due to drought/climate-change that lasted for tens of thousand of years, and it is also reasonable to believe that first human existed LONG before the first Homo-Sapien because a 1.8 MILLION-years old 'human-shaped-stone-tool' was found to exist. There's no reason to reject the idea that human could have been in America before the first Homo-Sapien existed in Africa.

    There might be a credence to the idea that human existed in America long-long time ago, but there's no support to the idea that human ALL originated from America (the extinction wiped out everyone living there and the North America Indian was actually a Modern-human saperated from Asia after the Ice-Age receeded ~20,000 years ago).

    Humans shaped stone axes 1.8 million years ago, study says ;(this is very old compared to the first Homo-Sapien expansion from Africa 50,000 years ago)
    After Near Extinction, Humans Split Into Isolated Bands ;Human almost went extinct 150,000 years ago.
    Study: Humans Almost Became Extinct 70,000 Years Ago | Fox News ;Extinction believed to be a massive drought/climate-change.
    Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ;Mitochondrial lineage showed that Modern-human originated from Africa ~50,000 years ago.
    Last edited by msafwan; March 10th, 2012 at 08:34 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    24
    No Human ever existed before Homo Sapiens Sapiens, Humans are Homo Sapiens Sapiens! Other Hominids may have been living in North America before the Indigenous population ever got there, but who knows?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    From the Wikipedia article for Jeffrey Goodman :

    Goodman's theory has been criticised as his explanation of the relationship between hominids and humans was vaguely discussed. However Goodman in a later book addressed the issue in The Genesis Mystery: the Sudden Appearance of Man (1983) in which he criticised natural selection and advocated a type of spiritual evolution by claiming that archaeological findings verify an unbridgeable gap between modern man and the last "pre-man" creature and advocates spiritual intervention as the explanation for the "sudden appearance" of modern man.[12] According to Michael Anthony Corey: Goodman "appeals to an intervening supernatural force, which would have manifested itself entirely through a "natural" series of evolutionary processes".[13]Goodman's theories are popular amongst American Indian creationists who believe that the American Indians originated in America and had not migrated there from Asia.[14] Few scientists today give Goodman's ideas and his use of evidence much credence.[15]
    Enough said
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    From the Wikipedia article for Jeffrey Goodman :

    Goodman's theory has been criticised as his explanation of the relationship between hominids and humans was vaguely discussed. However Goodman in a later book addressed the issue in The Genesis Mystery: the Sudden Appearance of Man (1983) in which he criticised natural selection and advocated a type of spiritual evolution by claiming that archaeological findings verify an unbridgeable gap between modern man and the last "pre-man" creature and advocates spiritual intervention as the explanation for the "sudden appearance" of modern man.[12] According to Michael Anthony Corey: Goodman "appeals to an intervening supernatural force, which would have manifested itself entirely through a "natural" series of evolutionary processes".[13]Goodman's theories are popular amongst American Indian creationists who believe that the American Indians originated in America and had not migrated there from Asia.[14] Few scientists today give Goodman's ideas and his use of evidence much credence.[15]
    Enough said
    You are all silent about the work of Leakey though. Note how Louis Leakey was a close friend of Goodman, they shared many of the same views and both did excavations Calico Hills. Have a look at the scrapers online, they do look human made, some of the blades are very clear cut.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by StukInaaroc View Post
    No Human ever existed before Homo Sapiens Sapiens, Humans are Homo Sapiens Sapiens! Other Hominids may have been living in North America before the Indigenous population ever got there, but who knows?
    Bigfoot
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by StukInaaroc View Post
    Most of the Evidence from different fields of Archaeology point to Africa as being to Origin of Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Maybe the artifacts are from another offshoot of our 'family' like Neanderthal is, but i mean another version like Erectus or something. Chimps can use stone tools, why not another strain of Homo family?

    Could have been some random time travelers stuck in the middle of nowhere, scratching a petty living with no understanding of living in the wilderness??? Pseudoscience forum :-P
    You might want to look at some of the ancient skulls found in California, most of these finds are not on mainstream websites like wikipedia so not many people know about them. According to Goodman there were three skulls found in California dated up to 70,000 years. I have seen photos of these skulls they do exist.

    Another one of the skulls he mentions is called the Del Mar Skull. However new dating techniques put that skull at only around 5,000 years, but others have claimed this is some kind of supression and the original dates are still valid at near 50,000 years. I am not sure what to make of it.

    George F. Carter has written Earlier than you think: a personal view of man in America in which he argues that man has been in the Americas for atleast 200,000 years. It may be a book worth checking out, I have not read it yet, but when I do it will be interesting to see which evidence he is using.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    You are all silent about the work of Leakey though. Note how Louis Leakey was a close friend of Goodman, they shared many of the same views and both did excavations Calico Hills.
    I quote from the Wikipedia article about Leakey :

    Louis Seymour Bazett Leakey (L.S.B. Leakey) (7 August 1903 – 1 October 1972) was a British archaeologist and naturalist whose work was important in establishing human evolutionary development in Africa. He also played a major role in creating organizations for future research in Africa and for protecting wildlife there. Having been a prime mover in establishing a tradition of palaeoanthropological inquiry, he was able to motivate the next generation to continue it, notably within his own family, many of whom also became prominent. Leakey participated in national events of British East Africa and Kenya during the 1950s.
    In natural philosophy he asserted Charles Darwin's theory of evolution unswervingly and set about to prove Darwin's hypothesis that man arose in Africa; he was also a devout Christian.[1]
    Note that last sentence in particular.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    You are all silent about the work of Leakey though. Note how Louis Leakey was a close friend of Goodman, they shared many of the same views and both did excavations Calico Hills.
    I quote from the Wikipedia article about Leakey :

    Louis Seymour Bazett Leakey (L.S.B. Leakey) (7 August 1903 – 1 October 1972) was a British archaeologist and naturalist whose work was important in establishing human evolutionary development in Africa. He also played a major role in creating organizations for future research in Africa and for protecting wildlife there. Having been a prime mover in establishing a tradition of palaeoanthropological inquiry, he was able to motivate the next generation to continue it, notably within his own family, many of whom also became prominent. Leakey participated in national events of British East Africa and Kenya during the 1950s.
    In natural philosophy he asserted Charles Darwin's theory of evolution unswervingly and set about to prove Darwin's hypothesis that man arose in Africa; he was also a devout Christian.[1]
    Note that last sentence in particular.
    You are obviously just interested in attacking scientists personal belief systems, but this will not work becuase many scientific men have had religious or metaphysical views. The majority of scientists have philosophical or religious views outside of their scientific work, this has always been the case. These views do not tarnish or descredit their scientific work though.

    Alfred Wallace was a fine naturalist who did some great scientific work for evolution, but he was a spiritualist who believed that spirits and angels were real, did his metaphysical beliefs descredit his scientific work? no not at all. You appear to be confusing metaphysical or philosophical views with science. Instead of actually looking at or discussing the evidence you would just rather attack the man instead, call yourself a scientist? It doesn't sound very professional.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    You are obviously just interested in attacking scientists personal belief systems, but this will not work becuase many scientific men have had religious or metaphysical views. The majority of scientists have philosophical or religious views outside of their scientific work, this has always been the case. These views do not tarnish or descredit their scientific work though.

    Alfred Wallace was a fine naturalist who did some great scientific work for evolution, but he was a spiritualist who believed that spirits and angels were real, did his metaphysical beliefs descredit his scientific work? no not at all. You appear to be confusing metaphysical or philosophical views with science. Instead of actually looking at or discussing the evidence you would just rather attack the man instead, call yourself a scientist? It doesn't sound very professional.
    What are you on about ? Nowhere have I mentioned "belief systems", I simply replied to your comment. When I made a reference to the last sentence, I obviously meant the part about humans originating in Africa, as opposed to the Americas; after all that is the topic of this thread.
    I really couldn't care less what that gentleman's religious beliefs were - that is not the topic of this discussion. Also, would you please point out exactly where I attacked this man ? All I did was quote the Wikipedia article, I didn't even comment on its contents !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
    You have quoted and highlighted Goodmans belief in spirituality to try and descredit the man, and you have done the same for Leakey by copying and pasting in he is a devout Christian and basically saying "enough said" lets leave it at that. While you have freedom of speech and entitled to your opinion, what you are actually doing is just trying to attack the man and not the evidence, this always happens. These comments are completey irrelevant to their scientific excavations in California and their claims that man may be 500,000 years old in the Americas. It does not matter if both men were serial killers, if they have claimed to found very old human artifacts, it should be taken seriously.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    You have quoted and highlighted Goodmans belief in spirituality to try and descredit the man, and you have done the same for Leakey by pasting in he is a devout Christian and basically saying "enough said" lets leave it at that. While you have freedom of speech and entitled to your opinion, what you are actually doing is just trying to attack the man and not the evidence, this always happens. These comments are completey irrelevant to their scientific excavations in California and their claims that man may be 500,000 years old in the Americas. It does not matter if both men were serial killers, if they have claimed to found very old human artifacts, it should be taken seriously.
    I say it again to you - I couldn't care less what their religions were. For me the main point is really this :

    Few scientists today give Goodman's ideas and his use of evidence much credence.[15]
    Make of this what you wish.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Forest, Guess I'm missing where he attacked or highlighted those things. They did show up as hyperlinks which I think you misinterpreted.

    if they have claimed to found very old human artifacts, it should be taken seriously.
    After 50+ years to confirm the humans in America that long ago and apparently no other strongly supporting evidence, it probably shouldn't be taken very seriously at all. If new evidence comes about it might get another look---and such is the ways of science.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    You have quoted and highlighted Goodmans belief in spirituality to try and descredit the man, and you have done the same for Leakey by pasting in he is a devout Christian and basically saying "enough said" lets leave it at that. While you have freedom of speech and entitled to your opinion, what you are actually doing is just trying to attack the man and not the evidence, this always happens. These comments are completey irrelevant to their scientific excavations in California and their claims that man may be 500,000 years old in the Americas. It does not matter if both men were serial killers, if they have claimed to found very old human artifacts, it should be taken seriously.
    I say it again to you - I couldn't care less what their religions were. For me the main point is really this :

    Few scientists today give Goodman's ideas and his use of evidence much credence.[15]
    Make of this what you wish.
    It is quite clear that mainstream scientists are not going to support Goodmans ideas, that is why I posted this in the pseudoscience section. While his claims about American Indians being the first race on earth are quite far from mainstream thinking, his excavations should be taken seriously. You also have to understand that the out of africa theory is a very powerful social political theory and anyone who opposes it will be ridiculed or called a racist, even the multiregional proponents have been called racists. It is all due to a guilt complex associated with the atrocities in Nazi Germany and black slavery in the past, liberal scientists think they noiw have to ow something to the Africans. - While there is clear evidence of humans in Africa, see work of Dart and Broom for example, theres evidence in the Americas, Europe and Asia for early humans.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    You have quoted and highlighted Goodmans belief in spirituality to try and descredit the man, and you have done the same for Leakey by copying and pasting in he is a devout Christian and basically saying "enough said" lets leave it at that.
    You seem to have difficulty understanding that for some people ( like myself ) religion simply isn't a factor. Once again, for the record, I am telling you that it makes no difference whatsoever to me what those people believed in - they may as well have been adherence of Strange's Pink Unicorn Cult. The assertion that man originated in the Americas is still contrary to current theory and evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
    Forest, Guess I'm missing where he attacked or highlighted those things. They did show up as hyperlinks which I think you misinterpreted.
    Yes it appears I have made a mistake here, I thought he was highlighting these specific words, I apologize Markus Hanke but I still get the gist that becuase of these guys spiritual views that you will automatically disgard their scientific work, I don't see why you pasted in for example Goodmans believe in spirituality, - also some members of this forum seem to believe natural selection is immune from criticism?.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    You have quoted and highlighted Goodmans belief in spirituality to try and descredit the man, and you have done the same for Leakey by copying and pasting in he is a devout Christian and basically saying "enough said" lets leave it at that.
    You seem to have difficulty understanding that for some people ( like myself ) religion simply isn't a factor. Once again, for the record, I am telling you that it makes no difference whatsoever to me what those people believed in - they may as well have been adherence of Strange's Pink Unicorn Cult. The assertion that man originated in the Americas is still contrary to current theory and evidence.
    Ok thanks for clearing that up and my mistake, but I dont believe it is contrary to the evidence. I could list lots of artifacts for example which would back this up, but they come from Michael Cremo and all your gonna do is go to his wiki page and call the man a crackpot I dont think I can win on this issue not to convince die harders of mainstream science anyway.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    While there is clear evidence of humans in Africa, see work of Dart and Broom for example, theres evidence in the Americas, Europe and Asia for early humans.
    I do not doubt that there is. Still, to the best of my knowledge, the remains that were dated the oldest do actually originate from the African continent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    Ok thanks for clearing that up and my mistake, but I dont believe it is contrary to the evidence. I could list lots of artifacts for example which would back this up, but they come from Michael Cremo and all your gonna do is go to his wiki page and call the man a crackpot I dont think I can win on this issue not to convince die harders of mainstream science anyway.
    That's ok.
    And you are probably right. I will in this case refrain from quoting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    Forest, Guess I'm missing where he attacked or highlighted those things. They did show up as hyperlinks which I think you misinterpreted.
    Yes it appears I have made a mistake here, I thought he was highlighting these specific words, I apologize Markus Hanke but I still get the gist that becuase of these guys spiritual views that you will automatically disgard their scientific work, I don't see why you pasted in for example Goodmans believe in spirituality, - also some members of this forum seem to believe natural selection is immune from criticism?.
    Apology accepted, not a problem
    I myself didn't realize that you mistook the hyperlinks for highlights.
    Remember, I simply did a copy and paste the entire paragraph from Wikipedia, I didn't actually write the text.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    24
    It is quite clear that mainstream scientists are not going to support Goodmans ideas, that is why I posted this in the pseudoscience section. While his claims about American Indians being the first race on earth are quite far from mainstream thinking, his excavations should be taken seriously. You also have to understand that the out of africa theory is a very powerful social political theory and anyone who opposes it will be ridiculed or called a racist, even the multiregional proponents have been called racists. It is all due to a guilt complex associated with the atrocities in Nazi Germany and black slavery in the past, liberal scientists think they noiw have to ow something to the Africans. - While there is clear evidence of humans in Africa, see work of Dart and Broom for example, theres evidence in the Americas, Europe and Asia for early humans.
    Most if not all scientists could care less about politics and guilt of the past that has nothing to do with them personally, to then falsify or twist their results to fit with, what? political correctness or to be socially acceptable or some such. Is just not the Scientific method. Don't you think that if a discovery was made that challenged everything that we understood about something that the scientific community would be jumping with glee if it were to stand up to peer-review and be deemed the current course. Of course they would, they're not as bad as the church is with change......
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by StukInaaroc View Post
    It is quite clear that mainstream scientists are not going to support Goodmans ideas, that is why I posted this in the pseudoscience section. While his claims about American Indians being the first race on earth are quite far from mainstream thinking, his excavations should be taken seriously. You also have to understand that the out of africa theory is a very powerful social political theory and anyone who opposes it will be ridiculed or called a racist, even the multiregional proponents have been called racists. It is all due to a guilt complex associated with the atrocities in Nazi Germany and black slavery in the past, liberal scientists think they noiw have to ow something to the Africans. - While there is clear evidence of humans in Africa, see work of Dart and Broom for example, theres evidence in the Americas, Europe and Asia for early humans.
    Most if not all scientists could care less about politics and guilt of the past that has nothing to do with them personally, to then falsify or twist their results to fit with, what? political correctness or to be socially acceptable or some such. Is just not the Scientific method. Don't you think that if a discovery was made that challenged everything that we understood about something that the scientific community would be jumping with glee if it were to stand up to peer-review and be deemed the current course. Of course they would, they're not as bad as the church is with change......
    sadly science has become politically invested or is that infested?... there are dogmas which remain the same old status quo but actual evidence dont support it... big church of big bang is supported by the judeo-christian media and has sweeping into the science establishment, not becuase of evidence but becuase of the social and political/religious outcome. darwins fairytale of natural selection became dogmatic and on the topic of race... you can not even say race exists anymore without being called a racist, liberals ruined anthropology. and as it has been pointed out any evidence which contradicts these dogmas is put aside, supressed or ridiculed. theres not many decent scientists left.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Now you are just spouting nonsense...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Now you are just spouting nonsense...
    You might want to educate yourself on this matter and read the science delusion by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake.

    In this book, Dr Rupert Sheldrake, one of the world's most innovative scientists, shows that science is being constricted by assumptions that have hardened into dogmas.
    There are hardly any original thinkers left in science anymore, scientists are too scared to speak out against these dogmas, if they do they have their career ruined. Fred Hoyle was even saying this stuff in the 70s about how the big bang has become a religion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Now you are just spouting nonsense...
    You might want to educate yourself on this matter and read the science delusion by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake.
    Well, that sort of says it all, when you quote delusional people...

    Definition:

    "A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence"

    Strange and tk421 like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,300
    Short answer : NO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    There are hardly any original thinkers left in science anymore, scientists are too scared to speak out against these dogmas, if they do they have their career ruined. Fred Hoyle was even saying this stuff in the 70s about how the big bang has become a religion.
    Evidence? ..................
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    24
    Now I know why this was actually posted in the Pseudoscience forum......
    No proof is required for 'facts' here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post

    sadly science has become politically invested or is that infested?... there are dogmas which remain the same old status quo but actual evidence dont support it... big church of big bang is supported by the judeo-christian media and has sweeping into the science establishment, not becuase of evidence but becuase of the social and political/religious outcome. darwins fairytale of natural selection became dogmatic and on the topic of race... you can not even say race exists anymore without being called a racist, liberals ruined anthropology. and as it has been pointed out any evidence which contradicts these dogmas is put aside, supressed or ridiculed. theres not many decent scientists left.
    I don't agree. While politics, religion and science may have some degree of influence on one another ( and even that is debatable ), mainstream science remains firmly based on evidence.
    Natural selection is not a fairy tale, it is scientific fact well supported by modern genetics :

    Natural selection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    sadly science has become politically invested or is that infested?... there are dogmas which remain the same old status quo but actual evidence dont support it... big church of big bang is supported by the judeo-christian media and has sweeping into the science establishment, not becuase of evidence but becuase of the social and political/religious outcome. darwins fairytale of natural selection became dogmatic and on the topic of race... you can not even say race exists anymore without being called a racist, liberals ruined anthropology. and as it has been pointed out any evidence which contradicts these dogmas is put aside, supressed or ridiculed. theres not many decent scientists left.
    Well, this bit of bullshit really puts all your cards on the table, doesn't it.

    What can we get from this? That you have no idea what you are talking about. Only someone profoundly ignorant could call natural selection a fairytale, the big bang theory a religious movement, or the out of Africa model as politically motivated. If you had any idea of how to distinguish good science from bad science or any idea of what the science actually says and what supports it, you would not have quoted kooks like Sheldrake and his books as support for your nonsense ideas. Your credibility here is shot and irretrievably so I would guess. Please continue posting in the pseudoscience section.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    There are hardly any original thinkers left in science anymore, scientists are too scared to speak out against these dogmas, if they do they have their career ruined.
    Nonsense. Scientists are creative thinkers almost by definition. The difference between a scientists and "some random guy on the Internet" (or someone like Sheldrake) is that they test their ideas against the data and reject them if they don't work.

    Fred Hoyle was even saying this stuff in the 70s about how the big bang has become a religion.
    Was he? Really? Do you have a citation for that?
    MeteorWayne and tk421 like this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Fred Hoyle was even saying this stuff in the 70s about how the big bang has become a religion.
    Was he? Really? Do you have a citation for that?
    Strange, I would be surprised if Hoyle had not said this. It would be entirely in line with his brash, no-nonsense northern manner and his continuing love of some form of steady state theory. Remember that the very name Big Bang was coined by Hoyle as a put-down.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Strange, I would be surprised if Hoyle had not said this. It would be entirely in line with his brash, no-nonsense northern manner and his continuing love of some form of steady state theory. Remember that the very name Big Bang was coined by Hoyle as a put-down.
    Well, I remember seeing Hoyle many times discussing the steady state theory on TV. And I read many articles by and about him. I remember him being critical of the big bang theory but, as far as I know, this was always based on criticizing the evidence or the interpretation of the evidence.

    I would be genuinely interested to know if he ever claimed there was some sort of dogma associated with it. Back then, the field was still relatively open. He may have got more confrontational about it when the evidence for the big bang became overwhelming. I don't know.

    BTW, I'm not sure that "big bang" was particularly intended as a put down. I think he just summarized it as "starting with a big bang" and the name stuck. Ah yes, here we go:
    Quote Originally Posted by WP
    He is responsible for coining the term "Big Bang" on BBC radio's Third Programme broadcast at 1830 GMT on 28 March 1949. It is popularly reported that Hoyle intended this to be pejorative, but the script from which he read aloud shows that he intended the expression to help his listeners. Hoyle explicitly denied that he was being insulting and said it was just a striking image meant to emphasize the difference between the two theories for radio listeners.
    Fred Hoyle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    p.s. I really wanted him to be right...

    p.p.s. Reading more of that wikipedia article, it seems he did become more and more of a "grumpy old man" after he resigned (and supported more and more ... "odd" ideas).
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I recently purchased a biogrpahy of him and that certainly portrays him as someone who was always at odds with the establishment. I haven't previously seen the comments relating to his use of the term in the BBC program. That is interesting. If he declares it was not intended as a put down, I would accept that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    The most compelling for me is why did all these animals survived the sudden warm up ~130,000 years ago (and similar events before that) but were unable to survive this last warming. The only obvious change is humans--whether they were hunting, passing diseases or just putting enough pressure to an already stressed environment to be the tipping point for many megafauna. A thousand years seems plenty of times as well. The similar patterns just about every place that humans have colonized, even when there didn't seem to be significant climate changes, leads one to the same conclusions.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post

    sadly science has become politically invested or is that infested?... there are dogmas which remain the same old status quo but actual evidence dont support it... big church of big bang is supported by the judeo-christian media and has sweeping into the science establishment, not becuase of evidence but becuase of the social and political/religious outcome. darwins fairytale of natural selection became dogmatic and on the topic of race... you can not even say race exists anymore without being called a racist, liberals ruined anthropology. and as it has been pointed out any evidence which contradicts these dogmas is put aside, supressed or ridiculed. theres not many decent scientists left.
    I don't agree. While politics, religion and science may have some degree of influence on one another ( and even that is debatable ), mainstream science remains firmly based on evidence.
    Natural selection is not a fairy tale, it is scientific fact well supported by modern genetics :

    Natural selection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    ohhhh wikipedia says it, then so be it, it must be true! Come on learn to think for yourself!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    The most compelling for me is why did all these animals survived the sudden warm up ~130,000 years ago (and similar events before that) but were unable to survive this last warming. The only obvious change is humans--whether they were hunting, passing diseases or just putting enough pressure to an already stressed environment to be the tipping point for many megafauna. A thousand years seems plenty of times as well. The similar patterns just about every place that humans have colonized, even when there didn't seem to be significant climate changes, leads one to the same conclusions.
    interesting but not conclusive!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    24
    "ohhhh wikipedia says it, then so be it, it must be true! Come on learn to think for yourself!"

    I have to agree with you. Wikipedia is an unreliable source unless you have intimate knowledge of said topic so as you know it's correct. Even then you still shouldn't cite it as a proper source. Anyone can edit wiki, it's only a starting point, not a gospel.

    Humans still originated from Africa though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
    Yes but what if only one race originated in Africa, whilst others originated elsewhere? Goodman is writing a new book which will be released by the end of 2012. In it he will argue for multiregional, ie, there being 3 cradles where humans have originated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    24
    To be taken seriously, he should be writing a Report on his Hypothesis to be published in a respected Archaeological Journal. Not a book, anyone can get a book published. He's just trying to make money and convince the masses with no understanding of things.

    Kinda like the Catholic Church.

    PS. I would find it difficult to believe an argument for a "multiregional" origination of Races of people.
    Last edited by StukInaaroc; March 14th, 2012 at 05:10 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    ohhhh wikipedia says it, then so be it, it must be true! Come on learn to think for yourself!
    You don't like Wikipedia ? Ok then, here are other sources :

    Natural selection
    Natural Selection - Natural Selection, Evolution, Mutation - PhET
    Natural Selection (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

    I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea.
    Funny the way these all say the same thing, heh ? Your use of bold letters does not make natural selection any less true, I'm afraid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    Yes but what if only one race originated in Africa, whilst others originated elsewhere? Goodman is writing a new book which will be released by the end of 2012. In it he will argue for multiregional, ie, there being 3 cradles where humans have originated.
    Presumably, those three different types of humans must have been sufficiently similar to be able to interbreed to produce modern humans. In which case, they must have had a common ancestor. I wonder where that common ancestor originated from ...
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    In fact it makes him look like a screamimg lunatic
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
    http://pleistocenecoalition.com/news...y-june2011.pdf

    See photos of the engraved stone, could be 125,000 years from the Americas.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,641
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post

    ohhhh wikipedia says it, then so be it, it must be true! Come on learn to think for yourself!
    If the alternative is to trust a guy who quotes Sheldrake as an authority (!), and posts in billion-point crackpotfont(tm), then I'll take wikipedia, sure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post

    ohhhh wikipedia says it, then so be it, it must be true! Come on learn to think for yourself!
    If the alternative is to trust a guy who quotes Sheldrake as an authority (!), and posts in billion-point crackpotfont(tm), then I'll take wikipedia, sure.
    You talk about authority, Sheldrake not only has a Phd in biochemistry but had three other degrees, is a successful author who has sold millions of books and has appeared globally in magazines, interviews and on talkshows. Who has heard of you again tk421?

    Jeffrey Goodman also has six degrees and a Phd, a successful author who has sold over 40,000 copies of his books and has carried out scientific work with the famous Leakey and others.

    Now what did your hereo Darwin have again? Oh yes that is right, Darwin had no degree at all, no science degree whatsoever but actually had a theology degree. And you want to talk about authority? Darwin in his books refers to the "creator" and in private letters revealed he was a Christian deist... perhaps you are a secret creationist?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,568
    you really love the arguments from authority dont you?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,641
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    You talk about authority, Sheldrake not only has a Phd in biochemistry but had three other degrees, is a successful author who has sold millions of books and has appeared globally in magazines, interviews and on talkshows. Who has heard of you again tk421?
    By your logic, then, scientific truths are determined very easily. Simply count up the number of degrees, add the logarithm of the number of books they've sold, and multiply by the number of appearances on magazines and talk shows.

    Brilliant.

    Jeffrey Goodman also has six degrees and a Phd, a successful author who has sold over 40,000 copies of his books and has carried out scientific work with the famous Leakey and others.
    Compute Goodman's figure-of-merit to Sheldrake's. Not even close.

    Now what did your hereo Darwin have again? Oh yes that is right, Darwin had no degree at all, no science degree whatsoever but actually had a theology degree. And you want to talk about authority? Darwin in his books refers to the "creator" and in private letters revealed he was a Christian deist... perhaps you are a secret creationist?
    You seem very insecure, which would explain why you've spammed the pseudoscience section with posts on just about every bit of crackpottery out there. I think it's only a matter of time before we see a post from you about the unerring accuracy of von Daniken. He's sold more books than Goodman, so you know he's got to be right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    You talk about authority, Sheldrake not only has a Phd in biochemistry but had three other degrees, is a successful author who has sold millions of books and has appeared globally in magazines, interviews and on talkshows. Who has heard of you again tk421?
    By your logic, then, scientific truths are determined very easily. Simply count up the number of degrees, add the logarithm of the number of books they've sold, and multiply by the number of appearances on magazines and talk shows.

    Brilliant.

    Jeffrey Goodman also has six degrees and a Phd, a successful author who has sold over 40,000 copies of his books and has carried out scientific work with the famous Leakey and others.
    Compute Goodman's figure-of-merit to Sheldrake's. Not even close.

    Now what did your hereo Darwin have again? Oh yes that is right, Darwin had no degree at all, no science degree whatsoever but actually had a theology degree. And you want to talk about authority? Darwin in his books refers to the "creator" and in private letters revealed he was a Christian deist... perhaps you are a secret creationist?
    You seem very insecure, which would explain why you've spammed the pseudoscience section with posts on just about every bit of crackpottery out there. I think it's only a matter of time before we see a post from you about the unerring accuracy of von Daniken. He's sold more books than Goodman, so you know he's got to be right.
    You seem to be jumping to major conclusions here. Nowhere in this thread or any of the threads have I started said that I actually believe in these guys material. I have said it is interesting and might be true ie leave it open, but nowhere have I claimed these are scientific facts and have been proven, I merely show two sides to the coin, there is more than one interpretation you know?.

    You keep bringing up "authority" so I thought I would actually show you truth of the matter, interesting all of your posts you refuse to look at the evidence instead you go after attacking the man instead, you obviously close your eyes to anything you do not want to see, then why come to a forum? 7 billion people on the planet you know that right? Everyone has to agree with you do they?.

    You seem to automatically dimiss the work of Sheldrake or Margulis and laugh at the them and bring up irrelvant claims - but on what grounds? I then paste in he has a Phd whilst Darwin had nothing and you go all silent. I have never argued from authority (apart from my above post in an attempt to prove a point), I could not care less what these guys degrees have. Lamarck the brains behind evolution had no degree, died in almost poverty but was one of the worlds greats scientists.

    What is ignorant is that you refuse to even look at the work of Goodman or Sheldrake, you say they are wrong, so that is the end if it? You are authority on which scientists are right and wrong?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,568
    One of the major things is that the modern PhD system was not invented during hte time of Darwin, and having a PhD is not an automatic validation of someones work. Its all a matter of how the works done hold up to the intense scrutiny of testing. Evolution has withstood that.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,641
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    You seem to be jumping to major conclusions here. Nowhere in this thread or any of the threads have I started said that I actually believe in these guys material. I have said it is interesting and might be true ie leave it open, but nowhere have I claimed these are scientific facts and have been proven, I merely show two sides to the coin, there is more than one interpretation you know?.
    No.

    You keep bringing up "authority" so I thought I would actually show you truth of the matter, interesting all of your posts you refuse to look at the evidence instead you go after attacking the man instead, you obviously close your eyes to anything you do not want to see, then why come to a forum? 7 billion people on the planet you know that right? Everyone has to agree with you do they?.
    Please identify precisely where I've cited an authority for authority's sake. I bring up the issue of authority because you consistently cite it as an indicator of truth, rather than talking about the validity of the idea on its own merits. It's not a question of belief. You'd undoubtedly like it to be, because then the question devolves to one of opinion: "There's always two sides to the story; it's just a matter of opinion" and other standard weaknesses of that sort.

    It's very simple, actually, but you keep missing the point: These authoritative heroes of yours -- Sheldrake and Goodman -- have made claims that are either unsupported by the evidence, or unfalsifiable. In the former case, they're simply wrong. In the latter, no one can ever say.

    You seem to automatically dimiss the work of Sheldrake or Margulis and laugh at the them and bring up irrelvant claims - but on what grounds?
    I don't automatically dismiss them. I dismiss them because what they say is demonstrably untrue. All evidence shows that HIV is infectious. How many deaths do we need for that to be obvious? Margulis was extremely intelligent, but also very much susceptible to the forces of woo. Her stubborn character served her well when she was right, but was a distinct character flaw when she refused to acknowledge the strong signals coming from the data.

    I then paste in he has a Phd whilst Darwin had nothing and you go all silent.
    Because it was irrelevant. You seem to think that our silence has some profound import. I wonder why.

    I have never argued from authority (apart from my above post in an attempt to prove a point), I could not care less what these guys degrees have. Lamarck the brains behind evolution had no degree, died in almost poverty but was one of the worlds greats scientists.
    So, in addition to being a crank, you're also tragically self-unaware. See your post #3, for example.

    What is ignorant is that you refuse to even look at the work of Goodman or Sheldrake, you say they are wrong, so that is the end if it? You are authority on which scientists are right and wrong?
    Do even a modicum of research on these people's ideas. You assume that we are jumping to conclusions, perhaps because you just don't want to consider that you're the blind one. It's not a sign of enlightenment to have such an open mind that your brains fall out of your cranium, as they say.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    You talk about authority, Sheldrake not only has a Phd in biochemistry but had three other degrees, is a successful author who has sold millions of books and has appeared globally in magazines, interviews and on talkshows.
    How is any of that relevant. Have you looked at his research? He makes extraordinary claims of effects which just fade away when tested. Rather like all attempts to find scientific evidence for paranormal effects. And then blames other people for being closed minded.

    Now you can try and weasel your way out of that by saying that the effects are too weak to be detected, or something. But I would have to ask how that is different from it not existing in the first place.

    Jeffrey Goodman also has six degrees and a Phd, a successful author who has sold over 40,000 copies of his books and has carried out scientific work with the famous Leakey and others.
    But, as noted earlier, "few scientists today give Goodman's ideas and his use of evidence much credence."

    In your desire to support what you want to be true, you consider any counter evidence to be part of some sort of conspiracy or dogma. It just might be that the evidence doesn't support it.

    Now what did your hereo Darwin have again? Oh yes that is right, Darwin had no degree at all, no science degree whatsoever but actually had a theology degree. And you want to talk about authority? Darwin in his books refers to the "creator" and in private letters revealed he was a Christian deist...
    Again, so what. He had decades of study of biology and botany under his belt as well as discussions with others with similar levels of expertise. He wasn't just sitting around one day and make the idea up out of thin air. It was based on .... evidence. You know, that stuff that Sheldrake doesn't have.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    Lamarck the brains behind evolution had no degree, died in almost poverty but was one of the worlds greats scientists.
    Lamarck was one of the people working on evolution (not "the brains behind" it). He did some good work. But he was almost entirely wrong. That is reason he is forgotten not because of some sort of conspiracy.


    What is ignorant is that you refuse to even look at the work of Goodman or Sheldrake, you say they are wrong, so that is the end if it?
    I cannot believe you have looked at Sheldrake's results otherwise you wouldn't be defending him so vigorously. It doesn't help your case to keep referring to someone who hangs on to their ideas despite the total lack of evidence.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    Now what did your hereo (sic) Darwin have again? Oh yes that is right, Darwin had no degree at all, no science degree whatsoever but actually had a theology degree. And you want to talk about authority?
    This is either deliberately provocative or profoundly ignorant. Either way it is wrong.

    1. No one here has declared Darwin is their hero, so cut out the cheap debating tricks please.

    2. The majority of naturalists in England in Darwin's time were ministers of the church. It was expected that one of the sons of any well to do family would acquire a living. These typically afforded much free time and these reverends indulged the Victorian interest in nature. (While Darwin's father intended he become a doctor, like himself and his brother, Darwin's distaste for the idea forced the alternative on him.)

    3. From his childhood he was absorbed in nature. ("I was a born naturalist.") He collected specimens (wildlife collection was a Victorian passion) and avidly read nature books.

    4. Darwin's degree may have been in theology, but while at Cambridge he was exposed to the logically constructed writing of Paley (
    Natural Theology) and the penetrating logic of Whewell (Bridgewater Treatises
    ). He was also taught botany by Professor J. S. Henslow who was a cleric and geology by Adam Sedgwick who was a cleric. Being a cleric was almost a requirement for being a naturalist at that time!

    5. "Darwin's letters and biographical notes give the impression that in Cambridge he devoted more time to collecting beetles, discussing geology and botany with his professors and hunting and riding with similarly inclined friends, than to his prescribed studies." (Ernst Mayr
    One Long Argument
    Harvard University Press 1991)

    6. "..when Darwin had completed his Cambridge years he was an accomplished young naturalist." (ibid.)

    7. He them embarked on the Beagle voyage where he was exposed to more opportunities for research than many a Ph.D. student, opportunities which he seized and made full use of.

    5. You rightly praise Wallace, but who was it in all of England, in the entire world, that Wallace chose to share his new hypothesis with? Who did he seek out as the one naturalist who could best evaluate its worth? Darwin. If Wallace was so enthused by Darwin, why are you so against him?

    6. Wallace himself said this "[
    Darwin's early works] great as each of them is separately, and, taken altogether, amazing as the production of one man, sink into insignificance as compared with the vast body of research and of thought of which the Origin of Species is the brief epitome, and with which alone the name of Darwin is associated by the mass of educated men." (Natural Selection and Tropical Nature", London 1883.)
    Strange and tk421 like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
     

  61. #60  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Thanks for presenting us with more evidence that humans did not originate in America.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Hey, the Indians stole our land, before we stole it back.
    Whereas the Solutreans had only had a 4500 year long ‘Ice Age’ window to carry out their migratory activity, the Asian-originating Indians had some 15,000 years to do it. What’s more, the latter two-thirds of that 15 millennia long period was climatologically much more favourable and substantially larger numbers of Asians were therefore able to migrate.

    As a result of these factors the Solutrean (European originating) Native Americans were either partly absorbed by the newcomers or were substantially obliterated by them either physically or through competition for resources.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Why don't humans eat humans?
    By Twentie in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: August 27th, 2012, 10:49 PM
  2. I didn't know America was sensored!
    By Kilomanjaro in forum Politics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 28th, 2010, 07:25 PM
  3. Education on America
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 15th, 2009, 11:07 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: April 18th, 2008, 06:36 PM
  5. America is like Rome
    By jcoop87 in forum History
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: July 30th, 2006, 05:48 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •