Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lpetrich · 08-16-2002, 12:10 AM

I wonder what view of humanity's origin mibby529 prefers. That we are descended from South American monkeys instead of Old World ones? (including apes among monkeys)

I have no ideological difficulty with such descent; the only problem with that is that it is very clearly falsified by a host of evidence.

In the late 19th century, Charles Darwin predicted that our species would be found to have originated in Africa, by an elegant biogeographical argument:

Chimpanzees and gorillas were found to be the closest species to our species. And they only live in central Africa. Darwin then used the biogeographical arguments that he had worked out with great success on other species, and concluded that our species had also originated in Africa.

And how successful has Darwin been? Essentially 100%.

That closeness contention has held up under all the research since then, including molecular-evolution research. A variety of genes have been compared in molecular-evolution studies, and chimps continue to be much closer than New World monkeys.

Chimps also have some behavioral similarities to our species that are lacking from New World monkeys:
* Ability to recognize themselves in mirrors
* Construction of nontrivial tools, like termite fishing rods
* Variation in toolmaking traditions
* Systematic warfare against other members of their species

And human-ape intermediates have mostly lived in Africa until the last million years or so.

ps418 · 08-16-2002, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Ps418: what do you mean when you say that the hypothesis that native americans are descendents of Eurasians is "creationism"?

Quote:

Mibby: It's based on Genesis. I believe that's the definition of creationism.

No, its not based on Genesis. Have you even read Genesis? If you had, presumably you'd know that it says precisely nothing about the migrational history of native americans. If you disagree, please cite chapter and verse.

Quote:

Ps418: Like when you said on another thread that the existence of a Bering land bridge requires millions of km3 of water to "just disappear," which is false.

Quote:

Mibby: I guess that water COULD freeze, but it would be 90% below sea level. Quite a bit of water has to freeze for sea level to drop 200 m, and geologists say sea level just dropped 150 m in the last ice age.

Um, no. 90% of the ice sheets were not below sea-level. And its not that the water could freeze - it did freeze, and we have a direct record of how this affected sea-level. The actual drop in sea-level during the last glacial maximum was about ~140m, as the evidence summarized on <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000284" target="_blank">this thread</a> shows. By comparison, the Bering Strait today is only about 30-50m deep. With a drop of 140m, a huge platform would have been emergent ('Beringia'), so land 'bridge' is kind of a misnomer.

And whether sea-level dropped 150 or 200m, the Bering was definitely passable, as evidenced by migration patterns of many vertebrates during the ice age. If mammoths could migrate, I dont think humans would have found it impossible . . .

Quote:

PS418: Where did the first inhabitants of north america come from, in your (Mibby's) view?

Quote:

Mibby: Argument from ignorance. Do I have to prove another option to disprove yours?

Wrong again. An argument has premises and a conclusion. I merely asked you a question. And no, you dont have to prove one theory in order to disprove another. But you do have to get around to supporting your assertions at some point . . .

Quote:

Mibby: Ah, but being based solely on religion DOES falsify it. (Fallacious origin.)

Incorrect. This is a clear-cut case of the genetic fallacy. Who thought of it first, and why, is irrelevant to whether or not its true. Now, would you mind answering my question? Where do native americans come from? Did they drop down out of the sky, or did they come here from somewhere else?

Patrick

Oresta · 08-16-2002, 06:35 AM

A footnote to this discussion:

Quote:

No, its not based on Genesis. Have you even read Genesis? If you had, presumably you'd know that it says precisely nothing about the migrational history of native americans. If you disagree, please cite chapter and verse.

No, of course Genesis doesn't. But Genesis includes the account of Abraham and his sons. Mormons believe that NAs are the descendents of the lost tribe of Abraham.

Mageth · 08-16-2002, 06:59 AM

Well, let's see...Physical and cultural anthropology, archeology, plate tectonics (Siberia and Alaska are on the same [west-moving] plate!) the geography of Alaska and Siberia (Five mountain ranges for these nonexistant Indians to cross. Not to mention the fact that, at best, they'd have to wade through fifty meters of water.) the fact that it was based ENTIRELY on a tortured interpretation of Genesis!!! I can go on. But of course, I'm a little dark on the issue, pun intended.

There is anthropological/archaeological evidence supporting the theory. Plate tectonics are not cited as a reason for, or a hindrance to, the land bridge, AFAIK. As far as mountain ranges, recent evidence has suggested a coastal migration, bypassing the mountains.

While geological evidence indicates strongly that there was a land bridge (as I mentioned, core samples of the Bering Strait seafloor contain layers of land plant material, as well as insects, of the right age to support the theory), even without a land bridge, boats could have easily been used to cross the narrow strait (Inuits cross it to this day).

ps418 has already addressed the Genesis issue.

As far as an alternative theory, at least tell us why you're so adamantly, and apparently emotionally, opposed to the Bering Land Bridge scenario. I can only assume that you support an alternative theory to be so opposed.

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Richiyaado · 08-16-2002, 08:11 AM

Presumably, Mibby holds to a separate, de novo creation of Native Americans in North and South America. Thus, Mibby's rationale depends upon a Bering land bridge crossing being an impossibility. And that essentially preempts any hope of rational discussion.

The mystery to me is why Mibby freights his/her hand-waving with the worst sort of race-baiting invective. It's difficult to see what Mibby hopes to gain by it.

lpetrich · 08-16-2002, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Richiyaado:
<strong>Presumably, Mibby holds to a separate, de novo creation of Native Americans in North and South America. ...</strong>

His(her?) viewpoint reminds me of William Jennings Bryan's denunciations of evolution as proposing that we are descended from Old World monkeys, not American monkeys, as if being descended from foreign monkeys is an intolerable affront.

ps418 · 08-16-2002, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Megath: Plate tectonics are not cited as a reason for, or a hindrance to, the land bridge, AFAIK.

Of course you're right Megath. Tectonic processes could hardly have made any significant topographic/geographic changes to the Beringia region over the last 15,000 years. Even at the fastest rates of closure or seperation measured between any two points on seperate plates (~15cm/yr), we're talking about a maximum distance change of 2.25km over the past 15k years.

mibby529 · 08-16-2002, 12:56 PM

Quote:

You appear to be having an emotional reaction to the possiblity that the ancestors of Native Americans might not be the first humans to have inhabited America.

And I already explained why. You'd think Stupid White Men could come up with an original MO.

Quote:

To point out that there is abundant evidence for the existence of a Bering Land Bridge, and that Native Americans appear to be descended from Eurasian stock is not racist.

"Abundant" evidence that no one has EVER seen. Produce it. Otherwise, it's just the meta-argument.

Quote:

Especially since I am of American Indian descent.

Your grandma was a Cherokee princess enit? LOL

Quote:

No, its not based on Genesis.

Have you ever READ de Acosta? He CONSTANTLY makes references to Genesis! He was a damn missionary! What do you THINK he based his theory on? <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Mageth · 08-16-2002, 01:07 PM

"Abundant" evidence that no one has EVER seen. Produce it. Otherwise, it's just the meta-argument.

I think I posted a link to this for you in an earlier thread about this subject. For evidence that no one has ever seen, it was remarkably easy to find:

<a href="http://www.cyberwest.com/cw09/v9scwst1.html" target="_blank">bering strait seafloor core samples include land plant, pollen and insect fossils.</a>

Quote:

Elias and his colleagues analyzed 20 ocean-core samples obtained by U.S. Geological Survey researchers from the shallows of the Bering and Chukchi seas for the study. Taken in the 1970s and 1980s and stored at a USGS facility in Menlo Park, the cores contain layers of organic peat and silt that harbor plant, pollen and insect fossils ranging from about 4,000 years old to roughly 50,000 years old.

<a href="http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/pub/info/current/AGU-ASLO/Phillips.ASLO.html" target="_blank">USGS reference</a>

Mageth · 08-16-2002, 01:14 PM

Have you ever READ de Acosta? He CONSTANTLY makes references to Genesis! He was a damn missionary! What do you THINK he based his theory on?

Yes, de Acosta based his theory on Genesis. However, the modern theory is NOT based on de Acosta's. It just so happens that coincidentally both de Acosta and modern science reached the same conclusion, even though for different reasons. This does nothing to support or detract from the modern theory.

You need to provide rational evidence, arguments, and alternatives rather than the continuous emotional appeals you've been using if you want to be taken seriously.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-16-2002, 12:10 AM	#31
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	I wonder what view of humanity's origin mibby529 prefers. That we are descended from South American monkeys instead of Old World ones? (including apes among monkeys) I have no ideological difficulty with such descent; the only problem with that is that it is very clearly falsified by a host of evidence. In the late 19th century, Charles Darwin predicted that our species would be found to have originated in Africa, by an elegant biogeographical argument: Chimpanzees and gorillas were found to be the closest species to our species. And they only live in central Africa. Darwin then used the biogeographical arguments that he had worked out with great success on other species, and concluded that our species had also originated in Africa. And how successful has Darwin been? Essentially 100%. That closeness contention has held up under all the research since then, including molecular-evolution research. A variety of genes have been compared in molecular-evolution studies, and chimps continue to be much closer than New World monkeys. Chimps also have some behavioral similarities to our species that are lacking from New World monkeys: * Ability to recognize themselves in mirrors * Construction of nontrivial tools, like termite fishing rods * Variation in toolmaking traditions * Systematic warfare against other members of their species And human-ape intermediates have mostly lived in Africa until the last million years or so.

08-16-2002, 06:59 AM	#34
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Well, let's see...Physical and cultural anthropology, archeology, plate tectonics (Siberia and Alaska are on the same [west-moving] plate!) the geography of Alaska and Siberia (Five mountain ranges for these nonexistant Indians to cross. Not to mention the fact that, at best, they'd have to wade through fifty meters of water.) the fact that it was based ENTIRELY on a tortured interpretation of Genesis!!! I can go on. But of course, I'm a little dark on the issue, pun intended. There is anthropological/archaeological evidence supporting the theory. Plate tectonics are not cited as a reason for, or a hindrance to, the land bridge, AFAIK. As far as mountain ranges, recent evidence has suggested a coastal migration, bypassing the mountains. While geological evidence indicates strongly that there was a land bridge (as I mentioned, core samples of the Bering Strait seafloor contain layers of land plant material, as well as insects, of the right age to support the theory), even without a land bridge, boats could have easily been used to cross the narrow strait (Inuits cross it to this day). ps418 has already addressed the Genesis issue. As far as an alternative theory, at least tell us why you're so adamantly, and apparently emotionally, opposed to the Bering Land Bridge scenario. I can only assume that you support an alternative theory to be so opposed. [ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

08-16-2002, 08:11 AM	#35
Richiyaado Regular Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: New Orleans Posts: 172	Presumably, Mibby holds to a separate, de novo creation of Native Americans in North and South America. Thus, Mibby's rationale depends upon a Bering land bridge crossing being an impossibility. And that essentially preempts any hope of rational discussion. The mystery to me is why Mibby freights his/her hand-waving with the worst sort of race-baiting invective. It's difficult to see what Mibby hopes to gain by it.

08-16-2002, 01:14 PM	#40
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Have you ever READ de Acosta? He CONSTANTLY makes references to Genesis! He was a damn missionary! What do you THINK he based his theory on? Yes, de Acosta based his theory on Genesis. However, the modern theory is NOT based on de Acosta's. It just so happens that coincidentally both de Acosta and modern science reached the same conclusion, even though for different reasons. This does nothing to support or detract from the modern theory. You need to provide rational evidence, arguments, and alternatives rather than the continuous emotional appeals you've been using if you want to be taken seriously.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.