Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ps418 · 08-17-2002, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Mibby: Actually, George Gaylord Simpson first said the land bridge was impossible. ("Of Mammals and Land Bridges") Hardly a creationist by any account.

Do you feel the need to lie to support your beliefs? Or are you making these mistakes out of pure ignorance? Or are you just repeating lies you heard elsewhere?

<a href="http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/biogeog/SIMP940B.htm" target="_blank">Mammals and Land Bridges, Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 30 (1940): 137-163.</a>

Perhaps you could read the article, and cite the part which you misinterpreted? How did you manage to miss the big image of the Bering land bridge, figure 4, or Simpson's statement that:

Quote:

"The Asia-North America bridge opened the barrier for elephants (mammoths) but not for gazelles."

[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]</p>

Richiyaado · 08-17-2002, 01:38 PM

Quote:

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the last Ice Age, a few hundred meters of ocean water were turned into continental ice sheet, revealing the land of Beringia. When that ice melted, Beringia became submerged again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Repeat the experiment, and I'll send it to Darwin Awards. Clothing from that time was all animal skins, and this includes shoes, if they existed. And those shoes would have NO TRACTION. Indian steps on the ice and falls in the water. LOL You didn't think Indians invented iceskating, did you?

I'm afraid you've really slipped up here, Mibby.

ps418 · 08-17-2002, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Mibby: You know? Until this thread, I had no idea atheists were creationists.

It doesnt surprise me that you would say that, since, as I've already pointed out, you dont really know what creationism is.

Keep up with the insults though. You're much better at that then discussing evidence.

[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]</p>

Mageth · 08-17-2002, 01:47 PM

Clothing from that time was all animal skins, and this includes shoes, if they existed. And those shoes would have NO TRACTION. Indian steps on the ice and falls in the water. LOL You didn't think Indians invented iceskating, did you?

Those poor Inuit, always falling in the water.

<a href="http://aboriginalcollections.ic.gc.ca/business/lect2.html" target="_blank">Inuit footwear</a>

Quote:

Footwear Caribou
Inuit wear haired caribou skin boots whose soles are made of caribou rather than seal skin. This style of boot is also made by Iglulik and Baffinland Inuit, but Caribou Inuit use it more extensively.
Caribou Inuit are also the primary makers of the caribou skin boot worn with all the hair to the inside, bu they seldom make caribou leg skin boots. According to Sally Qimminu'naaq Webster (1994), Caribou Inuit call short kamiks 'saaluqitiq' and call kamiks for everyday wear 'kubluuq'. She also says that in the past they used fish oil to waterproof kamiks called 'ipirausiq'. Seal skin boots made in the southern part of the Caribou Inuit region are very similar to those of other communities, but there are noticeable differences. The straight leg section is much narrower than the full, gathered leg section of the Iglulik and Baffinland Inuit. The height of the back heel seam is slightly lower than that used by Labrador Inuit and much higher than that used by Inuit in Greenland. The geometric decorative designs on the section are simpler than those on Iglulik and Baffinland Inuit boots. Soles made by Caribou Inuit have diffused pleats that are larger and bulkier than those made by Baffinland Inuit. Caribou Inuit rarely use ankle straps on their boots, but they do use ties on their over slippers.

Mageth · 08-17-2002, 01:50 PM

So far, all I've heard from everyone here is meta-arguments, shoehorning, and defying all common sense.

You should stop listening to yourself and start examining the evidence we've presented, then.

How, for example, are the core samples "meta-arguments"?

ps418 · 08-17-2002, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Mibby: So far, all I've heard from everyone here is meta-arguments, shoehorning, and defying all common sense.

So far, all we've gotten from you is a load of factual erros, emotional outbursts, and jaw-dropping illogic. Native Americans didnt drop down out of the sky -- they came from Asia. Sorry you dont like that, Mibby. But its true whether you like it or not.

[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]</p>

The Lone Ranger · 08-17-2002, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mibby529 -- ad nauseum:

RACE DOESN'T EXIST GENETICALLY!

Splendid. Lovely. I didn't notice anyone claiming that it does.

Now then, you don't seriously think that Homo sapiens is a panmictic species, do you? If not, then there will be genetic distinctions between groups. This has nothing to do with race. It can be caused by such factors as adapting to different disease organisms in different areas, and genetic drift. Granted, in the past 100 years or so, there has been a great deal more interbreeding between groups that have been historically separate.

Look at it this way: suppose you take genetic samples from two people whose ancestors have inhabited Northern Europe for the past several thousand years. Now, take genetic samples from two people whose ancestors have inhabited Australia for the past several thousand years. Do you seriously think that the two Europeans will be no more closely-related to each other than either of them is to the Australians?

By comparing the genetics of different people, we can tell how long it has been since they shared common ancestry. This is precisely the same way that we can compare the genetics of different species of organisms to infer how long it has been since they shared a common ancestor, except that between-species genetic variation is typically considerably greater than within-species genetic variation, of course.

When the studies are done, the results are quite consistent. Native Americans (Inuits, Na-Denes, and AmerIndians) share recent ancestry with the peoples of northeastern Asia, and much more distant ancestry with people of European or African descent.

Of course, you're welcome to read the papers for yourself if you doubt this.

Cheers,

Michael

[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: The Lone Ranger ]</p>

lpetrich · 08-17-2002, 07:46 PM

The Inuit are a good counterexample to mibby's claims, since they had lived in Arctic climates for the last several thousand years -- with Paleolithic-level technology.

And they were successful enough to outlast some newcomers with more advanced technology; the Greenland Inuit outlasted the Greenland Viking colony, whose members were reduced to eating their dairy cattle in their last years.

Human genetic diversity has an interesting pattern; something like 80% of it is shared across all examined human populations; this may be why "race" does not have very much meaning genetically. However, the remaining 20% does have regional patterns, so "race" is meaningful in that sense.

mibby529 · 08-18-2002, 01:58 PM

I have located a splendid book called the Bering Land Bridge. Only two articles have even hinted at a discussion. Here's one from William Laughlin:

"The interior landscape was evidently a low rolling plain, for the most part devoid of relief, studded with bogs and swamps, frozen much of the time, and lacking in trees or even many bushes. Grass-eating herbivores may have been present in fair numbers. The human adaptation of this region must surely have been that of big-game hunters, living by means of scavenging dead mammoths and such bovids as caribou, bison, and musk-ox, and by intentionally hunting live animals."

"Conditions in the interior were severe, and likely only a few of its inhabitants found their way into North America; these wanderers probably became the ancestors of American Indians."

Notice that Laughlin does not say for certain that any of these inhabitants actually crossed the Bering Strait -- he only says it's "likely." We get no evidence that anyone were within a thousand miles of Alaska or Siberia. No sites, trails, or signs of habitation are cited. And that is it -- Laughlin has offered NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE whatsoever. This from the guy who gave the Bering Strait a scientific spin.

But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the BS is correct. But how do Indians move farther along? So we come up with the "ice corridor" corollary. We NEED the ice corridor to explain it, but that doesn't make it so. In order for this ice corridor to work, it would have to be from central Alaska to the east slope of the Canadian Rockies. But wait! Snow clouds, as they do today in the Rockies, would probably hit the mountains and then dump their snow first on the eastern slopes before transporting the mosisture clear across the Canadian planes to the Canadian shield. Ooh, crossing a land that even today is known for blizzards - in the middle of an ice age! Real smart.

Now, back to Simpson. "Where herbivores go, carnivores can and will accompanyu them, and carnivores cannot go where there are no herbivores. The postulation of land bridges on the basis of one or a few mammals is thus very uncertain. Unless there is a reasonable possibilituy that their companions have not been discovered, a theoretical bridge based on such evidence is probably unreal." (Mammals and Land Bridges)

"For many of these animals, such as the monkeys, the absence of necessary environmental conditions beyond the bridge is an evident reason for their stopping where they did. Others, like the bison, were evidently kept by analogous environmental barriers from reaching the bridge." (Ibid.)

So, in conclusion, "In the whole history of mammals, there have been exceedingly few cases where the evidence really warrants the inference of a wide-open corridor between two now distinct continental masses." (Ibid.)

Not much comfort for BSers, is it?

ps418 · 08-18-2002, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Mibby: Not much comfort for BSers, is it?

Who needs comfort when you got so much evidence on your side? The geologic evidence shows beyond any doubt that there was a land bridge. Mammoths and other animals definitely crossed it. So did humans, apparently.

Also, nothing Simpson says provides any comfort for your BS. I think you may be misinterpreting Simpson (again). He's only saying that most land bridges act like filters, not everything can get through. This is hardly news. You seem to be under the false impression that something he's saying undermines the existence of a land bridge, or the evidence that animals crossed it.

Keep trying though. You may actually come up with some good arguments at some point.

Patrick

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

08-17-2002, 01:50 PM	#55
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	So far, all I've heard from everyone here is meta-arguments, shoehorning, and defying all common sense. You should stop listening to yourself and start examining the evidence we've presented, then. How, for example, are the core samples "meta-arguments"?

08-17-2002, 07:46 PM	#58
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	The Inuit are a good counterexample to mibby's claims, since they had lived in Arctic climates for the last several thousand years -- with Paleolithic-level technology. And they were successful enough to outlast some newcomers with more advanced technology; the Greenland Inuit outlasted the Greenland Viking colony, whose members were reduced to eating their dairy cattle in their last years. Human genetic diversity has an interesting pattern; something like 80% of it is shared across all examined human populations; this may be why "race" does not have very much meaning genetically. However, the remaining 20% does have regional patterns, so "race" is meaningful in that sense.

08-18-2002, 01:58 PM	#59
mibby529 Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Cali Posts: 170	I have located a splendid book called the Bering Land Bridge. Only two articles have even hinted at a discussion. Here's one from William Laughlin: "The interior landscape was evidently a low rolling plain, for the most part devoid of relief, studded with bogs and swamps, frozen much of the time, and lacking in trees or even many bushes. Grass-eating herbivores may have been present in fair numbers. The human adaptation of this region must surely have been that of big-game hunters, living by means of scavenging dead mammoths and such bovids as caribou, bison, and musk-ox, and by intentionally hunting live animals." "Conditions in the interior were severe, and likely only a few of its inhabitants found their way into North America; these wanderers probably became the ancestors of American Indians." Notice that Laughlin does not say for certain that any of these inhabitants actually crossed the Bering Strait -- he only says it's "likely." We get no evidence that anyone were within a thousand miles of Alaska or Siberia. No sites, trails, or signs of habitation are cited. And that is it -- Laughlin has offered NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE whatsoever. This from the guy who gave the Bering Strait a scientific spin. But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the BS is correct. But how do Indians move farther along? So we come up with the "ice corridor" corollary. We NEED the ice corridor to explain it, but that doesn't make it so. In order for this ice corridor to work, it would have to be from central Alaska to the east slope of the Canadian Rockies. But wait! Snow clouds, as they do today in the Rockies, would probably hit the mountains and then dump their snow first on the eastern slopes before transporting the mosisture clear across the Canadian planes to the Canadian shield. Ooh, crossing a land that even today is known for blizzards - in the middle of an ice age! Real smart. Now, back to Simpson. "Where herbivores go, carnivores can and will accompanyu them, and carnivores cannot go where there are no herbivores. The postulation of land bridges on the basis of one or a few mammals is thus very uncertain. Unless there is a reasonable possibilituy that their companions have not been discovered, a theoretical bridge based on such evidence is probably unreal." (Mammals and Land Bridges) "For many of these animals, such as the monkeys, the absence of necessary environmental conditions beyond the bridge is an evident reason for their stopping where they did. Others, like the bison, were evidently kept by analogous environmental barriers from reaching the bridge." (Ibid.) So, in conclusion, "In the whole history of mammals, there have been exceedingly few cases where the evidence really warrants the inference of a wide-open corridor between two now distinct continental masses." (Ibid.) Not much comfort for BSers, is it?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.