Humans began to rapidly accumulate technological knowledge through social learning around 600,000 years ago

[Primum Sapienti]

https://news.asu.edu/20240617-science-and-technology-asu-study-points-origin-cumulative-culture-human-evolution

Each of us individually is the accumulated
product of thousands of generations that
have come before us in an unbroken line.
Our culture and technology today are also
the result of thousands of years of
accumulated and remixed cultural knowledge.

But when did our earliest ancestors begin
to make connections and start to build on
the knowledge of others, setting us apart
from other primates? Cumulative culture —
the accumulation of technological
modifications and improvements over
generations — allowed humans to adapt to a
diversity of environments and challenges.
But, it is unclear when cumulative culture
first developed during hominin evolution.

A study published this week in the
Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences journal by Arizona State
University researcher Charles Perreault
and doctoral graduate Jonathan Paige
concludes that humans began to rapidly
accumulate technological knowledge
through social learning around 600,000
years ago.

“Our species, Homo sapiens, has been
successful at adapting to ecological
conditions — from tropical forests to
arctic tundra — that require different
kinds of problems to be solved," said
Perreault, a research scientist with
the Institute of Human Origins and an
associate professor with the School of
Human Evolution and Social Change.
“Cumulative culture is key because it
allows human populations to build on
and recombine the solutions of prior
generations and to develop new complex
solutions to problems very quickly.

"The result is, our cultures — from
technological problems and solutions
to how we organize our institutions —
are too complex for individuals to
invent on their own.”

To investigate when this technological
turn may have begun and to explore the
origin of cumulative culture, Paige and
Perreault analyzed changes in the
complexity of stone tool manufacturing
techniques across the past 3.3 million
years of the archaeological record.

As a baseline for the complexity of stone
tool technologies achievable without
cumulative culture, the researchers
analyzed technologies used by nonhuman
primates — like chimpanzees — and stone
tool manufacturing experiments involving
inexperienced human flintknappers and
randomized flaking.

The researchers broke down the complexity
of the stone tool technologies by the
number of steps (procedural units, or PUs)
that each tool-making sequence involved.

The results suggested that from around
3.3 to 1.8 million years ago — when
australopiths and earliest Homo species
were around — stone tool manufacturing
sequences remained within the range of
the baselines (1 to 6 PUs). From around
1.8 million to 600,000 years ago,
manufacturing sequences began to overlap
with and slightly exceed the complexity
baseline (4 to 7 PUs). But, after around
600,000 years ago, the complexity of
manufacturing sequences rapidly increased
(5 to 18 PUs).

“By 600,000 years ago or so, hominin
populations started relying on unusually
complex technologies, and we only see rapid
increases in complexity after that time as
well. Both of those findings match what we
expect to see among hominins who rely on
cumulative culture,” said Paige, a
postdoctoral researcher at the University
of Missouri and an ASU PhD graduate.

Tool-assisted foraging may have been the
impetus for the earliest beginning of the
evolution of cumulative culture. Early
hominins, 3.4 to 2 million years ago,
likely relied on foraging strategies that
require tools — like accessing meat, marrow
and organs — leading to changes in brain
size, lifespan and biology that set the
stage for cumulative culture.
...


https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2319175121
3.3 million years of stone tool complexity
suggests that cumulative culture began
during the Middle Pleistocene


Significance
Our species, Homo sapiens, occupies a
uniquely diverse set of ecological
habitats. Humans expanded into tropical
forests and arctic tundra through
cumulative culture. Cumulative culture
is the accumulation of modifications,
innovations, and improvements over
generations through social learning.
Generations of variant accumulations
allow humans to use technologies and
know-how well beyond what a single
naive individual could invent
independently within their lifetime.
We analyzed the stone tools made
during the last 3.3 My. We found that
these stone tools remained simple until
about 600,000 B.P. After that point,
stone tools rapidly increased in
complexity. Consistent with findings
from other research teams, we suggest
that this transition signals the
development of cumulative culture in
the human lineage.


Abstract
Cumulative culture, the accumulation of
modifications, innovations, and
improvements over generations through
social learning, is a key determinant
of the behavioral diversity across Homo
sapiens populations and their ability
to adapt to varied ecological habitats.
Generations of improvements,
modifications, and lucky errors allow
humans to use technologies and know-how
well beyond what a single naive
individual could invent independently
within their lifetime. The human
dependence on cumulative culture may
have shaped the evolution of biological
and behavioral traits in the hominin
lineage, including brain size, body
size, life history, sociality,
subsistence, and ecological niche
expansion. Yet, we do not know when, in
the human career, our ancestors began to
depend on cumulative culture. Here, we
show that hominins likely relied on a
derived form of cumulative culture by
at least ~600 kya, a result in line
with a growing body of existing
evidence. We analyzed the complexity
of stone tool manufacturing sequences
over the last 3.3 My of the
archaeological record. We then compare
these to the achievable complexity
without cumulative culture, which we
estimate using nonhuman primate
technologies and stone tool
manufacturing experiments. We find
that archaeological technologies
become significantly more complex
than expected in the absence of
cumulative culture only after
~600 kya.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by Primum Sapienti
https://news.asu.edu/20240617-science-and-technology-asu-study-points-origin-cumulative-culture-human-evolution
Each of us individually is the accumulated
product of thousands of generations that
have come before us in an unbroken line.
Our culture and technology today are also
the result of thousands of years of
accumulated and remixed cultural knowledge.
But when did our earliest ancestors begin
to make connections and start to build on
the knowledge of others, setting us apart
from other primates? Cumulative culture —
the accumulation of technological
modifications and improvements over
generations — allowed humans to adapt to a
diversity of environments and challenges.
But, it is unclear when cumulative culture
first developed during hominin evolution.
A study published this week in the
Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences journal by Arizona State
University researcher Charles Perreault
and doctoral graduate Jonathan Paige
concludes that humans began to rapidly
accumulate technological knowledge
through social learning around 600,000
years ago.
“Our species, Homo sapiens, has been
successful at adapting to ecological
conditions — from tropical forests to
arctic tundra — that require different
kinds of problems to be solved," said
Perreault, a research scientist with
the Institute of Human Origins and an
associate professor with the School of
Human Evolution and Social Change.
“Cumulative culture is key because it
allows human populations to build on
and recombine the solutions of prior
generations and to develop new complex
solutions to problems very quickly.
"The result is, our cultures — from
technological problems and solutions
to how we organize our institutions —
are too complex for individuals to
invent on their own.”
To investigate when this technological
turn may have begun and to explore the
origin of cumulative culture, Paige and
Perreault analyzed changes in the
complexity of stone tool manufacturing
techniques across the past 3.3 million
years of the archaeological record.
As a baseline for the complexity of stone
tool technologies achievable without
cumulative culture, the researchers
analyzed technologies used by nonhuman
primates — like chimpanzees — and stone
tool manufacturing experiments involving
inexperienced human flintknappers and
randomized flaking.
The researchers broke down the complexity
of the stone tool technologies by the
number of steps (procedural units, or PUs)
that each tool-making sequence involved.
The results suggested that from around
3.3 to 1.8 million years ago — when
australopiths and earliest Homo species
were around — stone tool manufacturing
sequences remained within the range of
the baselines (1 to 6 PUs). From around
1.8 million to 600,000 years ago,
manufacturing sequences began to overlap
with and slightly exceed the complexity
baseline (4 to 7 PUs). But, after around
600,000 years ago, the complexity of
manufacturing sequences rapidly increased
(5 to 18 PUs).
“By 600,000 years ago or so, hominin
populations started relying on unusually
complex technologies, and we only see rapid
increases in complexity after that time as
well. Both of those findings match what we
expect to see among hominins who rely on
cumulative culture,” said Paige, a
postdoctoral researcher at the University
of Missouri and an ASU PhD graduate.
Tool-assisted foraging may have been the
impetus for the earliest beginning of the
evolution of cumulative culture. Early
hominins, 3.4 to 2 million years ago,
likely relied on foraging strategies that
require tools — like accessing meat, marrow
and organs — leading to changes in brain
size, lifespan and biology that set the
stage for cumulative culture.
...
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2319175121
3.3 million years of stone tool complexity
suggests that cumulative culture began
during the Middle Pleistocene
Significance
Our species, Homo sapiens, occupies a
uniquely diverse set of ecological
habitats. Humans expanded into tropical
forests and arctic tundra through
cumulative culture. Cumulative culture
is the accumulation of modifications,
innovations, and improvements over
generations through social learning.
Generations of variant accumulations
allow humans to use technologies and
know-how well beyond what a single
naive individual could invent
independently within their lifetime.
We analyzed the stone tools made
during the last 3.3 My. We found that
these stone tools remained simple until
about 600,000 B.P. After that point,
stone tools rapidly increased in
complexity. Consistent with findings
from other research teams, we suggest
that this transition signals the
development of cumulative culture in
the human lineage.
Abstract
Cumulative culture, the accumulation of
modifications, innovations, and
improvements over generations through
social learning, is a key determinant
of the behavioral diversity across Homo
sapiens populations and their ability
to adapt to varied ecological habitats.
Generations of improvements,
modifications, and lucky errors allow
humans to use technologies and know-how
well beyond what a single naive
individual could invent independently
within their lifetime. The human
dependence on cumulative culture may
have shaped the evolution of biological
and behavioral traits in the hominin
lineage, including brain size, body
size, life history, sociality,
subsistence, and ecological niche
expansion. Yet, we do not know when, in
the human career, our ancestors began to
depend on cumulative culture. Here, we
show that hominins likely relied on a
derived form of cumulative culture by
at least ~600 kya, a result in line
with a growing body of existing
evidence. We analyzed the complexity
of stone tool manufacturing sequences
over the last 3.3 My of the
archaeological record. We then compare
these to the achievable complexity
without cumulative culture, which we
estimate using nonhuman primate
technologies and stone tool
manufacturing experiments. We find
that archaeological technologies
become significantly more complex
than expected in the absence of
cumulative culture only after
~600 kya.

Complex societies, cereals. Not 12 kya but 50 times more, 600 kya.
Just like with wooden structures, not 9 kya, but 500 times more 450 kya.
But, of course, science needs concrete evidence. Well, science will
wait a lot, till it gets the direct evidence, stupid science.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by Primum Sapienti
https://news.asu.edu/20240617-science-and-technology-asu-study-points-origin-cumulative-culture-human-evolution
Each of us individually is the accumulated
product of thousands of generations that
have come before us in an unbroken line.
Our culture and technology today are also
the result of thousands of years of
accumulated and remixed cultural knowledge.
But when did our earliest ancestors begin
to make connections and start to build on
the knowledge of others, setting us apart
from other primates? Cumulative culture —
the accumulation of technological
modifications and improvements over
generations — allowed humans to adapt to a
diversity of environments and challenges.
But, it is unclear when cumulative culture
first developed during hominin evolution.
A study published this week in the
Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences journal by Arizona State
University researcher Charles Perreault
and doctoral graduate Jonathan Paige
concludes that humans began to rapidly
accumulate technological knowledge
through social learning around 600,000
years ago.
“Our species, Homo sapiens, has been
successful at adapting to ecological
conditions — from tropical forests to
arctic tundra — that require different
kinds of problems to be solved," said
Perreault, a research scientist with
the Institute of Human Origins and an
associate professor with the School of
Human Evolution and Social Change.
“Cumulative culture is key because it
allows human populations to build on
and recombine the solutions of prior
generations and to develop new complex
solutions to problems very quickly.
"The result is, our cultures — from
technological problems and solutions
to how we organize our institutions —
are too complex for individuals to
invent on their own.”
To investigate when this technological
turn may have begun and to explore the
origin of cumulative culture, Paige and
Perreault analyzed changes in the
complexity of stone tool manufacturing
techniques across the past 3.3 million
years of the archaeological record.
As a baseline for the complexity of stone
tool technologies achievable without
cumulative culture, the researchers
analyzed technologies used by nonhuman
primates — like chimpanzees — and stone
tool manufacturing experiments involving
inexperienced human flintknappers and
randomized flaking.
The researchers broke down the complexity
of the stone tool technologies by the
number of steps (procedural units, or PUs)
that each tool-making sequence involved.
The results suggested that from around
3.3 to 1.8 million years ago — when
australopiths and earliest Homo species
were around — stone tool manufacturing
sequences remained within the range of
the baselines (1 to 6 PUs). From around
1.8 million to 600,000 years ago,
manufacturing sequences began to overlap
with and slightly exceed the complexity
baseline (4 to 7 PUs). But, after around
600,000 years ago, the complexity of
manufacturing sequences rapidly increased
(5 to 18 PUs).
“By 600,000 years ago or so, hominin
populations started relying on unusually
complex technologies, and we only see rapid
increases in complexity after that time as
well. Both of those findings match what we
expect to see among hominins who rely on
cumulative culture,” said Paige, a
postdoctoral researcher at the University
of Missouri and an ASU PhD graduate.
Tool-assisted foraging may have been the
impetus for the earliest beginning of the
evolution of cumulative culture. Early
hominins, 3.4 to 2 million years ago,
likely relied on foraging strategies that
require tools — like accessing meat, marrow
and organs — leading to changes in brain
size, lifespan and biology that set the
stage for cumulative culture.
...
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2319175121
3.3 million years of stone tool complexity
suggests that cumulative culture began
during the Middle Pleistocene
Significance
Our species, Homo sapiens, occupies a
uniquely diverse set of ecological
habitats. Humans expanded into tropical
forests and arctic tundra through
cumulative culture. Cumulative culture
is the accumulation of modifications,
innovations, and improvements over
generations through social learning.
Generations of variant accumulations
allow humans to use technologies and
know-how well beyond what a single
naive individual could invent
independently within their lifetime.
We analyzed the stone tools made
during the last 3.3 My. We found that
these stone tools remained simple until
about 600,000 B.P. After that point,
stone tools rapidly increased in
complexity. Consistent with findings
from other research teams, we suggest
that this transition signals the
development of cumulative culture in
the human lineage.
Abstract
Cumulative culture, the accumulation of
modifications, innovations, and
improvements over generations through
social learning, is a key determinant
of the behavioral diversity across Homo
sapiens populations and their ability
to adapt to varied ecological habitats.
Generations of improvements,
modifications, and lucky errors allow
humans to use technologies and know-how
well beyond what a single naive
individual could invent independently
within their lifetime. The human
dependence on cumulative culture may
have shaped the evolution of biological
and behavioral traits in the hominin
lineage, including brain size, body
size, life history, sociality,
subsistence, and ecological niche
expansion. Yet, we do not know when, in
the human career, our ancestors began to
depend on cumulative culture. Here, we
show that hominins likely relied on a
derived form of cumulative culture by
at least ~600 kya, a result in line
with a growing body of existing
evidence. We analyzed the complexity
of stone tool manufacturing sequences
over the last 3.3 My of the
archaeological record. We then compare
these to the achievable complexity
without cumulative culture, which we
estimate using nonhuman primate
technologies and stone tool
manufacturing experiments. We find
that archaeological technologies
become significantly more complex
than expected in the absence of
cumulative culture only after
~600 kya.

        Complex societies, cereals. Not 12 kya but 50 times more, 600
kya. Just like with wooden structures, not 9 kya, but 500 times more 450
kya.
        But, of course, science needs concrete evidence. Well, science
will wait a lot, till it gets the direct evidence, stupid science.

Science, with its stupid rules, only hinders human understanding,
stupid science. Like, somebody deliberately demand that accepted view
meet all the strict criteria, so that it never moves forward. Nobody
understands anything. They were studying so hard, they accumulated so
large knowledge, yet, they completely lack in understanding, because
studying *isn't* understanding. The one who doesn't understand, the
bigger the knowledge he has, the more chance that he will look at the
wrong direction. Because he is unable to understand, studying isn't
everything.

[JTEM]

        Science, with its stupid rules, only hinders human
understanding, stupid science.

You're right. Science isn't about understanding. It's kind of
like learning a computer language in that often times things
just can't make sense to you and you've got to accept it!

Instead of figuring out WHY they do things that way, just accept
that it is the way they are done...

And THAT is science. Because science is about what is fact, what
is real and NOT what we understand.

Like, somebody deliberately demand that
accepted view meet all the strict criteria, so that it never moves
forward.

The way I see it is that there's "Facts" (or "data" or even
"evidence") and then there's "Models."

It's one reason why I am so solidly in the Aquatic Ape corner of
the arguments. Aquatic Ape has a model. In fact, there are a
number of Aquatic Ape models. But savanna idiocy has nothing. Just
the opposite; much of the "evidence" that's supposed to support
savanna idiocy breaks any model they hope to fit it into.

My my mind, the "Model" is understanding. It's making sense of
the evidence, the data.

Models can be "Theories," but then they have to meet the criteria
of science and be testable...

Nobody understands anything.

Homo existed for millions of years without anyone understand
what the moon is, much less "How" or "Why" it's there. But the
moon was there.

People invented myths, legends, folklore even religions to
explain it all, grant them "Understanding." And it was always
wrong yet the moon was still there.

The one who
doesn't understand, the bigger the knowledge he has, the more chance
that he will look at the wrong direction. Because he is unable to
understand, studying isn't everything.

You're right in that so long as people concentrate on the details
they tend to miss the larger picture... the "larger picture" being
the model.

You can't discard facts or make some up in order to fit a model.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

         Science, with its stupid rules, only hinders human
understanding, stupid science.

You're right. Science isn't about understanding. It's kind of
like learning a computer language in that often times things
just can't make sense to you and you've got to accept it!
Instead of figuring out WHY they do things that way, just accept
that it is the way they are done...
And THAT is science. Because science is about what is fact, what
is real and NOT what we understand.

Like, somebody deliberately demand that accepted view meet all the
strict criteria, so that it never moves forward.

The way I see it is that there's "Facts" (or "data" or even
"evidence") and then there's "Models."
It's one reason why I am so solidly in the Aquatic Ape corner of
the arguments. Aquatic Ape has a model. In fact, there are a
number of Aquatic Ape models. But savanna idiocy has nothing. Just
the opposite; much of the "evidence" that's supposed to support
savanna idiocy breaks any model they hope to fit it into.
My my mind, the "Model" is understanding. It's making sense of
the evidence, the data.
Models can be "Theories," but then they have to meet the criteria
of science and be testable...

Nobody understands anything.

Homo existed for millions of years without anyone understand
what the moon is, much less "How" or "Why" it's there. But the
moon was there.
People invented myths, legends, folklore even religions to
explain it all, grant them "Understanding." And it was always
wrong yet the moon was still there.

The one who doesn't understand, the bigger the knowledge he has, the
more chance that he will look at the wrong direction. Because he is
unable to understand, studying isn't everything.

You're right in that so long as people concentrate on the details
they tend to miss the larger picture... the "larger picture" being
the model.
You can't discard facts or make some up in order to fit a model.

But this isn't a question of discarding the facts, I do *accept* all
the facts. There is one fact that science doesn't take into
consideration, and this is that proven facts aren't the only facts that
ever existed. Humans existed in the times between fossil finds, they
didn't appear in the time of one fossil, disappear, then appear out of
nothing in the time of another fossil. But science acts like only the
proven facts are the facts that ever existed, and anythings else simply
isn't accepted by science until it can be proved. But that way science
only proves that it was wrong whole the time, because it didn't accept
the facts that later proved to be true, so it was wrong from the very
beginning. The shocking thing is that it continues to be wrong,
willingly, presuming that the new find will prove that this new find
wasn't accepted by science before it was found.
I mean, those scientists behave like they are children playing some
game, and they play the game by set rules. Well, surprise, surprise,
this *isn't* a childish game, this is supposed to be a serious,
grown-up, thing, where responsible grown-ups contemplate our past, and
not play games.

[Primum Sapienti]

Post by Primum Sapienti
https://news.asu.edu/20240617-science-and-technology-asu-study-points-origin-cumulative-culture-human-evolution

YUou

         Complex societies, cereals. Not 12 kya but 50 times more, 600
kya. Just like with wooden structures, not 9 kya, but 500 times more
450 kya.
         But, of course, science needs concrete evidence. Well,
science will wait a lot, till it gets the direct evidence, stupid
science.

        Science, with its stupid rules, only hinders human
understanding, stupid science. Like, somebody deliberately demand that
accepted view meet all the strict criteria, so that it never moves
forward. Nobody understands anything. They were studying so hard, they
accumulated so large knowledge, yet, they completely lack in
understanding, because studying *isn't* understanding. The one who
doesn't understand, the bigger the knowledge he has, the more chance
that he will look at the wrong direction. Because he is unable to
understand, studying isn't everything.

You don't want to make the mistake of the
Aquatic SimianS of staring off into space
and imagining how something was. Concrete
evidence is indeed critical whatever field
of science is involved. Would you want to
take a medicine that wasn't rigoursly
developed?

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by Primum Sapienti

Post by Primum Sapienti
https://news.asu.edu/20240617-science-and-technology-asu-study-points-origin-cumulative-culture-human-evolution

YUou

         Complex societies, cereals. Not 12 kya but 50 times more,
600 kya. Just like with wooden structures, not 9 kya, but 500 times
more 450 kya.
         But, of course, science needs concrete evidence. Well,
science will wait a lot, till it gets the direct evidence, stupid
science.

         Science, with its stupid rules, only hinders human
understanding, stupid science. Like, somebody deliberately demand that
accepted view meet all the strict criteria, so that it never moves
forward. Nobody understands anything. They were studying so hard, they
accumulated so large knowledge, yet, they completely lack in
understanding, because studying *isn't* understanding. The one who
doesn't understand, the bigger the knowledge he has, the more chance
that he will look at the wrong direction. Because he is unable to
understand, studying isn't everything.

You don't want to make the mistake of the
Aquatic SimianS of staring off into space
and imagining how something was. Concrete
evidence is indeed critical whatever field
of science is involved. Would you want to
take a medicine that wasn't rigoursly
developed?

I wouldn't want to take a medicine at all, my body should be fit
enough to keep itself alive. Medicine, how much good it is, cannot
replace this. It is like asking me, would you like to run on your own
legs, or would you like to replace them with very rigorously developed
prosthesis.
Your view on this is like, would you like to think with your brain, or
would you like to think with your eyes. I am using eyes for looking, and
brain for thinking. You see an evidence, and for you this is what? Why
don't you use your brain? Why your brain is on idle? Should it be on
idle? Somebody told you not to use your brain, and you gladly complied.
I will never comply with this.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by Primum Sapienti

Post by Primum Sapienti
https://news.asu.edu/20240617-science-and-technology-asu-study-points-origin-cumulative-culture-human-evolution

YUou

         Complex societies, cereals. Not 12 kya but 50 times more,
600 kya. Just like with wooden structures, not 9 kya, but 500 times
more 450 kya.
         But, of course, science needs concrete evidence. Well,
science will wait a lot, till it gets the direct evidence, stupid
science.

         Science, with its stupid rules, only hinders human
understanding, stupid science. Like, somebody deliberately demand
that accepted view meet all the strict criteria, so that it never
moves forward. Nobody understands anything. They were studying so
hard, they accumulated so large knowledge, yet, they completely lack
in understanding, because studying *isn't* understanding. The one who
doesn't understand, the bigger the knowledge he has, the more chance
that he will look at the wrong direction. Because he is unable to
understand, studying isn't everything.

You don't want to make the mistake of the
Aquatic SimianS of staring off into space
and imagining how something was. Concrete
evidence is indeed critical whatever field
of science is involved. Would you want to
take a medicine that wasn't rigoursly
developed?

        I wouldn't want to take a medicine at all, my body should be
fit enough to keep itself alive. Medicine, how much good it is, cannot
replace this. It is like asking me, would you like to run on your own
legs, or would you like to replace them with very rigorously developed
prosthesis.
        Your view on this is like, would you like to think with your
brain, or would you like to think with your eyes. I am using eyes for
looking, and brain for thinking. You see an evidence, and for you this
is what? Why don't you use your brain? Why your brain is on idle? Should
it be on idle? Somebody told you not to use your brain, and you gladly
complied. I will never comply with this.

I will tell you about my experience with medicine. Once I was involved
in road accident, my leg almost broke, but it didn't, only my muscles
got squeezed a lot, and I was incapable to walk freely for two months,
which means that I didn't go to work for two months (it is allowed and
paid for in my country). My doctor put some medicine on the leg, and I
asked him (sarcastically), if he wouldn't do that would I die? He just
smiled at me, of course I wouldn't, his medicine just quickens my
healing, so that I can go to work sooner. The down side, of course, is
that this confuses my body's healing mechanism, so my organism becomes
less and less capable to heal itself.
The other case, when I was a kid, once I was really ill, with really
high temperature. Of course, my mother did what she needs, wrapped me
well. But the temperature becomes too high, and I knew that now it is
time to cool me off. But my mother didn't now this yet, and I was afraid
to tell her, because I thought that elders are smart enough to know how
it is done. When my mother realized (by measuring my temperature) that I
am too hot, it was almost too late. I should have told her to cool me
off when I felt it is time for that. See, I have to have the feeling for
it, all your "rigorously" developed things are not good enough. Just
like your science *isn't* good enough. It will never work, it will never
make you understand, you have to start to use your brain.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by Primum Sapienti

Post by Primum Sapienti
https://news.asu.edu/20240617-science-and-technology-asu-study-points-origin-cumulative-culture-human-evolution

YUou

         Complex societies, cereals. Not 12 kya but 50 times more,
600 kya. Just like with wooden structures, not 9 kya, but 500 times
more 450 kya.
         But, of course, science needs concrete evidence. Well,
science will wait a lot, till it gets the direct evidence, stupid
science.

         Science, with its stupid rules, only hinders human
understanding, stupid science. Like, somebody deliberately demand
that accepted view meet all the strict criteria, so that it never
moves forward. Nobody understands anything. They were studying so
hard, they accumulated so large knowledge, yet, they completely lack
in understanding, because studying *isn't* understanding. The one
who doesn't understand, the bigger the knowledge he has, the more
chance that he will look at the wrong direction. Because he is
unable to understand, studying isn't everything.

You don't want to make the mistake of the
Aquatic SimianS of staring off into space
and imagining how something was. Concrete
evidence is indeed critical whatever field
of science is involved. Would you want to
take a medicine that wasn't rigoursly
developed?

         I wouldn't want to take a medicine at all, my body should be
fit enough to keep itself alive. Medicine, how much good it is, cannot
replace this. It is like asking me, would you like to run on your own
legs, or would you like to replace them with very rigorously developed
prosthesis.
         Your view on this is like, would you like to think with your
brain, or would you like to think with your eyes. I am using eyes for
looking, and brain for thinking. You see an evidence, and for you this
is what? Why don't you use your brain? Why your brain is on idle?
Should it be on idle? Somebody told you not to use your brain, and you
gladly complied. I will never comply with this.

        I will tell you about my experience with medicine. Once I was
involved in road accident, my leg almost broke, but it didn't, only my
muscles got squeezed a lot, and I was incapable to walk freely for two
months, which means that I didn't go to work for two months (it is
allowed and paid for in my country). My doctor put some medicine on the
leg, and I asked him (sarcastically), if he wouldn't do that would I
die? He just smiled at me, of course I wouldn't, his medicine just
quickens my healing, so that I can go to work sooner. The down side, of
course, is that this confuses my body's healing mechanism, so my
organism becomes less and less capable to heal itself.
        The other case, when I was a kid, once I was really ill, with
really high temperature. Of course, my mother did what she needs,
wrapped me well. But the temperature becomes too high, and I knew that
now it is time to cool me off. But my mother didn't now this yet, and I
was afraid to tell her, because I thought that elders are smart enough
to know how it is done. When my mother realized (by measuring my
temperature) that I am too hot, it was almost too late. I should have
told her to cool me off when I felt it is time for that. See, I have to
have the feeling for it, all your "rigorously" developed things are not
good enough. Just like your science *isn't* good enough. It will never
work, it will never make you understand, you have to start to use your
brain.

Maybe it would be a good thing to warn people about communist type
health care. You noticed that in my country health care is paid for.
Well, nothing is free, they, actually, take my money, and give it to
government, then government pays the doctor (not enough, this is why he
is very dissatisfied). Anyway, he gets his wage from government, not
from me. I noticed several times that he doesn't care at all about my
well-being, but he gets very agitated, alerted, when he notices that
something is happening against the well-being of government, and he
wants to prevent that under any coast, even if it is against my
well-being. In other words, he takes care of my health the way
veterinarian takes care about the health of working cattle, not for my
sake, but for the sake of the boss.

[Primum Sapienti]

Post by Primum Sapienti

Post by Primum Sapienti
https://news.asu.edu/20240617-science-and-technology-asu-study-points-origin-cumulative-culture-human-evolution

         Complex societies, cereals. Not 12 kya but 50 times more,
600 kya. Just like with wooden structures, not 9 kya, but 500 times
more 450 kya.
         But, of course, science needs concrete evidence. Well,
science will wait a lot, till it gets the direct evidence, stupid
science.

         Science, with its stupid rules, only hinders human
understanding, stupid science. Like, somebody deliberately demand
that accepted view meet all the strict criteria, so that it never
moves forward. Nobody understands anything. They were studying so
hard, they accumulated so large knowledge, yet, they completely lack
in understanding, because studying *isn't* understanding. The one
who doesn't understand, the bigger the knowledge he has, the more
chance that he will look at the wrong direction. Because he is
unable to understand, studying isn't everything.

You don't want to make the mistake of the
Aquatic SimianS of staring off into space
and imagining how something was. Concrete
evidence is indeed critical whatever field
of science is involved. Would you want to
take a medicine that wasn't rigoursly
developed?

         I wouldn't want to take a medicine at all, my body should be
fit enough to keep itself alive. Medicine, how much good it is, cannot
replace this. It is like asking me, would you like to run on your own
legs, or would you like to replace them with very rigorously developed
prosthesis.
         Your view on this is like, would you like to think with your
brain, or would you like to think with your eyes. I am using eyes for
looking, and brain for thinking. You see an evidence, and for you this
is what? Why don't you use your brain? Why your brain is on idle?
Should it be on idle? Somebody told you not to use your brain, and you
gladly complied. I will never comply with this.

        I will tell you about my experience with medicine. Once I was
involved in road accident, my leg almost broke, but it didn't, only my
muscles got squeezed a lot, and I was incapable to walk freely for two
months, which means that I didn't go to work for two months (it is
allowed and paid for in my country). My doctor put some medicine on the
leg, and I asked him (sarcastically), if he wouldn't do that would I
die? He just smiled at me, of course I wouldn't, his medicine just
quickens my healing, so that I can go to work sooner. The down side, of
course, is that this confuses my body's healing mechanism, so my
organism becomes less and less capable to heal itself.
        The other case, when I was a kid, once I was really ill, with
really high temperature. Of course, my mother did what she needs,
wrapped me well. But the temperature becomes too high, and I knew that
now it is time to cool me off. But my mother didn't now this yet, and I
was afraid to tell her, because I thought that elders are smart enough
to know how it is done. When my mother realized (by measuring my
temperature) that I am too hot, it was almost too late. I should have
told her to cool me off when I felt it is time for that. See, I have to
have the feeling for it, all your "rigorously" developed things are not
good enough. Just like your science *isn't* good enough. It will never
work, it will never make you understand, you have to start to use your
brain.

You're a single data point. One of my neighbors
had an organ transplant earlier this year. *NO*
amount of self healing would have repaired
what they had, only rigorous science saved them.
They're now mowing their lawn and driving to the
store and everything. There's another data point.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by Primum Sapienti

Post by Primum Sapienti

Post by Primum Sapienti
https://news.asu.edu/20240617-science-and-technology-asu-study-points-origin-cumulative-culture-human-evolution

         Complex societies, cereals. Not 12 kya but 50 times more,
600 kya. Just like with wooden structures, not 9 kya, but 500
times more 450 kya.
         But, of course, science needs concrete evidence. Well,
science will wait a lot, till it gets the direct evidence, stupid
science.

         Science, with its stupid rules, only hinders human
understanding, stupid science. Like, somebody deliberately demand
that accepted view meet all the strict criteria, so that it never
moves forward. Nobody understands anything. They were studying so
hard, they accumulated so large knowledge, yet, they completely
lack in understanding, because studying *isn't* understanding. The
one who doesn't understand, the bigger the knowledge he has, the
more chance that he will look at the wrong direction. Because he is
unable to understand, studying isn't everything.

You don't want to make the mistake of the
Aquatic SimianS of staring off into space
and imagining how something was. Concrete
evidence is indeed critical whatever field
of science is involved. Would you want to
take a medicine that wasn't rigoursly
developed?

         I wouldn't want to take a medicine at all, my body should be
fit enough to keep itself alive. Medicine, how much good it is,
cannot replace this. It is like asking me, would you like to run on
your own legs, or would you like to replace them with very rigorously
developed prosthesis.
         Your view on this is like, would you like to think with your
brain, or would you like to think with your eyes. I am using eyes for
looking, and brain for thinking. You see an evidence, and for you
this is what? Why don't you use your brain? Why your brain is on
idle? Should it be on idle? Somebody told you not to use your brain,
and you gladly complied. I will never comply with this.

         I will tell you about my experience with medicine. Once I was
involved in road accident, my leg almost broke, but it didn't, only my
muscles got squeezed a lot, and I was incapable to walk freely for two
months, which means that I didn't go to work for two months (it is
allowed and paid for in my country). My doctor put some medicine on
the leg, and I asked him (sarcastically), if he wouldn't do that would
I die? He just smiled at me, of course I wouldn't, his medicine just
quickens my healing, so that I can go to work sooner. The down side,
of course, is that this confuses my body's healing mechanism, so my
organism becomes less and less capable to heal itself.
         The other case, when I was a kid, once I was really ill, with
really high temperature. Of course, my mother did what she needs,
wrapped me well. But the temperature becomes too high, and I knew that
now it is time to cool me off. But my mother didn't now this yet, and
I was afraid to tell her, because I thought that elders are smart
enough to know how it is done. When my mother realized (by measuring
my temperature) that I am too hot, it was almost too late. I should
have told her to cool me off when I felt it is time for that. See, I
have to have the feeling for it, all your "rigorously" developed
things are not good enough. Just like your science *isn't* good
enough. It will never work, it will never make you understand, you
have to start to use your brain.

You're a single data point. One of my neighbors
had an organ transplant earlier this year. *NO*
amount of self healing would have repaired
what they had, only rigorous science saved them.
They're now mowing their lawn and driving to the
store and everything. There's another data point.

Well, your data point is malfunctioning. I know that you don't care.
That's alright, this is why we have evolution. I would run away from
your neighbor who is full with transplanted organs, because if I stay
close to him I too will only be able to function, not by the way of my
own organs, but by the way of somebody else's organs. Presumably organs
took away from people who aren't developed as much as you are.

[Primum Sapienti]

Post by Primum Sapienti

Post by Primum Sapienti

Post by Primum Sapienti
https://news.asu.edu/20240617-science-and-technology-asu-study-points-origin-cumulative-culture-human-evolution

         Complex societies, cereals. Not 12 kya but 50 times
more, 600 kya. Just like with wooden structures, not 9 kya, but
500 times more 450 kya.
         But, of course, science needs concrete evidence. Well,
science will wait a lot, till it gets the direct evidence, stupid
science.

         Science, with its stupid rules, only hinders human
understanding, stupid science. Like, somebody deliberately demand
that accepted view meet all the strict criteria, so that it never
moves forward. Nobody understands anything. They were studying so
hard, they accumulated so large knowledge, yet, they completely
lack in understanding, because studying *isn't* understanding. The
one who doesn't understand, the bigger the knowledge he has, the
more chance that he will look at the wrong direction. Because he
is unable to understand, studying isn't everything.

You don't want to make the mistake of the
Aquatic SimianS of staring off into space
and imagining how something was. Concrete
evidence is indeed critical whatever field
of science is involved. Would you want to
take a medicine that wasn't rigoursly
developed?

         I wouldn't want to take a medicine at all, my body should
be fit enough to keep itself alive. Medicine, how much good it is,
cannot replace this. It is like asking me, would you like to run on
your own legs, or would you like to replace them with very
rigorously developed prosthesis.
         Your view on this is like, would you like to think with
your brain, or would you like to think with your eyes. I am using
eyes for looking, and brain for thinking. You see an evidence, and
for you this is what? Why don't you use your brain? Why your brain
is on idle? Should it be on idle? Somebody told you not to use your
brain, and you gladly complied. I will never comply with this.

         I will tell you about my experience with medicine. Once I
was involved in road accident, my leg almost broke, but it didn't,
only my muscles got squeezed a lot, and I was incapable to walk
freely for two months, which means that I didn't go to work for two
months (it is allowed and paid for in my country). My doctor put some
medicine on the leg, and I asked him (sarcastically), if he wouldn't
do that would I die? He just smiled at me, of course I wouldn't, his
medicine just quickens my healing, so that I can go to work sooner.
The down side, of course, is that this confuses my body's healing
mechanism, so my organism becomes less and less capable to heal itself.
         The other case, when I was a kid, once I was really ill,
with really high temperature. Of course, my mother did what she
needs, wrapped me well. But the temperature becomes too high, and I
knew that now it is time to cool me off. But my mother didn't now
this yet, and I was afraid to tell her, because I thought that elders
are smart enough to know how it is done. When my mother realized (by
measuring my temperature) that I am too hot, it was almost too late.
I should have told her to cool me off when I felt it is time for
that. See, I have to have the feeling for it, all your "rigorously"
developed things are not good enough. Just like your science *isn't*
good enough. It will never work, it will never make you understand,
you have to start to use your brain.

You're a single data point. One of my neighbors
had an organ transplant earlier this year. *NO*
amount of self healing would have repaired
what they had, only rigorous science saved them.
They're now mowing their lawn and driving to the
store and everything. There's another data point.

        Well, your data point is malfunctioning. I know that you don't
care. That's alright, this is why we have evolution. I would run away
from your neighbor who is full with transplanted organs, because if I
stay close to him I too will only be able to function, not by the way of
my own organs, but by the way of somebody else's organs. Presumably
organs took away from people who aren't developed as much as you are.

Transplanted organs are not contagious ;)

Meanwhile, your food, your clothes, your computer,
your car, your *anything* - science is behind it.

Evolution is not perfect.

https://www.science.org/content/article/deadly-human-bone-cancer-found-240-million-year-old-turtle

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by Primum Sapienti

Post by Primum Sapienti

Post by Primum Sapienti

Post by Primum Sapienti
https://news.asu.edu/20240617-science-and-technology-asu-study-points-origin-cumulative-culture-human-evolution

         Complex societies, cereals. Not 12 kya but 50 times
more, 600 kya. Just like with wooden structures, not 9 kya, but
500 times more 450 kya.
         But, of course, science needs concrete evidence. Well,
science will wait a lot, till it gets the direct evidence,
stupid science.

         Science, with its stupid rules, only hinders human
understanding, stupid science. Like, somebody deliberately demand
that accepted view meet all the strict criteria, so that it never
moves forward. Nobody understands anything. They were studying so
hard, they accumulated so large knowledge, yet, they completely
lack in understanding, because studying *isn't* understanding.
The one who doesn't understand, the bigger the knowledge he has,
the more chance that he will look at the wrong direction. Because
he is unable to understand, studying isn't everything.

You don't want to make the mistake of the
Aquatic SimianS of staring off into space
and imagining how something was. Concrete
evidence is indeed critical whatever field
of science is involved. Would you want to
take a medicine that wasn't rigoursly
developed?

         I wouldn't want to take a medicine at all, my body should
be fit enough to keep itself alive. Medicine, how much good it is,
cannot replace this. It is like asking me, would you like to run on
your own legs, or would you like to replace them with very
rigorously developed prosthesis.
         Your view on this is like, would you like to think with
your brain, or would you like to think with your eyes. I am using
eyes for looking, and brain for thinking. You see an evidence, and
for you this is what? Why don't you use your brain? Why your brain
is on idle? Should it be on idle? Somebody told you not to use your
brain, and you gladly complied. I will never comply with this.

         I will tell you about my experience with medicine. Once I
was involved in road accident, my leg almost broke, but it didn't,
only my muscles got squeezed a lot, and I was incapable to walk
freely for two months, which means that I didn't go to work for two
months (it is allowed and paid for in my country). My doctor put
some medicine on the leg, and I asked him (sarcastically), if he
wouldn't do that would I die? He just smiled at me, of course I
wouldn't, his medicine just quickens my healing, so that I can go to
work sooner. The down side, of course, is that this confuses my
body's healing mechanism, so my organism becomes less and less
capable to heal itself.
         The other case, when I was a kid, once I was really ill,
with really high temperature. Of course, my mother did what she
needs, wrapped me well. But the temperature becomes too high, and I
knew that now it is time to cool me off. But my mother didn't now
this yet, and I was afraid to tell her, because I thought that
elders are smart enough to know how it is done. When my mother
realized (by measuring my temperature) that I am too hot, it was
almost too late. I should have told her to cool me off when I felt
it is time for that. See, I have to have the feeling for it, all
your "rigorously" developed things are not good enough. Just like
your science *isn't* good enough. It will never work, it will never
make you understand, you have to start to use your brain.

You're a single data point. One of my neighbors
had an organ transplant earlier this year. *NO*
amount of self healing would have repaired
what they had, only rigorous science saved them.
They're now mowing their lawn and driving to the
store and everything. There's another data point.

         Well, your data point is malfunctioning. I know that you
don't care. That's alright, this is why we have evolution. I would run
away from your neighbor who is full with transplanted organs, because
if I stay close to him I too will only be able to function, not by the
way of my own organs, but by the way of somebody else's organs.
Presumably organs took away from people who aren't developed as much
as you are.

Transplanted organs are not contagious ;)
Meanwhile, your food, your clothes, your computer,
your car, your *anything* - science is behind it.
Evolution is not perfect.
https://www.science.org/content/article/deadly-human-bone-cancer-found-240-million-year-old-turtle

I would be more careful, though.

[JTEM]

        Complex societies, cereals. Not 12 kya but 50 times more, 600
kya. Just like with wooden structures, not 9 kya, but 500 times more 450
kya.
        But, of course, science needs concrete evidence. Well, science
will wait a lot, till it gets the direct evidence, stupid science.

I don't see any point to your dating but, I will say that the
problem is worse than you let on. Science very often avoids
facts that might upset it's preferred answers.

If you think about, how common is a headline claiming that THIS
fact or THAT new evidence "Rewrites the history of...????"

There's no way I could count all the times I've seen such a
headline, they are so common.

Yet, the exact same ridiculous Out of Africa purity claims
persists.

No matter how many times the human evolution gets "Rewritten"
by some new evidence, it stays exactly the same.

And THAT, dear fellow, is a religion and NOT science.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

         Complex societies, cereals. Not 12 kya but 50 times more, 600
kya. Just like with wooden structures, not 9 kya, but 500 times more
450 kya.
         But, of course, science needs concrete evidence. Well,
science will wait a lot, till it gets the direct evidence, stupid
science.

I don't see any point to your dating but, I will say that the
problem is worse than you let on. Science very often avoids
facts that might upset it's preferred answers.
If you think about, how common is a headline claiming that THIS
fact or THAT new evidence "Rewrites the history of...????"
There's no way I could count all the times I've seen such a
headline, they are so common.
Yet, the exact same ridiculous Out of Africa purity claims
persists.
No matter how many times the human evolution gets "Rewritten"
by some new evidence, it stays exactly the same.
And THAT, dear fellow, is a religion and NOT science.

I absolutely agree (actually, I addressed a part of this problem in
previous post). So, not only that they are playing games, but this game
isn't about understanding our past, but about building a career. So, any
new find cannot be in a way of good scientific career. So, on one hand
you have the facts that give us window into our past, and on the other
hand you have a guy (researching those facts) who very much cares that
no new fact disturbs his peace. So, twisting and adjusting is actually
his real job, how to twist new facts so that they fit into guy's
undisturbed career. "Peace and love, man.", new facts only bring
destruction, those scientists are actually afraid of any new fact,
instead of eagerly awaiting on it.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

         Complex societies, cereals. Not 12 kya but 50 times more,
600 kya. Just like with wooden structures, not 9 kya, but 500 times
more 450 kya.
         But, of course, science needs concrete evidence. Well,
science will wait a lot, till it gets the direct evidence, stupid
science.

I don't see any point to your dating but, I will say that the
problem is worse than you let on. Science very often avoids
facts that might upset it's preferred answers.
If you think about, how common is a headline claiming that THIS
fact or THAT new evidence "Rewrites the history of...????"
There's no way I could count all the times I've seen such a
headline, they are so common.
Yet, the exact same ridiculous Out of Africa purity claims
persists.
No matter how many times the human evolution gets "Rewritten"
by some new evidence, it stays exactly the same.
And THAT, dear fellow, is a religion and NOT science.

        I absolutely agree (actually, I addressed a part of this
problem in previous post). So, not only that they are playing games, but
this game isn't about understanding our past, but about building a
career. So, any new find cannot be in a way of good scientific career.
So, on one hand you have the facts that give us window into our past,
and on the other hand you have a guy (researching those facts) who very
much cares that no new fact disturbs his peace. So, twisting and
adjusting is actually his real job, how to twist new facts so that they
fit into guy's undisturbed career. "Peace and love, man.", new facts
only bring destruction, those scientists are actually afraid of any new
fact, instead of eagerly awaiting on it.

Oh yes, there is an excellent example, Cro-Magnons. They look exactly
like Neanderthals, but they have chin, so, per standard view they *have
to be* H.sapiens. See the citation from Wikipedia: "Cro-Magnons were
anatomically similar to present-day Europeans, West Asians, and North
Africans; but were more robust, having larger brains, broader faces,
more prominent brow ridges, and bigger teeth, compared to the
present-day average. The earliest Cro-Magnon specimens also exhibit some
features that are reminiscent of those found in Neanderthals." But
Neanderthals *were* "more robust, having larger brains, broader faces,
more prominent brow ridges, and bigger teeth, compared to the
present-day average.". So, the guy actually said that they are
Neanderthals, plus they "exhibit some features that are reminiscent of
those found in Neanderthals.". But hey, they *must* be H.sapiens, they
cannot be Neanderthals, lol.
So, you have a ton of facts which tie Cro-Magnons to Neanderthals, and
you have one fact (chin) that ties Cro-magnons to H.sapiens, and guess
which fact is more important than everything else. And somebody say that
this is the proper way, that this is science. No, this is BS.

[JTEM]

        Oh yes, there is an excellent example, Cro-Magnons. They look
exactly like Neanderthals, but they have chin, so, per standard view
they *have to be* H.sapiens.

I don't think anyone denies the fact that they were H. sapiens, and
Wolpoff detailed how they were Out-of-Africa (middle east?) Hs that
interbred with and slowly evolved towards Neaderthals.

Over time their skulls became more and more "Modern," more and more
Neanderthal like.

Interbreeding.

The answer REAL paleo anthropologists came up with more than 50
years ago was that so called moderns arose in the middle east, more
or less a hybrid, resting there at the border of three continents,
and then spread out from there.

I have long argued (pointed out) that the Out of Africa population
was a Eurasian population that migrated into Africa in the first
place...

There were numerous bottlenecks not just one.

        So, you have a ton of facts which tie Cro-Magnons to
Neanderthals, and you have one fact (chin) that ties Cro-magnons to
H.sapiens, and guess which fact is more important than everything else.
And somebody say that this is the proper way, that this is science. No,
this is BS.

I like stating the bleeding obvious:

If aliens landed here, never saw any of the evidence, never so much
as looked, what they would expect to see is that, over time, a lot
of very different population converged over time. That, there'd be
a convergence of traits. And that it exactly what we see.

The planet was HUGE, the populations were small -- tiny, even
minuscule by modern standards -- and this bred diverge. But, over
time, as groups came into more and more contact with outsiders, with
more and more genetic influx, the divergence would turn into
convergence.

In the past I referred to this formula for human evolution the
"Distributive Computing" model.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

         Oh yes, there is an excellent example, Cro-Magnons. They look
exactly like Neanderthals, but they have chin, so, per standard view
they *have to be* H.sapiens.

I don't think anyone denies the fact that they were H. sapiens, and
Wolpoff detailed how they were Out-of-Africa (middle east?) Hs that
interbred with and slowly evolved towards Neaderthals.
Over time their skulls became more and more "Modern," more and more
Neanderthal like.
Interbreeding.
The answer REAL paleo anthropologists came up with more than 50
years ago was that so called moderns arose in the middle east, more
or less a hybrid, resting there at the border of three continents,
and then spread out from there.
I have long argued (pointed out) that the Out of Africa population
was a Eurasian population that migrated into Africa in the first
place...
There were numerous bottlenecks not just one.

         So, you have a ton of facts which tie Cro-Magnons to
Neanderthals, and you have one fact (chin) that ties Cro-magnons to
H.sapiens, and guess which fact is more important than everything
else. And somebody say that this is the proper way, that this is
science. No, this is BS.

If aliens landed here, never saw any of the evidence, never so much
as looked, what they would expect to see is that, over time, a lot
of very different population converged over time. That, there'd be
a convergence of traits. And that it exactly what we see.
The planet was HUGE, the populations were small -- tiny, even
minuscule by modern standards -- and this bred diverge. But, over
time, as groups came into more and more contact with outsiders, with
more and more genetic influx, the divergence would turn into
convergence.
In the past I referred to this formula for human evolution the
"Distributive Computing" model.

There are few things in what you are saying that don't hold water.
First, you said that Cro-magnons became more and more like Neanderthals
over time. No, the first Cro-magnons were like Neanderthals, and over
time they became more and more like humans.
The second thing, humans were the kings of the World, for, like, 15
my. This is per my view. Per standard view, with their stone tools, they
should be the kings for 3 my. They weren't in small numbers, they were
very numerous, this is a stupid misconception, which wants to put
civilization at the top. They say all the time that the average lifespan
was something like 40 years, and wherever I see some prominent people
from the past, they lived for much longer. No, it isn't us, who work 8
hours a day, and sleep 7 hours that are the ideal, it is a slave in
Roman Empire, who worked for 4 hours a day, and slept 12 hours a day,
that is the ideal. They used to say that it was better to be a slave in
Athens than a king in some remote island. Today we are working our shit
off, because we are in a global competition for much larger production.
Just hundred years ago Americans, on their farms, didn't work a quarter
of the time we are working today.
No, in the past people lived long and satisfying life, it is in
today's world that people are suffering, they are lying to you all the
time. Because they want you, your spouse, and your dog to work your shit
off.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

         Oh yes, there is an excellent example, Cro-Magnons. They
look exactly like Neanderthals, but they have chin, so, per standard
view they *have to be* H.sapiens.

I don't think anyone denies the fact that they were H. sapiens, and
Wolpoff detailed how they were Out-of-Africa (middle east?) Hs that
interbred with and slowly evolved towards Neaderthals.
Over time their skulls became more and more "Modern," more and more
Neanderthal like.
Interbreeding.
The answer REAL paleo anthropologists came up with more than 50
years ago was that so called moderns arose in the middle east, more
or less a hybrid, resting there at the border of three continents,
and then spread out from there.
I have long argued (pointed out) that the Out of Africa population
was a Eurasian population that migrated into Africa in the first
place...
There were numerous bottlenecks not just one.

         So, you have a ton of facts which tie Cro-Magnons to
Neanderthals, and you have one fact (chin) that ties Cro-magnons to
H.sapiens, and guess which fact is more important than everything
else. And somebody say that this is the proper way, that this is
science. No, this is BS.

If aliens landed here, never saw any of the evidence, never so much
as looked, what they would expect to see is that, over time, a lot
of very different population converged over time. That, there'd be
a convergence of traits. And that it exactly what we see.
The planet was HUGE, the populations were small -- tiny, even
minuscule by modern standards -- and this bred diverge. But, over
time, as groups came into more and more contact with outsiders, with
more and more genetic influx, the divergence would turn into
convergence.
In the past I referred to this formula for human evolution the
"Distributive Computing" model.

        There are few things in what you are saying that don't hold
water. First, you said that Cro-magnons became more and more like
Neanderthals over time. No, the first Cro-magnons were like
Neanderthals, and over time they became more and more like humans.
        The second thing, humans were the kings of the World, for,
like, 15 my. This is per my view. Per standard view, with their stone
tools, they should be the kings for 3 my. They weren't in small numbers,
they were very numerous, this is a stupid misconception, which wants to
put civilization at the top. They say all the time that the average
lifespan was something like 40 years, and wherever I see some prominent
people from the past, they lived for much longer. No, it isn't us, who
work 8 hours a day, and sleep 7 hours that are the ideal, it is a slave
in Roman Empire, who worked for 4 hours a day, and slept 12 hours a day,
that is the ideal. They used to say that it was better to be a slave in
Athens than a king in some remote island. Today we are working our shit
off, because we are in a global competition for much larger production.
Just hundred years ago Americans, on their farms, didn't work a quarter
of the time we are working today.
        No, in the past people lived long and satisfying life, it is in
today's world that people are suffering, they are lying to you all the
time. Because they want you, your spouse, and your dog to work your shit
off.

We are the most successful species of them all, and by far. If their
models say that we all should, actually, starve to death (before we got
enlightened, and understand God, lol), it doesn't mean that we did, it
just means that their models are a bunch of BS.

[JTEM]

        There are few things in what you are saying that don't hold
water. First, you said that Cro-magnons became more and more like
Neanderthals over time. No, the first Cro-magnons were like
Neanderthals, and over time they became more and more like humans.

Wow. Back up.

Yes I misspoke but you're misspeaking even worse!

We established here -- you & I agree -- Cro magnons were modern
humans. All I did was reverse them, which is common enough,
equating so called "Moderns" with cro magnons.

...all Europeans today are human, not all humans are European.

Get it?

Neanderthals were humans, cro magnon were humans... no exceptions.

Cro magnons didn't start out like Neanderthals. Neanderthals
started out like Neanderthals and interbred with so called "Moderns"
entering from the east, it appears.

Physical forms CONVERGED over time, yes.

        The second thing, humans were the kings of the World, for,
like, 15 my.

Well. No.

Humans = Homo

And Homo just plain ain't that old!

But the good Doctor agrees with you, even take things further, placing
the divergence around 20 million years.

He may be right, and that places you into the same ballpark as him.

For me it hinges on bipedalism; when did it begin?

I'd say around 9 million years ago for certain, probably at least 10
million years ago while the good Doctor says more like 20...

This is per my view. Per standard view, with their stone
tools, they should be the kings for 3 my. They weren't in small numbers,
they were very numerous, this is a stupid misconception, which wants to
put civilization at the top. They say all the time that the average
lifespan was something like 40 years, and wherever I see some prominent
people from the past, they lived for much longer.

You're confusing "Life Expectancy" with "Life span."

Typical Roman wasn't rich, wasn't an emperor or Senator and died in his
30s. If you could timetravel back to the 1st century, kidnap some
Roman infants and bring them forward to the modern world, they'd fare
a great deal better. Differences in prenatal care and the diet of their
mothers would likely show in their health but, accounting for that,
they'd do way better than a typical infant back in 1st century Rome and
about as well as any modern baby.

But here's the point: You'd have to look for, identify and remove from
your statistics anyone with horrible prenatal care and/or an improperly
nourished mother, to arrive at a modern looking "Life Expectancy."

The ancient had the same POTENTIAL lifetimes as we moderns, but they
lacked our knowledge, they often lacked a proper diet and they certainly
lacked our medicines.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

         There are few things in what you are saying that don't hold
water. First, you said that Cro-magnons became more and more like
Neanderthals over time. No, the first Cro-magnons were like
Neanderthals, and over time they became more and more like humans.

Wow. Back up.
Yes I misspoke but you're misspeaking even worse!
We established here -- you & I agree -- Cro magnons were modern
humans. All I did was reverse them, which is common enough,
equating so called "Moderns" with cro magnons.
    ...all Europeans today are human, not all humans are European.
Get it?
Neanderthals were humans, cro magnon were humans... no exceptions.
Cro magnons didn't start out like Neanderthals. Neanderthals
started out like Neanderthals and interbred with so called "Moderns"
entering from the east, it appears.
Physical forms CONVERGED over time, yes.

Well, things aren't so simple. Unfortunately, all the conclusions here
are derived, not direct. First, I do think that Cro-Magnons started as
Neanderthals, so Cro-Magnons *are* Neanderthals. The link towards other
humans is less clear. They say that the first Cro-Magnons look very much
like Neanderthals, and that later Cro-Magnons lean more towards humans.
But, in general they say that Cro-Magnons went extinct, just like
Neanderthals. Now, I don't thin that they went extinct, I do think that
Cro-Magnons are Europeans, but only because of a single reason, because
of skin color, Europeans are white, and I presume that you can be white
only if you lived in Europe during the times of Neanderthals. So, all
conclusions are derived, but I believe that they are true.
The second thing, I will never understand why Asians aren't considered
different species than Caucasians. If we would be animals, scientists
would definitely diverge those two into two different species. Asians
have round heads, different eyes (and the difference in teeth, I
presume), flat bottom and bosoms, thin legs spread apart, they are
smaller. I.e., a lot of very unique characteristics.
I do believe that Europeans and Africans interbred a lot, because
Europeans needed to go south during Ice Ages. They also did the same
with Indians. But, I do believe that Asians are completely different
breed. Of course, Asians also interbred with Europeans, in my
surroundings I see a lot of faces with Asian characteristics, more
rounded, but never the less I do believe that the bulk of those two
remained separated. So, we basically have two bulks, two piles of
humans, western and eastern.

Post by JTEM

         The second thing, humans were the kings of the World, for,
like, 15 my.

Well. No.
Humans = Homo
And Homo just plain ain't that old!
But the good Doctor agrees with you, even take things further, placing
the divergence around 20 million years.
He may be right, and that places you into the same ballpark as him.
For me it hinges on bipedalism; when did it begin?
I'd say around 9 million years ago for certain, probably at least 10
million years ago while the good Doctor says more like 20...

I don't know who is the "Good Doctor". I see the name of TV Serial
"Good Doctor", but I don't watch TV. If "Good Doctor" is Marc Verhaegen,
then he changed his stance a lot. What is my position? The divergence
between Chimps and humans can be sometime 20 mya, or earlier.
Bipedalism? Earlier than 15 mya, for sure. Bipedal human ancestors where
probably the cause of temperature shift which started 15 mya. Of course,
those weren't Homo yet. If we would associate stone tools with the Homo
(Kenyantropus Platyops), then Homo is 3.5 my old. Of course, if you
account Kenyantropus as ancestor of Homo (which I would), then Homo is
younger than that.

Post by JTEM

This is per my view. Per standard view, with their stone tools, they
should be the kings for 3 my. They weren't in small numbers, they were
very numerous, this is a stupid misconception, which wants to put
civilization at the top. They say all the time that the average
lifespan was something like 40 years, and wherever I see some
prominent people from the past, they lived for much longer.

You're confusing "Life Expectancy" with "Life span."
Typical Roman wasn't rich, wasn't an emperor or Senator and died in his
30s. If you could timetravel back to the 1st century, kidnap some
Roman infants and bring them forward to the modern world, they'd fare
a great deal better. Differences in prenatal care and the diet of their
mothers would likely show in their health but, accounting for that,
they'd do way better than a typical infant back in 1st century Rome and
about as well as any modern baby.
But here's the point:  You'd have to look for, identify and remove from
your statistics anyone with horrible prenatal care and/or an improperly
nourished mother, to arrive at a modern looking "Life Expectancy."
The ancient had the same POTENTIAL lifetimes as we moderns, but they
lacked our knowledge, they often lacked a proper diet and they certainly
lacked our medicines.

Not at all. First, I do understand the difference between life span
and life expectancy, and I deliberately chose to use life span. Why?
Because I do think that whoever is using the term life span in the
standard way (this means, all the scientists) is an idiot, and that it
should bee used in the meaning of life expectancy. Why, in the whole
world, would somebody even account for babies which died out of child
diseases, or for somebody died in battle, this is stupid. Your remark is
valid, I am just protesting against the standard stance which talks
about life span at all, just to emphasize the better position of today's
societies. This is counter productive and stupid. So, ok, life
expectancy, but I will use "life span" again and again, in a protest mode.
Further, Roman soldiers got retired after 25 years of service. Just
yesterday I heard that this is also the retirement years of service in
Serbian Army today. So, where is the difference? If I didn't
misinterpret something, in the US Army it is 20 years. Mind you, a lot
of Roman soldiers didn't do service continuously. So, they would be
pretty old when they would retire. I mean, what's the point in
determining that, if all the people would be dead by that time? No, this
all is a lie.
The second thing, I was born in a city, biggish city, like 800 k
people. When I was kid there was some farmer from surrounding villages,
selling some cream, door to door. My god, this cream was so delicious,
no factory cream can come even close to that. And this goes with all the
other food. Do you really think that today's food, with all those
additives, is better than the food from the past? Boy, how wrong you
are. What we are eating today is pure garbage compared to what they were
eating in the past.
The difference, of course, is those child diseases, which killed a lot
of children. If you ask me, those who survived were strong men. Today
everybody survives, do you really think that this is better? No, that
way humans become weaker and weaker with every new generation.
Do you really think that all those 90 year old human zombies, whom
doctors, with all their medical techniques, just prevent from dying,
account for a better life? Not at all.

[Mario Petrinovic]

        The second thing, I will never understand why Asians aren't
considered different species than Caucasians. If we would be animals,
scientists would definitely diverge those two into two different
species. Asians have round heads, different eyes (and the difference in
teeth, I presume), flat bottom and bosoms, thin legs spread apart, they
are smaller. I.e., a lot of very unique characteristics.

Actually, I must correct myself here, I do know why they don't
separate those into different species. First, I must emphasize here that
virtually every part of our body is different (I can also add that our
languages sound completely different, and I would presume that we
separated few million years ago, only on the difference of how we
speak). But, the standard view is that Homo sapiens, as a whole, is
different from other animals, because it has intelligence, and that only
one individual became "spiritual" for who knows which reason, sometime
300 kya, and by "spiritual", they say that we are intellectually far
above all the other animals, so we all must be a single species, which
possesses this very unique (in the Universe) characteristics of
"intelligence, spirituality, and so on", so all the humans have to be
the descendants of this particular "spiritual" individual. Of course,
this all is pure BS, but hey, people are stupid (not intelligent), so
they accept pure BSs with the delight. That's the way it is, what can
you do.

[JTEM]

        Well, things aren't so simple. Unfortunately, all the
conclusions here are derived, not direct. First, I do think that
Cro-Magnons started as Neanderthals, so Cro-Magnons *are* Neanderthals.

There is a school of thought that says -- and has says, going back
at least 50 years -- that so called "Moderns" evolved from a
Neanderthal population in the middle east.

That's too linear for me. I like to think of it as hybridization.
That, being in the middle east -- the crossroads to three
continents plus the Indian sub continent -- a population in the
middle east was exposed to & acquired adaptations which brought
them in line with the current (inaccurate) concept of "Modern"
humans.

The link towards other humans is less clear.

The link is Aquatic Ape.

They say that the first
Cro-Magnons look very much like Neanderthals, and that later Cro-Magnons
lean more towards humans. But, in general they say that Cro-Magnons went
extinct, just like Neanderthals. Now, I don't thin that they went
extinct, I do think that Cro-Magnons are Europeans, but only because of
a single reason, because of skin color, Europeans are white, and I
presume that you can be white only if you lived in Europe during the
times of Neanderthals. So, all conclusions are derived, but I believe
that they are true.

#1. The African population in Out of Africa purity was a Eurasian group
that migrated into Africa.

#2. They were sexually selected. If not at first then certainly by the
time of Toba, or in response to Toba.

#3. Neanderthals were NOT sexually selected.

#4. Neanderthals would have required millennia to "Evolve" white skin,
as they weren't sexually selected thus wouldn't "Select" for white skin.

#5. The sexually selected African population COULD and maybe even DID
select for white skin, as it is a neonatal trait, but it would have been
auto selected AGAINST in life as a light skin person in Africa, without
skin protection, is burnt toast.

During population bottlenecks like Toba, and Campi Flegrei would have
been the more important one here, sexually selected groups would have
recovered the quickest, poured into the vacuums left by the bottle
neck & interbred with the Neanderthals.

        The second thing, I will never understand why Asians aren't
considered different species than Caucasians. If we would be animals,
scientists would definitely diverge those two into two different
species. Asians have round heads, different eyes (and the difference in
teeth, I presume), flat bottom and bosoms, thin legs spread apart, they
are smaller. I.e., a lot of very unique characteristics.

Dogs are all one species.

        I do believe that Europeans and Africans interbred a lot,
because Europeans needed to go south during Ice Ages. They also did the
same with Indians. But, I do believe that Asians are completely
different breed. Of course, Asians also interbred with Europeans, in my
surroundings I see a lot of faces with Asian characteristics, more
rounded, but never the less I do believe that the bulk of those two
remained separated. So, we basically have two bulks, two piles of
humans, western and eastern.

What you're noting is Multi Regionalism or Regional Continuity.

Post by JTEM
For me it hinges on bipedalism; when did it begin?
I'd say around 9 million years ago for certain, probably at least 10
million years ago while the good Doctor says more like 20...

        I don't know who is the "Good Doctor".

Yes you do.

What is my position? The
divergence between Chimps and humans can be sometime 20 mya, or earlier.

Absolutely positively no way.

It was very recent. Probably less than 4 million years ago.

Bipedalism? Earlier than 15 mya, for sure. Bipedal human ancestors where
probably the cause of temperature shift which started 15 mya.

Beyond Milankovitch cycles, there's always plate tectonics:

There's nothing missing.

        Not at all. First, I do understand the difference between life
span and life expectancy, and I deliberately chose to use life span.
Why? Because I do think that whoever is using the term life span in the
standard way (this means, all the scientists) is an idiot, and that it
should bee used in the meaning of life expectancy. Why, in the whole
world, would somebody even account for babies which died out of child
diseases, or for somebody died in battle, this is stupid. Your remark is
valid, I am just protesting against the standard stance which talks
about life span at all, just to emphasize the better position of today's
societies. This is counter productive and stupid.

One very comprehensive but flawed study found that 75% of all babies
born, the people were dead by their mid 40s. Another study found that
it was flawed, taking their data from people who could afford their
own burials. Most sources agree that a typical pleb died in their 30s,
the ones that made it to adulthood, not their 40s. And infant mortality
was above 50%.

These people had the exact same CAPACITY to live into their old age
as we modern people.

In ancient Egypt, tooth decay was a major cause of death, at least
amongst those who lived long enough. They used sand to grind their
wheat so the grit in their food wore down their teeth... infection...

death.

Whisk yourself back in time, kidnap infant babies and rush them
forward to the present. Unless they were exposed to abominable
prenatal care/their mothers had horrendous diets, they could all
be expected to live just as long as you.

        Further, Roman soldiers got retired after 25 years of service.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38586918

They estimate that 80% died before retirement.

REMEMBER: Roughly 75% of everyone born was already dead before
they were old enough to enlist... half of all babies died and of
those that lived half died by the age of 15.

So 80% of 25% died, or a whopping 5% of all the potential solders
born never lived long enough to retire... 75% died before they
could even enlist.

Just yesterday I heard that this is also the retirement years of service
in Serbian Army today.

You clearly have a huge emotional investment in this.

Why?

What does it mean *To You* if people died younger in the past?

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

         Well, things aren't so simple. Unfortunately, all the
conclusions here are derived, not direct. First, I do think that
Cro-Magnons started as Neanderthals, so Cro-Magnons *are* Neanderthals.

There is a school of thought that says -- and has says, going back
at least 50 years -- that so called "Moderns" evolved from a
Neanderthal population in the middle east.
That's too linear for me. I like to think of it as hybridization.
That, being in the middle east -- the crossroads to three
continents plus the Indian sub continent -- a population in the
middle east was exposed to & acquired adaptations which brought
them in line with the current (inaccurate) concept of "Modern"
humans.

In my view "Moderns" are erectus/Neanderthals plus chin and high
forehead (globular brain). This is a consequence of massive usage of
hematite. Massive usage of hematite is where you have developed
societies, with a lot of people, with trading routes, with cereals. This
cannot be Neanderthal, this can be Africa or India. Massive usage of
hematite spread from there.

Post by JTEM

The link towards other humans is less clear.

The link is Aquatic Ape.

Not at all, people weren't aquatic anymore for a long time by then.

Post by JTEM

They say that the first Cro-Magnons look very much like Neanderthals,
and that later Cro-Magnons lean more towards humans. But, in general
they say that Cro-Magnons went extinct, just like Neanderthals. Now, I
don't thin that they went extinct, I do think that Cro-Magnons are
Europeans, but only because of a single reason, because of skin color,
Europeans are white, and I presume that you can be white only if you
lived in Europe during the times of Neanderthals. So, all conclusions
are derived, but I believe that they are true.

#1.  The African population in Out of Africa purity was a Eurasian group
that migrated into Africa.

Nobody migrated anywhere. It is the chin and globular brain (usage of
hematite) that spread. It is like if you would say that people migrated
out of America because the cell phone usage spread out of America. No,
people didn't migrate, it is just that people all around the world
acquired the usage of cell phone.

Post by JTEM
#2.  They were sexually selected. If not at first then certainly by the
time of Toba, or in response to Toba.
#3.  Neanderthals were NOT sexually selected.
#4.  Neanderthals would have required millennia to "Evolve" white skin,
as they weren't sexually selected thus wouldn't "Select" for white skin.
#5.  The sexually selected African population COULD and maybe even DID
select for white skin, as it is a neonatal trait, but it would have been
auto selected AGAINST in life as a light skin person in Africa, without
skin protection, is burnt toast.
During population bottlenecks like Toba, and Campi Flegrei would have
been the more important one here, sexually selected groups would have
recovered the quickest, poured into the vacuums left by the bottle
neck & interbred with the Neanderthals.

BS. Animals, and people, are selected. Claiming that you know the
method and reason of selection has more with religion than with the real
knowledge. Maybe people were selected for their stupidity, because
civilization, living in large groups, prefers people to be like sheep,
and not to be individuals. Your insisting on "bottlenecks" also is
pretty religious.

Post by JTEM

         The second thing, I will never understand why Asians aren't
considered different species than Caucasians. If we would be animals,
scientists would definitely diverge those two into two different
species. Asians have round heads, different eyes (and the difference
in teeth, I presume), flat bottom and bosoms, thin legs spread apart,
they are smaller. I.e., a lot of very unique characteristics.

Dogs are all one species.

Baboons aren't. Dogs are one species solely because they all are human
accompaniments. If they would be judged by their looks, they would all
be different species.

Post by JTEM

         I do believe that Europeans and Africans interbred a lot,
because Europeans needed to go south during Ice Ages. They also did
the same with Indians. But, I do believe that Asians are completely
different breed. Of course, Asians also interbred with Europeans, in
my surroundings I see a lot of faces with Asian characteristics, more
rounded, but never the less I do believe that the bulk of those two
remained separated. So, we basically have two bulks, two piles of
humans, western and eastern.

What you're noting is Multi Regionalism or Regional Continuity.

Ah, thanks. Good.

Post by JTEM

Post by JTEM
For me it hinges on bipedalism; when did it begin?
I'd say around 9 million years ago for certain, probably at least 10
million years ago while the good Doctor says more like 20...

         I don't know who is the "Good Doctor".

Yes you do.

What is my position? The divergence between Chimps and humans can be
sometime 20 mya, or earlier.

Absolutely positively no way.
It was very recent. Probably less than 4 million years ago.

Bipedalism? Earlier than 15 mya, for sure. Bipedal human ancestors
where probably the cause of temperature shift which started 15 mya.

http://youtu.be/OGdPqpzYD4o
There's nothing missing.

First, plate tectonics is driven by cracks made by asteroid impacts.
The model science is using for plate tectonics doesn't take those into
account. This is why their model is so simple, so that everything ends
up in a single continent. This is stupid. The characteristics of a bad
theory, or a bad programming, or anything bad, is that in the end
everything, either collapses, or explodes.
Milankovitch cycles have nothing to do with long term changes, they
have something to do with fluctuations, because they reflect the changes
in Earth orbit around the Sun, this is why they are "cycles", they are
cyclic. I am talking about permanent changes. 15 mya Earth started to
cool off. This is because of deforestation (not because of Milankoitch,
or Earth orbit), which allowed for greater albedo, Earth started to lose
heat because of greater albedo.

Post by JTEM

         Not at all. First, I do understand the difference between
life span and life expectancy, and I deliberately chose to use life
span. Why? Because I do think that whoever is using the term life span
in the standard way (this means, all the scientists) is an idiot, and
that it should bee used in the meaning of life expectancy. Why, in the
whole world, would somebody even account for babies which died out of
child diseases, or for somebody died in battle, this is stupid. Your
remark is valid, I am just protesting against the standard stance
which talks about life span at all, just to emphasize the better
position of today's societies. This is counter productive and stupid.

One very comprehensive but flawed study found that 75% of all babies
born, the people were dead by their mid 40s. Another study found that
it was flawed, taking their data from people who could afford their
own burials. Most sources agree that a typical pleb died in their 30s,
the ones that made it to adulthood, not their 40s. And infant mortality
was above 50%.
These people had the exact same CAPACITY to live into their old age
as we modern people.
In ancient Egypt, tooth decay was a major cause of death, at least
amongst those who lived long enough. They used sand to grind their
wheat so the grit in their food wore down their teeth... infection...
death.
Whisk yourself back in time, kidnap infant babies and rush them
forward to the present. Unless they were exposed to abominable
prenatal care/their mothers had horrendous diets, they could all
be expected to live just as long as you.

         Further, Roman soldiers got retired after 25 years of service.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38586918
They estimate that 80% died before retirement.
REMEMBER:  Roughly 75% of everyone born was already dead before
they were old enough to enlist... half of all babies died and of
those that lived half died by the age of 15.
So 80% of 25% died, or a whopping 5% of all the potential solders
born never lived long enough to retire... 75% died before they
could even enlist.

I don't believe this statistics at all. If you account one that lives
to 60, and a baby that died the day it is born, the average is 30 years.
It is so stupid to use the number 30 for anything (except for "proving"
that we live longer today just because our babies, which should die,
survive, we don't let them die). This example shows you how easy it is
to manipulate those numbers.
As I said, they worked much less, and ate much healthier food than us.
This picture of hard work and bad diet is so wrong, and the data that
proves it is probably extremely manipulated and twisted. I mean,
catholic priests are the authors of all the scientific theories of
Genesis. Scientists are idiots whom you can manipulate whichever way you
want. I bet that all those scientists that regularly encounter long life
span in the past, are simply afraid to talk about it, because it is
counter what standard view is. When a guy numbered 24 chromosomes in
humans, 30 years after that all the scientists copied that number,
although they saw with their own eyes that there are only 23
chromosomes. They were just afraid to write it down, because that way
they would confront the authorities, and ruin their career. So, *all*
the scientists blatantly lied for 30 years, there wasn't a single one
who was honest. You were talking about sexual selection, this is a
selection for dishonesty, for you.

Post by JTEM

Just yesterday I heard that this is also the retirement years of
service in Serbian Army today.

You clearly have a huge emotional investment in this.
Why?
What does it mean *To You* if people died younger in the past?

I am telling you, this view is so wrong, we work more and we are
eating junk. I don't want to work more, and eat junk, I am not a working
cattle, I am an intelligent and proud HUMAN, the king of animals for 15
million years, not a slave.

[JTEM]

        In my view "Moderns" are erectus/Neanderthals plus chin and
high forehead (globular brain). This is a consequence of massive usage
of hematite. Massive usage of hematite is where you have developed
societies, with a lot of people, with trading routes, with cereals. This
cannot be Neanderthal, this can be Africa or India. Massive usage of
hematite spread from there.

Yes except for the fact that the Africans weren't a separate species.
They were all effectively the same population, or descendants of the
same population, and are best grouped with the Eurasians.

Of course the Bantu Expansion was incredibly recent so that could very
well be destroying our picture here...

Good point about the Neanderthals though. They appear to have been
more territorial, except for the females it looks like.

It's currently believed that Neanderthal FEMALES suffered from a form
of Wander Lust, leaving a group (clan?) and joining another, similar to
how Chimps are known to behave.

Post by JTEM
#1.  The African population in Out of Africa purity was a Eurasian group
that migrated into Africa.

        Nobody migrated anywhere.

Clearly self refuting.

It is the chin and globular brain
(usage of hematite) that spread.

It is true that they needed to only interbreed with neighboring
populations to move genes (traits) around, all those other
populations had to migrate to get there in the first place!

The real answer is Aquatic Ape, of course...

        BS. Animals, and people, are selected. Claiming that you know
the method and reason of selection has more with religion than with the
real knowledge.

No, there's real science behind it.

Google r/K Selection.

Though often attacked as "Racist" -- because why wouldn't they? --
there is TONS of evidence for differing breeding strategies.

One researcher, and this is behind a firewall now but you can
find cites to it if you Google it, concluded that penis size maps
to r/K Selection, so the smaller your willy the more highly
evolved you are.

...I don't know about you but, when I read the paper I went &
sat in a tub of ice water for an hour.

"Look! Look at me! I'm evolutionary superior to you!"

Actually, the researcher concluded that Asians had the smallest
willies, African the largest and Europeans in the middle...

Testicle size is another piece of evidence. Though human balz
are hardly uniform: Gorillas have little or no sperm
competition and have the smallest wobbly orbs. Chimps have lots
of sperm competition and they have the largest. Humans lay
somewhere between the two.

You could also do the Google on Neonatal traits. These strongly
suggest sexual selection...

Maybe people were selected for their stupidity, because
civilization, living in large groups, prefers people to be like sheep,
and not to be individuals.

It is claimed that aggression is being bred out of humans. That,
the more aggressive you are, the more likely you are to kill but
also the more likely that you will be killed.

Aggressive opponents were usually killed... still are in many
examples. A docile opponent is not a threat.

Your insisting on "bottlenecks" also is
pretty religious.

No. Bottlenecks did occur. They were inescapable. The Founder
Effect is a bottleneck on a micro scale, Toba was a bottleneck
on a macro scale but they are both bottlenecks.

Post by JTEM
Dogs are all one species.

        Baboons aren't. Dogs are one species solely because they all
are human accompaniments. If they would be judged by their looks, they
would all be different species.

Yes. If all our today's dog breeds were known only from the fossil
record -- from the Jurassic, say -- they would all be called
different species. This is a condemnation of our concept of "Species,"
not dog breeds.

        First, plate tectonics is driven by cracks made by asteroid
impacts.

There are some who link the formation of continental plates with
impacts, yes, but it hardly seems relevant. It can't alter the fact
that there are continents and they do move -- which is the concept
I introduced.

        Milankovitch cycles have nothing to do with long term changes,
they have something to do with fluctuations, because they reflect the
changes in Earth orbit around the Sun, this is why they are "cycles",

The point is that they are cycles. The earth moves through cycles and
those cycles all by themselves can and do result in changes to the
climate.

they are cyclic. I am talking about permanent changes. 15 mya Earth
started to cool off. This is because of deforestation (not because of
Milankoitch, or Earth orbit), which allowed for greater albedo, Earth
started to lose heat because of greater albedo.

https://www.livescience.com/is-earth-moving-closer-farther-sun

Eventually the earth will be out where Mars is today...

        I don't believe this statistics at all.

Well why on earth would you when you have a hat full of baseless
assertions to argue?

If you account one that
lives to 60, and a baby that died the day it is born, the average is 30
years.

It is extremely hard to factor in babies because so many of them
would have died -- or even been killed -- while precious few
would have been afforded a proper burial.

It is so stupid to use the number 30 for anything (except for
"proving" that we live longer today just because our babies, which
should die, survive, we don't let them die). This example shows you how
easy it is to manipulate those numbers.

That would make sense if we stopped at babies. Which we don't.

Modern medicine prevents people from dying. Brushing your teeth
prevents people from dying. Using soap prevents people from
dying. Proper nutrition prevents people from dying. Just knowing
what is harmful prevents people from dying.

We don't use lead as a cosmetic or a sweetener anymore...

During the American Civil War the link between "Germs" and infection
was already known, but most (nearly all) of the doctors were
educated before these things were taught. Doctors saw dozens, even
hundreds of patients in a single day, never once washing their hands
between them... many thousands died of infections that never needed
to happen.

And, dude, that was some 1,300 years after Rome official fell.

        As I said, they worked much less, and ate much healthier food
than us.

No they didn't. Even if they got bread made from "Healthier"
wheat, that didn't mean the diet was healthy.

This picture of hard work and bad diet is so wrong, and the
data that proves it is probably extremely manipulated and twisted.

They all had university degrees in nutrition and could afford a
balanced diet of only the finest ingredients...

I
mean, catholic priests are the authors of all the scientific theories of
Genesis.

Not on this planet.

Scientists are idiots whom you can manipulate whichever way you
want.

"100% of all science agrees with whomever is paying for it."

That is a massive problem, as Gwobull Warbling proves.

I bet that all those scientists that regularly encounter long life
span in the past, are simply afraid to talk about it, because it is
counter what standard view is.

You've confused POTENTIAL lifespan with life expectancy, again.

Post by JTEM
What does it mean *To You* if people died younger in the past?

        I am telling you, this view is so wrong, we work more and we
are eating junk.

Not what I asked. What does it mean TO YOU if people died at a
younger age in the past?

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

         In my view "Moderns" are erectus/Neanderthals plus chin and
high forehead (globular brain). This is a consequence of massive usage
of hematite. Massive usage of hematite is where you have developed
societies, with a lot of people, with trading routes, with cereals.
This cannot be Neanderthal, this can be Africa or India. Massive usage
of hematite spread from there.

Yes except for the fact that the Africans weren't a separate species.
They were all effectively the same population, or descendants of the
same population, and are best grouped with the Eurasians.
Of course the Bantu Expansion was incredibly recent so that could very
well be destroying our picture here...
Good point about the Neanderthals though. They appear to have been
more territorial, except for the females it looks like.
It's currently believed that Neanderthal FEMALES suffered from a form
of Wander Lust, leaving a group (clan?) and joining another, similar to
how Chimps are known to behave.

Post by JTEM
#1.  The African population in Out of Africa purity was a Eurasian group
that migrated into Africa.

         Nobody migrated anywhere.

Clearly self refuting.

It is the chin and globular brain (usage of hematite) that spread.

It is true that they needed to only interbreed with neighboring
populations to move genes (traits) around, all those other
populations had to migrate to get there in the first place!
The real answer is Aquatic Ape, of course...

You don't get this at all. First, genes don't fall from skies, they
are a product of adaptation. Second, who says that the gene that
produces chin is the same in Africans and in Europeans? You don't know
which genes are involved, nobody knows nothing about it, scientists are
just spreading fairy tales.
And the third, chin isn't a product of spreading of genes, but of the
usage of hematite. Bodies in all humans adapted to the usage of
hematite. Probably different gene modifications happened in different
and distant populations, for this to happen.
From what I wrote, if you understand it, you can figure out how
childish the standard view on this is. Standard view is very similar to
Medieval sorcery, abracadabra, and here you have it, a chin.

Post by JTEM

         BS. Animals, and people, are selected. Claiming that you know
the method and reason of selection has more with religion than with
the real knowledge.

No, there's real science behind it.
Google r/K Selection.
Though often attacked as "Racist" -- because why wouldn't they? --
there is TONS of evidence for differing breeding strategies.
One researcher, and this is behind a firewall now but you can
find cites to it if you Google it, concluded that penis size maps
to r/K Selection, so the smaller your willy the more highly
evolved you are.
    ...I don't know about you but, when I read the paper I went &
sat in a tub of ice water for an hour.
"Look!  Look at me!  I'm evolutionary superior to you!"
Actually, the researcher concluded that Asians had the smallest
willies, African the largest and Europeans in the middle...
Testicle size is another piece of evidence. Though human balz
are hardly uniform:  Gorillas have little or no sperm
competition and have the smallest wobbly orbs. Chimps have lots
of sperm competition and they have the largest. Humans lay
somewhere between the two.
You could also do the Google on Neonatal traits. These strongly
suggest sexual selection...

Gee, of course willies, testicles, eye color, length of nose,
everything is selected. The question is, which is more important? Now, I
do have my opinion on this, and sexuality definitely is one of more
important things in life, and humans definitely have unique sexual life.
But this isn't, in no way, the whole picture of our evolution, like you
are fixated on it. It is just your fixture, your little world. In this
particular time and space. For somebody else, in some other times and
spaces, things can be different. Depending on circumstances, not on your
wishes.

Post by JTEM

Maybe people were selected for their stupidity, because civilization,
living in large groups, prefers people to be like sheep, and not to be
individuals.

It is claimed that aggression is being bred out of humans. That,
the more aggressive you are, the more likely you are to kill but
also the more likely that you will be killed.
Aggressive opponents were usually killed... still are in many
examples. A docile opponent is not a threat.

Just thousand years ago conquerors from Euroasian steppe were
conquering the whole world. Just few hundred years ago white man ruled
the world. You are probably white, what in the whole world you are doing
in America, you should be, and stay, in Europe? And what your sexual
selection has to do with you being in America? You wiped off natives, by
sexual selection? Because you have smaller (or bigger) willy?

Post by JTEM

Your insisting on "bottlenecks" also is pretty religious.

No. Bottlenecks did occur. They were inescapable. The Founder
Effect is a bottleneck on a micro scale, Toba was a bottleneck
on a macro scale but they are both bottlenecks.

Yes, but what exactly is "bottleneck" to you? Smaller or bigger gene
diversity? We have large gene diversity in Africa, and small in the rest
of the world. Per your definition, we have "bottleneck" in the rest of
the world, and Africa is the most advanced. And look at that, the real
life is exactly the opposite. Small gene diversity means developed
societies where genes average over time, while large gene diversity
means *smaller* groups that are separated. Now, ask yourself what those
stupid scientists regard as a "bottleneck", small or large gene diversity?

Post by JTEM

Post by JTEM
Dogs are all one species.

         Baboons aren't. Dogs are one species solely because they all
are human accompaniments. If they would be judged by their looks, they
would all be different species.

Yes. If all our today's dog breeds were known only from the fossil
record -- from the Jurassic, say -- they would all be called
different species. This is a condemnation of our concept of "Species,"
not dog breeds.

         First, plate tectonics is driven by cracks made by asteroid
impacts.

There are some who link the formation of continental plates with
impacts, yes, but it hardly seems relevant. It can't alter the fact
that there are continents and they do move -- which is the concept
I introduced.

Gee, yes, they move, but nobody knows what force moves them. I am
saying that cracks move them. So, asteroid impact produces cracks, and
those cracks move continents. Actually, recent research proved that
cracks move continents. Now, the only thing that they miss is what forms
cracks. I say asteroid impacts form cracks. Gee, for whole my life I
have to wait science to catch me.

Post by JTEM

         Milankovitch cycles have nothing to do with long term
changes, they have something to do with fluctuations, because they
reflect the changes in Earth orbit around the Sun, this is why they
are "cycles",

The point is that they are cycles. The earth moves through cycles and
those cycles all by themselves can and do result in changes to the
climate.

Gee, Milankovitch cycles are around 0.1 my long, not 15 my. There are
other factors besides Milankovitch cycles.

Post by JTEM

they are cyclic. I am talking about permanent changes. 15 mya Earth
started to cool off. This is because of deforestation (not because of
Milankoitch, or Earth orbit), which allowed for greater albedo, Earth
started to lose heat because of greater albedo.

https://www.livescience.com/is-earth-moving-closer-farther-sun
Eventually the earth will be out where Mars is today...

         I don't believe this statistics at all.

Well why on earth would you when you have a hat full of baseless
assertions to argue?

If you account one that lives to 60, and a baby that died the day it
is born, the average is 30 years.

It is extremely hard to factor in babies because so many of them
would have died -- or even been killed -- while precious few
would have been afforded a proper burial.

This doesn't mean that you can use all the babies to twist the
statistics, if you want it. It is so easy to twist the statistics, as
you can see.

Post by JTEM

It is so stupid to use the number 30 for anything (except for
"proving" that we live longer today just because our babies, which
should die, survive, we don't let them die). This example shows you
how easy it is to manipulate those numbers.

That would make sense if we stopped at babies. Which we don't.
Modern medicine prevents people from dying. Brushing your teeth
prevents people from dying. Using soap prevents people from
dying. Proper nutrition prevents people from dying. Just knowing
what is harmful prevents people from dying.
We don't use lead as a cosmetic or a sweetener anymore...
During the American Civil War the link between "Germs" and infection
was already known, but most (nearly all) of the doctors were
educated before these things were taught. Doctors saw dozens, even
hundreds of patients in a single day, never once washing their hands
between them... many thousands died of infections that never needed
to happen.
And, dude, that was some 1,300 years after Rome official fell.

So, today we are living in a sterile world, and we die of COVID. Guess
what, COVID didn't fall from skies, it was always here. The difference
is that we didn't die because of it, and today we are dying, because our
immune system isn't fit anymore, we depend on doctors to keep us alive,
not on our immune system. So now I have to work to pay a doctor to keep
me alive. Yesterday I kept myself alive doing absolutely nothing.

Post by JTEM

         As I said, they worked much less, and ate much healthier food
than us.

No they didn't. Even if they got bread made from "Healthier"
wheat, that didn't mean the diet was healthy.

I would rather not comment on this. Our food is contaminated with so
many things, starting with pesticides, and continuing with a long list
of everything else, ending with conservants. You have such a list
printed on every product you are buying. If you don't die immediately
eating this, and if nobody can prove that those things are actually
harmful, this doesn't mean that they aren't harmful.

Post by JTEM

This picture of hard work and bad diet is so wrong, and the data that
proves it is probably extremely manipulated and twisted.

They all had university degrees in nutrition and could afford a
balanced diet of only the finest ingredients...

Guess what, every animal has balanced diet, except the one animal that
has university degrees.

Post by JTEM

I mean, catholic priests are the authors of all the scientific
theories of Genesis.

Not on this planet.

Big Bang theory, Genetic Mutation Theory, the authors are catholic
priests.

Post by JTEM

Scientists are idiots whom you can manipulate whichever way you want.

"100% of all science agrees with whomever is paying for it."
That is a massive problem, as Gwobull Warbling proves.

I bet that all those scientists that regularly encounter long life
span in the past, are simply afraid to talk about it, because it is
counter what standard view is.

You've confused POTENTIAL lifespan with life expectancy, again.

Post by JTEM
What does it mean *To You* if people died younger in the past?

         I am telling you, this view is so wrong, we work more and we
are eating junk.

Not what I asked. What does it mean TO YOU if people died at a
younger age in the past?

Not to me, I am not claiming that people died at a younger age. The
ones who are claiming this have the benefit of you wanting to work 8
hours a day, thinking that that way you are improving your lifestyle.
IOW, you work 8 hours per day *for them*, and you even feel lucky doing
it. Because you think that it is better that way than it was in the
past. You even feel grateful to them, because they allowed you to work 8
hours a day for them, imagine how the life would be if they didn't make
it happen, the life would be real hell, like it was in the past. So, you
are very happy to work for them, instead of enjoying your life, like
people enjoyed their lives in the past.

[JTEM]

        You don't get this at all. First, genes don't fall from skies,
they are a product of adaptation.

Not really. It's more like a spaghetti strainer; a colander. There
is no magic fairy guiding anything. In fact, the single most common
outcome is extinction. Populations don't "Adapt," they go extinct.

THAT is the most common outcome...

In the case of so called "Moderns," there were many different,
distinct populations and they effectively "Adapted" in isolation,
only to end up sharing their DNA with others though they themselves
migrating or indirectly through the waterside population who came
into contact with different groups, as they followed the coast.

Second, who says that the gene that
produces chin is the same in Africans and in Europeans?

Part of the problem is, you never established that this is important.

Brow ridges aren't.

To me these chins seems to be evidence of... what? Maybe sexual
selection? Dominant numbers?

It's not an "Innovation." It's not like they couldn't eat, couldn't
sleep AND THEN someone "Evolved" a chin and they immediately used
it to invent the bow & arrow...

You're too well trained! They ring the "Chin" bell and you
salivate...

You don't know
which genes are involved, nobody knows nothing about it, scientists are
just spreading fairy tales.

One "Fairy tale" is that chins matter, that they are anything other
than the product of sexual selection.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

         You don't get this at all. First, genes don't fall from
skies, they are a product of adaptation.

Not really. It's more like a spaghetti strainer; a colander. There
is no magic fairy guiding anything. In fact, the single most common
outcome is extinction. Populations don't "Adapt," they go extinct.
THAT is the most common outcome...

Actually, I don't agree. Animals adapt pretty well, only catastrophic
events, when everything changes on mass scale, extincts animals. If
animals go extinct, we wouldn't have any animal left.

Post by JTEM
In the case of so called "Moderns," there were many different,
distinct populations and they effectively "Adapted" in isolation,
only to end up sharing their DNA with others though they themselves
migrating or indirectly through the waterside population who came
into contact with different groups, as they followed the coast.

I don't agree at all. Homo erectus lived stationary inland lifestyle.
Hand axes were shovels, you use shovels when you want to establish your
existence on one place, not when you move around.

Post by JTEM

Second, who says that the gene that produces chin is the same in
Africans and in Europeans?

Part of the problem is, you never established that this is important.
Brow ridges aren't.
To me these chins seems to be evidence of... what? Maybe sexual
selection? Dominant numbers?
It's not an "Innovation." It's not like they couldn't eat, couldn't
sleep AND THEN someone "Evolved" a chin and they immediately used
it to invent the bow & arrow...
You're too well trained!  They ring the "Chin" bell and you
salivate...

With chin it is easy. Chin is the product of recession of teeth. The
recession of teeth is the product of the use of sharp metal (hematite)
to cut meat. Teeth are used only for one reason, to cut food (canines
are also used for fighting, but we don't have those, meaning, we were
the dominant species since when we started to lose canines, and this was
10 mya). We, even today, use sharp metal to cut food. Humans started to
use sharp metal (hematite) 300 kya, and teeth lost its function, so they
receded. Simple.

Post by JTEM

You don't know which genes are involved, nobody knows nothing about
it, scientists are just spreading fairy tales.

One "Fairy tale" is that chins matter, that they are anything other
than the product of sexual selection.

[JTEM]

        I don't agree at all. Homo erectus lived stationary inland
lifestyle. Hand axes were shovels, you use shovels when you want to
establish your existence on one place, not when you move around.

The overwhelming majority of all species to ever exist are gone.

Dead.

Extinct.

Big pile of extinct species HERE, tiny pile of living species THERE.

        With chin it is easy. Chin is the product of recession of
teeth. The recession of teeth is the product of the use of sharp metal
(hematite) to cut meat.

It's not that hard. The best of it is a lot softer than flint.

But you are correct in that the face can be changed as much from
behaviors as anything else.

Do the Google on eating utensils and the human face...

But I seriously doubt that's what we're seeing in the case of the chin.
If anything, the populations outside of Africa had the larger brains,
were more advanced. So, again, it looks more like sexual selection going
here.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

         I don't agree at all. Homo erectus lived stationary inland
lifestyle. Hand axes were shovels, you use shovels when you want to
establish your existence on one place, not when you move around.

The overwhelming majority of all species to ever exist are gone.
Dead.
Extinct.
Big pile of extinct species HERE, tiny pile of living species THERE.

Species occupy niche. If a species fits a niche, another species from
another niche will not fit that well. It is niche that is occupied by a
living organism, this way or that way. See Fossa.

Post by JTEM

         With chin it is easy. Chin is the product of recession of
teeth. The recession of teeth is the product of the use of sharp metal
(hematite) to cut meat.

It's not that hard. The best of it is a lot softer than flint.
But you are correct in that the face can be changed as much from
behaviors as anything else.
Do the Google on eating utensils and the human face...
But I seriously doubt that's what we're seeing in the case of the chin.
If anything, the populations outside of Africa had the larger brains,
were more advanced. So, again, it looks more like sexual selection going
here.

Hematite is harder than iron. When you smelt hematite into iron, it
actually loses hardness, iron is more elastic, softer than hematite.
In my view brain volume is for thermal reason. So, northern species
have bigger volume, southern have smaller volume.

[JTEM]

        Hematite is harder than iron.

They didn't have iron. But Hematite runs form soft to
medium hard. There are better stones.

Like I said, there is a lot of work concerning eating
utensils and the changes to the human face.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

         Hematite is harder than iron.

They didn't have iron. But Hematite runs form soft to
medium hard. There are better stones.
Like I said, there is a lot of work concerning eating
utensils and the changes to the human face.

Hematite has hardness 5 to 6, iron has 4.5. It has metallic luster,
therefore it is a metal.
300 kya people started to grind hematite a lot (hence red ochre). The
change in face is straight forward, teeth receded, producing a chin.
This happened simultaneously with the emergence of red ochre. Hence the
fairy tale that H.sapiens is "spiritual" because it used red orche to
paint his body.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hematite
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardnesses_of_the_elements_(data_page)
JTEM, why you are so much refusing to learn something?

[JTEM]

        Hematite has hardness 5 to 6, iron has 4.5. It has metallic
luster, therefore it is a metal.
        300 kya people started to grind hematite a lot (hence red
ochre). The change in face is straight forward, teeth receded, producing
a chin. This happened simultaneously with the emergence of red ochre.
Hence the fairy tale that H.sapiens is "spiritual" because it used red
orche to paint his body.

They did use red orche to paint their bodies. This is far from "Proof"
that they were spiritual, but it is evidence consistent with it.

Far better evidence is intentional burials, caring for the dead. It
implies a belief in an afterlife.

Again, far from "Proof" but it is evidence consistent with the view.

If "Spirituality" is a soft spot for you, delete the word and replace
it with two words: "Symbolic Thinking."

This is something that almost certainly pre dated (so called)
"Modern" man, but how much?

Chimps and gorillas display some level of symbolic thinking, more so
than young human children...

One experiment showed young children a model of a room, and then
showed them where a toy was hidden in that model. Next, they placed
them in that room! They didn't find the toy.

The idea here is that spirituality, religious beliefs required a
level of this "Symbolic Thinking" that just plain doesn't exist in
"Lower life forms."

Thus, evidence for mysticism/spirituality is evidence for symbolic
thinking, and evidence for symbolic thinking is evidence for
mysticism/spirituality.

As for habits/tools changing the face...

If hematite resulted in a chin, absence of that hematite should
present the absence of a chin.

Is this what we see?

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

         Hematite has hardness 5 to 6, iron has 4.5. It has metallic
luster, therefore it is a metal.
         300 kya people started to grind hematite a lot (hence red
ochre). The change in face is straight forward, teeth receded,
producing a chin. This happened simultaneously with the emergence of
red ochre. Hence the fairy tale that H.sapiens is "spiritual" because
it used red orche to paint his body.

They did use red orche to paint their bodies. This is far from "Proof"
that they were spiritual, but it is evidence consistent with it.
Far better evidence is intentional burials, caring for the dead. It
implies a belief in an afterlife.
Again, far from "Proof" but it is evidence consistent with the view.
If "Spirituality" is a soft spot for you, delete the word and replace
it with two words:  "Symbolic Thinking."
This is something that almost certainly pre dated (so called)
"Modern" man, but how much?
Chimps and gorillas display some level of symbolic thinking, more so
than young human children...
One experiment showed young children a model of a room, and then
showed them where a toy was hidden in that model. Next, they placed
them in that room! They didn't find the toy.
The idea here is that spirituality, religious beliefs required a
level of this "Symbolic Thinking" that just plain doesn't exist in
"Lower life forms."
Thus, evidence for mysticism/spirituality is evidence for symbolic
thinking, and evidence for symbolic thinking is evidence for
mysticism/spirituality.
As for habits/tools changing the face...
If hematite resulted in a chin, absence of that hematite should
present the absence of a chin.
Is this what we see?

Gee, I cannot believe this, a waste of time. People use hematite, like
300 kya, but to use it as a paint (as far as I know), you have to mix it
with milk. This only happened 100 kya. I mean, to get red ochre by
grinding hematite is very hard working process. If they used it for
painting, why they left it in the ground, in such a huge quantity (there
where thick layers of red ochre), why they *didn't* use it as a paint?
You are telling me that they made such a big effort to attain red ochre,
and then they just left it in the ground?
This "symbolic thinking" is a hoax. Language per se, produces
"symbolic thinking". And we definitely had language at least for 3 my
(stone tools making).
Burial definitely is belief in afterlife, but why would you do it if
you are enjoying real life? To me the belief in afterlife comes from a
situation when your existence relies on developed society, and you have
low position in this society, so you hope that in afterlife you'll get
better. Of course, the afterlife would be your reward for behaving in
accordance with social rules in real life. So, the belief in afterlife I
tie with very advanced societies.
And, at the end, it isn't the hematite that resulted in chin, it is
the use of metal for cutting food that resulted in chin. In the past we
used hematite for that, today we are also using metal for that, only
this metal is smelted and then ground, unlike hematite, which was just
ground. Actually, the iron that you are using today *is* hematite,
hematite is iron ore.

[JTEM]

        Gee, I cannot believe this, a waste of time. People use
hematite, like 300 kya, but to use it as a paint (as far as I know), you
have to mix it with milk. This only happened 100 kya. I mean, to get red
ochre by

You're confusing yourself.

Your claim is that hematite is what resulted in chins. That, the
reason why the characterization of so called moderns includes chins
is because of the use of hematite. WHICH REQUIRES that where and
when hematite is not used we will not find people with chins.

        This "symbolic thinking" is a hoax.

In your case, absolutely. But that is mere anecdote and anecdotal
evidence is no evidence at all...

There is hard science on symbolic thinking.

One clear example and the absolute minimum age would have to be
on the appearance of... jewelry!

Ordination.

Art.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

         Gee, I cannot believe this, a waste of time. People use
hematite, like 300 kya, but to use it as a paint (as far as I know),
you have to mix it with milk. This only happened 100 kya. I mean, to
get red ochre by

You're confusing yourself.
Your claim is that hematite is what resulted in chins. That, the
reason why the characterization of so called moderns includes chins
is because of the use of hematite. WHICH REQUIRES that where and
when hematite is not used we will not find people with chins.

         This "symbolic thinking" is a hoax.

In your case, absolutely. But that is mere anecdote and anecdotal
evidence is no evidence at all...
There is hard science on symbolic thinking.
One clear example and the absolute minimum age would have to be
on the appearance of... jewelry!
Ordination.
Art.

You mean, if somebody would accidentally lose something that is
valuable? No, you don't accidentally lose something that is valuable.
Lets see the very recent example. We had "Iron Age", before that it was
"Bronze Age", before that it was "Copper Age". They know when Iron Age
started, they do know when Bronze Age started, but they have not the
slightest idea when Copper Age started. Why? Because all the copper was
later smelted into bronze. No, they didn't lose this valuable metal by
the way, they cared about it, they transferred it to their children,
they didn't just carelessly drop it in nature. The first valuables we
find when the afterlife idea developed, when people were buried with
their valuables, before that nobody was dropping their valuables by the way.

[JTEM]

Post by JTEM
There is hard science on symbolic thinking.
One clear example and the absolute minimum age would have to be
on the appearance of... jewelry!
Ordination.
Art.

        You mean, if somebody would accidentally lose something that is
valuable?

No. I mean people could create art.

No, you don't accidentally lose something that is valuable.

You're trolling or insane.

Lets see the very recent example. We had "Iron Age", before that it was
"Bronze Age", before that it was "Copper Age". They know when Iron Age
started, they do know when Bronze Age started

"It" started at different times for different places.

You have to offer A DATE RANGE.

There isn't "A" date.

Not sure why you think any of this matters.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

Post by JTEM
There is hard science on symbolic thinking.
One clear example and the absolute minimum age would have to be
on the appearance of... jewelry!
Ordination.
Art.

         You mean, if somebody would accidentally lose something that
is valuable?

No. I mean people could create art.

Don't you say? Cows cannot. Gee, aren't we something? Cows cannot open
the door, how stupid they are. Cows also cannot turn on the tv set. Gee,
we are such a geniuses, we can press the button, gee we are god-like.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

Post by JTEM
There is hard science on symbolic thinking.
One clear example and the absolute minimum age would have to be
on the appearance of... jewelry!
Ordination.
Art.

         You mean, if somebody would accidentally lose something that
is valuable?

No. I mean people could create art.

        Don't you say? Cows cannot. Gee, aren't we something? Cows
cannot open the door, how stupid they are. Cows also cannot turn on the
tv set. Gee, we are such a geniuses, we can press the button, gee we are
god-like.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by Mario Petrinovic

Post by JTEM

Post by JTEM
There is hard science on symbolic thinking.
One clear example and the absolute minimum age would have to be
on the appearance of... jewelry!
Ordination.
Art.

         You mean, if somebody would accidentally lose something
that is valuable?

No. I mean people could create art.

         Don't you say? Cows cannot. Gee, aren't we something? Cows
cannot open the door, how stupid they are. Cows also cannot turn on
the tv set. Gee, we are such a geniuses, we can press the button, gee
we are god-like.

http://youtu.be/fTD54ncetAk

[JTEM]

Post by Mario Petrinovic

Post by Mario Petrinovic
http://youtu.be/fTD54ncetAk

http://youtu.be/hpdlQae5wP8

The first video up there isn't clear at all, to be polite.
If you're trying to use it to illustrate a point or
support an argument, it would probably be a good idea if
you articulated that point or argument.

The second video is blocked in the U.S. or Germany,
depending upon what it's looking at for a "Source."

[JTEM]

        Don't you say? Cows cannot. Gee, aren't we something? Cows
cannot open the door, how stupid they are. Cows also cannot turn on the
tv set. Gee, we are such a geniuses, we can press the button, gee we are
god-like.

You're right. We are. We can create.

We can envision something that does not exist. We can stylize,
embellish... imagine.

We can.

At some point a VERY long time ago humans stopped picking up
rocks they could use as "Tools" and started fashioning rocks
that lacked the desired properties into rocks that had them.
Later still...

Humans moved beyond nature. No longer did our ancestors hunt
for the perfect stone, no longer did our ancestors turn
imperfect stones into perfect ones, they began to fashion items
which could not be found in nature no matter where they looked,
or for how long.

They conceptualized.

And that skill wasn't limited to rocks. They could conceptualize
things that they were totally incapable of producing or finding,
like spirits.

And yes, they made art.

Humans are creators.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

         Don't you say? Cows cannot. Gee, aren't we something? Cows
cannot open the door, how stupid they are. Cows also cannot turn on
the tv set. Gee, we are such a geniuses, we can press the button, gee
we are god-like.

You're right. We are. We can create.
We can envision something that does not exist. We can stylize,
embellish... imagine.
We can.
At some point a VERY long time ago humans stopped picking up
rocks they could use as "Tools" and started fashioning rocks
that lacked the desired properties into rocks that had them.
Later still...
Humans moved beyond nature. No longer did our ancestors hunt
for the perfect stone, no longer did our ancestors turn
imperfect stones into perfect ones, they began to fashion items
which could not be found in nature no matter where they looked,
or for how long.
They conceptualized.
And that skill wasn't limited to rocks. They could conceptualize
things that they were totally incapable of producing or finding,
like spirits.
And yes, they made art.
Humans are creators.

Of course. But only after they drunk the magic spell:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/K6P4bRKEirs

[JTEM]

Post by Mario Petrinovic
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/K6P4bRKEirs

In many places in this world right now there are idiots feeling
insulted by the comparison to you...

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

Post by Mario Petrinovic
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/K6P4bRKEirs

In many places in this world right now there are idiots feeling
insulted by the comparison to you...

Oh yes, I know. This is why they are idiots. Smart people would be
honored.

[JTEM]

Post by JTEM

Post by Mario Petrinovic
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/K6P4bRKEirs

In many places in this world right now there are idiots feeling
insulted by the comparison to you...

        Oh yes, I know.

I was concerned.

This is why they are idiots. Smart people would
be honored.

You would think that. You would.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

         Gee, I cannot believe this, a waste of time. People use
hematite, like 300 kya, but to use it as a paint (as far as I know),
you have to mix it with milk. This only happened 100 kya. I mean, to
get red ochre by

You're confusing yourself.
Your claim is that hematite is what resulted in chins. That, the
reason why the characterization of so called moderns includes chins
is because of the use of hematite. WHICH REQUIRES that where and
when hematite is not used we will not find people with chins.

Didn't I correct this, replacing "hematite" with "metal"?
Didn't you notice this?

[JTEM]

Post by JTEM
You're confusing yourself.
Your claim is that hematite is what resulted in chins. That, the
reason why the characterization of so called moderns includes chins
is because of the use of hematite. WHICH REQUIRES that where and
when hematite is not used we will not find people with chins.

        Didn't I correct this, replacing "hematite" with "metal"?

Of course not. That's stupid even suggesting it. Metallurgy began
long after humans supposedly had chins.

Didn't you notice this?

You're a batshit crazy troll.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

Post by JTEM
You're confusing yourself.
Your claim is that hematite is what resulted in chins. That, the
reason why the characterization of so called moderns includes chins
is because of the use of hematite. WHICH REQUIRES that where and
when hematite is not used we will not find people with chins.

         Didn't I correct this, replacing "hematite" with "metal"?

Of course not. That's stupid even suggesting it. Metallurgy began
long after humans supposedly had chins.

Didn't you notice this?

You're a batshit crazy troll.

And you are just stupid as hell.

[JTEM]

        And you are just stupid as hell.

Anyone who doesn't know that archaic types used iron to craft
new chins is just stupid as hell.