Archaeologica.org

Digit wrote:Which, again of course, supports Darwin RS, till the circumstances in which an organism fits changes there is no pressure on that organism to change. Changing too slowly could well lead to extinction.
Fortune favours the fast!

It's not only the (relative) speed of evolution that determines species' evolutionary 'success', it's also it's direction. An abundance of bees catalysed the development of specialized bee-eaters (birds). And as far as we know they have been around for at least a couple million years. Some would say that's an indication of successful evolution. However, the current mysterious great global bee massacre could well wipe out all bees. And will possibly directly lead to the extinction of bee-eaters...
(and it will create a BIG other problem: pollination!)

Species' specialization is all over the place. That's pure evolution. But in the long(er) run it is also a 'built-in self destruct mechanism'...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMYU0JAMjYM

Actually RS the Bee problem isn't world wide.

Roy.

Digit wrote:Actually RS the Bee problem isn't world wide.

Yet.

i didn't know some areas were still facing bee shortages? The last few years here they seem to have recovered. Although lots of people are complaining about allergies this year than normal. The last time we had a low bee population the trees went into uber production of pollen. So maybe this will be another bad year here.

I think you underestimate the effect of culture on human evolution, R/S. Consider....





In the animal kingdom males battle for the right to mate. Females won't even consider a loser. Among humans all that is needed is an AMEX Gold Card. See why we're deteriorating?

The original British honey bee was the Black Bee, that was wiped as a commercial bee pre WW. Now virtually all western and American honey is from a very inbred strain of Italian bee.
Oz, Asia, Africa, South America, the Pacific islands and the Isle of Man are disease free. Not sure about Russia though.

Roy.

The point is: if the bees go, the specialized bee-eaters go. Unless they can adapt = evolve fast enough to another staple to evade starving.
If it wasn't an impact that killed off Clovis Man*, odds are it was an infectious disease.

*if it was an impact how did it selectively wipe out Clovis Man while leaving most of the other fauna untouched?

You've got an uphill argument with that one, RS.

Clovis man was Pan-(semi)Continental in distribution, and characterised by relatively low population densities. Leading to the supposition that if disease were the cause, alien microbes must have been the culprit, a la Velikovsky. (Albeit, a model not lacking in later historical precident, and reinforced by the widespread popular association [ancestral memory] of comets with pestilence).

Another loose end that comes to mind would be the apparent survival and (forgive me, Lord ) evolution of Clovis into Folsom, Plainview, Midland, Firstview, Jimmy Allen and any number of other descendants, all founded on the continuation of Clovis lithic procedure and strategy.

evolution of Clovis into Folsom, Plainview, Midland, Firstview, Jimmy Allen and any number of other descendants, all founded on the continuation of Clovis lithic procedure and strategy.

Agreed Uni, (this can't go on!) there is very much a tendency in paleoanthropology to see cultures in isolation. Clovis came from some other base and evolved into yet another. Rather like a river flow, yet it is taught more as if it were Morse code.

Roy.

The timeline is the booger in the works, IMO.

Assuming the accuracy (even some accuracy) of chronologies that present discrete periods (Levallois, Aurignacian) as slogging on for thousands of years without change, the temporal assumption frames them as such, and makes seeing them any other way difficult or improbable.

And most vividly so in the hypothetical millions of years that prototypical hominids supposedly lived through, essentially unaltered.

As always, assumptions determine conclusions.

assumptions determine conclusions.

No! (Back to normal! ) Lack of alternative evidence determines the conclusions. If evidence of a fresh culture arises it would have to be fitted into the existing structure, which is what has happened time and again as new evidence is found.
There was a time when none of the cultures you mentioned were known, as they were unearthed so new ideas arose to explain them etc. It is an on going story.

Roy.

Lack of alternative evidence determines the conclusions.

See Forbidden Archaeology (book).

Is there any conspiracy theory that you don't accept, out of curiosity?

Roy.

We need a head-bang icon.

You encounter a huge number of verifiable facts catalogued in the book -- references cited & the whole nine yards of that procedure. T's crossed and I's dotted.

You don't care to deal with that.

So you abstract them away, out of corporeal existence, into a general idea with an emotional basis.

Offering to quibble over what you've reduced it to.

Or in other words no!
Some time ago you spoke of 'fiddles' but excepted the 'hard sciences', therefore I assume that you are familiar with graphs and a line of 'best fit'.
On either side of the line you will find anomalies, is that not so?
Does that make the line inaccurate?
Do the anomalies that you cling so avidly to alter that accepted archaeology is anything other than the 'best fit'?
What is so mysterious about the arrow point in the Toxodon bone?
The dino foot print seems ok, but I'll be damned if I see it within a 'human' foot print.
Yes I have read the book, though some time ago.
I have also read Velikovsky, Von Daniken et al, and I'll give you an example. Velikovsky produced evidence for a past where even nuclear weapons were used and siting glass globules as seen during American bomb tests as 'proof'.
The bandwagon was instantly over loaded.
The less said about Von Daniken the better!
Apart from conspiracy theories have you ever bothered to read any original works by on the spot archaeologists. Arthur Evans, Darwin, Christian Thomsen, John Stevens, Petrie, Mortimer Wheeler etc?
You will find their works considerably less 'exciting' than those written in support of , 'man never Landed on the Moon', '9/11 was carried out by Mossad operators', or 'crop circles are made by Little green men' though I'm afraid.

Roy.