Archaeologica.org

Digit wrote:There's a saying over here Min about courting an older woman. The Sex may not be so great but you get lovely breakfasts!

Dig - that just shows how little sex you've had with an older woman.

I didn't suggest the story was based on personal experience Ish!
Beyond that my lips are sealed, a gentleman does not kiss and tell!

Digit wrote:But unfotunately for the argument MS it appears that the inferiors survived and the superiors didn't. Gives a new meaning to inferior doesn't it?

And what happened to Darwin's 'survival of the fittest'?

The least fit survived ....and I'd say that trend is continuing, judging by the hospital waiting lists.

The least fit survived

I doubt it! Physically they may have seemed to be less fitted for survival but there's more to it than that.
Darwin's 'fitness' was for the conditions that produced them.

Digit wrote:

The least fit survived

I doubt it! Physically they may have seemed to be less fitted for survival but there's more to it than that.
Darwin's 'fitness' was for the conditions that produced them.

So what do you think the conditions were that a weaker race were more fitted for, Dig?

Again Ish, no idea. Perhaps brain power superceeded any need for robustness, perhaps they exploited a new food source, perhaps the males and females preferred slimmer partners, perhaps the environment favoured a slimmer build. Whatever, they survived, Ipso Facto they best fitted their living conditions.

We don't know why HNS died out...or really if they did. Survival of the fittest implies an ability to survive existing conditions.

For all we know HNS may have been susceptible to a virus that did not impact HSS at all. Physical strength matters not a whit in such a case.

I take your point, Min .. but

Sorry Dig, this is an example of making the circumstances fit the theory ... which is what I've been talking about in the Evolution thread.

Digit wrote:Again Ish, no idea. Perhaps brain power superceeded any need for robustness, perhaps they exploited a new food source, perhaps the males and females preferred slimmer partners, perhaps the environment favoured a slimmer build. Whatever, they survived, Ipso Facto they best fitted their living conditions.

In other words, if must be that they best fitted the conditions because only the fittest survive, according to the theory.

Beagle wrote:But there must be a highly adaptive reason for gracilization....

Nothing's coming to mind, got any ideas?

KBS2244 wrote:That is a leather easy chair with a brandy at the club opinion if I ever heard one.

And another armchair opinion to chase it down with? Unfortunately, I can't publish the article in it's entirety here, but I understand that there is a paper in preparation specific to "domestication" theory that I guess will provide the usual level of confidence we've come to expect from Bednarik.

Culture influenced breeding "preferences" - look at the implicit value of neonate features in our own culture if you find this difficult to believe.

Given that the Czech skeletal evidence of gracilisation taking place in females first is by no means unusual and that gracilisation happened across four continents, should we ignore this uncomfortable anomoly and seek to explain it with a complex multi-regional migration theory or apply Occams razor?

which is what I've been talking about in the Evolution thread.

Which thread is that Ishtar? It all looks like scrambled egg to me.

Sorry Dig, this is an example of making the circumstances fit the theory .

Which of course they would do if the theory is correct. You can hardly argue against something because the outcome fits the theory.

Given that the Czech skeletal evidence of gracilisation taking place in females first is by no means unusual and that gracilisation happened across four continents, should we ignore this uncomfortable anomoly and seek to explain it with a complex multi-regional migration theory or apply Occams razor?

Hi Richard, I would like to hear your Occams Razor idea.

(got your pmail - thanks)

Digit wrote:

Sorry Dig, this is an example of making the circumstances fit the theory .

Which of course they would do if the theory is correct. You can hardly argue against something because the outcome fits the theory.

But the outcome doesn't fit the theory. At the time we're talking about, physical robustness would have been a major prequisite for surviving ...which they didn't have...or not as much as the Neanderthals, anyway.

I think the most plausible reason for their survival over the Neanderthals was the virus someone mentioned earlier. If that is so, this would not have been evolution but a revolutionary event ...as revolutionary as a comet hitting or a major earth disaster.

It wasn't so much that the fittest survived, but the 'luckiest' who in other circumstances would have been at the bottom of the survival pile.

Hi Beagle,

It's not my Occams razor, but Bednariks theory which I have maybe made a pig's ear of elucidating on. Essentially the message that I originally wanted to get to you (and others) was that the Chauvet art, considered by many to be the epitome of examples of the supposed superiority of HSS was most likely painted by HSN, of this there is now apparently little doubt. That I have then ended up revealing 10% of the content of the paper was as a result of then trying to put this comment in context and is my mistake. I can only advise to read the paper in full, and also point out that the "domestication" theory is something that Bednarik is apparently intent on publishing soon in fuller detail.

The essence is the that the CI and Heinrich 4 events would have caused a bottleneck that combined with genetic drift or introgression may have been enough to account for the rapid change (within 20 to 30 millennia) in all human populations of the time. He then says that evolution however cannot account for the gracilisation process because it runs counter to all we know about natural selection.

Therefore he proposes that only Mendels laws can suspend Darwinism and that this is what occurred.

At the time we're talking about, physical robustness would have been a major prequisite for surviving

Why?