pre clovis america

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:35 am

Apparently, not all goo evolved.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:36 am

This is the PRECLOVIS AMERICA thread. Stay on topic or butt out.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:43 am

Yes, before oas uttered his snide remark (to which I responded), we were talking about the dramatic climate change with the end of the Ice Age. The now Desert Southwest went from forests and pastures, streams and lakes, to what it is today, quite dramatic, and the humans migrated accordingly.

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:46 am

Genesis Veracity wrote:Yes, before oas uttered his snide remark (to which I responded), we were talking about the dramatic climate change with the end of the Ice Age. The now Desert Southwest went from forests and pastures, streams and lakes, to what it is today, quite dramatic, and the humans migrated accordingly.

Conveniently forgetting the stupid "goo" thing to which I stupidly responded (the celebrated snide remark). Sorry for this digression guys - I shouldn't have fed the troll. Bad Jim, Bad Jim......

Back to pre-clovis.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:15 am

The "stupid goo thing" (which you haven't refuted) was in response to your snide remark, get it together.

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:20 am

Genesis Veracity wrote:The "stupid goo thing" (which you haven't refuted) was in response to your snide remark, get it together.

Wow - he started it, no he started it....read back and refresh your memory. Start with your post at 10:25 today "Yes, oas, like people who believe that goo morphed into you." End of this stupid and pointless conversation.

I don't have to refute your goo morphing statement. Although you have striven to frame it in the most derrogatory terms you could find, it still approximates what science confirms. So - end of stupid and pointless conversation # 2.

My suggestion if we really must have this creationist drivel is that we consign it to it's own thread, or, better, we don't highjack an archaeology board with mythological rubbish and get on with the science and evidence instead.

Don't feed the trolls....

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:34 am

And yet, you keep feeding the so-called troll, why do you do that?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:36 am

Oas, it was in response to your snide remark, get it together.

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:39 am

Genesis Veracity wrote:And yet, you keep feeding the so-called troll, why do you do that?

Yep - pretty stupid of me.....

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:40 am

Genesis Veracity wrote:Oas, it was in response to your snide remark, get it together.

I assume you must then take my statement about religious imperetives to be a snyde remark? You don't find any truth to that statement?

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:40 am

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:41 am

Minimalist wrote:

lol - yeah - I know........

Bad Jim - Bad Jim. No ice cream for me tonight.....

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 12:11 pm

oldarchystudent wrote:But there can be spiritual imperatives that make no logical sense whatsoever, but were important enough to primative people to do strange things. We still see that today.....

Okay...so we were here.

The Out of Africa theory posits that HSS arose in Africa between 100-200,000 YPB and that by 70-80,000 YPB they started to leave Africa for the rest of the world.

Nowhere have I ever seen anyone suggest a reason why this happened. Hunter/gatherer groups tend to be small and with short life spans and high infant mortality it seems unlikely that severe population pressure could have been the driving force.

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 12:21 pm

I don’t believe there is a single event causing a single migration, nor is there any decision to “head north”. Even the use of the word migration is misleading in my opinion.

HG groups use specialized camps for different purposes – kill sites, seasonal gathering sites etc, and may stay there for months at a time before moving on to the next. If you find a better site for berries than your old site, you incorporate that into the cycle. That changes your route, and perhaps you run into a nice spot for hunting, which changes your annual route etc etc. It’s not a beeline to the north, it’s more of a gradual expansion over many generations.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 12:28 pm

If there was a "beeline" at all, it was to SE Asia. Somehow, they got from East Africa to Australia by 40,000 BC or so. In the process they had to cross rivers, jungles and deserts aside from an awful lot of real estate.

There is just something about the model that puts me off. Hard to explain.