Applied Anthropology

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Yes Q, I read it and knew about your version of mutation and evolution.

DNA and RNA has also been "engineered and manipulated" the past thirty years to manipulate life forms into behaving and evolving in certain ways. I tend to believe that only G-d should have those sorts of privileges, but then we are seeing before our eyes that many of our scientists and those who direct their activities are already "playing G-d". What do you really think is going on at places like the Howard Hughes Medical, and the Beckman institutes around North America, not to mention our research Universities. We're way past the point of saying all change is a result of mutations caused by radiation and synthetic substance interventions, although some assuredly are.

Your version may be "right" and then again it may not be. It is certainly partiallty "right" or the Governmant wouldn't be having you do the work you do. Me, I tend to believe in other versions based upon my experience and reading.

Vive' la difference !

flow....

Lol, It isn't my "version". It is taken from various articles in the Science fields. So much for science, eh?

[flowperson]

Q...Scientific findings only stand upon their own merit and reproducibility by others. That's why there's so much conflict in science. A prime example would be the emerging conscensus on the reality of global warming. Oh, there are those who still deny the reality of it, but clarity on the issue is emerging in our lifetime. But in this particular case it has taken thirty five years of observation, study, and noticing the emergent patterns in the data to get to this point in time.

Genetics and Archaeology/Anthropology are just so much different . In the study of Genetics, even scientists will readily admit that we are only scratching the hide of the elephant, without even knowing that what we're dealing with IS an elephant. Archaeology/Anthropology findings are mostly based upon interpretive opinions concerning locales and artifacts, and it is rare when global opinion converges on something like, say, the importance to culture in the past and now of the pyramids of the sun and moon near Mexico City.

We both stated opinions on the limited information that we cited, which are the opinions of scientists. We are not scientists. We are speculating, and trying to extend understanding of the studies beyond that which was intended by those who wrote the studies. Certain patterns based on the information are evident only to us, for the purposes of this discussion. For instance, I find it interesting and fascinating that the female oriented artifacts and skeletal remains found at Dolni Vestonice show noteworthy distortions of form on the left side of their bodies. That makes me go "huh?".

In my case I only stated that my beliefs are that the Dolni Vestonice data suggest a pattern for some of the emergent beliefs of Europeans as far back as 26,000 years ago. That's all there is to it for now. Let's just leave it there, but I'm sure that you may find it necessary to have the last word. There is no winning or losing in these exercises, only the possibility of reaching the goal of conscensus. That's when science really begins to have meaning for us all.

So be it.

flow....

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Q...Scientific findings only stand upon their own merit and reproducibility by others. That's why there's so much conflict in science. A prime example would be the emerging conscensus on the reality of global warming. Oh, there are those who still deny the reality of it, but clarity on the issue is emerging in our lifetime. But in this particular case it has taken thirty five years of observation, study, and noticing the emergent patterns in the data to get to this point in time.

Genetics and Archaeology/Anthropology are just so much different . In the study of Genetics, even scientists will readily admit that we are only scratching the hide of the elephant, without even knowing that what we're dealing with IS an elephant. Archaeology/Anthropology findings are mostly based upon interpretive opinions concerning locales and artifacts, and it is rare when global opinion converges on something like, say, the importance to culture in the past and now of the pyramids of the sun and moon near Mexico City.

We both stated opinions on the limited information that we cited, which are the opinions of scientists. We are not scientists. We are speculating, and trying to extend understanding of the studies beyond that which was intended by those who wrote the studies. Certain patterns based on the information are evident only to us, for the purposes of this discussion. For instance, I find it interesting and fascinating that the female oriented artifacts and skeletal remains found at Dolni Vestonice show noteworthy distortions of form on the left side of their bodies. That makes me go "huh?".

In my case I only stated that my beliefs are that the Dolni Vestonice data suggest a pattern for some of the emergent beliefs of Europeans as far back as 26,000 years ago. That's all there is to it for now. Let's just leave it there, but I'm sure that you may find it necessary to have the last word. There is no winning or losing in these exercises, only the possibility of reaching the goal of conscensus. That's when science really begins to have meaning for us all.

So be it.

flow....

Indeed.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Flow!

Originally Posted by flowperson

Hi Juan... This material is something that I ran across quite some time ago and has figured prominently in my understandings of ancient people in Europe. But it still seems to me, though not as popular as the cave art of France, to be more of a diverse and cogent explanation for how certain of our religious traditions and beliefs got going.

Take your time to read through it all and take a close look at the illustrations and diagrams. I believe that you'll see my point to it all, even though it may not be the "correct" one.

Thank you very much for the link. I had stumbled across this site a time or two earlier looking for photos, and hadn't taken the time to look at it more closely. He has brought together a very diverse collection of paleolithic material. Thank you very much for the reminder.

[Tao_Equus]

This link is only live for next 5 days and is to a fictional bbc TV production that I saw the other night. I add it not really because its that relevant but for entertainment only. Its main topic is anthropology tho.

BBC - BBC iPlayer - Programme Information - Fairytales

[juantoo3]

A rather interesting program on NOVA last night updating some of the research into hominid brain development...what separates humans from other apes? The program is titled: Ape Genius

The biological gap between us and our great ape cousins is small. At last count, only 1.23 percent of our genes differ from those of chimpanzees. But mentally, the gap between us and them is a Grand Canyon.
On an average day in the life of the human species, we file thousands of patents, post tens of thousands of Internet videos, and think countless thoughts that have never been thought before. On a good day, chimpanzees are lucky to exploit rudimentary tried-and-true techniques, such as using stone tools to crack nuts.
Not only do we innovate more than the other great apes, we are vastly better at sharing ideas with one another. The majority of recent behavioral studies focus on information-transmission rather than invention. All of the great apes can learn new tricks by imitating a human or another ape. But only humans go one step further and routinely teach each other. Teaching may be the signature skill of our species, and researchers are now zeroing in on three particular mental talents that make it possible.
OUR UNIQUE TALENTS
Mind-reading. Humans are exceptionally skilled at thinking about what's on other people's minds. A teacher, for example, needs to understand what a student knows and doesn't know. Researchers used to believe that chimpanzees lacked this talent entirely. Although recent experiments at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany are showing that chimps share at least a bit of this skill, humans are clearly head and shoulders above the great apes in mind-reading savvy.
The Triangle. Watch a human parent building a block tower with a child and you'll see a special skill at work. Let's call it the Triangle; its three points are the adult, the youngster, and the tower. Both adult and child are not only focused on the same object, they know the other is focused on it too. The Triangle is the foundation for teaching—a mentor and pupil must jointly pay attention to the lesson at hand. Amazingly, humans seem to be the only great apes that possess this mental skill.
Impulse control. Whereas mind-reading and the Triangle are cognitive skills, the third mental talent that sets us apart from our kin is emotional. We seem to have much greater control over our emotions, and being less reactive and impulsive is a good way to get to the head of the class.
Researchers discovered all three of these distinguishing human talents by observing human and ape behavior, sometimes with solid, carefully controlled experiments. But what's going on under the biological hood? What brain mechanisms are responsible for the mental and behavioral differences between them and us? Biologically inclined researchers are starting to answer these questions, and the clues they are finding, while still patchy and nascent, are tantalizing.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/apegenius/human.htm

In 2003, Rebecca Saxe of MIT ran studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI, a non-invasive technology that creates a kind of movie of brain activity. The studies revealed an area perhaps half the volume of a sugar cube above and behind the right ear.
This brain region appears to have a remarkably specific function. When I am thinking about who a friend believes will be the next American president, this area in my brain is highly active. But when I am thinking about whether my friend is thirsty—another internal state, but not a belief—this brain region is quiet. Saxe's discovery—one of the most surprising in cognitive science in the last decade—begs a question: Do the other great apes have their own version of this brain area, and if so, what is it doing?

NOVA | Ape Genius | What Makes Us Human? | PBS

Q: Can you describe the experiment you do to look at theory of mind in young children?
Saxe: The standard paradigm is you have a puppet, Sally, who has a ball, and she puts the ball one place. And then she leaves, and you tell the child that Sally can't see or hear what's happening. And while Sally's out of the room, the ball's hidden someplace else. The question is, when Sally comes back in, where is she going to look for her ball? To figure that out, you need to know where she thinks the ball is. She's going to look for it where she first put it, because that's where she thinks it is, even though it's really in the other place.
Q: So what happens when you test this with, say, three-year-olds?
Saxe: Three-year-olds are amazing! The thing that's amazing is not that they fail, because there're lots of things three-year-olds can't do. The thing that's amazing is how convinced they are about their wrong answer! They're so sure that she's going to look for her ball where it really is because she wants it, and that's where it is. They'll show their confidence by betting tokens. If you give them 10 tokens, they'll bet all 10 tokens that she's going to look for it where it really is. The other thing that's amazing is that it's not a local cultural phenomenon; it's been found all over the world. It's been found in hunter-gatherer societies. It's been found in the Peruvian mountains. Three-year-olds are committed to the mistaken notion that human action is best predicted by what's really true. And so the achievement in psychological development is to realize that we should predict human action by what people think rather than by what's really true.

-emphasis mine
NOVA | Ape Genius | The Ape That Teaches | PBS