Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Truth Grenades

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - RAFH

1
Again Monad supports what I am talking about.

Well no, it actually blows your whole ridiculous argument apart.
Hmm, I'm confused. Wasn't sucky indicating his whole ridiculous argument should be blown apart?
2
OK let me see if I've got your story straight ... from Wikipedia "Neolithic Subpluvial" article ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Subpluvial

1) The area we now call the Sahara Desert (God forbid me calling it "North Africa") was savannah with a full complement of mammals  - grazing herbivore herds, lion, tigers and bears oh my!
That's not what it says.

Try the first paragraph:
Quote
The Neolithic Subpluvial, or the Holocene Wet Phase, was an extended period (from about 7500-7000 BCE to about 3500-3000 BCE) of wet and rainy conditions in the climate history of northern Africa. It was both preceded and followed by much drier periods.
The last sentence is relevant.

Or a later paragraph:
Quote
The Neolithic Subpluvial began during the 7th millennium BCE and was strong for about 2,000 years; it waned over time and ended after the 5.9 kiloyear event (3900 BCE). Then the drier conditions that prevailed prior to the Neolithic Subpluvial returned; desertification advanced, and the Sahara Desert formed (or re-formed). Arid conditions have continued through to the present day.
Again, the last sentence is relevant.

2) It was this way from about 7000 BC to about 3000 BC then it began to get dry.
No, not quite right.
Quote
The Neolithic Subpluvial began during the 7th millennium BCE and was strong for about 2,000 years; it waned over time and ended after the 5.9 kiloyear event (3900 BCE).
It started during the 7th millennium BCE, meaning between 8000 and 9000 years ago. It began to fade between 6000 and 7000 years ago and ended completely about 3900 BCE. 900 years before your stated dates. Wrong again.

3) Significant deforestation began happening about 8000 BC according to Ruddiman and others
Citations? Especially from the "others". Particularly as to when and where.

4) But none of this deforestation had anything to do with N. Africa (sorry, Pingu) drying out.
Well, not much. Except that whatever deforestation that occurred in Africa, occurred in the coastal areas of North Africa. Which is adjacent to the Sahara and has occasionally been incorporated into the desert at times. Most of the Sahara has not been the verdant wonderland you want it to be. Some areas have had, for short periods of time, the necessary water and soils, most have not. It's not possible to go from bare rock to verdant grassland in less than many tens of thousands of years.

5) Blame it on Milankovitch.
To some extent, that's been a primary forcing for climate change. Not entirely but a primary forcing. Your need to simplify things down to the level a primary school student can deal with should be embarrassing. But not you, you consider being a gullible rube who is also militantly ignorant narcissistic DK posterboy with no relevant education, training and/or experience.

6) Lol

Is that about right?
No. You didn't get a single thing right. How does it feel to repeatedly shoot yourself in your gun hand? It's a trick not many are capable of.

3
It's squid ink.
What is?
The dense fluid Bluffy surrounds himself with when he's confronted with knowing he's been pwned but doesn't want to know about it. Sort of a physical manifestation of Fourth Law: Unanswerable questions are invisible. If you're surrounded by a dense, completely opaque liquid, everything is invisible. One doesn't have to even consider the question of whether any question is unanswerable. You can't see them. They are already invisible.
4
IIRC, "head rolling" means "going to jail".

So there's Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort.
Yeah.

BEFORE his trial.

What is this? The Soviet Union?

You don't have remand custody in the US?  What is bail for then?
Bluffy don't know.
6
Of course, "The Persian Empire" is not synonymous with Iran/Persia, any more than "The British Empire" is synonous with "Britain".   And neither is close enough for anything.

Just as "North Africa" is not synonymous with "The Sahara" and is not close enough for any discussion of whether or not the Sahara is man-made.  Even the Sahara itself has many different regions, with very different terrains.

Hope that clarifies things a little
It's much the same as the relationship between the US and North America. Or Panama and Central America.
7
If you don't like the things that I post, then go away to some other forum.
Or people can call you on your bullshit and if you don't like being shown to be a militantly ignorant narcissistic DK posterperson, as well as a first rate asshole and internet crackpot blowhard, then go away to some other forum.
8
This intelligence of the camouflage of plants and animals is just the tiniest tip of the iceberg of the intelligence of Nature. Intelligence manifests everywhere in Nature on planet Earth. You can see it everywhere if you simply look. 
But of course you will not see that if you close your mind and simply rule it out.
Interesting article:
https://www.positive.news/2017/environment/26009/fascinating-facts-intelligence-nature/
"Fascinating facts: the intelligence of nature"

Scraping the bottom of the barrel, eh sucky.

Yep, Positive News is one of the most respected science journals ever.
9
The creation of new types of creatures is credibly related to mutations (changes) in regulatory genes and "not small-scales changes in the entire genome as neo-Darwinians thought."    
BUT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeotic_gene
Quote
Mutations in homeotic genes cause displaced body parts, such as antennae growing at the posterior of the fly instead of at the head.[3] Mutations that lead to such ectopic placements are usually[/b] lethal.[4]
Saltations are caused by changes in regulatory genes during development. But if these changes are random then the result will be lethal.
Therefore the changes are not random.
Hey, sucky, see the world I emboldenized, "usually". Do you know what that word means? Or have you come up with your own meaning? Or just ignoring it entirely?

Not that being lethal would necessarily preclude random. At least not in the context of evolution.

That's twice now.  Can you stop putting your comments inside socrates quotes?
I'll try, but I wasn't doing it. It's the software.
10
The creation of new types of creatures is credibly related to mutations (changes) in regulatory genes and "not small-scales changes in the entire genome as neo-Darwinians thought."   
BUT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeotic_gene
Quote
Mutations in homeotic genes cause displaced body parts, such as antennae growing at the posterior of the fly instead of at the head.[3] Mutations that lead to such ectopic placements are usually lethal.[4]
Saltations are caused by changes in regulatory genes during development. But if these changes are random then the result will be lethal.
Therefore the changes are not random.

For which you have given no evidence.

And I need no more evidence to reject you BS than you have given to support it.  Proposal rejected.


Isn't it customary when a proposal is rejected and it was so lame to begin with the author is treated to a nuclear melvin?
11
The creation of new types of creatures is credibly related to mutations (changes) in regulatory genes and "not small-scales changes in the entire genome as neo-Darwinians thought."    
BUT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeotic_gene
Quote
Mutations in homeotic genes cause displaced body parts, such as antennae growing at the posterior of the fly instead of at the head.[3] Mutations that lead to such ectopic placements are usually[/b] lethal.[4]
Saltations are caused by changes in regulatory genes during development. But if these changes are random then the result will be lethal.
Therefore the changes are not random.
Hey, sucky, see the world I emboldenized, "usually". Do you know what that word means? Or have you come up with your own meaning? Or just ignoring it entirely?

Not that being lethal would necessarily preclude random. At least not in the context of evolution.
12
Wright ....

"Heretofore, humans have been viewed as passive agents in the termination of the AHP, responding to changing climatic conditions by adopting animal husbandry and spreading an agricultural lifestyle across the African continent. This paper explores scenarios whereby humans could be viewed as active agents in landscape denudation."
The part emboldenized is crucial to understanding the paper. It's not a "this is the way it was" paper as much as "these are ways it might have been" paper.




Deaton also says that the Sahara was already a 'stressed out landscape'.  Why was it already stressed out before humans and their goats got there?

Orbital mechanics?
Quantum Engineers on their dirt bikes.
13
Dave, do you think the defendant should be allowed to contact potential witnesses for the prosecution? Can you think why that might be a bad idea?

Have you heard of Al Capone?
I'd be careful here; there isn't anything even close to a general rule precluding pretrial contact with witnesses.
It doesn't need to be a general rule, its just an obvious thing that you'd set as part of bail conditions.
That's what I mean by a general rule - the way you are saying it, bail should always have a rule against contacting witnesses. The general rule probably goes the other way - contact with witnesses, in the form of pretrial interviews, is often rather necessary for a defense. More generally, conditions of bail are supposed to be as lenient as they can be to accomplish whatever goal they have. A rule against contact is very restrictive.

The rule that was broken here wasn't "no contact with witnesses". The rule was "No crimes while on bail."
The defense team can, for obvious reasons. The defendant probably shouldn't, unless they're conducting their own defense. And in a bunch of cases I can see that being a terrible, terrible idea, especially if you think witness tampering is a possibility.
Yes, the lawyers for each side can contact the various witnesses but it's usually the rule they must do make such arrangements with the lawyers for the other side and those lawyers will be present. Failure to follow this protocol can be a breach of lawyer ethics. And cause for any information gathered during such a meeting being declared off limits. Certainly a defendant should not be contacting any other parties involved without the other parties' lawyers present as well as their own lawyers. Such could easily be claimed to be witness tampering.

14
Wright ....

"Heretofore, humans have been viewed as passive agents in the termination of the AHP, responding to changing climatic conditions by adopting animal husbandry and spreading an agricultural lifestyle across the African continent. This paper explores scenarios whereby humans could be viewed as active agents in landscape denudation."
The part emboldenized is crucial to understanding the paper. It's not a "this is the way it was" paper as much as "these are ways it might have been" paper.

15
https://www.popsci.com/sahara-desert-drought-humans
This is what Wright think the Sahara looked like back then before humans destroyed it ...


Well, that's dandy.

Unfortunately for Wright, there's not a lot of acceptance of his ideas.
16
The creation of new types of creatures is credibly related to mutations (changes) in regulatory genes and "not small-scales changes in the entire genome as neo-Darwinians thought."    
BUT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeotic_gene
Quote
Mutations in homeotic genes cause displaced body parts, such as antennae growing at the posterior of the fly instead of at the head.[3] Mutations that lead to such ectopic placements are usually lethal.[4]
Which is why such mutations doen't become fixed in the genome.

And, no, they are not new types of creatures, try to stick with the nomenclature. Lineages branch. Branches either spread and eventually branch themselves or die out. Most branches of most lineages have died out.
17
Another Pop-Sci take on Wright. Who takes a rather limited set of data from a highlands area and applies it to the entire Sahara.
He also puts a lot of stock in the paintings in that location as to numbers of livestock and has little to nothing to support any models of distribution. And even the paintings in that specific area do not show the sort of numbers that would trigger a drought. And we know the Sahara cycles through wet and dry seasons and we know what causes those cycles. It's not livestock.
19
Amazing, isn't it.


I tell ya, no matter what goes wrong, whatever gets me down, all I need to do is a get a doze of Bluffoonery and I feel better, often much better.
20
What if we looked and concluded that Nature was stupid?
What it Nature looked back and concluded we were stupid.

I suggest that even given the very unlikely probability that the above is the case, given the consequences of Nature concluding we are stupid, it would be wise to make sure sucky and Nature never cross paths.
21
I think you should do some more historic reading about West Texas and the Llano before you get overly invested and can't back down, Dave.


Otherwise we're in for a tedious reprise of the same ol' same ol' Dave makes firm statement, is contradicted immediately by recorded facts.
Oh Borealis, you know Bluffy can't back down. Especially on something as important as SAVING THE WORLD.

True. But he can, if he notices in time, commit to Radio Silence and Never Mention It Again.
Oh, he'll get there eventually, when he finally realizes he's said way too much. Then it's the ignore the subject and any reference to it for a while in hopes it will go away, possibly permanently. Of course, he won't be able to resist, so he'll also eventually bring it back up himself, in the guise of being one of his greatest wins over the forces of the evil Darwin.
22
I think you should do some more historic reading about West Texas and the Llano before you get overly invested and can't back down, Dave.


Otherwise we're in for a tedious reprise of the same ol' same ol' Dave makes firm statement, is contradicted immediately by recorded facts.
Oh Borealis, you know Bluffy can't back down. Especially on something as important as SAVING THE WORLD.
23
In any case the Llano estacado used to be teeming with bison herds and other life and now it is mostly dead like Westley in The Princess Bride, kept alive only by Center pivot irrigation but that too will soon fail  according to this article ...

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/08/vanishing-midwest-ogallala-aquifer-drought/
Cows can't replace irrigation. Stop the irrigation and let Nature do her thing.
Nope.  As weird as it sounds, properly managed cows are the only thing that will save areas like that.
Nope. As even weirder than your claim sounds, unicorns could save areas like that in just one day. Their majikal piss and poop make everyplace permanently more fertile than you can imagine. After they've shat up a place and hosed it down it doesn't even have to rain. You don't even have to plant seeds or anything. Just say a little prayer to the King Stallion and the food will go right into your tummy. Or, if you prefer, it'll show up on your table, ready to eat. Best of all, once you eat 100% grass (that's been Unicorned) fed whatever, your shit and piss will also be majikal. Yay!!!
24
Well we will just have to leave it at that. People can just tell. It is a matter of faith.
No, as has been explained, it's a matter of paying attention to the details and the context. No hard and fast rules. And one would have to have some concept of the modern world, though it would be possible to use antiquities as examples and look at what the average person from that time was knowledgeable. Obviously, if one were to show something made out of plastic, say a large sheet of plexiglass, to someone from even 1000 years ago, they'd be utterly mystified. But I'd expect someone with some education and smarts would realize it was a human artifact and know it's purpose, even if they were unable to know anything about it's origins.

Of course, if one takes only most cursory look at something, with no attempt to discover anything about it, they aren't going to end up knowing anything about it and would likely accept it's something the gods made. There have always been the ignorant and uninformed.

You for instance.
25
Even though it literally says "There was no science suggesting it would work.", you stand by your accusations of the "octo-hatters"?
Your'e not suggesting that the president of Senegal pulled this idea out of his ass are you?

You're not suggesting that because the President of Senegal might have been influenced by someone with an education greater than your own, that places the entire blame upon "octo-hatters", are you?