Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: All are welcome, but not all will be welcomed!

Recent Posts

1
Lol

I didnt say that Pliny and Strabo lived in the Sahara.

I also didn't say they lived in 3000 BC.

I think they lived right around the end of the period in question... about 2000 BP
Then they really have nothing to say on whether the Sahara is man-made, do they?

As for "archaeological finds", dave, you dispute the chronology of (rough guess) about 80% of them.
2
It's one thing to believe ruddiman who is basically echoing a bunch of classical authors like Pliny and Strabo who actually lived during the times that we are talking about not to mention strengthening his opinion with actual archaeological finds.

It's quite another thing to believe Dalrymple who has no classical authors or archaeological finds from 4 billion years ago.


What a load of bull.

What did Pliny or Strabo have to say about the Sahara 8000 years ago?
3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_developmental_biology
Quote
The field [Evolutionary_developmental_biology] is characterised by some key concepts, which took evolutionary biologists by surprise. One is deep homology, the finding that dissimilar organs such as the eyes of insects, vertebrates and cephalopod molluscs, long thought to have evolved separately, are controlled by similar genes such as pax-6, from the evo-devo gene toolkit. These genes are ancient, being highly conserved among phyla; they generate the patterns in time and space which shape the embryo, and ultimately form the body plan of the organism. Another is that species do not differ much in their structural genes, such as those coding for enzymes; what does differ is the way that gene expression is regulated by the toolkit genes. These genes are reused, unchanged, many times in different parts of the embryo and at different stages of development, forming a complex cascade of control, switching other regulatory genes as well as structural genes on and off in a precise pattern. This multiple pleiotropic reuse explains why these genes are highly conserved, as any change would have many adverse consequences which natural selection would oppose.
Quote
New morphological features and ultimately new species are produced by variations in the toolkit, either when genes are expressed in a new pattern, or when toolkit genes acquire additional functions.
4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_developmental_biology
Quote
The field [Evolutionary_developmental_biology] is characterised by some key concepts, which took evolutionary biologists by surprise. One is deep homology, the finding that dissimilar organs such as the eyes of insects, vertebrates and cephalopod molluscs, long thought to have evolved separately, are controlled by similar genes such as pax-6, from the evo-devo gene toolkit. These genes are ancient, being highly conserved among phyla; they generate the patterns in time and space which shape the embryo, and ultimately form the body plan of the organism. Another is that species do not differ much in their structural genes, such as those coding for enzymes; what does differ is the way that gene expression is regulated by the toolkit genes. These genes are reused, unchanged, many times in different parts of the embryo and at different stages of development, forming a complex cascade of control, switching other regulatory genes as well as structural genes on and off in a precise pattern. This multiple pleiotropic reuse explains why these genes are highly conserved, as any change would have many adverse consequences which natural selection would oppose.
5
People gave it the attention it merited.
6
It's one thing to believe ruddiman who is basically echoing a bunch of classical authors like Pliny and Strabo who actually lived during the times that we are talking about not to mention strengthening his opinion with actual archaeological finds.

It's quite another thing to believe Dalrymple who has no classical authors or archaeological finds from 4 billion years ago.


I'm a thinkin' people didn't read this carefully.
7
Lol

I didnt say that Pliny and Strabo lived in the Sahara.

I also didn't say they lived in 3000 BC.

I think they lived right around the end of the period in question... about 2000 BP
So they were not witnesses to any N. African forests. Or deforestation.

Oh, and...

Lol
8
I'd be willing to agree that Ruddiman says "A broad array of evidence indicates early and pervasive deforestation of these naturally forested regions (Hughes, 1975; Fairservis, 1971; Thirgood, 1981; Simmons, 1996). ", along with "The level of de- forestation by 2000 yrs BP was listed as 'great' (meaning 'mostly deforested') in all of the regions mapped as 'stratified' agriculture in Figure 6: southeast Asia (China), southern Asia (India), and Mediterranean Europe. Simmons also inferred that heavy deforestation had occurred in southeast Asia between India and China, along with considerable deforestation in north-central Europe."
Hey! Me and Uncool agree on something.
Anybody else here agree that this is what Ruddiman is saying? Anyone want to step out on a limb and say that you think he's probably correct?
I grant him provisional credence on this.
Do you have a point?
I'm not sure what "provisional credence" is ... but it sounds better than the things you normally say about me ... so hey.
9
Lol

I didnt say that Pliny and Strabo lived in the Sahara.

I also didn't say they lived in 3000 BC.

I think they lived right around the end of the period in question... about 2000 BP
10
It's one thing to believe ruddiman who is basically echoing a bunch of classical authors like Pliny and Strabo who actually lived during the times that we are talking about

 :no:

Neither Pliny nor Strabo lived in 3000 BC.  Nor did they live in the Sahara.

not to mention strengthening his opinion with actual archaeological finds.

It's quite another thing to believe Dalrymple who has no classical authors or archaeological finds from 4 billion years ago.

 ::)