Skip to comments.The people that forgot time
Posted on 06/08/2009 8:33:45 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Isolated hunter-gatherer tribes are often viewed in the West as being primitive (pre-agriculture), not-yet-fully-evolved relics of the Stone Age.[1,2] Such people are frequently dubbed The People That Time Forgota concept widely recognized, even by those unfamiliar with Edgar Rice Burroughs classic 1924 novel (or the 1977 Hollywood movie).
However, faced with intriguing new evidence, anthropologists are having to completely rethink the Primitive Worlds: People Lost in Time stereotype...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Is this about Berkeley, California?
Actually, the might fit into the paradigm!
Poor dreamer...you pictures speak volumes about your comic book mentality.
That you have no appreciation for it shows what an unimaginative kill joy you are.
And notice please that the cited article takes no issue with the utility of evolutionary theory to determine if the hunter gatherer population was descended from a small offshoot of the agricultural population. Amazingly useful that evolutionary theory in determining patterns of common descent.
Talk about a kill joy...LOL! Reread what you just wrote, mr. spock. Are you trying to use Capt. Kirk’s comic book images to seem more human again? The juxtaposition couldn’t be better...LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
Glad you find yourself amusing.
I notice you took no exception to the utility of evolutionary theory in making a determination of common ancestry.
But maybe concepts that Edgar Rice Burroughs dwelt upon, the basic concept of human dignity and nobility possible in all people, are lost to someone like you; you think of it as a “comic book mentality”.
Wrong picture. Some Pakunis just don’t know when to call it quits!
Thanks for the ping!
==But maybe concepts that Edgar Rice Burroughs dwelt upon, the basic concept of human dignity and nobility possible in all people, are lost to someone like you; you think of it as a comic book mentality.
Nice Land of the Lost imagry. However, in context of this article, it was the Sleestack, and not the Paku, who had culturally devolved.
So archeo-lingusitics and genetic studies *CAN* be used to establish elements of a people’s history. I’m amazed!!
Did you read the article? Sounds like reverse evolution to me.
Ooooooo.....so they found a small society derived from a few cast-offs of another society....and these cast-offs have a different type of society.....and that means something to someone?
What it means to me is that you have a bunch of farmers.....who cast off a couple onto a raft down a river.....and these 2 people couldn’t farm for themselves because as any farm family knows.....you need more than 2 kids with no equipment to do the farming.
......so these couple of kids got food the way they could and eventually founded a small clan of 300 that practice the same behaviors as their 500-800 years ago ancestors did.
That sure means something.
I suppose the descendents of the original two also married outside of the tribe. Otherwise, their descendents (now 300) would be highly inbred.
You may have a point. But is all biology evolution? Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells are among those who don't seem to think so. Also, as I understand it, Mendel's theories are largely independent of Darwin's theories, and Mendelian genetics was initially rejected by Darwinists. That successful (falsifiable but not falsified) Mendelian genetics has been adopted in a modern “Darwinian” synthesis may say more about the merits of Mendel's theories than about the merits of Darwin's theories.
In this particular case, change (or lack thereof) in mitochondrial DNA are used to make estimates. These estimates appear to support the “myths.” This is surprising and important to those who believed the relayed tale was a myth. Perhaps it's not so important to those who believed the relayed story.
If one accepts the utility of genetic analysis to find times of common descent, as this article does, then what is the justification for accepting some findings of common ancestry and rejecting others?
There is no logical basis for doing so.
Darwin theorized that something was capable of change during inheritance. Mendel seemed to show that genetics were passed down unchanged. Once we found that the “something” was DNA, both observations make perfect sense. DNA is not only capable of change, it is impossible to keep exactly the same; yet the rate of change is so slow that Mendel's observations also make perfect sense.
The fact that scientists use both Mendel and Darwin's theories over one hundred years later; and that those who use their works are in a unprecedented golden age of discovery and utilization - goes a long way towards showing that Behe and Wells are two incompetents in the business of selling books to the credulous, and not actually producing anything of value within science.
“All change in the genetics of a population is evolution by definition.”
Mendel knew of genetic change within a population. By your definition, he was an evolutionist. But I don't think that is true.
“Behe and Wells are two incompetents in the business of selling books to the credulous”
They are not incompetent. They are no more “in the business of selling books to the credulous” than are many of the authors of the books on your bookshelf.
all of the Mlabri mitochondrial DNA turned out to be identicalAn isolated population (island, or culturally insular) will through luck of the draw eventually wind up with a single surviving pool of genes here and there. Were that not true, there wouldn't be recognizable ethnic groups (most of which are of course larger than this); analogously, populations physically isolated on islands (such as the Bounty descendants on Pitcairn Island) wind up with a pretty narrow genome, and/or a single last name. :') Thanks wb.