Philosophy Now Forum

Quoting Doc:

"The same way that herds know when to migrate now, answer that question, and I'm sure there will be some kind of scientific recognition for you. Herds do it, there are a few questions, but I believe most of it is known to science. Just because you do not understand it, doesn't mean it can't happen. Years ago science didn't understand plate tectonics but it happened anyway. Are you a victim of the N.I.H. syndrome?"

Birds are known to migrate, but scientists don't understand why (e.g. the pigeon). If the herds did migrate, how did they know when to do it and to where? I don't think it's that simple.

When you say you believe most of it is known to science, what do you base those beliefs on? Can you cite some studies that shed light on this?

PhilX

N.I.H. at it's best.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:How would the herds have known to migrate south?

PhilX

They were cold. And the grass got covered with snow.

Look, they had all seen winter before. They had all migrated in pursuit of food, or to escape discomfort. The roaming herds and hunting-gathering people are on the move all the time. The ice age didn't descend like in Caveman http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082146/ all of a sudden. Winters got a bit longer and harder, year by year; the grazing range didn't extend quite so far as it had last summer, blueberry harvest was not so good as before. So they went where things looked better.

This is pretty basic prehistory. Don't they have middle-school where you live?

Skip wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:How would the herds have known to migrate south?

PhilX

They were cold. And the grass got covered with snow.

Look, they had all seen winter before. They had all migrated in pursuit of food, or to escape discomfort. The roaming herds and hunting-gathering people are on the move all the time. The ice age didn't descend like in Caveman http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082146/ all of a sudden. Winters got a bit longer and harder, year by year; the grazing range didn't extend quite so far as it had last summer, blueberry harvest was not so good as before. So they went where things looked better.

This is pretty basic prehistory. Don't they have middle-school where you live?

No middle school here. And it's been a long time since I've been in school. What you're describing sounds like evolution, a gradual change.

PhilX

Evolution is for biology. Climate change is for environmental conditions. Biological entities have to evolve in response to changes in their environment, whether it's because of climate change, geological shift, meteor strike, volcanic eruption or the evolutionary adaptation of their food, their predators or their rivals.

How about a library? If you don't have one of those, there is always Wikipedia.

I still have my doubts. Homo Sapiens had to have started off with a man and a woman, right? Did these people have the skills to migrate with the herds? Maybe they did and maybe they didn't. It's also possible (probable?) they coexisted with Neanderthal men (and women) who would have had those skills for survival and taught Homo Sapiens.

A lot of possibilities.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:I still have my doubts. Homo Sapiens had to have started off with a man and a woman, right? Did these people have the skills to migrate with the herds? Maybe they did and maybe they didn't. It's also possible (probable?) they coexisted with Neanderthal men (and women) who would have had those skills for survival and taught Homo Sapiens.

A lot of possibilities.

PhilX

There wasn't one group of people all huddled around a fire up north when the ice age suddenly came. They were spread out all over the world, including in warm climates. The latter did not have to migrate. The pressure put on the northern people caused the ones who could survive to survive. Sewing and other cold weather survival techniques were huge advances and the people who benefited from them survived, others died. There is not a need for the hypothesis that northern people 'migrated.' Probably some did, but who knows maybe most of them up north died? Also, one explanation for the evolution of migratory instincts in animals would be: some moved north, some moved south, some stayed put. The ones who moved south, for whatever reasons, survived. Repeat that process through a million generations and you might end up with animals that are predisposed to the migratory habits of their parents.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:I still have my doubts. Homo Sapiens had to have started off with a man and a woman, right?

WRONG! It "started" off with members of a group of whichever transitional species interdreeding with some other transitional species and having the odd baby that was a little brighter, a little taller, a little faster than the other kids. So they got to be the leaders and had more kinds than their cousins. And so on....

Did these people have the skills to migrate with the herds?

Obviously, they did. And had, for a very long time. How much skill do you think it takes to migrate? Hummingbirds have a brain the size of a dried pea, and migrate, unerringly, twice a year. How much skill does it take to follow prey? A bat can do it, in the dark, at 30mph. Every animal has the necessary skill for its survival. Why should the most advanced apes be less proficient than otters?

Maybe they did and maybe they didn't. It's also possible (probable?) they coexisted with Neanderthal men (and women) who would have had those skills for survival and taught Homo Sapiens.

No, they probably didn't. H sapiens more likely killed the Neanderthal men and took the women. Sapiens was more advanced in the use of tools, more adaptable and more aggressive. Why do you want to imagine them as incompetent? By the last ice age, Homo sapiens had already been 'around' for 200,000 years or longer.

A lot of possibilities. PhilX

Most of which have been well researched and documented.

Skip wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:I still have my doubts. Homo Sapiens had to have started off with a man and a woman, right?

WRONG! It "started" off with members of a group of whichever transitional species interdreeding with some other transitional species and having the odd baby that was a little brighter, a little taller, a little faster than the other kids. So they got to be the leaders and had more kinds than their cousins. And so on....

Did these people have the skills to migrate with the herds?

Obviously, they did. And had, for a very long time. How much skill do you think it takes to migrate? Hummingbirds have a brain the size of a dried pea, and migrate, unerringly, twice a year. How much skill does it take to follow prey? A bat can do it, in the dark, at 30mph. Every animal has the necessary skill for its survival. Why should the most advanced apes be less proficient than otters?

Maybe they did and maybe they didn't. It's also possible (probable?) they coexisted with Neanderthal men (and women) who would have had those skills for survival and taught Homo Sapiens.

No, they probably didn't. H sapiens more likely killed the Neanderthal men and took the women. Sapiens was more advanced in the use of tools, more adaptable and more aggressive. Why do you want to imagine them as incompetent? By the last ice age, Homo sapiens had already been 'around' for 200,000 years or longer.

A lot of possibilities. PhilX

Most of which have been well researched and documented.

While commonplace, walking, talking, cooking, etc. are skills that have to be learned from childhood. Do you think these are instincts? Regarding the alleged killing of Neanderthal men and taking of their women, I recently watched a documentary indicating that their species was eliminated through interbreeding with Homo Sapiens. Again, whether Homo Sapiens has been around for 200,000 years or a million years makes no difference. The species had to start off with a man and a woman.

PhilX

Edit: just did an internet check and located this website which backs up what I said about the Neanderthals:

http://m.livescience.com/47460-neandert ... ealed.html

Philosophy Explorer wrote: While commonplace, walking, talking, cooking, etc. are skills that have to be learned from childhood. Do you think these are instincts? Regarding the alleged killing of Neanderthal men and taking of their women, I recently watched a documentary indicating that their species was eliminated through interbreeding with Homo Sapiens. Again, whether Homo Sapiens has been around for 200,000 years or a million years makes no difference. The species had to start off with a man and a woman.

PhilX

Edit: just did an internet check and located this website which backs up what I said about the Neanderthals:

http://m.livescience.com/47460-neandert ... ealed.html

No, the child already knows how to do these things and many others, but the body needs to grow and get strong enough and coordinated enough for the activity to be possible.

thedoc wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote: While commonplace, walking, talking, cooking, etc. are skills that have to be learned from childhood. Do you think these are instincts? Regarding the alleged killing of Neanderthal men and taking of their women, I recently watched a documentary indicating that their species was eliminated through interbreeding with Homo Sapiens. Again, whether Homo Sapiens has been around for 200,000 years or a million years makes no difference. The species had to start off with a man and a woman.

PhilX

Edit: just did an internet check and located this website which backs up what I said about the Neanderthals:

http://m.livescience.com/47460-neandert ... ealed.html

No, the child already knows how to do these things and many others, but the body needs to grow and get strong enough and coordinated enough for the activity to be possible.

On average how old is the typical child who first knows how to do these things?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: While commonplace, walking, talking, cooking, etc. are skills that have to be learned from childhood.

So? They had childhoods. All species that rear their young teach them the necessary skills. All social species also learn from one another in adulthood, so that any discovery made by one member of a troop of monkeys or herd of elephants soon becomes the property of the group, and is passed along to all their young. Monkeys and apes are also particularly affectionate and communicative; the young are instructed, corrected, disciplined and protected by all the adults and usually have one or more older siblings as mentors.

Regarding the alleged killing of Neanderthal men and taking of their women, I recently watched a documentary indicating that their species was eliminated through interbreeding with Homo Sapiens.

Ye-e-e-s... Now imagine the mechanism whereby that interbreeding occurred. What usually happens to captured women?

Again, whether Homo Sapiens has been around for 200,000 years or a million years makes no difference. The species had to start off with a man and a woman.

'Coz the bible tells you so? No, it really didn't. There were lots of apes, then lots of smarter apes, then lots of upright smarter apes, then lots of smart, upright apes with less hair who used weapons to hunt, then lots of smart, upright, not-exactly-apes, then lots of clothes-wearing, weapon-using, canoe-making hominids.... At the last ice age, there were something like 5,000,000 people scattered around the globe, and they were not all that different from us. If you woke a young one up, he could learn your language and how to drive your car.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote: While commonplace, walking, talking, cooking, etc. are skills that have to be learned from childhood. Do you think these are instincts? Regarding the alleged killing of Neanderthal men and taking of their women, I recently watched a documentary indicating that their species was eliminated through interbreeding with Homo Sapiens. Again, whether Homo Sapiens has been around for 200,000 years or a million years makes no difference. The species had to start off with a man and a woman.

PhilX

Edit: just did an internet check and located this website which backs up what I said about the Neanderthals:

http://m.livescience.com/47460-neandert ... ealed.html

No, the child already knows how to do these things and many others, but the body needs to grow and get strong enough and coordinated enough for the activity to be possible.

On average how old is the typical child who first knows how to do these things?

PhilX

Just guessing, without looking into it, I would say about a year for walking and 2 years for talking. Of course that can vary with different children. When my granddaughter turned 2, she refused to talk, we knew that she could if she wanted to. It was several months after that till she started.

Yes, but when did she build her fist wigwam?

The first Homo Sapiens must have looked like freaks to the Neanderthals. How do you know that they weren't simply left behind or ejected from the group?

PhilX