| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
29 Jun 2004 05:26:36 AM |
| Object: |
OT: The Oldest Americans May Prove Even Older |
The Oldest Americans May Prove Even Older
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/29/science/29clov.html?ei=5062&en=8169135fc9061231&ex=1089086400&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=all&position=
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
If one scientist is right, American prehistory is being extended
deeper in time at a remote dig site in South Carolina.
Albert Goodyear
http://news.google.com/news?q=Albert%20Goodyear&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?q=Albert+Goodyear&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&tab=nw&sa=N
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=Albert%20Goodyear&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
.
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The Oldest Americans May Prove Even Older |
29 Jun 2004 03:27:55 PM |
|
|
maff wrote:
The Oldest Americans May Prove Even Older
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/29/science/29clov.html?ei=5062&en=8169135fc9061231&ex=1089086400&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=all&position=
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
If one scientist is right, American prehistory is being extended
deeper in time at a remote dig site in South Carolina.
Maff,
Interesting stuff. I will be interested to see what the lab
work shows about dating this evidence, and whether the chert
items found turn out to be artifacts. It is far too early on in
the investigation to take any firm stands.
As the article points out, one of the problems with potential
pre-Clovis artifacts is that we don't have a typology
established for them. Clovis, and most succeeding projectile
point lithics, are very distinctive, and show clear signs of
being worked by human hands. The items described in this
article do not seem to have the same kind of distinctive,
human-worked characteristics as Clovis, ff.
I suspect field examination of the cherts should be enough to
establish natural vs. artificial working of the stone. The
proof of the punch, I suspect, will come from lab examination of
the cherts to see if they show characteristics wear patterns
typical of what tools of that time would be expected to have
been used for.
Good stuff.
Tom McDonald
Albert Goodyear
http://news.google.com/news?q=Albert%20Goodyear&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?q=Albert+Goodyear&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&tab=nw&sa=N
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=Albert%20Goodyear&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The Oldest Americans May Prove Even Older |
29 Jun 2004 05:06:30 PM |
|
|
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote
The proof of the punch, I suspect, will come from lab
examination of the cherts to see if they show
characteristics wear patterns typical of what tools of
that time would be expected to have been used for.
Many want to see nothing less than human remains. Perhaps
a clear habitat site -- one that can be idenified without a
lot of lab work -- might do it, but without human remains
they'll always be a question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The Oldest Americans May Prove Even Older |
29 Jun 2004 09:01:45 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote
The proof of the punch, I suspect, will come from lab
examination of the cherts to see if they show
characteristics wear patterns typical of what tools of
that time would be expected to have been used for.
Many want to see nothing less than human remains. Perhaps
a clear habitat site -- one that can be idenified without a
lot of lab work -- might do it, but without human remains
they'll always be a question.
There are always questions. That's what's wonderful about
archaeology. Finding datable, clearly human-made material in
proper archaeological context will answer the question of when
folks were present at that site. If the answer is ca. >14,000
ybp, then more questions get raised.
The questions answered by finding human remains at such an old
site in reasonable condition would be about _who_ the folks
were, and _to whom_ they were related. But folks who need a
smoking body to accept the dating of a site are just greedy :-).
The rest of us can make do quite well with the artifacts, good
context and reliable dates.
Tom McDonald
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The Oldest Americans May Prove Even Older |
29 Jun 2004 11:21:34 PM |
|
|
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote
The questions answered by finding human remains at such an old
site in reasonable condition would be about _who_ the folks
were, and _to whom_ they were related. But folks who need a
smoking body to accept the dating of a site are just greedy :-).
I respectfully disagree.
Numerous sites -- in both America and elsewhere -- have been
identified using just such evidence as is found here, only to be
later dismissed.
I'll tell you what my problem is.
My problem is NOT pre-clovis man. That I can buy. That I believe.
That is something that I'm sure will one day be proven so
conclusively that not a person on this Earth will ever doubt it.
My problem is with the particular claims. You see, pre-clovis or
not, we are talking about modern man. We're talking about people
who perfected hunting tens of thousands of years earlier. We're
talking about people who mastered fire & tool making. We're talking
about people who created ornaments and even gods. We're talking
about people who ritually disposed of dead.
None of that is here. None of that is found. "Pre-clovis" man, as
"found," has none of the features & accomplishments of modern
man, even accomplishments that pre-date him by tens of thousands
of years!
No ornaments... no gods... heck, no art what so ever... no burials...
nothing.
This is the claim that I have trouble believing.
Show me graves. Show me culture. Show me modern man!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The Oldest Americans May Prove Even Older |
30 Jun 2004 12:18:37 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote
The questions answered by finding human remains at such an old
site in reasonable condition would be about _who_ the folks
were, and _to whom_ they were related. But folks who need a
smoking body to accept the dating of a site are just greedy :-).
I respectfully disagree.
Numerous sites -- in both America and elsewhere -- have been
identified using just such evidence as is found here, only to be
later dismissed.
I'll tell you what my problem is.
My problem is NOT pre-clovis man. That I can buy. That I believe.
That is something that I'm sure will one day be proven so
conclusively that not a person on this Earth will ever doubt it.
My problem is with the particular claims. You see, pre-clovis or
not, we are talking about modern man. We're talking about people
who perfected hunting tens of thousands of years earlier. We're
talking about people who mastered fire & tool making. We're talking
about people who created ornaments and even gods. We're talking
about people who ritually disposed of dead.
None of that is here. None of that is found. "Pre-clovis" man, as
"found," has none of the features & accomplishments of modern
man, even accomplishments that pre-date him by tens of thousands
of years!
No ornaments... no gods... heck, no art what so ever... no burials...
nothing.
This is the claim that I have trouble believing.
Show me graves. Show me culture. Show me modern man!
I'm not sure what you want. Native Americans were modern men
and women, Homo sapiens sapiens. For the last 28,000 years or
so, we have been the only species of Homo on Earth. And the
other species, Homo sapiens neandertalensis (or Homo
neandertalensis, if that's the flavor you prefer) was not in a
position to schlep over to the New World. If there were
seriously pre-Clovis folks, they would have been Hss, too.
As to culture, if the lithics found turn out to be as old as
the investigators think (hope?), they will be part of the
material culture of the as-yet unknown folks. There are other
potential seriously pre-Clovis sites (e.g.: in Pennsylvania and
South America) that, if they pan out, will help tell us about
early cultures.
Paleo-Indian folks, Clovis time period and following, are still
not very will known except via their stone tools and some of
their kill and camp sites. There are few known burials,
although it appears that red ochre was used at least
occasionally, and at least one burial included a cache of fine
Clovis points. A few beads are also known. Much has been
speculated about them, and after a lot of work, some is known.
At as early a stage in the Paleo-Indian investigations as the
current potential seriously pre-Clovis are now, we would have
been hard-pressed to meet your standard. And yet, we knew that
the artifacts were made by modern humans, and something about
their distribution in time and space.
I think finding burials would be smashing, and many questions
can only be answered in this way. However, that is not required
in order to identify a human culture in the Americas long before
Clovis.
Tom McDonald
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The Oldest Americans May Prove Even Older |
30 Jun 2004 12:58:05 AM |
|
|
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote
At as early a stage in the Paleo-Indian investigations as the
current potential seriously pre-Clovis are now, we would have
been hard-pressed to meet your standard.
You're not arguing against me. You're proving my point.
We don't have to accept the "evidence" as currently presented.
There is no need to. There is no benefit, but there is risk.
If the evidence is there it will be found, as you yourself have
just inadvertently demonstrated. Impatience is not a virtue, and
there's certainly nothing "scientific" about it.
I think finding burials would be smashing, and many questions
can only be answered in this way. However, that is not required
in order to identify a human culture in the Americas long before
Clovis.
Well, actually, we *Do* have to find a culture. No culture, no
humans. Period.
And, oh, "Fire" isn't evidence of culture, not even with a bright-green
neon sign that visually screams "A man started this fire."
If enough people to sustain a population could make it here, a
single individual could have. The claim isn't that a person or
even "people" stepped foot in the Americas thousands of years
prior to the clovis people, but that a wide-spread culture
persisted here for thousands of years.
Show me that culture.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The Oldest Americans May Prove Even Older |
30 Jun 2004 04:58:57 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote
At as early a stage in the Paleo-Indian investigations as the
current potential seriously pre-Clovis are now, we would have
been hard-pressed to meet your standard.
You're not arguing against me. You're proving my point.
We don't have to accept the "evidence" as currently presented.
There is no need to. There is no benefit, but there is risk.
If the evidence is there it will be found, as you yourself have
just inadvertently demonstrated. Impatience is not a virtue, and
there's certainly nothing "scientific" about it.
I think we are talking past each other to a large extent. I'm
not remotely suggesting that we jump to conclusions; in fact,
just the reverse. The evidence needs to be clear and
convincing, and we are definitely not there yet with the subject
archaeological site.
You are quite right to urge caution, as many of these types of
claims have failed upon close examination.
I think finding burials would be smashing, and many questions
can only be answered in this way. However, that is not required
in order to identify a human culture in the Americas long before
Clovis.
Well, actually, we *Do* have to find a culture. No culture, no
humans. Period.
I think you misunderstood me. I meant that recognizing a
culture (in the archaeological use of that term) does not depend
on finding burials. However, in order to recognize a culture,
it is necessary to find unequivocal physical evidence of human
activity. IOW, if tools, hearths, kill sites, butchered bone,
etc. are found in undisturbed sites, with adequate context and
adequate dating, then we would have found a human culture.
Burials, art, etc., would be icing on the cake.
And, oh, "Fire" isn't evidence of culture, not even with a bright-green
neon sign that visually screams "A man started this fire."
Well, a neon sign would establish a culture. Human, most
likely, unless there were evidence of aliens :-).
Seriously though, you are right. Evidence of fire alone would
not imply culture. However, humans tend to be messy eaters, and
if evidence of a hearth is found with, for example, floral or
faunal food remains, or man-made lithic artifacts or debitage,
culture would be implied then.
If enough people to sustain a population could make it here, a
single individual could have. The claim isn't that a person or
even "people" stepped foot in the Americas thousands of years
prior to the clovis people, but that a wide-spread culture
persisted here for thousands of years.
Show me that culture.
Let's see what the investigators find, shall we?
Tom McDonald
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The Oldest Americans May Prove Even Older |
30 Jun 2004 09:16:56 PM |
|
|
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote
I think we are talking past each other to a large extent.
Very likely, this being usenet. Those who study communicatons
claim that 70... 80... anyway, a "very large" percentage of our
information stems from non-verbal cues: Facial expression,
tone of voice & body language, to name some examples. We
don't have that here. What's more, the writing is quite informal,
with few or any "universal" conventions to guide us.
Misunderstanding are easy.
You are quite right to urge caution, as many of these types of
claims have failed upon close examination.
I would hestitate to doubt the credentials of anyone performing a
dig without good reason (diploma-milled creation "scientist"), and
the nature of science is such that virtually *Any* qualified
archeaologist should be able to recognize clear evidence of human
habitation when he sees it. It is only with the conclusions drawn on
those findings where I find room to argue.
Part of it is my own bias as well. Pre-clovis people don't do a thing
for me. A canoe-wrecked polynesian, an African or a seriously lost
Australian Aboriginal might qualify as a "pre-clovis" inhabitant of
the Americas, and could certainly produce evidence of their tenure.
I guess that's why I focus so tightly on a culture.
People were here? Great. I don't doubt it. What I want to know is if
the people who were here 1,000 years before the "clovis" were
culturally & genetically linked to the people who were here 2,000
years before the "clovis."
I suppose it doesn't matter either way. Even if it turns out that there
were many, many separate arrivals before one managed to take root
and develop a population & culture, there is still a lesson to be
learned.
If enough people to sustain a population could make it here, a
single individual could have. The claim isn't that a person or
even "people" stepped foot in the Americas thousands of years
prior to the clovis people, but that a wide-spread culture
persisted here for thousands of years.
Show me that culture.
Let's see what the investigators find, shall we?
Good advice. There is an answer to be found. I shouldn't attach a value
to one answer over another.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The Oldest Americans May Prove Even Older |
01 Jul 2004 12:05:33 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote
I think we are talking past each other to a large extent.
Very likely, this being usenet. Those who study communicatons
claim that 70... 80... anyway, a "very large" percentage of our
information stems from non-verbal cues: Facial expression,
tone of voice & body language, to name some examples. We
don't have that here. What's more, the writing is quite informal,
with few or any "universal" conventions to guide us.
Misunderstanding are easy.
Yup.
You are quite right to urge caution, as many of these types of
claims have failed upon close examination.
I would hestitate to doubt the credentials of anyone performing a
dig without good reason (diploma-milled creation "scientist"), and
the nature of science is such that virtually *Any* qualified
archeaologist should be able to recognize clear evidence of human
habitation when he sees it. It is only with the conclusions drawn on
those findings where I find room to argue.
Part of it is my own bias as well. Pre-clovis people don't do a thing
for me. A canoe-wrecked polynesian, an African or a seriously lost
Australian Aboriginal might qualify as a "pre-clovis" inhabitant of
the Americas, and could certainly produce evidence of their tenure.
I guess that's why I focus so tightly on a culture.
That may be part of our misunderstanding. When I think of
culture, I think in terms of *any* manifestation of human
presence. Might be from my time doing archaeological survey
work in Wisconsin. (That's a stuffy way of saying 'walking
around in fields and forests looking for stuff.) Many times, an
archaeological 'site' here would consist of only a few flakes of
stone debitage.
Me, I got (and get) excited by those little bits of contact
with the person or group that left those small things. I find
it fascinating that a bit of stone that was left from of a man
or woman making a tool is lying in my hand; a connection to
them. The characteristic ripple pattern that forms in the stone
is, to me, a frozen bit of time. Gives me chills.
It sounds like you are looking for something with more meat on
the bone. Certainly, more is needed to support the hypothesis
that the site that started this thread denotes a pre-Clovis
occupation. We agree on that.
People were here? Great. I don't doubt it. What I want to know is if
the people who were here 1,000 years before the "clovis" were
culturally & genetically linked to the people who were here 2,000
years before the "clovis."
Yup, I want to know that, too.
I suppose it doesn't matter either way. Even if it turns out that there
were many, many separate arrivals before one managed to take root
and develop a population & culture, there is still a lesson to be
learned.
Yup.
If enough people to sustain a population could make it here, a
single individual could have. The claim isn't that a person or
even "people" stepped foot in the Americas thousands of years
prior to the clovis people, but that a wide-spread culture
persisted here for thousands of years.
Show me that culture.
Let's see what the investigators find, shall we?
Good advice. There is an answer to be found. I shouldn't attach a value
to one answer over another.
I enjoy the trip; the destination is interesting, too; but
there are interesting questions and fascinating answers all
along the way.
Tom McDonald
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The Oldest Americans May Prove Even Older |
01 Jul 2004 02:37:40 AM |
|
|
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote
That may be part of our misunderstanding. When I think of
culture, I think in terms of *any* manifestation of human
presence.
I think of "culture" as those things which unify people. This
could include religion, language, art, political structure,
diet, customs or just about anything else we "culturally"
(as a society) recognize.
Another way of putting it: Would the people of site [A] view
the people of site [B] the same way that one American might
view another (even with regional differences), or would the
inhabitants of site [A] view the people of site [B] the same way
a European might view an American?
Me, I got (and get) excited by those little bits of contact
with the person or group that left those small things.
I can understand that. Honestly. It's just that, to me, a "pre-clovis"
people seems like a very big deal, while periodic habitation of
the Americas by isolated groups does not.
I know, I admit it; that's my bias. In the end there's just as much
to learn from either scenario (and one or two others I didn't
mention).
It sounds like you are looking for something with more meat on
the bone.
Well, yes.
I guess it's just that, if there was any way at all for ancient man to
reach the Americas, he did. Period. No question in my mind. Given
the time spans, given all the other obsticals man had already
managed to over-come, it strikes me as a throughly unremarkable
claim.
A culture though -- a common thread connecting dispersed people
over an extended period -- that really is something.
Certainly, more is needed to support the hypothesis
that the site that started this thread denotes a pre-Clovis
occupation. We agree on that.
The dating is the most important thing. After that they can squabble
over the significance of the "artificats" discovered.
But what I really want is that "meat" you talked about.
I enjoy the trip; the destination is interesting, too; but
there are interesting questions and fascinating answers all
along the way.
But, see, you're in the drivers seat? I'm a spectator.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Puck Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The Oldest Americans May Prove Even Older |
30 Jun 2004 12:05:59 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 05:58:05 +0000 (UTC), "JTEM"
<gymraven@hotmail.com> with calm deliberation, and malace
aforethought, wrote:
If enough people to sustain a population could make it here, a
single individual could have. The claim isn't that a person or
even "people" stepped foot in the Americas thousands of years
prior to the clovis people, but that a wide-spread culture
persisted here for thousands of years.
Show me that culture.
Which brings another thought to mind.
The myths/legends, of Big Foot: Could they be the last remnants of the
First Nations, memory/stories, of those earlier settlers?
The truth being lost in ten thousand years of retelling.
Puck Greenman
#162
BAAWA Knight.
Blesed is the self righteous xtian,
for his is the sure and certain knowledge
that no matter what load of tripe he
comes out with:
God told him to say it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The Oldest Americans May Prove Even Older |
29 Jun 2004 10:53:01 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:27:55 +0000, Tom McDonald wrote:
maff wrote:
The Oldest Americans May Prove Even Older
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/29/science/29clov.html?ei=5062&en=8169135fc9061231&ex=1089086400&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=all&position=
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
If one scientist is right, American prehistory is being extended deeper
in time at a remote dig site in South Carolina.
Maff,
Interesting stuff. I will be interested to see what the lab
work shows about dating this evidence, and whether the chert items found
turn out to be artifacts. It is far too early on in the investigation
to take any firm stands.
As the article points out, one of the problems with potential
pre-Clovis artifacts is that we don't have a typology established for
them. Clovis, and most succeeding projectile point lithics, are very
distinctive, and show clear signs of being worked by human hands. The
items described in this article do not seem to have the same kind of
distinctive, human-worked characteristics as Clovis, ff.
I suspect field examination of the cherts should be enough to
establish natural vs. artificial working of the stone. The proof of the
punch, I suspect, will come from lab examination of the cherts to see if
they show characteristics wear patterns typical of what tools of that
time would be expected to have been used for.
Should be easy enough to apply the ID methodology...
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The Oldest Americans May Prove Even Older |
29 Jun 2004 11:59:23 PM |
|
|
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.06.29.21.55.06.186240@mail.utexas.edu...
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:27:55 +0000, Tom McDonald wrote:
maff wrote:
The Oldest Americans May Prove Even Older
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/29/science/29clov.html?ei=5062&en=8169135fc9061231&ex=1089086400&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=all&position=
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
If one scientist is right, American prehistory is being extended
deeper
in time at a remote dig site in South Carolina.
Maff,
Interesting stuff. I will be interested to see what the lab
work shows about dating this evidence, and whether the chert items
found
turn out to be artifacts. It is far too early on in the
investigation
to take any firm stands.
As the article points out, one of the problems with potential
pre-Clovis artifacts is that we don't have a typology established
for
them. Clovis, and most succeeding projectile point lithics, are
very
distinctive, and show clear signs of being worked by human hands.
The
items described in this article do not seem to have the same kind of
distinctive, human-worked characteristics as Clovis, ff.
I suspect field examination of the cherts should be enough to
establish natural vs. artificial working of the stone. The proof of
the
punch, I suspect, will come from lab examination of the cherts to
see if
they show characteristics wear patterns typical of what tools of
that
time would be expected to have been used for.
Should be easy enough to apply the ID methodology...
You'd think, except that there is no need to make conjectures about what
tools would have been used for, in order to determine whether they were
intelligently designed or not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The Oldest Americans May Prove Even Older |
30 Jun 2004 12:26:02 AM |
|
|
Glenn wrote:
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.06.29.21.55.06.186240@mail.utexas.edu...
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:27:55 +0000, Tom McDonald wrote:
maff wrote:
The Oldest Americans May Prove Even Older
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/29/science/29clov.html?ei=5062&en=8169135fc9061231&ex=1089086400&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=all&position=
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
If one scientist is right, American prehistory is being extended
deeper
in time at a remote dig site in South Carolina.
Maff,
Interesting stuff. I will be interested to see what the lab
work shows about dating this evidence, and whether the chert items
found
turn out to be artifacts. It is far too early on in the
investigation
to take any firm stands.
As the article points out, one of the problems with potential
pre-Clovis artifacts is that we don't have a typology established
for
them. Clovis, and most succeeding projectile point lithics, are
very
distinctive, and show clear signs of being worked by human hands.
The
items described in this article do not seem to have the same kind of
distinctive, human-worked characteristics as Clovis, ff.
I suspect field examination of the cherts should be enough to
establish natural vs. artificial working of the stone. The proof of
the
punch, I suspect, will come from lab examination of the cherts to
see if
they show characteristics wear patterns typical of what tools of
that
time would be expected to have been used for.
Should be easy enough to apply the ID methodology...
You'd think, except that there is no need to make conjectures about what
tools would have been used for, in order to determine whether they were
intelligently designed or not.
Izatso? Then ID is pretty useless, isn't it?
If it turns out that this site does turn up evidence of such
ancient folks, it will be vital to try to figure out what the
tools were used for. If, for instance, these folks tried to
use, say, a burin for a projectile point, that artifact might
well have been designed by intelligent folks, but their
application of that intelligence would have likely led to their
quick and complete demise.
IOW, intelligence can design really, really stupid things.
Just ask me about the wonderful design of the human spine.
Tom McDonald
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The Oldest Americans May Prove Even Older |
06 Jul 2004 10:12:27 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 04:59:23 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.06.29.21.55.06.186240@mail.utexas.edu...
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:27:55 +0000, Tom McDonald wrote:
maff wrote:
The Oldest Americans May Prove Even Older
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/29/science/29clov.html?ei=5062&en=8169135fc9061231&ex=1089086400&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=all&position=
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
If one scientist is right, American prehistory is being extended
deeper
in time at a remote dig site in South Carolina.
Maff,
Interesting stuff. I will be interested to see what the lab
work shows about dating this evidence, and whether the chert items
found
turn out to be artifacts. It is far too early on in the
investigation
to take any firm stands.
As the article points out, one of the problems with potential
pre-Clovis artifacts is that we don't have a typology established
for
them. Clovis, and most succeeding projectile point lithics, are
very
distinctive, and show clear signs of being worked by human hands.
The
items described in this article do not seem to have the same kind of
distinctive, human-worked characteristics as Clovis, ff.
I suspect field examination of the cherts should be enough to
establish natural vs. artificial working of the stone. The proof of
the
punch, I suspect, will come from lab examination of the cherts to
see if
they show characteristics wear patterns typical of what tools of
that
time would be expected to have been used for.
Should be easy enough to apply the ID methodology...
You'd think, except that there is no need to make conjectures about what
tools would have been used for, in order to determine whether they were
intelligently designed or not.
So they did not look for things that looked like human made tools. (".
Others had the sharp-edged look of more fully realized blades, chisels
and scrapers.") So how did they figure out they were "designed"? Did
they figure out the complex specified information? Or what? Glen, here
is a great opportunity for Intelligent Design scientists to make some
real contributions. The old-fashioned scientists don't know if these
things are designed or not, lets have the design people step and
figure it out.
So how about a prediction here. Do you think that anyone in the ID
community is actually working on this or anything similar?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do in order to understand.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
