The origin of mankind

[Karl]

Indeed it is  relative, that is my very point about western culture ! 

 

I was  talking about these things from an anthropological perspective. About cultures   which are collective things ... over time ... not about 'Karl's lifestyle '   ... or mine . 

 

You judge world cultures historically on a scale of your own   personal comfortable 'drathers'  ?

 

I don't really know what your point is, we have gone far off the reservation. I made the assertion that ancient people had little information, or any modern philosophy with which to determine the origin of mankind. You asserted they knew far more than we thought because they had endured for 40K years. It's a non sequitur. Length of survival does not equate to a superior knowledge. They lived a Stone Age culture which would have been the case in Europe had we not advanced. We have far more resource available to us now and a far greater chance of survival in far larger numbers. If we measure success at all, then it should be by population numbers.

[Marblehead]

Yes I understand that. Did you know that plants respirated too?  Most living things do, life is oxygen based on earth ... is our fuel that burns the internal fire . 

Yeah, but for the plants it is normally called photosynthesizing and with animals it is called respiration.

 

Yes, all animal life on earth is oxygen based.  But, all plant life is carbon dioxide based.

 

And yes, oxygen is used for other kinds of burning as well.

[Jim D.]

I taught an Ecology course. Would ya all like a lesson or two?

[Marblehead]

I taught an Ecology course. Would ya all like a lesson or two?

Thanks but I'll pass.

[Nungali]

Hehehe.  You got pretty close to using magic there.

 

I am finding it hard to follow you with this one Marblehead ....  more so with each post  (unless yo dickin with me ? )   .... hiw was that close to using magic ?  You asked a question and that is the fairly standard answer to that question .

 

? ? ? 

[Nungali]

I don't really know what your point is,

 

That is because you insert random ideas into conversations so you can argue your view points about the things you slipped in to that conversation .

 

 

we have gone far off the reservation. I made the assertion that ancient people had little information, or any modern philosophy with which to determine the origin of mankind.

 

 

But then you added this  " That's a straw man argument. It's not a necessity to know how life began, it's only necessary to use ones mind to survive. Aborigines did not thrive, they almost got wiped out by western man. They had nothing at all to show for 40,000 years except a miserable stone age existence of continual toil. "   Which both contradicts what you just said  and affirms what I was saying and is clearly wrong and faulty, in fact and the way you wrote it out.    You say 'they did not thrive'  ... but they did  thrive, for 10s of 1000s of years  .  You try to prove that they DID NOT thrive because they are not now  thriving ...   

 

a lot of the time your arguments are well constructed and lead from point to point , cant you see how faulty what you are saying IN THE CONTEXT of what you are saying  is ? 

 

 

You asserted they knew far more than we thought because they had endured for 40K years

 

No I did not . I asserted  they thrived and were successful more THAN YOU THOUGHT .   And not because  "they endured' , I said very clearly what it was ... lived here for so long without wrecking their own environment . 

 

Twist things away Karl, misinterpret, add, misquote  ... as long as you  think look like you  right in the argument  ... but you are floundering here . 

 

Just admit it is a subject you know little of .... its okay , not many people do in the general population ... even here in country where it all happened / s 

 

 

It's a non sequitur. Length of survival does not equate to a superior knowledge. They lived a Stone Age culture which would have been the case in Europe had we not advanced. We have far more resource available to us now and a far greater chance of survival in far larger numbers. If we measure success at all, then it should be by population numbers.

 

Yo crazy now ..... 

 

by the way ... have a lovely time at the beach 

 

 

 

 

 

I will stay at home thanks 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 4, 2016 by Nungali

[Jim D.]

In 1771 there was a Joseph Pirestly who conducted an experiment using himself, and proved that the plants need us as well as we need to survive. I don't believe that jars that have plants in them are perfectly sealed. Perfectly sealed jars have been pressurized with heat first causing a vaccum.

[Nungali]

Yeah, but for the plants it is normally called photosynthesizing and with animals it is called respiration.

 

Nope .    respiration is what  most terrestrial life does ; animals and plants ; oxygen in carbon dioxide out . 

 

 photosynthesis is the reverse .  When a plant photosynthesizes  it is NOT respiration .  Havent we done this ?  You even linked to it ....  ????

 

I even linked to it in the articles that i put links up for .   You didnt read them did you ? 

 

Here;

 

" The three major functions that are basic to plant growth and development are:

• Photosynthesis – The process of capturing light energy and converting it to sugar energy, in the presence of chlorophyll using carbon dioxide (CO₂) and water (H₂O).
• Respiration – The process of metabolizing (burning) sugars to yield energy for growth, reproduction, and other life processes.
• Transpiration – The loss of water vapor through the stomata of leaves .

 

In respiration, plants (and animals) convert the sugars (photosynthates) back into energy for growth and other life processes (metabolic processes).  The chemical equation for respiration shows that the photosynthates are combined with oxygen releasing energy, carbon dioxide, and water.  A simple chemical equation for respiration is given below.  Notice that the equation for respiration is the opposite of that for photosynthesis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, all animal life on earth is oxygen based.  But, all plant life is carbon dioxide based.

 

Nope ....   I said MOST life on earth  and nope  plant life is not carbon dioxide based . 

 

I can link and quote scientific articles that show there are SOME life processes going on here that are not oxygen dependent if you dont believe me ( again !      )   ... also , I admit I confused things by using the term - 'oxygen based' , oxygen dependent  is  more accurate . life on earth is actually 'carbon based' . Some postulate else where, other bases for life , maybe silicon ? 

 

And yes, oxygen is used for other kinds of burning as well.

 

Burning is oxygen combining with a substance to release energy ( like rust ... but rust is very slow combination ), in our case  it combines with ,  mostly carbon , so we breathe out carbon dioxide .... the fire ? 

 

The 'fire is in the belly'  .....   like you and Karl have    

 

 

 

[Marblehead]

I am finding it hard to follow you with this one Marblehead ....  more so with each post  (unless yo dickin with me ? )   .... hiw was that close to using magic ?  You asked a question and that is the fairly standard answer to that question .

 

? ? ? 

No, I'm not messing with you this time.  I am trying to relate my understanding as best I can with my own words rather than linking to a bunch of articles.

 

The magic:  I was referring to oxygen and carbon dioxide replenishing themselves naturally.  That don't happen, cause and effect, you know.

 

A long time ago I did a lot of research on this for my fish ponds and fish health.  I even have aquatic plants in some areas of the pond for consuming excess carbon dioxide, fish waste and other nutrients.  The fish breathe oxygen but are poisoned by excess carbon dioxide.  The plants, as well as aeration via waterfalls, add additional oxygen; the plants consume excess carbon dioxide.  It's one of life's cycles.

 

And yes, animals are actually creating new carbon dioxide and plants are creating new oxygen chemically via biological processes.

[Nungali]

I taught an Ecology course. Would ya all like a lesson or two?

 

 

Not unless you understand some basic high school science , especially about respiration and photosynthesis   ...... 

 

and some first year anthropology     

[silent thunder]

I taught an Ecology course. Would ya all like a lesson or two?

start a thread mate... I'm pretty much endlessly fascinated by the interactions of primate minds

[Nungali]

In 1771 there was a Joseph Pirestly who conducted an experiment using himself, and proved that the plants need us as well as we need to survive. I don't believe that jars that have plants in them are perfectly sealed. Perfectly sealed jars have been pressurized with heat first causing a vaccum.

 

Wow ... now we are going to confuse 'pressurized' , 'sealed' and  'a vacuum' .

 

really guys ... really ?

 

What has happened to you lot ? 

 

 

 

[Marblehead]

 

 

Nope .    respiration is what  most terrestrial life does ; animals and plants ; oxygen in carbon dioxide out .

I'm going to stop now and not even talk about the algae that consumes oxygen and is actually therefore an animal and the source of all animal life on this planet.

 

I did try though.

[Nungali]

No, I'm not messing with you this time.  I am trying to relate my understanding as best I can with my own words rather than linking to a bunch of articles.

 

Well, yes, that was what I was trying to do, but being refuted I then went to the articles .

 

Guys; elements are made in starts not on earth. That was the original thing I started quoting articles about.

 

The magic:  I was referring to oxygen and carbon dioxide replenishing themselves naturally.  That don't happen, cause and effect, you know.

 

But I didnt say they were 'replenishing'  themselves .... all the elements in earth got here by the condensation of a dust cloud ....  a lot of that was carbon, it ended up  everywhere, even in magma, it is part of  wood, rocks, volcanic gasses. some even comes in on asteroids ... some escapes into outer space . Elements are made in stars (or when we replicate a similar process  in miniature )  You cant create or destroy matter.   Just recombine it - high school science.  And I do know it does all relate to cause and effect.   You just have to understand  the materials and the basic laws and how they interact to understand cause and effect.

 

A long time ago I did a lot of research on this for my fish ponds and fish health.  I even have aquatic plants in some areas of the pond for consuming excess carbon dioxide, fish waste and other nutrients.  The fish breathe oxygen but are poisoned by excess carbon dioxide.  The plants, as well as aeration via waterfalls, add additional oxygen; the plants consume excess carbon dioxide.  It's one of life's cycles.

 

Well, we agreed on that  and I already answered that above .  I am not denying at all that we breathe in oxygen and out carbon dioxide, plants can do the opposite (but not all the time )  and we have developed a type of symbiosis . 

 

And yes, animals are actually creating new carbon dioxide and plants are creating new oxygen chemically via biological processes.

 

'new' Carbon dioxide can be created as it is a combination ... we can have a combination and pull it apart and then make a NEW combination .  We cannot make nor van plants make oxygen 

 

 

We have so much oxygen to play with , we dont destroy it or create it , it is an element 

 

- basic high school science guys .

 

....   where is Brian ?   Maybe its my explanations here ? 

[Nungali]

I'm going to stop now and not even talk about the algae that consumes oxygen and is actually therefore an animal and the source of all animal life on this planet.

 

I did try though.

Its science Marbles ... not my fault ... I tried to explain it to you too .  In my own words, and with the related science . 

 

Looks like we didnt make it .  Of well.  < shrug >  

[Jim D.]

But I learned a lot with all the information provided. I see it as a win/win situation. There seems to be a pattern of synthesis in all the discussions I am involved in meaning, there is a little bit of this and little bit of that in what you say, what they say, and what I say. That's how we grow and discover new and improved ideas and manifestations thereof.

 

The outcome is I know more not than I did yesterday because of your input and tenacity.

[Nungali]

You  'know more NOT than you did yesterday'   ???   because of my input and tenacity ...

 

you guys are doing my head in today ....

 

 

 

 

I still cant get over what Karl claimed ...

 

 

 

 

 

It could be me ... I realize I am having  great communication probs recently  ... not that I feel its me , as when someone actually LISTENS to what I actually said and I explain it all to them, they agree ..... but more and more, its getting like this ;

 

I go to the telecom shop 2 days ago  to complain about their service and equipment  :  I bought the latest modem, prepaid credit, I put $50 credit on it from a voucher . I use the internet . I check the modem 4.9 gigs left , thats $49 "

 

Shop girl "yes thats right ." 

 

"Then I stop using the internet , I go the whole night not using it , I live alone and have no visitors, everything is turned off. I wake up in the morning ... no credit , red screen on modem  0.0 gigs , cant connect "you are out of credit "     BS !    where is my $50?  I try an hour later ... the same .   I try 3 hours later ... modem goes 'blink blink'   .... you have 4.9 gigs of credit left .  

 

What the hell is going on ? and why cant I get connected when I DO have credit ?  "

 

Shop girl " Do you watch a lot of movies ... movies will use up your credit quickly  . "

 

I explain all over again emphasizing and explaining  the relevant info  more .

 

 "But movies DO use up credit fast ."  She looks blankly at me, uncomprehending  ..... just like that cow did before I shot it though the third eye to make our winter freezer full . 

 

Hmmmmm .... THAT gives me an idea  !  

[Marblehead]

 

you guys are doing my head in today ....

 

 

Don't take it too seriously.  They are only words.  Sometimes we chirp like the birds and sometimes we say something.

[Karl]

I will stay at home thanks 

 

 

 

 

The Europeans didn't suddenly appear 2000 years ago. I'm finding it difficult to follow your argument. I think it's you that is twisting it, but because I can't get you to say what your argument actually is.

 

I was saying that living 40K years in a stone age culture means living 40K years in a stone age culture. It doesn't qualify them to know anything relevant about the origin of man and without science, it's unlikely they would know as much as Europeans who also survived more than 40K years, in far greater numbers, then added science to allow far greater sustainability. It wasn't the aborigines wiping out the white man was it ? The aborigines did not repel the Europeans with their 40K year head start in Australia ? Had the Europeans taken it upon themselves they would easily have achieved total genocide. Today, the aborigines are subsumed into the more advanced culture. That does not mean the more advanced culture cannot learn ANYTHING off a more primitive culture, but the exchange of information will be highest from the Europeans to the Aborigines.

 

Perhaps it's because I leap, I can't help it, I see how an argument will develop and skip the intervening posts which loses the continuity. I know that you moved from the rat race to the wilds of a big hole in the outback where you watch the cars back up on the highway, so I know you don't really get on with modern life and wish we would get back to 'living in harmony' with the planet. I'm trying to show you that man doesn't work like that, despite how you wish it, I don't say it's perfect, it's not perfect for you, but no one stops you moving to an area and living a Stone Age existence if that's what appeals, it just doesn't appeal to me, I see it as entirely a retrograde step, but I note you haven't given up on your 21st century computer technology :-)

 

If you want, then PM me and we can continue the discussion. I really didn't mean to be dissing the Abo's.

[Karl]

 

No, I'm not messing with you this time.  I am trying to relate my understanding as best I can with my own words rather than linking to a bunch of articles.

 

Well, yes, that was what I was trying to do, but being refuted I then went to the articles .

 

Guys; elements are made in starts not on earth. That was the original thing I started quoting articles about.

 

The magic:  I was referring to oxygen and carbon dioxide replenishing themselves naturally.  That don't happen, cause and effect, you know.

 

But I didnt say they were 'replenishing'  themselves .... all the elements in earth got here by the condensation of a dust cloud ....  a lot of that was carbon, it ended up  everywhere, even in magma, it is part of  wood, rocks, volcanic gasses. some even comes in on asteroids ... some escapes into outer space . Elements are made in stars (or when we replicate a similar process  in miniature )  You cant create or destroy matter.   Just recombine it - high school science.  And I do know it does all relate to cause and effect.   You just have to understand  the materials and the basic laws and how they interact to understand cause and effect.

 

A long time ago I did a lot of research on this for my fish ponds and fish health.  I even have aquatic plants in some areas of the pond for consuming excess carbon dioxide, fish waste and other nutrients.  The fish breathe oxygen but are poisoned by excess carbon dioxide.  The plants, as well as aeration via waterfalls, add additional oxygen; the plants consume excess carbon dioxide.  It's one of life's cycles.

 

Well, we agreed on that  and I already answered that above .  I am not denying at all that we breathe in oxygen and out carbon dioxide, plants can do the opposite (but not all the time )  and we have developed a type of symbiosis . 

 

And yes, animals are actually creating new carbon dioxide and plants are creating new oxygen chemically via biological processes.

 

'new' Carbon dioxide can be created as it is a combination ... we can have a combination and pull it apart and then make a NEW combination .  We cannot make nor van plants make oxygen 

 

 

We have so much oxygen to play with , we dont destroy it or create it , it is an element 

 

- basic high school science guys .

 

....   where is Brian ?   Maybe its my explanations here ? 

 

Yes, all the elements are made in stars, just so you know I agree with you on this one. It balances where I don't agree with you. All very Yin Yang.

[Marblehead]

Yes, all the elements are made in stars, just so you know I agree with you on this one. It balances where I don't agree with you. All very Yin Yang.

 

Actually, I agree that all the elements were initially created in the stars.  But that's not the end of the story.

 

And it wasn't a matter of concern to the point I was trying (and failed) to make.

[Karl]

Actually, I agree that all the elements were initially created in the stars. But that's not the end of the story.

 

And it wasn't a matter of concern to the point I was trying (and failed) to make.

I got it the first time around :-) living creatures converted carbon dioxide into oxygen so that more oxygen hungry types of life appeared. Edited August 5, 2016 by Karl

[Nungali]

The Europeans didn't suddenly appear 2000 years ago. I'm finding it difficult to follow your argument. I think it's you that is twisting it, but because I can't get you to say what your argument actually is. 

 

 

It was what I said it was, a few posts back, cant help it if you dont or cant follow. 

I was saying that living 40K years in a stone age culture means living 40K years in a stone age culture. It doesn't qualify them to know anything relevant about the origin of man and without science, it's unlikely they would know as much as Europeans who also survived more than 40K years, in far greater numbers, then added science to allow far greater sustainability.

 

Now you yourself are a loy clearer and articulate, what you wrote before was not so and had other stuff mixed in with it (see below)  ,  With this part of what you are saying above , I agree with that.  But that wasnt how your comments arose, in any case , lets move on; 

 

 

 

It wasn't the aborigines wiping out the white man was it ? The aborigines did not repel the Europeans with their 40K year head start in Australia ? Had the Europeans taken it upon themselves they would easily have achieved total genocide. Today, the aborigines are subsumed into the more advanced culture. That does not mean the more advanced culture cannot learn ANYTHING off a more primitive culture, but the exchange of information will be highest from the Europeans to the Aborigines. 

 

Now you seem to be evaluating success of a culture via war and conquest. if you missed it, I am evaluating them on totally different results.  Thats why sheer numbers are not a measure of success either . Some cultures had a lot of war and conquest in their favor ,  and increased population rapidly, and skyrocketed out rather quickly . Even that isnt a measure.

 

There are clear sets of  indicators of a culture or society in growth and health and success  as their are ones that show decline and crisis. There  are identifiable stages and traits, expressed in variant cultural forms, but the stages are the same , after a certain stage collapse is imminent.  For one to fulfill those requirements, for such a length of time earmarks it as long term and  successful - they had things going for them, they did not need   modern technology , they were exposed to it previously via the Maccassins, very few Australians back then went back with them and lived there and had families there ,  a few would come back here again. The Maccassin technology never spread to here.  They only needed European tech  as their normal way of life was disrupted and invaded by the Europeans . The Maccassins never did that,.

Perhaps it's because I leap, I can't help it, I see how an argument will develop and skip the intervening posts which loses the continuity.

 

 

Well, thank you ! That explains a lot, no wonder !   problem is you THINK you know the way its going to develop. Sometimes I think you are unaware of the things you slip in to/ to reach your own conclusions . So I will remember I am dealing with a 'quantum poster ' here   

 

I have a friend like that.  he comes out with : ..... :    WTF ?  I have to remind her that I cant read her thoughts, she thinks something and then vocalizes the rest and I am supposed to follow the thread .  of course she 'always' knows what I am going t say next    .   She also tells me what I have said (which I didnt ). I wrote it out once and gave it to her so she couldnt 'cheat'  (and made a copy as I knew she would 'lose ' it )  . When she confronted me about what I didnt say, I showed her the letter copy (as she had lost it    )  she got angry and said " That maybe what you wrote - but I know you meant what I said ! " 

 

Nah .. you arent that bad ... yet ...  but be careful ! 

 

 

Look what it did to my friend ! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know that you moved from the rat race to the wilds of a big hole in the outback where you watch the cars back up on the highway, so I know you don't really get on with modern life and wish we would get back to 'living in harmony' with the planet.

 

 

 We have a TV and radio show here ' Ask Doctor Karl ' .  Okay, feedback:  I moved from the very mild, have it great version of outer fringe suburbia with wild nature just over the river (our first National Park ) ,  yes I live down in a valley , no it isnt the ;outback',  I cant see any cars backed up on a highway, or a highway or a road from here -  just my driveway  ... where the hell did that one come from ?     I do get on with modern life, I have done great thanks, haven't you read my other posts over the years in various areas. I am happy and successful and appreciative . I think of all the places in the all the times through history and ll the paces and times here , I landed pretty well  .  I even thought I might have skipped in a few years ealrier and had access to those brand new British 'vintage; motorcycles ... but then I would have been old enough for the Vietnam call up. Born later, I would have missed the amazing lifestyle one could have here and 'now' which has just passed .  Modern life ? I 'killed it ' 

 

Wish we would get back to living in harmony with the planet ?  Of course I do  ... I am not crazy !  This is not harmony this is sickness :

 

 

 

 

 

 I'm trying to show you that man doesn't work like that, despite how you wish it, I don't say it's perfect, it's not perfect for you, but no one stops you moving to an area and living a Stone Age existence if that's what appeals, it just doesn't appeal to me, I see it as entirely a retrograde step, but I note you haven't given up on your 21st century computer technology :-)

 

More Dr Karl knows .   Ummmm .... I started studying anthropology at school before I ever knew there was such a subject. Later I studied non-graduate at Sydney Uni. I havent stopped since . I have barely scratched the surface , and specialized in ' Cultural Anthropology " .  I happen to be fortunate enough to live and have access to one of the oldest partially extant cultures on the planet, that WAS successful over a vast period of time . yes we have to much to lean from them and many other indigenous people that our cultures have conqured and that we outnumber . 

 

Thou art my Callicles ,  Karl.    

If you want, then PM me and we can continue the discussion. I really didn't mean to be dissing the Abo's.

 

 

Then if you are sincere  dont call them that, many would not like you calling them that. It would be like calling an African American a word even I would not use here (as once I got censored here for referring to white people as 'honky', even in my innocence, people had to explain why. ) 

 

As  far as PMs go ... now how is that gonna make Junko's thread the longest running thread on TB's ever ? 

 

and in case anyone is still reading this, yes, it actually does relate to the origins of 'mankind', man is distinguished by his culture. Its all about culture and 'Man" ( anthropology) . 

 

That is what 'makes'  us Men    (and please dont tell me its who ever has the most men or who can beat the other guy up ) 

[Junko]

My thread is like my heart...it lives as long as I live.

[Marblehead]

Let your little heart beat.  (Let your little light shine.)