Neolithic Interventionism

[The Gremlin]

kantzveldt,

have you considered who these sumerian stories about the creation of man were written for, and perhaps why they were written?

i mean, really.

no necessary.

[Swede]

When i was putting the reconstruction together i soon found out it is easy to go seriously wrong in creating the pattern, even working on a small scale with perfect grid, and required several attempts. As an exercise you should try painting this pattern freehand and see how many abberations you make, like i said it's not perfectly accurate and i reconstructed what i consider the attempted pattern, not as seen...i note you have not suggested any alternative premise for the pattern.

I've provided plenty of archaeological, genetic and anthropological evidence supporting this hypothesis, you haven't seriously challenged any of it.

Thus you admit that your representation does not accurately reflect the original artifact. Therefore your digital construct is of little value in the interpretation and understanding of said artifact. Also, as Copa has recently pointed out, the various diagramatic representations that are utilized in the field are highly stylistic to say the least. They are much like the graphics that are utilized to represent molecular structure. Do you actually believe that, for example, an inorganic chem representation of H2SO4 is an accurate depiction of the reality?

It would be unproffesional to offer alternative explanations for the artifact without further related and supportive data. This is one of the biggest problems with the fringe contingent. The artifact must be evaluated within the context of the entire site and the understandings of the culture involved. To do otherwise is reflective of notably poor practices. You will note that none of the primaries involved have engaged in "wild" speculation.

As to your "supportive" data, you have been guilty of the same pattern of fringe behavioure, and it has hardly been worthy of challenge. For example, you cite the 2005 Catal Hoyuk burial recoveries as some sort of support for a "breeding program". This is a conclusion reached in only your own mind. While the authors of the report note the apparently high percentage of neonatal remains, in no part of the report to they allude to an alien breeding program. To take the matter a bit further, there are a number of more prosaic explanations. Amongst these would be:

1) The known high infant mortality of prior periods.

2) The potential for increased infectious disease transmission within more crowded communities such as C-H.

3) The impact of dietary deficiencies, another factor documented in early agricultural societies. Could go into length here, but the impact of early agriculture actually resulted in shorter life-spans and increased pathologies.

4) Burial differential. You will note from the report that the burials in question generally occurred within structures. Similar practices can be observed in North America. Infants were often treated in a different manner than adults. In some cultures, infants were not even considered to be fully "human" until after a certain point.

5) Extended habitation periods and/or intrusive burials. You will note the investigators evaluations in regards to the latter in other parts of the site.

6) Combination of any or all of the above. And that is just for starters.

It would be interesting to read the forensics report in regards to dental hypoplasia, etc.

As far as the geometric patterns presented, similar patterns appear in the archaeological record of numerous cultures, on many continents, over many time periods. In some North American contexts they can be associated with lower-world/upper-world cosmologies.

As to the "Venus figures", these go back to at least 35,000 BP. See Hohle Fels. By the time period in question such practices/beliefs would appear to have existed for some 24,000 years.

Could go on, but believe this sufficient for the moment. As others have pointed out, your speculation in regards to alien intervention is also without any documentation that would be supportive of the physical presence of an off-planet culture.

Edit: Punctuation

Edited April 2, 2011 by Swede

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Swede consider the hat tipped in your direction. Salute

[Swede]

Swede consider the hat tipped in your direction. Salute

Aus - My thanks for the "salute". Sometimes points need to be clarified.

.

[Tiggs]

it is likely that some instances of numerical representation slipped through the translational net....deliberately or otherwise, giving the effect of some miraculous longevity to early heroic and kingly figures.

And Persia? China? Japan? Rome? Greece? Israel?

All mistranslations?

I don't care what type of bedtime stories are told...with every mitosis the DNA strand gets shorter until the cell cannot reproduce anymore. And that event happens when a human is between 90 and 150 years old. There are no indications that this was ever different.

What you're claiming, in effect, is that you believe that it's impossible for the number of telomeres to have changed significantly from the amount that we see today.

I'm claiming the possibility that in ancient times, for specific branches of homo sapiens, they may have been significantly longer.

Given that it's an observable fact that telomere length is hereditry - (and thus differs between human family trees) - why do you believe that it is impossible for that to have occurred?

Edited April 3, 2011 by Tiggs

[Copasetic]

And Persia? China? Japan? Rome? Greece? Israel?

All mistranslations?

What you're claiming, in effect, is that you believe that it's impossible for the number of telomeres to have changed significantly from the amount that we see today.

I'm claiming the possibility that in ancient times, for specific branches of homo sapiens, they may have been significantly longer.

Given that it's an observable fact that telomere length is hereditry - (and thus differs between human family trees) - why do you believe that it is impossible for that to have occurred?

Suffice it to say the aging and the end of replication problem (that thingy telomeres actually solve) is a little more complicated than that.

The biological age that organisms live to is evolutionary determined by how long "successful reproduction" takes--By that I mean, putting your genes in future gene pools. Adaptive aging strategies nicely correlates to reproductive strategies. Certainly human's reproductive strategy (slow, invest lots of time in few offspring, etc) make us longer lived than many other species (but not as long lived as some), but that is here nor there.

Because of cellular line senescence, from the moment of fertilization, there is an upper bound to the age humans can live (or any animal for that--Evolutionary speaking). Unfortunately for biblical apologists, those 900 years ages are well beyond that senescent mark.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Copasetic

[The Gremlin]

And Persia? China? Japan? Rome? Greece? Israel?

All mistranslations?

either you didnt understand what i was saying, probably my bad communication, but then i was tired...or im missing your point.

perhaps you should expand and explain your problem with what i was saying,

edit. to add quote

Edited April 3, 2011 by lil gremlin

[TheSearcher]

Thus you admit that your representation does not accurately reflect the original artifact. Therefore your digital construct is of little value in the interpretation and understanding of said artifact. Also, as Copa has recently pointed out, the various diagramatic representations that are utilized in the field are highly stylistic to say the least. They are much like the graphics that are utilized to represent molecular structure. Do you actually believe that, for example, an inorganic chem representation of H2SO4 is an accurate depiction of the reality?

It would be unproffesional to offer alternative explanations for the artifact without further related and supportive data. This is one of the biggest problems with the fringe contingent. The artifact must be evaluated within the context of the entire site and the understandings of the culture involved. To do otherwise is reflective of notably poor practices. You will note that none of the primaries involved have engaged in "wild" speculation.

As to your "supportive" data, you have been guilty of the same pattern of fringe behavioure, and it has hardly been worthy of challenge. For example, you cite the 2005 Catal Hoyuk burial recoveries as some sort of support for a "breeding program". This is a conclusion reached in only your own mind. While the authors of the report note the apparently high percentage of neonatal remains, in no part of the report to they allude to an alien breeding program. To take the matter a bit further, there are a number of more prosaic explanations. Amongst these would be:

1) The known high infant mortality of prior periods.

2) The potential for increased infectious disease transmission within more crowded communities such as C-H.

3) The impact of dietary deficiencies, another factor documented in early agricultural societies. Could go into length here, but the impact of early agriculture actually resulted in shorter life-spans and increased pathologies.

4) Burial differential. You will note from the report that the burials in question generally occurred within structures. Similar practices can be observed in North America. Infants were often treated in a different manner than adults. In some cultures, infants were not even considered to be fully "human" until after a certain point.

5) Extended habitation periods and/or intrusive burials. You will note the investigators evaluations in regards to the latter in other parts of the site.

6) Combination of any or all of the above. And that is just for starters.

It would be interesting to read the forensics report in regards to dental hypoplasia, etc.

As far as the geometric patterns presented, similar patterns appear in the archaeological record of numerous cultures, on many continents, over many time periods. In some North American contexts they can be associated with lower-world/upper-world cosmologies.

As to the "Venus figures", these go back to at least 35,000 BP. See Hohle Fels. By the time period in question such practices/beliefs would appear to have existed for some 24,000 years.

Could go on, but believe this sufficient for the moment. As others have pointed out, your speculation in regards to alien intervention is also without any documentation that would be supportive of the physical presence of an off-planet culture.

Edit: Punctuation

Damned Swede, I was waiting for the author of the piece he uses to answer me, but I think you nailed it nicely again. I'v been waiting for an answer, but I wouldn't blame her if she don't answer at all lol.

[questionmark]

And Persia? China? Japan? Rome? Greece? Israel?

All mistranslations?

What you're claiming, in effect, is that you believe that it's impossible for the number of telomeres to have changed significantly from the amount that we see today.

I'm claiming the possibility that in ancient times, for specific branches of homo sapiens, they may have been significantly longer.

Given that it's an observable fact that telomere length is hereditry - (and thus differs between human family trees) - why do you believe that it is impossible for that to have occurred?

Nothing is impossible, but life exists mostly to reproduce itself. Once that possibility is over, as far as nature goes, life is pretty useless. Useless is not tolerated in nature.

[Swede]

Damned Swede, I was waiting for the author of the piece he uses to answer me, but I think you nailed it nicely again. I'v been waiting for an answer, but I wouldn't blame her if she don't answer at all lol.

Thanks Searcher. Am also interested to view any response that you may receive. Keep us apprised.

.

[Tiggs]

either you didnt understand what i was saying, probably my bad communication, but then i was tired...or im missing your point.

perhaps you should expand and explain your problem with what i was saying,

edit. to add quote

My point is that reports of people living for several centuries is not just limited to Israel or Sumeria or Babylon. There are reports from Persia, China, Japan, Rome and Greece, also.

Thus, while your explanation discounts the reports from Sumeria and Babylon - it does not discount the reports from the other cultures.

Because of cellular line senescence, from the moment of fertilization, there is an upper bound to the age humans can live (or any animal for that--Evolutionary speaking). Unfortunately for biblical apologists, those 900 years ages are well beyond that senescent mark.

Are you stating as absolute fact that it's impossible for any genetic sequence to create celluar line senescence longer than 900 years?

Or does the possibility exist? Because I'm looking at the Xestospongia muta and thinking that it quite obviously does.

Nothing is impossible, but life exists mostly to reproduce itself. Once that possibility is over, as far as nature goes, life is pretty useless. Useless is not tolerated in nature.

A longer reproductive cycle also seems to be part of the claims for those with a longer lifespan.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Tiggs

[questionmark]

My point is that reports of people living for several centuries is not just limited to Israel or Sumeria or Babylon. There are reports from Persia, China, Japan, Rome and Greece, also.

Thus, while your explanation discounts the reports from Sumeria and Babylon - it does not discount the reports from the other cultures.

Are you stating as absolute fact that it's impossible for any genetic sequence to create celluar line senescence longer than 900 years?

Or does the possibility exist? Because I'm looking at the Xestospongia muta and thinking that it quite obviously does.

A longer reproductive cycle also seems to be part of the claims for those with a longer lifespan.

Yep, but none claim having any kids after the 100th birthday. From what we know now that would exceed the supposed lifespan/reproduction cycle at leats 8fold. Another sign that it is very unlikely to have ever happened.

And yes, there is a possibility to create a genetic sequence longer than the average lifespan: It is called cancer. Cancer cells have by far outlived their victims in a lab.

[Tiggs]

Yep, but none claim having any kids after the 100th birthday. From what we know now that would exceed the supposed lifespan/reproduction cycle at leats 8fold. Another sign that it is very unlikely to have ever happened.

Noah didn't start having kids until he was 500. Methuselah started at 187 years, Lamech 182 years and Jared 162 years. The earliest time period listed before reproduction in the antediluvian age was 65 years.

[questionmark]

Noah didn't start having kids until he was 500. Methuselah started at 187 years, Lamech 182 years and Jared 162 years. The earliest time period listed before reproduction in the antediluvian age was 65 years.

I meant credible sources... but OK. You know what I think about my ancestor's collected stories.

Of the prehistoric skeletons found there was hardly one over 45... no matter what period we talk about... and that includes nuclear analysis of the bone structure but that is besides the point I guess....

[Tiggs]

Of the prehistoric skeletons found there was hardly one over 45... no matter what period we talk about... and that includes nuclear analysis of the bone structure but that is besides the point I guess....

Well, that, I don't have an answer for. I'm completely unfamiliar with how nuclear analysis of bone structure would be able to determine actual aging, as opposed to, say, relative aging.

[questionmark]

Well, that, I don't have an answer for. I'm completely unfamiliar with how nuclear analysis of bone structure would be able to determine actual aging, as opposed to, say, relative aging.

Bones accumulate during the growing times much akin to trees, that is, have something you could call "year rings". By the nuclear composition of these rings you can establish the growing speed and by their deterioration of the bones the age relative to the growth when the individual died. Check out Forensics Archeology.

[Copasetic]

Are you stating as absolute fact that it's impossible for any genetic sequence to create celluar line senescence longer than 900 years?

No, read what I wrote again:

...there is an upper bound to the age humans can live (or any animal for that--Evolutionary speaking). Unfortunately for biblical apologists, those 900 years ages are well beyond that senescent mark.

For each distinct lineage of organism on earth--There is a senescent boundary beyond which normal cellular replication does no longer happen. The "900 years" here, was in reference to humans. You can make immortal cell lines, by "breaking" the controls on the cell cycle but these cells are not conducive to multicellularity--In effect, making an immortal line (that is taking it past a senescent crisis) reverts us from a community of cells to something more akin to our "ancestral roots".

Or does the possibility exist? Because I'm looking at the Xestospongia muta and thinking that it quite obviously does.

Of course, that is why I added the "evolutionary speaking"--Meaning, in the context of the distinct lineage under discussion. Its important to remember that because some feature evolved in one lineage, doesn't mean it is available to every other lineage. Xestospongia (Parazoa) and the Eumetazoans (that's us) parted ways almost 2,000 million years ago. Obviously in that time, we've both developed features which are distinct to our lineages which aren't available (evolutionary speaking again) to the other.

A longer reproductive cycle also seems to be part of the claims for those with a longer lifespan.

Right, but contrary to a claim by apologists, the "time" for the human reproductive cycle has been increasing throughout our evolution. Not decreasing.

[Kantzveldt]

True, but the principle is exactly the same.

Sculptures with the quality of Gobekli are known as cave art predating it by milennia such as these fighting Ibexes from Le Roc de Sers:

I agree, and i haven't argued for any sudden flowering of artistic abilities, just the particular nature of the patterns and subject matter of the Neolithic.

[Copasetic]

Well, that, I don't have an answer for. I'm completely unfamiliar with how nuclear analysis of bone structure would be able to determine actual aging, as opposed to, say, relative aging.

During development, there are certain features which occur--Which are conserved within a species. Some of these events include ossification of certain cartilaginous features of bones--Particularly the skull. Of course this works within a species very well (like Homo sapiens sapiens, which would have included "Noah"--Unless you or biblical apologists are prepared to make the argument that Noah and those of his day were not of our species so human biometrics do not apply--Which of course throws the whole "no evolution of humans" out the window then).

Likewise, the wear of teeth can be accurately used to determine the age within a given biometric set. There exists no supportive data, either archaeologically or biologically which suggests humans ever lived to the ages reported in the bible--Nor that it is possible for humans to live to such ages.

The oldest living "human" in a few years will be the HeLa cell line--but as I pointed out above, an immortal cell line is not actually a human, nor could it be capable of multicellular colony living.

[Kantzveldt]

The problem is, DNA doesn't look anything like the stick models you are posting. Those are representations for the laymen, for the student etc. No biologist or geneticist actually believes DNA looks like the simplified drawings we use to explain it to others.

Maybe had they drawn some squiggly lines with the odd lump of histone protein here and there it would be more believable they had some kind of understanding of genetics. Here again, we have a case of knowing enough to really faux your understanding of something.

Edit to note: The "double helix" of DNA is really only the tip of the iceberg to DNA structure. In fact, the double helical nature is one of the least important topological aspects of DNA as far as replication and "genetic manipulation" are concerned. Histone wrapping, supercoiling, methylation, acetylation etc are more important for replication and genetics.

I don't see the problem, all i have argued for is that they had a simplistic understanding in diagramatic/pattern form, also as i've said i'm no expert on Genetics but i'm sure you're right about the aspects important to replication and that those should have been represented, methylation for example, here's a relevent schematic from the link below;

Methylation

Now that motif appears at Catal Hoyuk and thus far i'd drawn a blank as to what it might would provide a basis for such abstraction of feminine form.

So thanks for the tip...

Edited April 3, 2011 by Kantzveldt

[Kantzveldt]

Honestly, Kantzveldt, no you haven't.

You've speculated a lot, but you haven't provided any real evidence. That is not to say it is not an uninteresting discussion, but it would be wrong to suggest you have provided any real evidence for what you are proposing.

I've provided evidence and it's all been real, just that you don't accept my interpretation of it, which is fine, but lets not throw false statements around.

[Kantzveldt]

kantzveldt,

have you considered who these sumerian stories about the creation of man were written for, and perhaps why they were written?

i mean, really.

no necessary.

I would have thought they wrote them for themselves to create understanding in their society of their own origins and their place in the greater scheme of things.

[Oniomancer]

My point is that reports of people living for several centuries is not just limited to Israel or Sumeria or Babylon. There are reports from Persia, China, Japan, Rome and Greece, also.

Assyria and Babylon are effectively _in_ ancient Persia. Israel has a known cultural religeous influence from them, specifically the story of Noah itself. Rome and Greece likewise have a shared cultural influence with each other as do China and Japan. That collapses the distinct examples down to three.

Greece and Persia are close enough to allow further cross-fertilization of ideas and have experienced this in the past. That would conceivably collapse the examples down to two. Barring the very real possibility of further cross-cultural spread, that's a small enough sample to allow for chance parallel development.

Then there's the matter of the nature of the stories themselves. There is frequently a supernatural element associated with longevity

in them or some practice analogous to spiritual purity or "clean living" not limited to normal dietary practices.

You might find the methodology employed by this gentleman of interest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peng_Zu

[Kantzveldt]

Thus you admit that your representation does not accurately reflect the original artifact. Therefore your digital construct is of little value in the interpretation and understanding of said artifact. Also, as Copa has recently pointed out, the various diagramatic representations that are utilized in the field are highly stylistic to say the least. They are much like the graphics that are utilized to represent molecular structure. Do you actually believe that, for example, an inorganic chem representation of H2SO4 is an accurate depiction of the reality?

Of course it doesn't accurately reflect an 11,000 year old mural painted with organic materials upon an irregular adobe wall surface, it's a digital reconstruction of the pattern utilised, that's the information it provides, nothing more, nothing less...if you don't think it of any value to examine their patterns that's just you.

We are capable of differentiating between a given diagram schematic and the reality it is given to represent

It would be unproffesional to offer alternative explanations for the artifact without further related and supportive data. This is one of the biggest problems with the fringe contingent. The artifact must be evaluated within the context of the entire site and the understandings of the culture involved. To do otherwise is reflective of notably poor practices. You will note that none of the primaries involved have engaged in "wild" speculation.

Personally i do know the context for such settlements, but information from this particular one dried up post 2008, the wall was supposed to have been moved to the Aleppo museum but i have been unable to obtain information from them, and there have been no furthur site reports i can trace, i'm not the fringe...

As to your "supportive" data, you have been guilty of the same pattern of fringe behavioure, and it has hardly been worthy of challenge. For example, you cite the 2005 Catal Hoyuk burial recoveries as some sort of support for a "breeding program". This is a conclusion reached in only your own mind.

I said there was a remarkable percentage of neonates found to support the earleir paper i posted regarding the unusual nature of Catal Hoyuk society, neither of which are conclusive evidence of any breeding programme, but could be used as supportive evidence.

While the authors of the report note the apparently high percentage of neonatal remains, in no part of the report to they allude to an alien breeding program. To take the matter a bit further, there are a number of more prosaic explanations. Amongst these would be:

1) The known high infant mortality of prior periods.

2) The potential for increased infectious disease transmission within more crowded communities such as C-H.

3) The impact of dietary deficiencies, another factor documented in early agricultural societies. Could go into length here, but the impact of early agriculture actually resulted in shorter life-spans and increased pathologies.

But these were neonates, a few days old, disease and dietary deficiences don't normally kill immediately, and the percentage found was stated as remarkable even for a period when one would expect high rates.

As far as the geometric patterns presented, similar patterns appear in the archaeological record of numerous cultures, on many continents, over many time periods. In some North American contexts they can be associated with lower-world/upper-world cosmologies.

Yes, and that's down to the extent of the Neolithic cultural transmission, but one would expect the greater the distance the more the development away from original intent.

As to the "Venus figures", these go back to at least 35,000 BP. See Hohle Fels. By the time period in question such practices/beliefs would appear to have existed for some 24,000 years.

35,000 Bp was obviously a very good year, and yes female figurines exist from such times, the Neolithic development is the curious abstraction of these forms and the contexts they are placed within.

Going back to the pattern, to put something into greater context one would normally look at earlier and later examples of such, but of course here there is difficulty, nothing before, and when it was discovered it was simply compared to modern art. In lookinng for subsequent decoration similar to the elements used in the mural, the three differant coloured rectangles the closest i came up with was Sumerian representations of the Annunaki and their servants, who wore costume consisting of three differant coloured rectangles in pattern, also the Dais shows a similar approach to pattern making, from the temple of Mari.

So not unreasonable to suggest such pattern had become associated with Celestial beings.

[questionmark]

^^ Oh no...this is taking a turn for the worse...the Nibblers are back.