\/\/illy Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 From CBC News: RIVERSIDE, CALIF. - The longevity of modern humans more than quadrupled around 30,000 BC., a time of "creative explosion," anthropologists say. American researchers studied more than 750 fossil teeth from successive time periods, ranging from later australopithecines to post-Neanderthal Early Upper Paleolithic Europeans. Sang-Hee Lee of the University of California, Riverside, and anthropologist Rachel Caspari of the University of Michigan surveyed the ratio of older to younger adults by analysing rates of molar wear. To the researchers, "old" was considered to be at least double the age when humans can first reproduce and the third molars typically appear. Assuming this age was 15, for example, then a woman could become a grandmother at age 30. They found a trend towards more older adults surviving throughout human evolution. Longevity during the Upper Paleolithic period was dramatically greater than in earlier periods, the pair reported in this week's online issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "Our paper makes a convincing case about the importance of older people in a society," said Lee in a release. "We were surprised ourselves to see that the time period when old adults outnumbered young adults is the time characterized by a creative explosion." Sophisticated cave art was made during the Upper Paleolithic period. The researchers speculate an increase in the number of older people allowed early modern humans to pass on specialized knowledge to later generations and strengthen their relationships. The study offers evidence that modern humans had a competitive edge because they were "older and wiser," Caspari said. The fossil results support the grandmother hypothesis, which says grandmothers can offer an evolutionary advantage by helping their adult children to breed earlier, more successfully and more frequently. Written by CBC News Online staff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\/\/illy Posted July 8, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 Sorry buddy; I just couldn't resist. I love ya brother! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark tonin Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 Thanks buddy ... here's to a creative explosion and some relationship strengthening tomorrow night! :: :: Peace, Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boogieknight Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 scientists studying history and the nature of life will never discover truth until they can look beyond the reality of the physical world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bokonon Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 scientists studying history and the nature of life will never discover truth until they can look beyond the reality of the physical world i want some of whatever drugs you're on! :: ....please! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgnor Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 Boogieknight - I would love for you to not see me asking for a clarification of the above statement as me being argumentitive, but everyone around here seems so sensitive lately that I doubt you won't see it as an attack. I am studying anthropology at York university and I'm in third year. I'm 25 and I started school as a mature student so I've worked and done my share of recreation. I've also always been interested in matters of spirituality and I'm fairly well read so I'm pretty sure you won't be to obscure for me. Just please let me know what you think is so wrong with this particular work. Is it against your biblical interpretation of creation dates? Or against the feminine aspect? I'm intrigued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boogieknight Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 thorgnor, I would gladly clarify my statement. It wasn't really geared towards the article itself. I'm sure that all the findings were held to be true based on the perceptions of the researchers involved. What I am questioning is the nature of facts and perception. If you follow conventional history and knowledge you must base your research on things which are tangible and factual in a way in which can be proven in a scientific manner. So what sparked my comments based on this article is this sentence "Longevity during the Upper Paleolithic period was dramatically greater than in earlier periods". I wasn't trying to demean the work they had done or try to say I was smarter then a research anthropologist. The thought I had when reading these findings was, I wonder what these researchers would think of Edgar Cayce's reading claim that civilization is over 5 million years old. Impossible?!!? Cayce isn't a scientist, probably a crackpot. Hey, didn't Adam live to be 930 years old??!!?? Wait a minute, that's from the bible that can't be true. Not fact, only symbolism. Thoth the Atlantean, as stated by Drunvalo Melchizedek, says that civilization on this planet actually goes back 500 million years ago!!??!! Is any of this true? Who know? I can only discover the truth of my own path and in hind sight realize that my comments above were an expression of my ego. I did not wish to discredit this work or any work done by science. I merely wanted to comment on the nature of reality and our human perception of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewRider Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 my girlfriends dad is an anthropology prof at U of Guelph... I have sex with his daughter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggrtrhhrtgg Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 Iwant to hear about some of that Thog, and I can't believe its not sugar; Megs!! very intriguing--- :: :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgnor Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 Fair enough on the point about conventional historical method and interpretation. But these days anthropologists are responsible for papers legitimising oral history and folklore, non-locality of mind, and if you've heard of the writer and archaeo-anthropolgist Graham Hancock they're also responsible for re-analysing the scientific findings of various disciplines. Hancock has put out work demonstrating the resting place of the "Ark of the Covenant" and a great civilization that may have begun almost 50 thousand years ago, but that is in his estimation no younger than his and geologists datings of the Sphinx, the great Pyramids and other cites such as Machu Pichu, some 12,500 years old. I'm no traditionalist. Just curious as to your reasoning. P.S. I get into debates with Megs all the time cause I fully believe in magic and all that jazz and usually can't provide enough evidence to even phase her :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgnor Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 And Mark Tonin Rules and he knows it!!!!!! :: See you at the Lanc!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zephyr Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 You guys know Mark Tonin? He's around here somewhere and he's doing alright. He's on his trip and he's the man!! Woohoo Lanc - 1 more sleep :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\/\/illy Posted July 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 ...cause I fully believe in magic and all that jazz... Absolutely beautiful! (You meant magic mushrooms and Stephen Franke type jazz right?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c-towns Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 my girlfriends dad is an anthropology prof at U of Guelph... I have sex with his daughter! solid gold brah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now