Re: CG040, CG041: Recency of writing and agriculture

On 22 Sep 2005 13:25:09 -0700, "Noone Inparticular"
<unreve89@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>Mark Isaak wrote:
>> Two more related claims, for review:
>> ----------------------------
>> Claim CG040: Written history is too short.
>>
>> Prehistoric humans built megalithic monuments, created sophisticated
>> art, and showed evidence of other skills demonstrating that they were
>> as intelligent as modern humans. Yet they lived for about 190,000
>> years before beginning written records 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Why
>> the wait?
>>
>> Source:
>>
>> Humphreys, D. Russell. 2005. Evidence for a young world. _Impact_
>> 384 (June): vi.
>>
>> Response:
>>
>> 1. Agriculture brings with it many cultural changes, including cities,
>> significant personal property, and trade. All the earliest known
>> writings are recordkeeping for property in agricultural societies.
>> There was no need for such records before the develpment of
>> agriculture and its consequences. Thus, the <CG041>origin of
>> agriculture> also determined the origin of writing.
>>
>> 2. A recent increase in intelligence (also discussed with the
>> <CG041>origin of agriculture>) may have applied to writing, too.
>>
>> ----------------------------------
>>
>> Claim CG041: Agriculture is too recent.
>>
>> Standard science says that humans lived as hunter-gatherers for
>> 185,000 years before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years
>> ago. It is improbable that the Stone Age men, who were as intelligent
>> as we are, did not discover how to plant food plants for so long.
>>
>> Source:
>>
>> Humphreys, D. Russell. 2005. Evidence for a young world. _Impact_
>> 384 (June): v-vi.
>>
>> Response:
>>
>> 1. The assumption that humans have been as intelligent as modern
>> humans for the past 185,000 years appears to be invalid. A team of
>> geneticists has found evidence that human brains have evolved
>> adaptively recently (and may still be evolving). Two genes associated
>> with brain size have genetic variants whose high frequencies indicate
>> that they spread under strong positive selection. A haplotype
>> (genetic variant) of the _Microcephalin_ gene arose about 37,000 years
>> ago (95 percent confidence interval of 14,000 to 60,000 years) (Evans
>> et al. 2005). An _ASPM_ haplotype arose only about 5800 years ago (95
>> percent confidence interval of 500 to 14,000 years) (Mekel-Bobrov et
>> al. 2005). Although the effects of these haplotypes is currently
>> unknown, the evidence for strong selection indicates that their
>> effects are important. It may also be significant that they occurred
>> around the same times as the introduction of modern humans to Europe
>> and the origins of art (about 40,000 years ago) and the rise of
>> agriculture and writing (about 10,000 to 6,000 years ago).
>
>I agree with John - this is very tenuous at best.
>
>On the face of it, as an argument against evolution the fact that it
>took a relatively long time for modern humans to discover agriculture
>is facile. It assumes, for example, that H/Gs did no agriculture at all
>(the rise of agriculture was not overnight, nor did it arise
>simultaneously everywhere - in many places it was never adopted) and
>that H/G society and culture had no impact on the adoption of
>agriculture.
>
>It's a silly argument.
>

Humphreys' basic question is valid: Why did agriculture arise
repeatedly (at least six times) in the last 10,000 years, and not at
all in the 170,000 years before that?

The ice age is a partial explanation, but I don't think it can explain
the lack of agriculture in the tropics for all that time. Yes, the
ice ages affected climate in the tropics, too, but did they make them
unsuitable for agriculture?

The high quality of life of hunter-gatherers could explain why
agriculture would not readily arise, but it does not explain why
agriculture arose repeatedly when it did.

I think it is important that Humphreys' basic premise -- that humans
today are like they were for the last 185,000 years -- is
unsupportable and probably false. I concede, though, that I have
overstated what I have stated. I need to rewrite it to emphasize that
these genetic changes are *examples* that serve as evidence of humans'
continued evolution, and that other changes were probably occurring,
too.

Two other possibilities occur to me, but neither seems entirely
plausible. Can anybody convince me otherwise?

First possibility: The change to agriculture is very unlikely. It
happened by chance just once about 10,000 years ago. Then news of it
spread, so it was also also adopted in a few other places. But would
it really spread to the Americas so quickly?

Second possibility: Agriculture really did arise many different times
over the last 180,000 years, but all the earlier uses of it were
abandoned (because of climate change, e.g.). But agriculture tends to
leave evidence. Shouldn't we have seen some?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: CG040, CG041: Recency of writing and agriculture
    ... > as intelligent as modern humans. ... Evidence for a young world. ... Agriculture brings with it many cultural changes, including cities, ... did not discover how to plant food plants for so long. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: CG040, CG041: Recency of writing and agriculture
    ... > as intelligent as modern humans. ... Evidence for a young world. ... Agriculture brings with it many cultural changes, including cities, ... > with brain size have genetic variants whose high frequencies indicate ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Self Destruction
    ... Western society, so that his principles, which assume that agriculture ... forms the center of the economy, ... wages would not fall to the extent that Malthus originally ... What Robert thinks is that because humans have a resource available to ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: CG040, CG041: Recency of writing and agriculture
    ... and showed evidence of other skills demonstrating that they were ... >>> as intelligent as modern humans. ... Agriculture brings with it many cultural changes, including cities, ... >>> around the same times as the introduction of modern humans to Europe ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: evolutionary success of humans
    ... >> I understand that there are approximately 6 billion humans. ... >> an enormous number of relative disadvantages compared to other mammals. ... > Until the development of agriculture humans were outnumbered by a lot ... The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
Loading