Genetic Variation (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, October 02, 2010, 18:04 (5166 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

I could just as easily ask what evidence do you have that it was built by the Egyptians or Babylonians since, 
> > 
> > Reread what I wrote and tell me where I made that claim.
> > 
> You didn't, nor did I intentionally insinuate that you did, though I can see how you would infer that. The question I posed was a rhetorical rebuttal to:
> 
> >What evidence do you have that those builders didn't know trig? 
> 
> Which is to say, we have no evidence that they didn't know trig or geometry, nor that they didn't have a rigorous system for it, nor that Stonehenge was not built by one of the other civilizations. It is all based on assumptions which, at least to me, seem to have some very a fundamental flaw, namely, that despite a profusion of evidence to the contrary in the form of astonishing feats of construction and engineering, we assume that the lack of written documentation means a lack of organized mathematics or an intellectual/cultural inferiority to modern man. 
> 
> What do we do with all the data that doesn't fit? How do we reconcile the enigmas? How do we explain feats of engineering that would otherwise be unexplainable?
> -We admit that the problem is in an unanswered state, and wait for evidence. -> But what happens if we work off the assumption that this is not civilizations first time around the bend? Would that explain the Vimana's, the vitrified fortresses, the model airplanes found around the world, Stonehenge, the similarity between pyramids, the legends of advanced teachers coming to various civilizations, the myths of lost civilizations, etc etc.? 
> -Don't get me wrong--I hold man on a pedestal, so nothing would make me feel better than being able to say "Look, look what we had wrought, earlier and better than when we had wrought it!"-A better picture of this can be made if we look at certain questions. -Name a civilization that was able to become technologically advanced without a written language? Language and the ability to write it are necessary prerequisites for any engineer who sits down to build something. I can do calcs in my head all day, or solve basic equations in my head, but my brain isn't good at multitasking. (No one's brain is.) If we're talking about something as complex as a flying machine, that's quite a bit of things to keep track of. -Then there's the problem of transferring that information from one generation to the next. My method for computing will likely be different from yours; hence why there will be some calculations I'm great at, and you not so much. I would have to find someone who "thinks like me" in order to transfer a lifetime's worth of information, issues, errors, and problems. Writing was invented first for record-keeping to solve this problem as well as taxation and transactions.-My point is, that by looking at all of known history, we have enough evidence to conclude that a written language is required for any feats like what we're talking about. Engineering requires minutiae and details; this is something that the human brain isn't good at. The human brain is good at pattern recognition and visual reasoning. You assert too much to our ancestors. -I work in a software system with 1.5Million lines of code. If you saw the design diagrams for this--I can tell you plainly that no human being is capable of understanding the entire thing. -> One could argue that there is no evidence because we have not found the cities or what have you. But I would ask how long does it take for concrete, steel, iron, copper, and other such materials to be absorbed back into nature? I am not saying this happened, but part of science is having the imagination to think up different scenarios, and then actively working to prove or disprove them.-You have a completely different approach to science as I know it: You start with observations, make sure your observations as valid, and built a minimal theory with minimal assumptions. An assumption that a society could do what you suggest with no writing makes assumptions of human beings that have proven to be false for the entirety of our own known history. You're "bridging gaps with god."

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"