New CBB

Discuss constructed languages, cultures, worlds, related sciences and much more!
It is currently Fri 24 May 2013, 05:06

All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri 02 Mar 2012, 17:24 
puremetal
puremetal
User avatar

Joined: Fri 13 Aug 2010, 18:57
Posts: 3058
cybrxkhan wrote:
American history. Probably because of the way it was taught in high school, if anything else, to be honest.

College level American History courses are much more interesting and less full of complete lies.

Omzinesý wrote:
Too many homos.

Yeah, I hate all those homos too.

_________________
♀♥♀
Dotjen
Kotanese


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 02 Mar 2012, 19:38 
runic
runic
User avatar

Joined: Sat 25 Dec 2010, 22:21
Posts: 1517
Thakowsaizmu wrote:
cybrxkhan wrote:
American history. Probably because of the way it was taught in high school, if anything else, to be honest.

College level American History courses are much more interesting and less full of complete lies.



I know.

It still bores me to tears now, however - high school already did too much damage. To be honest I don't understand it, really, why I don't like it so much. Military tactics of American soldiers during the Civil War? Boring. Military tactics of Japanese soldiers during Boshin War at around the same time? Oooh, ahh. Social problems with the industrial revolution during the turn of the century America? Boring. Social problems with the industrial revolution during turn of the century Europe? Interesting! The colonization of the US? Boring. The colonization of Brazil at the same time? Wow, wee, I wanna know more!

I dunno. It is pretty irrational. My hatred for American history is almost (almost) as irrational as my hatred for the hard sciences. Hatred here as "f*ck this I don't want to deal with it" rather than a total disrespect for the discipline, of course. Or maybe because it's just too familiar, and everyone talks about it and everyone (should) know about it, and it gets trite and repetitive for me. Well, that's probably just the result of high school, again. I don't know.

Oh, yeah, and I forgot: I hate history from a Eurocentric point of view - or any "centric" or nationalistic point of view, for that matter, but especially Eurocentrism and American-centrism. In the last few years I have realized, to my horror, that it's more widespread than I previously believed, with even a few reputable historians believing in it. If anything, I think this is partly now one of the reasons I want to pursue my degree in history: to ensure that I can annihilate it from the face of the planet, or die trying.

_________________
I now have a blog. Witness the horror.

I think I think, therefore I think I am.
- Ambrose Bierce


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 03 Mar 2012, 16:37 
greek
greek
User avatar

Joined: Sun 15 Aug 2010, 08:18
Posts: 254
Location: Aotearoa New Zealand
The 20th Century, and especially the first decade of the 21st.

_________________
Image
PROTO-ONURE: Jutésa coconóco ga zuntús, na en rógcag ma pohús.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 03 Mar 2012, 18:29 
roman
roman
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb 2011, 20:43
Posts: 512
Location: Sol III
Omzinesý wrote:
I again tried to read about the development of humans. Again, I didn't understand anything. Too many homos.
So, I don't like too much the pre-pre-history.


The reason for that is that every single palaeoanthropologist wants to be remembered as the one that found the "missing link", so they all call the fossils they find a new species. A palaeontologist i know once taught me that it's a lot simpler to divide direct human ancestors to three groups: Australopithecines, Erectus and species near it, and Sapiens, and species near it.

_________________
[:D] :fin: :eng: | [:)] :swe: | [:(] :fra: :lat: | [:'(] :jpn: :mex: (Nahuatl) | :idea: :kal: :hin: (Sanskrit & Pali) :chi: (Yaghan) | :con: Image (Antregabua)
CrazyEttin's Lair


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 03 Mar 2012, 20:18 
runic
runic
User avatar

Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 19:47
Posts: 1423
Location: England
The British Medieval period. It's basically a bunch of farmers being hit by knights, who were hit by lords, who were hit by the king, who was hit by God.

_________________
초보


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 03 Mar 2012, 20:23 
runic
runic
User avatar

Joined: Sat 25 Dec 2010, 22:21
Posts: 1517
testyal1 wrote:
The British Medieval period. It's basically a bunch of farmers being hit by knights, who were hit by lords, who were hit by the king, who was hit by God.


Isn't that pretty much medieval (Catholic) Europe in a nutshell (except for the periphery states)?

_________________
I now have a blog. Witness the horror.

I think I think, therefore I think I am.
- Ambrose Bierce


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 04 Mar 2012, 01:38 
runic
runic
User avatar

Joined: Thu 28 Jul 2011, 03:57
Posts: 1427
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
CrazyEttin wrote:
The reason for that is that every single palaeoanthropologist wants to be remembered as the one that found the "missing link", so they all call the fossils they find a new species. A palaeontologist i know once taught me that it's a lot simpler to divide direct human ancestors to three groups: Australopithecines, Erectus and species near it, and Sapiens, and species near it.

Yeah, Richard Dawkins had a short rant about how daft these people are being. Basically, he points out that if the fossil record was absolutley perfect, one could line them up and be unable to tell each from its ancestor or decendant yet everyone would still try to put the mother in one species and the daughter in another.

_________________
I speak English and a touch of Gàidhlig.
I am creating a conworld, which I refer to as the Carrion Series, that will contain three languages, Iriex, Dvoen and Maxna.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 28 Mar 2012, 06:40 
greek
greek

Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 05:06
Posts: 311
South Asian history bores me. Chinese history has also always bored me for some reason.

Lodhas wrote:
CrazyEttin wrote:
The reason for that is that every single palaeoanthropologist wants to be remembered as the one that found the "missing link", so they all call the fossils they find a new species. A palaeontologist i know once taught me that it's a lot simpler to divide direct human ancestors to three groups: Australopithecines, Erectus and species near it, and Sapiens, and species near it.

Yeah, Richard Dawkins had a short rant about how daft these people are being. Basically, he points out that if the fossil record was absolutley perfect, one could line them up and be unable to tell each from its ancestor or decendant yet everyone would still try to put the mother in one species and the daughter in another.
The overdone splitting is particularly bad among the Australopithecines. IMO the Australopithecine and human species are:

Australopithecus anamensis
The most basal Australopithecine.

Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy, et. al.)
ancestral to the Robust Australopithecines. includes the spurious A. aetheopicus.

Australopithecus africanus
Ancestral to Homo. Most of the spurious Australopithecus species belong here.

Paranthropus robustus
Paranthropus boisei

The "Robust" Australopithecines.

Homo habilis
Basically A. africanus with a slightly bigger brain.

Homo rudolfensis
Known only from a skull and a few leg bones, but seems to have been a larger body size like a modern humans, H. Habilis was smaller like the Australopithecines.

Homo erectus
Includes the spurious species H. ergaster, H. antecessor, and H. florensis. Was fully human below the neck.

Homo heidebergensis.
The common ancestor of Neanderthals and Modern Humans. Some populations may have survived in West Africa as late as 17,000 years ago.

Homo neanderthalensis
The Neanderthals and the newly discovered "Desinovans".

Homo sapiens
Ourselves, of course. Though all non-Africans have some H. neanderthalensis in them.

_________________
Mekoshan
Alpic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 28 Mar 2012, 16:36 
puremetal
puremetal
User avatar

Joined: Fri 13 Aug 2010, 18:57
Posts: 3058
taylorS wrote:
Though all non-Africans have some H. neanderthalensis in them.

No. They do not.

_________________
♀♥♀
Dotjen
Kotanese


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 28 Mar 2012, 19:36 
roman
roman
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb 2011, 20:43
Posts: 512
Location: Sol III
Thakowsaizmu wrote:
taylorS wrote:
Though all non-Africans have some H. neanderthalensis in them.

No. They do not.


Actually they do. And most non-european non-africans have some Denisovan in their genome too.

_________________
[:D] :fin: :eng: | [:)] :swe: | [:(] :fra: :lat: | [:'(] :jpn: :mex: (Nahuatl) | :idea: :kal: :hin: (Sanskrit & Pali) :chi: (Yaghan) | :con: Image (Antregabua)
CrazyEttin's Lair


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 28 Mar 2012, 20:59 
puremetal
puremetal
User avatar

Joined: Fri 13 Aug 2010, 18:57
Posts: 3058
Source?

_________________
♀♥♀
Dotjen
Kotanese


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 28 Mar 2012, 21:42 
greek
greek

Joined: Fri 06 May 2011, 21:18
Posts: 333
Isn't it quite common of people of non-African decent, like myself and the majority of the word, to have Neanderthal DNA? I mean one could even go as far to suggest that early Homo Sapiens even intermixed with, apart from Neanderthals, other species in our Family. Also, interbreeding with a species that had been living outside of Africa for thousands of years before we migrated and thus adapted to the environment would have great advantages for the new migrants, I would think so anyway.

_________________
:eng: Native speaker! | :fra: Learning, slowly but surely! | :cym: Dabbling in!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 29 Mar 2012, 00:51 
mayan
mayan

Joined: Mon 30 Aug 2010, 01:23
Posts: 1024
http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 68,00.html

_________________
"Wait for the starvation of glaciers, chicken hamburger Noel Weber Arthur."

:eng: = [:D] | :fra: = [:S] | :zaf: = [:'(]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 29 Mar 2012, 08:35 
roman
roman
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb 2011, 20:43
Posts: 512
Location: Sol III
And here's more about the interbreeding, this article also mentioning the denisovans:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/31/scien ... .html?_r=1
(Too lazy to find the original research paper)

_________________
[:D] :fin: :eng: | [:)] :swe: | [:(] :fra: :lat: | [:'(] :jpn: :mex: (Nahuatl) | :idea: :kal: :hin: (Sanskrit & Pali) :chi: (Yaghan) | :con: Image (Antregabua)
CrazyEttin's Lair


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 29 Mar 2012, 17:25 
puremetal
puremetal
User avatar

Joined: Fri 13 Aug 2010, 18:57
Posts: 3058
The problemme is that that is based on a hypothesis, just as the few other interbreeding theories are. 1 - 4% isn't that high, and can be attributed to genetic drift. Another study have contended that up to 14% of modern European DNA is admixture, but that didn't make the news paper.

Spoiler: show
Various analyses have examined the amount of Neanderthal contribution to modern human mtDNA. One analysis was unable to find positive evidence for interbreeding, but could not rule out a small genetic contribution (Serre et al. 2004). Other researchers (Plagnol and Wall 2006, Wall et al. 2009) looked at the pattern of variation in modern human DNA to determine whether modern humans mixed with more ancient populations. Their recent models are consistent with 14% archaic-modern admixture in European and American populations, and 1.5% admixture in East Asian populations. Nested clade phylogenetic analysis shows evidence of three expansions out of Africa at 1.9 Ma, 650,000 years, and 130,000 years, which is consistent with the admixture between ancient and modern populations rather than complete replacement (Templeton 2002, 2005, 2007). Other researchers contend that factors such as population structure within Africa could have preserved old haplotypes and produced the pattern found in the nested clade analysis (Satta and Takahata 2002).

_________________
♀♥♀
Dotjen
Kotanese


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 29 Mar 2012, 17:28 
mayan
mayan
User avatar

Joined: Sun 31 Jul 2011, 01:30
Posts: 901
Location: Menulis, Miestas, Pragaras
@cyberxkhan U.S. history is boring because there is no such thing as 'American Culture', Zompist is just citing popular (manufactured) culture, overconservitivized hand-me-down occidental culture, and a miniature travel guide to the country. The only thing remarkably cultural was the Kennedy assassination date.

Cold war hisory taught 2007 on or oddly specific US history is pretty interesting.

The most boring history period has to be the US civil war, so unbareably forced and everyone thinks I am missing the point because I think it's repetitive and obvious (which it is). You can't learn ethical morals from history.

The worst time to be alive in has to be the 1930s. All that narcissism and disease would probably kill me.

_________________
:eng: [:D] | :con: [:|] | :esp: [:(] | :ell: [:(]| :jpn: [:(] | :heb: [:(] | :got: [:(] | :swe: [:(]| :mlt: [:(]

Áá Āā Ää Åå Ææ Ðđ Ēē Ĕĕ Éé Ëë Əə H́h́ Īī İi Iı Íí Ïï Łł Ññ Öö Øø Ōō Ŏŏ Óó Œœ Ŕŕ Śś Ŧŧ Üü Ūū Úú V̄v̄ Ÿÿ Źź Ξ Φ Ϙ Ϻ


Last edited by Zontas on Thu 29 Mar 2012, 20:36, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 29 Mar 2012, 17:31 
puremetal
puremetal
User avatar

Joined: Fri 13 Aug 2010, 18:57
Posts: 3058
Helios wrote:
there is no such thing as 'American Culture'

...

_________________
♀♥♀
Dotjen
Kotanese


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 29 Mar 2012, 17:33 
mayan
mayan
User avatar

Joined: Sun 31 Jul 2011, 01:30
Posts: 901
Location: Menulis, Miestas, Pragaras
Thakowsaizmu wrote:
Helios wrote:
there is no such thing as 'American Culture'

...


I editted the post to explain why.

_________________
:eng: [:D] | :con: [:|] | :esp: [:(] | :ell: [:(]| :jpn: [:(] | :heb: [:(] | :got: [:(] | :swe: [:(]| :mlt: [:(]

Áá Āā Ää Åå Ææ Ðđ Ēē Ĕĕ Éé Ëë Əə H́h́ Īī İi Iı Íí Ïï Łł Ññ Öö Øø Ōō Ŏŏ Óó Œœ Ŕŕ Śś Ŧŧ Üü Ūū Úú V̄v̄ Ÿÿ Źź Ξ Φ Ϙ Ϻ


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 29 Mar 2012, 17:56 
roman
roman
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb 2011, 20:43
Posts: 512
Location: Sol III
Thakowsaizmu wrote:
The problemme is that that is based on a hypothesis, just as the few other interbreeding theories are. 1 - 4% isn't that high, and can be attributed to genetic drift. Another study have contended that up to 14% of modern European DNA is admixture, but that didn't make the news paper.

Spoiler: show
Various analyses have examined the amount of Neanderthal contribution to modern human mtDNA. One analysis was unable to find positive evidence for interbreeding, but could not rule out a small genetic contribution (Serre et al. 2004). Other researchers (Plagnol and Wall 2006, Wall et al. 2009) looked at the pattern of variation in modern human DNA to determine whether modern humans mixed with more ancient populations. Their recent models are consistent with 14% archaic-modern admixture in European and American populations, and 1.5% admixture in East Asian populations. Nested clade phylogenetic analysis shows evidence of three expansions out of Africa at 1.9 Ma, 650,000 years, and 130,000 years, which is consistent with the admixture between ancient and modern populations rather than complete replacement (Templeton 2002, 2005, 2007). Other researchers contend that factors such as population structure within Africa could have preserved old haplotypes and produced the pattern found in the nested clade analysis (Satta and Takahata 2002).


Everything in science is based on hypotheses. Some just happen to be supported by facts more than others, and some are not supported by any facts. Genetic drift is also a possibility, but interbreeding is, i think, more propable option, considering that the populations that remained in Africa don't have these mutations.

_________________
[:D] :fin: :eng: | [:)] :swe: | [:(] :fra: :lat: | [:'(] :jpn: :mex: (Nahuatl) | :idea: :kal: :hin: (Sanskrit & Pali) :chi: (Yaghan) | :con: Image (Antregabua)
CrazyEttin's Lair


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 29 Mar 2012, 19:43 
runic
runic
User avatar

Joined: Thu 28 Jul 2011, 03:57
Posts: 1427
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
CrazyEttin wrote:
Everything in science is based on hypotheses. Some just happen to be supported by facts more than others, and some are not supported by any facts. Genetic drift is also a possibility, but interbreeding is, i think, more propable option, considering that the populations that remained in Africa don't have these mutations.

Forming a hypothesis is only step 1.
If one can't find the facts to support a hypothesis, that hypothesis should be revised.

_________________
I speak English and a touch of Gàidhlig.
I am creating a conworld, which I refer to as the Carrion Series, that will contain three languages, Iriex, Dvoen and Maxna.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group