Posted on 05/12/2009 5:05:01 AM PDT by decimon
Stone Age humans were adept chemists who whipped up a sophisticated kind of natural glue, a new study says.
They knowingly tweaked the chemical and physical properties of an iron-containing pigment known as red ochre with the gum of acacia trees to create adhesives for their shafted tools.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.nationalgeographic.com ...
Sticks and stones ping.
of course they had smarts. life was tough after the flood, but they could still make tools & whatever they needed from raw materials
Is this what Helen Thomas uses to hold her dentures in?
Evidence seems to indicate that the size of the human brain has been the same for 70,000 years.
It is interesting to think about the implication that we humans have been *equally intelligent* for all this time and the only difference between us and them is that now, with writing and other information storage and communications abilities, we can build on already-discovered ideas and not have them die off in some tribal war or other death of an oral tradition.
It makes you look at all that archeological evidence of “advanced” technologies much differently.
the annunaki taught them well
How easily we revert to our basest form should support what you've written.
Unfortunately, I think you're right.
It also means that humans have solved these issues, such as gay marriage, ages ago and there are serious, practical and pragmatic reasons for why things are the way they are whether or not they are enshrined in religious documents. Religion, in addition to the worship of God, was really the only "history" and "rule of law" we had for millenia.
The sooner the public gets away from Hollywood’s version of history the better. Why should our ancestors have been lumbering brutes with the intelligence of a flea?
Because it made for a good movie - along with all the men being ugly with shaggy hair and beards while the women were beauties who apparently just stepped out of the hair dresser’s.
In modern times we are somewhat better at avoidance of disease and obtaining more adrquate nutrition, which frees up a little bit of our time...
Evidence seems to indicate that the size of the human brain has been the same for 70,000 years.
It is interesting to think about the implication that we humans have been *equally intelligent* for all this time and the only difference between us and them is that now, with writing and other information storage and communications abilities, we can build on already-discovered ideas and not have them die off in some tribal war or other death of an oral tradition.
It makes you look at all that archeological evidence of “advanced” technologies much differently.
To some degree I think you can make the point that as much knowledge has been gained over time, there is a significant amount that has also been lost. Except that most of the time we’re more aware of what we have gained then we are of what we have lost because of course you don’t know what you don’t know :)
It seems to me that we've probably only retained a small percentage of the useful ideas that humans have ever had. So many individuals have so many clever ideas (well, not everyone ;0) that nobody ever hears about.
The classic example is the Library of Alexandria and what was lost when it was destroyed with all its scrolls from the ages past. There are some theories out there that diminish the significance of the loss but I'd sure like a chance to read whatever was there!
Yeah totally agree.
Interestingly in regards to your point - there was an article - in the WSJ recently I think - about scientists who are using all sorts of advanced imaging technologies to try to recover old texts that were illegible or in some cases written on materials that would crumble if you tried to open them. So they do like 3D imaging with 12 different wavelengths and hope to be able to read some texts that were previously unreadable.
I remember when it first struck me for real (along these lines) that the trajectory of human progress is far from a straight line upwards. When you consider how advanced the classical world was and then realize it wasn’t until the renaissance - like 1000 years later - that mankind caught up and surpassed the ancients. That would be like islam taking over now and us not getting back to our present state of technology after the year 3000!
The unspoken assumption that progress is always being made, that we know more today than we did yesterday, is sometimes a correct one but sometimes not.
There is usually reason to tradition though the reason not be superficially discernible. Hey, I think I wrote something Burkean. ;-)
Religion, in addition to the worship of God, was really the only "history" and "rule of law" we had for millenia.
Here there's a problem. Today we have, for better and worse, secular (government) law. Why, I don't know, but we've given to government the power to 'sanctify' marriage. Gay marriage? Stripped of all emotion, this is a legalistic thing for the fact of government having superseded religious institutions as the agent of legitimacy. Marriage? Term heterosexual marriage as matrimony (or some such) to maintain distinctions.
Those are just some thoughts. I'm not going to get in to a dog fight over the thing.
It also depends on the definition of progress.
We had a president in George Washington who knew how to run his own brewery, could change a wagon wheel if his transportation broke down, could build his own house,
and today we have a president that knows how to play with a blackberry.
True dat.
You'll get no fight from me. I hate that kind of thing :0)
I definitely believe in a distinction between a union based on procreation and one simply based on love. I would call one "marriage" and the other "civil union" but I'd be open to Marriage vs. Matrimony or whatever.
At the risk of flame wars (in which I will not participate) I can see nothing in the Constitution that should bar gays from Constitutional rights. But that would be called a "civil union."
"Marriage" is a religious sacrament. If gays can find a church to sanction their marriage, fine. But the government has no right whatsoever to redefine the ages old definition of "marriage." None whatsoever.
I hold to the libertarian position of getting government out of the marriage business. I think that's where the problems begin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.