Free Republic

My brother asked me the other night how do 'they' know dogs can see in color. "I don't know."

It's pretty easy to test. Make three doors, one red, one green, and one blue, that can be switched left, right, and center. Put food behind the red door, consistently, and no food behind the other doors. If the dog can see color, he will be able to predict which door has the food. If not, he will continue to guess at random.

This phenomenon is well-known around our house. My wife is always telling me never to argue with her retina -- and when it comes to vision, she's seldom wrong. Just last week, driving along a dark road, she said, "Watch out for the pedestrian," a full 100 feet or so before he was visible to me -- or anyone else in the car, either.

For a really eye-opening look into the issue of the pre-Columbian population of America, see David Henige's fabulous, spot-on book, "Numbers From Nowhere: The American Indian Contact Population debate." (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1998).

Another way to think about this is that for all species -- including humans -- their ecological niche has what economists call a "carrying capacity", i.e., the highest population that the food supply will support. When a population reaches its carrying capacity, it will stabilize at or just below it, with only minor fluctuations.

Living in an age of population explosion, it's hard to recall that for most of human history, the population was fairly stable. This means that populations were not doubling every generation, they were about the same every generation. In other words the average couple produced and average of two descendants. For every couple that produced four (and this was a sizable fraction of the population) there was another couple that produced none (also a sizable fraction of the population).

Unless a newcoming interloper's genes are better fit (in Darwinian terms) than those of the native population, there is simply no way to be sure that his descendents (if any) will not die out in a few generations or less.

Another way to think about this is that for all species -- including humans -- their ecological niche has what economists call a "carrying capacity", i.e., the highest population that the food supply will support. When a population reaches its carrying capacity, it will stabilize at or just below it, with only minor fluctuations.

Living in an age of population explosion, it's hard to recall that for most of human history, the population was fairly stable. This means that populations were not doubling every generation, they were about the same every generation. In other words the average couple produced and average of two descendants. For every couple that produced four (and this was a sizable fraction of the population) there was another couple that produced none (also a sizable fraction of the population).

Unless a newcoming interloper's genes are better fit (in Darwinian terms) than those of the native population, there is simply no way to be sure that his descendents (if any) will not die out in a few generations or less.

it's easy to believe that from say, 1500BC to 500BC that at least one guy visited the Americas from Asia, and shared genes. We don't have photos but it's simply not reasonable to say it didn't happen.

Since then, 2,500 / 20 = 125 generations have passed. Remember that this is 125 doublings -- a factor of some 40 digit number. This would spread the guy's genes to every single human in the Americas.

Not at all necesarily true. Among my family, in my generation, two out of three siblings have no children. In my parent's generation, (father's side) one out of two have no children; mother's side, also one out of two have no children. So right now, my four grandparents have a combined total of ONE great-grandchild between them (and probably won't have any more, either.) That's three generations removed. If that kid becomes a priest, or dies young, all four grandparents will be out of the descendents game entirely.

This kind of thing happens a lot, especially in societies with high infant mortality. Which means most of the human race throughout most of its history.

It's probably not true, since there are scads of assumptions in any such a simulation, most of which are probably either untested or untestable. Is it really reasonable to expect that every member of an isolated tribe in the mountains of New Guinea, that had never even seen Europeans (much less intermarried with them) before 1950, shares a recent common ancestor with a family in Iceland that has a complete geneology going back to 800 AD? Not hardly.

Actually, the Iowa market miscalled the last presidential election. (I was a member then.) The market pays on the basis of popular vote, and Bush was leading substantially until the actual returns began coming in.

Thanks to all for the warm welcome. (and sorry for the double-posting ... ). SunkenCiv, I'd be happy to join the GGG ping group. And don't worry about catty remarks; I'm a big boy and I don't mind, as long as it doesn't get personal. Although if we knew the reason for the disagreement, that might raise the level of discussion ... :-)

judging at the end of that discussion that the Plana Cays location has been scientifically proved.

I wouldn't say "proved"; just better supported by scientific evidence than other theories.

And yet, the island doesn't come close to matching Columbus' description. :')

Sure it does. In fact, every single island in the Bahamas comes close to matching CC's description: green, flat, surrounded by a reef, and with a large pond in the middle. Sounds very specific, until you actually try to rule out a Bahamaian island on that basis -- and find that you can't.

Molander may be deceased, I'm not sure.

Still alive, but quite infirm nowadays.

In any case, he's often cruised the Caribbean, and compared Columbus' log with the actual currently available possibilities.

As have Beecher, Morison, Roukema, Marden, Judge, Dunwoody, Peck, Verhoog, and many others -- who have reached no consensus.

I note "currently" because of the volcanic activity in the Caribbean, which could alter the landscape directly (eruption) or indirectly (tsunami).

No volcanic activity at all in the Bahamas. And although hurricanes and storms might affect some coastal features, such as beaches, there is one thing that remains constant even after 500 years: islands cannot move. Therefore, the most reliable indicators we have about the landfall are the distances and directions between islands (plus the lengths of coastlines) as reported by CC in his log. In evaluating these indicators, Egg Island does only average -- although where it fails, it fails miserably (distance to Cape Verde fix, distance from IV to I). Those theories that use Crooked/Acklins as Island II (Plana, Samana and Mayaguana) are way ahead of the pack.

judging at the end of that discussion that the Plana Cays location has been scientifically proved.

I wouldn't say "proved"; just better supported by scientific evidence than other theories.

And yet, the island doesn't come close to matching Columbus' description. :')

Sure it does. In fact, every single island in the Bahamas comes close to matching CC's description: green, flat, surrounded by a reef, and with a large pond in the middle. Sounds very specific, until you actually try to rule out a Bahamaian island on that basis -- and find that you can't.

Molander may be deceased, I'm not sure.

Still alive, but quite infirm nowadays.

In any case, he's often cruised the Caribbean, and compared Columbus' log with the actual currently available possibilities.

As have Beecher, Morison, Roukema, Marden, Judge, Dunwoody, Peck, Verhoog, and many others -- who have reached no consensus.

I note "currently" because of the volcanic activity in the Caribbean, which could alter the landscape directly (eruption) or indirectly (tsunami).

No volcanic activity at all in the Bahamas. And although hurricanes and storms might affect some coastal features, such as beaches, there is one thing that remains constant even after 500 years: islands cannot move. Therefore, the most reliable indicators we have about the landfall are the distances and directions between islands (plus the lengths of coastlines) as reported by CC in his log. In evaluating these indicators, Egg Island does only average -- although where it fails, it fails miserably (distance to Cape Verde fix, distance from IV to I). Those theories that use Crooked/Acklins as Island II (Plana, Samana and Mayaguana) are way ahead of the pack.