Re: more pointless bickering about trivia
- From: Daryl Krupa <icycalmca@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:57:41 -0700
On Oct 31, 5:38 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Oct 31, 6:44 am, Daryl Krupa <icycal...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 29, 8:12 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I believe the illustration is labeled a "schematic", the green color
coding indicating the path 4 is later than 10,000 years ago
The object of the study was to explain and/or predict Path 3,
which was supposedly the path followed by the the earliest
Beringian emigrants to the Americas beyond the ice that had
kept them in Beringia for 15,000 years.
The map was intended to illustrate the study.
The maps shows a Path 3 that was impossible to follow
15,000 years ago, without airborne resupply support flights.
The map also fails to show the ice that determined the timing of the
following of that supposed path.
Those are the worst faults of the map, but there are more.
The map is not labelled as a "schematic",
it is labelled as a map, despite what you might
believe about the "map" that you recommended to us
(_your_ words in quotaton marks).
The time of "path 4" is after the the time of
the subject of the study which the map
(_not_"schematic") was supposed to illustrate, and
it was known to have been used in modern times, so
yes, it was "later than 10,000 years ago" but then
so was the Internet, so what's that got to do with
anything interesting?
Jack, if you're going to recommend something
just because it has pretty colours, then
defend it from criticism of its shoddy construction
with a specious reference to its pretty colours, then
you belong on the Home Shopping Channel,
not in sci.archaeology.
The maps pretty and colourful, but it's also
stupid, twisted, and useless,
just like several youngish tabloid jourmalism subjects
within the last 10,000 years.
Please, resist the glamour of the pretty images.
It will put you into disrepute.
Disappointed by the shortage of intellectual content,
Daryl Krupa
"Map" in the popular
versionhttp://www.archaeologynews.org/story.asp?ID=237190&Title=New%20Ideas%...
"Figure 2 Schematic illustration of maternal geneflow in and out of
Beringia." in the scholarly version.http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1952074
If you prefer the popular text, so be it, I would have expected the
scholarly text to be of more interest to an archaeological forum.
Of course, if even light exposure to popular versions of
a story about archaeology is damaging to your sensitive eyes
I would recommend not reading any.
A schematic is not a map, it was designed to show
their ideas not some precision measurement of
some precise event.
What someone else does to
that schematic is worth a comment but not a denunciation of the entire
theory.
The arrows don't seem to be anything more than indications of the
direction the authors seem to believe the DNA flowed.
I hadn't seen the schematic in the original so
I went with the Science Daily nomenclature that it was
a map. My error.
No.
Not an error.
It is a map.
You
did not point us to a "schematic",
it is not labelled as a "schematic", and
its description as a "schematic illustration"
is just a way of describing a cartographic illustration, i.e.
a map.
So,
your
assertion that "A schematic is not a map", is
another non-sequitur.
Your implication that
I preferred the "Science Daily" version is also in error, because
you
are the one who drew our attention to it, and it was
you
who recommended the "nice color map".
This bit of advice is beside the point:
"... if even light exposure to popular versions of
a story about archaeology
is damaging to your sensitive eyes
I would recommend not reading any."
I was criticising the object that
you
pointed to, and not the text, but rather
the graphic element that
you
recommended to us, and in any case,
the story is not about archaeology.
You
might be correct in this assertion (though
I think not),
"A schematic is not a map", but
I see that it is not labelled as simply a "schematic"
but rather as a "schematic illustration", which
a fairly-synonymous with "map",
methinks.
Your
contention that
"it was designed to show their ideas not
some precision measurement of
some precise event."
is perhaps technically correct, because
the map was designed to show
several measurements of
several events.
Your
observation that "The arrows don't seem to be
anything more than indications of
the direction the authors seem to believe the DNA flowed."
supports my point, that certain intrinsically-relevant features
were omitted, which omissions allowed the map design to
become misleading, vague, and erroneous.
You
should choose more-carefully which sources
you recommend to us. The "Science Daily" article is flawed,
not just because it includes a bad [schematic/cartographic]
illustration commonly referred to as "a map".
- Daryl Krupa
P.S.:
You
still haven't explained how
the dating and directions and location of Path 4
are related to my cartographic criticisms of Path 3
and the omission of certain important physical features.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: more pointless bickering about trivia
- From: Jack Linthicum
- Re: more pointless bickering about trivia
- Prev by Date: Re: My New subjects in Sci.Archaeology, October 2007
- Next by Date: Re: more pointless bickering about trivia
- Previous by thread: Melting Glacier Reveals 7,000 year old Tree Stumps
- Next by thread: Re: more pointless bickering about trivia
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
