Re: This may be the most important aticle I have ever written.

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:40:28 +0100, "Uwe Müller"
<uwemueller@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Digger" <p.dunn1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:rss8j.15876$yZ4.11815@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:jbi4m35vrbpdierp4isufvucf1e73p8nel@xxxxxxxxxx

Approximately 41,000 years ago a nearby supernova exploded and briefly
bathed the earth with intense radiation. The supernova has not been
positively identified but most likely was what is now the pulsar
Geminga in the constellation Gemini.

The burst of radiation caused many fatalities but also many mutations,
including the mutations which gave rise to modern man with all his/her
mental capabilities.

But modern man had evolved some considerable time BEFORE 41,000. I don't
think that particular part of the their argument holds any water.

Any event of that size would have hit all of life on earth, the mutations
would have been manifested in the bones and plant remains recovered from
that time. AFAIK there is no major common mutation horizon at the start of
the younger palaeolithic..

Good point. There should be one, even if only for the reason that the
Super Nova did occur.

The only archaeological argument is made up from the lack of finds in
coastal areas, supposedly being evidence for a lack of habitation. Which is
weak at best.

I don't think the authors are claiming that. In fact they wrote"

"Unlike slides, tsunami leave much less evidence, and most of that
evidence is now deep under the ocean. The reason for this is that
the sea level has risen more than 400 feet since the end of the Ice
Age, but even the largest of the waves which hit the land were less
than 400 feet tall. At a maximum height of 100 feet, the waves
could not have reached any land which is now above sea level,
although they would have devastated some areas which are now
below it."

I don't know about the astronomical and geological side of the argument, but
would like to know which European lakes or lake systems are supposed to have
been created by that impact.

They seem not to be claiming that any lake is a consequence of the
event. http://www.soil.ncsu.edu/wetlands/projects.htm shows a Carolina
Bay which was sufficiently low to become a swamp. Apparently the vast
majority of Carolina Bay structures are dry and have been detected by
computer analysis creating Digital Elevation Models (DEM) from USGS
and NASA data. They have applied similar methods to Europe and found
many Carolina-Bay-like structures there also.

So, as Velikovsky showed, it is very hard to refute a theory from astronomy
based on a singular event. It is easy to promote such a theory, if you only
take care to use arguments from history/archaeology with the natural
scientists, and vice versa.

This does not mean that the theory is wrong, but I see no way to back it up
with archaeologic evidence. And I see no way to prove it wrong either. What
escapes me, is why it should be important for archaeology. It's the old deus
ex machina theme, just the label has changed.

If the theory is correct it has enormous implications for those
interpreting evidence as to the spread of man across the globe.

It certainly has vey specific relevance to those in North America
studying Clovis and their immediate successors.

have fun

Uwe Mueller




Eric Stevens
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Genetic evidence for the origins of Mankind
    ... repopulated the earth. ... how do mitochondria cause mutations in nuclear ... The "supporting evidence" is ... But there was no worldwide flood. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Genetic evidence for the origins of Mankind
    ... repopulated the earth. ... how do mitochondria cause mutations in nuclear ... I thought the simplest of minds would assume the wives in the ... The "supporting evidence" is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Genetic evidence for the origins of Mankind
    ... repopulated the earth. ... how do mitochondria cause mutations in nuclear DNA? ... I thought the simplest of minds would assume the wives in the ... The "supporting evidence" is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: This may be the most important aticle I have ever written.
    ... Any event of that size would have hit all of life on earth, ... planet from a nearby supernova must have been in much smaller quantities. ... supposedly being evidence for a lack of habitation. ... bathed the earth with intense radiation") would have screwed up every dating ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Genetic evidence for the origins of Mankind
    ... repopulated the earth. ... how do mitochondria cause mutations in nuclear DNA? ... The "supporting evidence" is all misunderstood ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading