How Does One Define 'Life'?

^^ Satisfy me? Perish the thought...All this time I thought I debating with you! But then again, if you did sent a few pages or blankness...If that is even possible in this post thread...I'll fill it with "LOL's"...Although it does bring the question what happened before the big bang...And the answer is "Be"

Let me just say Rikki, that although certain parts of your posts may have valid basis, you cannot assume that all humanity have gone towards the same goal. For example the people of Japan (Ainu) could not have the same mode of progression as those who lived in Botswana...

Different forms of methods were used due to differences in the environment... Although I do understand the basis of where your coming from seeing humanity's progression as a mimic of animal forms however you cannot assume that there is some form of monarchy in ancient times, where alpha males ruled... That theory could go out the window when you think of the elders, which when you look at history can debunk your theory...

Fact is Rikki, the complex methods of war can depend based on environment, however territoriality is one basic key and not mating...

Let me first say that although you've used the out of africa theory, you still believe in the unilateral socio evolution, when clearly it is quite the opposite.

Let me just say that although you assumed that the homo erectus has evolved into mordern man, you've forgotten the neathertals who evolved after migrating from africa to europe. Which means that enviorment is the necessary key factor to evolution. Adaptation...If you've forgotten the elements of evolution.

As for alpha males, you forget that elders always precided in many forms of families. Ancestor worship is still till this day, precides over many clans, tribes and some forms of social structures.

I could bring the differences of hunter-gatherer and the introduction of agro-pastoralism and how they're formed differently due to the conditions of the enviorment.

However, it would seem a waste.

As for the complexities of war. Learn about military science, and its history, then you'll understand the innovations of the ancient world.

Don't dismiss just because you cannot understand one concept. Its a very grave thinking on your part...Lol.

"Homo Ergaster is believed to have been the first of the ancient man as opposed to being like man and thus this species is rarely referred to as hominoid. He was also the first known to migrate out of Africa. And yes, the "Out Of Africa Theory" has been upheld be almost all major anthropologists, except for you of course."

Really...Oh my and here I thought that Homo Georgicus (member of the habilius species) was the first hominid to get out of its african cradle to Eurasia... Or should I say the first europeans...However, I do understand where you're coming from, it would seem major anthropologist would have agreed with you theory had it not been of the discovery of the Dmansi man...Lol. But I guess everyone except me would have to live with it...No?

But I will say that after all your explaining, you still don't realize one key aspect which I've already mentioned countless of times. That groups of the original population find themselves in different environments. Over time they adapt to the new environment and become 'different' to the original parent population. After sufficient time the differences are so great that members of the new population can no longer breed with members of the original population - then we have a new species. Now, that is a major simplification of the real picture that we have, but it serves to illustrate the major points. The fact is that the ENVIROMENT was a key element to adaptation.

And frankly many societies, clans, tribes have their own different methods according to the enviroment they were living in. The same with different cultures, economic structures living in seperate areas... Do you understand now?

Now as for the concept of alpha males...If you actually checked your aboriginal neigbours, you'd see that they form a semi-egalitarian nomadic hunter-gather group reminicent to early man. So it would be easy to establish that the hominids formed an egalitarian hunter-gather society. Like I said, the idea of alpha males cannot be compared to human high social standing. It could be even said that there was no form of cheif-dom until the early bronze age. However, the apparent concept of the alpha-male getting all the females or fighting a war simply for mating purposes, is perposterous. At best... If I were to apply the concept of alpha-males, I would apply it to teenagers towards adults (authority)...Nothing more.

"Modern humans seen to have a tendency to give our ancient ancestors mental abilities and knowledge almost on a level with ourselves. Why??"

Thats because we have yet not established their methods of war. It is still to early to discredit or even dismiss it much less assume that it is merely going and killing the every living thing in sight. Like I said before, its dangerous to stick to one mode of thinking, otherwise, it will crumble under new information.
The problem is Rikki that you still haven't realised that although you give historical accounts on several things, it can become an out-dated or even discredited point of view. Although it was fun discussing with ya...Lol.

As you say, you are speaking in generalisations, my! My! So you do it too!!"

How so...I merely am summerizing...How is it generalising? Lol...

It has been strongly argued that ancient man was negroid. The ancient Egyptians name for themselves was black. Asians could be described as a light brown, the Asians spread out and also populated the Americas in numerous waves, apparently pushing the preceding migrations further down the Americas. The Aboriginals migrated to Australia while what is referred to as the Polynesian race populated the Pacific Islands. None of these people mentioned could be described as White in the same way that the Europeans were, but then a person's skin colour was dictated by the climate. Some of these races have been separated be a time span of up to 50,000 years. Yet all of them are able to interbreed without the slightest difficulty."

Lol...What? Are you saying that Homo sapiens sapiens breeding with one another is the same as those of two differing species?

And you equate that with skin and facial features? Wow...

I'm sorry but I cannot actually believe you think that? You stated the homo ergaster was the first hominid...I challenged that...And I put forward, what is fundamental in evolutionary biology. That ENVIROMENT is key to evolution and in fact it decides the whole structure of human society.

Almost all animal groups exist on a social system of the Alpha male or female, certainly most of the ape groups were. I'm sure you'll find some that were basically egalitarian. If we progress to the earliest groups of humans that we do know, then we also find that they too were Alpha based. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that those within the two periods that we do know, were of the same or similar type of social structure."

I don't need to say any more on this subject...All you need to do is read this research paper:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2547893

"By 4,000BCE warfare and empires were becoming quite advanced, before this period we know almost next to nothing so to claim the use of advanced tactics is to me rather foolish."

You illustrated my point, without equestrianism and metal-work...There wouldn't be the evolution of what war has become today. I'm saying is that we respect the fact that although it isn't advanced in our time, without it, we wouldn't have as far as we have...Thats all I pointed out rather than claim that the ancients used advanced tactics...Which clearly if you've read my posts you'd also gather.

Rikki: This research has been widely accepted by anthropologists... It gave a good picture of how cohesive nomadic hunter gather society lived, based on the actions presented by great apes... Like I said before, looking through one mirror is a negative thinking seeing as it can be shattered by another well researched perspective...

Clearly I can see that even evidence can't shatter your one sided thinking... Oh well

I will say this, war in essence is about territoriality... That is the only constant... All else is variable

"No matter what may have happened to or by our forbearers or when or how it happened, we would still be much the same as we are."

If our past was altered I don't think we could say we would still be much the same, an array of things could change.

I would like to see it... However you did agree to my post earlier in that theories can be easily quashed unless its brings to light unequivocal truth... The point is that the methodology is very much truthful if we actually look at hunter gather societies and great apes are much less a simplistic form of understanding our nomadic ancestor

Lol... Because the methodology pertains to one's aim or hypothesis... The research paper has studied the Great Ape societies, and explained that even when there is forms of heirarchies, the division of labour is mostly egalitarian.

Predictibility or its ilk has no bearing when discussing scientific methods and papers... The theory of evolution wasn't just thought up on air... It was thoroughly researched...

You need to actually open your mind to new ways of thinking...

I don't have to defend it, because it speaks for itself, for you to dismiss this stating that its wrong is quite ignorant.

I do believe that it brings to light many hunting-gathering societies form egalitarian societies. Aboriginals being the example.

But you're right we differ in opinion, which is why we debate...We could debate, however, if we look at every study as manifestly wrong, you no less better than those who rejected Darwin for his theory of evolution.

I am actually sighing at the fact that you'd agree one minute yet disagree the next...

You actually stated than man is unpredictable yet now you're saying he is... Which is it?

You're right the only flaw in the study was that its would be seen as reductionist, other than that its quite on point in many aspects...

I'm bored... It seems that we're going round in circles, it was fun for me to see you change opinion as quickly as a baby using baby wipes... But now its getting stale... Lol

Yes I have stated that man is unpredictable because so often he has astounded people by doing what was least expected and succeeding brilliantly or had previously been considered impossible."

So basically you agree that humanity is all about the individual rather than the collective.

Yes man's creativity is un-predicatable however societies and its infrastructure is very much the same.

I have asked you several questions in this debate yet you have yet to answer any of them, so I will ask you one more."

Really, it seems to me that all you've ever asked were rhetorical questions, so silence seemed the best answer for them. Although one question you did ask, although rhetorical was whether you were a realist or pessimist...The answer is pretty much the same...

I would clearly bash down your examples on the invention of equestrianism. But no, it seems that riding horses would be a logical solution in time of war or plowing the fields...That and using bulls, donkeys, elephants or any other animal that seem large enough to ease the workload...Lol.

There is no such thing as mordern or ancient man when discussing the founding of inventions. Because what are we but ancient man, when the future is near...Right? Also when bringing the subject of equestrianism, it seems like a logical step from agricultural usage to additions to war.

Like I said it seems like we're going in circles...But this ofcourse is my last post...So I'll let you have your last say...Lol.

Heartbreak and hersey...that's my view