B. U. G. S.

My comment on the first page, I couldnt be prouder than have my writing posted at a blog with a cause like this.

I will take the opportunity to expound on my initial presentation, and what I meant with my discussie statements. Also relevant to some of the cave paintings which Simmons is referring to.

It is not unusual to find opinions which in essence purport that Europeans as we are today, have developed through a lengthy and slow process leading up to where we are, not least during the last 20 000 years. I personally find that it is not quite true.

A small population in a new environment can change relativelly rapidly (we do not know how the first Europeans were as they came to Europe, nor do we know if for example possible Heidelbergensis derived people were a factor, but lets assume it is not since it does not seem likely), new features spread fast in a small population, and new external prerequsites affect what the population finds important. And by the way do not read into this that such a process can be repeated, because it cannot. It is a very complex process by way of the number of factors affecting it, and its end results is when it comes to the core of it, dependant on what could best and most simply be described as random chance, its chance of repeating in general proportions is basicly non-existantly microscopic.

So with that taken into consideration, I think that the earliest Europeans developed the common features that would differentiate Europeans from other people, relativelly early. The pre last glacial maximum findings like this flute, the cave paintings Simmons mentioned and others, are a left behind from those early times.

I certainly believe that a lot of those material things and general activities were lost during the harsh ice age, when people we can imagine spent much of their time trying to survive. But the very hereditary characters that were developed before the ice age, the very character that this people carried with them in their very genes, they were not lost, but on the contrary, are what was the most important thing that the people which started moving after the ice age inherited. They may have lost some of those flutes, who knows what elements were lost during the ice age. But that which produced them, they are the hereditary features we inherited and which largely define us as Europeans to this day.

It is a shame that the Ice Age and pre Ice Age period is not better studied with such perspectives. Consider that these people lived in Europe and made these produces, had these recreations which these finds indicate, expressed these arts, forged these sciences we can even call them (it certainly takes understanding to develop communicative forms like complex paintings and music), they did this living in Europe over a period of time before the ice age, which is by no small margin longer than the time we have lived after the end of it.

__________________________________________

And by the way, as far as the lingo in the article. Is it not typical how they always start with the subject itself, instead of the predicate. As if the results caused the cause, rather than the other way around; “This flute helped these humans to…”. Reminds me of how in evolutionary teaching, I you can hear statements along the lines of; “this feature developed so that the species could…”.

Why do they not write “These humans developed features which lead them to create this flute”.

Or instead of the many from a biological standpoint flawed statements like “Birds developed wings so they could fly”. As much as there may be some truth to it if you allow a loose interpretation. All we can say with a certainty is that “Birds developed wings and that enabled them to fly”.

It may not be completely applicable here, as the statement in the article is not incorrect as such, but it is only part of the story. Lastly, there is no doubt that such developments could and likely did encourage further developments in that direction.