Mastodons, other Ice Age beasts in the Amazon

[finnegan]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-55172063

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lucUlTLnx1w&t=7s

This is pretty awesome. The art depicts mastodons, giant sloths, ice age horses, and other megafauna. These paintings in Columbia date from 11,800-12,600 years ago (looking at you, Younger Dryas people). Seems the Amazon at the time was quite different with grassy savannahs before the jungle swallowed it all. With LIDAR scans showing the absolutely massive civilization that existed in the region, its going to be interesting to see what else emerges from the jungle. The different terrain and climate might also shed light on how humans peopled the Americas and where to look for settlements.

 

[IndyDave1776]

On Amazon?! Damn! Besos is selling everything!

Seriously, that WAS my first thought when I read the title.

 

[finnegan]

Maybe not Amazon, but I bet you can get a giant sloth on Wish for $17.

 

[TangoFoxtrot]

I'm always puzzled why archeologists are suprised when they find stuff like this.. have they not heard of pangea? It should be no suprise to find evidence of one particular life form at a given location.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

 

[indiucky]

I'm always puzzled why archeologists are suprised when they find stuff like this.. have they not heard of pangea? It should be no suprise to find evidence of one particular life form at a given location.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Because they based their career on "Clovis first" and this stuff is unwriting a lot of their books they've based their career on....

 

[KittySlayer]

The different terrain and climate might also shed light on how humans...

So even long ago humans were causing global warming, or was it global cooling... heck, let’s just call it Climate Change. Those must have been some massive BBQ grills. Maybe that little Greta chick can hop on a private jet and go figure out who to blame for killing the furry elephants.

 

[shibumiseeker]

I'm always puzzled why archeologists are suprised when they find stuff like this.. have they not heard of pangea? It should be no suprise to find evidence of one particular life form at a given location.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Umm. Most archaeologists I know study things that are a few tens of thousands of years old at the most. Us geologists study things like Pangea which broke up many tens of millions of years ago and has not had a reunion tour since. Entire species can arise and fall in 175 million years and only a very few have been around relatively unchanged in that length of time.

 

[TangoFoxtrot]

Because they based their career on "Clovis first" and this stuff is unwriting a lot of their books they've based their career on....

Very true.. I bet that they already have some BS process thought out that supposedly occurred, that is twisted to fit their world view and agendas

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

 

[Thor]

Reunite Pangaea!

I had a friend who had that on his car...it was amazing how many stoners would come up and go "right on man".

 

[TangoFoxtrot]

Umm. Most archaeologists I know study things that are a few tens of thousands of years old at the most. Us geologists study things like Pangea which broke up many tens of millions of years ago and has not had a reunion tour since. Entire species can arise and fall in 175 million years and only a very few have been around relatively unchanged in that length of time.

My point is , I have degrees in neither and I can still put the pieces together and to even me its no big mystery to me how they can find things in areas that don't "make sense"

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

 

[TangoFoxtrot]

Reunite Pangaea!

I had a friend who had that on his car...it was amazing how many stoners would come up and go "right on man".

Lmao.. that would take one heck of an even.. one that would probably kill all humans

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

 

[CampingJosh]

I'm always puzzled why archeologists are suprised when they find stuff like this.. have they not heard of pangea? It should be no suprise to find evidence of one particular life form at a given location.

I think you're really misunderstanding the time scale here.

The understanding is that Pangea began to break up 175,000,000 years ago. That's about 174,987,500 years before these paintings were made.

 

[shibumiseeker]

My point is , I have degrees in neither and I can still put the pieces together and to even me its no big mystery to me how they can find things in areas that don't "make sense"

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

My point is, you didn't put pieces together in any coherent fashion.

 

[TangoFoxtrot]

I think you're really misunderstanding the time scale here.

The understanding is that Pangea began to break up 175,000,000 years ago. That's about 174,987,500 years before these paintings were made.

No, I understand... part of what im say is they have no idea what time scale any of it happened on.. its all a guess.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

 

[KLB]

 

[CampingJosh]

No, I understand... part of what im say is they have no idea what time scale any of it happened on.. its all a guess.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Are you making an argument from a young earth perspective, or do you think that most everything before recorded history is just conjecture? Or is it some third option I have missed?

I want to make sure I'm understanding your point before I respond.

 

[TangoFoxtrot]

Are you making an argument from a young earth perspective, or do you think that most everything before recorded history is just conjecture? Or is it some third option I have missed?

I want to make sure I'm understanding your point before I respond.

I'm simply saying that it is mostly theory and speculation. There are parts that can be scientifically proven and there is also at times flaws in the scientific methods that were used to draw conclusions.
As humanity is in its infancy of tackling quantum mechanics and understanding it, it is disassembling alot of what we thought we knew.
As once it was "common knowledge" that the earth was flat or the center of the universe, it is now common sense to know that isn't the case.
So in short, im saying that it seems that a majority of its supposedly known is nothing more than a reflection of those particular world views and therefore they present the data in a manner that only reflects the world view the wish to perpetuate.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

 

[shibumiseeker]

I'm simply saying that it is mostly theory and speculation. There are parts that can be scientifically proven and there is also at times flaws in the scientific methods that were used to draw conclusions.

While this is true regarding the anthropology in question, the geological aspect you tried to use to prove your assertion is pretty mature science and pretty well understood, and has quite literally, zero to do with proving your point.

And a nit here, the anthropology in question is not theory, it's hypothesis. A lack of understanding of the very important difference between the two is a real handicap in trying to understand what is going on.

Quite frankly, I'm going to give more credence to people who have spent many years immersed in the topic at hand than someone speculating from the sidelines who may have studied for a few hours at Google U. Yes, they can be wrong and that is the beauty of science in that if better data comes along or a hypothesis is disproven, a more accurate one will take its place based on the analysis of that data.

 

[TangoFoxtrot]

While this is true regarding the anthropology in question, the geological aspect you tried to use to prove your assertion is pretty mature science and pretty well understood, and has quite literally, zero to do with proving your point.

And a nit here, the anthropology in question is not theory, it's hypothesis. A lack of understanding of the very important difference between the two is a real handicap in trying to understand what is going on.

Quite frankly, I'm going to give more credence to people who have spent many years immersed in the topic at hand than someone speculating from the sidelines who may have studied for a few hours at Google U. Yes, they can be wrong and that is the beauty of science in that if better data comes along or a hypothesis is disproven, a more accurate one will take its place based on the analysis of that data.

I understand the difference, hypothesis is what leads to exploring theories but still in the 49 years ive been alive, I have seen complete 180s in every field of study.. and isn't being open to not being right a prerequisite for true scientific research? Isnt there always the possibility of that 100th, 1000th, 1,000,000 time that it is proven maybe not false but not true?

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

 

[KLB]

I understand the difference, hypothesis is what leads to exploring theories but still in the 49 years ive been alive, I have seen complete 180s in every field of study.. and isn't being open to not being right a prerequisite for true scientific research? Isnt there always the possibility of that 100th, 1000th, 1,000,000 time that it is proven maybe not false but not true?

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Haven't you been paying attention? If you do not believe the masses, you are a science denier!