The Origins of Agriculture

[Jamin4422]

No one here has studied the Origion of Farming here, so it is difficult to get a converation going about this topic. But I thought I would try anyways. I have a book by Colin Tudge where he suggests that farming was a slow process that takes place over 40,000 years. The only problem is that he has nothing in the way of evidence to back up his claim. When it comes to the beginning of farming the evidence best supports Creationism. The domestication of plants and animals is quite extensive. You can not be a farmer without the use of an animal to plow the land. One acre is the amount of land one farm animal can plow in one day. There is no way a man with hand tools could clear any where near that much land in a day.

A. The Origins of Agriculture
The change from food collection to food production requires the domestication of plants and animals. This involves a series of technologies that involves choice of species, bringing them into management or cultivation, genetic alteration brought about by selection—both conscious and unconscious, and the discovery of specific practices (pollination, training, processing) often unique for each crop. Although precise origins are obscure, the first archeological evidence for a developed agriculture is found in Mesopotamia and shortly after in the Nile and Indus Valleys. Evidence suggests a later development in China, Central America, East and West Africa and, perhaps, New Guinea (Diamond 1997, 2002). There is some dispute as to whether the origins of agriculture were completely independent. Those who favor independent invention of agriculture emphasize the adaptability of humans for independent discovery and provide as evidence the domestication of different grains in various parts of the world—wheat in the Mid-East, sorghum in Africa, rice in Asia, and maize in the Americas (Harlan 1992). http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/origins of fruits.pdf

 

[Gracchus]

No one here has studied the Origion of Farming here, so it is difficult to get a converation going about this topic.

"Why don't you speak for yourself, John?" Some of us have looked into the subject.

But I thought I would try anyways.

Ignorance has never stopped you. If you haven't a clue, you just make something up and call it the "Word of God".

I have a book by Colin Tudge where he suggests that farming was a slow process that takes place over 40,000 years. The only problem is that he has nothing in the way of evidence to back up his claim.

I haven't read the book, but I am familiar with your talent for overlooking any evidence you find inconvenient.

When it comes to the beginning of farming the evidence best supports Creationism.

What evidence is that?

The domestication of plants and animals is quite extensive. You can not be a farmer without the use of an animal to plow the land.

There were no draft animals in pre-Colombian America. There were no plows. Nevertheless, agriculture was widely practiced.

One acre is the amount of land one farm animal can plow in one day. There is no way a man with hand tools could clear any where near that much land in a day.

Several might, but even one man could, in a reasonable amount of time probably plant enough to feed himself, especially as he could supplement his diet by hunting and gathering. And using slash and burn techniques you can clear a lot of land in one day. And then all you have to do is scatter seed. Of course you can put more time and work into it, and as you exhausted the possibilities of hunting and gathering you would have to.

 

[Freodin]

John has a rather anachronistic view of history, I fear.

 

[Rusticus]

Can you please explain in a few words why it is you think "the beginning of farming supports creationism"?

 

[RickG]

No one here has studied the Origion of Farming here, so it is difficult to get a converation going about this topic. But I thought I would try anyways. I have a book by Colin Tudge where he suggests that farming was a slow process that takes place over 40,000 years. The only problem is that he has nothing in the way of evidence to back up his claim. When it comes to the beginning of farming the evidence best supports Creationism. The domestication of plants and animals is quite extensive. You can not be a farmer without the use of an animal to plow the land. One acre is the amount of land one farm animal can plow in one day. There is no way a man with hand tools could clear any where near that much land in a day.

A. The Origins of Agriculture
The change from food collection to food production requires the domestication of plants and animals. This involves a series of technologies that involves choice of species, bringing them into management or cultivation, genetic alteration brought about by selection—both conscious and unconscious, and the discovery of specific practices (pollination, training, processing) often unique for each crop. Although precise origins are obscure, the first archeological evidence for a developed agriculture is found in Mesopotamia and shortly after in the Nile and Indus Valleys. Evidence suggests a later development in China, Central America, East and West Africa and, perhaps, New Guinea (Diamond 1997, 2002). There is some dispute as to whether the origins of agriculture were completely independent. Those who favor independent invention of agriculture emphasize the adaptability of humans for independent discovery and provide as evidence the domestication of different grains in various parts of the world—wheat in the Mid-East, sorghum in Africa, rice in Asia, and maize in the Americas (Harlan 1992). http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/origins of fruits.pdf

I tried discussing this in your "Abu Hureyra" thread, and you completely ignored it. Is this going to be more of the same?

 

[And-U-Say]

No one here has studied the Origion of Farming here, so it is difficult to get a converation going about this topic.

Try "Guns, Germs, and Steel", a good book on the beginnings of civilization.

But I thought I would try anyways.

"anyways"? You call that an education?

I have a book by Colin Tudge where he suggests that farming was a slow process that takes place over 40,000 years.

One book makes you studied? It would seem he does not agree with you.

The only problem is that he has nothing in the way of evidence to back up his claim. When it comes to the beginning of farming the evidence best supports Creationism.

So this guy who has written a book about this, probably based on several others as well as papers and original research, is not as well informed as you are are on this subject? And your information is his book? Amazing Hubris.

The domestication of plants and animals is quite extensive. You can not be a farmer without the use of an animal to plow the land. One acre is the amount of land one farm animal can plow in one day. There is no way a man with hand tools could clear any where near that much land in a day.

This means precisely nothing. As if the acre is a unit of measure that has been around forever.

A. The Origins of Agriculture
The change from food collection to food production requires the domestication of plants and animals. This involves a series of technologies that involves choice of species, bringing them into management or cultivation, genetic alteration brought about by selection—both conscious and unconscious, and the discovery of specific practices (pollination, training, processing) often unique for each crop. Although precise origins are obscure, the first archeological evidence for a developed agriculture is found in Mesopotamia and shortly after in the Nile and Indus Valleys. Evidence suggests a later development in China, Central America, East and West Africa and, perhaps, New Guinea (Diamond 1997, 2002). There is some dispute as to whether the origins of agriculture were completely independent. Those who favor independent invention of agriculture emphasize the adaptability of humans for independent discovery and provide as evidence the domestication of different grains in various parts of the world—wheat in the Mid-East, sorghum in Africa, rice in Asia, and maize in the Americas (Harlan 1992). http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/origins of fruits.pdf

And? I see nothing to support your point.

 

[Split Rock]

When it comes to the beginning of farming the evidence best supports Creationism.

Like the others here, I woudl love to see you back this statement up.

The domestication of plants and animals is quite extensive. You can not be a farmer without the use of an animal to plow the land. One acre is the amount of land one farm animal can plow in one day. There is no way a man with hand tools could clear any where near that much land in a day.

Completely false. One can farm without the use of an animal. People still do it today. Heck, many people here have their own backyard gardens.

 

[HitchSlap]

In a word, beer.

 

[pgp_protector]

So I wonder will their be an valid reply from the OP, or handwaving?

 

[And-U-Say]

So I wonder will their be an valid reply from the OP, or handwaving?

Typical creationist hit and run. Cockroaches fear the light.

 

[keith99]

It seems like the OP is totally ignoring the possibility that agriculture might have evolved. This is not just possible it is likely to the point of near certianty.

I'll give the first step. A hunter gather culture gathers some fruit and after eating it they spit out the seeds. And low and behold a plant grows. Or perhaps some bright boy notices that trees that get regular water do better and decides to divert the runnoff of a spring so it goes to a tree or two.

Note neither of these would leave any sign 100 years later let alone 1000s of years later.

 

[Jro]

It seems like the OP is totally ignoring the possibility that agriculture might have evolved. This is not just possible it is likely to the point of near certianty.

I'll give the first step. A hunter gather culture gathers some fruit and after eating it they spit out the seeds. And low and behold a plant grows. Or perhaps some bright boy notices that trees that get regular water do better and decides to divert the runnoff of a spring so it goes to a tree or two.

Note neither of these would leave any sign 100 years later let alone 1000s of years later.

Heck they don't even need to spit the seeds out. Some seeds only germinate after passing through a mammalian digestive tract. If a nomadic group of even protohumans started to eat these fruits and use a latrine, they'd find that the same places reliably grew fruit. If they only ate the ripest and best fruit from these trees, there would be selective pressure on the trees to develop the best fruit.

 

[DrkSdBls]

It seems like the OP is totally ignoring the possibility that agriculture might have evolved. This is not just possible it is likely to the point of near certianty.

Might want to mention that you're using the word "Evolve" in the Figurative sense, not in the Biological.

You have no idea how much that word is taken out of context and misused and how often Trolls will pick up on that fact.

 

[Jamin4422]

It seems like the OP is totally ignoring the possibility that agriculture might have evolved.

I have a little book here written by Colin Tudge Colin Tudge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He tries to argue that agriculture evolved for over 40,000 years. For example if you get a monkey mad at you, he will shake the tree to get dead fruit and branches to fall on you. This actually prunes the tree and the tree will become more productive and produce more fruit.

The evolutionist theory then is that the Hunter Gather will find ways to manipulate their environment to coax more food out of the environment. For example they will save their seeds, then in the spring throw the seeds in a big mud puddle hoping a tree will grow to give them food to eat. So over time they learn different ways to coax more food out of the environment. Even they start to till the ground and break up the soil so the seeds have a better chance to grow and produce more food to eat.

The problem with this theory is there is just no evidence to back up the theory. Domestication has really only been around for the last 10,000 years. Before that all the grains archeology finds are wild not domesticated. So there is just no scientific evidence for any domestication of anything before this point in time.

Also we learn that to develop some of the fruit trees (like the Apple tree) requires to cut a branch off of one tree and graft it into another tree. The Bible talks about this. Also some trees will grow if you stick a branch in the ground. They may have done that building a pen to keep animals in.

Civilization does not seem to be slow gradual change over long period of time. Farming and the domestication of plants and animals seems to have happened fairly fast over a short period of time. This tends to be evidence more for Creationism and the Bible. The evidence for evolution is just not as convincing as the evidence for Creationism. At least when it comes to the beginning of civilization.

 

[Jro]

The evolutionist theory then is that the Hunter Gather will find ways to manipulate their environment to coax more food out of the environment.

You are arguing with things that you don't understand. Is there a farming gene? No. There are probably genes that aid farming, such as genes for intelligence or strong muscles, but the behavior for farming is not genetically coded. Just because your mother or father was a farmer does not influence whether you will be one separate from environment. This means that it is not something natural selection can act on. Which means there is no evolutionist theory for the development of farming. I don't really know who or what you're arguing with here, it seems like you just don't like Tudge's argument that mankind has been developing farming for the last 40K years.

For example they will save their seeds, then in the spring throw the seeds in a big mud puddle hoping a tree will grow to give them food to eat. So over time they learn different ways to coax more food out of the environment. Even they start to till the ground and break up the soil so the seeds have a better chance to grow and produce more food to eat.

The problem with this theory is there is just no evidence to back up the theory. Domestication has really only been around for the last 10,000 years. Before that all the grains archeology finds are wild not domesticated. So there is just no scientific evidence for any domestication of anything before this point in time.

What's your point? You've just moved the timescale to ten thousand years. That doesn't endorse or discredit evolution or the possibility that evolution facilitated farming.

Also we learn that to develop some of the fruit trees (like the Apple tree) requires to cut a branch off of one tree and graft it into another tree. The Bible talks about this. Also some trees will grow if you stick a branch in the ground. They may have done that building a pen to keep animals in.

I am amazed that I talk to people who claim to know so much about evolution and ecology that seem to know nothing about the neolithic revolution and the domestication of animals.

What's your point? You're not making an argument, you're just spouting random facts which are, believe me, well known.

 

[Jamin4422]

You are arguing with things that you don't understand.

Yet I understand better then you do. Ops wait, I think you just judged yourself trying to judge me.

. There are probably genes that aid farming,

Probably? What does that mean? Does it mean you have no evidence to back up your claim?

, such as genes for intelligence

The Semetic people do have a higher IQ (5 points on the average). So are you suggesting that farming started with them because of their higher IQ? Hitler did not think there was anything special about them when he was killing so many during the Holocaust.

it seems like you just don't like Tudge's argument that mankind has been developing farming for the last 40K years.

It is not that I do not like it. I do not care because I already have to accept that farming goes back more then 6,000 years before we find Adam and Eve in the Garden in Eden. There is just no evidence to back up the theory. In fact yesterday when I told you Tudge's theory you rejected it because of the lack of evidence. Now today all of a sudden you want to buddy up with the guy.

You've just moved the timescale to ten thousand years.

I did not move it, science moved it. That creates a lot of problem for YEC. That is why we had to come up with GAP.

you're just spouting random facts which are, believe me, well known.

Well know to who? It is very difficult for me to find anyone that knows anything about this subject.

 

[Jro]

Yet I understand better then you do. Ops wait, I think you just judged yourself trying to judge me.

Explain to me why farming has evolved? Has the internet evolved? Have my little pony fan clubs evolved? No. These are learned behaviors that are not passed down genetically. Evolution is a change in allele frequency over time. Not genetic? Huh.

Probably? What does that mean? Does it mean you have no evidence to back up your claim?

Ok, sure, intelligence and strength are heritable traits that are controlled genetically. A certain level of each is prerequisite for farming.

 

[CabVet]

The Semetic people do have a higher IQ (5 points on the average). So are you suggesting that farming started with them because of their higher IQ? Hitler did not think there was anything special about them when he was killing so many during the Holocaust.

Oh, so you mean Semitic people know how to take IQ tests better? What does that mean? You seem to like stereotypes a lot... Hitler's IQ by the way was estimated to be 140, the average IQ for "Semitic" people is 112, so what does that tell you?

 

[Ubogion]

Oh, so you mean Semitic people know how to take IQ tests better? What does that mean? You seem to like stereotypes a lot... Hitler's IQ by the way was estimated to be 140, the average IQ for "Semitic" people is 112, so what does that tell you?

scientist are evil

 

[Jamin4422]

Oh, so you mean Semitic people know how to take IQ tests better? What does that mean? You seem to like stereotypes a lot...

This is the statement that Jro made: "There are probably genes that aid farming, such as genes for intelligence or strong muscles, but the behavior for farming is not genetically coded."

With all of your education then you must know that the Semetic people were the first farmers. Jro suggested that maybe the first farmers (Semetic) had a higher IQ. Here is what Wiki says about the subject:

"One basic question to be answered in assessing a genetic explanation of unusual intelligence in Ashkenazi Jews is whether today's Ashkenazi Jews really do, as a group, have unusual intelligence. Assessing intelligence, especially of ethnic groups, is notoriously difficult and subject to racial and political biases.
One observational basis for inferring that Ashkenazi Jews have high intelligence is their prevalence in intellectually demanding fields. While Ashkenazi Jews make up only about 3% of the U.S. population[1] and 0.2% of the world population,[6] 27% of United States Nobel prize winners in the 20th century,[1] a quarter ofFields Medal winners,[7] 25% of ACM Turing Award winners,[1] half the world's chess champions,[1] and a quarter of Westinghouse Science Talent Search winners[7] have Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. However, such statistics do not rule out factors other than intelligence, such as institutional biases and social networks.[citation needed]
A more direct approach is to measure intelligence with psychometric tests. Different studies have found different results, but most have found above-average verbal and mathematical intelligence in Ashkenazi Jews, along with below-average spatial intelligence.[8][9][10] Some studies have found IQ scores amongst Ashkenazi Jews to be a fifth to one full standard deviation above average in mathematical and verbal tests.
Studies from the beginning of the 20th century have been cited as contradicting elevated IQ among Ashkenazi Jews. Researchers citing these sources claim Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence in this time period was in fact below average.[citation needed] In reference to the latter, G. Cochran, J. Hardy and H. Harpending argue that it is "a widely cited misrepresentation by Leon Kamin (Kamin, 1974) of a paper by Henry Goddard (Goddard, 1917). Goddard gave IQ tests to people suspected of being [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], and he found that the tests identified [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] Jews as well as [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] people of other groups. Kamin reported, instead, that Jews had low IQs, and this erroneous report was picked up by many authors including Stephen Jay Gould, who used it as evidence of the unreliability of IQ tests (Seligman, 1992)."[1]"