Please welcome another imaginary friend

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The thread introduces an imaginary character, DrPaleo, a renowned Prehistoric Archaeologist, and explores the humorous and whimsical nature of imaginary friends within the context of the forum. Participants engage in lighthearted banter, share personal anecdotes, and discuss the implications of imaginary versus virtual entities.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants welcome DrPaleo and express curiosity about his comparison to Brad Pitt in "Fight Club."
  • Others question the nature of imaginary friends and their characteristics, with some humorously suggesting that DrPaleo's existence is questionable.
  • A few participants share their own imaginary friends and their activities, such as climbing Mount Kilimanjaro or residing in Tajikistan.
  • There is a discussion about the potential for DrPaleo to explain his background and interests, including a humorous inquiry about his favorite type of fish.
  • Some participants reference the "great megafauna extinction" and its relevance to archaeology, discussing the implications of human involvement and climate changes during that period.
  • One participant humorously suggests a title for DrPaleo's book that reflects a more accessible theme for the average reader.
  • There are playful exchanges about the nature of imaginary versus virtual entities, with some participants sharing their confusion over terminology.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion remains largely lighthearted and humorous, with no clear consensus on the nature of imaginary friends versus virtual ones. Participants share various viewpoints and anecdotes, but the topic remains unresolved and open to interpretation.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the definitions of "imaginary" and "virtual," and there are references to personal experiences that may not be universally applicable. The discussion includes speculative elements regarding the nature of DrPaleo and the implications of archaeological topics.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in humorous discussions about imaginary concepts, archaeology, and lighthearted banter within a community setting may find this thread engaging.

  • #61


Moonbear said:
Really? Her invisibility cloak doesn't work in the who's online list at the bottom of the screen? I know I can see invisible people with mentor superpowers, but I thought other members could not see invisible people (hence, being invisible).

I think its just the bit that shows the mentor for the forum.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62


lisab said:
Hmmm...preliminary? Expectant? Anticipatory?

Yes...an anticipatory welcome!

Thank you Lisa! I was posting at 11 pm, and my daily allotment of thoughts had just run out. :blushing:
 
  • #63


Redbelly98 said:
Thank you Lisa! I was posting at 11 pm, and my daily allotment of thoughts had just run out. :blushing:

That can (and does) happen to me at any time of day...:cry: !
 
  • #64


Kurdt said:
I think its just the bit that shows the mentor for the forum.
Yes, that just means I'm the forum mentor, not that I'm online.
 
  • #65


Andre said:
Whilst there is no reason to doubt your assessment of the evidence of artifacts of sites like Monte Verde, Topper, Cactus hill, etc, then the question arises what would be needed to convince you that pre-Clovis people were present indeed in the Americas.

Then there is also the Hueyatlaco debate, which indeed may be explained differently (mud flow). See:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=109359

Also as you are aware the "13,000 years ago", indication may be subject to confusion. If that's carbon dated then it would convert to ~15,330 calendar years BP, which is about 15,390 actual years ago using the INTCAL04 calibration table.

Looking forward to a fair debate :smile:

yes, and the 'out of Africa' migration of about 500,000 years ago (Neanderthals), 70,000 years ago (Cro-Magnons) and again about 40,000 years ago that caused the initial human population of Europe, India, Australia, Hawaii, and a lot of the Pacific islands (with a later migration of those of Asian descent)--who knows (because they already have found very early evidence of possible African migration to South America) if its 15,390 or 40,000 years ago, or maybe they will yet discover 1/2 million year old evidence of Man in America (Sasquatch, Bigfoot, Yeti, Abominable Snowman).
 
Last edited:
  • #66


rew, the subject is in the Americas. :smile:
 
  • #67


(it was)
 
  • #68
drpaleo said:
Andre raises a few interesting and informed points, but he is profoundly wrong, I think in his dismissal of Martin's hypothesis. I will explain at length later. Watch for my article forthcoming next December in Gary Haynes' edited volume (Springer Press).

Looking forward to a discusion in due time. Meanwhile, this would be my introduction to the discussion.

the overkill hypothesis is described very well here:

http://www.amnh.org/science/biodiversity/extinction/Day1/overkill/Bit1.html
http://www.amnh.org/science/biodiversity/extinction/Day1/overkill/Bit2.html
http://www.amnh.org/science/biodiversity/extinction/Day1/overkill/Bit2.html

The essence:
According to the overkill hypothesis, when ancestors of native Americans entered North America about 14,000 calendar years ago, they encountered a large number of species that had no experience with humans. As a result, they did not recognize humans as a threat. The ancestral Indians (or Paleo-Indians, as they are sometimes called) were able to take advantage of this fact and were able to hunt the large mammals with great ease. The Paleo-Indians became specialist big game hunters concentrating on game like mammoths, giant bison, ground sloths, and other species of large size. They hunted dozens of species to the point of extinction, and indirectly caused the extinction of many smaller species as a consequence of ecological disruption.

Because the evidence is mounting that the North American extinctions occurred very rapidly--perhaps in less than 1,000 years--Martin has dubbed the hypothesized overkill event as a "Blitzkrieg" or "lightning war."

We would focus on the question if the overkill hypothesis can be falsified.

The first element is the entrance of humans (Clovis) in N America at 14,000 calendar years ago (assumingly via the dry Beringia landbridge), not before. The main debate has been about the before-Clovis dating of artefacts or if the artifacts were genuine, however I will demonstrate that other evidence, following from abundant research of mitochondrial DNA and human parasite migration raises some doubt about this earliest migration. Obviously, an earlier entry would falsify the blitzkrieg idea.

A second element is the synchronisation. It appears that some species were in the full process of dying out, as determined by declining sizes of fossil bones (horses) before the human arrival; while others survived the assumed first strike for some millenia (mastodon)

A third element is the environment, climate and biotope changes. During all of this there should not be any climate changes that could have lead to extinctions, neither in the Americas nor elsewhere. I will demonstrate that massive extinction events in South America and Eurasia cannot be linked to anthropogenic causes, while there was lot's of simultaneous climate changes going on, changing the biotopes, including in North America. This in turn favored other species, better equipped (modern bison), competing with the doomed species and taking over the changing niches.

A fourth element is the apparently missing earlier megafauna extinctions during equally violent climate changes during the Pleistocene (2.5 Million years - 10,000 14C years ago). However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And the earlier paleonthologic remains are much much more scarce. Nevertheless, it shows that the species overturn rate during the Pleistocene was substantial, many species did go extinct indeed to be replaced by other. However these mineralized remains cannot be dated accurately since the original material was replaced. So it's not possible to esthablish an adequate chronology for these remains and establish a pattern for extinctions. Moreover, the main killer, the transitions in and out the Younger Dryas, appears to be unique indeed during the Pleistocene.

In conclusion, while it would not be disputed that migrating man might have killed off many naive specimens, nevertheless all the elements were there for the climate to do the real job, which may perhaps have included eradicating Clovis himself as well, as it seemed to have vanished completely with his alleged victims.

So where would that thread go? Biology or Earth?

References here (excluding the anthropologic publications, those will follow later)
 
Last edited:
  • #69


Hi Dr. Paleo! Nice to meet you! I am always happy to meet another segment of Evo's apparently split personality. :biggrin: