Slashdot Mirror

No, it's even worse (depending on your point of view). There won't be an "eco-fascism" phase, because with more than 50% of the world population urbanised, nobody remembers what the environment is supposed to look like.

All of the "exploitable" environment (the Amazon, most other remaining forests, the Arctic, Alaska, and anywhere else you can think of with any kind of economic value) will be razed/drilled/destroyed, which is going to result in further acceleration of habitat and species loss. Because urbanised people can't grow their own food, this is going to exponentially raise the destructive pressure on the environment outside cities to keep everyone fed, and their cars powered, etc.

This is linked to increasing pollution of all kinds (air, water, garbage, etc) and the "environment" as some of us remember it is purely history.

Our grandchildren will inherit something unrecognisable to us (there are already thousands of species and places that existed when you and I were young, that exist no more). Television and Hollywood, with the complicity of the great globalisers, has trained the world into perfect materialists (mini-Americans) who value convenience and profit above all else; for whom greed is the primary motivator; and for whom waste, pollution, injustice - if noticed at all - are merely acceptable side-effects of a selfish way of life. We have failed every human who lived to defend Nature, and every human who will follow who will never know it as we inherited it; and we have failed every other species on the planet. Even the trees.

that we'll have big problems

Indeed :)

CC.

Usually there is no hint of the original colour preserved in fossils, but colour patterns have been found in plenty of fossils of a variety of ages and types and have been known since at least the 1930s (check this book chapter). Unfortunately there are no pictures in these web sources. You'll have to look up the sources on paper, sorry.

What sort of things preserve colour patterns? There are cone-shaped nautiloids from the Devonian of Germany with zig-zag and linear stripe patterns, snail and other shells with stripes or spots, insects from Brazil (Cretaceous) and Utah (Eocene) whose wings have preserved colour patterns, and, as the article hints, bird feathers with colour patterns have been known for decades. Because they are only patterns, it isn't known what the original colours were (for all we know it could have been a boring brown versus grey or something exotic like green and purple), but it's better than nothing, and even finding the patterns is quite rare.

What's news in the posted article is only the part about the possibility of melanin or something derived from it being preserved. So, it's a bit of progress on what, exactly, is being preserved in these colour patterns.

There's one instance I know of where the actual colour of the ancient creature is preserved as a fossil: a beetle from a famous locality in Germany called Messel. Here's a picture, and here's a news article. As seen in quite a few modern beetles, the colour isn't caused by pigment but by irridescence (i.e. light interference) due to the microscopic structure of the insect's wing covers. It's analogous in some ways to the rainbow of colours you see on the bottom of a CD due to the pits on the surface. In animals this is sometimes called "structural colour". The preservation at Messel is so good that this fine detail was preserved, and the beetle therefore still has it's colour visible!

You assume that 1. you have a working model for evolution that requires life to evolve in a different way in different planets

Occam's razor. Lacking evidence to the contrary I assume that evolution will work the same, but having evidence of the diversity of life on a single planet, I would assume that extraterrestrial life of multiple solar systems would be even more diverse. Earth's life is far more diverse than an single continent's life. Even within a single species, say, human or elephant, there are marked (albeit trivial) differences between that species in Asia and the very same species in Africa.

2. That our widespread evidence for diverse life represents proof for the diversity of life capable of space travel

Not proof; there is no proof, only deduction.

3. that the gravitational pulse that results from a nuclear explosion travels at the speed of light.

Why would anyone assume that it would travel at faster than light, models aside? I wouldn't trust a model of something we don't understand; afaik we haven't discovered the gravitron and we don't know how gravity actually works. I tried to look up "gravitational pulse" in wikipedia and came up empty. Googling "gravitational pulse" in quotes and "speed" not in quotes came up with a few links, but with assurance that gravitational pulses do not, in fact, travel faster than light. Do you have a link to a reputable source, preferably in an .edu domain?

please let me know of a body part that can use a tool, with the *minimum* number of degrees of freedom that does not look like an arm... ever go into a car factory?

Ever seen a backhoe, a front-end loader, a cherry picker? Note that the automotive robots' arms have no hands or fingers! Crows have no hands or arms but use and have even been observed making tools.

more likely at least two feet

Almost certainly at least two feet, more than two feet and more than two arms would seem more conducive to the ability to build. That said, birds manage to build their nests without any arms or hands at all!

So they would most likely have two eyes

Or more. Eyes in the back of a species head, or multiple eyes like insects have would seem more evolutionarily likely.

And the tendency in evolution is that the minimum body parts necessary to accomplish something is as many as we get

Then explain why birds have two legs, dogs have four legs, insects have six legs, and spiders have eight legs? Your statement is falsified by reality.

Life in the form we recognize (space traveling in physical form) is very limited in the ways it could evolve,

Unproven and illogical assumption.

and the physical means it could harness for energy production (say inventing fire?), hunting, and agriculture (use of tools), to eventually become capable of space travel.

Fire was never invented. It was harnessed. We do not know that we are the only earthly species ever to have harnesses fire, although there is no evidence that there ever was such a species except ourselves. But there is no evidence that a different species couldn't have. Many earthly species hunt, and of five earthly species that farm, only one is a mammal; all the other farmers are insects.

I hope they try this and that it provably reduces atmospheric CO2 levels. And when that doesn't change our climate by even the tiniest bit, then I will be happy to say, "I told you so."

Hint: Global Warming is happening on Mars too.

Anyone who's anyone knows that the universe contains only one Higgs boson. Lose it and you're stuffed. God lent his particle to CERN and the idiots went and lost it. Now there's a mad scramble to find it again, before God finds out and they incur the wrath of God.

National Geographic Magazine has an article touching on this very subject in their current issue. Full text is available online.

I knew times were had...

Huh. I see the 'b's ah disappeahing as well; hut I guess thehe ah plenty of h's.

Changes in the sun are not responsible for the majority of the observed global warming. They're just too small.

Solar forcing (11 year solar flare cycle, increase in brightness etc) is already accounted for in current climate modeling - the 2007 IPCC report put the maximum effect of solar increases at 20%, lower than previous years. Volcanism is even lower.

Solar forcing was responsible for a lot of warming in the pre-industrial age, and the science is still being looked into for other mechanisms - but at this point, at this time, man-emitted greenhouse gases are the only candidate for the vast majority of the increase in temperature. CO2 and methane from industry, fossil fuels and agriculture are having a big impact on the global climate.

What the exact impacts will be, and what we can do to mitigate them is a hot topic, but that man is responsible for the sudden and sharp increase in overal global temperature since the industrial age? That's no longer in serious dispute.

The same fucktards that ... predicted a global ice age during the 70s are the same fucktards behind global warming.

Cite please?

1976: National Geographic predicts global cooling.

Today: National Geographic predicts global warming.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1125_031125_turkeyoil.html

These guys set up shop next to a turkey processing plant. They take the waste and turn it into oil.

Actually...they already do this.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0818_050818_urinebattery.html

how do you know it's a lie? have you proven creationism to be a lie and not told anyone? while you're at it you might as well tell everyone how you proved evolution as fact while the rest of the world is still trying...

I don't need to because many people already have. Here's a few to get you started.

• Was Darwin Wrong?
• Science, Evolution, and Creationism
• Evolution Resources from the National Academy of Science

Honestly, not wanting your kid's science class to teach intelligent design to your kids is no different (to anyone remotely familiar with scientific evidence, anyway) than not wanting your kid's math class to teach them the "theory" that pi equals 3 (1 Kings 7:23).

What was secured promptly and securely as a top priority? The oil fields in southern Iraq.

Have you ever seen what burning oil fields look like? Ever wonder about the carbon footprint of burning geysers of crude oil - is that too inconvienient?

Ever wonder how Iraq was going to pay to rebuild all the infrastructure that was blown-up in the war to oust Saddam - the oil fields pump liquid gold to cover all damages and more...

Do you know who owns the oil fields in Iraq? The Iraqi government/people, not the U.S., not the coalition, not George Bush, Haliburton, etc... Protecting their single greatest asset is the best thing we could do for the Iraqi people.

It's fun to imply something evil, quite another to prove it.

Before you question why we went into Iraq, I suggest you review all the failed U.N. efforts to reign in Iraq, and also take a look at Saddam's actual statements about what he said he had/was planning to do... It's not so clear-cut, IMHO...

Here's an article from 2004 about the fact that the Little Ice Age was most likely responsible for slowing tree growth and creating perfect wood for violins: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0107_040107_violin.html

Dude, your post deserves some praise. It exactly mirrors my thoughts.

We should all remember that The Bible is a loose collection of a few gospels which were picked from a pool of dozens, or hundreds, of contributed stories from various people. The National Geographic special article 'The Judas Gospel' was a real interesting read. An example of a conflicting gospel/story which changes everything, and thus was excluded from The Bible.

Critically thinking, I don't think it has any merit of truth.

It does contain news -- the news that the current melting rate of the polar ice is the highest recorded.

I'm wondering what is happening to lower latitude glaciers and snowpack. I am wondering if it is time to start looking for some disputed bible evidence, such as the search for Noah's ark. Rumor has it that it's buried in ice on Mt. Ararat.

It would be interesting if the evidence would support the biblical story as many world religions all claim the great flood and Noah and the ark.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076182/
http://www.pbase.com/andrys/noah
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0427_040427_noahsark.html

Maybe the melting ice could have something to do with this:

AFP Volcanic eruptions reshape Arctic ocean floor: study

Arctic Volcanoes Found Active at Unprecedented Depths

Some analysis at:

Global Warming - Or Simply Massive Under Sea Volcanoes?

Yeah, I've taken several statistics classes. There is most definitely a significant correlation between the year and the global mean temperature. You don't need to do a regression analysis to see it. Just a glance at a graph, and the increase in temperature is obvious.

Have you ever heard a lecture by a climate scientist? I have, and the predictions are quite dire. For one, in the western US severe drought will be the norm in several decades. Most people in the US will be okay, although I'm sure there will tend to be more deaths during extreme heat spells. In less developed parts of the world that experience extreme drought, possibly millions could die. I suppose a few degrees Celsius doesn't sound like much, but millions of lives are in the balance.

human-brain-vis304784-ga.jpg

I by no means toe the politically correct line but....you are either ignorant or heartless.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0703/sights_n_sounds/

"Blue..."

What a bunch of addled tripe.

"Wikipedia article on anthracite"

What was this intended to prove? That anthracite exists? Well blow me down, I didn't know that before you told me.

"a) You're clueless.

Stone Tools Reveal Humans Lived in Britain 700000 Years Ago
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1216_051216_humans_britain.html [nationalgeographic.com]"

That's _one guy's theory_ which is well known in anthropological circles, and has been soundly rejected because his dating methods are (to be kind) extremely suspect. Note also that even if he was right, 700,000 years isn't 800,000 years, so you've still not provided any evidence for your claim of people in Britain using coal 800,000 years ago.

"(b) they're not..."

I presume the things that followed this are meant to be fed into Google, because all of them produce links to forum posts by yourself. Posts by you do not count as evidence that supports you claims.

"c) Caddo texas..."

The 17th century was not renowned for its accurate scientific dating methods, so claiming that some hand axes are 800,00 years old based on what a guy from that period said is nothing more than speculative nonsense.

"Phosphorus and Sulphur (Brimstone) means Coal burnt '56 Aubrey Holes."

Phosphorus and sulphur (plus other things such as potassium) are always found in cremations because they occur in both plants and animals in significant quantities, so burning a large animal or person on a wood fire (you need a lot of wood to cremate a human) produces them. Their presence is not therefore evidence of coal use.

NB: ancient Britain was very heavily forested, so wood for both building and fuel was plentiful and easily accessible almost everywhere. Neolithic people (who didn't smelt metals) did not therefore require coal for any purpose, so suggesting that they'd go to the effort of prospecting for it in a field that's so deep and of such poor quality that not even the massively coal-dependant Victorians bothered to mine it is ludicrous.

One month it's Healing.
One month it's Death.
One month it's Coal.

Anthracite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthracite
blue stone
blue flame
blue coal

a) You're clueless.

Stone Tools Reveal Humans Lived in Britain 700000 Years Ago
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1216_051216_humans_britain.html

b) They're not.

1. secnereffid suorefinobrac / suoecaterc hcaet
2. secnereffid suorefinobrac / suoecaterc thguat
3. nrub 'emalf enots eulb' a rof laoc eticarhtna
4. tnetnoc ruflus dna surohpsohp rof suonimutib
5. syenmihc evac fo mottob ta devil srotsecna
6. loac edarg hgih /w tnrub srotsecna edarg hgih
7. loac edarg wol /w tnrub srotsecna edarg wol

c) Caddo, Texas

Paleolithic 800,000-year-old Acheulian hand-axes from Homo erectus opencast Pembrokeshire Coalfield anthracite Coal cinders and South Wales Coalfield bituminous Bottom ash indicate a 100,000 years' earlier date. Homo erectus burnt 800,000-year-old Crosskeys Coal fly-ashes sampled from Pontycymer Class C - Class F bituminous South Wales Coalfield mined Paleolithic cave dates 100,000 years previous to 700,000 ya. German historian, antiquarian, dentist Doctor Garry Whilhelm Denke (1622-1699) recovered the 800,000-year-old Acheulian hand-axes and sampled the 800,000-year-old Westphalian Coal cinders and fly-ashes in 1656. All of his Stonehenge core samples ('56 Aubrey Holes, Double Bluestone Horseshoe, Centre Stonehenge, Heelstone Ditch, etc) and 800,000-year-old Pembrokeshire Coalfield (Little Haven-Amroth) Coalfield and South Wales Coalfield (Amroth Hills, Cross Keys, Seven Sisters, etc) evidence, including elder Waulsort and Wales white stone (Waulsortian, Early Carboniferous, Mississippian) collection, his crude biology (palaeontology) and hollow stem auger core drill are housed at Caddo, near Breckenridge, Stephens County, Texas, USA.

Phosphorus and Sulphur (Brimstone) means Coal burnt '56 Aubrey Holes.

Little Haven-Amroth Coalfield
http://www.people.ex.ac.uk/pfclaugh/mhinf/pembs1.htm
Pembrokeshire Coalfield
Carbon content 96%
Ancient source

G-d

I was looking for those maps sometime ago and couldn't find them. I did find this though which I found interesting: National Geographic

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

Pssst... Over here

A recent article (Feb 2008) in National Geographic magazine http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/02/drying-west/kunzig-text/2 reports: "a comprehensive study of climate models reported in Science predicted the Southwest's gradual descent into persistent Dust Bowl conditions by mid-century" I have to question the wisdom of investing large amounts in desert areas.

Well, the US patent process certainly hasn't stopped anyone from patenting the human genome.

There are a lot of comments complaining about Greenpeace in general, or making jokes... but they have a good point. Electronics are manufactured from way too many toxic and impossible or difficult to recycle products. Consumers aren't aware enough about the need to recycle electronics, or even where to bring them.

Too often they end up somewhere like this: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/01/high-tech-trash/essick-photography

Which is just sad.

And here I thought all the people I know with hydroponic setups were running CO2 blowers on their Cash Crop (TM) plants to make them grow bigger faster and increase their yield but large amounts. I was such a dummy, thank you.

Yes, added CO2 can make some plants grow faster but it also retards the growth of others. One of those plants it boosts the growth of is poison ivy.

Fourth paragraph from the bottom, $18 billion annually (for everyone on the planet) on cosmetics:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0111_040112_consumerism_2.html

Iraq, $12 billion a month:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23551693/

Hopefully you are just misinformed.

Except you don't. You pull it from the oceans. Both from upper & lower layers.

So the oceans aren't a carbon sink? According this article the oceans adsorb 25% carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted into the atmosphere. And because of all the CO2 the oceans are aborbing they are turning acidic.

But the oceans contain MUCH more carbon than the oil fields, and that *will* be brought up, because algae NEED co2 (like every single plant does)

And like every other plant algae takes CO2 from the atmosphere and give off oxygen.

and for plants more co2=better

While this is true for some plants, such as poison ivy "Climate Change Surprise: High Carbon Dioxide Levels Can Retard Plant Growth, Study Reveals".

So I do believe the poster was right. Nobody tell the green nuts, okay ?

Have you read what science says?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

Italian wall lizards introduced to islands in Croatia evolved larger heads, a totally different gut structure, and switched their diet from insects to plants. All in under 40 years.

As to "telepathic spies," the Army's remote viewing program (a.k.a. STARGATE) shouldn't be regarded as a failure. It's an interesting topic, difficult to research due to an abundance of pseudo-science, but there are valid academic studies which conclude that the phenomenon is real. Oddly, remote-viewing success seems to be related to local sidereal time (pdf). The Telepathy episode of National Geographic's Naked Science examines some of the program's achievements and features Joe McMoneagle, who was agent 001 of the Stargate program, doing a successful demonstration.

DARPA deserves credit for being open-minded about a topic so easy to ridicule.

ill start at a wikipedia article

move to National Geographic

and finally live science

According to the Wikipedia article, humans, apes, magpies, dolphins and pigeons recognize their self in a mirror.

To me, these measly "over 240.000" people don't really matter. Many of them probably didn't deserve to live anyway, others might just have contributed to the solution for the over-population of our earth.

Among these people could have been the next great scientist,
or someone that could have contributed to the world in a
significant manner.

If all the ppl in the world were put in Texas, everyone would
get roughly 1,152 sq feet.

So to me the over population hysteria is just a myth.

Food growth with vertical hydroponics could took the place
of large land plots and actually be cheaper once the
engineering is fine tuned.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS199249+13-Mar-2008+MW20080313

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroponics#Commercial

125 million lbs on 256 acres, ie. less than .5 sq miles in one yr.

10,000 sq miles would be 2.5 trillion lbs. and that is
just 100 miles by 100 miles.

This is with just conventional hydroponics, not Vertical
Growth High Density which yields 20 times standard soil yields.

If half the area of the farmers in the US that are PAID to
grow nothing did this it would feed the world MANY times over.

It needs to be done diversely around the world in areas
that are considered non arable, because hydroponics works
on land that is not even good for farming once you get
a decent water supply and some type of nutrients.

One natural loop method is fish in the water, and insects
for their food, and the insects as food for each other as well.

Catfish in Vietnam get up to 646 lbs.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/photogalleries/giantcatfish/

Much like occurs in nature, but add natural stimulus factors for
each of the participant species.

I also think at some distant time we will need to move out
into space if our species is to survive at all.

More than one planet killer has struck earth and originated
from earth itself.

1) Gamma Ray Burst
2) Super volcano
3) Asteroid or Comet Impact

Population Freakazoids even have their own monument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0116_030116_tvfrozenzoo.html

So is a Bongo embryo a Bongo? It can be implanted into an Eland and brought to term. By your definition it would be an Eland.

The costs are overstated, and, really all you have is some anecdotal evidence and you aren't considering the benefits side of the equation at all.

Life is one cost, are you saying life isn't worth it? If so then why won't people lower their living standards, after all it's not worth it. As for the benefits it wasn't my aim to consider them, my aim was to show that even those who don't use coal are made to pay for it's usage.

1. Artic ice is actually thicker and wider this year, so the inuit are fine for now.

Oh really, that would surprise those scientists who have said the ice covering the Arctic Sea ice coverage has shrunken for the fifth year. Do you know more than they do? Scientist now say the Arctic will be ice free by 2030, decades before the models forecast. "Global Warming Is Rapidly Raising Sea Levels, Studies Warn". "Sea Level Rise During Past 40 Years Determined from Satellite and in Situ Observations". And Inuit's would either laugh or cry if you were to tell them they were fine. Oh and if it's not so bad then why is the government considering putting the polar bears on the endangered species list? But I guess you know more than the scientists, Inuits, and polar bears do, or more likely you're a troll.

I can't go on anymore with such nonsense.

We have the ability to remote control flies and rats and we can power devices from blood, bacteria,
and sugar. So are we that far from making a remote-controlled biologically-powered recording device embedded in an insect or small animal? Seems like all the pieces are there.

Maybe it's because I pay attention to genetics and genealogy (and I thought people were geekier than I am here) but I clearly remember this news from 2006. Why is it getting recycled now, two years later?

The end of this article seems to cover that. Basically, this is a completely independent set of data (taken from the Genographic Project) that further confirms a theory that's been kicking around for a while.

I once heard something fascinating. After the Chernobyk accident, the radioactive cloud that contaminated (mainly) the north of Norway caused allot of fear in people, and for people's health. The gouvernment continued to slaughter and burn massive amounts of raindeer and livestock.

A friend later told me that the meat was actually fully usable, and that it's destruction may have been unnecessary. She suggested we should have fed it to the elderly population, which did not have time to develop cancer from the meat anyhow.

There will be allot of talk in this discussion about the fear of radiation, and that is why this discussion is so good. Life does well with increased radiation! Humans don't however, by virtue of the way we look at human society and human worth. What it does say however, is that fear of nuclear energy, a power source that may have dramatically less consequence for life on this planet than most other energy sources, prevents us from progressing in the energy debate! (and maybe also in space exploration, given worries of launching nuclear-powered space craft)

Check this news item for a similar case to the coral reef in the article.

"People in the first world have convinced themselves that chemicals and radiation stand in the way of their personal immortality"
- James Lovelock

Perhaps, perhaps. A recent National Geographic article about animals' communications stressed the _grammar_ inherent (the order of words definitely mattered, and not just in a "fetch the green ball and then the red ball" way) in some ways that animal owners were able to talk to their pets. Or perhaps not. Anyway, the article is here: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/animal-minds/virginia-morell-text/1

It seems that if you create a man made reef and then run low voltage electricity through it coral will grow 5-10 times faster.

When I honeymooned in Bali we went snorkeling around these structures. They seemed perfectly safe and the corals were amazing. The coral growth on the structures seemed far more prolific than that on the ocean bottom.

cayenne8: Frankly, I'm more concerned with the financial situation in the US than climate change...I'll likely be long dead before any climate related Armageddon occurs....but, I do want my $$ safe for retirement.

The thought that the entire future of life on the planet could come down to whether there are enough people like you, professing to be concerned only with their short-term enrichment and comfort, is stunning and scary.

cayenne8: Besides...it sure doesn't seem to be warming very much the past couple years....which I thought I heard, had been cooler rather than warmer overall?

Your impression is not supported by scientific measurement. In fact, it has gotten warmer.

2007 was Tied for the Second Hottest Year on Record by Fraser Cain

You weren't imagining things, 2007 really was an unseasonably hot year. In fact, it was tied with 1998 for the second hottest year on record. All in all, the 8 warmest years have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years since 1990. This mini-record was announced by NASA climatologists this week.

Moreover, there is substantial speculation based on various models that the process may be accelerating, indicating that urgent action sooner rather than later is essential.

Relating back to the topic of the article upon which we are commenting, this emphasizes the importance not just of science but of math. One reason people have trouble absorbing the science of things is that they may lack the necessary appreciation of math to understand why the word "acceleration" in this context should make them very concerned. People think very linearly, and probably aren't aware of why linear vs non-linear is even an issue, so it's hard for them to realize they should be tuning in more. Words like "non-linear" or "accelerative" don't have the kind of punch that other words do. And meanwhile, the scientists are working hard to separate fact from conjecture, which means they're really only talking about what they can prove... but what some suspect is actually much worse.

The National Geographic Channel recently ran a very good story explaining why even a tiny number of degrees change can be fatal for the earth, not to mention potentially intruding on the comfort of your retirement. See their page for information; you can click on the various degrees (one degree, two degrees, etc.) to see the effects of that much change. It is not pretty.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled, science free, "reality" show.

One thing that people aren't realizing is that some people simply cannot "fetch" things for themselves. I'm talking, of course, of paraplegic and quadriplegic individuals. People have trained monkeys for this purpose, but having a pet monkey is stressful even for the able bodied. So a bot that can do this would be a blessing. A quadriplegic could have the laser pointer on a headband and point with it using their head.

The smaller, older bones represent people who were 3 to 4 feet (94 to 120 centimeters) tall and weighed between 70 and 90 pounds (32 and 41 kilograms), according to the paper.