The Neanderthal's Necklace

danny writes "Leading Spanish paleontologist Juan Luis Arsuaga has written a popular book on the Neanderthals, translated as The Neanderthal's Necklace: In Search of the First Thinkers. Read on for my review." The Neanderthal's Necklace author Juan Luis Arsuaga pages 334 publisher Four Walls and Eight Windows rating 9 reviewer Danny Yee ISBN 1568581874 summary a nice introduction to the Neanderthals

The Neanderthal's Necklace is an engrossing and informative introduction to the Neanderthals, setting them in the context of human evolution and prehistory more generally, and of broader ecological and environmental history. In it Luis Arsuaga touches on anatomy, demographics, systematics, evolutionary psychology, philosophy of mind, and more, but he does so sensibly, not trying to cram in too much and not getting distracted from his basic subject. He does focus on Spain and to a lesser extent on his own digs - he is one of Europe's leading paleoanthropologists - but while his passion for his subject is clear, The Neanderthal's Necklace never becomes autobiographical.

The first two chapters are an account of early human prehistory: the other apes, the various species of Australopithecus and Homo, early toolmaking, and so forth. This includes a brief introduction to systematics. Chapter three continues this with an account of the evolution of the Neanderthals in Europe and our ancestors in Africa, and an overview of their comparative anatomy and morphology.

Two chapters describe the environment in which this happened, presenting a history of the flora, fauna, geology and climate of Spain (and in less detail of Europe) over the last few hundred thousand years. Here Luis Arsuaga brings to life the mountains and forests of Spain, and the cave bears, mammoths, reindeer, and other animals that inhabited them. With bears and hibernation as the link, he goes on to consider the problem of finding enough to eat in this environment, especially in glacial periods. He looks at foraging and hunting (or scavenging) as sources of food, at the development of hunting technology, and at the extinction of many species. A chapter on demographics and life histories then explains how the archaeological record is used to estimate population densities, life expectancies, and so forth for both Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons.

Luis Arsuaga includes just a little bit of abstract philosophy of mind in an overview of debates over consciousness, sentience, language, and their evolutionary origins; he argues that Neanderthals had language and self-awareness, but lacked our more advanced symbolic abilities and vocal anatomy; evidence for "funerals" or other ritual behaviours is not conclusive. And he reconstructs the contact between Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon, with the latter's superior tools and social organisation giving them an edge in the last glaciation, and the last Neanderthals living in southern Spain. A brief final chapter recapitulates the story and glances at what came next, at agriculture and domestication.

Only a few rough sketches, graphs and maps are included in The Neanderthal's Necklace: a decent map of Spain is probably the major omission for non-Spanish readers. The publisher of this translation has, rather annoyingly, converted all the units from metric to Imperial, though the subject is surely scientific enough to warrant having left them. And a digression explaining the "grandmother" theory of menopause seems awkwardly "tacked on". Otherwise, there is not much to fault - this is a superb piece of popular science, one that does justice to its fascinating subject.

If you enjoyed this review, you might like to check out Danny's other paleoanthropology and popular science reviews. You can purchase The Neanderthal's Necklace from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

Comments

Conversion

[Anonymous Coward]

The publisher of this translation has, rather annoyingly, converted all the units from metric to Imperial, though the subject is surely scientific enough to warrant having left them. And a digression explaining the "grandmother" theory of menopause seems awkwardly "tacked on".
Is there a reference guide that actually appears in the book for reverse conversion? Anyone knows?

Rumours

[gowen]

Researchers were quick to deny rumours that the earliest neanderthal lithographs discovered on cave walls have been translated as "First Post"...

Re:Rumours

[HiQ]

And their bones have been petrified...hmmm: a familiar term!

Re:Rumours

[Directrix1]

Followed by The Neanderthal's Pearl Necklace: In Search of the First Nymphos

Re:Rumours

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe not, but they did find the "First Link":

http://www.knighthoodofbuh.org/temp/firstlink.jp g

Re:Rumours

[Anonymous Coward]

The researchers were also quick to deny that the manuscripts found inside the caves have been translated as "In the beginning, God created ..."

Re:Rumours

[Anonymous Coward]

You may be satisfied that there was justice done in MetaMod.

OOG

[LordHunter317]

LIFT! ROCK BIG! FOOD GOOD!

OOG! OOG! OOG!

its to beat the stupid lameness filter. really it is. stupid slashdot

Re:OOG

[Trespass]

I miss OOG THE CAVEMAN. He was a superb troll, and Slashdot has some of the best.

Re:SLASHDOT...

[lederhosen]

Well you are the missing link -- inteligence
between a monkey and a fish.

Re:SLASHDOT...

[siskbc]

Wow, that's a killer troll! Never expected a Creationist dogma-head on here. "Monkey-like man creature"? That's just classic.

Re:SLASHDOT...

[joebagodonuts]

Science, religion. What's the difference?

One man's science is another's religon.

No, This is not a troll, although folks will treat it as such.

Stupid assumptions

[3141]

What really annoys me about most pre-history books and television shows is not the way that they assume, but the way they put forward their assumptions as facts. The way that in a show about dinosaurs, the narrator will casually throw in a bit about "the brightly coloured skin" or saying that Australopithecus slept in trees and had good colour vision.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[3141]

I am intrigued. The last time I mentioned this to someone, they never actually spoke to me again. I made a similar comment the other day, and earned my first foe. I make this comment once more, and within a minute I've earned a flamebait moderation.

Why don't people want to accept it? The two examples I gave wear real ones (Walking With Dinosaurs - BBC and Walking With Beasts - also BBC) We don't know what colour dinosaurs were! We don't know how good the eyes of Australopithecus were! Yet I see this kind of thing all the time, sprinkled with the occasional "DEADLY gamma rays!"

Come on, wake up people. You're being fed nonsense by those who won't admit they're guessing.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[p3d0]

I may be able to explain it.

The Walking With X series is a dramatization of a modern nature show using the best available facts. I think you're taking it way too seriously. You might as well criticize Jurassic Park.

If you have any other examples, I'd be interested to know what they are. Otherwise, you have simply jumped to a broad, unfounded conclusion about "most pre-history books and television shows" from a single work of science fiction. That may explain people's reaction.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[gowen]

The two examples I gave wear real ones (Walking With Dinosaurs - BBC and Walking With Beasts - also BBC)

You earn Flamebait because, you say most pre-history books and television shows where what you mean is "some (or a few) TV shows". Most pre-history books are open and honest about areas of ignorance. (I mean, how did you find out that this was guesswork?)

Re:Stupid assumptions

[simong_oz]

I completely agree with this.

I remember seeing a show recently on the people who built the Pyramids (sorry, don't remember the name of the show). When you got right down to it, the entire show was trying to back the hypothesis or pet theory of some egyptologist that the workers were not slaves. The actual facts and evidence presented was not an awful lot, but what was theorised on the basis of this evidence was also presented as fact.

One of the best documentaries I have seen that didn't do this (again on the egyptians) was a multi-part doco on great egyptians. I forget the name of the presenter (he was an american), but he gave what I thought was a completely unbiased view of the situation. He was quite prepared to say "this is what we think it means ..." rather than "this is what it does mean ..." or to back up all his facts with evidence "we know this because ..."

I wonder how much of this is down to the presenters themselves? For example, David Attenborough always seems to be more than ready to acknowledge that other people are the experts and that he is just the presenter, even though it is obvious he is very knowledgeable on the subject himself. But then again, he isn't pushing some pet theory and trying to get research funding - he seems to be more interested in getting others excited about the natural world.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[Kullervo]

Well, once you start talking about 'assumptions' you come perilously close to invoking creationist arguments about scientists only guessing and really having no idea what they're talking about.

Now, the natural history programs would do a lot to advance people's understanding of how science works if they talked a bit about the evidence and support behind the different ideas they talk about. Also, when they talk about speculative ideas that don't yet have a lot of supporting evidence, they should mention that are much closer to speculation than a theory well backed by mountains of evidence.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[Kullervo]

Come on, wake up people. You're being fed nonsense by those who won't admit they're guessing.

I have an excellent explanation. This quote makes you sound like a stupid creationist who can't handle the idea that people make guesses, then support their guesses with evidence. Now, the natural history programs are often guilty of presenting guesses that don't have a lot of evidence as guesses that have so much evidence that they are almost certainly true.

But grandly waving your arm and declaring that we are all "being fed nonsense by those who won't admit they're guessing" is a dangerous exaggeration and an unwarranted generalization.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[3141]

My examples were chosen to accentuate the point that even though it is totally obvious that something is wrong or unfounded, the scientists that wrote it have the gall to push it on the public, and the public lap it up, and become misinformed. The Walking With * series has been accepted as some sort of masterpiece, and already there are copycat productions being made with slightly better graphics and equally bad science.

One might as well just say, "hey, they're lies! Don't criticise them for being untrue!"

Jurassic park is different, it has no pretentions of being accurate. That really is sci-fi, and not a "science show". I was surprised to hear that these shows are being shown in schools and set as homework. The issue is more important than might be realised at first.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[digidave]

off-topic, but this is killing me...

I know it's sci-fi and not science, but I've always wondered about the T-Rex's vision in the JP books and movies. In the first, for example, Dr. Grant and the kids stand perfectly still and the Rex lowers his head to about a meter from them, and doesn't see them.

The argument put forth in the movie and the book is that the Rex's vision is movement-based, like our peripheral vision is. Is this another case about theory being presented as fact? I really don't see how fossilized bones will give any indication of vision.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, it's not just an assumption that those who built the pyramids were not slaves, it's a pretty well established fact. We have a lot of the records and physical remains of those who actually built the pyramids; they were hired artisans, backed up by periodic labor levies - people who were "taxed" for their labor. Nowhere is there any evidence for "slaves" in pyramid building. How much more evidence do you need? A papyrus saying "we are not slaves"?

Re:Stupid assumptions

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. The "Walking with X" series is very careful to show why they are making the "guesses" they are making; in between the faux naturalist sections of the show (which pretend that the documentary has gone back in time to film the animals in their natural environment), they intersperse sections devoted to the science behind their assumptions/guesses, explaining their thinking. You really do need to pay more attention, and get off your high horse.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[timeOday]

I am intrigued. The last time I mentioned this to someone, they never actually spoke to me again. I made a similar comment the other day, and earned my first foe. I make this comment once more, and within a minute I've earned a flamebait moderation.

It's simple; question the dogma, and you'll be burned at the stake. When were those NOT the rules? Oh, sure, the eye-color thing is apocryphal, but your tone is dangerously near heresy.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[simong_oz]

sorry I was so unclear, but I saw the doco quite some time ago. I'm not an expert on ancient egypt or the pyramids (far from it in fact, as you may have guessed from my post!) and I probably got the theory wrong.

The point I was trying to make was that in the show I saw (I really wish I could remember it, but even googling doesn't ring any bells) very few facts were presented. I have an open mind so to me, as someone who knows nothing of ancient egypt and as a scientist/researcher myself, I want to know the facts and evidence and how this leads to a certain conclusion. I also want to know why it is that conclusion X is a better explanation than conclusion Y. But the show that I saw presented very little evidence and, to me anyway, did not prove the conclusions. As a result, I thought that the conclusions were simply what someone thought being presented as absolute fact.

And this, unfortunately, happens far more often than it should. If something does not prove absolutely a conclusion, then don't try and present it as such. There is a difference between proving and supporting a hypothesis.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[Asprin]

I'll have an extra helping of OT with extra cheese, please....

The argument put forth in the movie and the book is that the Rex's vision is movement-based, like our peripheral vision is. Is this another case about theory being presented as fact? I really don't see how fossilized bones will give any indication of vision.

Even more ludicrous is the notion that somehow the hunting behavior of the velociraptor can be divined from the fossil record. However, IIRC, that was just in the movie. In the book, I think this was unknown until they started breeding the raptors in captivity on the island. (Then, of course, the visiting scientists learned this during the tour before AHBR.)

Re:Stupid assumptions

[lawpoop]

Actually, I think the color-vision in pre-human primates is a pretty good bet. We can assume that they ate a lot of plants from their dentition. Their sense of smell sucked, based on their nasal cavity and the size of their olfactory bulb.

Hearing doesn't really help you in determining which plants are safe to eat, so that leaves only sight.

Nocturnal primates are usually color-blind, have huge eyes, and have good night-vision. Day-time primates have eyes about our size, and *color vision*. If you eat fruit, and you aren't using smell, you need color vision, or you eat something poisonous.

Of course, these aren't assumptions, but good hypotheses.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, you are questioning a 'fact' in a movie about bringing Dinosaurs back from blood in a mosquito trapped in amber? Impossibilities heaped upon impossibilities--it's called FICTION for a reason.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, once you start talking about 'assumptions' you come perilously close to invoking creationist arguments about scientists only guessing and really having no idea what they're talking about.

a) I don't think anthropologists should feel imperilled by creationist arguments. They're not that scary. As you suggest, current theories in paleoanthropology are backed by mountains of evidence. Stick to the facts, and you will make your case.

b) If a creationist can discern differences between facts and assumptions, they have shown themselves to be intelligent and at least somewhat knowledgable. These kind of ad hominum attacks against creationists are not persuasive to people who are not in your in-group. They do nothing to advance the scientific understanding of human origins amongst the general public. On the contrary, they tend to be counterproductive, since intelligent outsiders who have not examined all the evidence may come to the conclusion that you are irrationally prejudiced and your opinions are not to be trusted.

c) The history of unbridled speculation in the study of human origins is long and none too venerable. I'm glad to hear stupid assumptions decried, and rather than shout down the critics or, as in your case, warn them to be circumspect, paleoanthropologists should welcome criticism and be glad that people are paying attention.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[Khomar]

The assumptions also stretch across much of human history. I will admit that I am a creationist (and setting myself up for massive ridicule from the Slashdot crowd) so my opinion will be biased. There is also a massive bias the other way in an attempt to support evolution.

For example, history is heavily biased toward the view that humankind is improving. We often point to our technological advances as evidence, and yet, an objective view at history shows that we have either changed very little or have in fact degraded in our level of intelligence. In ancient times, it took 9 out of 10 people just to produce enough food to feed everyone. That left 1 in 10 to be the leaders, shopkeepers, merchants, and inventors. This 10% of a significantly smaller population devised the complex language structures (many of which we can scarcely comprehend today), mathematics, and understanding of physics to build the ancient wonders of the world. These people did have to invent the wheel.

Contrast that to day where 1 in 10 people are involved in agriculture freeing 90% of the population (and a much larger population than the ancient world) to lead, run business, and develop new technology. Add onto this the fact that we are developing new technology based on a huge library of research and discoveries made by previous generations. Have we really improved all that much? In fact, many belive the medicine in the ancient world was far supperior to that of today due to a deeper understanding of how the body heals naturally (modern medicine is often very invasive).

Now, back to the topic at hand, many assumptions are made about "primitive" man based on what? What evidence is actually available to make the claims that hunting/gathering predated agriculture... especially by the thousands of years proposed. Personally, I find it highly unlikely that it took 25,000 years (look at the number again and consider how much has happened in the last 1000) for people to figure out that agriculture might be a good idea. Yet, because evolution must be true, history is proposed with the same concept: start with very basic, primitive technology and as humans "evolve" to become more intelligent, their technology improves. History does not support this assumption.

Like I said, I am biased in my own views, but I wanted to bring up these issues to show the problems with our current theories. I believe we would all benefit from a proper analysis of the evidence, and a more honest disclosure of what we base our theories upon would only help to illuminate the truth. It would certainly make it easier for a creationist like me to take a study seriously if I understood the evidence upon which it was based.

BTW, there is actually a large amount of scientific study in the realm of creationism. While many who support creationism are rather naive concerning science, that does not imply that the theory itself is not a scientific one. You can look at it from the point of view that creationists believe the world cannot be as old as evolution would require. When dealing with pre-historic theories, remember there is far more that we do not know than what we do know. After all, you cannot reproduce macro-evolution or creation in a lab.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[lawpoop]

You can deduce how the animal used its senses from the shape of its brain case and the rest of its skull.

Different regions of the brain handle different tasks.

People have extremely good 3-D color vision. The vision part of the brain, at the back, takes up nearly half the brain mass.

The T Rex has an enourmous olfactory bulb, and a larg nose. She had tiny eyes on the side of his face (no stereoscopic vision) and small visual area. She probably didn't see well. Predators like her today only see motion.

That's why camouflage and the freeze response in prey animals work so well. That makes them invisible, as far as the predator is concerned. But, they are still smellable.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[dvdeug]

the hunting behavior of the velociraptor can be divined from the fossil record

Why not?

We have fossils of velocirapots, so we know their mass, natural weaponery, and their dental structure. Given an incrediably well preserved fossil, we can even get a look at what muscles were used most (by attachment marks on the bone.)

We have hatcheries - which means we know how many would congregate at hatching time, which is some insight into their social structure.

We know what type of species were possible prey in that area, and given teeth and claw marks (or even teeth and claws broken off) on prey, we can know what species were prey.

Given all that, and what we know about how modern predators hunt, I don't think the hunting behavior is really that much of an extrapolation.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope by saying "stupid creationist" you are not assuming all people who do not agree with the theory of evolution are stupid creationists. There are other scientists than just creationists who question evolutions propositions, even atheists!

Re:Stupid assumptions

[serbanp]

Arghhh! Where are my moderator points when I need them? Please somebody mod up the parent!

Re:Stupid assumptions

[2short]

So basically, you have no understanding of the theory of evolution, since you keep talking about technology development.

"there is actually a large amount of scientific study in the realm of creationism"
HaHaHaHaHa! Seriously though, what the hell would you study? Do you just go around doing random experiments, then whatever the result, say "God did it."?

"What evidence is actually available to make the claims that hunting/gathering predated agriculture... especially by the thousands of years proposed?"
Uhh, besides the extensive fossil & human artifact record?

"Personally, I find it highly unlikely that it took 25,000 years ... for people to figure out that agriculture might be a good idea."
That's because agriculture isn't a particularly good idea below a certain population density. Simple foraging is a lot easier if the environment provides enough food. Agriculture is really only a good idea when you want to force the land to produce more food than it does by itself. If you don't need to do it, agriculture is a real pain in the ass.

Hell, why am I bothering. If you really believe Creationism, then either you haven't looked at the evidence, you don't understand the meaning of the word "science" or your a complete idiot. Probably all three.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[joto]

For example, history is heavily biased toward the view that humankind is improving.

I understand from your context that you mean genetically? In that case it's news to me. Can you point to some real examples from serious sources (as opposed to bad popularization of science, badly written school-books, etc...)?

We often point to our technological advances as evidence, and yet, an objective view at history shows that we have either changed very little or have in fact degraded in our level of intelligence

There is absolutely no reason (from either an evolutionary or creationist standpoint) to believe our intelligence has either improved or degraded recently (in the last 10000 years). There is little historical evidence that shows that intelligent people have more and healthier offspring than unintelligent people. On the other hand, technology has improved immensely, mostly as a result of more people working to develop it.

In ancient times, it took 9 out of 10 people just to produce enough food to feed everyone. That left 1 in 10 to be the leaders, shopkeepers, merchants, and inventors. [snip] Contrast that to day where 1 in 10 people are involved in agriculture freeing 90% of the population (and a much larger population than the ancient world) to lead, run business, and develop new technology. Add onto this the fact that we are developing new technology based on a huge library of research and discoveries made by previous generations. Have we really improved all that much?

In a word, yes. Today we have computers, cellphones, cars, airplanes, satelites, refrigerators, frozen food, elictrical lighting and heating, tap-water, radio, tv, cures for most diseases, personal freedom, democracy, washing machine, cheap swedish furniture and lots of other things that have improven our life immensely and wasn't even imaginable in the past.

In fact, many belive the medicine in the ancient world was far supperior to that of today due to a deeper understanding of how the body heals naturally (modern medicine is often very invasive).

Many people believe many things, even wrong things. But you can easily judge the validity of the argument yourself. Next time you have a heart-attack, would you rather go to your local hospital, or some ancient babylonian surgeon (if he was still alive)? Or perhaps you would prefer a medieval treatment with leeches? It is certainly less intrusive than most modern medicine! Of course, we must never forget the effectiveness of a shaman with his mask and dance.

Now, back to the topic at hand, many assumptions are made about "primitive" man based on what? What evidence is actually available to make the claims that hunting/gathering predated agriculture... especially by the thousands of years proposed.

We can look at existing "primitive" civilizations like native americans, native australians, eskimos, lapps, etc.

We can also use reason. Agriculture requires more knowledge and specialization than hunter-gatherer-nomade life does.

Personally, I find it highly unlikely that it took 25,000 years (look at the number again and consider how much has happened in the last 1000) for people to figure out that agriculture might be a good idea.

There are many things I find unlikely that are still true. For example I find it unlikely that an ant can carry 50 times its own weight. In this case I do not know the numbers, or where you got them from, but typically such numbers would be based on something that is more trustworthy than your hunch, such as C14 dating techniques.

Yet, because evolution must be true, history is proposed with the same concept: start with very basic, primitive technology and as humans "evolve" to become more intelligent, their technology improves.

Again, you are completely wrong. There is no serious scientist that would even imagine to propose that humans "evolve" to learn agriculture. Agriculture is an idea that evolves in a human society, it is not an instinct that appears only in certain kinds of people (i.e: white, black, but not native americans...)

Like I said, I am biased in my own views, but I wanted to bring up these issues to show the problems with our current theories.

You may be biased, but more importantly, you are wrong. The only thing you have shown, is that you have a complete, total, misunderstanding, not just when it comes to the theory of evolution, but when it comes to history, natural history, and common sense.

I am very curious about where you got hold of this kind of misinformation. I find it hard to believe that you have been deliberatly misinformed all your life. You might not have been taught much of this, if you come from a stupid backwards creationist shithole, but if you are interested enough in it to actually pose questions, you should at least try to learn something before you critisize.

And before you insist to spread more of your misunderstandings, you should as a good creationist have a look at this page (which is written by and for creationists).

Re:Stupid assumptions

[3Cats]

You're probably thinking of Bob Brier.
http://www.cwpost.liu.edu/cwis/cwp/pr/whatsnew/a rc hive/new01.html

He's really good.I especially liked this episode that aired on Discovery...

3C

Re:Stupid assumptions

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod this bullshit (the immediately preceeding poster) down.

It's yet another slashdotter who has no humility, no respect for other's views, and doesn't want to do anything but insult others.

This kind of crap is getting extremely annoying.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[Anonymous Coward]

Here we go again. Can't someone put their arrogance aside and make a post that doesn't insult someone?

What, did he threaten you somehow? Are you so untrusting of your evolutionary theory that you can't just write a refutation, you have to call people names and insult their faith?

Asshole.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[Khomar]

I find it interesting that almost invariably arguments for creationism are met with inflammatory name calling. That aside...

My point about history is that the modern view is skewed along the same lines of evolutionary thought. Because man evolved from more primitive roots, he must have had a very primitive culture because the higher intelligence had not yet developed. The problem is that history shows that mankind has been very intelligent from the beginning. He did not develop into his current intellectual state.

I agree that technology has improved our quality of life considerably, and that modern medicine, especially compared to the practices of the dark ages, is quite good. That does not mean that there were not advanced forms of medicine in previous times (not including shamans) in the ancient civilizations (Babylon, Egypt). My point in "have we improved" is a question of our current physical condition. For example, would the average Egyptian be more intelligent, less intelligent, or of the same intelligence as a person from today once their technological and educational experiences are equal. History, as it is currently taught, has the underlining belief that mankind, not just the technology, has improved. This is the issue that I was discussing.

Furthermore, the issue of "evolving" agriculture is actually central to evolution if you think about it. What animals use agriculture to get food? Where did this concept come from? While this is not questioned for homo sapiens, it is certainly an issue when looking at pre-historic man. Much talk about pre-historic man involves the development of tools and methods due to increased intelligence.

My point here is that we have allowed the concept that man had to have come from very primitive backgrounds distort our view of what humanity is. Why do we not see long periods of a more primitive written language? Many of the eariest writings show very advanced thought and complex language structures. Why do we not see the most rudimentary math slowly improve over time as the intellect of the species leading up to homo sapiens improved?

Re:Stupid assumptions

[unorthod0x]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the 'Walking with Dinosaurs/Beasts' BBC series creators readily admit that they are stringing things together and filling in some of the gaps with their own creativity. From the colour of the skin/scales to the mating behaviour straight through to laying eggs and the way these creatures moved about is loosely based on observable science and sometimes plain old guesswork. The creators of these series simply chose the explanation that seemed most feasible or attractive and ran with it in order to push along the story (for those who are not familiar with these series; they are intended to be NG-like documentaries based on dinosaurs, following along critters as they cope with the daily struggle of life.) The 'behind the scenes' and picture-in-picture features on the DVDs mention all of this. They are not, I repeat, NOT meant to be taken as pure, unadulterated fact.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[Voira]

Great post!
I was about to reply this when I read yours... Thanks for bringing some sanity to the thread.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[joto]

I find it interesting that almost invariably arguments for creationism are met with inflammatory name calling.

I can't remember having called you anything. Could you please show me an example of me being unfair to you?

My point about history is that the modern view is skewed along the same lines of evolutionary thought.

As I stated above. No, it isn't. It's you who have a misunderstanding of history, not history who have a misunderstanding of evolution. What you are essentially doing is projecting your misunderstanding on to respected scientists, instead of correcting your own views.

Because man evolved from more primitive roots, he must have had a very primitive culture because the higher intelligence had not yet developed.

As I said above, no respected scientist believes that today. I have never heard this claim from anyone but you. And if it was true, that would mean that eskimos and native americans would be less intelligent than europeans, which no study have been able to show to date.

The problem is that history shows that mankind has been very intelligent from the beginning. He did not develop into his current intellectual state.

Yes, history shows no sign of radical increases or decreases in overall human intelligence. However, there is a difference between history and natural history. For example, amoeba is less intelligent than humans.

My point in "have we improved" is a question of our current physical condition. For example, would the average Egyptian be more intelligent, less intelligent, or of the same intelligence as a person from today once their technological and educational experiences are equal.

There exist very little reason to think there would be any difference (beyond natural variation), and I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who actually think so.

History, as it is currently taught, has the underlining belief that mankind, not just the technology, has improved. This is the issue that I was discussing.

NO, it does not. Again, I must ask where you get these crazy ideas from? There is to my knowledge no historists who would even think of claiming that intelligence should somehow improve among humans in a normal society.

Furthermore, you should stop projecting your own misunderstanding on others. If you want the name-calling to stop, you'd better put forward arguements that are somewhat based on reality, and this one which you keep mentioning despite my previous post, and link, is utterly and completely wrong.

Furthermore, the issue of "evolving" agriculture is actually central to evolution if you think about it.

No, it is not. Evolution concerns itself with changes in organisms. And while the human is an organism, the beginnings of agrigulture is as relevant to the theory of evolution as the radical change of the roman empire from a multi-religious society to a christian one. In other words, not at all.

What animals use agriculture to get food?

Most likely some insects (depending on what you mean by agriculture of course). Probably others. And of course humans.

Where did this concept come from?

From someone really hungry? Your guess is as good as mine. But really, it isn't that much of a stress to imagine someone really enjoying plant X starting to grow them.

While this is not questioned for homo sapiens, it is certainly an issue when looking at pre-historic man. Much talk about pre-historic man involves the development of tools and methods due to increased intelligence.

Ok, if this was what you were trying to say all the time, I agree. Much talk about pre-historic man is bonkers, and have nothing to do with science, and everything to do with sensationalism. And of course, humans have an odd desire to want to feel superior to everything, so usually we portray or descendants as very stupid, despite any historic evidence to support it.

Unfortunately we know very little of pre-historic man, but considering the similarity of neandertals (homo sapiens neandertalitis) and modern man (homo sapiens sapiens), it would be hard to say that there could really have been much of a difference.

In fact, we don't even descend from neandertals according to modern canon. Instead, both neandertals and us descend from an earlier version of homo sapiens. As such, we could easily cross-breed. Chances are, it was more of a cultural divide, than a racial one, much like blacks and whites in USA. And if you are curious, the neandertals had larger brains than us (not that that necessarily implies better intelligence).

My point here is that we have allowed the concept that man had to have come from very primitive backgrounds distort our view of what humanity is.

Huh?

Why do we not see long periods of a more primitive written language?

Because paper rots?

Many of the eariest writings show very advanced thought and complex language structures.

News to me. Could you be more specific?

Why do we not see the most rudimentary math slowly improve over time as the intellect of the species leading up to homo sapiens improved?

I assume you mean, why arent't we better than ancient cultures in doing arithmetic in our heads? First of, we are. Things like fractions and the number zero are both pretty new inventions (and the decimal point system is even more recent). We have a much better educational system. And we have a much bigger need for it in our daily life (while ancient cultures also had a monetary system, surely "shopping" was not the main hobby of 80% of their teenagers).

Secondly, you continue to persist in your totally unfounded view that someone actually believe that intelligence must have increased throughout the history of civilization. I have said it before, and I am saying it again: Nobody believes that! I repeat: Nobody! Now, can you repeat with me: Nobody! And so on...

PS: It appears to me that you have a deep-founded misunderstanding when it comes to understanding the scale of things. History does not care about neandertals, cro-magnon, or any other beings from before they were possible to study.

History cares about those civilisations we can actually find out things about, and this requires at least archaeologic remnants of buildings and artifacts used, and preferably written texts. While it is possible (although perhaps not likely) that the neandertals excelled in solving partial differential equations, and became extinct because the females preferred education and career before family, we have no way of knowing it. The evolution of man is in pre-history, not history.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[danox]

The thing that you don't seem to get is that the ancient babylonians and egyptians were not any different to us, and no one ever claimed they were. We know about these people because they left behind large structures among other things, so obviously they already understood complex mathematics and engineering practices. So its like your saying: "I know of a civilisation a few thousand years old that was capable of complex thought, mathematics, agriculture, engineering, etc, and they were not less evolved than us, and Ithe proof is that they were capable of complex thought, mathematics, agriculture, engineering, etc,". I mean, so what? I know of these people who lived like 200 years ago and they were capable of complex thought, mathematics, agriculture, engineering, etc, so that proves humans have not evolved right?

Theres something you need to understand about the evolutionary model. Its not like this continual ladder that starts with bacteria and climbs up to humans. A sinlge species does not evolve to be a better species, what happens in that species diferentiate and change to adapt better to their environment. Its all about environmental stress. You might even be correct to say that humans were more advanced a few thousand year ago, even if you are (and we really can't proves this one way or the other) that has nothing to do with disproving evolution. It could well be that the environment favours less intelligent humans, and they tend to survive and have more offspring, thus over several thousand years overall intellignece has declined. This is still evolution.

Another factor that you seem to not have grasped is that the ancient cultures you are refering to really are the exact same species of animal that we are today. So there is no reason to think that their intelligence would be any different to ours. If you want to compare humans to an ancient culture, try Australopithecus (not sure about spelling there). There you got a seriously different species. Let's see your claims that these guys were more or just as advanced than us.

You arguments are illogical on many levels, I have just shown 2 here. I don't have any problem with you believing in creation, but don't make the mistake of trying to use science against itself. Admit that your method of determining truths is different to that of science, and don't try to rationalise a faith-based system, it just doesn't work.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[Khomar]

Ok, if this was what you were trying to say all the time, I agree. Much talk about pre-historic man is bonkers, and have nothing to do with science, and everything to do with sensationalism. And of course, humans have an odd desire to want to feel superior to everything, so usually we portray or descendants as very stupid, despite any historic evidence to support it.

Yes, this is exactly what I am talking about, but I see now that I did a poor job of communicating it. I will also concede that my points were far to vague and general (in lopping the whole of history teaching into one group). Perhaps it was too much Star Trek mumbo-jumbo that got me turned off to the whole human improvement thing. :-)

Well, if nothing else, my original post started a bit of good conversation. I will take into consideration what you (and others) have said.

Also,

From someone really hungry? Your guess is as good as mine. But really, it isn't that much of a stress to imagine someone really enjoying plant X starting to grow them.

I agree, which also makes me question the current theory that agriculture took so long for homo sapiens to discover.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[Khomar]

Another factor that you seem to not have grasped is that the ancient cultures you are refering to really are the exact same species of animal that we are today.

I apologize if this is what was implied, for it is certainly not what I believe -- quite the contrary. I believe there has only ever been one race of man. The concept of de-evolution as it were is merely an interesting thought to me rather than a conviction. If we are getting dumber, it could easily be a problem of culture or society as opposed to changes in the species.

My point is basically that I cannot really see any evidence of some of the language structure, mathematics, etc. in pre-historic man, and then suddenly, we have complex writing structures (for example, the library of Ebla in cuneiform (sp?)) and mathematics. Historians are frequently being surprised at the level of technology and understanding that existed in many of the ancient cultures, most of whose knowledge was lost in invasions and intellectual purges that we humans seem to be so fond of.

I do not see this as a rationalization of a "faith-based system", but rather as a question concerning where humans came from. We have ages of time in which no progress happened, and then suddenly, and in an alarmingly short period of time according to the evolutionary scale, in which humans have flourished and innovated. This is what seems very strange to me. If I remember my history correctly, homo sapiens first "appeared" around 35,000 BC, and the first civilizations that we acknowledge in history formed around 10,000 BC. My point is that there are 25,000 years (that actually is a very long period of time) in which homo sapiens, people very much like you and me, did nothing by hunting and gathering with no development of language, culture or intellectual pursuits beyond a few rough pictures in caves? Perhaps this was lost in the wars and purgings that I mentioned above, but surely something must have survived. Would we really have wasted so much time with no real discernable progress at all?

I guess that is the main thrust of my question, and it is why I have a problem with the current view of our early history. It makes me wonder if purhaps there could be errors with our dating methods and the assumptions made in generating the time-table that is currently taught in history corriculum.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[Anonymous Coward]

your a complete idiot

Classic!

Re:Stupid assumptions

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't remember having called you anything. Could you please show me an example of me being unfair to you?

The only thing you have shown, is that you have a complete, total, misunderstanding, not just when it comes to the theory of evolution, but when it comes to history, natural history, and common sense.

Hmmm, I see how you could think that telling someone they have a complete lack of common sense is not insulting--after all, your mother said it to you all the time, and she loved you, right?

Re:Stupid assumptions

[joto]

Perhaps it was too much Star Trek mumbo-jumbo that got me turned off to the whole human improvement thing. :-)

Ahh, the genesis device... Probably the episode in the original series that managed to put in the most bad science per minute.

And the endless arguments between Picard and Q about the humans having "evolved" past violence and aggressive behaviour.

I'm sure there are newer examples as well...

Re:Stupid assumptions

[Khomar]

And the endless arguments between Picard and Q about the humans having "evolved" past violence and aggressive behaviour.

Exactly right. And it is not the only place where I have seen this thought growing (college history courses, popular media, etc.). It is this line of reasoning that I find very troubling. As I stated in reply to another post in this thread, I do not believe that people have changed much at all throughout history, though some people try to read in evolutionary changes in the "progress" they see in society. I am not attempting in this arguments to confront macro-evolution (history does not necessarily serve as a good avenue for this, as you have pointed out), but merely to point out potential flaws in our view of the past 10,000 - 25,000 years of human culture. Even the methods at which we have placed dates for the human development may be considerably wrong. On the same token, the commonly held belief (among creationists) in a 6500 year old earth may prove to be wrong as well.

While I believe the 7-day creation of the earth, there still remain many questions as to exactly how everything progressed from there. There are many question marks even within the Bible, especially in regards to giants, the Nephiim, the "Sons of God", etc., that I believe are worth looking into. We may find that there is much knowledge to share on both sides of the camp, and the truth may very well lie between what both sides how as their absolute truths. Afterall, even the interpretation of Genesis 1:1 is believed to be quite different than what was originally thought -> "In the beginning, God created the spaces and the matter" (instead of "heavens" and "earth") gives a more interesting and enlightening meaning, especially combined with what we know about science today (it is believed that outer space is not actually empty as has been supposed: Outer Space in a Bottle).

There are also frequent references throughout the Bible to "God spread out the heavens" which one could tie into a concept of a "Big Bang" as the stars where spread out across the universe.

I am not trying to make a conversion here or anything. I am merely trying to point out that there are some interesting things that might be gained from the Bible if it is not catagorically dismissed, and likewise, all of the scientific discoveries, evolutionary or otherwise, should not be thrown out either. I believe there is a lot of common ground that can be researched if we keep a somewhat open mind. This is where, getting back to the article, it would be nice to actually see all of the evidence. While the current theory may be vastly flawed, the actual evidence could help develop the next, more accurate theory.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to compare humans to an ancient culture, try Australopithecus (not sure about spelling there). There you got a seriously different species. Let's see your claims that these guys were more or just as advanced than us.

The title of this discussion is, "Stupid assumptions". I dare not call myself a scientist -though I am interested in science- and therefore you may choose to give no value to my statement, but arent't the Australopithecus all a big assumption made out of a few bones and teeth, plus a few paintings or something of the sort? How can we base statements on something that is the result of many assumptions, which may be very intelligently formulated, yet remain mere assumptions?

Again, I have done no heavy research on the subject, so if you have some solid proof on Australopithecus from respected sources, I would be glad to read it.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[danox]

I apologize if this is what was implied, for it is certainly not what I believe -- quite the contrary. I believe there has only ever been one race of man. The concept of de-evolution as it were is merely an interesting thought to me rather than a conviction. If we are getting dumber, it could easily be a problem of culture or society as opposed to changes in the species.

OK, well this really was not clear in your other posts. You seem to have lumped human history with evolution

My point is basically that I cannot really see any evidence of some of the language structure, mathematics, etc. in pre-historic man, and then suddenly, we have complex writing structures (for example, the library of Ebla in cuneiform (sp?)) and mathematics. Historians are frequently being surprised at the level of technology and understanding that existed in many of the ancient cultures, most of whose knowledge was lost in invasions and intellectual purges that we humans seem to be so fond of.

It is not surprising that cultures that we know of mainly through the artifacts that they left behind, show a certain amount of knowledge, since these cultures must have had such knowledge in order to leave behind these artifacts. Also there is current anthropological evidence, as well as historical evidence of cultures that are based on a purely aural tradition and do not have writing, yet still have sophisticated cultures. So really what you are saying is that the existance of written materials sheds some doubt over the fact that humans existed for a reasonable period of time before such practices were developed, which really is a false claim.

I do not see this as a rationalization of a "faith-based system", but rather as a question concerning where humans came from. We have ages of time in which no progress happened, and then suddenly, and in an alarmingly short period of time according to the evolutionary scale, in which humans have flourished and innovated. This is what seems very strange to me. If I remember my history correctly, homo sapiens first "appeared" around 35,000 BC, and the first civilizations that we acknowledge in history formed around 10,000 BC. My point is that there are 25,000 years (that actually is a very long period of time) in which homo sapiens, people very much like you and me, did nothing by hunting and gathering with no development of language, culture or intellectual pursuits beyond a few rough pictures in caves? Perhaps this was lost in the wars and purgings that I mentioned above, but surely something must have survived. Would we really have wasted so much time with no real discernable progress at all?

I can't discuss the dates with you as I don't know for sure if they are correct or not. However even if these dates are correct, there is no reason whatever to believe that civilisation suddenly sprang into being 10,000 years ago with no development of language, culture or intelectual pursuits beforehand. This is a topic which is way to huge for a thread on slashdot, but, lets take one example here to refute your claim. Look the the native Australians, up until 220 year ago, they had no written traditions, they had no technology more advanced than sticks and stones, they had no permanent dwellings, yet what they did have was a rich cultural heritage, advanced languages and a phenomenal understanding of their environment, to the point where they could manage to easily survive in places considered uninhabitable by the europeans. What is even more amazing is that they had all this knowledge without a formal writen language. Now you could look at their way of life and imagine humans having lived in such a way quite easily 30 or 40 thousand years ago. The fact that such a culture can exist at the same time as the culture of the british who colonised the country shows that there is no relation between time-lines and the civilisation that you refer to. Esentialy, it is pointless to look at the beginings of the history of writing and equate this with an apparent leap in ability of a comunity to develop, hhumans can develope their culture without writing, without stone masonry, and without aggriculture. What writing does do, is improve communication, which allows concepts to be shared more easily, and thus helps technology advance. We can see this in the present day where tchnology is proceeding at amazing speeds, on account of the amazing comunication abilities we posess. To sum this all up, it is false to think that technological advancement is the only way to measure the cultural or intelectual development of individuals or groups of individuals.

I guess that is the main thrust of my question, and it is why I have a problem with the current view of our early history. It makes me wonder if purhaps there could be errors with our dating methods and the assumptions made in generating the time-table that is currently taught in history corriculum.

What I think is more likely than errors in current dating methods, is that there are errors in your logic. While I generaly think it is great to challenge conventional wisdom, I also think that it is better to do this with an informed and rational approach. Not to say that you are totaly un-informed and irrational, but I think that there are some large holes in your arguments that you may not have noticed.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[danox]

Here is a list of fossil evidence for australopithecines, and here is some pics of Australopithecus skulls. Make of it what you will.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[danox]

The difference between using the bible as a frame of reference to using science to attempt to discover answers, is that science has observable evidence at it's core. It exists only to find the best answers to observable phenomena. Individual scientists may discount the bible, but science itself does not. The scientific approach to the bible as a source of evidence is that using the bible relies on a faith in the existance of an entity which, but definition, is not observable, and therefore outside of the realm of science.

Science does not seek to disporve the bible, it merely seeks to explain observed pheneomena. If there are conflicting theories, then science will not side with the bible for the reasons I mentioned above.

Your points are interesting insofar as they may help someone confirm or deny the existance of a specific god, and this is defniately very important to some people, but it really has very very little to do with science. The scientific method is exact and specific and your points really lie outisde of it. While interesting to sum, they should never be confused with science.

I am bit excited at this point, becasue it seems that I have the attention of a serious creationist. And there is something I have always wanted to ask a creationist, which is, why and how are you able to place such trust in the bible? How do you know it is divine inspired, and what grounds do you have for placing your trust in this book, and thus shaping your entire point of view and way of life around it? This is not a piss-take, I realy realy want to know the answer to this.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[MichaelPenne]

Because man evolved from more primitive roots, he must have had a very primitive culture because the higher intelligence had not yet developed.

That evolution is a progression from "primitive" to "advanced" is not the actual scientific view, though it is a popular one. The fact is, a lion is not more "primitive" than a human, actually, in many ways it is more specialized than humans are.

A good book to read on the subject is Stephen J. Gould's Wonderful Life, where he examines the idea of progressivism, and shows that often more specialized, highly evolved species are the ones that die out when the environment changes, while more "primitive", less advanced species are often better able to adapt their less specialized bodies and behaviors to changing environment.

As far as progress in human history, many things do seem to have improved, but this is an example of the evolution of ideas, which, once writing came along, could be transmitted and improved on in each generation.

But you are correct on one point, most of the evidence appears clear that humans have not become more intelligent in the past 100,000 years or so, & since are brain size is limited by the size of a woman's pelvis it's not likely we will get any more intelligent, at least not until we stop reproducing through live birth:-).

Re:Stupid assumptions

[MichaelPenne]

I guess that is the main thrust of my question, and it is why I have a problem with the current view of our early history. It makes me wonder if purhaps there could be errors with our dating methods and the assumptions made in generating the time-table that is currently taught in history corriculum.

I would say that the error is more likely in your assumption that writing is a relatively easy thing to figure out how to do, especially for a people who move around chasing animals and/or following naturally ripening fruit.

Instead, I would say it's more likely that ability to read and write complex ideas is probably the most difficult thing humans ever learned how to do, & folks would probably not even begin such a task until they had discovered numerous other technologies (like how to make a knife out of a rock) that sound simple until you actually try them.

Seems to me that 25,000 years is not very long at all for folks to take to invent writing, especially since one generation would have a pretty hard time telling the next generation everything they had learned until they had come up with a decent alphabet.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[1u3hr]

The way that in a show about dinosaurs, the narrator will casually throw in a bit about "the brightly coloured skin" or saying that Australopithecus slept in trees and had good colour vision.

Since modern reptiles are "brightly coloured" and AFAIK, every ape/monkey/primate has good colour vision make these good assumptions. (Sleeping in trees, less so, but I didn't see that show so I don't know the context.) And in Walking With Dinosaurs, in the intro, and certainly in the "Making of" companion episode, they state that that they are (of course) making assumptions, and that in the narration they don't qualify every statement as part of the "wildlife documentary" style they are emulating.

It's far, far from the fake science of Fox "documentaries" on the paranormal, Noah's Ark or whacky conspiracy theories.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[Khomar]

First, I want to thank you for your comments at the end which are both gracious and true. You have made some good points that I will definitely have to consider, and I see that there are indeed several problems in my logic. This is why I wanted to post on this issue, because it is something I have wondered about and I wanted to get some feedback on the issue.

Thank you for giving me more to chew on. I definitely have some re-thinking to do on this issue.

BTW, I will post the answer to your other question within that thread.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[Khomar]

There are actually many reasons why I place trust in the Bible. For one, the Bible is the most accurate ancient document in the world. The amount of archaelogical evidence in support of the Bible is enormous, to the point where many archaelogists turn to the Bible before making a dig to see if it offers any clues that can help. There have been no archaelogical discoveries to disprove the Bible, though admittedly, many of the accounts either have not or cannot be confirmed by external evidence (ie. many of the miracles). While this does not help in the scientific realm, it certainly gives the book a lot of credence in the historical realm.

The Bible also contains hundreds of prophecies that have been fulfilled exactly as they were foretold. In the book of Daniel, written several hundred years before the events it fortells, Daniel predicted to the day when Jesus would ride into the Jerusalem on what we would later call Palm Sunday. He also foretold the very name (Darius) of the ruler who would release the Isrealites from captivity and help them build the temple 70 years before it happened. There are many other prophecies I could talk about, but that would make this post far too long.

Another reason is the accuracy of the manuscripts. With the Dead Sea Scrolls, the book of Isaiah was found that predated Jesus by nearly 100 years, and it was virtually identical to the book of Isaiah we use today. This is significant due to the fact that the book of Isaiah contains most of the prophecies concerning Jesus the Messiah.

There is also the fact that the Bible is very different from any other book. It was written over 1400 years by authors from multiple continents and from backgrounds ranging from a doctor to a king to a shepherd. And yet, in all of this, a consistent message is presented. Throughout time, people have tried repeatedly to destroy the Bible, and it has failed everytime with the opposite result of it being spread even faster despite the persecution.

Another reason (and this one may sound a little strange) is its absurdity. David, the hero of Isreal, is shown at one point to be a lustful murdurer who commits adultery and then kills the woman's husband when she gets pregnant. What other ancient civilization would speak so plainly of their leaders great failure? Jesus, raised as a devout Jew, claimed to be the Son of God, extreme blasphemy for His culture. People today say that He was "just a good teacher", but do good teacher's claim to be God? If someone walked up to one of us today and said that he was God, we would probably send him to a mental ward. Either Jesus was in fact God, or He deserved to be killed by the Jews according to their law. Also, the Bible claims that the gift of eternal life is free -- there is no human work or practice required to follow Jesus Christ: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast" (Eph 2:8-9). In every other religion in the world, there is some practice or ritual that must be performed in order to find happiness, salvation, etc. This strangeness makes it almost unbelievable that a person or a group of people could have created this on their own. It is contrary to human nature which wants to promote itself and make it look more glamorous and important rather than the Biblical example of humility and service -- we are said to be completely reliant upon God for everything. People, by nature, want to be independent, either culturally or individually.

The Bible has a very solid grasp of reality and truth, and even in the style of its writing, I can feel the power behind the words. The advice in Proverbs is solid and real, even in admitting that bribes can make friends. Ecclesiastes is so applicable to our society in which we search for meaning in entertainment, and we still can find no purpose for life.

The Bible has also changed lives dramatically. How can you explain a group of uneducated Jewish fisherman suddenly speaking out boldly that the man they followed was the Son of God to the point of death? Not one of the disciples changed their story even in the face of hideous torture and death (all but one of the 11 disciples of Jesus were killed for their faith). Their example of faith is a strong example for me to follow in mine.

The Bible has also changed my life by giving me a purpose: I was created by God to glorify Him. It explains the pain in the world: we rebelled against God and the pain and suffering came as a direct result from our disobedience (Romans 6:23). It explains how God offered us a way to find our true purpose in life by paying the penalty of our rebellion with His only Son (John 3:16, Romans 5:1). The advice it gives for how to live life is profound, and experience shows it to be right.

As I look at this world, I cannot help but see a master hand behind every design. When I see similar skeletal structures among mammals (notably, the limbs even in whales), I see a great design that works for many purposes. When I consider the complexities of DNA, I see a Master Builder's careful design. Even the very laws of physics require an explanation for their existence which God provides. How else can you explain why the universe works the way it does without something to bring it into being?

While there are many questions that remain that are brought up by science, they are not enough to convince me that the Bible is untrue. Many of the things we see in this world support the view of Creation, just as many seem to support evolution. What I do see often in the evolutionist camp is a lot of assumptions... just about as many as their are in the creationist camp. They assume that the world must be a certain age based on assumptions of radioactive decay or the speed of light (the distance to the stars), but perhaps the discoveries have not yet been made that will show that these assumptions are actually incorrect: the decay rate is not constant under certain conditions or the speed of light is not always constant (which, by the way, there is growing evidence that it is not, even in space).

The fact is, it is certainly an issue of faith. God has chosen not to reveal Himself directly, so without the direct evidence, there can be no scientific proof. However, even evolution is hard to prove scientifically since it has not been reproduced (at least on a macro scale) in a lab. Also, no scientific explaination for what life actually is or how it actually came into being has been presented. This does not necessarily disprove the theory of evolution, but it certainly marks some weaknesses in it.

The evidence I do see for the Bible provides enough reason in my mind that what the Bible says is true and can be trusted. I am sure that I am forgetting other reasons as I write this and others have certainly made more eloquent statements in its defense, but I trust that this will answer your question.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[Khomar]

You make a very good point, although 25,000 years, when one really considers it (our recorded history with all that transpired in it only goes back a few thousand years) is a very long time. Furthermore, with the oral traditions of many civilizations, the learned could have been passed on from generation to generation in that manner. Your point is very much valid still: there is no conclusive proof either way.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[1u3hr]

In fact, many belive the medicine in the ancient world was far supperior to that of today due to a deeper understanding of how the body heals naturally (modern medicine is often very invasive).

Yes, that's why we live two or three times as long as our hunter and gatherer ancestors. Where our health is degraded, it's from the massive pool of infection we expose ourselves to by living in urban communities, and eating fatty sugary food and not doing any exercise; not because of any lack of mystical medical wisdom. I will admit that I am a creationist

That people like you can believe this garbage does rather support your assertion that our intelligence is not increasing.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[danox]

This is all very interesting, I have heard similar arguments before, but not in as much detail. Thanks for sharing this with me. One thing that I am still curious about however is why your belief in the bible neccesitates taking the words literaly rather than seeing parts of the bible as metaphore. As a creationist you must believe that Genesis is an exact account of history, which I am curious about. After all these texts were written several thousand years ago, they were collected from an existing, previously oral, tradition and were inscribed as dogma for the hebrew people. What reason do you have for believing them to be factual and literal historical records?

Re:Stupid assumptions

[joto]

Exactly right. And it is not the only place where I have seen this thought growing (college history courses, popular media, etc.).

In the case of college courses, it would be nice of you to point out the error (although, never claim to be a creationist, unless necessary). At college level, you expect the teacher to not misinform the students.

I'm not sure about what to do about popular media. If it is science-fiction like Star-Trek, we will have to live with it. If it's an actual science show, it would probably be the best if someone pointed out the error.

though some people try to read in evolutionary changes in the "progress" they see in society.

Yes, there are many people who have no idea of science, yet speak of it loudly. Maybe I've been so accustomed to them that I never listen anymore.

As someone who really believe in the bible, you will undoubtedly know the same problem there. Jesus was born in a crib, but there is no reason to believe he was born in a stable. Angels are dressed in white, but there is no reason to believe they have wings (as commonly portrayed). And the devil would popularly be portrayed as someone with goat legs, horns, dragon tail, etc... On the other hand, he is also called the tempter, and it's likely to assume he would put on a more effective look than that most of the time. These are just obvious examples that even an atheist can see, but doubtless you are aware of many more, and perhaps as guilty as I am of ignoring bad science, in ignoring bad theology.

but merely to point out potential flaws in our view of the past 10,000 - 25,000 years of human culture. Even the methods at which we have placed dates for the human development may be considerably wrong. On the same token, the commonly held belief (among creationists) in a 6500 year old earth may prove to be wrong as well.

Undoubtedly, our current knowledge or human evolution and pre-history is lacking. But the dating techniques themselves seem sane enough, being in the right timespan for C14 methods. There's more a question of understanding exactly what we have dated.

The creationist 6500 year old earth has absolutely no scientific basis at all. Creationists occasionally have some good arguments against what science is preaching (you should really study the link I gave you, it's great), but their alternative is immensely more stupid and hopeless (not to mention unscientific). If you believe the earth is 6500 years old, you should also believe that God created it with a much older history just to fool us.

While I believe the 7-day creation of the earth, there still remain many questions as to exactly how everything progressed from there.

I've always felt unsure about why creationists insists on reading exactly this part of the bible the most literally. It seems obvious to me that if you are going to interpret any passage in the bible, this would be the one to start with.

There are many question marks even within the Bible, especially in regards to giants, the Nephiim, the "Sons of God", etc., that I believe are worth looking into.

Yes, I believe that much of the mythical material in the bible is undervalued. It's much more fun to read about Sodoma and Gomorra, than about Jesus feeding 5000. Especially, much of the stuff in the old testaments have obvious paralells to other cultures and myths.

We may find that there is much knowledge to share on both sides of the camp, and the truth may very well lie between what both sides how as their absolute truths.

No, we will not. You see, science is not interested in the bible. So even if the bible actually has the truth, it would do us no good. On the other hand, because of science's strong position in modern society, christians need science (in earlier days, the pope could simply declary it wrong, and people would follow, today that is impossible). The only thing science can get from the bible is an insight into human psychology while trying to understand the reason for it's popularity.

I am not trying to make a conversion here or anything. I am merely trying to point out that there are some interesting things that might be gained from the Bible if it is not catagorically dismissed, and likewise, all of the scientific discoveries, evolutionary or otherwise, should not be thrown out either.

No, unfortunately for creationists, looking for answers in the bible is the opposite of science. It doesn't matter how correct predictions it makes, how you can "interpret" the discrepancies away, etc. Science must ignore the bible, if it is to remain science. The only thing that matters in science is whether our theories contradicts observed phenomena.

That doesn't mean that creationists aren't allowed to try to combine science and reason with religion. But they should not expect any help from the scientific community, beyond actually producing more science.

I believe there is a lot of common ground that can be researched if we keep a somewhat open mind.

Yes, the common ground is to work together, and find holes in each other thinking. This should be done through experiments, and there is no reason why experimenters can be both scientists and creationists. Most creationists are exceedingly bad at receiving such critiques, and like ufologists, would keep on repeating the same old wrong arguments infinitely. That is why I gave you an interesting link.

The natural result of that is that anyone debating with creationists will immediately think he is debating with someone insisting on repeating the same old wrong arguments (which for example you have done in this debate). Therefore creationists will not be taken seriously.

However, if creationists start preaching something that is consistent with science, avoid bad arguments, and stop behaving like ufologists, then maybe we would start listening.

This is where, getting back to the article, it would be nice to actually see all of the evidence. While the current theory may be vastly flawed, the actual evidence could help develop the next, more accurate theory.

Yes, getting the final truth would be nice. Unfortunately, wishful thinking doesn't help in this case.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[2short]

"It's yet another slashdotter who has no humility, no respect for other's views"

If I told you the world was flat, would you have respect for my views? What if I said that since this "round earth" thing was just a theory, my flat earth theory should be given equal time in public schools?

"doesn't want to do anything but insult others."
Actually, I though I posed a couple questions first.

"This kind of crap is getting extremely annoying."
Kind of like creationists who post stupid stuff, then post anonymously about why their critcs should be silenced.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[Jake Dodgie]

In the book, it was put down to frog (or lizard)DNA being used to fill in the gaps in the dino DNA & that frogs (or lizards) have this type of vision.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[Fjord]

Yeah, but I know what this guy is talking about. I watch discovery a lot and many the shows themselves, even the historical ones like the egyptian specials (I don't believe I've seen this particular series) will state things that are theories as if they are fact. If you watch discovery long enough, you'll eventually see other shows that state "facts" that contradict the other shows "facts." Regardless of what "behind the scenes" shows say about the shwo they are covering, I do find a lot of these are disingenuous in how they present their "findings".

One show even claimed that the candy necklaces worn by ravers were made out of MDMA pills with holes drilled through them, as if a candy raver is going to wear $1000 worth of pills around their neck that they could destroy just by sweating. That isn't even archeology, it's just anthropology they are getting wrong.

Still, the shows are entertaining.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[Fjord]

The original poster said

What really annoys me about most pre-history books and television shows is not the way that they assume, but the way they put forward their assumptions as facts

S/he specifically said they are not annoyed by assumptions. They then said they are annoyed at how the assumptions are presented as fact. I do not see this as "dangerously close" to critisizing the scientific process. In fact, it is a good support of the scientific process, because once assumptions are treated as fact, then it becomes religion.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[KewlPC]

IIRC, this was the theory at the time the book was written. Somebody examined the brain casing of the T-Rex and, after comparing it to the brain casings of other animals, came to the conclusion that the T-Rex could only see movement, like many modern predators.

Re:Stupid assumptions

[KewlPC]

Why do we not see the most rudimentary math slowly improve over time as the intellect of the species leading up to homo sapiens improved?

Because the species leading up to homo sapiens almost certainly did not have mathematics .

Much of modern mathematics was developed by the great civilizations such as the Greeks, Romans, et al. That is why there are a lot of Greek symbols in mathematics, and why we have things with names such as the Pythagorean Theorem (named after Pythagoras).

A civilization must grow beyond the point where the sole concern is mere survival before abstract concepts such as mathematics and things like written language and science can develop. Why do you think the tribes living in the jungles of Africa haven't developed advanced mathematics or science? Because they have to spend the majority of their time just trying to stay alive.

Why do we not see long periods of a more primitive written language?
While it is certainly true that there would have been many primitive languages in the history of the world, most of them were probably purely spoken languages. We can deduce this becuase most of the primitive languages that are still around have no written form. IIRC, the barbarians who brought the western Roman empire to an end had no written language.

That is why you do not see long periods of a more primitive written language. English didn't have a written form until a long time after it was "invented". Languages need to reach a certain level before transitioning into written form: both the language and the people speaking it need to become sophisticated and complex enough to make it worth writing things down in the first place.

confusion

[kfx]

I was under the impression that neanderthals were proven to be merely an extinct race of Homo Sapiens, but this book shows them as a different species again? Somebody explain plz

Re:confusion

[lederhosen]

Well, spices is kind of fuzzy definition,
normaly you see two differnet individuals
whos childs can not mate as belonging to
different spices.

It seems like the neandertahls did not have
children with homo sapiens but people differ
in their opinions.

Re:confusion

[outofpaper]

It is comenly acepted that neanderthals where a branch in the family tree that produced Homo Sapiens. Thay apear to have been a more docile race then cro magnon and ether where driven to extiction by cro magnon or interbread, creating modern man and explaining why some people look like "cave men".

If you want to find out more you could look at Neanderthals and Modern Humans. It explains who neanderthals where and what posibly hapened to them.

Re:confusion

[chefren]

Living proof for the above interbreeding statement

Re:confusion

[Anonymous Coward]

So, judging from your write-up, you are a Neanderthal yourself?

Re:confusion

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be silly. He's obviously American.

Re:SLASHDOT...

[lederhosen]

Religion is always right. And can not be questioned.

Re:SLASHDOT...

[Anonymous Coward]

and to pre-empt the person saying "so i science"

thats not what i was taught. its easy to question science, its difficult to say its wrong. i was taught that science is not put forth as absolute truth, but explanations and answers to what we see and what we have to work with. i have never heard of a theory etc stated as 100% absolute truth that will never change.

Science is not a religion

[Anonymous Coward]

But there is a huge difference between how science approaches explanation than how religion does.

[Science]

Assumption 1 + Assumption 2 + Assumption 3 = Conclusion 1.

The scientific method. Take a set of assumptions. Add them together. Come up with a hypothesis. Test that hypothesis with a carefully constructed experiment. Come up with a conclusion based on observing the experiment.

Pretty standard stuff. That's pretty much how human thought works.

But where do the assumptions come from? In science, assumptions are previously-made observations. For instance, "the proton has a positive charge," "hydrogen has an atomic number of 1," "neurons are incapable of regenerating," etc. Experiment after experiment has been run, and these assumptions have been challenged in theory after theory. But they've always held fast.

Thusly, the assumptions or their attendant conclusions become "law." And they remain so until proven otherwise.

[Religion]

Assumption 1 + ... + Assumption N = Conclusion 1.

Same methodology as with science. Makes sense, considering that's how our minds are built to solve problems.

The difference here is in the nature of the assumptions. In science, as mentioned above, the assumption is merely an observation. However, religion's assumptions are canonical. They are arbitrary, unobserved "observations" that must be taken as fact. If you want to know for sure that "a proton has a positive charge", you can look up hundreds of independent studies that prove it, and how to reproduce that proof. If you want to know that "God created the Earth in 7 days", there's only one place to look. And even that source contradicts itself. (For instance the Yahwist v. Priestly sources in Genesis 1 & 2).

These assumptions remain true, and cannot be proven otherwise, under penalty of toppling the entire system itself. Science has changed continously over its entire existence; its assumptions and conclusions constantly refitted to match the current set of data. Religion has not. The same immutable assumptions have always existed.

So just because Religion and Science follow the same patterns of explanation does not make them so similar. The common thread is of course, they are both used by humans.

But while we're speaking of religion...

If the majority of people were capable of and had the mental fortitude necessary to conducting an honest and critical analysis of their belief systems then the world we live in would be a starkly different place. I think it would be a better place, but maybe not.

Our belief systems serve to shield us from possible realizations that could hinder day to day living or even cause irreparable damage to our mental stability. There are some people that don't need religion, nationalism or any philosophy to buffer them from an understanding of the possible irrelevance of their existence. Then there are those people that fly into a rage at the mere suggestion that some examination of their beliefs may be in order. In between are people who have constructed a very fortified logic loop that they enter when confronted with the fragility of their base assumptions. When asked pointed and illuminating questions they frown or make odd faces realizing that there may be a chink in their armor. Often they just lapse in quoting scripture or other text they see as supporting their justifications.

Now please don't misconstrue what I'm saying into "all indoctrination renders people into sheep." That may or may not be the case. The issue is that by subscribing to a system of belief without serious, SERIOUS questioning of that belief and why we feel the need to cloak our perceptions within it we automatically draw potentially harmful barriers between "Us" and "Them."

Yes, this is a clinical view of the situation. Science itself can be construed as a belief system that serves the purposes I've stated above. But I would argue that the core doctrine of any particular scientific discipline is to look at an aspect of our existence and attempt to discover and explain the true workings behind it. Most religions on the other hand present "The Truth" as "seen" or "understood" by prophets, soothsayers, gods and messiahs. While often comforting, these doctrines often go out of their way to discourage the questioning of "The Truths" they present. To be fair though, the basic doctrine of many religions is a moral code outlining decent and appropriate behavior that is often followed only loosely, if at all, by many of the religion's supposed followers.

There are people who have asked themselves the right questions, have done the deep analysis, and remain strong in their faith and belief. These people are often excellent examples of the better aspects of their belief system. I say more power to them. The problem is that they are the minority. Most people use religion as that crutch, that warm comfy cave that keeps them from having to think too hard about "what it all means." Not everybody is prone to such analysis and that's fine, but when you start using that crutch to beat others over the head you've just made yourself a big part of "the problem."

To paraphrase Martin Luther King, "I can't be who I need to be until you are who you need to be. You can't be who you need to be until I am who I need to be. Let's help each other get there together." The main issue I have with religion is that unless we are very careful we let it tell us what other people need to be. That is a sure recipe for strife and prejudice.

Re:Science is not a religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Test that hypothesis with a carefully constructed experiment.

Or a first principles simulation!

Most experimentalists and laymen probably are not aware of how advanced modern ab initio calculations are.

I would predict that within a few decades with ever improving theory and computational power, experiments can be eventually replaced by simulations. Why? They are more accurate, can model events that are hard (or impossible!) to measure or the measurement of which is stupefyingly expensive (Big Science like CERN, anyone?).

Re:Science is not a religion

[Anonymous Coward]

You have one big unfalsifiable assumption: God.

Science has millions of small but falsifiable assumptions.

Religion is a brittle, petrified structure that requires blind faith in its one underlying assumption. It all falls apart if that one underlying assumption is allowed to be questioned.

Science is a flexible, organic structure that constantly keeps guessing itself. Yes. Frauds and mistakes are made. Catching those is what makes it alive and evolving towards better understanding in the first place.

Re:Science is not a religion

[Bill Currie]

That only works if your first principles are flawless. Real experimentation will always be necessary, but the amount needed will likely decrease as simulations will make it easier to plan out the real experiments. Going with your CERN example, simulations will make it so you have to do only a few (maybe even one or two) expensive runs to prove or disprove your theory rather than several as the simulations will help you figure out what to look for.

Sure, that's what scientists try to do now (ie, predict what to look for), but better simulation techniques will just make their predictions more precise and thus easier to prove or disprove with a real experiment.

Re:Science is not a religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Religion is a brittle, petrified structure that requires blind faith in its one underlying assumption. It all falls apart if that one underlying assumption is allowed to be questioned

Depends who you talk to.. What's wrong with questioning God? Who says you cannot? Sure, a lot of churches and church people don't want to question it, but the Bible actually says that you are supposed to have faith based on knowledge.

Re:Science is not a religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice, but

"Thusly, the assumptions or their attendant conclusions become "law." And they remain so until proven otherwise."

Is not necessarily true. E=mc^2 is an example of a law, conclusions otherwise are - the ones that explain things - are known as theories.

Re:Science is not a religion

[lederhosen]

>>E=mc^2 is an example of a law, conclusions >>otherwise are - the ones that explain things - are >>known as theories.

Well E=mc^2 was a theory and is now accepted as a law --- and it does explain things!

Is it not more like a theory explains things that are belived, but where all details are not sorted
out exactly. Ie everything that is not very exact,
like mathematical formulas or *simple* ideas
like gravity.

Re:Science is not a religion

[kfx]

1) Science is not a religion.

2) Science is RESEARCH and EXPERIMENTATION resulting in PROVABLE EXPLANATIONS about the world around us. When you read the rest of this post, don't get me wrong. I love real, old-fashined, provable science (mostly of the physics and astronomy variety, although I am more than happy to read and study ideas and concepts in other fields in a never-ending quest to quench my thirst for knowledge). But I know I can't be the only one who has to suppress the sudden urge to deposit my latest meal on my keyboard every time I see a thread degenerate into mindless bickering.

3) Religion cannot be EXPERIMENTED on and thus is not science. It must be taken based on FAITH, the believing of something unprovable. (Religion is however not without its own merits, such as providing moral codes for decent living which many people are lacking in current times.)

4) On the other side, no matter how much you RESEARCH, evolution cannot be EXPERIMENTED on for the most part either (It is in the realm of history, and is not observably active today; only a few experiments could be performed, such as comparing the DNA of moden men with that of Neanderthals, etc). ASSUMPTIONS can be made based on exhaustive RESEARCH, but at the end of the day they are still just educated ASSUMPTIONS and must be taken on FAITH. (Evolution has some merits as well, in that it causes people--although fewer and fewer it sems--to research and study and question, which may lead to some real scientific discoveries).

5) As both Religion and Evolution cannot be EXPERIMENTED on, both must be taken on FAITH, and neither is truly Science.

6) Since neither Religion or Evolution is Science, everyone is free to believe whatever the hell he pleases, and no matter how much you flame/argue/troll you will never change his mind. The Origins of species, and for that matter, everthing, is in the realm of History, not Science.

7) In light of the above points, just STFU! There's no point to perpetually arguing over non-Science!

Re:Science is not a religion

[roman_mir]

Evolution can be observed. It is observed on daily basis in microbiology where the rates of births and mutations are very high. I do not understand why you think that we cannot observe evolution. After Chernobil tragedy in Ukraine it has being observed that various species - some plants, worms, small animals and people started having various mutations. This is due to evolution as well. Why do you think you need to vaccinate against flue every now and then, why is one vaccine not enough? Simple - evolution. The virus will evolve to the new conditions, and on human scale it does that fast.

Evolution in the past can be observed through archaeology. We found skeletons and remains of early humans. It is not like Darwin just got drunk one day and came up with something that he had no precursor to. Dinosaur bones tel us that there were creatures like that and now they do not exist. What does that mean? Evolution. The strongest have survived the changing conditions, and the strongest do not have to be the biggest.

Anyway, nice troll.

Re:Science is not a religion

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

Apparently the great-grandparent post was quite the excellent troll to get this far down, but I feel the need to reply to this. It's about your first two points - about science not being a religion and science creating provable explanations. I'm a science guy myself, but I'm willing to admit that there are things we can never know. There's the VR-reality bit - where everything around us could just be a simulation of a world which has vastly different physics than the world we actually live in.

The most basic problem, though, is the idea that because something happened before, it will happen again. We have no proof for this assertion, and every scientist (and almost every other human) has faith in it. Who's to say that the universe doesn't change it's physical laws randomly, at random times? Maybe there are no constants!

It's easy to dismiss these thoughts. You *have* to to get on with your daily life. You wouldn't be able to do anything with the knowledge that maybe next time you made a sandwich, it would shoot lightening at you. And it would be stupid to do so.

All I'm saying is that there are basic assumptions that all humans take "on faith". A lot of people will laugh and say "well, that's so improbable as to be impossible". But what do we have to hold up that assertion? Our previous experience.

Re:Science is not a religion

[kfx]

This'll probably get down-modded, but it needs to be said. Although we scientists blame religious people for blindly refusing to listen to reason, there are many who _claim_ to be scientists who are just as bad.

Simply put, mutation does not equal evolution. The Chernobyl example cited is simply the result of radiation damaged genes, not evolution.

No true evolution has been observed in microbiology either; the rise of antimicrobial resistant microbes is simply the result of those already resistant microbes surviving and producing more offspring, just like people who are resistant to a disease that kills most others. This is survival of the fittest (a simple, provable fact, not evolution), and can be applied to most any other 'example' of present-day evolution (peppered moths, finch beaks, etc.); all of the 'new' versions already existed, only in smaler numbers.

Extinction is merely a result of the survival of the fittest--the unfit usually die. However, that is reaching into the realm of History, as I stated above. My point is simply that evolution cannot be observed as _CURRENTLY_ occurring (I am not saying that it has not occurred in aeons past).

The purpose of science is to expain the world as it exists today, not how it got here--no matter how much your mind burns to find out the answer to that question.

And no, I am not some crackpot fundamentalist nut-job; I am a humble seeker of scientific fact. As I stated above, Origins are largely unexperimentable and must forever remain in the realm of unproven theories and faiths; as such just let these pointless arguments die.

To roman_mir: Nice troll yourself. Although few people here do, at least TRY to think before you post.

Re:Science is not a religion

[roman_mir]

Nice, nice. Sure I'll try to think. I think you are making a difference where there is no difference. Survival of the fittest is evolution. The species change depending on changing environment. When the environment is stable, the species do not have to change too much, the dinosaurs ruled this planet for hundreds of millions of years. Survival of the fittest is one of the main principles of evolution. The fittest get chosen for reproduction, the others die off. Gene mutations found in Chernobyl survivors will cause many to die off but will produce some that will be less susceptible to various radioactive poisons such as stroncium.

I still believe you are trolling

Re:Science is not a religion

[Laser Lou]

Concerning the Bible's creation account, proper hermeneutics is needed here. Since evolution is the scientific understanding of our origin, shouldn't creation be interpreted in that context? Is it ever correct to interpret the Bible apart from its historic context?

Also, concerning eyeballs, I recommend Charles Darwin's book "The Origin of the Species." He explores that subject of eyes and other complex organs.

Re:Science is not a religion

[Anonymous Coward]

No true evolution has been observed in microbiology either; the rise of antimicrobial resistant microbes is simply the result of those already resistant microbes surviving and producing more offspring

This is false. From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html :

Bacteria are easy to study. This is an advantage in evolutionary studies because we can see evolution happening in the laboratory. There is a standard experiment in which the experimenter begins with a single bacterium and lets it reproduce in a controlled environment. Since bacteria reproduce asexually all of its descendents are clones. Since reproduction is not perfect mutations happen. The experimenter can set the environment so that mutations for a particular attribute are selected. The experimenter knows both that the mutation was not present originally and, hence, when it occurred.

In other words, you start with a single bacteria which is not resistant to antibiotics. This bacteria multiplies into a colony, and then antibiotics are given to all of the members of the colony. In some cases, not all of the cells die - some have developed an immunity to the particular antibiotic. Just one of many ways evolution of novel traits can be observed over short periods of time. See the full FAQ for more examples.

Re:Science is not a religion

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, so a bacteria can develop a resistance to antibiotics. How do you make a step from that to SOUP THAT BECAME A HUMAN BEING??? That proves nothing. A dog is not a cat, a rat is not a hog, a bird is not a frog. Again, you will probably say "give it some time"... HOOEY! That is CIRCULAR REASONING. Thus, it is again NOT SCIENCE because it can't be proven.

If I crapped a turd, it is not going to evolve into a mouse. That has more chance of happening than a human being coming from soup.

Re:Science is not a religion

[woodsma]

Everyone comes to their own conclusion. There is no absolute proof of God and there is no absolute proof of his non-existence.

When one examines the base assumptions for understanding our existence, one is confronted with concepts that we have to believe because we have to use those concepts in order to try and disprove them.

I've been going over this almost daily for over three years now, and I have yet to come to a different conclusion (based on, ultimately, not an ungrounded assumption, but the base concepts). My conclusion is that God DOES exist and it is in my best interest to believe that he does even if he doesn't.

So, my faith is not a brittle, petrified structure that requires a blind trust in a single underlying assumption. Like many others, my faith is based on an extensively thought out framework that will not easily fall to criticism. But, when all is said and done, it requires trust at a certain level.

I find that the previous postings that point out that science does so as well hit the mark, though people won't admit that they are trusting something, just not God, and they lash out at those who suggest that God does exist and a particular religion is true in fact.

Why is this? Without trying to be insulting, I honestly suspect it is a combination of human selfishness, arrogance, and, understandably, fear of a great unknown. One's belief system and comfort level are threatened, and, rather than responding with charity and humility, people strike out and subsequently get ignored by most people other than those who believe the same way they do. We are all imperfect, myself included (perhaps at the top of the list?), and we all carry some of these traits. I find this extremely unfortunate, and our reactions to others even more so. Interestingly, that in which we believe is not in the least bit threatened by the conflict. It is, at its worst only unfeeling information and, at it's best (in my opinion) an invincible God.

Finally, I personally find it difficult to understand why one would want to put their full trust in the conclusions of a system that is constantly guessing itself. I find it difficult to trust a system that readily admits that it's conclusions today may be found totally bankrupt tomorrow. I'd rather search for a more solid structure to base my life on. I find this, to start, in the base principles and my conclusion that God exists.

Re:Science is not a religion

[moz25]

Finally, I personally find it difficult to understand why one would want to put their full trust in the conclusions of a system that is constantly guessing itself.

Well, unless I'm misintepreting, you're putting your full trust in it every time you step into a car, fly in an airplane or use the computer ;-) Still, even though the laws of aerodynamics my prove to be "bankrupt" tomorrow, planes still fly.

Moz.

Re:Science is not a religion

[MichaelPenne]

OK, so a bacteria can develop a resistance to antibiotics. How do you make a step from that to SOUP THAT BECAME A HUMAN BEING???

Same way you step from dropping a ball from a tower to the force that keeps the moon up there all pretty like.

*sigh* but if the bible said the invisible hand of God kept the moon up, no doubt fundamentalists would try to stop it from being taught until someone orbitted a moon sized mass around an earth sized mass in the lab.

See the same kind of reasoning is used to go from small changes in small amounts of time to big changes in big amounts of time wrt to evolution as wrt gravity, but somehow the folks clamoring that evolution is an assumption don't say the same thing about gravity.

Even though there is certainly as much evidence for the theory of evolution as there is for the theory of gravity.

Why is that?

Re:Science is not a religion

[woodsma]

Of course, I'm referring to those areas where the conclusions are not solid, not those areas where we have repeated confirmation. Obviously, I trust those areas often (one must in order to simply live), especially the flying part, as I am a pilot!

The items you list above have constant confirmation. Macro evolution (despite the dogmatic party line claiming it as "fact") does not, nor does much of that which passes as science but contains large amounts of conjecture and assumption (specifically those areas that properly fall into history, not empirical science). Those theories and conclusions seem to me to be most reasonably labeled as here today and gone tomorrow, certainly not something that I'm willing to put my faith in.

Re:Science is not a religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Christianity is not the only religion, nor is the Bible "the defining authority" on God.

Asian religions like Buddism, Hinduism and Jainism make a whole lot more sense than Christianity.

It's an anti-science religion, and has caused more damage to science than any other.

Grow up. Christianity is a bunch of nonsense, it's a "sophiscated" religion and has nothing whatsoever to do with anything that would hold you in good stead.

It is the open religions, that can accept new things without falling apart, that sustain.

You can "convert" to being a Christian or Moslem. You're either a Hindu or a Buddhist or you're not. Period.

Re:Science is not a religion

[Anonymous Coward]

By your logic, I must have evolved red hair since nobody else in my family has red hair. Just because a gene is not active in one life form does not mean it is not present.

I don't get it

[Gizzmonic]

Why doesn't he just write it in English? Neanderthal is a dead language anyway. While many may speak its guttural combination of grunts and moans, few can decipher the crude glyphs that score the sides of ancient convenience stores.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I thought it was funny. Thanks for the laugh!

Did you know?

[Kozz]

I'm sure that a great number of slashdotters have studied anthropology or related topics previously, but for those not "in the know", the word "Neanderthal" is pronounced with a hard "T" (as in "tall"), not a "th" sound as in "thought".

Take a look at Merriam-Webster's pronunciation .wav file -- they've got it right.

Pronouncing it correctly will show others you're a bit more educated -- saying it incorrectly, and the anthro-geeks will roll their eyes. ;)

Re:Did you know?

[p3d0]

Look again. M-W has both pronunciations.

Re:Did you know?

[lederhosen]

Well, its just a question of time before
enough americans pronounce it wrong and
it will be the accepted "right".

Biology is full of "american" latin
-- so why should it not spread to other
languages too!

Re:Did you know?

[lederhosen]

I think the german pronunciation is the
interesting one, How correct is german
pronunciation of foreign areas???

Re:Did you know?

[Hey_bob]

If i recall.. The first Neanderthal was found in the Neander valley, in Germany.. Neanderthal meaning something like "Valley of the new Man" or something.

So, they might know a bit better how to pronounce that..

I've listened to my GF and her other anthrogeek friends yammer on about this.. but I will double check with her when she gets out of class. :)

Re:Did you know?

[stevenbdjr]

It's more than a pronunciation thing, the "h" has actually been dropped from the spelling in academic circles. Even the Discovery channel spells it Neandertal now.

Re:Did you know?

[Hey_bob]

course, i could be an ass-hat ano not note the sarcasm in your post.. doh!

Re:Did you know?

[triumphDriver]

The name comes from the name of the german village where the first bones were uncovered. In the late 1800's Germany unified the spelling of German and Neandertal changed to Neanderthal but kept the same pronunciation.

Re:Did you know?

[daniel23]

Neander is the name of a small river in Germany, Thal is just an orthographical variant to Tal, meaning valley.
So Neanderthal means just "valley of the neander"

Re:Did you know?

[werfele]

And tal shares its origin with the English word dale.

Re:Did you know?

[LPetrazickis]

Biology is full of "american" latin -- so why should it not spread to other languages too!

Uh, American Latin is no more wrong than French Latin. Cicero (pronounced Kikero) would have pronounced it as Ne'an'dert'hal with a voiced h. The problem is that the French named them and their pronunciation rules are just as stupid as mine and thine.:)

Re:Did you know?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the first Neander was named Dale? ...cool...

"Mr. Neander, how long have you... uh, please call me 'Dale' ...oh, sorry. ...now Dale, how long did you say you lived in a trailer, down by the river, out in the valley?"

just don't you call me JJ!

Re:SLASHDOT...

[zapfie]

Science is the study of fact. Religion aims to fill a spiritual need. When they start preaching about things like capacitors hooked in parallel in church, or teaching me about forgiveness and understanding in computer science class, let me know. ;)

paleolithic man

[klocwerk]

Just to clear this up a bit, and yes I was an anthro major...

There's still a LOT of debate in the anthropological/archaeological community about the evolution tree of modern humans. Originally it was thought that it was a simple straight line of evolution from ape like 'missing links' to modern humans.
These days there's a lot more in the middle there.
Neanderthals may or may not be related to modern humans, as the time period when they existed has a very jumbled fossil record. There are at least 3 distinct human-like species (or sub species) from this era, and as one poster already refered to, they may have been able to interbreed.
There's way too much going on still in trying to sort this all out, so for now just be happy thinking that these may or may not be humanity's ancestors.
Because we don't know the truth yet.

Re:paleolithic man

[Reality Master 101]

These days there's a lot more in the middle there.

Indeed, and what concerns me in particular is this quote:

Luis Arsuaga includes just a little bit of abstract philosophy of mind in an overview of debates over consciousness, sentience, language, and their evolutionary origins; he argues that Neanderthals had language and self-awareness, but lacked our more advanced symbolic abilities and vocal anatomy

This seems really unlikely to me. Given that we're only talking a few hundred thousand years, I don't think that's enough time to really make significant changes to the brain, unless simply a bigger brain gave us more capability. I think it's much more likely that the "big change" that gave us sentience and self-awareness came a long time ago, and then we got a large number of branches until things got fine-tuned enough to give us the advantage over everyone else.

On the other hand (and this is where I contradict my last statement), maybe it took one key random change to give us such an overwhelming advantage that we were able to wipe everyone else out.

Maybe you can tell me this... does the fossil record seem to indicate that there were a lot of human variations milling around until Boom! they all went extinct, or does it look like a long, gradual process? Or do we simply don't have enough evidence to make the call?

Re:paleolithic man

[vizbones]

Maybe you can tell me this... does the fossil record seem to indicate that there were a lot of human variations milling around until Boom! they all went extinct, or does it look like a long, gradual process? Or do we simply don't have enough evidence to make the call?

I would have to say it is two factors:

1) More evidence is certainly needed. This is
a complex puzzle and we really only have
relatively few pieces

2) Our understanding of the mode and tempo of

Re:paleolithic man

[vizbones]

Arrrrg! Stupid return key! Sorry, I'm an idiot. What I was trying to say for number 2 was that we don't know much about the mode and tempo of evolution. In addition, do any rules we learn apply to ALL species, ie does what hold true for snails apply to Hominoids (Apes AND humans)? A friend of mine who studies teeth (they are VERY informative) just finished her phd on Neanderthal and Archaic human teeth. In her opinion, the Neanderthals were still human, but isolated and moving away. So they were on their way to becomming a different species, but hadn't arrived yet. Take it for what it's worth. V

Re:paleolithic man

[2short]

"unless simply a bigger brain gave us more capability"

Just to nit-pick a bit: Neanderthals had bigger brains than us. (Or at least a bigger cranial capacity)

Re:paleolithic man

[klocwerk]

There's not much evidence out there unfortunately. Skeletal remains are very very fragmentary, and complete skulls rare.
It's not like there was one point where it suddenly branched in 5 directions, one of which became us. It was a gradual thing, a new one here, a million years later another new species while one or both of the previous two were dying out... etc.
It was a rather gradual process. naturally there were boom times and slim times, but it's a natural process after all.
That answer your question a bit?

Re:paleolithic man

[Reality Master 101]

That answer your question a bit?

I guess what I'm aiming at is the Big Question of whether Homo Sapiens Sapiens killed off all the other species, or if they died out "naturally". The latter seems unlikely, since even a less human would have a lot of advantages over the rest of the animal kingdom. I mean, we have lots of simian species still surviving, so it seems likely that we conquered any competitors. I was wondering if the fossil record shows anything like that. But as you say, it's a pretty sparse record, so we'll probably never know.

It just brings up the big question that what was it about us that was the big advantage? Were we just lucky (seems unlikely), or did some relatively small change produce a big advantage? Similar to the book's point (from my original quote), it may be that simple throat or jaw changes started an evolutionary chain reaction that optimized toward complex language that our already existing symbolic brain was finally able to utilize. A small physical change to produced a big result seems more likely to me than the book's contention that actual complex changes to the brain that gave new capabilities.

Let me ask a slightly different question. Obviously there are great variations in the skulls of various pre-humans. Does that give any evidence that the brains were very different or is it possible that the braincase was just a different shape, but the brains were more or less the same? My gut feeling is that the latter is the most likely, and as I said above, it's physical changes that allowed the brain to be used more effectively that gave us the big advantage.

Re:paleolithic man

[Anonymous Coward]

The overall size of the brain doesn't matter as much as the areas of the brain that undergo the size change, so the "shape of the braincase" idea you made seems almost a given. Increasing size of these areas would require a reshaping of the skull (or is it the other way around, seeing as they tend to accompany and accommodate practical features, such as eye and ear placement and shape of the nose and sinus cavities?)which explains in part why we look as we do.

Re:paleolithic man

[klocwerk]

Discovering widespread genocide within the fossil record would be impossible. Not difficult, impossible. We could find a skeleton or two who were killed by a wielded implement rather than an animal, but it's simply not possible to say that this is indicative of a widespread movement rather than an isolated incident. there just isn't enough evidence. heck, there's bearly enough evidence to determine the differences between the species we're talking about. heh.

As for the brain case size issue, that's even more difficult to determine, as there is no soft tissue left with any of these remains. Size and shape of the brain case varied immensely, and the larger brain cases didn't seem to help, as the neanderthals showed.
So size and shape varied greatly and from all we can tell at this point, had no impact on the success of a species.

Re:paleolithic man

[KewlPC]

The ability to make complex vocalizations isn't just a brain thing. The Neanderthals may not have been as physically capable as modern humans in the vocalization department.

Of course, a large part of it DOES have to do with how much of a species' brain is devoted to vocalizing. But even if you were somehow able to put a human brain in a dog and keep it alive, it wouldn't be able to talk.

On the issue of sentience: Neanderthals were almost certainly self-aware. Many species of primate besides homo sapiens are self aware, such as gorillas and orangutans. We primates don't hold the monopoly on self-awareness, either; dolphins also seem to posess this quality (and possibly other species, I'm not sure).

Re:paleolithic man

[KewlPC]

Let me ask a slightly different question. Obviously there are great variations in the skulls of various pre-humans. Does that give any evidence that the brains were very different or is it possible that the braincase was just a different shape, but the brains were more or less the same? My gut feeling is that the latter is the most likely, and as I said above, it's physical changes that allowed the brain to be used more effectively that gave us the big advantage.

The Neanderthals were probably a little bit less smart than Cro-magnons or Homo Sapiens, judging by the fact that surviving tools that they made are less complex. It is very possible (and probably likely) that small changes in the Homo Sapien throat and jaw structure, accompanied with small changes in brain structure, resulted in a big difference. It isn't the sheer size of the brain that matters, but proportions: the bigger the brain in proportion to the body, the smarter the animal usually is. This is because, by increasing the brain-to-body-size ratio, there would be more brain percentage for things besides motor function, involuntary function, etc., such as thinking. If you look at all the "smart" animals, such as gorillas, dolphins, etc., you'll find that their brains are very large, proportionally speaking.

Neandertal's exist...

[yunfat]

Just watch enough RealTV and you will come across a few. Last night I saw two neandertals trying to sky dive to a wedding... one crashed into a parking lot, the other crashed into a tree, you could tell they weren't homosapiens because modern man is smart, right?

Re:SLASHDOT...

[lederhosen]

>> ... i have never heard of a theory etc stated
>> as 100% absolute truth that will never change

No, that would have been a fact!

Like for example the value of PI.

Neanderthal as distinct species

[DrJay]

A while back, an article in the journal Nature indicated that labs in Germany and the US isolated small fragments of DNA from Neanderthal bones. These indicated that the differences between Neanderthal sequences and the equivalent sequence in modern humans is greater than the difference among various populations of modern humans. They interpreted this to indicate that Neanderthals had branched off the the population of homo-like species well in advance of the development of modern humans, and thus that they compromised a separate species, with no indication of interbreeding with modern humans.

I'm sure those who disagree could give a cogent counter argument, but i don't work on evolution, so i can't.

Cheers,

Jay

Re:Neanderthal as distinct species

[mindlace23]

Well... the "no indication of interbreeding" is a bit much; there was at least one find in 1999 that suggests otherwise.

The Lapedo Child was discovered in the Lapedo valley in Portugal. The child had anotomical features of Neandertal and Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Neanderthals? like me?

[matt4077]

I actually live in a town in Germany to which the "Neanderthal" (it's a valley) belongs. So, technically, I'm a Neanderthal.

Re:Neanderthals? like me?

[Puu]

So... you're a valley?

Re:Neanderthals? like me?

[back_pages]

That's where the name comes from. I believe the first fossils of this creature were found in the Neander valley, Neanderthal in German, and the name was applied to the creature.

It's all about money (surprise, surprise)

[swb]

Well, ratings, but that really translates into money.

In order for documentaries to get good ratings on TV, they have to be interesting to the usual neanderthal watching TV, which means they have to have lots of pictures and definitive, easy answers. Thinking and talking heads lose viewers, costs ratings, and somebody isn't making money.

I especially *love* when the show B&W silent movie footage, especially the stuff with the old frame rates, set, say, in ancient Rome. I wonder how many people presume its footage from ancient Rome..

And then there's *making* a documentary. First you have to hire a bunch of really smart people to provide input, a couple of writers to tie it all together both with accuracy and interest, as well as figuring out how to provide visuals for subjects and places that pre-date photos. All of that is *very* expensive and has a limited amount of financial return.

"Modern" documentaries that involve contemporary subjects are usually either propaganda (eg, "The Navy Aircraft Carrier") or politically unpopular, so we don't see them.

Re:My dream

[Anonymous Coward]

did you also have a dream about running naked through a field of peckers, and falling on your ass?

PS - how do you know you're straight if you've never had sex with another man?

Christian Fundies

[Jagasian]

How do the Christian fundies explain away the Neanderthals? Last time I checked, according to these fanatics, anything that wasn't written in the King James Bible, either never happened or never existed.

Re:Christian Fundies

[Anonymous Coward]

First, radiometric dating is dismissed completely. Second, non-homo sapien humanoid remains are considered homo sapiens that simply look different. Third, intellectual intimidation. Fourth, you will be killed by God.

Re:Christian Fundies

[Anonymous Coward]

The bone structure of Neanderthals is actually just like the structure of a normal human being with Vitamin D deficiency. There is a group of people (probably on a Pacific island, though I don't remember exactly) with the same problem. They look like Neanderthals.

Re:Christian Fundies

[lawpoop]

In certain places the bible talks about giants living in certain towns and other giant-like things.

Plus, the fossils aren't as old as the scientists say they are.

Re:Christian Fundies

[dvdeug]

How do the Christian fundies explain away the Neanderthals?

They were simply humans with rickets and/or arthritis. In all honesty, Neanderthals aren't an interesting arguing case, since they are clearly human for most uses of that word. The interesting cases are the ones in the middle, where one creationists points out that it's obviously human and another points out that it's obviously an ape.

Re:Christian Fundies

[Khomar]

The Neanderthals, as has been pointed out in other responses to this article, were not necessarily a separate species. According to the Bible, mankind started with Adam and Eve, and it is believed that with these two people, the entire spectrum of human genetic potential existed (skin color, differences in skeletal structure, etc.). Also, according to the Bible, all but a very few people from the ancient world died in the flood. It is quite possible that the Neanderthals were simply an offshoot of Adam and Eve - a family that had similar traits - that died off in the flood. While some of the genetic potential for similar traits exist even today, the unique traits that do not exist today may have died out with the flood.

As a bit of an aside, assuming that there actually was a world-wide flood (ie, the entire surface of the world was covered with water), the immense pressure of that water would form the fossils as well as the fossil fuels from the life forms that had lived prior to the flood. Just a thought....

Re:Christian Fundies

[nels_tomlinson]

How do the Christian fundies explain away the Neanderthals? Last time I checked, according to these fanatics, anything that wasn't written in the King James Bible, either never happened or never existed.

You don't have to be smart to go to heaven. God wants folks with enough faith in Him to volunteer to go there. Any deficiencies other than lack of faith, such as education or IQ, He can remedy when you get there.

I am a Christian fundamentalist. The foundation of my faith is that God sent Christ, his son and God incarnate, to pay the price for our sins. Yours too, by the way. Because of that, any of us who want to spend eternity with God can do so. Trivia about exactly how God made us won't change that.

I do believe that the Bible is the word of God, and is True with a capital T. That doesn't mean you can't misinterpret it. The Bible is a How-to for salvation, and there aren't any details in there about anything else.

I think that Genesis is a creation story for the easily satisfied, not God's How-to for creation. Genesis tells us that God made the world, and God made us. Those are the important points, and they are True. The details about how just aren't there.

Psalms (somewhere, can't remember right off) tells us that the sky and the mountains tell of God's creation. That's the story the geologists and astronomers are reading, and that's where God wrote down the details he left out of Genesis. When the ignorant make fun of that, ask them if being wrong would mean that Christ didn't die for them. If they say ``no'', ask them why they are fussing about trivia.

Re:Christian Fundies

[jonnyfish]

I asked my mom about that once and she said it was Satan and Jesus teaming up to test her faith.

Re:Christian Fundies

[back_pages]

You've got my respect. I like hearing from individuals with enough sense to recognize that science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive.

Re:Christian Fundies

[2short]

That is not true. All the vitaim D deficiency in the world will not give you a 40% larger cranium, or any of the other distinguishing features of Neanderthals.

Re:Christian Fundies

[2short]

"I think that Genesis is a creation story for the easily satisfied, not God's How-to for creation. Genesis tells us that God made the world, and God made us. Those are the important points, and they are True. The details about how just aren't there."

How about taking Adam's rib to make Eve? Sounds like a detail to me. Is it True with a capital "T"? The bible is full of details, many of them contradictory.

On a different note, I love the whole bit about all that matters for going to heaven is accepting Jesus, not whether you're a good person. Is Gandi burning in hell?

Re:Christian Fundies

[BlaisePascal]

When the ignorant make fun of that, ask them if being wrong would mean that Christ didn't die for them. If they say ``no'', ask them why they are fussing about trivia.

Good argument. Unfortunately, I'm not Christian -- I don't personally accept the the statement you give as the foundation of your faith. Somehow, I doubt that your response would work well if I tried it myself on Christian fundamentalists who think, in your words, that Genesis is a "How-to for creation".

Re:Christian Fundies

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer is here

Re:Christian Fundies

[hplasm]

The Christian Fundamentalists evolved from the Neandert(h)als...;>

non-binary world view

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it possible to believe in a God who uses evolution as a method for bringing His creation into existence?

W00t! First one to be branded heretic by fundamentalists from both sides!

Carl Sagan levels this indictment against small-minded Christians: "Their god is too small." So I gotta give it up for Sagan -- he may have missed out on knowing the Creator, but at least he has the proper awe for an amazing creation!

Don't put God in a box! He's a big God, and He's not your pet! Bah, what am I doing on Slashdot? I am neither vitriolic religion-bashing atheist, nor am I knee-jerk Bible-thumping fundamentalist! What's with this non-binary world, anyway? Continuous spectrum, anyone?

Anyone else out there, somewhere in the middle? Big God, big creation, there's more to life than any one person can figure out ...

Re:My dream

[Anonymous Coward]

click this link

Re:What about inter species breeding

[Savage-Rabbit]

That has been debated! Scientists tend to be pigheaded about their pet theories and thus the subject of Homo Sapient/Neandertalis hybrids has become the cause of full blown trench warfare among scientists.

But enaugh about the bonfies of (scientific) vanity. Geneticists claim they have extracted Homo Sapiens Neandertalis DNA from fossils. Now..... some of the people who evaluated these results claim that interbreeding was impossible or at best extremely unlikely. Critics of this assertion point out that if Camels and Guanacos (30-40 million years of genetic isolation) can produce viable hybrid offspring the same should be the case with Homo Sapiens Sapiens and and Homo Sapiens Neandertalis where the Genetic isolation was much, much, smaller. This seems to be born out by evidence from Israel (debated) and especially new discoveries in Portugal . Some of the aversion to the possibility of Neandertal/Cromagnong hybrids seems to be almost Eugenic with some people which is probably due to the Neandertals undeserved reputation of being a primitive hominid when, at least in my humble opinion, they fully deserve the title "Sapiens". Personally I would not be at all disappointed to find I had some Neandertal DNA. There is a legion of worse possibilities when it comes to embarrasing ancestors than Neandertals. Feel free to make fun of me for saying that, I'm sure some of you can will not be able to resist it.

Ps. I am not an anthropologist and I may be misusing the term Homo Sapiens Sapiens, these hominids are also sometimes referred to as Homo Sapiens Cromagnon.

They ignore it.

[revscat]

Most of the Christians in my family simply ignore anthropology, or make cynical comments about it.

1. Ignore it. Easiest route.
2. Wrap it up with some good ol' secular cynicism: "Cave men? Yeah, like these scientists. I mean, how do they think they know that? They're just making it up."
3. Wrap it up in the "God's testing our faith" meme that you see used to explain fossils, &c. According to this line of -- ahem -- reasoning, God put this evidence in the ground to test our faith. If you believe the evidence but don't believe the Bible, you fail the test. See also the "Carbon dating doesn't really work" meme.

Whatever the case they are extremely hesitant to take such evidence seriously enough to give it the thought that it deserves.

Re:They ignore it.

[Laser Lou]

One thing I try to point out is that the Bible should never be interpreted apart from its historic context, and evolution is the historic context of creation.

Re:They ignore it.

[superyooser]

One thing I try to point out is that the Bible should never be interpreted apart from its historic context

Agreed!

and evolution is the historic context of creation.

I disagree. Evolution is the obfuscation and misrepresentation of the historic context of creation.

God says: Earth created in six days (seventh day established for man as day of rest, i.e., the Sabbath = Saturday = 24 hours), birds before reptiles, whales before reptiles, no death until man (sin), no rain until man, man originally plant-eater, etc.

You can be an evolutionist or a creationist.

Re:They ignore it.

[Laser Lou]

You can be an evolutionist or a creationist.
I agree, and I'd like you to know that I do consider myself an evolutionist, and not a creationist.

God says: Earth created in six days (seventh day established for man as day of rest, i.e., the Sabbath = Saturday = 24 hours), birds before reptiles, whales before reptiles, no death until man (sin), no rain until man, man originally plant-eater, etc.

My disagreement with creationism is not about whether the biblical creation account is inspired by God. It is about what it means.

Because of the strong, reasoned evidence we have that life evolved over millions of years, and that the earth, sun, etc. existed far longer than that, I don't believe that the creation account is intended to tell us that everything came into being over a time period of six earth days 6000 years ago. I can't say for sure what the days are intended to mean (except for the part about the week and Sabbath; I understand that). I don't think the days should be thought of in terms of something which overwhelmingly conflicts with present day knowledge. I find it far more likely that the account is meant to be figurative in one way or another than that everything suddenly came into existence a few thousand years ago.

Re:They ignore it.

[superyooser]

My disagreement with creationism is not about whether the biblical creation account is inspired by God. It is about what it means.

Because of the strong, reasoned evidence we have that life evolved over millions of years, and that the earth, sun, etc. existed far longer than that, I don't believe that the creation account is intended to tell us that everything came into being over a time period of six earth days 6000 years ago.

These two statements reveal a contradiction. Up until the 20th century explosion of evolutionary thinking, all Bible believers, both Jewish and Christian, believed that the creation account does precisely and clearly say that the Earth and all kinds of life were created in six days and that this occurred about 6000 years ago, which is according to the Bible itself, not to mention corroborating scientific evidence. After personally studying the teachings of Jesus Himself, the Creator Incarnate, in the gospels, His words appear to reinforce a literal interpretation of the creation account.

As a Christian (I assume?), to profess the belief that creation occurred over hundreds of millions of years (and is still occurring!!) is to stake out radical, new theology whose ramifications trample on many core Christian doctrines. No follower of God, from Abraham to Isaiah to Jesus to Constantine to Martin Luther to Billy Graham and the Pope believes in evolution (macro). While the idea of evolution was discussed by ancient Greek philosophers as far back as 600 B.C., it has never been part of any Jewish, Catholic, or Protestant doctrine. It is a concept born from atheism, and has ballooned into a full-fledged religion for the avowed "non-religious". I have posted a few times on the subject of theistic evolution in previous articles:

My comment in Cyclic Universe a Possibility

My comment in Evolution - Beyond the Popular Science
I posted two more times closely below this comment in the same thread.

AiG: Genesis FAQ

Re:They ignore it.

[Laser Lou]

I can give only a short answer now, because of time, but I'd like to continue discussing this.

Yes, I am a Christian, and I believe the Bible is true. I was a creationist for a long time (about 10 years). Now, I see creationism as something born from insecuity about the truth of the Bible, not from faith.

The evidence that I've seen presented to support Creationism seems strained and biased to me. I'll explain later.

I don't care whether the people who discovered evolutions were atheist, or in Falun Gong. Its the science that I care about.

Also, I don't think that evolutionism or creationism should be a part of church doctrine.

Re:confusion about Neandertals

[John Hawks]

Whether Neandertals were a different species from other humans is a testable hypothesis, and paleoanthropologists currently differ about the issue. Part of this is because they differ about the definition of species--some scientists would recognize any recognizable morph as a species, regardless of whether they could interbreed with their contemporaries. However, even those who use a definition that gives special importance to interbreeding as a criterion differ, because the only ways to examine interbreeding in fossil species are to (a) demonstrate the fossil form became extinct without issue, or (b) demonstrate the physical differences between the form and its contemporaries to be significantly greater than expected in an interbreeding population. The evidence is currently equivocal:

1. Neandertals no longer exist, and their distinguishing physical characteristics (projecting midface, occipital bun, small mastoid processes) no longer appear at appreciable frequencies in recent people. However, some Neandertal characteristics (horizontal-oval mandibular foramen, suprainiac fossa, lambdoidal flattening) do occur in the Europeans who directly follow Neandertals, indicating to many scientists that their genes were swamped by immigration from outside Europe, rather than being replaced by it.
2. Neandertal mtDNA sequences from ancient bones lie as an outgroup to those of recent people. To many scientists this is evidence of their distinctiveness. However, their mtDNA does not differ from that of living people to the extent that chimpanzee subspecies differ from each other, and the evolutionary pattern of mtDNA in living people may reflect recent selection on the molecule rather than the spread of a distinct non-Neandertal people.
3. Neandertals are different from their contemporaries and distinguishable by many anatomical criteria, interpreted by some scientists as evidence they did not interbreed with their contemporaries. However, the level of differences has not been shown to indicate a great genetic difference (for example greater than that among living human geographic groups), and it is clear that these differences could have arisen even without any isolation of Pleistocene Europe.

So for these reasons, the debate about Neandertal relationships continues.

What do you mean they can't inter breed?

[Dick Click]

If you think that Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Neanderthals, cannot breed together, I ask you to look at one piece of evidence:

Durc, the offspring of both Ayla, and Broud.

Re:What do you mean they can't inter breed?

[Suppafly]

heh.. wish i had mod points for the jean auel reference..

On the contrary

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Evolution is very much science. Experimentation is required in science WHERE APPLICABLE. Evolution is not simply 'in the past' but is still happening today. It can be, and has been, observed both in nature and in labratory settings. Anyone who says that there is no real evidence for evolution is someone who has never bothered to look at said mountain of evidence.

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

Re:What about inter species breeding

[docbrown42]

Leave it to a geek to relate everything to sex.

Congratulations to Spanish science

[dsfd]

Congratulations to Juan Luis Arsuaga and coworkers for their excelent work and also for this book.

For a number of reasons it is hard to do good science in Spain. In short, funding is scarce and it is almost impossible to get a decent contract in a University or research institution. The personal situation of many Ph.D and post-doc students is difficult. It is a truly vocational job.

Therefore, their success is a little bit the success of many others. Again, congratulations !

Arsuaga...

[derfel]

"is one of Europe's leading paleoanthropologists - but while his passion for his subject is clear, The Neanderthal's Necklace never becomes autobiographical"

Is this a suggestion that Arsuaga could have written about the neanderthals in the 1st person?

Re:SLASHDOT...

[Guitarsenal]

If you can't tell the difference between science and religion, you don't understand one, or the other, or both. Religion is a belief system. Religion requires faith. Religion deals with the unprovable. Science deals with the observable world. Science is the process of developing a better and better understanding of the physical world. BAD science looks a lot like religion. GOOD science has nothing to do with belief, ritual or dogma.

Re:What about inter species breeding

[Arker]

The data from Israel, IIRC, is pretty conclusively against the possibility. I remember Binford saying that you have HSS and HSN living in close proximity there for about 90k years with no genetic convergence - a very strong argument for biological incompatibility, over that period of time if it was physically possible for them to interbreed, knowing what we do about human and primate behaviour in general, one would expect to see some serious convergence.

Of course Trinkaus has always claimed the opposite, and periodically come up with evidence he claims supports it, but it was my impression that the only people that find his evidence convincing tend to be the ones who were already convinced.

That said, I'm not current on the debate and there may have been some important developments I'm not aware of. Certainly I think the reasonable expectation is that either Neanderthal and Modern humans were biologically incompatible or they interbred considerably.

Oh, as to your PS I think it's been pretty well settled for decades that Cro Magnon is Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Re:SLASHDOT...

[Suppafly]

Science, religion. What's the difference?

No much if you consider the fact that both have interesting theories on how we came about from nothing..

Religion - A Higher Being created us.
Science - A huge bang in the empty spewed out everything that would eventually evolve into us.

Re:SLASHDOT...

[Laser Lou]

The presence of ancient bones are the evidence of evolution. They support the idea that creatures' bodies changed over long periods of time, and that we are a result of that process.

Here's another way of viewing the issue:
Scientifically, what other way could we have possibly arrived?

Re:What about inter species breeding

[Savage-Rabbit]

I have only loosely kept track of this debate as well, mainly because anthropology was what I wanted to do for a living before I found out that Software Engineers, unlike Anthropologists can actually live off what they get paid. :)

As for the Israeli matter I wrote of that because I vaguely remembered a huge mudfight about it some years ago. Especially the Mt. Carmel remains. But that polite argument is nothing compared the borderline "shitstorm" (pardon my French, but that letter exchange is hard to discribe other wise) that has been raised about the Portugese remains (aka. Lagar Velho #1). Which is also why I usually prefer to stay out of this debate.

Oh, as to your PS I think it's been pretty well settled for decades that Cro Magnon is Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Funny that expression is still used, I keep bumping into it one in a while?!? Some people like to live in the past I suppose.

Re:What about inter species breeding

[Arker]

Aww, that wasn't much of a shitstorm, you should have seen some of the exchanges between my two archaeology professors... that was very polite, excepting Trinkaus' reply went a little overboard, but he realised it and yanked it.

Cro Magnon does have a useful meaning, which is why it's used, you can parse it as HSS with archaic characteristics, it's just not thought that those characteristics approach being so significant as to justify a separate subspecies category.

Terminology in Anthropology is rather conservative to change, witness that my professor who was very much of the opposing camp to Trinkaus still said Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis, not Homo Neanderthalis. Why? Well, he was 90% sure they were really a species not a subspecies, but on purely morphological grounds they look like a subspecies, and that has priority, at least until he's 99% sure instead of just 90%, in matters of taxonomy...

John Katz has a necklace?

[Anonymous Coward]

'Nuf said.

Beg pardon?

[revscat]

I don't understand your previous message, specifically when you say that "evolution is the historic context of creation." Can you explain this a little further, please? It sounds interesting.

Re:Beg pardon?

[Laser Lou]

I don't understand your previous message, specifically when you say that "evolution is the historic context of creation." Can you explain this a little further, please? It sounds interesting.

I'll break it down for you, Rev. ;-)

-The Bible begins describing creation

-In order to conclude anything about the nature of Bible's creation account, you must interpret it.

-When interpreting the Bible, it is important to consider the historical context in which it is written. (The creation account was written thousand of years ago, way before evolutionary theory existed, so it's reasonable to conclude that it doesn't take evolution into account.)

-If the text in question refers to a historic person or event, it is important to research that person or event. (The biblical creation account involves the origination of life, so it makes sense to research that subject. )

Evolution is now considered the main mechanism in the development of modern life. Since current research points to evolution, it leads to the conclusion that the biblical creation account must be interpreted in the context of evolution.

I hope to see other Christians accept and embrace evolution, rather than reject it.

Re:Beg pardon?

[Khomar]

Just because something is considered to be fact in the scientific community does not guarantee that it is correct. Afterall, the scientific community was once convinced that the universe was composed of four elements: fire, water, air, and earth. We know now that this is not true.

Evolution is the current prevailing theory right now, but that does not mean that it will not be disproven down the road. It is pretty clear that evolution occurs within a given species (micro-evolution), but there is still a question about whether or not it can actually result in a brand-new species (macro-evolution).

There are many reasons for Christians not to embrace evolution. I find it interesting that the Biblical account of creation trickles into many other areas of life: 7 day week, the seventh day (sabbath) is a day of rest, etc. This would indicate, if you are looking for inward consistency within the Bible, that the world was indeed created in 6 days. Furthermore, there is evidence that the world may be a lot younger than evolutionists say, and that major changes in the nature of the earth, once thought to take thousands to millions of years, can actually happen in a very short period of time. For example, it was once believed that the Grand Canyon took thousands of years over gradual erosion to form, but in the Mt. Saint Helens eruption, a mini-grand canyon was formed in a matter of days. Many now believe that most of the Grand Canyon was formed with one cataclysmic event.

Besides, if one believes that there is an all-powerful God in the universe, and He claims to have made the world in 6 days... well, He certainly could! :-)

Re:Beg pardon?

[pianophile]

Afterall, the scientific community was once convinced that the universe was composed of four elements: fire, water, air, and earth.

The ancient-to-medieval folks who believed this were not real scientists in the sense that we think of when we think of scientists today (more often than not they were priests or at least educated in a seminary or the equivalent. Ha!). The development of the modern scientific method is what gradually led us away from the fire/air/water/earth belief.

Re:Beg pardon?

[Laser Lou]

Just because something is considered to be fact in the scientific community does not guarantee that it is correct.

What else do we have to go on? Sure, scientist make mistakes, and some cheat and lie, but if the scientific community as a whole insists for a hundred years or so that species evolved over long periods of time, why shouldn't their conclusion be accepted? How long will it take for their conclusions to be generally accepted by Christians? 200 years? 1000 years? How many hominid fossils must be dug up. How many dinosaurs must be found? How many different ways of dating fossils must be invented?

Sorry, I'm ranting a bit. I hope you understand, though. Finally, I do want to point out that, of course God can make a world in 6 earth days. The issue is did God make this world in that timeframe a few thousand years ago.

Re:Beg pardon?

[moz25]

The important aspect of Science is that it is falsifiable, i.e. it has to be able to stand up to scrutiny - measurements could be done that would disprove a theory and it would be rejected.

The problem with religion in general is that by its definition, it doesn't allow scrutiny as this means a one-way ticket to Hell -- correct me if I'm wrong please!

Science only has to be consistent with itself and measurable reality - this leads to such things as computers (that you have used to communicate your message), cars, planes, etc. Planes need science to fly, not prayers (although many people do this just to be on the safe side ;-))

If you are religious, then you should probably believe that Science is a study of the works of the creation of God and therefore a form of the most hands-on and practical spiritual activities ;-) If you disagree with science, then don't drive a car!

Re:Beg pardon?

[Khomar]

The problem with religion in general is that by its definition, it doesn't allow scrutiny as this means a one-way ticket to Hell -- correct me if I'm wrong please!

Absolutely not! In the Bible, people who scrutinized the teachings of Paul (the most prolific writer in the New Testament) were commended for that fact. Scrutiny is essential to divining truth, and when one believes that every word of the Bible is the Word of God, then scrutiny comes into play every day it is read.

If you are religious, then you should probably believe that Science is a study of the works of the creation of God and therefore a form of the most hands-on and practical spiritual activities ;-)

I could not have said it better myself! That is precisely what I believe, and it is why I am fascinated with all of the discoveries that are made. I am also fascinated when discoveries confirm things that the Bible has long held to be true. Example: all humans came from a single mother (frontpage news a few years ago on Time I believe). Could this perhaps be Eve?

We must be careful to realize that the conclusions drawn at any point in history may not be the correct one. Newton's laws remained cannon for several centuries before relativity came along and sent them for a bit of a loop. In fact, many scientists today question whether our current theories of evolution are true or merely based on speculation.

I do not deny the existence of dinosaurs, fossils, etc. Rather, I question the current explanations for their existence. After all, petrified forests and fossils were formed after the Mount Saint Helens eruption in the space of a few years. Need the fossils that we have found have taken millions of years to form?

Food for thought.

Re:Beg pardon?

[moz25]

Thanks for your reply. It's difficult to gauge what a general 'position' of a religion is as there are so many different and contradictory opinions around of people who follow it. However, my feeling is that within religions, there can be scrutiny, but with a fixed outcome.

I don't believe that e.g. creation as the bible puts it has to have taken place *literally* in 6 earth days. The mechanism described by evolution theory could very well be the mechanism that God used as a tool of creation... after all, we find 'genetic algorithms' in computer science... and couldn't it be argued that God is the biggest scientist that can possibly exist?

I think it could be argued, even to a religious person, that God has a lot of respect for the laws of nature and allows it to be consistent enough to make a study of it possible. Where those laws come from or who created those laws is a matter of belief and interpretation.

I think religion and science don't need to be mutually exclusive.. the basic mechanisms used to approach reality appear to have more merit when used supplementary.

Moz.

Re:Beg pardon?

[Anonymous Coward]

The important aspect of Science is that it is falsifiable

But this is exactly what critics of evolution like Prof. Philip Johnson point out ... that evolution is NOT falsifiable!

Click here for example

http://www.tombofjesus.com/

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.tombofjesus.com/

http://www.tombofjesus.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Tomb of Jesus:
http://www.tombofjesus.com/

Jean Auel - good or bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wondering, how accurate is Jean Auel's writing?
I know she did a lot of research but how do
scientists in the field think of her work?

Re:Jean Auel - good or bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

as a grad in anthro and a book junkie, i'd have to say her descriptions of lithics (stone tools) and layouts of the cave dwellings were amazing. I could see how it could create site and what you'd find.

whether modern humans and neanderthals ever cross bred or had relationships, it's not impossible. They did exist near one each other at the same time. If they did interact, it would probably be as rare or unwelcome as the books portray.

Re:What about inter species breeding

[LPetrazickis]

Leave it to a geek to relate everything to sex.

Sex seems like a reasonable connector to me, yet you seem to be using a disparaging tone. What seems to be the problem, fellow geek?:)

http://www.theonion.com/

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.theonion.com/

Re:SLASHDOT...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Science, religion. What's the difference?
>
> One man's science is another's religon.

Nope. This is just what Christian fundamentalists keep saying, in order to paint a veneer of respectability on their pathetic ideas.

Religion and science are intrinsically orthogonal to each other, each with its own dominion. The problem is that the dominion of religion has been continuously eroded by science, much to the chagrin of the religion nomenklatura world over.

http://www.theonion.com/

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.theonion.com/

Not necessarily stupid

[Goonie]

Monkeys have good color vision. The great apes have good color vision. Humans have good color vision. From all reports, there's not that much difference in the visual systems of all three. Given all of that, it seems to be on fairly safe ground to assume that Australopithecus had good color vision.

More generally, you are IMHO correct in that TV paleontology doesn't make the point that "a lot of this is guesswork backed by varying degrees of evidence" well enough. However, you can't expect them to stop every 30 seconds and say "well, we're fairly sure this is true, but this is a guess, whilst this fact is a definite maybe ....".

Re:OOG must have graduated along with

[Anonymous Coward]

OOG the caveman must have graduated along with hot grits and don knotts who were also good trolls. Oh well at least we still have Cowboy Neal.

No answered questions

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with religion is that it expresses all sorts of unanswerable questions into just one concept (i.e. God) that is in turn one unanswerable question.

So, people believe that they've found answers and this gives them great psychological relief, but in reality, they don't realize a little trick has been played on them: all questions are still unanswered!

Why? Because all questions related to God are sneakily covered up with arguments like "you need to have faith or you go to hell", etc. I think people should realize this kind of manipulation.

I am a human - I cannot know the Truth. But, NO humans can. Any person who claims to know the Truth is just misguided.

Spanish names

[Pseudonymus Bosch]

Juan Luis Arsuaga has a "first name" or "personal name" of Juan Luis and a familiy name of Arsuaga. So calling Dr Arsuaga "Luis Arsuaga" is as weird as "Juan Arsuaga". He probably is called Juan Luis (if he doesn't have a nickname) by his friends.

Sounds like most of that is editorializing

[MichaelPenne]

one way you can tell the serious scientific papers, documentaries, & books is that they are generally quite clear to note what is based on hard evidence and what is educated guesswork.

It's hardly the scientist's fault that journalists desperate for an eyecatching headline often leave out the qualifications on the educated guesses.

& journalists certainly know that DEADLY GAMMA RAYS sell more papers/video tapes than discussions of mtDNA and genetic drift...

Re:My dream

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but I do think about running through cornfields backwards.

www.reasons.org

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that is a typical emotive-language-ridden misrepresentation written by someone who obviously does not have a finger even near the pulse of creationism. Like most who say similiar things, this poster has probably never even looked at any creationist literature to see what they believe. If he/she did, hey, they may be surprised.
You could go to www.reasons.org for example.