Slashdot Mirror
The Neanderthal's Necklace
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.
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.
"Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
But there is a huge difference between how science approaches explanation than how religion does.
... + Assumption N = Conclusion 1.
[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 +
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.
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.
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. ;)
I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
I completely agree with this.
..." rather than "this is what it does mean ..." or to back up all his facts with evidence "we know this because ..."
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
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.
"Because it's there." - George Mallory, when asked why he wanted to climb Mt Everest, March 18, 1923 (New York Times)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
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.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
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.
See what I've been reading.
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.