Slashdot Mirror
Modern Humans, Neanderthals Shared Earth for 1,000 Years
joffley writes "ABC News is reporting on new evidence that has emerged suggesting Neanderthals co-existed with anatomically modern humans for at least 1,000 years in central France, before gradually disappearing about 28,000 to 30,000 years ago. But why did they disappear?"
From TFA: In short, the indicators point to the likelihood that Homo sapiens crushed or ousted the Neanderthals in the fight to survive. Why do we always need to reduce the possibilities to just these two? Isn't it equally likely that in the ebb and flow of occupation of the area humans eventually exhausted the resources that the Neanderthal relied upon, while being able to exploit other resources that the Neanderthal couldn't? Since 1,000 years is the overlap epoch it doesn't appear that a policy of active antipathy is at work.
I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
Thats not offtopic, thats a reference to a bad sci-fi series. What could be more on-topic at Slashdot?
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
I think it's fairly easy to know where they went. Because they were "different" than modern humans, with lower technology levels, we simply killed them off for trying to take our resources.
We wouldn't have needed to actually kill them. Both Neanderthals and humans would have competed for the same food; because of our higher intelligence, we would have gotten it and they wouldn't have as a result. Neanderthals probably died because of us, true, but we needn't have directly killed them.
Can't we just go one day without a creation v. evolution thread?!
Are we supposed to not discuss certain topics because some people refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence when it conflicts with their presupposed biases?
I don't think so. This isn't evolution vs creationism. This is a science story. And that ignorant people prefer ignorance isn't reason to push science underground.
There are two central issues. One is that the "Aurignacian" industry, which is proposed to have been made by modern humans, may not actually have been a single industry across Europe. In the current study, the "interleaving" of the two kinds of tools is documented by around 10 artifacts, out of 750 total.
The other issue is that no fossil remains of modern humans have yet been found associated with early "Aurignacian" tools. We simply don't know who made them. Since they are not technically very different from the Neandertal-associated Chatelperronian, it is hard to say that there is a real cognitive difference represented by those tools, whoever made them.
I have some pictures of the tools on my weblog post (John Hawks Anthropology Weblog), and conclude this:
--John
Don't you know it's not the brainmass that counts, but the interconnectedness of neurons? A kitty-cat has a pretty small brain compared to a cow, but you can't say it's proportionally more stupid. It's similar with people, CPU's, etc.. the visible macroscopic size is not what counts, but the microscopic stuff inside that makes it tick. As far as genetic fitness goes, it's amazing just how much doesn't depend on genetics, but it's learned, educated. See feral children.
"Theory of intelligent design" is an oxymoron.
Merriam Webster's defines a theory as "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." Intelligent design doesn't qualify- it hasn't been tested (it's arguable whether it's even testable at all), it isn't accepted, and it explains absolutely nothing. It doesn't explain who the designer is or how the designer designed things, how the design was implemented, why, or when. It's the complete and total absence of a theory.
Which is the beauty of it. Creationists learned from the Young Earth Creationism disaster- as soon as you start making testable statements like "the earth is 6000 years old" scientists will disprove you and show what a bunch of idiots you are. So you avoid making testable statements at all costs.
The trouble is that the fossil record only shows certain types of traits. There may have been a trait that Homo Sapiens acquired that is not visible in the fossil record that gave it a big advantage. (For instance, a change in brain structure that did not change the size and shape of the skull cavity.) The fact that "humans" had a small range for a hundred thousand years and then exploded out of Africa in a fairly short time frame implies that something changed, even if we can't see it in the bones.
The cake is a pie
If the Scientologists get their theories in, so should Pastafarians.
I'll go for that only if the Invisible Pink Unicorn is included in the curriculum as well.
IPU2U2 - Amen.
Pastafarians.... That one is good too.
Do they wear dreads?
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
I love how every time something is posted on Slashdot as to what makes humans unique, everyone states some random idea as if it has more credibility than the others. The fact is that there is likely no simple reason why humans outcompeted Neanderthals, but was problem several factors working synergistically.
Furthermore, mitochondrial DNA contradicts your argument. Mitochondrial DNA is passed down only from mother to child. The evidence stongly points to the fact that modern humans do not have Neanderthal mtDNA. For your scenario to work, all humans would have Neanderthal DNA.
First you animate. Then you SUSPEND!!!
don't forget evolutionary theory
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
This information is obviously vital, and should no doubt be covered in Biology class!.
Heh, one should think so. But there are soooo many non-believers out there.
I told my local school district a couple of years back that if they continued to insist that prayer be not only allowed in school, but lead by a teacher, that I would first convert my children to their grandma's religion (she was of the Blackfoot tribe), and then sue under federal law to force the district to accomodate their worship in the school. Since they would have to accomodate my children during "prayer time", I knew that having a bunch of whooping, dancing students in the classroom would be too much for them to take.
They dropped their proposal because they eventually realized that in order to stay neutral with regard to the Establishment Clause they would have to accomodate every religious belief to avoid having their policy ruled unconstitutional.
Intelligent Design will have the same fate when every religion in the world demands equal time in the science classroom.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Intelligent design (or rather, just the belief in God, and his necessity in creating our universe as it is) doesn't even have to suggest that some mutations were encouraged. There is the fact that the rules of the universe, (e.g. the relative strengths of gravity, electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear forces, the cosmological constant, etc.) seems to be very finely tuned to produce life, and if those rules were any different, the universe would be undifferentiated mush. So maybe God "intelligently designed" the universe with such finely tuned rules, but evolution played out on its own with no intervention based on those perfectly tuned rules.
Ontological argument...that which is greater than the greatest thing of which I can conceive....bleh. That is a tired crutch.
If you believe in God, believe in God. If you need proof of God's existence to believe in God, don't believe in God. I happen to believe that God would be quite annoyed with us if we wasted our phenomenally powerful synthetic reasoning skills on trying to prove His existence rather than, say, curing cancer or draining New Orleans.
I believe it is NOT rational to state A) God exists and B) Christianity is the one true religion, because you can't make that argument without begging the question. Note: I do not dispute your (or my) faith in God on this basis.
Dressing up religion in the clothing of science is silly. Dressing up science in the clothing of religion is equally silly. Thinking that one can explain one with the other is silly.
The Bible is not a book about how the Heavens go...it is a book about how to go to Heaven. (That's Galileo. He was very not popular with the religious figures of his day.)
I don't believe that you can use reason to demonstrate the existence of God. Nor do I think it is necessary to do so.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Because this is a democracy, where majority rules.
Pardon my french, but that is pure bullshit. Majority doesn't have anything to do with what is science or not. A huge portion of the population also believes in Astrology, should that be included in science class? Of course not.
ID and Creationism are religious ideas. They have nothing to do with science. If they are to be taught in schools they should be taught where they belong, along side of Buddhism, Islam, Astrology and all the other superstition. Science class is for scientific theory, and ID, all though a theory, doesn't qualify as a scientific theory. If you do not know what a scientific theory is, and why ID and Creationism doesn't qualify, I suggest you read up on the subject. It isn't all that hard.
people stumbling on a few interesting facts
Are but that's the crux of the matter. There are facts. The whole lot isn't just guessed.
making outlandish assumptions
As compared with non-learned people making outlandish assumptions? In this case, of course, there has been lots of evidence over time and the theory (a plausable explanation that explains the *facts*) has been polished.
The thing is that most science comes down to one thing. Where we came from. If you replace that you have to throw away, physics, chemistry, astronomy, cosmology, geology, biology, anthropology...
As opposed to the living hell on Earth that is everyday life caused by religion passing off plain lies as irrefutable truths.
Yeah, nice one. Think I'll take science any day of the week - at least there's some method behind it's madness.
Incorrect. We live in a Republic, which means we have Representatives that make policy. Our form of government was set up specifically to avoid the tyranny of the majority. Are you really unaware of this?
Regarding teaching Creationism/ID, there's nothing to teach except "God/A Mysterious Intelligent Force did it". Whether you are willing to accept it or not, evolution theory is supported by science, therefore it should be taught in science class.
Do you really want to dumb down our country? If we don't teach our children proper scientific methods, we will lose our technological leadership.
Do you really want to weaken America?
/.: why the hell am I here?
In fact, that is the fallacy most people have when talking (thinking) about evolution. The traits aren't supposed to be superior, they should only be better adapted to the circumstance, event, environment that is driving the selection. Take for example food shortage. In a first stage a larger size will allow you to talk food from smaller competitors, but when food gets even more scarce a smaller build might just need less food.
Most people think it is survival of the strongest. It is survival of the fittest, as in fitting a square peg in a square hole, the only difference with the round peg is its squareness, color, size, or material are of no consequence.
Come to think of it even religion is surely a factor in evolution. It is the first means humankind had to spread 'rules that enable survival' to larger groups. I am sure you can think of many, if not think of combinations of certain type of meats, parasites and climate and how they are dealt with in different religions. These rules enable more religious people to survive than non-religious. Be aware that this is not only way to do this. There are now many different ways to spread such rules (laws, science, internet etc...)
Funny huh, Intelligent Design evolvedThe thing is that most science comes down to one thing. Where we came from. If you replace that you have to throw away, physics, chemistry, astronomy, cosmology, geology, biology, anthropology...
How's that?
If physics, chemistry, etc. still all work as expected, how is origin so critical?
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
(The exceptions, if any, would have some Viking blood.)
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
From the poll: Even many who are politically liberal and who believe in evolution favor expanding the scope of public school education to include teaching creationism....John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said he was surprised to see that teaching both evolution and creationism was favored not only by conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of natural selection. Mr. Green called it a reflection of American pragmatism..
So...Teach it all, and let the kids figure it out. Public School is not just a 13 year long science class.
Teach evolution as an explanation of natural selection in science class where it's appropriate. And teach creationism, ID, and other theories (including evolution) in other classes where it's appropriate. A well rounded education includes exposure to history, religion, literature and philosophy.
"A good proof for the christian anti-darwinists that it is not always the fittest that survive..."
Actually you misunderstand the meaningof that term. The word fittest is termed as something that is "the best at surviving.", not necessarily the best at something like strength, eating, building, etc. So in the real world those species that are best at learning, or adapting to their environment (read as: able to survive in their environment), are those that evolve and thus "survive".
So the fittest always do servive, because they are the best at surviving.
--
Does anyone remember
I'm sick of people touting Intelligent Design when they don't even understand Evolution.
Most people touting Intelligent Design do it because they don't understand Evolution, or they do it to dishonestly promote their religious beliefs, hiding them under pseudoscience.
You can't take the sky from me...
Let's see, how exactly do we come up with a coherent world view in which a) DNA, genes, chromosomes and so on are the means of inheritance; and b) the first woman was created using a rib torn from the side of the first man? The best you can do is propose a "God set things in motion" model, in my view anyway, and then you've got all sorts of problems keeping that afloat if you've ever even seen meiosis or mitosis. (If God "set it in motion" then where exactly along the genetic chain does God intervene to make certain subcellular determinations in line with prophesy and so on? Michael Behe winds up proposing that sort of constant intervention in order to make his watch-watchmaker arguments for things like Cilia.)
At a basic foundational level, almost any science poses extreme challenges to a "literalist" (which of course always means selectively, conveniently literalist in actual practice) reading of the Bible.
In geology, for example, realizing that the world wasn't made exactly the way it is now, that it became this way over time on a scale unimaginable to the people who wrote the Bible, makes the "On the Xth day..." business staggeringly superficial by comparison, just to start with. The actual age of the earth is, in and of itself, a contradiction of any reasonable reading of the Bible's specific claims about human life. (Not that the whole 6,000 year thing is actually in the Bible, mind you, except indirectly.)
But c'mon -- "creationism" isn't about God. It's about the worldly authority of those who claim they speak for God. That's a completely different set of questions. Our Pharisees will tie themselves into intellectual knots to keep their hold on power, and to keep us from asking the obvious questions about their Oh So Divine knowledge... Which contrasted with the rigors of science, seems to come to them awfully, awfully easily, and to back their authority ever so conveniently.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.