Slashdot Mirror
Oldest Skeleton In New World Discovered
Death Metal Maniac writes "Dubbed Eva de Naharon, or Eve of Naharon, the female skeleton has been dated at 13,600 years old. If that age is accurate, the skeleton along with three others found in underwater caves along the Caribbean coast of the Yucatán Peninsula could provide new clues to how the Americas were first populated. The skeletons' skulls hint that the people may not be of northern Asian descent, which would contradict the dominant theory of New World settlement. 'The shape of the skulls has led us to believe that Eva and the others have more of an affinity with people from South Asia than North Asia,' González explained."
Imposible, as every one in florida knows the world is only 6000 years old
Underwater for so long! Is she okay?
No, they found Sarah Palin's world view.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This should be fun, and by fun, I mean a wholly depressing insight into the cognitive ability of some grown adults.
Let me know when you're done with this quote so I can use it as my sig. Thanks!
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
Paleolithic?
Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
Timing is off.
Isn't it at least plausible that the group "Eva" belongs to lived in Northern Asia, despite having characteristics that we would now identify with Southern Asia? Perhaps a later group migrated in that direction, driving Eva's group over the land bridge much in the way ethnic groups worked in Europe (subsequent waves tending to push preexisting ethnic groups).
The Earth *IS* only 6,000 years old. Give or take 4.54 billion years.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Although a slightly older skeleton is news, doesn't anyone remember in Mexico?
The more I read about archaeology and ancient history, the more I think that the conventional view is as Ford called it, "bunk."
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
but everyone wishes his mom did.
I've heard one theory that the Polynesians et all actually were forced out of northern Asia to the south and the east. They walked over the bridge and floated through the oceans to all the little islands, and the New World. There, they found another people, who they had to fight to survive; being from a hostile background, they were better fighters.
So they chased the inhabitants down throughout the Americas, to the very tip of Argentina and Chile. Most of the men were killed and most of the women were taken, however several thousand took to the ocean, and floated along the West Wind Drift.. to Australia!
(The theory was based on genetic evidence that a chickens were introduced to the New World by Polynesians, and that there is a genetic trail on some human female populations in S.A. that links them to Australians.)
I know you don't approve of Chou because he's from the North, but I LOVE HIM and WE'RE GETTING MARRIED! I'm running away with him and his family, so by the time you learn how to read, I'll be gone. Chou's just bought a boat, and we're going to sail north until we find a New World to live in. Maybe one along the coast so we can surf, ya know?
I'll leave it up to you to tell Liam that I've gone. I couldn't marry a Celt anyway! All that red hair on his face? YUCK!
I know you wanted to me to stay and grow rice and stuff, but I really just want a life where I can soak up the sun and tell everyone to lighten up.... And who knows? Thousands of years from now, maybe they'll find my remains and it'll ROYALLY screw up their view of ethnic migrations, cause you and I KNOW that the only people who ever sail north and never come back are from the North. I mean, who'd be dumb enough to jump to a conclusion based on one person? AS IF!! Oh well -- as long as I'm famous, ya know?
Sorry about never seeing you again and stuff. Hugs and kisses!
Zang
I'm not aware that the Yucatan has another coast.
So.... Within that margin of error, the earth may not have been created yet?
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
have more of an affinity with people from South Asia than North Asia
So they really were Indians?
This is just a thought, and I know it's kinda radical here but is it at least possible that these might be some of very first sea fairing people and they simply got lost and discovered the Americas first? I mean, we have been tool users for a very long time, they might have made a very primitive raft, and if long ships, Egyptian sailing ships and south American boats have proven to be able to cross the Atlantic then is it so impossible that these people crossed a primitive pacific?
-Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
kiloyears? That sounds awfully science-y to me...
He's a witch!
has anyone even considered that some 17th century explorer is just playing a trick on everyone by having taken an old skeleton from southeast Asia and dumping it in the water...
I was playing Civilization the other day, doing an earth simulation and I was playing as Japan. One of my first strategies was to research Astronomy so that I could build Galleons and go colonize the Americas before anyone else could. Having colonized all of the islands in southern Asia (and Australia) it was just obvious what I had to do next. Clearly the early south Asians were thinking along the exact same lines.
You scientists and your crazy fossil and skeleton digging. There are simpler ways people!
Vote McCain - Vote MILF!
Have you got MILF? Vote McCain!
My personal fantasy....
I'm McCain with a really hot MILF millionaire wife (which he already has) who wants to 'experiment'. I get a MILF of a VP and THREESOME in the Whitehouse! WoooHOOO!
I am not an anthropologist, but I thought the dominant theory was that the New World was populated from various Asian populations in several waves. No one believes that it was just one group, or that it was just one wave. This finding further supports that thesis, along with other findings such as Kennewick Man in 1996.
You mean to say that the original Native Americans were really Indians after all? Or should we start calling Native Indians, Brown Americans from now on? So confused...
Inside Joan Rivers.
What would you be if you are atheist and not an evolutionist?
Sorry for the confusion guys! The skeleton found is actually my grandmother who died while hiding in the washer. I tried to dry her out in the dryer, but it only shrank her. Then I tried the microwave...
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Scary, but that DOES go along with how I feel some Monday mornings....
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Oh, please stop talking about McCain and the US elections now.
My first program:
Hell Segmentation fault
Only as likely that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old though.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Eve of Naharon
No, just John McCain's first girlfriend. *rimshot*
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
What would you be if you are atheist and not an evolutionist?
Given the body of scientific data to backup evolution theory, I believe the correct term would be "idiot".
Is that better than the "old farts young tarts"-sex in the White House we had a few years ago?
Does this contradict Indo-Aryan Migration
"Dubbed Eva de Naharon..."
Huh?
"...or Eve of Naharon
Oh, ok, got it!
Crossing from South to North Asia is no more difficult, than crossing from North to South America or, indeed, from Asia to Europe — where even the recent Romans had to battle "endless" Eastern tribes.
So, the theory, that people crossed Bering's Straits into Northern America (Alaska) and then populated both continents, already assumes migrations far more distant, than a travel from Southern Asia to Norther would require...
And finally, next time you are in Cancun, ask a Yucatani Mexican, where the Mayas are from, and he'll tell you, they are related to Mongols (and by the looks of them, he may be right)... Mongolia is neither the Southern nor Northern Asia, but smack in the middle...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
And would you know, god failed his own test! ;D
I miss Lucy already.
So the first people in the Americas were south asians i.e. Indians? So should we call them Indians or native americans?
I get a MILF of a VP
VPILF
They probably did not know any better at the time.
Quite a few dinosaur skeletons (1e8 years) have been discovered in the "New World".
its no great mystery. the idea of land bridges is silly. if people can reach samoa and new zealand and easter island on boats and rafts, why they need a land bridge to get to alaska from kamchatka or from lappland to iceland, then greenland, then ellesmere, is silly. you don't even need boats to do that, just pack ice. want to understand how the new world was populated?
just look at a picture of icelandic pop singer bjork
looking at her picture, seeing her obvious genetic heritage, on iceland, should cue you in on the free flow of of northeast asian genes around the north pole for millenia
and of course this doesn't preclude the odd southeast asian gene influx from the occasional lucky maniac who made the trip to the south or central american west coast from easter island or hawaii
the real mystery is how people ever got to easter island, or any other highly isolated south pacific dot. you can head towards north or south america and be way off your intended course, and still make it there as long as you ar emoving very roughly in a general east west direction
but a dot in the south pacific? if one were given to random chance, that's a lot of wasted souls in outrigger canoes in watery graves. more likely, they simply followed subtle signs: fish migrations, or bird migrations, cloud formations over distant lands, guessing further outliers on island chains from deducing the general direction of mapping previously known chain islands. who knows? perhaps the colonizers of the south pacific used subtle well-observed natural clues we aren't even aware of anymore
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Is that better than the "old farts young tarts"-sex in the White House we had a few years ago?
Um, excuse me. There's no fat chicks involved here nor is there any deceit between the husband and wife.
AND, the Congress will realize that there are better things to do than to impeach a President over a blowjob.
That's why we need McCain! To bring America to her core values: sex and making babies! And if there's a blowjob involved, well, we'll be a little Liberal and allow those sperm to die in the women's stomach - that's assuming they swallow. After all, we're all cognizant of the plight of women! Not all swallow!
What would you be if you are atheist and not an evolutionist?
Well, if you didn't think any god did it or that we evolved on our own, the logical conclusion must then be that we're being manipulated by some other, non-divine being or beings. It's not entirely out of the realm of the possible that life has been created in the lab by aliens and seeded on our planet. Still, even if you don't claim evolution to be the explaination of all change it'd be pretty hard to deny any and all evolution.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The skeletons were found back in 2001 and 2002 and they were carbon dated no later than 2004, probably before that, though.
They don't say, but I suspect they're talking about the Ox Bel Ha cave system (Ox is the Mayan word for "Three" and is pronounced "Osh"), which is the largest underwater cave system in the world and it's actually something that's probably worthy of a Slashdot post in itself, if it weren't also old news.
I lived in that area for 3 years and I'm friends with 2 of the divers that discovered and mapped the Ox Bel Ha system.
The Yucatan peninsula is studded with sink holes called "cenotes". They're filled with fresh water (though there are areas where the salt water comes in and creates a salt/fresh water interface called the halocline, which looks wicked cool. It's kind of like oil and water) and look like a bunch of very circular ponds, except they're often fairly deep and interconnected by caves. Skeletons are a pretty common find in them, but most are far more recent (from the Mayan period) and are largely believed to be sacrificial.
I can't find the stories now, but I recall some stories suggesting that some of the indigenous people of South America were believed to have been descendants of lost fisherman from South-East Asia. It seems plausible that there could have been groups that arrived in Mexico as well.
Thanks to the miracles of DNA testing, scientists have already found the closest living relative. This skeleton is from the great-great-great-grandfather of John McCain.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
What would you be if you are atheist and not an evolutionist?
A scientologist?
There is also evidence of Polynesian contact in South America: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080729133618.htm
My mind works like lightning. One brilliant flash and it is gone.
I understand, a slam at Creationists.
There are some people who think their girlfriends are pretty, their children are smart, their opinions matter and that they are significant in the light of 60 years on a planet of 6.6 billion people.
I let those live and let live. I don't mock them or insult them. Perhaps you too could show some respect for those who are diverse in their opinions and ideas.
A joker.
I'm not sure why you got modded flamebait when GP was modded funny. Personally I'm still trying to figure out exactly what GP meant, and a geologic age is the only conclusion I can come to as well.
Don't tell anyone, but we're doing the public beta stress test, so the publisher can know how many players per server he can expect. There've been some bugs and balance problems found, though, so they might push back the actual release for another billion years. Although the publisher is calling it good enough and might shove it out the door as it is.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Cant Mod you up, but that was milk snorting funny.
No, they found Sarah Palin's world view.
Let us know when someone finds Obama's.
And find out how long it lasts.
PS - don't you guys just love styrofoam columns? They're pretty, but lightweight with no substance. They also fly all over the place depending on which way the wind blows.
How appropriate for fair Obamacles.
Maybe she is actually from the future and got lost on her way back to the time portal.
It's good the summary translated that...they're so different, I would have had no clue what her name was otherwise
If you do not believe in Science, can you really a run a country this complex?
Look up "News I'd like to F*#K" by Samatha Bee on The Daily Show. My favorite skit and show of why Bee is the best correspondent comedic talent on the show.
I am not a Creationist but I'm sure I can speak as one as I am familiar with many.
The dating is inaccurate, the skeleton 'looks' or 'appears' older than it really is and/or God made it that way.
Stars and planets are much older than the earth and have the appearance of age. They were 'made' older.
I personally don't ask pre-Industrial age people for technological explanations.
I am a believer but not a Creationist nor do I hold to Evolution or String theory. The models and equations we have explain the world in measurable and predictable manners. But they do not completely define the Universe.
I am the GP.
So, 13k years ago, this cave was presumably not underwater?
Damn, those folks must have been hard on the environment, they obviously caused global warming, which melted the glaciers, which raised the sea levels.
Dubbed Eva de Naharon, or Eve of Naharon, the female skeleton has been dated at 13,600 years old.
Why can't they just use her real name? Joan Rivers.
Anything and Everything about the Net
There's a lot of evidence (despite a lot of disagreement) that the Great Pyramids and the Sphinx in Egypt, Angkor Wat in Cambodia, and Chichen Itza in the Yucatan are all monuments to the sky as it appeared 13.5 thousand years ago. Even though none of those monuments seem to actually be at all that old (though perhaps half that old, in their original constructions), which seems to indicate that the memory was preserved for six or seven millennia without such a monumental "permanent marker".
These unearthed skeletons date from approximately that time. I wonder if they'll shed any light on what was so important from their epoch that it earned the most permanent and recognizable "bookmarks" that humanity has ever kept?
--
make install -not war
"could provide new clues to how the Americas were first populated."
I would think scientists would know how humans "populate." I mean, if they're still stumped on this one, no wonder they don't get laid!
How about perjury and obstruction of justice?
What would you be if you are atheist and not an evolutionist?
Given the body of scientific data to backup evolution theory, I believe the correct term would be "idiot".
No, you'd be a Scientologist. Oh, wait, that's what you said.
The 'mainstream' Western theories of 'multiple waves' are all talking about multiple waves from Northeastern Asia. Someone mentioned the correlation between genetic markers found in South America and Australia... (Australia has been populated at LEAST as long as modern Humans have existed, if not before) Which sounds more likely that populations originating in South Asia/Australia (The Southern Sea Basin) could have migrated either around Africa, or across the Pacific, to reach the Americas. Hawaiian legends speak of 'little people' they encountered when the Polynesians first came to Hawaii, that were mostly killed/disappeared. Like the Indonesian caves holding 'pygmy' skeletons. Early reports of European invaders in Central America spoke of "black people" distinct from the "red people" they were encountering in the rest of the area (Mexico, Caribbean).
however, it is not beyond the foolhardy adventurer to say:
and that scenario is much more likely than some guy just sitting in the water and randomly paddling in a random direction. of course random chance works fine for finding new islands over long periods of time, as you note
it is just that your observation doesn't work for the guy who actually has to sit in the canoe and start paddling!
like most successful human endeavours it was probably a combination of well-informed prediction AND random chance
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Is that the further south you go, the older the sites become.
A revision to the land bridge will come eventually, as soon as can get more data. But as an idea, it is looking very outdated.
btw, most Native American people don't believe in the land bridge theory at all, even the ones that study anthropology. They say it goes against their oral history.
Well, if you didn't think any god did it or that we evolved on our own, the logical conclusion must then be that we're being manipulated by some other, non-divine being or beings
Is that the "logical conclusion"? Why can't you just say you're here as the result of pure and random chance?
Aw man, that was hilarious.
...'tis easier to blame than to improve.
I was going to say "scientologist" ;)
What would you be if you are atheist and not an evolutionist?
Given the body of scientific data to backup evolution theory, I believe the correct term would be "idiot".
And in the spirit of Lenin, the ID-loons would term you a "useful idiot".
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Quite a few dinosaur skeletons (1e8 years) have been discovered in the "New World".
Yeah, and humans rode them. Sheesh, where have YOU been?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Look who's running it now. Apparently, you can.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
a bunch of guys who made it to easter island by canoe
therefore, it is more likely that your understanding of what they did to get there is wrong, rather than the intelligence and wisdom and ability to read natural clues, that they obviously possessed to make it all the way to easter island under any scheme, random or otherwise
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The oldest skeleton in existence is still in use by Al Davis.
In what way is justice served by finding out who's f&sking who?
"Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
ever hear of the sami people?
northeast asian traits extend all the way around the top of the northern hemisphere. all over the top of your blonde haired blue eyed scandinavia are black haired brown eyed narrow lidded people of mongol stock
and again, there is bjork
please explain the appearance of someone like bjork, in your land of blonde hair and blue eyed scandinavian people
thanks
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Reminds me of the The Motel of Mysteries
Uneducated.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
No, he said run the country. Note the lack of "into a deep, deep hole" after those words.
C Pungent
Respecting someone's right to an opinion and respecting their opinion are two completely different things. I respect other peoples right to an opinion, but that doesn't mean I have to respect the opinion itself.
We will need to pick a political solution. One side wants a theocracy, the other a scientific government. There are advantages to both sides as history teaches us.
How do we pick? Or do we keep respecting each other's opinions, never reaching a consensus, and let our intransigence shuffle us off into the dust-bin of history?
Anti-Globalism, Traditionalism, and FreeBSD.
Obama's were found recently dating back to eight years ago, where they were tremendously successful.
There is evidence that both populations in Southern Asia and the Americas are genetically related. One is the fact that both are susceptible to alcoholism.
When Han Chinese settlers first arrived in Taiwan, they used alcohol against the aboriginal population there as means of control:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan#History
and now we know why:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=9066994&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google
In the United States, pioneers and frontiersmen always brought whiskey with them on meetings with Native American chiefs to sign "treaties".
now we know why:
http://www.essortment.com/all/nativeamerican_ragq.htm
Possible link or coincidence?: http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/v17n3/p18.html
I never said he was doing it well. Merely that a complete idiot seems to be holding the job now.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
We have Chinese anchor stones from ancient times found along the pacific coast.We have Roman vessels in the gulf of Mexico. We have Mediterranean village in New Hampshire.We have pre-Celtic ogam language written on stones on riverbanks coast to coast.We have Vikings coming over,historically speaking.We have the Bearing strait.Consequently, I don't believe in the American Indian as an original race with a justifiable "we were here first" beef.
We were all here at some point,but someone ate all the elephants,camels and giant sloths without putting them back. Also someone used to start forest fires for amusement and left camp litter where ever they roamed.I suspect if we dig deeper we can find evidence of ancient blackjack tables too.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
the female skeleton has been dated at 13,600 years old.
They must be desperate if they resort to dating a 13,600 year old skeleton.
Either Scientific American or Discover magazine had an article on this about 12 years ago. Mostly it had to with a settlement they found on the tip of Tierra del Fuego, and postulated that they had been driven down through the Americas by the Asians. Likely descendants of Australian aborigines, iirc.
Correlation is not causation.
And proving evolutionary causation would be highly unethical, particularly when we're talking about humans.
The first in the New World appear to be the same peoples as the Australian and Tasmanian aborigines, not too much after they reached those lands, and they had to have had ocean-going technology to get there. The second group where Europeans, the Clovis culture, following the seal and walrus along the edge of the ice from Europe. The third were the Jomon culture peoples following the coasts from Japan and Korea,the fourth and fifth emigrations were from northern Siberia, then you have the Norse 1,000 years ago. This does not count the possible, genetically and culturally-insignificant contacts via ships blown off course, and Irish monks seeking the "white martyrdom."
If you do not believe in Science, can you really a run a country this complex
Why the hell not? Was Ancient Rome any less complex?
Sure they may not run it the way you'd like, but it certainly seems plausible.
explain the existence of the genes of bjork in iceland
is she an alien?
(maybe she actually is an alien, she's quite insane regardless)
you said something about her being asian versus mongol... that's incoherent. i'm talking about northeast asian genetics extending around the top of the northern hemisphere. bjork is an example of that. the sami are an example of that. disprove my point, or back down
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Maybe you would be reading this in the future, laughing at both creationism and evolutionism as we fathom it today.
In any case, I never understood why creationism and evolutionism are always considered incompatible. Couldn't life have been created (by god, gods, Q, space and time anomalies or whatever) with evolution built in? Like everyone else I don't have the answer but you'd think that if you were able to create life, the self-update sub-system would not be terribly difficult to make. In fact, who knows, the evolution bit could have been the actual reason why life was created in the first place. To see where it goes perhaps? Or as a self adapting algorithm to solve a particular problem, in a way similar to ANNs.
I always thought my neighbor looked like a science experiment!
It was a case of sexual harassment. U.S. society had previously decided that sexual harassment is a problem that needed to be addressed. Clinton's perjury affected the plaintiff's ability to seek justice in her claim.
I see you read a lot of Richard Dawkins.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
1. that there were no eskimos in iceland before the europeans arrived
2. that eskimos aren't related to south americans
3. that the sami people in northern scandinavia are aliens from mars
so what were you saying about being an educated bigot again?
there's bjork. icelandic native. explain her heritage or back down
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"I wouldn't exactly say I'm 'running' it, Bob."
So.... Within that margin of error, the earth may not have been created yet?
Pretty much... As general relativity would suggest, depending on curves in space time, in some locations of the universe the earth may actually not exist yet.
If you do not believe in Science, can you really a run a country this complex?
You can't believe in science. You understand the process and results of it.
People from India?
People from Australia?
People from Indonesia?
Or American tourists in Cambodia?
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
There was also a bit n FLILF's (pretty sure it's a different one; I don't think it was Sam Bee that did it). Kucinich's wife is pretty hot.
There are a lot of people here who seem very angry at people who believe that God created this earth.
I have seen a lot of different evidence out there, and it seems to me there is just as much physical evidence that discredits evolution as there is proving it. It just doesn't get near as much publicity, because it's unpopular.
Evolution is just as much a religious belief as Christianity. People just won't use that word for it, because only "nuts" are religious, right?
You can call names and talk down to us all you want, but that doesn't discourage us. We know why we believe what we do, and it's because we know the One we believe in...personally. Anyone can.
God loves everyone of every race, every belief system, every creed, every nation...everyone. So do his children.
I don't have to know any of you to care about you. I love every one of you regardless of what you say about me, and I want every one of you to go to Heaven with me.
Belief in science?
The whole BASIS For science is to understand the natural world, is it not? I see no belief requirement for human understanding. Merely an open mind.
Am I wrong here?
Insightful? I do believe that was some attempt at humor, since, AFAIK, the whole crew is Christian on both sides. Ron Paul and Bob Barr are Christian's as well.
Correlation is not causation.
In the context of this discussion, what does that even mean? Are you claiming that because evidence makes it look like evolution occurred, that doesn't mean it did? Because, if that's the case, then nothing short of a time machine will ever convince you. And even then, you can always claim that it only "correlates to be a time machine".
If you do not believe in Science, can you really a run a country this complex?
Judging by the last 7+ years, I believe the obvious answer is a resounding "Hell no."
then stfu
you lose
you're simply arguing for the sake of argument, you don't have anything substantative to say anymore
g'day
xoxoxox
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Because, if that's the case, then nothing short of a time machine will ever convince you.
That's correct.
I submit that it probably should not "convince" you either. It isn't very scientific to so readily rule out all the other alternatives based on popularity alone.
Many possible explanations are plausible, and since we can't rule any of them out, it quickly becomes less a discussion of any facts and more a contest of wills.
What's more idiotic, the possibility that an atheist may not be an evolutionist, or having as open a mind as is possible on topics we cannot ourselves test nor witness?
and then you lose your point when you get to the scenario where they are in the canoe, looking for some place to go. at that point, they are not going to head somewhere randomly. they are going to make informed predictions based on fish, birds, clouds, the geography of island archipelagos, etc
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
why does bjork from iceland look like bjork from iceland
i await my sublime enlightenment
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I hint for the knowledge deprived: First Lady I'd Like to ....
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/10/30/is-america-ready-for-a-flilf/
not to be a douche, but a lot of highly intelligent people who know more about natural sciences than either of us believe in God/Intelligent Design.
IDK about Palin, but i personally find the 7 "day" creation story to be crap... but then again, if your an eternal being, what exactly IS a day?
just food for thought.
it is not because asiatic traits evolved independently on iceland. it is because the sami, the inuit, the chukchi, and all other mongol peoples circling the arctic sea got there via pack ice or boats
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
My personal fantasy....
I'm McCain with a really hot MILF millionaire wife (which he already has) who wants to 'experiment'. I get a MILF of a VP and THREESOME in the Whitehouse! WoooHOOO!
Bill, is that you?
I wouldn't say "a lot". In fact, the number of actual scientists who accept Intelligent Design (as opposed to Theistic Evolution, which is what I suspect you're actually referring to) is exceedingly small. I'd wager there aren't more than a handful of scientists in areas of research that deal with biology in any way that believe Intelligent Design. The number of scientists outside these fields likely isn't much higher. Generally speaking ID advocates have to start finding Engineers, Doctors, Lawyers and Mathematicians and then start make-believing that they're scientists to get the numbers up.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Ah! Thats what I meant, not ID. *palmsmack*
"The term is used to refer to the part of the overall spectrum of beliefs about creation and evolution holding the theological view that God creates through evolution."
That's odd. I don't recall Lewinsky charging Clinton with sexual harassment. By all accounts, it was quite consensual (and pathetic, the most the President of the United States could get was a blow job).
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Devil-like aliens have planted all the fake evidence of evolution because they don't want us to deduce their existence.
This space intentionally left blank
This should be fun, and by fun, I mean a wholly depressing insight into the cognitive ability of some grown adults.
Let me know when you're done with this quote so I can use it as my sig. Thanks!
Too late...
"This should be fun, and by fun, I mean a wholly depressing insight into the cognitive ability of some grown adults."
Just what Slashdot needs, a proud necrophiliac.
Take it to Digg, freak.
I was going to make a vulgar reply to your less than brilliant come-back. Afterall, I'm not logged in on this terminal so no karma loss. (I'm not RoccamOccam btw, just another /.er.) But on a lark, I went to NOW's website so get a really good quote about how any boss/manager taking advantage of an employee is unacceptable, no matter the case. It's a condition they call the "aphrodesiac of power", and any corporation which allows it to exist should be brought down.
But apparently, NOW feels that as long as the boss is a Democrat that is really attractive to feminist voters, anything he does can be swept under the rug. Really MightyMartian, your comment is so innocent compared to their complete dismissal of not only sexual harassment complaints, but even physical sexual abuse, you sound like a cheerleader for a debate team. Your "RAH! RAH!" is just a weak parroting of a much more thought-out lecture about when rape is permissible.
But, back to your assertion. Monica's testimony was being used as proof of Clinton's behaviour. Of course Monica wasn't suing him, NOW's website makes it clear that she was just another victim of sexual harassment testifying about a sexual predator. I'm so glad to see you and NOW both find that inconsequential.
the oldest closet in the world?
I'm still waiting for anyone to tell me anything that cat's actually "done".
Why are you waiting for someone to tell you this? There's a great new tool called "Google" where you can find out things like this for yourself.
Hell, I'm a conservative and can list half a dozen Obama accomplishments, both in Congress and in the Illinois Senate. Some are impressive. Some are bipartisan. Some I don't agree with.
Interestingly, I can't list any for GWB prior to his election.
Look who's running it now. Apparently, you can can't.
Fixed that for ya.
poor old McCain.
Odd, I kind of thought that Congress and Senate had a more than a bit of responsibility for the running of the US. Hey, maybe I'm wrong and they just sit there doing whatever while the President does it all. Who knew...
"Eeeeevahhhhhh!!"
There's also some fun circumstantial and anecdotal evidence that one of the Kham plateau dialects of Tibetan is possibly related to Navajo.
A woman I once worked with lives in the Southwest and was at a Tibetan conference chatting with a friend of hers about the Navajo, when she turned to the Tibetans sitting at her table and apologized for not explaining who the Navajo are. The Tibetans laughed and said they needed no explanation. They told her how, in WWII, when the US hired on the Navajo code talkers, the Japanese figured out who it was on the radio and searched around for anyone who might be able to interpret. There was apparently a serious effort underway by Tibetan speakers that was making some headway before the war ended.
The recent Elliot Pattison novel, Prayer of the Dragon, plays on this potential Tibetan-Navajo connection. He talks some about the (admittedly superficial) similarities -- sand paintings, sky burial. And the Navajo themselves have a creation story about climbing down from a hole in the sky in the far north, where nowadays speakers of the related Athabaskan languages reside.
Sure, it might all be accidental, but circumstantial evidence, in sufficient quantities, begins to be a bit compelling. :)
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Chickens are one thing, humans are another. :)
There is growing evidence that the Polynesian linguistic group arose from origins in what is now Taiwan. Mâori oral traditions (the "story" in their "history") describe arriving at Aotearoa, the Land of the Long White Cloud (New Zealand), right when a particular star became extremely bright. Given the constellation described in detail in the tale, Western eggheads have been able to identify it as the Crab Nebula, which went kablooie in 1054.
They came from the west.
This makes any detour through the Americas quite unlikely, at the least. :)
That's not to discount any Polynesian contact with South America -- if a people can travel from Indonesia through Samoa and find Rapa Nui ("the big hunt" -- i.e. Easter Island) and travel back again, they can probably hit something as big as the South American coastline.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
I think we should send all those creationists a copy of Carl Sagan's Cosmos. See what they make out of that :)
What would you be if you are atheist and not an evolutionist?
Erich Von Daeniken.
We cannot "test nor witness" directly almost anything. We test and witness things through our potentially faulty senses - which is a form of indirection itself.
We only "see" electricity through indirect electric sensors that we have like lamps, or electric devices, or the magnetic effect on metals. These are only slightly more indirect than directly seeing objects.
Similarly, we see evolution through millions of fossils, containing features predicted with high accuracy beforehand, by evolution researchers. This is only slightly more indirect, and quite a bit more direct than how we "see" some very exotic physical principles, which are obviously true, or technology wouldn't work.
Upon further examination said, "stop touching me!"
Changing the world... one research project at a time.
A man and a woman are honeymooning at the beach. The current takes the woman away and she is lost. The man and police attempt to find her, but they fail.
A few days later, the man goes to the police station for an update. The policeman says "I have some bad news, some good news and some very good news. Which do you want first?
The man says, "please give me the bad news first."
The policeman says, "I'm afraid your wife has drowned. We found the body earlier today."
The man is heartbroken, but asks, "well, what is the good news?"
"When we pulled her up, she was just covered in Dungeness crabs and lobsters. I have to say, it was really good eating!"
The man is shocked, but manages to ask for the very good news.
"We're going to pull her up again tomorrow!"
She didn't. Paula Jones did. While he was Governor of Arkansas. He was questioned on his affair with Lewinsky as it helped establish a pattern of sexual coercion of subordinates. This is the crux of sexual harassment issues - a man (usually), in a position of power over an employee, requesting sexual favors. Because of the ability of the superior to control the career of the subordinate, it is difficult to determine if the sex is really consensual. Bill Clinton had numerous complaints about him trying to force himself onto women who worked for him, or owed their livelihood to him.
I can't find one serious post here that doesn't make a reference to religion. This is ridiculous!
I thought I might list some facts that are missing in some posts (presumably because the posters did not RFTA).
Archaeologists have found four skeleton remains preserved in the underwater cave.
"Eva de Naharon" is dated to be 13,600 years old (preliminary dating, but is in range 11,000 to 14,000 years old from carbon dating of the others).
I was kind of expecting speculative talk about other bones not being discovered because of burial practices, exposure to the elements, the group temporarily living in the cave because they may have been moving around exploring, etc; or the potential impact this discovery has, along with other evidence stated in the article, to unseat the "theory holds that ancient humans first came to North America from northern Asia via a now submerged land bridge across the Bering Sea."
Because, if that's the case, then nothing short of a time machine will ever convince you.
That's correct.
The problem with that attitude, however, is that you act as though complete agnosticism is the only option for something that cannot be proven, but, if your logic were applied to any other question, then nothing could ever be proven. At some point you have to look at what has the most compelling evidence and say "based on what we now know, this seems to be true".
I submit that it probably should not "convince" you either. It isn't very scientific to so readily rule out all the other alternatives based on popularity alone.
The problem with your argument is that the belief in evolution is based on evidence. Evidence is the reason evolution became as popular as it did, among scientists. Popularity alone is the reason creationism became popular among non-scientists.
Many possible explanations are plausible, and since we can't rule any of them out, it quickly becomes less a discussion of any facts and more a contest of wills.
But your argument is based on the idea that because God is a hypothesis that cannot be disproved, and for which there is no evidence, then no amount of facts will ever be relevant. It is a discussion of wills because creationists choose to dig in their heels and ignore the evidence.
What's more idiotic, the possibility that an atheist may not be an evolutionist, or having as open a mind as is possible on topics we cannot ourselves test nor witness?
But we can test this phenomena, and have been doing so for a century and a half. There are several experiments in which evolution has been directly observed. You will never be able to start with a single-celled organism and see it evolve to an intelligent life form, but it is idiotic to assume that either option is equally likely, or to assume that the one supported by no evidence is more likely than the one supported by a great deal of evidence.
if your logic were applied to any other question, then nothing could ever be proven.
Nice to meet you. I'm Bob. I question everything. Constantly. I wouldn't know how to stop, even if I wanted to...
Friend, nothing can ever really be proven. 'Close' is a good as it gets. It is the people that keep this in mind that advance our society.
The problem with your argument is that the belief in evolution is based on evidence.
Mostly, this is false. I'm not arguing that evolution isn't probable. It is. What I am saying, is that evolution is founded primarily on correlation. I find it amusing that correlation isn't good enough for a 'soft' science like psychology, but is rock solid enough to go around blasting people's religions.
Don't you find that at least a tiny bit disingenuous?
Oo, very interesting, I'll definitely give that a look-see. I'm quite interested in such morphologic analysis, and hope some day to possibly conduct some of my own, so a paper such as this touted for its methodological rigor is a happy find. Thank you.
The only thing I've read recently about Basque in the ancient world has to do with the possible remnants of Basque words in place names around Europe, which might indicate a much broader dispersion of Basque speakers prior to the influx of the Indo-European tribes. The one example I recall was the word "aran", apparently cognate to a Basque word meaning "valley", that shows up in various places around Europe, usually with the now-local language word for "valley" stuck on the end, such as Arantal, Germany (literally, the "valley valley").
The old Irish oral tradition relates that there were other people in Ireland before the folks now calling themselves Irish showed up, and the tales describe how the original inhabitants fought so valiantly that the incoming Gaelic tribes named the place after them in tribute -- Eiran. What with how many dramatic valleys there are in Ireland, that made me wonder if perhaps this "Eiran" is the same Basque word for "valley" -- but that is pure conjecture, and simply a fun thought experiment.
FWIW, almost anything lumping Basque in together with other languages has never read to me as terribly convincing, seeming almost more like "we don't know where the heck Basque came from, so what if it's related to XXX?" but with no clear smoking-gun type of compelling evidence that it actually *is* related to anything. Who knows, hopefully some day someone will figure out where it fits in.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Sorry to reply twice, but the intro to Vajda's paper mentions the Zuni language, which leads me to recommend The Zuni Enigma, wherein Nancy Yaw Davis sets forth a very interesting argument that the precursors to the Zuni absorbed a sizable Japanese community some time in the 1300s-1400s, with the Japanese language of the time forming part of the current Zuni ecumenical language. Davis's work still leaves many questions, and she is not a linguist but rather an anthropologist, but her writings are still worth evaluating. I'm a Japanese translator by trade, and some day I would very much like to be able to seriously study Zuni myself to see what I can find.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
northeast asian traits evolved independently on iceland
thats far more plausible to you
even though the same people, the sami in scandinavia, the chukchi in siberia, the inuit in canada, are just a quick pack ice trip away
its amazing the things i learn from genuises on teh intarwebs
(snicker)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. northeast asian traits evolved independently on iceland
2. the same people: the sami in scandinavia, the chukchi in siberia, the inuit in canada, are just a quick pack ice trip away
which is more plausible to you?
scratch that question: which scenario is astronomical orders of magnitude more probable to you?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Oldest Skeleton FOUND. Where? ... in John McCain's closet no doubt.
no inuit or sami made it to iceland
that's amazing
especially since there is a goddamn icelander who looks the part, singing wacky tunes since the 1980s
and especially since mongol stock has populated every other far northern reach... except iceland? really?
explain bjork. explain that her parents were refugees from greenland. explain her appearance on iceland. otherwise, i have to trust my eyes more than your words, and conclude you don't know what you are talking about, or you are in some sort of weird racist denial, that its really important to you iceland is 100% scandinavian for some weird reason, in spite of obvious evidence to the contrary
mongol stock occupies iceland the same way it did every other area in the far north
that seems most plausible and probable to me
the very existence of bjork makes it so
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The problem with forced atheism is that it is really a religion all by itself. And, of course, the USSR had Marxism-Leninism and dialectic materialism, which are even closer to the conventional religions, what with their own cast of prophets, the holy book with its set of dogmas, orthodoxy and heresy etc.
By the time the Roman Empire grew to its peak, the Roman Pagan religion devolved into something that might be best called "traditionalist agnosticism". Noone seriously believed in gods as such, but adherence to the faith was merely considered an indicator of one's loyalty to the state.
Also, it is very likely that neither the Roman pagan emperors, nor the latter East Roman Christian emperors were young earth creationists (as the doctrine only appeared in late 19th century). Furthermore, at that time, considering the overall level of scientific development, it probably didn't matter much if at all. It certainly does matter now - if you push for a consistent Christian creationist policy, then a lot of existing scientific achievements (particularly in the areas of biochemistry and pharmacy) are heretical by the very fact of their existence, and whole areas of science should be shut down as pointless.
That's not funny, modes, that's spot on.
if your logic were applied to any other question, then nothing could ever be proven.
Nice to meet you. I'm Bob. I question everything. Constantly. I wouldn't know how to stop, even if I wanted to...
Friend, nothing can ever really be proven. 'Close' is a good as it gets. It is the people that keep this in mind that advance our society.
No. It is only those who are prudent in their determinations of what to question. I can spend my entire life questioning whether gravity exists, but that wouldn't bring our society closer to anything. And, if I demanded that every school in America devote a few classes to the "research" into "theories" of gravity's non-existence, then that detracts from time that they spend learning things that really are true.
The problem with your argument is that the belief in evolution is based on evidence.
Mostly, this is false. I'm not arguing that evolution isn't probable. It is. What I am saying, is that evolution is founded primarily on correlation. I find it amusing that correlation isn't good enough for a 'soft' science like psychology, but is rock solid enough to go around blasting people's religions.
Don't you find that at least a tiny bit disingenuous?
No, Bob. Evolution is based on evidence. We know that evolution does happen, because we see it every year, when we get our new flu vaccine. We know it happens because it has been observed several times in reproducible experiments. The fossil record and molecular evidence may not be reproducible in experiments, but there are several experiments that show that every building block needed does exist, and that they do occur without any kind of intelligent intervention.
Now, if you want to argue that evolution does happen, but it didn't happen before, then that is an area where we can not be 100% sure. But, we have a choice, we can either believe it is the result of a phenomena that we know occurs and see no reason to believe did not occur then, or we can make up a completely unnecessary supernatural explanation, based on no evidence, and pronounce it as a viable explanation. The problems with the later are that it is not science, because there have been no tests or research performed, and that anybody can make up a supernatural creation story. If we spend time teaching our students every creation myth every told, and pass it off as science, then students won't have any time to learn any real science.
Ever read Machiavelli? According tho him the job of a President in a Republic is to divert attention away from the actual Wielding of Power. As such Clinton was one of the most successful Presidents ever. People were so tied up with the impeachment that they really don't know what the government was up to otherwise.
The problem is that the evolutionary theory is incomplete and incorrect. ALL serious work on the matter recognizes this. It will likely be the basis on which the truth is found, but it has as many holes and asks as many questions as it answers. To fully believe in it is to be an idiot. You should say, that it appears to be the closet model we have, but it still needs more work on it than has been done so far.
Currently the evolutionist theory basically still requires something greater than we know of to produce the spontaneous growth of lungs, wings, legs, etc. None of which have been seen to develope in our known time, nor any substantial fossil evidence.
Of course that as living, intelligent beings, we live in a universe that supports such life.
This does not imply that there is a god, but instead it implies that possibly there are infinite universes, with different constants/laws. Of course intelligent beings will end up in the "right" ones, or they wouldn't be able to ask about it.
Also, saying that the universe's parameters are exactly tuned for life is not true - as any set of rules that allows forms of self-duplication will make life arise, and very possibly intelligence. If protons weighed 0.001% more than they do, I am not sure at all that molecules wouldn't form, but I am not a physicist. Maybe if molecules didn't form, then some other kind of formation of matter would arise, that would give rise to different self-duplicating mechanisms, which would eventually evolve intelligence.
The point is that noone knows exactly which parameters would yield life. Perhaps they know which parameters would yield life AS WE KNOW it, but that is an entirely different thing.