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."
Paleolithic?
Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
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
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.
I don't have the data, but that theory should be easy to test. If Eva's group used to live in North Asia and was then driven into South Asia (and into North America) by outsiders, we should find remains of other "Evas" in North Asia. If we don't, then it is more likely that Eva's group originated in South Asia and managed to cross the Pacific Ocean by some manner.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Is that better than the "old farts young tarts"-sex in the White House we had a few years ago?
Quite a few dinosaur skeletons (1e8 years) have been discovered in the "New World".
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.
Perhaps you too could show some respect for those who are diverse in their opinions and ideas
Perhaps creationists could provide an opinion to this discovery? If they did, would it be respectful?
If you do not believe in Science, can you really a run a country this complex?
It's not that it's not funny. If nobody had ever said it before it might have some humor value. The problem is that the same joke appears in every single story on slashdot, reddit or digg that refers to events prior to 6,000 years ago. I think the word is 'tired'.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
The fact that someone thinks their girlfriend is pretty when others don't is a matter to live and let live. Creationists are actively trying to destroy science education in the United States and convert the government into a Christian Fundamentalist theocracy. Those are matters to be actively resisted, not tolerated.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
My beef with (most) creationists is that they also think:
* That my girlfriend (wife, now) should really not be so uppity to believe she should have a career and exercise her mind and opinion Instead, she should be barefoot in the kitchen, continually pregnant, and look to me as head of the household as Christ is head of the church.
* That my children should not be taught to think, but rather think exactly like they do, and ignore most things that science and reasoned investigation have revealed.
* That 90% of those 6.6 billion people (i.e., the ones not like them), not to mention nearly everyone who has lived before, are going straight to hell and damnation, whether they are moral or not.
So I don't think I'll apologize and respect their diverse opinions.
Don't let facts get in your way. Such as the fact that the current Icelandic population is descended from Scandinavian roots. Never mind that your assumption of 'Asian' descent is based on 'obvious' characteristics rather than any actual information.
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. Quite frankly, I think that people who seriously believe in creationism need to be checked into the loonie bin.
But I guess the whole study of paleontology is an ignorant falsehood. My bad. I'm probably the one off the mark here.
There is evidence for and against this theory.
There IS evidence for creationism? Really? That IS news. You'd think if there were some actual, real, credible, verifiable, reproduceable and refutable evidence for it, it wouldn't just be a small percentage of crackpots who believe it to be true. Even the Jews, who wrote the book you believe to be inerrant, know it to be a fairy tale.
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com
There are some things which aren't a matter of "opinion", and holding an opinion contrary to measurable fact is, well, senseless.
People who claim the Earth is flat may have an "opinion", but since their opinion is directly falsifiable, it's not a very good opinion. It's one they hold onto irrationally in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The people who haven't been able to adapt their view of their creator god to actually encompass reality ... well, that just makes no sense. Heck, if the Catholic Church can accept that fossils are real and actually millions of years old, anyone fanatically clinging to the notion that the Earth is 6000 years old ... well, they're not even trying to be rational. They're just holding onto a notion and saying "la la la" when someone tries to tell them truth.
This isn't about respecting differences in subjective things. This is about claiming that objective reality has been faked. That's just plain irrational.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Agreed, it is time to put an end to these barbaric religions.
I recently sent a funny email about creationist idiocy to a friend. Here's the response I got back:
==================
you kid, but we Texas people know the reality of crazed parental notions. I am reminded of my first experience in small town Texas where I was told "you don't use the rod?" and the woman proceeded to pull out a leather replica of a ruler with embossing that said "the ROD of GOD" on it.
I nearly fell out. That and the accompanying "you must spank your child until they cry with tears of repentance"
And this regarding [name of kid kept private] who was TWO at the time and reluctant to potty train. She no more knew what sin or redemption was than she could explain quantum physics. Yet I was to punish her over lack of bowel control upon demand.
===================
Really. I call for zero tolerance for "biblical" morality. You wouldn't let a kid be taught that 2 + 2 = 5, or that the earth is flat, or that the earth is the center of the solar system. Don't teach them that the bible is the full truth and spirit of an all-powerful, all-knowing being who created everything, either.
The bible is an archaic, brutal, ridiculous text of ancient folklore. Nothing else. Seriously, read it cover to cover, not in cherry-picked bits and pieces. And if you're a christian, do not park your god-given powers of reason and logic at the door. Consider the possibility that the bible itself is the work of satan, and that God gave us reason and logic in his own image. The true religious mission is to learn about the universe from the universe itself. To hell with the bible, where it belongs.
On second thought, carry on. My children will need some good, obedient servants when they get older.
The leaders of the American religious right have assembled an engine of ignorance with their attempts at subverting science and reason. These are the people who would make us fear change and progress as corruption and immorality because they know it would be their downfall at the head of the power structure if Americans were to secularize as happened in post WWII Europe. They allow their followers to believe it is immoral to deviate from a "median" or norm that they define as slavishly devout hetero couple with kids. They teach all sorts of crazy things like man should be treated as the superior to women, that priests/preacher should be greater than them and a host of saints, gods and fairy folk that are better than all mankind. This false hierarchy gives people an excuse to not look at their life and the consequences of how they live it pragmatically let alone existentially and gives them an excuse or scapegoat they can always pass the buck to instead of perfecting one's own actions, reactions and mind. These systems that tend to classify people according to supposed inborn traits are the anachronisms of the caste society they originated in 1000's of years ago and were meant to enforce obedience and subjugation to.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Probably. I haven't known Creationists to flame athesists or joke about how they're going to hell for not believing. But on Slashdot, the guy who makes a slam at Creationists gets modded funny, while the guy who says "live and let live" gets modded flamebait. Evolutionists may be able to back up their beliefs with science, but that doesn't cover up the fact that most of them are assholes.
I think the appropriate argument that allows scientific fact and the bible to peacefully coexist can be summed up as follows, assuming that the bible is divinely inspired:
1) God created the heavens and earth, light, the solar system, all of creation in seven days.
2) God is outside of his creation.
3) A day is an arbitrary amount of time based upon the length of time it takes aplanet to rotate once around its axis.
4) If God was outside of creation, (in heaven?) then a day was the length of time it took heaven to rotate around itself.
Therefore, since a day is a subjective measurement, based upon the perspective of the observer. And, since we assume that God "wrote" the bible through his instruments on earth, and the bible is therefore based upon God's perspective, then we must ask the question how long is a day in heaven?
Since heaven is eternal, and eternal is synonymous with infinite, then a heavenly day must be very long indeed.
Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability: without Availability the other two are assured, as is Bankruptcy.
The problem is that Genesis 1 gets the order wrong. The second and third days before there are stars. land animals before fish.
Hmmph, I still cannot believe that the current dating systems are accurate. Therefore I do not know if the Earth is 6000 years or several billion years.
Therefore, I can justify believing that the Earth is however old I feel it to be. For me, I say it is about 21 years old... I know I was alive 21 years ago and can therefore prove it's existence.
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. Quite frankly, I think that people who seriously believe in creationism need to be checked into the loonie bin.
No, they just need a better understanding of what the scientific method is and how it works. In all my years of school, the vast majority of the time spent learning "science" has revolved around reading a book full of assertions, with nothing presented to the reader for the purposes of backing those assertions up.
To be clear, I'm not claiming that scientists dictate assertions to the rest of us. I now know that there is a method, with checks and balances, but the impression I got in school was always that science was a list of terms to memorize, and an occasional fact or process that needed to be explained "in your own words". In short, I wasn't learning what science is or how it works. I was seeing the product, instead of the process, and that kind of thinking is what allows creationism to flourish in, otherwise, reasonable people.
Quite simply, you're confusing phenotype with genotype to propose an argument. Bad Thing.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
As someone who was raised protestant, but is no longer a Christian ... I honestly have no farking idea what 'whore of Babylon' means, or why I wouldn't think anyone spouting off about it isn't batshit crazy. Oddly enough, I don't recall ever hearing those words in Church, and the points of disagreement between the various denominations mostly strikes me as arcane and meaningless. I tuned out the animosity between Protestants and Catholics decades ago.
I may be too stupid to know their religion, but that kind of stuff to an outsider just comes across like a nut job who is standing on a street corner screeching out gibberish that most of us haven't a clue what the fuck it means.
Sounds like an incoherent loon to me. :-P
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The Bible is evidence. [...] but I know the difference between "no evidence" and "evidence so thin it could hide behind a supermodel".
Oh really? So if I say the world is in fact a cube orbiting around a great spaghetti monster and write it down... that piece of paper is evidence to my or someone else's claims this is the truth? When evidence is this thin, scientists don't call it evidence. Just because no-one can REALLY (in the philosophical sense) prove gravity ("What if the 1 million to the power of a millionth time you drop something it doesn't fall?") doesn't mean we can't call it fact. Same goes with something so unlikely as what is described in the bible... which in facts contradicts itself on numerous occasions.
[*] Creationism is a great topic for a practical philosophy class. It has it all: the testable vs the untestable; would a creator be so fickle as to trick his creations into heresy and punishing them for it; is carbon dating really proven -- ie can we really assume that the laws governing radioactive decay haven't changed over the millenia etc etc etc. Creationism is a fantastic topic for debate if no-one's trying to force it on other people as a "truth".
No it isn't, and I'm tired of people making this semi-intellectual argument. There's nothing untestable about God... if He exists and exerts influence over this world, it can be proven or disproven (i.e. made extremely unlikely like it is today). If He exists and exerts NO influence over the world, he might as well not exist and His existence is just as likely to be true as the Spaghetti monster, etc.
"This should be fun, and by fun, I mean a wholly depressing insight into the cognitive ability of some grown adults."
What beliefs are you talking about? The decay of radioactive isotopes is pretty much stable. There are some small derivations from the ideal geometric sequence though, but they are depending on the distance between Earth and Sun and Sun activity. They account for about 1/300th of the medium rate. So if the age of the bones is estimated at 13600 years, the small derivations of the decay rate would change this to 13600 years +/- 25 years. Not really something to lose sleep over, right?
What you probably are talking about is that the relation between C14 and C12, which was thought to be constant during history is not as constant as expected. So the estimated margin of error was larger than expected, and some dates had to be corrected up to 15%. But still: With an estimated age of 13600 years, 15% would be about +/- 2000 years. So the bones could be 15600 years old, but also 11600 years could be correct. Still, this means that the bones had to be created 6012 years ago with an age of at least 5600 years.