neanderthals

[corydoras]

yes you can believe what you like but facts are very hard to find ,challenging them hopefully is what science is about

Absolutely but if you believe what %99.99999 of what those actually working in the field don't believe, then you lose, big time, every time.

 

I don't care if that's with regard to Evolution, Global Warming, The Germ Theory of Disease or the Atomic Theory of Matter.

Edited July 2, 2012 by corydoras

[corydoras]

Hmmm Piltdown Man was a hoax for years, who except the Experts would know whats what , but if they can be fooled not much chance for the rest of us

 

Why pick on a one hundred year old hoax and then use that as an argument against current day science? Does on really think that today's anthropologists or palaeontologists would fall for a similar jape? The Piltdown Man hoax was exposed by scientists. It's a shame that it took nearly 50 years for it to be exposed, but a lot of that was down to national pride and denialism. After all those damn Huns and Froggies had the best hominid fossils in Europe and British palaeontologists of the time were not about to lose their one and only fossil without a fight, goddamit!

 

 

Why, why can't the rest of us do a bit of our own research on Science stories that are reported in the press, instead of just swallowing what some reporter who most of the time these days are not qualified to comment on the issues concerned.

[John S]

Of course Neanderthals still exist, and here's the proof....

 

Homo Neanderthalensis ssp Prescottii

 

[Yes, I know I've used that photo before on another thread, but it's the only one of Pressy I've got on my computer (it can only take so much abuse!)]

[barry luxton]

Mrs neanderthal, yum:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/07/02...26pLid%3D115818

[chesters1]

Why pick on a one hundred year old hoax and then use that as an argument against current day science? Does on really think that today's anthropologists or palaeontologists would fall for a similar jape? The Piltdown Man hoax was exposed by scientists. It's a shame that it took nearly 50 years for it to be exposed, but a lot of that was down to national pride and denialism. After all those damn Huns and Froggies had the best hominid fossils in Europe and British palaeontologists of the time were not about to lose their one and only fossil without a fight, goddamit!

 

 

Why, why can't the rest of us do a bit of our own research on Science stories that are reported in the press, instead of just swallowing what some reporter who most of the time these days are not qualified to comment on the issues concerned.

 

because in 99.99% of cases we have no route to the evidence used .we merely listen to hearsay and conjecture both in "papers" and the press ,for instance the bones used in the out of africa scenario ,can you or anyone else go back in time to see the actual finding of evidence ,realise on the spot it IS evidence and preserve the site for a full scale "clean" (as in sterile) investigation or preserve the evidence in a totally forensic manner.

in the above case not a chance

when all the unclean research has been done its merely conjecture there is no evidence only that some bones were found ,where they were found and how they were found ,from then on its opinion.

 

IF you read any "paper" its definitely not going to give anything away whether in science or clinical spheres ,it will be heavily slanted ,it will probably have anything disproving it either in very small print or missing all together.

 

now the outside experts will take a look at the paper ,some may even be invited to look at the bones perhaps even the area they were BUT the area would be destroyed so only a vague wave of the hand will show where they were ,the bones themselves corrupted by tests and mishandling etc

 

so we have a pile of bones and probably a picture of them (if they realised what they were as they picked them up and popped them in a bag with all the rest of the bits and bobs) and little else

 

then theres the opinions ,group A say they are "human" (why not an unknown ape?) because it "may" show traits we humans have (on the other hand we have plenty of traits apes have) now if group A is powerful ,well funded and holding all the "evidence" who would the other expert agree with ,do they agree with group A and join in the grinning group on the front page of national geographica (whatever) or try to find the "original" evidence its based on to see for themself spend years trying to find fresh bones ,note the context then do their own papers knowing full well to rock the boat even if you are correct may ruin you?

 

now research is bloody expensive you need backers but who would take on the job of challenging the powerful with the loudest voices ,very few .

now and again as a side effect of research for one thing its found that the research brings doubt on something else ,thats when the crap hits the fan ,we see it occasionally today its called dodgy science like phones make garages explode or patients have seizures in hospitals because somebodies phone is on etc

 

yes bones may have been found in africa ,yes they have a slight resemblance to man (most things with long legs and short arms and a head have those) but thats it ,were the bones walking out of africa or walking into africa ,we dont know its pinion.

did a human from out of africa pop down from the chilly north and kill the bone owner? we dont know we may never know

Edited July 2, 2012 by chesters1

[corydoras]

It must be very off putting to keep on seeing that little tattoo out the corner of your right eye mid-munch at every breakfast time.

[Ken L]

Mrs neanderthal, yum:

 

HN had larger brows than found on a modern human not larger boobs.

 

Is it me or have they photoshopped out a rather intimate tramp stamp on the first photo ?

[chesters1]

It must be very off putting to keep on seeing that little tattoo out the corner of your right eye mid-munch at every breakfast time.

 

it must be very comforting knowing your always right or keeping quiet when its found out you are not

Edited July 2, 2012 by chesters1

[barry luxton]

HN had larger brows than found on a modern human not larger boobs.

 

Is it me or have they photoshopped out a rather intimate tramp stamp on the first photo ?

 

 

Na, she just had one rough night apparently i would have thought. The bruising healed.

 

Bet his ears have the same.

Edited July 2, 2012 by barry luxton

[Ken L]

Chesters. Yes, we get our evidence second, third or fourth hand but the facts can be checked and alternative hypothesise proposed.

Trouble is, any alternative proposal has to account for the fossil evidence that shows the oldest hominid fossils in Africa. The greatest variety of hominid species in Africa. A spread of hominid species of types, ages and locations in other parts of the world consistent with waves of out of Africa migration. The greatest human genetic diversity being in Africa with traceable genetic and morphological (racial) traits apparently matching the out of Africa hypothesis.

Now, you can propose an alternative but it has to be shown to fit the evidence as well or better than the current model of the evolution and distribution of humans.

 

When someone digs up a species of "Bognor man" that predate the African fossils and can propose an out of Sussex hypothesis that accounts for all of the available information then you you can overturn the current view and collect a Nobel along the way.