Jeff Meldrum on Taking Sasquatch Seriously

Jeff Meldrum, associate professor of Biological Sciences at Idaho State University is presenting a talk in Montpelier, Idaho on June 2 called “Sasquatch on the Oregon Trail.” He writes:

Ancient tribal artists of the Intermountain West were not overt in their depiction of these creatures, but cryptic petroglyphs from the red sandstone cliffs of Wyoming to the basalt columns of the Snake River Plain depict footprints and caricatures of the wildman of the woods. Modern tribal artists, such as Willie Preacher of Fort Hall, depict traditional stories with oil and canvas.

Once the pioneers arrived in Oregon’s verdant Willamette Valley flanked by the Cascade and Coastal ranges, or the mountain-surrounded gold fields of northern California, they would hear more stories of mountain devils and giant hairy man-like monsters. It would be a century later before footprint casts and films and photos would introduce the world to the Pacific Northwest’s wildman of the woods – Bigfoot or sasquatch; yet an additional half century before science would begin to consider the evidence seriously.

Ah, the power of the local story...it doesn't matter that there is not and has never been a shred of physical evidence of these creatures anywhere on the planet in recent memory. If these creatures were shot at by Lewis and Clark and chased by the Shoshone Indians, we would have remains. We do not. If they had any time depth to the region, we would have remains. We do not. Remember the big rubber suit from last year?

These are nothing but stories that have migrated east from fossil sightings of Gigantopithecus in China and Vietnam. There hasn't been anything around like this for five hundred thousand years.

----------------
Now playing: Billy Joel - Prelude/Angry Young Man
via FoxyTunes

New Explanation for Brain Evolution in Australopithecines

Science Daily is reporting on new examinations of the famous Taung brain endocast that provides insights into human evolution. They write:

"These findings are significant because they provide a highly plausible explanation as to why the hominin brain might grow larger and more complex," Falk said.

The first feature is a "persistent metopic suture," or unfused seam, in the frontal bone, which allows a baby's skull to be pliable during childbirth as it squeezes through the birth canal. In great apes -- gorillas, orangutans and chimpanzees -- the metopic suture closes shortly after birth. In humans, it does not fuse until around 2 years of age to accommodate rapid brain growth.

The second feature is the fossil's endocast, or imprint of the outside surface of the brain transferred to the inside of the skull. The endocast allows researchers to examine the brain's form and structure.

The argument is that the metopic suture stays open in hominins longer to allow the brain to grow more postnatally, something we have known for some time. It is the new imaging techniques that have allowed us to get a better handle on this. The endocast has been around for almost ninety years and has been subject to all kinds of studies, some of which have led to riotous disagreements between researchers. More pieces of the puzzle.

----------------
Now playing: Steve Hackett - Marigold
via FoxyTunes

Richard Leakey is Optimistic

PhysOrg profiles Richard Leakey, who thinks that the debate over evolution will be over soon. They write:

"If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it's solid, that we are all African, that color is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive," Leakey says, "then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges."

Leakey, a professor at Stony Brook University on Long Island, recently spent several weeks in New York promoting the Turkana Basin Institute in Kenya. The institute, where Leakey spends most of his time, welcomes researchers and scientists from around the world dedicated to unearthing the origins of mankind in an area rich with fossils.

I have seen this unbridled optimism before, in scientists (including myself) who cannot possibly understand that, despite the amazing amount of evidence, there are still those who do not accept evolution and that the reasons they do so are not scientific. They continue:

"If you don't like the word evolution, I don't care what you call it, but life has changed. You can lay out all the fossils that have been collected and establish lineages that even a fool could work up. So the question is why, how does this happen? It's not covered by Genesis. There's no explanation for this change going back 500 million years in any book I've read from the lips of any God."

Leakey, like many atheists, has little understanding of how tenacious religious belief is, and young earth creationism is wrapped in a particular understanding about how the universe was created that doesn't accord with modern science. Richard Leakey is optimistic.

Me, not so much.
----------------
Now playing: Michael W. Smith - Rocketown
via FoxyTunes

Meanwhile, Over in the Garden State...

Apparently, half of those polled in New Jersey don't accept evolution. According to Shannon Mullen of MyCentralJersey:

Support for the idea that humans evolved from lower forms of life stands at 51 percent in New Jersey, according to a new Monmouth University/Asbury Park Press Poll. (The Courier News is a sister paper of the The Press.) Forty-two percent said they didn’t believe in evolution, while 7 percent said they don’t know.

This further argues that the pathetic state of science education in this country knows no bounds. It, along with general scientific knowledge, is probably this bad everywhere. This information came in the context of a poll on a larger set of questions and the results can be found here. The question asked was:

I’m going to read a list of items. Please tell me whether or not you personally believe in each one. Just a quick yes or no:
The theory of evolution – that humans evolved from lower life forms

The results were predictable in other ways: For those who had a high school education or less, 37% answered yes, some college 52% and at least a college education 69%, while Democrats polled ten points higher than Republicans (I thought this would be a larger margin). Oddly, men answered yes eight percentage points higher than women, 55& to 47%. The authors make no comment as to why this last point might be.

As a comparative note, they point out:

New Jerseyans with a Darwinian bent may despair at the 42% of their fellow Garden State residents who cannot countenance the idea that humans may have evolved from lower life forms. However, they may take solace from the fact that recent polls in other places put that number significantly higher. For instance, large majorities of Republican primary voters in Southern states do not believe in evolution – 60% in Alabama and 66% in Mississippi, according to a March 2012 PPP Poll. However, that number was a much lower 43% among Illinois Republicans. Here in New Jersey, 49% of Republicans do not believe in evolution, compared to 41% of independents and 39% of Democrats.

42% is still way too high.

----------------
Now playing: Glass Hammer - Time Marches On (Performed Live At ProgDay 1997)
via FoxyTunes

Abominable Snowman Search Goes Hi-Tech: Update

But just in case you find one, it is legal to shoot it in Texas, but not in California.

----------------
Now playing: Anthony Phillips & Andrew Skeet - Credo in Cantus (Instrumental)
via FoxyTunes

Abominable Snowman Search Goes Hi-Tech

At least it is not our tax dollars at work. The Daily Mail reports that a group from Oxford University has begun using DNA samples from around the world to track, oh, I had better let them explain:

An Oxford college is to analyse samples of Yeti hair and teeth in one of the most serious attempts yet made to track down the elusive and possibly mythical species.

Wolfson college is asking for samples of hair and teeth of 'cryptids' - unknown animals such as the Yeti - and is to use the latest DNA technology to analyse samples from around the world.

'As part of a larger enquiry [sic] into the genetic relationship between our own species Homo sapiens and other hominids, we invite submissions of organic material from formally undescribed species, or ‘cryptids’, for the purpose of their species identification by genetic means,' says the college.

According to the story, individuals can submit their samples anonymously. That sounds like a recipe for disaster. Wonder how many Neandertals will turn up?

----------------
Now playing: Chris Squire - Run With the Fox
via FoxyTunes

Alan Thorne Has Died

Alan Thorne, one of the principle architects of the multiregional evolution model of modern human origins has died. ABC News reports:

Dr Thorne is best known for his research on the Mungo Lake skeletons found in western New South Wales, and his theories on the regional development of early humans.

The research on 'Mungo man' dated the skeleton to 40,000 years ago.

ANU research colleague Colin Groves says the death of Alan Thorne is a big loss for Australian archaeology.

This is a very sad loss and a big one for the palaeoanthropological community.

“Critical Thinking” Bill Fails in Missouri

Another bill couched in science language but aimed solely at evolution has failed in the Missouri legislature. The text of the bill reads in part:

The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school governing authorities, superintendents of schools, school system administrators, and public elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues, including biological and chemical evolution.

Whenever I read these bills, I wonder, how is it that these legislators have concluded that every single other branch of science has got it completely right and yet the biologists have somehow completely gotten everything wrong? I am just astounded that none of these bills are ever aimed at the discrepancies between traditional Newtonian physics and quantum physics, for example. Are there not theoretical issues in that field that are controversial? Of course there are. But as long as we have legislators who don't know better, and there is always a well-funded young earth creationist machine behind it, these anti-evolution bills (for that is what they are) will keep coming.

Hat Tip to Robert Luhn
----------------
Now playing: Jean Michel Jarre - Magnetic Fields 1
via FoxyTunes

Crocodile From Hell, East African Version

Again from Discovery News, it turns out that there was a horned crocodile that lived around the time of the Australopithecines and likely ate more than a few of them for lunch. Jennifer Viegas writes:

Remains of the enormous horned croc, named Crocodylus thorbjarnarsoni, were unearthed in East Africa. The impressive aquatic reptile exceeded 27 feet long and is described in the latest Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology.

The croc was the dominant predator of its ecosystem, so there is little doubt that it preyed upon our distant ancestors, especially since remains of Australopithecus (a now-extinct genus of hominids) were found nearby.

These relatively tiny individuals would have had no choice but to enter the crocodile's territory for much needed water.

These early hominins had to contend with large cats on the savanna as well so survival was never guaranteed.

----------------
Now playing: Steve Hackett - A Place Called Freedom
via FoxyTunes

Turtle From Hell

What is it with the Cerrajon Formation in Colombia? First we had the Snake from Hell, then we had the Crocodile from Hell and now we have the Turtle from Hell. Jennifer Viegas of Discovery News writes:

Remains of an enormous turtle, which was the size of a Smart car, have been unearthed in a Colombian coal mine.

The shell alone of the 60-million-year-old turtle, Carbonemys cofrinii aka "coal turtle," is large enough to be a small swimming pool. Its skull is roughly the size of a regulation NFL football. The coal mine where it was found is part of northern Colombia's Cerrejon formation.

"We had recovered smaller turtle specimens from the site," Edwin Cadena, a North Carolina State doctoral student who discovered the turtle, said in a press release. "But after spending about four days working on uncovering the shell, I realized that this particular turtle was the biggest anyone had found in this area for this time period -- and it gave us the first evidence of giant-ism in freshwater turtles."

How nasty was this turtle in relation to modern ones?

Turtles today are usually seen slowly chewing plants, but this prehistoric species had massive, powerful jaws that would have enabled it to eat anything nearby, from mollusks to smaller turtles or even crocodiles.

Not a nice place to live, I don't think.

----------------
Now playing: Anthony Phillips & Andrew Skeet - Sojourn
via FoxyTunes

Credit for Creationism Class Bill

Glenn Branch of the NCSE has shown light on a bill in the Alabama legislature that has, mercifully, died. This bill would have allowed local school districts to allow students to take a class in creationism and receive credit for it. According to the NCSE:

House Bill 133, if enacted, would have authorized "local boards of education to include released time religious instruction as an elective course for high school students." Its sponsor, Blaine Galliher (R-District 30), explained his purpose in introducing the bill to WAFF in Huntsville, Alabama (February 5, 2012): "They teach evolution in the textbooks, but they don't teach a creation theory ... Creation has just as much right to be taught in the school system as evolution does and I think this is simply providing the vehicle to do that."

I guess my take on this is that you should always allow students to take courses that involve religious instruction since it is such an integral part of the framework of American life. Such a course would, ideally, fulfill a credit in the social sciences and might be a benefit to the individual students, especially as a discussion forum.

But that is not what is going on here. It is evident from the words of representative Galliher that he envisions such a class to count as a science credit. Such a position is absolutely indefensible. There is no validity to the young earth creationist position and to teach it in public schools as legitimate science would be tantamount to miseducation. Young earth creationism should only be taught as an object lesson in science as a theory that has been discarded in favor of new knowledge. To suggest a course swap like this is simply ignorant. The students of Alabama dodged a bullet this time.

----------------
Now playing: Mike Oldfield - Tattoo
via FoxyTunes

Ken Ham: Horse Expert

This occurred during the first couple of days after my surgery so I couldn't comment on it then but I thought it mighty amusing at the time. It seems that, during the running of the recent Kentucky Derby, there was a display on the evolution of the horse at the International Museum of the Horse.

Not to be outdone by the spectacle of the Kentucky Derby, Ken Ham, head of the Kentucky Creation Museum, just to the south, complained about the evolutionary aspects of the exhibit. As Kentucky.com reports:

Ham contends the idea of horse evolution is false, and he particularly disputes the line of prehistoric horses that scientists link to the modern horse.

Ham writes that in the display, two early horses, Miohippus and Merychippus, grow steadily bigger.

“What's the problem, though, with the belief that horses somehow evolved into larger and larger animals? If that were true, shouldn't we see only very large horses today? But we don't — horses vary in size from the Clydesdale to the much smaller Fallabella (just 17 inches tall).”

Ham concludes: “This example of a poor, unscientific display at the Horse Park is just another good reason why you need to visit a place that will tell your children the truth — the Creation Museum!”

His persistently poor grasp of evolutionary theory is really quite astounding. Given the amount of time that he has spent opposing it, you would think that he would have learned at least something about it. Apparently not.

And I bet the display has quite a bit to say about recent artificial selection which is responsible for the differences in the size of the horses just as it is for the size differentials in the different breeds of dogs and cats. Did this never occur to him??

But beyond the artificial selections issues, just because you had small horses in the past and larger horses today doesn't mean that ALL horses are going to be large, just as it doesn't mean that all cats are going to be large. Selection operates on the animals living in certain environments. In India and Siberia, it is optimal for the tiger to be large and, likely due to Bergmann's Rule, the Siberian tigers are slightly larger than the Bengal tigers. It is optimal for a lynx or a bobcat to be small in the dry, southwestern U.S.

Horses diversified and the modern Equus genus dates to around 3 to 4 million years ago. Between about 5 million years ago (end of the Miocene) and 12,ooo years ago (beginning of the Holocene), there was a gradual cooling and horses generally got larger. That came to a crashing halt with the end of the Late Würm glaciation when the climate began to warm substantially and most of the large horses disappeared. The domestication of horses appears to have begun as early as 6,ooo years ago and the modern horses that race are the result of that.

With his completely ignorant understanding of horse evolution and his blatant plug for his own for-profit creation museum, Ken Ham demonstrates that there are, in fact, more horses asses in the world than there are horses.

----------------
Now playing: Anthony Phillips & Andrew Skeet - Credo in Cantus (Instrumental)
via FoxyTunes

Injecting A New Idea Into the Debate

Ow. Still hurts to type. Charles Haynes suggests a new tactic in the effort to educate students about the vacuity of ID and creationism in the classroom. Working off the passage of the new “monkey bill” in Tennessee, he writes:

Under the new law, Tennessee teachers apparently get to decide what counts as science (and what counts as "weakness" in scientific theories) -- even if most scientists disagree. Critics of the law see this as a green light for teaching creationism or other religiously based ideas as science.They may be right. What Tennessee lawmakers tout as academic freedom (a freedom, by the way, denied to teachers in every other subject), is very likely to be used as a Trojan horse for inserting religious convictions into the science curriculum.

A far better approach would be to address the religion-science debate up front by preparing teachers to teach students something about the history and philosophy of science, including the interaction between religion and science over time. Helping students understand the context for the culture-war fight over evolution may help them accept what modern science has to say.

I think this is a good idea. When I teach my Introduction to Human Origins class, I include a section on the history of science and where some of the young earth creationist ideas came from. One of the best books I have recently read is Davis Young's The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence which he excerpted here. It is a great case study in the struggles of geologists and their attempts to understand the new evidence that the earth was revealing and why flood geology was abandoned 150 years ago. That it is still accepted by young earth creationists after all this time is a sad testament to their lack of scientific credibility. There is more evidence that the earth is flat.

I wonder if my idea that simply teaching creationism in science class would expose the stinkweediness of it is a good idea. It would only work if every teacher to a man or woman were honest about the scientific evidence but, as we have seen from recent polls, one in nine high school science teachers accepts creationism. Somewhere, an entry-level quiz is systematically being omitted. I would expect that if you want to teach science in a science class, you would have to have a basic understanding of what is science and what is not. I guess not.

----------------
Now playing: The Alan Parsons Project - The Fall Of The House Of Usher: IV. Pavane
via FoxyTunes

Oh, The Horror, The Horror

Parents, save your kids before its too late.

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.

Just had wrist surgery today.  Nothing for a bit.

Meanwhile, Over in North Carolina...

The Raleigh NewsObserver is reporting on the doings of a Wake County high school science teacher who has given an assignment asking students to, if they so desire, write a paper supporting a recent earth creation model of the earth's origins.  The authors write:

School officials say the assignment, in which the teacher gave his students the option of doing an extra-credit project on evolution or creationism, was inappropriate because the state curriculum doesn’t include creationism. The situation at Wakefield Middle School in North Raleigh highlights the challenge public schools face when discussing how life began...At Wakefield, eighth-grade science teacher Adam Dembrow gave students an extra-credit opportunity last month to do a poster and paper either on “your interpretation of a religions (sic) Creation” or on “any evidence on the theory of evolution, which can be used to support the theory of evolution.”

Much is unclear in this report. Is he trying to get his students to understand the shortcomings of the YEC model? Is he trying to get them to compare standard science with YEC? Even I make cursory mention of the YEC model in my “History of Science” lecture for my intro to physical anthropology class.  I also have, as an extra credit assignment, assigned a question such as "read an article on the intersection of science and religion and evaluate it."  Additionally, it is never a problem to give an assignment asking students to address evidence for evolution.  That gets them into the evidence, itself. 

While the recent Tennessee law is clearly a bad idea, I do not think that we need to jump out of our skins every time a teacher mentions the young earth model.  That is just overreacting. 

It has always been my contention that if we actually brought creationism into the classroom and taught the evidence for it honestly and with scientific integrity, students would see it for the stinkweed that it is and not embrace it.

Tennessean: TN evolution law may change nothing

According to an article in the Tennessean, the new “monkey bill” may change nothing about the way science is taught. Here is the accompanying video. The first speaker intelligently lays out her opposition to the bill, the second one not so much.



Heidi Hall writes:

Supporters of Tennessee’s newest education law envision classrooms where teachers lead robust conversations about evolution, analyzing its strengths and weaknesses with students who are freshly engaged with this new approach.

Creationism wouldn’t be mentioned, they say. Neither would intelligent design. Teachers know those would violate the First Amendment, plus the new law expressly forbids promoting religious doctrine.

“I trust science teachers are smart enough to keep the discussion on a scientific level,” said Casey Luskin, a policy analyst with the Discovery Institute, which wrote a model bill Tennessee lawmakers consulted. “I don’t see why anyone would bring religion into the discussion.”

I sometimes wonder if Casey says these things because he actually believes them or if he hopes that his listeners will. It is remarkably naive because he knows good and well (or he ought to) that, when polled, over 10% of science teachers actually support teaching creationism. It is also naive in that, during the Dover trial, it became clear that some members of the school board were committing terminological inexactitudes. They said they wanted "critical thinking" about evolution when they really wanted creationism. She continues:

Tennessee’s law isn’t the same as the Dover school board’s policy, but it sets up conditions for a lawsuit, said Vic Walczak, an ACLU attorney who represented the Dover, Pa., families.

“It basically neuters school boards and administrators from disciplining teachers who run off the rails,” he said. “And when the district gets sued by a parent, the teacher gets off scot-free? Why would you do that?

You would do that if you wanted creationism taught in the public school.

New BioLogos Post is Up

My latest installment at BioLogos on human origins is up and can be found here. As always, comments are welcome both here and there.

----------------
Now playing: The Alan Parsons Project - I Robot
via FoxyTunes

Haslam Lets ‘Monkey Bill’ Stand

Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam has allowed SB893 to stand, effectively making it law. As he is quoted in the Nature News story:

“I do not believe that this legislation changes the scientific standards that are taught in our schools or the curriculum that is used by our teachers,” Haslam said in a written statement explaining his equivocal stance. “However, I also don’t believe that it accomplishes anything that isn’t already acceptable in our schools.”

The Nature News story points out a way in which the bill differs from the one in Louisiana.

But in Tennessee, unlike in Louisiana, the law requires teachers to stay within the state science curriculum. So the ramifications of the law will depend on how local teachers and school boards interpret that requirement. “There are school districts in Tennessee that don’t pay any attention to the state curriculum,” says Timothy Gaudin, a biologist at the University of Tennessee in Chattanooga. “So there are some people who are going to do what they want to do no matter what.”

This gives them the cover to do so. I suppose the question I have for Governor Haslam is that if it is not going to accomplish anything, and you don't want to sign it, then why not veto it? This just smacks of political pandering, especially in light of the scientific opposition to the bill. Not a bright and shining moment for Tennessee.

John Derbyshire Fired By National Review

John Derbyshire has been fired by the National Review for controversial remarks he made in a post for Takimag. Whether he should have been fired or not I have no idea since I cannot get the Takimag link to work. I do know that he, once upon a time, wrote an extraordinarily insightful post on George Gilder and Intelligent Design, to wit:

George’s own Discovery Institute was established in 1990; the offshoot Center for Science and Culture (at first called the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture) in 1992. That is an aggregate 30 years. Where is the science? In all those years, not a single paper of scientific standing has come out of (nor even, to the best of my knowledge, been submitted by) the DI or the CSC. I am certainly willing to be corrected here. If the DI or CSC have any papers of scientific standing — published or not — I shall post links to them to NRO for qualified readers to scrutinize.

Scientists discover things. That’s what they do. In fast-growing fields like genomics, they discover new things almost daily — look into any issue of Science or Nature. What has the Discovery Institute discovered this past 16 years? To stretch my simile further: Creationists are walking into that room full of pilots and aeronautical engineers right at the peak of the Golden Age of flight, never having flown or designed any planes themselves. Are they really surprised that they get a brusque reception?

If his firing is warranted, that is too bad. At times, he could be smack on the money.

No Posts for a bit

My wife's father passed away this week and the funeral is this coming week. Add to that I have to get my class written and I have to get a BioLogos post resubmitted and it adds up to no posts for a bit. Sorry.

Lauri Lebo Rips the Cover Off of HB368/SB893

Lauri Lebo, writing for Scientific American, has written an expose on the origins of HB368/SB893. In it, she points out that these academic freedom bills have particular origins which underlie their true point:

Sponsor Rep. Bill Dunn (R–Knoxville) said [David] Fowler [head of the Family Action Council of Tennessee] submitted the legislation to him in early February. The latter's organization is associated with James Dobson's conservative Christian Focus on the Family and advocates for "biblical values" and "godly officials".

Dunn could not explain why a Christian organization would be pushing legislation that supposedly has nothing to do with inserting religion into science class. He referred the question to Fowler.

Fowler, who would not say whether he is a young earth creationist ("I think that's irrelevant," he noted), said he is trying to correct the "dogmatic" presentation of science in the classroom. "This is about open discourse," he said, adding, "Good education requires critical thinking."

Fowler has spoken with members of the Discovery Institute—he would not say specifically whom—and said he drafted the Tennessee bill based on sample legislation the Institute created.

Dunn explains: "We've reversed the roles of the Scopes Trial. All we're saying is let's put all the scientific facts on the table."

Why, indeed, is a bill such as this being pushed so heavily by a Christian organization if it has no religious elements to it? What is “in it” for them? Here is where the bulls**t detector goes off. Just once, I would like one of these organizations to be honest about why they want this legislation passed. Is it too much to ask that of fellow Christians? This kind of thing leaves a very bad taste in the mouth of your average scientist, who already regards organized Christianity as hostile to them (and why wouldn't they?). It has the same effect on your average EC, and just reinforces the notion that modern evangelicalism is sadly off-base and headed in the wrong direction.

----------------
Now playing: Harry Nilsson - The Puppy Song
via FoxyTunes

Where is Todd's Letter?

Panda's Thumb noticed something that I also did a few days ago. In this post, I commented on Todd Wood's letter to Governor Bill Haslam but remarked at the time that the link was busted. PT has noticed that there is still no link and suspects foul play. Nick Matzke writes:

Wood’s argument as stated wasn’t all that convincing, really – the law is necessary if your goal is to push creationism in public schools without getting in trouble, for instance. My gut instinct is that what was really going on was that Wood, for a long time one of the only self-critical, independent, and somewhat realistic voices within creationism, just doesn’t think that pushing ID/creationism via government power and the public schools is a good idea. It’s not even good for creationism – pushing your ideas in the public schools before they are accepted in the scientific community will instantly discredit your movement within science; it leads to heated political battles rather than academic discussion; and inevitably it has historically led to expensive and embarrassing court defeats for creationism, and tighter legal restrictions against teaching creationism.

Matzke opines (and I agree in the absence of anything to the contrary) that Wood, who is not your average creationist, got his hand slapped. I certainly hope that this is not the case as his is about the only sane voice (mostly) in the entire world of creationism. If someone has reined him in, that spells trouble.

It feels, in some respects, like the Bruce Waltke fiasco of a few years back where he stated that the Christian community needed to acknowledge the importance of the evolution evidence and was summarily drummed out of his position at Reformed Theological Seminary for saying so.

At Sunday school this weekend, one of the topics that came up was persecution of Christians. Every single person in the room, to a man or woman, stated that they had received more persecution from fellow Christians about their beliefs than by non-believers. How sad is that?

----------------
Now playing: Glass Hammer - So Close, So Far
via FoxyTunes

A New Species of Hominin Coeval With Lucy?

Great Googlymoogly! A new discovery has been made in the Afar triangle that indicates that a similar species of Australopithecus that was not A. afarensis lived alongside them. Science Daily writes:

“The Burtele partial foot clearly shows that at 3.4 million years ago, Lucy’s species, which walked upright on two legs, was not the only hominin species living in this region of Ethiopia,” said lead author and project leader Dr. Yohannes Haile-Selassie, curator of physical anthropology at The Cleveland Museum of Natural History. “Her species co-existed with close relatives who were more adept at climbing trees, like ‘Ardi’s’ species, Ardipithecus ramidus, which lived 4.4 million years ago.”

There is nothing to dictate that there were no intermediates between Ar. ramidus and Au. afarensis or that there were not several hominins on the landscape at this point. We know that there were two species of Ardipithecus. It is possible that this represents a descendent of Ar. ramidus or a descendent of a species that lived at the same time as Ardi and gave rise to a hominin that was more arboreal in nature. Until we have more to go on, it will be hard to construct any relationships that are even provisional.

----------------
Now playing: Glass Hammer - Time Marches On (Performed Live At ProgDay 1997)
via FoxyTunes

SB 893 Goes to the Governor

The Knoxville News Sentinel has a story on the migration of the “monkey bill” from the floor of the senate to Bill Haslam's office for signing. Tom Humphrey writes:

Haslam was asked his views on the bill last week after announcing plans to use federal funds to build three new Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) schools in the state.

"I don't know that I have any great insight there for you on that one," Haslam said, adding that he had heard of the bill but knew little about what was involved. The governor said he plans to ask state Board of Education officials about it.

"I think it is a fair question as to what the General Assembly's role is, I think that's why we have a State Board of Education," he said. "I think the General Assembly, though, does represent people and their votes and thoughts matter there."

I am not sure what the Tennessee School Board will do but I do not have high hopes. It just boils down to the fact that politics and science don't mix.

Todd Wood Thinks SB893 is Superfluous

Todd Wood has written to Governor Haslam, arguing that the passage of SB893 is pointless. The link to the letter appears to be broken on Todd's page, so I quote it in part. He writes:

Because of my religious convictions, I am a committed creationist, but unlike many creationists, I have grown quite weary of the creation-evolution propaganda war. I believe this bill is an ideal example of what's wrong with the creation-evolution war. For example, since the bill clearly states that religious discussions are not protected, it could not be used to permit "some Sunday school teachers to hijack biology class by proxy," as the editorial in the March 21 edition of the Tennesseean suggested. On the other hand, my own reading of the bill indicates that it provides no protection that teachers don't already have. Teachers are already well within their rights to discuss any scientific evidence that pertains to the prescribed curriculum and to encourage critical thinking about it. Many already do.

Interestingly, he hits on a particular problem in his opening statement involving creationism: it doesn't stand on its own merits. It is specifically tied to a “religious commitment.” This is counter to the position by the mainstream organizations such as AiG and the ICR, which have argued for decades that their science is as good as mainstream science and shows that the earth was created in six days six thousand years ago.

I have often wondered if a challenge should be issued: that someone would come forward who is convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the earth and the universe were created in six twenty-four hour days six thousand years ago and that the geological column represents the effects of a world-wide flood but who is either an atheist or a hard-line agnostic. I doubt such a person exists.

The second problem that I have is that I don't think that the law is superfluous. Right now, if someone teaches recent earth creationism in the classroom in public school, they run the risk of being fired, like John Freshwater was. Now that the law has been passed, there is no oversight and such teachers are beyond the veil of accountability. The only way such a person would be stopped is if a lawsuit such as the one at Dover, PA were brought forth. Does the state really want that, with the media circus it would entail? Then it really would be Scopes II.

----------------
Now playing: Stan Getz - Sunshower
via FoxyTunes

Casey Luskin on “The Monkey Bill”

Casey Luskin has written a piece addressing the Tennessee legislation 893, known colloquially and uncharitably as “The Monkey Bill.” He writes:

The bill enjoyed bipartisan support from all the Republicans, and over 35% of Democrats, in the Tennessee State Senate. The proposed legislation is a standard academic freedom bill that would apply generally to the teaching of controversial scientific theories, not just evolution.

This is disingenuous. This bill is aimed at evolution. Everyone connected to the bill knows this. Descriptions of the bill are always phrased as “evolution and other subjects” but nobody ever mentions the other subjects.

He continues:

Thus, the bill includes a clear statement that it only applies to teaching science and does not protect teaching religion. Don't expect that to satisfy critics, who will predictably ignore the actual language of the bill and falsely claim it would introduce religion in the classroom.

Teaching religion is not the issue. That is a smokescreen. The issue is the teaching of evolution.If it allows teachers to promote young earth creationism in the classroom, it will introduce religion into the classroom, even if it does so through the backdoor. With this bill in place, there is nothing to stop a teacher from teaching what they consider “weaknesses” in a scientific theory, even if those “weaknesses” are not scientifically supported.

Teachers will also interpret the meaning of “curriculum framework” in different ways and if, as was the case in Ohio with John Freshwater, they honestly believe in young earth creationism, that is what they will insert into their classes. Who will hold them accountable if they do that?

----------------
Now playing: John Coltrane - Giant Steps
via FoxyTunes

HuffPo on The “Monkey Bill”

Cara Santa Maria of the Huffington Post has a short video on the Tennessee anti-science bill 893.

The ending interview with “a student” is devastating.

----------------
Now playing: Pat Metheny Group - Eighteen
via FoxyTunes

The Tennessean Weighs in on SB893

The state newspaper, The Tennessean has written an editorial on the passage of SB893, the “Monkey Bill,” called “Our View.” They write:

Does anybody think that Senate Bill 0893, as amended, is really about making our children smarter, more intelligent and better critical thinkers? No, not on any side of this argument. This bill is about wedging open a door to include a radically divisive, ultra-conservative Christian agenda disguised in politically correct language.

If the point were about making our children more critical thinkers, it would not be aimed solely at evolution. That it is ought to tell the average reader that the real purpose behind the bill is to attempt to water down evolution teaching or, in the hopes of some, remove it altogether by making its teaching so controversial that teachers won't want to bother. That is the purpose behind the bill. Those that promote it need to be honest about that.

----------------
Now playing: Bill Bruford's Earthworks - Revel Without A Pause
via FoxyTunes

Did Competition Put Us On Our Feet?

Simply, yes. That is not earth-shattering. Cambridge News has a story on work done with chimpanzees that seems to confirm that behavioral alterations in higher level primates help with competitiveness. They write:

Anthropologists studying chimpanzees found the great apes, who usually walk on all fours, walk upright and free their hands for carrying when they need to grab more hard-to-find resources in one go, in the face of competition.

The team from the University of Cambridge and Kyoto University in Japan believe the benefit of “first come, first served” and getting a bigger share of scarce food supplies could, over a long period of time, have led some of our earliest “hominin” ancestors to evolve into “bipedal” primates walking on two legs permanently instead of four.

This has always been part of the bipedality model, that early hominins exploited the forest/fringe environment where they could get what they needed from the trees and from the savannas. The fact that Ardipithecus ramidus demonstrated bipedality in a forested environment sort of threw cold water on the more conservative of those models but it is also clear that even the level of bipedality continued to evolve over time and that, by the time later australopithecines had completely human, obligate bipedal locomotion, these hominins were living in the open and competing for those resources. It was at this point that our brains began to expand as well.

----------------
Now playing: Bill Bruford's Earthworks - Cloud Cuckoo Land
via FoxyTunes

Eugenie Scott on “Critical Thinking Bills”

Robert Luhn at NCSE sent me a link for this lecture by Eugenie Scott at the University of South Florida, in February of 2012 on the “academic freedom” or “critical thinking” bills. My only quibble is that it is referred to as a “Darwinism” lecture. That is like having a physics lecture called a “Newtonism” lecture.




It is bit lengthy but is very good and outlines the problem concisely including the whole false Belief in God/Evolution dichotomy.

WARNING! Around 7:30 in, she has a horrific feedback problem, after which she has fairly good stereo separation.

Correction

The Senate bill 893 passed 24 to 8. I read a partial vote earlier. Finally, some local coverage.

Ben Bova on Evolution and Global Warming

Science fiction author Ben Bova, who will turn eighty this year, has written an editorial on the “marching morons” who refuse to accept evolution and climate change. He opines:

We have serious candidates for the presidency announcing that they don't believe in Charles Darwin's concept of evolution. They want to give equal time in classrooms to ideas such as creationism and intelligent design. Either they are grossly ignorant of Darwin's work or they are cynically misleading the public in an attempt to win votes from those who actually are grossly ignorant.

Evolution is real. We see it everywhere in the natural world.

There are literally tons of evidence to support the concept of evolution — fossils from millions of years ago, physical links from one species of plant or animal to another. We see evolution taking place before our eyes when we watch bacteria become immune to antibiotics.

Against all this evidence, the creationists have no evidence at all. They rely on the word of the Bible, books written centuries ago by writers who were trying to understand the history of Israel, not explaining the workings of the natural world.

How is it that most theologians understand this and most lay evangelicals do not? Bova is equally vituperative against the detractors of global warming. Read the whole thing.

----------------
Now playing: Sky - Scipio (Part I And Part II)
via FoxyTunes

Video on the Deliberation of SB893

Here is the deliberation of the senate bill by Bo Watson, which passed 7 to 1, with one abstaining (click on SB0893). There was one amendment to the bill in which the word “controversial” was replaced with “debated or disputed.” I do not know how that changes anything. They are only disputed by those who do not grasp the evidence.

Watson claims that school teachers should have the freedom to debate the controversial nature of these subjects in science class but that such debate should occur within the constructs of the state curriculum standards. Guess what? Such safeguards were in place in Dover, Pennsylvania. Didn't matter. They were in place in Louisiana. Didn't matter. Young earth creationism was introduced in both cases. In Dover, some of the local school board members even lied about what kind of curriculum they wanted taught, trying to introduce YEC arguments under the cover of ID.

Science and politics simply should not mix. It never ends well. Expect fallout like that which occurred in Louisiana (stories here and here).

----------------
Now playing: Art Blakey & The Jazz Messengers - Webb City
via FoxyTunes

Tennessee “Academic Freedom” Bill Returns

One of my favorite Murphyisms is “No one can kill a bad idea.” True to form, the NCSE reports on Tennessee Senate Bill 893, which is the counterpart to House Bill 368, which passed in April of last year 70-28 is scheduled for a vote tomorrow. Here is the text of the bill:

This bill prohibits the state board of education and any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or principal or administrator from prohibiting any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught, such as evolution and global warming. This bill also requires such persons and entities to endeavor to:
(1) Create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues; and
(2) Assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies.

“...such as evolution and global warming.” Why single those two out for special treatment. Surely there must be weaknesses in other scientific theories, such as physics. Why isn't that mentioned? It isn't mentioned because the writers of these bills have no interest in anything except evolution and global warming. It is not even clear that there is much interest in global warming, but evolution they want gone.

What this bill does is give cover to someone who disagrees with the evidence of evolution to institute what they think should be taught without any accountability for doing so. We have already seen how this has played out when young earth creationism was almost implemented in Louisiana, in Livingston Parish after the passage of a similar “academic freedom” bill, which has been subject to almost continuous efforts to have it repealed by science groups since its passage and seen the state subject to almost universal condemnation by science groups.

To this end, several groups have come out against the Tennessee bill and have written signed letters to that effect. The letter from the Tennessee Members of the National Academy of Sciences reads, in part:

These bills misdescribe evolution as scientifically controversial. As scientists whose research involves and is based upon evolution, we affirm -- along with the nation’s leading scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences -- that evolution is a central, unifying, and accepted area of science. The evidence for evolution is
overwhelming; there is no scientific evidence for its supposed rivals ("creation science" and "intelligent design") and there is no scientific evidence against it.

The American Institute of Biological Sciences also wrote a letter to Governor Haslam, which reads in part:

It is important to note that there is no scientific controversy about the legitimacy of evolution or global climate change. These scientific concepts have repeatedly been tested and grown stronger with each evaluation. Any controversy around these concepts is political, not scientific. Indeed, evolution is a core principle that helps to explain biology and informs the development of biology-based products and services, including pharmaceuticals, food, and biotechnology.

They are absolutely correct. The controversy is manufactured. The problem is that state legislators do not know this and, as importantly, the vast majority of their constituents do not, either. Such is the state of modern scientific education. Evolution is settled science and has been so for almost a hundred years. There is no controversy. Further, as we have seen from the genetic revolution, the evidence for biological evolution just gets better every day.

These bills are irresponsible and badly conceived. It is almost certain that they will lead to the teaching of young earth creationism in some school districts which will, in turn, likely lead to more court cases like the one in Dover, Pennsylvania. That is something that neither the students nor the state can afford.

----------------
Now playing: Peter Gabriel - Walk Through The Fire
via FoxyTunes

David Coppedge and David Klinghoffer

The Pasadena Star-News is reporting that the trial of the JPL employee that worked on the Cassini spacecraft and was accused of pushing intelligent design before he was sacked has begun. Brian Day writes:

David Coppedge, who was laid off from JPL in La Canada Flintridge last year, claims his termination was motivated largely by his belief in intelligent design, and his distribution of documentary DVDs on the subject in the workplace. The theory states that the complexity and order apparent in the universe points to the intervention of an intelligence, rather than the forces of nature and chance alone.

The aerospace company has denied wrongdoing. Coppedge's termination took place during a time when the Cassini program -- a spacecraft mission to Saturn which Coppedge worked to support -- saw about a third of it's employees laid off.

The NCSE has been following this case and has put up their own page of documentation here. Interestingly, the defense case seems to rest on two things: there was a 50% cut in funding in FY 2011 for the Cassini project so that layoffs were inevitable and that David Coppedge was very hard to get along with so that when the layoffs did occur, he was not exactly a moving target. The court recorder quotes Gregory Chin:

Chin received complaints from twenty five different managers about Coppedge's uncooperative attitude and poor interpersonal skills

...“Now you used the word “Personality issues”...what didn't they like about it?”

“His personality in terms of they did not like working with him. They felt he was insincere. They would talk to him. They would believe they would not listen to them and has already formed an opinion about what he is going to do and just ignore them. He was pleasant but they felt he was being insincere about it. And I guess that annoyed them.”

The complaint goes on to list a large number of people who either were frustrated with or chose not to work with Coppedge. As someone who has worked with a coworker who doesn't listen to what you say or to anyone else around them, I can tell you that this makes for an extremely tense and frustrating work environment. This is doubly so if this person is (as was in my case) someone that you have to interact with on a daily basis.

What further comes out in this transcript is that program management had come to Chin and asked that Coppedge be removed from the project:

Q: He said it would be best to get rid of David? A: I cannot be sure of those exact words, but I am paraphrasing. He said “What can we do to get David off Cassini?”

Critical to this testimony is that these conversations took place in the early 2000s and that one of his supervisors, Clark Burgess specifically protected him at the time. When the workforce downsized, and, as they put it, jobs became tight, there was talk of moving him on to other projects. The complaints about his intelligent design support did not appear until 2009. Whether or not he was obnoxious regarding those, if we are to believe the transcripts, there certainly was ample reason to let him go when the money got tight.

David Klinghoffer, of the Discovery Institute, has written on the subject here. Klinghoffer thinks that the case is about the wrong things. He writes:

The LA Times writer is referring to Judge Hiroshige's decision not to hear from a legal scholar (not a religion expert) on the larger context of anti-ID discrimination in academia. Crucially, no one but no one on either side is asking the judge to rule on the scientific status of intelligent design. JPL's legal team and Coppedge's lawyer William Becker have cast the trial very clearly as an employment discrimination case.

In the conclusion of his statement, Becker underlined that it's all about "an employee who was treated differently because of his interest in intelligent design; who acted in a manner he thought was appropriate to protect his rights and his job, and for just that reason his job was taken away from him." (You may wish to check the final transcript for the precise quote.)

Klinghoffer remarks that it is very peculiar that, in all of these criticisms about Coppedge’s conduct, no official records were kept. He writes:

Oddly, though, none of this appears ever to have been documented contemporaneously by any of these folks, in a workplace that was otherwise very good about putting such matters down in writing. Not in reports, emails, written complaints, nothing.

This is not odd, however, if you read the testimony, in which it is noted:

Burgess did not document many criticisms in Coppedge's annual performance to maximize Coppedge's chance to transfer to another project.

Burgess states:

“Part of the transfer scenario that I imagined would be—one thing that would be involved in that would be the review of the documents by his prospective new customer and I didn't want to put too much negativity into the ECAPS.”

The testimony then continues and it records that they were trying to protect Coppedge against further, documented complaints and had even bandied around the idea of terminating him long before the ID charge surfaced in 2009. Coppedge was even advised not to continue with this particular line of conversation with his fellow employees because, in concert with the preceding problems, he was told that it would not go well for him.

Damagingly, however, Chin admits he yelled at Coppedge and created a “hostile work environment” for him. He also called Intelligent Design religion and that he was not to promote his religion in the workplace. This gave Coppedge the ammunition that he needed for the lawsuit. That does not negate the problems that JPL had with Coppedge, however.

Klinghoffer ends his article by writing:

The real question before Judge Hiroshige comes down this: Who is David Coppedge? The Coppedge that JPL depicts seems completely at odds with the Coppedge that I've come to know slightly since coming down here to Southern California and that other people tell me about. The idea that this guy could "harass" anyone is just not credible to me at the moment.

Maybe, but even if the harassment charge doesn't hold water, it doesn't mean that he was a good employee or easy to work with. JPL's defense focused on the actual problem: that Coppedge was too hard to get along with, not the Intelligent Design ruse that the Discovery Institute and Coppedge are foisting in an effort to cry wrongful termination.

When the money got tight and layoffs had to happen, JPL did what any good business would: they let go of what they considered to be a problem.


----------------
Now playing: Susan Ashton - A Rose Is A Rose
via FoxyTunes

New Hominin Finds in China

In somewhat hyperbolic terms, Discovery News reports on “Mysterious Dark-Skinned Stone Age People Found.” Jennifer Viegas writes:

A newly found Stone Age people featured darker skin, an unusual mix of primitive and modern features and had a strong taste for venison.

Remains of possibly four individuals of the so-called "Red Deer Cave People" were unearthed in southwest China and may represent a new species of human.

The fossils from two caves, date to just 14,500 to 11,500 years ago. Until now, no hominid remains younger than 100,000 years old have been found in mainland East Asia resembling any other species than our own. "We have discovered a new population of prehistoric humans whose skulls are an unusual mosaic of primitive, modern and unique features -- like nothing we've seen before," said Darren Curnoe, associate professor in the School of Biological, Earth & Environmental Sciences at the University of New South Wales and lead author of a study about the find in the journal PLoS One.

Curnoe wrote about the finds in 2009:

While the material falls within the range for modern human variation, the individuals show some archaic features and are robust. Only a handful of potential stone tools have been recovered from the site; many are hammer stones.

It would be quite peculiar if this were another species of human, although the evolutionary picture is getting muddy in Europe, so it stands to reason that it should be muddy in Asia, especially given that we have the Denisova evidence. In the PLoS article (http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031918) the authors remark that it is possible that they represent a late-surviving archaic group or that the Homo sapiens populations that were coming out of Africa were remarkably diverse morphologically and that these individuals represent a more primitive population of those migrants. There is reasonably good evidence that there were different groups that migrated to East Asia over the course of the last million or so years and this group may simply reflect one.

It is an odd mix of traits to be sure. The brain case is somewhat low (http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031918.g005), and yet the mandibles have chins, a late-arriving characteristic, only present in modern humans. Additionally, the face is flat(http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031918.g003) and there is no space behind the last molar, indicating modernity. Either way, it is fascinating find but the headlines are unnecessarily over-the-top. Read the whole article.

Aside: Curnoe is a splitter with the best of them and in the mould of Bernard Wood. He was responsible for a new species of Homo, in South Africa, Homo gautengensis, because he felt that the remains differed from other specimens of early Homo enough to give them their own species designation. This name has not had traction in the palaeoanthropological community.

----------------
Now playing: Shadowfax - Watercourse Way
via FoxyTunes

ASA Debuts New Online Magazine

The American Scientific Affiliation is now putting out the God and Nature Magazine which is:

a literary resource for everyone who's ever been confused, conflicted, intrigued, or inspired by the intersection of science and faith.

The first issue has an interesting interview with Richard Leakey. Check it out.

----------------
Now playing: Yes - South Side of the Sky (I. South Side of the Sky, II. South Side Variations)
via FoxyTunes

Gorilla DNA Sequenced

According to a story out of the LA Times, the gorilla genome has been completely sequenced. Eryn Brown writes:

By comparing the new gorilla DNA sequence with reference genomes of humans, chimpanzees, orangutans and macaques, scientists have already made a few surprising insights into the crucial periods when we diverged into separate species.

For instance, the new genetic data bolster fossil evidence that gorillas split off as a separate species about 10 million years ago and that humans and chimps parted ways about 6 million years ago. Previous genetic evidence had seemed to point to a more recent split, prompting a contentious debate between genetics experts and fossil scholars, said Durbin, who leads the genome informatics group at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Hinxton, England.

This is good because it means that the last common ancestor can be as far back as six to seven million. Does this make Sahelanthropus or Orrorin hominins? Not necessarily but now it is a more easily acceptable position..

----------------
Now playing: Emerson, Lake & Palmer - Aquatarkus
via FoxyTunes

Bill Filed to Repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act

The American Humanist Association is shedding light on a bill filed by Karen Carter Peterson (D-New Orleans) to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act. They write:

Here are the facts: the Science Education Act requires state and local education administrators to promote "open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning." It also permits teachers to use "supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner."

Senate Bill 374 will end the distribution of unscientific literature in science classrooms and stop the teaching of creationism and intelligent design. Recently, 74 Nobel laureate scientists have spoken in favor of passing this bill and repealing the LSEA.

I don't ordinarily support humanist groups since they are typically so hostile to religion but this act is a very bad thing and has already let creationism in the front door in one parish. It needs to be repealed, although I have little reason to believe that the legislature will act smartly. Still, this bill is a step in the right direction, if nothing else to shine a spotlight on the LSEA.

----------------
Now playing: Synergy - Phobos And Deimos Go To Mars
via FoxyTunes

Freshwater Loses Appeal

According to the Mansfield NewsJournal, John Freshwater, the Mount Vernon teacher fired for teaching creationism has lost his appeal. They write:

In a ruling released Monday, the Fifth District Court of Appeals said the scope of issues it could review were extremely narrow -- limited to whether the trial court abused its decretion [sic].

The ruling said the appeals panel did not find that an arbitrary or unreasonable decision was made.

"To the contrary, the referee's memorandum provides a well-reasoned and articulated basis for affirming the decision of the board and for the trial court to accept the recommendation of the referee," Judge W. Scott Gwin wrote for the three-judge panel.

The ruling said the referee set aside the Tesla coil incident, considering that case closed, but found multiple incidents where Freshwater repeatedly violated the Constitution, acted in defiance of orders by his superiors and failed to employ objectivity in his teaching of a variety of science subjects.

This is probably the end of it since I do not believe Freshwater can appeal this.

----------------
Now playing: Jean Michel Jarre - Oxygène, Pt. 2
via FoxyTunes

Neandertals Almost Extinct By the Time Modern Humans Got to Europe?

That is the story that Science Daily is running with. They write:

The results indicate that most Neanderthals in Europe died off as early as 50,000 years ago. After that, a small group of Neanderthals recolonised central and western Europe, where they survived for another 10,000 years before modern humans entered the picture.

The study is the result of an international project led by Swedish and Spanish researchers in Uppsala, Stockholm and Madrid. “The fact that Neanderthals in Europe were nearly extinct, but then recovered, and that all this took place long before they came into contact with modern humans came as a complete surprise to us. This indicates that the Neanderthals may have been more sensitive to the dramatic climate changes that took place in the last Ice Age than was previously thought”, says Love Dalén, associate professor at the Swedish Museum of Natural History in Stockholm.

This is not unheard of in human populations, and it may not have even taken a major change in climate to do this. There was a massive population die-off in the Middle Jomon period in Japan that has, to this day, largely gone unexplained.

This information does provide a bit more of an understanding as to why modern humans were able to swamp the Neandertal genome as quickly as they did. It also explains why by around 3o,ooo years ago, you only had scattered Neandertals such as St. Cesaire and Zafarraya. It looks like the whole Neandertal/modern human confluence is just getting more and more fascinating.

----------------
Now playing: Anthony Phillips - Scottish Suite: (II) Parting Thistle (Remastered)
via FoxyTunes

Neandertals were Seaworthy

PhysOrg has a story that follows up on the evidence of Neandertal settlements on the Greek islands. It has now been suggested that the Neandertals were using sea craft to navigate to and from those islands. Bob Yirka writes:

Neanderthals, considered either a sub-species of modern humans or a separate species altogether, lived from approximately 300,000 years ago to somewhere near 24,000 years ago, when they inexplicably disappeared, leaving behind traces of their DNA in some Middle Eastern people and artifacts strewn all across the southern part of Europe and extending into western Asia. Some of those artifacts, stone tools that are uniquely associated with them, have been found on islands in the Mediterranean Sea, suggesting, according to a paper published in the Journal of Archaeological Science, by George Ferentinos and colleagues, that Neanderthals had figured out how to travel by boat. And if they did, it appears they did so before modern humans.

This is not a surprise. Neandertals were every bit as intelligent as we are.

----------------
Now playing: Anthony Phillips - Sand Dunes
via FoxyTunes