You Can't Trust Science!

TalkieWalkie

Nick Dolan wrote: »

Isnt the thread called science cant be trusted? .

If you bothered to watch the clip, you would know it was a sarcastic joke against Religion.

Flamed Diving

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes and no. What skews the stats of the past was the very high infant mortality rate. People living in times of relative calm and prosperity could expect to live well beyond 30. OK famous people from history: Aristotle died at 62, Rameses the great was in his 90's, Plato at 80/81, socrates at 70(and poisoned at that) Hadrian at 62, Later on Titian was in his late 80's when he died, Michelangelo was 89. our own Columbanus was 75 when he died after traipsing across europe for a laugh. Childhood mortality majorly skewed the stats, but if you made it to 30 back then the chances of seeing 70 were not that much lower than now. The middle ages saw a drop in Europe, because of successive plagues rolling in year after year.

Plus if 30/40 was the average age of death, how come 3 score and 10(70) or in some cases 80 as an average not questioned around the time of christ as invalid?

gospel;
"The days of our years are threescore years and ten;
and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years,
yet is their strength labor and sorrow;
for it is soon cut off, and we fly away."

Now this is 2000 yrs ago and was aimed at a general audience, both local peasant farmers and the roman and greek world it was later aimed at. If someone came along today and said the average span of a life was 200 years, people would raise eyebrows. They didnt back then as they clearly knew enough 70+ year olds knocking about. Further afield the chinese and the japanese in particular didnt see anything unusual in living to a "good age". Even today there are groups of long lived peoples largely isolated from the western world who live as long or even longer than us on average(certainly healthier).

Yes we've added 10 years on as an average and we've saved a lot of kids who would have otherwise died and that's brilliant, but make no mistake if you went back in time to ancient greece or rome as a 70 year old you wouldnt be seen as some strange demigod.

I recommend looking into the work of Robert Fogel and Richard Steckel, who have spent their careers investigating these questions.

Wibbs

From what I recall of Robert fogel(I dunno the other chap Im afraid ), he's primarily an economist but has an interest and study in the longevity and health field? But I must take up your recommendations on both. That said his primary interest lay between the 1600's and today in Europe IIRC? That's an interesting if narrow time as far as human longevity goes. In europe(especially in the north) we had come out of 300 years of massively variable weather, successive plagues and a sudden influx from the countryside to the cities in the industrial revolution. All of which impacted strongly on longevity factors.

During the various plague years alone you would have been very lucky to see 20 in the first place and outstandingly lucky to see 35. Throw in periods of unreliable food supply and you were in real trouble(the rich lived much longer even considering the various plagues).Then the move into the unsanitary cities and very harsh working lives and all bets were off.

This period and location was not a good indicator of "natural" human longevity or even expected longevity(once one passed childhood) of other periods or locations. Consider a roman legionnaire, not exactly a rich mans career path. They had to be at least 18, healthy etc and had to serve for 20/25 yrs before they were eligible for a pension and land. Bringing them over 40. They certainly expected to cash that in, even with the strenuous privations of such service. Yet many texts will tell us that Romans could only expect to see 23-25, which makes no sense at all. Especially when one throws in the historical records of various famous Romans, including gladiators who well hit their 50's and they had a very hard life. Others? Cicero 63, Marius 70, Julius Caesar 55 and he had a slight case of stabulitis, Augustus 75, Constantine 66, Horace 58, Ovid 74/5, PLiny the elder 55, but killed by the volcano that took out pompeii, Pliny the yonger ironically at 52. Its a long list. Have a google. Indeed that would be advisable as my memory defo has its limits.

Do I think overall Longevity in average humans(in the west) has increased? God yea of course I do. Its the biggest leap in longevity across the board since circa 40,000 years ago, when for some unknown reason we all started to live longer, when compared to ourselves and our hominid ancestors like Neandertal* I also agree that their are myths of older people that are taken as gospel by some. But I do have an issue with some of the mainstream science that has us all dying off at an average age of 25 "in the past". Its simply not the case.

A further issue with some aspects of science is it's "faith" in the theory de jour, sometimes blind faith. And that blind faith can close us off to competing theories all too often. My worry is, that in the face of the anti science brigade, like fundy christians and the like, they sometimes throw the baby out with the bathwater. Try getting a paper published in nature that goes against, string theory, pre clovis peoples in the americas, out of africa theory, anything even vaguely questioning some aspects of genetic research. EG On the aforementioned Neandertal DNA. You will read strong claims by leaders in the field that say they contributed very very little if not nothing to moderns because of the DNA studies. Slight problem there Ted. Yours and my genome contains around 3 billion base pairs(I may be missing a couple in fairness ). What have they pined down in the Neandertals? 1 Million base pairs. Just 0.03%. That's like wandering into a huge library reading 3 books and reckoning you have read the whole of accumulated human knowledge. You wouldnt take that to the bank, but too often they do. Throw in cultural and political pressures and infleunces and it can get a tad murky. That's not the kind of science I would want to believe in.

Do I trust the mechanism of science? Yes. Do I trust scientists all the time, or even a lot of the time? Nope. Much like the spiritual person trusts God, but has an issue with his or her followers. I trust the mechanism. Blind faith and the attendant hubris in anything, whether of the spirit or of the test tube is IMHO daft. Both are in flux at any one time, both in the subjective and objective. In both science and spirituality.








*though there is at least one Neandertal whose skeleton we have that lived past 40, though well bollexed he was. Interestingly his was among the first described and our hunched over shambling "ape man" notion of his people comes from the fact he was suffering from arthritis and a withered arm. As people were looking for the "missing link" degraded human at the time..... It seems they were in fact magnificent looking buggers who were the kings of their castle for far longer than we have been before or since their demise.

Nick Dolan

I never like hearing the word faith in the same sentence as science ( not the whole other can of bees : religion v science) but the idea that scientific ideas require " a leap of faith" . Scientific ideas should always be grounded in evidence and not require any faith at all. Of course this is the idealised version and the quality of data we have for some ideas is unambigous while for others its fuzzy or sparce. So when people talk about open minds, yes thats a very good principle but the evidence is the all important foundation. Plate techtonics was considered nonsence at first because the guy simply said "gee, the world looks like a jigsaw puzzle" And years later when the evidence was unargueable it became accepted. Regarding Neandertal DNA perhaps why they claim we have none is that huge amounts of our DNA is "junk" and very little is used to build us. So maybe they turned to the relevant sections of Neandertal DNA parallel to our "active" sections and saw huge differences. Aha! now im being unscientific, putting forward a hypothesis without any evidence! tricky business, this science.......

Yitzhak Rabin

Nick Dolan wrote: »

I never like hearing the word faith in the same sentence as science ( not the whole other can of bees : religion v science) but the idea that scientific ideas require " a leap of faith" . Scientific ideas should always be grounded in evidence and not require any faith at all. Of course this is the idealised version and the quality of data we have for some ideas is unambigous while for others its fuzzy or sparce. So when people talk about open minds, yes thats a very good principle but the evidence is the all important foundation. Plate techtonics was considered nonsence at first because the guy simply said "gee, the world looks like a jigsaw puzzle" And years later when the evidence was unargueable it became accepted. Regarding Neandertal DNA perhaps why they claim we have none is that huge amounts of our DNA is "junk" and very little is used to build us. So maybe they turned to the relevant sections of Neandertal DNA parallel to our "active" sections and saw huge differences. Aha! now im being unscientific, putting forward a hypothesis without any evidence! tricky business, this science.......

Actually, just recently announced, it seems likely that humans and Neanderthals did interbreed. (Courtesy of Wibbs in the paleontology forum)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18869-neanderthal-genome-reveals-interbreeding-with-humans.html?page=1

There's a thread over the last few months discussing the possibility here

mysterious

Nick Dolan wrote: »

I never like hearing the word faith in the same sentence as science ( not the whole other can of bees : religion v science) but the idea that scientific ideas require " a leap of faith" . Scientific ideas should always be grounded in evidence and not require any faith at all. Of course this is the idealised version and the quality of data we have for some ideas is unambigous while for others its fuzzy or sparce. So when people talk about open minds, yes thats a very good principle but the evidence is the all important foundation. Plate techtonics was considered nonsence at first because the guy simply said "gee, the world looks like a jigsaw puzzle" And years later when the evidence was unargueable it became accepted. Regarding Neandertal DNA perhaps why they claim we have none is that huge amounts of our DNA is "junk" and very little is used to build us. So maybe they turned to the relevant sections of Neandertal DNA parallel to our "active" sections and saw huge differences. Aha! now im being unscientific, putting forward a hypothesis without any evidence! tricky business, this science.......

The "junk DNA" Is not junk, and nor is it from Neandethal.

It's called E.T DNA. That makes up the rest of what we are. The term junk is a incorrect term. Infact just recently the science community just releasted this info. I sent this info to Galvesean on the Palentology forum last year. Hes a very big follower of the mainstream pseudo crap that we are fed by with education, he even found it reallly fascinating.

It's only called Junk, because the science community doesn't know what it does.

I do.

TalkieWalkie

Nick Dolan wrote: »

I never like hearing the word faith in the same sentence as science ( not the whole other can of bees : religion v science) but the idea that scientific ideas require " a leap of faith" . Scientific ideas should always be grounded in evidence and not require any faith at all. Of course this is the idealised version and the quality of data we have for some ideas is unambigous while for others its fuzzy or sparce. So when people talk about open minds, yes thats a very good principle but the evidence is the all important foundation. Plate techtonics was considered nonsence at first because the guy simply said "gee, the world looks like a jigsaw puzzle" And years later when the evidence was unargueable it became accepted. Regarding Neandertal DNA perhaps why they claim we have none is that huge amounts of our DNA is "junk" and very little is used to build us. So maybe they turned to the relevant sections of Neandertal DNA parallel to our "active" sections and saw huge differences. Aha! now im being unscientific, putting forward a hypothesis without any evidence! tricky business, this science.......

We do have Neanderthal DNA

Neanderthals and modern humans interbred, probably when early humans first began to migrate out of Africa, according to a genetic study released on Thursday.

People of European, Asian and Australasian origin all have Neanderthal DNA, but not Africans, researchers reported in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

The study may help resolve the long-running debate over whether Neanderthals and modern humans did more than simply live side by side in Europe and the Middle East.

"Those of us who live outside Africa carry a little Neanderthal DNA in us," said Svante Paabo of the Max Planck Institute in Munich, Germany, who led the study.

"The proportion of Neanderthal-inherited genetic material is about 1 to 4 percent. It is a small but very real proportion of ancestry in non-Africans today," Dr. David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston, who worked on the study, told reporters in a telephone briefing.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=10575837

Yitzhak Rabin

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

We do have Neanderthal DNA

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=10575837

To be fair to Mike Dolan, that study is very recent news, and most people haven't heard about it. I didn't even see it in the national papers, and imo its big news!

Yitzhak Rabin

mysterious wrote: »

Infact just recently the science community just releasted this info. I sent this info to Galvesean on the Palentology forum last year. Hes a very big follower of the mainstream pseudo crap that we are fed by with education, he even found it reallly fascinating..

I do.

Would you mind sending that info to me please? I'd be very interested to read it.

mysterious

yekahs wrote: »

Would you mind sending that info to me please? I'd be very interested to read it.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_adn08.htm
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/26/01340.html


Here is another paragraph I found

Collaborative research from a gathering of exo-scientists postulate that there are genes from over 20 extraterrestrials civilizations in Human DNA. These exo-scientists have continued the work of Nobel Prize winner Dr. Frances Crick, and other scholars in this area. Current findings are consistent with reports of Professor Sam Chang, who discreetly released information on his own apparent findings, in association with the Human Genome Project. Scientists are beginning to complain more and more about political attempts to compromise the integrity of their important work for humanity. The discreet releasing of findings, is one apparent way in which scientists try to cope with scientific peer pressures to conform to prevailing political pressures.

Details of findings have been published in part, by Dr. Michael Salla, who is a learned scholar on extraterrestrial research. Exo-scientists and other researchers base their findings, in part, on carefully collecting data, which includes well corroborated documented observations by contactees and "whistleblowers", as well as other documentation. These verified reliable sources have come into contact with representatives of non-Earth Human civilizations living in human populations at-large, and also in official capacities.

"Exo-science" is the study of extraterrestrial phenomenon. "Exo-science" is further associated with "exopolitics" which embraces the need for humanity to have open contacts with Extraterrestrials on a representative democratic basis, that respects Earth's sovereignty.

In today's "global economy" an "official science" which denies the analytical study of spiritual phenomena, as a legitimate context for understanding human reality, has been created over time. The "science" which is legitimated by institutions that are closely linked to this "global economy", tends to seek to analyse only certain aspects of 'materiality'. Priorised subjects by this "official science" are limited to areas which complement the agenda of constituencies of individuals who seek to manipulate the "recognized" body of human knowledge for power and control. That scientific priorisation context, has notably sought to exclude extraterrestrial relationships to humanity, in order to keep humanity ignorant of its apparent potential "locked" heritage within its own DNA.

I posted the other link last year I will have a look at that and find it. I will post it soon.
Use Google you will find hundreds of results on this. The news was well broadcasted


Your catching up with us on the truth front.:D We are not so crazy with our claims after all. But then again I never need science to tell me whats real or out there.

RoboClam

You trust "exo-scientists" but not an average scientist without a fancy prefix before their name. You have a certain disdain towards science, but when it fits into your belief system, you'll happily listen to what an "exo-scientist" has to say.

EDIT: You also understand that the entire concept of DNA is written in science books and taught in school right? Without science, you would not know that "junk DNA" even exists.

bonkey

RoboClam wrote: »

EDIT: You also understand that the entire concept of DNA is written in science books and taught in school right? Without science, you would not know that "junk DNA" even exists.

Just as you understand that not trusting something doesn't mean you reject every word from that source as being false, right?

Mahatma coat

article wrote:

...But not Africa.....

on the topic o ideologies and Science, this is big news for followers of one 'Group'

Yitzhak Rabin

Mahatma coat wrote: »

on the topic o ideologies and Science, this is big news for followers of one 'Group'

Do ya reckon, the racist will jump on this to say, thats the reason that "whites are more advanced" than black people? Hope not, I'd hate for them to think there was any scientific basis for their racism.

There's also evidence, that humans in asia could have interbred with Homo erectus, one of our earlier cousins who left africa before us. The reason being that asian people have a particular cranium structure that you don't see in other humans, which you do see in asian h. erectus'. Also the first people to arrive in the australian continent, were more 'modern' than the later waves of people(modern aboriginal) who came from asia, who were more 'archaic' looking, suggesting they could have interbred with h. erectus on their way via land. Its very difficult to prove anything though, because erectus DNA is near impossible to find, unlike neanderthal.

Our origins is one of the most interesting topics, new evidence is continuously coming in that changes everything we thought we know. Just think in the last few years, with this neanderthal genome sequencing, the discovery of h. florensis, the discovery of ardipithicus.

Anyone who says that the record of human evolution is nearly complete, imo, is either lying, or just unaware of everything we still don't know.

mysterious

RoboClam wrote: »

You trust "exo-scientists" but not an average scientist without a fancy prefix before their name. You have a certain disdain towards science, but when it fits into your belief system, you'll happily listen to what an "exo-scientist" has to say.

EDIT: You also understand that the entire concept of DNA is written in science books and taught in school right? Without science, you would not know that "junk DNA" even exists.

No:D

I trust myself. I knew what was "real and true" before any science told me it was real and true.

Yekahs, wanted me to pass on a link of what mainstream science are only beginning to realise that is "true and real"

You see how science always plays catch up:D

mysterious

yekahs wrote: »

Do ya reckon, the racist will jump on this to say, thats the reason that "whites are more advanced" than black people? Hope not, I'd hate for them to think there was any scientific basis for their racism.

There's also evidence, that humans in asia could have interbred with Homo erectus, one of our earlier cousins who left africa before us. The reason being that asian people have a particular cranium structure that you don't see in other humans, which you do see in asian h. erectus'. Also the first people to arrive in the australian continent, were more 'modern' than the later waves of people(modern aboriginal) who came from asia, who were more 'archaic' looking, suggesting they could have interbred with h. erectus on their way via land. Its very difficult to prove anything though, because erectus DNA is near impossible to find, unlike neanderthal.

Our origins is one of the most interesting topics, new evidence is continuously coming in that changes everything we thought we know. Just think in the last few years, with this neanderthal genome sequencing, the discovery of h. florensis, the discovery of ardipithicus.

Anyone who says that the record of human evolution is nearly complete, imo, is either lying, or just unaware of everything we still don't know.

Science never really gets the answer. It's always changing. And science is so flawed because the masses just accept everything science has to say as fact, without looking at other missing links or sources. Like E.T connections.

Which we do have and always had.

Mahatma coat

Do ya reckon, the racist will jump on this to say, thats the reason that "whites are more advanced" than black people? Hope not, I'd hate for them to think there was any scientific basis for their racism.

see this is teh problem with science, its still biased by peoples interpretation of the data, becuse you 'dont want' something to be true you will voicifirously decry it to anyone within earshot, much as the Supremacists will use this to argue that they were right all along.

PirateShampoo

mysterious wrote: »

No:D

I trust myself. I knew what was "real and true" before any science told me it was real and true.

Yekahs, wanted me to pass on a link of what mainstream science are only beginning to realise that is "true and real"

You see how science always plays catch up:D

So what your saying is that you knew about DNA before you where even born?

Flamed Diving

Mahatma coat wrote: »

see this is teh problem with science, its still biased by peoples interpretation of the data, becuse you 'dont want' something to be true you will voicifirously decry it to anyone within earshot, much as the Supremacists will use this to argue that they were right all along.

Wrong. It isn't based on personal opinion. It is based only on mountains of evidence. It was once everyones personal opinion that the earth was flat, and that objects fell towards earth at different speeds. This was all common sense, to the ignorant. But the evidence demonstrated this common sense to be wrong. This has been explained to you countless times before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14

Just get over it.

Nick Dolan

Mainstream science cant be trusted the crux of the issue. Blindly follow everthing im told? Good science is about the data and when a scientist makes a claim she puts the evidence out there and anyone whos diasgrees can go through it with a fine tooth comb. And as for alien DNA, with respect, your crazy

mysterious

PirateShampoo wrote: »

So what your saying is that you knew about DNA before you where even born?

Torakx

mysterious wrote: »

Science never really gets the answer. It's always changing. And science is so flawed because the masses just accept everything science has to say as fact, without looking at other missing links or sources. Like E.T connections.

Which we do have and always had.

Do you mean the actual protocols of science or do you mean scientists.
For me they are like chalk and cheese.
This may be the source of the confusion in this trhead regarding people thinking others dont trust science.
For me science is 1 + 1 = 2 its proveable in the context that numbers represent to us.
Now there could be another reality that we are part of without knowing, where 1 + 1 = something else and because the science of numbers in our reality is based on this protocol we might consider 1 + 1 = 2 as fact where it may not be.
But with that said i would be dissapointed if you told me you totally dont trust science.Because with the structure and nature of scientific protocols like testing and reproducing the same results consistently for example, i think it is suitable to coincide with spiritual research and any other possible reality that could coexist with us.
I dont trust scientists myself as far as i could throw them because they are corruptable.
With science itself as a method to seek knowledge and understanding its my belief that it must coincide with spirituality because we live in a material plane of existence and we need both imo.
Anyway that was a long question but i was just wondering how others felt that have been posting more or less negatively about the scientific community.
Again its not that i agree or dissagree wholely on any of these subjects or with anyone here, i tend to prefer a mixed outlook where i can take a bit from both sides and try see for myself what appears most likely.

bonkey

Torakx wrote: »

For me science is 1 + 1 = 2 its proveable in the context that numbers represent to us.

Being picky (again), 1+1=2 is mathematics, and is proveable within the context we define for mathematics.

In science, we can't actually prove anything. OK...that's not strictly correct. With a negative result, we can prove that something isn't always true...but that's about the limit of it.

We can measure something as many times as we like. We can have a scientific model that predicts the outcomes of these measurements accurately....but we can never prove that the next time we measure it, it'll be the same. We can reach a point of great confidence...which to the layman may be sufficient to consider "proof"...but we cannot prove things using science.

the science of numbers

Again, being pedantic..this is a bad example. There is no "science of numbers". Mathematics <> science.

Torakx

bonkey wrote: »

Being picky (again), 1+1=2 is mathematics, and is proveable within the context we define for mathematics.

In science, we can't actually prove anything. OK...that's not strictly correct. With a negative result, we can prove that something isn't always true...but that's about the limit of it.

We can measure something as many times as we like. We can have a scientific model that predicts the outcomes of these measurements accurately....but we can never prove that the next time we measure it, it'll be the same. We can reach a point of great confidence...which to the layman may be sufficient to consider "proof"...but we cannot prove things using science.


Again, being pedantic..this is a bad example. There is no "science of numbers". Mathematics <> science.

While posting i did look up the word science in the dictionary.
I think if you understand the point im making you wouldnt be discussing symantecs.i realise maths isnt the epitomy of science i was using an example.And i believe i did include a safetly net when i mentioned it was in conjunction with our current reality on this material plane of existence.
Im not great at explaining myself i know.It sometimes requires that people use a bit of insight to figure out what the nonsense im spouting means in english
I do agree that the word "prove" should be subjective when talking about science but maybe it is subjective fullstop.Maybe you cant prove anything because there are so many possibilities in this universe,but this is sidestepping a little i think.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.

4. systematized knowledge in general.

5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

6. a particular branch of knowledge.

7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.


To repack my question into a basic form that ussually gets misinterpreted on me, do some of you guys have a problem with science or is it just the scientists?

Wibbs

mysterious wrote: »

The "junk DNA" Is not junk, and nor is it from Neandethal.

Well I suspect that we've got DNA that codes for certain features and that may well come from Neandertals.

It's only called Junk, because the science community doesn't know what it does.

That bit I defo agree with.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

on the topic o ideologies and Science, this is big news for followers of one 'Group'

Not really. Think about it, the Ku Klux Klan are not likely to be best pleased to discover white people may have become white from getting jiggy with "apemen". Though the notion will doubtless lead to even more ""well the neandertals were terribly advanced you know":D Which I believe they were anyway. Given many of that type would also be fundy christians = can of worms open. Then add in that by this study, Africans are the "purest" humans by many racists own definitions. Well basically this may not go down well with the racist types at all.

It may reduce even further the BS surrounding that. We're all one big family of humans and it looks like we always were, at least for the last 200,000 years. I love the notion that I've got Neandertal DNA knocking about inside my cells. If I found homo erectus DNA was in the mix even cooler.

It'll be interesting to see backtracking in many scientific quarters the more this gets out, as many high level vocal scientists insisted there was no way it happened. In the face of very good evidence and common sense that clearly it did. But because DNA is the scientific fashion de jour, until that fashion said yes it did, other evidence that would be and was equally valid was ignored. Science can be very blinkered at times. Every generation reckons their science is the best and reckons we know most of it. The victorians and after, that rejected plate tectonics were convinced it was nonsense.

It is interesting too that it wasnt more front page news as it is a big deal.

Flamed Diving

Maybe Neanderthals were the "People of Atlantis"

L:DL

Mahatma coat

maybe they were, after all its just arbitrary titles we are trying to place on peoples and points in our history

Flamed Diving

Mahatma coat wrote: »

maybe they were, after all its just arbitrary titles we are trying to place on peoples and points in our history

Maybe they came from Pluto. Every opinion is equally true, after all.

Wibbs

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Maybe Neanderthals were the "People of Atlantis"

L:DL

Maybe they were? In the sense of a race memory of us moving into a place to find different humans, successful humans were already there? The notion of "people before us" could be a very old one. So not that LOL at all.

K-9

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe they were? In the sense of a race memory of us moving into a place to find different humans, successful humans were already there? The notion of "people before us" could be a very old one. So not that LOL at all.

You just don't know what science may discover or take as fact in the future. It evolves so who knows.

Anyway, what's the bet on a new study disproving this? A month?

Mahatma coat

Wibbs wrote: »

..........

Not really. Think about it, the Ku Klux Klan are not likely to be best pleased to discover white people may have become white from getting jiggy with "apemen". Though the notion will doubtless lead to even more ""well the neandertals were terribly advanced you know":D Which I believe they were anyway. Given many of that type would also be fundy christians = can of worms open. Then add in that by this study, Africans are the "purest" humans by many racists own definitions. Well basically this may not go down well with the racist types at all.

I'v been over at SF watchin the debate unfold, the new consensus emerging is that the Europeans hold more of their neanderthal ancestry than the African roots, its the little bit of Neanderthal that now makwsussupreme not the 'Pure African' mix. watch the portrayal of the Neanderthal Skintone in futurepublications

It may reduce even further the BS surrounding that. We're all one big family of humans and it looks like we always were, at least for the last 200,000 years. I love the notion that I've got Neandertal DNA knocking about inside my cells. If I found homo erectus DNA was in the mix even cooler.

It'll be interesting to see backtracking in many scientific quarters the more this gets out, as many high level vocal scientists insisted there was no way it happened. In the face of very good evidence and common sense that clearly it did. But because DNA is the scientific fashion de jour, until that fashion said yes it did, other evidence that would be and was equally valid was ignored. Science can be very blinkered at times. Every generation reckons their science is the best and reckons we know most of it. The victorians and after, that rejected plate tectonics were convinced it was nonsense.

It is interesting too that it wasnt more front page news as it is a big deal.[/QUOTE]
nope the current thinkin that side of the fence isthat this cements thebelief that we are different strains of humanity and Europeans are almost as different to Africans as Africans are to Chimps (see how they word it)


this is where science fails, when the results can be iterpreted dependin on what people FEEL is the right answer

Flamed Diving

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe they were? In the sense of a race memory of us moving into a place to find different humans, successful humans were already there? The notion of "people before us" could be a very old one. So not that LOL at all.

Or maybe they caused the big bang, or were there before it? Maybe they converted themselves to energy, and left Earth, leaving no trace and currently stand outside the universe, all-seeing, all-knowing. :eek:

Mahatma coat

Maybe they did, you dont know what happened any more than the rest of us, like Wibbs said there are a lot of diferent folklores of People before us in many cultures.

Me I still think the Troll stories from Northern Europe are connected to the last of the Nenaderthals.

Flamed Diving

Yeah, but it kind of turns knowledge into a guessing game, doesn't it? Anything goes. Can 3D porn make your girlfriend pregnant? Sure thing! Why bother going for a fertility test? Even if you do, who's to say that those pesky doctors know more than your girl? Perhaps it was space Neanderthals! Perhaps it was the Invisible Pink Unicorn! Perhaps it was the Seven Dwarves! Perhaps...

So how can you tell? How do you arrive at a conclusion?

Mahatma coat

but it is basicly a guessing game

Flamed Diving

Mahatma coat wrote: »

but it is basicly a guessing game

Is there no decision that provides the most certainty?

Wibbs

K-9 wrote: »

You just don't know what science may discover or take as fact in the future. It evolves so who knows.

True.

Anyway, what's the bet on a new study disproving this? A month?

Actually I think it may open the floodgates for other results to come to the fore, that would otherwise be ignored or poo poo'd.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I'v been over at SF watchin the debate unfold, the new consensus emerging is that the Europeans hold more of their neanderthal ancestry than the African roots, its the little bit of Neanderthal that now makwsussupreme not the 'Pure African' mix. watch the portrayal of the Neanderthal Skintone in futurepublications

Interestingly in the last few years Neandertals have gone from "swarthy"hairy types to very pale redheads. Even blue eyed types, which is highly unlikely. Maybe we were being prepared

nope the current thinkin that side of the fence isthat this cements thebelief that we are different strains of humanity and Europeans are almost as different to Africans as Africans are to Chimps (see how they word it)

That's a very big sea change from even a year ago and wiat for the backlash. Look at "out of africa" explanations even currently on the web that havent been updated yet and the consensus is/was that all populations were the same came from the same source and we had no admixture from archaic humans. The chimp analogy would have gotten you roasted in academia and still would. Indeed the chimp analogy most used its quite the opposite. That two chimps from different sides of the same valley in africa are more genetically diverse than all modern humans today(which is still true BTW). Quite different. So this study could be a bombshell.

That said I dont see how. It certainly cant possibly explain a notion of racism. Not with any logic anyway, though logic is often lacking in those eejits.

this is where science fails, when the results can be iterpreted dependin on what people FEEL is the right answer

Very much so.

Flamed Diving wrote:

Or maybe they caused the big bang, or were there before it? Maybe they converted themselves to energy, and left Earth, leaving no trace and currently stand outside the universe, all-seeing, all-knowing.

With respect, that's just being silly and narrow minded for the sake of it. Ironic considering.

Flamed Diving

Wibbs wrote: »

With respect, that's just being silly and narrow minded for the sake of it. Ironic considering.

No less so than their possible Atlantean heritage... as far as I can see in this conversation, being open-minded means anything goes.

Yitzhak Rabin

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Yeah, but it kind of turns knowledge into a guessing game, doesn't it? Anything goes. Can 3D porn make your girlfriend pregnant? Sure thing! Why bother going for a fertility test? Even if you do, who's to say that those pesky doctors know more than your girl? Perhaps it was space Neanderthals! Perhaps it was the Invisible Pink Unicorn! Perhaps it was the Seven Dwarves! Perhaps...

So how can you tell? How do you arrive at a conclusion?

MC, offered a suggestion that the troll accounts in ancient folklore could be remnants of our encounters with neanderthal. FWIW, I think thats a very plausible suggestion. Think about it... say a group of moderns were living in a valley, and one day they go up to the harsher mountain conditions, and come across a far stronger, and uglier(in their eyes) family unit in a cave and got in a conflict with them, what kind of tales do you think they would tell their kids, and grandkids...and all the way down... surely its a reasonable suggest??

MC only said that he thought that could be the case, not that it was the case... so why compare it to all that bat**** crazy stuff like invisble pink unicorns? Its just being argumentative for the sake of it.

No less so than their possible Atlantean heritage...

Again, no one said it was Atlantean in the sense that plato described it. It is quite possible that the first moderns that came in contact with neanderthals viewed them as being advanced. These then earlier stories of coming across a different and more advanced race could have been exaggerated adapted and embellished over the course of a few thousands years. With the way the greeks had their society setup, it would be easy for plato, or whoever he heard it off to apply their civilization type onto the same themes of an ancient advanced people.

Mahatma coat

Wibbs wrote:

That's a very big sea change from even a year ago and wiat for the backlash. Look at "out of africa" explanations even currently on the web that havent been updated yet and the consensus is/was that all populations were the same came from the same source and we had no admixture from archaic humans. The chimp analogy would have gotten you roasted in academia and still would. Indeed the chimp analogy most used its quite the opposite. That two chimps from different sides of the same valley in africa are more genetically diverse than all modern humans today(which is still true BTW). Quite different. So this study could be a bombshell.

That said I dont see how. It certainly cant possibly explain a notion of racism. Not with any logic anyway, though logic is often lacking in those eejits.

yeah, but, even in the out of africa theory for Modern Humans theNenaerthals still exixt as a seperate Breed/Species of human for a long time and then just dissapering from existance, it was previously postulated that they had interbred, this new research shows a Third genetic marker of another species of hominid at a later date which is seperate to both the Africans and the Neanderthals.

I'd like to see a much broader study done to really map out the divergence and evolution that led to us

Flamed Diving

yekahs wrote: »

MC, offered a suggestion that the troll accounts in ancient folklore could be remnants of our encounters with neanderthal. FWIW, I think thats a very plausible suggestion. Think about it... say a group of moderns were living in a valley, and one day they go up to the harsher mountain conditions, and come across a far stronger, and uglier(in their eyes) family unit in a cave and got in a conflict with them, what kind of tales do you think they would tell their kids, and grandkids...and all the way down... surely its a reasonable suggest??

MC only said that he thought that could be the case, not that it was the case... so why compare it to all that bat**** crazy stuff like invisble pink unicorns? Its just being argumentative for the sake of it.

I am clearly making a point. Allow me to help you in seeing it. There are potentially an infinite number of guesses that could be made to explain any phenomenon. Unless you have some mechanism for telling them apart, then literally anything goes. Out of the list I provided, there was only two that were falsifiable, and one which has already been tested rigorously.

Not all options are equally valid. If something is falsifiable, then it at least can be ruled out. This is what the thread is about. Can science be trusted? Well, science only deals with what is falsifiable, something it can attach some level of confidence to. Whether you like to admit it or not, all else is simply guessing, and ideas in this realm, are equally valid (and invalid). This group were the, ahem, "bat**** crazy" stuff.

Yitzhak Rabin

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I am clearly making a point. Allow me to help you in seeing it. There are potentially an infinite number of guesses that could be made to explain any phenomenon. Unless you have some mechanism for telling them apart, then literally anything goes. Out of the list I provided, there was only two that were falsifiable, and one which has already been tested rigorously.

Not all options are equally valid. If something is falsifiable, then it at least can be ruled out. This is what the thread is about. Can science be trusted? Well, science only deals with what is falsifiable, something it can attach some level of confidence to. Whether you like to admit it or not, all else is simply guessing, and ideas in this realm, are equally valid. This group were the, ahem, "bat**** crazy" stuff.

Yeah...I'm well aware of how the scientific method operates. I don't think anyone was making a scientific claim of knowing that they were correct, apart from Mysty.

No-one was making assertions...they were just discussing possibilities. When it comes to historical sciences, alot of the time you cannot falsify the claims, you just have to go on what is possible,likely and probable. For instance, when scientists look at a fossil, they infer certain traits about that dead animal onto it, say that it was likely a fast runner due to lower bone density or whatever. Those claims are unfalsifiable, no one can go back and say...aha you're wrong, I went back to the Triassic and he was a slow b@stard. So it is not as clearcut as that when postulating what could have happened in the past.

The theories/hypothesis/ideas whatever you want to call them that MC put forward, are very reasonable. We know that Neanderthal and modern Africans came in contact with each other. We know Neanderthal was stronger and had more pronounced feautures. We know that when a species becomes extinct as neanderthals did, that they recede to more isolated areas(i.e further up the mountains). We also know of the phenomenon known as cultural memory, wherby ancient stories are passed down by people and the "memory" can become embedded in the culture. So is it not a reasonable suggestion that the folklore tales of trolls could be cultural memory of Neanderthal? Which do you think is more likely...that or that there is a race of space-neanderthal that came to earth and thats where the memory comes from.

In my opinion, you stifle discussion and generally p1ss people off when you cheapen the discussion by saying what we all already know...that there are an infinite number of possible answers to any question.

Instead of saying that, why not respond with a variant of "thats interesting" or "I doubt thats true because x,y, z". I mean, you don't go onto the paleontology forum when the possible uses of early dinosaur plumage is being discussed, and say "eh lads, you do know all your suggestions are unfalsifiable , I mean maybe they used them as a way of communicating with the invisible pink unicorn LOL!"

Mahatma coat

Actually the Dinosaur point is very interestin, I mentioned to a Girlfriend a few years ago about how it made a much more sensible use of T-Rex's arms if it had stablising feathers, I didnt go so ar as to suggest it might fly, she derided me, but later that week she dropped by the Queensland Natural history Museum and Lo and behold the models were updated to now include plumage.

fontanalis

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I'v been over at SF watchin the debate unfold, the new consensus emerging is that the Europeans hold more of their neanderthal ancestry than the African roots, its the little bit of Neanderthal that now makwsussupreme not the 'Pure African' mix. watch the portrayal of the Neanderthal Skintone in futurepublications





It'll be interesting to see backtracking in many scientific quarters the more this gets out, as many high level vocal scientists insisted there was no way it happened. In the face of very good evidence and common sense that clearly it did. But because DNA is the scientific fashion de jour, until that fashion said yes it did, other evidence that would be and was equally valid was ignored. Science can be very blinkered at times. Every generation reckons their science is the best and reckons we know most of it. The victorians and after, that rejected plate tectonics were convinced it was nonsense.

It is interesting too that it wasnt more front page news as it is a big deal.

nope the current thinkin that side of the fence isthat this cements thebelief that we are different strains of humanity and Europeans are almost as different to Africans as Africans are to Chimps (see how they word it)


this is where science fails, when the results can be iterpreted dependin on what people FEEL is the right answer[/QUOTE]

Is SF some dedicated genetic research website?

Yitzhak Rabin

Is SF some dedicated genetic research website?

Thankfully not. I presume he means Stormfront. A bunch of bigots hang around there to discuss the merits of being white.

fontanalis

Here's an article on it, anyway it seems the Neanderathal mixing wasn't just with Europeans but with Eurasians. Funny he believes scientists this time.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/05/no-scientists-had-to-die-for-this-paradigm-shift/#comments

If only our reptilian overlords barcoded people back then.

Mahatma coat

yekahs wrote: »

Thankfully not. I presume he means Stormfront. A bunch of bigots hang around there to discuss the merits of being white.

yep SF == StormFront

and to be specific they mostly discuss the merits of being a White Christian english speaking Hetrosexual male who Drives a Pickuptruck.

altho sometimes they stray into discussions about attractive Cousins :D

fontanalis

Mahatma coat wrote: »

yep SF == StormFront

and to be specific they mostly discuss the merits of being a White Christian english speaking Hetrosexual male who Drives a Pickuptruck.

altho sometimes they stray into discussions about attractive Cousins :D

Ah yes, mutant mouth breathers who claim to be the master race.

Mahatma coat

I would have settled for

People who hold a different outlook to yours as regards Race Religion Persusations etc

fontanalis

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I would have settled for

People who hold a different outlook to yours as regards Race Religion Persusations etc

You mean skin color, imaginary friends and teh ghey?
But can they be trusted, I suppose they can if they aren't scientists.