Another post and another deflection, well done.

Funny how you're the only one complaining about us trying to "win" the debate yet you're the one shouting "see, point proven".



There you said that the Scientific community goes out of its way to correct Creationists, and the fact that the magnitude of this "error" we're discussing is so miniscule fills out the rest of my statement (as if we should have all swarmed around this error made by a scientist in the same manner that we would if it were a creationist).

Because you do this every time Raptor. I mean you totally exaggerated what I said. And you are doing it again. Where have I asked for a "swarm"


You see, there's no deflection, you can't make an argument without resorting to this kind of nonsense, because the bottom line is that its not that big of a deal.

Its easy to see that the scientist as I said earlier spoke in enthusiasm at the potential. But what is quite amusing is why you are all so bent on defending such a minor thing.

It is this that betrays what I have been saying about you guys for months. You give a free pass when a scientist makes a mistake. Its like pulling teeth here to get you to admit she shouldn't have used that word.

Continue.

More blathering on, she shouldn't have used the word Proves Capeo, its true, why is it so hard for you to admit this?

What? Directed at me? I'm the one who pointed out it was edited. How could I have not read it? I also posted the full quote before you added it to your earlier post through editing. What are you on about?

I also didn't ignore your last link, if that's the one you're refering to. I didn't bother reading this whole thread as the first two pages read just like the last two. The most recent link you put up has what to do with your argument? There are other initiatives out there like that, that I personally support, as well. I often talk about the political right ruining the science education in our country. This has what to do with you're argument?

I'm not arguing anything, myself. I'm just stating I find nothing wrong with this woman's quote.

I did read the original post, I read Tiggs expansion of the ellipses.

I did NOT, as Capeo did, realize that when the elipses are filled in, the statement is no longer false, and I am embarassed about that.

Appearently you didn't realize that the statement is no longer false either.


As for defending something to the HILT, I do not, and did not, defend the use of the word "proof" within the elipsed statement. I DID and DO defend the scientific process and particularly the peer reveiw process, and don't think there is any conspiracy to elevate or supress evidence just to maintain current theory.

Nor do I think or see any evidence that scientists nit pick on the semantics of creationists. They can't, as the creationsist viewpoint is not based on evidence, observation, or experimentation. So they can say anything they want, they are not held to any standard of truth whatsoever.

Truethat, as Capeo points out, when the elipses are expanded out to her full statement, the use of the word "proves" IS in fact, appropriate and accurate. So your original point is now invalid.

Another deflection.



My words in red. That's what I call a "swarm". Okay? Now back to my point.



We already said that Panagopoulou didn't use the word "proves" appropriately in the quoted passage, thankfully she didn't use it in the actual scientific paper.

Since when are scientists all over creationists which make such a small error like mistakenly using the words "proves that..." in place of "indicates with a high level of probability that..."? In the event that that did happen, were the creationists ever harrassed for this mistake? Or were they simply corrected, similarly to how people here have already corrected the words used by Panagopoulou?

It's not true. I don't disagree with her use of it in context. Sorry. I don't see it as a mistake. Things are proven daily through research and there are quite a few instances where using the word proved is not in error. Science doesn't set out to prove things but when it does, one need not back away from it.

Getting back on topic, the veracity of the claim of proof, here's a criticism which makes the same point I did in the OP which seems to be entirely irrelevant to the religion bashers here, that this study doesn't PROVE anything. Capeo pause a sec to note that you didn't even bother to question the study. None of you did. Just lapped it up as a given with a little mistake in the wording right? No big deal.

Exceptas I pointed out early on, they are making a leap of faith in that conclusion since we know nothing about the original creature.






from here

http://anthropology.net/2008/02/10/stronti...ertal-mobility/

So it is your assertion that the statement is true, that this tooth proves this? Really. Interestingly anthropologists don't necessarily agree with you.


http://web.mac.com/elleryfrahm/iWeb/GeoArc...680A9680C3.html

I didn't say that scientists should swarm I said they do swarm. I've posted a link about the swarm and you certainly aren't going to now pretend that Scientists aren't all over Creationists are you? That's quite amusing.


Can you read? Capeo and Neo have said she didn't misuse the word? So which is it?

Yes. Let's look at the expanded quote:



The key is "than we believed."

The tooth does prove that their setlement networks were broader and more organizes THAN WE BELIEVED.

Now, I'm not an anthropologist. I don't know much about how or why or where fossils move and if they are likely to move or anything like that. So I'm going to take her at her word. However, when I first read this, I thought "hm, proves might be too certian a word." But possibly it is not.


She's admitting that this new evidence indicates that they were incorrect previously. (which is something you claim scientists are too biased to ever do and that they fear what creationist will do when they see this...interesting. Yet here they are, pointing out that they were wrong before...)


Whether or not the word "proves" is too strong or certain here is irrelevant. I think you are trying to use this to cast some idea that scientists are overly biased, and that this bias pervades into evolutionary science, causing you to doubt their conclusions. i don't see any evidence for this in the POSSIBLE misuse of the word PROVES in a NEWSPAPER>

If this were a scientific journal, I would think you might have a point, as those are parsed by others in the same field and ruthelessly scoured for any weakness.

I'm not even to bother asking if you can, the answer is already apparent.



No, I didn't say that. I said that you don't get anyone from the scientific community swarming over creationists for petty errors like this.


Another diversionary tactic. They're saying that looking at the full quotation it now appears the use of the word is in fact valid, however before with the incomplete quote that you provided the word appeared to be used incorrectly. When that incomplete quote was all we had to go on we did say that she make a mistake and you know we did, so I don't see what this was for:



Again, you've entirely disregarded the point of my post. I'll keep posting it until you address it.

I'm not making a leap of faith. I don't agree with the "blog" you just posted from. Given where the tooth was found no amount of predation will carry a tooth that far (to have differing levels of isotopes you're talking 20+ miles), there isn't a major river system there nor was it found in river sediments and this blogger is ignoring correlary evidence such as shell carvings and neanderthal tools that point to occupation. So I don't agree with him. That doesn't mean I agree fully with the study either but I find it far more convincing than massive redeposition.

Here is the point you're missing. Grammar. All she is saying is that this proves more mobility than previously thought. No natural occurance is going to move a carcass 200 miles away from its home range besides a major river which would deposit it in river silts. Even if this isn't the exact spot the child died it had to have died in an area that still pushes the bounds of what was previously thought of as upper levels of mobility exhibited by neanderthals. There's a fine point your missing here and it comes down to context. I think you're making a big deal out of nothing in this instance.

I knew the entire quote when I posted the thread when I posted the article. You are all just spinning your wheels and you are trying to focus it on the use of the word but its not just the word, its what the scientist is saying by using the word.

Anyway my opinion is that this story got massive play in the media that it should have been corrected in a public way.

Of course its not, but I have posted a few comments by anthropologists who agree with my OP and you've ignored them.

You should read your links first. This guy (again an informal blog and working off a news story and not the research paper) says he agrees with the findings. He just doesn't find them that earth shattering. And nor do I for that matter.

Uh no I didn't say that. In fact my third post on the thread (the nefarious page on again Neo!) I said





In addition taking someone whom you've never met, heard of or researched at "her word" simply because she's a scientist is what I'd call BLIND FAITH.

In addition you haven't, none of you, answered my question.


Why are you so quick to defend something you admit you didn't read, didn't research and know absolutely nothing about and not being able to be mistaken ?

I find that pretty telling.

They don't agree with your OP at all. Neither of them brought up her diction which is all your doing.

You should read before you comment. Seems to be a pattern with you guys. What did you do? Read the first few lines? He states:




But I guess that criticism which I made in the OP is not a big deal to you guys. As long as she used the word in a quasi truthful way, then its a non issue what she's actuallly saying.

I was well aware of this study a long time ago. It came out around fall last year. I'm not even sure why it's suddenly getting traction now. That's beside the point. I can't talk for anyone else but I'm defending her use of the word in the context she did and that's all.

Really? Did you even bother to read the OP I know Neo didn't, he didn't notice she said proves in the OP at all until I pointed it out to him and then additionally he didn't bother to read what the actual statement was.

Here's what I said in the OP



Sounds pretty similar to the last two criticisms to me. Where is there a comment about DICTION?

So in other words you don't agree with her statement necessarily. Care to read the OP again and tell me about the use of the word? We got into that topic because of the method of defence. My point is what the statement is saying, not the diction.

Her diction comes in when you look at the sentence and see what she's applying the word "prove" to. She's only saying that it proves there is more mobility than previously thought. Any way the remains could have arrived where they did still pushes neanderthal activity much further south than previously thought. You do realize this was a 7-9 year old specimen. It's not getting far on it's own. You're harping on one sentence chosen for an article from what was a longer coversation. We don't see what was said prior or after said comment and the context of the comment as is does not imply the conclusiveness you seem to think it does. It is simply saying that this study proves that previous thoughts must be revised.

So just to be clear, you agree with the assertion that this one tooth proves anything? See the part you mentioned about the child not getting far on its own? What if the child was attacked by a wild animal and carried to a different location?

I'm not sure why you say I'm harping on one sentence and saying its the diction that bothers me. Its the assertion that this ONE tooth proves something about an entire species.

I'm not the only one who has a problem with this assertion and I'm curious if you 'd like to explain why you don't?

Questioning scientists is GOOD. Questioning them based on some paranoid delusion that there is a conspiracy among scientists to let each other make whatever claims they want without evidence is NOT GOOD.




I did read it. The word "prove" didn't make an impact on me because the article was short and cursory. Only after you pointed it out did I think "hey, that does seem a little bit strong."

Then when Capeo analyzed the entire, unabridged sentence, I thought "hey, that DOES make sense and isn't a fallacy."

What I am quick to defend is not necessarily this particular choice of words, but the idea that there is no prejudiced and zealous attempt by scienctists to back each other up merely to remain unified against creationists.

Actually, I'm not even sure what your point is anymore. I've asked you to state your point in a few sentences, but you said you couldn't be troubled. I think that might help bring this discussion back to the main focus. So I'll try again. What's the point your making? Maybe I agree with you, and I don't even know it because I can't keep track of your train of thought.

You have been ranting on for pages and you didn't even read the fricken sentence until page 7? I mean come ON!

Have you read my posts? I'll quote myself for you. This will be a good way to show you how you read what you THINK someone is saying, not what they are actually saying.



Still not going to sum up your point?

I did sum up my point and have over and over again. This is why I said I'm not repeating it. If you don't understand it I don't know what to tell you. Most people seem to.

In addition you didn't see the word PROVE before for you responded. You are lying. You didn't even notice it until I pointed it out to you yet you were defending the point.

Then even though we discussed the full quote on the last post of the first page you didn't understand it until CAPEO pointed it out and then you had the nerve to try to suggest that just because YOU didn't do the research, I didn't either.

Go read your first response, you didn't even read the entire article.

Because, again, when she says "prove" she is referring to their research paper and it's conclusions which are far more involved and encompass more than where the tooth was found. That's why I say the context is decieving. She's saying their research paper proves that neanderthal populations were more mobile than previously thought in the light of all the accumulated evidence presented. I have no problem with that. The paper doesn't even really draw any more concrete conclusion than that. It just states that old models must be revised. Truthfully most anthropologists already assumed this based on morphological and artifact evidence so I don't really see this paper as very groundbreaking.

As for one tooth proving something about a whole species? Of course it can. Teeth are great indicators of many things. One fossilized tooth can tell reams of information about a species through that one specimen. It's age. It's eating habits. If it was a diseased specimen and what diseases it may have had. They're great retainers of genetic evidence. Especially when you have comparative specimens as we do for neanderthals.

How can one tooth tell something about the whole species? The things you just mentioned are indicators of the animal not the species?

Can you quote from a place where you summed it up then? Surely, that's not too difficlut, is is?



since you won't state it, I'm not really sure what the point is. But in light of the thread title, I saw nothing in the article (which I read) that could in any way influence the way a thoughtfull person would view evolutionary theory. Why? Because in light of an entire article, short as it was, ONE WORD doesn't make much impact when taken as a fraction of the whole.

You came out right away and said that it was just as likely that the tooth was from an anamolie. And that's when I began to point out how you were wrong. It is NOT likely at all that the tooth is from an anamolie. I even gave you an complete explanation, and then even came up with the analogy of the red and green apples.

In fact, you’ll notice that NOBODY had anything to say or saw anything unusual about the article and didn’t even bother to comment until you felt you had to prompt with another, more baiting post.

Here’s my first response:

QUOTE

At that point, the word “prove” still haden’t raised any red flags, as it really is not of much consequence in a newspaper article. Mostly I was puzzled because I didn’t see any link between the article and evolution. So I addressed your idea that the tooth could have been from an anomaly (that means something not typical).




Because:

1- Statistically, the odds that the tooth is representative are OVERWHELMING
2- Even if, on the OUTSIDE chance that it is not representative, the tooth still PROVES that Neanderthal had the ability to roam over long distances.
3- The scientist said the tooth proves that neanderthal populations were more mobile than previously thought. She isn't making a statement that EVERY neanderthall was very mobile. She's making the statement that the tooth shows that Neanderthall had the ability to travel, and at least sometimes did travel farther than previously thought. The tooth proves that not ALL neanderthals stayed within 10 miles of their home. Therefore, it proves that NEANDERTHAL could, and at least sometimes, did move over a wider range than previously thought.

We thought they stayed put. The tooth shows that at least one did not. Therefore, we can conclude that neanderthal, as a group, did not always stay put.

It's pretty simple.

Because all animals in a species are basically the same. What holds for one will hold for another 99.9999% of the time. Say you find a fossilized shark tooth. Based on it's shape and it's serration you can deduce how it hunted and what type of prey it hunted. Obviously the more teeth you find the more conclusive you can be. With mammal species that retain their teeth you can make conclusions about all the above mentioned and the stuff mentioned in post you're refering to. Specifically with neanderthals we have a dearth of teeth to compare any one tooth too.

We're talking about ROAMING not physical attributes.

In addition the tooth is 40,000 years old. There is a SLIGHT, I know, slight chance that it may have been moved on its own. Not to mention that it could have FALLEN OUT and been skipped around a bit. This is a tooth, not a rib or a femur, the Neanderthal could have lost the tooth and it been eaten by an animal and then defecated elsewhere for all we know? It could have gotten stuck in somethings HOOF and come out elsewhere for all we know.

Roaming is a behavior. Behavior are also usually consistent among a species. And then factor in the overwhelming odds that this tooth is representative....



That would have been evident, most likely.

as for being stuck in a hoof, again, you have to apply the idea that the odds of finding THAT tooth when given the number of teeth that DIDN'T get trapped in a hoofe are pretty astronomical.

How so? Anwer that right away and I'll give you credit ......well that was too snarky! Just kidding.

So I see you here Neo? its been a few minutes, would you care to answer the quesiton?

What is "how so?" The odds that the tooth was NOT stuck in a hoof?

I could be like you and refuse to and just make you go back and read my posts from previous pages, but I would like this to be constuctive instead of venemous and angry.

The chances of finding any tooth from an neanderthall are extremely slimm. Let's be generous and say that there were a thousand neanderthals, each with only one tooth, and so there are 1000 neanderthal teeth out there. (we're just playing with numbers. Don't smugly and erroneously use these numbers later on to imagine you've "won" some sort of imaginary argument with me.)

So 1000 teeth out there. out of those 1000 teeth, the odds of finding even ONE are very, very slim. let's say 1 in a million.

Now, consider that ONE tooth was caught in a horses hoof. If the chances of finding the 999 that WEREN'T is 1 in a million, how much slimmer are the odds of finding the ONE that was caught in a hoof?

Astoundingly lower.



I'll try the apple metaphor again.

Let's say 1000 apples in a barrel. 999 are red, ONE is green. The barrell falls off a truck and rolls down a long embankment. It smashes open and apples fly everywhere. Only one apple survives unsmashed. What are the odds that that apple is green? What are the odds that it is red? Now if a blind man finds the one unsmashed apple, can he reasonabley assume it is red?

Yes. Now, multiply those numbers by the number of every neanderthall tooth ever, and then compare that number to the astoundingly few that might have been caught in a horses hoof or eaten and deposited ( with no signs of digestion or being chewed, i might add) and you will come to the conclusion that is overwhelmingly probably that the specimin could be considered representative.


UNLESS we found it BECAUSE it is not representative, such as the times we find remains preserved because they were high ranking members of the society. Certain things increase the chance of being found, but the things you cited are not in that group.

Have I explained thouroughly enough? What is not clear that I can try to explain again?


All this for someone who won't even state their argument so that we can stop going in circles....


I'm sorry if my response wasn't fast enough for you. I have other things I'm involved in besides this entertaining discussion at the moment.

Great example, and great point about statistical probability, Neo.

You know what the REALLY interesting thing is though?

You're using these statistical probabilities to try to say there is almost NO way that this tooth could be from an abnormal Neanderthal because the probabilities are so low, yet, when a Creationist uses probabilities and statistics to show why abiogenesis as a feasible origin is so unlikely, everyone immediately tells him probabilities mean nothing because as long as there IS that one chance in 10⁵⁰, well, then you can't count it out... so, using this same logic, it seems we should still consider the chances that this is the tooth of an abnormal Neanderthal, right?

The apples falling from the truck is a good example what are the odds that any of them would be found by anyone walking on the road. The odds ARE that it IS representative but that doesn't mean that its impossible for the green one to be found now does it? You are saying the number of red apples rules out the possiblity that someone could find the green one? Well that's not true.

You know what's really annoying?

The way that you're launching personal attacks accusing us of being pre-wired for a given outcome.

In the previous instance I disagreed with your position. In this instance, I've already said that I support your position.

Some of us are objective enough to examine things on a case-by-case basis, rather than just blindly sit on one side of the fence or another.

You've found a case where your original point has been validated. Congratulations. That doesn't make all the previous times you've dragged this up correct, however much you want it to.

That would be like finding a single green apple out of a hundred red apples and then claiming all apples are green...

Interesting, I never once mentioned religion, only that favoring superstition over science isn't a good choice IMO. If we're to *dump* science, what are we to place in its stead? This makes my point highly relevant to the discussion at hand. OK, since one scientist spoke foolishly/ignorantly (the proof issue) this supports the whole of the scientific method as being flawed exactly how?

Iams - we've done the 1 in 10⁵⁰ thing to death. There's a difference, mathematically, between probability and odds. They're not the same thing.

Probability is the number of combinations possible. Odds are the chances of that probability ever happening.

It's not a Evolutionary conspiracy. It's just Mathematics.

Yes, we do. And this is the first tooth we've found that suggests this.

It's also from a seven to nine year old Neanderthal. I know this is blindingly obvious, but this means she died when she was between seven and nine years old.

Perhaps the reason she died is that she got lost and separated from her family.

In addition - this is Greece. Forest fires are not unknown. It may be that it was a forced relocation.

In the very same article, Professor Clive Finlayson stated that:

"The technique is interesting, and if we could repeat this over and over for lots of (individuals) then we might get some kind of picture," he said.

Now that, I'd agree with. To state proof of significant mobility for an entire species, however, based on the results of analysis of a single child's tooth in a single region is extremely brave, in my opinion.

Actually - scratch that blindingly obvious comment - If Neanderthals teeth are like humans, small children lose their teeth naturally from that age onwards -does anyone know whether it was a first or second tooth?

I guess my point is that there are feasible explanations of why the tooth would end up there, other than all Neanderthals were prone to wandering. I still think that calling proof via a single edge case is brave.

It's not that I have an anti-Neanderthal mobility agenda - I'd just like to see more widespread instances before it's declared as factual.

Sigh...

in science, no one can ever be totally certain of anything. Thats why we have error bars, and statistics. We do our best. Demanding perfection will never work, it just doesn't happen.

We make do with what we have and much of the time its pretty good. You just need to accept that there is always the possibility that some statistical abberation means that your data is false - but with each result that agrees that probability gets lower and lower.

Its safe to use this information to conclude that it is quite likely the range was at least X. I see no prorblem wtih that conclusion, and its just the wording in the interview thats a little off. Its not that big a deal!

I don't think it's safe to conclude anything from a single piece of evidence, especially when there's been plenty of prior evidence to the opposite. It's a working hypothesis at best. There are a number of completely feasible reasons why the tooth may have ended up where it did, none of which are evidence of a global pattern for the species.

As a rule, a single test case is not enough evidence to overturn an established theory. In this particular case, there are a number of Neanderthal teeth available - until testing has been done on at least some of these, and equal results are found - then I think it's folly to call it proof. If anything, it's an indicator that further research should be undertaken on existing teeth samples to confirm or deny the hypothesis, but it's not proof.

You mean like finding a single tooth that might be that green apple and then saying that all apples are green? That's precisely my point about the tooth. How do you REALLY know if it represents the majority or the anomaly?


The point is YOU DON'T.

Back pedaling are we? You posted an irrelevant link in this thread. No one is suggesting favoring superstition over science. No one is suggesting that we dump science. Why do you all keep this mantra of nonsense going. Pointing out an error in science doesn't mean that we suggest that science is wrong and needs to be trashed in favor of religion. What kind of warped thinking comes to that conclusion? I've never understood this argument.

I'm pointing to an error which several people except those who are blindly faithful to science, admit was indeed an error.

Clinging to a superstition that pointing out mistakes in science means you prefer religious explanation is a uninformed and irrelevant stance.





Thank you I agree with this except that I don't think the wording in the interview is a little off. I think its misleading, but I also don't think its that big of a deal. It just needs to be acknowledged. Those who can't, are the ones making it a big deal.

My comment was to something Neo said earlier in the discussion, see link to my post here. The link was relevant as it showed what can happen when a society accepts superstition (in this case witchcraft). Historically superstition has often been used as a means of explaining that which science now addresses, hence why this keeps coming up in discussion.



I've already said the 'proof comment' was foolish and ignorant IMO...this makes me "blindly faithful to science"(?).



And pointing out errors in science (which admittedly exist) does little to support your position of extreme distrust in the scientific method.

I have no extreme distrust of the scientific method. Give me a break. I love how you all keep using the word "Extreme." I have NO distrust of the scientific method. I believe that science when used properly is a powerful and damn near miraculous tool in the world. I find it fascinating and awe inspiring.

I just have an extreme distrust of the EXTREME reaction and knee jerk defend at all costs that shows up every time anyone points out an error in the sciences and theories related to Evolutionary theory specifically phylogeny and dating and theories involving behaviors of animals that we have never seen that are now extinct.


This thread clearly demonstrates that point, which is the only point that I have ever made about this in spite of the constant attempts to paint me and others who feel the same way as SCIENCE BASHERS.

My point has more to do with the reaction of people like the people in this thread who have had it going on for pages defending what should be a simple agreement which most of you have acknowledged as a simple error.

This has always been my stance regarding this. This is the first thread I ever made about Evolution and its the SAME argument. That people get defensive if you criticize or point out errors in Evolution and throw religion back as a defense.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...c=93006&hl=

I thought this too however if the tooth simply fell out when the person was 7-9 years old, would that register as a dead creatures tooth?

How does that work. In addition the fact as I pointed out earlier that it IS a tooth and that the tooth could have fallen out and been picked up by something and carried off? A monkey perhaps? A raccoon or squirrel type creature?

I'm not a scientist, I'd like to know is there a way to know if the person actually died or the tooth just fell out.

http://wrongdiagnosis.com/sym/loose_tooth.htm


Here's a site discussing tooth loss and loose teeth and it points out that Down's Syndrome, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and Chédiak-Higashi syndrome are possible causes of tooth loss. So evidence does support actually that this Neanderthal may have not been a normal Neanderthal simply because the tooth did fall out. How was the tooth found? If the tooth was found with no other evidence of a body near it, then to me it could suggest that the tooth fell out ?

More later