Check out this nice article where scientists determine the BEHAVIOR of all Neanderthals based on one tooth. So forget the possibility that this ONE creature may have wandered off from the group or been banished or some other scenario, all of these are ignored when scientists decided they have proven what they wanted to find?




forgot link
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080209/ap_on_...4gB3X6jw4fQOrgF

The tooth is out there.

I'm noticing that no one seems to have anything to say about this. Funny. Maybe I should have said it was Jesus's tooth and waited for the stampede.

Not very scientific was it? I hate how people can come to unrelated conclusions. I love Anthropology but most of the time I think it's barely a science...but that has nothing to do with evolution

I'll take a stab at a comment then

They will have based these conclusions on more than just that single tooth in isolation. What I mean is that there are all sorts of things that show where a bone/tooth has been and how it was used. Minerals and whatnot compound in them, showing what kinds of environments they came from. It's possible to trace how long a person lived by the ocean up until a certain age by tracing certain chemicals....I can't remember much from the paper I did unfortunately but I can look it up if you want?

How does this make you skeptical of evolutionary science? What should I try to explain?

Note the word "suggests."

I don't wonder why you are skeptical of evolutionary science. I think you don't know enough about it to accept it without skepticism. It's good to be skeptical, but I think that the scientific community has some pretty sound theories on human evolution.

As for the idea that perhaps this one individual was a loner or an exception, that contradicts what we know about neandertals at this point. Plus, statistically, we can feel relatively safe in accepting this indivudual as representative of the culture. The odds of finding ANY neanterthal remain is slim, but the odds of finding the odd renegade neanderthall remail is even slimmer, so it is likely that any remains we find are typical, as typical neanderthalls would have greatly outnumbered atypical neanderthals.

However, this is why science changes theories to always reflect the best evidence. If evidence comes up that suggests this neanderthal was a loner or not typical, they will revise their theory.

I agree with Neognosis on this one... theories are always being adapted to consider new evidence.

Quick question though... why is this evolutionary science? It seems, to me, like more of a social science; forming theories about the lifestyle of the Neanderthals and not so much how they developed physically. Could anyone clear things up for me, please?

You're right, crtbud, it is more anthropological than evolutionary-like . Maybe because its got a hominid, it gets swept under the "Evolution" umbrella?

I think that the OP is trying to put forth the opinion (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that the evidence gathered that leads to evolutionary theory is somehow shakey or contrived.

I think the OP poses the idea that coming to the conclusion that Neanderthal might have migrated based on one single tooth is making an unwarranted conclusion, and the OP seeks to pose that process of coming to the conclusion as being representative of all the evidence that leads to evolutionary theory. she also puts forth the idea that scientists have a preconceived notion as to what they want to prove, and seek and highlight only evidence that supports their preconceived notion.


I don't agree. Or maybe I'm misreading the OP.

"Our findings prove that ... their settlement networks were broader and more organized than we believed," Panagopoulou said.

I guess you uh....missed this one.


THe OP suggests that finding a fossil or tooth of this creature is aberrant in and of itself. So to suggest that this creature, whatever we may conclude about this creature, in any way represents an entire species is ridiculous and completely not scientific.

The OP suggests that evolutionary science does this a lot. It bases its conclusions on the findings of one or two creatures "jaw bone" or "leg bone"

That's why there are always stories in the news that say things like "New discovery overturns previously accepted theory!"

their finding does prove that "their settlement networks were broader and more organized than we believed," in all rationality. The possibility that the tooth belonged to a long renegade atypical neanderthall is pretty slim, almost nonexistant.



Your reasoning is backwards on this one. Stastically, we can safely (though not without being aware of the possibility otherwise) that this is a representative specimin. How? Let me explain.

Let's say there are 1,000,000 Neanderthals living in Europe. Out of those 1,000,000, only 100 are loners who are atypical of the species. That means that .0001 percent of them are atypical.

Now, let's give the odds that any one individual will leave a fossil. Let's be EXTREMELY generous and say that it is 1 in 1,000. What are the changes that any given atypical specimin would leave a fossil compared to the chance of any typical specimin leaving a fossil? Given that only .0001 are atypical, the odds of any specimin being from a typical specimin are far, far, far greater than them being from an atypical specimin.

So we can accept that any specimin, barring special circumstances, is typical. However, we recognize that it is possible that the specimin is atypical, so if any evidence shows up that counter claims the theory, we will consider the data and revise the theory.




You will note, however, that the overall grand theory of evolution has not ever been "overturned." Little bits of theory that are part of the grant theory are revised when new evidence comes to light, but nothing has come up yet, nor is likely to, that will change the grand theory. We might find that species A actually existed parallel to, and not after, species B, as is the case with Neanderthall. But we have not found anything to suggest that neither species evolved into other species. In other words, using Neanderthall, we used to believe that they were related to us directly, that they were a step in our evolution. Now we know that they were not, and that we coexisted for a time. This does not mean, however, that we did not evolve from other homo species.

You are using a false sense of statistics.


Take it simply. If you flip a coin 10 times and it comes up tails, what are the odds that its going to come up tails again?

The odds are still 50/50 even if you flip the coin a million times and it comes up tails a million times the odds are still 50/50 if you flip it again.

What are the odds that a creature could leave a fossil? Very rare. That's the only odds you can actually predict anything about at all.

These statistics mean absolutely nothing when it comes to determining anything other than that. Chances are that this creature is a normal Neanderthal but we have NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT>


Thus there is no way to make a declarative statement like "We have proven" No you have not. You have simply found evidence of a creature that roamed. THIS creature roamed. That's all you can surmise.


And for those of you out there suggesting that holding science to its own rules is somehow bashing science I suggest you wake up and smell the coffee. Making an assumption about this species based on evidence of one tooth is akin to a leap of faith.

What do you suggest, True?

That we ignore every single fossil we find because it may or may not fairly represent the species in it's entirety?

Then apparently so are the scientists who formulate these theories based on the evidence they collect. Truth is, we are not using false statistics.



Did you not understand my post? The fact that you used a coin analogy, which has a 50/50 chance no matter what, shows that you do not understand my post at all.

Let me see if I can make it even simpler for you. Take 1000 red apples and one green apple. Now randomly pick one. What are the chances you picked a red one? If you pick any apple of those 1001 apples, you have an overwhelming chance that the one you picked is a representative specimin, rather than the one anamolie. So if we pick an apple, we could logically conclude that it is represtntative of our sample. If we pick the green one (1 in 1001 chance), we might mistakenly assume it is a representative specimin, until other evidence comes along that refutes this. Then we will revise our theory.




No, that's all we can prove. We CAN and DO surmise that, statistically, this specimin is overwhelmingly likely to be representative of the species, so we can safely conclude that it is highly likely that neanderthall roamed. This is one reason why it is called a theory. It is a logical assumption based on evidence and probability.

Eleni Panagopoulou's quote in full:

"Our findings prove that their mobility was significant and that their settlement networks were broader and more organized than we believed,"

Source:USA Today

As this quote seems to be the source of all the controversy, I've sent Ms. Panagopoulou an email, asking her politely if she would like to come and participate in this thread. Hopefully, she'll be able to answer your questions herself.

Indeed, "prove" is a pivitol term. However, given the statistic probablity that the specimin was representative of the group, I'm not uncomfortable with this terminology, but also more comfortable if the term were less severe, such as "indicate"

Why is this LAME answer always thrown out by science fanatics? I'm curious if you or Tiggs could answer this. I've been told again and again "Well you come up with a better answer then!"

I'm sorry but that's just a pathetic response.

I don't need to supply the RIGHT answer to know the WRONG answer when I see it.

If you say that one tooth proves anything about anything other than the creature it came from its FALSE and WRONG. It doesn't prove anything it just SUGGESTS. Yes the statement suggest was in the excerpt. But the scientist said PROVES.


I don't need to know what the right answer to this equation is to know that it is WRONG


ex.

457438758493574387584 times 47548975849 equals 7


I know that's wrong without having to know what the right answer is.

Are you really that confused that the only conclusion you can come to is that I'm saying we should ignore all fossils?

No what I am saying is that we use fossils to prove what we can, and we don't try to pass off guesses and leaps of faith as PROVEN or FACT.





Exactl. Just because you and others are willing to bow down and worship and accept anything a scientist says because ..........."they're scientists" doesn't mean I am wrong to be skeptical or to question their conclusion.

I can't wait Mr. Tiggs for the person to come into the thread because I guarantee you that we'll hear there is overwhelming evidence yadda yadda yadda but they will be forced to conceed that PROVES was probably a poor choice of words. Or perhaps they will suggest that I am foolish for being so persnickity.

sorry True, it's not a case of "bowing down and worshiping" it's recognizing that people who devote their lives to the study of one particular area are likely more knowledgeable in that area than I am. You can question their conclusion, but it is folly to assume that you know more than, or as much as, an expert in that field.

It seems you didn't really understand my explanation of why they are so sure that the sample is representative of the species. I'm sorry for that.

I suggest that the one particular scientise said "prove" because they were excited and talking to the press. I seriously wonder if their findings, when they appear in peer reviewed journal, will not be more accurate, and say that it appears highly probable that neanterthall was pretty mobile. I also don't think you should take this one scientists semantics as a basis for a whole skepticism of the theory of evolution, as her misues of one word doesn't change the principles of science, the scientific method, or the way theories are derived.

Alright, calm down. What's up with the attitude?

My question was rhetorical, there really are only two options. We can either carry out our investigations as we already have been doing or drop everything all together for fear of making a mistake, as not much short of a time machine will be able to rule out the possibility of a fossil coming from an anomalous individual with absolute certainty, at least where behaviour is concerned.



Yes, s/he said "proves", but really, so what? In practice everything is still open to falsification.

Frankly, I'm as curious as you are to see why she used the word "prove". Which is why I sent her an email.

Based on the contents of the news article, you might be surprised to find that I actually support your position, True. I'll be interested to see what evidence she has that makes her confident enough to say "Prove".

I thought you might find this interesting - from the fuller version of the Associated Press article I linked to earlier:

Im looking forward to speaking to the author of that article, maybe she can anwser me, whether they adopt the same techniques that were used for nebaraska man excuse the spelling and the piltdown man. Similar type fossils brought deliberate false conclusions in order to conciliate a preconceived notion.

Let me know tiggs when she is here, PM me.

Might be a while, Ozi - the email I sent her has just been returned to me with a failure to find host error. Might well be my ISP - her email address can be found here - if anyone else would like to give it a try - it's quite possible that it's recently changed - I'll try emailing the article's author instead, and see if she's willing to confirm her email address.

Lets see, one was 86 years ago and the other about 96 years ago, hmmm nope I don't think they do use the same techniques.

Science tends to advance itself, to make use of new tools and information to try and come to more accurate conclusions.

Science, ( unlike religion ) is not stagnant.

Mmm I'm with you on the "prove" thing. You're never meant to use the terms "prove" or "disprove" in experiments because we can never actually know for sure. At least, that's what we've been taught for conducting psychology experiments. Your conclusions should always say "supports" or "does not support". It was probably just a slip up on that person's part and I'll agree with whoever said that it wouldn't say "prove" in the proper report.

My point in posting this is, I'm skeptical if other things that are said to have been proven are just overzealous excitement in finding evidence that supports their theory.

And I don't claim nor have I ever claimed to know more than a scientist. What I have always said is that these kind of statements bother me because they are unscientific in my opinion.

I have always said that I see a clear difference in the science of evolutionary research be it dating or phylogeny where the word "proof" is thrown around a lot. I've often heard the phrase "they have mountains of proof that support the theory" and frankly when I see articles like this one it makes me wonder what that proof actually is.

I'm glad to see that for once people have paused to realize I'm not attacking science.





A. That's not true. So you suggest we either gloss over science that is practice in a way that goes against the way science is SUPPOSED to be practiced, the way that gives science its authority, we just accept sloppy science and say so what? Or we don't do anything at all?

How about we hold Scientists to their own standards and when we see sloppy science we call them on it? This is what I have been saying for months. Every time you see a scientist do this in the realm of Evolutionary research which often includes different fields, they get a free pass to do stuff like this because people are so afraid of criticizing it.

B. If we do criticize them on it then suddenly religion comes into the conversation that in criticizing sloppy science we are suddenly supporting YEC.

See below.

What does RELIGION have to do with this? Do you see what I mean folks? The constant "well its better than religion crap" that comes from people unwilling to admit that sometimes Scientists make mistakes.

Religion has absolutely nothing to do with this.

This is grasping at straws. You can't admit that it was wrong for the scientist to use the word "proves" so you divert to the "its better than religion" line.

Thank you for once again proving my point on this Shaftsbury. You are quite reliable in this.

Well actually I was just using religion as an example, but now that you mention it, religion has everything to do with "Nebraska Man".

The reference is often brought up as a Creationist argument against science.

My post was in response to Ozi's and had absolutely nothing to do with the article in the OP, so come down off your high horse, you are jumping to preconcieved conclusions.

This is just another example of why I consider you a Cynic not a Skeptic.

So your argument is that because Creationists use the errors of the Piltdown man and the Nebraska man, it invalidates them as only being "Creationists" arguments that aren't true outisde of the religious interpretation?

What's your point? Ozi didn't mention anything about religion? So once again you are bringing religion in where it has nothing to do with the argument.

So let me guess if a religious person points out that Pluto is no longer regarded as a planet then that means its now a religious conversation?

So only atheists are allowed to point out errors in Science right? Because if a religious person does, its now a religious conversation?

I see nothing in Ozi's post that mentions religion at all.


Only yours.

It does if they are winding up to point out that since science changed it's mind about Pluto, therefore they might be wrong about all the evidence that leads to the evolution conclusion.

Not that's what anyone was doing here, but it's likely why discussions on evolution often degenerate into religious discussions.

No one did it here. Often the science people and the non religious are the ones that turn the conversation to religion. NOT the religious person.

I've been saying this for months. You yourself are guilty of this and that's all I have pointed out in why I think Evolution is a different kind of science. You rarely see science in a constant state of trying to pre empt the religious argument against their findings.

You rarely see any other field that says "so what" its better than the alternative.

This is a short thread and it nicely illustrates my point. Because this happens over and over again. I can't tell you how many times I've been accused of being a closet creationists simply for questioning science when I'm not a creationist and don't even really know what the theory is on creationism or ID.

You rarely see masses of laypeople rejecting and attacking other fields.

Irrelevant.

What's relevant is how the field conducts itself. If it allows itself to get pulled off track by religious fanatics that doesn't bode well as to its scientific professionalism now does it? As such why should I treat anything it does as scientific or professional when it allows a bunch of voodoo witchdoctors and umpa lumpas with invisble friends in the sky to control how it reports its findings or navigates its studies.

And this, in a nutshell is why I am skeptical of the field.

That's because rarely are other sciences, such as chemistry or mathmetics, under direct attack by the religious right. In the recent past, evolutionary theory has.



ah...that's a misleading statement. Scientists who work in fields dealing with evolution don't put forth their theory as "so what, it's better than the alternative." They have evidence that supports their conclusion, and no evidence for the creationist conclusion. Implying that they think it's merely "better than the alternative" paints a false impression of evolutionary theory as a shot in the dark that is accepted merely because we have nothing else. It's the best conclusion that the vast overwhelming majority of evidence points to.

Give me a break, you are only seeing what you want to see.

"Nebraska Man" was a case of misidentification, and it occurred around 1922 when science was just starting to put together the human "family tree".

It was never taken seriously by the majority of the evolutionary scientists, and was outright refuted some five years after it's discovery in a scientific journal.

Science has moved on since 1922, learned from the mistakes and corrected the error, it's a perfect reference for showing how science advances.

As for using religion in my example, I can't think of a more fitting one, whether Ozi actually implied it or not.

What amatures say on an internet forum is in no way representative of the field of evolutionary biology. I don't see how the field of evolutionary biology has been "pulled off track" by religious fanatics at all. Can you illustrate this a little? How has the field allowed itself to be pulled off track?

Oh please, I know better than to try to attempt to have a conversation that is critical of science with a group of "blind faithers" who get their panties in a bunch every time anyone criticizes their system of worship. In addition heaven help us if a religious person dares to be criticial because "dems fightin' words"

Shafts you have neatly side stepped this into a conversation about the Nebraska man. Its plain to see that YOU yes YOU and only YOU were the one who brought religion into the conversation.

This thread is about the OP so please take your hysterical rantings off to a blog Neo and stop attempting to derail this thread into a conversation about what the definition of the word "IS IS"

Bottom line the Scientists stated this PROVES and that's not a true statement, its a leap of faith to say it and not scientific at all.

If any of you three would like to actually discuss that I'll be more than happy to. But enough of this derailing this thread into religion. Its like the same old song with you three.

By the way gentleman in case you missed rudimentary science, Creationism is a religious theory and has nothing whatsoever to do with Science. For a science person to argue AGAINST creationism is the height of absurdity in my opinion.

Shall we next move on to a scientific discussion proving that "Just So Stories" by Rudyard Kipling discussing "How the Elephant Got its Trunk" is not as good a theory as evolution?

Childish carping nonsense.

In my opinion.

Yet the fact remains that this finding is susceptible to falsification. Where's the problem?



You rarely see any other field being discussed in the same way as evolutionary theory because no other theory is attacked by so many people. The key word here being "discussed". What a few people say on an internet discussion forum doesn't represent the inner workings of the field.



Show me where I brought religion in to it, or are you just making a habit of lying about the content of my posts?

.....


Alright, you made a baseless claim that evolutionary biology is somehow off track due to the attacks from the religious right. I said I didn't see this, and asked you to illustrate. And you respond with the above? That was inappropriate and full of venom.


Actually, truethat, the bottom line is that she misspoke to a reporter. I doubt she'll use such terms in the official paper, which will be peer reviewed. And again, I don't think that the semantics of one excited scientist while speaking to a reporter is evidence of any "bad science" in this or any other field, nor is her miswording evidence of any type of overall attitude among the scientific community.



Overwhelmingly, scientists merely dismiss creatinism and don't argue against it until it threatens to share a classroom with real science. I think that defending science in the face of a baseless religious idea is the RESPONSIBILITY of every scientist.



Why? Are schools in Kansas and Texas and a handfull of other locations considering adding those stories to the science curriculum? Are there groups lobying for a sticker to be put on science books that says "this is just a theory. Another theory about what is in this book is Just So Stories by Rudyare Kipling, and students are encouraged to read Kipling and decide for themselves?" do the majority of the candidates from one of the countries leading parties believe that Just So Storeis by Kipling is an accurate depiction of our history?



I can see you zealously feel different and are getting defensive and hostile again, so it's best that I leave you to your anger. When you get like this you start reading things that aren't there, and making all sorts of inapporpriate statements. I'm sorry to call you out, but everyone who reads this knows that you do these things, and that's not productive. I don't think there's any point to continuing a discussion with someone who is off base, insulting, defensive, and also does not read other's posts accurately.

You can rant as much as you want but that doesn't change the fact that you are talking out your butt when it comes to this.

At least Tiggs had the decency to try to ask the person what she meant.

You on the other hand blindly clinging to the faith that one of your dear sacred scientists could not be biased are speaking on behalf of the woman when you have NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT?

Do you ever get sick of doing things like this? You did the same thing in the Jamie Lynn Spears thread ranting on and on and on about how Jamie Lynn felt about her pregnancy when you don't have the first CLUE what you are talking about.

I've seen you rant at others for passing judgement on something without investigating it first. Why don't you take a bit of your own advice.

If the reporter misspoke it was still PUBLISHED without comment, I've not seen any science person step forth and comment about the fact that saying "PROVES" or calling something a fact is wrong in the field of science.

The only time Scientists seem to have anything to say about these kinds of things is if a religious person is saying it.


Thanks for posting though, I've seen had quite a few people finally understand what I am saying as the people in this thread crazily try to defend something that they should not.

The only right answer to this is "The scientist made an error in using that world. It conveyed more than they actually can determine"

So off to yer blog would ya. Before someone drops a house on you too!

I disaggree, I was responding to what I considered a classic Creationist argument.

If you don't believe me here's a little litmus test you can take...

Type the words Nebraska Man into the Google search engine.

If the words "Creationist", "Creationism", or "Creation" don't appear in the top 5 web results then I think we can safely say that seeing the reference in a post should not infer that it being used as part of a religious argument.

YOU are the one who brought RELIGION into the conversation. Its there for everyone to see. Tough donkey chips if you don't like the facts.

What kind of bull crap argument is USING GOOGLE to determine what something means.

Hey let's try that with other things

http://www.google.com/search?q=t+rex&r...amp;rlz=1I7GZAY

Top five for T rex includes a band, some sort of non splintering wood I guess among other things

And a car

Lets try ALLIGATOR

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls...amp;q=Alligator


We got an animal and then a NEWSPAPER and then a Record Company among the top three

So according to your logic when someone mentions an alligator I won't know WHAT to think.

The comments in OZI's posts were about scientific method and their erros, NOT religion.

Get over it and stop making a fool out of this TOP FIVE GOOGLE nonsense!

It doesn't matter if SHE is biased, as SHE is not the whole scientific community. Maybe you don't understand how the process works. She'll publish her findings in a peer journal. Her findings will be scoured for any inconsistincies or weakness by the rest of her community. If she says 'proves' in the journal (which she won't) her findings will be taken to task. It seems that you are under the impression that there isn't any sort of parsing of claims that goes on in the scientific community.

I know I said I would bow out because you have gone off the deep end again, but your entertaining and I do like correcting your logical fallacies, so I'll stick around for a few more rounds.

It is curious though, that you accuse me of passing judgement, when this entire thread was started because you are using the symantics of one excited scientist to pass judgement on the entire scientific reveiw process, a process which you obviously don't know much about.

Actually, truethat, he makes a good point. His example illustrates how much the religious community has devoted to attacking evolutionary theory.

Or are you denying that the a far right religious segment has made a lot of noise attacking evolutionary theory in the past few years?

Yawn


Face it. You guys and your arguments have been trounced by me yet again so you're scraping the bottom of the barrel for some sort of pond scum sludge you can still try to throw at me since your arguments are fading fast.


Scientific peer review yadda yadda yadda yadda. We've heard it all before. It shows the mindset of the scientist to suggest this.


You guys are so funny. You are flat out wrong and you just can't give it up.


Top five Google search HOLY CRAP I peed my pants laughing over that one.

Funny you say that when you didn't even reply.

The finding is still susceptible to falsification. Where's the problem?

A. This thread is about the Science article I mentioned not religion. But nice try in trying to force it in that direction since you can't stand on your own argument.


B. I don't know why that's surprising to you at all since the Science community likes to sweep things under there rug when they are busted in fraud, in the field of evolution. The fact that only Creationists have mentioned it doesn't surprise me at all.

By the way did you all know that Wiki has a new site called EVOWIKI how funny right? Its a nice homogenized encyclopedia about Evolution based on teh Creationism debate.

Funny, scientists making the site and putting CREATIONISM in the the introduction. That's so strange Neo, it must be some roque scientist unaware that all the other scientists have dismissed or ignored Creationism like you say.....oh wait

Are you wrong AGAIN? Gasp!





Pro Evolution! EVO! Holy Moly! Smells like religion to me!

I grow tired of flippant comments like this; Do you really wonder why your threads turn into arguments? This is what they turn into. Flamebaiting. That seems to be what you are best at these days.

Tone it down; these kinds of comments need to stop now. Discuss the topics without the petty comments and flamebaiting.

Sorry fluffy. I tend to get sarcastic when I'm laughing. I'll tone it down. I'm off for a bit anyway.

Truethat, a conversation tends to "evolve" and go places. You made several statements earlier about how the scientific community is somehow "off track" due to the noise that creationists are making.

But now you seem to be denying that creationists make this noise. Then when someone poses a little experiment showing how much attention creationists are devoting to attacking evolution, you just go and say that you don't want to talk about it, and we have to stay on the original post.

That's not really fair. When you have to concede a point, just concede the point. You don't get to run back to the shelter of the OP when you are backed into a corner.



Actually, we keep trying to get you to explain the weird claims you are making, but when we do, you go back to name calling and hystrionics. Then you accuse US of sweeping things under the rug? That's not fair either.




Creatinists have distributed so much misinformation, it is the DUTY of science to try to counter this with accurate information. Most scientist ignore creationists, but it's not surprising that at least some of them feel the need to answer their outlandish and baseless claims.



Sounds like they aren't really a "science" group anyway.



How so?

Religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny;
an institution to express belief in a divine power;

Where is the belief in a supernatural power in defending evolutionary theory?

I think that you are trying to imply that scientists do not pay attention to evidence that doesn't agree with their current theory. This is easily demonstrated as patently false. The theory changes when new evidence comes to light. This is why the scientist in the OP is so enthusiastic, because she's made a discovery that likely contradicts current theory. If what you imply is true, she should pretend the tooth wasn't found, or pretend it means something else, because she wouldn't want to contradict current theory.

Your very OP demonstrates that your fundamental assertion is a logical fallacy.

Let me repeat my answer to the "But the Creationists are making NOISE!" comments.







By the way if you are going to use the definition of religion to make your point use the entire thing. Belief in God or deity or higher power is not required for something to be a religion.


And that's the last thing I'm going to reply to about religion. I think you are baiting me so that people can run to the mods again and complain once they can't come back with anything. I'm not falling for it.


Back to the OP

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/text/prin...in_page_id=1770


A quote



Why? We can't SAY that Neanderthal did move, only that THIS Neanderthal did move. BTW its been peer reviewed and published



so obviously those of you suggesting that once it will be published the wording will change etc didn't know that its ALREADY been published.