And people wonder why I am a skeptic

[truethat]

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?

By ELENA BECATOROS, Associated Press Writer Sat Feb 9, 2:21 AM ET

ATHENS, Greece - Analysis of a 40,000-year-old tooth found in southern Greece suggests Neanderthals were more mobile than once thought, paleontologists said Friday.

ADVERTISEMENT

Analysis of the tooth — part of the first and only Neanderthal remains found in Greece — showed the ancient human had spent at least part of its life away from the area where it died.

"Neanderthal mobility is highly controversial," said paleoanthropologist Katerina Harvati at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

Some experts believe Neanderthals roamed over very limited areas, but others say they must have been more mobile, particularly when hunting, Harvati said.

Until now, experts only had indirect evidence, including stone used in tools, Harvati said. "Our analysis is the first that brings evidence from a Neanderthal fossil itself," she said.

The findings by the Max Planck Institute team were published in the Journal of Archaeological Science.

The tooth was found in a seaside excavation in Greece's southern Peloponnese region in 2002.

The team analyzed tooth enamel for ratios of a strontium isotope, a naturally occurring metal found in food and water. Levels of the metal vary in different areas.

Eleni Panagopoulou of the Paleoanthropology-Speleology Department of Southern Greece said the tooth's levels of strontium showed that the Neanderthal grew up at least 12.5 miles from the discovery site.

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

Clive Finlayson, an expert on Neanderthals and director of the Gibraltar Museum, disagreed with the finding's significance.

"I would have been surprised if Neanderthals didn't move at least 20 kilometers (12.5 miles) in their lifetime, or even in a year ... We're talking about humans, not trees," Finlayson said.

___

forgot link

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

Edited February 10, 2008 by truethat

[Wallydraigle]

The tooth is out there.

[truethat]

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.

[~ MacDDT ~]

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

Edited February 11, 2008 by MacDDT

[Potholer]

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?

[Neognosis]

Analysis of a 40,000-year-old tooth found in southern Greece suggests Neanderthals were more mobile than once thought

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.

[crtDzyn]

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?

[Potholer]

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

[Neognosis]

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.

[truethat]

"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!"

[Neognosis]

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.

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.

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.

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

[truethat]

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.

[Raptor]

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?

Edited February 13, 2008 by Raptor

[Neognosis]

You are using a false sense of statistics.

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

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>

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.

You have simply found evidence of a creature that roamed. THIS creature roamed. That's all you can surmise.

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.

[Tiggs]

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

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.

[Neognosis]

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"

[truethat]

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

Edited February 13, 2008 by truethat

[Neognosis]

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.

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.

[Raptor]

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.

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.

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.

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

Edited February 13, 2008 by Raptor

[Tiggs]

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.

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:

Professor Clive Finlayson, an expert on Neanderthal man and director of the Gibraltar Museum, disagreed with the finding's significance.

"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.

"(But) I would have been surprised if Neanderthals didn't move at least 20 kilometers in their lifetime, or even in a year ... We're talking about humans, not trees."

[Ozi]

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.

[Tiggs]

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.

[Shaftsbury]

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.

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.

[Potholer]

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.

[truethat]

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.

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.

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.

Edited February 14, 2008 by truethat