Prehistory is about to change!

[dannan14]

i would like a copy too Ish. Those articles sound interesting.

[MichelleH]

Ish, count me in....thanks as always!

[Digit]

I'm staying in my bunker!

Roy.

[Minimalist]

I liked the Darwin and Dorenburg Skull articles.

Poor Darwin gets a lot of shit thrown on him because lunatics need a boogeyman.

[Digit]

Which is why I'm staying in my bunker Min.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

As long as you have a good supply of beer you should be alright.

[Digit]

You've just reminded that I've got an unopened bottle in the kitchen, I'm off!

Roy.

[Minimalist]

Glad to be of service.

[Ishtar]

Min

I'm so glad to hear you enjoyed the Darwin article ~ and relieved somewhat!

It came through to me, in its original form, as what I can only describe as utter gobble-de-gook. Not the fault of the German authors, who are both brilliant science professors in Germany. It's just that they don't speak or write any English. So they had put the article through a translation machine ~ something like the aptly-named Babelfish, which true to its name, had just produced a load of unintelligible babble, and some of quite hilarious! Then add to that the scientific jargon ~ words like 'equinfinality' and 'aetiology', which I had to separate from the Babel made-up words and then transcribe into plain language if we were to reach a wider audience. Frankly, it was a 'migraine on paper'! I spent days reading up on evolution theory and consulting with others, to try to sort it out. Then I rewrote it, the first half almost entirely, even putting in some research of my own, and then sent it off to the authors with my fingers tightly crossed. I thought I'd get a thundering email back saying something like: "Are you trying to wreck our careers?". But instead, luckily, they were very happy with it and now Jorn is referring to me as the Honourable Ishtar.

We are now discussing some of the ideas in the article over on Ishtar's Gate. You can find the discussion here.

[JSteen]

Ishtar, I sent a PM to you at Ishtar's Gate requesting a copy too. I might have messed it up though - clicked the wrong button or put the wrong address or something. Did you get it? Same name there.

[Minimalist]

You know, my dear, Darwin always reminds me of walking into a corporate office. Somewhere they have a black and white photo of an old geezer who 80-100 years earlier had opened a drug store in Shittsville, Arkansas and which has now grown into a multinational conglomerate. He wouldn't have the foggiest understanding of what the company grew into but they still pay homage to him as a "founder."

150 years ago Darwin came up with a theory which terribly upset religious fanatics who saw their poetry replaced by scientific rationality and they have never forgiven him for it. Yet, when you think about what Darwin did not know at the time it is mind-boggling. He knew nothing of genetics. Never heard of plate tectonics. Never heard of radiometric dating, electron microscopes, cosmic radiation, blood types, etc., etc.
His theory was based on his own, limited, observations and he made predictions on the basis of them. To date, no one has overturned those ideas but we have learned that the process is far more complicated than even he imagined.

This tendency to pay homage to founders (even Israel Finkelstein notes the early efforts of Robertson, Albright, and Gestang among others while at the same time regarding their theories as baloney) keeps the names alive but I doubt that Darwin has much relevance to modern evolutionary science. It also keeps him around as a lightning rod for the nut jobs.

[Digit]

I have made precisely the same observations as well Min. I'll save you some space in the bunker. Bring your own beer!

Roy.

[Ishtar]

There's no need for anyone to go in a bunker ... especially when they haven't read the article under the discussion.

Min, like I say, I'm glad you enjoyed it and even gladder that you understood its message ~ that the ideas which we associate with Darwin need to be kept under constant review in the light of our increasing knowledge, not least one we discussed on here recently, that cognition in man evolves. There is still a common preconception that man's cognition has evolved to make him more intelligent as time goes on, while the evidence for that has never been found, and in fact, we find our ancestors 400,000 years ago were extremely intelligent.

The aspect of the article that we've been discussing on the Gate is about the Tree of Life of Darwin and Haeckel which had just the one 'trunk', while further scientific investigations now show that it is unlikely that we all descend from one common universal life form, and that therefore there should be more than one 'trunk'.

J Steen, I didn't get your PM (sometimes our server has a fit of the hiccups!), but I have now emailed you the Newsletter.

And if there are any beers going, mine's a Stella!

[Digit]

while further scientific investigations now show that it is unlikely that we all descend from one common universal life form, and that therefore there should be more than one 'trunk'.

Where's that?

Roy.

[Minimalist]

I have made precisely the same observations as well Min. I'll save you some space in the bunker. Bring your own beer!

Roy.

I like mine chilled. Typical Yank.