Stupid (?) Question

[E.P. Grondine]

"As a corollary to the above, many pseudoscientists and cranks become mortally offended when their ideas are not immediately accepted by mainstream science. They do not understand that a long held theory generally cannot be overturned by a single piece of evidence or one successful experiment -- especially if the results are contrary to a great deal of established knowledge. Academic study moves slowly and deliberately. Experiments must be verified through repetition, and evidence evaluated for correctness or alternative explanations so no one rushes headlong down the wrong path. History is rife with stories of researchers who embarrassed themselves and others by announcing "discoveries" later found to be the results of misinterpreted evidence or poorly-controlled experiments. Academics are correctly skeptical of new evidence that runs contrary to well documented ideas, especially if the new evidence is insufficiently documented, comes from an untrained or unknown individual, or is advertised publicly before being peer reviewed for accuracy."

(from article on the Burrows' Cave Fraud - under 500 words, fair usage)

Fair enough.

But what happens when one field of science comes into conflict with another?
In this particular case of impact events and anthropology, geology going into conflict with anthropology subfields of the analysis of fossil specimens and the new field of palaeogenetics?

Well... what else can one do but point to the Big Holes in the Ground?
And be blunt (rude) if the Big Holes in the Ground are ignored or dismissed by hand waving?

At best one can attempt humor, for example, "This parrot is dead."

[Minimalist]

But what happens when one field of science comes into conflict with another?

Then the side with the more convincing evidence should prevail, eventually.

[Minimalist]

Now Firestone has a problem.

http://news.yahoo.com/did-comet-really- ... 11831.html

A comet crashing into the Earth some 13,000 years ago was thought to have spelled doom to a group of early North American people, and possibly the extinction of ice age beasts in the region.

But the space rock was wrongly accused, according to a group of 16 scientists in fields ranging from archaeology to crystallography to physics, who have offered counterevidence to the existence of such a collision.

"Despite more than four years of trying by many qualified researchers, no unambiguous evidence has been found [of such an event]," Mark Boslough, a physicist at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico, told LiveScience.

"That lack of evidence is therefore evidence of absence."

[uniface]

"Science" by press-release barrage continues. The more magazines &c. you an get to repeat your speil, the more "right" you are.

If you want data and interpretation of data, it's the Cosmic Tusk blog you want. Not National Geographic.

[E.P. Grondine]

Hi min -

Actually, the presence of cometary impactites was confirmed in the Holocene Start Impact Event strata, and a detailed summary of the other researchers' failure to follow extraction protocol was given. Boslough and UNM have been angling to get the Atlas data processing contract, hence their insistence that comets do not hit. In reality, of course, they do, and furthermore account for a large part of the impact hazard.

uniface is right about checking the Cosmic Tusk, but you can ignore the comments, as most of them come from idiots and amateurs, with a few exceptions ("Jonny").

[Minimalist]

I did a search using this string "Holocene Start Impact Event" and got a total of 16 hits, a couple from this board, and most of the others are either by you or referencing your posts. It does not seem that this idea has taken hold in the wider scientific consciousness.

[E.P. Grondine]

Hi min -

The most used term is "Younger Dryas Boundary" impact event.

I have my reasons for using the term "Holocene Start Impact Event".

I should also point out that I published before Firestone et al., though not near as adequately as they did: the survey of all clovis sites was beyond me, the problems in 14C calibration and site dates were beyond me, and I also had other major impact events to deal with.

[Minimalist]

It seems that Firestone's idea is in trouble.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dr ... hypothesis

[uniface]

These people who are so anxious to "debunk" the Thermonuclear Event (whatever it was) are so obviously using straw man arguments based on cherry-picked data that fly in the face of the overall record that -- were I one of them -- I'd be embarassed.

[E.P. Grondine]

Hi uniface -

The tale of the failure of the development of impact science since 1980 will become one of the saddest and most sordid books in the history of science.

[uniface]

Back to Neanders :

The skeletal remains of an individual living in northern Italy 40,000-30,000 years ago are believed to be that of a human/Neanderthal hybrid, according to a paper in PLoS ONE.

If further analysis proves the theory correct, the remains belonged to the first known such hybrid, providing direct evidence that humans and Neanderthals interbred. Prior genetic research determined the DNA of people with European and Asian ancestry is 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal.

The present study focuses on the individual’s jaw, which was unearthed at a rock-shelter called Riparo di Mezzena in the Monti Lessini region of Italy. Both Neanderthals and modern humans inhabited Europe at the time.

“From the morphology of the lower jaw, the face of the Mezzena individual would have looked somehow intermediate between classic Neanderthals, who had a rather receding lower jaw (no chin), and the modern humans, who present a projecting lower jaw with a strongly developed chin,” co-author Silvana Condemi, an anthropologist, told Discovery News.

Condemi is the CNRS research director at the University of Ai-Marseille. She and her colleagues studied the remains via DNA analysis and 3D imaging. They then compared those results with the same features from Homo sapiens.

The genetic analysis shows that the individual’s mitochondrial DNA is Neanderthal. Since this DNA is transmitted from a mother to her child, the researchers conclude that it was a “female Neanderthal who mated with male Homo sapiens.”

By the time modern humans arrived in the area, the Neanderthals had already established their own culture, Mousterian, which lasted some 200,000 years. Numerous flint tools, such as axes and spear points, have been associated with the Mousterian. The artifacts are typically found in rock shelters, such as the Riparo di Mezzena, and caves throughout Europe.

The researchers found that, although the hybridization between the two hominid species likely took place, the Neanderthals continued to uphold their own cultural traditions.

That's an intriguing clue, because it suggests that the two populations did not simply meet, mate and merge into a single group.

http://news.discovery.com/human/evoluti ... 130327.htm

[Ernie L]

The issue is settled as far as I'm concerned.
Here's the proof.
you want ..no chin..here ya go.



How about some brow ridges. Excepting the Australian indigenous population ,I think he has the best example I have ever seen.


Honestly I realize this is proof of nothing..but I can play the game as well..I mean really ..How is one chinless jaw bone proof of anything ?