Out of Africa Busted

Cognito · Post by **Cognito** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:27 am

Please go OT on another thread for now. Thanks.

Beags, why should I do that when I'm already having so much fun here?

Seriously, I have been reading up on Protsch von Zieten over the last day and found that he is quite a character. Now that we're having fun, read this:

http://www.skepdic.com/protsch.html

The article includes a picture of the man.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:30 am

If his Club dues are paid up they will rally to his defense!

Manystones · Post by **Manystones** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 11:26 am

from http://www.skepdic.com/protsch.html

*note In an article dated August 22, 2004, Tony Paterson in the Telegraph quoted Professor Stringer as saying "What was considered a major piece of evidence showing that the Neanderthals once lived in northern Europe has fallen by the wayside. We are having to rewrite prehistory." Stringer denies having made the statement: "I remember talking to the reporter concerned, and from what I remember the words in question were what he said to me, with him asking whether I agreed with the statement." Stringer also says the Paterson quote "is a made-up quote, as I never placed great weight on the significance of the Hahnofersand find in the first place. It was never called a Neanderthal as far as I know, but certain people saw "mixed" features in its morphology. Its removal is certainly not rewriting anything I have ever said about the Neanderthals, let alone rewriting prehistory!" (personal correspondence)

my emphasis

Well it looks like someone else is trying to rewrite history. Chris Stringer may not believe that one skull is going to change anything, but he should know only too well that Protsch's work did not just cover one skull.

However, some time has past between the outing of Protsch and the publication of Bednariks challenging theory of 'domestication'. As Bednarik has pointed out there is now little or no evidence of 'Cro-Magnon' or 'archaic moderns' from the Aurignacian. The onus is now on for the advocates of OOA - including and especially Chris Stringer because he has been so influential in this regard - to come forward with evidence to the contrary or withdraw what appears now to be not only an unsubstantiated claim, but one that has adversely affected the course and direction of much work by steadfastly denying the importance of items like the Tan-Tan, Berekhat Ram. It (ie. OOA) is now a widely held fallacy amongst the general public and only serves to reinforce the false idea of 'superiority'. A lot of damage has been done.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:01 pm

Another thought just crept up on me: could all this mean that Clovis/Solutrean/Kennewick Man must have been a Neandertaloïd...?

How interesting.
Let's have another look – excuse me: a re-assessment of course, of those 'haplotypes' and the other Amerind DNA data from that perspective, boys and girls...

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:28 pm

Somehow, Homo Erectus is part of this story.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:38 pm

Homo Erectus was the granddaddy of us all. Most markedly today in south-east Asians, like the Papua, and Oz Aboriginals.
HE sprouted and was all around Homo Heidelbergensis (hope Protsch had nothing to do with that one...), then Homo Neandertalensis, then Homo Sapiens, then Homo Sapiens Sapiens. HE was instrumental in the others' evolution, all the time. And v.v.

john · Post by **john** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:06 pm

All -

Hmm, yaass ,

Piltdowngate, redux.

All the more proof that "Science"

Is just another form of Religion.

Priests to the left of me,

Priests to the right of me,

And not another

Sane soul in sight.

Which brings me back to the true

Red thread of the Shamanic,

(Hematite, Minimalist)

Tracing the real journey.

And boats, of course.

I challenge all comers to

Present a real argument

against.

hoka hey

john

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:25 pm

No argument from me, John...but I can't vouch for Bednarik!

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:29 pm

challenge all comers to

Present a real argument

against.

Against what? Hematite and boats?

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:11 pm

All the more proof that "Science"

Is just another form of Religion.

I'm assuming you mean this John. Well, I think science is just science, like biochemistry or whatnot. But then, in some sciences, like archaeology, it can get locked into a bureaucratic institution. Then things begin to be more about the institution than the science. Human foibles abound, as we see happened with the Piltdowning (again) of paleolithic evolution.

Religion, by definition, is already a bureaucratic institution. It is to this institution that people bring their feelings of spirituality (unfortunately).

So I do not see science and religion as two forms of the same thing.
Late for me. 'Night all.

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:49 pm

Is just another form of Religion.

No, John. Science, even if it takes a funeral or two, corrects its mistakes and moves forward.

Religion swears they were always right and refuses to change...or even admit mistakes.

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Thu May 01, 2008 1:39 am

Yes, there are big differences between religion and science, but imo, also some similarities.

One is the inability to admit where theories are being held together by the string of faith in other theories that have yet been proven. When those are challenged, those who have faith in science can get just as hot under a collar as a religionist when their religion is under attack.

The other similarity is when we feel the need to defend science. Scientific theories should stand or fall on their merits. When we defend theories, sometimes we are being driven to some extent by our own cherished beliefs, hopes and faiths that we've invested in said theory - just like someone who emotionally invests in their religion.

Sometimes that's because some scientists are just as desperate to prove that there isn't a God as the religionists are desperate to prove there is one. In both cases, it's about their own emotional needs ... in other words, it's not strictly scientific.

It's some of the above that have contributed to the latest fiasco on Out of Africa. So, imo, it's not just a case of correcting this one particular instance and moving on. It's about correcting a mindset that infects all of those who work within the scientific establishment.... and I doubt whether this even under the microscope!

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Thu May 01, 2008 8:08 am

http://nteu53.homestead.com/files/mythical_moderns1.pdf

Here is Bednarik's paper - "The Mythical Moderns" once again. I'll try to keep it in the public eye for awhile.

After reviewing the "Fossils" section of this paper. it seems that the remains of 8 individuals have been fraudulantly misdated. 1 has gone mysteriously missing. These were key features of the OOA and the replacement theories.

Soon I hope to review the "Genetic" argument that Bednarik has included.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu May 01, 2008 8:15 am

those who have faith in science can get just as hot under a collar as a religionist when their religion is under attack.

Except the scientists argue about what the evidence means, Ish. They don't argue about invisible men in the sky.

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Thu May 01, 2008 8:22 am

Oh... you mean like the evidence for a common ancestor?

Archaeologica.org

Out of Africa Busted

European Moderns