Modern Humans, Neanderthals Shared Earth for 1,000 Years 765
joffley writes "ABC News is reporting on new evidence that has emerged suggesting Neanderthals co-existed with anatomically modern humans for at least 1,000 years in central France, before gradually disappearing about 28,000 to 30,000 years ago. But why did they disappear?"
they invented (Score:4, Funny)
Re:they invented (Score:5, Funny)
Re:almost true... (Score:3, Insightful)
(The exceptions, if any, would have some Viking blood.)
Re:almost true... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually you misunderstand the meaningof that term. The word fittest is termed as something that is "the best at surviving.", not necessarily the best at something like strength, eating, building, etc. So in the real world those species that are best at learning, or adapting to their environment (read as: able to survive in their environment), are those that evolve and thus "survive".
So the fittest always
Re:they invented (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:they invented (Score:3, Informative)
Then it got handed over to the Sci-Fi channel where they really fucked it up.
Re:they invented (Score:4, Funny)
Re:they invented (Score:4, Insightful)
How's that?
If physics, chemistry, etc. still all work as expected, how is origin so critical?
Creationism is about authority, not truth (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's see, how exactly do we come up with a coherent world view in which a) DNA, genes, chromosomes and so on are the means of inheritance; and b) the first woman was created using a rib torn from the side of the first man? The best you can do is propose a "God set things in motion" model, in my view anyway, and then you've got all sorts of problems keeping that afloat if you've ever even seen meiosis or mitosis. (If God "se
Far Side? (Score:5, Funny)
--jeff++
Re:Far Side? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Far Side? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Far Side? (Score:3, Funny)
Am pretty sure every 14 year old kid has the exact same pages dog-eared.
Re:Far Side? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Far Side? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Far Side? (Score:4, Funny)
The Golgafrinchans didn't do any work, but they survived two million years. Arthur and Trillian were the last two descendants of the Golgafrinchans.
Remember that it was the "CAVEMEN" that were dying off?
(my emphasis)
It's obvious... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's obvious... (Score:2, Funny)
har har har..
Re:It's obvious... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Voice box - no communication (Score:5, Interesting)
The fact of the matter is that Homo sapiens have been around for 200 THOUSAND YEARS!! Neanderthals were the dominant species for most of that time, until they died off approximated 30-35k ago ... it's not such a big leap to suggest that coexistence goes back to far earlier times, but the big deal about these caves is that the neanderthals were competing for the same resources as Homo sapiens, and were outhunted (the BIG mystery the article claims is unknown...you gotta love media) to extinction. Neanderthals used flake technology, while Homo sapiens used blade tech. Without going too heavily into it, Homo sapiens were killing up a storm with thrown spears and using prismatic cores and all that high tech jazz. Neanderthals still had to close in for the kill, and as such could not compete at all.
The important thing to understand is that there were two variants of hominids during the middle and upper paleolithic periods (assuming we disregard the Homo erectus groups off in Asia that were still hanging in there), rather than one being descended from the other. Neanderthals were adapted for the Ice Age, and were limited to Europe because of this. The highly adaptable (yet peabrained) little Homo sapiens spread like wildfire across the continents, killing as we went. Neanderthals are believed to have been very gentle and possibly even possessors of culture (although this is in constant debate), even taking care of the sick and wounded around them. One skull was even found with a hole beveled into it, suggesting some attempt at early surgical treatment (it was done premortem, and the individual lived for several years after the hole was made).
Whereas we were honed to kill.
Disclaimer: It's highly improbable that Homo neanderthalensis and homo sapiens mingled, or that the Homo sapiens killed off the neanderthals. But until we can send a time machine back to record all this shit, nobody can be 100% certain.
Oh and A.C., I'm not making any corrections to what you've said, just trying to expand on it a bit. Seemed like as good a place as any. :) I agree about the communication, and how large Neanderthal brains were.
Because... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Because... (Score:3, Funny)
I'm pretty sure.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm pretty sure.... (Score:5, Funny)
I agree. (Score:3, Funny)
Are you there God? it's me, Neanderthalis (Score:5, Funny)
no why (Score:2, Funny)
and the answer is no http://newsfeed.tcm.ie/images/people/pieterdevill
Well. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well. (Score:3)
...and welcome to historically confused live semi final with your hosts Raquel Welch and Brendan Fraser... remember ...
Call cost may vary according to avaiable combustible materials and wind direction. One vote per cave.
Where they went... (Score:5, Interesting)
The "Extinct" American Tribe of Xualaes (Score:3, Interesting)
The way of the world.
Re:The "Extinct" American Tribe of Xualaes (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not holding my breath, though.
Re:Where they went... (Score:5, Interesting)
I suggest you read up some more. The issue is more complex than you summarize, there is a reason that there is still a debate.
Re:No, natural selection in action (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, natural selection in action (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, natural selection in action (Score:5, Funny)
I, for one, welcome our new rabbity-fucking uncontrollably moving slightly higher evolved overlords! Er... our old overlords... er... I mean us. I welcome us.
Re:So how do you explain the hybrid child ? (Score:3, Informative)
well duh... (Score:2, Funny)
They're still here.. (Score:5, Funny)
I kid, I kid.
We have a pretty good idea where they went. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:We have a pretty good idea where they went. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:We have a pretty good idea where they went. (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, this merely says that any Neanderthal ancestors we may have weren't through the pure-maternal line. It says nothing at all about the nuclear DNA, which is over 99% of our DNA.
I've been watching for reports on Neanderthal DNA, and I've been repeatedly disappointed by people making conclusions from mtDNA samples. This basically indicates cluelessness about how inheritance works. Your mtDNA is a rather special case, and it's inherited very differently from your nuclear DNA. It's only useful for tracing your purely-maternal line of ancestors. It carries no information about any male or any of his ancestors.
It's still entirely possible that a tiny part of the ancestry of Europeans is Neanderthal. This could mean a few hundred genes scattered through the nuclear DNA. It could mean just one gene. Until you convincingly show, for every single gene, that it's not of Neanderthal origin, you really haven't shown that there was no interbreeding at all.
This is significant because nobody suggests a significant Neanderthal contribution to the modern European gene pool. Even supporters of the conjecture would be surprised if 1% of our genes are of Neanderthal origin. The question is whether the number is exactly zero or something slightly higher.
My guess is that we'll never have good enough evidence of Neanderthal genes to show that there was no interbreeding at all. That requires study of the entire genome, and the fossil record doesn't have to have preserved it for us. Unless there's some very luck discovery, such as a deep-frozen Neanderthal in the permafrost (that's now rapidly melting, so we'd better hurry), it's unlikely that we'll ever have a complete sample of Neanderthal DNA. And even that wouldn't really be enough; the most it could prove is that that particular individual wasn't one of our ancestors.
In any case, arguments from mtDNA are supremely unconvincing. Interesting, yes, but unconvincing.
But that doesn't stop the media from publishing gee-whiz articles on the topic.
Re:We have a pretty good idea where they went. (Score:5, Informative)
True, however:
My guess is that we'll never have good enough evidence of Neanderthal genes to show that there was no interbreeding at all. That requires study of the entire genome, and the fossil record doesn't have to have preserved it for us.
No - there would be a distinctive signal we can detect purely from modern human genomes. Imagine that for gene X, 1% of Europeans have a Neandertal gene, and everyone else (including all non-Europeans) have the Sapiens gene. We sequence this gene from 10000 people, 1000 of whom are European, 10 of whom have the Neandertal gene. Those 10 Europeans have sequences which are similar to each other, but are much more different from the consensus than any other gene sequences - and most significantly, much more different than any of the African samples. (Africa being the homeland of Homo Sapiens means it has the largest genetic variability.)
Putting it another way: if we created a phylogenetic tree of the genes, we would observe some of the European genes being basal (separated from the bulk of the sequences by the first bifurcation on the tree), and by a large margin (after this bifurcation, there is a long time before the next bifurcation on the main branch.)
We haven't yet observed such a pattern, although I think people have looked. We may yet find this, but the longer we look without finding it, the less likely the interbreeding hypothesis becomes.
IAATMP. (I am a theoretical molecular phylogenist.)
This is only marginally new (Score:5, Interesting)
Lewis Binford, many years back, investigated another site (in Israel) where h. sapiens and h. neanderthalis existed in close proximity for MUCH longer, around 90,000 years IIRC. The same results otherwise, despite an incredibly long time period very close to each other, no genetic drift towards each other to be seen. Pretty much has to mean that they were not sexually compatible with each other.
Everyone assumes that OUR ancestors had the 'superior abilities and traits' but, other than the fact that we're here instead of them, there's no reason to think that. They were definately stronger, more muscular and with a more efficient musculature as well - if they were still alive today they would take all the top spots in just about any sport you can think of. The 'hunchback' stereotype is incorrect - one of the early neanderthal skeletons had those features and that was taken as typical, but it turns out it was just that that particular individual had massive crippling arthritic problems - it wasn't genetic. And despite the stereotype that they were dumb, there's really no evidence of that either - their brains were even larger than ours, and their artifacts are not inferior.
One difference is that there is a bone in the throat, (hyoid bone iirc) critical to the production of human speech, which was shaped differently in the neanderthal. They would not have been capable of making many of the sounds we use in speech as a result. However, that doesn't mean they couldn't have spoken their own languages, with different sounds - only that they would not have been able to make many of the sounds we use.
Still a great mystery. Maybe one day we'll know what happened.
Re:This is only marginally new (Score:3, Insightful)
Disappeared? No... (Score:2, Funny)
Is it always Violence? (Score:5, Insightful)
not in the article (Score:3, Funny)
Heard this before... (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as the question of why they are extinct, the show stated it as a matter of fact that homo sapiens simply over-ran their niche, as is prone to happen when two competing species inhabit the same environment.
I dunno if the show was pushing it's speculation as fact or if this source is out of date. It seems to make sense though. Smarter, team-working homo sapiens out-hunt the competition and the others starve.
Like a "Brief history of everything" put it (Score:2)
Peer Review? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd like to see his methods, and find out how exactly they dated samples, and if they did a check on sample prep in order to verify their results. Until that can be shown, why should we believe the report?
Chatelperronian vs. Aurignacian (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two central issues. One is that the "Aurignacian" industry, which is proposed to have been made by modern humans, may not actually have been a single industry across Europe. In the current study, the "interleaving" of the two kinds of tools is documented by around 10 artifacts, out of 750 total.
The other issue is that no fossil remains of modern humans have yet been found associated with early "Aurignacian" tools. We simply don't know who made them. Since they are not technically very different from the Neandertal-associated Chatelperronian, it is hard to say that there is a real cognitive difference represented by those tools, whoever made them.
I have some pictures of the tools on my weblog post [johnhawks.net] (John Hawks Anthropology Weblog) [johnhawks.net], and conclude this:
--John
Actually... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Actually... (Score:4, Insightful)
Damn! (Score:5, Funny)
Birth canal problems (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason this results in extinction of one of the races is due to the fact that when there is consistent gender bias in inter-racial mating, if there is any degree of polygyny or serial monogamy (de facto polygyny) then the gene flow tends to be from the race whose males are successfully mating to the population whose males are not as successfully mating. If there is any substantial inter-racial mating under such circumstances it could easily be that a millenium or so is all it would take to destroy the existence of the race whose males are experiencing lower fertility.
The question is what was the trigger that resulted in the presence of modern humans midst neanderthals?
A Credible Theory (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Birth canal problems (Score:3, Insightful)
Furthermore, mitochondrial DNA contradicts your argument. Mitochondrial DNA is passed down only from mother to child. The evidence stongly points to the fact that modern humans do not have Neanderth
Multiple mtDNA lineages (Score:4, Informative)
Innan and Nordborg [usc.edu]
They should proofread... (Score:3, Interesting)
It is interesting to see proof of overlap in a single area, though this isn't surprising. Also, currently mitocondrial data indicates that there isn't a major influx of DNA from them, though some interbreeding could have occurred and survived to today, especially if it conferred a survival advantage in northern climes, for example.
Saw A Program About This On German TV 2 Years Ago (Score:4, Interesting)
My german is pretty poor, but it was simple to pick up the basic story line:
The show followed a family of Neandrathals as they attempted to cross the Alps.
A young female wandered off from the family. Nearby, three "modern" human males had a camp and were cooking meat over a fire. The female picked up the scent of the meat and followed it to the camp.
The males lured her into the camp with the offer of food. She warily accepted and while she was eating, one of the males knocked her down to her hands and knees and took her from behind (much to her distress). The other males then took their turns.
The last shot was of the female wandering up into the snow-covered mountains, obviously pregnant.
Again, my german is not very good, but the impression I got was the show was attempting to explain how a neandrathal female corpse, preserved by altitude and cold, was found in the Alps with an unborn child that contained "modern" human DNA. . .
Got to love those European documentaries - they leave little to the imagination.
Re:Saw A Program About This On German TV 2 Years A (Score:3, Funny)
1) Every hole's a goal.
2) You don't look at the mantlepiece when you're stoking the fire.
Isn't this obvious? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is old news (Score:3)
Neanderthals DO exist (Score:5, Funny)
We have a model for this already in our history (Score:3, Interesting)
Forget "Clan of the Cave Bear" (Score:3, Interesting)
The Scientific American reviewer commented that the author of COTCB had done a reasonable amount of homework. She got details about the technology right. But that her heroine was like a Californai "vallery girl" transplanted to the paleolithic.
Various contributors to this thread have said "We killed them. We were smarter than they were. That's life." But there is no evidence that we were more intelligent. Some anthropologists have suggested that one advantage modern humans had over Neanderthals was that the shape of our throat and larynx allows modern humans to make sounds that Neanderthals couldn't -- and that this allowed a richer, more expressive, vocal expression.
They started receiving email (Score:4, Funny)
Dear Mr Neanderthal,
First I must solicit your strictest confidence of this transaction. This is by virtue of its nature as being utterly confidential and "Top Secret".
You must be surprised hearing from me in this manner as we have not previously communicated.
Please allow me to introduce myself. I am HOMO SAPIENS SAPIENS, descendant and heir of the late HOMO HEIDELBERGENSIS of AFRICA.
Before he passed away my late ancestor secreted one hundred thousand (ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND) african elephants in the plains of Africa and I seek your assistance to export these animals to Europe where the growing shortage of the similar "Woolly mamoths" would make them highly marketable.
While the seas and deserts seperating Africa from Europe are easily overcome, African Animals are unable to tolerate cold and I will need a number of large fur coats to protect them for the journey.
In return for the suply of these furs and acting as my agent for the sale I would be delighted to offer you a full 50% of the realised market value.
Yours Faithfully
Homo Sapiens Sapiens,
Lagos,
Africa
Its both! (Score:5, Funny)
by intellegent design, I of course mean Flying spahgetti monster.
Re:Its both! (Score:5, Funny)
And he left their bones to test our faith.
Re:Its both! (Score:5, Funny)
God's Roadmap (Score:5, Funny)
Beta
Release version: Homo neanderthalensis
Build name: Adam
Release date: 4,569,770,000 years after cooling
Deprecated: 4,569,971,000 years after cooling
Stable
Release version: Homo sapiens
Build name: Eve
Release date: 4,569,800,000 years after cooling
Deprecated:
[Sigh] Still deciding. I mean, the codebase is starting to look a bit creaky in a few places, and they're starting to tinker with it themselves (they think it's open source - hah!). Inquisitive little so-and-so's can't leave well enough alone... They've noticed the legacy code from the previous build too - ick, some cruft in there. Very tempting to trash the lot and start again using AOP. Mind you I mightn't have to lift a finger if they don't stop blowing each other to smithereens.
[sigh] TODO: Take oort cloud inventory - look for something nice and big...
Re:Its both! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Its both! (Score:4, Interesting)
Hmmm... Seems to be an amusing gibe at the expense of that whole fossils theory.
Hmmm... Don't understand how this reaction could be prompted by such a light-hearte... Oh, wait. He said secularist. Now I get it - everybody who doesn't have "True Faith" is a woolly-minded, liberal pot-smoker bent on the destruction of all that is good and holy in the world. Good, holy things like mass murder, denial of free-will and subjugation of women. Gimme that old-time religium! </rhetoric>
Don't whine at us because your logic deficiency precludes having the ability to tell the difference between an imaginary friend and a real friend. Trust me, if you didn't have that faith shit pushed into your head with the twin fangs of sin and guilt back when your head was still soft you would be a much happier person today.
I'm not open-minded - I don't have the sort of time required to listen to everybody's point of view. I shave down the time required to hear what something's all about by cutting out people whose reasoning skills I don't respect. If you have an imaginary friend I'm not going to take you too seriously on other matters - same if you read horoscopes or partake in the lottery... I'm no Spock but I do know how to spot someone with a severe logic deficiency.
Re:Its both! (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Its both! (Score:3, Interesting)
> The real theory of Intelligent Design doesn't eliminate evolution. It actually proposes (hell, should I just say "proposed" at this point?) that evolution didn't stem only from random mutations, but from some that seem to have been encouraged.
ID "theory" doesn't even say that much. It just says "here's something evolution couldn't have produced, therefore it's the result of intelligent design".
And when you start asking what "intelligent design" means, you'll discover that they believe "someone did some
Re: Its both! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Its both! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Theory of intelligent design" is an oxymoron.
Merriam Webster's defines a theory as "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." Intelligent design doesn't qualify- it hasn't been tested (it's arguable whether it's even testable at all), it isn't accepted, and it explains absolutely nothing. It doesn't explain who the designer is or how the designer designed things, how the design was implemented, why, or when. It's the complete and total absence of a theory.
Which is the beauty of it. Creationists learned from the Young Earth Creationism disaster- as soon as you start making testable statements like "the earth is 6000 years old" scientists will disprove you and show what a bunch of idiots you are. So you avoid making testable statements at all costs.
Evolution is NOT "random"!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Evolution is NOT about "random mutations". There is nothing at all RANDOM about evolution. Sure, there are random mutations going on all the time, but that's not what evolution is about. Evolution is about NATURAL SELECTION which is definitely NOT a random process.
There is a very specific rule that is applied to the "random mutations" to see which ones move forward and that is (more or less) this: Those mutations that tend to make a creature at least slightly more successful will tend to spread throughout a population. And "successful" means (essentially) living long enough to reproduce and raise young.
This is NOT random at all. Most (nearly all) mutations are either BAD and cause damage, or effectively do nothing. Only a few rare mutations actually pass the natural selection test of being positive and therefore spread through successive generations.
In a given context a mutation is either going to tend to be helpful to the survival of the creature or not. So I say once again Evolution is NOT random.
I could go on and on and explain how natural selection often leads to results that APPEAR to look "planned", even though they were not planned with any intelligent forethought, but that would be a whole book. Instead, read Richard Dawkins "The Blind Watchmaker".
ID is not science (Score:3, Insightful)
Most people touting Intelligent Design do it because they don't understand Evolution, or they do it to dishonestly promote their religious beliefs, hiding them under pseudoscience.
More evidence of Intelligent Design on IRC (Score:3, Interesting)
* Wingman has joined #intelligentdesign
* AlphaHelix has joined #intelligentdesign
* MutatedTaxon has joined #intelligentdesign
<Wingman> hi
<AlphaHelix> hi Wingman
<MutatedTaxon> morning Wingman
<Wingman> finished my project at work today
<Wingman> the boss upstairs asked me to design something that could fly
<AlphaHelix> =O=
<MutatedTaxon> awesome
<Wingman> so I knew it would have to be something small with wings
<Wingman> but I didn't what to do for eyes
<Alph
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Funny)
Great!
Why not include Scientology along with Judeo-Christian creation?
You think a Christian parents are pissed that Little Johnny was told by his teacher that man evolved from a common ancestor to apes, just wait until he comes home and tells Mommy and Daddy about a Galactic Federation founded 5,000,000 years ago, Teegeeack, H-Bombs, and body thetans.
I can't wait to see that one.
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Funny)
I can't prove my beliefs in the FSM (blessed be), but you can't disprove them either. So there!
Re:Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll go for that only if the Invisible Pink Unicorn [wikipedia.org] is included in the curriculum as well.
IPU2U2 - Amen.
Pastafarians.... That one is good too.
Do they wear dreads?
Re:Interesting (Score:3, Funny)
This information is obviously vital, and should no doubt be covered in Biology class!
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
Heh, one should think so. But there are soooo many non-believers out there.
I told my local school district a couple of years back that if they continued to insist that prayer be not only allowed in school, but lead by a teacher, that I would first convert my children to their grandma's religion (she was of the Blackfoot tribe), and then sue under federal law to force the district to accomodate their worship in the school. Since they would have to accomodate my children during "prayer time", I knew that having a bunch of whooping, dancing students in the classroom would be too much for them to take.
They dropped their proposal because they eventually realized that in order to stay neutral with regard to the Establishment Clause they would have to accomodate every religious belief to avoid having their policy ruled unconstitutional.
Intelligent Design will have the same fate when every religion in the world demands equal time in the science classroom.
Re:Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
Because this is a democracy, where majority rules.
Pardon my french, but that is pure bullshit. Majority doesn't have anything to do with what is science or not. A huge portion of the population also believes in Astrology, should that be included in science class? Of course not.
ID and Creationism are religious ideas. They have nothing to do with science. If they are to be taught in schools they should be taught where they belong, along side of Buddhism, Islam, Astrology and all the other superstition.
Re:Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
From the poll: [people-press.org] Even many who are politically liberal and who believe in evolution favor expanding the scope of public school education to include teaching creationism....John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said he was surprised to see that teaching both evolution and creationism was favored not only by conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the the
Re: Interesting (Score:5, Funny)
> *shrug* there doesn't have to be any evidence. but, that does mean it shouldn't be taught alongside evolution as an "alternate theory", just on the basis that there is no evidence.
Here are my favorite no-evidence theories that I want schoolkiddies to learn:
- Flying Spaghetti Monster Theory
- Intelligent Falling Theory
- Invisible Pink Unicorn Theory
- Last Thursday Theory
- 2+2=5 Theory
We've really got to quit letting the boring old farts set the agenda!IPU (Score:5, Informative)
The attack is "You can't know whether there is a god, so to disbelieve is every bit as much an act of faith as to believe."
The counter goes as following.
Atheist (A): "Do you believe there are herds of invisble pink unicorns somewhere unnoticed on the planet?"
Believer (B): "No, of course not."
A: "So this would be an absolute religious conviction, would it?"
B: "Well, no, not really"
A: "Right. I don't believe in god in the same way you don't believe in invisible pink unicorns."
Re:IPU (Score:3, Interesting)
A better, perhaps less-common, straw-man attack is to discuss the point of living with atheists. If they truly believe that there is no spiritual life to humans (or other animals, as prescribed on a religion-by-religion case ), then why live at all? If you completely cease to exist in any form whatsoever when your
Who's ridiculous? (Score:3, Interesting)
Who said that atheists don't believe in a spiritual life? You can have spirituality aplenty without a deity or anything supernatural at all. As the old Zen master said - if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!
I personally have plenty of reasons to live (I'm leaving in 10 minutes to go pick one of them up from preschool) without a supernatural invisible friend or a fantasy (nighmarishly dull) afterlife. They're my reasons, not someone else's, and not delusions.
Re:*sigh* (Score:2)
What else do you suggest we do on Slashdot? Recycle hackaday links? Recycle earlier posts? Recycle Beowulf cluster comments? Attack Microsoft and TiVo?
Really!
Re:*sigh* (Score:2)
Re:*sigh* (Score:3, Insightful)
Are we supposed to not discuss certain topics because some people refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence when it conflicts with their presupposed biases?
I don't think so. This isn't evolution vs creationism. This is a science story. And that ignorant people prefer ignorance isn't reason to push science underground.
A fantastic article about ID in The Guardian... (Score:3, Interesting)
Guardian article [guardian.co.uk]
Slartibartfast??? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Well, isn't that obvious (Score:3, Funny)
God: "Hmm... Kinda bored; Greenwich Village won't exist for 6,000 years... Maybe I'll make some people, see what they get up to."
POOF!
God: "Hey, YOU! Nature-boy! Your name is Adam. See all these animals over here? They're for you. Have fun, but, um..." (thinks for a second) "I know! Ok, see those two trees over there? The ones with the juicy apples and so on? Those are the trees of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and of Life. Yeah... So... You don't need
Re:Well, isn't that obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
If you believe in God, believe in God. If you need proof of God's existence to believe in God, don't believe in God. I happen to believe that God would be quite annoyed with us if we wasted our phenomenally powerful synthetic reasoning skills on trying to prove His existence rather than, say, curing cancer or draining New Orleans.
I believe it is NOT rational to state A) God exists
Re:heh (Score:3, Funny)