Sunday, April 30, 2006

Neandertals Hunted as Well as Humans

I just love this headline from National Geographic.

Neandertals Hunted as Well as Humans, Study Says

It just got me thinking I have had this blog up all weekend now and have yet to post on Neandertals. Gotta fix that.

The title of NG's article first struck me as kind of weird- the inference I made was the Neandertals were being AS hunted as well as the humans- you know, something was eatting EVERYONE back in the Middle to Late Pleistocene!

It turns out the story is based on an article in Current Anthropology that examines Neandertal hunting techniques and technology in parts of Western Asia.

The authors of the article compare the result of types of animals, quantities of animals hunted, ranges, etc. and noticed that what the Neandertals were doing in regards hunting was just as good as the "modern" humans that supposedly replaced them.

In fact, they determined that even the vaunted technological differences between Neandertals and later humans that, for many years, has been trumpeted as THE significant difference, as it represented differences in intellectual capabilities between the two groups, was unimportant from a hunting standpoint-the Neandertals technology was just as capable and proficient for hunting what they were hunting as the later technologies were. So, then, Neandertals were hunting the same foods in the same quantities using tools that were as efficient as later humans- hmm, seems to be little difference there. So what was the supposed "edge" that "modern" humans used to completely replace he Neandertals with? Why should they be considered different enough to classify them as a separate species?

Well, even the authors of this research admit this isn't really valid based on their work, so do they suggest we reconsider Neandertals as "outside the pale" of modern humanity? By God, NO! They suggest some other vague "behavioral" differences that haven't yet been proven to mean anything important (kinda like the previous thinking about differences in hunting proficiencies).

Once again we have this paradigm problem in science. Like Eldridge and Gould wrote (see Exogenic Inanities Anyone? post), we see in the evidence what we expect to see. Neandertals have been outside the human family tree, scientifically, for 150 years now, so we can't think of them otherwise, despite the facts. And its all because of the damn French!

Marcellin Boule, the renowned French anatomist/scientist/polyglot decided, after looking at a single Neandertal specimen, that they could not have been part of our lineage-problem was, he only looked at an old arthritic individual (the so-called "Old Man of La'Chapelle"). Boule set in motion the idea that Neandertals were beast-like decrepits that were in no way ancestral to the beautiful European modern people.


Boule's interpretation of Neandertals became the paradigm through which, not just the public views, as in these early images derived with Boule's assistance, but the way in which science understood them as well.

That paradigm has been a powerful one to get past. But, as Thomas Kuhn predicted in his seminal work, Structures of Scientific Revolutions, the inadequacies of the established paradigm have been becoming more and more manifest. That being the case, though, as in the article the NG story is based on, the scientists working comfortably in their pre-existing concept of what the facts should say soldier on in generating their new hypotheses based on that old world-view.

But the tide has slowly been changing recently. Newer, often younger, scientists have been looking more closely at the evidence the Neandertals have left us and realizing that many of the old paradigms just don't work. In many ways, Neandertals have been becoming more human.



Its about time. The earliest interpretations of Neandertals are ridiculously conceived and deserve to be retired. Now its time to retire those scientific paradigms that insist on thinking in terms of Neandertals as the 'others.'

In the end, all of these paradigms and interpretations tell us more about ourselves than they have ever told us about Neandertals, anyway.

Soccer Hair!

Being an American that loves soccer/football I am often looked at quizzically and asked "Why?" Its usually followed by something akin to "What would anyone watch that crap for?"

Normally I respond with an intelligent-sounding attempt at describing the beautiful game in terms of sophistication, atmosphere, grace, strategy, athleticism, etc., etc.,...But the answer I really want to give I realize would just go right over too many heads...Its all about the HAIR!

What do I mean? Just relax and enjoy...

There's the classic Italian look of Roberto Baggio...












The unforgettable Bolivian mullet of El Diablo himself, Marco Etcheverry...









And the ALWAYS memorable el Pibe, Carlos Valdarrama...





















And of course the AMERICANS...
My personal favorite Mohawk of Clint Mathis










The spikey Carlos "Charlie Black-mouth" Bocanegra









The many faces of Cobi Jones





















And of course, Alexi Lalas











Lets not forget the current masters of the European coif....
Djibril Cisse





















And the Grand Master himself...David Beckham
















The last one is just for Posh Spice.









But, hey, the Americans can get the girls too...Cobi my MAN!


And THAT is why I LOVE the BEAUTIFUL game!

EDIT: I can't believe I left out the FANS! Here's to you guys....

Exogenic Inanities Anyone?

I figure with all this space, why limit myself to my own silliness? There is plenty of wackiness in this world, so I figure I'll just import some of it for my own purposes.

So I'm finishing up reading of Mary Jane West-Eberhard's massive tome on Developmental Plasticity and Evolution (which has been no small feat, I tell you) and I realize she has come up with yet another of her near continuous oddities of thought. There is, actually, plenty of good and interesting points throughout the 600+ pages here, but there is plenty of inanity as well!

So I come across this tidbit near the end- while discussing punctuation in evolution (which is a seriously contended issue), she writes: admitting “some people [serious scientists]…think [puntuation] has not been shown to exist, and others…call it ‘the dominant empirical evolutionary pattern of the history of life itself’…It is beyond the scope of this chapter to evaluate these opinions [ok, fair enough]. Instead, I assume that the fossil record at least sometimes shows true punctuated change, since punctuated evolutionary change is known from neontological evidence [quotes here own work]” What the HELL?!?! She is saying that the concept of punctuation is still seriously debated, so she isn't going to discuss it, she is SIMPLY GOING TO ASSUME IT HAPPENS BECAUSE SHE DECIDED SHE HAS SEEN IT BEFORE!

If you want to get involved in the discussion, please do, but don't say there is a discussion on-going, you're not going to get involved, and then simply state one side is true because you believe it. And this is by a scientist studying evolution!

This is one of the biggest problems I have with science- too many practitioners operating under preconceived paradigms, with no recognition (even to themselves) that they are doing so. To quote Eldridge and Gould (1972): “The expectations of theory color perception to such a degree that new notions seldom arise from facts collected under the old influence of old pictures of the world. New pictures must cast their influence before facts can be seen in different perspective” (83).

In other words, we, as scientists, see what we expect to see, sometimes despite the facts, and if we want to see something differently, we need to decide how we are going to see it before we can see it.

Pretty cool, hah?

England is Doomed!


Yes, I'm sorry to say, the great footballing (non)nation of England has already rocked out of this summer's World Cup. The great striking duo of scintillating Wayne Rooney and crafty little Michael Owen have both been incapacitated with recent injuries.

Wayne has just recently gone done with a broken foot and Michael is still recovering from one. So what's a (non)nation to do? Not much! Even without the dynamic duo England can probably sneak out of their group in second place, but that's almost certainly going to set up a clash with the host Germans (not quite the same team as past WCs, but still talented-they recently beat our B-C team in Germany 4-1- okay, that ain't saying much).

Even if the heavens open and God himself reaches down to somehow nudge the blessed English past the stolid Huns, they will be up against either the Argentineans or the Dutch (most likely)- can you say TOAST? (Actually, if they get this far Owen will certainly be fully back and Wayne most likely will play-albeit in subpar condition- but they still won't be up to full speed)

Look out world, here come the BLOODY YANKS! When we win the whole kit-and-kaboodle just remember where you heard it first!