Ophiolite

Anecdotal opinions in science and medicine are inherently flawed. In medicine, in particular, they are downright dangerous. Consider the following: 1. You do not know if the individuals are speaking the truth. 2. You do not know if the individuals have properly understood there experience. 3. You do not know if the individuals have accurately reported there experience. Given that they will not have been medically trained there is little reason to expect that they have properly understood, or accurately reported their experience. It is by applying that kind of anecdotal experience that we have seen develop the nonsense surrounding vaccinations. To address your final question. This sub-forum is to discuss scientific development in the fields of anatomy, physiology and neuroscience, and to ask and answer general questions about these subject areas.

I am not sure in what way I was unclear. A refutation has been published. In science hypotheses will be proposed, countered, re-proposed with modifications, attacked again, and so on, until either the hypothesis moves onto very solid ground or is shown to be false. Since, I have not read the refutation - I noted only that I understood it existed - then I cannot comment on how sound the refutation is. I recommend you seek, perhaps through Google Scholar, to locate the refutation. If you find it, please let us know.

The only feedback you should seek, the only feedback you should receive, the only feedback you should pay attention to, is the feedback that says "If you have a medical issue, seek medical help. Do not look for advice on the internet." I am pleased to see you have done this. It is the only sensible approach. It is the only intelligent approach.

Most dinosaurs were small, or medium sized. Many were warm blooded. Only the larger "models" would have been disadvantaged. And dinosaurs did survive the impact. I can see several flying outside my window at the moment.

It is plausible and the paper in which it was proposed was reasonably well argued. I understand there was a refutation of the argument published a couple of years later, but I have not read that.

Excellent post.

I know, from meticulous analysis by some very tough editorial "red pens" that my writing is not that bad. Please be more attentive when you read. 1. If you are seriously unaware that our classification systems are artificial then demand a refund on any scientific qualifications for which you had to pay for the related tuition. I mean, seriously. You don't understand they are artificial? 2. They are, however, assuredly not a waste of time. They are a convenient and necessary means of describing aspects of the world in a systematic fashion. 3. What is a waste of time is foolishly abusing them, as you are doing, by according a meaningless importance to distinctions that are unimportant of themselves.

Those are the same fossils which you have failed to provide detailed, quantitative specifications to justify your interpretation of what is and is not modern. You are the one challenging current views. The onus is on you to justify that position. Frankly, I am quite ready to be persuaded by a logical argument, supported by evidence. It's just that to date your argument is short of both. If such a scientist were to base his case upon rough similarities, I should treat his argument with the same disdain I presently treat yours. Indeed, I should likely treat him with disdain, since unlike you he cannot use the excuse of being an amateur. Yes, I think I got that point. You seem to have missed the counterpoint: anything we pinpoint in such a way is completely arbitrary, since the evolutionary path to humans alive today has been by a series of tiny steps. Where you place the boundary is unimportant. What is important is the path that has been taken. Let me put it in large letters for you. Classification systems are artificial. Nature does not recognise them. Your misunderstanding of this fundamental is what this entire thread has turned out to be about. In focusing on an inconsequential you are missing the important issues. But, as I noted earlier, it is your right to be wrong. Precisely. So stop wasting your frigging time on inconsequential and incidental matters of nomenclature.

I am having no difficulty understanding this opinion of yours. As far as I am able to tell no one else participating in this thread has any difficulty understanding this opinion of yours. However: 1. You initially offered no evidence to support this opinion. 2. It took multiple efforts by multiple members to extract what you considered to be evidence and that turned out to have nothing to do with your initial assertion. 3. While you acknowledge that the definition of species can be nebulous you seem blithely unaware of the impact this has on your position. At the end of the day I for one understand that you think the term "modern human" has been misapplied, whereas I think it is used in different senses by different workers, at different times and in different contexts. If you find some comfort in adopting some absolute position on a matter that is currently extremely fluid, that is your right. Apart from a warm, fuzzy feeling of security I can see no advantage to it. Certainly there is no scientific advantage. So, unless you introduce some new thought to the discussion, I think I am done here.

Evan F, your most recent posts suggest that your essential point is that if it doesn't walk exactly like a duck, swim like a duck, quack like a duck and lay eggs, then it is not a duck. You then proceed to argue that only mallards are true ducks. Have I missed something?

Thank you for posting that.I wish you well in your program of escape. It sounds like you have the motivation and the mindset to make it.

It seems I was unclear in my post. There are differences between modern humans and archaic humans. I am not now, nor have I every disputed this statement, for it is automatically true as a consequence of definition. (I am at a loss as to how you believed I was making such a claim, but attribute it to ambiguous writing on my part.) Two things are in dispute. What are the nature of these differences and where, in the "timeline" of specimens we have available does the division occur. If you read any textbook, popular science work, or relevant research paper published on the matter during the last two decades then these areas of dispute are clear. These matters present a moving target that moves because of differences of opinion among the experts, because of new information, some gleaned by new techniques, and new interpretations of old evidence. That is what makes this such an exciting area of research. Yet you come into this debate overbrimming with confidence that you can easily pick out the archaic from the non-archaic human. Such confidence can arise in one of two ways: 1. You are superbly well equipped to make such a distinction. 2. You are seriously over-confident in your abilities. It is very easy to distinguish between these two explanations for your approach. If the explanation is number 1 then you will be able to specify which features enable you to make the distinction between archaic and modern humans and to quantify the magnitude of those differences. Your deviation into aspects of culture are irrelevant, since you say you make the distinction from half a dozen skulls. You have avoided addressing this key point twice now. A third time will suggest you are completely unable to do so. This will signal to readers that you have nothing interesting to say, since your claims are unreliable. I hope you will now take this opportunity to address this point properly. Feel free to address any other aspect of my post(s), but please do ensure this is the one that takes precedence. Indeed. Your argument is exactly that. This is how I would have expected such an argument to proceed in this way: I believe the consensus view on the earliest date at which modern humans evolved is incorrect. The date was much later. I base this belief on the following specific observations relating to anatomy of hominids dated to the last 200,000 years. {Quantitative details of specific features on which the argument is based} What are your views on this? Instead we got this approach: I believe the consensus view on the earliest date at which modern humans evolved is incorrect. The date was much later. Any fool can see that some of the so-called modern human beings are in fact archaic. Don't ask me for facts, the differences are obvious and I certainly don't need to tell you what they are Why aren't you agreeing with me? You display some of the characteristics of someone with an agenda. I am tempted to say these characteristics are obvious even to an amateur forum member, but I shall be specific. 1. Emotional content from the outset. 2. Misinterpretation of data. 3. Cherry picking of data. 4. Dismissive tone. This is unfortunate as you may actually have some interesting points to make, but they are currently being lost in a reaction against your style and a failure to support your argument properly.

I am certainly an amateur in evolution theory, despite a geology degree that contained a significant amount of paleontology. Nor would I expect a further couple of decades informal and at times casual study of the development of evolutionary theory from Darwin and Wallace, through de Vries et al, on to Haldane, Fisher and Sewell Wright, from there to Mayr/Dhobzansky/Simpson and the more recent punctuated equilibrium, or evo-devo, despite, or perhaps because of all that I remain very clearly an amateur, though perhaps one who is reasonably informed. Likewise my grasp of hominids is woefully inadequate, being limited to the little I have gleaned from reading biographies of the likes of Eugene Dubois, the work of the Leakeys, including their sponsoring of field primate research by Gilkas, Fossey and Goodall, conventional reviews by the likes of Tattersall, or radical interpretations by such as Deacon, not to mention a hundred or so reasonably recent research papers on the topic. So, I fully concede that the term amateur is a wholly appropriate and accurate description. Where we differ is in your expectation that an amateur could make the distinction you say is so obvious. Well, as Strange has pointed out, you have completely failed to address the quantitative difference you assert is there, or even to specify which features are affected. You sound very much like the late Victorian phrenologists who imagined differences in the form of the skull that revealed the individual's character. On closer examination those features and supposed relationships evaporated. I await some evidence that your claimed clear distinctions are anything more than the same, at least in the manner in which you claim them. I'm not seeking to give you a hard time, I am just suggesting, as Moontanman has so eloquently put it, that your idea is "full of horse feathers". And I'm just puzzled as to how someone who has studied the topic as much as you have could arrive at such erroneous conclusions.

Hello Evan. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I must question your objectivity. Let me seek to reveal the lack of that objectivity to you. Please specify which features differ between "modern human" and "pre-modern humans". Further, specify the quantitative magnitude of difference that distinguishes between one and another. Explain in what way you have taken account of variations of these quantities in potential specimens that would have been alive at the same time. Explain how you have determined the extent of such variation. If you are unable to do this then you are not engaged in science, but in amateurish pre-Enlightenment classification.

I watched only a portion of the first debate. Clinton, as one would have expected, appeared professional, well prepared and informed. I struggled to figure out what was familiar about Trump. Then I realised his style was a match for the fools who post "new theories" here and are immune to facts, full of bluster and react violently to any hint of criticism. Frightening.

I am also Scottish. Consequently I know I am correct and the other guy is wrong. That's his problem, not mine, so I can relax. Hope all will go well with you.

And to develop a point made by Phi, the only people who are never wrong are the people who never have an idea. Having wrong ideas is a prerequisite for having right ideas.

My perspective on this "sort of thing": The underlying motive for those who question mainstream science are very close indeed to those who practice mainstream science. A fascination with the character of one or more aspects of the universe and a strong desire to further our understanding of those aspects. Youth, or lack of education in the field places few constraints on what can or should be challenged. This encourages me to try to be sympathetic even when faced with the same weak arguments, presented as original thought, but backed with the same ineffective cliches. As to the matter of definitions, I suspect this is a combination of misunderstanding what the correct definition means and a genuine insight into what might be a commonplace for the experienced, but is an eye-opener for the neophyte, regardless of how badly contorted and wrong it may be. I hope you will decide to remain. One of the most difficult things to learn is that the practice of science often involves brutal and vigorous attacks on the ideas of others. Trust me: if you feel you were subject to severe criticism you are badly mistaken. If a long term member had thought you were well versed in the sciences they would have dismembered your post in excruciating an painful detail, twisted your intestines into a knotted mess and run them through an industrial strength grinder. If you were not welcome then members would not have taken the time to criticise your idea. If you were not welcome they would simply have ignored you. Odd as it may seem taking the time to point out the errors in your thinking is a sign of respect for you. Do stay.

Detailed research has revealed that thinking of Tesla is generally not a good idea. Mentioning that you are thinking of him is almost never a good idea.

The problem would be that there is no original idea for an SF story in what he has proposed. The ideas are imaginative, it is just that several authors have already imagined them and included them in their stories, with greater or lesser success.

You may find the linked paper of interest. Balzeau, A. et al "First description of the Cro-Magnon 1 endocast and study of brain variation and evolution in anatomically modern Homo sapiens" Bull. Mém. Soc. Anthropol. Paris (2013) 25:1-18 Their conclusions: Developments in brain mapping and computational anatomy in the last twenty years have expanded possibilities for analysing brain structure and function. Here we have opened up a new perspective on knowledge of the anatomy of the H. sapiens brain, whose recent evolution had never before been investigated in the light of this feature, which is clearly an important gap in scientific knowledge. A decrease in absolute endocranial size has occurred between fossil specimens and recent populations in H. sapiens. This variation is also associated with noticeable non-allometric variations in the relative size and shape of the different areas of the brain of fossil and extant AMH, which may be described and summarised as follows. The overall shape of the endocasts does not exhibit noticeable changes in width, but it does show substantial vertical and anteroposterior variations. The frontal lobes have become relatively shorter anteroposteriorly and their surface has decreased. Parietal lobes are longer while the surface of the parietotemporal lobes has not changed. Occipital lobes have become shorter vertically and their surface has decreased. This is related to an anteroposterior “compression” of the endocast and to a vertical “compression”of its upper part where its width does not differ between fossil and extant AMH. As of now, these morphological variations of the brain during the recent evolution of our species are impossible to correlate with functional data or interpretations of variations in human capacities that have certainly not varied so widely overtime. This illustrates the complex correlation between form and function and highlights the considerable plasticity of the H. sapiens brain. Incidentally, a search for "Cro Magnon" on Google Scholar returns over 14,000 hits, including over 3,000 from the last five years. That suggests that the science world is doing quite a lot of talking about them.

Can you point to any specific generally accepted theory that you suspect may be seriously flawed? If so, what leads you to suspect this flaw, other than the principal that science sometimes gets things wrong?

The problem is this. I imagine you would like your idea to be given serious consideration. However, if your writing rambles, the assumption will be that your thinking rambles. Experience suggests that a rambling thinker is not worth paying attention to. Rambling in thought while in creative mode can be beneficial, but when it comes time to test and explain your ideas, well organised thinking is essential.) Whatever you saw was not factual. We have not launched bombs at the moon. By structure I presume you mean artificial structure. No serious observer has ever noted an artificial structure on the moon, other than the spacecraft we have landed there. Please provide a single example of these supposed advanced technology. (I do not wish to discourage you. You have an active imagination and that is a valuable asset in many walks of life. But an undisciplined imagination that takes as its starting point the sensationalist nonsense in certain documentaries, tabloid papers and best selling books, is an imagination that will be led astray.) Very few well educated, properly informed, thoughtful people "keep saying 'maybe we were visited in the past'" and mean it in the way you mean it. I give you a simple challenge. There is no lost city that was created from pyrite. Prove me wrong. There may be a lost city that contains some objects or decoration made of pyrite. So what? Pyrite is commonplace. Prove me wrong. Carbon dating does not work on pyrite, so what are you yabbering about? Prove me wrong. There isn't even enough material in the asteroid belt to make moon, let alone a planet. No astronomer today, or for several decades has seriously considered that hypothesis. All those points aside there is one glaring failing in your story. If we are ETs how come our DNA shows close and appropriate similarities with all life on this planet?

To answer the OP question, the BLM movement is more effectively revealing an existing division, not deepening it.

This suggestion is simplistic in the extreme, but I have found it often works. When a situation arises that might generate anger, or worry, or frustration, or any negative emotion we have a choice as to how we react to it. We do not have to feel anger, or worry or frustration if we choose not to. The trick is to react quickly when the emotion begins to build and decide then and there I choose not to feel this way. It does require a conscious act of will. It does not always work. But I have found it so successful that in some situations I have to fake the expected emotion since others get confused if they do not see it.