Humans may have left Africa sooner than once thought

Posted on January 28, 2011 by Michael

I said my views on evolution are always evolving. This is a good example of that.

Modern humans may have left Africa thousands of years earlier than previously thought, turning right and heading across the Red Sea into Arabia rather than following the Nile to a northern exit, an international team of researchers says.

Stone tools discovered in the United Arab Emirates indicate the presence of modern humans between 100,000 and 125,000 years ago, the researchers report in Friday’s edition of the journal Science.

While science has generally accepted an African origin for humans, anthropologists have long sought to understand the route taken as these populations spread into Asia, the Far East and Europe. Previously, most evidence has suggested humans spread along the Nile River valley and into the Middle East about 60,000 years ago.

“There are not many exits from Africa. You can either exit” through Sinai north of the Red Sea or across the straits at the south end of the Red Sea, explained Hans-Peter Uerpmann of the Center for Scientific Archaeology of Eberhard-Karls University in Tuebingen, Germany.

“Our findings open a second way which, in my opinion, is more plausible for a massive movement than the northern route,” he said in a telephone briefing.

These findings are always interesting, but it takes so much evidence to come to any sort of conclusion that the theories put forth are always so tentative. We can say humans probably left Africa earlier than previously thought, but speculation on a new route is less solid.

One recent theory I recall hearing is that humans and Neanderthals once interbred. There is some evidence for it, and just last year some good DNA evidence was uncovered showing as much. In fact, I would go so far as to confidently proclaim that the evidence solidly shows humans interbred with Neanderthals very early in the human exit from Africa. Beyond that, I very much doubt there was interbreeding; the Neanderthals in all probability died out as a unique species, unable to breed with H. sapiens.

I mention this theory because the first thing that popped into my mind upon reading the first few paragraphs of the article was how long it would take until someone suggested Neanderthals may have been responsible for the toolmaking.

The techniques used to make the hand axes, scrapers and other tools found at Jebel Faya in Sharjah Emirate suggest they were produced by people coming from somewhere else, said Anthony E. Marks of Southern Methodist University in Dallas, adding that there are similar tools made about that time in East Africa.

“If these tools were not made by modern man, who might have made them?,” Marks asked. “Could Neanderthals have made them?”

Neanderthals were mainly in Europe and migrated into Russia but “there is no evidence for any Neanderthals south of that” zone at that time, he said. “To suggest one group of Neanderthals took a turn south and went several thousand kilometers … seems to me a very difficult explanation and one that doesn’t follow any reasonable logic.”

I have to agree with that assessment of the data. Humans moved towards Neanderthals, plausibly going through the areas of this recent discovery, not the other way around. Now that we have evidence left by our ancestors, this adds a new route humans took when leaving Africa. I find the scenario plausible, even likely. It still isn’t certain, but there is now some good evidence for it.

Filed under: Evolution | Tagged: , , , | 5 Comments »

Thought of the day

Posted on January 28, 2011 by Michael

If in the course of discussing science you hear someone say, “Well, science used to think the Milky Way was the whole Universe!”, as if to say that because science changes its conclusions based upon changing evidence that it is therefore unreliable now, you likely are having a discussion with a person who is hostile to the whole enterprise. Back away and move on to more a more intelligent and/or unbiased and/or informed individual.

Filed under: Misc | Tagged: , | 7 Comments »

The horrors of Uganda

Posted on January 28, 2011 by Michael

At the hand of Christian hate, gays are being targeted and murdered in Uganda.

David Kato, a Ugandan gay rights campaigner who sued a local newspaper which outed him as homosexual, has been beaten to death, activists have said.

Police have confirmed the death and say they have arrested one suspect.

Uganda’s Rolling Stone newspaper published the photographs of several people it said were gay, including Mr Kato, with the headline “Hang them”.

US President Barack Obama was quoted as saying he was “deeply saddened” to learn of Mr Kata’s death.

His Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has urged authorities to investigate and prosecute the killers.

I have no idea how anyone can say ideas don’t kill people. We’re composed of ideas, of motivations, of convictions – of influences. If we can’t say humans are compositions of ideas, I don’t know how we can even talk about humanity. Anti-gay propaganda, rhetoric, hate, and violent encouragement led to the death of David Kato. And the fire, created from ignorance, is constantly being stoked by a strong Christian faith in the country – along with a strong influence from American Christians who hate gays.

This article would be longer if I wasn’t so sickened.

Filed under: News, Religions | Tagged: , , | 18 Comments »

‘What would change your view on evolution?’

Posted on January 27, 2011 by Michael

I hear that question posed from time to time. Sometimes it is directed at me, but more often I hear it directed towards established (and often famous) scientists. It’s usually a product of creationist rhetoric where the answer doesn’t really matter. Regardless, it is an interesting question.

What would change my view on evolution?

It depends what is meant by “change”. My view on evolution changes quite frequently, actually. Sometimes it’s a qualitative change: the relationships between our known ancestral cousins are always shifting ever so slightly. Often, there is little consensus about where to place certain members of the genus Homo on the evolutionary tree. As new evidence is found, as more research is done, as further facts come to light, my views are always changing on that aspect of evolution.

And then there are quantitative changes. One excellent example comes from the discovery of tetrapod footprints. That discovery pushed the evolution of tetrapods back about 18 million years. All the relationships between species of that general time period stayed the same, but our view of when tetrapods began to populate the land changed.

And then there are all sorts of other changes, like recently when it was shown that natural selection works differently on allele fixation in sexually reproducing populations versus more simple asexual populations. (That was also a qualitative change, but on the genetic, not taxonomic, level.)

So if that is what is meant by “change”, then there are all sorts of examples that show how my views on evolution are, well, evolving. The same can be said of biologists around the world. But what if by “change”, the real question being asked is, What would make me dismiss evolution? Then the answer is very different.

As I recently explained, a basic fact of science is that it does not tend to operate on individual studies. It requires a body of evidence to change views. For example, I reject a connection between cell phone use and cancer. Studies have shown possible links, but they have been far from conclusive, weak even. And more importantly, there is a body of evidence showing no significant link. I’m going with the evidence in bulk, not the individual packaging. This relates directly to the question of what it would take to get me to dismiss evolution because there is a famous quote by J.B.S. Haldane I had in mind when starting this post. When asked what it would take to change his mind, he retorted,

Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.

But that wouldn’t change my mind. My very first suspicion would be fraud; I suspect little more from creationists (and we know how much they would be promoting such a discovery). But let’s say it came from a reputable research team, then what? I would admittedly be perplexed. There is no reason a fossil rabbit ought to be found in that era, but that doesn’t mean we get to throw out such a well established theory as evolution. We know evolution is true insomuch as we know gravity is true. It would necessarily take more than a few rabbit fossils to alter the unifying theory of biology, just as it would take more than an apple falling up for us to alter the theory of gravity. Even if we could never explain the fossils satisfactorily, I would have no doubts that evolution still formed the basis of my field of choice.

What would change my view would be the discovery of a number of fossils in all the wrong places. We would need to start finding mammals and birds dating back 800 million years; we would need to see dinosaur fossils embedded in the rocks of 20 million years ago; we would, yes, need to see rabbit fossils in the Precambrian. No, I don’t need these specific examples, but I do need these sort of examples. I don’t want just individual anomalies that fly in the face of modern theories. I need more than that: it takes a body of evidence to start changing my view. Because that’s how science works.

Filed under: Evolution | Tagged: , , , , , | 13 Comments »

When raising taxes works

Posted on January 27, 2011 by Michael

There are a few times when I think raising taxes is a good thing. If the unemployment rate is down? You might want to raise them. If it’s on an industry that is making more than it could ever need (i.e., the oil industry)? You might want to raise them. If the tax rate is extremely low already and you need funds, a la Illinois? Raise them. That doesn’t mean we always want high taxes. We don’t. But this no-taxes-ever mentality needs to stop. It’s just plain bad economics/greed.

Recently the mayor of Omaha raised taxes and some fees. He was heavily criticized, and in fact, he was almost recalled. But it’s a good thing that city has Jim Suttle.

[Recall] Organizers accused Suttle of supporting excessive taxes, breaking his promises and pushing for changes that threaten the city’s economic future.

But the tax increases helped the city generate a $3.3 million surplus by the end of 2010 and restore its AAA bond rating, meaning it can borrow money on more favorable terms.

It seems to me that the primary motivation for low taxes in all scenarios, aside from the usual greed and dismissal of poor people, is that people think the sooner they get money, the better off they will be. But that is not always the case. In fact, when it comes to investing in infrastructure, something the U.S. has largely been ignoring for the past couple of decades, it is absolutely the long term view that wins. In Omaha’s case, the investment was in gaining a better bond rating. (That isn’t to dismiss the short term win here as well; the massive increase in revenue has helped with the city’s current fiscal crisis.)

So are there times when it is best to raise taxes? Absolutely. In Omaha’s case, it has very low unemployment (4.7%; 4.4% for Nebraska). That doesn’t mean it would always be good to raise taxes. If the city had no shortfall, then why do it? But in tough times, people have to learn to sacrifice. I know that’s an unpopular notion in the 21st century, but it’s the only way a healthy economy can be sustained sometimes.

Filed under: News, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , | 10 Comments »

Greed and libertarianism

Posted on January 26, 2011 by Michael

Charles and David Koch are two of the wealthiest men in the world. They’ve funded a vast number of projects, especially in New York, and it would be hard to say boo to a lot of what they’ve done: they’ve restored theaters, supported museums, and even funded cancer centers. This has all been at whopping costs, ranging into the hundreds of millions of dollars. But this is just the stuff that’s going to be mentioned in their eulogies.

The Koch brothers have also channeled millions and millions of dollars into efforts to deny reality. They’ve fought many Democratic policies tooth and nail, giving sly support (i.e., funding) to the Tea Party movement, and it’s all been done in the guise of libertarianism. The reality is much different.

In a study released this spring, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute named Koch Industries one of the top ten air polluters in the United States. And Greenpeace issued a report identifying the company as a “kingpin of climate science denial.” The report showed that, from 2005 to 2008, the Kochs vastly outdid ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups. Indeed, the brothers have funded opposition campaigns against so many Obama Administration policies—from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program—that, in political circles, their ideological network is known as the Kochtopus.

They have even gone so far as to fund an exhibit on evolution (good) in an effort to deny the significance of global warming (bad).

Underlying the libertarian ideology of the Koch brothers is greed. Given the massive revenues of Koch Industries ($100 billion annually), it ought to be surprising, but it really isn’t. Libertarianism has its root in the positive ideals of liberty and freedom, but it almost always is taken too far, taken to a point where it causes obvious harm. In this case, the Koch brothers are using their ideology to motivate a sizable portion of the country to do their biding, including: reducing government help for the needy, polluting the planet, and harming our infrastructure. No one wants these things. No one wants people to be needy, no one wants pollution, no one wants bad roads and bridges. The pragmatic (i.e., reasonable) position is to find a middle ground which allows us to afford all these good things while making sure we aren’t harming jobs and other necessities. Given the $100 billion in annual revenue, I would say Koch Industries doesn’t particularly need any more “liberty”; it has been thriving just fine within our current system. (And I suspect it would continue to thrive even if it didn’t skirt laws and undermine reality.) Pragmatism, in this case, tells us there is no need to further enrich the Koch brothers; if anything, they ought to be taxed more.

Of course, this all is somewhat a misrepresentation of libertarianism. The reality is that very few people actually adhere to such an abhorrent ideology because, like with all ideologies, it quickly reaches a point of ridiculousness and harm. Who can name an actual libertarian politician in America, after all? Rand Paul is the closest, but when he maintained his ideology and said people ought to be able to deny black people service, there was an uproar – even among Teabaggers. Unfortunately for all the so-called libertarians, Paul was perfectly in line with the ideology. It wasn’t that he said black people ought to be denied service. In fact, it’s unfathomable that he believes that. What he said was that people ought to have the right to deny others service. That is libertarianism. Sorry if facts rub you the wrong way, Teabaggers.

Besides that, most so-called libertarian Teabaggers are really just far right-wing conservatives who only favor economic libertarianism. Don’t believe me? Go to the nearest rally on April 15th and start asking how many Teabaggers think gay marriage ought to be legal. Or go far enough south and see how many still favor anti-sodomy laws. I doubt the spirit of libertarianism will be so buoyant at that point. And the reason is simple: libertarianism is a convenient excuse for greed. That is why it is so selectively applied to economic issues. People aren’t adhering to a bad ideology because they think it’s good. They’re adhering to a bad ideology because they think it’s good for their wallets.

There isn’t anything inherently bad about wanting personal wealth and success. You want it? You can get it? Go nuts. But if it’s done at the expense of the poor, of the middle class, even of other wealthy people (that last one is a stretch), then tough. Too bad. Back off. There is something inherently bad about wanting personal wealth and success when it makes the poor poorer, when it increases the income gap, when it makes workers weaker, when it harms the overall economy, when it’s done in an unfair way. We all want to see poor people rise up, we all want to see the middle class increase, we all want to see workers have control over their well being, we all want to see a strong economy, we all want to see a fundamental fairness in our system. Following a sloppy, or even worse, a stringent, libertarian ideology gets us further and further away from all that.

Filed under: Philosophy, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , | 8 Comments »

Michele Bachmann hates history

Posted on January 26, 2011 by Michael

I thought it was pretty terrible when I heard about this historical rewriting.

Archivist of the United States David S. Ferriero announced today that Thomas Lowry, a long-time Lincoln researcher from Woodbridge, VA, confessed on January 12, 2011, to altering an Abraham Lincoln Presidential pardon that is part of the permanent records of the U.S. National Archives. The pardon was for Patrick Murphy, a Civil War soldier in the Union Army who was court-martialed for desertion.

Lowry admitted to changing the date of Murphy’s pardon, written in Lincoln’s hand, from April 14, 1864, to April 14, 1865, the day John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln at Ford’s Theatre in Washington, DC. Having changed the year from 1864 to 1865, Lowry was then able to claim that this pardon was of significant historical relevance because it could be considered one of, if not the final official act by President Lincoln before his assassination.

This is unfortunate. All that makes this any less lamentable is the fact that at least we know the true history of the document and it can no longer have an effect on us.

Too bad that isn’t the case with Michele Bachmann. (Embedding is disabled and WordPress hates embedding CNN videos directly.) She apparently thinks the founding fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery.

The Tea Party fave said that “the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States….Men like John Quincy Adams, who would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country.”

First, John Quincy Adams was not a founding father. Second, no founding father worked tirelessly to end slavery. The one who did the most was Jefferson when he ended the slave trade, but he certainly did not work without tire in order to end the practice all together. Third, virtually all the founding fathers owned black people. Fourth, in case Bachmann or a Bachmann supporter is reading this, let me spell it out: those black people? They were slaves.

Bachmann is said to be looking at a presidential run. As awful as it would be to have such a goof as president, I can’t deny I have a little morbid curiosity. Throw in Sarah Palin and, well, wouldn’t it at least be interesting?

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , | 7 Comments »

“I didn’t choose to be gay.”

Posted on January 25, 2011 by Michael

Take a look at this video where a high school senior by the name Kayla K (“Kearney” appears in the tags of the video) takes the stage at a Martin Luther King, Jr. assembly earlier this month to come out as gay. Or rather, to bravely come out as gay.

It’s people like this that ought to give us real hope.

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , | 16 Comments »

Wish Christopher Hitchens well

Posted on January 25, 2011 by Michael

I told him that I admire him. And I do.

Now it’s your turn to wish Christopher Hitchens well.

Filed under: Misc | Tagged: | 4 Comments »

Thought of the day

Posted on January 25, 2011 by Michael

It amazes me when the Christian majority claims some sort of systematic persecution in the U.S. (or most other countries). Have they even bothered to look around?

Filed under: Misc | Tagged: , | 2 Comments »

« Previous Page — Next Page »