Okay, so nuts did it. The thing is, fat, meat, and starch have all been blamed for the big human brain. When do we get round to spices and salt? They’ve been unjustly neglected.
Of course, human origin stories don’t need to be compatible with the fossils; they only need to be compatible with the theory.
Over a thousand of them. How does it compare with Gobekli Tepe? Well, that was ten thousand years ago. The past gets thicker all the time as the dumb caveman recedes …
ScienceAlert: “the new findings are now thought to be the earliest sign of continuous prehistoric human living inside a cave – with the use of fire and tools in one fixed location indoors.” Funny how our ancestors get smarter every time we look at them.
Surprising as it may seem, there is no clear evidence that key thinking skills improve with measured intelligence.
Ross: The human body is optimally designed for speech communication involving just a few people in a quiet setting. It also is optimally designed for what researchers call “cocktail party listening.” Cocktail party listening refers to humans gathered in a crowded situation where many people are talking simultaneously in an environment where music and other background sounds interfere with speech recognition.
At Nature: By measuring these segments, the researchers estimated that the Bacho Kiro individuals had Neanderthal ancestors as recently as the past six or seven generations — and probably in Europe, not the Middle East. “We saw these huge chunks. It was completely amazing,” says Hajdinjak,
In the book, Meyer argues from three scientific discoveries to an inference to a personal God. If God is the creator, Keating wants to know, why was He so patient as to wait billions of years, during which not much that was very interesting happened, for the fulfillment of His purpose in initiating the universe to begin with?
If things are really uncertain at such a fundamental level (protostomes vs. deuterostomes), evolutionary biology could do with a lot less dogmatism in addressing the public.
You’ve heard this one before. From the study group: Eye color is “much more complex than previously thought.”
Hey, we remember when the idea of Neanderthals doing any art was a bombshell in 2012. They were the certified subhuman. While it lasted.
Humans needed bigger brains, we are told, to hunt “smaller, swifter prey. But look at all the other theories.
Of course, it’s all very interesting. That is why we listen. But a dozen different theories are called “science” only out of courtesy. And it’s not clear that Coolidge and Overmann’s thirteenth theory (if that’s the count) is any improvement.
Ian Tattersall offers yet another myth about human bipedalism, in the sense of a tale that sounds plausible to the teller.
The problem journalists always seem to leave hanging when writing about new theories of human evolution is, for example: If early humans weren’t smart already, they would not have learned how to control fire. If they weren’t aesthetically sensitive, they wouldn’t have noticed aesthetic differences in taste. Darwinist theories about the human mind seem to be one long parade of affirming the consequent.