Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Sexual harassment at Scientific American?


Remember the elevator muzak and the skeptics’ scandal mag?

Well now this:

The ongoing mess over Bora Zivkovic’s harassment of women writers in connection with his editorial role at Scientific American and Science Online has moved into the “What is to be done now?” phase. The most prominent and linkable of these are from Maryn McKenna and Kelly Hills, though I’ve also seen the edges of more ephemeral discussions on Twitter. Much of this has focused on formal organizational changes, stripping Bora of power and titles and banning him from the conference. These are entirely appropriate, though partly moot given that he’s resigned from both Scientific American and Science Online– a formal ban is the only remaining step.

Must be Tuesday.

Their silence on the matter till now may be just a way to build desire in the potential mate. Or perhaps to elicit sympathy from other potential mates with empathetic or protective characteristics. One can go in all kinds of legitimate evolutionary directions with this. lpadron
lpadron, sarcasm And I find it hard to believe that women don't "ask" for it, intentionally or not, just so they can pass on their genes. /sarcasm Mung
A world gone mad: Evolution hardwires men to seek ways of passing along their genes. Everyone accepts this. Using a position of power is a long recognized way of doing just that. Yet, everyone objects. What's a man/science writer/community of believers in Darwin to do? lpadron
OT: if you still hold that Neanderthals and Humans were separate species (or even if you now hold that they are the same species) this following study is of interest:
No Known Hominin Is Common Ancestor of Neanderthals and Modern Humans, Study Suggests - Oct. 21, 2013 Excerpt: The article, "No known hominin species matches the expected dental morphology of the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans," relies on fossils of approximately 1,200 molars and premolars from 13 species or types of hominins -- humans and human relatives and ancestors. Fossils from the well-known Atapuerca sites have a crucial role in this research, accounting for more than 15 percent of the complete studied fossil collection. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131021153202.htm
Related notes:
Human/Ape Common Ancestry: Following the Evidence - Casey Luskin - June 2011 Excerpt: So the researchers constructed an evolutionary tree based on 129 skull and tooth measurements for living hominoids, including gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans and humans, and did the same with 62 measurements recorded on Old World monkeys, including baboons, mangabeys and macaques. They also drew upon published molecular phylogenies. At the outset, Wood and Collard assumed the molecular evidence was correct. “There were so many different lines of genetic evidence pointing in one direction,” Collard explains. But no matter how the computer analysis was run, the molecular and morphological trees could not be made to match15 (see figure, below). Collard says this casts grave doubt on the reliability of using morphological evidence to determine the fine details of evolutionary trees for higher primates. “It is saying it is positively misleading,” he says. The abstract of the pair’s paper stated provocatively that “existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution are unlikely to be reliable”.[10] http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/following_the_evidence_where_i047161.html#comment-9266481 Human Origins, and the Real Reasons for Evolutionary Skepticism - Jonathan M. - December 9, 2012 Excerpt: "Cladistic analysis of cranial and dental evidence has been widely used to generate phylogenetic hypotheses about humans and their fossil relatives. However, the reliability of these hypotheses has never been subjected to external validation. To rectify this, we applied internal methods to equivalent evidence from two groups of extant higher primates for whom reliable molecular phylogenies are available, the hominoids and paionins. We found that the phylogenetic hypotheses based on the craniodental data were incompatible with the molecular phylogenies for the groups. Given the robustness of the molecular phylogenies, these results indicate that little confidence can be placed in phylogenies generated solely from higher primate craniodental evidence. The corollary of this is that existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution are unlikely to be reliable." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/human_origins_a1067181.html
Which reminds me, wasn't there something about a pig tooth at one time?
EVOLUTION FORGERIES - excerpt - Piltdown Man: An Orang-utan Jaw and a Human Skull! Nebraska Man: A Single Pig Tooth! Ota Benga: The African Native Put Into a Cage! http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter9.php
Which also reminds me, whatever happened to the pig/chimp hybrid story for human evolution based on anatomical features?:
Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence - July 25, 2013 Excerpt: There was considerable fallout, both positive and negative, from our first story covering the radical pig-chimp hybrid theory put forth by Dr. Eugene McCarthy,,,By and large, those coming out against the theory had surprisingly little science to offer in their sometimes personal attacks against McCarthy. ,,,Under the alternative hypothesis (humans are not pig-chimp hybrids), the assumption is that humans and chimpanzees are equally distant from pigs. You would therefore expect chimp traits not seen in humans to be present in pigs at about the same rate as are human traits not found in chimps. However, when he searched the literature for traits that distinguish humans and chimps, and compiled a lengthy list of such traits, he found that it was always humans who were similar to pigs with respect to these traits. This finding is inconsistent with the possibility that humans are not pig-chimp hybrids, that is, it rejects that hypothesis.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-07-human-hybrids-closer-theory-evidence.html
Oh well, I guess it is just another project for future research since it is not ever a question of 'if' evolution occurred, since evolution is a FACT, FACT, FACT!,, but it is only a question of 'how' evolution occurred! :) Nice work if you can get it! 8) bornagain77

Leave a Reply