deadman_932
Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006
|
Who the hell told this woman Denyse O'Leary that she was a "journalist?" She takes a Science Daily article that is simply a rehash of the U. of Exeter press release and then spins it into dross.
Her thread asks rhetorically " But who had decided that the Neanderthals were dumb in the first place?" --
Well, dumbass Denyse, it was Rudolph Virchow, a virulent "anti-Darwinist" who despised evolution and instead embraced the Naturphilosophie of Schelling while fighting against the acceptance of ANY idea of evolution or any comparisons/relatedness between Neanders and Anatomically Modern Humans (H. sapiens sapiens) until his death in 1902.
It was Virchow who first "officially" declared that Neander remains were "pathological" and indicative of low intelligence.
Erik Trinkhaus, in his textbook-level work "The Neanderthals" puts it this way:
| Quote | | "How is it Virchow can have denied his eyes, in an ultimate betrayal of his long-held credo of honesty and adhering to the evidence at all costs? ..Most important was Virchows blanket belief in the immutability of species and organisms" |
----------
Another amusing note in Denyse O'leary's thread o' tard is her little fantasy about pitting "researchers" (read : evolutionists ) against each other with Mousterian Levallois discoidal core-flakes and Middle Paleo sapiens sapiens blades.
Yeah, no bitterness or stupidity there, right?
-----------
Then we have this amusing end-note from the typing halfwit that is Denyse O'Leary:
| Quote | | Densey writes: " These findings generally support the non-materialist view that human consciousness is not a slowly evolving thing. Once present, it changes everything very quickly. Assuming otherwise leads to mistakes about early humans." |
Okay, let's examine that...remember that Densey is taking the position that this study shows something that she is assuming: that consciousness doesn't evolve slowly, right?
Well, here's the problem: while the Mousterian disc-flakes studied MAY have been comparable to Middle Paleo blades... THE NEANDER TOOL KIT NEVER REALLY CHANGES AT ALL UP TO THE END OF THE NEANDERS.
So, if consciousness moves quickly -- why didn't the Neander tool kit ever significantly change over the course of tens of thousands of years?
Certainly the H. sapiens sapiens toolkits did, O Dense One ...moving from the simple Perigordian blades to Aurignacian and *magnificent* Solutrean tools and finally Magdalenian stone and bone tools (like harpoons) that far surpassed anything ever produced by Neanders in terms of both basal utility and specialized functions.
The kicker for me is this: the Exeter study ONLY LOOKED AT A FEW CRITERIA: "the team analysed the data to compare the number of tools produced, how much cutting-edge was created, the efficiency in consuming raw material and how long tools lasted "
For Densey to leap to HER conclusions from that study's PRESS RELEASE...is indicative of how truly dull she is, not to mention incompetent in terms of actually researching the subject and data.
But then...hey, she's at home with the incompetents at UD.
An on that note -- here's a shout-out to one of her lessers at UD :
yo, Dave "Scooter" Scot - Springer -- Denyse O'Leary has more "juice" (pull, status, power) with Dembski than YOU, you frikkin' halfling? Yeah, THAT dullard has rank over you, Marine-boy.
Got that? Write it down, BOY!! :D :D :D
-----------
Edited by Lou FCD on Aug. 31 2008,20:16
--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism
|
