The Singing Cavemen
....and the award for the stupidest science story I've seen in months goes to LiveScience.com for "Cave Men Loved to Sing", in which we're told that our cave-dwelling ancestors used echo-location:
With only dull light available from a torch, which couldn't be carried into very narrow passages, the ancient hunters had to use their voices like sonar to explore the crooks and crannies of a newfound cave, Reznikoff explained.
"When acting in a cave in conditions similar to prehistoric ones ... the surroundings a few meters ahead are almost completely dark," he said, adding that "since sound reaches much farther than reduced light, especially in irregular surroundings, the only possibility and security is to explore the cave with the voice and its echoing effects."
This work is good, because... "(some work was done in past years and combined with the latest findings)". A scientific paper being based off previous findings... Fancy that.
The conclusions? -
Because Paleolithic humans had a deep connection with the melodic properties that helped them navigate in a cave, they likely celebrated the unique acoustics by singing in conjunction with their painting sessions.
Boskops – a figment of anthropologists’ imaginations
No doubt you've all seen some of the hype surrounding the new book, Big Brain: The Origins and Future of Human Intelligence by Gary Lynch and Richard Granger. The book argues that a long-extinct hominin species, the "Boskops", were much smarter then we are:
Our big brains, our language ability, and our intelligence make us uniquely human. But barely 10,000 years ago--a mere blip in evolutionary time--human-like creatures called "Boskops" flourished in South Africa. They possessed extraordinary features: forebrains roughly 50% larger than ours, and estimated IQs to match--far surpassing our own. Many of these huge fossil skulls have been discovered over the last century, but most of us have never heard of this scientific marvel.
Prominent neuroscientists Gary Lynch and Richard Granger compare the contents of the Boskop brain and our own brains today, and arrive at startling conclusions about our intelligence and creativity. Connecting cutting-edge theories of genetics, evolution, language, memory, learning, and intelligence, Lynch and Granger show the implications of large brains on a broad array of fields, from the current state of the art in Alzheimer's and other brain disorders, to new advances in brain-based robots that see and converse with us, and the means by which neural prosthetics-- replacement parts for the brain--are being designed and tested. The authors demystify the complexities of our brains in this fascinating and accessible book, and give us tantalizing insights into our humanity--its past, and its future.
It seems to be getting glowing reviews all over the place - Cognitive Neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga says it's "like mixing gas with fire. In this book there are big, explosive ideas by two ingenious brain scientists". William Calvin reviews it in New Scientist ("I've been waiting for someone to write this book for years"). Discover Magazine tells us that the Boskops probably had "an internal mental life literally beyond anything we can imagine".
....and unsurprisingly it's all crap. John Hawks discusses the anthropological evidence for these Boskops and, well, it ain't that good:
This category became untenable as further information about the archaeology of South Africa came to light. Ronald Singer (1958) reviewed the "Boskop race" evidence as it existed by the 1950's. He concluded that there was no reason to maintain that any "big-headed, small-faced group" had existed in prehistory, separate from the current biological variability of "Bushman, Hottentot and Negro." But that view is unsupportable -- in fact, what happened is that a small set of large crania were taken from a much larger sample of varied crania, and given the name, "Boskopoid." This selection was initially done almost without any regard for archaeological or cultural associations -- any old, large skull was a "Boskop". Later, when a more systematic inventory of archaeological associations was entered into evidence, it became clear that the "Boskop race" was entirely a figment of anthropologists' imaginations.
10,000 BC -
The reviews of Roland Emmerich's new movie, 10,000 B.C. ("A prehistoric epic that follows a young mammoth hunter's journey through uncharted territory to secure the future of his tribe") are starting to come through, and it sounds like a bigger crapfest than Apocalypto:
In 10,000 BC, you've got Egyptian pyramids being built by guys using woolly mammoths. I mean, it's the goddamn ice age, and then our main character walks over a hill and suddenly he's in the Nile Valley of 2,000 BC? And these anachronistic bad guy Egyptians (from the ice age) have got ships, horseback riding, and freakin STEEL. Steel? C'mon, guys, you couldn't even consult Wikipedia? I mean, why not just call the movie 2,000 BC and make it about ancient Egypt? Or keep it in 10,000 BC and come up with some other kind of bad guys? Jeezus.
Even BETTER are the comments on the IMDB's forums:
This movie is set before God created heaven and earth and it’s an abomination to create man before god even thought of him.
If the producers of this film would have tried this blasephemous crap 5,300 years ago, Adam and Seth would have thrashed them with their pet Triceratops.
Yes. Thrashed them with a pet Triceratops, indeed.
NYTimes on Young Earth Geology
The NY Times meets some Young Earth/Creationist Geologists, and discusses the increasing 'respectability' of Flood-Geology:
On a muggy afternoon in July, a group of geologists from around the country put on some bug spray and fanned out along one of Ohio’s richest fossil beds. The rock walls were slippery and steep at points, and some people came in their dress shoes straight from the conference that brought them together. But no one seemed daunted; when let loose on the rocks they behaved like children with a piñata, filling their pockets with local specimens and cooing over their treasure. "Ahh, that’s a beautiful brachiopod!" or "A fine trilobite! Let me see that."
A brightly painted sign in the state park explained that 450 million years ago these ancient creatures lived at the bottom of a warm, shallow sea during the Ordovician period. But none of these geologists believed it. As young-earth creationists, they think the earth is about 8,000 years old, give or take a few thousand years. That’s about the amount of time conventional geology says it can take to form one inch of limestone.
Scalzi vs. The Creationism Museum
In short: John Scalzi takes a day trip to the Creationism Museum, and mercilessly mocks the stupidity therein. The photos he took are amazing, and includes what may just possibly be the coolest photo ever:
Feminism wiped out Neanderthals?
This just in - feminism wiped out Neanderthals!
Among Neanderthals, hunting big beasts was women's work as well as men's, so it's a safe bet that female hunters got stomped, gored, and worse with appalling frequency. And a high casualty rate among fertile women - the vital "reproductive core" of a tiny population - could well have meant demographic disaster for a species already struggling to survive among monster bears, yellow-fanged hyenas, and cunning Homo sapien newcomers
Apparently, this is a result of a recent study, but wait, no, it's been kicking around for over a year. What is it about the work of pseudo-scientists that refuses to die?
Now if only stupid reporting wiped out bad science journalism...
Stupid Science Terminology Award #1: “Brainbow”
Here's a new occasional segment that I'm going to run on Henry: The Stupid Science Terminology Award. This week, the award goes to the National Geographic News, for inflicting upon us the nausea-inducing term "brainbow":
In their effort to tease out the details of connections in the nervous system, Lichtman and his colleagues developed about 30 lines of mice.
The team incorporated a chain of three different fluorescent protein genes—which they call a brainbow—into these mice.
