What can science not explain?

EndaHonesty · 24-03-2016 02:14PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Where is the personal insult? The closest I came - and by god one would need to be digging deep to find insult - was suggesting your knowledge of this subject is or appears to be minimal. Folks are welcome to suggest my knowledge of Hurling is minimal. I don't see it as an insult as it is a plain fact. More I would see it as a good reason not to try and debate the finer points of the sport with someone with even a passing knowledge of it.

Anyway, here's a thought. Rather than pulling a huff because someone doesn't agree with you on the interwebs maybe try and get into a discussion that rebuts any of the points backed up by evidence I made, with your own points also backed up by evidence. I'd be all ears for that.

Why thank you.

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm afraid EH, you and any knowledge on the subject are not befellows

Dress it up anyway you want but to tell someone the don't have ANY knowledge of any subject based on 2 or 3 posts on a forum is an insult.

Never mind that the subject at hand is one based largely on individual's interpretation of incomplete evidence.

You obviously love your position as self proclaimed expert on all things.
Your rambling and meandering posts confirm this.

Maximus Alexander · 24-03-2016 02:35PM

EndaHonesty wrote: »

Dress it up anyway you want but to tell someone the don't have ANY knowledge of any subject based on 2 or 3 posts on a forum is an insult.

Never mind that the subject at hand is one based largely on individual's interpretation of incomplete evidence.

You obviously love your position as self proclaimed expert on all things.
Your rambling and meandering posts confirm this.

Wait, which one of you was supposed to be doling out personal insults? :rolleyes:

Wibbs · 24-03-2016 02:40PM

Stating that the science around this subject is

EndaHonesty wrote: »

pure speculation based on no solid evidence

shows little background knowledge on the subject. That is not an insult it is a pretty accurate reading of the matter, a reading that you can easily dispel by debating the points.

Never mind that the subject at hand is one based largely on individual's interpretation of incomplete evidence.

OK then post up any evidence of your suggested hypothesis that we "ate Neandertals".

There is no evidence of the neanderthals being the barbaric ones.

I gave a link to clear evidence that they sometimes killed, skinned, butchered and fed on members of their own species(in that case likely a family group). That is pretty "barbaric" by our terms of reference. There is also evidence in the bones that they likely thumped each other around from time to time in heavy duty attacks. They also cared for others who were injured and disabled so like modern humans they were a complex people.

I know the meme of "oh noes humans are so awful" is a meme for some, but as usual the world isn't so black and white.

24-03-2016 02:49PM

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Gout, science cannot explain gout.
And who the heck named it?

Maybe I'm missing something but crystallisation of uric acid?

EndaHonesty · 24-03-2016 02:50PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Stating that the science around this subject is shows little background knowledge on the subject. That is not an insult it is a pretty accurate reading of the matter, a reading that you can easily dispel by debating the points.

OK then post up any evidence of your suggested hypothesis that we "ate Neandertals".

I gave a link to clear evidence that they sometimes killed, skinned, butchered and fed on members of their own species(in that case likely a family group). That is pretty "barbaric" by our terms of reference. There is also evidence in the bones that they likely thumped each other around from time to time in heavy duty attacks. They also cared for others who were injured and disabled so like modern humans they were a complex people.

I know the meme of "oh noes humans are so awful" is a meme for some, but as usual the world isn't so black and white.

My speculation comment was made in relation to Scumlord's comment. It wasn't a sweeping statement about Anthropology.

ScumLord wrote: »

Neanderthals had fire, by many accounts they were at least as sophisticated as humans and had bigger brains. They're problem is they didn't trade or socialise outside of their own familiar group. Two groups of humans could come across each other and would probably have a meal together, do some trading, maybe swap some members and go about their merry way. If neanderthals were like most other animals on this planet when they came across another group of neanderthals they probably started fighting each other.

All of that is pure speculation on his part! Nevermind his incorrect use of the word "accounts".

And you can easily find clear evidence of modern day human's engaging in cannibalism, witnessed accounts of it, not speculation based on incomplete evidence.

Your "evidence" from tens of thousands of years ago is nothing more than isolated snapshots interpreted by individuals.

My comment on humans eating neanderthals was not a sweeping statement of my own beliefs, again it was in relation to Scumlord's speculation.

Boom_Bap · 24-03-2016 02:52PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe I'm missing something but crystallisation of uric acid?

That's what they want you to believe. :pac:

AtomicHorror · 24-03-2016 03:40PM

Boom_Bap wrote: »

That's what they want you to believe. :pac:

Big Gout Lobby here. Be quiet or we will silence you.

Wibbs · 24-03-2016 03:47PM

EndaHonesty wrote: »

All of that is pure speculation on his part!

OK let's go down the list.

Neanderthals had fire

Yep, they did indeed. Huge amounts of evidence for this. Hearths, fire hardened spear points, charcoal, burnt flints, burnt bone, heat affected under sediments, even down to a complex glue made from a particular type of resin that required a sophisticated control of temperature under anaerobic conditions. Some have called the latter the first industrial process. I'd not hype it that far but...

they were at least as sophisticated as humans

Up to about 100,000 years ago we were close enough to each other alright. It would have been difficult to bet who would be the winner. By 50-60Kya we were advancing and by 30Kya we were extremely far ahead of them across the board.

and had bigger brains.

True. They also had larger bodies, so the brain/body size ratio was about the same and much of their extra grey matter was located in the visual cortex. Plus brain size isn't everything, how those brains are organised makes a big difference.

They're problem is they didn't trade or socialise outside of their own familiar group.

Huge amount of evidence that backs this up. Non local items are extreme rarities in Neandertal settlements. Their "stuff" comes from a few miles around their home bases. Modern humans had items that could come from many hundreds of miles away, through trade an haven much wider social networks.

Two groups of humans could come across each other and would probably have a meal together, do some trading, maybe swap some members and go about their merry way.

While it may not have always been so rosy, indeed judging by modern tribal types it often isn't, but yes modern humans had more and wider networks of trade and contact and yes there is plenty of evidence for this too. One would be the rapidity of ideas transmission. It is very fast among early moderns. If one group comes up with a new weapon, or material or technique it spreads rapidly. On the other hand previous human's innovations are extremely slow to come and even slower to transmit and ways of doing things remain static for very long periods of time.

EndaHonesty wrote:

And you can easily find clear evidence of modern day human's engaging in cannibalism, witnessed accounts of it, not speculation based on incomplete evidence.

*sigh* Human bones with skinning and butchery cut marks, smashed long bones for marrow, the exact same you would find on a prey animal is not "incomplete evidence". Short of going back in a time machine it's about as solid evidence as one can get. If a modern day pathologist found a group of recent bones with such a suite of features they would conclude human butchery and consumption of other humans and it would stand up in court. Oh and this research often engages medical doctors to take a look at the evidence.

There is a lot of speculation about those times, but the stuff that Scumlord listed is pretty damned solid as far as evidence goes.

TBH I really don't know what would begin to convince you or what you would define as evidence, short of building a flux capacitor. Maybe you're happier with the "oh woe, humans are awful" meme and good luck with that.

ScumLord · 24-03-2016 03:52PM

EndaHonesty wrote: »

All of that is pure speculation on his part! Nevermind his incorrect use of the word "accounts".

You're determined to focus on that, why not stick to the debate at hand. From what I can tell I'm borderline wrong rather than wrong enough to derail a thread to avoid the topic.

Your "evidence" from tens of thousands of years ago is nothing more than isolated snapshots interpreted by individuals.

That's true, but if we find a couple of neanderthal camps and there's evidence of long term fires in one spot then most people would feel ok with assuming Neanderthals knew how to make fire. We weren't there, we can't say for sure that aliens didn't turn up and light fires for the neanderthals, or that crows can start fires but have hidden this fact from homo sapiens for thousands of years. But seeing as we have evidence that humans have been using fire for long time and we're the only animal we know of that can start fires then we can safely assume it was a humans that made the fires and neanderthal were the only humans in the area at the time. If any human had a environmental drive to have fire it was the neanderthal. Humans are bassically tropical apes, even with the neanderthals adaptations their bodies weren't ideally evolved for the environment.

Speculation, yes, but it's not wild speculation. It's an educated opinion. Not my opinion by the way, I'm simply regurgitating the opinions of smarter people.

I don't speculate anything, I follow human history. The stone age is a part of history I find fascinating. The people around back then were essentially the same machine as us, they weren't mindless brutes and I don't think neanderthals were either.

But this argument really comes down to the fact that you think humans are cruel and actively out to bring suffering into the world. You took offense at me saying humans are the nicest animal that has ever walked the face of the earth.

conorhal · 24-03-2016 03:53PM

12Phase wrote: »

Why the Irish electorate have collective amnesia and what Americans find so attractive about Donald Trump...

I believe both questions were comprehensively answered by Stealers Wheel

"Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right,
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you."

EndaHonesty · 24-03-2016 05:28PM

ScumLord wrote: »

But this argument really comes down to the fact that you think humans are cruel and actively out to bring suffering into the world. You took offense at me saying humans are the nicest animal that has ever walked the face of the earth.

My argument has nothing to do with whether humans are cruel or not, I simply have a problem with people like you and Wibbs coming here on making statements of fact when they are nothing of the like.

EndaHonesty · 24-03-2016 05:39PM

Wibbs wrote: »

OK let's go down the list.

Yep, they did indeed. Huge amounts of evidence for this. Hearths, fire hardened spear points, charcoal, burnt flints, burnt bone, heat affected under sediments, even down to a complex glue made from a particular type of resin that required a sophisticated control of temperature under anaerobic conditions. Some have called the latter the first industrial process. I'd not hype it that far but...

Up to about 100,000 years ago we were close enough to each other alright. It would have been difficult to bet who would be the winner. By 50-60Kya we were advancing and by 30Kya we were extremely far ahead of them across the board.

True. They also had larger bodies, so the brain/body size ratio was about the same and much of their extra grey matter was located in the visual cortex. Plus brain size isn't everything, how those brains are organised makes a big difference.

Huge amount of evidence that backs this up. Non local items are extreme rarities in Neandertal settlements. Their "stuff" comes from a few miles around their home bases. Modern humans had items that could come from many hundreds of miles away, through trade an haven much wider social networks. While it may not have always been so rosy, indeed judging by modern tribal types it often isn't, but yes modern humans had more and wider networks of trade and contact and yes there is plenty of evidence for this too. One would be the rapidity of ideas transmission. It is very fast among early moderns. If one group comes up with a new weapon, or material or technique it spreads rapidly. On the other hand previous human's innovations are extremely slow to come and even slower to transmit and ways of doing things remain static for very long periods of time.

*sigh* Human bones with skinning and butchery cut marks, smashed long bones for marrow, the exact same you would find on a prey animal is not "incomplete evidence". Short of going back in a time machine it's about as solid evidence as one can get. If a modern day pathologist found a group of recent bones with such a suite of features they would conclude human butchery and consumption of other humans and it would stand up in court. Oh and this research often engages medical doctors to take a look at the evidence.

There is a lot of speculation about those times, but the stuff that Scumlord listed is pretty damned solid as far as evidence goes.

TBH I really don't know what would begin to convince you or what you would define as evidence, short of building a flux capacitor. Maybe you're happier with the "oh woe, humans are awful" meme and good luck with that.

Another boring and meandering string of regurgitated opinion.
Your backing up of Scumlord's wild speculation does not make it fact.

Do you know how many neanderthal individuals have been identified?
Less than 100 individuals have been identified of a nomadic species that lived in small groups across a huge area for hundreds of thousands of years.

And yet you are willing to make statements of fact based on this tiny sample.

ScumLord · 24-03-2016 05:58PM

EndaHonesty wrote: »

Do you know how many neanderthal individuals have been identified?
Less than 100 individuals have been identified of a nomadic species that lived in small groups across a huge area for hundreds of thousands of years.

And yet you are willing to make statements of fact based on this tiny sample.

But he's not making statements based on just individuals. Individual neanderthals tell us very little about whether they used fire or not. They may be able to tell some things by the type of wear on the teeth but evidence for fire comes from camp sites used by neanderthals over the course of hundreds of years. We can see fire pits that have been reused for generations. So they had fire, and unless you're saying someone else came in and lit the fire for them how do you explain the fire pits in neanderthal camp sites?

And like Wibbs pointed out, how do you explain the tools they used that could only have been made through a fairly advanced knowledge of fire? mainly things like pine pitch used to glue spear heads to shafts.

Here's some links.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2011/03/14/neanderthals-were-nifty-controlling-fire-according-cu-boulder-researcher

https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/gory-details/neanderthals-reveal-their-diet-oldest-excrement

Pine pitch glue used in stone age arrow heads.
https://wildernessguide.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/stone-age-arrow/

I have a fascination in stone age weapons too. I'm going to start making some this year. Probably going to stick to a sling though.

EndaHonesty · 24-03-2016 06:05PM

ScumLord wrote: »

But he's not making statements based on just individuals. Individual neanderthals tell us very little about whether they used fire or not. They may be able to tell some things by the type of wear on the teeth but evidence for fire comes from camp sites used by neanderthals over the course of hundreds of years. We can see fire pits that have been reused for generations. So they had fire, and unless you're saying someone else came in and lit the fire for them how do you explain the fire pits in neanderthal camp sites?

And like Wibbs pointed out, how do you explain the tools they used that could only have been made through a fairly advanced knowledge of fire? mainly things like pine pitch used to glue spear heads to shafts.

I haven't given any opinion on whether neanderthal's had fire or not, and I haven't made any comment on their use of tools, so I don't know why you are making these comments in reply to my post?!

Maximus Alexander · 24-03-2016 06:10PM

ScumLord wrote: »

But he's not making statements based on just individuals. Individual neanderthals tell us very little about whether they used fire or not. They may be able to tell some things by the type of wear on the teeth but evidence for fire comes from camp sites used by neanderthals over the course of hundreds of years. We can see fire pits that have been reused for generations. So they had fire, and unless you're saying someone else came in and lit the fire for them how do you explain the fire pits in neanderthal camp sites?

And like Wibbs pointed out, how do you explain the tools they used that could only have been made through a fairly advanced knowledge of fire? mainly things like pine pitch used to glue spear heads to shafts.

I think early humans used to sneak in to their camps around twilight, light fires for them and leave weapons as gifts. They considered the neanderthals to be pets and watched with glee as their generously-browed companions would react with confusion and awe to the gifts that had been bestowed upon them.

The neanderthals, in turn, considered the fire pit a deity. They mistakenly believed the spears were intended as ritual items and would use them to sacrifice their brethren in the afternoon, reluctantly cannibalising them in order to sate the fire gods; which would then provide them with warmth and light for evening ahead.

Wibbs · 24-03-2016 06:14PM

EndaHonesty wrote: »

Another boring and meandering string of regurgitated opinion.

Considering your early accusations towards me your lack of irony is staggering and still no rebuttal or counter argument. At least there's consistency to this.

Your backing up of Scumlord's wild speculation does not make it fact.

Do you know how many neanderthal individuals have been identified?
Less than 100 individuals have been identified of a nomadic species that lived in small groups across a huge area for hundreds of thousands of years.

And yet you are willing to make statements of fact based on this tiny sample.

Do you have any clue about how many lithic industries, home sites, butchery sites, DNA and mountains of other evidence has been collected on that group, from the Atlantic to beyond the Caucasus, for over a century? Do have any clue of the y'know real science - not it doesn't fit my worldview bro science - that backs up each and every one of SL's statements? Or are you just wound up because someone on the interwebs called you on your ignorance of current scientific theories backed up by many thousands of researchers and research papers across the world going back generations? Theories that hold up to far more scrutiny than you seem to be able to muster. You've certainly not mustered anything to rebut anything on this thread, save to petulantly bleat "you're wrong!" repeatedly. Going on the evidence so far you really don't have the hang of this informed debate stuff. BTW that is NOT a personal insult, it IS a direct observation of your opinions. And no, contrary to some popular belief these days, opinions mean jack if they don't have some basis in fact. TBH I think you're just trolling at this stage, as surely nobody could be this pigheaded in the face of that level of research.

Actually, why am I even engaging with this silliness? I'm out.

ScumLord · 24-03-2016 06:15PM

EndaHonesty wrote: »

I haven't given any opinion on whether neanderthal's had fire or not, and I haven't made any comment on their use of tools, so I don't know why you are making these comments in reply to my post?!

So what is your point? You've berated wibbs and I for saying they use fire but you have no opinion youself?

EndaHonesty · 24-03-2016 06:19PM

ScumLord wrote: »

So what is your point? You've berated wibbs and I for saying they use fire but you have no opinion youself?

I've made my point several times - you are offering opinions as facts. They're not facts.

endacl · 24-03-2016 06:21PM

EndaHonesty wrote: »

I've made my point several times - you are offering opinions as facts. They're not facts.

Must. Resist. Urge. To. Join. Pointless. Conversation....

Really hard, when somebody's being wrong on the Internet. :mad:

EndaHonesty · 24-03-2016 06:24PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Considering your early accusations towards me your lack of irony is staggering and still no rebuttal or counter argument. At least there's consistency to this.

Do you have any clue about how many lithic industries, home sites, butchery sites, DNA and mountains of other evidence has been collected on that group, from the Atlantic to beyond the Caucasus, for over a century? Do have any clue of the y'know real science - not it doesn't fit my worldview bro science - that backs up each and every one of SL's statements? Or are you just wound up because someone on the interwebs called you on your ignorance of current scientific theories backed up by many thousands of researchers and research papers across the world going back generations? Theories that hold up to far more scrutiny than you seem to be able to muster. You've certainly not mustered anything to rebut anything on this thread, save to petulantly bleat "you're wrong!" repeatedly. Going on the evidence so far you really don't have the hang of this informed debate stuff. BTW that is NOT a personal insult, it IS a direct observation of your opinions. And no, contrary to some popular belief these days, opinions mean jack if they don't have some basis in fact. TBH I think you're just trolling at this stage, as surely nobody could be this pigheaded in the face of that level of research.

Actually, why am I even engaging with this silliness? I'm out.

So you've told me I've no knowledge of the subject, told me I'm pulling a huff, petulantly bleating, pigheaded and I'm trolling.

All because I don't agree with you. :rolleyes:

Maximus Alexander · 24-03-2016 06:25PM

EndaHonesty wrote: »

I've made my point several times - you are offering opinions as facts. They're not facts.

What do you consider to be the barrier to entry for something to be considered a 'fact'? Would you stop at Cogito ergo sum, because anything beyond that can't be incontrovertibly proven?

ScumLord · 24-03-2016 06:34PM

EndaHonesty wrote: »

I've made my point several times - you are offering opinions as facts. They're not facts.

Would it make you happy if I reworded my statement to "based on the opinion of a variety of different scientists, I believe that there is a very high probability that neanderthals used fire"?

EndaHonesty · 24-03-2016 06:45PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Would it make you happy if I reworded my statement to "based on the opinion of a variety of different scientists, I believe that there is a very high probability that neanderthals used fire"?

Dude get over the fire issue. In reply to someone speculating as to what caused the demise of the neanderthal you offered the following statement;

ScumLord wrote: »

Neanderthals had fire, by many accounts they were at least as sophisticated as humans and had bigger brains. They're problem is they didn't trade or socialise outside of their own familiar group. Two groups of humans could come across each other and would probably have a meal together, do some trading, maybe swap some members and go about their merry way. If neanderthals were like most other animals on this planet when they came across another group of neanderthals they probably started fighting each other.

All of it wild speculation that is offered as definitive fact.
No "I believe" or "in my opinion".

ScumLord · 24-03-2016 06:53PM

EndaHonesty wrote: »

All of it wild speculation that is offered as definitive fact.
No "I believe" or "in my opinion".

It's not wild speculation at all though. It's not like I came up with any of this. It's what the archaeologists studying the actual archeology are saying. Why wouldn't I believe it? It's not like I ended the post with "FACT!"

whatawaster81 · 24-03-2016 08:34PM

Well lads I see there's been a little dispute while I was away. I apologise for quoting the Daily Mail, I should have used Discovery.com

http://news.discovery.com/human/life/were-neanderthals-doomed-by-lack-of-fire-mastery-150420

"The issue of Neanderthal extinction is very complex, and very little is agreed upon," Goldfield said

Except between Wibbs and Scumlord who seem to know it all:P

Wibbs · 24-03-2016 09:04PM

Oh it sure was complex W hence I said "So bit by bit, by small changes and large they became rarer and rarer in the landscape". Their demise was clearly multifactoral and would likely vary depending on geographical area too.

Certain factors that likely had an impact are pretty evident and built on solid evidence though. Smaller sized groups, much smaller networks, a changing landscape and climate and us showing up. They would likely have survived everything but us showing up, as they had before for over 200,000 years, but we were the extra pressure. It didn't have to be much either. This didn't happen overnight. We were occupying the same areas for between 5 and 10,000 years depending on which dates we look at. That's quite a time period for two competing species to coexist, especially apex predators. So even if the only difference was that we had one more child to adulthood than they did, over such timeframes the population would shift in our favour. Even having kids with each other would be a pressure on them as our numbers grew.

One interesting thing about them is though they were serious level apex predators they didn't cause any wide scale large animal extinctions in all the time they were around. They hit a prey/predator ratio equilibrium and it stuck, like any other apex predator.

We don't. Even without direct datable evidence like tools in situ you can pretty much track our progress across the world by the sudden extinctions of animals. So if an area only has evidence so far found of a later date, yet there's a sudden unexplained die off of animals before that date, then keep digging chances are you'll find us. Australian Aborigines are often seen as "one with nature" and all that stuff, yet they wiped out a shítload of species soon after they got there(and may have changed the climate with their bush burning hunting techniques). Hell, New Zealand was only colonised by humans in the 10th -11th century and the Maori killed off all species of Moa and the giant Hasst(SP?) eagle before Europeans showed up. Something like 15% of bird species were wiped out as humans made their way across the Pacific islands. You can track other extinctions in the New World and Old as we make our way through it. That right there is a big difference with modern humans and it continues today. That Neandertals were able to hang around for a fair few thousand years alongside us says much for their survival skills and adaptability.

RayCon · 24-03-2016 09:29PM

The popularity of Mumford & Sons.

Capt'n Midnight · 24-03-2016 09:31PM

Mister Vain wrote: »

Why does my piss come out in two different directions?

Because of a botched vasectomy.

Capt'n Midnight · 24-03-2016 09:37PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

There is no 'before' the big bang. Time begins at the moment of the big bang, and just like you can't go South from the South pole, you can't go before the big bang.

The equations for the big bang are kinda weird. Instead of linear time you need to use complex numbers for the theories to work out.

And you can go further South
http://www.southpolestation.com/trivia/history/history.html

This was one of three Nike-Tomahawk rockets launched this season; 3 others had been launched in 1980-81. The rockets, weighing more than a ton, carried a 240-lb payload to 120 miles.

EndaHonesty · 24-03-2016 10:14PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh it sure was complex W hence I said "So bit by bit, by small changes and large they became rarer and rarer in the landscape". Their demise was clearly multifactoral and would likely vary depending on geographical area too.

Certain factors that likely had an impact are pretty evident and built on solid evidence though. Smaller sized groups, much smaller networks, a changing landscape and climate and us showing up. They would likely have survived everything but us showing up, as they had before for over 200,000 years, but we were the extra pressure. It didn't have to be much either. This didn't happen overnight. We were occupying the same areas for between 5 and 10,000 years depending on which dates we look at. That's quite a time period for two competing species to coexist, especially apex predators. So even if the only difference was that we had one more child to adulthood than they did, over such timeframes the population would shift in our favour. Even having kids with each other would be a pressure on them as our numbers grew.

One interesting thing about them is though they were serious level apex predators they didn't cause any wide scale large animal extinctions in all the time they were around. They hit a prey/predator ratio equilibrium and it stuck, like any other apex predator.

We don't. Even without direct datable evidence like tools in situ you can pretty much track our progress across the world by the sudden extinctions of animals. So if an area only has evidence so far found of a later date, yet there's a sudden unexplained die off of animals before that date, then keep digging chances are you'll find us. Australian Aborigines are often seen as "one with nature" and all that stuff, yet they wiped out a shítload of species soon after they got there(and may have changed the climate with their bush burning hunting techniques). Hell, New Zealand was only colonised by humans in the 10th -11th century and the Maori killed off all species of Moa and the giant Hasst(SP?) eagle before Europeans showed up. Something like 15% of bird species were wiped out as humans made their way across the Pacific islands. You can track other extinctions in the New World and Old as we make our way through it. That right there is a big difference with modern humans and it continues today. That Neandertals were able to hang around for a fair few thousand years alongside us says much for their survival skills and adaptability.

How many species extinctions are Australian Aborigines responsible for?

What can science not explain?

Comments