Monkey is Your Uncle: Sid Harth

[Sid Harth]

http://www.livemint.com/2009/10/01213033/Chimps-may-not-be-our-closest.html

Posted: Fri, Oct 2 2009. 1:15 AM IST
Economy and Politics

Chimps may not be our closest ancestorsFossil of 4.4-mn-yr-old Ardi
has taken us closer to the last common ancestor but left a hole in the
existing theory
Seema Singh

Bangalore: In the 200th birth year of Charles Darwin, the British
naturalist who said the only way to understand the origin of man is to
go and find his ancestors, a team of international researchers has
found new fossils in Ethiopia that are pushing the limits of human
evolution, suggesting that chimpanzees may not be our closest
ancestors.Apture™

In Friday’s special issue of Science, 47 researchers in 11 different
papers report that they have found new fossils of hominids—members of
the Great Apes family Hominidae that includes humans, chimpanzees,
gorillas and orangutans—from Aramis in Ethiopia. They have named it
Ardipithecus ramidus, or Ardi, which, at 4.4 million years, is the
oldest and the most complete of earliest specimens, taking us closer
to the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. In 1974,
scientists unearthed 3.2 million-year-old skeleton of Lucy, the female
skeleton of Australopithecus afarensis, which is the oldest hominid we
knew until Ardi arrived. “Although clearly different from
Australopithecus in many ways, the case is well made that this
represents the ancestor of Australopithecus,” said David Pilbeam,
professor of social sciences at Harvard University.

Also Read The hunt for the missing link goes on

In one stroke, but one that entailed 15 years of rigorous research,
scientists have thrown a monkey wrench in the long-standing hypothesis
that our last common ancestor, which is believed to have lived six or
more million years ago, was more chimp-like than human-like. Instead,
it suggests that hominids and African apes have followed separate
evolutionary paths, the latter having evolved in a more specialized
manner.

“This is a wonderful find, that although surprising in some ways,
makes a very satisfactory animal for understanding the changes that
have taken place along our evolutionary lineage,” said Andrew Hill,
professor of anthropology at Yale University, in email.

Analyzing one Ardi skeleton and bones of 35 other individuals of the
same species, which were carefully reconstructed, piece by piece,
researchers say the fossils show a new type of early hominin (a
subfamily of Hominidae) which was neither chimp nor human. “In
Ardipithecus, we have an unspecialized form that hasn’t evolved very
far in the direction of Australopithecus. So when you go from head to
toe, you’re seeing a mosaic creature that is neither chimpanzee, nor
is it human. It is Ardipithecus,” said Tim White, one of the lead
authors from the University of California, Berkeley.

At about 120cm in height and 50kg in weight, Ardi was as big as a
chimpanzee, even matching its brain size, but it differed in gait—it
didn’t swing from tree to tree or knuckle-walk like apes, rather
walked upright and lived in woodlands, not in grasslands. “It lacked
the kind of sexual dimorphism that present day great apes have and
bridges the gap between Australopithecines and later hominids such as
Sahelanthropus and Orrorin,” said Rajeev Patnaik, a palaeontologist at
Panjab University in Chandigarh.

Patnaik and others have been working in the Narmada valley and in the
Siwalik forests of the Himalayan foothills looking for hominid
fossils. India is currently at the crossroads of human evolution, even
as its discontinuous palaeoanthropological record is improving with
each new find. “One school of thought is that that the Homo erectus or
later species originated in East Africa and migrated to Indonesia
using the subcontinent corridor; another believes that they originated
in Asia and migrated to East Africa. But there’s not enough evidence
to either refute or confirm these hypotheses,” said Patnaik.

Researchers working in India expect to find evidence of early hominins
from the Miocene (25 to 5 million years) or Pliocene age (5 to 1.8
million years). Around 13 million years ago, the Siwalik forests saw
the emergence of a primate Sivapithecus which disappeared in the
following five million years as the habitat changed. “We aim to find
evidence of anything that has come from Sivapithecus or early Homo
erectus or even Australopithecus. The present finding gives us hope
and courage to keep looking for fossils in the Siwalik sediments,”
said Patnaik.

As for Ardi’s case, the evidence is pretty conclusive, though experts
disagree on its interpretation. For instance, Pilbeam isn’t convinced
that human ancestors “never went through a chimpanzee-like phase”.
However, researchers involved say further work will add more data to
make this “clearer” and that they will continue to look for more
fossils.

“Any place where there are fossil of the right age can be the source.
If I may guess, any place between Kenya, Ethiopia and Chad, in that
very wide triangle can be the place to look for,” said Berhane Asfaw
of Rift Valley Research Service in Addis Ababa on phone, who thinks
Ethiopia has simply been a “geological accident”.

Whenever and wherever the future fossils come from, experts say Ardi
has provided enough data to keep the debate alive. This extraordinary
discovery will keep the field busy “with discussion and argument for
at least another 15 years”, said Pilbeam.

***@livemint.com

...and I am Sid Harth

[Sid Harth]

http://www.livemint.com/2009/09/15204944/The-fight-over-Darwin.html?d=1

Posted: Tue, Sep 15 2009. 9:19 PM IST
Views

The fight over Darwin
A 2009 Gallup poll revealed that only 39% of Americans believed in
evolution
Jayakrishnan Nair

In 2009, while the world is celebrating Charles Darwin’s 200th birth
anniversary, US scientists have a unique challenge: to convince 60% of
their countrymen that God did not create man. It might seem odd that a
country, which has won the maximum number of Nobel prizes, sent a man
to the moon, and has the best universities in the world, takes the
antediluvian creation myth in the book of Genesis literally.

A 2009 Gallup poll revealed that only 39% of Americans believed in
evolution. There were two reasons for this: education and religion.
Among the high school educated, only 21% believed in evolution and 52%
had no opinion; among those with a college degree, 29% did not believe
and 30% had no opinion. For the religious, Darwin contradicts the word
of God and those who attended church regularly were found to not
believe in evolution.

To analyse the role of religion in this debate, the Pew Research
Center’s Forum on Religion and Public Life asked major religious
groups in the US what they thought about evolution.

The study found that at the bottom of the chart were Jehovah’s
Witnesses: Only 8% of their members believed in evolution. Slightly
better were Mormons (22%), Evangelical Protestants (24%), historically
black Protestants (38%) and Muslims (45%). Among the Catholics and
Protestants, more than 50% believed in evolution.

A major problem facing the US is that religious groups, which deny
evolution are out to impose their views as science on everyone by
modifying science textbooks. In 2004, 150 years after Darwin published
his seminal work, the Cobb County Board of Education in Atlanta
affixed a sticker on thousands of public school textbooks, which
stated that evolution is a theory, not a fact. In Dover, Pennsylvania,
the school board decided to teach that an “intelligent agent” created
various species.

The same Pew Research poll, which found that only 8% of Jehovah’s
Witnesses believed in evolution also found that 81% of Buddhists
believed in evolution along with 80% of Hindus. Like the story of
creation in the Book of Genesis, Hindus too have creation myths, but
in India, where most American-Hindus are from, these creation myths
stay in religious books, not in school textbooks. Also, there are no
Hindu or Buddhist groups questioning a fact, which has been debated,
analysed and tested for 150 years.

While various American Christian groups are vehemently anti-evolution,
it cannot be generalized that it is a common behaviour of all
Abrahamic religions; since Jews as a group stand third in ranking—
after Buddhists and Hindus—with 77% believing in evolution.

The Pew religious survey found one thing in common between American
Hindus, Buddhists and Jews: Members of these religions lead the
religious groups in terms of education and were most likely to have a
postgraduate degree. This ties with the Gallup poll, which found that
74% of Americans who had a postgraduate degree believed in evolution.

This also explains the frenetic effort among religious groups to
subvert the education system. There is one more difference. In India,
the syllabus is decided by the government—both state and Central—
whereas in the US, local school boards have the authority to decide
tests, texts and teaching materials. Thus, depending on the religious
beliefs of the school board members, insane ideas can be taught and
science can be redefined. To prevent this, parents have to file
lawsuits or vote the school board out—both disruptive activities.

Courts in the US have found that teaching “intelligent design”, a
euphemism for creationism, violates the US constitution. The
creationists now are fighting for academic rights, so that educators
can teach “a science consonant with Christian and theistic
convictions”. Fortunately, this is a fight we don’t have in India.

Jayakrishnan Nair writes about history and religion atvarnam.org/blog.
Comment at ***@livemint.com

...and I am Sid Harth

[Sid Harth]

http://www.livemint.com/2009/03/26215334/Mr-Darwin-goes-to-the-bank.html?d=1

Posted: Thu, Mar 26 2009. 9:54 PM IST
Views

Mr Darwin goes to the bank

While we believe in natural selection, we are not letting it work on
financial institutions that have failed
Ranjani Iyer Mohanty

It seems a bit ironic that on one hand we are celebrating the 200th
birthday of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of his book On
the Origin of Species, while on the other, we are desperately trying
to prevent his theory of “evolution by natural selection” from working
in our current financial system.

Illustration: Jayachandran / Mint

During the boom times, the high-flying financiers would have been the
first to support their percept of survival of the fittest: after all,
they were the fittest. They would never have approached the regulators
then to say, “Hey, we’re just making way too much money and something
doesn’t seem quite right. Could you please help us?” Mind you, neither
did the regulators think to look more closely at their tremendous
growth and profits. But now, during this crisis, many banks have
arrived, hat in hand, asking to be rescued.

And rescue them we must because so many of us are tangled up in their
tentacles that if they sink, we all do. But it’s good fun—and perhaps
good sense—to ask, why bother? Should bloated, over-extended financial
institutions be entitled to survive, and the financiers entitled to
keep giving themselves bonuses? Why not let them go bust? Call it
natural selection.

We’ve had many financial crises in the past, and the pundits say we’ll
have more in the future: It seems that’s simply the nature of the
animal. Some theorize that it’s our own innate traits—our sense of
optimism and herd mentality, for instance—that have gotten us into
this mess. Historian Niall Ferguson says that it’s precisely for such
reasons that we need to know financial history. But if these traits
have caused the trouble, it’s these same traits, combined with a dose
of selective amnesia, that are the ingredients for a thriving
financial market. Did these traits evolve so we can be market-friendly
animals, or have our financial markets evolved in such a manner as to
suit our traits? This is no doubt a chicken-and-egg question that
Darwin overlooked.

Also, one of the encouraging aspects of business in the US is that it
has long been the land of easy, non-stigmatized bankruptcies. During
most years in the last decade (including the boom times), at least a
million bankruptcies were filed annually. We didn’t try to help them.
We felt that they would brush themselves off, learn from their
experience, and go on to do something better and more successful.
Maybe we should give our banks the same opportunity.

US President Barack Obama has in place a banking bailout plan worth at
least a trillion dollars, and last week Federal Reserve chairman Ben
Bernanke was suggesting that a touch more may be needed. Several other
countries are also spending billions to bail out their biggest
financial institutions. Should endless quantities of public money be
spent to prop up these fat and greedy dinosaurs? Or should the very
natural process of extinction be allowed to take place, such that a
different, smarter and fitter species can evolve to fill the space?
God didn’t step in to save the dinosaurs, and we humans prospered as a
result. If we don’t step in to save the over-extended banking system,
perhaps something better and more human—and more humane—will be the
outcome.

Evolution is progressive but not always linear. The fittest does not
necessarily mean the biggest and the most complex but that’s where the
financial evolution has led, especially over the past few years.
Mergers and acquisitions have reduced the number of banks but
increased their size and reach. Not being a banker, I readily admit I
never understood how complex instruments such as mortgage-backed
securities, collateralized debt obligations, or how Long Term Capital
Management worked or was financially sustainable. And the frightening
thing we find out now is that neither did the bankers nor the
regulators. Banks have become these huge complex monsters that have
gone out of control. Experts say we cannot afford to let them fail,
but can we afford to save them?

Despite our enthusiasm for Darwin, our acceptance of his theory of
evolution is not total. Having achieved our relatively superior
position as humans (perhaps quite accidentally and arbitrarily), we
now fight Darwinism in many aspects of our lives. When our children
are ill, we struggle to make them well again. As our parents age, we
strive to lengthen their lives. In war-torn areas, we attempt to act
as peacemakers to prevent casualties. We try to feed the poor. We do
not want a totally free-market situation: yes, free to innovate and
grow, but not free to destroy each other. We want a level playing-
field, and a just environment that supports not only survival of the
fittest, but advancement of the good.

No one wants to see a species become extinct, but, instead of pouring
billions into saving one that has proved unsustainable, perhaps it’s
time for some rapid evolution on the part of both financial
institutions and regulators so that they can evolve into a more
deserving system which is better adapted to the new environment. Now
that would be a good way to celebrate Darwin’s birthday.

Ranjani Iyer Mohanty is a Delhi-based writer. Comment at
***@livemint.com

...and I am Sid Harth

[Sid Harth]

http://www.livemint.com/2009/02/11223441/200-years-after-Charles-Darwin.html?d=1

Posted: Thu, Feb 12 2009. 12:44 AM IST
Views

200 years after Charles Darwin

The longevity of scientific theories is directly proportional to the
empirical evidence in their favour
Our View

In 1831, when a ship named HMS Beagle left on a voyage of discovery
from Plymouth Sound, the world was dominated by religious thinking. By
the time the chronicle of the ship’s journey was published eight years
later, the contours of a scientific revolution were visible. Central
to the plot was naturalist Charles Darwin, who was born on 12 February
1809. His book, On the Origin of Species, was published in 1859.
Modern evolutionary theory dates to that year.

Illustration: Jayachandran / Mint

The longevity of scientific theories is directly proportional to the
empirical evidence in their favour. By that yardstick, the theory of
evolution as stated by Darwin has had a chequered career. A recent New
York Times article pointed out that for the most part of its
existence, the theory has been opposed or ignored. Attempts at
refutation have not only come from scientific quarters, but also from
religious and political ones. When viewed from the vantage of 2009,
its core has withstood all these challenges.

Why should a work which at its core is a scientific theory, gain extra-
scientific fame (or notoriety, depending on your perspective)?
Evolution is no longer a concept that is used to explain the diversity
of species or their origin: It is now a paradigm that spans almost all
social sciences. Phenomena as varied as stock market price
fluctuations to class conflict to growth and decay of cities have been
subject to evolutionary explanations.

What about the future of the theory and freewheeling evolutionary
theorizing? Do they rest on a secure foundation? They do and don’t. In
the biological realm, there are interesting intellectual modifications
that have been mounted in recent years— such as Stephen Jay Gould’s
theory of punctuated equilibrium, one that emphasizes the
discontinuous nature of evolution instead of continuous evolution, the
orthodox interpretation of Darwin’s work. Works that oppose
evolutionary theory at more fundamental levels, such as ruling out a
role for adaptation in the evolutionary scheme, remain in the realm of
philosophical speculation. Then there have been long-standing disputes
about the level at which evolution occurs—individual organisms or
groups. For a time they were pushed aside, but accumulation of
evidence has revived these arguments in recent years.

Here it is apt to draw a comparison with a congruent process that took
place in the history of another discipline: cartography or map-making.
Economist Paul Krugman has a tale about how an increase in knowledge
about the geography of Africa resulted in much less informative maps.
It was not that knowledge of map-making had disappeared, but the
definition of knowledge had changed. That has been the fate of
Darwin’s theories, too.

Darwin: scientist or icon? Tell us at ***@livemint.com

...and I am Sid Harth

[Sid Harth]

http://www.livemint.com/2009/01/09152718/Artificial-molecule-8216evo.html?d=1

Posted: Fri, Jan 9 2009. 3:27 PM IST
Technology

Artificial molecule ‘evolves in lab’

The molecule can perform the essential function of life, called self-
replication, a breakthrough scientists claim could soon shed light on
the origin of life on Earth
PTI

Washington: Scientists have produced an artificial molecule in the lab
which can perform the essential function of life, called self-
replication, a breakthrough they claim could soon shed light on the
origin of life on Earth.

A team at the Scripps Research Institute has made the chemical out of
ribonucleic acid (RNA) as it is believed that early life stored
information in this sister molecule to DNA, and RNA molecules can
catalyse chemical reactions.

“We’re trying to jump in at the last signpost we have back there in
the early history of life,” the ‘New Scientist´ quoted lead scientist
Gerald Joyce as saying.

In fact, the team created its own molecule from scratch, called R3C.
It performed a single function: Stitching two shorter RNA molecules to
create a clone of itself. Further lab tinkering made this molecule
better at copying itself, but this is not the same as bringing it to
life.

To improve R3C, the scientists redesigned the molecule to forge a
sister RNA that could itself join two other pieces of RNA into a
functioning ribozyme. In that way, each molecule makes a copy of its
sister a process called cross-replication.

And, to evolve their molecule by natural selection, they mutated
sequences of the RNA building blocks, so that 288 possible ribozymes
could be built by just mixing and matching different pairs of shorter
RNAs.

What came out bore an eerie resemblance to Charles Darwin’s theory of
survival of the fittest -- a few sequences proved winners, most
losers. “The victors emerged because they could replicate fastest
while surrounded by competition,” he said.

...and I am Sid Harth

[Sid Harth]

http://www.livemint.com/2009/09/10210352/Natural-agents-can-spur-change.html?d=1

Posted: Fri, Sep 11 2009. 1:15 AM IST
Economy and Politics

Natural agents can spur change in animal species

British authors of the study are surprised with the speed of the
changes in sex ratio in the tested species
Seema Singh

Bangalore: New research shows that natural agents such as bacteria
have caused rapid shifting of the sex ratio in some animal species
over time, providing one of the first examples of evolutionary change
over a short span of about 100 years.

Tracking change: Museum specimen of butterflies in trays. British
scientists have discovered that the sex ratio of a tropical butterfly
called Great Eggfly has changed swiftly, driven by a bacterium called
Wolbachia. Photo: Oxford University Museum of Natural History

Using DNA of tropical butterflies from museum specimens collected from
different locations, a team of British scientists reports in Friday’s
issue of Current Biology journal that the male-female ratio of a
tropical butterfly called Great Eggfly (Hypolimnas bolina) has changed
swiftly, driven by a bacterium called Wolbachia that kills only the
males of the species.

“We were surprised at the speed with which change in sex ratio could
occur,” said lead author Emily Hornett of the University of Liverpool,
in the UK. “Between 1886 and 1894 in Fiji, the male-killing bacterium
rose from 50% to over 90% frequency, changing the sex ratio from 2:1
to 10:1.”

“This is certainly one of the most dramatic examples of evolutionary
change,” said Suhel Quader, an evolutionary ecologist at the National
Centre for Biological Sciences (NCBS) in Bangalore. “It also provides
clues about how (natural) selection favours a suppressor when faced
with such a massive fitness cost from the male killer.”

Hornett says that besides bacteria, there are cases of meiotic drivers—
genes that disrupt the normal rules of inheritance—that can sway the
sex ratio in animals.

In contrast, human studies, said population geneticist Lalji Singh at
the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, show no evidence of the
ratio—notably distorted in Indian and Chinese populations—being
impacted by natural selection.

“The skewed male-female ratio is due to our own intervention,” says
Singh, who, as part of his research traces the origin of modern humans
in different populations.

The British researchers inferred from the extracted DNA of museum
butterflies what historical populations must have looked like.

Then they compared contemporary and museum samples, only to find a
profound change in four out of five butterfly populations they
examined.

Traditionally, for direct observation of evolution, scientists have
required records over time from long-term population study. But
resurrection ecology is a new approach with which evolution can be
observed directly.

“For long, scientists have been constrained by the non-availability of
historical data, so this technique, which allows us to examine how
evolution has acted, is promising,” said Kavita Isvaran, a professor
at the Centre for Ecological Sciences at the Indian Institute of
Science in Bangalore.

Quader says this method could be used to investigate a variety of
questions in plants, insects and birds.

India has rich historical archives of these taxa in collections
maintained by organizations like the zoological and botanical surveys
and the Bombay Natural History Society, opening up vast opportunities,
he says.

Incidentally, population geneticist Uma Ramakrishnan at NCBS is using
museum tissue samples, ancient DNA so to say, for her study that is
trying to construct a synthetic picture of evolution in the Indian
subcontinent. Studying wild cats, she is stumbling upon data that show
that the decline in India’s tiger population started 275 years ago.

At a broader level, the rapidity of evolution that the present study
shows has a rather “sobering implication”, particularly now when the
rampant use of chemicals in agriculture and healthcare have put
selection pressures on organisms.

“We are not sure what kind of evolution might we be prompting through
the use of antibiotics, pesticides, genetically modified crops,” said
Quader.

Predictably enough, the organisms have responded to man-made chemicals
by evolving, often rapidly, and developing resistance. Bacterial
resistance to antibiotics or tuberculosis treatment, or resistance to
DDT pesticide in mosquitoes, are examples of rapid evolution, says
Quader

Comparing these organisms with their ancient counterparts using DNA
extraction tool could reveal a lot, he added.

...and I am Sid Harth

[Sid Harth]

http://www.livemint.com/2009/05/28001925/Are-monkeys-the-new-lab-rats-f.html?d=1

Posted: Thu, May 28 2009. 12:19 AM IST
Economy and Politics

Are monkeys the new lab rats for genetic tests?

Japan scientists breed genetically engineered simians which can pass
on artificially inherited genes to offspring
Jacob P. Koshy

New Delhi: Mice are facing competition from monkeys as the animal of
choice in genetic engineering tests to determine how diseases such as
Huntington’s—a fatal disorder—and muscular dystrophy are passed on.

Gene integration: (1) Hisui, (2) Wakaba, (3) Kei (left) and Kou, and
(4) Banko are five transgenic marmoset offspring. When observed in
ultraviolet light, the skin on the soles of their feet glows green. E
Sasaki

Japanese scientists have been able to breed genetically engineered
monkeys that can pass on their artificially inherited genes to their
offspring, says a report in the next issue of Nature.

This means colonies of primates expressing a particular gene can be
bred and they may serve as more accurate animal models for genetically
acquired diseases that plague humans. Unlike mice, primates are
genetically much closer to humans.

Erika Sasaki, of the Central Institute for Experimental Animals at
Kawasaki in Japan, and her colleagues used viral DNA (deoxyribonucleic
acid) as a delivery vehicle to introduce the gene for the green
fluorescent protein (GFP) into the DNA of the common marmoset, a
primate species found in South America.

Because it lights up when exposed to green light, scientists can
easily check if the GFP gene is carried on to future generations.
Sasaki’s team showed that the gene was completely integrated into the
monkey’s DNA and successfully carried on to its offspring.

Though marmosets aren’t genetically as close to humans as apes and
macaques are, they are much better models than rodents, say
scientists.

“Genetic and physiological differences between primates and mice—
including their neurophysiological functions, metabolic pathways and
drug sensitivities—hamper the extrapolation of results from mouse
disease models to direct clinical applications in humans...in
particular, genetically-modified primates would be a powerful human
disease model for preclinical assessment of the safety and efficacy of
stem-cell or gene therapy,” the authors say in their report.

Unlike other primates, marmosets have short gestation periods, reach
sexual maturity within a year and can produce up to 80 babies,
compared with the 10 a rhesus macaque can produce, all of which make
them ideal candidates for modelling the progress of a disease.

The scientists have already identified disease targets. “Our first
target is Parkinson’s disease and probably Huntington’s disease,”
Sasaki said in a conference call with reporters.

Experts call it a big step forward. “It’s certainly a significant
achievement,” said Vinod Scaria, a researcher at the Delhi-based
Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology, a government body.

Scaria is part of an Indian project that’s scanning the zebrafish
genome to look for genes that cause human disease. “The big roadblock
to using primates was that it was hard to pass on genes onto germ
lines (the sex cells). That’s why we are making do with mice and
zebrafish, which produce many progeny.”

R. Medhamurthy, convener of the primate research centre at the Indian
Institute of Science, Bangalore, said the study was “exciting”, but it
was unlikely that mice would be done away with any time soon. “While
this certainly means better models for diseases, it’s not easy
procuring primates and monkeys for research. Mice are easy to get and
because they’ve been used for so many years, there are several
standard protocol that govern tests. This is a big step forward, but
we have to see how wieldy this technique of using viral DNA is.”

...and I am Sid Harth

[Sid Harth]

http://www.livemint.com/2007/11/06000338/Of-monkeys-and-men-A-parable.html?d=1

Posted: Tue, Nov 6 2007. 12:14 AM IST
Economy and Politics

Of monkeys and men: A parable of our times

All over Delhi, from Raisina Hills to the IGI Airport, monkeys have
been terrorizing everyone, be it bureaucrats, army officials, school
children, housewives or tourists
The Other Side | Mrinal Pande

Hordes of monkeys, the colour of dirt roads and honey, have invaded
Delhi and become part of our lives, much like pigeons or flies. As
metros stretch into villages and villages eat into forest land, the
monkeys, ejected from their natural habitat and food sources, have
swung into cities in large numbers and will not be evicted.

Unlike the “toon” monkeys urban kids are familiar with, these are not
cuddly creatures. Exile has turned them into lean, hungry and
aggressive predators and their fangs, when they bare them, appear
yellow and fearsome. In many ways, they resemble humans in exile:
constantly feuding, extended families that somehow calm down as soon
as they see food, or unite when they sense an outside threat. Packs
are usually led by a battle-scarred and fierce Alpha male who guides
and guards the rest as they jump from roof to roof, tree to tree,
uprooting plants, smashing flower pots, hurling down lids from
overhead water tanks to drink and bathe, and grabbing whatever food
they can lay their paws on.

All over Delhi, from Raisina Hills to the Indira Gandhi International
Airport, monkeys have been terrorizing everyone, be it bureaucrats,
army officials, school children, housewives or tourists. Some can even
open refrigerator doors to steal food stored inside. When accosted,
they’ll bite and scratch before they flee—a modern parable for Aesop.

For the past several months, 40-50 monkeys have laid siege to the
Mehrauli police station and the adjacent police colony houses in South
Delhi. They hang around because they have discovered the room in the
police station where cases of illicit liquor seized during raids are
stored. When they are not raiding gardens and homes in the police
colony, the monkeys stake out at the gates of the station, waiting to
enter the case property office room, should they spot an open door or
window. Having forced an entry, if they find the liquor store locked,
they tear up valuable letters, shred case files and damage personal
property belonging to the policemen. If the door is open, they head
straight for the liquor and get drunk. Inebriated simians snoring or
stumbling about in a drunken stupor around this police station are
becoming a common sight.

The police did petition the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to
help it get rid of the menace, but beset by countless similar demands,
MCD had to plead helplessness. Its own deputy mayor recently fell to
his death from a balcony after trying to fend off monkeys.

Some ministries and a few Delhi colleges have hired a man with a
langur to chase away the monkeys, but faced with budgetary
constraints, both the police and MCD can only pray to the monkey god,
Hanuman, to protect them.

How much do the monkeys understand? Is a simian’s sense of loss and
outrage when pushed out of its natural habitat any different from a
human’s? We will never know for sure. What we do know is that all
those who have been ousted from their native places by drought, hunger
or joblessness and pushed into one of the sprawling, overcrowded
metros of India, have unknowingly begun to display a certain
ruthlessness, greed and aggression.

Is the person, who in a fit of rage, fires at another over a parking
spot, or one who urinates in the bushes in his neighbour’s yard or
kicks stray dogs into gutters, much different from the monkey who
bares his fangs and shows his bottom to someone brandishing a stick?

Only some, usually the rural poor, may still demonstrate the fabled
gentleness of the Indian people. Some 25,000 of them arrived in Delhi
last week from Gwalior, half of them women. They had been marching
peacefully for about 340km under the leadership of their Gandhian
leader P.V. Rajgopal, when a stray truck driven by a drunken driver
hit and killed seven of them and injured over a dozen. The marchers
mourned their dead and having cremated them, continued the march. They
wished to reach Parliament, stage a non-violent sit-in and plead for
speedy land reforms. They couldn’t.

Quick parleys were held the night before and the Delhi police,
defenceless against drunken monkeys, showed great skill. It moved in
to barricade the marchers at Ramlila Maidan, where the minister for
rural development addressed them and also assured them that a high-
powered committee under the Prime Minister would soon be set up to
“look into” their problems. The marchers listened to him with hope in
their eyes. They were simple folk, worn down by their hard lives and
the fight against hunger. The crowds hugged each other after the
announcement and some spontaneously broke into singing and dancing.

The rally was relegated to the inside city pages in most dailies the
next day. Instead, it was the Sensex touching the magic figure of
20,000 that made banner headlines. The dispersed rallyists were seen
thronging Gandhi Samadhi and Indira Smriti museum where they queued up
quietly, almost reverentially. By evening, they had dropped out of
sight. At dusk, as the office crowds hit the streets, the monkeys
around Central Secretariat filed past the buses towards the trees
where they now spend the night. By 10pm, there was nobody around
Raisina Hill fountains. A few tired men with ice-cream trolleys waited
near the war memorial. Two soldiers stood guarding the area around
South Block in silence, hunched up against the cold with guns in numb
hands.

This is a parable of our times for Aesop. Like all timeless parables,
you may make what sense you will, of this one.

Mrinal Pande likes to take readers behind the reported news in her
fortnightly column. She is chief editor of ­Hindustan. Your comments
are welcome at ­***@livemint.com

...and I am Sid Harth

[bademiyansubhanallah]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/india/Indias-Jurassic-nest-dug-up-in-Tamil-Nadu/articleshow/5073985.cms

India's Jurassic nest dug up in Tamil Nadu
Radha Venkatesan, TNN 1 October 2009, 12:48am IST

COIMBATORE: Geologists in Tamil Nadu have stumbled upon a Jurassic
treasure trove buried in the sands of a river bed. Sheer luck led them
to Geologists in Tamil Nadu discover Dinosaur eggs. (TOI Photo)

hundreds of fossilized dinosaur eggs, perhaps 65 million years old,
underneath a stream in a tiny village in Ariyalur district. ( Watch
Video ) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videoshow/5075285.cms

Researchers from the Salem-based Periyar University found clusters of
eggs of what they believe to be the most aggressive Carnosaur and the
docile, leaf-eating Sauropod at Sendurai village.

While Carnosaurs were large predatory dinasaurs, Sauropods were long-
necked, herbivores which grew to enormous heights and sizes.

That dinosaurs once roamed the area was known from the fossils found
there on earlier expeditions. But this is the first time that hundreds
of nests embedded with hundreds of clusters of dinosaur eggs have been
unearthed in the district.

Located on the highway between Chennai and Tiruchi, the Ariyalur and
the neighbouring Perambalur geological sites nestle in the northern
plains of the Cauvery river. The place is a veritable museum of
ancient organisms, dating back to 140 million years. Ever since a
British couple -- the Wines -- collected 32 boxes of "strange stone
objects" in 1843, the Ariyalur region has drawn geologists from across
the world for its rich fossil presence and diversity.

Scientists have found the tiniest marine algae or the nano fossils
besides the rare shell-like bivalve, gastropoda, telecypoda and
brachiopoda in the geological sites spread across 950sqkm in Ariyalur
and Perambalur districts.

"We found clusters and clusters of spherical eggs of dinosaurs. And
each cluster contained eight eggs," says Dr M U Ramkumar, geology
lecturer of the Periyar University. Each egg was about 13 to 20 cm in
diameter and they were lying in sandy nests which were of the size of
1.25 metres.

In the 1860s, a British geologist first recorded the presence of bone
remains of dinosaurs in Ariyalur. Over a century and a half later, the
egg of a dinosaur was found in a cement factory of the state-owned
Tamil Nadu Cements Ltd in 1990s. But officials realized that it was a
dinosaur egg only 10 years later.

On a sultry afternoon on September 12 this year, Ramkumar and his
research students went to Ariyalur to scour the rocks and sediments as
part of a study funded by Indian and German scientific institutions.
As they paused by a stream on a grazing land at Sendurai, they found
spherical-shaped fossils peeping out of the sand beds. "We got really
excited. As I have seen a dinosaur egg, I was sure these were dinosaur
eggs," said Ramkumar.

A quick digging revealed clusters of eggs beneath seven layers of sand
spread over two sqkm. The eggs may not have hatched due to the Deccan
volcanic eruptions or seasonal flooding, surmise the team. "We suspect
the extinction of dinosaurs was triggered by the Deccan volcano.
Volcanic ashes cap the eggs," said one researcher.

"This is a very significant finding as never before have we found so
many dinosaur eggs in the country. Besides the spherical size of the
eggs covered with sand and volcanic ash provide significant insight
into the possible reasons for extinction of the species," says Dr
Jyotsana Rai, senior scientist, Birbal Sahni Institute of Paleobotany
in Lucknow. Her team will collect samples of these eggs to determine
its exact age.

Because a similar discovery in Jabalpur led to a plunder of the
fossilized treasure, the researchers have requested the Ariyalur
district administration to cordon off the site. Samples of the eggs
will travel to Germany for further research. The vicinity of Jabalpur
in Madhya Pradesh is considered the richest dinosaur field in the
country.

...and I am Sid Harth

[bademiyansubhanallah]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/216206

Darwin’s Rottweiler
Richard Dawkins on his tense relations with those who believe in God.

By Lisa Miller | NEWSWEEK
Published Sep 26, 2009

From the magazine issue dated Oct 5, 2009

In his controversial bestseller The God Delusion, evolutionary
biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins attacked religious belief. He
spoke with me about his new work, The Greatest Show on Earth, and his
inimitable style. Excerpts:

Why were you motivated to write this book?

Well, it's about the evidence for evolution. Evolution is one of the
most fascinating ideas in all of science. It explains your existence
and mine, and the existence of just about everything we see. How can
you possibly ask what motivated me? It's just a wonderful subject to
write a book about.

Is this supposed to be the definitive refutation of creationist
arguments?

Well, it's amazing that there needs to be a definitive refutation of
them, but yes, if you put it like that, it is a propitious time from
that point of view. Any time would have been a good time for this
book.

Are those incompatible positions: to believe in God and to believe in
evolution?

No, I don't think they're incompatible if only because there are many
intelligent evolutionary scientists who also believe in God—to name
only Francis Collins [the geneticist and Christian believer recently
chosen to head the National Institutes of Health] as an outstanding
example. So it clearly is possible to be both. This book more or less
begins by accepting that there is that compatibility. The God Delusion
did make a case against that compatibility in my own mind.

I wonder whether you might be more successful in your arguments if you
didn't convey irritation and a sense that the people who believe in
God are not as smart as you are.

I think there is a certain justified irritation with young-earth
creationists who believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old.
Those are the people that I'm really talking about. I do sometimes
accuse people of ignorance, but that is not intended to be an insult.
I'm ignorant of lots of things. Ignorance is something that can be
remedied by education. And that's what I'm trying to do.

Is there anything else I've missed?

I would be glad if you didn't use the word "strident." I'm getting a
little bit tired of it.

I've read your books and I would not disagree with that
characterization.

OK. Well, let me plant one idea in your head. When somebody offers an
opinion about anything other than religion—say, politics or economics
or football—they will use language that is no more or less outspoken
than mine, and it isn't called strident. As soon as it's an atheistic
opinion, immediately the adjective "strident" is attached to it,
almost as though the word atheist can't be used without the preceding
adjective "strident." You wouldn't talk about a strident Christian.

7 Things: The Greening of Hugh Jackman

How a trip to Ethiopia changed the star

Oh, yes, you absolutely would. I wouldn't call all of the new atheists
strident. Christopher Hitchens, for example, isn't strident. Is he
not?

I would just say that it's a different approach.

I suppose the most strident passage in The God Delusion is where I
talk about how the God of the Old Testament is the most unpleasant
character in all fiction. I had this long list of adjectives:
homophobic, infanticidal. That's kind of using long words, long
Latinate words to describe what everybody actually knows: that the God
of the Old Testament is a monster. I put it in this rather, I'd like
to think, amusing way.

Ninety percent of Americans say they believe in God. To make fun of
them is to alienate them.

Well in that particular passage I'm only talking about the God of the
Old Testament, so the only people who will be offended are the people
who believe in the God of the Old Testament—which by the way is most
of the people you're referring to. So that has to be conceded. But I
also suspect that if they actually read the Old Testament, they could
not fail to agree with what I said. The God of the Old Testament is a
monster. It's very, very hard for anybody to deny that. He's like a
hyped-up Ayatollah Khomeini.

But if some portion of that 90 percent are intelligent people—

But they wouldn't disagree with what I said about the God of the Old
Testament. They'd probably say something like, "Oh, that's quite
different. We believe in the God of the New Testament." Something like
that.

Not if they're Jewish they wouldn't.
Well, sure enough. They'd say, "OK, we've moved on since that time."
Thank goodness they have.

© 2009

Member Comments1 2 3 4 Next Page »

Posted By: MekhongKurt @ 10/03/2009 12:48:14 AM

Dr. Dawkins, I read, and enjoyed, The God Delusion. I must say that
while I don't recall thinking it's strident, precisely, I do remember
telling the gentleman who brought it to ky attention (he's a huge fan
of yours) that while your intellectual case is sound, your style is,
in places harsh and combative -- I do recall thinking those two terms,
then later using them in conversation with my friend.

I just this morning about a research paper about to be published --
today, I think, in which the researchers took a group of people
equally divided between devout Christians, extremely devout, and
staunch atheists, then wired them up to watch their brain activity as
they performed a task. To wit, they were shown a variety of statements
of a mixed nature, some deeply religious, some deeply secular, and yet
some more of much lesser consequence. The subjects were to push a
button indicating either "True" or "Not true." And the time
constraints were deliberately great.

What's interesting is the scientists found that exactly the same parts
of the brain lit up in both groups as they reacted.

In other words, atheists believe in the truth of their position in the
same areas of the brain -- and thus in the same fashion-- as devout
Christians believe in the truth of *their* position.

That result implies no common ground; ergo, no resolution.

But there was one more finding: the area of the brain involved in
anxiety lit up about the same in both groups when they pressed a "not
true." The article I read said the researchers surmise the devout
hesitated -- reaction times slowed a bit as well -- at least
fleetingly wondered, "What if I'm wrong? -- the same concern, the
researchers conclude, that the atheists had, if from the opposite end
of the question.

That last finding suggests at least I tiny bit of overlap, as we find
in a Venn diagram./

Me? I'm 58, and about four decades ago I began seriously considering
entering, eventually, the Episcopal priesthood, an idea I eventually
abandoned. While I've never renounced Christianity, I didn't have to,
as from an early age I stopped thinking of it as much use in terms of
history. Which is how I feel about all great religious texts. However,
I also think the great religions -- not just the Abrahamic ones -- can
provide us with inspiration, even useful moral guidelines.

Is there a God in my world view? I don't know, so I won't argue with
you there is. But neither will I argue with a devout Christian,
Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist -- whatever -- that there is not any God
or gods at all.

Looking forward to reading your new book.

Posted By: froggy57 @ 09/30/2009 4:55:32 PM

Dawkins arrogance is towering.
An education or hi IQ is no guarantee of knowing
what the hell you are talking about.

Posted By: gusdicksin @ 10/01/2009 1:51:25 PM

No, but ignorance and/or a low IQ is a pretty much a guarantee of
being wrong.

Posted By: xhappilyneverafterx @ 10/02/2009 8:55:47 AM

on all subjects? i think not. anyone can be extremely informed about
any one subject its just how they voice their ideas and just because
your iq is high doesn't mean your intelligent on certain subjects or
even on common knowledge, to base intelligence off simply having an iq
which you took a single test to get then im pretty sure your resources
aren't credible

Posted By: gusdicksin @ 10/02/2009 10:46:26 PM

Reply Report Abuse You're dodging my point and misrepresenting my
argument. I did NOT say that being informed and having a high IQ
necessarily led to the "right" conclusion.

I merely argued that a low IQ (i.e. being stupid) and/or being
ignorant (i.e. uniformed about the topic being discussed) guarantee
that you will draw the wrong conclusion. Are you defending ignorance
and stupidity as the path to truth??

Posted By: Nozarck @ 09/29/2009 9:36:30 PM

Aetheism 101: Facts? Who the hell needs facts when you can make up
theories without them?!

Posted By: Dousatsu @ 09/29/2009 11:47:57 PM

SPELLING 101: Who needs an education when God loves you the way you
are?

Posted By: gusdicksin @ 10/01/2009 1:51:48 PM

And hates anyone who is different from you.

Posted By: xhappilyneverafterx @ 10/02/2009 8:53:54 AM

where does it say that in the bible or anywhere else. no where. thats
your own bad experiences you have had with bad examples of a christian
people.

Posted By: gusdicksin @ 10/02/2009 10:43:34 PM

To name just a few instances:

MATTHEW:
While insulting the Pharisees and Sadducees, John the Baptist calls an
entire generation a "generation of vipers." 3:7

Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few
"prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall
deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the
children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put
to death." 10:21

Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family
members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword."
10:34-36

"He that is not with me is against me." 12:30

JOHN:

Jesus calls his opponents (the Jews) the sons of the devil. 8:44

Posted By: panterica @ 10/02/2009 12:02:29 PM

You're not very familiar with the Bible, are you?

Posted By: Pat777 @ 09/28/2009 4:22:53 PM

My take on Dawkins is that he's insecure about his own beliefs,
otherwise he wouldn't be such an ardent hater of a belief in God. If I
were an atheist (I'm not) I would really pity all religious people
(not just Christians) wasting their time and energy on something that
doesn't exist. We'll it does appear that he does hate the God of the
Old Testament which is also the God of the New Testament, and yes He
did execute people during the flood of Noah's age, execute the
inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and ordered the execution of some
of the Canannites. Since he's Creator of the universe and the source
of life and energy, He has the right to decide who is to live and who
does not. Some people (like Dawkins) can't understand this so their on
on a hateful quest to deny His existence. We'll, Dawkins is wasting
his time and energy. It's really sad he can't be utilizing his energy
and skills on something more productive. We'll all I can say to
Dawkins and like minded, is that you're going to be in for a big
surprise.

Posted By: gusdicksin @ 09/29/2009 9:20:51 PM

I do pity you and wish that you would leave us the hell alone (which
means stop passing laws to control our sex lives and marriage choices,
and stop spending public money on religious celebrations).

Posted By: sabrina21 @ 09/30/2009 8:38:00 AM

Fine. I won't tell you how to live your life if you don't tell me how
to live mine. It's none of your business what car I drive, how many
children I have, or what temperature I set my thermostat at home.
Evolution is still a theory. That means it has not been proven as
fact. And yet this guy is so self-righteous to say that anyone who
does not believe what he believes is ignorant. This is his belief
system. Whether he admits it or not, the modern day blending of
atheism and environmentalism is a form of religion. While they claim
to not believe in any god, they focus their adoration on the planet.
This belief system has certain behavioral proscriptions and mandates
(things you can't do and things you must do), and even has its own
creation mythology. Yes, the theory of evolution is a creation
mythology, since it has not been absolutely proven. There was an
article posted recently about a woman who had an abortion and then got
sterilized in order to reduce her carbon footprint. She sacrificed her
only child and her fertility in the name of environmentalism. Do you
still think that this is not a religion?

Posted By: gusdicksin @ 10/02/2009 10:39:04 PM

The problem is that, whereas who I sleep with does not affect you,
your decision to burn fossil fuels affects me by changing the
environment. There is solid scientific evidence proving that global
warming is happening and that it is being caused by man - the evidence
is even more solid than the evidence supporting evolution.

However in an apples to apples comparison (i.e. things that don't
affect me) feel free to worship or not worship whatever you want,
teach your children whatever you want, and have as many children as
you want.

Posted By: panterica @ 10/02/2009 12:15:28 PM

You're right. A scientific theory is not a fact. It's a collection of
facts.... even BETTER than a fact is a collection of facts.

Posted By: sweetloumoney1 @ 09/30/2009 12:06:46 PM

wow sabrina, you really need to read this book, greatest show on
earth, as well as finding darwins god by christian Kenneth Miller PhD,
and a few thousand others. Evolution is a proven scientific fact. No
credible scientist disagrees. You assume it is only a theory, but do
not even know the definition of a theory. All a theory is, is an
explanation of observations in the natural world. Gravity is only a
theory as well, there is actually more evidence for evolution than
there is gravity. Every branch of science uses evolution. Just look
around you, everything is always changing, and has changed for
millions of years. the same species of animals a million years ago is
different that what it is today, evolution explains how that happens.
It uses logic, and refuses to settle for "idk must of been gods magic
wand" stance.

Posted By: Pat777 @ 09/29/2009 11:56:30 PM

That's my point. A sincere atheist (like yourself) would pity someone
like me. My problem is with Dawkins - his hateful rhetoric shows he's
insecure about his beliefs. I respect anyone who sincerely believes a
stand their taking on the origin of life with conviction and respect
for others. Oh BTW, I don't pass or support any laws which restrict a
person's right to live the way they choose to. Oh, to the person above
you who said "I'm ruining the world " I haven't done anything of the
sort. Can't you find anything better to say than that?? How about
supporting Dawkins and refuting my comments?

Posted By: Dousatsu @ 09/30/2009 1:50:01 AM

Show me one example of this "hateful rhetoric". He's frustrated about
peoples ignorance, that hardly makes him insecure about his beliefs
(or lack of).

Posted By: Fortunate Fox @ 09/30/2009 9:31:20 AM

"He's frustrated about peoples ignorance, that hardly makes him
insecure about his beliefs (or lack of)."

No, that makes him an idiot. Not because he believes in evolution, but
rather because he languishes in frustration with his failure to
control others to think as he does.

Like you, Mr. Dawkins is free to believe his ancestral next of kin are
chimpanzees. Him getting frustrated over his inability to convince
others to believe in something that he can't even prove doesn't make
sense. Maybe he should just chill and let others believe as they wish.

Posted By: Dousatsu @ 09/30/2009 6:12:10 PM

He's not frustrated by his lack of control of others, he's frustrated
because people deny the truth of basic biology for no reason other
than their cult tells them to.

Maybe we should all just let people "believe as they wish" and not
believe in gravity either. There is equal proof for the theory of
evolution than there is for the theory of gravity. Just because you've
been told otherwise does not make it so.

Posted By: Fortunate Fox @ 09/30/2009 9:29:15 PM

Do you not think if there were iron clad proof there was no creator it
would have found long before you and your pal here proclaimed it? You
cannot prove there is no God, so stop trying and leave people to
believe as they wish.

Posted By: Dousatsu @ 09/30/2009 9:53:51 PM

There is no iron-clad proof that there is no creator, but there IS
iron-clad proof that the earth is billions of years old. This
disproves christian creationism. Of course I think it was found long
before we're proclaiming it. It only gets more airtight with time.
That's why its so inconceivable that people deny it.

I cannot prove that there is no God, but you cannot prove that there
is no invisible spaghetti monster. Pathetic argument.


Posted By: xhappilyneverafterx @ 10/02/2009 10:00:34 AM

what is up with you and a spaghetti monster where is your nonsense
coming from? your going on and on about something i could home and
make with robotics and a pile of homemade spaghetti, in other words
shut up and get off this thread

Posted By: panterica @ 10/02/2009 12:00:29 PM

Nice listening skills, xhappilyneverafterx. When you can't win, just
insult. That'll do the trick.

I recommend looking up "logical fallacies" in debates and then come
back when you're ready to discuss something intelligent.

Posted By: xhappilyneverafterx @ 10/02/2009 9:57:59 AM

gusdickson your directly implying that your a homosexual. you should
be ashamed. your basically giong out on a limb as a cry for help get
off the thread and go knit you homosexual pansy.

Posted By: achhockey10 @ 09/29/2009 10:26:32 PM

It's people like you that ruin the world today. Get educated.

Posted By: Fortunate Fox @ 09/29/2009 10:12:42 PM

Dawkins can get angry all he wants. Unlike him, many of us don't
believe Websters Dictionary was born out of an explosion in a print
factory.

Posted By: Dousatsu @ 09/29/2009 11:58:58 PM

No, just that Webster created the dictionary, sat around for billions
of years and then decided to send himself into the dictionary as his
own son to convince all the words inside that they're going to burn in
eternal hellfire if they don't believe in Webster. Then faked his own
death in a disgusting advocation of torture and violence as a
scapegoat for everyone's "sins" and for using the free choice Webster
gave them in the first place. You know what? You're right...your way
makes a lot more sense.

Posted By: Fortunate Fox @ 09/30/2009 9:12:29 AM

"Then faked his own death in a disgusting advocation of torture and
violence as a scapegoat for everyone's "sins" and for using the free
choice Webster gave them in the first place."

Dousatsu,

You're babbling. Where did I mention any of that lopsided sillyness? I
simply believe that it took thought to bring together the incredible
and intricate balance we have here on earth. That aside, what
difference could it possibly make to you what I think? Why do spend so
much time here with silly responses like the above in trying to debunk
something you're absolutely certain doesn't even exist?

Look, you're free to believe that you and your family came from apes.
I don't care! I believe everyone has a choice whether to believe in
creationism or not.

Posted By: Dousatsu @ 09/30/2009 6:21:33 PM

We didn't come from apes you ignoramus, we came from ape-like
ancestors. There is a huge difference.

"Why do you spend so much time here with silly responses like the
above in trying to debunk something you're absolutely certain doesn't
even exist?"
You answered your own question there...because it doesn't exist, and I
hold truth to be important, especially when horrific acts worldwide
are being justified in the name of this untruth. My response to your
original comment wasn't supposed to be a coherent argument against
your weak analogy. I was simply pointing out that you're implication
that the big bang theory is laughable is ironic considering the
religious tall tales that float around. If I'd wanted to properly
challenge your argument I'd just pose the age old question - "who
designed the designer?"

Reply Report Abuse Posted By: Fortunate Fox @ 09/30/2009 9:25:19 PM

"We didn't come from apes you ignoramus, we came from ape-like
ancestors."

And those "ape-like ancestors" evolved from... where? Odd that out of
the millions of species of life on earth, only one managed to have the
incredible abilities we humans do. Nothing else out of all of that
comes close.

That aside... my my, such an angry little boy you are in trying to
prove your point! Actually I could care less what you believe. Unlike
you, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Why on earth you
think you must convince me there is no God is beyond me. Is that your
crusade in life, to debunk God? You hold truth to be important? lol...
As if you can actually prove there is no creator. If it were as simple
as your simple mind says it is, everyone on the planet could see it.
You can't get past the "who designed the designer", yet chickens and
eggs are both here in front of you.

Look imbecile, you can hold want ever so-called truth you want for
yourself, just stop trying to force your unproven ideas on others,
understand? Otherwise you can screw yourself.

Posted By: Dousatsu @ 09/30/2009 10:06:09 PM

You're doing a great job of showing how little you know about
evolution by natural selection....seriously, go read a book and stop
spouting these awful cliches as if they're facts. At least I've read
the bible and know what I'm arguing against.

"Actually I could care less what you believe."
Right...so you care quite a bit then.

"As if you can actually prove there is no creator."

Again, I can't prove that there is no creator...I can prove that the
christian interpretation of a creator is wrong, since humans (let
alone the earth) have been around for far longer than 10,000 years.
Have you heard of carbon dating? Whether or not there is a more
ambiguous creator is irrelevant, and unlikely.

Chickens and eggs? What are you trying to say, that there is an
infinite regression in the case of a creator? Anyway the egg came
first as far as I'm concerned. The two animals that bred to produce
the egg were very close to a chicken but not quite. Think of
artificial selection in dog breeding if it helps.

I'm not trying to force my unproven ideas on others, I'm trying to
defend my highly proven facts against others.

Posted By: Fortunate Fox @ 09/30/2009 11:59:17 PM

"At least I've read the bible and know what I'm arguing against."

No, you don't. You keep bringing up Christianity. I've not mentioned
that. You don't seem to know there are actually other religions out
there. Then there's a whole group of people you missed who believe in
a creator but aren't religious. Obviously you're angry with
Christianity. It's been around for 2000 years so get over it.
And no, I don't care what you believe. You however, are obviously
having a fit calling people ignoramuses if they don't agree with you.

"I'm not trying to force my unproven ideas on others, I'm trying to
defend my highly proven facts against others."

BS. You weren't "defending your highly proven facts" against me when
you originally posted me. In fact, I had not posted you at all when
you came up with your caustic nonsense about Christ faking his own
death. What a load of crap! Exactly what you're full of.

In the end, you are correct, you can't prove there isn't a God. So why
do you keep pounding people here that think otherwise if you can't
prove it? Give it up, find yourself a hobby and leave people to their
own beliefs.

Posted By: Dousatsu @ 10/01/2009 7:34:09 PM

I bring up christian creationism since that's what the interview is
largely about. Its the most common form of creationism and you haven't
told me what form of creationism you DO believe so excuse me for
assuming otherwise.

"Obviously you're angry with Christianity. It's been around for 2000
years so get over it."
So has slavery, that doesn't mean its a good thing worth putting up
with.

I'm not having a fit calling people ignoramuses because they don't
agree with me, I'm calling you one because you're trying to argue
against a well proven theory that you don't even understand. I have no
problem with well informed people disagreeing with me.

"You weren't "defending your highly proven facts" against me when you
originally posted me. In fact, I had not posted you at all when you
came up with your caustic nonsense about Christ faking his own death.
What a load of crap! Exactly what you're full of."

Wrong. You implied the big bang theory is far less plausible than
creationism, so I assumed you were talking about christian creationism
and had a go at christianity in defense of the big bang theory. I'm
full of crap? You thought we'd evolved directly from chimpanzees.

"you can't prove there isn't a God."

I also can't prove there isn't an invisible flying spaghetti monster,
but that doesn't mean its a smart position to take. I keep "pounding
people" because they're denying basic science when they don't know the
first thing about it.

Posted By: Fortunate Fox @ 10/01/2009 10:20:16 PM

"I bring up christian creationism since that's what the interview is
largely about. Its the most common form of creationism and you haven't
told me what form of creationism you DO believe so excuse me for
assuming otherwise."

You're right. I didn't tell you. You should be ashamed that you don't
know assumption is the mother of all screw ups.

"Obviously you're angry with Christianity. It's been around for 2000
years so get over it."

So has slavery, that doesn't mean its a good thing worth putting up
with.

Of course you're angry with Christianity. Your posts wreak of it. But
who brought up slavery? That was abolished here over 140 years ago,
and no one on this board believes in or is advocating slavery. Cut the
crap with your disengenious analagies.

"I'm not having a fit calling people ignoramuses because they don't
agree with me, I'm calling you one because you're trying to argue
against a well proven theory that you don't even understand. I have no
problem with well informed people disagreeing with me."

Gotta laugh at the way you libs justify yourselves. Only people who
agree with you are "well informed" lol. The point is you can't debate
the issue because you can't prove God doesn't exist, and that angers
you. The fact is I've never said anything about evolution or Christ or
religion! It's you that hammers on that stuff as if that's proof
there's no God! That in no way proves there isn't a creator.

"You weren't "defending your highly proven facts" against me when you
originally posted me. In fact, I had not posted you at all when you
came up with your caustic nonsense about Christ faking his own death.
What a load of crap! Exactly what you're full of."

Wrong. You implied the big bang theory is far less plausible than
creationism, so I assumed you were talking about christian creationism
and had a go at christianity in defense of the big bang theory. I'm
full of crap? You thought we'd evolved directly from chimpanzees.

BS. Once again you "assumed." And you replied to me, so you weren't
defending anything as you said you were. And I didn't say "we" came
from chimpanzees, did I? I simply said you're free to believe you and
your family came from chimpanzees. As a decendent of a primate, maybe
you should learn to read? That said, let me restate that for you.
You're free to believe that you and your family came from the
ancestor's of the Ape. Happy now?

"you can't prove there isn't a God."

No, you can't. Period. So once again leave others to believe as they
wish. We'll do the same with you.

Posted By: Dousatsu @ 10/01/2009 10:45:33 PM

"Of course you're angry with Christianity. Your posts wreak of it. But
who brought up slavery? That was abolished here over 140 years ago,
and no one on this board believes in or is advocating slavery."

I'm really starting to doubt your intelligence now. My point was
pretty obvious - that just because something has been around for a
long time, it doesn't mean we should just let it continue and act like
it will never go away.

"Only people who agree with you are "well informed" lol."

No, only people who know basic science are well informed. You clearly
do not.

"BS. Once again you "assumed." I didn't imply the "big bang theory",
idiot. And you replied to me, so you weren't defending anything as you
said you were."

So it doesn't count as defense unless I make the first comment? I'm
defending my views whether or not I conveyed them first. You didn't
imply the big bang theory? Ok so if you didn't imply that, then the
point of your comment was that random scientific processes like
genetic mutation are less plausible than a creator. Either way it
still conflicts with my views and I'm still going to comment.

"And I didn't say "we" came from chimpanzees, did I? I simply said
you're free to believe you and your family came from chimpanzees. As a
decendent of a primate, maybe you should learn to read? That said, let
me restate that for you. You're free to believe that you and your
family came from the ancestor's of the Ape. Happy now?"

Right, you said I'm free to believe that me and my family came from
chimpanzees. Which means that's what you think happened in human
evolution, which again proves you know nothing about the topic at
hand. So yes, I am happy since I'm vindicated in my assumptions about
your lack of education.

"No, you can't. Period. So once again leave others to believe as they
wish. We'll do the same with you."

Again, I also can't prove there isn't an invisible flying spaghetti
monster, but that doesn't mean its a smart position to take. Saying
"you can't prove it" is not an argument, its a cop out. I don't have
to "leave others to believe as they wish", I can put forward all the
arguments I want thanks.

Posted By: Fortunate Fox @ 10/02/2009 12:29:13 AM

"No, only people who know basic science are will informed. You clearly
are not."

Let me see... you can't prove there's isn't a God, but it's me who's
uninformed. What a moron.

You mealy mouth libs are so full of sh!t! Other than my belief in a
creator, all I have said is to let others believe as they wish, which
includes you. On one hand, you want to come off as this intelligent,
all-knowing being certain of the exact origins of our past. On the
other, you bristle at the fact that I'm okay that you think you and
your family are knuckle dragging ancestors from the ape family. You
can't have it both ways idiot. That said, you would think you would be
happy and satisfied that I agree with you! What the hell else do you
want? The fact is you, like Mr. Dawkins and Madeline O'hare before you
want us to state there isn't a God so you can conveniently side step
your inability to prove there isn't one.

Here's a tip for you: Don't hold your liberal breath.

Posted By: Dousatsu @ 10/02/2009 12:52:02 AM

"Let me see... you can't prove there's isn't a God, but it's me who's
uninformed. What a moron."

You're repeating yourself once again because you don't have a leg to
stand on. I've addressed the "you can't disprove it" 'argument'. It's
nonsense.

"Other than my belief in a creator, all I have said is to let others
believe as they wish, which includes you."

Yet you're trying to get me to stop commenting and conveying my
beliefs. You're basically saying "believe what you want, just don't
talk about it".

"On the other, you bristle at the fact that I'm okay that you think
you and your family are knuckle dragging ancestors from the ape
family."

You're becoming completely incoherent now. Please try to form
sentences properly.

"The fact is you, like Mr. Dawkins and Madeline O'hare before you want
us to state there isn't a God so you can conveniently side step your
inability to prove there isn't one."

Wow its like arguing with a three year old. AGAIN, prove to me that
there isn't an invisible flying spaghetti monster.

Posted By: Fortunate Fox @ 10/02/2009 1:13:02 AM

You are such an imbecile! What part of leaving others to believe as
they wish do you not understand you moron?

"Yet you're trying to get me to stop commenting and conveying my
beliefs."

No, I haven't. But we all know you're out of gas when you're down to
"please try to form sentences properly" rhetoric. The sentence was
fine. What's next, "Yo' Mama" jokes? Likewise with your pathetic and
ridiculous "spaghetti monster" trash. Like everyone else, I don't have
to prove there is such nonsense because there isn't one. God, on the
other hand, is a different story. You obviously think if one believes
in a creator of the universe one must also believe in Santa Claus. You
might want to drop your black and white ideas, as they don't work.
Lastly... how about you go see a shrink about your hatred of
Christianity? I'm sure one could help. Just think, he might be able to
help you stop all this silly nonsense of yours trying to convince the
world God doesn't exist! (something you've already admitted you can't
do, lol)

And that's the last word from me. I've had enough of babysitting you.
Post away, I won't be here to read it.

Posted By: panterica @ 10/02/2009 1:14:25 PM

I realized your only position in all of those long-winded comments is
that no one can disprove God and freedom of discussion about it should
be limited. No one has disagreed that God can't be disproven, and it
would be stupid to say such a thing. Maybe you forgot God can't be
proven either, which leaves the burden of proof ONLY on the believer.

"... pathetic and rediculous "spaghetti monster" trash. Like everyone
else, I don't have to prove there is such nonsense because there isn't
one. God, on the other hand, is a different story."

Prove it.

By the way, I'm a conservative and an atheist. Don't make this
political. Distraction techniques and insults are not mature debate
material. They get nowhere, and you know it. Now I'll leave you to
covering your eyes and ears as you were.

Posted By: Vypurr @ 10/02/2009 5:15:59 PM

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see where this poster claimed God
could be proven. Dousatsu however keeps asking for people here to
prove the existence of a spaghetti monster, whatever the hell that is.
It seems the most people here have done is ask those who are attacking
them for their belief in a creator to prove that God doesn't exist,
and if they can't, leave them to believe as they want.

"By the way, I'm a conservative and an atheist. Don't make this
political. Distraction techniques and insults are not mature debate
material. They get nowhere, and you know it. Now I'll leave you to
covering your eyes and ears as you were."

First of all, who gives a rat's ass if you're a conservative or an
athiest? Second, I think it was dousatsu that started the name calling
in this thread. No rebuke for your friend for getting the ball
rolling? Of course not, you would never criticise a fellow like-minded
atheist.

And you just negated your insults remarks with your hypocritical and
smart ass "now I'll leave you to covering your eyes and ears as you
were" comment. So much for taking the high road. Now that you mention
it though, I would think the covering of ones eyes and ears would be
more suitable to a close relative of a primate like yourself, correct?

Posted By: xhappilyneverafterx @ 10/02/2009 9:53:15 AM

fortunate fox= beast. advocate for christ, we need more of you and
this idot your argueing with well im sure he would love to continue
his babbling but he has run out of nonsense to say.

Posted By: IndianDP @ 10/01/2009 1:58:03 PM

Soahffmn, I agree with part of what you said. Need to go farther
though. Timing is the problem here. Egg or the chicken, first? Answer
is- Both.

quote- Posted By: soahffmn @ 09/30/2009 6:08:59 PM.

Travis, There is a difference between the created and the Creator.
The Creator had no beginning, nor does he have an end- end quote.

Then you will be attacked with- well then you say, initially there was
one creator and then he later decided to produce creation. Now, in
that case where was he standing or floating if there was no creation
already there? was he looking like human or gas or planet? What were
his physical attributes? The answer was provided in ancient sanskrit
scriptures (Vedas and upanisads): The creator and creation are the
same, they have no beginning and no end, both in time and space. These
concepts or theories are what we can firmly stand on even today. The
explanations of evolutionists are convincing but sadly confining to
the life only, starting from a virus to a human and everything else
that lives in between, on planet earth. Life (people, trees and fungi
etc) is only a tiny part of creation. We have galaxies and universe
with us in this manifest creation. The evolutionists have to rely on
vedas for an explanation of the larger manifest reality out there
(universe or universes).Creator is formless and genderless . The
construction, maintenance and destruction are going on at the same
time depending on where we are looking , the texts say.

This is an exceptional case (naturally and understandably) that both
egg and chicken started together.
The secrets wont be cracked, ever.

Posted By: The Socialist @ 10/01/2009 9:04:36 PM

ok, so lets put God in nature; since God is divine then he must be
perfect in nearly everything physical because if something beats him
then he is not the highest being. well the only way to make sure he
can't be out done he must be infinite in every way. so he must be
infinity small and large, he must also be infinity heavy and light,
and last be infinity powerful. guess what?! there is something in the
universe that matches that! a black hole! so if you want god to be in
nature, then you worship a vacuum in space that which no matter
including light and time and life can escape from. so get in a rocket
and blast off towards a black hole to be sucked into heaven!

Posted By: IndianDP @ 10/02/2009 1:30:34 PM

Socialist,

Heaven (or hell) is not there in my creator- creation combos websters,
Im not a believer in the sense that a heaven/ hell choice is incumbent
on me once I stop breathing. Im not condescending. I don???t believe
in a gentleman verifying the list of my good or bad deeds and then
decide to throw me into heaven or hell. Sorry I don???t believe that
humans appeared just 10 K yrs ago. Darwin has his permanent place in
science, irreversible and same as Einsteins. Im a thinker wise or
otherwise.

The creator and creation are one and the same, the combo is
inseparable just like time and space, this combo has no time or
motivation or obligation to guide me thru my nanoseconds existence (in
the day of the cosmic calendar); or judge me and allot me an afterlife
dwelling (there is no heaven or eternal hell waiting for me to suck me
in). Just the way the combo has no rhyme or reason to guide the
morality or physical life of the E. Coli bacteria that lives in my
colon.

Religion once is stripped off its colorful layers of superstition,
miracle and dogma, once it is butt naked, it comes out as a mere list
of precepts, the likes of do not lie, steal, rape etc etc. Thus the
only place religion has is that of a code/rule book to lead a civil
life. Just the way I was taught to evacuate avoiding a stampede once a
building catches fire, I am given some general guidance to lead a
guilt free or moral life. The fear driven by religion- like the
inevitability of heaven or hell (in abrahamic religions) and repeat
births (reincarnation in buddist and hindu religions)- is just so to
convince humans to remain moral and nothing more. Just like our pet
cat or our E. Coli does not gain entry to heaven or hell I will not be
extended the courtesy either. Simply because there is none.

So what is it then? Iam a part of Creator Creation combo, Im not
separate. There is no we and Them, my friend. We are them. So are a
black hole and our sun star. Om tat sat.

Posted By: tntmcc @ 10/02/2009 10:11:45 AM

I have no preference for Atheism or Deism. But since an Atheist is the
Subject of the article I hava a few general questions that seem
unanswered by the Ahteist:

1. If the Deist believes in an eterernal Being based on Fath, then
doesn't the Atheist believe in the eternal existence of inert matter.
After all, they both believe that nothing can ever derive from
absolutely nothing. The belief in the existence of eternal matter, ie
an atom of something always existed back into eternity, requires every
bit as much or more Faith as the Deist believing in the same eternity
of an intelligence.

2. Several Atheists complain about Deists who did "immoral disgusting
acts". By what standard does an Atheist judge the morality of any act?
For instance, why is stealing wrong if you don't get caught by some
authority who outlaws it?
Why is it wron to have dog fights for profit? Why is it wrong to
behead your wife for adultery in the Islamic nations if that is what
their moral code and punishment prescribe?

What moral standard is to be used by mankind under Atheism? One that
is made up in each society or nation or one that transcends the human
standard? Why is one person's moral standard better than another's? Is
morality just any code a person in power makes up or is their a
standard that transcends the many conflicting human ideas of morality?
Does man have some evolved moral code that is common to the species or
not?

Posted By: panterica @ 10/02/2009 12:29:55 PM

1. If you catch up on your knowledge of modern science, you'll find
that a perfect vacuum creates elementary particles. Oh, and to claim
that atheists believe anything (whether it be about science, God,
religion, etc.) doesn't make sense. You can't generalize that group of
people defined by what beliefs they DON'T hold by pinning beliefs on
them. It's like calling bald a hair style.

2. Morality is natural. It's genetic. It's a product of reason and
self-preservation. Empathy is all it takes... no books necessary. I'll
agree with you that the militant anti-theists (which Dawkins isn't)
are annoying. I know what those atheists mean, though. You can't claim
someone did a wrong act out of atheistic beliefs. It doesn't make
sense, but to do immoral acts out of religious beliefs absolutely
does. It happens all the time, and anyone with an objective and honest
mind has to admit that.

Posted By: Texas Jake @ 09/28/2009 9:59:20 PM

God has cursed me with an empirical mind.

I prayed that He would remove this curse and fill me with faith. He
did not.

I prayed that He settle my heart, and that He remove my doubt to His
extraordinary claims. Sometimes God's answer is no.

I tried hard for over 20 years. I let go and I let God. I read the
Good Book front to back, over and over. I prayed for understanding,
and all I got was frustration. Church after church I did the alter
calls, Kleenex and all, and begged for devotion. None came.

It became pretty obvious to me that God did not want me to be
religious.

Now, I ignore anyone who claims to speak for God. I feel compassion
for anyone trying to reconcile the insanity of religion with the Laws
of Nature. I dismiss godly people with "whatever floats your boat".

This whole God crap just sucks. Oh no, now I'm destined to burn? Do
you hate me for not buying your Gods' storyline? Bite me.

Just give me some science, math, logic or reason that makes sense, is
actually possible, and is provable, so I can stay calm and focused,
and meet the challenges of living in the real world.

Whether I am right or wrong, I'm pretty sure He won't let me come back
and tell you. And BTW, evolution is most certainly not my God.

Posted By: Above Average Citizen @ 10/02/2009 11:53:14 AM

Texas Jake: Who really gives a rat's behind about your pathetic search
for significance. Actually, you have no significance. Unfortunately,
Dawkins will not tell you that, because then you won't buy his pitiful
books. Dawkins in clearly manifesting his survival mode and this
depends on selling books to morons who don't know who they are. They
are afraid to confess that they are only survival machines, who will
beg, borrow, steal, and kill to survive. No one gives a damn about
you, Mr. Jake, not even your wife, kids, mother or father.

Posted By: panterica @ 10/02/2009 11:58:15 AM

Nice. Attack him because he is more intellectually honest than you
are.

People who make claims about morality like you just did are the most
twisted... the ones who end up in prison because you might actually
justify a reason to do such things in your delusional head.

Posted By: Above Average Citizen @ 10/02/2009 12:10:03 PM

Jake is not intellectually honest. Far from it. And I am arguing from
Dawkins real point of view. If you believe Dawkins then you should
understand what he is really saying. He is saying that we emerged from
the primordial slime. We are headed inexorabley towards annihilation
and oblivion. In between these two poles of meaninglessness, we
somehow, someway try to live significant, meaningful lives. Now, no
one really believes that, but that is exactly Dawkins worldview if you
scrape away all his make believe bows and wrapping paper. Jake has
bought this lock, stock, and barrel, and he is among men most to be
pitied. You, sir, are to be more pitied because you do not realize the
true nature of Dawkins' intellectual position. You can't even
determine when I am arguing tongue-in-cheek.

Posted By: panterica @ 10/02/2009 12:20:03 PM

Well I sure hope all of those colorful details you added to Dawkins'
"beliefs" were tongue-on-cheek, because we both know those claims are
not intellectually honest.

I've read his books. I'm aware of his positions in these matters. I
won't lower myself to your level and "know" that you haven't read his
books, but it really seems you haven't. You haven't even make a
concrete argument yet. You just whine and insult, gaining yourself no
respect from me.

Posted By: Above Average Citizen @ 10/02/2009 12:15:58 PM

Panterica: I did not make any claims about morality. Just the
opposite. If Dawkins is correct, then there is no transcendental basis
for morality. We each make our own morality, and mine is just as valid
as yours. You know that is not true. And yet you can condemn me for
making fun of Jake, who really deserves to be made fun of. I can't
make fun of you. There is nothing funny in your weak state of mind.

Posted By: Scuba Steve @ 10/02/2009 9:51:51 AM

I love it Jake! You rock!

I'll never forget hearing George Carlin when I was seventeen, "I don't
know what the big deal is about this God guy, everything he makes,
dies........

Evolution can't be your god. Evolution is science, not
superstition.....

Posted By: mattsihler @ 09/30/2009 5:01:04 PM

First of all, one can not simply discard the possibility that God
always existed just becuase our minds can not comprehend it. There are
many things we can not comprehend. We can not even comprehend the
simple fact that we are cognisant and have memories.

Second, I see apes in the world, and I see humans. At some point (if
the theory of evolution is correct) then a half man-half ape must have
had some advantage that pushed it toward evolutionary progression. So
what happened to all the half man-half apes? Where are they? Where are
all these missing links in the evolutionary chain?

There are too many holes in Darwin's Theory of Evolution to take
anyone seriously who still presents the idea as a plausible
explanation to the advancement of life. It is actually rather silly.

There are thousands of missing links, not just the one between humans
and apes. Perhaps the God of the Old Testament was vindictive and
remorseless, but that doesn't prove Darwin's theory; it simply
presents another mystery of science.

Posted By: F7711 @ 10/02/2009 11:32:35 AM

Your ignorance is vast,vast like the cosmos.

Posted By: panterica @ 10/02/2009 11:47:48 AM

Dawkins doesn't discard the possibility that God exists. He only
shares with us why it's unlikely. Oh, and just because you can't wrap
your mind around the processes leading to our existence doesn't mean
your imaginary friend is really up there.

You don't understand evolution. There were never "half-man half-apes."
There were species that went seperate ways and evolved accordingly,
leaving similar yet different species in different habitats after
MILLIONS of generations.

To call evolution silly and complain that someone says the same of
your beliefs makes you a hypocrite.

Posted By: panterica @ 10/02/2009 11:50:16 AM

Sorry, I replied to the wrong comment.

Posted By: panterica @ 10/02/2009 11:49:51 AM

Dawkins doesn't discard the possibility that God exists. He only
shares with us why it's unlikely. Oh, and just because you can't wrap
your mind around the processes leading to our existence doesn't mean
your imaginary friend is really up there.

You don't understand evolution. There were never "half-man half-apes."
There were species that went seperate ways and evolved accordingly,
leaving similar yet different species in different habitats after
MILLIONS of generations.

To call evolution silly and complain that someone says the same of
your beliefs makes you a hypocrite.

Posted By: brydges @ 09/29/2009 3:27:01 PM

There are no atheists in fox holes

Posted By: F7711 @ 10/02/2009 11:36:18 AM

Actually there are now and always have been. I am an example.

Posted By: gusdicksin @ 09/29/2009 9:10:18 PM

Wow...that's a stupid comment. Do you have any other nonsensical
cliches that you can pepper in here?

Posted By: Science Rules @ 10/01/2009 4:47:53 PM

I know someone who actually believes the Earth is 5,000 years old.
When I asked them how they knew that, their response was "That's what
my church says is true". GREAT! A church has the market corner on the
truth...at least for this individual.

Who also admitted that they NEVER watch science shows or listen to any
news that conflicts with their beliefs.

Which leads me to the conclusion that Sunday is the most
segregated.day of the week. The self-made ignorant go to church and
spend hours testifying as to their devotion of being,,,well, just
plain stupid when it comes to the subject of science.

Posted By: xhappilyneverafterx @ 10/02/2009 9:55:51 AM

science is considered the resaerch for "smart" people, any buffoon can
say they found something that can "disprove" god but until there is
significant evidence suggesting he does not exist then you can start
trying to turn christians away from their FAITHS, but until then shut
your mouth get off the thread

Posted By: xhappilyneverafterx @ 10/01/2009 9:14:51 AM

how anyone can actually believe in darwin's evolutionary ideas is a
fool; who can they say put evolution in place or kept it going how can
you actually think that in a one and infitude chance that things just
happen to line up so the evolutionary cuve may occur. your a fool.

Posted By: Hadrian @ 10/01/2009 1:55:35 PM

You ignorant. You deserve your limited point of view.

Posted By: xhappilyneverafterx @ 10/02/2009 8:52:43 AM

no my friend it is you with the limited point of view that is not even
of your own opinion. You listen to those of a higher intelluct of your
own, well in your case a much higher i can tell. im not ignorant i
know exactly what im talking about but you are fool, you lack a sense
of judgement and and you don't even know enough about your own beleifs
to where you can even form a slightly valid arguement against that of
my own. your just a poor pathetic fool that has nothing better to do
in his own time than post on newsweek. i pity your weak mind

Posted By: Above Average Citizen @ 10/02/2009 8:29:05 AM

Dawkins is not a Rottweiler. He is of the Heinz 57 variety, a bastard
child of the intellectual elite who have no concern for reality. In
essence, evolution should truthfully be described as follows. We
emerged from the primordial slime. We are headed towards annihilation
and oblivion. Yet, somehow, someway, in between these meaningless
poles of origin and destiny, we choolse to live meaningful lives. This
is just a pile of Richard Dawkins manure dropped on the living room
carpet of humanity. Evolution is survival of the fittest, not natural
selection or adaptation. Nature is red in tooth and claw. We are
survival machines, and we will lie, steal, and kill anyone or anything
that gets in our way towards this end. We are enemies. Any human
interactions we develop are only directed towards survival. In the
end, we will not survive. Now that's the true picture of evolution
which Richard Dawkins is so loath to tell us. He is a charlatan making
his survival from the fools who purchase his books.

Posted By: Richard Morgan @ 10/02/2009 2:53:31 AM

Here dawkins says :"I do sometimes accuse people of ignorance, but
that is not intended to be an insult."
On his own site he said :"I think we should probably abandon the
irremediably religious precisely because that is what they are ???
irremediable. I am more interested in the fence-sitters who haven???t
really considered the question very long or very carefully. And I
think that they are likely to be swayed by a display of naked
contempt. Nobody likes to be laughed at. Nobody wants to be the butt
of contempt."
http://richarddawkins.net/article,3767,Truckling-to-the-Faithful-A-Spoonful-of-Jesus-Helps-Darwin-Go-Down,Jerry-Coyne
Thank you, Lisa Miller, for making him reveal his contradictions and
hypocrisy.

Posted By: randyleepublic @ 10/02/2009 2:10:37 AM

Brain numbing fear porn. Great stuff for the kids! I don't think
leaving other to belive as they wish is OK at all. People who belive
in imaginary beings desearve constant ridicule and abuse. That way
eventually they will shut up and no longer poison children's minds. In
a generation or two the nightmare would be over.

Posted By: almotanaby @ 10/02/2009 2:09:26 AM

I think people just believe what they receive from their parents.They
become muslims, christians and jews according to where they were
born..They believe in god because they never consider deeply whether
it is logical or not.I sometimes wonder how someone knows about the
big bang and still believe in a God who created all in six days in
predesigned and predetermined manner .I am became an Athiest when I
was 18 years old when realized that our life events were governed by
worldly laws more than godly ones , but because I am from middle east
i remained silent uptill now because if it is known it means beheading
in the name of GOD.

Posted By: soahffmn @ 09/30/2009 6:08:59 PM

Travis, There is a difference between the created and the Creator. The
Creator had no beginning, nor does he have an end.
The creation, at His will, could be ended with but a word, even as He
spoke the world into existence. It is sad that His word continues to
fall on deaf ears, but He says that it will not come back void. In
other words, God's word will fulfill its purpose, whether in saving
the lost, or in condemning those who fail to take heed of it. God sent
not His son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world
through him might be saved. Those who would not receive Him have
already been condemned. In the first chapter of the book of John, in
the New Testament, we are told that Jesus is the Word of God come down
from Heaven, and that everything that was made was made through Him.
He spoke the word, and the world was created. There was order in the
creation, and not happenstance. There is purpose in creation, and it
is to bring good (GOOD) pleasure to God. Yet, creation lost its
purpose when sin entered into the world through the one man, Adam.
The creation regained its purpose through the One Man Jesus Christ,
who was sinless, and suffered, as the creator, for his creation. Can
you get that??????? God means to retsore his creation to its original
purpose, and no human had or has the capacity to bring that about.
Christ Jesus, the son of God, the God-man, literally God from God,
entered time, and human flesh, and brought salvation to his love. He
loves us, and the work of his hands in all its variety. But we have
done just about everything we camn to thwart his work. Still, His
redemption plan was written in Stone, so to speak, even before the
world began. Jesus Christ is that Stone or, more appropriately,
Cornerstone. Evolution is another lie that seeks to disconnect any
association with a Creator. The glory is stolen from God (yet all
things return unto Him; no net loss), in an effort to put man at the
forefront, You just can't have what isn't yours to begin with. There
is much we don't understand, but much that is yet to be revealed. I'd
rather find honor in believing God, and being called a fool by man,
than believing man and being called a fool by God. Let God be true,
and every man a liar. Let God be praised, and let man's glory wither
like the grass in the late afternoon sun.

Posted By: The Socialist @ 09/30/2009 10:24:16 PM

ok, lets just get this strait, he is not "insecure" about his beliefs.
he is frustrated that something that is based off of believing in it
even though there is a lack of proof of it is being taught next to
something that is real and can be proved. he doesn't care if you
believe in god or not. the he is pointing out is that beliefs can go
to far and try to tear at reality, to much faith can blind you.

let me tell how this whole thing can be put to rest once and for all.
if some of you people of faith haven't seen this movie you should,
it's called Religulous. it stars Bill Mahur, and he goes around asking
people about religion and why/how could they believe in it and what
evidence is there to back up the stories. well a lot of the movie
might piss you religious people off (even though he really doesn't
insult the religions but ask questions on the holes in the stories)
but you could just skip to the part where he goes to the Vatican's
observatory and talks to the head of their science department about
creationism. guess what he says! and he speaks for the Vatican when he
says this, it's dumb and not real. the experts and leaders of one of
the most important and fundamental of the christen faith said that
creationism is wrong! are you hearing this? do i need to repeat this?

look, i'm not here preaching for you to drop your bibles and embrace
science, in fact i would hate to be doing that. all i am saying is
that creationism should not be taught as though it was science, faith
came before science (that's what the Vatican's science leader said in
the movie) and therefore has no way of relating to it. if you want to
keep on believing in creationism, fine, in fact you should because it
makes you happy but don't think of it as a science because this is
when i step in and say no. if you can't test it, then it can't be
proven as fact in the face of science, so why should it be taught with
the thing that could be tested/observed over and over again and
therefore proven to be fact? there is no reason, and that's why
creationism shouldn't be taught in public schools.

plus not to count that it is illegal (it is plainly stated that the
government can't support any religion, so don't say "well my
interpretation of that law is" because it's very clear) for them to
allow religion into school and it would be highly offensive to the
children of other religion, hmmm, so no one cares about them? how
would you feel if they taught an Islamic version of creationism in
school? you probably go nuts and you know why? because you don't care
about what other people think. the people who you are attacking
actually do care about what you think. no to sound christen (i'm not
but i have read the christen bible (the new testament) and the jewish
bible (the Torah/aka old testament) front and cover) but i am pretty
sure Jesus would be made for you not following what he taught, a
little thing called honor and love thy neighbor.

Posted By: bgamall @ 09/30/2009 7:58:19 PM

God predestines the salvation of very few people. Obviously this guy
isn't one of them. http://newcovenanttheology.com


Posted By: soahffmn @ 09/30/2009 5:33:12 PM

Well Travis, you don't exist. You're too complex to exist, and you say
you have no creator!

Posted By: TravisB @ 09/30/2009 10:12:46 AM
Contemplate creation

Many Christians look at our universe, and especially life on planet
Earth, and come to the conclusion that what we see is "irreducible
complexity." In the Christian view, the complexity of our universe and
life on earth requires an intelligent creator to bring everything into
existence. A Christian might say:

"Look at how amazing and complex life is. Look at how intricate the
human eye is, and the human brain. There is no way that the human eye
and the human brain arose spontaneously from the mud. In the same way
that a watch cannot appear without a watchmaker, there is no way that
all this complexity arose without an intelligent creator."
So, we have a question that demands an answer:

Did the complexity of life arise spontaneously, or did it require a
creator?

Christians believe that a creator is essential. Scientists believe
that the idea of a "creator" is pure mythology, and that the
complexity arose through natural processes like evolution. Who is
right?

You can actually answer this question yourself with a little logic.
Here are the two options:

The complexity of life and the universe did arise completely
spontaneously and without any intelligence. Nature created all the
complexity we see today.

An intelligent creator created all of the complexity that we see today
because complexity requires intelligence to create it.
The advantage of the first option is that it is self-contained. The
complexity arose spontaneously. No other explanation is required.
The problem
with the second option is that it immediately creates an
impossibility. If complexity cannot arise without intelligence, then
we immediately must ask, "Who created the intelligent creator?" The
creator could not spring into existence if complexity requires
intelligence. Therefore, God is impossible.

In other words, by applying logic, we can prove that God is
imaginary.

Posted By: Pat777 @ 09/30/2009 4:39:55 PM

Hello Travis. There's no impossibility. God had no beginning - He's
always existed. This concept is very difficult for beings like
ourselves who live in a universe where there's a beginning and end.
But that's the crux of the matter. It's hard to understand but I
accept it. Some may not and that's there choice with all the
implications that go with it.

Posted By: froggy57 @ 09/30/2009 5:09:13 PM

((The problem with the second option is that it immediately creates an
impossibility. If complexity cannot arise without intelligence, then
we immediately must ask, "Who created the intelligent creator?"))

**that is the problem when little critters try to reason above their
paygrade. :o)

Posted By: Fortunate Fox @ 09/30/2009 1:45:44 PM

"The problem with the second option is that it immediately creates an
impossibility. If complexity cannot arise without intelligence, then
we immediately must ask, "Who created the intelligent creator?" The
creator could not spring into existence if complexity requires
intelligence. Therefore, God is impossible."

Your simplistic idea that one can't exist without the other doesn't
hold water. The chicken had to come from an egg, and the egg had to
come from a chicken... yet both are here.

Posted By: Harvard white guy @ 09/30/2009 2:40:39 PM

Enter Your CommentI totally agree with TravisB, it is very hard to
comprehend this delicate subject of GOD versus EVOLUTION.

In a way, if intelligence was a product of creation, then who created
the creator? I was born a christian, and still is a christian; BUT
there are things that just defy logic. Something is NOT right. At some
point in our lives based on scientific evidence; we must ask
ourselves, what is REALLY true?

Based on scientific observation, EVOLUTION is a fact and not a MYTH.
On the contrary, the idea behind someone greater than all comes in as
a way for humanity to seek solace during self pity and bereavement.
Technically, this is a way for humanity to abide by the rules of
society and to SIMPLY be a good person, lest you die on the eternal
fire of condemnation!!.

Not to be sarcastic, faith can be equated to the PLACEBO EFFECT; you
abide by the rules of the creator and you will lleave a better person
in this world. In times of need (as long as you want it bad), thou
shall get it through me.

This has surely served mankind well, because those who have lived
recklessly wihtout faith have been looked at as outlaws and will
surely never see "ETERNAL " life. By scaring the masses through
religion, people tend to abide by the rules of society because of the
fear of the wrath of GOD the creator. Sometimes we do all question
this tactic because it creates absolute authority. Look for example at
religion states out there (I dont wanna start a war here, you know who
they are); they use religion to manipulate the poor, while they fatten
their pockets with oil and gold money...in the name of God! So poor
people of the world, get an education and RISE...!

On the ohter hand, evolution simply means that approximately 40, 000
years ago in AFRICA on the southern SAHARA desert; the first modern
human being with inteligent capabilities walked upright after billions
of years of linear biochemical metamorphosis. These humans then simply
POPULATED the earth through migration (please read the JOURNEY OF MAN)
by a famous geneticist.

Simply put, we all evolved from tiny creatures of the sea, slowly
climbing up the charts to where we are today.

This thoery simply seems logical based on SCIENTIFIC observation and
evidence. An EDUCATION is the biggest gift a human being can receive,
for without it, we have no way of having a justified argument between
EVOLUTION and CREATION. it will take a billion years to convince some
that are still stuck in the culture of deceit. I am for the
conservative movement, but I predict this is a dying "species".
progressivity if the way of the future, bottom line!

Faith is therefore a means of self comfort and a belief that there is
SOMEONE GREATER THAN US that we can look upon to give us solace in our
personal lives. NOT to say that Jesus of Nazareth, Mohammed, and all
the other faith GODS or Prophets did not exist; they did exist.

Mankind has always felt abandonment since evolution, therefore as

Posted By: Harvard white guy @ 09/30/2009 2:39:31 PM

EnteI totally agree with TravisB, it is very hard to comprehend this
delicate subject of GOD versus EVOLUTION.

In a way, if intelligence was a product of creation, then who created
the creator? I was born a christian, and still is a christian; BUT
there are things that just defy logic. Something is NOT right. At some
point in our lives based on scientific evidence; we must ask
ourselves, what is REALLY true?

Based on scientific observation, EVOLUTION is a fact and not a MYTH.
On the contrary, the idea behind someone greater than all comes in as
a way for humanity to seek solace during self pity and bereavement.
Technically, this is a way for humanity to abide by the rules of
society and to SIMPLY be a good person, lest you die on the eternal
fire of condemnation!!.

Not to be sarcastic, faith can be equated to the PLACEBO EFFECT; you
abide by the rules of the creator and you will lleave a better person
in this world. In times of need (as long as you want it bad), thou
shall get it through me.

This has surely served mankind well, because those who have lived
recklessly wihtout faith have been looked at as outlaws and will
surely never see "ETERNAL " life. By scaring the masses through
religion, people tend to abide by the rules of society because of the
fear of the wrath of GOD the creator. Sometimes we do all question
this tactic because it creates absolute authority. Look for example at
religion states out there (I dont wanna start a war here, you know who
they are); they use religion to manipulate the poor, while they fatten
their pockets with oil and gold money...in the name of God! So poor
people of the world, get an education and RISE...!

On the ohter hand, evolution simply means that approximately 40, 000
years ago in AFRICA on the southern SAHARA desert; the first modern
human being with inteligent capabilities walked upright after billions
of years of linear biochemical metamorphosis. These humans then simply
POPULATED the earth through migration (please read the JOURNEY OF MAN)
by a famous geneticist.

Simply put, we all evolved from tiny creatures of the sea, slowly
climbing up the charts to where we are today.

This thoery simply seems logical based on SCIENTIFIC observation and
evidence. An EDUCATION is the biggest gift a human being can receive,
for without it, we have no way of having a justified argument between
EVOLUTION and CREATION. it will take a billion years to convince some
that are still stuck in the culture of deceit. I am for the
conservative movement, but I predict this is a dying "species".
progressivity if the way of the future, bottom line!

Faith is therefore a means of self comfort and a belief that there is
SOMEONE GREATER THAN US that we can look upon to give us solace in our
personal lives. NOT to say that Jesus of Nazareth, Mohammed, and all
the other faith GODS or Prophets did not exist; they did exist.

Mankind has always felt abandonment since evolution, therefore as
mankind became

...and I am Sid Harth

[Sid Harth]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/environment/flora-fauna/British-explorers-spot-legendary-ape-man-in-Sumatra/articleshow/5078323.cms

British explorers spot legendary ape man in Sumatra
ANI 1 October 2009, 08:46pm IST

LONDON: A team of British explorers has claimed to have spotted a
legendary ape man believed to inhabit an island jungle in Sumatra.

According to a report in The Sun, the ape man was seen by the four-
strong team and their Indonesian guide. Witnesses have described the
beast as being about 5ft tall and say that it walks on two legs.

It is thought to be extremely powerful - with reports of onlookers
seeing it ripping apart logs.

After a spate of sightings around Lake Gunung Tuju, in the Kerinci
national park, a team from the Devon based Centre for Fortean Zoology
- which investigates unknown species of animals - embarked on a two-
week mission to the region to see if they could obtain evidence of the
creature.

The explorers were tracking through dense jungle in Sumatra when two
of them caught a glimpse of the famous 'Orang Pendek' - or short man.

The group brought back a hair sample and a piece of chewed palm from
the island's Kerinci National Park they hope will provide DNA evidence
of the beast.

They also snapped a strange footprint thought to belong to the
creature. Sightings of the hairy human-like monster have been made in
the area since colonial times - and it is alleged to be immensely
powerful.

The explorers hope the sample of rattan palm, which is thought to have
been munched on by the Orang Pendek, will contain some of its cells.
The palm and hair sample have been sent for testing.

The elusive Orang Pendek shares its habitat with the Sumatran Tiger,
pythons, and Saltwater crocodiles.

According to Richard Freeman, the expedition zoologist and zoological
director at the Centre for Fortean Zoology, the creature is an
unidentified species of ape.

"We are not talking about a unicorn or a griffin, we are talking about
an ape that's unknown to science," he said.

"It's supposed to be a powerfully built upright walking ape. It walks
on two legs rather than four - like a man, about five foot tall with
dark fur - immensely strong," he added.

The team, who have just returned from their two-week expedition,
hailed it a success and are awaiting the results of the DNA tests.

...and I am Sid Harth

[Sid Harth]

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News/science/Oldest-skeleton-shines-new-light-on-human-origins/Article1-460422.aspx

Oldest skeleton shines new light on human origins
DPA

Washington, October 02, 2009

First Published: 11:48 IST(2/10/2009)
Last Updated: 12:46 IST(2/10/2009)

Anthropologists took the wraps off the oldest known human ancestor on
Thursday - a 4.4-million-year-old Ethiopian skeleton named Ardi, which
challenges many long-held assumptions about how humans and apes
evolved.

"It's not a chimp. It's not a human. It shows us what we used to be,"
said paleoanthropologist Tim White of the University of California-
Berkeley, co-director of the research group that discovered and
analysed more than 110 specimens of the 4.4-million-year-old species
Ardipithecus ramidus.

White was speaking at a Washington press conference a day before a
series of 47 articles on the find are published in the American
journal Science.

Ardi is the most complete skeleton among the specimens and is more
than a million years older than the famous Lucy skeleton uncovered in
the 1970s. She was found in 1992 in Ethiopia's harsh Afar desert at a
site called Aramis, just 74 km from where Lucy's species,
Australopithecus afarensis, was found in 1974.

An initial paper was published in 1994, but the fossils were so
fragile it took a further 15 years to reconstruct Ardi's skeleton and
analyse it.

The findings provide scientists with information on what a common
ancestor for humans and apes may have been like, with a mix of traits
from earlier species and later species.

But Ardi and her species were less like modern apes than scientists
expected - indicating that apes likely evolved extensively after
scientists say the apes and humans diverged. This challenges the long-
standing scientific belief that apes give a good look at what an early
ancestor of humans may have looked like.

Small-brained, 120 cm tall and weighing about 50 kg, Ardipithecus
ramidus lived in a wooded environment, climbing on all fours in the
trees and walking on two feet on the ground, not walking on their
knuckles like gorillas or swinging from the trees like chimps.

"So when you go from head to toe, you're seeing a mosaic creature,
that is neither chimpanzee, nor is it human. It is Ardipithecus,"
White said.

"Darwin said we have to be really careful. The only way we're really
going to know what this last common ancestor looked like is to go and
find it.

"Well, at 4.4 million years ago we found something pretty close to it.
And, just like Darwin appreciated, evolution of the ape lineages and
the human lineage has been going on independently since the time those
lines split, since that last common ancestor we shared," White said.

...and I am Sid Harth

[Sid Harth]

http://countercurrents.org/hamer071009.htm

The New Human Species: Homo Earth

By Mary Hamer

07 October, 2009
www.Countercurrents.org

I. HOMO EARTH PHILOSOPHY:

*Homo Earth is a philosophical concept that I have developed to deal
with my Anguish after having witnessed many severe acts of Cruelty
committed by Homo Sapiens -- inflicted upon humans, animals & the
Earth -- throughout my lifetime.

DECLARATION: As a result of Homo Sapien cruelty, I declare my
withdrawal from the human race. This Homo Sapiens species is far too
cruel for me. I am a new species: Homo Earth. I will not participate
in this human madness of murder, torture, slavery, overpopulation,
pollution, bombings, etc. that humans commit against other living
beings & the Earth. I am Homo Earth – a New species that is partners
with & that treats humans, animals & the planet Earth with respect.
(1)

*Ideal Human Being: In this essay, I present what I believe to be an
Ideal vision of a human being. Throughout this paper, I cite examples
of people, cultures or religions that embody the principles of Homo
Earth. While people cited in this article may exemplify one principle,
they may not perfectly conform to all the other principles. Good
examples of people or groups that embody the principles of Homo Earth
are the Native American Indians, Asian Indians, the Tibetan culture,
the Buddhist & Hindi & Jain religions, His Holiness the Dalai Lama,
Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King & Nelson Mandela.

*This paper is NOT about condemning or criminalizing the human race.
This essay is NOT about Me –vs- You. This article IS about taking a
Non-Violent stand against Homo Sapien cruelty. This paper IS about a
paradigm shift in thinking from: the old Caveman, emotional, revenge,
domination & violence ethic to a new Spiritual ethic of equality,
respect, restraint & partnership with humans, animals & the Earth.
Also, this essay IS about about a paradigm shift in thinking from: the
old Status quo & mob/crowd mentality to a new ethic of independent
thinking, critical self-examination & self-improvement.

*The general topics discussed in this essay include: Causes of Human
Cruelty, the Basic Principles of the Homo Earth philosophy, a Proposal
for a Universal Bill of Rights & Final Comments & Questions. The Basic
Principles of Homo Earth philosophy I discuss in this paper include:
Do No Harm, Love, Education, Rational Thinking, Responsibility,
Peacemaking & Truth Seeking, Awareness, Dangerous Human Ego, Revenge,
Environmental Justice & Green Accounting, Animal Rights & Responsible
Reproduction. The most important principle of all is the Do No Harm
ethic & offering a humble Apology if one does harm to others.

II. CAUSES OF HUMAN CRUELTY:

*MORAL DISENGAGEMENT: Why do humans commit such acts of cruelty with
little or no guilt of consequences? Bandura explains reasons humans
carry out inhumane acts with the concept called Moral Disengagement.
This theory of cruelty includes: Moral Justification (i.e. Excuses for
killing, slavery, torture, animal abuse, etc.), Language that makes
reprehensible (acts) respectable & sanitizes killing & other crimes
(e.g. Talking about cruel acts with artificially sweetened terms),
Displacement of responsibility, Disregard for consequences
(Detrimental results of one’s conduct are ignored, minimized,
distorted, disbelieved), Racism & Dehumanization. (2) Using the
principles of moral disengagement, it becomes easier to not only be
Cruel to, but also to Kill others.

III. BASIC PRINCIPLES:

Here are the basic principles of the new Homo Earth philosophy:

*DO NO HARM i.e. AHIMSA: The Do No Harm philosophy i.e. Ahimsa or Non-
violence goes far beyond not killing – To advanced concepts of Not
harming, not offending, not humiliating, not shaming -- Not even
having the thought of revenge, hatred or malice. Homo Earth seek this
advanced concept of Do No Harm & Non-violence. Homo Earth also seek to
avoid violent language & the humiliation of others.

*Gandhi: Ahimsa or non-violence means “non-killing” but according to
Gandhi it has a much higher meaning. Ahimsa means that: “You may not
offend anybody. You may not harbor an uncharitable thought, even …
with those (you consider) to be your enemy”. (3) “Nonviolence means
avoiding injury to anything on earth in thought, word or deed”. Also,
Gandhi states: “Nonviolence is restraint” & “Ahimsa calls for the
strength & courage to suffer without retaliation”. (4)

*HIMSA or Violence: “All harsh & rude speech is Himsa. … Wounding the
feelings of others by gesture, expression, tone of voice and unkind
words is also Himsa. … The vow of ahimsa is broken even by showing
contempt towards another (person), by entertaining unreasonable
dislike for or prejudice towards anybody, by frowning at …, by hating
…, by speaking ill of others” etc. (5)

VIOLENT LANGUAGE: Rosenberg discusses types of “Life-alienating
Communication” including: Moralistic Judgments that imply wrongness or
badness such as blaming, insults, put-downs, criticisms, etc..
Rosenberg references O.J Harvey’s work which shows that: There is a
“High correlation between the frequent use of (words that classify &
judge people) & incidences of violence”. (6)

*HUMILIATION is a form of Himsa or Violence: Lindner defines
humiliation as: “The lowering of a person or group, a process of
subjugation that damages or strips away pride, honor or dignity. To be
humiliated is to be placed against your will & often in a deeply
hurtful way … It often involves acts of force. At it’s heart is the
idea of pinning down, putting down or holding to the ground … Made
helpless”. (7) I would like to extrapolate Lindner’s definition of
humiliation to all living beings & ecosystems including animals & the
planet Earth, so that Earth humiliation is defined as: “The lowering
of a person, animal or the Earth, in a state of subjugation that
damages or strips away the spirit &/or health of that person, animal
or the Earth”.

*DANGEROUS CONSEQUENCES OF HUMILIATION:

My research on terrorism concludes the following syllogism:

#1. Domination/Conquest & the resultant form of perceived injustice
causes:

#2. Emotional consequences such as: Anger & shame/humiliation which
predispose to:

#3. Revenge/violence.

*Humiliation, Alienation & Oppression & Terrorism: Jessica Stern
describes people who join religious terrorist groups including the
observation that: “They start out feeling humiliated, enraged that
they are viewed by some Other as second class”. Stern explains
regarding the causes of terrorism: “The variable that came up most
frequently was not poverty or human rights abuses but perceived
humiliation”. (8, 9) Brea reviews Argo’s work which shows: “Data that
strongly suggests (that) terrorism is not born of madrassas & radical
clerics, but the experience of alienation & political oppression”.
(10)

*CONCLUSION: Homo Earth acknowledge the many forms of violence from
the subtle frown to a swear word to a bomb. May the human race evolve
to a state of international Ahimsa #1. Beyond the physical violence of
guns, bombs & war -- and #2. Beyond the verbal violence of hate speech
& swearing – To a state of Not harming, Not offending, Not shaming.

*AGAPE LOVE & NAMASTE: Homo Earth have an agape love for the planet
Earth, for animals & for the imperfect human race. Homo Earth have a
deep spiritual love for others that arises from the understanding that
all living beings suffer & know pain & fear. Homo Earth understand
that all living beings have rights to freedom & to live without
oppression. All entities are approached with the spirit of Namaste:
i.e. I see the divine in you – whether it be a human being, an animal,
a tree, a river or the sky. Mother Teresa & His Holiness the Dalai
Lama embody this philosophy of Agape Love & Namaste.

*EDUCATION: Homo Earth Acknowledge the Imperfections of the world.
Continuous self-improvement & self-examination is practiced in order
to deal with one’s flaws. Socrates said we do harm out of our
ignorance; But we are responsible for that ignorance; Education can
help us deal with that ignorance. (11) Education can help us use the
frontal lobes of our cerebral cortex to apply impulse control --
rather than letting our unrestrained amygdalas live out Do or die
emotional dramas of fear & anger. Educated minds are better than the
fist for problem-solving.

*HONEST LANGUAGE: Homo Earth speak honestly about the relationship
between humans & animals & the Earth. Homo Earth do Not use propaganda
& dishonest language to fulfill selfish human agendas. Adams states:
“Guilty people try to cover up their horrifying cruelties against …
non-human animals with deceptive euphemisms”. Adams says rather than
to use words such as: Euthanize, sacrifice, cull, harvest, thin (out)
& manage -- Humans should use the honest word: Kill. We human beings
Kill animals. (12)

*LIMITATIONS OF THE HUMAN BRAIN: Kristof states: “Evidence is
accumulating that the human brain … misjudges certain kinds of risks.
Evolution has programmed us to be alert for snakes & enemies with
clubs, but we aren’t well prepared to respond to dangers that require
forethought”. (13) Homo Earth don’t wait for a catastrophe to happen
such as Peak oil, human overpopulation & climate change; Homo Earth
think beyond the immediate threats of snakes & focus on long-term
problems such as alternative sustainable energy sources & responsible
human reproduction. Homo Earth use their frontal brains focusing on
both present needs & future concerns; Homo Earth reserve their
emotional amygdalas for fight or flight snake issues.

*RATIONAL THINKING: Homo Earth prefer Cold cognitions to Hot
cognitions. Albert Ellis describes Robert Abelson’s concept of Cold –
vs- Hot Cognitions, as described below: (14)

Cold Cognitions: Deal with the Facts only, with no emotions. e.g.: You
are a stranger.

Warm Cognitions: Show Preferences & Mild Emotions. e.g.: I don’t like
strangers.

Corresponding reasonable negative emotions include: Frustration &
disappointment.

Hot Cognitions: Make irrational Demands & show Strong unhealthy
Emotions: e.g. I hate strangers.

I Must fight against you. Name-calling words used: e.g. Terrorist,
Satan, Hitler.

Thinking drives emotions & behavior. World peace begins with neuronal
connections in the brain as thoughts that favor the Cool & warm
cognitions; Hopefully, the international community can avoid Hot
cognitions, hate speech, name calling & xenophobia.

*INDEPENDENT THINKING & Critical Thinking Skills: Independent thinking
is highly valued over group think. If the leader of the group says
let’s go run off the cliff, I prefer to be an independent thinker.
Critical thinking skills include making informed decisions based on
evidence rather than emotions. Critical thinking allows a person to
identify cognitive distortions (e.g. stereotypes, name-calling) (15) &
avoid them.

*AND thinking –vs- OR thinking: Inclusive And thinking is preferred to
Exclusive Or thinking. And thinking attempts to resolve conflicts with
dialogue, negotiation & a win/win approach. Or thinking creates a Me –
vs- You universe, defines enemies & seeks a win/lose outcome.

*RESPONSIBILITY is valued more importantly than demanding rights. Homo
Earth favors a Statue of Responsibility in the harbor of New York City
rather than the Statue of Liberty, i.e. A Statue of Responsibility is
valued more than a Statue of Rights, Entitlements, Give Me & Take
philosophy.

*Homo Earth do not participate in Moral Disengagement or dishonest,
deceitful distancing techniques used to justify crimes against others.
Regarding conflicts, Homo Earth apologize for any mistakes & forgive
others for their mistakes.

*Apology: Engel explains: “A meaningful apology communicates the three
R’s: Regret, Responsibility & Remedy. “An apology is more than just
saying ‘I’m sorry’. It is also … a peace offering”. (16) Can the human
race humble itself & apologize for all the cruelty & violence it has
inflicted upon other beings & the Earth?

*Forgiveness: Forgiveness means: “To give up any desire for revenge”.
(17) Nelson Mandela is a good example of someone who forgave his
enemies – Mandela forgave his prison guards. (18)

*PEACEMAKING: Homo Earth seek to make peace with Dialogue,
negotiation, win/win techniques, gestures of conciliation, good
listening skills, soft power, & de-escalation techniques.

*Dialogue: “Dialogue is a form of conversation that is distinct from:
Discussion debate, … diatribe & dogma because dialogue is the only
form of communication where the participants act as authentic peers.
All other forms of communication emphasize a Power relationship that
interferes with … ideas”. (19)

*Suffering: Peacemakers understand that both sides of a violent
conflict suffer – the perpetrators suffer as well as the victims.
Peacemakers have compassion for the both the Victims of violence &
cruelty and the Enemy as well.

*Compassion: As Feldman explains: “Compassion is an invitation to
cross the divide that separates ‘Us’ from ‘them’”. Feldman asks us to:
Listen to the cries of the world. (20)

*Compassionate Listening: The Compassionate Listening philosophy
states that : “Every party to a conflict is suffering” & that “Every
act of violence comes from an unhealed wound”. (21)

Gene Knudsen Hoffman calls on us all: “To understand people on all
sides of conflicts” including the torturers as well as the tortured.
(22) Longfellow said: “If we could read the secret history of our
enemies, we should find in each man’s life sorrow & suffering enough
to disarm all hostility”. (23)

*DEPARTMENT OF PEACE: Homo Earth believe in a Department of Peace.
“The Department of Peace & Non-Violence is a proposed cabinet-level
department of the … U.S. government”. (24) If humans have Departments
of War/Defense dedicated to Killing, Why can’t humans also have
Departments of Peace dedicated to Not killing?

*SHOULD WE NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS? Currie states in his article on
this topic: “A refusal to negotiate (with terrorists) indicates
rejection of the other side & rejection creates serious … obstacles to
problem-solving -- because it prevents clear communication from taking
place & it guarantees defensiveness & resistance to change”. (25)

*TRUTH SEEKING: Homo Earth seek the truth in the midst of ignorance,
deception, agendas & denial. Homo Earth also listen to the enemy –
Because the enemy has a partial truth.

*Venezuela’s President Chavez states Christopher Columbus committed
genocide against the Native Americans; Chavez does not celebrate
Columbus Day; Instead he celebrates the Day of Indian Resistance.
(26)

*Osama bin Laden questions the real reason for the atomic bombing of
Hiroshima & Nagasaki: Bin Laden states: “You dropped a nuclear bomb on
Japan, even though Japan was ready to negotiate an end to the war”.
Footnote for this quote: “Several high ranking U.S. military
commanders Including Eisenhower & MacArthur … felt that there was no
military justification for the bombings. In a 1946 report, the United
States Strategic Bombing Survey noted that Japan would in all
probability have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been
dropped”. (27)

*AWARENESS of CRUELTY: Are humans aware that all living beings suffer?
Homo Sapiens generally have no concern for the suffering of the cow,
pig or chicken that was killed for a family meal. We consume with
reckless disregard for: The slaughter & transportation of farm
animals, the deforestation of trees for the wooden chair we sit on &
the destruction of a mountain side for the mining of metals for our
fork & knife. We clink our glasses & We say Cheers! Then We fill our
bellies full of the pain & suffering of other creatures of this Earth
– With No remorse. Homo Earth are mindful of the fears of other beings
& seek to do no harm; Homo Earth eat foods that minimize harm to
others. Homo Earth do not clink their glasses & say Cheers to the
suffering of other creatures.

*FRACTAL ANGER of the ATTACKER: What happens at the brain synaptic
neuronal level in the brain’s anger center at the fractal moment that
a person pulls the trigger of a gun? How truly aware are Homo Sapiens
of the meaning of violence?

*VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE: If we could observe a person & the change in
consciousness at his/her brain neuronal level – If we could observe
that person when he/she witnesses violence such as hate speech, animal
abuse, a gun shot, a beheading, a nuclear bomb blast -- Then if that
person as a victim of violence turned & looked at us -- What ultimate
sadness would we witness & share?

*THE DANGEROUS HUMAN EGO & the Domination Ethic: The Ego identifies an
enemy in it’s Me –vs- You universe, labels it as inferior, then the
ego targets this enemy for violence. When Christopher Columbus
encountered the Native American Indians -- Columbus chose to dominate,
enslave, rape, kill & conquer the Native Indians. Homo Earth prefer to
peacefully co-exist with & respect others including the Native
Peoples.

*THE HUMAN EGO & SEX: Some Homo Sapiens place a higher value on
selfish pleasures rather than show concern for the pain & suffering of
others. For example, some Asian cultures beat dogs to death or boil
cats alive to maximize the aphrodisiac chemicals in the meat; These
people then eat the dogs & cats for sexual satisfaction; Overall,
these humans value sex & orgasms more than the well-being of animals.
This Homo Sapien obsession with copulation & the compulsion for
aphrodisiacs causes horrific fear, pain & suffering to other sentient
living beings. Homo Earth value do Not participate in such selfish,
narcissistic, hedonistic activities; Homo Earth care about the welfare
of all life including dogs & cats; Homo Earth treat all beings with
respect; Homo Earth value the happiness of other beings more than
sexual addictions.

*NO ENEMY, NO REVENGE Ethic: The Homo Sapien species lives by the
Revenge ethic: If you punch me, Then I punch you back. Homo Earth
prefer Non-Violent methods to conflicts. Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion
states that for every action there is an equal & opposite reaction.
(28) But why must humans behave according the Newton’s Law & commit
acts of revenge? The truth is: Two wrongs do Not make a right.

*NEW MANTRAS OR MEMES FOR HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS: I challenge the reader/
audience to create a New mantra for a positive law of physics for
human relationships – To challenge Newton’s 3rd Law. Here are Hamer’s
suggestions for New No-Revenge mantras:

New No-Revenge ethic #1: “I witness violence including: Offender anger
& Victim pain. Then the Victim becomes the new Offender. The cycle of
violence continues – Or will a new human being come along -- Who will
pause in a zen moment, rise above revenge & just walk away from the
violence?”

No-Revenge meme #2: “I acknowledge the reality & the tragedy of
violence. You punch me. No, I will Not punch you back-- Rather I have
choices: To walk away, to attempt dialogue, to offer a gesture of
conciliation, or I can seek justice by the rule of law. I will not
fight back & become the next attacker.

*ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE & THE NEW ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHY:

*ANTHROPOCENTRISM: Anthropocentrism is defined as: “A way of thinking
(by Homo Sapiens) of the natural world as a resource to be exploited
for human purposes; … A key feature of Western thinking that can be
traced back to the Book of Genesis”. (29) Anthropocentrism is also
known as “Human supremacy”. (30) Homo Earth do Not believe in this
Homo Sapien concept of human supremacy & therefore Homo Earth do Not
dominate, conquer, exploit, enslave, deforest, rape, exterminate,
pollute or bomb the planet Earth.

*MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS: Homo Earth make careful attempts to
avoid man-made environmental disasters such as the Chernobyl Nuclear
Power Plant accident, the Exxon Valdez oil spill & the Bhopal
Industrial disaster. (31) Homo Earth make social, political & economic
decisions taking into account consequences of actions -- To satisfy
not only human needs, but also to consider the welfare of animals &
the Earth’s ecosystems

*PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE: Homo Earth apply the Precautionary
Principle: i.e. “If an action or policy might cause severe or
irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence
of a scientific consensus (about the harm), the burden of proof falls
on those who would advocate taking the action”. (32) Also, “Decision
makers (need) to anticipate harm before it occurs”. (33) If humans do
not know how to deal with the negative consequences of a problem such
as nuclear power & nuclear waste, then it is important that humans Not
engage in such activities – That is until humans know how to properly
& safely dispose of such waste – with a high probability of success.
Homo Sapiens have taken the route of ignorance regarding the nuclear
waste problem in creating a problem they do not know how to solve;
They are taking big risks on behalf of humans, animals, the Earth &
future generations.

*DEEP ECOLOGY: Homo Earth believe in the deep ecology philosophy of:
“Voluntary simplicity, Rejection of anthropocentric attitudes,
intimate contact with nature, decentralization of power, support for
cultural & biological diversity, a belief in the sacredness of nature
& direct personal action to protect nature & improve the environment”.
(34)

*REDEFINING PROGRESS: Homo Earth redefines progress to mean: Products
& services that contribute to the “Well-being” of humans, animals &
the Earth – Rather than the old definition of progress that meant
“Increasing consumption” & the exploitation of humans, animals & the
Earth. (35) Also, Competition is replaced with cooperation &
partnership.

*GREEN ACCOUNTING Methods: Homo Earth are honest about the true Cost
of making a product or providing a service; Homo Earth economic
accounting takes into consideration true human labor costs including
fair labor wages & health care costs, renewable & sustainable energy
costs, the cost of animal suffering in the process, costs of pollution
to the Earth, etc.. Homo Earth do not hide costs from Wall Street or
secretly pass costs on to future generations. Homo Earth strive to
maximize productivity & efficiency with minimal waste.

*GREEN MANUFACTURING & ZERO LANDFILL STATUS: Homo Earth favor
manufacturing companies such as Subaru. The Subaru Automotive Plant
became the first U.S. manufacturing facility in 2004 to reach Zero
landfill status. In 2003, Subaru became the first U.S. automotive
plant to be designated a wildlife habitat. Subaru is committed to :
“Implementing effective pollution prevention systems that protect our
air, land & water”. Subaru is also committed to conserving natural
resources by reducing, reusing & recycling materials”. (36)

*ANIMAL RIGHTS: Homo Earth acknowledge that animals are sentient
beings who experience pain, fear & suffering & thereby have rights.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are leaders in the field
of animal rights; Their mission statement is: “Animals are not ours to
eat, wear, experiment on or use for entertainment” (37) David Suzuki
is another excellent example of an animal rights advocate; Suzuki
opened my eyes to the cruelty of animal entertainment (38) when he
described how a human being made an animal (such as a circus lion or
tiger) do an unnatural, dangerous & painful act. Suzuki then asked: Is
this really funny? Regarding the animal entertainment industry
including: Horse races, circuses, rodeos, dog races, marina dolphin
acts – Is it really funny when an animal struggles in pain to perform
for human audiences to make humans clap & laugh? In the bigger
picture: Is it really funny that Homo Sapiens laugh at, humiliate,
shame, & bully not only animals, but also human beings?

*RESPONSIBLE REPRODUCTION: Mary Shaw states: “We need to get to a
place where reckless over-reproduction is generally regarded as
irresponsible & uncool”. “Society needs to embrace the concept that it
is perfectly acceptable – and, in fact, a positive thing – for a
couple to have only one child, or none”. (Or to consider adoption).
(39)

*UNIVERSAL BILL OR RIGHTS FOR ALL LIVING BEINGS & THE ENVIRONMENT:

*I recommend a United Nations Bill of Rights for All Living Beings on
the Earth as follows:

All Humans & Animals are sentient beings that experience pain & fear &
suffering; All humans & animals have the right to be free of pain &
suffering inflicted upon them by other dominant forces. Also,
Ecosystems have a right to an existence free from extinction,
deforestation & other forms of ecocide including pollution, mining,
ocean trawling & bombing.

*Also, I recommend that the United Nations pass the 5th Geneva
Convention (40) to protect “The environment during times of armed
conflict”.

IV. EXAMPLES of CURRENT CONCERNS of HOMO EARTH:

*The Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

*Please Stop the nuclear waste site in Tibet. Please make Tibet a Zone
of Peace. (41, 42)

*The severe poverty & high suicide rate at the Pine Ridge Reservation
in South Dakota U.S.A. (43)

*Ban Nuclear bombs, nuclear testing, nuclear power & nuclear waste.

*Ban Landmines worldwide.

*Ban most toxic, carcinogenic Pesticides.

*Please World countries Stop the inhumane transportation & slaughter
of animals for food. Decrease human consumption of meat & replace it
with healthier alternatives.

*Please World countries Stop the inhumane practice of animal testing
for medical pharmaceuticals & safety testing worldwide. Use
reasonable, established non-animal alternatives for research testing.

*Please Stop the cruel fur farm industry throughout the world,
including the raccoon dog & fox fur farms in Hebei Province.

*Please Stop the beating, boiling, torturing & killing of dogs & cats
in Asia for sexual aphrodisiacs, food & fur coats.

*Please Stop the inbreeding of animals that results in thoroughbred
horse leg fractures, dog & tiger hip dysplasias, etc.

*Ban leg-hold & other cruel traps worldwide.

V. COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:

*HUMAN EGO: C. David Coats describes multiple examples of how Humans
kill Animals; Then Homo Sapiens send out holiday cards praying for
“Peace on Earth”. (44) Are we Homo Sapiens so Narcissistically in love
with our reflection in the pond? -- Or are we so Ignorant & blind to
all the suffering that we cause in the world due to human cruelty?

*The Black Hole of the Human Ego: If we are not careful, the black
hole of the human ego & it’s cruelty will spiral all of us into an
accelerating collapsing dark reality of war & violence.

*INTELLIGENTLY IGNORANT: I define Intelligent Ignorance as humans who
do not use their intelligence & critical thinking skills to their full
extent due to: Cognitive distortions (such as Stereotypes, hate speech
& name-calling), revenge, laziness, etc..

Homo Sapiens: The Superior Species: How can Homo Sapiens claim that
they are the superior, moral, ethical species? -- Given the Hiroshima
& Nagasaki atomic bombing, child abuse & the horrific slaughter of
beautiful horses?

*COLUMBUS DAY: How can we humans celebrate Columbus Day? -- Given the
genocide, slavery, torture & rape that Columbus supervised against the
Native Americans -- as the “Discoverer of the New World”? I will no
longer celebrate Columbus Day. I will celebrate Indigenous Day.

*PARADIGM SHIFT: Status Quo –vs- Paradigm Shift: Can we humans rewire
our brains & use our frontal lobes & restrain our impulse control to
talk with our enemies, show compassion to animals & to respect the
mountains, forests & oceans of the Earth? May we undergo a paradigm
shift in our irrational thinking & go through an inflection point
evolving from hateful demands to a humble acceptance of reality.

*AUDIENCE SUGGESTIONS: Please feel free to suggest any other topics to
add to the Homo Earth philosophy. Also please feel free to suggest any
new No-Revenge mantras.

Please Do No Harm.

Namaste. Salaam. Shalom. Shanti. Peace.

Thank you. Respectfully, Mary Hamer.

1. www.countercurrents.org: Human Cruelty & the Metaphysics of a Swear
Word. By Mary Hamer 9/8/9. Apology to the Planet Earth: Human Cruelty
to Animals By Mary Hamer 2/3/9. Apology to the Planet Earth: Human
Cruelty to Humans. By Mary Hamer 3/5/9.

2. Reich, Walter. Editor. Origins of Terrorism. Chapter #9: Mechanisms
of Moral Disengagement by Albert Bandura. Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
C 1998.

3. Mohandas Gandhi. Orbis Books. C 2005. Pg 96-97.

4. Gandhi on NonViolence. Merton, Thomas, Editor. New Directions. C
1965. Pg 44, 58.

5. Sri Swami Sivananda. Bliss Divine. The Divine Life Society. C 2006.
Pg 30.

6. Rosenberg, Marshall. Nonviolent Communication. Puddle Dancer Press.
C 2003. Pg 15, 17.

7. www.humiliationstudies.org: Humiliation at Columbine High School by
Daryn Morgenstein Referencing Lindner, Evelin: What Every Negotiator
Ought to Know: Understanding Humiliation. Oslo. Submission: 2000.

8. Stern, Jessica. Terror in the Name of God. Harper Collins. C 2003.
Pg 281-282.

9. www.belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu: Stern, Jessica. Terrorism’s New
Mecca. Boston Globe, Op-Ed. 11/28/2003.

10. cache.zoominfo.com: Jennifer Brea’s review of: What Makes a
Suicide Bomber? By Nichole Argo in the Australian. 4/14/5.

11. Lavine, T.Z. From Socrates to Sartre. Bantom Books. C 1984. Pg 16.

12. Adams, Carol. The Sexual Politics of Meat. Continuum. C 1991. Pg
65.

13. www.nytimes.com: When Our Brains Short-Circuit by Nicholas
Kristof.

14. Albert Ellis references Robert Abelson’s Hot Cognition concept in
the book: The Evolution of Psychotherapy. Edited by Jeffrey Zeig, PhD.
Brunner/Mazel Publishers. C 1992. Pg 87.

15. www.en.wikipedia.org: Cognitive Distortions. View Date: 8/4/9.

16. Engel, Beverly. The Power of Apology. John Wiley & Sons. C 2001.
Pg 55, 33.

17. ratnaghosa.fwbo.net: Kshanti.

18. www.andrewsmunro.net: The Art of Leadership Wisdom.

19. www.emotionalcompetency.com: Dialogue.

20. Feldman, Christina. Compassion. Rodmell Press. C 2005. Pg 1, 9.

21. yesmagazine.org: Just Listen by Leah Green. 11/5/2001.

22. www.newconversations.net: Compassionate Listening by Gene Knudsen
Hoffman.

23. www.goodreads.com: Henry Wadsworth Longfellow: Enemies quote.

24. www.en.wikipedia.org: Department of Peace. View Date: 9/21/9.

25. www.mediate.com: Should We Negotiate with Terrorists? By Cris
Currie. June 2002.

26. www.newsvote.bbc.co.uk: Columbus ‘Sparked a Genocide’. BBC News.
10/12/2003.

27. Lawrence, Bruce, Editor. Messages to the World: Statements of
Osama Bin Laden. Verso Publisher. C 2005. Letter to the Americans
2002. Pg 168.

28. www.physics247.com: Definition of Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion.

29. www.centerforecojusticeeducation.org: Anthropocentrism Definition.

30. www.en.wikipedia.org: Anthropocentrism. View date: 9/15/9.

31. www.en.wikipedia.org: List of Environmental Disasters. View Date:
7/29/9.

32. www.en.wikipedia.org: Precautionary Principle. Referencing:
Raffensperger C. & J. Tickner (Eds.) (1999) Protecting Public Health &
the Environment. Island Press, Washington, D.C..

33. www.en.wikipedia.org: Precautionary Principle. View Date: 9/8/9.

34. highered.mcgraw-hill.com: Deep Ecology Definition.

35. www.wiserearth.org: Population Coalition: Vision & Goals.

36. www.subaru.com: Subaru: Environmental Policy.

37. www.en.wikipedia.org: PETA. View Date: 8/13/9.

38. www.en.wikipedia.org: David Suzuki. Referencing A Planet for the
Taking. CBC. 1985 TV Series. View Date: 9/8/9.

39. www.countercurrents.org: Society, Politics & the Overpopulation
Problem by Mary Shaw.

40. www.en.wikipedia.org: War & Environmental Law: Proposed 5th Geneva
Convention. View Date 9/12/9.

41. www.tibet.com: China Admits to Nuclear Waste on Tibetan Plateau.
The Government of Tibet in Exile.

42. www.nytimes.com: Nuclear Dump Site Reported in Tibet. By Sheryl
WuDunn. 4/19/93.

43. socyberty.com: Pine Ridge Reservation: America’ Own Third World
Country. By Veronica Bright in Subcultures. 6/22/8.

44. Coats, D. David. Old MacDonald’s Factory Farm. Continuum. C 1989.
Preface of Book.

...and I am Sid Harth

[chhotemianinshallah]

http://www.dnaindia.com/world/interview_tribes-in-local-areas-emerged-as-fixed-endogenous-groups_1293454

'Tribes in local areas emerged as fixed endogenous groups'
Anuradha Mane-Wadhwani
Monday, September 28, 2009 2:29 IST

Nearly a decade ago, America-born Indian sociologist and writer Gail
Omvedt traced the history of the Indian caste system and elaborated on
how original tribes in local areas had turned into fixed endogenous
groups.

Her theory has a strong resonance with the latest study by the
Hyderabad-based Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, which has
challenged the impact of the Aryans in shaping Indian civilisation.

Born in Minneapolis, Omvedt earned her MA and PhD in sociology from
the University of California and is settled in Kasegaon village in
southern Maharashtra. Omvedt, who has worked actively with the Dalit
and anti-caste movements, discussed her observations on the origins of
caste with DNA.

In your book Dalits and the Democratic Revolution, you mention that
probably, castes emerged as various tribes and entered into economic
relations with each other. Could you elaborate?

This was a factor which led to the emergence of the caste system.
Here, I was drawing on Morton Klass' Caste in India. Caste is a way of
organising relations among groups. But why does it take the specific
form it does? Here, we need to look at the role of conquest/
incursions, specifically the relations between the Aryans and
indigenous groups, mostly Dravidian speakers. Also crucial was the
role of Brahmanism as a legitimising ideology. What all this did was
to turn tribes in local areas into fixed endogenous groups. Each
performing certain economic functions, but within a hierarchy through
which surplus was extracted.

This study contradicts the fact that caste system was a by-product of
colonialism. It suggests that many current distinctions among groups
are ancient and a result of strong endogamy which might have shaped
marriage patterns in India for thousands of years. What are your views
on this?

Absolutely. Caste was much prior to colonialism. I date the emergence
of caste from the 1st millennium BC, but not immediately as a social
reality. It's more as a projection of Brahmanic thinking, a way of
organising society. Its "triumph" came only centuries later. But why
only "two tribes"? This reflects shabby sociological thinking.
"Tribal" groups, strictly speaking, are small, in the thousands at
most. India had a whole collection of them. That is, we should have
categories or collections of "tribes", related to each other in
complex ways. That is, some would be of similar "ethnic" (racial,
linguistic, etc) identities; having similar genetic characteristics,
perhaps.

With the new view that Aryans and Dravidians need not be spoken of
separately, what do you think will be (or should be) the effect on
caste dynamics in our society?
I don't understand the reluctance to speak in terms of Aryan or
Dravidian. We can't go directly from language to ethnic identity. But,
the relationship is still there. In part, these genetic studies seem
to suggest a relationship between the subaltern caste groups and an
Asian identity, which could be Dravidian or Austro-Asiatic (Mundari)
on one hand, and a relation between the superior groups and a European-
type of population. This is used by some people to support a kind of
"Aryan theory".

Speaking about the lower castes specifically, do you think this study
could prove to be a useful resource for activists working for rights
of these people?

People shouldn't be afraid to discuss genetics. One thing to remember
is that even if there are specific genetic qualities to different
social groups, linking these to such things as intelligence is
questionable. There is a lot of racial/ethnic intermixture, but this
doesn't contradict the fact that there may be broad trends.

...and I am Sid Harth

[chhotemianinshallah]

http://ultraviolet.in/2008/02/29/120/

February 29, 2008
In Conversation: Dr Gail Omvedt
By Meena Kandasamy

14 comments

DR GAIL OMVEDT (1941) is an American-born Indian sociologist and human
rights activist. Some of her notable books are: We Shall Smash This
Prison: Indian Women in Struggle (1979), Gender and Technology:
Emerging Asian Visions (1994), Dalits and the Democratic Revolution
(1994), and Dalit Visions: the Anticaste movement and Indian Cultural
Identity (1994).

In this short email interview, Gail responds to questions on caste and
gender.

Meena Kandasamy: In our interview-series we had Ruth Manorama speaking
to us of her setting up the National Federation of Dalit Women. And
your name Gail, was mentioned incessantly as her source of
inspiration, her guiding spirit. What made you play such a pivotal
role and be so encouraging to establishing a Dalit Women’s movement?
How do you historically view this?

Gail Omvedt: I was also interested and involved with the Black
movement (that was before they started calling themselves African-
Americans; in the 1970s “Black” meant pride) and although I’m a
“honky” — that’s the nasty term that used to get used for “whites” — I
made a lot of friends. Black women’s writing was always an
inspiration, from Angela Davis through Toni Morrison and Alice
Walker….beautiful stuff. I can’t read Marathi or other languages quite
as well, but I know that you all have so many things to say. bell
hooks (another Black woman — she spells her name without capitals) —
wrote a book Feminist Theory from Margin to Centre, meaning that
people at the margins, the edges, can actually see the farthest and
the best. I think she’s right. So who else but Dalit women? So many
obstacles and barriers to overcome, so much to do — but I know you can
do it!

Another friend here was recently telling me how, in spite of being a
Christian, she realized finally that she was being treated as a Dalit
and dark — I find the obsession in India with light skin to be
ridiculous. All the goddesses are black, aren’t they?

Meena: Today, Mayawati is seen as once of the most powerful symbols of
Dalits, as well as women. But otherwise, how do you think the
electoral success of the BSP, and the enormous popularity of Mayawati,
has influenced Dalit women in general?

Gail: You can answer that better than I can. I suppose women must have
identified with her! I liked Kanshi Ram better as a person, but
Mayawati also had a great image; I liked her short hair for instance.
I had a fight about that with Madhu Kishwar because I said “upper-
caste” Hindu women politicians couldn’t get away with short hair but
Dalits didn’t mind — I was thinking of Sushma Swaraj and all — she
denied it, but I still feel I am right. The “caste-Hindu mind” still
wants women to fit the traditional image. Dalits are more open
generally, I hope, especially the women.

Meena: Dr Ambedkar said that women were the gateways of the caste
system. What are the various dimensions in which caste and sexuality
are inter-linked?

Gail: Caste can only survive if women’s sexuality is controlled! To
keep the jati identity you have to keep marriages within the jati. In
Marathi it’s said roti-beti-vyavahar, “exchange of bread and girls”
has to be within the caste. For that to happen, girls have to be
guarded and married off when they’re pre-puberty, so there’s no danger
to the caste. The man is not polluted if he has sex with anyone,
because the semen goes out; the woman is polluted because she takes it
in. (This is the way many anthropologists analyze it). So — Manu says,
“Women when young must be under control of their father, when adults
under control of their husbands, when old under control of their sons,
women must never be independent.”

Meena: Dalit women’s autobiographies have made a mark in Marathi
literature. Gail, how do you view literature as a liberating tool for
women who are otherwise denied the public (political) space?

Gail: Literature has to reach people — it can reach people — and we
can make it a “public” space. The political space is only one of many;
it can even be damaging to women if the political women support
tradition. Individual women can be freer than political women, and
they can through writing express revolutionary ideas. The problem we
have now is “publishing” — in every sense: how to get our ideas out,
how to communicate.

Meena: What is your message to all the young Indian women out there?

Gail: Ambedkar’s words, “educate, agitate, organize” – still hold good
for all of us. And women should fight for their land rights; the only
reason they don’t have these rights is that the whole system is so
patriarchal that only men are viewed as heirs of names, property, and
land. This is part of caste-patriarchal oppression and we have to
fight together to end it.


14 comments to In Conversation: Dr Gail Omvedt

Sharanya Manivannan

March 7th, 2008 at 6:54 pm ·

Thanks for another insightful interview, Meena. Your commitment to the
cause of caste eradication is admirable.
Dalit women, Black women « Meena Kandasamy
March 16th, 2008 at 6:18 pm ·

[...] Dalit women, Black women March 16, 2008 Posted by Meena
Kandasamy in activism, blogging, dalit, feminism, india, women.
trackback In all my confusion, and machine-hopping, I forgot to link
to this: an interview with American born Indian feminist and anti-
caste activist Gail Omvedt on Ultra Violet. [...]
Rahul Bhalerao

March 16th, 2008 at 11:29 pm ·

Thanks for this interview. I have been a fan of Gail Omvedt ever since
I got my hands on “Buddhism in India: Challenging Brahmanism and
Caste”.
kcsubin

March 17th, 2008 at 11:18 am ·

welldon meena,
good conversation,
focus on mayavathi needs more attention (i think)
mayavathi is a simbel to study gender politics
suresh

March 18th, 2008 at 8:19 pm ·

Ms. Omvedt says:

I said “upper-caste” Hindu women politicians couldn’t get away with
short hair but Dalits didn’t mind — I was thinking of Sushma Swaraj
and all — she [Madhu Kishwar] denied it, but I still feel I am right.

Generalising from a sample size of one, eh? Never a good idea.

Did Ms. Omvedt check whether Indira Gandhi had long hair or short
hair? The Wikipedia article on her has a number of photographs dating
to when she was very young; in all of them she has short hair. So what
conclusions are we to draw from this? That Indira Gandhi was a Dalit?
Or that Mayawati is upper caste? Can Ms. Omvedt point me to an
election where the length of Indira Gandhi’s hair was a significant
electoral issue?

This is silly theorising – if I may say so. I am willing to concede
that it would be very unlikely to find women with short hair in the
BJP. That’s all. But then not all upper caste women are in the BJP.
Neither, for that matter, are all upper caste men. And actually, some
Dalits – men and women – are in the BJP.
kuffir

March 22nd, 2008 at 1:17 am ·

suresh,

yes, ms.omvedt might be focussing on a not-too-significant issue, but
i don’t think she was talking about the approval of the upper caste
men in the parties you mention.. she probably meant the acceptance of
the lower caste voters.. in most of the states that the congress still
manages to be a dominant player, it survives mostly on votes from the
same sections- lower caste voters who didn’t mind indira gandhi’s
short hair, and who don’t mind sonia gandhi’s not-too-long hair.
suresh

March 27th, 2008 at 1:25 am ·

kuffir,

true regarding congress support – that was a deliberate political
strategy, it used to be known as KHAM (Kshatriya-Harijan-Adivasi-
Muslim) – but I don’t think hair length was ever an issue with the
upper caste voters either. Those in the upper castes who voted against
IG did so on grounds other than hair length – at least, that’s my
understanding. Incidentally, a significant chunk of upper castes did
vote for her, I think. If you have evidence to the contrary, I’d
appreciate your sharing it with me.

I really have no idea why Ms. Omvedt had to resort to what I still
consider to be rather silly theorisiing. But yes, this is rather an
unimportant issue and not worth bothering about and so I’ll leave you
to have the final word.
bombaydosti

April 14th, 2008 at 12:52 pm ·

“Caste can only survive if women’s sexuality is controlled”

I wonder how almost all of power distances in society are reaffirmed
by how women are/were treated.
To me, this linkage was a new perspective.
Insightful interview! thanks
irene diamond

July 24th, 2008 at 3:55 am ·

Gail is an old friend and I don’t seem to have her current e-mail
address. If you could supply it I would be most grateful

Thanks

Irene Diamond
High Priestess

July 27th, 2008 at 3:59 am ·

I agree with Suresh on the silly generalizations and theorizations of
Gail. And whats with her comment that ALL Hindu goddess are black?

She’s fighting for a good cause but it would be more credible if
people who are in the public eye and seen as “representatives” of
sorts would educate themselves a bit more on the cultural aspects of
the people they are supposedly “representing”. Either that or just
remain silent on things they don’t know anything about.
Anonymous

August 14th, 2008 at 1:49 pm ·

Gail Omvedt’s feminism is a facade to Hindu- baiting and bashing. Any
reason is good enough for her. Like Mayavathi’s hair style which is
absolutely irrelevant. Jayalalitha who is from the upper caste and was
also a chielf minister has danced in Bikinis in her movies. What about
it. As a matter of fact the so called upwardly mobile upper caste
women have less social restrictions than the so called dalits. Gail’s
writing is full of silly generalizations and demonazation of vast
majorities of people. A typical pseudo intellectual, a hate monger
hiding behind the viel of feminism and progressive ideologies.
High Priestess

August 16th, 2008 at 1:52 am ·

“Jayalalitha who is from the upper caste and was also a chielf
minister has danced in Bikinis in her movies. ”

Are you serious?

I had no idea.

She looks like she weighs over 300 pounds now.

I’d love to see her when she was young and in a bikini.

Any pics?
Dalit Nation

November 21st, 2008 at 4:03 pm ·

Dear Madam,

We have great appreciation for your work. We at Dalit Nation inspired
by Babasaheb Ambedkar are waging a battle against casteism and Manuwad
in our soceity. Please go through some of our articles and links.
Dalit Nation is the most widely read website on Dalit issues in the
internet. You have clearly identified the problem which Dalits face in
India – it is Hindutva. We plan to do a feature in our website the
good work done by yourself.

http://dalitnation.wordpress.com/

Keep up the good work
Warm Regards,
Editor
Dalit Nation
Krishnan Boopathy

December 24th, 2008 at 9:49 am

i am very much interest to join in your party. What can i do please
reply me immidiately.

...and I am Sid Harth

[chhotemianinshallah]

http://www.thehindu.com/2009/08/10/stories/2009081053590400.htm

Professor Gail Omvedt joins IGNOU
Staff Reporter

NEW DELHI: Professor Gail Omvedt has joined Indira Gandhi National
Open University as Prof. B. R. Ambedkar Chair on Social Change and
Development

Born in Minneapolis, U.S., and with an M.A. and Ph.D. in Sociology
from the University of California, Berkeley, Prof. Omvedt has been
living in India since 1978, settled in the village of Kasegaon in
southern Maharashtra. She has been an India citizen since 1983 and
works as a sociologist and writer.

Prof. Omvedt has worked actively with social movements in India,
including the Dalit and anti-caste movements, environmental movements
and farmers movements. She has been active in the Stri Mukti Sangarsh
Chaval (“Women’s Liberation Struggle Movement”), which works on issues
of abandoned women in Sangli and Satara districts of southern
Maharashtra, and the Shetkari Mahila Aghadi (“Alliance of Women
Farmers”), which works on issues of women’s land rights and political
power.

She is also a member of the Board of Trustees of the Indian Institute
of Dalit Studies (New Delhi) and the National Institute of Dalit
Studies (Ahmedabad).

Before joining IGNOU, she was working as Visiting Professor and
Coordinator, School of Social Justice, University of Pune.

The objectives of the B. R. Ambedkar Chair on Social Change and
Development are to work towards dissemination of ideas and thoughts of
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar on issues of concern and areas of administration,
constitutional studies, human rights, religion, philosophy including
the studies in economic, history and political science.

The other objectives of the Chair include undertaking research and
development programmes in these areas for the benefit of society,
working on developing appropriate methodologies for paving the way for
Dr. Ambedkar’s idea as a policy instrument and to work towards
development of exclusive courses.

...and I am Sid Harth

[chhotemianinshallah]

http://www.ptinews.com/news/330123_Evolution-evidence--New-flying-reptile--identfied-

Evolution evidence: New flying reptile 'identfied'
STAFF WRITER 10:37 HRS IST

London, Oct 14 (PTI) Palaeontologists have identified a new type of
flying reptile, providing what they claim is the first clear evidence
of an unusual and controversial form of evolution.

Fossil hunters have long recognised two different groups of pterosaurs
or flying reptiles which dominated skies 220-65 million years ago --
primitive long-tailed forms and advanced short-tailed pterosaurs.

These groups are separated by a large evolutionary gap, identified in
Charles Darwin's time, that looked as if it would never be filled.

Now, an international team led by Leicester University has identified
the new type of flying reptile that fits in the middle of that gap --
Christened Darwinopterus, meaning Darwin wing, the latest issue of
'Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences' journal
reported.

David Unwin, who led the team, said: "Darwinopterus came as quite a
shock to us.

...and I am Sid Harth

[chhotemianinshallah]

http://www.ptinews.com/news/329996_New-type-of-flying-reptile-discovered-in-China

New type of flying reptile discovered in China
STAFF WRITER 3:45 HRS IST

London, Oct 14 (PTI) An international group of researchers from the
University of Leicester, and the Geological Institute, Beijing have
identified a new type of flying reptile -- providing the first clear
evidence of an unusual and controversial type of evolution.

Pterosaurs, flying reptiles, also known as pterodactyls, dominated the
skies in the Mesozoic Era, the age of dinosaurs, 220-65 million years
ago. Scientists have long recognised two different groups of
pterosaurs: primitive long-tailed forms and their descendants,
advanced short-tailed pterosaurs some of which reached gigantic size.

These groups are separated by a large evolutionary gap, identified in
Darwin's time, that looked as if it would never be filled -- until
now.

Details of a new pterosaur, published today in the Proceedings of the
Royal Society B: Biological Sciences fits exactly in the middle of
that gap.

...and I am Sid Harth

[Sid Harth]

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE59D0BR20091014

Modern man a wimp says anthropologist
Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:24am EDT
By John Mehaffey

LONDON (Reuters) - Many prehistoric Australian aboriginals could have
outrun world 100 and 200 meters record holder Usain Bolt in modern
conditions.

Some Tutsi men in Rwanda exceeded the current world high jump record
of 2.45 meters during initiation ceremonies in which they had to jump
at least their own height to progress to manhood.

Any Neanderthal woman could have beaten former bodybuilder and current
California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in an arm wrestle.

These and other eye-catching claims are detailed in a book by
Australian anthropologist Peter McAllister entitled "Manthropology"
and provocatively sub-titled "The Science of the Inadequate Modern
Male."

McAllister sets out his stall in the opening sentence of the prologue.

"If you're reading this then you -- or the male you have bought it for
-- are the worst man in history.

"No ifs, no buts -- the worst man, period...As a class we are in fact
the sorriest cohort of masculine Homo sapiens to ever walk the
planet."

Delving into a wide range of source material McAllister finds evidence
he believes proves that modern man is inferior to his predecessors in,
among other fields, the basic Olympic athletics disciplines of running
and jumping.

His conclusions about the speed of Australian aboriginals 20,000 years
ago are based on a set of footprints, preserved in a fossilized
claypan lake bed, of six men chasing prey.

FLEET-FOOTED ABORIGINALS

An analysis of the footsteps of one of the men, dubbed T8, shows he
reached speeds of 37 kph on a soft, muddy lake edge. Bolt, by
comparison, reached a top speed of 42 kph during his then world 100
meters record of 9.69 seconds at last year's Beijing Olympics.

In an interview in the English university town of Cambridge where he
was temporarily resident, McAllister said that, with modern training,
spiked shoes and rubberized tracks, aboriginal hunters might have
reached speeds of 45 kph.

"We can assume they are running close to their maximum if they are
chasing an animal," he said.

"But if they can do that speed of 37 kph on very soft ground I suspect
there is a strong chance they would have outdone Usain Bolt if they
had all the advantages that he does.

"We can tell that T8 is accelerating toward the end of his tracks."

McAllister said it was probable that any number of T8's contemporaries
could have run as fast.
"We have to remember too how incredibly rare these fossilizations
are," he said. "What are the odds that you would get the fastest
runner in Australia at that particular time in that particular place
in such a way that was going to be preserved?"

Turning to the high jump, McAllister said photographs taken by a
German anthropologist showed young men jumping heights of up to 2.52
meters in the early years of last century.

STARK DECLINE

"It was an initiation ritual, everybody had to do it. They had to be
able to jump their own height to progress to manhood," he said.

"It was something they did all the time and they lived very active
lives from a very early age. They developed very phenomenal abilities
in jumping. They were jumping from boyhood onwards to prove
themselves."

McAllister said a Neanderthal woman had 10 percent more muscle bulk
than modern European man. Trained to capacity she would have reached
90 percent of Schwarzenegger's bulk at his peak in the 1970s.

"But because of the quirk of her physiology, with a much shorter lower
arm, she would slam him to the table without a problem," he said.

Manthropology abounds with other examples:

* Roman legions completed more than one-and-a-half marathons a day
carrying more than half their body weight in equipment.

* Athens employed 30,000 rowers who could all exceed the achievements
of modern oarsmen.

* Australian aboriginals threw a hardwood spear 110 meters or more
(the current world javelin record is 98.48).

McAllister said it was difficult to equate the ancient spear with the
modern javelin but added: "Given other evidence of Aboriginal man's
superb athleticism you'd have to wonder whether they couldn't have
taken out every modern javelin event they entered."

Why the decline?

"We are so inactive these days and have been since the industrial
revolution really kicked into gear," McAllister replied. "These people
were much more robust than we were.

"We don't see that because we convert to what things were like about
30 years ago. There's been such a stark improvement in times,
technique has improved out of sight, times and heights have all
improved vastly since then but if you go back further it's a different
story.

"At the start of the industrial revolution there are statistics about
how much harder people worked then.
"The human body is very plastic and it responds to stress. We have
lost 40 percent of the shafts of our long bones because we have much
less of a muscular load placed upon them these days.

"We are simply not exposed to the same loads or challenges that people
were in the ancient past and even in the recent past so our bodies
haven't developed. Even the level of training that we do, our elite
athletes, doesn't come close to replicating that.

"We wouldn't want to go back to the brutality of those days but there
are some things we would do well to profit from."

(Editing by Clare Fallon; To query or comment on this story email
***@thomsonreuters.com)

© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved

...and I am Sid Harth

[chhotemianinshallah]

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/reviewofbooks_article/7645/

Cooking up a new theory of evolution

With his smaller teeth and jaws, what separated Homo erectus from his
predecessors was not just eating meat, but cooking what he caught.

by Rob Lyons

What makes us human? It is a question for the ages, to be kicked about
by scientists, philosophers and historians to name a few. And you can
put together your own answer from a list including language, brain
size, an ability to have sex pretty much all the time, love, culture,
science, and so on.

Richard Wrangham, in his new book Catching Fire, asks a different, if
related, question: what made us human? Most people would agree that
human beings are different to other creatures (even those who would
like to equate humans morally to the great apes). But why have we come
to be so different? If we leave aside the religious explanation - an
invisible supreme being made us this way - we are left to wonder what
it is in our evolutionary past that set us on a different track from
other apes.

Wrangham’s answer, while not entirely original, is still very
interesting. He believes that the crucial turning point was neither
controlling fire in itself (despite the book’s title) nor eating meat,
but cooking. It is the change in our diets, and the improved ability
to absorb nourishment that comes about through being able to cook
food, that allowed ape-like creatures to evolve relatively quickly
into recognisably human individuals, even if the finished product -
Homo sapiens - was still a long way off.

Roughly 120,000 generations ago, the forebears of modern humans were
chimpanzee-sized creatures called australopithecines. Apart from the
fact that they walked upright, they were not very different to modern
chimpanzees. Wrangham imagines the experience of meeting one: ‘Beneath
a low forehead and big brow-ridge, bright dark eyes surmount a massive
jaw. Her long, muscular arms and short legs intimate her gymnastic
climbing ability.’

From at least 2.6million years ago, australopithecines were using
tools in order to get at meat from dead animals, something beyond
other apes, including modern chimpanzees. Around 2.3million years ago,
a new species - habilines - seems to have emerged, the so-called
‘missing link’. While still the same overall size as modern, nonhuman
apes, they had brains twice the size of our living ‘relatives’. Even
then, the next step on the evolutionary road took hundreds of
thousands of years, but somewhere around 1.9million years ago, some of
these habilines evolved into Homo erectus, the first proper members of
the genus Homo. Homo erectus had an anatomy, upright stance and
pattern of walking similar to ours, but its brain was still smaller.
Modern humans only emerged around 200,000 years ago.

“Wrangham believes that the crucial turning point was neither
controlling fire in itself nor eating meat, but cooking”

The question for Wrangham is this: what changed to create Homo
erectus? The common explanation is the eating of meat, the ‘Man-as-
Hunter’ thesis. Australopithecines seem to have been, in dietary
terms, similar to modern chimpanzees, who will eat monkeys, piglets or
small antelopes when available, but who will also have a diet entirely
free of meat for months on end. However, the upright
australopithecines would have found chasing down prey much easier than
a chimpanzee does on all fours. In turn, the development of such
behaviour would itself have encouraged team work, larger bodies,
increasing intelligence and cooperation.

However, Wrangham argues that the Man-as-Hunter thesis is inadequate
in a number of ways. Most importantly, the thesis can’t explain why
there are two forks in the evolutionary road - first habilines, then
Homo erectus. How could both of these changes, hundreds of thousands
of years apart, be caused by a single factor: eating meat? Meat-eating
accounts for the first change well enough, but Wrangham points out
that habilines looked markedly different from Homo erectus, ‘which had
small jaws and small teeth that were poorly adapted for eating the
tough, raw meat of game animals. These weaker mouths cannot be
explained by Homo erectus‘s becoming better at hunting. Something else
must have been going on.’

That something else, argues Wrangham, was cooking. Scientific research
on those who choose to eat a mostly, or exclusively, raw-food diet
gives us a clue as to why this might be the case. In 2006, nine
volunteers took part in an experiment for BBC television where they
spent 12 days eating like apes while living in a tented enclosure at
Paignton Zoo in south-west England. The idea was to replicate the diet
that we are supposed to have evolved to eat: mostly vegetables, with a
little fish, and entirely raw. The volunteers consumed up to five
kilogrammes of food per day, with nutritionists ensuring they consumed
a healthy number of calories, yet they lost an average of 4.4
kilogrammes (about 10 pounds) in less than two weeks.

In another study in Germany of 513 raw-foodists, the average weight-
loss over time was 12 kilogrammes (about 27 pounds) for women and 10
kilogrammes (22 pounds) for men. The researchers, quoted by Wrangham,
concluded that ‘a strict raw-food diet cannot guarantee an adequate
energy supply’. Among women eating totally raw-food diets, 50 per cent
stopped menstruating, while a further 10 per cent suffered irregular
cycles that were hardly conducive to reproduction.

Wrangham quotes another raw-foodist, Christopher Westra, describing
his changing thoughts on sex. ‘In my experience, starting on living
foods brought about a change in sexuality that was dramatic and
completely unexpected. In just a few weeks, the number of times per
day I thought about sex decreased tremendously.’ Westra seems to think
this is a good thing, but Wrangham asks how a species could flourish
on such a diet when over half of the women would be unable to become
pregnant and the men lose interest in sex?

The effect of cooking, however, is dramatic, making it far easier for
our bodies to obtain the nourishment from food. Wrangham notes that
digestion comes in two parts: the first starts in the mouth and
continues in the stomach, and is completed by the small intestine. The
second part is done by the 400 or more species of ‘friendly bacteria’
that take up residence in our large intestines. So, the quicker we
digest food, the more of its goodness we can grab for ourselves.

“If we are using less of our energy to digest food, that can be
diverted elsewhere. In short, cooked food is brain food”

Cooking makes a big difference to this, as illustrated by patients who
have had their large intestines removed, so that food is removed
through a bag attached to the end of their small intestine, or ileum.
These ileostomy patients can easily digest cooked starch - at least 95
per cent of oats, wheat, potatoes, plantains, cornflakes. A similar
figure applies to a typical European or American diet of starchy
foods, dairy products and meat. On the other hand, the figures for the
‘ileal digestibility’ of raw foods are much lower: wheat starch (71
per cent); potatoes (51 per cent); plaintains (48 per cent). This
differential also seems to apply to protein. Wrangham points to the
example of eggs, which are much better digested cooked rather than
raw.

Why does this matter? Well, if nutrients are more easily extracted
from food, then we can maximise their usefulness given our current
digestive systems. But over the hundreds of thousands of years that
evolution takes, this externalisation of digestion changed our
digestive systems substantially. Compared to apes, humans have much
shorter digestive tracts. And if we our using less of the energy
available to us to digest food, that can be diverted to other areas of
our bodies. Essentially, argues Wrangham, cooked food is brain food.

In the transition from australopithecines to habilines, brain volume
rose by one third, from about 450 cubic centimetres to 612 cubic
centimetres. In the earliest examples of Homo erectus (1.8million
years ago), this had reached 870 cubic centimetres and went on to
around 1,400 cubic centimetres with Homo sapiens around 200,000 years
ago. Although we are about three times the size of australopithecines,
our brains are bigger both absolutely and relatively in proportion to
the rest of our bodies.

The change is not purely nutritional. Wrangham argues that it has
social consequences, too. A sexual division of labour between male
hunters and female gatherer/cooks only makes sense if eating is a
relatively quick process. This is borne out by the fact that
individuals in modern hunter-gatherer societies can spend as little as
an hour per day eating, knowing that this will provide all the
nutrition they need, freeing them to spend long periods finding and
pursuing game. Without this free time, each individual would have to
spend most of his or her time finding and consuming food for
themselves, and a specialisation of labour would be impossible.

Wrangham compares this situation to the behaviour of chimpanzees and
gorillas, who spend most of their time eating since they need to
ingest relatively large quantities of fruit and leaves to survive.
That process makes hunting, which chimpanzees will sometimes engage in
for a few minutes at a time, a relatively risky business taking
valuable time away from eating and digesting with no guarantee of
success.

Wrangham’s ideas are fascinating and clearly have some substantial
explanatory value. That said, they are often based on very small
samples of fossils. Furthermore, there is no direct proof that humans
began cooking 1.8million years ago. It could only be when cooking was
done in well-established settings - like some kind of crude,
constructed oven - that there would be any chance of evidence
surviving. Such constructions clearly didn’t clearly begin until much
later. As such, Wrangham must rely on indirect evidence to support his
argument. There is also, as with many popular discussions of
evolution, a storytelling aspect as Wrangham fills in gaps with
educated speculations that provide plausible explanations for how
society and anatomy develops, but are ultimately unprovable, for now
at least.

“Could it be that our current, highly processed diet means that we are
effectively consuming far more food than we think? ”

One possible consequence of Wrangham’s ideas, however, is not at all
academic and may be a useful avenue of research for a very modern
problem: obesity. Could it be that our current, highly processed diet
means that we are effectively consuming far more food than we think?
Wrangham points out that the traditional method of counting calories
in food, the Atwater convention, may be misleading in this regard.
Wilbur Atwater was a nineteenth-century professor of chemistry in
Connecticut, USA. He argued that the amount of energy in food could be
calculated by completely burning it in a device called a bomb
calorimeter and measuring the heat produced. It’s still, give or take
a few tweaks, the way we calculate calorie content today.

However, we don’t burn food, we digest it - and digestion is a costly
process. How much energy is consumed in digestion varies from one food
type to another. Protein is harder to digest than carbohydrate, which
is in turn harder to digest than fat. But the nature of the food also
has an effect. Soft food in small particles will be easier to digest
than bigger lumps of tough food - which is where cooking, and food
processing, may have a significant impact. Furthermore, Atwater
assumed that only about 10 per cent of food would pass all the way
through, undigested. But roughly milled flour, for example, is much
more likely to remain undigested than finely milled flour. Protein
consumed with high-fibre foods is also less likely to be digested than
if it is eaten on its own or with low-fibre foods.

Wrangham concludes, following food writer Michael Pollan, that we
should choose ‘real foods’ over ‘nutrients’: ‘The less processed our
food, the less intense we can expect the obesity crisis to be.’ In
effect, Wrangham is arguing that - in one respect at least - processed
food is actually too nutritious because we can digest it significantly
more easily. It’s an interesting point, but it also seems a little
throwaway, tacked on to the end of a much more developed argument
about human evolution. Wrangham’s thesis would help to explain why
obesity rates have shot up in recent years, despite the fact that
calorie intakes appear not to have changed much: all calories are not
the same. On the other hand, is our food today really very different
from what we ate 50 years ago in terms of digestibility? And is eating
more traditional food really the answer? A dozen pages at the end of a
book on a rather different subject is not enough evidence to decide.

Nonetheless, Catching Fire is a great example of the popular science
book: take a Big Idea and serve in bite-sized, easily digested
portions, leaving the reader well satisfied.

Rob Lyons is deputy editor of spiked. He edits spiked’s What’s the
Future of Food? online debate.

Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human, by Richard Wrangham, is
published by Basic Books. (Buy this book from Amazon(UK).)

spiked, Signet House, 49-51 Farringdon Road, London, EC1M 3JP Tel:
[phone] Email: email spiked
© spiked 2000-2009 All rights reserved.

...and I am Sid Harth

[chhotemianinshallah]

Page last updated at 15:38 GMT, Friday, 11 December 2009

Genetic 'map' of Asia's diversity

The study indicates that all of Asia was populated through one
migration event


An international scientific effort has revealed the genetics behind
Asia's diversity.

The Human Genome Organisation's (HUGO) Pan-Asian SNP Consortium
carried out a study of almost 2,000 people across the continent.

Their findings support the hypothesis that Asia was populated
primarily through a single migration event from the south.

The researchers described their findings in the journal Science.

They found genetic similarities between populations throughout Asia
and an increase in genetic diversity from northern to southern
latitudes.

The team screened genetic samples from 73 Asian populations for more
than 50,000 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).

These are variations in pieces of the DNA code, which can be compared
to find out how closely related two individuals are genetically.

This is the first study to give a clear answer to the question on
the origin of East Asian populations

Shuhua Xu
Chinese Academy of Sciences
The study found that, as expected, individuals who were from the same
region, or who shared a common language also had a great deal in
common genetically.

But it also answered a question about the origin of Asia's population.
It showed that the continent was likely populated primarily through a
single migration event from the south.

Previously, there has been some debate about whether Asia was
populated in two waves - one to South East Asia, and a later one to
central and north-east Asia, or whether only a single migration
occurred.

Diversity explained

Edison Liu from the Genome Institute of Singapore was a leading member
of the consortium.

He explained that the age of a population has a much bigger effect on
genetic diversity than the population size.

"It seems likely from our data that they entered South East Asia first
- making these populations older [and therefore more diverse]," he
said.

"[It continued] later and probably more slowly to the north, with
diversity being lost along the way in these 'younger' populations.

"So although the Chinese population is very large, it has less
variation than the smaller number of individuals living in South East
Asia, because the Chinese expansion occurred very recently, following
the development of rice agriculture - within only the last 10,000
years."

Dr Liu said that it was "good news" that populations throughout Asia
are genetically similar.

This knowledge will aid future genetic studies in the continent and
help in the design of medicines to treat diseases that Asian
populations might be at a higher risk of.

And the discovery of this common genetic heritage, he added, was a
"reassuring social message", that "robbed racism of much biological
support".

This provides another important piece to the jigsaw puzzle of global
human diversity

Peter Underhill, Stanford University
Shuhua Xu from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, who was a member of
the consortium, said that this was "the first comprehensive study of
genetic diversity and history of Asian populations".

"This is the first study to give a clear answer to the question on the
origin of East Asian populations," Dr Xu added.

Vincent Macaulay, a statistical geneticist at the University of
Glasgow in the UK told Science magazine that the team had produced "a
fabulous data set".

The evidence for the southern coastal migration route, he said seemed
"very strong".

The consortium involved 90 scientists from 11 countries including
China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Philippines,
Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and the US.

Peter Underhill, a geneticist from Stanford University who was not
involved in this study said that it represented an investment of a
"tremendous amount of time, work and inter-institution
collaboration".

He told BBC News: "This provides another important piece to the jigsaw
puzzle of global human diversity."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8406506.stm

...and I am Sid Harth

[chhotemianinshallah]

SIR JOHN SULSTON: PROFILE
Wednesday 24 November 2004 2.10am-2.40am (Tuesday night)

John Sulston has a knighthood, a Nobel Prize and the credit for
uncovering our genetic instructions for life. His mapping of the human
genome has put him at the forefront of scientific endeavour.

But Sulston remains happiest away from the awards platform and behind
his microscope. A Guardian-reading, muesli-chomping, self-confessed
"nerd turned hippie", he is very much what fellow Nobel Laureate Paul
Nurse calls "a scientist's scientist".

Worm work

The son of a vicar and a teacher, Sulston was, at an early age, imbued
with a strong moral code and curiosity for how things work. When he
arrived in the research labs of Cambridge, he discovered his vocation
in the unlikely form of the nematode worm.

Tracking the worm's cellular development took Sulston eight hours a
day. Eighteen months later, he had made some radical discoveries about
cell lineage in humans and earned himself a Nobel Prize.

Scientific pilgrimage

Sulston was considered a safe pair of scientific hands to receive a
huge cheque and the keys to the Sanger Centre in Cambridge, where he
set about directing the British end of the international Human Genome
Project.

He was the obvious choice for the task of deconstructing the 3,000
million gene bases in each human being, but even Sulston was
unprepared for how this scientific pilgrimage became an exercise, too,
in diplomatic relations.

Showdown

The anti-consumerist Sulston withstood attempts by US scientist Craig
Venter to speed up the process and patent the best, most lucrative
genes, a business decision with the potential for profound political
and ethical ramifications.

Dragged into a PR war with corporate America, Sulston managed to
summon extra energy and funding, and the race for the genome was on.
He also defiantly kept his data in the public domain, making his
opponents' lab secrets less lucrative.

Disillusioned?

A draw was finally declared a couple of years ago, but both Sulston
and Venter still bristle on the subject of who should claim credit for
the success of the project. And Sulston appears disillusioned by the
society he witnessed away from his lab, one convinced by image rather
than reality.

Faced with the prospect of a world unbalanced by the monopoly of
scientific knowledge and economic power, the Cambridge professor has
himself resisted the financial trappings of his phenomenal success.
John Sulston asks, "What else do you want apart from conversation?"

Caroline Frost

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/profile/john-sulston.shtml

...and I am Sid Harth

[Sid Harth]

Ancestors of Chinese came from India: Study
Prashanth G N, TNN 12 December 2009, 01:08am IST

BANGALORE: The ancestors of most Asian populations, including the
Chinese and southeast Asians, came from India, a new genetic study
across 10 countries has revealed. The study found that humans first
migrated to the Indian subcontinent from Africa some 100,000 years ago
and then spread to other parts of Asia.

"When humans moved out of Africa, there was a migration to India and
from India to southeast Asia and then east Asia, and finally to the
Americas. So, all Asians have a genetic connection with India," Mitali
Mukerji, a scientist from the Institute of Genomics and Integrative
Biology who was in the team, said.

The study — Mapping Human Genetic History in Asia — was conducted in
10 Asian countries including India. Apart from the Council of
Scientific and Industrial Research DG Samir Brahmachari, the Indian
study team comprised eight members and some students from IGIB, New
Delhi, anthropologist Partha Majumdar and researchers from the Centre
for Genomic Applications.

The study contradicts earlier findings that humans directly went to
East Asia from Africa. The study found remarkable similarities between
the Dravidian population of south India and specific populations in
Malaysia and Singapore. More interestingly, north Indians and
Dravidians, too, were found to be genetically connected — meaning
there are similarities in their gene structures.

Siva,TN,says:Finally what RSS told about indian group as one has come
true.
[12 Dec, 2009 1726hrs IST]

Victor Ilu,Zanzibar,says:With all due respect to IGIB, not many people
outside of India are going to lend much credence to this report unless
it is backed by other -- non-Indian -- research bodies.
[12 Dec, 2009 1723hrs IST]

Herold,Oman,says:May be the world had no religion and it was small now
the world is divide by Religion caste & creed its a pity
[12 Dec, 2009 1714hrs IST]

bhai chare mae hi chine ll make us servant...,aurangabad,says:as u knw
china is capturing both frm water space & frm hilly areas....time will
come he ll start fighr & we indians unable to do anything....
[12 Dec, 2009 1658hrs IST]

Jayaraman,Kodaikanal,says:Finally the borders are cemented that no
longer need to refer as McMohan line but shall be called as
Brahmachari line from now on.
[12 Dec, 2009 1639hrs IST]

Satheesh ,UAE,says:Intially there was nothing. Then came energy from
somewhere. It is the intial great force. From that everything came.
Why hating each other?. Do love each other because we are all one.
[12 Dec, 2009 1638hrs IST]

ChinnMam,UAE,says:This is very true, It is all the more evident that
the existance of human beings records first in India. So obviously the
rest of the people around the world moved from here and created their
own habitat and religion and behaviour.
[12 Dec, 2009 1501hrs IST]

Pramod Shah,Montreal, Canada,says:How wonderful...Hindi chini bhai
bahi so are others from all of south east Asia.
[12 Dec, 2009 1241hrs IST]

Anejat Shyam,Allahabad,says:And do we great Indians accept the same
connection with African countries?
[12 Dec, 2009 1240hrs IST]

raj,bangalore,says:i also believe this. please tell this to china. we
can still be friends.
[12 Dec, 2009 1200hrs IST]

Diepiriye,New Delhi,says:Do people in India really want to know about
their African ancestry? Just search 'Africa' on this very newspaper's
site and 99% of the articles are about Nigerian drug dealers, and the
odd one about the sportsman/woman. Skin bleach can erase that Africa
right outta your gene pool! Even better if you can harass an actual
African on the street, just to highlight how different we are!
[12 Dec, 2009 1116hrs IST]

Tony Fernandez,Goa,says:Studies galore. Bizzare observations and
totally irrelevant and outdated conclusions.
[12 Dec, 2009 1111hrs IST]

Shrikant Atre,Pune,says:And the history teaches us that some 2200
years ago Kushans (QUI-sHANs) were the first chinese migrants to India
who ruled Kashmir and most of the northern territory of India. In fact
"Kujul Kadphises and Wim Takhtu and their predecessors" started the
"Golden Era" of India much before Guptas by minting first punch-marked
gold coins in India...! Are Hindi-Cheeni real bhai bhai ?
[12 Dec, 2009 0953hrs IST]

Raj,MUmbai,says:Go tell this story to China people and govt see what
they will do to India.
[12 Dec, 2009 0944hrs IST]

Ng,Pra,says:So even in those days, the best and the brightest had to
leave India if they wanted to get something better in their
life... :))))
[12 Dec, 2009 0854hrs IST]

S.Balakrishnan,USA,says:There you go - now China can claim India to be
its territory also i.e. completly not just Arunachal Pradesh and
Ladakh. If their ancestors came from here does that not mean that
there is an inherent right to secure their ancestral land. The Chinese
need no bigger reason to claim any part of the territory adjoining the
ones they control to expand more. Now Indian CSIR gives the reason the
Chinese have been searching all these years to annex India. What else
was the reason to claim Tibet despite its language being more closer
to Indian languages than the Chinese language. Just because Buddhism
was spread via Tibet to China they think Tibet is their by right. If
we can prove the Chinese themselves came from India there can be no
better reason necessary.
[12 Dec, 2009 0839hrs IST]

Deepak ,China,says:Pairs of young men and women first appeared in
Tibbet from "nowhere" millions of years ago according to Vedas. Looks
like people from Africa had migrated to India to celebrate and mark
this event 100,000 years ago. But then, this suggest that people were
already there in Indian subcontinent before groups of people from
Africa migrated to India.
[12 Dec, 2009 0827hrs IST]

Raj,mubai,says:Please stop this superiority complex......now the next
research would be that american French British are basically from
India.......stop that nonsense.....
[12 Dec, 2009 0806hrs IST]

Mangal Pandey,Sydney,says:Hindi chini bhai bhai !
[12 Dec, 2009 0803hrs IST]

Moorthy,AU,says:At least the leftist-dravidian scoundrals can stop
talking about Aryan theory nonsense.
[12 Dec, 2009 0753hrs IST]

Gamma Pegasi,Malaysia,says:This research is either to pamper Chinese
or to make communist naxalites happy. And now the drama would be
Chinese not only demand for Arunachal Pradesh but also the entire
India saying that their ancestors lived in Kanyakumari. But one thing
I must strongly agree with this study is, there is no such thing in
the world called as "Aryan Invasion into India". Dravidians and Aryans
were always a part of India except that a few provincial changes have
been adopted according to geographical conditions and scientifically
so called Aryan Invasion is proved wrong.
[12 Dec, 2009 0740hrs IST]

Sriram,Mumbai,says:It really just means all Indians are Africans. Talk
about sensationalism
[12 Dec, 2009 0733hrs IST]

siddhartha ghosh dastidar,Kolkata,says:The news -"Ancestors of Chinese
came from India: Study" (ToI) is no new as the breakthrugh came in the
mid 1990s and the Population Genetics Unit of Indian Statistical
Institute played a part in this human genome study. Moreover, Prof
Partha Pratim Majumdar is no anthropologist , but a quantitative
geneticist.
[12 Dec, 2009 0714hrs IST]

Bala N. Aiyer,Sugar Land, Texas, USA,says:This is great. The mention
of Dravidian vs North Indian is wrong. There is no such thing as a
Genetic or Racial group as Dravidian - may be just a cultural
tradition only. National Geographic Research study by Spencer Wells in
his book "Journey of Man" shows ALL of India has ONE Male and TWO
Female Genetic Markers that is all mixed all over - Just as Indian
Purana - Kashyapar with two wives Dithi and Adhiti. 95% of Indians are
like this.
[12 Dec, 2009 0641hrs IST]

K.R.Murthy,MY,says:this is a very interesting genetic study. Somehow,
I feel that Africa and India are related. As a common man when I see
the traditions of native people of Africa, India, tribes in
Andamans,Australia and NZ, they seen to be similar. Traditions in Far
east places like Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Mynmar are very
similar. This genetic study linking China and North America with India
is very interesting indeed. This study should be continued further and
substantiated and full publicity should be given. This genetic study
should be used in future history books. If funds are needed for
further studies NRIs and business groups can chip in for this
important study. Indian Government also should support this important
study. Regards
[12 Dec, 2009 0627hrs IST]

zee.b,Canada,says:If Bhagwat Gita had predicted coming of the Holy
Prophet Muhammad pbuh who may have said 129000 prophets came before him
(He being the last with original material of Quran) then according to
the people of the Books after Great Flood only Prophet Noah survived
with a pair of current some original species and some of his
followers.Rest of the Population Drowned (including his stubborn
unbelieving Son who had chosen to move to highest Peak in the
neigbourhood.The Survivors if landed in High Himalaya of India then
India may have privelege to have chinese ancestors.If they had landed
elsewhere then India vs China story about DNA may not be accurate.
[12 Dec, 2009 0615hrs IST]

ssmoorthy,carmel usa,says:Genetic studies about population are
evolving and as it stands we cannot be definite.According to the
book"The History and Geography of Human Genes,by Luca Cavalli-Sforza
et al. India has a large genetic pool of eurasia.There were so many
invasions,migrations etc it is difficult to say by the genetic studies
about the complex population studies of India.India has
Asian,European,African and Chinese genes.The studies are interesting
indicating the Indians are no specific group, and none in the world
are "pure".
[12 Dec, 2009 0605hrs IST]

Anand,Stuttgart, Germany,says:If people don't change reading these
researches , what we can say about us ... we are like still as " Six
Sensed Fools "
[12 Dec, 2009 0413hrs IST]

Dev,Bangalore,says:Being a historian, i can share the following data.
You can twist the years of Tamils history. You can refer about Chola
Dynasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chola_Dynasty) and their kingdom
(Loading Image...), which will
tell the truth. The Cholas has a vast kingdom across south india,
maldives, total south east asia in their control. Ther heirs who
resided and maintained the kingdom, only constructed world famous
Angorvat temple in thailand. Still lot to tell....
[12 Dec, 2009 0410hrs IST]

P.M.G,Pillai,Mannar,Allaopuzha,Kerala India,says:dear on line editor,
The finding maybe true because it is found that VEDAS are the OLDEST
books on this earth which conclusively proves that during that age in
In India people were well educated and they did have their own culture
considerd as the VEDIC CULTURE.When this in linked to civilisation
then it is quite possible that it is from India a well deveoped
society and distinctive culture using sanscript language might have
migrqated to all over soth east asia ornear by countries.thus the
temple in Bangkok etc must have been built.datd December12th 2009 time
0335Hrs ist AM
[12 Dec, 2009 0335hrs IST]

Sudarshan,Melbourne,says:You stupid... it seems everyone have a
genetic connection to Africa from the sounds of it.
[12 Dec, 2009 0333hrs IST]

Newslvr,Las vegas,says:Dear Editor your is a wonderful news paper
which has good readership in the US and around the world. Please do
not publish these type of unfounded, un necessary taking credit for
nothing types of news. Some regional and Caste fanatic has issued this
un authenticated finding therefore it is false and un acceptable News
Lvr, USA
[12 Dec, 2009 0321hrs IST]

Emanuel D. Samuel,Toronto On. Canada,says:I did a detailed study of
the Inca of Peru and wrote a book which established that the Inca were
Hindu, specifically Vaisnavite. I cant get anyone to accept it despite
the fact that I directly approached the Consul General of Peru here in
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and offered it to them. In fact, the title
so jolted him he nearly jumped out of his chair. So, I hope Mitali
Mukherji or anyone in the team is willing to accept it for review. I
will send it right away. Please make my email accessible to any one of
those named in the team. Dhanyavad.
[12 Dec, 2009 0307hrs IST]

Supriya,Chicago,says:Can I get the reference for this study?
[12 Dec, 2009 0304hrs IST]

Cogon Alex,India,says:I am sure she has cooked her results. The theory
that Afircan came to India and we all have African origin is all fake
and illogical. Whay some one from Africa will all the way migrate to
India without migrating to the nearest neighoring country? How did
they came ? by sea route (impossible at that time) or land route ? How
many people she has analyzed to have come to this conclusion. Any way
all the humans has 99.999 % similar genome.
[12 Dec, 2009 0301hrs IST]

Srinivasan Vankatesh,Trichy,Tamilnadu,says:Sir,This is a remarkable
finding.China has often been quoted as saying previously that
"Historically ,India culturally conquered us without sending a single
soldier".Perhaps these finding could enable both the neighbours look
at historical reason for reconciliation and peace.Also,if this is
really true report,as it seems to be,then Aryan invasion theory stands
exposed as a fraudulent mischief.Finally,this once again proves that
the events mentioned in Vedas are indeed authentic and that India is
the real cradle of world civilization and religions.I hope more such
studies are performed to revive the glorius past of our nation.
[12 Dec, 2009 0256hrs IST]

sdxsa,dsa,says:In which journal is this published? or yet to be
published?
[12 Dec, 2009 0250hrs IST]

Mahesh,Redmond, WA,says:Is this study published in a peer reviewed
journal? While this is interesting, I want to understand exactly how
this conclusion was reached.
[12 Dec, 2009 0218hrs IST]

Naveen,Atlanta, GA,says:I really don't trust the Indian media, why the
news is so distorted. Here is the link of BBC news, there is no
mention of Chinese ancestor being of Indian origin.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8406506.stm Thanks, Naveen
[12 Dec, 2009 0212hrs IST]

Anuj Jain,USA,says:Bravo! it conculdes that so called Aryans and
Dravidians are connected and that Aryans did not invade India, as
propagated by the english historians. India is definitely the most
ancient and advanced civilization, but it is conveniently ignored over
other cultures in absense of any visible signs (e.g. Pyramid in
Egypt). Western scientists do not believe our scriptures/vedas becasue
they only believe in what they can see, whereas our scriptures deal
with 6th sense or rather abstract form of spiritual science.
[12 Dec, 2009 0140hrs IST]

Saba,Bangalore,says:Now India should claim entire China; as all
Chinese are originally Indians. How is that?!!!
[12 Dec, 2009 0136hrs IST]

rajesh,Bangalore,says:Hahahaha..rishtey mey to hum tumarey baap lagtey
hey..
[12 Dec, 2009 0129hrs IST]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Ancestors-of-Chinese-came-from-India-Study/articleshow/5328596.cms

...and I am Sid Harth

[bademiyansubhanallah]

35-mn-year-old Fossil Raises Questions on Primates’ Origin

Posted by Vamban on Jan 7th, 2010 10:42:02

Bangkok, Jan 7 – A 35-million-year-old primate fossil found in
southern Thailand has added to evidence that primates, which include
humans, might have originated in Asia rather than Africa, Thai media
reports said Thursday.

Adisak Thiongkhaimuk, the director general of Thailand’s Mineral
Resources Department, confirmed Wednesday that fossils of a primate’s
right jaw found in an abandoned coal mine in Krabi province belonged
to a gibbon-like primate that roamed the earth about 35 million years
ago, The Nation newspaper reported.

The announcement was made to mark the department’s 118th anniversary.

Confirmation of the age of the Siamopithecus eocaenus fossils was
published in the scientific journal Anatomical Record in November. A
previous piece of jawbone of inferior quality was discovered in 1994,
leading to the recording of the Siam ape as a new primate species in
Nature Magazine in 1995.

Thai archaeologists have collaborated with experts from France and
Switzerland to study and date a new fossil found in 1996, which has
confirmed its age at 35 million years.

‘These are the most perfect pieces of primate fossil we’ve found in
the country so far,’ said Yaowalak Chaimanee, the department’s fossil
expert.

Yaowalak told The Nation that the discovery proved simians – which
include monkeys, apes and humans – originated and evolved in Asia.

The oldest primate fossil found in Africa is 32 million years old.

“35-mn-year-old Fossil Raises Questions on Primates’ Origin”

Marcia Earth says:
January 7, 2010 at 4:03 pm
” primates, which include humans, might have originated in Asia rather
than Africa, ”

This sentence seems to indirectly imply that humans might have
originated in Asia.

The first human being was born on Earth long after the first primate.
It is possible for primates to have originated in Asia and humans to
have originated in Africa.

The sentence isn’t false – but the way it is written, it creates
ambiguity.

http://www.vamban.com/35-mn-year-old-fossil-raises-questions-on-primates-origin/#comment-1210

...and I am Sid Harth

[Sid Harth]

Skeleton of 8,000-year-old pre-historic human found in Malaysia
PTI Sunday, February 7, 2010 17:26 IST

Kuala Berang (Malaysia): Eight thousand-year-old skeletal remains
believed to be those of a pre-historic human have been discovered from
the Gua Bewah Cave in the Kenyir Lake area here.

The Star Online quoted the deputy director of the Institute of the
Malay World and Civilisation Prof Nik Hasan Shuhaimi Nik Abdul Rahman,
as saying that the remains found at a depth of 65 to 70cm could be
between 8,000 and 11,000 years old.

A white cobra was seen guarding the burial ground when the
archaeologists were excavating the site in November last year. However
the cobra was said to have disappeared since then.

“When excavation work started, the snake emerged but it did not
disturb our team,” assistant director of Terengganu Museums historical
department Rashid Hamat said.

The find was the second in the Kenyir Lake area, the first one being
in the Batu Tok Bidan Cave in 1975.

DNA samples from the remains had been sent to the United States for
analysis and results are expected by next month.

Pieces of pottery believed to date back to the Neolithic Age (4000BC
to 2200BC, or between 6000 to 4000 years ago) were also found from the
caves.

The state government would carry on with excavation to find other
historical artefacts.

http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report_skeleton-of-8000-year-old-pre-historic-human-found-in-malaysia_1344546

HomeMumbaiIndiaWorldMoneySportEntertainmentOpinionSpeak
UpHealthLifestyleSci/TechAcademyGalleryBlogsE-PaperSci/Tech
Advanced Search Home > Sci/Tech > Report

Sophisticated human behavior found half-million years earlier than
previously thought
ANI Wednesday, December 23, 2009 15:30 IST

WASHINGTON: Hebrew University of Jerusalem researchers have discovered
evidence of sophisticated, human behavior as early as 750,000 years
ago, which is some half a million years earlier than has previously
been estimated by archaeologists.

The discovery was made in the course of excavations at the prehistoric
Gesher Benot Ya'aqov site, located along the Dead Sea rift in the
southern Hula Valley of northern Israel, by a team from the Hebrew
University Institute of Archaeology.

Analysis of the spatial distribution of the findings there reveals a
pattern of specific areas in which various activities were carried
out.

This kind of designation indicates a formalized conceptualization of
living space, requiring social organization and communication between
group members.

Such organizational skills are thought to be unique to modern humans.

Attempts until now to trace the origins of such behavior at various
prehistoric sites in the world have concentrated on spatial analyses
of Middle Paleolithic sites, where activity areas, particularly those
associated with hearths, have been found dating back only to some
250,000 years ago.

The new Hebrew University study describes an Acheulian (an early stone
tools culture) layer at Gesher Benot Ya'aqov that has been dated to
about 750,000 years ago.

The evidence found there consists of numerous stone tools, animal
bones and a rich collection of botanical remains.

Analyses of the spatial distribution of all these finds revealed two
activity areas in the layer: the first area is characterized by
abundant evidence of flint tool manufacturing.

A high density of fish remains in this area also suggests that the
processing and consumption of many fish were carried out in this area
- one of the earliest evidences for fish consumption by prehistoric
people anywhere.

In the second area, identified evidence indicates a greater variation
of activities - all of which took place in the vicinity of a hearth.

The many wood pieces found in this area were used as fuel for the
fire.

Processing of basalt and limestone was spatially restricted to the
hearth area, where activities indicate the use of large stone tools
such as hand axes, chopping tools, scrapers, and awls.

The presence of stone hammers, and in particular of pitted anvils
(used as nutting stones), suggest that nut processing was carried out
near the hearth and may have involved the use of nut roasting.

In addition, fish and crabs were probably consumed near the hearth.

http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report_sophisticated-human-behavior-found-half-million-years-earlier-than-previously-thought_1326700

'Modern' living was invented by Homo Erectus, not Homo Sapiens
ANI Thursday, January 14, 2010 22:45 IST Email

Washington DC: Modern living may have originated roughly 500,000 years
earlier than it is believed and was actually invented by Homo Erectus-
our hairy, heavy-browed ancestor species- and not the "modern" humans,
Homo Sapiens, according to a new study.

At the prehistoric Gesher Benot Ya'aqov site in northern Israel,
researchers have found the earliest known evidence of social
organization, communication, and divided living and working spaces-all
considered traits of modern human behaviour.

Archaeologists have claimed that the former hunter-gatherer encampment
dates back as far as 750,000 years ago, and must have been built by
Homo erectus or another ancestral human species.

Fossil record suggests that Homo Sapiens-our own species-emerged only
about a couple hundred thousand years ago.

At the site, researchers found artifacts including hand axes, chopping
tools, scrapers, hammers and awls, animal bones, and botanical remains
buried in distinct areas.

"Different tasks"-from nut processing to seafood preparation-"were
taking place in different locations in the site," National Geographic
News quoted archaeologist Naama Goren-Inbar, who led the excavation,
as saying.

"The modification of basalt tools was done in proximity to the
fireplace but, on the other hand, flint [sharpening] was done on the
other end of the site in association with where we found a lot of fish
teeth," said Goren-Inbar, of Hebrew University's Institute of
Archaeology in Mount Scopus, Israel.

On the basis of their finds and evidence from other sites and groups,
the researchers assume there was a division of labour at Gesher Benot
Ya'aqov.

Based on ethnographic analogies and comparisons, Goren-Inbar
speculated that women must be gathering nuts and processing small
animals like fish, crabs, and turtles close to the communal hearth.

The men would be off hunting or situated in farther corners of the
site butchering larger game, including a long-extinct elephant
species, she hinted.

Basalt, limestone, and flint tool making would also be taking place in
various locations around the encampment.

And some people would just be chewing down on roasted nuts-still a
local staple-or fish.

"One of the highlights of our report is that people ate fish more than
750,000 years ago," said Goren-Inbar.

The study suggested that the encampment, located on an ancient
lakeshore, holds some of the earliest evidence of fish eating ever
found.

Archaeologist Dani Nadel agreed that the new discovery indicates a
surprisingly early emergence of modern human behavior.

The study has been published in the journal Science.

http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report_modern-living-was-invented-by-homo-erectus-not-homo-sapiens_1334896

European cavemen roasted birds 150,000 years ago
ANI Friday, November 27, 2009 19:56 IST

WASHINGTON: A new study has found that although early modern humans
and their predecessors in Europe were mostly big game hunters, but a
pile of well-nibbled bird bones suggests that at least some
prehistoric European cavemen enjoyed small prey too, about 150,000
years ago.

According to a report in Discovery News, the 202 bones, belonging to
the Aythya genus of diving ducks, were found at Bolomor Cave near the
town of Tavernes in Valencia, Spain.

The ducks date to around 150,000 years ago, and were not eaten
daintily.

"The birds were de-fleshed using both stone tools and teeth," co-
author Ruth Blasco told Discovery News, noting that some of the ducks
may have even been consumed raw.

"The modifications observed on small remains from Bolomor Cave are the
strongest evidence for bird consumption in the European Middle
Pleistocene," she added.

Blasco, a researcher at the Institute of Human Paleoecology and Social
Evolution in Tarragona, Spain, and colleague Josep Fernandez Peris
analyzed the duck bones under high magnification.

They determined three characteristics allow the bird remains to be
considered duck dinner leftovers.

First, they found "cutmarks on bones of both the front and hind limb."

Second, they identified the "presence of burning patterns on the
extremities of the bones, areas of the skeleton with less meat."

Finally, the researchers discovered "human tooth marks on limb bones."

Although both Neanderthal and modern human remains have been found at
the Bolomor Cave complex, the geological level of the roasted duck
finds suggests that Homo heidelbergensis is the human species that ate
the duck meals.

Evidence supports that African hominids ate birds as early as the Plio-
Pleistocene era, around 2 million years ago.

Early European cavemen, on the other hand, are usually associated with
spear thrusting and group hunting efforts.

But, they might have also been fleet footed with fast reflexes.

"The acquiring of fast-running and quick-flying small prey requires a
sophisticated technology and involves obtaining and processing ways
different from those used for large and medium-sized animals,"
according to the scientists, who think Heidelberg Man might have used
traps, bird calls and other techniques to obtain ducks.

http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report_european-cavemen-roasted-birds-150000-years-ago_1317326

Analysing DNA directly from 30,000-year-old modern humans now made
possible
ANI Friday, January 1, 2010 14:13 IST

WASHINGTON: A team of scientists has shown how it is possible to
directly analyse DNA from ancient modern humans who lived around
30,000 years ago. DNA that is left in the remains of long-dead plants,
animals, or humans allows a direct look into the history of
evolution.

So far, studies of this kind on ancestral members of our own species
have been hampered by scientists' inability to distinguish the ancient
DNA from modern-day human DNA contamination.

Now, a new research by Svante Paabo from The Max-Planck Institute for
Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, has overcomes this
hurdle and shows how it is possible to directly analyze DNA from a
member of our own species who lived around 30,000 years ago.

DNA is a hardy molecule and can persist, conditions permitting, for
several tens of thousands of years.

Such ancient DNA provides scientists with unique possibilities to
directly glimpse into the genetic make-up of organisms that have long
since vanished from the Earth.

Using ancient DNA extracted from bones, the biology of extinct
animals, such as mammoths, as well as of ancient humans, such as the
Neanderthals, has been successfully studied in recent years.

The ancient DNA approach could not be easily applied to ancient
members of our own species.

This is because the ancient DNA fragments are multiplied with special
molecular probes that target certain DNA sequences.

These probes, however, cannot distinguish whether the DNA they
recognize comes from the ancient human sample or was introduced much
later, for instance by the archaeologists who handled the bones.

Using the remains of humans that lived in Russia about 30,000 years
ago, Paabo and his colleagues now make use of the latest DNA
sequencing techniques to overcome this problem.

These techniques, known as "second-generation sequencing," enable the
researchers to "read" directly from ancient DNA molecules, without
having to use probes to multiply the DNA.

The application of this technology to the remains of members of our
own species that lived tens of thousands of years ago now opens a
possibility to address questions about the evolution and prehistory of
our own species that were not possible with previous methods.

For instance, whether the humans living in Europe 30,000 years ago are
the direct ancestors of present-day Europeans or whether they were
later replaced by immigrants that brought new technology such as
farming with them.

"We can now do what I thought was impossible just a year ago -
determine reliable DNA sequences from modern humans," said Paabo.

http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report_analysing-dna-directly-from-30000-year-old-modern-humans-now-made-possible_1329684

http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=human+prehistory&tag=googhydr-20&index=stripbooks&hvadid=3400511441&ref=pd_sl_695txgo9b2_b

...and I am Sid Harth

[navanavonmilita]

Monkey is Your Uncle: Sid Harth
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/browse_thread/thread/dce0d4821fe42501/44ec2d6fa29b35eb?lnk=raot

Fossil Skeletons May Be Human Ancestor
LiveScience.com

Handout photo shows a cranium forming part of the holotype skeleton of
Australopithecus sediba from the Malapa site in South Africa Reuters –
Handout photo released April 8, 2010 shows a cranium forming part of
the holotype skeleton of Australopithecus …

* Dinosaurs and Fossils Slideshow:Dinosaurs and Fossils

Charles Q. Choi
LiveScience Contributor
LiveScience.com charles Q. Choi
livescience Contributor
livescience.com – Thu Apr 8, 10:10 am ET

A newfound ancient relative of humanity discovered in a cave in Africa
is a strong candidate for the immediate ancestor to the human lineage,
an international team of scientists said today.

The remarkably well-preserved skeletons - a juvenile male and an adult
female that lived nearly 2 million years ago - were found near the
surface in the remains of a deeply eroded limestone cave system.

Scientists don't know how they died, but it's possible they fell into
the cave.

The hominids had longer arms than we do, and smaller brains. But their
faces were human-like, and scientists say the discovery represents an
important look into our pre-human past. Researchers stopped short of
calling the new species, dubbed Australopithecus sediba, a missing
link.
http://www.livescience.com/culture/091030-origins-top10-special.html

Click image to see more fossil photos
AP

Australopithecus means 'southern ape.' Sediba means "natural spring,
fountain or wellspring in Sotho, one of the 11 official languages of
South Africa," said researcher Lee Berger, a paleoanthropologist at
the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa. This was "deemed an
appropriate name for a species that might be the point from which the
genus Homo arises," Berger said.

Rich fossil site

The partial skeletons were found near Johannesburg at a site called
Malapa, which means "homestead" in Sotho, in an area named the Cradle
of Humankind.
Loading Image...&cap=The+cranium+of+the+newly+identified+species%2C+Australopithecus+sediba%2C+was+found+at+the+Malapa+site%2C+South+Africa.+Credit%3A+Photo+by+Brett+Eloff+courtesy+of+Lee+Berger+and+the+University+of+the+Witwatersrand.&title=

"This is one of the richest fossil sites in Africa," said researcher
Daniel Farber, an earth scientist at the University of California at
Santa Cruz. Nearly a third of the entire evidence for human origins in
Africa come from just a few sites in this region.

The sex of the fossils was determined from the shape of the jaws and
hips, while analysis of the teeth suggest the young male was about 12
years old and the adult female in her late 20s or early 30s. Since
these specimens apparently died at or about the same time as each
other - anytime from hours to weeks apart - the researchers suggest
they would almost certainly have known each other in life and may very
well have been related.

Both stood upright a little more than 4 feet high (1.2 meters). "The
female probably weighed about 33 kilograms (72 lbs.) and the child
about 27 kilograms (59 lbs.) at the time of his death," Berger noted.
The male was "right on the cusp of adulthood."

In many ways, the skeleton appears to be a mishmash of features, with
some resembling members of the human family tree and others more like
those of earlier ape-like hominids. (A hominid includes humans,
chimpanzees, gorillas and their extinct ancestors, while hominins
include those species after the human lineage split from that of
chimpanzees.)

For instance, "the brain size of the juvenile was between 420 and 450
cubic centimeters, which is small when compared to the human brain of
about 1,200 to 1,600 cubic centimeters," Berger said. "It would look
almost like a pinhead."
http://www.livescience.com/history/091113-origins-evolving.html

Still, "the shape of the brain seems to be more advanced than that of
australopithecines," Berger noted. Indeed, a number of skull features,
such as certain wide, broad lines in the bone, "are ones you tend to
attribute to early members of genus Homo," Berger told LiveScience -
that is to say, our lineage.

Human-like faces

A number of facial and dental features resemble those of early human
species, such as small teeth and a projecting nose. At the same time,
"it had very long forearms - in fact, as long as an orangutans,"
Berger said, similar to other members of the genus Australopithecus.
Its fingers were curved, ideal for climbing trees, yet relatively
short, like in humans.
http://www.livescience.com/history/091026-top10-origins-mysteries.html

Its legs were relatively long and the ankles seem to be intermediate
between modern humans and earlier hominids. Critically, its pelvis and
hip were more advanced than other australopithecines, approaching the
hip structure of the extinct human species Homo erectus.
http://www.livescience.com/culture/091030-origins-top10-special.html

This indicates that A. sediba was able to walk upright in a striding
manner.

Despite the differences in sex, the male and female skeletons
physically resembled each other, something they seem to have had in
common with the human family tree but not with more distant relatives,
such as chimpanzees. This could mean that A. sediba leaned toward
social behavior "where you don't necessarily have a dominant alpha
male and you are lowering violence between males who are probably
working more cooperatively in a group," Berger suggested.

Time machine

A combination of dating techniques determined the rocks encasing the
fossils are 1.95 million to 1.78 million years old.

"This fits in a critical moment in time," Berger explained. The human
lineage is thought to have originated between 1.8 million to 2 million
years ago, but the hominid fossils unearthed so far from that period
have proven remarkably poor, giving scientists a great deal of room
for speculation as to how our family tree evolved.
http://www.livescience.com/history/091026-top10-origins-mysteries.html

Due to A. sediba's age and physical traits, the researchers believe it
is a convincing candidate for the immediate ancestor to the genus
Homo. Based on its physique, they suggest its appearance signified the
dawn of more energy-efficient forms of walking and running.

Many scientists believe the human genus Homo evolved from
Australopithecus a little more than 2 million years ago, but that
possibility has been widely debated, with other experts proposing an
evolution from the genus Kenyanthropus. This new species might help
clear up that controversy.

"These fossils give us an extraordinarily detailed look into a new
chapter of human evolution, and provide a window into a critical
period when hominids made the committed change from dependency on life
in the trees to life on the ground," Berger said. "Australopithecus
sediba appears to present a mosaic of features demonstrating an animal
comfortable in both worlds."
http://www.livescience.com/history/091102-human-origins-start.html

Not a missing link

Based on its age and overall details of its body, researchers
suggested A. sediba descended from Australopithecus africanus, which
lived between 2 million and 3 million years ago and seemed to have
eaten mostly soft foods like fleshy fruits, young leaves and perhaps
some meat. This new species appears more similar to humans than do
Australopithecus afarensis, most famed for Lucy, or Australopithecus
garhi, which was discovered in 1996.
http://www.livescience.com/history/070717_lucy_link.html

"We are perhaps at the beginning of a more coherent view of the
diversity of the earliest South African hominids," said
paleoanthropologist Ian Tattersall at the American Museum of Natural
History in New York, who did not take part in this research. These
specimens provide "a better position to perceive the larger
evolutionary patterns among hominids in a critical part of the
timeframe."

As intriguing as the new fossil is, "it's not everything the rumor
mill said it was going to be," said paleoanthropologist John Hawks at
the University of Wisconsin at Madison. "It's not a missing link."
http://www.livescience.com/health/top10_missinglinks.html

One of the biggest mysteries in human evolution is when the human
genus Homo arose.

"What sets us apart most from the australopithecines is the size of
our brain," Hawks said. With this new fossil, "while it has a somewhat
Homo-like face, it doesn't have a Homo-like brain - it's smaller than
the average for the earlier [Australopithecus] africanus."

"Maybe these findings suggest we look to South Africa for a possible
origin for Homo, but there's not a smoking gun here," Hawks added.
Intriguing fossils have also emerged in East Africa, and even Asia,
and much remains unknown when it comes to Central Africa and West
Africa. All these clues raise the question of which species were our
ancestors and which just evolved similar traits in a parallel manner.
"We just need to find more skulls," he noted.

Regardless of whether they are a side-branch removed from humanity or
whether they are our ancestors, these new hominids are "a time
machine," Berger said, a window into the evolutionary pressures and
processes during that crucial period when the human lineage arose.

Setting the scene

The sedimentary and geological setting the skeletons were found in
suggests the two hominids died about the same time, shortly before a
mud flow carried them to where they were buried.

"We think the environment [Australopithecus] sediba lived in was, in
many ways, similar to the environment today," said researcher Paul
Dirks, a geologist at James Cook University in Australia. "For
example, one with predominantly grassy plains, transected by more
vegetated, wooded valleys. However, the rivers flowed in different
directions and the landscape was not static, but changed all the
time."

The hominids were found along with at least 25 other species of
animals, including saber-tooth cats, hyenas, a wild dog, a wildcat, a
horse, a species of antelope known as a kudu, and smaller animals such
as mice and rabbits. The fact that the hominid fossils were intact and
well-preserved suggests they were trapped in the cave beyond the reach
of scavengers that could have scattered their skeletons.

All these fossils were preserved in a hard, concrete-like substance
known as calcified clastic sediment that formed at the bottom of what
appears to be a shallow underground lake or pool.

"We believe the cave originally was deep and only accessible through
vertical entranceways, which made it hard for animals to escape once
they became trapped," Farber said.

Cause of death?

The cave would have likely once been some 100 to 150 feet deep (30 to
45 meters). "We are looking at very eroded and denuded portions of
this cave system, where nature has exposed what had once been the deep
reaches," Farber said.

The cave might have acted as a death trap for animals seeking water.

"We would speculate that perhaps at the time of their death, the area
in which [Australopithecus] sediba lived experienced a severe
drought," Dirks said. "Animals may have smelled the water, ventured in
too deep, fallen down hidden shafts in the pitch dark, or got lost and
died."

Although researchers can only speculate on how these hominids died,
Farber speculated that they probably fell into the cave. "Even now,
there are places where you can fall into unexpected cracks in this
landscape," he said.

A deeper understanding of the environment these hominids lived in
could yield critical insights into their evolution. For instance, was
there anything about their surroundings that might have driven them to
stand upright?

"Those were the original questions that we will continue to look at as
part of the broader study," Farber said. The scientists will detail
their findings in the April 9 issue of the journal Science.

A child's discovery

The scientists began the research that uncovered A. sediba in March of
2008, when Berger and Dirks started mapping the roughly 130 caves and
20 fossil sites identified in the region over the past several
decades. By July that year, the 3-D capabilities of Google Earth then
allowed Berger to identify nearly 500 new caves from satellite images,
which further research discovered included more than 25 fossil sites
previously unknown to science.

"It is a powerful, powerful tool for science," Berger said of Google
Earth. "I happen to know paleontologists around Africa who are using
that tool to hunt for fossils."

In late July 2008, using Google Earth, Berger noted a series of caves
running along a fault that pointed to a blank area in the region, an
area that appeared to have clusters of trees that typically marked
cave deposits. On August 1 that year, when Dirks was dropped off with
his dog Tau to map the caves, he almost immediately discovered a rich
new fossil site.
Loading Image...&cap=A+view+of+the+uitkomst+cave%2C+a+well-known+archaeological+site+close+to+the+sediba+site.+It%0D+illustrates+the+broken%2C+diverse+nature+of+the+landscape.+Credit%3A+Paul+Dirks&title=

Two weeks after that, Berger explored this fossil site with his nine-
year-old son Matthew and his postdoctoral student Job Kibii.

"Matthew ran off the site, about 15 meters (50 feet) off-site, and
within about a minute-and-a-half, he said, 'Dad, I found a fossil,"
Berger said. "I thought it would be an antelope fossil, because that's
usually all we find, but as I walked toward him, I found he found a
hominid clavicle (collarbone) sticking out of the rock." That bone was
the first remains found of A. sediba - the collarbone of the juvenile.

Fossil preparators have worked arduously over the last two years to
extract the rest of the bones from the rock. In celebration of this
find, the children of South Africa have been invited to a competition
to decide what the name for the juvenile skeleton will be.

The future of the past

In the meantime, the researchers said there are at least two other
skeletons emerging from the site. He also refused to confirm or deny
whether they might have found any tools these hominids might have left
behind.

"The presence of tools is something that would have enormous
ramifications, obviously," Berger said. "We're treading carefully in
that area."

The skulls from the fossils they have retrieved so far are well-
preserved enough to reconstruct their faces, Berger noted.

"Sometime in the future, we will look into the face of sediba," he
said.

The researchers might even be able to retrieve DNA or proteins from
the site.

"We are seeing some organics preserved in various parts of the
assemblage," Berger noted.

* Top 10 Mysteries of the First Humans
http://www.livescience.com/history/091026-top10-origins-mysteries.html
* Humans Still Evolving as Our Brains Shrink
http://www.livescience.com/history/091113-origins-evolving.html
* Top 10 Things That Make Humans Special
http://www.livescience.com/culture/091030-origins-top10-special.html

* Original Story: Fossil Skeletons May Be Human Ancestor
http://www.livescience.com/history/new-hominid-human-ancestor-100408.html

LiveScience.com chronicles the daily advances and innovations made in
science and technology. We take on the misconceptions that often pop
up around scientific discoveries and deliver short, provocative
explanations with a certain wit and style. Check out our science
videos, Trivia & Quizzes and Top 10s. Join our community to debate hot-
button issues like stem cells, climate change and evolution. You can
also sign up for free newsletters, register for RSS feeds and get cool
gadgets at the LiveScience Store.
Related Searches:

* australopithecus garhi http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=australopithecus+garhi
* australopithecus africanus http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=australopithecus+africanus
* australopithecus afarensis http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=australopithecus+afarensis
* cradle of humankind http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=cradle+of+humankind
* google earth http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=google+earth


2,035 Comments
Show:

Lee J
575 users liked this comment
933 users disliked this comment
Lee J 21 hours ago

IMPOSSIBLE!!!! Earth is only 6,000 years old. Satan put
those bones there to confuse us or God did to test us. I can't
remember which one is right.
Well now that being said we can move on to more comments
about this story.

Replies (181)
*
Infidel
692 users liked this comment
809 users disliked this comment
Infidel 21 hours ago

A nine-year old CHILD found the first of these important
fossils! Fantastic! At least he won't grow up to be deluded by the
bible-believers "young earth" myth. Too bad so many American children
are brainwashed with bible-thumping nonsense, and that with
conservative control over science textbooks, many more WILL be.

Replies (117)
*
Bullwinkle
176 users liked this comment
326 users disliked this comment
Bullwinkle 21 hours ago

Maybe they fell from the moon.

Replies (15)
*
Tony
83 users liked this comment
219 users disliked this comment
Tony 21 hours ago Report Abuse

oh the brain was smaller then the average brain of the ape a
million years before it how does where's the logic lol

Replies (14)
*
Christian
218 users liked this comment
57 users disliked this comment
Christian 19 hours ago Report Abuse

wow very interesting

Replies (3)
*
Daniela
311 users liked this comment
165 users disliked this comment
Daniela 19 hours ago Report Abuse

wow are you serious it could be and ancestor for an ape not
humans!

Replies (17)
*
Jerk
481 users liked this comment
424 users disliked this comment
Jerk 19 hours ago Report Abuse

So if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
There's also multiple species of fish... am I supposed to believe
there was 1 original fish and all the others evolved?

Replies (98)
*
John
590 users liked this comment
487 users disliked this comment
John 19 hours ago Report Abuse

Interesting, but I don't buy it. In every species, when one
species evolves into another species, the previous one disappears. So,
if we evolved from monkeys and apes, why are there still monkeys and
apes? It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to
believe in creation.

Replies (88)
*
Steve
93 users liked this comment
65 users disliked this comment
Steve 19 hours ago Report Abuse

That's Great....

Replies (7)
*
Edward
238 users liked this comment
251 users disliked this comment
Edward 19 hours ago

It is interesting how the evolutionist continue to insist
man evolved from apes and the earth is billions years old. There are
still no intermediate transitional forms. There is natural selection
and adaptation but no macroevolution. Dogs still beget dogs and cats
still beget cats even though there are different varieties within the
kind.
These scientist have rejected the truth about the Creator
and have chosen to believe in fary tales for grown ups. The key to
true scientific understanding is believe in a recent creation and a
global cataclysmic flood in the days of Noah which would explain most
of the fossil record.
These evolutionist just can't exept the idea that they will
have to answer to the Creator one day for their sin. Jesus himself
attested to the historical accuracy of the Genesis record. I would
rather believe God's Son than athiests with an agenda.

Replies (48)

*
Priscilla
5 users liked this
31 users disliked this comment
Priscilla 19 hours ago Report Abuse

damn dats crazy!!! team kaname!!

Comment hidden due to low rating. Show Comment
Replies (2)
*
Himitsu
106 users liked this comment
34 users disliked this comment
Himitsu 19 hours ago

cool cool cool! I love when they find new stuff! I'm
excited. Kinda makes me want to be an archeologist...

Replies (2)
*
Daniel
3 users liked this commentThumbs UpThumbs Down44 users disliked
this comment
Daniel 19 hours ago

Ho Hum

Comment hidden due to low rating. Show Comment
Reply
*
High
53 users liked this comment
129 users disliked this comment
High 19 hours ago

Peole read your bible !!!
It say that earth had man and likeman !!!
Eva think bones are from like-man !!!

Replies (12)
*
sam
108 users liked this comment
109 users disliked this comment
sam 19 hours ago

lets continue with the discovery of who we are. that is
amazing that we are able to, soon, prove who we are. i hope that child
understands the discovery they made. hopefully we can soon let our
children THINK for themselves an not be forced to belive in a figment
of a 2000 year old mans imagination. why would we want our future in
the hands of people who belive in a tribal view of creation, when
evolution has proved it self true.why should our leaders be people who
wont belive in the realitys of the facts. lets hope that we find the
rest of our past an can soon see the true evolution of man.

Replies (12)
*
wrxacd
98 users liked this comment
80 users disliked this comment
wrxacd 19 hours ago

I just want to make people, who don't already know, aware.
The dates they come up with are not accurate the dating techniques
used to come up with these numbers are VERY inaccurate beyond a few
thousand years. So how can they know it was "2 million years" ago? And
what really bugs me about these articles is how the author tries to
present all the information as "fact" when it is based on theory. The
old saying "Don't believe everything you see on TV" would apply
nowadays. DON"T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ ON THE INTERNET.

Replies (8)
*
..::Beautiful::..
139 users liked this comment
175 users disliked this comment
..::Beautiful::.. 19 hours ago Report Abuse

FInally! Actual PROOF is coming out. What kind of "proofs"
does the theory of God have?

Replies (47)
*
Joey
118 users liked this comment
162 users disliked this comment
Joey 19 hours ago

HAHAHAHAHAHA there is so little evidence for evolution every
new find lends us some supposed new clue. These losers just dont want
to admit there is a God. This is honestly to funny.

Replies (11)
*
Eric
97 users liked this comment
89 users disliked this comment
Eric 19 hours ago

In about a year, a very small article will appear(not on the
front page of Yahoo), stating that this hominid is not an ancestor of
us. Happens every time. And there are some of us who believe that the
universe is about 15 billion years old, and the earth is about 4
billion years old...Old Earth Creationists. Not to mention there are
Thiestic Evolutionists. So don't let that stop you from loving and
serving Jesus.

Replies (7)
*
AustinR
50 users liked this comment
107 users disliked this comment
AustinR 19 hours ago

Small brain and in Africa. Really, do I need to go there?

Replies (7)

*
JeremyJ
88 users liked this comment
101 users disliked this comment
JeremyJ 19 hours ago

I agree completely, If we all evolved from apes, why are
there still apes? Same applies to fish, etc... People who believe in
evolution are looking for a way to fill the gap that not believing in
God creates in their lives.

Replies (6)
*
Rev Mike
47 users liked this comment
17 users disliked this comment
Rev Mike 19 hours ago

Of course there is only one type of human left! We ate all
the others! LOL Hope they find more and I hope we get to read about
it!!

Replies (1)
*
ONE TIME
47 users liked this comment
46 users disliked this comment
ONE TIME 19 hours ago

First, we find something and title it "May be a human
ancestor." Step two, say that it is and get it published in a school
text book. Step 3, after some 25 years we learn that it wasn't what we
thought it was and keep publishing that textbook as if it is true. ...

Replies (4)
*
jake
93 users liked this comment
134 users disliked this comment
jake 19 hours ago

Wow, people still believe in evolution? Religion has more
facts this this crap.

Replies (13)
*
Charles Webb
87 users liked this comment
101 users disliked this comment
Charles Webb 19 hours ago

Ancestors? Really!!? Its an Ape or monkey Specie that`s it.
We were created. We didnt evolve. Scientists will be looking for the
missing link for eternity,because it doesnt exist.

Replies (4)
*
Shay
86 users liked this comment
108 users disliked this comment
Shay 19 hours ago

How do you know its that old? The answer is you don't. It is
wrong to say something is that old when you have no idea. And as for
this "missing link" you will never find it. God created the world. Its
as simple as that. We did not evolve from a monkey.

Replies (7)
*
Shaun S
49 users liked this comment
109 users disliked this comment
Shaun S 19 hours ago

HAHAHA!!! Stupid atheists... the earth is only 10,000 years
old. There is no "human ancestor", we are now as we have always been!

Replies (8)
*
Mat
56 users liked this comment
25 users disliked this comment
Mat 19 hours ago

This is not the forum for a religious debate; feel free to
blog or chat elsewhere if you have theological issues on this.
It really is amazing that a child made such a find; or is
it? Children do tend to dig, quite a bit. The surprising part may be
that the child notified the correct people without continuing to dig
and causing serious damage to the discovery.

Replies (5)
*
Mark
74 users liked this comment
25 users disliked this comment
Mark 19 hours ago

when one species evolves into a new species it does not
automatically mean the elimination fo the old species.....I don't mind
a person choosing the bible over science but I find it troubling how
many anti-evolutionists clearly don't understand the theory in the
slightest

Replies (7)
*
Stephen K
7 users liked this comment
19 users disliked this comment
Stephen K 19 hours ago

HAHAHA.... @ Lee

Surely you don't believe that nonsense, right? lol

#
Lee J
4 users liked this comment
9 users disliked this comment
Lee J 19 hours ago

Tig....Tig........Tig Chill out.......Don't you know sarcasm when
you read it?

Replies (1)
#
steph8208
17 users liked this comment
53 users disliked this comment
steph8208 19 hours ago

Dont Buy into it folks! Either is A.) a species that has went
extinct B) deformed animal we already have as a species or C) a
"deformed" human. This is hilarious!

Replies (3)
#
Ruth
45 users liked this comment
68 users disliked this comment
Ruth 19 hours ago

Ya'll are a mess.. Its just a species in the monkey family..
Humans did not evolve from apes.. smh

Replies (4)
#
Michael
50 users liked this comment
97 users disliked this comment
Michael 19 hours ago

The earth is only 6000 years old. About 4500 years ago there was a
catastrophic global flood, which changed things quite a bit. However,
there are no "human ancestors". Humans, and all animals originated at
the same time........the sixth day.

Replies (10)
#
__A_YAHOO_USER__
60 users liked this comment
47 users disliked this comment
__A_YAHOO_USER__ 19 hours ago

how would it take more faith to believe in evolution that is
backed by tangable facts, than it would to believe in creation that is
backed only by man written books, stories, and flintstones cartoons?

Replies (7)
#
Paul
54 users liked this comment
82 users disliked this comment
Paul 19 hours ago

God has complete control over everything including time, you
should read "The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and
Biblical Wisdom," Gerald L. Schroeder, I'm frankly tired of atheistic
comments against Christians, our founding fathers were Christian and
the reason this country is going down is because of people like you
that have no concept of sin. So instead of attacking me back, go read
something Mr. and Mrs. scientist.

Replies (6)
#
Justin
73 users liked this comment
64 users disliked this comment
Justin 19 hours ago

I swear to god (haha a pun), you religious people are all idiots
in denial. The Earth is certainly more than a measly 10,000 years old.
Heck that was the last ice age! Life began on this planet 4 BILLION
years ago. Finally more proof of evolution. Science. Facts. Take that
in your little "belief system". We have facts, you have random ideas.

Replies (13)
#
dennis
49 users liked this comment
80 users disliked this comment
dennis 19 hours ago

Here is a thought... Jesus Christ died for ALL OF US, AND ALL OF
OUR SINS, this skeleton may be an extinct species but NOT a human
ancestor. I firmly believe in the Bible, that being said, we
Christians NEED TO LOVE THOSE WHO DON'T BELIEVE; NOT ATTACK THEM!
Evolution is WRONG, ---IF WE ARE DESCENDANTS OF APES THEN SCIENCE
WOULD BE ABLE TO MIX HUMAN EGGS WITH PRIMATE SPERM OR VICE VERSA
PRODUCING OFFSPRING. THEY HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO DO SUCH A THING.----
Horses and donkeys produce (sterile) mules.... therefore (IF)
evolution was right and it is NOT, but if it was then there should be
an offspring which would be produced via the same technique... We are
to tell the world about Jesus, not attack the Lost or belittle them.
you will win the lost with love not hate or anger.

Replies (4)
#
Christian
53 users liked this comment
15 users disliked this comment
Christian 19 hours ago

I find it funny how these sort of articles always result in
religious lashing out.

Replies (3)
#
Chris
36 users liked this comment
67 users disliked this comment
Chris 19 hours ago

It is a FACT that Darwin himself changed and believed in Creation
not Evolution before he died!

Replies (12)

*
KB
3 users liked this comment
18 users disliked this comment
KB 19 hours ago Report Abuse

Poor stupid Lee J. Severe head injury... or just born
retarded?? Geez...

Comment hidden due to low rating. Show Comment

*
Marko
31 users liked this comment
62 users disliked this comment
Marko 19 hours ago

I'm sure it was the first Democrats. You can tell by the
small brain.

Replies (5)
*
Tom
13 users liked this comment
39 users disliked this comment
Tom 19 hours ago

Wow, Cool, another shape of a human skull...you know we all
are so much the same now. Have a little faith you amiba's Genesis
explains it all, Faith baby Faith!

Replies (2)
*
John
17 users liked this comment
31 users disliked this comment
John 19 hours ago

God made these creatures and they must be however remotely
related to our first parents. We will not gain more understanding
beyond the literal details of the Genesis creation accounts by hurling
insults at each other.

Reply
*
Gray
65 users liked this comment
33 users disliked this comment
Gray 19 hours ago

These religious people are really starting to piss me off.
Religion is fine and all I don't care if you are. Quit trying to
sholve it down peoples throats. It makes you looks ignorant.

Replies (7)
*
JimmyJam
84 users liked this comment
7 users disliked this comment
JimmyJam 19 hours ago

Judging by some of these comments, it's obvious that the
human brain is shrinking once again.

Replies (4)
*
Loratta
26 users liked this comment
6 users disliked this comment
Loratta 19 hours ago

i think this is an extrodinary find maybe one day with
discoverys like this we can put the debate of whether we discended
from apes or created by god can be put to rest

Replies (4)
*
Michael
15 users liked this comment
53 users disliked this comment
Michael 19 hours ago

The earth is only 6000 years old. About 4500 years ago there
was a catastrophic global flood, which changed things quite a bit.
However, there are no "human ancestors". Humans, and all animals
originated at the same time........the sixth day.

Replies (3)
*
NathanA
34 users liked this comment
18 users disliked this comment
NathanA 19 hours ago

One can be a believer and believe in evolution as well. The
concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Replies (3)
*
Gonzo
4 users liked this comment
13 users disliked this comment
Gonzo 19 hours ago

if this is all so then what explains ghost and spirits....
life is so crasy confuseing

Replies (1)

You get the picture...

http://www.yahoo.com/

Dr Jai Maharaj is a sad Monkey: Sid Harth
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/browse_thread/thread/778f6f077f33363b/bf1af43c5f2c24fa?lnk=raot&pli=1

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.israel/browse_thread/thread/2a7b84b9940d1864/7276fbf3c038c71a

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/browse_thread/thread/810eae7dd0a55571/ee6b788475fa44af

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/browse_thread/thread/7ce3947b534c5d63/d70e3db80706f37d?lnk=raot

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.tamil/browse_thread/thread/247bd29586f7f644/9d920ed0072ebc40?lnk=raot

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/browse_thread/thread/225275f1598211de/1eb58550dc54dfe0?lnk=raot

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/browse_thread/thread/778f6f077f33363b/bf1af43c5f2c24fa?lnk=raot

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.hindu/browse_thread/thread/da3a6e4c4367f926/a8ebfabb2e2bd89c?lnk=raot

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/browse_thread/thread/ff0d5c07bce194a4/4a3a85d6b01ff0de?lnk=raot

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/browse_thread/thread/070377124780253f/eb5cb68f6f5d95c4?lnk=raot

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/browse_thread/thread/08df194b8028f056/726155efe01de093?lnk=raot

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.pakistan/browse_thread/thread/7ca9fb7c30186852/7a4794bed7c19229?q

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/browse_thread/thread/c8fac48ff8f68539/b07427a248acc87b?lnk=raot

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/browse_thread/thread/1b923810061bf980/ec5a3833de1d1a0c?lnk=raot

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian.karnataka/browse_thread/thread/7f3d6d9fcdffee77?tvc=2

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/browse_thread/thread/cf1d2b8f33c67ac3/ef9fe7cd6a6a71b8?lnk=raot

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/msg/d407520db5c5719f

...and I am Sid Harth